I do acknowledge that I am speaking from a limited understanding. I guess you can agree that a straight person would always get some perception wrong, in spite of the good intentions. My response was culled from reading Yawning Bread’s blog where it seemed that there is some acknowledgment of higher promiscuity or drug use. I don’t have statistics to prove anything… and to be honest, statistics can always be interpreted based on agenda.

Ok, maybe ‘gays being responsible for the stereotype they portray’ is stretching it a bit. Assuming that there is among straight people, the SAME proportion of drug use and promiscuity… why do gays get the unfair bias? Or more importantly, what are you doing about it? I know that simply showing statistics and arguing about it somehow will not convince anyone who’s mind is set. The data, and the argument had existed for as long as I was aware there was such a thing called the gay rights movement. Which is why I suggest you need strong affirmative action.

“Also, I don’t think the homosexuals are dying for acceptance. ”

Lol. I was going for that Gettysburg address moment, where you get stirring violins and drumrolls when I give that speech…

But on a serious note. I am, as you will already know by now, quite a bigot myself, with a lot of misconceptions and a deep-seated dislike for effeminate behavior. My first instinct, should I step into a gay pub, is to make sure my butt doesn’t get pinched. It’s irrational, I know, but you can’t erase these kinds of conditioning overnight.

If you had been following my line of argument, you will know that there is no point convincing bigoted people that you are ‘normal’. The thing about most bigoted people is that they know it’s wrong to be bigoted, and so will not admit to their bigotry, but find ways and means to justify bigotry. It astonishes me that people are “perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.” The assurance that there will be no enforcement of the law now doesn’t mean that it won’t happen in the future. And then what defense do you have? The verbal assurance of the PM? If the world operates on verbal assurance, why do people make contracts?

I can understand why people would fight to repeal 377a. I don’t understand those who want to keep it. I don’t see how even if you think being gay is a sin, makes it CRIMINAL. I don’t see how you can say something as thoughtless as, “but it’s not going to be enforced what, so what’s the big deal?” because I know, if there is a law that says that it is Criminal to be a Chinese for eg, even though it will not be enforced, you will see a lot of Chinese marching on the streets in protest.

I don’t even see why even if you dislike gays, that you would want your dislike to be institutionalized.

My line of argument is this… so, your religion says its a sin, (and for some strange reasons, all these people are generally devout)… is your response to a sinner the correct one nonetheless? So far, the argument that goes for not lifting 377a from them is this – by decriminalizing the behavior, you are saying you are approving the behavior. Which is such a stretch of logic really. I disapprove of smoking, but you don’t see me calling for it to be made illegal!

I don’t see why many of these self-professed God-lovers can’t see what they are doing is very unloving. We are called on to be loving everyday, and yet we harp on a few passages in the Scriptures to say God is against gays, while ignoring entire chapters in the Gospels on being loving, and non-judgemental.

I’m sorry, I’m ranting lol. But I hope that one day you guys will get the same rights that straights do.

People will look at the gay clubs and deem homosexuals as a group of people who engage in recreational drug use and sex with multiple partners, but do note that not all gay people club, not all clubbers do drugs and casual sex, and such activities are not restricted to homosexual people. Straight people do drugs, straight people do casual sex.

Some would argue that there is an disproportionately high amount of HIV cases reported within the homosexual community, and thus homosexuals propagates HIV and is thus bad and must be frowned upon, through social discrimination (homophobia) or laws (377A). Have anyone actually realized that the problem lies with men? There is far more HIV infections in men than women, gay or straight. In fact, lesbian sex, another form of homosexual intercourse, is arguable lower risk than heterosexual penetrative intercourse. Furthermore, the statistics are only limited to discovered cases, of course. I would think that homosexuals are more likely to go for testing due to the misconception that it is a gay disease. Homosexuals have regular events pertaining to HIV and AIDS, and are often the target group for awareness campaign. It does make me think that self-selection could lead to such statistical results.

Moreover, has anyone questioned MOH’s methodology of collecting such results? How does MOH determine what percentages of HIV cases are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual? It seems that they have this amazing gaydar device that I would like to grab a hold of.

Are heterosexuals infallible to the disease? No. Shall we then ban sex between heterosexuals? Homophobes can blame homosexuals all they want. It is not going to change the fact that HIV is a problem to everyone, gay or straight.

