Right.
The whole saga was never about the old team being sore about being displaced by the new, neither was it about discrimination against Christians, or even about which side is promoting gay and lesbians.
The whole saga is about values being displaced, about the organisation’s objectives being changed from what was originally envisioned for from its founders.

Are humans accepted for what they are or do they need to pass certain criteria before they are qualified as humans? If God made the world with all its imperfections, are imperfections not also part of God?

Obvious Man, I agree totally.

It’s not a matter of Christian values per se (although that comes into play here too) or gay vs straight, etc. It is, as you said, about values being displaced and in a hedious manner lacking respect, courtesy and understanding.

True, this is not what Singapore want to see. Trust is very difficult to build and quite rare in our materialistic society. We are fortunate to have our old guard continue to promote such an important value of trust to put all women together, Sadly, the new guards are ransacking all the hard work done and consolidate their power to divide women of different views. AWARE under the new guards is no longer a place pro to women but pro fundamentalist christianity instead.

Let’s send a strong signal of dissapproval and cast our vote of no confidence to the new guards.

im so glad that ST Observer & Obvious man GET IT. thank you. couldnt have said it better myself. we just want to have our organisation back, the one that Constance, Lina Lim, Hedwig Anuar and Kanwaljit Soin built from scratch with 24 years of hard work. The new ExCo can start their own organisation with the members and values that they all share – WHY HIJACK OURS? i dont understand. please help us to take back Aware into rightful hands. We are voting no confidence in the current Exco but have concerns over who will count the ballots. they are also heavily recruiting. we just want what is rightfully ours.

“It is especially troublesome when people go beyond spreading their religious beliefs to attempting to legislate their preferred moral practices. For example, they may believe that the moral values their church subscribes to should govern civil law. ”

It’s one of those rare moments where I actually agree with Chua Mui Hoong…

@Curious (2:42pm), I think what the AWARE training manual was trying to say when it stated that homosexuality is ‘normal’ is not that it should be endorsed or promoted alongside heterosexuality, or that it is equally statistically significant, but that it is a function of biology and other factors beyond the individual’s control. Therefore, the fact that one is homosexual does not make one less worthy of respect and compassion, does not make one a freak or a pariah.

I think this is what counselling and education has to be about — a non-judgmental, empathetic attitude towards sexuality. And this is the thing I don’t get about TSM’s views, since she also accepts that, even if you think homosexuality is morally wrong, you must ‘minister’ and ‘counsel’ homosexuals as persons, rather than just condemning their behaviour. Imagine if you were a teenage student who’s struggling somewhat with your identity (and sexuality). Would you be comforted and reassured simply by someone telling you that ‘homosexuality is wrong’? Or do need someone to tell you that, (1) you’re not alone, because it’s normal to experience some confusion while you’re going through adolescence, so there’s no need to fret if you seem to feel certain homosexual inclinations; and (2) even if eventually you realize that you’re gay or lesbian, that doesn’t make you a less valuable member of society?

I was there at the press con and was just sitting at the back with my laptop providing “live” updates on TOC.

What struck me was how cheerful – well, at least not dour or depressed – the members of the old guards were. They were more relaxed than I expected, and during the press con, there was light-heartedness coupled with dignity and intelligence. Dr Soin, in particular, was stupendous with her humour and rebuttal.

It was quite good to see – and to me, that is the difference between the new exco – all anger and deceit – and the veterans – with their candour and openness.

Anyone who was there could see the difference.

My heart goes out to Constance…

Constance, if you’re reading this, be strong, ya! I believe justice will be served.

In the meantime, know that your 24 years of work is most appreciated by all the women whom AWARE has helped and it will not be soiled by the behaviour of the new exco.

God bless u and all the old guards.

Yep, the trust is gone when the OLD EXCO deviated from its stated Vision and Mission statement, started to take up issues on discrimination for all and started to promote BGLT in schools. This probably explains declining membership over the years and why the transition from OLD EXCO to NEW EXCO could be so sudden.

I comment the OLD EXCO for their level of sophistication in engaging the media, and how they swung SPH to publicise an internal affair into headline news. Well done. Probably orchestrated by an old hand from the Press.

I have not followed the AWARE episode closely but I do feel that we should respect the results of an election. Since the new committee has been elected legally, their appointments should be respected. Any further talks on the doubt of the new commiteee should be left to be seen.

It is common that new guards do not follow the old guards’ agenda. Because if they do, there is really no point of having new guard for the organisation. There will not be changes & progress for the organisation.

STOP all the harrassment to the new committee and let them do their job. If the old guards are not happy, they are encourage to wait for the next round and run for office again.

To Duh:

Whatever you want to say! It just shown that the bunch of NEW EXCO is nothing much LIAR, BETRAYER, and BACKSTABBER! Certainly not a Christian way!

God bless the Old Guard of AWARE!

#9 Duh,

BGLT? That’s a sandwich man….

Orchestrated by an ‘old hand’ from the Press? Erm… Josie and the Gang had an ‘old hand’ too…. With Thio Su-Mien being, the self-proclaimed Feminist Mentor, supposedly of such high standing and a distinguished member of the law fraternity.

Nonetheless, could not sense an ounce of sincerity, openess or truthfulness in Josie and gang’s press conference as pointed out by #8 Andrew Loh.

We will be behind the original AWARE all the way!! See you there on 2 May!!

Aiyoh Curious at 4), that’s an extremely lame attempt to disguise standard xtian fundie anti-gay propaganda as some kind of neutral (but rhetorical) questions. When you use words like “decadent west”, and accuse the gays of imposing their lifestyle on society, you practically gave yourself away. Even a blind man can see through your ploy. Go back to your church for retraining please. Haha.

And pray tell how do you define “normal”? Prevalence?
Wow in that case lets get rid of all the left-handers, albinos and what-have-you.

Duh Duh at 9)!
Standard fundie tactic. Accuse others what you yourself are guilty or accused of.
Duh!

to Curious (4)

The link that you quoted is a collection of the most vile, twisted, anti-gay statistics that I have ever seen. Just in case you didn’t realise.

Constance

Yr comment on talking abt homosexuality in a neutral manner.

I happen to support the repeal of 377A, but I think attempting to talk abt homosexuality in a neutral manner in Singapore, was and is hubris.

In societies where individual rights trump community “rights”, this neutrality is problematic. In S’pore this was and is asking for trouble.

The issue is taboo in many hseholds, not juz Christians. You gals were way ahead of the curve, too far ahead. Unless lesbians are the majority, with hetros a minority.

And there were many other issues more relevant to the majority of wimmin. Ya I know this issue tiny part of AWARE programme, but it was the tail that wagged the dog.

All the best at EOGM.

Josie & Her Pussies should put up lousy show! Ha ha ha ha!

They have their multiple chances, yet they are being evasive and didn’t get to the point! Mother Goose Thio Su-Mien have to speak out on their behalf, take over the whole press conference, and she’s not even a member!

So much for feminist mentor!

I don’t even know how to begin responding to “Duh”. Is this what secular, moderate Singaporeans are up against?

First things first, I’m not sure if you can grasp this with your black-and-white, polarised mind but do try: there is a subtle but important difference between “promoting GLBTs” and “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs, and accepting them as human beings no different from us”.

On the facts, if you are receptive to facts, AWARE has never “promoted” GLBTs. In fact the GLBTs had complained that AWARE didn’t push for them. This is all a matter of public record.

As a matter of principle, AWARE chose not to discriminate against GLBTs. It would be hypocritical any other way — can you imagine a women’s rights NGO discriminating against women who happen to be lesbian? Or while we’re at it, women who choose to abort if they are raped, or teenagers who cannot raise a child, or physically abused women who want to leave their husbands even though doing so is not “pro-family”?

But, in the minds of Thio Su Mien and her fellowship, AWARE’s tolerance and refusal to discriminate against GLBTs was somehow equated with “promoting” some mythical “gay agenda”.

That is a huge logical leap, and they are being disingenious at best if they claim that AWARE was becoming a “single purpose” organisation.

#9,

Both sides spin docs should be shot. Or maybe wimmin not willing to listen to advice.

Both sides were off message, though NewCO came up ahead on pts.

I mean president prepared to kanna sack. And Maureen Ong articulated something that I know concerns parents.

ST’s perceived support of Old Guard? If they support OG, there must be sumething wrong with OG many will think.

As a long-time admirer of Aware and having previously interned with the organisation, it’s been so upsetting to read on the STI discussion boards the disparaging comments towards the work it has done. Please, make heard the work which a sexuality-blind, race-blind, and class-blind women’s rights organisation can and must do.

Actually to say that the media supports the old ExCo is incorrect.

The amount of air time (note they granted Josie and Aunty Maureen the CNA interview even after they objected strongly to an old ExCo member’s participation) and newspaper space they gave Josie and gang is far more than that given to the old ExCo.

And despite all these opportunities presented by the MSM, they still screwed up. Just goes to show you cannot fake sincerity!!

And oh yeah… the MSM granted them a radio interview too… zzzZZZzzzz….

Come on, old ladies . if you want be called ladies, move on, and don’t kick up so much dust. So many got blinded as a result, from chua mui hoong, andrew loh and all above . Your theatric display at the press conference had moved a lot to tears. Great actors..You are history and stop playing the religious card. You have demonised the Chrisitains and these people are now labeled Christian Right fundamentalist.As you know the word ‘fundamentalist’ conjures up an image of violence, forcing , imposing on others. Which legislation is not influenced by religious beliefs ? Which culture, religion accepts homosexuality, abortion,?
Your education program shows how sick it is.Kids learned this rubbish.
‘Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are.” The next thing we will hear is bestiality is normal and it is simply the way you are.It is part of expression of sexuality.
Next time to prevent teenage pregnancy students will be advised to carry condoms, just in case. Condoms can save you from unwanted pregnancy and HIVs. I am not surprised sex education will go to that extent.
Please, admit defeat. Just like the new were advised to start a new club I advise that you start a new club with programs catering to the gays and lesbians if this issue is next to your heart issue. Don’t touch the school kids. Don’t convert them to feed your club.. Move on…you have a lot of supporters here to start the new inclusive club .

the issue is not about religion or sexuality.

the issue here is how a NGO should operate.

does it make any financial sense to install a security access system in AWARE for 8 people?

how much are the cost and do it make economic sense to install it? from what i know, it is not very cheap to install such system.

the speed that it was installed was also frightening, were there any procuring process in place when AWARE decide to spend such sum or were the financial process being bypass?

is this seemingly-lack-of-financial-prudence-act of installing the security system by the new management a signal at how charity funds will be used in the future?

the act of dismissing staff without valid reason also seems to point to the lack of professionalism in the new team.

with the nkf n renci saga, do we want a new team that will just spend money and hire/dismiss people at their wish and command? maybe it is really time for the authorities to scrutinize NGO with more guidelines and firm up processes in them.

We should look at this this way:

The new team said AWARE lost its “original cause” and became “single issue, pro-homosexual”. But they never brought the issues up for debate, not even among the new AWARE members who voted them in. Is that how democracy executed? Someone make a judgment, then recruit people to come to vote them in to “do go” without giving these people and the other side a fair chance to hear the case, get a good debate to understand the matter.

This is more an act of majority tyranny.

TOC
How could this happen ( stealthily??)when there was AGM election? If this is so then the constitution of AWARE has to be amended? I think your first editorial was
premature and biased the whole matter into one of gay and Christian issues(read it again). I think there is a big strategic error by toc(i mean the old committee) and by TOC to jump to conclusion. Should have given them time after the election to settle down and come out with policies before attacking them. Now it is better to go for mediation or else there will be lots of EGMS in the next few months.

Goodness, what had become of our society? If the old guards are back at AWARE, I’ll ensure that my kids will never ever attend any of those sex educations facilitated by AWARE in their schools (and in fact, I’ll start an online petition to MOE ensuring that AWARE will no longer have anything to do about sex eudcation in our schools, they are NOT QUALIFIED to talk to school kids about what is sex).

I will also endeavor to educate my kids about this saga, and that they should be be very careful and aware of people who goes about twisting family values and claiming sexual preference with the same sex is normal.

I am confident that the majority of Singaporeans will support the views of the new guard (though not their actions) that family values should not be misinterpreted by people with obvious intentions in doing so (and this I refer to the old guards). ensure that they will never ever has any chances of .

Josie and the new guards, please just go out and start a new organization so that we can counter balance the wayward values of AWARE, and ensure that they will never ever become a lesbainism and homosexuality supporting organization and a slow poison to our sacred and valued family values! Many will definitely support you and those new guards!!

DBS, what are you waiting for. Your VP is the president of an organisation that believes in quote “That is insubordination isn’t it? And if you disobey your employer what are the consequences” …. Charlotte Wong on the sacking of AWARE centre manager.

They also practiced neopotism by employing a fellow church member as the new centre manager . What happened to employing the best person for the job?

They were untruthful from day one. They may have taken over AWARE legally but morally bankrupt.

With Constance Singam version of respect, she should therefore abide & respect the appointment of the new committee who were elected within the written Constitution. This is a simple rule in her own words RESPECT the values which are evolving.

If Constance Singam and team had done a great job and all women support them, sooner or later, the women will back her in full force. They will be back in AWARE duly and respectfully elected.

While nothing threaten the old guard appointment , we do not hear this about values being displaced. While to many Singaporeans, man and women, we see values had being displaced. With more foreigners & GAYS rallying their cause. AWARE did not talked about values.

It is interesting to watch while OLD GUARDs talked about values being displaced, about RESPECT and INDIVIDUAL, they have not made an effort to meet up with new guards and carry catfights to another levels.

The old committee must realise there is a new committee in place and they were in place via written procedures. They should starting thinking of ways to bring values to the new committee or start a new one completely.

OLD GUARDs – MOVE ON.. if your cause had been for woman, GO DO MORE … start BEWARE… and STOP gribblings. YOU LOST so move on. FIND 2000 women and start BEWARE.

One cannot never put out a flame which burns inside.. ..YOU LOST MOVE ON.

#08 Andrew Loh

Just in case I missed your point, are you saying that you support what the old guards at AWARE are doing (I mean all those pro-lesbainism and homosexuality veiled activites and the kind of sex education they promote to our school kids)?

