According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the species is one of the main points. So on scientific grounds Section 377A should be cast in stone.

If man goes after man, women after woman, Singapore as a nation would soon die off seeing as our reporduction rate is about 1.3 per family.

Yawning bread should approach this issue from a scientific view point.

By that same token, Section 377 should be similarly ‘cast in stone’ as anal/oral sex does not directly lead to reproduction. What a narrow-minded way of looking at things..

Is survival of the species really the main concern here? If so, from an evolutionary standpoint it would probably be more ideal to have the gay men/women die off and let the heterosexual breed more. After all, there are probably more of the them around than the homosexuals…

Hahaha…simplistic mindset for those who keep using so called reproductive function to argue. Are things black and white in real life?

There are some straight folks who don’t reproduce and there are some gay folks who do. And please don’t ask the stupid question of “how?” gay folks reproduce.

So how should people be judged based on their reproductive value?

huh? survival of a species? no link to gays, in S’pore context is money. now, let me check my buscuit tin to see how many more years before i can afford to tie the knot….

^.^

DoubleSpeak (#4),

No, people shouldn’t be judged on their “reproductive value”.

Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).

As for India, it might be easy to implement that in Delhi, but not in the rural areas of India, which unsurprisingly is very very Hindu, or as Mr Au would put it, very “Hindu Fundamentalist”.

I do really think that the word “Fundamentalist” is being abused here.

And anyway,

I would like to discourage TOC from publishing articles on homosexuality by Alex Au since naturally he is going to be overtly biased towards the LGBT movement, rather than analyze it objectively.

Does Arix want to “discourage” only articles from Alex Au, or anyone who’s “biased”? If the latter, shouldn’t comments from Arix also be “discouraged” because he (or she) is obviously biased as well. Seriously though, let’s see more from Alex…at least he makes sense.

Alex Au is the modern day King Henry IV. He will never stop pushing the gay agenda until he gets what he wants. And he is using popular platforms like TOC to achieve his aims. Like Arix, I hope TOC exercise some sort of restraint when publishing articles by Alex Au. There is already a Singapore GLBT platform for gays to push their agenda. Let’s leave them to where they belong.

Here we go again, LGBTs really pushing for their agenda or pushing others to the wall. If you queers wants to enjoy what you want, do it in your own private space. Please do not use such platforms, maybe there should be some rating on contents for TOC articles. Just when you think we had enough of AWARE.

i don’t think alex au is forcing toc to publish it; his website alone is pretty influential and critical in nature.

i have qns:

1) did toc publish this without letting alex au know?
2) to stay on topic, section 377a is rly quite retarded. its legally, constitutionally and technically unsound. even as a straight man, i find it stupid to be retained.

starch (#8),

I believe that anyone who is clearly biased for or against any particular issue should not have his or her article published on TOC. In order for TOC to remain credible (and not fall prey to any of MDA’s “political website” scams ala Sintercom 1994), TOC’s main articles should be kept as balanced as possible.

Yes, each article would have its own unique perspective. But they should always strive to show the full view from both sides. Articles should do this because they are supposed to be planned before they are written.

Comments, on the other hand, are off-the-cuff (yes, even this one). So the rules that should apply to articles don’t have to apply to comments.

And you misrepresented me. I am not asking for a complete “ban” on articles by Alex Au, just those whose key topic has to do with homosexuality. Most of his articles are good, when he writes them from the point of a outside observer, and not from the point of an activist.

This particular article is not very comprehensive in covering the legislative environments of either Singapore or India, and jumps to a number of conclusions regarding both countries. For one, supporters of 377A in Singapore are not just the “Fundamentalists”; they include the “moderates” as well. For another, in such a large country as India, legal “precedents” set by the Capital may trickle down very slowly to the more conservative Hindu Rural areas. Remember, some of these areas still practice wife-burning, although that is ostensibly against the law.

hhahahaha (#11),

1) Hard to tell. I don’t really think so, though.

2) S377A is technically unsound, because it can’t be enforced without turning Singapore into a police state. Well, except for arresting gays who kiss in public as “people who display lewd behaviour”, I guess.

S377A is not constitutionally unsound, because the Constitution doesn’t mention sexual orientation as one of the factors that shouldn’t be discriminated. I don’t know about India’s Constitution though.

S377A is legally unsound, but that’s only because it should be re-numbered as 377. I would argue that Defamation Act is more legally unsound than S377A.

Anyhow, I do believe that S377A should be abolished. But probably the government is – understandably – wary about the kind of social tsunami that the abolition of S377A might engender. “Decriminalising” after all to the GLBT lobby is only the first step.

Arix,

I want to ask you a simple question:

who should be burned at the stake – clergymen or practising homosexuals?

to 13)Arix

“S377A is not constitutionally unsound, because the Constitution doesn’t mention sexual orientation as one of the factors that shouldn’t be discriminated.”

Thus in the 1850s and 60s, Abraham Lincoln was unconstitutional when he spoke against slavery, because Southern constitutions allowed it?

Sorely disappointed in another glaring fallacy. Just because sexual orientation isn’t a factor that shouldn’t be discriminated against, doesn’t mean that it -should- be discriminated against. Try reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html.

In case you hadn’t realised, the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are two different things. Thus S377A is unconstitutional because it contradicts the spirit of the constitution. So would you say that the spirit of the Constitution supports homophobia?

Section 377A from a scientific view point #1,

“According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the species is one of the main points. So on scientific grounds Section 377A should be cast in stone.”

Trying to piggyback science?

Evolution is not goal-oriented. There’s no directive, or purpose, or “main point”.

If you are more interested in evolution than 377A (I suspect otherwise), you can refer to http://www.talkorigins.org to find out more.

“If man goes after man, women after woman, Singapore as a nation would soon die off seeing as our reporduction rate is about 1.3 per family.”

Are you one of these “heterosexuals” who finds it impossible to resist becoming homosexual if 377A is lifted?

smallvice (#14),

Nobody should be burnt at the stake. That is a cruel and torturous punishment.

plopp (#15),

What fallacy? I was going by the letter of the law. And by the Letter of the Law, as you stated, there is no protection for homosexuals. I was giving a formal analysis of #11, not making any argument.

My argument was made in #8, and in the last paragraph of #13.

Before I answer your question about homophobia, I would ask you to clarify what you mean by homophobia. Whether you take the “broad” view or the “narrow view”?

gemani supports Arix. He says, “Like Arix, I hope TOC exercise some sort of restraint when publishing articles by Alex Au.” And Alix is now saying it’s OK to have articles by Alex Au as long as it’s not regarding a subject on which he disagrees (i.e. gays). Obviously they don’t want dialogue. Maybe it’s because their anti-gay agenda is as indefensible as it is immoral. I say let’s have more open discussion. People should not be given a free pass when persecuting others.

I went to an event where several speakers took turns to give their speech.
Among them was Alex.
When he finnished his talk and asked the audience to ask questions, a group of youngers attacked him verbally and sounded like anti-gayism.
I felt bad for Alex as the group seemed like well prepared to attack him verbally.
They seem to condem Alex and ignore the positive contributions of this man.

Good point, Packiology. Alex is not only a gifted intellect, he’s brave and tenacious. It’s a pity that, particularly in a country where our only resource is the ingenuity and perseverance of our people, we have laws that encourage some of our most creative minds to seek opportunities elsewhere.

TOC is right tin publishing this story. It is, above all considerations, newsworthy. That Alex Au has a vested interest is, at best, secondary.

TOC could have easily picked this story up from somewhere other than yawningbread. Not that this would have made much of a difference anyway. The story/quotes would make the same larger point.

I wish some of the contributors be upfront about their opposition to the lifting of 377A. Lets not hide behind scientific or morality reasons and face the issue squarely based on constitutionally rights and equality.

Indonesia (a largely muslim country), Thailand (a Buddhist nation), the US and Europe (christian), Taiwan (buddhist & Taoist), China and now India (predominantly Hindu) have all repealed laws like 377A. Are we aping the west or going against asian traditions if we repeal 377A?

Obviously from the above examples, we are neither. We seem merely intolerant, ignorant, and extremely backward. If that is what our govt and the ’silent majority’ aspires to., then fine. In the meantime, the world is moving 2 steps forward and we are stubbornly taking 3 steps backward.

Repealing 377A is not harming anyone, hetereosexuals or the ’silent majority’ directly; it could however inconveniently upset their moral balance or perspective. Too bad.

Keeping it, however, harms thousands of human beings who have done nothing wrong other than to live the lives they wish to lead

To Arix: Alex Au used the word ‘christian fundamentalist’, so I take issue with you wrongly sticking the labels to Hindus. Just because rural Hindus may be traditional, they should not be labelled fundamentalists. Gays & lesbians have existed, by and large, freely both in rural & urban India for a very long time (before the advent of Islam and Christianity) and I’m glad that once again Indian has the confidence and maturity to act on what the know in their conscience is Right.

@Arix (#6), sorry to single this sentence out, but what sort of rubbish are you sputtering here?: “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”

Simply reproducing that ludicrous sentence suffices to refute it, I believe.

Secondly, it is disturbing that people like Arix, gemami and Adam wish not only to deny gays the freedom to engage in sexual activity (perhaps a defensible position), but also to deny them the freedom to participate in public discourse about an issue which they rightly regard as central to their identity and self-respect. There are conceivably reasons for prohibiting the practice of homosexual sex, but there are no reasons for prohibiting debate about that practice. In fact, the main basis on which we as a community can legitimately criminalize homosexual sex is that a majority of us support it after a free and uninhibited debate. If we clamp down on debate by silencing those we disagree with, we undermine the democratic legitimacy of the laws we’ve passed. And that kind of intolerance for dissenting views cannot be endorsed by any society.

@Arix (#13), the constitutional arguments for and against a prohibition on ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ are far more complex than you suggest. “Sexual orientation” is not explicitly referred to in the text of the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Charter, or the Indian Constitution, yet courts there have struck down statutes criminalizing homosexual practices. In the same vein, gender discrimination is not expressly forbidden by the Singapore constitution, but is very probably prohibited. There are reasonable arguments based on the constitutional text for inferring that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited. For instance, sexual orientation may be read as ‘analogous’ to prohibited grounds of discrimination like race, descent or place of birth in Article 12(2). Or alternatively, one may argue that a ‘right of privacy’ is at the heart of the equal protection clause in Article 12(1) — and that right is infringed by a statute like 377A.

I must also add that TOC has never pretended to be entirely ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ (which is anyway probably a false ideal as regards such controversial issues). Certainly, TOC may seek to be neutral for strategic purposes, such as maintaining a high readership or avoiding MDA intervention. But there are no principled reasons why TOC should be obliged to avoid taking a political stance in its commentary. And any regular visitor who fails to see that TOC has all along presented articles which endorse a ‘liberal-democratic’ perspective must be a little obtuse. And it’s no accident that a ‘liberal-democratic’ perspective will usually be supportive of the GLBT movement, because that conclusion follows logically from its prior commitment to individual rights and democratic government.

Perhaps it falls to those who are liberals on all other issues save GLBT rights to ask whether they’re really being consistent.

I have lurked here long enough. Having followed his blog for a long time and recently seen Alex Au in person at a forum , where he gave a talk both serious and funny at the same time, I feel I need to speak up.

Alex is remarkably consistent in his politics. He takes the progressive liberal point of view whether he is talking about freedom of speech, democracy in myanmar, foreign workers etc, etc, or gay rights. He speaks for liberty and equality for all oppressed groups, and for a more caring government. If you notice, he shows same disgust for oppressors, whether government, religious authorities or uncaring employers of foreign workers. You may not agree with him, but you can hardly accuse him of inconsistency.

How come, we have people here who say his political articles are good and acceptable for inclusion in TOC and his gay articles are not worth reading? His gay articles are also politics, and argued from exactly the same POV as he argues, for say, freedom of speech or workers rights.

The problem, quite obviously, is not Alex. The problem are these TOC readers who can’t see past their own prejudices, who want liberty and human rights for themselves (so if Alex argues for that, he is good) but not liberty and human rights for gays (and if Alex argues for that, he is bad).
Give me a break.

Hi boogie #27,

You said: The problem, quite obviously, is not Alex. The problem are these TOC readers who can’t see past their own prejudices, who want liberty and human rights for themselves (so if Alex argues for that, he is good) but not liberty and human rights for gays (and if Alex argues for that, he is bad).

Great points there. I hope Arix can learn from his mistakes and repent from his religious convictions. If religion is the root of Arix’s evil, what do we need to do to save Arix from future transgression? Traditional wisdom dictates we should uproot the cause (斩草除根).

that’s why TOC is right to publish the article by Alex, so that hypocrites and fakes like Arix, who pretend to be objective when he is not, are exposed for all to see…

If you don’t agree you debate with facts and reasons. If you cannot handle the truth, then stay away instead of trying to discourage others from publishing it.

People who voicibly discourage gay related articles digust me. I’ve got news for you. We have the same goddamn right to respect as you sorry excuses for straights have. I don’t sit around berating about the amount of irrelevant heterosexual content I see around me because I have the sensibility to respect and look beyond context for common grounds,or censor them in private if it comes to that.

The difference about intolerant views is that they put down and demand censorship to things they don’t want to hear; WHICH is fine if you keep it to yourself. Just don’t read it, Do GROW up.

I applaud TOC’s bringing across a broad spectrum of topics to my attention and in a way, affirming that LGBTs do have a place in society, and from there, we can once again build common grounds beyond sexuality and towards greater humanity.

I don’t really care to convince the last homophobe in Singapore for change, the government should have the decency to do deliver justice and equality for all. The mockery is on them, you simply cannot stop the tides of truth tearing down prejudice build on lies, lies that isolate others for being who they are.

Hi Arix #12

You are trying to turn TOC into Straits Times by promoting the Straits Times’ flavour of balance and objectivity. Balance is achieved by having different media groups projecting competing views, not by having single media group accomodating all views. On the other hand, the measures of objectivity itself are subjective.

You believe that anyone who is clearly biased for or against any particular issue should not have his or her article published on TOC. By whose benchmark do you decide if a person is biased? Given that every person has his own unique benchmark, would this not mean there would be at least one person in all of Singapore who would find another person’s opinion bias.

Each article would have its own unique perspective and therefore be as such. However, it is the responsibility of beholders with opposing views to pen their own opinions. You are free to post your own views in the commentary thread here and Yawning Bread in whatever format you desire. No one is stopping you to pen an anti-gay article or a hate speech.

You have a wonderful trick there – revise your view, follow by accusing people of mis-representing you. We are not 3-year old kids. You also said Alex Au’s articles are not good when he is writing as an activist. By the same measure, your view as an anti-gay activist should therefore be condemned as bad, isn’t it? Btw is De Souza your surname? Haha..

There is a difference between decriminalising and amoralising homosexual behavior. This legal revision by the Indian Supreme Court only makes homosexual behaviour non-criminal. It does not change cultural attitude immediately but this marks the first step to change cultural attitude for the better.

People who support the dignity of homosexuals should therefore work harder in amoralising homosexual behaviour in order to trigger a fundamental change in societal attitude towards homosexuals. It took 2000 years to convince the Church to abandon certain practises and values prescribed by the Bible. As people who support the dignity of homosexuals, we have to work harder to reform the Church. The same can be said on all religions that prescribes anti-gay stand.

many attack or are simply ignore or do not consider the contributions of Alex. I get a feeling these are religious fanatics. even those very young people like in their early twenties or still in JC or Uni. I have witnessed how they bombard him.
Can singaporean religious fanatics respect the preferences of others?

I don’t see a problem with an activist like Alex sharing his views on his own blog, and even for TOC to abridge his pieces for wider readership. At least I am clear about where he is coming from, and am fully aware of his biases/prejudices/ allegiances/arguments, which are equally clear.

Better to be up front, state your case and where you stand – a real identity helps. In my mind, Alex’s online persona is simply an extension of his real world beliefs. That is comforting to me. Ultimately, his views are his business, as are yours. For reasons stated, as a citizen interested in social issues affecting Singapore, I’m more comfortable with Alex’s approach rather than that of his critics. This is not to berate his critics, but simply to say that we need to build a discourse of argument and counter-argument. If one cant frame a strong counter-argument, then perhaps it is because the prevailing one is superior?

I don’t want to make the writer look totally irresponsible. He may have contributions in other areas, but this article is not one of them.
We cannot have an argument that says that if a certain country adopts a certain legal stand on homosexuality, we are made to look stupid by adopting otherwise.
So, to say : ‘In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.’,
I say : ‘Maybe it’s time you make some plans to stay in India instead’.
The writer should avoid giving the impression of using a well-meaning media, like TOC to further push the homosexual agenda.

There are many stupid laws we have. Even one-man gathering is considered an ilegal gathering. I do not know where our legal system ranked in the world by now. Could it be another 154th in ranking, hovers between North Korea & Myanmar?

kf wrote:
So, to say : ‘In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.’,
I say : ‘Maybe it’s time you make some plans to stay in India instead’.

What an lame argument! So if anyone has a problem with Singapore’s censorship laws, ISA, election laws, labour laws, etc, etc, all of you should shut up, and never compare Singapore with any other country. Go and live in countries X Y Z instead!

kf wrote:
The writer should avoid giving the impression of using a well-meaning media, like TOC to further push the homosexual agenda.

As someone else wrote somewhere (I’m sorry I can’t attribute to him/her by name) the only agenda the gays have is legal equality. What;’s wrong with that?Also, as repeatedly pointed out in other forums, the use of the term “homosexual agenda” indicates that one is adopting the language and POV of the Christian anti-gay campaigners. As Pritam said above, be transparent about where you’re coming from.

Kf #34,

Don’t worry about making AA look “totally” or even partially “irresponsible”. You didn’t. Not at all. He backed up his case which, incidentally, you didn’t.

“We cannot have an argument….”

Why not?

Would you have a similar response if the contentious law in question was not regarding homosexuality? That the writer, any writer, should simply up and go?

What is the nature of this “gay agenda” that you seem so dead set against? And why?

After thousands of years of hatred, discrimination, bigotry, sencelessness which originated from certain ‘ancient teachings’, its a wonder that there are still people who want to continue that evil process in the 21st century. It all boils down to ignorance (lack of wisdom), an attachment to (wrong) views, and a egoistic clinging to wrong teachings, and these factors are major fetters in the individual man’s journey in life, if he aspires to that ‘coveted superman’ role that he can play in society for which he needs to have compassion, wisdom and a non-attachment/clinging to views.

sloo (#23),

1) What legitimacy does Constitutional Rights have if not backed by moral authority? We might as well have seigniorage rights then.

2) The US and Western Europe are officially non-religious, minus Spain perhaps. Eastern Europe is strongly Conservative Catholic (i.e. the LDS type). Thailand, well … perhaps it is under Thaksin’s businessman sensibilities. Indonesia … well, it is a more disparate community than India; we need to be careful before we jump to conclusions. Anyway, the Dutch have always been more liberal than the British or French or Spanish.

3) While I would agree with you that Singapore is “intolerant” and sometimes moves “two steps forward and three steps back”, jumping to a conclusion based on a single law is a hasty generalization.

4-5) In practical terms, both keeping and repealing the law have no effects at all. As I said in my previous post, it is a technically unenforceable lame-duck law.

And before you (and others) try to misrepresent me again, I am in favour of repealing S377A.

I get why you wish to repeal 377A, and I agree that since it’s perfunctory it should definitely be repealed. That’s not the main quarrel, don’t distract.

However, myself and various others disagree fundamentally that homosexual discrimination is even valid in the first place.

Which clarifies #15, because you interpreted the
- nonenshrinement of sexual orientation alongside race and religion for nondiscrimination -
into
- permitting discriminating against or for certain types of sexual orientations-

when in fact like it might actually be possible to just accept sexual orientation as another non-discriminable quality. Discriminating by gender for professions like motherhood and sperm donation might actually be valid, but which job can’t you do if you’re gay not straight?

Oracle of Delphi (#24),

You think Secularism/Atheism is such a modern invention?

la nausee (#25),

1) God question: what nonsense? As far as I see it, it is a logical observation from facts alone. So please explain why you think it is “utter rubbish”.

2) That is a huge conclusion to draw about both me and genami. Neither of us advocated for Alex Au to close down his blog or anything. In fact, my first post on this thread was directed at TOC, not at Mr Au.

I support free public discourse, but there must be sufficient grounds before we translate discourse into policy debate.

What evidence do you have that “a majority of us” will support the de-criminalisation of homosexuality?

Plus, the debate is not totally “free and uninhibited” if any side enters it with the conclusion in mind. It is wrong for any religious person, fundamentalist or moderate, to forcefully constrain the debate to a pre-determined conclusion that “homosexuals are unnatural”. It is equally wrong for any LGBT person or supporter to forcefully constrain the debate to a predetermined conclusion that “homosexuality is natural”. We need to clear both sides of their agendas before the debate can truly be “free and uninhibited”.

I do really wish it were so.

plopp (#40),

1) I just wished to clarify, so that Smallvice doesn’t start to muddle things up here in this thread.

2) I really dislike the term “homosexual discrimination” because it covers both the “narrow” and “broad” spectrums. Unless you are Smallvice, can you please clarify whether you are using the “broad” definition or the “narrow” definition?

3) I didn’t interpret anything. I was merely analyzing #11 text. If I had interpreted anything, I would make it clear.

4) Please don’t count Motherhood as a profession; it sort-of trivializes the whole process. But back on-topic, I strongly disagree with occupational discrimination, and even on MOE’s ban on teachers coming out in class. For “narrow” things like occupations, there shouldn’t be wilful discrimination.

La nausee (#26),

TOC is free to take its stand. However, its stand should be informed. I like TOC because it carries articles that have good-quality content, as opposed to rantings you find in other forums and some blogs. Content that argues for a point, but considers the opposite perspective too, and offers a reasoned argument.