In any case, I do think that gays are at higher risk of HIV infections. Like I said, the problem seem to lie mainly with men, according to statistics anyway, and it’s all male in the gay community. But what is the correct approach to tackle this problem? We can try to educate and raise awareness, which some organizations have done, but there is so little they can do without a concerted effort by the government. Unfortunately, the government has decided that 377A should stay and gay sex is made illegal, much less try to educate.

Also, I don’t think the homosexuals are dying for acceptance. We couldn’t care less what some bigots might think, which is a trained ability when you have people saying all kinds of unkind words into your face, but we do care when they try to interfere with our lives.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not a bleeding hearts liberal. Just the other day I commented strongly on Yawning bread’s blog for what I perceived, rightly or wrongly, an attempt to make people accept promiscuity and drug use as a lifestyle. I believe that though victimized, gay people as a community need to take responsiblity for the stereotype they portray. I suggested that rather than screaming about victimization all the time, why not particular in doing something good? Like Gays Against Drugs, or Gays For Monogamy. That sort of thing. (but it is also true that being straight, I can never fully understand the sense of persecution gays face)

Notice I am not arguing along the line of whether gayness is natural or a pychological disorder etc etc. Or if it’s a sin. I am but a simple person with limited wisdom so I can’t say with any authority whatsoever.

My question, and challenge I pose is – working under the premise that it is sinful and unnatural, is marginalizing gays the right and smart thing to do? We are talking about the christian tenet of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ here. Suppose the role is swapped. Suppose YOU are gay. Now being gay, how will you react to what you had written thus far?

From a sociological viewpoint, those that had been marginalized often fall in self-defeating and ‘deviant’ habits. Why do you think that there is a higher percentage of drug-users among certain minority races? Do you think that is by accident? Have you been a minority before?

We are talking about humanitarianism here. That is a very pro-religion, not anti-religion thought. If we could REDUCE the incidence of drug abuse and promiscuity among gay people, and REDUCE the chances of them being infected with HIV by the simple act of repealing a law… however you feel about how unnatural homosexual intercourse is, isn’t that our moral obligation to do?

Now I’m sure the charitable person in you would agree.

Yes, it is true that gay people don’t inspire the same feelings in us that poor people, or handicapped people, or old people do. Look past the militarism. Look past the ‘decadence’. Look past the ‘unnaturalness’. And you’ll see that many of them are hungry souls wanting acceptance. I dunno if God will ‘turn them from their wicked ways’, but it is between Him and them. But I know God wants us to bring Him to them. So we do what we can.

Your double standards are so ingrained that you don’t even see it, I’m afraid.

pre) So now homosexuals are committing arson and murder?

Racists and homophobes are bigots. They hate and discriminate just because they are bigoted. A homophobe will hate a homosexual as long as the guy is homosexual, it does not matter if he partakes in gay pride parades or not. We do not have gay pride parades in Singapore, and there are still people who hate homosexuals to the core.

Besides, it is our individual freedom to partake in activities within legal limits. So what if some homosexuals like to go to gay clubs or cross-dressing parties? If there’s a group of people who are racist against a minority group, are the minority group at fault for participating in one of their activities?

Bigots are bullies. The more one holes up in a corner, the more a bully will attempt to drive the weaker minority into the corner.

1&4) You see it as so because of your double standards. Left-handedness and sexuality have more in common than you would like to admit.

The gene that increases the odds of left-handedness has been found. Has a gene that conclusively causes left-handed been found? No. Does it make left-handedness any less unacceptable? No. Likewise, there may or may not be genetic reasons for homosexuality, but we don’t need Science to treat people fairly.

You need to look for better evidence. Anecdotes and Unreferenced articles are not reliable enough. But to humour your story about you when you were 3-years-old, let it be known that I liked guys since a tender age, and many of my gay friends can relate to that personally. In any case, not all identical twins are of the same handedness, suggesting that it is partly environmentally caused.

What disjunct are you talking about?

Besides, the left-handed gene debate has one problem: Even if a left-handed gene is found, how is it going to account for ambidexterity?

2) You are left-handed too, and are also defensive when someone says that left-handedness is an abnormality.

3) The truth of the matter is that left-handers were once shunned the way homosexuals are now, perhaps not as bad. It is ironic that you, a minority yourself, seek to condemn homosexuals just because we are the whipping boy for this generation of bigots.

