No worries, mate. I do know what you meant about the realities of the situation. Contrary to how I may sound on some occasions, I do believe in a rational gradual approach. Enough hearts and minds have to be won first before legislature can be made fairer, if not, we’ll still have a large number of people baying for overturning the said legislatures. (eg, Roe vs Wade in the US)

My arguments are mainly centred on challenging the usual paradigms that people have. ALL arguments, no matter how well-argued, have loopholes in them, including mine. In this way, it’s not so much about winning, but to trigger critical thinking, and to persuade others to think deeper about these issues – if they want to make a stand, at least know why you are making that stand.

I am not born without discriminations. Many of the arguments I read here were the same ones I would have made a few years ago. How I arrived at the conclusion that my past thinking was flawed was also through this process of challenging my own beliefs all the time, playing my own devil’s advocate.

More openly, it also shows that such issues can be discussed intelligently by two people from different standpoints without descending into immature taunts and name-calling.

At any rate, I believe we should shelf this discussion till another opportunity arises. But believe me, it had been fun, and I will admit to concuring with some of the points you made – just that for the sake of being a devil’s advocate, it would be improper to agree openly. lol!

Cheers.

I for one tot you were in opposition “to the GLBT community”. In point of fact I tot you were from COOS.

Anyway pls realise that words may have a meaning different from the intention of the author.

You do have a knack for misreading (distorting) what you read.

First thing first, we are agreed that reality supercedes the ideal.
Second, the GLBT is a struggling community and a small one.
Third, the majoritywill always stand in their way, as pointed out in my earlier arguments, which is mainly, the influence of its diverse mix of values and practises among which of those are that which are influenced by religious faiths, traditional, racial and cultural values.
Fourth, because of this opposing tide, the GLBT community will find it hard to break the tide unless it has the resolve of a salmon, and the support of the majority.

What is incorrect is that I am on the side of the majority. I am on neither side but on the side of reason. I have stated clearly, when replying to EH’s essay, that what he had written was based on Idealism, and it is good to work toward that ideal.

On my part, based on what I have written above, I am offering my take on:
1. What the GLBT is up against.
2. That their approach to gaining the confidence of the majority is thus far wrong and unacceptable.
3. That they begin to put into perspective, the fight that is before them (reality vs Ideal).
4. That their struggle is going to be a long, cold, hard and lonely one.

If you read all these as and take them to mean that I am in opposition to the GLBT community, then I can only say that you have read wrongly. Perhaps it is partly due to my fault that there were times when I had posted blunt and provocative comments, but these were made to get the point into the hearts and minds of the GLBT community and to show them the reality of the situation.

I have had my gay friends sitting next to me on numerous occassions when I wrote what I wrote and these friends understand exactly what I am trying to bring across.

If I am not supportive of them, I won’t even bother to spend my time writing all these comments.

You are right about that Gemami. So knowing all that you know, and me getting this feeling from you that you also want them to achieve their ‘freedom’ one day, why do you then choose to be on the side of the ‘majority’?

The journey for any groups with less than equal rights isn’t one that they can make alone. Without the support of the people on the mainstream, they will fail. Your point about realism is a good one. No one expects it will happen overnight. Not when there is still so much opposition to the idea. If it happens now, there may even be some level of backlash against the GLBTs. But it can happen just that tad bit sooner when one more person decides not to be part of the discrimination.

So what’s more important to you? To be their obstacle, or to choose what your conscience tells you?

I have no reason to disagree with you and you are right “that a group of persons making certain claims about how they ought to be treated (does not)violate community values and mores“.

No one from the mainstream made a big hoo-haa over penal code 377 when it was repealed and couples can how happily go on and have the type of sex they wanted. Unfortunately for them, there are limitations in the form of article 377A where sex between men is still illegal. There was a parliamentary debate over this and the mainstream community was rather cool to the debate.

However, with the recent developments over the Aware saga, mainstream community are beginning to discover that this small community have been ‘infiltrating’ our education system, in a trojan manner, to advance its cause. The explanation from Dana thus far, is far from convincing.

Yes, some children with gay leanings were taught to deal with their sexual orientations, but mind you, these lessons are taught right in front of a classroom full of otherwise heterosexual kids. In the process of attempting to help these sexually disoriented kids find their identities, do you not think it might just confuse the heterosexual ones?

Taking this example, do you need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what the reaction will be from mainstream society? It cannot be otherwise. It is the same reaction one would get from a trojan-infiltration.

la nausée, with utmost respect, I would like to point out that it does not matter what the concepts are, whether it is government law or policy, whether it is a public domain or a school domain, whether we are all-embracing and all-tolerant or not, the picture is clear – that majority rules. Period.

In every society, there are many areas of concern, econonic concerns, political concerns, family concerns, employment concerns and the list is a never-ending one. In an Asian society, we have additional concerns over those of our non-Asian nationals. We have traditional concerns, cultural concerns, racial concerns etc. At the end of this long list will you then find GLBT concerns, if there is one at all.