As it stands, this article meets neither of these criteria. It is based fundamentally on a Band-Wagon Fallacy: Because India and a whole lot of other countries have decriminalised homosexuality, Singapore must do the same too. Hardly a sound argument.

boogie (#27),

1-2) Where did you get the idea of Alex being accused of “inconsistency”?

3) Nobody said that his “gay articles are not worth reading”. Perhaps I ought to have been a little clearer. My full POV is this:-

If TOC wants to publish Alex Au’s gay articles direct from his blog, it can do so, but it ought to state clearly Alex Au’s pro-gay bias and that he is the leader of PLU, and carry the disclaimer that “the editors of TOC are not in any way related to his opinon”.

if TOC wants to publish Alex’s gay articles as contributions, then they should be regarded in the same light as the other articles on this site. Liberal-Democratic Bias is fine, but it must be properly- backed up with evidence and at least partial consideration of the opposing viewpoint. And not just based on recurring Band-Wagon and Poisoning-the-Well Fallacies, like this one was.

Alex Au’s articles on homosexuality are worth reading when they espouse proper arguments supporting his and his organization’s case. They are not worth reading when they are simply “decriminalisation timeline” pieces that employ the Band-Wagon Fallacy.

Please, I am not anti-Alex-Au or anything. Don’t misrepresent me (no matter what red herrings Smallvice attempts to throw in this thread).

Scientifically, and from a physiological perspective, the lining of the anus is very delicate and is susceptible to tears and trauma resulting from anal sex. To make matters worse, the lack of bodily lubricants in the anus must have made anal sex a terrible torment. Finally, but not the least, can you even begin to fathom why one would stick his sexual organ into where another’s faeces is discharged???

to #43 Arix:

Care to clarify what the difference between ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ discrimination is?

Also, by terming motherhood as a profession I did not mean to demean, but to actually raise its worth, because too many people underrate the difficulty it has. And could you explain your last sentence “For “narrow” things like occupations, there shouldn’t be wilful discrimination.”?

regarding #44:

The fact is that Singapore often claims the support of its supposed ‘conservative majority’ for laws like 377A, and /especially/ 377A. Sunday Times (5th Jul) has an article about this. However, it might be rather logical that most people both in and out of India might deem India as MORE conservative than Singapore, and so if a more conservative country can repeal a lousy law because both its intents and effects are unconstitutional, then…why can’t a less conservative country do the same? Unless you’d go the whole hog and say that Singapore IS in fact more conservative than India, which I don’t think you’ll find many to agree with you.

To take the liberty of paraphrasing AA’s article I would rather think that he believes the Indian judge is praiseworthy for recognising an unconstitutional, unfair, and discriminatory law when he saw one, and not some lemminglike preaching of Singapore to follow their lead Just Because.

@James Tan (#46), well, there are reasons why gays do, and continue to, engage in anal sex — because it’s pleasurable to them. That fact alone clearly disproves your speculative claim that anal sex is “a terrible torment”. Just because you and I find the practice repulsive doesn’t mean that others will agree. Moreover, it’s not a good argument in the sphere of public policy to simply appeal to our innate disgust, however dressed up in pseudo ’scientific’ or ‘physiological’ ‘facts’ as it may be.

Outrage (#30),

Please cool down. I said nothing about discouraging gay articles per se, just gay articles by Alex Au.

I seriously have doubts on any “tides of truth” that exist, when the Pink Lobby is busy trying to silence their critics in developed countries. I find it really peculiar that any perception that says religious people per se are trying to make sure “LGBTs have no place in society” ever exists in the first place. I believe that this is due to the aggressive media advocacy by the Pink Lobby that distorted the truth of the situation in order to promote the homosexual agenda.

The real stance by the moderate camp is that “LGBTs have a rightful place in society as people, but we believe that homosexuality as a condition should not afflict them, and can be overcome”. No doubt perhaps that some of the misunderstanding arises from the connotations attached to the word “sin”.

But the necessary reforms on the concept of “sin” are not going to happen unless the Pink Lobby stops waving its banners in front of the moderates’ faces and alienate more moderates into joining the Fundamentalists. Accusing all religious people of being bigots without first dissembling the subtle details of their stances is frankly being both irresponsible and unfair, not to mention strategically dumb.

#36, #37, sllim and boogie,
You missed the entire point of my comments.
You can put forward an argument and it can be convincing, and you can use another country’s development as reference, but the content of argument cannot be based on such a country is doing this, therefore there is a problem for us not to follow. This type of argument is the “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”.
I am not even claiming that we did right for everything in Singapore. In fact, I have just as many disagreements as others out there.
It is important you get familiar with what and why arguments make sense and what and why they don’t.

I am not dead set against any agenda, but it’s not hard to detect the writer is creating the impression in pushing for one. I am not saying he cannot take sides on an issue, but the language points to a “I am right, and you are downright wrong” type of conclusion (just start by examining even the title and you’ll know what I mean), which will not allow all parties to move forward.
You can still disagree with other parties, but there are better ways of presenting the case – a measured one.

@Arix (#42, #44):

Again, you said: “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”

Why is it that homosexuals are ‘limited’ by the fact of their homosexuality, but heterosexuals are not ‘limited’ by the fact of their heterosexuality, as the definitions imply? Unless you’re suggesting that heterosexuals are all inherently bisexual — which is logical, but clearly wanting of empirical proof.

Second, I think you misunderstood my earlier post. I’m saying that a majority of us probably will support criminalizing homosexual sex (although that’s open to disagreement), but (1) we can only legitimately enact such a law after we’ve allowed a free and open debate, where everyone’s views are heard (including the minority, and especially the minority, since they’re the ones going to be subject to penal sanctions), and (2) that law will retain legitimacy only insofar as a majority continues to support it in ongoing public discussions.

Third, I agree with you that the overall debate cannot be prematurely skewed in favour of any side. But this does not prevent any one participant from sticking to his or her guns on a given issue. As long as no participant is barred from making his or her views heard, it is irrelevant whether he or she manages to persuade other people (which is the job of the speaker). There is only a right to speak and be heard, not a right to have others listen attentively and give the speaker the benefit of the doubt.

Fourth, I’m not sure there is a real need to add a ‘disclaimer’ that Alex Au’s views are not factual or reasoned. It will be a sad day for our society when people aren’t critical enough to evaluate arguments for themselves. Although I am prepared to defend certain GLBT rights, I acknowledge that the article doesn’t really advance any sustained argument (although Au has done so previously on YB). Plenty of TOC articles are in fact relatively free of serious argument — simply because of the nature of the Web medium and its audience. I’m not sure that it’s being more polemical than usual when it comes to GLBT issues.

kf #50,

1) Since you are making the charge that the piece is little more than “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”, can you quote the offending passage that makes such a simpleton argument? (Without, of course, taking it out of context)

2) You disapprove of the presentation and the tone of his piece? Are you for real? If you were referring to the tone and presentation when you called for a “measured” case, all I can say is, don’t be such a sissy.

If you were referring to his arguments or content, you are free to post counter-arguments/points. I look forward to reading them.

la nausea #51,

“Fourth, I’m not sure there is a real need to add a ‘disclaimer’ that Alex Au’s views are not factual or reasoned. It will be a sad day for our society when people aren’t critical enough to evaluate arguments for themselves….”

That reminds me of an old, tired and inane tactic of the Christian right. The ID lobby in the States tried to put in stickers in science textbooks stating that the theory of evolution is a theory not a fact, neglecting to point out that as far as science is concerned, they are all theories, and in common parlance a scientific “theory” is as good as “fact”.

#52,

Granted, there are various portions that require examination in the article, a major principle in language is to look for context first within the word (usually not standalone even with high degree of understanding on different applications), sentence structure, then to surrounding passages, then to surrounding paragraphs, chapters……..and so forth for interpretation. In this case, the sentence reads : ‘India decriminalises gay sex, Singapore shown to be a fool’, the immediate phrase of ‘India decriminalises gay sex’, is ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’, expresses the argument of “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”.

Moderator, please note, expressing views is ok, but I think name calling (e.g. sissy by #52) is uncalled for.

we MUST NOT allow the gay lesbian community to set the moral standard for our society! they are very good at twisting facts and promoting their agenda. consider that they now call themselves gay which sounds better than what they were used to be called, homos, queers and ah kwas. i have stopped using the term gay and will refer to them as homos. i call upon the heterosexual community to call them as such, anything other than their preferred term. it is against the order of nature, so they are queer, isn’t that right?
while i can accept them doing what they want to do. i do not encourage hounding them but at the same time they should do what they want to do in the privacy of their rooms. what i am opposed to is their agenda to make their lifestyle acceptable and even influence the young that it is the better way to live your life! our society had better wake up to the dangerous trend being promoted.

To “interested” – #55. With due respect, I think you are part of the problem. These black/white lines that you draw, bringing in the youth, and “society” is precisely the sort of the anecdotal and gut-drawn evidence that makes the issue so divisive and incendiary.

Rather than lose your top, perhaps you may want to go through some of Arix’s measured responses (I do disagree with some of them, but he/she has been very mature about things). Arix’s very relevant point in calling for some elements of the pink lobby to moderate their over-zealous lobbying is something you should mull over. You are just the other side of the coin. Two trains going at each other at speed are bound to collide with disastrous consequences at some point unless some effort is taken to measure and consider the wider ramifications of your actions.

Anyway, your argument runs into problems when you look at countries/states where anti-gay laws have been repealed. I dont think Satan has purchased beach-front properties in these places. Singapore has got other bigger problems that ought to engender repetitive migraine attacks. The gay issue is hardly one of them – the tone people of your ilk (and your gay counterparts) employ is the problem.

To my friend James Tan – #46, maybe you shouldnt worry about what people do with their anus’ too much. See? Problem solved.

kf #54,

“In this case, the sentence reads : ‘India decriminalises gay sex, Singapore shown to be a fool’, the immediate phrase of ‘India decriminalises gay sex’, is ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’, expresses the argument of “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type’.”

1) It’s a title, not an argument in and of itself.

2) I hate to break this to you, it’s common practice for writers to choose a provocative title and proceed to account for it with their article, essay, books….

3) Heard of “polemics”?

The “sissy” remark was a joke. Let me explain: AA writes forcefully and is gay whereas you have a problem with the “gay agenda” and is the shrinking violet.

interested #55,

“They are very good at twisting facts and promoting their agenda.”

Yup, they are so good at twisting facts and promoting their “agenda” that I haven’t heard a single decent argument against their “agenda” yet (whatever that “agenda” might be). Do you have decent argument? It’s not apparent that your comment has one.

to #55, interested:

The English language reflects sociological prejudices. It is true that certain ‘queer’ identity tags have become rather derogatory, but that is not because being gay is wrong, rather that people think that being gay is wrong.

ie. the term queer to mean a deviation from the norm. It is humans who decide what ‘norm’ is in the first place. and I doubt this singular word has a history of derogation more than a hundred years.

supporting #58’s response to #55,

the way you are twisting facts to promote your own pro-discrimination agenda is rather ironic

to everyone who says they should go back into the closet:

How does one define the ‘public’ and ‘private’ space? And then, bearing in mind tolerance towards multiple religions and their conflicting natures, justify why homosexuals should keep into the confines of their homes. Last I remember, I can hold hands, kiss and touch my brothers AND sisters in a manner mutually affectionate because we love each other.

Also potentially headbumming – which part of the internet is ‘public’ and which is ‘private’?

Personally, I’m against the manipulation of information, whether by the pro-gay or pro-straight. It’s downright irresponsible, and both parties are guilty. So how do we draw the public vs private line in a manner which does not marginalise?

yw #61,

I can envisage what manipulation of information by the anti-gay (I think that’s more accurate than “pro-straight”) lobby is like, but not the pro-gay lobby.

Can you provide an example?

No one is Perfect.

Who has not Sinned?

Sexual preference is merely a small part of life.

Why discriminate and ignore the contributions of Alex?

In my view, as a hetero, Alex’s contributions to society, the system and the people out-weigh his perceived flaws. Perception is in the eyes of the beholder.

You pronounce potay-toes, i pronounce potah-toes.
You choose and believe in religion A, Others religion B.
So, who is right?
So, who is wrong?

Is anyone great enough to Dictate how one lives one’s lives?

Gays should just rot away and die

plopp (#47),

1) “broad” includes recognition of same-sex union on par with heterosexual marriage. “narrow” excludes that.

2) Apologies. For me, the word “profession” has a slightly clinical and mercenary tinge. But yes, we should raise the value of Motherhood, and to be fair, Fatherhood too.

I was being politically-correct in my last statement. It simply means that employers shouldn’t purposely not hire someone because that person is LGBT, though at the same time an LGBT person should not raise an alarm every time he or she gets a rejection slip.

3) It’s fine to talk about Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, UK, France, Egypt, Israel and similar countries. But it is more complex to deal with China, Russia, India and the USA.

The USA is complex because each of its States thinks slightly differently.

The RIC countries are complex because they were formerly feudal empires. China was a Feudal Empire until 1949. (The Warlords Era can be considered somewhat feudal) It is made up of several different nationalities; even the Han Chinese are not really a uniform bloc (just look at how many dialect groups there are). Russia likewise, though a little less.

India is the best: before the British came, the Mughal Empire had already crumbled into a number of mini-sultanates and Hindu or Buddhist Kinglets.
Although India is officially a united country today, it is likely that these mini-cultures haven’t been assimilated into a uniform culture yet. Each of these cultures would think slightly differently: some more conservative and some more liberal. It is hard to say if India is more or less conservative than Singapore.

Even the article that Alex Au cites mentions a BJP (opposition) member who voiced dissent about striking down India’s Section 377.

That aside, the “conservative majority” policy by the PAP does not have populism as its only possible reason for existence, as Alex seems to imply. Despite our tourism advertisements, the government actually views the multiple races and religions in Singapore as liabilities, not assets. (I learnt that in NUS.) Therefore, the government wants to prevent open hostilities from breaking out between the Conservatives and the Liberals; that point was made crystal clear by Home Affairs Minister in the recent AWARE saga.

Alex Au forgot one thing: Our Government eschews populism for pragmatics.

plopp (#47),

4) Well, different countries’ Constitutions have different intents. What is unconstitutional in India is not necessarily unconstitutional in Singapore.

This should help people to navigate the issues before Arix floods this thread with more of his misinformed religious motivation.

What is the Homosexual Agenda?

It is a term coined by the Christian Right. According to the notorious Feminist Mentor Thio Su Mien in a Christian Post Editorial (23 Sep 2008), the homosexual agenda is described as:

1. The homosexual activists seek to mainstream homosexualism as an alternative lifestyle.

2. They demand societal approval because of their identity need. They are not content with the space given them to live their liv es in Singapore, but require society to endorse their lifestyle.

3. To this end, they follow their counterparts in the West and seek foreign
intervention to advance their cause. We do not need foreign interference in a domestic political matter concerning the morality of our nation.

4. The Homosexual Agenda is an aggressive neo-colonist political movement
from the West which seeks to radicalise the institution of marriage and the family unit..

What is the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement?

The Christian Right sought to demonise the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement by labelling it as “The Homosexual Agenda”. Civil rights activists are mainly calling for equality among homosexual and heterosexual people. This is demonstrated by their 5-point action plan:

1. Decriminalisation of sodomy

2. Equalization of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

4. same-sex marriage or civil union

5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.

la nausee (#51),

1) Here is the dumbed-down version:

A heterosexual man (woman) has 2 choices: a) have sex with a woman (man), b) have sex with a man (woman). Choice (b) exists as a “leisure” option.

A gay (lesbian) only has choice (b). A gay (lesbian) claims publicly that choice (a) is not possible because he (she) is a homosexual, and hence is prohibited from having sexual intercourse with a person of opposite sex.

A bisexual has both choices too.

As an aside, I think that the “B” complicates the debate. “B” has the choice of choosing to exercise (a) or (b), so it is legitimate to debate whether “B” should choose (a) or (b). Whereas, based on the current “Gay Gene” debate by the “LGT”, the “LGT” cannot exercise (a) properly.

2) Oh sorry. I thought you meant the exact opposite.

3) Err … “being heard” is worthless if nobody “listens attentively”. The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses.

4) Now it is your turn to misunderstand me. The disclaimer is simply meant to say:

“The writer of this article is the leader of the local Gay Lobby. This article is provided for readers’ information only. The comments and opinions expressed herein do not reflect any particular bias on the part of the Editors of TOC. Its publication does not imply the endorsement or rejection or any of its contents by TOC.”

Nothing about “factual” or “reason” (or lack thereof) here. It is just professionalism, that is all.

This article is more polemic than Alex Au’s other articles (not necessarily on GLBT). I know, I read most of his blog frequently.

Smallvice (#66),

3) Points 1 to 3 of the agenda of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movements – yes, all movements have their agendas – call for equality. Points 4 and 5 are a little more dubious. 4 and 5 have an additional ethical dimension that 1 to 3 do not have.

Same-Sex Marriage is not really identical to opposite sex marriage. The family dynamics are different, even if one partner takes on the “husband” role, and one takes on the “wife” role.

Adopted children can grow very close to their foster parents, but adoption is complicated. It is complicated because of what the birth mother or birth parents might want. Madonna is in a heterosexual marriage, and yet she had so much problem with adoption, what more a homosexual couple?

2) Please, I totally dissociate my stand from that of Doctor Thio. Comparing me to her (implicitly) is comparing apples to oranges.

1) Please do not slander me.

Pritam (#56),

1) I agree with you on this. Other than that it is unenforceable, I also support the repeal of Section 377A because I believe that it is the only way to force people like Interested to come to the discussion table. Using Section 377A as a meat shield does kind of retard our nation’s political growth.

2) I really wish there were more people like you on this thread. But lol, instead of just censuring interested, you should censure sliim and Smallvice as well. One can be both articulate and polemical.

In sum-total, both need to moderate their zeal, and sit down at the metaphorical table to flip through the facts of the situation.

Simply put, to keep calling people bigots is not a way to engage them. And neither is calling them “neo-colonist”.

4) It is kind of a medical fact that more diseases hover round the anus than anywhere else in the body. And that is quite obvious, considering the purpose of the anus.

yw (#61),

1,2,4) As far as I understand it, “private space” means “within your house”, and “public space” means anywhere outside.

Honestly though, what is your first thought when you hear of a Man-Boy Love Association? (And Smallvice, this is a real organization)

3) That still needs to be defined.

Hi Arix,

Are you slandering me in post #68 by suggesting that I had slandered you in this thread? Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg once said, “it takes religion for a good man to do evil.” I sincerely appreciate the well-meaning intention behind your misinformed religious motivation. I hope there remains goodness in you.

Traditional wisdom dictates the key in victory lies in knowing oneself and one’s enemy (知己知敌，百战百胜). That’s why it is hardly surprising you not only mentioned in #67 that you read Alex Au’s blog frequently, but also proposed a disclaimer that creates a psychological barrier to favour the Christian Right.

To better sell the case, why not pretend to be an anti-377A person? The AWARE Incident has demonstrated that entryism is an established practise among Christians. TOC has expressed on several times that only editorial pieces reflect TOC opinion, endorsement and rejection, not other articles/links posted here. You merely want to tip the balance towards the Christian Right.

Only you know better whether there is any association between Thio Su Mien and you. In no way that post #66 suggests there is any association, unless you make it so. You are hardly qualified to define the Homosexual Agenda. Why should anybody refer to you and not the notorious Feminist Mentor Thio Su Mien on the Homosexual Agenda?

You wrote in Post #67: The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses. Are you really that naive? There is no such thing as fairness and that’s why people who advocates for equality has to constantly fight for it. No civil rights movement ever really die. The war against racial discrimination is far from over. The war against homosexual discrimination isn’t too.

Since religious scriptures have cemented homosexual discrimination, eternal vigilance is the way to go whether gay sex is decriminalised or not. Calling the Pink Lobby to moderate its action has to be complemented with revision of holy scriptures. In war, what is important is not who and what are right, but who and what are left. If bigotry religious scriptures still remain as so, the Pink Lobby has to remain too. This is called solving the root of the problem (对症下药).

Hi Pitram Singh #56,

Don’t fall prey to victim card strategy. The Holy Bible is full of victim card strategies – from Daniel’s Ordeal in the Lion’s Den to Paul’s Prison Ministry under Roman Custody. We need to overcome the false goodwill that is projected by misguided individuals and bigoted religious scriptures.

For example, Interested (#55) wrote: while i can accept them doing what they want to do. I do not encourage hounding them but at the same time they should do what they want to do in the privacy of their rooms.

Arix (#70) later supplemented this writing by defining private space as “within your house”, which suggests that Arix frowns on open assembly of homosexuals outside their own house – this means Arix objects homosexuals:

1) to book an entire disco club for an overnight party
2) to book a hall to discuss and share opinion on gay rights
3) to organise an informal picnic with homosexual friends at the Botanic Gardens
4) to form a study group among themselves at the NUS Central Library
5) to dine among themselves at Newton Circus Hawker Centre

So much for equality. Such oppression far exceeds the penal code and miscellanous offence act. Who is the one really anal towards the homosexuals? There is no over-zealous lobbying by the Pink Lobby. There is only oppression endorsed by Religious Lobby, particularly the Christian Right.

Hi yw #61,

How could you put the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement in the same dark shade as the Religious Lobby? The Religious Lobby spells oppression. They even go to the extent of killing people who disagree with them.

Dr George Tiller was murdured by a Christian Right activist on 31 May 2009. Dr Tiller is the medical director of Woma’s Healthcare Services, one of only three nationwide clinics which would provide abortion after the 21st week of pregnancy in the USA.

You might have heard of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. It is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the “spokesperson” of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations. The LRA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the United States.

The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, has been forcefully converting people to Christianity. The Noapara Baptist Church finances the NLFT.

