“It’s quite clear what’s right and what’s wrong” says Leslie.

And how can anyone define what is right and wrong based on ancient scripture? It seems to defy the individual logic (and even emotion) that we have as human beings.

“And how can anyone define what is right and wrong based on ancient scripture? It seems to defy the individual logic (and even emotion) that we have as human beings.”The Christian will give their typical answer: faith

While faith is important, what i cannot understand is how can people believe totally in a text that is written by other ancient people whose understanding of the teaching is typically not first hand and might be distorted by human fallacy and weakness.

If you accept your biological sex that you are born with, what else is there to change?

The fact is u believe all or nothing….how can anione who professes to be a christian believe one part of the bible and say “yes i agree with this part becos it suits my view of the world now” and then read another part and say “no this dun suit my view and the world and hence its wrong”….that would be called selective reading from the bible. Christians in this aspect u could say view or interpret things differently and verse from the bible but i dun tink ani christian would say this part of the bible is right or this part of the bible is wrong and thus, they still believe in the totality of the bible. Well, tink about it this way, there are many christians that dun support homosexuality yet the anglican church in england and metropolitian church in US supports gay marriage….they believe in the bible but view it differently.

Congrats to TOC for doing what the MSM has failed to do – doing actual research into homosexuality instead of just parroting the unsubstantiated opinions by both sides of the issue.

“Christians Can Change”

My original posting was not approved by the moderator. Probably he or she found the Biblical quotations likely to cause offence for some unfathomable reason? Anyway I will remove the quotation and instead just list the verses.

Regarding the statement – “If God has made me this way, then it doesn’t make sense to reject my gender identity. Yet at the same time it is quite clear what the Bible says. It’s quite clear what’s right and what’s wrong,” he adds.

According to the Bible you were not MADE like this by God! It clearly states that homosexuality was a conscious choice and a perversion.
Please read Romans Chapter 1 verses 21-26.

I cannot imagine how this guy can reconcile his belief and his condition! As LOL mentioned, one cannot selectively believe in the Bible. Neither should one deliberately misinterpret the Bible to suit one’s purpose. I often hear Christians say ‘O yes, it said that, but it doesn’t really mean that’. But in these fiery verses, there can be no dodging.

By the way I’m not a Christian. I cannot believe in a book that tells me the earth was created in 6 days.

pessimist@7: It is easier to believe than believing that it was all created out of one big bang.

is this article written to champion the homosexuality cause?

This article triggers 2 pertinent questions:

(1) Is homosexuality wrong and therefore needs changing?
(2) If so, is conversion therapy the answer?

(1) Homosexuality is clearly wrong on at least 2 perspectives. One, the biblical view is obviously dead against it, but it does so based on religious authority alone. Two, the more interesting view is that of Naturalistic Ethics which view homosexuality as empirically against the nature of Man as it serves no useful purpose in the innate drive for survival.

(2) Homosexuality is a complex social phenomenon. Its medicalization, and therefore attempts at therapy, whether Conversion Therapy or other methods, are ill-advised and unproven.

8) Stranger

err… the big bang takes place over i-don’t-know-llions(?) of years. The ’stuff’ come together via gravity to form planet and systems, undergoes processes, etc which takes another few i-don’t-know-llions(?) of years , and then chemical processes starts and life begins, which takes yet another i-don’t-know-llions(?) of years. Then it had to evolved and so on .. until today.. where the age of the universe is estimated at 13.5 to 14 billion years old (wiki source)

The time scale is boggling… it’s not a snap of fingers, and planets and moons everything just appeared after the big bang you know. … unlike the 6 day thingy, which really is the equivalent of a snap of finger, when the time scale is in billions of years.

What abt ppl who are not Christian? Why should they be subjected to the ‘right and wrong’ of the scripture. It makes no sense. As an athetist, I have the right to decide my own life. If I am LGBT, I am. If I am not, I am not. Why should I answer to a church/ God/ CHristian that makes no sense to me. What is the logic to that.

lobo76@9: but still the odds of something being created out of nothing is greater than something being created by someone.

hi there, 6 days is a figure of speech. 6 days to God could mean the trillions or zillions of years u are talking about. Because to christians, God transcends time.

Anyway, lets not turn this into a religious forum thxs

The big bang starts from a singularity(original big bang theory not the other refined models) and take place very fast less than one picosecond but the cooling down and expansion of the universe take place very slowly. the stars only starts to form about 100millions years after the start of the big bang. The solar system and earth only form about 4-5 billion years ago.Any if other theory about multiverse holds true then our universe is not even the unique universe, just one out of many.

10) Stranger,

The big bang is not ‘nothing’. It is (fr Wiki) a “primordial hot and dense initial condition”.
Specifically, the big bang is just the phenomena on how the universe started. Maybe you want to ask who or what create the “primordial hot and dense initial condition” instead. Then you can even insert a ‘God’ here to say it create that dense stuff, which then had a ‘big bang’ which resulted in the universe today.

In the end though, why must we have an answer NOW? Can’t we leave it as unanswered, if all available theories are not proven?

Coming back on topic, if the ’cause’ of homo is not clear, then we just leave it as I-don’t-know. Frankly though, I don’t care about the ’cause’ at all. If there is no harm to others, then that is that.

To add on my point on 13,

Think about … body piercings or modifications. It is definitely NOT natural by any stretch of definitions. Yet, some of them can be gross as hell. There is also risk (of infection) to the person himself (to draw analogy to STD transmission stats amongst gays). But why is one acceptable, and not the other?

The ONLY difference is really just because one was mentioned in one book, and the other is not. In the end, only the religious argument has ’substance’ but we would probably all agree that we shouldn’t force others to accept our religion, right?

whatever floats mr lung’s boat. if denial is equated with self-acceptance, more power to shim.

By the way I missed out the most important verse – Romans 1 : 27. I think this is the basis for which (fundamentalist?) Christians believe that homosexuality is by choice, and therefore can be changed.

lobo76@13: Agreed! the big bang and creation are both theories. It all boils down to which one would you believe or which is easier for you to believe.

Stranger #16,

When it comes to science, “theory” has a different meaning as you are applying it to creationism. Theory of gravity, bacteria… for example.

“It all boils down to which one would you believe or which is easier for you to believe.”

Unlike creationism, scientific theories are not a matter of belief. It requires a mountain of evidence before a hypothesis is recognized as a theory. In fact, that’s how scientists get famous. They try to overturn a recognized theory with REAL evidence.