I think this is an important point for all of us here to know, as you are the Managing Editor and your stand does also officially becomes TOC’s stand!

I do hope this post will not be deleted as you owe all readers here an offical and formal response, please!

Singapore women! Go make our day and vote out the present bunch of fanatics
in the coming vote of no confidence.
And hope they don’t come crawling back again

“The problem is, the New Ex Co took over stealthily, hiding their affiliations and associations, LYING about their motives, before finally revealing a hidden puppet-master pulling the strings.”

And i guess when you are hiding something, that usually translate to something bad…somebody once told me of this…a test for ethics/transparency that is called the TV test. If it is something that you can’t say on TV program that your family will watch, then that something mus be real bad

LOL CURIOUS!!!! YOU ARE SO CURIOUS. CURIOUSLY UNTHINKING.

“How can it be true that homosexuality is perfectly normal when homosexuals form only a very small percentage of the population?”

You’re saying that…. Malays and Indians are not normal in Singapore? Or to be more poetic, the Last of the Mohicans was… not normal? Pandas… which form a tiny, tiny percentage of all animals in the world, are not normal?

Wah. I’m amazed. Amazed that this is the level of logical thinking taught by our schools.

7) la nausée

“I think what the AWARE training manual was trying to say when it stated that homosexuality is ‘normal’ is not that it should be endorsed or promoted alongside heterosexuality,”

If that is indeed the case then it is great.

But is it there any truth that Aware “conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.” ?

If it is true then my question would be : Is AWARE qualified to conduct such a programme in schools and is it normal to ask pubescent girls to experiment with other girls?

“Therefore, the fact that one is homosexual does not make one less worthy of respect and compassion, does not make one a freak or a pariah.”

I agree with you unreservedly. The same sentiment should also apply to a kleptomaniac who cannot help himself/herself from stealing, as you say it is “beyond the individual’s control.” But IMO both need professional counselling.

12) wei chun

“The link that you quoted is a collection of the most vile, twisted, anti-gay statistics that I have ever seen.”

Statistics as a tool is neutral and only reflects the data fed to it. If Dr Frank Joseph has told an untruth please be my guest to rebut him vigorously.

17) theonlinecitizen

“To Curious and the other anti-homosexual crusaders out there, I think you’re missing the point. ”

Why tar me with the same brush? If I am an anti-gay why would I say “BUT while the heterosexual majority in the society does not wish to emulate the lifestyle of the homosexuals, neither should we despise them or be homophobic!”

“This whole disaster is a creature of Josie and gang’s own creation.”

Do you state this as a representative of TOC or as an individual? Do you have any definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

I think the issueis that AWARE was being used (hijacked; influenced; choose your words) by the pro-gay and pro-lesbian activists.
AWARE has definitely crossed the line by teaching secondary school students that “HOMOSEXUALITY IS PERFECTLY NORMAL” .

I would really like to see people like Dana Lim, Constance Singam, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and the other founders of AWARE look into the camera and say “Homosexuality is perfectly normal”. Can they actually say that with conscience ?

I am really curious whether the top brass of MOE allow our students to be taught that “Homosexuality is perfectly normal”.

My take is that the New Team stumbled into an empty castle / fortress.

They say one of the conditions for any revolution to suceed is that the establishment has become so rotten to the core that with one kick at the door the whole structure collapsed.

@ Curious

You are making the common mistake of saying “i’m not homophobic, but i think gay people should not be allowed to have freedom of speech”. While it is admirable that you wouldn’t discriminate against a gay person, you clearly fit the label of homophobe by expecting that gay people can’t express their sexuality in ways which the straight population takes for granted.

Queer people may not be normal in the sense that we’re not majority, but being different doesn’t have to be negative. If being a statistical minority is wrong, then we really need to counsel albino people, seeing as how they’re really really rare.

I love how people like to announce “I think gay people should just shut up. But i’m not homophobic!” Labels are not defined by you. They’re arrived at according to the stance you take on particular matters. So i hate to break it to you Curious, but you fall squarely among the homophobes. =)

30) cowboy

Since you imply that you are superior and highly educated I wonder why is it that you are so confused with the correct usage of “Terminology”, which includes, according to my dictionary, “technical or specialized terms used in any art or science.”

1 I am not saying that ” Malays and Indians are not normal in Singapore”. It is you who wrongly implied that because you are confused with “terminology”. The correct term used by the Census Dept is that Malays and Indians are the MINORITIES in Singapore.

2 I am not saying that ” the Last of the Mohicans” is not normal. It is you who wrongly implied that .The correct term to use here is that his race is near EXTINCTION, as he is the last remaining person of his race.

3 I am not saying that because Pandas form a tiny, tiny percentage of all animals in the world, they are not normal. It is you who wrongly implied that. The correct term to use here, according to CITES, is that Giant Pandas are an ENDANGERED specie.

I really don’t want to belabor the point, but it seems that all of you “omg, AWARE promotes lesbians” people just cannot seem to grasp it.. So I say in very simple English k? Don’t say I don’t sayang the slow ones, and for the rest of the smarter ones please bear with me.

Deep breath, here goes: “Promoting GLBTs” = different from “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs”. Not the same. Understand? i.e. there is a difference.

Thio Su Mien’s error was to look at AWARE’s tolerance and principled stand not to discriminate against GLBTs, and then go “OMG you’re not discriminating against them, that means you are PROMOTING them! Because if you tolerate them and live and let live, that means you are tiching our chewrens to experiment with girls, and commit hot acts of forbidden sapphic love! CANNOT!!!!”.

Unnerstand now?

So to all the religious people out there, please take a cue from what our government leaders have been urging all this while. Live and let live. There is space for us all in this little country we call home.

@Curious (#30),

It may indeed be true that AWARE did, as TSM’s bunch claim, tell girls to experiment with homosexuality… it’s a matter of who you believe (unless and until someone comes up with more definitive evidence). But 2 things sway my opinion in favour of “False” as a conclusion, (1) the fact that the new Exco has equivocated or contradicted itself on a number of other issues, which undermines their credibility; and (2) the patent absurdity of the scenario that MOE and the not just 1, 2, 3, but 30 school authorities were either willing to host a programme which encouraged its students to ‘explore’ one another sexually, or were ignorant about the contents of the talk or programme they hosted.

Curious:

“I agree with you unreservedly. The same sentiment should also apply to a kleptomaniac who cannot help himself/herself from stealing, as you say it is “beyond the individual’s control.” But IMO both need professional counselling.”

I don’t know about you, but that seems a pretty fail analogy. Firstly nobody said anything about gays not being able to control themselves. Secondly, ask yourself, when a person steals from another, regardless of whatever condition they have, what are they actually doing?

They are depriving another person of their property without their consent. This is the harm that stealing causes. Question: When 2 consenting adults have sex in private, where is the harm? How does it affect you? How does it affect other people?

Agree with La Nausee at (36).

So far, the old guard’s integrity is intact.

How does the record look for the new guard so far?

We have Josie Lau on national TV with her barefaced lies that the coup was not organised — Thio Su Mien shot Josie nicely in the foot there with the revelation that she was the one pulling the strings from the shadows (“i cannot surface now” LOL!!!).

And are Singaporeans honestly expected to believe that 6 out of the 11 new exco members didn’t know each other prior to the coup when they all came from the same church in Queenstown?

And do you think Thio will ever comment on her leaked emails urging supporters to be “agents of change for god”? How can Josie say that COOS is not involved in this?

Right. So who’s left with more credibility here, old guard or new?

34) V

“While it is admirable that you wouldn’t discriminate against a gay person, you clearly fit the label of homophobe by expecting that gay people can’t express their sexuality in ways which the straight population takes for granted.”

Putting a label on a person is exactly what is repulsive to a gay person when the table is turned. So why are you generous to put a label on me is puzzling! Is it not an axiom that “people who live in a glass house should never throw stones?”

I did not say that “gay people can’t express their sexuality in ways which the straight population takes for granted.”

This is “implied” in the penal code under Sect 377A which, BTW, I think should be repealed as it discriminates against homosexual males while shutting a blind eye on married couple engaging in anal sex. If it is not good for the goose why is it good for the gander?

“If being a statistical minority is wrong, then we really need to counsel albino people, seeing as how they’re really really rare.”

To compare a gay person to an albino is like comparing chalk and cheese or vice verse. The albino person cannot change his melanin level but the gay person can look deep into his or her soul and make an informed choice to go straight or remain a gay. The choice is yours and yours alone!

As I said “BUT while the heterosexual majority in the society does not wish to emulate the lifestyle of the homosexuals, neither should we despise them or be homophobic!”

Well said, Andrew Loh, at #7!

37) Han

“Firstly nobody said anything about gays not being able to control themselves.”

That was stated by 6) la nausée “but that it is a function of biology and other factors beyond the individual’s control.”

“Secondly, ask yourself, when a person steals from another, regardless of whatever condition they have, what are they actually doing? They are depriving another person of their property without their consent. This is the harm that stealing causes.”

I agree with you that stealing causes a mischief and a harm but in the context of a kleptomaniac he/she also cannot control himself/herself. Should we condemn them or get them to seek professional counselling was my point .

“Question: When 2 consenting adults have sex in private, where is the harm? How does it affect you? How does it affect other people?”

If you believe the statistics put out by Dr Frank Joseph, the cost to society is high if unprotected and promiscuity cause diseases and premature deaths. Please link in 4) Curious.

Dr Joseph’s statistics show that in the United States, Canada and Australia :

1 Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.

2 Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

3 It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, who pays for that?

4 The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

5 The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 .

These are the statistics put out by Dr Frank Joseph with references. If you have any evidence that he is a false prophet then please state your case vigorously.

37) la nausée

“It may indeed be true that AWARE did, as TSM’s bunch claim, tell girls to experiment with homosexuality… it’s a matter of who you believe (unless and until someone comes up with more definitive evidence). But 2 things sway my opinion in favour of “False” as a conclusion..”

Fine. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but what we need are facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

@Curious (#41), who said:
37) Han

That was stated by 6) la nausée “but that it is a function of biology and other factors beyond the individual’s control.”

You’re twisting my words! I said that sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuality) is outside individual control. Gays aren’t able to control their sexual orientation (like the rest of us), but they are mostly able to control when they decide to have sex. Unless they are also nymphomaniacs, but then there are also heterosexual nymphomaniacs!

44) la nausée

“You’re twisting my words! I said that sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuality) is outside individual control.”

No, I did not twist your words! I quoted you verbatim when you said “but that it is a function of biology and other factors beyond the individual’s control.”

Did you or did you not say that?

With some of the founding members coming out to ascertain that AWARE’s purpose has not deviated, it can be seen that the new exco are self-righteously imposing their views on a secular organization

The integrity of the new exco has all but evaporated when Dr Thio emerged as the mastermind. Their claims that they did not plan the takeover basically fell apart.

It is little wonder that their supporters are now resorting to taking cheap shots through cyberspace. I would not even bother to debate with them.

Basically, what is there to debate about when integrity of their leadership is missing?

HAN,
very interesting questions and I have no answer to them. Let us see if they are your 2 consenting children and have sex in private.. I wonder how would that affect you? Definitely other people are not affected.,..It is private..no body knows.,..except you.

“When 2 consenting adults have sex in private, where is the harm? How does it affect you? How does it affect other people?”

Curious,

The thing to address is therefore Homosexual promiscuity. NOT HOMOSEXUALITY. Nobody said that indiscriminate casual sex is ever right. And therefore sex education has to be extended to students of ALL GENDER PREFERENCE, because gay people shouldn’t be made to feel they are exempted from practicing safe sex. The more we make them feel they’re not part of society, the more inclined they are to believe they are exempt from social mores and you will continue seeing statistics Dr Frank Joseph puts out.

CURIOUS,

blah blah statistics blah blah. Do you expect us to take your Doctor’s study as the gospel truth, when there are just as many statistics pointing the other way?

Anyway, enough skirting of the issue. Quoting “scientific” statistics is one of the signs that the quoter has reached failing point. But donch worry I help you redeem this discussion!

CURIOUS, what are your views on Josie Lau’s claim on national TV that the coup wasn’t organised, in light of the Feminist Mentor’s revelations?

Lets just be honest and transparent here, hand on your heart ok? Do you think she lied? How does that make you feel? Does she have enough integrity to be President of AWARE?

Try not to fight that strange twisting feeling in your brain while addressing that question, thats good ol’ cognitive dissonance working away right there.

@ 19) Peace on April 25th, 2009 6.15 pm

for someone with that nick, you sure hold a lot of venom for homosexuals, don’t you?

1. “Your education program shows how sick it is.Kids learned this rubbish.”

the education programme is vetted by the school before delivered to the kids. have you seen it? calling it rubbish just from the few lines from ST article is a bit uncharitable, i think.

2. “The next thing we will hear is bestiality is normal…”

why don’t you mention all the rest on the list as well? pedophilia? necrophilia? all the rest of the paraphilias? or polygamy?

ok, since you only mention bestiality, my answer to that is you’re comparing apples and oranges. animals can’t give consent for sexual intercourse, so it is an exploitation. likewise with pedophilia.

3. “students will be advised to carry condoms”

what’s wrong with condoms? you don’t carry one? or don’t believe in contraception at all?

honestly, the horror at which you seem to regard this with is amusing.

if it is the “teenage” portion that worries you, rest assured that any girl aged 16 and above are legally allowed to have sex (not that i approve of it myself, i think some girls at that age may not be mature enough to handle sexual relationship).