@Arix,

This is how I feel about censuring people.
First, I dont know what censuring people with pseudonyms online would achieve. And secondly, none of us should for one minute think we have some right to censor those who have more (or less) strident views that us. This is an online forum – there is “real-er” equality here – so smallvice and are perfectly entitled to speak their minds. Hence, my disagreement with your earlier remark that Alex’s pieces should not be hosted here, for reasons which I have stated already.

As for anus and diseases, well my point to James was that its not his anus that was getting ruptured, so best to mind one’s own business than to initiate a one-man public education program.

@smallvice -56

I hear you. With every post Arix makes, his composite profile becomes clearer and anyone with half a head will draw their own conclusions. So this is not something we ought to be overly concerned about. Lets have a debate point for point, and worry less about behind the screen agendas, since it will lead nowhere.

“We need to overcome the false goodwill that is projected by misguided individuals and bigoted religious scriptures.”

This line intrigued me for a number of reasons. Not so much, the false goodwill bit, but it seems to identify all religious scriptures as an issue. This is problematic on so many levels. To highlight one, in passing a statement like this, you could have abrogated all the positive (and I believe there are more than enough in the overwhelming majority of all religious texts) images of God in the minds of so many believers of all faiths. If you are not careful about this, your very legitimate fight for gay equality may meet with even more resistance. Keep working at it from the point of equality, and don’t get bogged down by the Christian right, even though some elements may routinely come in to speak for the majority of Singapore on some funny, sometimes government-reinforced conclusion that Singaporeans are conservative – I would believe it if there was some empirical data to accompany.

“There is no over-zealous lobbying by the Pink Lobby.”

I will say that I feel most of it the over-zealous lobbying comes from the Christian right. But perhaps its because of sheer numbers and heat the issue generates from these quarters. But lobbying can be a rather multi-sensory thing too. An in your face, “accept me” complete with a pink dogs, peacock feathers, tight shorts (not all gays are like this i understand and even among gays, there are nuances – my apologies if I painted all of you with one broad brush) does make some uncomfortable – even though it shouldnt be their business – hence my usage of the word multi-sensory. And this I hazard is where the “conservative” labeling of Singaporeans originate from as alluded above. So, the more zealous members of the pink lobby need to accept that some actions have consequences.

Hence, I feel that the battle is not about a straightforward equality issue either (even though I think it should be). If human beings were all rational and ethical creatures, your battle would be less onerous. But because we host a visceral side too, there are other elements to consider as well.

Now as I think about the points I have rambled on about, I seem to have neatly compartmentalised things, as if the real world is as neat. Santayana advises me that history does not provide examples where battles over equality and rights were fought so cleanly. Blood (for our purposes, I hope it remains metaphorical) was almost invariably spilled. Thats why I thought repealing 377a earlier would have lessened this prospect significantly – for a self-proclaimed pragmatic government, it was a highly curious decision.

#Arix (#67), I’m surprised you don’t see the fallacy in your definitions of ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’. If you define homosexuals as those who are exclusively attracted to the same sex (because they “publicly claim” to be so), then you must accept that heterosexuals are those who are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, because they too “publicly claim” to be so. If we can rely on what people self-declare to be their sexual orientation in one case, why not in the other? Otherwise, you’re just shifting the goalposts to suit your argument.

Secondly, you said “The essence of a fair debate is that each side listens attentively to the other, and makes properly-engaging responses.” That’s an ideal case. It does not feature in the ground rules of public debate, i.e. no person can be made to “listen attentively” to the other if he or she wishes not to. The onus is on the speaker to persuade others, not on the listener to suspend judgment just so that he or she can be persuaded.

In any case, as smallvice585 pointed out, the debate isn’t ‘fair’ to begin with, because the minority is often not given the right to equal participation, subject as they are to systematic patterns of violence, threats and abuse by the majority. In such a case, the minority needs to put its case in more strident terms in order just to be heard. Asking them to “listen attentively” is simply giving the majority one more opportunity to silence them.

Lastly, the disclaimer is pointless. Of course the publication of the article “reflects a particular bias” on the part of TOC; of course it shows the endorsement of GLBT rights. You may disagree with that stance, and that’s where your right to disagree comes in.

The acid test, I think, is to look at other instances where TOC has ‘excerpted’ articles from elsewhere, and ask whether we feel a need for a disclaimer in those instances. See, for instance, the article on the ‘Burger King ad’ (here). If there’s no need to add a disclaimer that the blog featured there (Taragana) is not Singapore-based and thus may not reflect the views of a Singapore audience, why the need for a disclaimer here?

Do Singaporeans have rights?

Most regular TOC posters would say “No”.

So why shld Alex Au and friends have rights?

Waz so special abt them? Other than they more articulate than most Singaporeans? And do anal sex more regularly than straights (here I’m guessing).

))))

to #64, #65 Arix:

1) So the only difference would be recognition of civil union on par with marriage? It seems rather unnecessary to grant equality in every aspect OTHER than marriage, why stop there? Will homosexuals not getting married necessarily mean that they will marry people of the opposite sex, and for that matter, will it actually stop them from cohabiting / staying in lifelong relationships? The recognition of a piece of paper is only then a legal acknowledgment of what is already the case (in Singapore, at least). I don’t really understand the need for this ‘division’ between broadness and narrowness if the only indicator is homosexual civil union….

2) Agreed.

Regarding your point about employers hiring and sacking LGBT people – agreed that LGBT people shouldn’t be falsely alarmist if they get sacked for normal, fair reasons e.g. ineptitude, etc, etc but employers may well find other reasons to sack them;
(to contrast: If a woman is sacked because she’s pregnant, her employer could just say that it was because her efficiency dropped, or that they’re downsizing for the economic crisis, or any number of reasons, but she can still accuse him of sacking her due to her pregnancy, and have it investigated…? Theoretically speaking, at least.)

3) Oddly, I thought Australia and France would be more similar to America than RIC and Egypt/Israel.

Nonetheless, what major difference would a feudal and non-feudal history make? China today is certainly not feudal, what with the psychological rewiring done to the national psyche by the Communist government. Before the Communist victory, China and Singapore would have more similarities since most Singaporeans are, after all, at least somewhat culturally Chinese.

India, on the other hand, shares an undeniable British colonial history and it has had the longest history of colonialism of all the Commonwealth countries. The fact that much of both our Constitutions derive from the British one, proves this. Even if the fractured former sultanates and areas in India still have their own regional slants, they would all have been deeply affected by the dominating presence of the British for close to 200 years. It doesn’t take much of a stretch of thinking to assume that the effects of British rule would be more impactful than that of the Mughals. With regard to 377A, treatment of sexuality in India was actually less conservative before the British came and disseminated Victorian morality.

On the other hand, perhaps if India -isn’t- more conservative than Singapore, you’d be hard-pressed to declare it -more- liberal than Singapore, since, as you say, it is very diverse. If the liberalness or conservativeness of India is difficult to ascertain, then why not just ignore it when assessing their constitutional law – and do similarly for Singapore?

Also, any issue would have its dissenters and supporters in any normal functioning democracy. If the BJP member could garner enough votes to keep 377 in, that’d be their choice? Personally I would think that that’s a reflection of democracy not feudalism, though I do agree that that reflects heterogenous opinions.

By the way, since Malaysia and Singapore can be discussed on par (both by your standards, and by our British colonial past which is also shared with India), if Malaysia decides to strike down their own version of 377 one day (in usual law, not syariah), would you agree that Singapore should too?

Erm, would also like to clarify why the government seems to think that our multiracial/religious makeup is a liability. Furthermore, political conservatism and liberalism is not necessarily divided along racial lines – many ultraconservatives and ultraliberals in Singapore are Chinese. Much as religion can affect political slants, it isn’t the be-all and end-all of everyone’s paradigms.

Also, in view of the higher proportion of non-Chinese opposition members that do not need GRC systems to prop them in – if the PAP worries about multiracial-religious composition then it’d be fearing that they unite against them instead of breaking up to fight in factions?

Lastly, is pragmatism always excluding of populism? How can a government be pragmatic if the pragmatic policies do not benefit the population which validate the government’s existence?

Pritnam Singh #74,

Since I am being invoked (“you should censure sliim”), I would like to wade in tangentially so you get the right impression.

Some gems from Arix:

“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? [in reference to hate the sin, not the sinner]”

“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.”

Source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/change-you-can-believe-in-part-one/

In any case, I agree that smallvice can come on a little strong with his arguments. Having said that, he did qualify the religious scriptures he/she was referring to: “bigoted”.

First, Arix has not really used Religion to argue his/her point. In fact, I don’t think anyone is the thread so far has used Religion to ’substantiate’ a point. Even if they are religiously motivated, please stick to the points brought up and not question the ‘motivation’. So far, I think it’s wondering that nobody has yet resort to quoting Bible or any holy text to make a point.

——————————

To Arix on this statement:
“Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”

I agree with la nausée that it is a ludicrous statement… and lol-ed when he said that simply reproducing the statement is enough… I agreed totally!

Why? Because you applied the ‘limit’ of homosexuals to have homosex, and for some strange reason, do NOT apply the ‘limit’ of heterosexuals to do heterosex. Somehow you applied two different standards but appeared to be unaware of it. (As a heterosex person, I can tell you I AM limited and cannot do homosex. It’s disgusts me… I don’t think I can ‘perform’ at all.)

ONLY bisexuals do both, and have a ‘choice’ as you have put it.

My stand is along the lines of what Voltaire (or his friends) have said: I disapprove of (homosex), but I will defend to the death (maybe less extreme) your right to do ‘it’.

* wonderFUL

I do not see the need to censure Yawning bread. Most of us who logs in to TOC kns abt Yawning bread and their POV. TOC is different from national newspaper say The Strait Times where readers can be less discerning and young. Most TOC readers are well-knowledged and understand the socio-political view of contributors well. As such, censuring is just a counter-productive activities.

I applaud TOC to link such controversial contributor such as Yawning bread in the mix. If it serves to be an interesting and thought provoking online articles as it shld be, it has to include writers with a unique pov. And Yawning bread serves that. And by linking it, I do not see how it can be perceived to be advocating, bearing in mind that ppl that actually log in to TOC or bother to read TOC shld be of a certain maturity as the subject it deals with are most of the time serious and heavy.

There is hardly any entertainment news that will draw young kids in. So why the need to censure. If all we do is to censure, even online, there is really nothing much to read.

Smallvice #31,

“You have a wonderful trick there…”

Come on, give Arix more credit than that.

He/she is the closest thing to a sophist I’ve seen on TOC. I think the most common is mis-framing the issue and padding it with extraneous information to give an argument a semblance of legitimacy. Implicit premises no more than bald assertions, shifting of goalposts, obscurantism…

@Sllim- 77

Ah, thank you for the “gems”. Looks like an even clearer picture on Arix has emerged. I understand better where smallvice was coming from now.

I take the point about the use of the word bigoted. It served to qualify things somewhat, but when looked at it within the context of the point, a different picture could emerge.

@plopp (#78),

I think a distinction can actually be drawn between marriages and civil unions, such that they are not put on an equal footing.

The (secular) bases for the institution of marriage are:
(1) The government wishes to promote a society composed of stable, lifelong, monogamous relationships.
(2) The government wishes to encourage the birth of children within a stable, lifelong, monogamous relationship.
(3) The government wishes to encourage the bringing up of children within a stable, lifelong, monogamous, opposite-sex relationship.

If (1) were the only relevant factor, there’d be no basis for distinguishing (opposite-sex) marriages and (same-sex) civil unions. But (2) and (3) may be valid bases for distinction.

First, as regards (3), we may argue that it’s in the child’s best interests to be brought up by opposite-sex parents (although this is hotly debated), or alternatively, that the child’s best interests demand that the State should formally promote same-sex parenthood only if there is compelling evidence that the child would not be disadvantaged compared to another child brought up by opposite-sex parents. (This is also an argument against adoption by GLBT couples.) Otherwise, the State should promote only opposite-sex marriage/parenthood, through the appropriate subsidies and facilities associated with the institution of marriage.

Second, (2) and (3) may be linked. We may say that the State should encourage children to be brought up by their biological parents. A side-effect of such a policy would be the exclusion of gays and lesbians, since they cannot reproduce.

So there may be a basis for retaining a distinction between marriages and all other relationships.

But the interesting flipside is this. What about opposite-sex couples who wish to marry but declare that they will never have kids, or who are unable to do so? (2) and (3) cease to be relevant factors. I would argue that in such a case, to be consistent and non-discriminatory, we must allow these couples to enter only into civil unions. A radical proposal would be to allow marriage for all opposite-sex couples, but for any such marriage to be automatically ‘downgraded’ into a civil union if the couple fails to have kids within X number of years.

Ref to posts #6, #42, #68 [Arix], #25, #51, #76 [la nausee] and #80 lobo76

I have been following the arguments relating to this assertion made by Arix in #6:

“Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”

This is a ludicrous statement as la nausee and lobo76 have both pointed out, with their convincing arguments. Yet Arix has been adamant there is nothing wrong with it.

I agree of course that Arix was talking nonsense without realizing it. But the irrationality in his statement has been pointed out to him and yet he cannot see the light.

To Arix: please analyze, once again if necessary, your statement/arguments and the arguments from la nausee and lobo76. Please use the dictionary if necessary for the meaning of the terms that appear in your statement. And, finally, please admit you made a ludicrous statement.

smallvice (#72),

1) I would ask Mr Weinberg if he meant organized religion or religious spirituality. But let’s not get into that debate here.

2) Err … I didn’t treat Alex Au as my enemy. I read his blog because I find most of his posts well-informed. This, unfortunately, wasn’t one of those. I find most of his insights refreshing, so I read them.

Apologies, but I am not as mercenary as you are.

3) What the hell is “entryism”? Go back and look at the disclaimer again. I am amazed that you can ever find anything in that which is pro Christian-Right.

Because, let me remind you, I am not a member of the Christian Right; I am not with FM Thio and Thio Jr; I am not with City Harvest.

4) Wow, thanks for helping me clarify that point.

5) I am sorry; I am not as pessimistic as you are. Hmm, maybe your pessimism is because you are an atheist. That was Nietzsche’s conclusion: that all atheists would eventually become nihilists, because they have no more purpose left in life.

6) Holy Scriptures are historic texts; changing them is akin to tampering with archaeological findings. What can be changed, though, is the interpretation of these texts. And I do agree, some interpretations need to be changed, but one needs to find the correct over-arching framework before suggesting any changes.

And no, that over-arching framework must necessarily be of a higher-level than secular humanism.

Smallvice (#73),

1) Why don’t you go read some books on proper theology first before making faux pas statements on “victim-card” strategies?

3) Here you are, again, jumping to conclusions. I said “As far as I understand” which means “as far as I perceive others to think”. I agree, in fact, with yw over his/her comment that the “public” and “private” spaces are ill-defined.

In fact, what about you provide your definition? I am really interested to know what your definition of “public” and “private” are.

4) Haven’t you heard: it takes two hands to clap.

to #85 la nausée:

From what I understand, a civil union would just be a recognised (ideally) monogamous relationship between two people?

With regard to (2) and (3) I am of the opinion that the sex of the parents matter less than their ability to take care of the kid. Also, the subsidies and benefits that you mention (with regard to marriages) would only apply to their children and child leave, etc? Or do you include things like spousal tax relief?

In that case if the former (all subsidies are child-related only) is true, then there’ll be no point distinguishing marriages and civil unions, what if the heterosexual couple in a civil union one day decide to have a child? In the case of the latter, discriminating against childless couples (and/or homosexuals) in civil unions for spousal tax relief and suchlike would seem rather unjustified by itself.

As a random thought, LGBT would-be parents could always resort to sperm banks and homosexual friends of the opposite sex to have kids =)

Pritham (#75),

1) “censuring” is different from “Censoring”. Anyway, I only post in response to other people’s posts; you were censuring Interested in your post, so I made the remark that some pro-gay people need to be censured as well.

2) haha:D.

3) Yes, let’s have a debate point-for-point. But please, brush anything that Smallvice says to the side. He is not here to participate properly in the debate; he is here to chase me off this thread.

I thanked you for your positive attitude; and I hope you will maintain it.

4) Yes, as you say, “problematic on all levels”. So, have you a feeling for smallvice’s true agenda yet?

5) Indeed.

6) No, it isn’t a straightforward equality issue either, although that is what the Pink Lobby tries to portray. It is not straightforward, however, because of the psychosexual aspect, which is a different aspect from the biological aspect in race discrrimination.

7) The government sees the repeal of 377A as a possible cause of Liberal-Conservative violence in Singapore, which would harm our political stability and the government’s prize treasure of FDI by MNCs. So it is a pragmatic policy to retain 377A.

@plopp:

Basically, I’m arguing that institutions like marriage and civil unions are not entitlements, i.e. no one has a ‘right’ to marry, unlike the right to engage in sexual activity. Rather, the State may disburse subsidies and levy taxes on certain classes of individuals as appropriate to promote certain goals (e.g., the proper bringing up of children), by modifying individual behaviour. Marriage is one formal way of doing this. As long as there’s some connection between the class of people identified (such as opposite-sex couples in a long-term relationship who have kids) and the social goal, no one can claim to be ‘discriminated’ against simply because he or she does not receive the benefits others get.

I think the benefits/taxes for marriages would encompass both child-related and non-child-related subsidies (like priority for HDB flat ownership), since even if the couple doesn’t currently have kids, the expectation is that they’ll have kids soon (say within the next 5-10 years). If they don’t, then they should lose the subsidies/benefits by being ‘downgraded’.

This is not to say that there shouldn’t be subsidies/benefits for civil unions too, although less than those for marriages. After all, as I said, the State has a separate interest in promoting stable monogamous relationships, regardless of whether child-raising is involved. So the State may recognize a separate category called ‘civil unions’ for couples unwilling or unable to have children (whether opposite-sex or same-sex).

If a childless couple subsequently wishes to have children, then they should be ‘upgraded’ again. Here, the marriage-civil union distinction serves precisely to incentivize having children.

Of course, I’ve been assuming an equivalence between (1) opposite-sex couples unwilling or unable to have children, and (2) same-sex couples. As you say, adoption and/or modern science are changing that somewhat. But the issue is then is not whether same-sex couples can have children — they can. It’s whether the State should promote this. A lot turns on what would be in the child’s best interests. The ‘play it safe’ approach, which I subscribe to, says that the State should promote only opposite-sex parenthood unless and until same-sex parenthood is shown to be equally beneficial for the child’s welfare.

I actually couldn’t follow the comments here=P had to keep tracing back to see which comment/ commentor everyone is referring too…

But for those who think this is just a LGBT issue, and just another ploy of LBGTs trying to push their agendas… Then perhaps we should ban any article related to animals, racism, politics- or just any article at all. Cos all articles are trying to convince us of something that the writer believes in.

So why only shut out LGBT issues? Do they not have the right to have their concerns addressed, just like any other minority groups?

@Arix

Because I censure Interested, it doesnt make it imperative on me to do the same to others. I am no neutral party in this online debate that can be expected to play this role. If it helps, I see interested as a much larger problem than smallvice. And because I disagree with smallvice on some counts, doesnt mean that I should censure him (from my personal pov) the same way I do to interested. After all, I disagree with my friends on some issues, but they are still my friends. And anyway, both interested and smallvice can just say “up yours” to me.

Well Arix, no one can chase you off any thread. Its your arguments and value-add that interest. If you feel you are being chased away, look at your arguments again. Obviously others disagree and have different points to make. Clearly your “gems” dont seem to have done you any favours. Maybe more people disagree with you here – and thats ok. You made your points, they’ve made theirs. Case closed, let the readers decide.

I dont understand this – 6) “No, it isn’t a straightforward equality issue either, although that is what the Pink Lobby tries to portray. It is not straightforward, however, because of the psychosexual aspect, which is a different aspect from the biological aspect in race discrrimination.”

Wld you at least perhaps concede that equality has a large part to play in the gay debate, even more than the psychosexual issues you speak of, without prejudicing your anticipated explanation?

I see your point about the govt keeping a lid on this because of a possible liberal-conservative values clash. But I sense an inductive leap here, between repealing 377a and FDIs. Has FDI disappeared from countries that treat gays relatively more equally?

la nausee (#76),

1) Put it this way, a person with a phobia of spiders can still force himself – or be forced – to watch a movie entirely about spiders. So, a heterosexual that is exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex can still have sex – masturbate, anal, groupie – with members of the same sex for reasons other than sexual attraction.

Whereas, Homosexuals publicly claim that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason.

2) “Listening attentively” should not be confused with “persuaded”. “Listening Attentively” simply means bothering to understand fully where the speaker comes from, and being able to see the speaker’s evidence from the speaker’s POV. Whether you agree with the speaker is something else.

I listen attentively; I bother to respond to each and every paragraph of each post I respond to, even the short ones. Unlike Smallvice, who is simply forcing a plaster mould onto me out of his own anti-religious prejudice.

3) I don’t actually believe in a conservative majority either. I believe instead that there is a conservative minority, a liberal minority and an apathetic majority.

Anyhow, “listening attentively” does not provide the carte blanche for anyone to be silenced. Instead, if they listened more attentively, they would be able to provide more informed criticism and might find that all this agitation to be really unnecessary.

The one element that is different between a non-Fundamentalist Religious Authority and a Secular Government is this: the former is required to demonstrate love in its association with others as part of its duty; the latter cares only about mechanical efficiency. If the Pink Lobby was a little more attentive, it might realize that it could work with the Moderates against the Fundamentalists, and come to a solution whereby both can accept, without compromising either side’s deep-felt convictions.

Of course, listening attentively is dangerous too, because it involves exercising judgement over all the points. And sometimes, the judgement might result in you being “persuaded” to join the other camp. The Pink Lobby loves to assume that everyone can be “persuaded” to join their camp, but refuses to accept that it is equally valid that anyone from their camp could also be “persuaded” to join the religious (moderate) side.

Smallvice also tends to think that everyone thinks like him. Frankly, there is no more a “liberal majority” than there is a “conservative majority”.