DrizztNeo on May 20th, 2009 1.57 pm
“While faith is important, what i cannot understand is how can people believe totally in a text that is written by other ancient people whose understanding of the teaching is typically not first hand and might be distorted by human fallacy and weakness.”

The bible is written by the breath of GOD. Humans are just the tool to write them out. The author is GOD alone. Bible is written by many prophets and apostles not just by one person but they never claim to be the author of GOD’s holy words. By HIS will the letters, scrolls and ancient parchments would not have been kept save and compile into present day bible. Humans are so fallen and nowadays people accused the word from GOD is ancient but it still speaks what is current till today nothing has been dated. In the bible, GOD destroyed the world in GENESIS with a huge flood during NOAH’s days and only NOAH and family survived all 8 of them ( if you know how to write the chinese word for boat you will see something about it) and the ARK is still lying in mount ararat in turkey till today, rampant immorality exists at that time (homosexuality, murder, taking any women one fancy, and many others despicable acts). Why you called them ancient? SINS has no expiry date, it doesn’t get old. What the bible has foretold, some had taken place (birth of ISRAEL) and will definitely happen again in the future in our lifetime.

SL

stranger and sllim,

Many scientist are beginning to hold on to the view of the big bang. As the universe is still expanding and has never stop. When GOD said “Let there be light!” it is not an illusion but a literal meaning to mean the birth of universe. If man is from a cave, we are from monkeys, i dun think we are so intelligent to write something like that. If everything is by chance we will all be dead. The earth can miss its alignment and goes into the path of the sun, or some other moons get into our way. If everything is by random chance and luck, i dun think humans can survive till now. For everything even the birds in the air can be well taken care of by GOD, how much more will GOD care for man. Nothing is left to chance in GOD’s creations, everything is according to his will and purpose.

Pessmists,
“By the way I’m not a Christian. I cannot believe in a book that tells me the earth was created in 6 days.”

I dont believe six days can be done in our time. GOD never says so much about his time and our time. His the creator, maybe one day when we meet him you can ask him about HIS time. But GOD created this world and universe, there ’s nothing to deny HIS great work. You do not need to be a highly educated to appreciate how beautiful HIS designs are, even an african tribal leader marvel at GOD’s work. They fear GOD. You can called him simple without scientific knowledge but this people lives in the wild and they see the wonderful beauty of nature itself.

Change? Like what Maureen did to change her religion from a Buddhist to Christian and within her Christianity days hopped from church to church (declared by her at RTC press conference). If changing of sexual orientation is as easy as Maureen’s whim, gay would have perished long before the first baby borned.

Why should we attempt to change God’s beautiful creation and deny the diversity in this planet, the peaceful existence of different creatures ranging from animals, insects and plants, with variation of genes, let alone the complexity of human beings? Each has displayed his own capability and contributions to this earth and because of forcing change we see war; we build machines, burned forest to make us happy at the expenses of our environment, cost of lives and many side effects that follow.

Gays are not experimental rat to be put away in lab awaiting mental torture and than failed to get answer out of something already so ancient.

Change should imply happiness and not sufferings. If gay are happy, why suffer them by battling your way into their private territory and mess it up. Gay people owe their lives to themselves and do not have to answer to anyone. God make them no less normal than heterosexual and many have even outperformed themselves when called upon to serve this country, such that they deserve equal space and rights to live life of their own, not necessarily have to fulfill a woman’s sexual needs.

If the gay’s parents are happy with their children, on what ground do strangers think they have the audacity to rob other people happiness? Did someone get killed, heterosexual life threatened, family broken, and country go into war because of gay existence? More often, the bulk of family & country’s problems were created in heterosexual world and gay are often looked upon as role model to help heterosexual see things clearly thru their eyes and help bond family together.

Perfection does not exist, neither can heterosexual prove it. Anyone who think they are perfect and morally higher than gay, in the name of religion, have them to blame for living in deceit and not because of gay existence. As a matter of fact, it is easier to change the mind of hardcore fundamentalists (thru mentoring) than to change the gene of gay already existed for centuries. Change is a denial of other lives existence.

If you did Shakespeares in school, you probably have had a hard time deciphering the old language. And that book was written maybe , I don’t know, less than 100 years ago? Interpretation becomes subjective. Over time the teachers start telling you a different tale based on the same book. One day someone may say that Shakespeare is a cookbook.

So by comparsion, we have a whole bunch of people having their faith based on a book being pass down for umpteen generations, re-interpretated for a gazillion times, perhaps with parts added and subtracted (hokiien= kay yew kay chor), maybe even multiplied, square-rooted etc.

I leave you with that thought.

1) lobo76 on May 20th, 2009 4.53 pm ,

You came from the big bang. The billion of cells in your body came together to form you . What a bang? If that is possible scientist in the lab can create the big bang to create you. They can put together all the ingredients except the life or the soul that makes it move.But alas not even a cell can be created..
As for God with a just a snap of his fingers everything was created. Who is GOD?????Because he is God , that is why he could do all these things, to create the universe. If you can understand God he is no longer god and that is why it is beyond you that he could create the universe with just a snap of his fingers. Evidence of GOd. There is evidence every where,. it is your CHOICE to accept or not to accept. He is not interested whether you believe him or not. Without you, he is still god. With God every thing goes, right or wrong , no one can question him. He does whatever he wishes. You think whatever you want, he is still God…..His values are absolute and not relative and they don’t change to keep up with joneses, ah lian, ah meng or ahmad o.
At the end of the day, it is your choice to believe the big bang or the creation.
Both are intriguing…if you believe the big bang , there is no afterlife. If you believe in the creation you are taking a big Risk but both require FAITH.

LOL@15 – Aren’t you in danger of being selective in your beliefs by declaring that a simple, straightfoward text to be ‘a figure of speech’?

Based on the discussion above, it appears to me that the belief that ‘homosexuals are by choice’ is tied to the Creationism system of beliefs. They will strenuously defend this stand, just as they deny the DNA evidence linking man to chimps, and the geological/archeological evidence of a much older earth.

Principle of Life ” Live and Let Live!” if you don’t harm anyone by your action!

By right Chinese being the descendent of Yellow Emperor shouldn’t be Christian at all and Jews are suppose to be Christian, not European!
But History tell us this World is not made like this.

Singapore like America is a Rojak Society! Respect each other Belief!

Hi,

I read with interest the line “Speaking in a sprightly, somewhat effeminate voice, he recalled how as a teenager, he would be constantly teased and ridiculed for his mannerisms.”