5) My talk about left-handers being inefficient soldiers was just part of my satire.

It is true that there is little to none social stigma about being left-handed nowadays. But if there were, is it the fault of left-handers then?

aft) Of course it is easy to shrug it off since you’re not the group being discriminated against.

aft2) So if someone chooses not to have children, is he disordered? Shall we attempt to treat him/her through psychological counselling?

A disorder is something that does not conform to the normal order of things. Why are 90% of humans right-handers? There is a gene linked to left-handers, but that could be a genetic disorder. Otherwise, why do left-handers make up only 10% of the population? We do not fully understand this

Left-handedness may or may not be a disorder. Homosexuality may or may not be a disorder. So what? We treat every person as he is. We develop left-handed tools and treat left-handers as equals. It’s high time society treats homosexuals as equals.

You are called a bigot because I call a spade a spade. You are what Zefly would refer to as a disguised bigot. You attempt to act unbiased, but it is very obvious you have already deemed homosexuality as an abnormality to be treated, and homosexuals are patients that should await treatment instead of equity. I may have said a lot about left-handers, but those were to prove a point. I don’t see left-handers as inferior, if my sarcasm wasn’t apparent enough.

“Spectacles help you see, antibiotics cures you. Being gay (and I don’t mean happy) ? Hmm..I’m still wondering..”

Okay, my bad. Let’s ban marriage/sex between the blind, the crippled and the infertile.

“Yes it would make things easier, but you conveniently omitted the last sentence I wrote. We are not living in biblical times, so we set rules to govern and prevent our own demise. We should also set laws and rules that should not typecast or even oppress a minority..hmm, I agree.”

So do you think that 377A is necessary?

fore) In case you don’t realize, you are talking to one of the few people who has a reputation for cool-headedness and objectivity on the internet. So no, I do not have double-standards at all. I am willing to produce evidence to substantiate my point. So yes, I still stand by my argument that you are parrotting a broken record.

pre) Well, in Racism vs minorities, the Racists obviously hold majority of the blame, but the minorities will hold the blame too if they conduct actions that “prove” the “validity” of the Racists’ claims. For Instance, the Tamil Tigers come from a minority group; does it mean we should blame the Racists in Sri Lanka entirely for all the horrors the Tigers commit? No, because the Tigers didn’t have to commit all those horrors in the first place; they could have adopted a more stoic diplomatic stance toward the majority. And for the Tamils who support the Tigers, they are supporting Racism against their group.

Similarly, in the case of homosexuals and homophobes, homophobes do need to approach the issue properly and objectively, and stop falling back on their old, outdated and irrelevant theories. And in the case of religious conservatives, they need to revise their definition of Sin to comprise more of Separation than Crime. Because homosexuality is a societal condition, not an individual affliction, so Acts like 377A are not going to help resolve it.

On the other hand, homosexuals need to be willing to engage in genuine dialogue. Yes, the homophobes are extremely adept at pushing homosexuals into the corner, but homosexuals must find the holes in the containment and worm out through them. Fighting homophobes with Gay Pride Parties simply reinforce the notion of homosexuals as a threat to the social order, which riles your opponents even more. What is there to be so proud about being Gay? Yes, Everybody knows Alfiaan Saat and Ctril Wong, but there are just as many distinguished poets and novelists who are not gay (think of Minfong Ho). Being good in literature and poetry doesn’t emanate from Gayness.

The way to solve a problem is by finding its underlying cause. Homosexuals need to confront the underlying cause of homosexuality, whilst Homophobes need to confront the underlying cause of their homophobia.

Homophobes are not called “homophobes” simply because they despise homosexuals, but because they are afraid of anything that remotely resembles homosexual behaviour e.g. men wearing earrings. Homophobes have fixated gender-roles in their cosmology, that is the framework of ideas they use to relate to the world. So a homophobe will wince at the idea of a girl dressed in jeans and the idea of a man doing ballet, just as much as s/he will wince against a Lesbian or a Gay. It is no wonder that the population of homophobes are made up of social and religious conservatives, the same kind of people who will argue for women to stay home as housewives.