So you see, just like Eh, you have painted an ideal scenario where everyone can live in harmony regardless of race, language, religion, sexual preferences and whatever else you may want to add to it. My advise to the GLBT community is to get real, know your situation, know where you stand, approach your agenda with this understanding, be patient, lots of patience because your journey to freedom is a long hard one. Until the walls of the unaccepting society are stripped apart, your struggle continues.

This piece deserves a follow up.

Yr take on the reversal of MoE stand on the CSE.

Not often government back-tracks?

Tell me then, in this context, is the CSE programme of educating our young boys and girls that same sex copulation is perfectly normal. How does one describe such behaviour? You can protest, you can assemble, you can state your case, but what you cannot do is to take it upon yourself, self-interpret that a secular and liberal society ought to be all-embracing, all-tolerant and therefore all-accepting even to the extend of listening to a strange and queer doctrine.

I think we’ve to distinguish here between three different contexts: government law and policy, the public sphere, and the school environment. The principle of toleration does not mean that our laws must be “all-embracing” and “all-tolerant”; government can legitimately prefer one moral conception over all others, as long as that conception is supported by a reasoned agreement among citizens, arrived at after full debate. This in turn means that our public sphere should be as ‘all-embracing’ as possible. The only way a State can justify its use of coercive force on a person is if it has given him or her ample chances to voice his or her disagreement, before and after legislation. You say this:

To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.

I disagree. I do not think the mere fact that a group of persons makes certain claims about how they ought to be treated violates community values and mores. 377A means only that a gay man cannot lawfully engage in MSM; it does not mean that he may not lawfully criticize, and mobilize public opinion against, 377A itself.

However, the school environment may well involve different concerns from those prevailing in the public sphere. Our main objective in schools is not to ensure robust political debate, but to build intellect and moral character. We can insist that education (at least for younger students) does not, and ought not, to include the development of political consciousness or independent moral thinking among students, or that this should rank far behind other priorities. So we tell them the mainstream view, “Homosexuality is wrong”, without telling them the counter-arguments defended by an important minority in society, because we don’t think young students can comprehend or assess them.

As you see, I’m highly skeptical of this argument, which I think is putting the conservative position in its best light. Why shouldn’t political and moral self-consciousness be nurtured from a young age? If society divides over the issue of 377A, shouldn’t we let our young ones know a little about both sides of this controversy? (I concede, though, that the phrase “perfectly normal” may swing too far towards a gay-tolerant stance.)

“glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. ”

If it was lifted from the works of John Locke, CHRISTIAN philosopher, 1689 then how it be eh’s essay? In polite circles it is called boarding on plagiarism.

1“What more do you want?”..Curious

“Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.”…Zefly.

But are you in heaven yet? If not then you have to obey Singapore’s laws.

Here you only have a right when society owes you a liability. There is a racial minority but there is no such thing as a “sexual minority” in law and therefore society does not owe the fringe lunatics any liability. Yet civil society is tolerant.

As I said in Nazi Germany they rounded them up and shot them dead.

Not in Singapore because we are a civilized society, even when your ilks mired it with mob rule, death threats, hooliganism and despicable behavior on May 2nd.

2“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”..Curious
“You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.”…Zefly.

I exist not because I chose to exist and I exist to live a quiet life in the suburb, knowing that there are lunatics all around me and I live and let live. What more do you want?

glad to see my short essay got some intelligent discussion. however, this shall be my last post – my mum has decided to regulate my internet usage to 2 hours a day after this aware thing and i think i rather play neopets, facebook and wow than to talk heatedly on a forum.

my parting shots:
1. even if it’s a secular group shutting down a religious group, i will stand up against it. i may not agree with what you are saying but i will defend your right to say it. (beatrice hall)
2. i strongly believe that as long as civil rights of others are not compromised by the actions of one, he should enjoy equal rights under our law. which is why homosexuality cannot be criminalised.
3. yes, singapore is made up of very conservative people and organisations, but let’s keep the conservatism in our own space and give the rest the space to live their lives as they define. that is what a secular, liberal country is about. that is what tolerance is. and that is what i want in my country.

those who seek to impose their readings of morality as a universal absolute, u have to agree to a state where one day we need to abide by the values of every group – no char siew, head scarves for all, fri, sat and sun cannot work (GOOD), and cannot have onions and blah.

k la. dun want to play le.

bye bye!!!!

We all do what we can. That’s why it’s called a debate. Besides, as long as it is intelligently argued, we all benefit from differing views. Cheers mate.:)

“What more do you want?”

Do not presume that the rights of anybody is for you -who thinks he is the majority- to give. It is God given.

“It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society. ”

You exist. It’s not as tolerant as you think it is. Nuff said.

I like your style – sometimes – and you seem to have a certain dexterity to narrow things down to suit your argument. I do not think we can align our argument here and I think it is best we call for a truce. Agree to disagree. I’m tired and need to go for a meeting now.

“In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well.”

But I am not of the same faith as your mysterious author so how dare you accuse me of agreeing with him !! Where is your credibility?