I’m wondering if there is a need to insert an adjective with negative connotations into this piece, and if the piece would read better if the sentence merely read: “Speaking in a sprightly voice”.

Hi Laremy,

thank you for your feedback regarding the article. I personally do not think has negative connotations, as Mr Lung himself has acknowledged that “residues” of his past mannerisms still exist in him.

So I thought it to be a fair description :-)

In my Uni days I was a gay & live with another gay but I realise what we did was most sinful n bloody discasting. Now I totally disagree that I am a gay, I have a wife and 4 lovely kids now.

Seems like the only religious group being viciously anti-LGBTs is the right-wing Christians. IMHO, the right-wing Christian can believe whatever they want, as long as they don’t insist that the others alter their life, education, etc, to adhere to their definition of “right and wrong”.

To paraphrase a common catch-phrase on freedom, “your (religious) freedom ends at the tip of my nose!”

Thus, in this aspect, I respect the right-wing Christians’ freedom to organise whatever Conversion Therapy they want for their own sheep. However, it is another matter if they insists on criminalising homosexuality, abortion and “whatever-else their interpretation of their bible does not approve of”.

slim@21: Nevertheless a hypothesis remains a mere theory until it is challenged and proven by being able to be repeated.

!8) Gambit… sigh…

The guy has already chosen to avoid the ’sin’ of homosexual sex already and is celibate. Why still be so mean? Statements like these clearly shows all the talk about ’sin’ is really just a cover up for intolerance for people who simple THINK (but don’t even act on it) different from you.

Stranger #34,

“Nevertheless a hypothesis remains a mere theory until it is challenged and proven by being able to be repeated.”

Once again, you are confused over how the scientific community uses the word “theory”. It is VASTLY different from being a guess, or even a hypothesis. A hypothesis has to earn its way, if you will, to being hailed as a theory. There is nothing “mere” about it. A veritable body of evidence has to support it.

That a scientific theory has to be repeatable (as you put it) is another common misconception.

Sp #23,

Monkeys and chance? I take it you are addressing the theory of evolution. It’s pretty clear you have a deep misunderstanding of it. But don’t just take my word for it. Read (or watch online) Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller to get a clearer understanding of what evolution is or isn’t (chance). They are both scientists and religious.

As for “let there be light”, there is a host of creation stories from a legion of religions. Some even more sensational than that one. Ron Hubbard’s, for example. He was a sci-fi writer and the founder of Scientology. His has bombs. His sounds even closer to the big bang theory, don’t you think? Or Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. If memory serves me, he was convicted of fraud before he (seamlessly?) became a celestial conduit.

The Watchman #27,

Assuming there is a God and afterlife. Everyone will still be taking a big risk. Because there are SOOOOO many creation stories and Gods to choose from. Since they can all be wrong but they can’t all be right, the odds are stacked, sadly, against everyone. Not to mention the religions (the majority) that went extinct, what if one of them was right?

Faith and science are complete opposites. For example faith deals in absolutes, science doesn’t.

Dear Terence,

If you may, please refer to a dictionary description of ‘effeminate’.

The word implies taking on the characteristics of a woman. Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with this.

However, the word originated at a time when weakness was associated with womanliness, as evident from the dictionary description that has been provided.

Hence, to use the word effeminate implies notions of weakness, whether intended or otherwise.

I suspect you wanted to describe his tone as being gentle or of a higher-pitch. That is fine. My preferred phrasing would be: “Speaking in a sprightly, feminine voice, he recalled how as a teenager, he was constantly teased and ridiculed for his mannerisms.”

That, IMHO, is more appropriate for the context of your piece.

I know the issue here seems to be purely one of semantics, but as a web-journalist, I hope you are aware of the power of words to shape meaning and more often than not, perpetuate negative stereotypes.

Nevertheless, thank you for your article. I enjoyed reading it bar the unfortunate word choice.

I wonder if Terence is going to also look at how the rest of Singapore view homosexuality.

Christians account for just about a sixth of the population (that’s not even taking into account foreigners living and working here). “Change” is not a big thing in the consciousness of people of other faiths or no faith. They take very different approaches toward LGBT people compared to the Christians, who are perceived these days to be hugely obssessed with the issue of homosexuality and sex, and who devote a substantial amount of time and effort on these issues.

If Christians do follow everything written in the scriptures, they will be so easily identified on the streets, by the fig leaf they ought to be wearing (and nothing else?).

(To Terence, “T” in LGBT refers to transgender, rather than transexuals. There is some difference. You may want to look it up.)

If we turn SG into another Sin City and would everyone be happier? The 1000 wearing pink or the other 4.5 millions who don’t?

Jesus actually said absolutely nothing about homosexuality. However, the closest analogy would be the case in Luke where the woman was caught for adultery and was about to be stoned to death. The people crowded around Jesus for his verdict. He said that to let those who have no sin cast the first stone. The crowd then hung their head and left silently. Now if we replace the woman with ‘homosexual’, and the crowd with ‘right-wing Christians’. We know his answer to these diatribes. Of course he told her to go and sin no more. Perhaps she did or didn’t. But these right-wing Christians are the perfect examples of the Pharasees of Jesus’ time.

Hi Laremy,

I thank you for your insights. Also, doing my own research, I came across this, which might be of interest to you.

I will made the appropriate changes.

27) The Watchman on May 20th, 2009 9.40 pm

I hope your so called ‘evidence’ is not ‘intelligent design’. To me, it’s just a convenient answer for things that they simply don’t have an answer to.

If God’s values are absolute and the Bible is the Word of God, why are they so many versions? Why are there new and old testaments? Why is slavery now a crime? Why do women now have equal rights? Why is eating shellfish now not a sin?

39) TKS on May 21st, 2009 6.40 am

Again you display the flawed thinking of ‘if you are not with us, you are against us’. Are there only 1000 pink and 4.5 who are opposed to them? What about the people who don’t care? What about the people whose ‘caring’ can be in a spectrum of degree? People who care, from a different perspective (anti-discrimination instead of pro or anti gay)?

Hi Brick,

thank you for your feedback. The scope of this article examines the Christian perspective of homosexuality, and their seeming preoccupation with changing them.

I do recognise that other religions handle this issue differently, and I do not rule out doing an article that explores other views in the future.

I will make the necessary amendments. This is the power of instant feedback!