For Homosexuals, the problem is confused gender-roles. They are pitted between the society controlled by the homophobes and the society of the MNCs, which promotes individualism. When a baby is born – and this is scientifically proven – there are 11 different temperaments it may possess. These temperaments do not just control how likely the Baby is going to become angry, but also a myriad of other behaviours and attitudes. My hypothesis is that the temperament decides whether one is more inclined toward the homophobes or the MNCs in terms of gender roles. One who is inclined more toward the MNCs has a greater propensity to develop into a homosexual, regardless of parental influence (i.e. the absence of either-sex parent theory). But because the society is still controlled by the homophobes due to the nature of Capitalist development (too long to explain here), these people who strongly incline toward the MNCs are pulled forcefully by homophobic forces in the other direction. This creates a “tearing of conscience” that ALL homosexuals recognize as their moment of “realization” that they are homosexual.

But the mainly conservative society and Political Establishment cannot empathise properly because they are stuck in the succumb-or-resist-temptation paradigm, which fits a totally different problem.

1 & 4) Your left-handedness argument is going way over-the-hill. But I shall attempt to answer you anyway, just to humour you:

How can I be certain that lefthandedness is a genetic condition? Because the gene has been identified. How do I know that environmental factors do not affect the development of handedness? Because handedness can be identified at a very young age; My parents could tell I was left-handed since I was 3. 3 is too young an age to absorb environmental factors. And anyway, given that the environment of a left-hander is right-handed, there is no compelling environmental factor that mandates the left-hander to become left-handed.

If there is a gene for homosexuality, it is likely to be a gene for sexuality in general, accounting for EITHER homosexuality OR heterosexuality. As for genetic diseases, whilst there is very clear disjunct between homosexuals’ sexuality (psychological) and their biology, there is no such disjunct with regards to southpaws.

Besides, the homosexuality gene debate has one problem: Even if a homosexuality gene is found, how is it going to account for bisexuality? So far, we talked about homosexuals and heterosexuals, but the bisexuals are left out in the cold.

The social construct of religion is unnatural and perhaps sometimes unacceptable, but the Spirituality which it encases is neither.

2) No wonder you are so defensive. But can we please try and conduct a civilised discussion?

3) You need to look for better evidence. Anecdotes and Unreferenced articles are not reliable enough.

5) So I figured.

Anyway, the Military is an institution with its own biases, and using it as a symbol of social attitudes is a little outdated.

aft) I don’t see discrimination, just irritaiton.

aft2) What? I am not into the “normal” and “abnormal” classifications unless there is scientific or logical grounds for it. I use “disordered” because it is a much less subjective word than “abnormal”, and I take extra pains to empahsise that I am only using it in a semantic fashion, and without ANY OTHER attached connotations, which I personally do not support anyway. I use “disordered” in the sense of “having parts that do not cooperate or accept each other well” rather than the sense of “violating a predetermined natural order”. So homosexuality is “disordered” because homosexual behaviour goes against the Human (biological) Reproductive System, which is geared specifically toward heterosexual intercourse. Left-handedness, on the other hand, does not have any “disorder” wrt to Human biology.

I am very strict with myself; I use only factual evidence, not social opinion. And I use words in their logical meaning, without their usual social connotations, if any.

So I seriously take offence to being called a bigot. Perhaps it is you who are the real bigot after all. *Sigh*

“We don’t grow up to become left-handers, nor do we grow up to become Chinese, nor do we grow up to become straight if we were not all that when we were born.”

Yes, it is true. I concede to that.

“So it’s the law of nature to be gay in certain provinces of China where men outnumber women?”

I did mention the act of reproduction, right. If you can make two males produce a baby, please publish.

“In any case, let’s just ban anything that’s against nature, or at least what we think is. Let’s start with spectacles and antibiotics.”

Spectacles help you see, antibiotics cures you. Being gay (and I don’t mean happy) ? Hmm..I’m still wondering..

“Let’s make illegal adultery, left-handedness, shrimp and pork okay? ^_^ Things are so much more simpler when we set laws in accordance with religion.”

Yes it would make things easier, but you conveniently omitted the last sentence I wrote. We are not living in biblical times, so we set rules to govern and prevent our own demise. We should also set laws and rules that should not typecast or even oppress a minority..hmm, I agree.

I gues alot have to do with the attitudes of the majority. I still have a long way to go to really understand them, though.

We don’t grow up to become left-handers, nor do we grow up to become Chinese, nor do we grow up to become straight if we were not all that when we were born.