4) The issue here is not the bias. The issue here is fair presentation of the views of the other side, and the professionalism of TOC in presenting “foreign” material that is of subjective quality.

5) Pick some other article, please. The Burger-King article is a news report, not an op-ed piece. It covers facts, not opinions.

Pritam Singh #84,

If you are referring to what seems like a disproportionately aggressive stance by smallvice, I agree. Otherwise, I am curious as to what that “context” might be.

@93) Pritam Singh

“But I sense an inductive leap here, between repealing 377a and FDIs. Has FDI disappeared from countries that treat gays relatively more equally?”

Nice one, Pritam=)

Alex Au and people like you

As our “Justice” minister said “Up to courts” to reinterpret 377A.

So why not get that lover of all causes espoused by GLBT, militant feminists and anal sex proponents, Siew Kum Hong, to return to practicising law, so that he can launch a court action arguing 377A is unconstitutional

Remember all the gd work he did for “people like you” in Parly?

Pritham (#93),

1) Perhaps “make critique” would be a better word. Anyway, it is not the points that I intend to censure, it is the attitude behind the presentation of the points.

In the case of Interested, it is correct for eg to say that homosexuals have been called “homo, queer … ah kua”, but incorrect to imply that they should continue being called that.

Similarly, for Smallvice, if he wants to state and critique Dr Thio’s POV, it is fine. But making spurious links between me and her is not.

2) Yes, let the readers decide on the topic. But I am not going to stand for my dignity to be insulted by anyone, smallvice or otherwise. We can have passionate discourse, but passionate discourse shouldn’t be including tactics of poisoning the well.

4) Equality has a large part to play for points 1 to 3 of the agenda of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement (to use the politically-correct term), because it deals with societal structures and neutral organizations. For points 4 and 5, the psychosexual issue has a larger role to play because it deals with the personal and relational sphere.

The change engendered by points 4 and 5 is far more sweeping than any change initiated by a previous civil rights movement. That is mainly because it involves familial relationships and children. Or perhaps, civil rights don’t apply to children?

Adoption isn’t just about the child and the foster parent. It also (should) includes the feelings of the birth parent(s). Hence, the furore over Madonna’s African adoptions.

The problem with studies on 4 & 5 is that they have been commissioned by representatives from either side of the debate, resulting in results that are naturally biased towards the side that commissioned the research. We need an independent, academic study into these two issues before coming to any conclusion whether to preserve or repeal current law. Meanwhile, of course, we cannot have a policy vacuum, so we maintain the convention until it is disproved.

5) Well, it is not my inductive leap. But it is not surprising, given the government’s attitude towards public protests.

Hi Lobo76 #80,

It matters in questioning religious motivation. We cannot give religious motivation any legitimacy or religion any legitimate claim to moral authority. Otherwise, religious institutions would continue to assert undue moral tone that lead to oppression. This is especially important in public debate so as to conserve positive secularism in Singapore where religion already has a pre-determined role in public life. Beware of religious people trying to circumvent positive secularism.

@Arix (#94), I’m not sure homosexuals claim “that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason”. I would be interested in knowing first-hand a gay or a lesbian who claims that he/she has an in-built circuit breaker that explicitly stops him/her from having sex with members of the opposite sex.

Otherwise, homosexuals are just as free or unfree to have sex with the opposite sex “for reasons other than sexual attraction” as heterosexuals are to have sex with members of the same sex. The vast majority of homosexuals would admit that they may be ‘forced’ into having sex with the opposite sex (e.g., rape, blackmail, impaired judgment).

Moreover, you’re introducing what a person ‘publicly claims’ to be his/her sexual orientation as a factor in his/her freedom to engage in sex. If so, you must apply it consistently across the board. The vast majority of heterosexuals ‘publicly claim’ to be incapable of feeling sexually attracted to the opposite sex — that’s the whole point of that label. If so, they as ‘limited’ by what they’ve publicly claimed as homosexuals allegedly are (according to you).

And in case you retreat into the ambiguity inherent in the phrase ‘publicly claims’, let me pre-empt that. Many heterosexuals do not expressly and publicly declare, “I do solemnly swear that I am biologically and psychologically incapable of being attracted to a member of the opposite sex.” Yet neither do a great majority of homosexuals. We often have to infer (or attempt to infer) a person’s sexual orientation from his or her conduct and words.

I’m not sure there’s any point continuing this bizarre debate, because the rebuttals have been set out in full, and it’s up to you whether you wish to listen attentively or not. No one has a right to compel you to do so.

And that adequately deals with the middle portion of our discussion too.

Lastly, you say that the article on the Burger King ad is a (‘neutral’) news report, not an op-ed piece. Is that simply because the statements are quoted in the third person, rather than simply extracted as in this article? So the essence of the distinction is that the former article expressly shows that the quoted statements are made by a living, breathing human being with his own personal views and background (‘filthy imperialist angmoh with PC liberal values’)? Conversely, this article fails to remind readers that the extracted piece may not be the absolute Truth, and therefore is unfair?

la nausée #85,

I might be wrong but there seems to be a case of begging the question in #3.

99) smallvice585 on July 6th, 2009 3.11 pm

My point is that regardless of (religious) motivation, if they can provide real substance (secular evidence) to their argument, then it is worth listening. And so far, their arguments have been quite secular (in this topic).

100) la nausée on July 6th, 2009 3.13 pm
“The vast majority of homosexuals would admit that they may be ‘forced’ into having sex with the opposite sex (e.g., rape, blackmail, impaired judgment).”

Just like to add one more reason.. trying to conform to expectation of others.

@sllim (#101), I don’t think there is. Perhaps a better elaboration is this:

(3) The government wishes to encourage the bringing up of children in a manner which accords with their best interests, and this is found within a stable, lifelong, monogamous, opposite-sex relationship.

It’s the italicized part which is up for debate, and as Arix suggests in another comment (#98), this needs to be scientifically validated. But it seems to me that the burden of proof is on those who wish to ‘normalize’ same-sex parenthood, simply because our concern for the child should mean deferring first to the ‘tried-and-tested’ way of raising children (opposite-sex parenthood). (Of course, other forms of parenthood do exist — single mothers etc. — but we’re focusing on which forms ought to be promoted.)

The contours of this debate over GLBT rights to child-adoption and -raising are different from those in the debate over GLBT rights to engage in consensual sex. In the former, the interests of others (the children) are clearly engaged (so that Mill’s harm principle is triggered). Hence, greater restraint is warranted.

Hi lobo76 #102,

My point lies in winning the war, not just the battle. That’s why it matters in minimising and isolating religious forces and religious thoughts. A public debate is not an academic debate. It is a number game that involves politics, lobbying, dividing, discrediting, championing and elimination. Just as Pitram Singh pointed out, it is not a simple issue of straightforward equality. In an ideal world, reason alone is sufficient but we live in an imperfect world.

Hi Arix #87 #88,

You wrote: Apologies, but I am not as mercenary as you are. How does the word mercenary even apply in this context? Whose the one supporting Oppression? I am not the one who said gays cannot dine with fellow gays at Newton Circus Hawker Centre because it is “outside the house”.

Theology is not the only interpretation of holy scriptures. They are also archaelogical text that details ancient history. You wrote: What the hell is “entryism”? Google is your best friend. Wikipedia is your buddy.

Maybe the Bible can give you the answer. I can’t recall off-hand at the moment, but I am pretty sure there are entryist strategies recorded in the Old Testament detailing how the Israelites conquered cities and fortresses. Victim Card is not the only strategy recorded in the Bible.

It takes 2 hands to clap and it does not have to involve the hand of the religious lobby. Given the obstinacy of the religious lobby, obviously the strategic thing to do is to remove the religious lobby’s hand and clap my hand with the public hand. Religion is no more than poison of the mind. Religious institutions are no more than scum of society. For the sake of progressive enlightment, religion has to be eradicated at the personal and societal level. I urge you to reform your ways and abandon your faith.

This is a copy and paste text. religions fundies always assert that ‘because the bible said so’,

It seems that the bible has too many changes throught out history. And in Jul next yr, one will see a very early edition of the bible online…and some very diff text are in it…including the (gasp) absent of resurrention.

“What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What’s left out?

The world’s oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found – or stolen, as the monks say – in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today – and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.”

For more details, pls refer to:
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

plopp (#78),

1) Because, as I replied to Pritham, marriage consists of just more than the individual, or even the couple. With children, the (adopted) children still need to interact with their (adoptive) (heterosexual) grandparents. Without children, the couple still needs to function with their relatives, of whom the majority would (naturally) be heterosexual.

3) Certainly. Anyway, I would expect employers to give a proper reason for sacking any worker. Even in the case of a recession-caused retrenchment, there should at least be a civil acknowledgement.

4) Actually, America stands in a class on its own. But I meant in terms of political disparity. America is politically disparate because it chooses to be so. RIC are politically disparate because they originated so.

5) Whatever “rewiring” the Communist Party has done, its effects are not as uniform as Europe-USA thinks. China is still made up of several ethnicities, and these ethnicities have different cultures.

Culturally, Singapore and China would have similarities, but not fully. China is after all … Chinese, and Singaporeans – particularly the peranakans – would have interface with the other minority cultures, not to mention some colonial policy. Furthermore, Singaporean Chinese are Nanyang Chinese; China Chinese are more than just Nanyang Chinese. Look at how big China is, and how many different provinces it has.

6) “Deeply Affected” does not necessarily imply a pro-colonial transformation. Africa was also deeply affected by European colonialization, but yet we have the terrible genocides in Rwanda, DRC and Zimbabwe.

Also, Consitutions are usually developed by an urban elite; Sultanates extend beyond the city. How much the British touched the Indian countryside is a matter for debate. American Colonization of the Philippines for instance, only managed to fully control the Northern Island; that is how MILF was able to form in the south. And Indian Subcontinent is certainly much larger than the Philippines.

7) Precisely, you took the words right out of my mouth (in a good way).

8) The point about BJP was to demonstrate the existence of the alternate opinion, and the opinion of the Religious Groups. Not to show the presence of feudalism in India’s system. BJP, after all, is as much a Hindu Party as PAS in Malaysia is an Islamic Party.

9) Well, seriously I already stated that I would like 377A to be abolished, whether or not Malaysia takes the lead. Why does everyone here keep assuming that I want 377A retained, even after I stated very clearly.

But anyway, each case must be assessed on its own merits. “Unconsitutional” is not enough. We must evaluate the reasons why it is considered “unconstitutional”. And anyway, our Constitution has the article citing that the Fundamental Liberties do not apply to public security and public morality transgressions. I am not sure if the Malaysian and Indian Constitutions have that same provision.

Could you enlighten me?

10&11) The government likes unity, and all differences constitute a potential source of division. Division creates conflict, and conflict leads to instability. Instability leads to outward flight of FDI.

12) Depends on what your Ultimate Goal is. If the government’s Ultimate Goal is just raw political survival, than populism is pragmatic. If it is something else like infinite wealth, than populism is not pragmatic, because obviously some people – or the government’s mythic “conservative majority” – will oppose what they would perceive as greed.

In the end, all Pragmatism is guided by an Underlying Ideology.

Honestly, all of us should be familiar with this line of thinking already. Not that it is correct, of course. But well, it is the reality.

JC (#107),

The earliest Bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea, which is about a century older than the Codex Sinaiticus.

Correction Arix:

As you mentioned, the bible is compiled at the council of Nicea decree by Emperor Constantine. And it is based on popular vote during the times.

It is in fact written during the Constantine time and not a century older.

“In many people’s eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written around the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.” By Roger Bolton.

What is Codex Sinaiticus?
Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

The significance of Codex Sinaiticus for the reconstruction of the Christian Bible’s original text, the history of the Bible and the history of Western book-making is immense.

All this is interesting but not about the topic at hand…

lobo76 (#80),

1) I am keeping from quoting biblical verses, because I don’t want to attract any more misinterpretation from smallvice. I really want to keep to the topic, and not drift off into another atheisim vs. religion debate.

rest) I explained out to someone else already; I don’t wish to repeat myself. And for your quote from voltaire, one can have a right, but one doesn’t necessarily have to exercise it.

JC (#82),

“Censure” is totally different from “Censor”. Please don’t confuse both words.

haha…this is quite true.

Well, i always think that a lot of discrimination comes abt based on a person’s belief in Absolutism, Not religions. If a person’s thinking is such that it is one track minded, B/W, that is where all the problems come abt. ‘I am right, therefore, you are wrong.’ And so we can argue all the way. however, if more people can realise that things are not so simple, and can be relative and situational…may be the world will be a better place.

sliim (#83),

Pardon me, but I believe that you and Smallvice are far more sophist than I am. When I really don’t know something, I make my ignorance clear and ask for clarification. And I have done that repeatedly. You can seriously go and check through all my posts on the other thread. The most recent is #108 on this thread.

I do not shift goalposts; I simply respond to people shifting goalposts, people like Smallvice. I make my stand clear and consistent, and am willing to clarify it repeatedly for anyone who doesn’t understand it.

But sorry, I do not approach the issue with the same shallowness that you and Smallvice do. I want to deal with it holistically, in all its aspects. You are free to reject any of these aspects, but at least give others the choice or accepting or rejecting them, and don’t force your views down others’ throats.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Arix, I do kn the meaning of Censure –

1. Strong or vehement expression of dissapproval.
2. An official reprimand
3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner
4. to give censure, adverse criticism, dissapproval or blame (by dictionary.com).

Is that what you want TOC to do? Hv a link on Yawning bread and censure it? why not just censor? It begs me to wonder whether u understand the word ‘Censure’? Or u r refering to censor?

Granted, u are suggesting ‘Censure’? For what? As mentioned #82, most readers here hv some level of maturity. And ppl who bothers (assume) to read TOC hv a discerning mind. The fact that they are interested in political natured blog and site shows that they are out to critic and think for themselves. So all TOC needs to do is to present a pov. The readers will be able to decide what they think. Censure? No need. Censor? For what?

la nausee (#85),

4) Actually the State should do this. The existence of adoption – homosexuality aside – is a societal imperfection that results from the inability of the parents – usually economic – to take care of the child. If the State were to provide the appropriate welfare, than adoption need not even be considered as a choice.

5) Errr … I think you misunderstand the difference between marriage and civil unions. The Institution of the Civil Union was created because the Religious Institutions refused to perform Marriages for certain classes of people. Under the social predominance of the Atheists/Secularists, it was decided that it is the State that has the ultimate authority over relationships, therefore a non-religious marriage system was instituted called the Civil Union.

The difference between marriage and civil union is about who carries out the ceremony, not whether the resultant relationship is childbearing.

JC (#116),

In the first place, I didn’t use “censure” to refer to Alex Au. I used it to refer to Smallvice and Interested.

But I do believe that TOC should at least state whose POV it is. If TOC really endorses the full opinion of this article, then just state it, instead of leaving it in limbo. If not, then include the disclaimer.

I don’t know why so many people are making such a big fuss over such a trivial thing. Perhaps it is because Smallvice has been throwing in red herrings.

La nausee (#104),

Exactly. But then the Pink Lobby likes side-stepping this crucial issue. Unfortunately.

JC (#110),

Well, it is interesting. Hopefully, it doesn’t turn out to be another hoax like the Gospel of Judas. But yes, this original text would be most enlightening to read. Still though, please note that the Bible was compiled at the Council; it wasn’t written at the Council.

smallvice (#105),

If you still believe that trash then get out of this thread, because you are clearly not interested in adding to the substance of this debate. Bring your dirty lobbying, dividing and alienation to the streets, and keep out of this thread’s discussion, and leave the debate to the more civil people here.

I am here for constructive dialogue, not for destructive warfare. I don’t mind disagreement, even passionate one, and I am willing to be corrected if I am truly non-factual. But I am not interested in playing politics on this thread. if I were, you would be long out of TOC.

Lobo76 and others,

Please ignore Smallvice. He has made his agenda plain and clear already.

Smallvice (#106),

1) I congratulate you for your amazing degree of imagination; perhaps you can help me finish my novel.

2) Okay, I shall.

3) The Old Testament cannot only be judged in terms of our own culture. It must be judged in terms of the culture of the Ancient Near East then and the relevant psyche that the Israelites would have had. So, entryism is an anachronistic interpretation of whatever verses or passages or events you were thinking of.

4) I congratulate you for managing to sound as bigoted as your Christian Right enemies, not to mention extremely arrogant as well.

3)

la nausée #104,

My contention would be that the burden of proof lies on the government in the case you outlined (#33).

1) The scientific community is pretty much in agreement that they understand very little about sexual orientation, hetero/homo or otherwise (although they agree that genetics/hormones are somehow in play). Since the government claims positively that sexual orientation somehow informs parenting ability, I believe the burden of proof falls on them.

2) That aside, there doesn’t seem to be a significant difference between children brought up by same-sex or opposite-sex parents. (See http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpstspec.html).
*I have only read a third of the abstracts.

3) Opposite-sex parents are certainly “tried” but by what barometer are they “tested”? The traditional nuclear family unit (one man, one woman, and kids) and consequently parenthood, is a relatively rare one in history, the most common being one man, multiple wives, and kids. Furthermore, the traditional nuclear family unit, in my opinion, is buttressed by the male breadwinner-housewife convention. And I am not convinced of how much that applies anymore.

P.S. Arix has a very partial take on science, especially when it wins out over religiously-informed convictions, so I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. His Intelligent Design Rigmarole/ unsubstantiated Big Bang rant is available at: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/06/vocalness-–-an-effective-tool-in-the-battle-of-belief-systems/

@Arix (#117),

I’m not sure what you mean by “the State should do this“. In any case, the question is not solely about economic means, or lack thereof. It’s about what kind of immediate social environment the child should be brought up in. Now that you frame the problem in terms of an ‘imperfection’, perhaps a test case where there is a social imperfection is such: should a child be brought up by a single mother who is the biological parent, or by a gay couple as adoptive parents?

Secondly, as I emphasized in post #85, marriage as recognized by the State is justified on purely secular grounds. The manner in which the accompanying religious ceremony is carried out (and any defect in it) does not affect the validity of the marriage itself — a marriage under Singapore law is valid as long as it’s solemnized by the Registrar of Marriages according to the criteria prescribed by the State (see sections 22 and 24 of the Women’s Charter).

This is not to deny that there are such things as purely religious marriages. But the crucial point is that state-sanctioned marriage is understood independently of any religious grounds. Hence, my contention that marriage is primarily a policy to encourage certain behaviours like monogamy and child-raising (when used in conjunction with the relevant subsidies/benefits).

Arix #115,

Firstly, I didn’t bring any reference to you until you mentioned censuring me. Secondly, I can back up my comments at #83 with direct quotes, just say the word.

Also, I am very careful not to take your words out of context (not that I have to), so I also provide links to the relevant threads. If quoting you is poisoning the well, then maybe you should be more careful in couching your “aspects”.

That said, can you back up your assertions that A) I haven’t given anyone the chance to accept or reject your “aspects”? B) I have forced my views on others

Arix #122,

Is smallvice more arrogant than someone (you, actually) wanting to impose an absolutist morality on everyone?

@sllim (#123):

1) That’s an interesting way to frame the issue. I’d assumed that it was whether the fact that the child’s parents are of the same sex will adversely affect its upbringing. But you question whether, in the first place, sexual orientation is relevant at all in determining parental competence and/or what’s in the child’s interests. So the issue of burden of proof may be greyer than I depicted it earlier.

3) Of course, the issue of who has the burden of proof is less important if conservative advocates can appeal to opposite-sex parenthood as ‘tried and tested’. The question we should ask here is whether opposite-sex parenthood at least remains ideal, even if it’s practised less and less. I’m prepared to say (appealing to intuition) that it is still a defensible ideal, although I admit that I do not have evidence at hand.

Also, since what we want to achieve here is stability for society, families and children, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy is at work here. We achieve most stability if we continue to enforce the existing conventions. But one may yet query whether stability should be a key priority.

la nausee (#100),

1-3) That is the implicit assumption behind the “Gay Gene” argument, which is being advanced by the main homosexual lobbies, including Alex Au’s People Like Us.

If that assumption does not exist, there is no force behind the “Gay Gene” argument. The only way whereby the “Gay Gene” argument can have full force is if the possessors of the Gene have a mandatory “wiring” to be attracted to members of the same sex. Otherwise, they have a similar choice as heterosexuals or bisexuals. (So naturally, Bisexuals get political capital from hanging around homosexuals.)

The main argument of the “Gay Gene” Theorists is that homosexuals have no choice but to be gay.

4) They implicitly declare that when they join up with or endorse the Lobbying Organizations that explicitly declare and argue that.

5) Actually, what you have said in this post is the first full rebuttal. Sorry, lines like “Repeating the phrase reveals its stupidity” is not much of an argument.

7) Look at the original article, and at the format that it is presented in. It is a report, reporting what other people say, not what the reporter thinks. Perhaps, the title reflects the opinion of the reporter, but not the report itself. I honestly can’t find anything in the original article (which TOC linked to) that is sensationalist in any way. It is not like a feature story, where factual reports are laced with journalistic opinions.

This article is really … brief.

And keep in mind when you are talking about the article, and when you are talking about TOC’s presentation of the article. Even the New York Times and the IHT give the same type of disclaimer that I suggested. It is not “unfair” or anything.

Here is the link for your reference:-

http://blog.taragana.com/n/furore-over-burger-kings-raunchy-sandwich-ad-96551/

the “distasteful” and “unappetizing” are interlaced quotes, as seen from the inverted commas around the word “distasteful”. They do not reflect the journalist’s opinion.

I can’t believe that Arix was still trying [#94] to defend the statement

quote “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them)” unquote

he/she made in #6, despite the fact that three people [la nausee, lobo76 and myself] have pointed out to him/her that the statement is ludicrous. la nausee and lobo76 have given their reasons for saying so. Now it’s my turn. Others on this thread can help by telling Arix whether they agree or disagree with him/her and give their reason[s].