We are taking this Homosexual vs. Religion thing a little too far. It isn’t just the Christians that are against the LGBTQs. Lots of older Singaporeans, have a certain mindset about this topic and does not approve. Instead of just attacking the Christians, I think we need to understand where they are coming from. I also hope that they would understand where the rest of us are coming from.

BTW. I am not Christian, I am living in San Francisco, where even though it is the gay capitol of the world, it is also situated in a country where the religious right is controlling the country. It is really frustrating that the fight has reached my home country.

Nothing personal, but I don’t think arguments along the lines of ‘majority wins’ (1000 vs 4.5M) should hold water in a debate about discrimination. Should all minorities here expect to face discrimination? Should one object the construction of ramps and lifts for the weak and disabled – the minority?

Even if we were to argue with numbers, the 1,000 that showed up @ hong lim is in no way indicative of the number of gays in Singapore. That would be like saying that the no. of Singaporeans who own dogs can be based on the number that brought their dogs out to walk last Sat at Botanical gardens.

Also, why should Singaporeans cave into the views of just one religious group? I’m agnostic and I don’t subscribe to what the bible says. It’s unproductive for religious groups to assert the “Bible says so” line of reasoning — it’s simply not reasoning!

TOC, there are more things to be concerned about that this whole gay issue. I believe you had other articles that said this as well. Can you focus on more important issues instead of pushing gay propaganda?

Your coverage of May 21 1987 renders more importance and you did a great job at it. Why take the risk of turning off your regular audience or supporters. We can deal with these later when we have some good opposition in parliament.

yea agree with Dick. there are more important issues, shouldnt the editor channeling more resources for that?

stop trying to cure people of their sexuality. and people will stop trying to cure you of your religion.

homosexuality has been around since before religion.

40) Pessimist on May 21st, 2009 8.46 am
Jesus actually said absolutely nothing about homosexuality. However, the closest analogy would be the case in Luke where the woman was caught for adultery and was about to be stoned to death. The people crowded around Jesus for his verdict. He said that to let those who have no sin cast the first stone. The crowd then hung their head and left silently. Now if we replace the woman with ‘homosexual’, and the crowd with ‘right-wing Christians’. We know his answer to these diatribes. Of course he told her to go and sin no more. Perhaps she did or didn’t. But these right-wing Christians are the perfect examples of the Pharasees of Jesus’ time.

I don’t think the comparison is appropriate at all.

I’m sure if the adulterous woman was teaching school children that ‘adultery is normal and neutral’, the story will not turn out the way it did.

Also, as far as I know, not a single homosexual has been stoned before in Singapore, So the story is a good story, but not relevant here.

46) Dick and 47)Amanda,

Actually both topics are related. It’s about the Rights of people in Singapore. One is the right to freedom of speech, the other simply the right to exist, to be not seen as a criminal.

Dick,

TOC has always covered the issues which everyone is concerned about. Perhaps you could tell us which issues you’d like to see here – which we have not covered?

Better still, would you like to help us cover these issues?

Wow observ,

going by your erm… ‘logic’, none of the NT parables would be relevant at all if you take everything so literally.

obser@51) You’re right if this refers to the AWARE saga. But for the Pink Dot event, I believe its still relevant with regards to these people’s right to be understood and accepted for what they are, even though I cringe at their photos above and don’t consider them normal (evolution gone awry!).

But isn’t adultery nowadays considered ‘normal and neutral’ by a lot of people? hehe!

slim@36: A “veritable body of evidence” supports the hypothesis of intelligent design as well.

Pessimist:
But isn’t adultery nowadays considered ‘normal and neutral’ by a lot of people? hehe!

Whether it is adultery or homosexuality (as used by you in your example), Jesus told the adulterous woman (or in your example, homosexuals) ‘go and sin no more’. Perhaps there is some usefulness in your bringing up the story after all.

Stranger #54,

In the case of ID, Michael Behe is one of its foremost proponents. If you refer to the court transcripts of the Dover Evolution vs Intelligent Design case (A PBS doco is available online), Behe concedes that, by his definition, Astrology (!!!) is also a science. Laughable yes, veritable, no.

Observ@55 – Well said. May I add that it also applies to their accusers who hung their heads and left in shame?

slim@56: “That is a misconception. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science.”

That people will choose to believe what they want to believe even if it is pure propoganda by the media is laughable yes, veritable no.

And by the way the accepted term is “theory of evolution” not “hypothesis of evolution”, as you have claimed.

Stranger #58,

Before I address the main point, where is it again that I mis-claimed “theory of evolution” as “hypothesis of evolution”?

In any case, here is the relevant court transcript and Behe’s interpretation (AND departure) of what a scientific “theory” means:

Q [to Behe] But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A [Behe] Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

He is of course loosening the definition of theory to what you mean by it: a guess

Slim@59: Without giving me a proper response to my suggestion of misconception to your earlier post, you have jumped to an entirely different topic. That is a ‘below the belt’.

Anyway this is the link to Behe Court transcript: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

It speaks for itself. And anyone may deduce what he or she wants from it.

Hi Dick and amandai@fisian.com,

Are you uncomfortable that some people’s ignorance are being challenged?

If indeed he has changed, then by now he should be happily married and most probably would have started a family with kids. Maybe he should honestly tell us as to whether he is able to happily fuck a lady now and start producing babies like a normal capable straight man.

If he can’t, it would only mean that what has really changed is only his thinking and beliefs, possibly with self denial of his own sexuality.

Stranger #60,

You want a “proper response”? You got it.

I didn’t misconceive anything. He answered the questioned straight on and you are mistaken that he was not referring to “current times”:

“He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times.”

As evidenced by the transcript, which you also provided. Again, here is the question, verbatim:

“But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology [>>>]is[<<>>]Yes, that’s correct[<<<]. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is….”

“Is” connotes the present. “Yes” connotes affirmation.

What happened was that he severely loosened the definition of a scientific theory as it is used by the scientific community; so much so that the very notion of “evidence” is undermined i.e. everything can be “evidence” for everything. There is nothing veritable about “evidence” that supports such a “scientific theory” which he admits is equivalent to Astrology.

P.S. So where is it again that I mis-claimed “theory of evolution” as “hypothesis of evolution”?