4. Which culture, religion accepts homosexuality, abortion?

google wikipedia + homosexuality. it’s edifying.

there are often different denominations in a religion (esp christianity) and they have different attitudes towards homosexuality. the abrahamic religions as a whole consider sodomy as a transgression.

but of course, christianity has evolved over the past 2000 years. currently those that are accepting of homosexuality include the Metropolitan Community Church, United Church of Christ and some parts of the the Anglican and Lutheran churches (this list is not exhaustive). the former singapore Methodist Church bishop, Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, is among the proponents of greater acceptance for the gay community.

the eastern religions such as hinduism, buddhism or taoism generally have no overt prohibition of homosexuality. tolerance levels vary widely.

as for culture, it varies over time and place, just off the top of my head, ancient greece, ancient egypt, ancient china, ancient india, ancient mesopotamia and the american indians were generally accepting of same sex relationships. i think someone else in this forum mentioned Emperor Ai of Han somewhere. homosexual acts have been depicted on hindu temple carvings and the kama sutra.

wrt abortion, it has been practised through human history and the methods have varied from horseback riding to taking potions, and again, attitudes differed through time and place. it should be kept in mind though that abortion was a very risky thing to attempt in the past, with a mortality rate of up to 90%. if any procedure today has that sort of records it will surely be banned.

From yawningbread:

Attempt at character assassination of Constance Singam?

http://ybsampler1.blogspot.com/2009/04/attempt-at-character-assassination-of.html

——————-

Please spread word after reading, since apparently there are some people keen in spreading lies to help their cause….tsk tsk

Peace

Stridency and hyperbole are also hallmarks of religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, they do not usually make for fruitful and constructive debates.

Engage, not enrage……

Amidst all the arguing whether homosexuality is natural or not (the more ’sane’ arguments) vs foam-in-the-mouth ‘the gays will lead human race into extinction’ arguments, I’ve got a few questions to ask Curious, Peace etc, to help them along with the clarity of their arguments-

1) Can we agree that for whatever reason, same-sex-sex turns you off?
2) If the gays keep their gender-preference to themselves and practice their ‘lifestyle’ in isolation, is that fine with you? (Oh, and that includes no ‘butch’ hairstyles and dressing, and certainly no tight pink t-shirts for men)
3) Since gays are people too, and people have needs, what kind of sex should they practice, and should they not practice any same-sex-sex at all?
4) Even though same-sex-marriage is not legalized in Singapore, would that make you happier if more gays practice monogamy as opposed to casual sex?
5) The gay lifestyle is one of rampant casual sex and drug-taking. True or False.
6) This kind of lifestyle is dangerous and should not be promoted. True or False.
7) If it’s not natural, it should be banned and criminalized.
8) Is oral sex ‘natural’?
9) Why do you think oral sex isn’t criminalized anymore?
10) Are you ok with people practicing oral sex?

Thanks for taking your time to answer. Please don’t try to elaborate any more than what the questions ask you, because until we can all agree to some rules of engagement here, there is no way I can see exactly where you are coming from.

Oh, and question 11)
Do gays burn in hell if they continue having same-sex-sex?

Why is it only TSM? Where are the rest of the anglican church? We need to indoctrinate christianity in every singapore youth because that’s what is correct.

The trust is gone since the day SHE and her grizabellas lose the plot..it’s too late to cry over spilt milk….can she honestly says she or any of her grizabellas is faultless? Come on….get real!

dear tsm, we know the bible too

John 8:7
But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

Matthew 7:1
Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

Romans 2:1
Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

#48 Zefly

The fundies have come out in force on this thread. Usual tactics.
-Demonise the opposition ” Oohhh…gay lover…extinction of human race…becoz of gays, the value of your property will fall…”
-Gloss over the unethical, sneaky and underhanded behaviour of the new team such as not disclosing their secret agenda, telling lies on national TV, insubordination by Josie towards DBS – and Charlotte, shouldn’t Josie be sacked for insubordination – err.. double standards?
-fearmongering – “do you know, I heard that they are changing the national anthem to “majulah, gayapura”?
-ignoring the fact that the new guard bring a message of intolerance,dishonesty and arrogance (“I will teach you” – now that’s scary…)

Its really not about progay / antigays isn’t it? Its about intolerance and bigotry. As well as unethical behaviour.

Its always difficult trying to reason with rabid foaming at the mouth, holier-than-thou bigoted fundies. They resort to character assasination and name calling and fearmongering. However it’s good to see reasonable people rebutting the fundies.

If the new exco committees are accepted, it will send a strong signal to many sectors of the populations that coup is legal, secret society networking is encouraged, imposing self religion law in NGO is acceptable, non inlusiveness is part and parcel of Singapore culture, discrimination and stereotype should be allowed to live and thrive in new AWARE.

If Singaporeans and our govt are allowed to susbcribe to the above practices in this country and give way for the new guards to achieve the above objective using NGO platform, Thio, Josie and gang will stand out victorious and make a laughing stock of our ONE PEOPLE, ONE NATION, ONE SINGAPORE motto . Please scrap having this year National Day if fundamentalist christian are allowed to triumph.

Whereas old guards tend to be pro towards Singapore fabric of the nation, where everyone should co-exist, helping each other cope with livings, more balance views and acceptance of this country multifaceted populations without imposing others on extremist views or strong relgion’s belief.

The above is for people attending EOGM to vote not just for AWARE members but what kind of country, fundamentalist or open society. they wanted to live in future. .

Unfortunately, our msm including ST are not doing a good job by allowing new guards more coverage spaces with leniency shown to them in the daily reports about the saga. Sad country.

48) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

“The thing to address is therefore Homosexual promiscuity. NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.”

Not to forget safe sex and healthy lifestyle. See Link for details 4) Curious.

“Nobody said that indiscriminate casual sex is ever right. And therefore sex education has to be extended to students of ALL GENDER PREFERENCE,”

I agree.

“The more we make them feel they’re not part of society, the more inclined they are to believe they are exempt from social mores and you will continue seeing statistics Dr Frank Joseph puts out.”

I did not say gays are not part of society. I said ” BUT while the heterosexual majority in the society does not wish to emulate the lifestyle of the homosexuals, neither should we despise them or be homophobic! And in fairness neither should they impose their lifestyle on society!”

49) the irony

“Do you expect us to take your Doctor’s study as the gospel truth, when there are just as many statistics pointing the other way?”

If you have any such statistics with sources, please post them so that we can be more informed. The objective of a civil debate is not to denigrate but to learn and arrive at a consensus.

“Quoting “scientific” statistics is one of the signs that the quoter has reached failing point. ”

You have just contradicted yourself pal, by saying that “there are just as many statistics pointing the other way?” Is this not an example of the pot calling the kettle black ?

“But donch worry I help you redeem this discussion! ”

You are very generous but I don’t need any help. I can manage this debate by myself, thank you very much.

“CURIOUS, what are your views on Josie Lau’s claim on national TV that the coup wasn’t organised, in light of the Feminist Mentor’s revelations?”

I missed the TV interview, so is it right for me to make an informed comment? You can be the judge and jury!

53) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

“I’ve got a few questions to ask Curious, Peace etc, to help them along with the clarity of their arguments-”

Sorry Zefty, I hate Q&A and also I am not on trial here. If you can answer your own questions then perhaps we will be more enlightened and will benefit from your learned self.

Aiyoh Curious, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about how the gays are imposing their lifestyle on society.

Can tell us how they are doing that or not?

After you are done, I will tell you how the xtian fundies are doing just that. Agree?

Curious,

“And in fairness neither should they impose their lifestyle on society!’

Then you have to explain what exactly do you mean by a gay lifestyle you find objectionable. The questions you have to answer for me to see where you are coming from are in #51.

Again, I emphasize, there is nothing wrong with being ‘homophobic’ per se, but your dislike should be balanced with what is reasonably fair for the object of your dislike.

Curious, you wrote
“Sorry Zefty, I hate Q&A and also I am not on trial here.”

It’s true you are not on trial here. But in all your comments, you have put the gays on trial. You have put the Old Guard on trial. You have accused them of promoting a gay lifestyle. You, whether you like it or not, have become the prosecutor cum witness.

And you won’t allow yourself to be cross-examined?

#57) Curious on April 26th, 2009 12.15 pm

“CURIOUS, what are your views on Josie Lau’s claim on national TV that the coup wasn’t organised, in light of the Feminist Mentor’s revelations?”

I missed the TV interview, so is it right for me to make an informed comment? You can be the judge and jury!”

But…but..I thought you were curious…you have posted furiously on this and other threads AND you missed out on the interview? – i suppose it was so obscure that you missed it! Anyway, always willing to help out such an enlightened and curious person, so please click on this thread. Missed the interview, haw!

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/aware-new-president-first-interview/

60) Artemov

“Aiyoh Curious, you keep repeating the same thing over and over again about how the gays are imposing their lifestyle on society. Can tell us how they are doing that or not? ”

I did not say the gays are imposing their lifestyle on society. Please read what I said which is “And in fairness neither should they impose their lifestyle on society!”

This sentence itself predisposes the fact that they have yet to do so !

61) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang

“Then you have to explain what exactly do you mean by a gay lifestyle you find objectionable.”

I think perhaps it is you who should explain how a gay lifestyle will benefit society and why same sex marriages should ultimately be the norm in Singapore.

“The questions you have to answer for me to see where you are coming from are in #51.”

As I said before I am not on trail here and I hate Q&A. You can answer your own questions and let us see what your real convictions are.

“Again, I emphasize, there is nothing wrong with being ‘homophobic’ per se.”

You said it , not me.

“but your dislike should be balanced with what is reasonably fair for the object of your dislike.”

Then to address this perceived imbalance why don’t you give us a treatise as to how a gay lifestyle will benefit society and why same sex marriages should ultimately be the norm in Singapore.

63) HT

“But…but..I thought you were curious…you have posted furiously on this and other threads AND you missed out on the interview?”

Why is it so abnormal to miss an interview? There is life other than watching the google box, you know! I posted “furiously” because folks like you need answers and in case if you have not yet notice it, there is a debate going on in this thread.

“so please click on this thread. Missed the interview, haw!”

Thank you. I shall at my own time!

Curious says: “I missed the TV interview, so is it right for me to make an informed comment? You can be the judge and jury!”

Sigh, Curious, I think you really win liao. You are the champion winnar. You are posting all this hyperbole without the slightest idea of what has been going on, what the new guard has been doing, the representations they have been making to us. And whats stopping you from checking it out for yourself, with your own initiative? You want me to come together, stage a play for you and act out what Josie Lau said, with the aid of interpretive dance and subtitles in three languages ?

Curious, I teach you a secret k? Shh don’t tell anybody. Don’t say I don’t sayang you. Its called g-o-o-g-l-e.

I hope you are not relying on your ignorance of what Josie actually told everyone just to evade my question. So do us all a favour, go do a bit of reading on what Josie has been saying to the country k, before you post k? This part i really cannot help you already.

So again, if you are willing to engage your mouse hand to click on the interview and see what she said, then the question (just to recap) is:

“CURIOUS, what are your views on Josie Lau’s claim on national TV that the coup wasn’t organised, in light of the Feminist Mentor’s revelations? Lets just be honest and transparent here, hand on your heart ok? Do you think she lied? How does that make you feel? Does she have enough integrity to be President of AWARE?”

Curious,

Don’t answer a question with a question. The reason why many people talk to you with reason is because until a few comments ago, you have shown yourself to be willing to engage in a reasonable discourse without resorting to immature taunts. It is most undignified of you to talk about the ‘gay lifestyle’ being so bad, and yet not give a single shred of example which aspect of gay lifestyle you are talking about.

The only reason we can surmise from your non-reply and your misdirection is that you know that you have no idea exactly what you are opposed to, except that it has ‘gay’ written all over it, and therefore should be opposed. And since you know that intolerance is wrong, you seek to justify it by saying it is not gays whom you oppose but them imposing a certain ‘lifestyle’ on society.

But since I believe in giving respect regardless of whether they are earned or not, I shall reply your question and point out the fallacy in your arguments-

“I think perhaps it is you who should explain how a gay lifestyle will benefit society and why same sex marriages should ultimately be the norm in Singapore.”

First and foremost, in between black and white, there are shades of grey. In between benefit and harm, there are shades of grey as well.

Thinking in utilitarian terms is walking down the slippery slope that anything is permissible as long as it benefits society, including the subjectation of the rights of minorities.

Must something be of benefit to society before it is allowed? If by the time you become old and useless, and hence of no benefit to society, should I ban you from existence?

How beneficial is YOUR lifestyle to society? Do you have any idea how much carbon footprint you leave behind? Should your lifestyle be criminalized?

Now, as for the other half of your question – how same-sex marriage should be the NORM in Singapore.

Firstly, I never said anything about same-sex marriage. And on that topic, if you bother to speak to gay people (IF you can bring yourself to talk to them) they know well enough not to push it too far yet. (Ok, but this is of course from a very limited sample size of gay peeps I know)

Secondly, what exactly does it mean THE NORM? Does it mean same-sex marriage ALONGSIDE hetrosexual marriage? or do you really mean… that this country will be DOMINATED BY GAYS and HETROSEXUALS will be the minority forced to attend gay weddings and made to sit and watch gays fornicate on porn channels as part of our national education?

Seriously dude, make peace with your inner Gay Boogeyman.

Now, go think about. If you want, I can help undo the chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear. Consider that free counselling. And I promise you I won’t administer electro-shock therapy.

66) the irony

“You are posting all this hyperbole without the slightest idea of what has been going on, what the new guard has been doing, the representations they have been making to us”

Not true. I am not really interested in the politics of the old or new guard or she says this and then shes says that. They are all adults and they can jolly well sort all that out themselves in the coming EGM.

My entry into this thread started, see 4)Curious, after I read that “AWARE’s sexuality training manual states, according to the Straits Times report that ‘Homosexuality is perfectly normal. Just like heterosexuality, it is simply the way you are.”

Why are you accusing me of “posting all this hyperbole without the slightest idea of what has been going on.”? Do you think you have the high moral high-ground to do so?

Do you think that the Straits Times has not adequately reported the Aware saga that you assume that I don’t have “the slightest idea of what has been going on.”?

“Curious, I teach you a secret k? Shh don’t tell anybody. Don’t say I don’t sayang you. Its called g-o-o-g-l-e. ”

I am really impressed ! Is it any wonder that the world could ever get on without you ?

“So again, if you are willing to engage your mouse hand to click on the interview and see what she said, then the question (just to recap) is: “CURIOUS, what are your views on Josie Lau’s claim on national TV that the coup wasn’t organised, in light of the Feminist Mentor’s revelations?”