Arix, there is no doubt that heterosexuals are not precluded in engaging in homosexual activity. But the moment a heterosexual person engages in homosexuality, he/she should no longer deserve to be called a heterosexual; he/she should then be labeled a bisexual. Likewise, a homosexual male is not precluded in heterosexual activity; but once he engages in sex with a member of the opposite sex he becomes a bisexual. Then there is a possibility of a hetero converting to homo or a homo converting to hetero. Would you agree that such a possibility exists or could have already occurred somewhere sometime ago?

In your #94 you made this claim quote Whereas, Homosexuals publicly claim that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason unquote

This so-called claim of homosexuals – can you quote the source and can you be sure that it’s reliable? Who were these homosexuals? Did they represent only some or all homosexuals? Would you agree that you have taken a blanket interpretation when the evidence is not there?

What if some of us were to tell you that we know of people who were strictly homo but later became bisexual or strictly heterosexual, would you believe?

Arix, I note that la nausee was about to give up in his atempts to convince you on this issue. As I have mentioned somewhere, that on a one-to-one discussion, via email for instance, you can go on insisting you are right when you have been wrong all along, because there are no other people to tell you. Here we have other observers who are also privy to the discussions; fortunately we can chip in with our comments; unfortunately, we may not be able to convince one or the party, or both. Because someone, no matter the weight of the arguments against him/her may choose to remain irrational.

#91 la nausee:

agreed with #117Arix, my idea of civil union and marriage was only the person officiating and not the product. Or did you mean to add a layer of institutionalised subsidies to encourage ‘marriage’ versus civil unions? Then the local authority might as well kick religious institutes out of the picture and create a whole new hierarchy: civil unions and marriages.

Also, as you probably know anyway, lots of heterosexual marriages may be happy and healthy like a Sunday morning show, but many are also plagued with adultery, gambling spouses, violence, marital rape, etc. Homosexual relationships are no exception to this case. Could you state one example where the parents’ sexual orientation /per se/ will negatively affect the children’s well-being? (As in, not because other children tease them, or because society doesn’t understand them, etc.)

i am not surprised at being called “part of the problem”. what is my part of the problem? what is the problem?
i am also not surprised at the raging debate as i expect there will be a big debate whenever the homosexuals feel they threatened. who is attacking them? no one is BUT they never fail to target the christian right. as if the christian right are the only ones who are against homosexual practices! i wonder why they are afraid to target the muslim community which also find this practice repulsive? i am VERY HAPPY that the law minister has said that the government will not repeal Section 377A. :)
what is the agenda of the homosexual community? to be a lobby to ensure that they (the minority) are given equal (read as more) rights than the majority; to be able to openly promote their community and influence the heterosexuals, especially the young, to join them. this is what the majority will not stand for.
you guys out there can come down on my views again BUT i will not respond.
i will just watch and smile! :P

# Arix ///Concurrently ……homosexuality limits them////;;;;I think Arix’s quote is quite straigtforward, without beating around the bush, and anybody can understand what Arix is trying to get at without misinterpreting the meaning;;;;Gays have all along said that their condition is due to the gene thing, and therefore they are forced to go into that particular lifestyle where gay sex is their preferred mode and heterosex is a downer for them. Gays have been around for tens of thousands of years so the gene thing is probably true. Heterosexuals are not limited by any gay-gene and they can be bi-sexual if they have the urge, whereas homosexuals mostly find gay sex satisfying, and being bi-sexual is not an option open to them, probably due to the gene thing. This is what Arix is tying to get at, if i am not wrong.

@plopp (#129):

In fact, as I said in post #124, the core of marriage (i.e. as far as recognized by the State, and thus, by everyone else, from employers to civil society) is in fact secular and statist; religion only comes in as a formality, a ‘gloss’ on the institution, if you like. Religious institutions are already ‘kicked out of the picture’. The whole point of marriage can be understood without religious trappings: as a cooperative partnership of equal efforts between husband and wife, in order to care and provide for the children: section 46(1) of the Women’s Charter.

Besides, you can’t understand the point of marriage without also understanding the various benefits/subsidies associated with it, such as rules facilitating joint property ownership and so on. You suggested in post #78 that marriage consists only of a ‘paper’ recognition. That’s not entirely the case. There are good reasons, as I pointed out, why the State wishes to have that recognition in the first place. The question is whether those reasons extend equally to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. I’m at present a little skeptical whether they do.

The main worry raised by conservatives is that the child’s proper psychological (‘psychosexual’) and emotional development (especially in the very early, formative years) depends on having one male parent and one female parent. Freudian psychology, for example, argues that a core part of our identity relates to our sexuality, and this is defined in relation to our own father and mother (Oedipus/Electra complex, penis envy, castration anxiety etc.). Although Freud’s ideas have been extensively criticized, the broad argument still strikes me as plausible. But I admit that I know nothing about the scientific literature on children raised by same-sex couples.

la nausée #126,

“Of course, the issue of who has the burden of proof is less important if conservative advocates can appeal to opposite-sex parenthood as ‘tried and tested’. The question we should ask here is whether opposite-sex parenthood at least remains ideal, even if it’s practised less and less. I’m prepared to say (appealing to intuition) that it is still a defensible ideal, although I admit that I do not have evidence at hand.”

A) Sure, they can appeal to tradition. But tradition evolves with the times, not to mention demonstrable data. If the claim “children of traditional nuclear family units fare better than children of same-sex parents” is shown to be false, do you, for example, go with evidence, or tradition and intuition (proven to be fallible, I might add)?

B) I would also contest whether there is such a thing as “ideal” parenthood. Research by Steven Pinker (The Blank Slate) argues that we are born somewhat programmed, that parenting doesn’t play a significant role to begin with.

la nausea #133,

I agree. Marriage is a contract between the couple, and with the state. Religion only steps in for the perfunctory sanctification (yawn)

Because at least one other person is taken in by Arix’s arguments, I feel compelled to push on with this otherwise absurd debate.

Arix, in the first place, you run together the various ways in which a person might feel ‘limited’ by his or her sexuality. You say homosexuals are ‘limited’ because they have ‘publicly claimed’ that they are incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex, since a ‘Gay Gene’ exists.

This may mean:
(1) Since they have ‘publicly claimed’ that a ‘Gay Gene’ exists, they cannot have sex with members of the opposite sex without being exposed as inconsistent. Hence, they’re ‘limited’. On the other hand, since heterosexuals do not publicly claim that a ‘Heterosex Gene’ exists, they can have a bite from both ends of the cherry without being inconsistent.

(2) Since their public claim that a ‘Gay Gene’ exists is true (i.e. they’re ‘limited’), they are physiologically incapable of being attracted to members of the opposite sex.

The rebuttals to (1) are:
(a) Many heterosexuals clearly ‘publicly claim’ to be bound by biology (even if not by any specific ‘Heterosex Gene’) to be attracted only to members of the opposite sex. This is implicit in statements that homosexual sex is ‘unnatural’ and ‘disgusting’, and that homosexuality is a ‘disease’ or ‘aberration’. If so, heterosexuals must be ‘limited’ as well by such public claims.

(b) We assess a person’s sexual orientation based on either what he/she self-declares, or his/her surrounding words/conduct. That also settles the question of whether he or she is ‘limited’ in choices of sexual partner. What that person ‘publicly claims’ as his or her position on the ‘Nurture vs. Nature’ debate is entirely irrelevant. It may explain why he or she is that way, but does not answer the prior question of what his or her sexual orientation is. Hence, the fact that I am inclined to support the ‘Gay Gene’ argument does not say anything about my sexual orientation (I hope not…).

(c) Hence, if a self-professed heterosexual engages consistently in ‘experimenting’ with the same sex, he/she is (based on conduct) either homosexual or bisexual. Otherwise, the terms would cease to have any purpose. A married man who is never intimate with his wife, but indulges regularly in MSM, is a ‘heterosexual’ ‘experimenting’ with his wild side. A woman in a stable relationship with another woman who has a one-night stand with a man is also a heterosexual — she can’t be homosexual, because she would be limited, but she’s clearly not.

(d) In any case, what a person ‘publicly claims’ is surely rarely a limit on his or her choice of sexual partners. The existence of closet gays and lesbians demonstrates this. But of course, according to your odd definition, they would be heterosexuals who are ‘experimenting’ with the other side.

The rebuttals to (2) are:

(a) You start off assuming that a homosexual is ‘limited’, and conclude that he or she will therefore never be attracted to the opposite sex. This gets things exactly the wrong way around. It’s because a person demonstrates (by words or conduct) that he or she will never be attracted to the opposite sex, that we conclude that he/she is homosexual (and by definition, ‘limited’ by homosexuality). Vice versa for heterosexuals.

(b) This again shows how irrelevant the ‘Gay Gene’ argument is. That argument seeks to explain why homosexuals are the way they are. But it’s totally immaterial when we’re trying to determine what X’s sexual orientation is in the first place.

(c) The GLBT movement in fact rarely makes the simplistic claim that a gene or genes can straightforwardly ‘limit’ one’s behaviour. Even if the ‘Gay Gene’ argument were true, there’s no reason why a gay or lesbian may not occasionally be attracted to a member of the opposite sex. In fact, the movement (under the banner of ’sexual liberation’ and ‘free love’) has often contended the opposite: that we should be, and are, free to explore ‘alternative’ practices, even though we may have a near-exclusive ‘preference’ or ‘orientation’ for one type.

(d) If homosexuals are so ‘limited’, why aren’t heterosexuals also ‘limited’ to being attracted to members of the opposite sex? After all, the same ‘Nature’ arguments are made to explain why heterosexuality is normal — in fact, the ‘Gay Gene’ argument is simply an appropriation of the scientific/biological claims which conservatives first used.

budamax (#131),

Thanks a lot. You are the first person on this thread to actually “listen attentively” to my posts. That is a real relief! I was really beginning to wonder if my A1 GP skills had atrophied during NS.

@sllim (#133):

Whether an ‘ideal’ type of parenthood exists depends on whether there is one type which would be best for the child. That’s a cost-benefit analysis, rather than some rigid principle. So, firstly, it’s amenable to empirical evidence, and secondly, there is no ideal type which can be fixed a priori. (When I said I’m relying on intuition, I meant me personally, since I don’t have evidence at hand; I’m not suggesting that the State and society-at-large can use ‘intuition’.).

As for B), I wouldn’t go that far (and I’m not sure many people would either). One’s parental upbringing, even if not determinative, is surely a crucial factor in one’s development. That’s clearest in the negative sense: dysfunctional parents/families tend to lead to dysfunctional children. But the reverse applies too: having good parents usually gives one a leg-up in emotional and intellectual development. There are people who buck the trend, of course; but if the State can stack the odds more favourably, why shouldn’t it?

rwkc (#128),

1) Yes they have, and I have made the relevant replies. And so I shall reply you too. But perhaps you, la nausee and lobo76 should read Buda’s post at #131. (no pun intended)

2) homosexuality is a condition; homosexual behaviour is a behavioural choice. When you call a person a homosexual, you mean that the person possesses the condition called homosexuality. There are cases of homosexuals that married and had children (I watched on Oprah) only to divorce later; does that mean that they became “heterosexual” before their divorce.

If actions make one a homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, then the Gay Gene theory is pretty useless.

But seriously, this is the first time I heard a pro-gay person argue this way. So equally seriously, who is shifting the goalposts here?

3&4) The evidence you want is the entire Gay Gene Theory that is being forwarded by all the Gay Lobbies in the world. Look here for a start:-

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

5) Yes, I would believe. In fact, I am looking for such examples, particularly those who became strictly heterosexual. That strengthens my position, and weakens yours and smallvice’s and sliims’s.

6) I am not as irrational as you think I am. In fact, I have admitted my mistakes quite a few times already. If the evidence you provide is sufficient, I voluntarily withdraw and accept your point.

La nausea, lobo, rwkc, allow me to unpack “No, people shouldn’t be judged on their ‘reproductive value’. Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them)”, otherwise known as the “homosexuality is a choice” argument (insistence):

A “heterosexual” by Arix’s definition would be somebody like Ted Haggard. (Pastor with wife, kids, caught with male prostitute with drugs.) Since this definition allows for no such sexual orientation as homosexuality (homos are only hyper-experimental heteros). A special class is, shall we say, pull out of an ar*e, so there is somebody to demonise.

“Homosexuals” are now people who insist on homosexual conduct, who reject their “true” “heterosexuality”.

The implied punchline: Homosexuals should be judged on their “reproductive value” after all: “concurrently, however”.

138) Arix on July 6th, 2009 10.33 pm

I see the problem. You think ALL people who support equality for gays believe in the gay gene theory. That is somewhat presumptuous, isn’t it? Just by using some common sense you would know this to be not true. e.g Just trying naming one body of people who absolutely agree on everything that brought them together as a group.

In addition, if you do think there is a gay gene, there should therefore be a corresponding heterosex gene. i.e a gene that bring out the ‘default’ sexual tendencies. Hence going by this ‘theory’, heterosexuals are similarly limited.

Arix #138,

What do you mean by “condition”? Is heterosexuality a “condition” too? As per usual, some legitimate evidence would be nice.

Legitimate: Intelligent Design is not a legitimate scientific theory.

la nausée #137

A) Sure, I agree with that. I am just curious as to whether you, personally, are opened to changing your view in light of research that shows that there is no significant difference between the children of same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages.

B) By “good parents”, you haven’t assumed a priori they are opposite-sex members, have you? In the main, I agree and feel the same way; it’s counter-intuitive and discomfiting. But if that’s where the evidence goes (much more research is warranted of course), so much the worse for tradition. In any case, here’s food for thought. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html

la nausee (#135),

1) That’s a verbose way of putting it. I was being sort of politically-correct by saying “publicly claimed”. The main meat is the Gay Gene theory.

3) This one is my meaning.

8) Blame the Gay Lobbies then. This is exactly what they are claiming. I didn’t invent the claim; they did.

9) The logic of this paragraph is … illogical. If there is a “Gay Gene”, then anybody who possesses the gene must be homosexual. That is the point, in the first place, of calling it a “Gay Gene”. It is, after all, a determinant.

10) The Open-Closet Movement sprung up at the same time as the “free love” movement, but both are different movements. The “free love” movement endorses far more things than the Open-Closet Movement. Free Love endorses drugs, orgies and polygamy, which OCM doesn’t.

Please don’t bring in “free love”; that is a separate debate altogether.

11) No “nature” arguments are needed. Just open your biology textbook and see what it says about sexual reproduction. That is really all that is what the Pink Lobby calls the “nature” argument. Unless of course, you want to say that the bio chapter on human reproduction is pseudo-science like creationism.

If I would be permitted to argue from a religious standpoint, heterosexuals are born with the possibility of reproduction. They can choose if they want to exercise it or not.

The meat of the Gay Gene Theory is the argument that the homosexuals are born with a gene that denies them the possibility of associating with members of the opposite sex.

Hi Arix,

I had mentioned previously in all other thread engaging you that religion is obsolete. Religious people need to be saved from their obstinancy by converting them to atheists. Religious institutions have to be denied moral authority. Then we can minimise religious influence in public life and stump the growth of religiosity in society. This is the way to contain religion as a source of oppression and keep the religious lobby in check. We should collaborate on this truly noble aspiration for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans.

You said in Post #98: But I am not going to stand for my dignity to be insulted by anyone, smallvice or otherwise. We can have passionate discourse, but passionate discourse shouldn’t be including tactics of poisoning the well. I have been polemic but I have not insulted your dignity (assuming you have any in the first place). You should have dignity because you are a person and your dignity does not come from religion.

I like your veiled threat in #121: But I am not interested in playing politics on this thread. if I were, you would be long out of TOC. So you intend to censor me? I detect an element of religiously motivated oppression in you. When will you stop your religiously motivated oppression? Until you have converted everyone here into Christianity or Catholism? Until TOC renamed itself to The Online Christian or The Online Catholic? I am utterly disgusted by your religious motivation. It really takes religion for a good man to do evil.

Take my lobbying to the streets? I had already done so during the AWARE Saga but it is not enough to contain the religious lobby. We have to minimise religious content on popular media too.

lobo76 (#140),

1) Well, it seems that way to me. I am happy to meet people who think otherwise.

2) Not really. It could be an on-off gene. On-state Homosexual, Off-State heterosexual, or the other way round. Examples of such genes would be tongue-rolling gene.

Lobo76 (#140),

and no, I do not support the existence of the Gay Gene, btw.

@Arix (#138), now I see fully where you’re coming from. I do not agree with the ‘Homosexuality is a psychiatric/genetic condition” line, but I’ll not refute that here. Instead, I’m going to focus again on your initial, disputed statement in light of your most recent post.

Even if homosexuality is a condition, there is no way for us to diagnose it except by looking at sexual behaviour (in the absence of some way to pinpoint the alleged ‘Gay Gene’).

So a person is heterosexual if his or her sexual activity is predominantly with the opposite sex (say, 99%). But once a person dabbles in homosexual activity more frequently, he or she must be labeled either bisexual (say, a ratio of 4:1 of heterosexual vs. homosexual activity) or homosexual (say, a ratio of 1:4).

There is thus no complete freedom for the ‘healthy’ individual to engage in ‘unhealthy’ behaviour, without becoming labeled unhealthy herself. That’s like a person saying “I don’t have OCD, but I have this thing where I tremble at the thought of stepping on a crack in the pavement.” Or a person saying “I’m not an alcoholic, but I sure love a full bottle of hard liquor to go with every meal.” Or Ted Haggard.

More importantly, the only way in which homosexuality as a ‘condition’ can ‘limit’ one’s behaviour is if a homosexual is disgusted or ‘turned off’ by the idea of sex with the opposite sex. But the same disgust is very often felt by a heterosexual at the idea of homosexual sex — hence, a heterosexual is equally limited. Another analogy can be drawn: bulimics are ‘disgusted’ at the thought of stuffing with food, and non-bulimics are equally ‘disgusted’ at the thought of forcing yourself to puke up food you’ve swallowed. Both are hence equally ‘limited’.

Lastly, I’ll reiterate again that whether the ‘Gay Gene’ theory is true or false does not affect whether a particular individual X is a homosexual or heterosexual, in the absence of any medical technology to reliably identify sexual orientation from case to case. We still must fall back on his/her conduct or words as potential ’symptoms’. This means there’s no way for us to say that someone is ‘limited’ without first examining his/her behaviour. ‘Limitedness’ is a conclusion, not a premise. For example, if Y has frequent trysts with members of both sexes, then she is not limited (i.e. she’s bisexual).

sliim (#139),

Congratulations on your skill at sophistry!

Anyhow, homosexuality aside, Mr Haggard is still to be criticised for cheating on his wife by going to a prostitute, and taking drugs. Whether he is homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, doesn’t make either or both of these actions morally acceptable.

Your example of Mr Haggard is a perfect Straw Man Argument.

The “reproductive value” argument is separate, and also incidentally applies to women in some Religious Places.

The “homosexuals have a choice” argument is not out to “demonise” anybody, although regrettably some sects have abused it for such. It simply asks the question: “why can’t homosexuals accept the way that their bodies are supposed to operate according to nature/science?”

The POV of those who do not abuse the argument is that they can help homosexuals accept what is accepted by society at large on body functions.

I seriously can’t be any clearer than this, unless I really use some truly explicit language, so I hope you can understand me now.

@Arix (#143), I think I’ve dealt with most of these points in my most recent comment, but there’s this other point here. You say:

(1) “heterosexuals are born with the possibility of reproduction.”

and

(2) “The meat of the Gay Gene Theory is the argument that the homosexuals are born with a gene that denies them the possibility of associating with members of the opposite sex.”

Just like ‘limited’, you use the term ‘possibility’ (and ‘denies’) in a very ambiguous way. In Statement (1), you refer to physiological possibility, i.e. an opposite-sex couple who has sex is capable of producing a child. I assume that you also apply this concept of physiological possibility to Statement (2). But then you attribute to GLBT advocates a claim so patently risible that surely no one makes it. In effect, you’re saying that they claim that homosexuals come equipped with some sort of circuit-breaker mechanism which makes homosexual sex physically impossible.

The only ‘circuit-breaker’ is the lack of arousal and/or disgust that homosexuals feel. But heterosexuals clearly feel that way too. If so, the limits are the same in both cases.

Unless you can suggest an alternative ‘limit’.

145) Arix on July 7th, 2009 12.00 am
lobo76 (#140),
1) Well, it seems that way to me. I am happy to meet people who think otherwise.

Well, I am one. I also semi-believe the evolution theory as well, since there is undoubtedly flaws in some of them. It’s a cup half full though since there IS also real evidence .. more so that ID.

As long as ’stuff’ have enough flaws, I can ’suspend’ belief, no problem. I never understood the urgency to have answers to these questions/theories anyway.

Lastly and unfortunately, unless you are female 25-30yrs of age (+/- 3 more years?), and commonly perceived to be attractive, I am not really interested in meeting up. lol

@sllim (#142), yes, clearly a ‘best interests of the child’ analysis would be amenable to evidence which shows that same-sex parents do the job as well as opposite-sex parents, and/or that adoptive parents (assuming most same-sex couples will have to adopt kids) do the job as well as biological parents (which I think is already adequately shown).

Actually, contrary to what I said earlier, a lot will turn on who has the burden of proof. I’m inclined to adopt something like the precautionary principle here, because the child’s best interests are involved: use only the best existing methods, and accept only new methods if they’re proven by those who support them to be no more harmful than existing ones.

The best existing method for child-raising, relative to other methods like single motherhood, separated couples, etc., is a stable, monogamous marriage. Certainly, this says nothing about how sexual orientation might be a factor in child-raising (it’s not a factor when we compare the effectiveness of single motherhood vs. a full marriage). But opposite-sex marriage is the best existing method in many other respects (stability, monogamy, etc.), so we use it as a yardstick against which to measure all other ‘new’ methods.