And if anyone reading this believes that gay men can actually become ex-gay men, I have just one question for you: Would you want your daughter to marry one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/10savage.html

I hope no born-again feminist or anyone else will pursue a gag order to prevent the publication of Part 2.

i wonder why certain people just cant see the difference between ‘non-discrimination’ vs ‘pro-homosexuals’

p.s. those against SKH’s 2nd term should really re-examine their thoughts

No way Kelvin Tan@64, am I going to let my daugher marry one. Heteros are usually normal. Homos are disputably normal/abnormal. Homos who were changed into heteros via therapy or brainwashing are totally abnormal! Neither one nor the other. Not us, not them. My hairs are standing because it’s disg__ing.

I breed pets, observe heritable traits and genetic lineages and I certainly believe in evolution and somwhat the big bang. Before these theories were developed and hypothesised by scientists, there were ludicrous interpretation from the bible of what the world would be and how it was formed. Your theories are just parasiting on what the scientific world has put forth. Prove to us that 2 of each animals were taken aboard the Ark like how scientists prove their epigenetics, evolution and the existence of dinosaurs and ancestors of humans. 6 days IS 6 days. Madonna IS Madonna herself, not Britney Spears. LMAO

Man(kind) have been compared to other species of animals with regard to homosexuality and i find such comparisons obnoxious.

Me was a farmer in my young days and i got to see cockerel mounting other cockerels, but the aggressors always got fought off, it was the same with boars(male pig/swine). I had never got to see a female pig mounting another.

The pigs in my farm were free roaming(not confined) and they got the habit of eating, shitting and sleeping at the same spots.

If homosexuality traits in other non-human species are reasons for justifications for humans, will not the characteristics and natures of the other species be good for comparisons too ? Will humans want to eat, shit and sleep at the same spots ? And why not ?

patriot

69) patriot on May 22nd, 2009 9.33 am

This justification came about because conservatives/christian right argues that homo was against ‘Nature’. You’d have to ask them why they wanted to compare to animals.

68) to: stranger, sp on May 22nd, 2009 12.31 am I breed pets, observe heritable traits and genetic lineages and I certainly believe in evolution and somwhat the big bang. Before these theories were developed and hypothesised by scientists, there were ludicrous interpretation from the bible of what the world would be and how it was formed. Your theories are just parasiting on what the scientific world has put forth. Prove to us that 2 of each animals were taken aboard the Ark like how scientists prove their epigenetics, evolution and the existence of dinosaurs and ancestors of humans. 6 days IS 6 days. Madonna IS Madonna herself, not Britney Spears. LMAO

Can u recreate life and the big bang? 6 days is not 6 24 hour days….the OT was in hebrew and the word was directly translated into english …the hebrew word for “day” is “age”….so 6 days in the english bible is 6 ages….thats the problem with translation from the native text the bible was written becos people interpreted and translated them as best as they could. BTW, the bible isn’t supposed to be a scientific text. It a book of FAITH. Yes, there are things that we cannot replicate scientifically “parting of the red sea”, “10 plagues” etc etc, but neither can the scientists replicate life and the big bang. We have our own reasons to believe what we want which is faith and I am sure u will have your reasons to believe wat is yours (mostly by reason i suppose). Faith is like knowing your wife loves u deeply and not having u to do a scientific experiment to prove it; thats something that reason cannot do.

71)LOL
“Faith is like knowing your wife loves u deeply and not having u to do a scientific experiment to prove it; thats something that reason cannot do.”

I think Love is reinforced by reason, in ways that Faith cannot. If your wife never gave you a present, never said ‘I love you’, never ever showed any signs of ‘love’ to you, would you have ‘faith’ that she loves you? That is ‘reason’ at work.

I m sorry, i meant science, and a scientific experiment to prove your wife loves you……sorrie for my error…but i meant the fact she loved u deeply. Do u noe deep down in her heart she loves u deeply? Is that a scientific dimension to measure the depth of love? But reason alone is not enough or maybe it is juxtaposed in faith that u know her gift is part of her love to u and not an action for the sake of doing it.

let me correct my last sentence in 71).
We have our own reasons to believe what we want which is faith and I am sure u will have your reasons to believe wat is yours (mostly by sciencei suppose). Faith is like knowing your wife loves u deeply and not having u to do a scientific experiment to prove it; thats something that science cannot do.

I agree with Dick and Amanda. Me and my friends followed TOC closely and we’re amazed at the amount of information ST hides from us.. good job.

But there are some many threads to follow. I think focus on topics of major concerns like bread n butter issues, PAP incompetence etc would be extremely helpful for the ignorant like us.

Recently, most of friends has got tired of reading TOC and now follows other blogs and forum.. reason? Some of the them (unfortunately) are anti-gay, some of the neutral ones are convinced that TOC is not even handed in the reporting..

I heard (and it’s alleged) that the TOC editors are closely related to AWARE team and some are also gays.. that’s why TOC is also pushing gay agenda.

Many more will be turned away.. sadly.

Let’s face it, it a taboo and majority of household Singaporeans do not fancy the idea of homosexuality (be it taught or discussed); and especially when it is being pushed to them to accept the lifestyle as normal/mainstream.

Opposition should beware not to alienated their voters on this issue. Because if TOC is seen as a champion for gays right (like AWARE), it will be pushed off the cliff.

72) After hearing your explanations, I am thoroughly convinced that they are fairy tales for the entertainment of kids in the past. Since none of you can comprehend what the author meant, why do so many christians treat the bible as a testament of truth and nothing but the holy truth? But there have been so many different interpretations and re-interpretations.
Currently many interpretations of the bible in Singapore have incorporated numerous findings from science, physics and geology. Interpreters have created as many excuses to explain why verses in the bible clash with principles of science, some as far-fetched as a child’s homework was shredded by a revolving fan or a kitten. It tickles my funny bone even though it is somewhat a serious topic.

72) Forgot to add. Prove Noah’s Ark and win over the evolutionarists. I bet nobody can.

1/2 of the new threads in TOC are devoted to gays rights and Siew Kum Hong… Really, TOC.. tsk tsk tsk..

This is not the change we are ready nor want to talk about now.

1obo76 is right – there is no reason and rationality in faith unlike in that found in love
things don’t have to exist or to be seen in faith for you to pray to it
at least in love, the person is real and exists or existed

Hi Andy,

thank you for your feedback.

Regarding your statement below:

“But there are some many threads to follow. I think focus on topics of major concerns like bread n butter issues, PAP incompetence etc would be extremely helpful for the ignorant like us.”

Don’t you think homosexuality is an issue the public should be educated about? You also mentioned that many families find the topic taboo and they do not want to talk about it.