What I think or don’t about about her views has absolutely nothing to do with the debate I am currently happily engaged in, in case you have not noticed!

the core of the issue is the way the new Exco took over Aware, then lying their way as best they could.

the gay issue is a distraction, wake up people! if the new Exco were to remain in charge of Aware. we will see more religious fanatics “taking over” other NGOs, that danger of religious tug-a-war cannot be ignored!!

@ mice is nice on April 26th, 2009 3.38 pm

listen to mice is nice, people!

the gay issue is a RED HERRING. there remain many other questions unanswered, some of which:

1. the method the ex-co used to wrest power may be constitutional, but is it ethical? what about lying? will we be able to trust what they say in future?

2. can they guarantee that their religious beliefs WILL NOT colour the direction AWARE is taking in future?

3. what about their stand on contraception, on safe sex, on divorce, on abortion? we have not hear any of these yet, so far it’s only been about the gay agenda!

62) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang

“It’s true you are not on trial here. But in all your comments, you have put the gays on trial.”

Not True. If that were true I would not have said “neither should we despise them or be homophobic!” or that I believe that S 377A should be repealed.

If you had only bothered to follow the debate assiduously you would have noticed that Aware’s sexuality training manual was the spark that got me into this debate. My question was whether AWARE is qualified to give such a training and to encourage pubescent girls to experiment with each other. Do you have any objection to this?

“You have put the Old Guard on trial.”

Not true. Aware’s sexuality training manual is under public scrutiny here. Have you any objection to this ?

“You have accused them of promoting a gay lifestyle”

Not True. Show me an instance where I made such an accusation!

“You, whether you like it or not, have become the prosecutor cum witness.”

And are you saying you have assumed the role of judge and jury ? Who bestowed upon you that special right?

“And you won’t allow yourself to be cross-examined?”

Since, as you rightly said “It’s true you are not on trial here ” why is there any need to do so?

Curious said: “What I think or don’t about about her views has absolutely nothing to do with the debate I am currently happily engaged in, in case you have not noticed!”

Curious, does that mean you don’t want to answer the question of whether you think the new Exco has moral integrity and deserves our respect as leaders?

I mean, its only a debate if all sides are open to discussion on issues.. If not, then its just a monologue by you on why gayness and being fabulous is wrong.

67) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang

1 “Don’t answer a question with a question.”

But does it seems only your lordship can? See your infamous Q&A!

2 “The reason why many people talk to you with reason is because until a few comments ago, you have shown yourself to be willing to engage in a reasonable discourse without resorting to immature taunts.”

That’s a laugh. In debates a rebuttal is allowed. Maybe the nuance has escaped you. Show me where I have taunted a poster.

But why don’t you excoriate “30) cowboy” for this taunt : ” LOL CURIOUS!!!! YOU ARE SO CURIOUS. CURIOUSLY UNTHINKING…Wah. I’m amazed. Amazed that this is the level of logical thinking taught by our schools.” Or “49) the irony” : “Try not to fight that strange twisting feeling in your brain while addressing that question, thats good ol’ cognitive dissonance working away right there.” Or this really condescending remarks from “66) the irony” :“Curious, I teach you a secret k? Shh don’t tell anybody. Don’t say I don’t sayang you. Its called g-o-o-g-l-e. ” ?

Why the double standard?

3 “It is most undignified of you to talk about the ‘gay lifestyle’ being so bad, and yet not give a single shred of example which aspect of gay lifestyle you are talking about.”

Nonsense. See the link in 4) Curious and 42) Curious.

4 “The only reason we can surmise from your non-reply and your misdirection is that you know that you have no idea exactly what you are opposed to, except that it has ‘gay’ written all over it, and therefore should be opposed.”

Everyone has an opinion, so why not you? Cest la vie!

5″And since you know that intolerance is wrong, you seek to justify it by saying it is not gays whom you oppose but them imposing a certain ‘lifestyle’ on society.”

If this is true why would I want Sect 377A to be repealed? Where is the logic?

6″Thinking in utilitarian terms is walking down the slippery slope that anything is permissible as long as it benefits society, including the subjectation of the rights of minorities.”

That is not what I implied. You are demonizing the question I asked. Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism has been discredited. IMO “a morally right action is one that will produces a good outcome for society at large.” Do you have any problem with that?

7″Firstly, I never said anything about same-sex marriage.”

Not true. You do have a short attention span. See your infamous Q&A No 4 and shame the devil !

8 “And on that topic, if you bother to speak to gay people (IF you can bring yourself to talk to them) they know well enough not to push it too far yet.”

Then why did you broach the subject? Aren’t you contradicting yourself?

9 “Secondly, what exactly does it mean THE NORM?”

That ultimately same sex marriage be legalized in Singapore! Do you subscribed to this legislation if it ever comes to that?

10″Now, go think about. If you want, I can help undo the chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear. Consider that free counselling. And I promise you I won’t administer electro-shock therapy.”

Is that a nuanced taunt or is it a genuine invitation to treat? Are you a qualified counseller and/ or a registered psychiatrist?

If you are the latter have you forgotten the Hippocratic Oath you took to heal people and not to cause distress! See link here :http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=20909

Why do you accuse me of having “chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear”? And why do you taunt me with this sinister veiled threat “And I promise you I won’t administer electro-shock therapy.”?

If that is part of your normal professional ethics if you are indeed a registered physician then I think it is appalling.

#SZ

There is nothing wrong with taking over stealthly – all done within written procedures constitution. The old guard were complacent and did nothing to their own constitution to prevent such acts. Blame who? In anycase, i am curious how come a 24 years organisation have only 100 members – are they inclusive in their claim? 100 members in 24 years.?? This must be a joke for a all-woman organisation.

You said “hiding and lying”, “Lying” is your chosen words. The new committee maintained a silent front during election and they have every rights to do so. It is not uncommon or unusual. “Hiding” they went up and seek election in a public act of wanting change. This takes effort & courage.

It is not uncommon to have a mentor and this is reality. GROW UP.

Just like you wearing extra clothes, does that translate to something bad? or does that means you are trying to hide something beneath? GROW UP to reality, your version is too simplistic.

CHANGE in such organisation is necessary from time to time where values are displaced. The majority of society cannot condone homosexuality and lesbanism. Besides one cannot alter NATURE. It seems you are more taken by the religious angle rather than the rational that society values will erodes further if homosexuality is promoted.

TV test – hiding does not automaticaly translate to something bad. It may protect or delay an Act. It is far too common than you think, it happens everyday unless you had bet otherwise. One mustnt be gullible to think this world works in a simple formula like yours.

The new committee meant well and many are confident they will get the act together soon. The old committee must be good losers and MOVE on.

It is rather ungracious to see the old committee trying to do harm just becos they were voted out. Besides SIN are too thick skin to understand any crocodile tears..

What is so wrong about Gay, Lesbian or Both Inclined? Ratio/percentage wise they do not give more anti-social problems than straight people. Just as the Catholics and Protestants are Christains praying to the same One & only God, only matters is the non-criminal character of a person more than his personal preferences. So Shut up you righteous pretenders whover you are.
from , a single mum of two kids

Aiyoh thank you hor Curious. This means the gays did not impose their views on the society lah. But the same can’t be said for the xtian fundies hor. Thank you so much hor.

#Zefly,

You used words freely and thinking that by shredding the issues into little tiny bits and pieces, you are great in arguments & rational in your thinking. I see you as a person who talks more than you actually think. This lies the flaw. I believe you have no opinion of your own and do not believe it is important to take a specific side.

In my analysis, fence-sitter can accepts anything including a stick up the ass. This begin my point, either you think putting a stick up the ass is an accepted natural thing to do or you object to it becos you think it is not natural. I didnt think the asshole is meant for screwing when it is meant for nature.

Unless you are the type who asked what so bad about it. It means you are ready to take any stick up your ass and be able to say, it is OK & accepts it. To many nature lovers, this is odd & unnatural.

To those who oppose such act see those as lost to the liberal secular world, having lost their values in going against the grain of nature.

I hope the graphic description above knock some sense to your arguments.
Besides i think you off tangent from the key trust of the Aware issues and instead came to the defence of homosexual.

Curious,

Is the Dr Frank Joseph you keep referring to, the same one who spouts such “gems” as:

“Already college professors are saying that man-boy sex is normal and so is having sex with animals.”

“Pedophilia and Bestiality are now where homosexuality was 15 years ago.”

“Americans better start shedding their ignorance, or in 15 years, pedophilia and bestiality will be the norm and will also be taken out of all psychiatric books by the fickle and gutless psychiatrists.”

“Satan is so desperate he’s revealing his true self to millions in every spin, every whine and excuse, every alteration of the law. And the saddest thing as his disciples in the Democratic Party fight for their political life, is that so many are seeing the beast face to face and can’t see the terrible danger and damage to their souls!”

There are more than just paperwork/legally appointed committee to be a good leader. There are many ways you can muscle your way/manipulate people to get what you want. Office politics are like that and only if you are smart enough to notice. “Suay”, if i have to go to war(highest level of trust needed) with a team like this new team who cannot gives people confidence, Hidding info “for my own good”.<<please lah. Somemore, I can see some people accepting this behaviour, expecting us to believe blindly. Whatever the good intention/plan they have, this new team has no integrity and their secret operation is a “major diasaster”. A big risk if they were to run such critical life/death type of work. Suicidal people becomes more confuse by them. Sometimes we wonder who the bigger “Satan”, many people get so mixed up…

Hi Plen,

I also don’t see any animal wear cloths or conjure up some mystical being in their likeness to worship.

You don’t see any animal doing those do you? So it must be unnatural.

Frankly what do you know about nature? Think instead of regurgitating what is being fed into your brain through your nose using a straw.

Artemov, Jefly and Ht, la nausée and tj
all of you can help draft the curriculum of sex education for the old AWARE if they should form a gay and lesbian advocacy group and include this ““Pedophilia and Bestiality as normal and part of it . Please enroll your children in these enrichment classes. Ah Kow can be the gatekeeper before it gets hijacked again.

JUST BOYCOTT THE NEW AWARE AND LET IT ROT. THE OLD AWARE SHOULD JUST MOVE ON AND START “THE NEW AWARE”.

So much time and resources talking about the coup etc. Waste of time and resources. Go do some real work and help more causes or people.

DBS talked so much on papers and now so quiet, no disciplinary actions were taken. DBS should just fire Josie since she is so into social work, let her realise her dream.

This gay or religion sh** has no meaning, the gay community in Singapore is negligible. Maybe they are more defaulters on bills, loans and unable to afford public housing. Do something, dont do worthless things such as gay and religion issues.

#79 Artemov

Plen has a point, we are veering of the thrust of the AWARE issues. That’s his only valid point.

The question is, are these new exco, who are self-admitted liars (“I was only being polite” so I lied on national TV) and a president who ignores the wishes of her bosses but then sacks a subordinate for supposedly going against her wishes, fit to lead a civic organisation.

Plen of course thinks so. And so do all his fundie friends. That leaves the rest of the world (ie those with a brain) who disagree.

You see them here and in the ST forum, all trolling and pretending to be outraged. But pity these repressed souls. Their abject fascination with sex and with homosexual sex in particular springs from their repressed souls (google Ted Haggard). As you can see, Plen is eager to share with us his experience of sticks up his ass. er…info overload, Plen. Next troll, please.

I want to laugh sometimes when i read some of the comments. I cannot imagine myself sitting inside the room with depression and suicidal with these “qualified” people who are genuining trying to be good, but they “Joo Jow Joo luan” (Hokkein for, the more you do, the more you mess up). End up many people get hurt emotionally, our people get divided, our family get divided. Brother against brothers.Maybe that is “good for us” becos we are like small children. I see this episode abit like small scale type of dishamony as compare to those bigger type we see in CNN when the whole nation fight each other. Becos, they only believe what they believe is correct and everyone must only listern and do. Nation need hamony, and see what happen when some type of people try to change things. Wake up and learnt fast, how to do things in a hamonious way, else not surprise we may also end in different coloured shirts.

#80 aloha

On the surface, it looks silly and many would agree with you to move on and start something new. if the old AWARE team lose the EGM vote (I heard that their religious brothers and sisters have been issued the clarion call to arms and intend to flood the venue) , which is a real possibility given the fanaticism of these fundies, they may well do so.

However they need to mount fair legal attempt (ie by calling an EGM) and make an effort – I think that’s their duty. And if that fails, ok, then perhaps move on. But this is important as a wake up call to Singaporeans – to know that there are so many arrogant, sneaky, lying bigots around who are fanatical in their aims. You see them in other countries too. Look at the US where the fundies have a loud voice in their politics. So, don’t think they willl go away. These fundies are so shameless that they can survive being laughed at, being exposed as liars. Like cockroaches, they will unfortunately even survive a nuclear disaster.

76) Slim

“Is the Dr Frank Joseph you keep referring to, the same one who spouts such “gems” as:”

I have not come across these quotes. Why don’t you ask him at this email address DFJosephMD@aol.com ?

74) Artemov

“This means the gays did not impose their views on the society lah.”

And I hope they also won’t in the future.

“But the same can’t be said for the xtian fundies hor.”

You have to ask them that question yourself.

Plen,

“I believe you have no opinion of your own and do not believe it is important to take a specific side. ”

Wrong. (see, that’s an opinion!) I believe that one should take side only after carefully considering many other factors. I believe much of these whole pro-anti debates started because people refuse to acknowledge many of the nuances involved. And it is ironic that you said I came to the defence of the homosexuals while accusing me of not choosing sides.

Now you talk about homosexuality being against nature.

It is also natural that biologically man wants to screw as many women as he can. Why do you still subscribe to monogamy then? Aren’t you going against the grain of nature?

Can’t it be said that much of what we accept as ‘truth’ and ‘common sense’ are often social constructs, and it is only through logical reasoning and critical thinking that we move ahead towards a more enlightened and compassionate society?

I cannot make a stand on what I don’t know.

I don’t know enough about the ’science’ of gays to know whether gays become gays through external circumstances or are born with it. There seems to be strong arguments on both sides, and it may even be accurate to say that some people are straight who happen to go through a phase of sexual experimentation, and some are really born to be oriented one way.