Not strictly logical… but pragmatic enough, I think.

la nausee (#147),

1) I do not support the Gay Gene Theory.

2) At the moment no. But if we bothered to actually research on it, I am sure we would find a way. But nobody is seriously researching on it, because the issue has become over-polarised due to both the Religious Right and the Pink Lobby. And I have to say that the Pink Lobby is the aggressive party here; the Religious Right is merely reactive.

3) That could be one-way. Or we could just use standard practice, and say that over a certain threshold, there is a genuine condition. The same way we separate sad spells from clinical depression.

But the debate would still not be over even in that case. The debate would then be if the behaviour below that threshold should be permissible on an ethical level, and whether display of any aspect of that behaviour in public should be permissible on a legal level.

Ethically, I would say no. Legally, I would say yes.

4) How is stepping on a crack a form of OCD? I don’t get that example.

As for the alcoholic case, just because the alcoholic denies his alcoholism doesn’t mean that he is not alcoholic. Honestly, if you have to have a bottle of hard liquor at every meal, you are definitely a alcoholic, because you are over-consuming alcohol. You are a alcoholic if alcohol becomes a need for you.

Ted Haggard is completely different. As a pastor, he is supposed to show an example of behaviour that corresponds with the teachings of his Church. As a father, he should not be cheating on his wife by going out with a prostitute; whether that prostitute is male or female has no bearing on the issue.

5) “turned off” and “disgusted” should be used differently in this context. “Disgusted” is a view, and “turned off” is some biological mechanism. “turned off” would be more appropriate for association with a condition.

I am not talking about bulimics or perceptions; I am talking about what happens, or at least – to be politically correct – what the Pink Lobby claims happens. After all, I can be “disgusted” at something but still be drawn physically to it.

6) To be theoretically complete, you have to consider both behaviour and psychology. Remember, there are all those claims about “repressed sexuality”. Anything that is repressed cannot be identified in behaviour.

“limited” is my stand on the issue. Period.

Sliim (#141),

“condition” according to dictionary.com:-

1. a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.

2. state of health: He was reported to be in critical condition.

(I only state the definitions relevant to this discussion)

Yes, heterosexuality is a condition too, by def 1.

Arix,

“The “homosexuals have a choice” argument is not out to “demonise” anybody, although regrettably some sects have abused it for such. It simply asks the question: “why can’t homosexuals accept the way that their bodies are supposed to operate according to nature/science?”

Since it is just a simple question, the best way to find out, is to ask a homosexual.

la nausee (#149),

Nope, I used the same meaning in both, which is your meaning #2. “possibility” means “existing choice” in my use.

So:

A Heterosexual can choose to have sex with a member of the same sex or opposite sex.

A Homosexual can only have sex with a member of the same sex, because some physiological barrier exists preventing homosexuals from being physiologically and psychologically attracted to members of the opposite sex. Or so the Gay Gene Theory claims anyway.

According to the logic then, the Gay Gene codes some mechanism that produces an inhibitory enzyme on the “love” hormones maybe?

I somehow get the impression that the Gay Gene causes the homosexual to be repulsed from a member of the opposite sex when it comes to sex. Not just disgust or lack of mechanical arousal, but really just that “something is not right” feeling when they lie down with their opposite-sex partners. I got that from an Oprah episode when she interviewed one such gay.

Zef (#154),

“simply” as used here does not mean that the question itself is simple. It just means that all the people are asking is this.

lobo76 (#150),

1) Sure, no problem with that.

2) Good to have an open mind.

3) Nahh, “meet up” doesn’t mean for a date.

@Arix (#152), we apparently now agree that a so-called ‘heterosexual’ who over-indulges in homosexual sex is in reality a ‘homosexual’. So heterosexuals are not truly free to engage in homosexual sex as they wish: if they do so regularly enough, they will be diagnosed as homosexual.

The essence of our remaining disagreement (if you can call it that), once you boil away the fat, is this. You say:

“turned off” and “disgusted” should be used differently in this context. “Disgusted” is a view, and “turned off” is some biological mechanism. “turned off” would be more appropriate for association with a condition.

…After all, I can be “disgusted” at something but still be drawn physically to it.

You thus mean (or think that the ‘Pink Lobby’ means):
(1) Homosexuals are necessarily ‘turned off’ at the idea of heterosexual sex.
(2) Heterosexuals may be ‘disgusted’, but are not necessarily ‘turned off’ at the idea of homosexual sex.

This really is a matter to be corroborated or contradicted by each person’s subjective feelings and experiences. I think many heterosexuals would be deeply disturbed and perplexed by your claim that they may be drawn physically to homosexual sex even despite being ‘disgusted’ at it. But I leave the point open for other readers to evaluate for themselves.

Speaking of ‘limits’, I think this debate has gone as far as it can constructively go.

lobo76 #150,

Read up on Intelligent Design and “God of the Gaps”. It dovetails with “I never understood the urgency to have answers to these questions/theories anyway”

It might just change your mind on ID (which is garbage)

la nausee (#158),

1) Not really. In my ideal, the word “homosexual” doesn’t exist as a noun.

3) Yes, exactly.

4) Like some others would argue, feeling perturbed or disturbed that something can occur doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or won’t occur. I am not on this thread to “please” heterosexuals, regardless of what smallvice tries to portray me as.

Sometimes the Truth hurts for heterosexuals, and sometimes the Truth hurts for homosexuals. Plain and simple.

5) I agree.

sliim (#159),

ID is not the subject of this thread. Please keep on-topic.

Arix #148,

Let’s examine the strawman/sophistry charge. By the definition you set out (“heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity”), Ted is a heterosexual, no? He is insisting that is the case, that it was a choice.

“The ‘homosexuals have a choice’ argument is not out to ‘demonise’ anybody, although regrettably some sects have abused it for such. It simply asks the question: ‘why can’t homosexuals accept the way that their bodies are supposed to operate according to nature/science?’”

What nature? Thomas Aquinas’ version or what? What science? Back it up, please.

It’s not Christian Science is it? (Nutjobs who think prayer heals everything, and if you don’t know about AIDS, you won’t get it).

“The POV of those who do not abuse the argument is that they can help homosexuals accept what is accepted by society at large on body functions.”

Because of hellfire?

“truly explicit language”

Spare me the biblical admonitions.

Arix #153,

So where’s the legitimate evidence?

Sliim (#162),

Go refer to my reply to La Nausee at #155. I believe that it answers your queries. And look back again at #143 para 11.

I wonder, what kind of evidence can be given to prove that something is a state, or a situation (def 1)?

sliim (#162),

“truly explicit language” does not refer to anything biblical. It simply refers to anything classified under R(A), if you get my drift.

Hellfire is a bad motivation for anything religious, and is only used by the abusers. The moderates simply want to help homosexuals come to term with their own internal conflict.

156) Arix,

Alright then, let’s get back to the question-

“why can’t homosexuals accept the way that their bodies are supposed to operate according to nature/science?”

First off, what is the point of the question? Is it a question that seeks understanding or a question that seeks exclusion?

I would like to believe that you were asking for the sake of genuine understanding, but then you latter point -

“The POV of those who do not abuse the argument is that they can help homosexuals accept what is accepted by society at large on body functions.”

contradicts the claim that is not out to demonize anybody. Maybe you don’t seek to ‘demonize’, but by staking the position that hetrosexuality is the ‘order of things’ because of biology, and hence homosexuality by default would be ‘unnatural’, it is as good as dehumunanizing them already, I sorry to say.

Where you rank something as below the status of the norm, it is just another step to justifying you don’t HAVE to understand them anyways, they just have to ‘get in line’.

Secondly, the ‘nature’ claim has been debated by many other people in many posts already. I don’t exactly buy that argument. For a simple fact that it is not natural, nor does it serve any purpose for anyone to be able to bend backwards and touch their heels with their noses, but we reward people who do that and applaud them and call them gymnasts. There is simply no biological explanation why nature should allow us to do that.

There is also no reason why sex should be pleasurable if it is merely for the biological purpose of reproduction. Pleasure isn’t a necessity for reproduction – just ask the thousands of living things for whom the urge to reproduce is a natural impulse, and not a side-effect of pleasure-seeking.

I also dun agree with the argument that an exit hole isn’t meant to be an entrance. Yes, I dislike the notion of anal sex regardless of gender, but where else do you expect a man attracted to another man to erm… find an entrance? If we can agree that sex is natural, and that for men, the way to derive pleasure for sex is to find a nut to the bolt, but for reasons yet to be satisfactorily explained, finds men to be attractive, that they would put their reproductive organs in unreproductive places is the iogical outcome!

Do keep in mind this isn’t a ‘for’ or ‘against’ thing. I do not know the ways of God (of any denomination) deep enough to know if He categorically opposes it, and I’m glad so far you kept HIm out of the discussion, so we can only use logic and DEDUCTION – NOT induction.

The question is whether you have already long arrived at a conclusion and builds an argument around it, or if you probe deep enough into the question you asked and want everyone to ask, agree that you have yet arrived at the answer yourself.

sliim, la nausee (and others, i suppose) – i don’t know how you guys have the stamina to continue responding to arix.

arix, what do you know about their own internal conflict (#165) that requires your (or “moderates’”) help anyway?

so far you have quite strangely held on to the “homosexuals have no choice” vs. “heterosexuals have a choice” interpretation. And you claim this is from your understanding of the “Gay Gene” argument.

Look, I think this is quite a severe misconception. Sexual orientation is probably better viewed as a contiuum, with attraction only towards same sex on one end and attraction only towards opposite sex on the other, with various degrees of attraction towards same or opposite sex in between. The “Gay Gene” idea is that where we are as individuals on this continuum, is largely genetically determined. So, maybe, let’s call it the “Sexual Orientation Gene” idea.

And now we can talk about ‘choice’. The choices are 1) behave according to our place on the sexual orientation continuum, or 2) behave according to a different place on the sexual orientation continuum.

Now, the anti-discrimination folks are saying – given that all individuals are placed on this continuum by genetic forces outside our control (call it Nature), we should not be forced/coerced to behave as if we are on a different part of the continuum.

I hope this is a better representation.

Arix, no pun intended but the Buda has apparently misinterpreted you and if you care to read your own posts, for example #146 and #152 wherein you say, inter alia: “and no, I do not support the existence of the Gay Gene, btw” and “I do not support the Gay Gene Theory”.

By this passage from Buda #131: “…Gays have been around for tens of thousands of years so the gene thing is probably true. Heterosexuals are not limited by any gay-gene and they can be bi-sexual if they have the urge, whereas homosexuals mostly find gay sex satisfying, and being bi-sexual is not an option open to them, probably due to the gene thing. This is what Arix is tying to get at, if i am not wrong.” [But Buda, you are wrong]

So let’s see what we can derive from what is stated above; we can say:

[1] Buda thinks Arix believes in the Gene Theory and this “belief” of Arix was presumably what prompted Arix to argue that homosexuals are limited to homosexual activity because of the Gay Gene.
[2] By Arix’s own admission that he/she does not support the existence of the Gay Gene or the Gene Theory, it follows:
[3] There is a clear contradiction between Buda and Arix and thus it is clear that
[4] Arix has jumped to the fallacious conclusion that he/she has support from the Buda.

Arix, if you are not unequivocal, and if you do NOT support the Gene Theory why do you keep harping on it? For instance in your post #155 you say: “A Homosexual can only have sex with a member of the same sex, because some physiological barrier exists preventing homosexuals from being physiologically and psychologically attracted to members of the opposite sex. Or so the Gay Gene Theory claims anyway….I somehow get the impression that the Gay Gene causes the homosexual to be repulsed from a member of the opposite sex when it comes to sex….”

In the final analysis, nobody supports you, Arix. However, you are free to prevaricate, as that seems to be your debating style.

Arix #164,

So I referred to #155; again, Ted Haggard is a heterosexual by the definition you set out (and repeated): “A Heterosexual can choose to have sex with a member of the same sex or opposite sex.”

1) So we are in agreement right? Ted Haggard is a heterosexual by your definition. (Straight forward question)

From #143: “No “nature” arguments are needed….”

2) And yet you put forth one. It doesn’t follow that because the biological urge to reproduce by heterosexuals is “natural”, the lack of such an urge by homosexuals is “unnatural”. Homosexuals are not heterosexuals to begin, get it?

3) You referred to “science” in #164. Back it up with evidence. (A gentle reminder in case you’ve forgotten: ID is not science).

Zef (#166),

Always a pleasure to have you join a discussion.

1) For the abusers, it is a question of exclusion; for the moderates, it is a question of understanding.

2) I said the “POV of those“. My POV is somewhat more complex. Let me ask you: Does saying autism is abnormal instantly dehumanize the autistic child? All it is is calling a spade a spade. It is only dehumanizing when you start associating magical and superstitious stuff to the person because of “abnormality”.

3) A doctor automatically regards diseases as “abnormal”. If not, there is no justification to cure the illness. By your logic then, we should tear down the School of Medicine because Medicine does not need a degree to understand illness. All you need to do – as per your reasoning – is to throw all patients into jail, and compel them to cure themselves or face the Death Penalty for lack of trying.

I trust that you are not as medieval as that?

4) Agility is a desirable attribute for survival. Nowadays, Gymnasts do not need their flexibility for the sake of species survival, but in the distant past it would have been valuable.

5) Well, yes pleasure could be independent of reproduction; that is in fact the stance of the religious: they are 2 separate functions out of 3 functions.

But it is also possible – scientifically – that pleasure aids the reproductive purpose. Sexual Pleasure acts as a form of “carrot” to promote the continuation of the relationship, a somewhat-pavlovian response.

6) I made no such comment. I merely made a comment that the “hole” is dirtiest part of the human body, and so the part with the most disease. It’s not about ‘exit’ or ‘entry’. It’s about disease.

That alone should be proof that homosexuality is ‘disordered’.

7) Both. I have a “conclusion” that homosexuality is ‘disordered’, and I am still looking for the person who can decisively disprove this. On the other hand, I am raising the question of what is the best way to deal with the issue, and I admit that I have no answer for that.

I admit that the current method of reparative therapy isn’t effective, and sometimes resembles the treatment that used to exist in mental institutes. I have read the New York Times on how some evangelical churches in Vegas subject homosexuals to electric shocks to rid them of homosexuality. That, in my opinion, is severely dysfunctional.

On the other hand, I see the view of the Pink Lobby as that of a group of ostriches burying their head in the sand. Even if society gave up all its discrimination overnight, homosexuals will not live in peace with themselves prior to “realizing” that they are homosexual. All this playing around with same-sex marriage is an exercise of self-denial. The problem is that the Pink Lobby is fighting against both real and imaginary discrimination. They should understand that not everything fits on the civil rights bandwagon.

Why has nobody ever questioned why people need to “realize” that they are homosexual? Do you need to “realize” that you have yellow skin, or that you are Muslim or Christian? Even political opinion is something you “decide”, not something you “realize”.

Of course, I am of the opinion that if we had a fundamental transformation in social construction of gender roles, then homosexuality and bisexuality would no longer exist.

tryathlete #167,

I like Christian apologists. I also like stand-up comedians.

Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang),

Arix is way more fun than Curious

170) Arix on July 7th, 2009 4.01 pm

3) A doctor automatically regards diseases as “abnormal”.
don’t get it. you are referring to the diseases as abnormal or the human infect with disease as abnormal?
In both case, actually both are ‘normal’. The disease (virus) does what it does because that’s what it does. The human body NORMALLY cannot take it, so it is ‘diseased’. What would be ‘abnormal’ is have cancer cells spread throughout the body and yet it is function ‘normally’.

6) I made no such comment. I merely made a comment that the “hole” is dirtiest part of the human body
isn’t the hand supposed to be the dirtiest? it touches EVERYTHING…
…though it’s also the cleanest. It is being washed more frequently than any other

*… than any other parts of the body

Arix, further to my #168 and your #155, particularly to this sentence of yours: “A Homosexual can only have sex with a member of the same sex, because some physiological barrier exists preventing homosexuals from being physiologically and psychologically attracted to members of the opposite sex”, I would ask you to do some further reading and these are some of the websites you can try:

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Homosexual/ [read the section on “Is homosexuality one end of a bisexual continuum?”]
http://anthro.palomar.edu/marriage/marriage_6.htm [read about the Etoro society]

They contain literature about homosexuals engaging in heterosexual activity/relationship.

You were looking for evidence that rebuts your contention that homosexuals can only have sex with someone of the same sex because of some physiological barrier, right?

And another thing Arix, I cannot understand how you can continue to be oblivious of your own contradiction. By your post #138 you say “. … There are cases of homosexuals that married and had children.”

Isn’t this the evidence that homosexuals are not inhibited from heterosexual sex?

#168 rwkc;;;;Actually when i tried interpreting Arix’s quote, i knew it was not an easy job because Arix has got an extremely complex mind, and with his very complex arguments, i knew i might come out with a wrong interpretation. Another reason why i interceded was that in this debate i expected a fair amount of ‘gay bashing’ and ‘Christian-right bashing’ but instead of that i saw a lot of ‘Arix bashing’. Therefore seeing him being bashed up from all around, i thought he deserved some sympathy for the lop-sided battle that he was undertaking and the underdog role that he was playing.

#176 Budamax1952

I don’t find Arix arguments complex but absurd especially if you tally it with reality. All he is saying is, all heterosexuals habour a secret sexual desire for the same sex and would readily put that into action if they let go all prohibition. In another words, no one is truly heterosexual. He should speak for himself. Perhaps there are too many bisexuals around who pretend to be heterosexual, just like Ted Haggard.

#177 Lop;;; My take is that, with the amount of porn circulating on the net, most people in the world are bi-sexual, and the war being fought out between the gays and the straights will be irrelevant in a couple of years; even Mahathir was so impressed with porn he saw on his computer recently, and he was lamenting the fact that his old dickie was not in functioning mode anymore.

#177 Lop /// I don’t find Arix arguments complex but absurd especially if you tally it with reality///;;;;In my opinion, you can never get to the reality (truth) of any matter by simply having arguments or debates; the reason being that arguments are actually just views of that individual, and views originate from the ego/pride; and once ego is involved you are actually far away from the reality/truth. If you really want to get to the truth, you will have to go into deep meditation over a significant period of time and meditate on the matter for which you want to know the truth; and when you do it correctly your inner subconscious levels will expose the real truth to you.

#177 & #178 budamax1952

LOL you mean Mahathir occasionally surfs for gay porn? or you mean lesbian porn?

Please can we stop making it looks like everyone is a closeted homosexual?

Before we get too philosophical, let me say my reality is rather superficial and I’m quite happy with it. The last I check most people look confidently heterosexual, it doesn’t seem like they are battling a suppressed inner self to have sexual contact with the people of the same gender. And I think no amount of gay porn will change that.

In India, they abort millions of females every year (10 mil in 2006). Let’s emulate this progressive nation.

tryathlete (#167),

It would surprise you and a few others, but actually I haven’t expressed my full stand yet. I have basically been stating other peoples’ stands on both sides. The only parts of my stand that I have actually revealed directly so far is that I believe that homosexuality</em? can be 'cured', or at least removed from society, and that I distinguish the homosexual condition from the homosexual person. Well, apart from the 1-to-3 and 4-to-5.

3) I hung on to that because I was talking about other people’s points-of-view. My full view, as Buda says, is more complex.

4) Good; you should try suggesting that to People Like Us. But having it as a continuum raises another question: is this continuum physiological, psychological, emotional or what else?

5-6) I guess you are thinking that. But I am not so sure if most of the Pink Lobby – even Alex Au – thinks that. Plus, not all continuums are healthy anyway.

#180

Lop, I agree with your observation : “.. The last I check most people look confidently heterosexual, it doesn’t seem like they are battling a suppressed inner self to have sexual contact with the people of the same gender. And I think no amount of gay porn will change that.”

And that seems a reality we cannot avoid.

Keep up the good work.

tryathlete (#167),

2) That the conflict exists.

3) I haven’t actually held on to an argument, because I haven’t really presented a full argument yet. I am merely still defending others’ arguments on principle. I have made a stand here and there, but those are … well quite minor points in my scheme of things.

4) Good, I like that term. Now try convincing People Like Us, or at least Alex Au, to accept it. But a continuum raises the question of what type of continuum it is, independent of what causes it.

5-6) Okay, I accept your clarification. (Not your POV, though.)

#176

Buda, tks for the clarification.

But I need to clarify as well. We are NOT bashing Arix.

We are just trying our best to tell Arix that he/she has made an irrational or ludicrous statement but, as you can see, he/she still cannot tell the difference between night and day.

Would you try telling him/her directly, perhaps do another post, addressed “To Arix”?

rkwc (#168),

1) Oh, you meant that kind of misinterpretation. Well, I didn’t really think that Buda was attempting to interpret me in that manner. Buda, perhaps you would like to clarify?

2) That is what I am trying to get at in my descriptions of the Gay Gene Theory.

3) I didn’t quite interpret it that way. Although that would be partially correct. I believe that if there is actually a Gay Gene existent, then yes it limits homosexuals. I also believe though that their perception of the existence of the Gay Gene limits homosexuals’ horizons as well. (Unrelatedly, I also believe that bisexuals are hiding under the homosexual curtain.)

4-6) No, you jumped to a fallacious conclusion about my interpretation of Buda’s comment. I defined my version of “listening attentively” in #94. Please read it again. You seem to have misinterpreted me in the same way that la nausee did.

7) I harp on it, because I am trying to disprove it. In the #155 you quoted, you sort of forgot in your analysis the line “Or so the Gay Gene Theory says anyway”. Does that sound like a statement of support to you?

I figured that the Gay Gene argument is the strongest argument anybody can raise, because it is a “nature” argument. Once we step into “nurture” arguments, the argument exists that some modes of nurture are more beneficial than other modes of nurture.