That is where The Online Citizen comes in. Ignorance breeds when no one finds out about this issue. Ignorance is a breeding ground for hatred. When I wrote this article, my aim was to present information from a neutral perspective, in hopes of educating readers. And for your information, I am not gay.

And yet I pushed for this article to be written. Why? Because this is a topic people CANNOT afford to be ignorant about, especially when the Aware saga seems like an indication of the future ideological battle we will be fighting.

Therefore, the agenda I’m pushing is not the gay agenda, but public education. Hope that clears up some doubts.

Hi Terence,

I don’t want to speak for others but I find this topic old, controversial and counter-productive to continue to argue about. Homosexuality is a topic that people from both side must acknowledge that they will have to agree to disagree.

I also think TOC can do much more focusing on other topics because this is not a battle to be won today. Homosexuals have been around for ages and they will continue to be around. They may not be accepted as normal, their ego bruised but hey, most homosexuals are still happily partying (just visit Tanjong Pagar).

I believe the public accepts homosexuals as they are but does not want to be force into agreeing that homosexuality is normal. They have their beliefs and gay propaganda of trying to force this as normal is only going to turn them away.

And by jumping onto this bandwagon of fighting for a minority group, the TOC risks alienating the larger majority WHO ARE DESPERATELY LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVES to the current ruling party.

Put an unknown Steve Chia infront of a Pappy and he’ll visit a good number of votes (maybe even win the election if it is fair). Put a Steve Chia who thinks that taking nude photos of maid is normal and he’ll be booted for sure.

69) PATRIOT: your argument went out of point. but you do prove one thing – homosexuality is inherent in other animals too. that’s all humans are interested in. can help or maybe cannot help with unravelling why people are gay. whether humans shit together, eat and shit at the same spot, that’s your own fetish.

why are some vaccines hatched in eggs?
why pigs organs were used in transplants in the past?
why are mice used for cancer research?
why are animal behaviour in apes relevant to anthropolgy?
why is human Rh ( rhesus ) +/- bloodtype discovered first in rhesus monkey?
why do we share 50% of dna with the banana?
why are chimpanzees are closest living relative human have?
who are the homo erectus, homo habilis and Paranthropus boisei? (humans are homo sapiens fyi)
why do dolphins have sex for non-copulation purposes just like humans?

these are the kind of questions educated intelligent people will ask instead mindless eating and shiting hogwash meant to cheapen the intellgence of sg people. please don’t disgrace us when you go overseas and spout such nonsense.

Hi WeC,

I understand your concerns.

I agree that TOC should not just focus on the issue of homosexuality, and we will make sure that there is a good mix of issues represented on the website. In fact, you might have noticed that this week we are giving the Marxist Conspiracy and David Widjaja issue an airing.

However, I will not agree with you that it is useless to talk about this issue. I saw reparative therapy as a gap that has not been dealt with in the Singapore media, and I sought to fill that gap. This article is not just for today, for in the future when the issue comes up again in public debate, as it will.

I was reading part 2 halfway when it got pulled off the website. What happened? Kena censored?

Questions :

1. Can Anyone PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
that GAY’ism is Nurture over Nature? Don’t anyhow answer if you do not have Absolute Truth and Evidence.

2. What is NATURE or NATURAL? A person born with normal health and appearance, is he a Natural being? How about a person born with defect on the lips? Is he Natural? To me, both are Natural. Nature produce healthy and unhealthy or less than perfect beings. Thus, just because a person is not born with normal sexuality, is he not a product of NATURE? Should a person not as normal be treated less Equally? An Albino fish is also a product of nature although it is having defect in its pigmentation. A Freak is also natural. Its just abnormal. Should abnormal creatures be forced to be normal?

singaporeans, pls grow up.

To #85,

The basis of your argument rest on the assumption that homosexuality is a birth condition and not a choice.

I would say that unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is birth condition that cannot be changed, then your assumption is flawed. For your assumption to be accepted as a fact and absolute truth, it needs to leave no room for exceptions. The FACT that there are cases of people who claimed to be homosexuality and “cured” of their condition proves that this is not the case.

Most homosexuals will cite that homosexuality is a condition because it was observed that animals also practice homosexuality. But let me also remind that cannibalism, incest and other ‘abnormal’ practices are also observed in animals. Do you then considered these acts to be normal and should be accepted by the general public? Should we then say these acts should allowed because ‘it is a birth condition and thus, cannot be cured’? I think not.

I will end that the difference between animals and humans is that we are a species of higher intelligence that is able to differentiate between what is right and wrong. And homosexuality is not only condemn by Christianity but by many, many other religion, beliefs, teachings and culture.

WeC,

I think we should move beyond the argument of whether homosexuality is a birth condition or not. I had a conversation with a gay friend recently. The perspective the friend gave was very refreshing. The friend said something along the line of ‘At the end of the day, of course it boils down to choice.”

Since the mere word ‘homosexuality’ triggers off such emotional responses from many, let’s use another safer analogy.

I think there is much much lesser disagreement that males are biologically wired to be promiscuous. In that sense, it’s NOT natural to be celibate, or to even to have only one sex partner for the rest of one’s life. Many people I know chose to go with the ‘nature’ argument and proceed to have sexual relationships outside of marriage. And yet paradoxically, many ‘went against’ nature and stayed faithful to their partners in spite of their biological urges.

So yes, of course, there will be gay people who choose to act on their attraction towards the same sex, and there will be those who don’t – regardless of whether there is a gay gene or not.

But the fact remains that they are emotionally and physically attracted to a same-sex member.

The argument that you are trying to present, and which i must disagree with, is that if homosexuality is not a birth condition, then it surely justifies the kind of treatment they have been receiving?

What does nature/nuture have to do with how we treat the people around us? Whether a person is born blind, or becomes blind due to accidents, or, hell, is blind because he dug his own eyes out, do we not help the person across the road because he is blind?

Similarly do you treat the friends that you have who may not be as ’sexually disciplined’ as you are the same or do you judge and marginalize them because they are less moral than you are? Do you seek to legislate against promiscuous people, make it illegal for anyone to have a) pre-marital sex, and b) extra-martial sex? Do you go on a campaign and condemn anyone who partake in such activities? Why not petition for a closure of the ktvs and sex joints in Singapore?