My case simply is, since the best that can be said is that we don’t know, let’s put this aside and look at what we can work with. And what we can work with is this-

Do you seriously think that by objecting to the ‘gay lifestyle’ as you call it, the gays will simply go away? You won’t walk down the street one day and see a lesbian dressed like a man and go ‘oh! that’s a lesbian!’? Dude, gay people have been around ever since history was documented! It had even been widely accepted in different times in different parts of the world, including (for those people who says ‘this is not USA!’.. Asia!

Whether you try to stop the ‘promotion’ or not, the visibility of gays in society are here to stay. Now, do you seriously think that the statistics (if they are to be believed) of Frank Joseph will drop if we simply pretend gays do not exist, they do not have sex with each other, that they are no institutions here that binds two gays together for life may have an indirect effect of ‘increasing’ their promiscuity?

Or simply that if sex education and pornography do not exist, your children won’t experiment with sex?

Which do you prefer? Some thing that is brushed under the carpet and allowed to fester (the so called ‘gay lifestyle’ and its associated health problems) or something that is acknowledged to exist, talked about honestly and worked together as an issue of BOTH straight and gay people?

Don’t you think that gay people who get social affirmation are happier and more inclined to want to have similar values of monogamy as the majority of us do?

I’m not even asking you to hug them. Just asking you to act in enlightened self-interest.

72) the irony

“Curious, does that mean you don’t want to answer the question of whether you think the new Exco has moral integrity and deserves our respect as leaders?”

I will if it has any relevance to the debate that I am presently engaged in. As I said I am not really interested in the internal politics at AWARE. Let history be the judge.

“I mean, its only a debate if all sides are open to discussion on issues.”

But what does that issue got to do with the debate that I am presently engaged in? Stay with the issues that we are discussing right now. Don’t change the goal posts.

” If not, then its just a monologue by you on why gayness and being fabulous is wrong”

I would not call it a monologue. You contributed some tenuous points and a few taunts like “I teach you a secret k? Shh don’t tell anybody. Don’t say I don’t sayang you. Its called g-o-o-g-l-e. ” Do you have any more secrets to share?

Curious #83,

Thanks for proving his email. I’ve checked. Your statistics hail from the same guy.

For the benefit of any reader who is under the false impression that Dr. Frank Joseph is a disinterested social scientist without an agenda, these are the sort of things he says (without proof):

“Already college professors are saying that man-boy sex is normal and so is having sex with animals.”

“Pedophilia and Bestiality are now where homosexuality was 15 years ago.”
“Americans better start shedding their ignorance, or in 15 years, pedophilia and bestiality will be the norm and will also be taken out of all psychiatric books by the fickle and gutless psychiatrists.”

“Satan is so desperate he’s revealing his true self to millions in every spin, every whine and excuse, every alteration of the law. And the saddest thing as his disciples in the Democratic Party fight for their political life, is that so many are seeing the beast face to face and can’t see the terrible danger and damage to their souls!”

Curious #83,

I meant to type “providing” not “proving”. I know you are a stickler for intellectual honesty.

Hi HT,
Quite likely that there are (hidden) emails flying around. If there is such letter, please sent to the press plus these webpages for us to see and judge. Alamak, when I did start this bad habit of judging others. Not sure when or what time the EOGM, but quite obviously it must not be held on a Sunday morning else got problem in turn out lah.

Curious

You have this trait of “not coming across” or “missing” views that are contrary or inconvenient to your stand, don’t you?

I mean, first you “missed” the interview where Josie Lau lied to the nation that the coup wasn’t organised (only to be shot in the foot by Thio). Some kind soul even posted the link for you above, but somehow I doubt you want to see it, or god forbid, form an independent view as to Josie Lau’s integrity.

Then, you “didn’t come across” the rather eccentric claims of the objective scientific source, Dr Frank Joseph, on whom you rely so heavily in this discussion.

So I had to more googling for you — now I’m trying very hard not to come across as sounding sarcastic here, pls forgive me if I do, but I was taught in school to be discerning of our sources. We don’t take any “scientific” research we come across at face value.

So! Here’s the rub. Is this “Dr Frank Joseph”’s work cited in any peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal? Or is he yet another crazy religious crank spewing pseudo-science on his little website, of which there seem to be so many of these days? Lets see, shall we?

Here’s a sampling of his choice takes:

On President Bush’s election:
“The prayers of millions of people were answered. As promised, God did not let us down. Satan tried every dirty trick in his arsenal to get Gore, a pro-abort, to be president Gore, had everything going for him.”
Source: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2000Dec/dec20lif.htm

“But the prayers of the faithful held the standard of righteousness and goodness high and God heard our prayers. I firmly believe a new standard will be established in the White House where morality and ethics will return.” — Same source (He must be gnashing his teeth with righteous fury now that BARACK HUSSEIN OSAMA is his Prez!!!)

“John Kerry should not only be denied the Holy Eucharist because he propagates the destruction of human life, but he should be publicly excommunicated as should all Catholic pro-choice politicians, because they dissent with Catholic Doctrine.”

Hey Curious, this is your scientific source! A rabid, foaming-at-the-teeth American religious lobbyist!

The reason why people like “Dr” Frank Joseph continue to exist is that a sucker is born every minute who’d accept his bare assertions at face value. And with the greatest of respect, I think you are a sucker. Please stop being one.

Please, Curious, don’t bring this dirty American evangelical politics home to Singapore, could you? We have a multi-religious, multiracial, society. I love my country like that. We didn’t build it up easily, and we have much to lose if the Christian extreme-right wing imports such dirty politics home.

LKY was right — you open the windows to the world, you let the flies in too.

btw, Curious, please don’t tar Zefly with the same brush as myself.
Zefly is clearly a man with greater tolerance and patience for people like you.

Now, since you insisted that I talk about “the debate you are engaged in”, please, let us all know whether you still stand by the religion-dressed-up-as-pseudo-science of your Dr Frank Joseph, on whom you rely so heavily on.

(i hope the order comes out correct, i wrote a post abt Dr Joseph before this).

Dear Curious

” Is Aware qualified to run a sex education programme and encouraging prebuscent gals to experiment with one another ” not equivalent to accusing AWARE of promoting a homosexual lifestyle ? Darth Tio seems to think so and is not afraid to openly link the two statements. You should likewise be fair and follow the lead of “feminist mentor” or state clearly why you disagree with her linkage.

Those words of yours were scare mongering of the very worst sort. What exactly do u object to with regards to the content of the Comprehensive Sexuality Programme ? According to the the description the course has made a conscious choice not to make value judgements in educating teenagers about their sexuality and has chosen to draw on experiences from other programmes world wide.

The crux of the debate, the schism between the two camps has always been over the issue of sexuality and how to approach it. Your camp prefers a moral approach , the other camp prefers an approach based on the practical and real realization that kids are experimenting with sex whether the moral majority likes it or not at a younger age.

Take your concerns, set up a Focus for Women under Darth Thio, teach a church based programme based on abstinence and morality to secular schools and for xtian mission schools throw in a healthy dose of hell and brim stone scripture, Compete with an AWARE style programe and let empirical evidence play itself out.

My prediction, seclularism except for the staunchest and most fervent christians wins out in equipping teenagers to cope with difficult questions about sexuality when they could just as easily google it over the internet.

Locke

Curious,

“I will if it has any relevance to the debate that I am presently engaged in. As I said I am not really interested in the internal politics at AWARE. Let history be the judge.”

Touche. If you scroll up, you’d notice that the lead article is about Constance Singam lamenting the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco. What does this have to do with “the debate you are presently engaged in”, which, if i’m not wrong, is whether gayness is wrong?

So here you go insisting that I only your debate is relevant, when you’ve essentially hijacked the main thread for your own purposes. I hope the irony is not lost on you.. hijacking something for your own purposes? Sound familiar?

Curious,

The questions I posed were meant for me to understand where exactly you are coming from, to find amidst all the issues being raised, a meeting point for honest discussion. When you refused to answer them, I therefore had to conclude you didn’t want to engage me there. But nonetheless some of my points to you I addressed to Plen in #85

As for you stance on 337a, I had to admit, it was my bad. I apologize for some of the harsher words said. That also extends to the description of taunting – it was directed at others, not you. (But in light of you calling me ‘lordship’ I think it was well worth the effort..lol)

“And are you saying you have assumed the role of judge and jury ? Who bestowed upon you that special right?”

No, the judge are the people reading this.

Now, to address the question about utilitarianism – “a morally right action is one that will produces a good outcome for society at large.”

So in your view, does homosexuality produce a bad outcome, and therefore it is a morally wrong action? So is it up to the gays therefore then, to correct their actions such that they have a positive outcome for society?

Again, back to the question of gay lifestyle – homosexuality that’s bad for society? or homosexual promiscuity?

Since you are inclined to agree with the latter, shouldn’t education be the way to address it?

68) tj on April 26th, 2009 4.16 pm

thanks tj. =)

the new Exco is a group of “arsonists”.

the spark – themselves
the fuel – simple-minded folks who cannot see through the smoke
the smoke (screen) – the gay issue
the prize – taking over a long established vehicle for their own agenda

Q: give them time to prove themselves?
A: would another shady group of “stormtroopers” also be given time to prove themselves? how would such support be interpreted (overseas)? this is how we in S’pore do things?

for those caught up with the gay issue ask yourselves why is it an issue only recently? a convenient smoke screen thrown in by the new Exco?

don’t allow yourself to be fodder for other’s personal goal. people on both sides, wake up!!

I wonder how a young reader, young member not initiated into religion or the curious reader, curious member not initiated into GLBT can be convinced heart, mind and soul to accept the physical and moral consequences of exprimenting with homosexuality when the approach taken doesn’t reach out to the heart, the mind and the soul?

The laws of a game has little meaning for non participants of that game.
The laws of a nation has little meaning for non members of that nation.
The laws of a faith has little meaning for non believers of that faith.

But if advocates of the game, the nation or the faith feels that their game, their nation or their faith will bring greater good to those yet to be initiated, then the way forward surely is not through authoritarian/dictatorial stances.

Reading all the online posts, what is truly material is the women’s vote at the coming EGM.

Women of Singapore who are truly concerned for your children’s welfare and the future of families in Singapore should sign up as member of Aware, attend and vote at the EGM on 2May. The worse thing you could do is be apathetic. Do not allow Aware to be the backdoor organisation for promoting promiscuity, bisexual/gay/lesbian/transexual rights, and who knows what other rights on the ground of non-discrimination. Without moral boundaries, non-discrimination could also in the extreme extend to paedophilia, necrophilia, and other seedy practices so this needs to be surfaced for discussion. We need to know what the OLD EXCO members and the NEW EXCO members stand for, and which EXCO would be best placed to put appropriate mechanisms in place to prevent Aware from being hijacked from its publicly stated Vision and Mission. Your vote counts. Go vote with your conscience.

EGM DETAILS
Date: Saturday 2 May 2009
Time: 2 – 5pm
Venue: First Choice Auditorium, 3 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh #01-01 HSR Building Singapore

Please note, you must be member to be entitled to attend and vote at the EGM. Voting by proxy at the EGM is not permitted.

Sign up for membership at the AWARE website – http://www.aware.org.sg/?page_id=1078 – (note that it is a two-step process, you need to create an account first). Membership costs $40 per year; you can pay by credit card or paypal. You have voting rights if you are Singapore Citizen or Singapore PR, 18 Years and above; and Female.

Important:
1. Please print the e-receipts and bring them to the EGM as proof of membership.

To Admin / Moderator:

ok point taken by Zefly, i needn’t have been so caustic in my earlier posts. I’ll scale down the sarcasm. Thanks for moderating, you guys are doing good work.

wah, the comments have been coming Fast and Curious! er, i mean, furious.

just to do my bit. i’m not taking pot shots at C despite being tempted to do so, but i missed my turn oreddy.

just want to clarify re Dr Frank Joseph and his Statisticks.

“Statistics as a tool is neutral and only reflects the data fed to it. If Dr Frank Joseph has told an untruth please be my guest to rebut him vigorously.”

ah, the lovely fallacy of Appeal to Authority. how singaporean!

now the website of our good doctor is: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html

he starts off the article with a proper warlike stance, worthy of someone trying to prove his mettle. “What is being pawned off on our children and grandchildren in public schools is the story that to be homosexual or lesbian is just another normal alternative lifestyle.”

(oh, before that, he proves his credentials as well – M.D.)

he followed that with >30 points on the “Statistics of Homosexuality and Its Effects”. i will not go through each point here because that will take too much time. will get choice bits instead. before i continue, would also like to point out his “statistics” are very, very outdated for a “scientific” work. his references are from 1978-1994.

1>> “Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia”

NOT TRUE. it is still found within DSM-IV-TR, the ‘bible’ of mental disorders that is published by APA.

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

2>> * Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

there are altogether 5 points derived from the same source: (10) Kaifetz, J. “Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some,” Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.

so who is this Kaifetz guy? a bit of research on the ‘net turned this up:
http://www.jerrykbooks.com/about.htm

“Jerry Kaifetz is a businessman who has owned an operated a chemical company near Chicago since 1986… He has two degrees in Pastoral Theology and a Ph.D. in Philosophy in Religion… Dr. Kaifetz has published numerous articles over the years and has been interviewed by (a long list of major news and media corporations)… He has also been a columnist for The Times and the Post Tribune in Northwest Indiana. He is a past recipient of The Sword of the Lord Award for Evangelism.”

degrees in pastoral theology and philosophy in religion? any scientific background? nope. christian fundamentalist? certainly. look at: http://www.jerrykbooks.com/doctrinal.htm

you decide for yourself is this guy is a reliable source of “statistics”.

3>> there are about 5-6 “statistics” basically saying a lot of homosexuals are also paedophiles. let’s dissect the beast. they came from these four sources:

(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.

Family Research Institute is a well-known christian right organisation bent on generating “empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse.” it is headed by a psychologist called Dr Paul Cameron. The American Psychological Association (APA) dropped Cameron from its membership in 1983 for lack of cooperation in an inquiry into his research methods. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

Jay and Young, The Gay Report, 1979. these two are apparently real scientists. their work, however, has been criticized in its methodology: they sent out very long and detailed questionnaires and respondents mail the completed ones back. apparently the return rate is only 1%. even the authors themselves conceded they “do not claim to have a scientific or representative sample of lesbians and gay men.”