Points 4 and 5 of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement’s agenda (cr #67) are only mostly unquestionable if there is proven existence of the Gay Gene or the Sexual Orientation Gene. Even in a liberal democracy, Civil Rights have certain limits.

lobo76 (#173),

1) The diseases, or more accurately the diseased condition. The diseased condition is an “abnormal” state of the body, even though the germs or bacteria function “normally”.

2) Seriously, I don’t wish to debate on this. Basically, the anus is the dirtiest because it stores waste nearby, all the toxins and indigestible material. Refer to bio textbook please.

Arix 170)

“I have a “conclusion” that homosexuality is ‘disordered’, and I am still looking for the person who can decisively disprove this. On the other hand, I am raising the question of what is the best way to deal with the issue, and I admit that I have no answer for that.”

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Your ‘asking to understand’ doesn’t start from a perspective of enquiry – you don’t ask the question of ‘why do people different from me think/act the way they do’ but you already have ‘arrived’ at the conclusion that they are, in your words, ‘disordered’. Now, we all can agree that it is your point of view and that many people beg to differ. Would you operate on someone if there is still no agreement yet that the someone has a ‘disease’?

And finally, I implore you please, and this is really what a ‘rational’ people like you would do if you were half as rational as you claim to be – if you are truly interested in ‘curing’ a homosexual, start talking to one, or better still, as many as you can find.

As for the rest of your points, I do apologize I have an early ahead tomorrow

rwkc (#175),

Congratulations. You have made my argument for me, well partially anyway.

Right, as you point out, my intention is to argue just that: homosexuals are not inhibited from heterosexual activity. And so, my logic (in compressed form) follows: in that case, why do they have to whine so much about being allowed to act homosexually? [And please note sliim and smallvice: in compressed form]

Lop (#177),

You are really ingenious. Your interpretation of my argument is WAY OFF. I really ROFL at this one.

buda (#179),

Individual meditation is one way. Social inquiry is another. Although it should be unbiased social inquiry of course.

Zef (#187),

1) When I put words in inverted commas, I do so for a reason. I put “conclusion” in inverted commas because it is not really a conclusion but an informed position. I have looked at the available information, done meditation, and came to this viewpoint. I am still willing to accept any new evidence that will prove the viewpoint wrong. For instance, if someone actually announced the gene sequence that determines a person’s sexual orientation, continuous or non-continuous.

Sure, people can differ, that’s why we have a debate.

2) And I didn’t particularly think that we should operate on homosexuals. I oppose reparative therapy methods. I also see counselling as ineffective.

I also am puzzled nowadays when I hear alarm over the idea of ‘curing’ homosexuals. In case you were wondering, I don’t intend ‘curing’ to mean dumping someone in a straitjacket and force-injecting him or her or else electrocuting that person or something like that.

Aside on mental illness: Even away from homosexuality, IMH faces a hurdle in delivering mental medicine because of the popular misconception that only ‘crazy’ people need mental medicine, and unsurprisingly nobody likes to be called ‘crazy’.

When I have a flu, I take pills or syrup to cure it. That a doctor tells me to take these to ‘cure’ my flu doesn’t imply any peculiar agenda on the doctor’s part, or that I am somehow ‘abnormal’ in aspects other than my flu.

I do blame the religious right for causing the stigmatisation of medicine. Oh yes, and Hollywood too.

Anyhow, I don’t actually believe that homosexuality is an individual disease. I think that it is a disease of society that needs to be ‘cured’ through societal reform, particularly the abolition of gender roles.

My opinion (clear now?) is that LGBT is caused by a mismatch between physiological identity, psychological identity and gender roles. Physiological is ternary: male, female or the rare genetic disorder that makes a person both male and female. Gender Roles are fixed by the social context.

So I guess the main debate we will be having here – on this view – is: If it is healthy to preserve the fence, or to remove it. The third option, to abolish gender roles entirely, is out of this thread’s scope.

And yes Buda,

my view and arguments are quite complex.

Arix (183)

‘that the conflict exists’?!? is that all, really? a little more detail would be useful for informed debate.

I do not know if Alex Au or PLU or anybody would reject my label as such or why. Anyway I don’t know who calls it the ‘Gay Gene Theory’ except for detractors.

in #42 you say “Plus, the debate is not totally “free and uninhibited” if any side enters it with the conclusion in mind. It is wrong for any religious person, fundamentalist or moderate, to forcefully constrain the debate to a pre-determined conclusion that “homosexuals are unnatural”. It is equally wrong for any LGBT person or supporter to forcefully constrain the debate to a predetermined conclusion that “homosexuality is natural””

in #170 “”I have a “conclusion” that homosexuality is ‘disordered’, and I am still looking for the person who can decisively disprove this.”

I think an explanation is in order.

Arix

ah, “inverted commas” (191). so it’s not a conclusion, but an informed position.

-dictionary.com definition #5 of ‘conclusion’: Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.

-your method of reaching your ‘conclusion’, or as you call it, ‘informed position’: I have looked at the available information, done meditation, and came to this viewpoint.

And you require someone ‘decisively disprove’ your informed position? Bob forbid you ever reach a ‘conclusion’.

Next, the bits in bold assumes at least one thing that requires serious examination-

That order = heterosexuality.

ie. if a person is physiologically male(female), then only a psychological identity that results in sexual attraction to physiological females(males) is ‘order’.

You have left this statement unsupported. I would appreciate it if you could substantiate this.

To 377A from a scientific view point,
Contrary to what you said, the scientific viewpoint is some people are born gay. This is a phenomenon that occurs in all cultures and at all times and in many species besides humans. Thus, being gay is natural. Some people are born gay, just as some people are born straight. Straight people will not engage in gay sex, no matter how you tell them to do so. So there will be no extermination of the human race. Anyway, do humans engage in sex, just for the sake of procreation?

To all those who chastise TOC for publishing Alex Au’s comments,
Do you consider the gay agenda as the selfish aspiration of a group of people who would encroach on the “public” space on you, people? Are gays not humans too? Would you consider it to be an exclusively a woman’s issue if domestic violence against women are justified? Siimilarly, do you consider it to be just a straight man’s issue if the court is biased in favour of a woman’s testimony if a woman cries rape against a man? Do you consider a non-issue for you if slavery exists on the shores of Singaporean coastlines?

To James Tan,
If you consider anal sex to be the “evil”, for your information, many gays do not indulge in anal sex and many straights do.

Not chastising Toc for publishing alex au comments, but kind of bloody boring to see toc reporting on his blog half the time, he is not the only blogger in singapore for goodness sake. From beginning till now, been seeing mentioning of alex au so many times as he is an authority or something like that, what is the difference between ST reporting the government views all the time, come on, people not stupid, people can see, in no time, others will set up another toc and allow more diverse views from many many bloggers or other users and people will go there to see alternative views, same thing as what toc is doing to ST. btw, this is not attacking alex au, don’t misunderstand.

I stand by the opinion that TOC has been giving too much time and space to a topic that interests only a small group of people in Singapore’s society. It is clear that this small group does seem larger than life because it is a very vocal group.

And that is what it is actually – nothing more than a vocal group. The vocalness of the group does not mean there is widespread support for its belief and practices. In fact, I would venture to say that majority in Singapore’s society still hold the position of abhorrence when it comes, not only to gay matters, but specifically the issues of sexual intercourse between men and same-sex marriages.

Of course, advocates of the gay agenda would have us believe that we are a secular and liberal enough society to accept these changes – but in truth – are we? Has anyone carried out any sort of study or survey to say with certainty that the larger community support the gay agenda?

This is why my opinion remains, that we are only hearing a small group of gay advocates making a lot of noise. I believe also that the government is aware of this and that is why we cannot have a repeal of penal code 377A – not yet, and, for a long time more to come.

Arix, la nausea if am not incorrect has given up on you, presumably because he has discovered your mind is too complex [as Buda has also noted], or, more appropriately, too convoluted, to understand simple reasoning.

The facts are clear, and readers who have been following the discussions will have no doubt as to who is spouting nonsense.

I just want to recap a few crucial points:

[1] you took a certain stand when you said [#6] “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
[2] then, after some exchanges between you and others, Buda posted [#131] and ended his post with this comment: “Heterosexuals are not limited by any gay-gene and they can be bi-sexual if they have the urge, whereas homosexuals mostly find gay sex satisfying, and being bi-sexual is not an option open to them, probably due to the gene thing. This is what Arix is tying to get at, if i am not wrong.”
[3] And what was your response? In case you have a short memory, here’s what you said [#136]:
“budamax (#131),
Thanks a lot. You are the first person on this thread to actually “listen attentively” to my posts. That is a real relief! I was really beginning to wonder if my A1 GP skills had atrophied during NS.”
[4] In other words, upto this point you had conveyed the impression that [a] it was you who suggested that homosexuals are inhibited from bisexual or heterosexual activity because of this so-called gene thing and [b] you agreed with the comment made by Buda.
[5] then in #146 and #152 you said “and no, I do not support the existence of the Gay Gene, btw” and “I do not support the Gay Gene Theory”.
[6] at this point, you have committed an act of prevarication or distortion.
[7] in your #138 you said you were looking for examples of gays who have become strictly heterosexual when in the same post you said, inter alia, “There are cases of homosexuals that married and had children…”
[8] I gave you a couple of links to look up, for the evidence you wanted.
[9] but despite all that you still refuse to admit the irrationality or ludicrousness of the statement you made in #6
[10] I have to say this to Buda, each of us has a complex brain, with about 100 billion interconnected nerve cells, but not everyone is gifted to understand simple, logical arguments.

Buda, would you care to respond to Arix?

#199 gemami///I stand by the opinion that TOC has been giving too much time and space to a topic that interests only a small group of people///;;;;I strongly object to this statement, because i think everybody has an interest in this topic, everybody here meaning the heterosexuals, homosexuals and the bi-sexuals. Although the spotlight has been mainly on the heterosexuals and homosexuals, i would like to bring the emphasis, in this short essay of mine, on to the bi-sexuals;;;;For a start i would like to propose the following alternative theory;;;;Everybody in the world is naturally born as a bi-sexual, probably with a bi-sexual gene intact. Everychild, who has natural bi-sexual tendencies, is then subjected through a nurturing process by the parents, the teachers, religion and the state, the obvious objective being to make everybody a productive heterosexual. This repressive and harassing process naturally produces a reaction in some of the children, and thats where we have the appearance of the gay and the lesbian phenomena;;;;;The whole world functions on principals and laws which has a foundation on “the middle-way”. This middle way can be defined as something that is free of extremes and something which is at the optimal level, and which has a supreme quality of equilibrum.;;;;;And, coming back to our main theme i propose that bi-sexuality is the natural middle-way, and homosexuality and heterosexuality are the two extremes;;;; To boost my theory i must add that ‘the middle-way’ was first discovered by none other than the Buddha himself 2700 years ago, and science has just caught up with it only over the past 1 or 2 centuries.

Maybe it’s true that Singaporean men and women need to get laid more often or are not getting enough of it. If they don’t get enough sex, they’ll start pointing fingers at gay people. Just look at all the comments coming from people with so much free time to talk about section 377A. Like as if your life depends on it. Get laid for pete’s sake.

Good observation and good point. Very likely Alex Au is connected in some ways to TOC, that’s why always reporting on his blog.

Actually, I also very tired of hearing my father and mother keep saying the same thing like old broken down recorder.

Some people have observed that TOC started out greatly, in between going downhill for some reasons known only to them, out of point, out of touch, out of synch, out of …..

Let’s hope TOC improves from now on and more people join in rather than small group chit chatting here, forward TOC, go go go

191) Arix on July 8th, 2009 12.44 am

With regards to your bold text:
I wish to point out that everything was built on the first para. And the first para was built on social context.

My point: social context changes.

——————-

199) gemami on July 8th, 2009 8.30 am
I stand by the opinion that TOC has been giving too much time and space to a topic that interests only a small group of people in Singapore’s society.

Hmm.. of the 6 main stories, only 1 is on this topic.
If I look at the month of June, I think see only 1 or 2 articles that MAY be related. In the sense the people posting comments try to link back to the gay topic.
e.g Sunday, 14 June 2009 – How the lack of common sense can destroy a faith
& Friday, 19 June 2009 – No to Sex Offender Registry

So my opinion is that it is you who are too focused on this topic, giving you the false impression that TOC is overharping on this topic. It’s like thinking airplane are more accident prone, because the news always reports them…but car accidents are the most accident prone.

#185 & #188

Arix, la nausea if am not incorrect has given up on you, presumably because he has discovered your mind is too complex [as Buda has also noted], or, more appropriately, too convoluted, to understand simple reasoning.

The facts are clear, and readers who have been following the discussions will have no doubt as to who is spouting nonsense.

I just want to recap a few crucial points:

[1] you took a certain stand when you said [#6] “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
[2] then, after some exchanges between you and others, Buda posted [#131] and ended his post with this comment: “Heterosexuals are not limited by any gay-gene and they can be bi-sexual if they have the urge, whereas homosexuals mostly find gay sex satisfying, and being bi-sexual is not an option open to them, probably due to the gene thing. This is what Arix is tying to get at, if i am not wrong.”
[3] And what was your response? In case you have a short memory, here’s what you said [#136]:
“budamax (#131),
Thanks a lot. You are the first person on this thread to actually “listen attentively” to my posts. That is a real relief! I was really beginning to wonder if my A1 GP skills had atrophied during NS.”
[4] In other words, upto this point you had conveyed the impression that [a] it was you who suggested that homosexuals are inhibited from bisexual or heterosexual activity because of this so-called gene thing and [b] you agreed with the comment made by Buda.
[5] then in #146 and #152 you said “and no, I do not support the existence of the Gay Gene, btw” and “I do not support the Gay Gene Theory”.
[6] at this point, you have committed an act of prevarication or distortion.
[7] in your #138 you said you were looking for examples of gays who have become strictly heterosexual when in the same post you said, inter alia, “There are cases of homosexuals that married and had children…”
[8] I gave you a couple of links to look up, for the further evidence you wanted.
[9] but despite all that you still refuse to admit the irrationality or ludicrousness of the statement you made in #6

I have to say this to Buda, each of us has a complex brain, with about 100 billion interconnected nerve cells, but not everyone is gifted to understand simple, logical arguments.

Buda, would you care to respond to Arix?

*gemami on July 8th, 2009 8.30 am

Irregardless of whether the group is small or vocal, the fact remains that we have in place a law that discriminates against a group of people. The movement against laws on slavery or discrimination of women all started small and gianed widespread support only after the injustices of these laws were higlighted and accepted by the majority. It did not happen overnight and in some cases, it took decades.

If this group of people keeps quiet and accept the ‘majorioty’s’ views and definations of what they are supposed to be, then change or understanding of the injustices in 377A will never happen. Everything has to start somewhere. And once ignited, the issue takes a life on its own and is open to the bigger public to discuss and dissect.

Note that just because the so-called majority does not approve of homosexuality (as you say), that does not mean gays themselves have to see their acts as wrong or accept their position as criminals in our society. Tell us what is ‘wrong’ or ‘criminal’ about us in a rational and logical way based on the rule of the law and not based on your biased opinions and faith based theories.

If there was an argument for keeping 377A that could be accepted by the gay groups, then I am sure they would have nothing to shout about anymore. They are still vocal because there is no logical argument for the retention of 377A in our modern world and society.

So perhaps you should argue more for Singapore to be insular against sweeping changes of the world around us, to be wrapped in a coccoon and protected from all these social issues that are evolving rapidly. Only then perhaps can you justify sticking to redundant laws and morality codes that have no relevance in the mdoern world.

*Huh, another report on alex au blog? xian lah
*Broken down recorder playing only Alex Au song, zzzzzzz

Xian and zzzzzzzzz…sounds like the same broken down recorder to me. Easy solution – just start your own blog. Or better still. Stop reading TOC.

Btw from all the postings that I have been following in the past few months, I happen to think TOC is a far superior alternative political mouthpiece on most issues and the contributors are defintely far better than the ones you get elsewhere, including St and Asiaone.

Let us not go into the intricacies of what constitutes sexuality and the various forms it comes in. The issue here is about the ‘repealing’ of 377A in India, albeit, in its court of law but not its government. The title of the article here is misleading to say the least, calling Singapore a fool. This in itself implies that Singapore, because of the views of a small minority, is now regarded a fool – not by India but by one man who has his own agenda to push across. In one fell swoop, every Singaporean is now regarded a fool by him. How can anyone, gay or not, stand with him is beyond comprehension. I cannot accept this, and this is the result of one pushing his own agenda too hard.

Sloo, I do not think it is discrimination of a small group of people more than a small group attempting to twist the arms of the larger group. As mentioned, the article heading is a case in point. If there is any discrimination, then the gay group is just as guilty for constantly referring to religion and conservatism as stumbling blocks to their path of acceptance. It will not work.

Further to your argument, it is not the heterosexual majority who must give reason to the gay groups for either acceptance or non-acceptance, it is the gay groups who must give reason for it to be accepted. So far, it does not seem to have a strong case when it constantly lambasts the position of the heterosexual community – a position that determines the order of the day – in any given country.

@Arix (#185),

You say I misinterpreted you. I don’t believe I did. It’s just that you attribute to the GLBT movement an argument so wrong-headed (i.e. that the purported ‘Gay Gene’ willsomehow deterministically affects and ‘limit’ an individual’s behaviour, in a way that’s somehow distinct from feelings of disgust, repulsion etc. — you say that they claim that some ‘inhibitory enzyme’ or some other bodily mechanism exists) that I found it near-impossible to believe that you could build such a strawman out of your opponents’ arguments.

But you’ve stuck to your guns, even after I, among others, attempted to demonstrate how uncharitably you interpret the ‘Gay Gene’ argument. So I leave others to decide on the cogency of your claims.

Apologies for the misspellings and bad grammar in the sentence in bold font above.

Hi budamax1952 on July 8th, 2009 10.34 am,

If I may, it is your kind of theory that is setting the gay lobbyists back by a mile and a half. I do not know how you can derive at everyone being borned a natural bi-sexual but such theories, novel and innovative though they may be, will not do you any good in an argument. How bi-sexualism can be defined as the ‘middle-way’ is simply mind-boggling, not to mention, homosexuality and heterosexuality being defined as extremes, in the far-end corner of either sides, on equal footings. Wow! I gaspining for air!

very simple, let’s do the counting, we got 2 postings xian with every time mentioning Alex Au, wonder how many times Alex Au blog or comments have been mentioned here, anybody can help to count? Then we know who is the real broken down recorder. Evidence is the best, no point arguing. Since we are on this homo topic, why not say there is nothing wrong with having sex with children or having sex with animals?

Perhaps should add a footnote about how ‘Gay Gene’ proponents do make their case that homosexuals should not undergo reparative therapy (and thus, are ‘limited’):

(1) Sexual orientation is determined by several factors beyond an individual’s control, including both genes and environment.
(2) It perhaps may be changed with deliberate effort, but in a way which entails severe psychological costs, which will grossly outweigh any benefits to be had from such ‘repair’.

And in any case, there’s the broader argument that one’s sexual orientation and/or behaviour is normally shielded by the right to privacy and to freedom from interference in one’s intimate life, unless it can be proven that there is a strong causal link between that sexual orientation/behaviour and a severe social cost (like HIV/AIDS). ‘Repair’ would therefore not be justified even if it were shown to be more beneficial than not.

210) Evidence is the best, no point arguing on July 8th, 2009 1.07 pm
why not say there is nothing wrong with having sex with children or having sex with animals?

I think your tape recorder broke here… you can refer to past posts for this.

tryathlete (#193),

1) Well, that is the basic idea, of a Gay Gene, even if the Pink Lobby (non-detractors) hide it behind elegant sophistry.

2) Yes, I did, and I stand by what I said.

3-4) Well, this is a debate. One doesn’t enter a debate sitting on the fence. To join the debate one has to adopt either the pro or con side. So I have chosen to join the con side, since I see that there needs to be some balancing opinion in an overly-pro-gay discussion. It is really not much of a discussion if everyone is merely nodding ‘yes’ to each other, is it?

Anyhow, before you accuse me of violating that statement, how about looking at yourself or rkwc or Justice or Equality or sliim or Smallvice (especially). They are here for unbiased inquiry or to promote certain points-of-view?

buda (#200),

What do you define “bisexual tendencies” as? Do these tendencies manifest themselves before adolescence?

**** gemami on July 8th, 2009 12.54 pm
I do not think it is discrimination of a small group of people more than a small group attempting to twist the arms of the larger group

Again my point: Show us what is it about being gay (in the context of adults gays consenting) that is wrong? Argue it from a logial and rational viewpoint and pls do not hoist the statement that just because the majority thinks its wrong, its wrong. I for one am not bring in anything religious in this instance. Argue it from a scientific, rational point of view.

And explain to me how a small group can twist the arm of the bigger group UNLESS the small group has effective means to do so. This would be, in this instance, a coherent argument against 377A as a discriminatory law.

Your whole argument for the retention of the law is based on what the ‘majority’ thinks is right. This can and will change in time as history has shown. How can you then justify the law now knowing that in time it will be repealed, as it has been done by so many other countries. And note too that the law was repealed in many instance by the governments themselves, even without the support of the majority in their countries. They have done this as they realised a law as such goes again all principles of equality and inclusiveness, which by the way, is also in our constituition.

Note that History has shown us how the majority has erred in numerous ways – how societies have discriminated and killed thousands based on their perceived values and morality. And how in time, these acts of discrimination was proven to be baseless, wrong and repealed.

And our reason for acceptance? We too are human beings and what we do as consenting adults does not hurt anyone directly (or physically).

We too demand our rights as accepted members of society and not as criminals to be condemned for who we are.

Are you surprised then that we are vocal? Are you surprised then that we make ourselves heard loudly? I would think that if you were in our position, you too would be the small vocal minority.

**then the gay group is just as guilty for constantly referring to religion and conservatism as stumbling blocks to their path of acceptance. It will not work.

As there are other who argue for 377A based on scientific or medical facts (flimsy as they are), there are also gay groups who argue for the repeal that are not anti-relgion in any way. And this is what I am advocating in my argument.