And lastly, I hope you can give a list of the ‘many’ religions and beliefs that CONDEMN homosexuality. certain statements have to be backed with facts.

thanks

Conversion therapy has been around for a very long time. All the evidence thus far has shown that it doesn’t work, particularly if the outcome determinant of therapeutic success is “change in sexual orientation”. But personally I think we should respect a client’s right to self-determination. Some people have great difficulty reconciling their sexual orientation with their religious faith and are suffering a great deal of distress. Conversion therapy is a “last” resort for them. For these people, the process of coming to terms with their sexuality may only begin after they have undergone conversion therapy and have become disillusioned with the fact that it’s not working for them. So in a way, conversion therapy – despite its potential risks and complications – does act as a sort of catalyst for the development of insight and self-awareness in some people.

The Issue of homosexuality got out of control since time immemorial and the various cultures and religions have espoused their understandings in religious books and other literatures. Studies of homosexuality, sexual orientation and sexual behaviour had been made by scientist, theologian, anthropologist, social and behavioural experts and other specialists in the Subject.

Now it appears that some Singaporeans are arguing that because mankind has natural sexual needs of different orientations due to sexuality and sexual preferences, all sexual choices should be freely practice and satisfied. It is argued that in the names of nature, respect and freedom, all sexual manifestations are justifiable.

Mankind has no mating season as in other species, their sexual needs are not confined to only in the bedrooms, man/woman can be aroused naturally and if i may say, anytime and anywhere. Is it right to say that when a human is aroused by other to want sex, he/she should get it fulfilled ?? Afterall, the argument is that the need is natural and therefore it should not be controlled but instead be allowed to be naturally satisfied? And THE BIGGEST JOKE TO ME is; the sexual need of the moment is now interpreted as LOVE for another being, which could be another species, child, same gender, dead body or even a bottle.

As an atheist, i could only hope that humans can be more sensible, reasonable and rational as i am incapable of offering the Religious Perspective.

Please forgive me if my points here offend anybody, i am naturally uneasy over many of the ‘justifications’ and excuses made regarding the sexual matters been discussed in TOC and elsewhere.

Hi Zefly,

You argument is seriously flawed and you need to be careful where you argument leads you. For if we simply decide that because a person has made his/her choice and should not be penalized or marginalized by this choice, the wide range of what these choices can be can have drastic effect/implications on society.

As I’ve mentioned in my earlier post, it can range from homosexuality (the topic of discussion), to incest; from theft to murder. Because a group of people have made their choices does not mean that it must be accepted by the general public (or to be normal); less they be marginalized for their choice.

I’m glad that we agree that homosexuality is a choice. So the now that the first hurdle is crossed, the next question we should ask is ‘what is the implication of this choice and in the discussion of homosexuality; and its implication on moral values?”

I believe the world is slowly coming to terms with homosexuality (after thousands of years); maybe in a few more years, it may become such a social norm that the general public will accept them as a mainstream alternative lifestyle. However, as the AWARE saga has shown, now is not yet the time.

The harder interest groups try to push these agenda (covert or not), the more adverse the reactions will be.

Lastly, google on “homosexuality and religion” and you should easily find the list of religion and culture/teachings that are against homosexuality.

Wikipedia hyperlink below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality

patriot,

what is a more important measure of a person? The gender of the person he/she chooses to have a relationship with, or how he/she treats others?

It is saddening that you still persist in being misinformed that a gay person is sex-starved and have this urge to be promiscuous without due consideration for those who seek love, stability and emotional fulfilment in a monogamous committed relationship, albeit with the same sex.

Secondly, who ever says that asking for equal treatment of GLBT automatically translates into permissability for unsafe and casual sexual practices?

We don’t see instituionalized discrimination against straight people who practice pre-marital sex, or sex outside of marriage etc etc, so why is it any different for the GLBT?

And quite frankly, if we as straight people so often confuse sexual need/attraction for the opposite sex with love, I don’t think it really make us any more informed in knowing what is love, and what isn’t.

Compassion begins when you recognize that you are not very much different from anyone else.

WeC,

You understanding of my argument is seriously flawed.

First of all, you have very little understanding of what choice means. What makes us human is simply our ability to NOT always follow our natural impulses after weighing the pros and cons of an action/decision.

When I say homosexuality is a choice, it does not exclude the likelihood that a homosexual person is genetically wired to be only attracted to the member of the same sex.

What he chooses to do with it is another matter altogether. He may, fearing persecution, choose to deny his own sexuality and live an unfulfiled and unhappy life. Or he may acknowledge that it’s who he is, and go forth in spite of the difficulties his decision will bring.

It is his/her choice and his/her choice alone. We have no right to decide for him/her what would bring him/her the most happiness.

Your understanding of choice, however is seriously flawed. You presume that his/her choice to be straight will automatically translate into greater happiness for him/her. WRONG. What it does is simply that it makes him more accepted by people like you. It may bring an end to the stigma, no doubt. But it may not necessarily make him/her any happier.

Like-wise you also have a choice. You can choose to understand this person, and see how your views are often the obstacles to his happiness (but of course, he still has a choice whether to let your views affect him or not), or not.

Secondly, on the issue of choice/freedom vs social outcomes, we do not need to spell everything out that a society cannot function with the total freedom of an individual to do as he/she pleases. Your analogy of murder is weak and tepid and reflects the shallow thinking that is customary of many arguments against gay people. Murder and other crimes, if allowed to exist freely destroys the very fabric of society. Homosexuality has existed, and in many instances in history, tolerated, even celebrated, with nary a dent on the social fabric, or demographics.

I could elaborate on many of those points, but I believe they have been covered many times over and much more eloquently by many comments already.

I would like to conclude, on the matter of choice and what I choose to do with it. I simply choose to make life better for others, not worse. Your life will not get worse if the GLBT are accepted on equal terms, but theirs will get better.

Like anyone else, i am also a man with sexual need that sometimes get triggered involuntarily, maybe some will say i should not suppress and control the urge but find avenues to have it fulfilled. I will not argue with anyone who can find that avenue, as for myself, i feel there is need to regulate myself and conform to societal norm as has been set by the society.

I like to say, let’s us be honest and sincere to ourselves; we LUST more than LOVE in our sexual desires and needs, this may not be the Absolute Truth, however, it is definitely the Common Truth.

I rest my case.

patriot

Zefly,

I’ll just pose a simple question for you. Serial killers. They kill because they cannot control the urge or impulse to kill. Psychologist have argue that they are hard wired to do so and they cannot attain peace (not just happiness) without killing.

Surely, these are tortured souls that deserves our sympathy and understanding more than the sexual lust of another human being. So why do we deny them their right to be happy? Why do we lock them up? Surely, we have no right to decide what would bring him happiness? Do we then allow the serial killer to run free to commit his/her murders?