“Psychological Reports” is a general psychology journal where the Family Research Institute often submits papers to. including this paper mentioned in our Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics:

Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Forde, N., Larson, H., & Cameron, K. (1986). Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 58, 327-337.

do you notice how he (Frank Joseph) hid the authors and only mentioned the name of the journal itself? that is bad referencing practice, to say the least. in any case, Psychological Reports is a low-ranking journal with a high acceptance rate in the papers it accepts (easy to get things published there).

San Francisco Sentinel seems to be a daily newspaper in SF which appears neutral on gay issues. i am however unable to track the original article from 27 March 1992, especially since Dr Frank Joseph has kindly ‘forgotten’ to include the title of the article.

THAT’S ALL, FOLKS!

make your own judgement whether Dr Frank Joseph’s article is credible or not. btw, a little background on the man himself: http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Jan/frankbio.htm

“Zefly is clearly a man with greater tolerance and patience for people like you. ”

Not true. I resort to sarcasm and mockery when my patience runs out. Have to thank Curious for pointing that out for everybody. :P

89) sllim

“Thanks for proving his email. I’ve checked. Your statistics hail from the same guy.”

You are welcomed. Those are not my statistics but statistics published by Dr Frank Joseph. See Link at 4) Curious.

Have you at least also taken the trouble to check if the statistics he published are correct or otherwise, such as those listed below ?

Dr Joseph’s statistics show that in the United States, Canada and Australia :

1 Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.

2 Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

3 It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim.

4 The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

5 The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 .

Before vilifying the retired doctor please do your due diligence and if what he published is incorrect you can publish your findings here with appropriate sources and then you can rebut him vigorously as you have his email, so that he has a chance to defend himself.

Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!

92) the irony

1 “Curious, You have this trait of “not coming across” or “missing” views that are contrary or inconvenient to your stand, don’t you?

And you, pal, has a tendency to put your foot into your mouth and contradict yourself. Here is a perfect example : See 95) the irony where you said ,quote :

“Touche. If you scroll up, you’d notice that the lead article is about Constance Singam lamenting the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco. What does this have to do with “the debate you are presently engaged in”, which, if i’m not wrong, is whether gayness is wrong?”

If this is only about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco.” why did you bother to talk in “15) the irony” about whether “there is a subtle but important difference between “promoting GLBTs” and “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs,”?

Why the double standard? Why accuse me of allegedly hijacking this thread for my own purposes when you were doing precisely the same thing?

2 “Then, you “didn’t come across” the rather eccentric claims of the objective scientific source, Dr Frank Joseph, on whom you rely so heavily in this discussion.”

Hey pal, the burden of proof is on the skeptics to show that his statistics are incorrect. As I said before in “103 ) Curious” :

“Before vilifying the retired doctor please do your due diligence and if what he published is incorrect you can publish your findings here with appropriate sources”

Then you can rebut him vigorously so that he has a chance to defend himself. His email is : DFJosephMD@aol.com

“Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”

3 “Please, Curious, don’t bring this dirty American evangelical politics home to Singapore, could you?”

There you go again, putting your foot in your own mouth. It is you who is bringing this allegedly ” dirty American evangelical politics home to Singapore”, not me.

I merely posted the statistics published by him on gays which you have, until now, not a shred of evidence to show that they are wrong but you are ready to pillory him! Is that the hallmark of a gentleman ?

Attack the statistics not the messenger, pal, because as the saying goes “Glass, porcelain and reputations are easily cracked but never well mended.”

“Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”

Erm… that’s not exactly quite the same. When you put out facts as authoritative sources from Frank Joseph, we are assuming you believe in him and his objectivity. So now people have found out some of his ‘research’ came from biased and questionable sources, hence discrediting his objective, and hence also putting into the question the verifiablilty of these ‘facts’, you are accusing them of demonizing a guy who can’t defend himself?

No. We are just saying the ‘facts’ you lifted up are no reliable, hence they cannot be used to ‘prove’ your arguments that gay lifestyle is more detrimental than straight lifestyle. And neither can you disclaim responsibilty from not exercising due diligence in your research taking, because then you will be misleading others with wrong ‘facts’.

Curious,

if your esteemed source Dr Frank Joseph comes across as not quite, I dunno whats the word, “sane”? “objective”? as evident in his other writings on Satan, God and why America should vote George Bush, then what are the odds that rational Singaporeans should accept wholesale his “scientific” statistics of why gayness is wrong as the gospel truth?

Do you seriously stand by what he writes? Or are you just trolling here? If the latter, then I think I’m done with this discussion. I’ll leave everyone else here to assess where you’re coming from.

Curious, you said: “If this is only about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco.” why did you bother to talk about whether “there is a subtle but important difference between “promoting GLBTs” and “choosing not to discriminate against GLBTs,”? Why the double standard? Why accuse me of allegedly hijacking this thread for my own purposes when you were doing precisely the same thing?”

Please be objective here, the whole “accused-turned-accuser-pity-me” schtick is just so 1980s. I was responding to someone who claimed that AWARE was promoting GLBT. I hope you didn’t conveniently “miss that” again. i.e. I was willing to engage in broader views. I even engaged you in your diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong”, even though you flat-out refused to engage in our questions of how you feel about Josie Lau lying on TV.

So touche touche touche.

94) lockeliberal

1 “Dear Curious, Is Aware qualified to run a sex education programme and encouraging prebuscent gals to experiment with one another ” not equivalent to accusing AWARE of promoting a homosexual lifestyle ?”

Since you are a newbie in this thread I shall publish again the question I raised :

“But is it there any truth that Aware “conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.” ? If it is true then my question would be : Is AWARE qualified to conduct such a programme in schools and is it normal to ask pubescent girls to experiment with other girls?”

So dear Locke, why is it merely asking a question about AWARE’s sexuality training programme has become so offensive to you and on what grounds do you imply that I am ‘accusing AWARE of promoting a homosexual lifestyle ?”

2 “Darth Tio seems to think so and is not afraid to openly link the two statements.”

But why are you so afraid to print her full name here so that she can defend herself? Why demonize her when under our constitution everyone has freedom to express his or her views?

3 “You should likewise be fair and follow the lead of “feminist mentor” or state clearly why you disagree with her linkage.”

Who are you to tell me what to do and who to follow? I have my own views and don’t need to follow anyone’s views, thank you very much.

4 “Those words of yours were scare mongering of the very worst sort.”

I would like to repeat the old saying again here as people like you become very careless with words under a psuedonym : “Glass, porcelain and reputations are easily cracked but never well mended.”

If merely asking for clarification is tantamount to “scare mongering of the very worst sort” then how can anyone learn the truth if they cannot ask questions?

5″The crux of the debate, the schism between the two camps has always been over the issue of sexuality and how to approach it. Your camp prefers a moral approach , the other camp prefers an approach based on the practical and real realization that kids are experimenting with sex whether the moral majority likes it or not at a younger age.”

Your ability to make bizarre generalizations knows no bound is all I can say, as I belong to neither camp!

6″Take your concerns, set up a Focus for Women under Darth Thio, teach a church based programme based on abstinence and morality to secular schools and for xtian mission schools…”

And you can take yours and stuff it up anywhere you fancy for all I care! I am not interested to start any NGO for women or men or for anybody! I came here to debate!

7 “My prediction, seclularism except for the staunchest and most fervent christians wins out in equipping teenagers to cope with difficult questions about sexuality..”

Yawn! Anyone how professes to be able to “see” the future is either naive or silly or both !

Curious #101,

“Have you at least also taken the trouble to check if the statistics he published are correct or otherwise…”

Since you were the one who put forth his “statistics” as objective data, the onus is on you to make sure the data is indeed objective; whether it is reputable work that passes academic muster.

My only intention was to point out as many others have so decidedly since, that he is a bankrupt source by any reputable standards, that social scientists who take themselves seriously won’t give him the time of day and that it is not beneath him to make groundless claims:

“Already college professors are saying that man-boy sex is normal and so is having sex with animals.”

“Pedophilia and Bestiality are now where homosexuality was 15 years ago.”
“Americans better start shedding their ignorance, or in 15 years, pedophilia and bestiality will be the norm and will also be taken out of all psychiatric books by the fickle and gutless psychiatrists.”

“Satan is so desperate he’s revealing his true self to millions in every spin, every whine and excuse, every alteration of the law. And the saddest thing as his disciples in the Democratic Party fight for their political life, is that so many are seeing the beast face to face and can’t see the terrible danger and damage to their souls!”

106) the irony

1 “I was responding to someone who claimed that AWARE was promoting GLBT.”

If you felt so strongly that this thread is about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco” why even bother to respond to someone who did not even address his post to you? Why the double standard? Is this another case of it’s ok for the goose but not ok for the gander?

2″I even engaged you in your diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong”

Why contradict yourself again when, as you said, this thread is about “the loss of trust thanks to the actions of the new exco”

Also show me, if you can, where I was allegedly engaged in a “diatribe on how “science proves gayness to be wrong” or did you mistake me for someone else, tongue in cheek?

3″even though you flat-out refused to engage in our questions of how you feel about Josie Lau lying on TV. ”

What I feel or don’t feel about another person is no business of yours, pal ! Why do you insist on debating this theme when I already told you I am not interested in the internal politics of AWARE? Why not let history be the judge?

Curious,

Reset, reboot, restart.

What is it you want to debate about again?

“Reset, reboot, restart.
What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.

#Curious

Wow. You is Good, man.

Ya, as Zefly says, let’s reset, reboot and restart. When I scroll to the top, the topic is “Constance Singam :”That trust is gone”.

Then the article describes what Constance Singam said : “…. 25 years of friendship, support and empowerment. … And that’s the sad part of it…that trust is gone.”
…

… And what are feminist values? We give a chance, we respect, we support each other, we empower each other. Yes, you’re right, I am saddened by what’s happening, and those values aren’t being respected, and that culture is not being respected”.

So, what say you? Really keen to know your views.

Curious, HT, Zefly

“Back to basics” would be great.

Though I seriously doubt AWARE encourages our youth to experiement with anal sex, I can agree with M.Ong in that parents are concerned. (Their concerns might be groundless but still, I think it’s understandable that parents err on the side of overprotectiveness.)

If I am not wrong, this is also Curious’ position. But I stand to be corrected.

tj #99,

Thanks for your input. Riveting stuff.

96) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

1″The questions I posed were meant for me to understand where exactly you are coming from, ”

So why don’t you answer them yourself so that I will understand “where exactly you are coming from” too? To me you are an enigma wrapped round a riddle in a maze of conundrums and that is supposed to be a compliment.

2″When you refused to answer them, I therefore had to conclude you didn’t want to engage me there.”

That must the understatement of the week! Anyone who is not blind can see the copious amount of engagement we both had in this thread.

3 “As for you stance on 337a, I had to admit, it was my bad.”

Please state the noun after the adjective! Is it “memory” or “mistake” or “judgement” or “eyesight”? I thought it was your bad memory like when you falsely claimed that ″Firstly, I never said anything about same-sex marriage.”

4 ” I apologize for some of the harsher words said. ”

Your apology for the “harsher words” is accepted on condition that you refrain from unsubstantiated accusations in the future such as “You have put the Old Guard on trial.” and “You have accused them of promoting a gay lifestyle” or you have “chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear”.

5″That also extends to the description of taunting – it was directed at others, not you.”

How could it not have been directed at me when you said “until a few comments ago, you have shown yourself to be willing to engage in a reasonable discourse without resorting to immature taunts.” ?

I asked you to show me an instance where I taunted a poster but I see you have not been able to so do. So why don’t you just admit you cannot and move on?

6″ Now, to address the question about utilitarianism – “a morally right action is one that will produces a good outcome for society at large.”

This is not about Bantham’s Utilitarianism. It is about Consequentialism!

7″ So in your view, does homosexuality produce a bad outcome, and therefore it is a morally wrong action?”

IMO a homosexual’s actions, like any other citizen’s actions can produce a bad or good outcome for society at large. It’s entirely up to them.

8″So is it up to the gays therefore then, to correct their actions such that they have a positive outcome for society?”

IMO, all citizens need to correct their actions if their actions produce a bad outcome for society at large!

9″Again, back to the question of gay lifestyle – homosexuality that’s bad for society? or homosexual promiscuity?

I think you need to rework this question. Is it not that the gay lifestyle is a sub-set of homosexuality and not the other way around?

10″Since you are inclined to agree with the latter, shouldn’t education be the way to address it?”

Why makes you come to this conclusion?

Now it is my turn to ask you questions and I hope you will be as forthwith as well:

You said ″Now, go think about. If you want, I can help undo the chains of illogical reasoning that arouse from your deepest darkest fear. Consider that free counselling. And I promise you I won’t administer electro-shock therapy.”

A) Was that a nuanced taunt or is it a genuine invitation to treat?
B)Are you a qualified counseller or a registered psychiatrist or both?

105) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

1″When you put out facts as authoritative sources from Frank Joseph, we are assuming you believe in him and his objectivity.”

I put it up for discussion and if anyone could prove him wrong, I have invited him/her to be my guest to rebut him vigorously. So far no one has done that !

2″No. We are just saying the ‘facts’ you lifted up are no reliable,”

Then where is your proof? Why attack the man and not the statistics before you have the proof, is my point! If you can prove his statistics ARE wrong that we know he is a fraud! The burden of proof is on you and your ilks!

3″hence they cannot be used to ‘prove’ your arguments that gay lifestyle is more detrimental than straight lifestyle.”

It was his argument! Please be clear as the statistics are his not mine.

4″And neither can you disclaim responsibilty from not exercising due diligence in your research taking, because then you will be misleading others with wrong ‘facts’.”

Has anyone so far proved that his statistics are fabricated and false? If not why are you jumping to conclusion that his statistics are entirely without merit?

109) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 27th, 2009 1.37 pm

1 “Curious, Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?”

Again? Do you have so much time on your hands? Have we not trashed this thread to its core already? Have you lost your marbles?