“I have to admit I’m perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.This is perhaps because of the idea that homosexual behaviour is initially prohibited (under law) and it goes against the rule of nature. If you ask me what the rule of nature, I gues I can safely say that whenever there’s a male, theres’s a female for every mammal in the act of reproduction.”

So it’s the law of nature to be gay in certain provinces of China where men outnumber women?

In any case, let’s just ban anything that’s against nature, or at least what we think is. Let’s start with spectacles and antibiotics.

“For those who believe in monotheistic religion, we have Adam and Eve and the creation of mankind. We cannot deny something ordained to be classed as something scientific or even questionable. My stand is that homosexual behaviour is definitely not accepted by the religion (monotheistic)itself. And being non-discriminatory would mean that we are going against God, right? But it is a tough question to pursue because we have to contend with the secular laws and order of things.”

Let’s make illegal adultery, left-handedness, shrimp and pork okay? ^_^ Things are so much more simpler when we set laws in accordance with religion.

“The way I see it. I have no problems with gays that much. Just don’t shout it out to my face and demand me to acknowledge your sexual orientation and praise you for being so deviant and proud of it. Just pipe down. Don’t worry..we can hear you.”

I have no problems with left-handers too. Don’t write notes to me with your left-hand, and don’t borrow rifle deflectors from me, and don’t expect me to understand why you can’t use normal, everyday scissors properly.

pre) So it is homosexuals’ fault that they can’t fit into society? Is that homophobia’s fault or is that the fault of homosexuals? Hint: is racism at fault, or minorities at fault?

1) Let me quote you on this “Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more. The pro-side forgets one of the most important facts about genetics: genes are only the blueprint; some genes actually vary their effect depending on environmental conditions.”

So how conclusive are your whole left-handedness is genetic thing? Even then if it is so, I quote “Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases”. Schizophrenia, anybody? Tell me now, should we “provide [left-handers] proper palliative care” like “we treat SARs or AIDs patients?”?

2) Yes.

3) Well, that’s rich, coming from someone who asked me to check my facts.

Well then:
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=forced+right+hand
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/2506/topics/331087
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/did_you_know_th.shtm
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/473032
https://community.tasteofhome.com/forums/p/33500/707214.aspx

And I said “some” grandparents, not “your” grandparents. Grandparents in this case because left-handedness was treated like how homosexuality is treated nowadays. Hopefully, in a few generations or less, people will be laughing (or possibly shaking their heads) at how this generation did things.

4) But you forget: “even if you got 60% – this is not General Elections man; Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more.”

And of course, so what if it’s genetic? “Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases”.

So what if it’s not genetic? Is there a heterosexual gene? Is there a religion gene? Shall we say that religion is unnatural and unacceptable?

5) Otter Fang was satire.

People argue that gay soldiers are less efficient soldiers, or even not fitting to be soldiers. Left-handed soldiers are impaired as well when it comes to military equipment. Left-handedness and homosexuality have more in common than you would like to admit.

aft) How does it feel being on the receiving end of discrimination for once, leftie?

aft2) The same to you. You refuse to see the alternative perspective that right-handedness is the normal trait in humans. Why the double standards? Just because your “condition” is now not as despised as it was in the past, does not give you the right to put down homosexuals. Don’t say what “moderate” or not. You have clearly already classified homosexuality as a condition to be treated, as an abnormality that is against human nature. Like Zefly suggested, bigotry is bad. Disguised bigotry is worse.

fore) Honestly, your tack is getting a little old. Your linguistic stunt has a logic up to a point, but now you are just parotting a broken record.

pre) Fine, tell me what my problem is then. And IMHO, homosexuals do admit that they have some problem fitting into society at first.

1) The point is, there has been no gene AT all identified for affecting gender identity, while there LRRTM1 for handedness. If you just want to parrot the contra-version, I can’t help you.

2) Are you a homosexual in the first place? (And please provide a proper answer this time.)

3) Oh? Provide me the links and I will do the necessary reading. And Sorry, but both my southpaw grandparents are dead already. How about you do some voodoo to summon them from the dead?

4) Well, in the case of handedness, LRRTM1 has been discovered, and nobody can refute that. That gene is the objective proof, and cannot be modified by any bias. Whereas, research attempting to prove or disprove the existence of homosexuality as a genetic trait depends purely on statistical probabilities of a sample population., and that is a much less reliable method scientifically.