Maybe the nuance escaped you. Maybe the author was relating a joke, even if it is inappropriate. What is the title of the book?

2″Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.”

I hope you are referring to your mysterious author and not to me saying that “reincarnation is a lie” because I don’t have any such proof yet.

But if you believe in Buddhism then could it be that your previous life your karma was weak , so now you are born and chastened with gender identity crisis?

3″Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what?”

That is a non argument. It did not happen and this shows that Singapore is a tolerant society.

In Nazi Germany, they used to round up the gays and shoot them dead!

That is not even remotely contemplated in Singapore, where, though the mainstream civil society quietly don’t approve of homosexuality, it tolerates its chicanery! What more do you want?

Woah. Hold it right there. Weren’t you the one who used the example of the GLBT views as a religion to make your point in the first place?

I’m using what your belief and faith which you hold so dear to illustrate a point my friend. They are allowed to exist in the public space in spite of the fact that they will, and they do, offend some members of society. You can see it easily on a lot of comments here. And yet you not only ask for the right to hold those views, but for us to be tolerant and understanding of them, and also seek for them to exist in the public sphere, on the bookshelves etc etc… AND YET, when it comes to other views which have an equally valid right to exist – eg GLBT’s views that they are normal, you seek to limit them to only a few channels in the public/social dormain?

Sad but true many times the majority decides, and that’s the end of it, but do not try to justify it.

I know you guys have been gloating over your victory over Josie and Co. But I suggest the LGBT community take some time to think over what they have done for themselves to help in the assimilation process.

I think these people, and the Aware old guards in particular, must be gracious enough to thank Josie and Co for what they did to bring attention to this LGBT community. They have done, in 5 weeks, what the old Aware was not able to do in 24 years.

Today, more Singaporeans are more aware of the plight of this group of people than at any time of our 40+ year history. Ironic isn’t it?

It is not about tolerance. It is about intepretation. How else have we been co-existing all these years, of mankind’s existence. It is not tolerance. If it is a question of tolerance, the minority will not have a ghost of a chance.

You know very well, and I have made it quite clear, that where religion or the sipritual aspects of religion is concern, I will not want to enter there. This is because religion cannot be explained in a discourse such as this. It takes years upon years of study and reflection to spiritually divine what is of the spiritual and religious realm.

No brother, we cannot discuss religion. This is why I gave you my answer. The answer is in the non-answer. See?, you cannot understand nor can you grasp this – because it requires a belief in faith.

So then, I say it is a question of interpretation and the interpretation of the society at large, is that this little community of people, whose behaviours and practises are not of the normal descriptive types, as defined by the law of the land, must take its proper place in society. Sad but true, the only course of action they can then take is to slowly win over the trust of the larger community, and they can do this by not threatening the social fabric of that society.

Thank you germami for the none reply.

By your refusal to commit to an easy answer, you have already answered the question.

It’s not an issue of spirituality. It’s back to the issue of ‘tolerance’. What exactly does tolerance mean. Tolerance is an easy word to throw around when there isn’t really contentious or even offensive. In case of the book, the author has the right to his views, that any one who doesn’t share his faith is doomed to hell. And there are some of you (eg Curious) whom would be apt to agree as well. Now, however his views are deeply offensive to some, especially the faiths which he is quite obviously implying with the talk of ‘reincarnation being a lie’.

Again, I repeat, the offended parties could petition for the removal of such books from the public space because it portrays buddhists in a bad light, and may even encourage hate. Suppose that happens. Then what? Christians can then ask for muslim books to be banned from the same reputable bookstore as well because the books say Jesus is not the Son of God… and this can go on, until we only have a narrow ‘safe’ unoffensive selection of books.

You cannot answer that question because, assuming your views are the same as the author’s, they are now the offending ones. And you see the injustice if your views are silenced by a petition of 7000 people asking for the book to be removed from circulation.

Let’s not make your case sound holier than what it really is about. The needs of a very vocal bunch of people who do not know how to live alongside views and values that offend them.

Yours is an attempt to narrow the scope to suit what you want to bring across.

Yes, we have been hearing views from all quarters arguing for or against the subject of interest. Yet, your side refuses to acknowledge that LGBT is a grey area of our society. We do not need a straw poll to decide this. We have entrusted the government of the day to discern this for us. It was debated in Parliament, both sides were given ample space to argue their cases and the pragmatic result was one of non-acceptance. Don’t fault me for this.

You read wrongly by suggesting that I was implying that the LGBT community was ‘imposing’ while the larger community is not. I do not know how to convince you if you still do not see the reality of the situation here. It is not for you or me to argue it. The reality is the emphasis on the interests of the larger community – a community which is deemed to be ‘normal’ – to cut a long story short.

To press for the larger community to embrace, accept and adopt same-sex copulation as a norm, as the LGBT community had fought for in 377A, is going against the grain of the mores and values of the larger community – secular or liberal or tolerance notwithstanding.

As for your question, it transcends the realm of spirituality and what you understood from the narration could very well be different what I derive from it.

Correction “In Nazi Germany they used to round them up and shoot them dead !!