110) gemami

“Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)”

“This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.”

It surely is ! Gemani, you rock man !

11) sllim on April 27th, 2009 4.04 pm

“Though I seriously doubt AWARE encourages our youth to experiement with anal sex, I can agree with M.Ong in that parents are concerned. (Their concerns might be groundless but still, I think it’s understandable that parents err on the side of overprotectiveness.)”

but, but…we should not deviate from the topic – otherwise Curious may not be interested in talking about it. Anyway I have to admit that I have not read the syllabus provided by AWARE so I can’t say that it promotes anal sex. I am sure that all those who have claimed that the program does promote anal sex have read it from cover to cover and could point out to the rest of us the exact page, clause, provision, article, sentence, paragraph where it says so. Right? Right?

110) gemami

“Reset, reboot, restart. What is it you want to debate about again?” – #107) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)”

“This must surely go down as the comment of the year. TOC, please take note.”

It surely is ! Gemami, you rock man !

101) tj

1 “wah, the comments have been coming Fast and Curious! er, i mean, furious.”

You do have a sense of humor when it’s at someone else’s expense! I take it then “tj” is an abbreviation for “The Joker” or is it for “The Jerk”?

2 “just to do my bit. i’m not taking pot shots at C despite being tempted to do so, but i missed my turn oreddy.”

No, you didn’t. You have just taken a cheap shot at me above and I have returned it in kind with my compliments ! All’s fair in love and war, as they say !

3″just want to clarify re Dr Frank Joseph and his Statisticks.”

You have done a sensational job in dissecting Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics to the quick. Well done! Now for the coup de grace !

3 “THAT’S ALL, FOLKS! make your own judgement whether Dr Frank Joseph’s article is credible or not.”

WHAT? We are not talking about the article, silly. We are talking about the statistics, pal ! Have you found any flaws in the statistics? That is what we wish to know otherwise please don’t waste any more bandwidth !

Since it is fact, that so far, no one has any shred of evidence to prove that the statistics published by Dr Frank Joseph have no merits, I rest my case !

Dr Mojo in the Mountains’ statistics tell me Curious is wrong. 100%. Since Dr MIM is a mountain mojo, he reveals himself in dreams, premonitions and the like. His references like-minded unicorns and garden fairies.

I will save everyone the trouble of discrediting Dr MIM, engage in an intellectually honest discussion etc….

“Since it is fact, that so far, no one has any shred of evidence to prove that the statistics published by Dr [Mojo in the Mountains] have no merits, I rest my case !”

P.S. he goes on about Satan too.

HT #114

Seriously now, the “anal sex in the curriculum” allegation is a steaming pile of hysteria. BUT I think Ong’s prejudice is widespread amongst conservative parents, and many of them are, that “inclusiveness” is equivalent to “permissiveness”.

It’s irrational. But, as evidenced, not a lot of people think rationally, or can accept that they might be wrong. I think that bodes ill for AWARE’s sex ed, even if the old girls come back into control.

Good gosh Sllim, I was just about to quote Dr Mojo in the Mountains too! Many a time, the good doctor has come to my rescue.

Apologies to Constance for this entry. Sometimes all we can do is laugh.

wei chun #119,

Aye, If only Dr MIM can grace us with an online presence. That passes for extra-credibility these days you know.

“IMO, all citizens need to correct their actions if their actions produce a bad outcome for society at large!”

Curious, please take a look at the criticisms of consquentialism on this website -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_4.shtml

I dare not criticize your words from now on lest I am accused of demonizing you. (I freak out whenever people resort to shouting to get a point across – I apologize for my timidness)

I just happen to put this up for discussion so don’t demonize the messenger. Any criticisms should be directed at bbc. Email bbc if necessary.

Now to answer your question (see I answer so many things you ask, even though I’m uncomfortable with answering them!) I’m working on a thesis of how we can overcome our prejudices by confronting the Inner Bogeyman. It’s far too long to explain, but what the inner bogeyman does is that we project our fear of the bogeyman as a hatred of things that remnds us of him, but at the same time we justify this irrationality with a host of ‘logical’ defences.

I’m hoping to publish it on Facebook when I get around to writing it instead of replying you. Let me know your email address or facebook address I can send you a copy. I’m not sure if that makes me qualified… but it helps in making me overcome my own homophobia, which I also justified with a host of reasoning – hence I’m very familiar with your line of thinking, which makes me all the more disappointed you have not been very receptive to my offer to help. :(

(but HT, irony and silim, if you want a free copy to pass to your friends…)

Um that’s it. I don’t want to be accused of wasting bandwidth anymore.

I need to go hug a tree…

Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #121,

I’ve prayed to seven (different) gods, but I haven’t received divine instruction(s) as to whether you are joking. If you are serious, I am interested in reading what seems like a genuinely interesting paper.

P.S. You might want to reference Shermer’s theory of why smart people believe in garbage.

Silim,

I’m also working on a thesis on how to stay calm and centred when dealing with irrational and easily provoked people.

Dear Curious,

please forgive me for resorting to humour to deal with abrasive people.
i shall apply the 95FM ad from now on in my dealings with you.

“You do have a sense of humor”

wow, thank you! that’s high praise coming from you.

“You have done a sensational job in dissecting Dr Frank Joseph’s statistics”

one tries to do one’s best. but i am aware it is far from perfect.

have i found any flaws with the ARTICLE? yes, many.

have i found any flaws with the statistics? some of them do not deserve to be called statistics in the first place, they’re more individual opinions of people who are not unbiased. so to cite them as “scientific” is misleading.

it is hardly fair to take what a christian journalist reports in a newspaper as statistics, that is the “untruth” that Dr FJ has told.

i chose the examples in my comment because they’re the most damaging. i will work through the rest of the “statistics” when i have the time.

however, i find it very interesting to note that many a times Dr FJ only mentioned the journal/magazine/newspaper and the date, without the author or the article name. that makes it difficult to trace how credible his sources are, and also may be construed as name-dropping.

valid points of my concern:

- Dr FJ’s references are very, very outdated
- a lot of his statistics are not real statistics in any scientific meaning
- of the scientific work mentioned, some that i have checked:
> Jay and Young: research methodology criticised. sample not representative.
> Family Research Institute: a discredited scientific institution. founder dropped from APA for lack of accountability in his research methods.

i admit i haven’t been able to trace the article published in Psychological Reports by Paul Cameron et al. from the Family Research Institute. i will comment when i have found it.

i went through Dr FJ’s article again and found that 8 out of the 29 references cited do not even appear in the article !! now there are only 2 possibilities,
a. the article has been edited by unknown persons
b. Dr FJ was name-dropping

examples of those references NOT cited in article, yet FOUND on the references list:

(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.

(14) Manlight, G. et. al. “Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens.” J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.

(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.

(26) United States Census Bureau

(28) University of Chicago’s Nation Research Corp.

(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

ok, so i came out with my own statistics: 8 out of 29 items cited in the references are not found in the article. thus the article is not to be trusted as a “scientific” source.

individual points may still be valid, but you have to mention which are they. i’d then check if they come from valid and credible sources, and if so, if there are any more recent findings that negate those points.

i’d also like to address one of your many concerns: “Demonizing the man who cannot defend himself is not only unfair, it is also tantamount to killing the messenger!”

i don’t know Dr Frank Joseph personally, and i beleive as a doctor he would have done may good works in his lifetime. however, whenever one uses one’s real name AND credentials to post stuff on the internet, one has to be ready to face the consequences, i.e. criticisms.

his articles has been widely cited by the anti-homosexual camp, as far as i’m concerned, and that is damaging. when i’m ready, i will gather my own set on statistics, which hopefully will be more credible than his.

@ 111) sllim on April 27th, 2009 4.14 pm

thank you for your kinds words, silim.

TJ “the joker”,

I think he’s not praising you enough. I’m an Enigma. Try beating that. Now I shall go Return to Innocence… oh ya ya! oh ya ya ya!…

ha, Zefly, one day i Plen to come up with my own set of statistics…

oh, i missed something.

“i went through Dr FJ’s article again and found that 8 out of the 29 references cited do not even appear in the article !! now there are only 2 possibilities,
a. the article has been edited by unknown persons
b. Dr FJ was name-dropping”

another possibility is (c) Dr FJ forgot to put in those references.

You can’t win, tj.

When people believe in absolutes, they will only seek absolute explanations. When you use words figuratively, they will take it in a literal way out of its context to disprove you. Being comfortable with ambiguity eludes them.

It’s like the connect-the-dots exercises we used to do as kids. For some people, just by looking at the dots, they see the shapes and objects you will get when you finally connect all the dots together, (or maybe halfway or three quarters). But others may not even see the object even after finishing the exercises.

#121) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.47 am

“I need to go hug a tree…”

I am concerned about your need to hug a tree. That is not natural as neither Oprah nor Martha Stewart has endorsed that. It is against the law of nature to embrace nature and if you are ignorant, then I as a concerned citizen must teach you so. I am also concerned about you advocating same tree sex on this site. That is a bad message and could cause thousand, nay, quadrillions of young impressionable teenagers to lust uncontrollably after trees. And what would NEA say? (nothing – they would say that’s a town council problem).

“Why?” I hear you cry piteously, is it bad to hug a tree? Come, let me assuage the pain you are feeling, let me counsel you. Now the reasons why it is baaaaddd, is because..erm because…err..well, never mind, it’s just bad……

Now repeat after me and you shall be healed :
For boys : “Hug girl good, Hug tree bad”.
For girls : “Hug boy good, hug tree bad.”(say it 10x)

Now go forth and sin no more.

It is increasingly apparent that you can’t really have a rational discussion with certain sorts of obsessives : creationists, 911 troofers, holocaust deniers, flat earthers, religious fundies of all ilk, political and race extremists. Some of these people may be well educated and give the initial appearance of reasonableness, of engaging with the facts but the faultlines soon appear . Shifting goalposts, shifty claims to dubious sources of authority, false analogies, obsessive insistence that EVERY detail be accounted for, and ultimately, a refusal to deal with uncertainty. These people are obsessives not because they are led to their positions by the empirical evidence, as they oft claim, but because they have the type of personalities and emotional and mental vulnerabilities that lead them to these hardline irrational positions.

The futility of engaging with them is that you can’t change their minds – DR FJ is a discredited source , and an undergrad trying to pass off this study as a thesis would be kicked out of uni for flouting established rules on reference citation etc- but will Curious ever admit it? No. The debate is really for the disinterested observer who might have been suckered with the initial academic glitter of the ’statistics’ quoted and taken it for substantial scientific opinion.

I am so glad and hopeful for Singapore that we have people like HT, TJ, Slim around to point out the obvious.

tj #127,

It might be fair and well to refute the findings of a research paper by pointing out discrepencies and faulty methodologies elsewhere in the world but what Curious really really wants can only be gotten from a a nemesis of the good doctor: A Satanic social scientist.

I am afraid you have your work cut out for you.

Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #123,

Apparently prayer (mumbling to yourself earnestly) works great. Millions can attest to this. Sadly no research paper can…

silim #128

My method is simply imagining the offending person in front of me and he/she has a buddha-like smile and he/she is radiating miilions of tiny pink (oh, must be careful of the word ‘pink’ – very sensitive) hearts that float around like bubbles and he/she is also dancing to the tune of Boy George’s Hare Krishna.

And then I will invite them to hug this magnificent rainbow-colored coconut tree where my Inner Gay Bogeyman lives, and after that we will all sit under the tree and have tea, and Winnie the Pooh, Christopher Robbins, Piglet and the Smurfs will join us and we will read fairytales like Alice In Wonderland and Wizard of Oz…

Dang, I need to get off the weed…

131) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.55 pm

Beware the Fundiewock, Zefly!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Bigoted bird, and shun
The frumpy new exco!”

With apologies to Lewis Carroll, don’t want to be accused of plagiarism. There a lawyer monitoring us all, you know.

The lawyer needs to chill. I can share my weed with her. She can also come hug my rainbow colored tree.

Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) #134,

You might want to be less cavalier about your indiscretions :)

I hope no one would accuse me of bestiality if I fondle my imaginary unicorn. Thought crime, anybody?

Mirax, I am offended that you didn’t count me as one of those rational people even though I believe in unicorns and Odins and Thors.

Go hug my rainbow-colored tree.

122) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 28th, 2009 12.47 am

1″Curious, please take a look at the criticisms of consquentialism on this website -http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_4.shtml”

That is not the end of the world. The conventional wisdom is that there is litany of criticisms and opinions on all social systems and no one has found a perfect society yet not even in fabled Utopia.

John Stuart Mill, the famous proponent of Utilitarianism, which you seem to wax lyrical over, once said “What is commonly called Utopian is something too good to be practicable; but what they appear to favour is too bad to be practicable.”

2″I dare not criticize your words from now on lest I am accused of demonizing you. (I freak out whenever people resort to shouting to get a point across – I apologize for my timidness).”

But I see you are not too timid to imply that I “resort to shouting to get a point across.” That is another cheap shot. Nice try. But the only person who “shouts” to get his Q&A completed was in fact you and to add insult to injury you misrepresented the fact that you did not say anything on same-sex marriage !

3″Now to answer your question “I’m working on a thesis of how we can overcome our prejudices by confronting the Inner Bogeyman.”

Is that for your Phd or Masters Degree or is it just an informal essay?

4″I’m hoping to publish it on Facebook when I get around to writing it instead of replying you. Let me know your email address or facebook address I can send you a copy. ”

When do you expect to publish this thesis? I shall read it and give you a feedback, gratis! And when I finally get to publish my thesis on How to write a Thesis I shall publish it on facebook too.

5″I’m not sure if that makes me qualified… but it helps in making me overcome my own homophobia, which I also justified with a host of reasoning – ”

So you are a homophobe? That’s where we part company because I am not!

6″hence I’m very familiar with your line of thinking, which makes me all the more disappointed you have not been very receptive to my offer to help..”

But how are you able to help when you are a homophobe and I am not? It will be like asking a fox to look after the hen house !!

7″(see I answer so many things you ask, even though I’m uncomfortable with answering them!)”