5) I don’t see your contention on soldiers; Why don’t you just check some GOM or sth. And email me Otter Fang’s picture to prove that he is a real person and not just a euphemism of Otter Fong.

aft) Really, this convo is beginning to tire me out. Can you just answer directly??

aft2) “vile” is putting words into my mouth. I have not said at all that homosexuals are “vile”. Just shows that Pink Lobby Supporters like you do not bother to comprehend alternative perspectives!

“But when you think about it… if any organisations can organize gatherings, Family day and what not, and take part in Chingay processions etc etc, if it’s more ok for women to be skimpily clad than for men to be wearing really short shorts, if old folks can have their old folks corner, and men’s only country clubs are allowed, and yet we frown upon gay clubs.”

We all grow old and become senior citizens, we will still be man and woman who dress up to look good, sexy, whatever. But we certainly don’t turn gay as a phase in life…

I have to admit I’m perturbed by the request to repeal 377A.This is perhaps because of the idea that homosexual behaviour is initially prohibited (under law) and it goes against the rule of nature. If you ask me what the rule of nature, I gues I can safely say that whenever there’s a male, theres’s a female for every mammal in the act of reproduction. For those who believe in monotheistic religion, we have Adam and Eve and the creation of mankind. We cannot deny something ordained to be classed as something scientific or even questionable. My stand is that homosexual behaviour is definitely not accepted by the religion (monotheistic)itself. And being non-discriminatory would mean that we are going against God, right? But it is a tough question to pursue because we have to contend with the secular laws and order of things.

The way I see it. I have no problems with gays that much. Just don’t shout it out to my face and demand me to acknowledge your sexual orientation and praise you for being so deviant and proud of it. Just pipe down. Don’t worry..we can hear you.

pre) You’re just in denia that you have a probleml, like you said homosexuals are.

1) Your point is? There’s some evidence, but not 100%? Pray tell, is it at least 95%? Come on this is not General elections. Even then, there’re such things as genetic diseases right? Not saying left-handedness is, if you ignore all the crazy talk about split personality in the link you provided.

2) Really, homosexuals do? I don’t recall passing that stage. Anyway discrimination against LGBT is all bigoted. There are much more progressive societies nowadays.

3) You really need to check up more on social stigmas of left-handedness. Might want to ask some grandparents for a start.

4) ??? Yeah that’s what I thought when I saw the statement that you made which I think copied and pasted.

5) Soldiers Are usually associated with the military no? And military involves firearms and grenades, no? And pleas, I was referring to a particular left handed Mr. Otter Fang.

aft) Maybe you need to check yours.

Anyway, back on the pertinent agenda. It is suggested that left-handedness is genetically linked. This cannot do. We must take steps to ban left marriages. This is worse than gay marriages, since gays don’t usually procreate an there is not much evidence yet that suggests that they will pass on any gay gene, but oh those vile left-handers will pass on the left-handed genes!

We must ban left marriages at once! Of course, nothing against Arix and left-ganders. They’re very normal and nice people when they use their right hands dominantly.

pre) I should take offence since I am a Southpaw as well.

1) Your analogy is wanting. Unlike Homosexuality, there actually has been a gene identified for southpaw: LRRTM1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRRTM1

but even so, it only increases the likelihood of left-handedness, not conclusively determine it.

2) Really, they do? I don’t remember passing that stage. And anyway, the discrimination is mostly commercial, and there are special tools made for left-handers nowadays.

3) You need to provide proof that religious people actually do that – or else your analogy holds no water.

4) ????

5) Really, I didn’t see if soldiers had to state their dominant form in the NS aptitude test. And Mr Fong is a right-hander; I know him personally.

aft) It’s a good linguistic strategy to use, Seth, but you really need to check your facts.

Lol! That’s brilliant. I’m beginning to see what you are driving at. Keep it up! :)

Your post baffles me. Why do you think that the pro-gays community has more power and influence than the anti-gays community? Isn’t gays the minority?

And I always thought that the Christianity, which is arguably one of the largest influence in west-centric psychological research, with its staunch anti-gays preaching, has far more reaching effects in the politics of science. But somehow, the pro-gays minority managed to outdo the church folks in your argument.