Try google again and you should be able to find that statistics for 2008 showed that of the 44,000 newly infected HIV patients, 79% of them contracted these illness through male-male sexual connections.

I think it is time that you accept the truth..

Lastly, google on “homosexuality and religion” and you should easily find the list of religion and culture/teachings that are against homosexuality.

—————————————————————————

The same applies to the lowly social status of women. A male chauvinist can just as easily find a large number of religions and cultural beliefs to support his sexist idea that gender equality is a mistake.

Shall we base our social policies on this kind of argument?

Don’t you think homosexuality is an issue the public should be educated about? You also mentioned that many families find the topic taboo and they do not want to talk about it.

That is where The Online Citizen comes in. Ignorance breeds when no one finds out about this issue. Ignorance is a breeding ground for hatred. When I wrote this article, my aim was to present information from a neutral perspective, in hopes of educating readers. And for your information, I am not gay.

And yet I pushed for this article to be written. Why? Because this is a topic people CANNOT afford to be ignorant about, especially when the Aware saga seems like an indication of the future ideological battle we will be fighting.

Therefore, the agenda I’m pushing is not the gay agenda, but public education. Hope that clears up some doubts.
————————————————————————————

Terence, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I am NOT gay either, but in the course of my clinical work, I realized that many problems faced by our gay clients do not actually arise from any psychopathology associated with their sexual orientation per se, but from the adverse effects of homophobia.

To help this population of clients, we need to work at the root of the problem. In the same way that we empower women, we need to do the same for the gays and lesbians, especially the youths. Public education is an important element in reducing the negative impact on this vulnerable and long-suffering group of Singaporeans.

On the issue of murder, I have already wrote about it in #93. Not even the most liberal person would fight for the right of murderers not to be put away. When we talk about rights and choices, we are always talking about whether the degree of denial of their rights is proportionate to the perception of harm of their behavior. I respect your intelligence enough not to have to qualify my arguments with such obvious exceptions. Clearly I had been wrong.

Thus we are talking about whether the degree of marginalization is proportionate to the perceived harm GLBT behavior pose to society. The often quoted argument that GLBT lifestyle endangers society has already been rebutted by myself and, if you bother to read, many others.

You talk about statistics. Now the question is what therefore do the statistics mean? If you want to know, racially there are disproportionate more people belonging to one race who are drug addicts than others. Does it therefore mean that we simply marginalize that race of people? Petition the government not to allow their children into our schools because they may spread the drug-use lifestyle? Ask members of that race to go through stringent tests if they are to become teachers to ensure that they are not drug abusers? If this sounds ridiculous to you, surely it is as ridiculous as using statistics of higher HIV infection to maintain the kind of misinformation and discrimination gays face everyday.

If we can accept the fact that people turn to ‘vices’ at moments in their lives where they exist in a hostile environment (eg workplace), then surely one can see there may be a link between the daily discrimination GLBTs face everyday and what you can consider an immoral lifestyle. AND unless you can prove that ALL GLBT indulge in rampant uninhibited hedonism, you cannot justify any discriminatory actions on the mere basis of ‘bad’ behavior.

I think it is time that you accept the truth that you could be responsible for the presumed meaningless hedonistic lifestyle that you so righteously condemn.

And lastly, please stop insulting the GLBT people who live meaningful, productive lives and have loving monogamous relationships by suggesting that GLBTs only know lust, not love.

If you do not even have the decency to talk to any gay people to know them better, I do not think you are in any position to speak as though you know anything about them beyond misconceptions and ignorance.

I am a heterosexual man. I like the idea of having sex with women and the idea of having finding another man sexually attractive is repulsive to me.

But having said that, I find myself laughing at the “morals” crowd who have been going on about the need to prevent the gay agenda from taking over and more importantly, I’m quite disturbed that anyone, let alone highly educated people take the idea of the need to “convert” gay people into being straight.

I mean, if you want to talk about statistics, there are utterly non to show that Gay people are any less able to lead full and meaningful lives than heterosexuals. There is utterly no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a medical condition that can be passed on by contact. More importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a health hazard.

If you look at the Ministry of Health’s statistics on HIV infections, you will know that HIV has long ceased to be a homosexual disease. If anything, HIV is very much a heterosexual disease. More disturbingly the highest levels of infections in women come from loyal married women who get it from their partners.

So there you have it? There is nothing empirically wrong about being a homosexual. So why do we take people like Thio Su Mien seriously when she talks about the “Homosexual” agenda? Why, for example, are we not focusing our religious zeal on things like promiscuity amongst heterosexual men.

Why do we need to consider whether homosexuals need to be “converted?” I mean the fact that 150,000 members of the American Psychiatric Association do not encourage it should be telling us something here. And how exactly does it benefit the rest of us if homosexuals were to be “converted?” If anything, the homosexuals I have run into that have decided to do the “dutiful” thing and remain in the closet tend to have more psychological nurosis than the guys who are open and proud of what they are.

Please, lets focus on issues that actually have a benefit to society rather than trying to nit-pick at a group of adults who are simply different in what turns them on. Let’s use some basic common sense here and not be taken in by people with spectacular degrees but very little sense.

Tang II,

To add to your comments, I would say that ironically, bigotry does not discriminate when it comes to educational status.

Tang II,
I agree fullheartedly. All these people are just casting stones as if they are perfect! Ya ‘we love the homosexuals but we hate homosexuality’???? Isnt sexuality your identity? One should search oneself thoroughly before one condemns others. Put yourself lin their position and repent!

I’ve read Mr Leslie Lung’s clarifications only right at the end of the article.

It was unfortunate that this draft article was not sent to him for agreement prior to being published.

I think TOC could had been a little more sensitive.

S,

it is not standard journalistic practice to send draft articles to newsmakers as we need to maintain objectivity in our writing. The most we can do is to clarify specific points.

Nonetheless, I personally felt that more could have been done to ensure accuracy.

It was definitely a learning experience for me.

dsims (#101),

It’s like “We love the thief, but hate his theft” or “We love the cancer patient, but detest the cancer”. You are not against either of these, right?

Phobia only exists when we attempt to shun both the thief and the cancer patient.

I think that Homophobia needs to be defined more specifically.

Oh, and for people who still wish to think that there is some invisible Gay Gene, well … there is such a thing called a genetic disease too, and genetic diseases are not diseases because they are infectious.