But you conveniently missed two important questions :

A) Was that a nuanced taunt or is it a genuine invitation to treat?
B)Are you a qualified counseller or a registered psychiatrist or both?

How about answering them now so that I can see what is behind the enigmatic veil !

Mirax #129,

These guys are indefatigable, must be all that ressurection talk.

Mirax, I am offended that you didn’t count me as one of those rational people even though I believe in unicorns and Odins and Thors.

Go hug my rainbow-colored tree.

that was becos you are in a special and fanstastic category all by yourself, Zefly. Go easy on the horn stroking though, eh? Distressed unicorn may go to the Thiomentor with a complaint and we’d have to start with this circus all over again.

Slim, the tirelessness is the obsessive’ s trademark trait
Cause : A lack of life, friends, love,self-awareness, sense of proportion, cognitive dissonance?

@ 129) mirax on April 28th, 2009 12.20 pm

thanks, mirax. now let us go and drink tea under Zefly’s rainbow-coloured tree and say hi to his unicorn.

@ 130) sllim on April 28th, 2009 12.33 pm

i’m afraid so too, sllim. he even refuses to talk to me nowadays… *sniffs*

@ 128) HT on April 28th, 2009 11.40 am

no, HT, it is because you fear your inner arborophile bogeyman that you preach against tree hugging. you should just admit it then come join us to sit under Zefly’s rainbow-coloured coconut tree and have tea. don’t forget to invite Eeyore on the way.

Tj,

We should all raise our cups of chai to Mary Wollstonecraft, the 250th anniversary of whose birth fell yesterday.

It was Wollstonecraft who gave the world the first sustained account of women’s subordination and the means of combating it. Her 1792 work, A Vindication Of The Rights Of Woman, is a vigorous defence of education for girls, equality in marriage, and women’s right to work. Women, she argued, were enslaved not only by the laws and practices that defined them as the property of their fathers and husbands, but especially by the limited education they received. Their capacities of reasoning and understanding were enfeebled, because they learned only to prepare themselves for marriage and a life of submission. This was damaging to society, as well as individuals. Tyrants, needing slaves, Wollstonecraft wrote, will “endeavour to keep women in the dark”. Education and equality will bring an end to such abuses of power.

ALL HAIL MARY!

145) tj on April 28th, 2009 10.01 pm

Thank you and thanks to all of you who have contributed to the voice of reason. Yes, I freely admit my fears and lets sit under Zefly’s rainbow-coloured tree for tea, free from strange happenings and secret agendas.

aw, mirax! I’m sad that I’m not among the rational either… XD

perhaps I need to be more active… mmm

OMG, you guys are a riot! lol

This thread has deviated out of proportion.

Curious, my advice to you is to leave it. Pro-Life theology can never be appreciated by anyone outside the faith. They have no inkling of an idea why you place so much importance on protecting a life. They have a pro-choice ideology to uphold so that they can free themselves from the guilt of prematurely ending a life – under the pretext of a logical “I have a choice” reasoning.

For the record, I too am pro-Life and I too believe in the mysterious ways of the Almighty God, whose ways are beyond my ways, and for which we strive to understand Him each day, as much as He already knows us.

Yours is an argument that is very much in line with what Ceasar had asked of Jesus when he questioned Him, “What is Truth?”. Your reply has to be the same as Jesus’s.

To the rest, I write this as an advice to Curious and I do not want to invite a debate toward my comments. Thank you very much.

Strange going ons. What has pro-life theology got to do with Dr FJ’s statistics??

Actually it’s not that strange and my question is rhetorical.

I do not believe in abortion, infidelity, etc etc. I extend ‘pro-life’ theology to include making life livable for other people. But i believe it has to be balanced with the understanding of ‘choice’. Who is anybody to take away free will which God himself has given to everyone? (but with an understanding that people whose exercise of free will causes death and injury and theft has to be put away)

I can only gently nudge people towards the ‘right’ direction with right conduct, speech and thought (but I’ll freely admit I’m not the best example), not hit them on the head repeatedly.

Dear Zefly (have to address you this way coz there’s another Joshua in our midst), that is the choice you have decided for yourself, and because it is your choice, others must respect it.

People who are pro-life have also excercised their right to choose and they have chosen to uphold the sanctity of life. In the same manner therefore, their choice has to be respected. I hope you exercise your pro-choice stance and give room to the pro-lifers and allow them the choice they made for themselves ;)

I hope we do not have to reopen the line of argument that goes along “but he said this and that!”. In your own words, which you have only recently taught me, can we agree to disagree?

Let us return to our focus which is the trust being lost by the action of the group of women from COOS.

Thank you.

“I hope you exercise your pro-choice stance and give room to the pro-lifers and allow them the choice they made for themselves ;)”

And what is their choice? To practice it among themselves or extend it to everyone? Your right to extend your arm ends at my nose.

Using an analogy – If my (future) teenage daughter gets pregnant because she wasn’t careful, it is up to ME as a parent to talk her out of an abortion. It’s up to ME to tell her that life is a gift of God etc etc… It is not up to some organisation I don’t even belong to to make it illegal and impossible for her to get an abortion, simply because they believe in upholding the sanctity of life.

You SEE the difference?

In another words, germani,

the point of contention isn’t how we all differ as to whether Life begins at birth or conception, (I believe in the latter), or whether there is a gay gene (I know too little to say) – The point is, what happens next?

And this is how it leads to ‘THE TRUST IS GONE’.

Because there is an unspoken agreement in general that however one sees the issues of life and gender preference, one can debate vigorously, but ONE DOESN’T CROSS THAT LINE WHICH MAKES it difficult for another person to practice his views and choices.

THAT is why the TRUST is lost.

The difference between ‘pro-lifers’ and ‘pro-choices’ isn’t so much about what defines life or gender pref, many pro-choicers I know believe in the sanctity of life – some have even chosen to become single parents despite the social stigma – The difference is that Pro-choicers trusts in people’s abilty to make sound choices, to make mistakes, and learn from them most of the them, and Pro-lifers don’t.

Your statement ‘They have a pro-choice ideology to uphold so that they can free themselves from the guilt of prematurely ending a life – under the pretext of a logical “I have a choice” reasoning’ just smacks of utter lack of compassion for the people who are haunted by the stigma of guilt when they resort to abortion because they have no choice. Even if they had done it under unsound mind, our role as Christians is to free them from guilt, NOT to chain them to eternal shame.

thank you.

152) gemami

1″Curious, my advice to you is to leave it.

Thanks Gemami. That is a sound advice. That was why I said you rock!

2″Pro-Life theology can never be appreciated by anyone outside the faith.”

Nevertheless, we shall never give up hope nor should we say “margaritas ante porcos.”

3″Yours is an argument that is very much in line with what Ceasar had asked of Jesus when he questioned Him, “What is Truth?”. Your reply has to be the same as Jesus’s.”

I think His reply was ” I am The Truth.”

But I just an ordinary guy so my clinical answer to those who dice with death and destruction shall only be a verse from Afred Tennyson’s poem “Charge of the Light Brigade” :

“Forward, the Light Brigade!” (Read GLBT)
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.”

And to those who are pro-life I say never forget you are on the right side of the equation. So to you and those who are passing by, including the GLBTs I like to invite you all to see this audio visual presentation on ” why Life is Beautiful !”

http://www.greatdanepromilitary.com/Life/index.htm

Disclaimer : This AV was sent to me by a friend. Though it is from a pro-military website, I am not pro-military. I am pro-peace but will not hesitate to fight for the Truth, because “Truth enlightens man’s intelligence and shapes his freedom.”

154) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 29th, 2009 4.10 pm

Very well said.
Free will should not infringe upon the freedom of others to choose what they believe is best for themselves.
Just because some fight for the right of each individual to make their own choices as responsible adults doesn’t mean that they are indiscriminate and hypocritical murderers. (as germani seems to be implying)
The pro-choice group is very diverse and simply cannot be pigeonholed… much less stuffed into such a narrow-minded and evil little stereotype.

cheers.

154) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 29th, 2009 12.33 pm

1″ Who is anybody to take away free will which God himself has given to everyone?” …Zefly

The state, for one, if anyone violates the Penal Code.

2″ (but with an understanding that people whose exercise of free will causes death and injury and theft has to be put away)” …Zefly

And not forgetting folks who carry deadly communicable disease like SARS, TB, leprosy, smallpox, and now Swine Flu! They need to be put into quarantine to prevent the disease from spreading to the general public at large.

3″I can only gently nudge people towards the ‘right’ direction with right conduct, speech and thought (but I’ll freely admit I’m not the best example), not hit them on the head repeatedly.” …Zefly

That sound byte will go down very well in any unsuspecting community, but I see you have contradicted yourself when you posted this “scary” comment in the thread “MOE replies to questions about AWARE’s CSE programme”. I quote :

“53) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 29th, 2009 9.29 am

Fundies are dangerous not because they are stupid but because they are more inclined to act on it.”

That was hardly an example of “gently nudge people towards the ‘right’ direction with right conduct, speech and thought.”

IMO,that was clearly an example of an insensitive religious rhetoric, stereotyping and childish name-calling.

All posters should be reminded not to mix religion with politics in AWARE’s internal affairs, because the high-octane mixture is an explosive!

Thanks for adding to my comments Curious, now, if you carefully read the fine-print-

“(but I’ll freely admit I’m not the best example)”

means sometimes neither am I am a good example. I KNOW I am not righteous, dude. And I thank God that I am not because the day I say I am is the day I start to see things in black and white only.

Now as for you quoting me – “Fundies are dangerous not because they are stupid but because they are more inclined to act on it.””

(It’s amazing you actually took the time to look through other threads, just to find something to refute me… really dedicated….)

I think you should respect TOC instead of copying and pasting this because TOC said already cannot use the ‘f’ word. And in copying it from one post to another, you are also guilty of fanning the flames :P

Next, if you are not a f….e, you have no reasons to get so worked up. (and you can really cut down on the exclamation marks). I mean, you are neither bigoted, nor are you unintelligent, because you said so. And I have yet to see a single person say that they are ‘f…..es’, so why would anyone get upset? ONLY the people who see themselves in what is written get upset dude.

And seriously, stop using the religious red card whenever people criticize others who practice extremism in the name of religion.

If you can’t tell the difference between extremism and religion then you can consult my rainbow-colored tree. (and btw, I put that statement on my facebook and many people actually agree… but they aren’t credible sources like Dr Mojo In the Mountain…)

Oh. And hugs also.

Curious,

At any rate, let’s close this thread already shall we? It’s gone on for far too long and is bordering on the ridiculous, (not to mention quite trouble to search for this article among the ‘previous articles) and I will admit to having a part to play in it. If I had offended you, I can only say it’s easier to piss people off when you’re not facing the person you are addressing. You, like MOST of the people I disagreed with, are probably good people too, and we probably are more similar to each other than we care to admit. (eg, refusing to back down,,, EVER!!! lol) The only reason why we even bother is because we care enough to stand for what we believe in. (backhand compliment to myself, pat pat)

Topics of rights, religion, and ‘morals’, life and death, are always going to be emotionally charged whether you like it or not. They bring out the best, they bring out the worst.

I’ll see you in some other thread. Can’t promise I won’t be mean though.

Cheers. :)

61) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang)

1″Thanks for adding to my comments Curious, now, if you carefully read the fine-print- “(but I’ll freely admit I’m not the best example)”

Don’t thank me and don’t try to make any lame excuse. You are responsible for the insensitive and derogatory religious remarks and I see you have not made any apologies, and you have no remorse at all. It’s religious subterfuge!

Then it got worse. You led gullible people to believe that you only “gently nudge people towards the ‘right’ direction with right conduct, speech and thought.”

What a BS artist ! That why I said you are an enigma, wrapped round a riddle in a maze of conundrums!

2″Now as for you quoting me – “F…are dangerous not because they are stupid but because they are more inclined to act on it.”

There you said it again! Wow! How insensitive can one get?

3(It’s amazing you actually took the time to look through other threads, just to find something to refute me… really dedicated….)”

I looked at the thread and since some of the posts, like yours, are laden with “insensitive religious rhetorics, stereotyping and childish name-calling” I decided to give it a wide berth. But it shows that hypocrisy is not hard to expose and one can run but, in this era of the internet ,one cannot hide!

4 “I think you should respect TOC instead of copying and pasting this because TOC said already cannot use the ‘f’ word.”

And you are exempted from using it? That’s a laugh. Why the double standard?

5″And in copying it from one post to another, you are also guilty of fanning the flames.”

The damage was already done. What was important was to expose your sanctimonious hypocrisy so that you will stop more such insensitive remarks.

6″And seriously, stop using the religious red card whenever people criticize others who practice extremism in the name of religion.”

It is you who should desist from making potentially inflammable religious remarks, not me ! Can you name anyone at Aware who “practice extremism in the name of religion.”? Where is your proof?

All I can say again is that if you mix religion with politics, the mixture is a high octane explosive that can blow up in your facebook! This is not a game. Its not about a childish rainbow-colored tree. Its about inflammable, religious remarks, stupid!

Curious,

Seriously, get off your Rush Limbaugh impersonation already. I won’t be revisiting this thread, so that probably will save you from wasting exclamation marks.

good night, god bless

162) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 29th, 2009 11.51 pm

1″Topics of rights, religion, and ‘morals’, life and death, are always going to be emotionally charged whether you like it or not.”

Then why fan the emotions by pouring more kerosene to the fire with insensitive and inflammable, religious rhetoric?

2″I’ll see you in some other thread. Can’t promise I won’t be mean though. ”

You can take your best shot .Mean people don’t frighten me. They are losers because they are so preoccupied with taunting, name calling, and innuendos and not with the substantive issues, that they cannot see the woods for the trees. Its the lying and subterfuge that are more nuanced.

164) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on April 30th, 2009 1.57 am

1 “Seriously, get off your Rush Limbaugh impersonation already.”

I don’t do impersonations.Only mean people do. So why don’t you get off your David Duke impersonation, now that this thread is closed?

Hello. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far.
I am from Czech and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Batam is a gateway to indonesia visit.Freelance seo specialist provides professional search engine optimization services.”

Best regards :-D, Bethany.