It is about internal and external balance. But why is your ‘balance’ built upon the sufferings of a selected group of people i.e. the gays? Even if we may never be able to live in perfect harmony (although I do believe it is possible), is it right to wage a war for peace? I thought the Iraq debacle has thought us something. Apparently not I guess.

At one point, my argument may seem to be slapping the pro-gays community ’cause we started the campaign against DBS support for FOTF, but I argue that it is not because I believe it goes deeper into the issue that DBS is using money from us to support a cause we are against. It makes the boycott on the use of DBS card reasonable no?

And why are you arresting the patriarchal people? I’ve never argued for that although I believe in gender equality; I also believes in freedom of expression and the universality of human rights. Unfortunately, these rights are only awarded to selected groups by moderates like you.

Anyway, really you see that left-handers tend to detect some inconsistencies in which hand to use at some age; all mention that they feel “uncomfortable” with something or the other. But when they sort of rationalise these out when they “realize” they are left-handers. What they really need to do, and others need to help them with, is to stop this denial and confront the problem

Of course, religious people are confounded by their own dogmas which are not always accurate. So the net result – especially after trying extremely inappropriate treatments (e.g. beating their left hands when they use it dominantly) – is to worsen their denial and push them into a corner where they start forming into “lefties communities”. Worse still, they die and cause danger to others while attempting to use right-handed equipment and firearms – not a particularly empathetic approach to “reaching out”.

There is also the problem of “scientific research”. The research results are always skewed because this has become an over-politicized phenomenon.

And somehow it spills into sociopolitics as well. I am sincerely unsure why soldiers must state their dominant hand. Perhaps we should have specific companies for left-handed recruits in BMT. There is no reason to discriminate them in jobs too. Otter Fang is a really nice guy, despite the fact that he is a left-hander. As long as he isn’t using his left-hand dominantly in front of impressionable young children, you wouldn’t suspect in any way that he might be a left-hander.

1) Right there is inconclusive evidence to prove right or wrong. The anti-side tends to use probabilities as low as 50% to prove their case. What about the other 50%. ANd even if you got 60% – this is not General Elections man; Scientists should aim for at least 95% accuracy to prove a theory, and in fact even more. The pro-side forgets one of the most important facts about genetics: genes are only the blueprint; some genes actually vary their effect depending on environmental conditions. Plus, there are such things as genetic diseases, not that I am saying that homosexuality is one.

2) Well, how do we treat SARs or AIDs patients? Since they can’t get cured, still provide them proper palliative care. Remember this is the reason why euthanasia is so controversial?

3) Tell that to MOH who just clamped down on the Freedom of Movement of TB patients! But the fact is, if you know you have a medical disorder, you will want to be cured. Honestly, you would look at someone strange if he wanted to keep having a high fever. So dictating that they should be cured is not part of the question. The issue is dictating HOW they should be cured. because the theories put forth by the anti-lobby are really inaccurate if you want to study a proper sample of the LGBT population, their methods of treatment are quite ineffective. Counselling helps *EMOTIONAL* problems, not *PSYCHOLOGICAL* problems; that’s why you have psychologists and psychiatrists. And using electroshock as “reparative therapy” sounds like a scene from “One Flew A Cuckoo’s Nest”. And I always doubt hypnosis and NLP. So really we haven’t found the proper way to treat homosexuality yet.

4) I agree with you totally. Homosexuality is not just a test for the homosexuals like many churches put it, but is also a test for the Church. And I think it’s a test we are scoring very low in currently.

perhaps I shouldn’t have written the word “scientific”; because it seems to have confused you. The two instances of “Scientific” are used in different contexts. First is referring to science, the other is referring to scientists. That is why the second “scientific” is placed in inverted commas, to show that the research is not really scientific because it lacks the most crucial criterion – objectivity.

It is true that “patriarchal heteronomical” influences skew research to one side, but the main problem is that research is skewed by “anarchic homonomical” – where “anarchic” is used in the technical sense, rather than the emotive sense – influences as well. So we have a tug-of-war being played, which hardly helps to resolve anything.

And as always, it is the moderates – like me – who are caught in the middle. Way bad. The point is, comrade, it’s not always about pressure; it is about internal and external balance. Even if we arrested your “patriarchal” people for sedition and slashed Section 377A, are you sure that all LG(B)T people can really live totally-comfortable lives, and especially can their families live with it, be in total harmony, and not just “tolerate” it?