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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

—————————————————————————

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?

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..

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.