I have said before: give us a damn good reason based that is rational and logical reasons that can silence us once and for all. One good reason, one that is not biased, not based on religious texts or theories or faulty medical conjectures.

*** Evidence is the best, no point arguing on July 8th, 2009 1.07 pm
Since we are on this homo topic, why not say there is nothing wrong with having sex with children or having sex with animals?

SIIIIIIIIIIIIGh!! Cos animals and children cannot give their consent. This is about consenting adults. Pls grow up, read up (particulary other books, threads and the web) and be logical. Thats the least anyone can expect from someone who posts an opinion here. Hate postings is simply intolerable.

tryathlete (#194),

While using dictionary definitions is useful and helps clarify concepts to a certain extent, overuse of the dictionary leads one into the murky waters of the dicto-simpliciter fallacy, the Fallacy of “going by the dictionary for everything”. I do believe that there would be more than one definition for the word “Conclusion”? Anyway, there is the diffference between intermediate and final conclusions.

And my argument is not “order=heterosexuality”; it is “order=match” and “heterosexuality = match between gender roles and physiological make-up”

Using your favourite dictionary.com:-

order = a condition in which each thing is properly disposed with reference to other things and to its purpose; methodical or harmonious arrangement.

match = a corresponding, suitably associated, or harmonious pair

Please, before you try to rebut me, understand me first.

lobo76 (#203),

Social context changes, but at a much slower rate than societal context. If not, the world should be a peaceful place today.

there there, the funie churches are out in full force now. what a joke. perhaps these morons should do some fervent praying for homosexuals to disappear from this world, like how they pray for the boxing day tsunami to avoid singapore.

217) Arix on July 8th, 2009 2.05 pm

Social context changes, but at a much slower rate than societal context. If not, the world should be a peaceful place today.

I don’t really understand what you trying to say. We are talking about Singapore, right? So how is social context different from societal context? (I am assuming the different being that the latter is specific to a society, and that Singapore is not big enough to have more than 1 distinctly different society).

2 smelliest characters in Singapore had been jailed recently . Protestants “Ong Kian Cheong, 49, and Dorothy Chan Hien Leng, 44, are alleged to have distributed The Little Bride” in a bid to deride racial harmony in Singapore. Which organized religious group are they with? In an organized religious group, everyone practically do the same thing and think in similar ways. It’s a fact.

Who know there could be dozens of these terrorists still out there? Other than mocking muslims, gays and atheists, this extremely vocal (but small) group could also target abortion doctors, divorced mums, adopted babies, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, HIV patients and the handicapped and force exorcisms on them.

I propose that we use gays as a tool to promote racial and religious harmony in Singapore by weeding out religious terrorists such as Ong, Chan and their kind, a handful of which are definitely on commenting on this article. Both groups should decimate each other eventually.

cos india’s influenced by a religion much better than the (vocal, all hot air) one that’s influencing ours right now.

Arix (216)

That’s not what dicto-simpliciter means. It means over-generalisation, or ignoring an acceptable exception. Do you claim that you are using an acceptable exception to the term “conclusion”?

Anyway, I asked you what the difference between “conclusion” and “informed position” was. So, I ask again, using your new terms – What is the difference between ‘intermediate conclusion’ and ‘final conclusion’?

You say in #216, ‘order=match. heterosexuality=match between gender roles and physiological make-up’

I said in #194, that you claimed ‘order=heterosexuality’. You think I misunderstand?

“ie. if a person is physiologically male(female), then only a psychological identity that results in sexual attraction to physiological females(males) is ‘order’.”

that sentence is the ‘match’ bit.

That is the statement that I wanted your supporting evidence for.

Hi Sloo ,

The evidence is right in front of your nose, yet you are asking for evidence. Heterosexuality is your evidence and it is in abundance.

Another evidence before you is the upholding of 377A by the government. The evidence you seek are aplenty – in the reasons why it is not repealed.

Consenting to an act does not legalise the act, and besides 377A, there are many other acts that are made criminal to protect the interest of the majority. In this case, man-to-man marriage and sex between men are two areas that need to be protected from the mainstream.

You talked about the future when you are now even certain about the present.

It will do the gay groups more good if they take the time and energy to address these reasons and state clearly why the majority need not be fearful over them. This is what I mean when I say that the onus is on the gay group to give reasons on why they are to be accepted into the mainstream of things. What it is doing now is fighting it, which is really foolish. And the ones leading the fight, like Alex Au, are your biggest enemies, because they are fighting it wrong and it is tiring everyone out – even heterosexuals like me – who have tried very hard to understand the gay lobbyists.

Furthermore, in the heat of an argument, more restraint must be observed to serve your cause. It is no good to make references to bestiality and pedophiliac behaviors. It just serve to show how disoriented the gay people are.

Unholy things like gemami have the propensity to falsify facts blatantly. “need to be protected from the mainstream. ” is a fallacy. A factual statement would be “the minority, casted-out vocal Christians who are interested in how people poke others anally”. Naturally we the majority of Christians do not give a damn. We rather will pay more attention to bread and butter issues such as safeguarding our asses from anal bosses and demeaning politicians. Get a life, make babies or do community work.

223) gemami on July 8th, 2009 4.03 pm

Your post suggests that you are … disorientated.

e.g 1
“bestiality and pedophiliac behaviors” are usually (nearly always) brought up by anti-gays. Sloo was replying to such a post when he mentioned it.

e.g 2
In this (your) sentence:
In this case, man-to-man marriage and sex between men are two areas that need to be protected from the mainstream.

FROM the mainstream? it suggests that mainstream is doing the attacking, which is right.. but seems to be at odds with your previous sentence of ‘protecting the majority’.

223) gemami on July 8th, 2009 4.03 pm
“The evidence is right in front of your nose, yet you are asking for evidence. Heterosexuality is your evidence and it is in abundance.”

This probably qualifies as e.g 3 of your sign of disorientation.
(Abundance of) Heterosexuality is evidence? Does it mean that because something is ‘majority’, ‘minority’ is therefore ‘wrong’. Really…this is an excellent classical example case of discrimination. Must be disorientated to have suggested that this is ‘evidence’.

#209 gemami //// it is your kind of theory that is setting the gay lobbyist back by a mile and a half //// Hi gemami;;Wow right off, and you jump into the fray and accuse me, and my theory, of throwing a spanner in the works of the gay lobbyist. Why didn’t you go the whole hog and say that i have also thrown a spanner in the works of the conservative lobbyist? Surely the position i take is a bigger threat to the conservative lobby than the gay lobby isn’t it? Pardon me, but surely this must be an insidious strategy of divide-and-rule that you are taking, if i not wrong.;;;;;;;//// How bi-sexualism can be defined as the ‘middle-way’ is simply mind -boggling, not to mention, homosexuality and heterosexuality being defined as extremes////;; Before i go into the nitty-gritty of the details of the position i have taken, i hope you don’t get disgusted and lose your appettite for your dinner tonight, knowing how much the conservatives are attached to their ideals;;Ok here goes;;;;;The 2 extremes are (1) Homosexuality—-(a)man have sex with man (b)woman have sex with woman—-limitations self- induced (2) Heterosexuality—- man with woman and vice-versa—-limitations set by society;;;;;;The middle-way—-Bi-sexuality—-(a) man with woman and vice-versa (b) man with man (c) woman with woman——no self- induced limitations and no limitations by society;;;;I hope this clears the air a bit.

gemami #223,

“Consenting to an act does not legalise the act, and besides 377A, there are many other acts that are made criminal to protect the interest of the majority. In this case, man-to-man marriage and sex between men are two areas that need to be protected from the mainstream.”

Are you one of these “heterosexuals” who finds it impossible to resist becoming homosexual if 377A is lifted?

The essence of discourse regarding this borrowed article should be focused on whether it is right to criminalize a segment of human beings just because of their orientation? We have heard the parliament discourse on this issue back then and the verdict had been reached. This issue re-surfaces for the fact that the largest democratic country by population in this world (India) had abolished this draconian law recently and ridiculed its existence without the general public prompting the government to do so. It is indeed in the perception of the India government to upkeep true equal RIGHTs issue.

Reading through the two hundred odd comments posted; I am amazed that the discourse taken place so far had seemingly been more of the association of sexuality contents to this otherwise seen as RIGHTS issue (well, at least IMHO). In its simplest form, it has all to do with a segment of human beings being deprived of the same RIGHTS accorded to its same kind just because their sexual orientation differs from the “perceived public norm” and at the same time being stigmatized as “criminals” by law.

What I find most disturbing is that a majority of the posters who on one hand passionately decry that their privileges had been robbed by the current ruling regime because of unjust policies, being sideline with inequality rules and so on in other societal issues published here yet are denigrating in their comments regarding this segment of human beings within the content of the published matter. Simply because these segment of people are perceived as different from the “social norm”. It begs me to question how profound and genuine are your expressed views on other social issues that concern the everyday bread and butter of life of the less fortunate and dire citizenry to want to make a difference when some of you too view life and RIGHTs with tainted glasses? If this form of mentality, mindset and perception of values perceived, I believe more public education is called for otherwise we will continue to see the growth of discriminatory behavior in society when issues at large does not concern a particular individual or a group of individuals. The compassions that many so desired to see changes in effect so that everyone will someday be treated equally will never happen for there are others who would use the same set of tainted glasses to view the disgruntled expressed sentiments. For example, many here have been expressing your views that the current regime did not do enough to help our less fortunate and dire straits fellow citizenry…etc and many almost certainly despise the elitist remarks because the sufferers were not born in the same league or did not work hard enough to achieve what they had done. For those who wore tainted glasses in this discourse, in the elitist context of the said example, I should think that the elitists find it perfectly normal as their everyday life is not impacted because you have only yourself to blame for under achieving or that you are just not cut out to live in this meritocratic driven society. So imagine you are in the shoe of those who are deprived of their RIGHTs and make a statement. Is this right?

Personally, I feel that a true compassionate person in character and a genuine advocate of Equality rules and RIGHTs will not see things with tainted glass, more so if you so choose to associate your expressed views with your religious believe. I should think that most if not all religious doctrine teaches its followers to be compassionate and caring towards all living kind on earth with possible unconditioned love and acceptance.

Sincerely,

Observer (SG-HK)

Hi Arix

1) U said:

“Anyhow, I do believe that S377A should be abolished.” (#13 Arix on July 4th, 2009 7.33 pm )

Could you explain or give your basis FOR the abolition of Section 377A when in most of your posts, you seem to me to be AGAINST its abolition?

2) U said:

“For one, supporters of 377A in Singapore are not just the “Fundamentalists”; they include the “moderates” as well.” (#12)

“moderates” support S377A? What’s their basis & understanding of available research/findings on homosexuality?

3) Homosexuality Normal?

Christian fundies led by Thio Su-mien and Church of our Saviour Senior Pastor Derek Hoong strongly objected to AWARE’s sex education program in which homosexual acts to be NORMAL.

Yet in the publication:

‘Just the facts About Sexual Orientation and Youths: A Primer for Principals, educators and School personnel”

which is endorsed by the following:

A Academy of Pediatrics
A Association of School Administrations
A Counseling Association
A Federation of Teachers
A Psychological Association
A School Counselor Association
A School Health Association
Interfaith Alliance Foundation
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of School Principals
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association
School Social Work Association of America

it is stated that:

“Sexual orientation has not been conclusively found to be determined by any factor or factors, and the timing of the emergence, recognition and expression of one’s sexual orientation varies among individuals.

The idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or the emergence of same sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organization. ” (www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.pdf)

4) Reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy

Christian fundies like Thio Su-mien, Senior Pastor Derek Hoong believe in REPARATIVE THERAPY for homosexuals.

However, the American Psychological Association has this to say:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

**********

In any case, would Arix pls summarise his case AGAINST the repeal of S377A in say 3 paragraphs within 500 words to make it easier for the less erudite/intellectual like myself to understand his arguments.

Thanks.

Sorry, miss out the undermentioned para in my item 4 on:

4) Reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy

“Decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream mental health organizations in this country to the conclusion that homosexuality is a normal form of human sexuality.”

Can’t remember the exact link, but it can be found on the APA website

Sorry, miss out the undermentioned para in my item 4 on:

4) Reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy

What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.

Observer (SG-HK) on July 8th, 2009 6.04 pm
Well said!

**gemami on July 8th, 2009 4.03 pm
**Heterosexuality is your evidence and it is in abundance.

How is being straight evidence??? How??? Just because straight people are the majority? Then what about blacks? the Jews, the Uighurs in China right now? What about the minority races in sg? If you take on this concept, then it should apply to every other strata in society.

My argument is that if you can accept other minority groups here, then you will have to accept the minority gay group as well. Which by the way comprises of rich, poor, chinese, malay, indians and eurasians, young and old, male and female.

**Another evidence before you is the upholding of 377A by the government.

What kind of evidence is that? So do you approve anal and oral sex among straight people too cos the govt repealed 377? Stem-cell research? Gambling?
Does that mean cos the govt kept the law, it is morally good and not discriminatory?
And if one day our govt repeals 377A, you would support that cos that is ‘evidence’?

**In this case, man-to-man marriage and sex between men are two areas that need to be protected from the mainstream.

For your sake i truly hope you have more faith and confidence in your own sexuality cos if everyone thinks like you (as reflected in this sentence) gays may soon become the majority and straight people the minority!

I am sure the gay lifestyle and sex acts are so tempting, every straight man is just dying to turn gay once the law is repealed. Wonder why its not happening in those countries that have already repealed the law….

It really is pointless to reply to your comments as you have failed the grasp the essence of the issue here and worse, continue to argue based on the ‘majority’ and hetereosexuality complex.

Wheres the beef?
wheres your logic?

Before u accuse us of belitting your arguments, pls make more of an effort to come up wit something more cogent, fact based and rational. A least Arix thinks through his arguments and is able to break them down point by point, even though there may be flaws in his arguments.

I haven’t been online for the past 2 days and I am quite shocked to discover so much religiously motivated filth.

Fortunately, Singapore practises positive secularism otherwise misguided religious groups that include individuals like Arix would have an open-ended license to promote hate and oppression on non-conformists in Singapore.

If you don’t conform to their religious values, religious people such as Arix wants to discriminate you. Beware!

What did Arix say so far in oppressing the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement?

I shall address them according to the following points:

2. Equalization of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

4. same-sex marriage or civil union

5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.

[Continuation of Post #234]

What did Arix say so far in oppressing the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement?

1. Decriminalisation of sodomy

Arix said in #6 that nobody should be judged on their reproductive value. It is widely known that Christians use the “reproductive” argument to justify homosexuality is unnatural. Criminalising homosexuality and pronouncing it immoral are merely its logical extensions.

Arix claims to support decriminalising homosexual acts, but on what grounds? Selective application of the “natural” argument – because he continues to justify pronouncing homosexuality as immoral. If not, there is no way the argument can address his own religious motivation. In the end, Arix

Arix said that burning practising homosexuals at the stake is a cruel and torturous punishment. Yet he doesn’t realise that social dissociation (e.g. demanding homosexuals to confine their activities within their house) and refusal to integrate homosexuals into mainstream society are just as cruel and torturous. In another words, Arix supports religious individuals to torture homosexuals while objects the State from torturing homosexuals.

In post #90, Arix later argued that it is a pragmatic policy to retain 377A to prevent an outbreak of Liberal-Conservative violence in Singapore which would harm our political stability and the government’s prize treasure of FDI by MNCs. History has shown that the highly conservative and highly religious elements of the population are behind whatever violence. To appease these elements within the population under their threat of violence, is this not oppression? Is Singapore already under the oppression of these religious conservative elements?

If Arix wants to use the “Science” argument to support the naturalness of heterosexuality, I want to remind Arix that scientific community has concluded that reproductivity is not the sole criteria to judge if a mode of sexuality is natural while at the same time failed to conclude that heterosexuality natural too. In another words, the discrimination that Arix promotes should extend to heterosexual people too. Only established religions such as Christianity assert that heterosexuality is natural.

According to Arix’s “dumbed-down” understanding of genetics (#68), having sex with same-sex person is a leisure option for a heterosexual person. Clearly, that is already a violation of the definition of a heterosexual person. He goes on to say that Bisexuals complicate the “Gay Gene” debate because a bisexual exercises both options of having sex with the same-sex and opposite-sex persons. Clearly, Arix isn’t acquainted with the 3 fundamental genetic interactions – dominant, co-dominant and recessive. The Bible also does not teach genetics, so we atheists should enlighten him on his misguided ways.

The “whatever gene” arguement has to address 4 points:
a) heterosexual parents produce homosexual offsprings
b) homosexuals form a minority in the population
c) bisexuals form a minority in the population
d) what biological factors determine a human hermaphrodite to like a male or female?

[Continuation of Post #235]

2. Equalisation of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex

In Singapore, homosexual acts are currently criminalised, so there is hardly any talks on the equalisation of Age of Consent for hetero- and homo- sexual sex. However, Arix asked in post #71: what is your first thought when you hear of a Man-Boy Love Association?

This is a frequent plot by religious individuals and groups to stain homosexuality in the same shade as paedophilia. Homosexuals ask for equality, not lowering the Age of Consent to allow paedophiles to prey on children yet to undergo puberty or immature & misguided teenagers.

Some might wonder if religious individuals might have set up the North America Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in order to handicap the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement.

lobo76 (#219),

Societal context refers to the physical structures and infrastructure that surround us. It includes physical buildings like banks and shopping centers and wet markets, and also organizational structures like Parliament and Courts and Corporations and Statuory Boards.

Social context refers to the actual content of people’s relations with each other, the way they think and feel about each other.

In fact, Singapore is the best example to illustrate the divergence of societal and social context. We have the societal context of a (capitalist) corporate state, but the social context of a quasi-feudal state. We are a structural democracy, but not an ideological one.

That is the real price of Singapore’s economic “miracle”.

Thank you 229) Observer! I couldn’t have expressed it better!

tryathlete (#222),

1&2) the “dicto” in “dicto-simpliciter” refers to “dictionary”. That I am absolutely sure. It originates from people actually taking out a dictionary and copying the definition word-for-word in a research paper. But that detracts.

I do not claim to be using any exception at all. I inserted a chronological qualifier before “conclusion” to limit in-context.

To give you a metaphor of my approach, think of a manual. Many manuals would include the line “include the result from the previous step” at least once. Would you compel the manual-writers to prove that their use of the word “result” is an “acceptable exception” to the dicto-simpliciter fallacy?

To draw an analogy, my “intermediate conclusion” is the equivalent of “result from the previous step”. My “Final conclusion” is the equivalent of “final result”.

Do you get my drift now?

3&4) Yes, I thought you misunderstood. Because an unqualified “order” is different from a qualified “order”. “order=heterosexuality” seems to imply that you think that I am referring to some abstract conception of moral order.

5) Yes, that is the match bit.

males and females each have certain sets of organs, apart from those with that rare disease. (And yes, it is considered a disease if you have both a penis and an ovary at birth.)

Open any biological textbook, and it will tell you what the functions of those sets of sexual organs are and how they complement each other. “Complement” here relating to the functions, not the organs.

According to dictionary.com (since you like it):

Complementary = completing

harmonious (as in the definitions of “order” and “match”) = forming a whole

complete = to make whole.

There are two possible conclusions to draw from this:-

1) when these complementary functions are performed complementarily, then there is order. If not, there is disorder. The Pro-gay people here call this the “Reproductive Value” argument.

2) When it is possible for these complementary functions to be performed complementarily, then there is order. If not, there is disorder. This is my argument and I think that it is somewhat better than the first, because it acknowledges the randomness that comes with free choice.

Thus, a homosexual is not harmonious with his or her bodily function because he or she is denying himself or herself the possibility of reproduction. It is sort of like me keeping the driver of a non-existent printer installed on my computer. (I do have that, unfortunately:(.)

Whether the person wants to reproduce is another matter. As per the analogy above, that would be me having the printer (and printer driver) but choosing not to use it. We are talking about function, not purpose. Or to use other terms, potential instead of actuality.

To extend the analogy further, the heterosexual who chooses sterilization is the same as if I decided to smash my brand-new printer, whose driver is installed on my computer.

I hope this clarifies my view to you.

P.S.: This is conceptual logic, not empirical logic.

#239 Arix

I’m not sure if your biological textbooks mentioned this, but I thought you might like to know, sexual intercouse is no longer an essential part of the reproduction process since we left the stone age. Therefore technically a homosexual person can procreate although not in the way prescribed by your textbooks.

Homosexuals are indeed capable of reproduction, it’s a matter of whether they choose to or not, very much like in the cases of catholic priests, buddhist monks or nuns. And as such they are in no more disharmony with their body than the same group of people mentioned.

Also for the sake of discuss perhaps you would also like to comment on people who haven’t gone through appendicectomy or circumcision, are they in harmony with their body?

I’m sorry if this sounds a bit personal, but your postscript – this is conceptual logic, not empirical logic – makes me wonder if you are
1) a sage hiding in an ivory tower
2) just aruging for the sake (or joy) of arguing.

[Continuation of Post #236]

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

If we have Anti-discrimination laws, then Arix cannot make statements such as “I would like to discourage TOC from publishing articles on homosexuality by Alex Au” (#7). He asked specifically for ban of articles written by activists in #12. By that extension, all articles on TOC should be banned because no TOC articles are neutral despite being generally non-partisan. We all should take note that TOC staff are activists because TOC is fighting for press freedom by providing alternative view and news.

Clearly, Arix is using words like “professsionalism” to silence Alex Au and other Homosexual Civil Rights activists / supporters. Just as la nausée put it in #76, the minority is often not given the right to equal participation, subject as they are to systematic patterns of violence, threats and abuse by the majority. In such a case, the minority needs to put its case in more strident terms in order just to be heard. In another words, Arix is uncomfortable in a non-academic setting.

I had also mentioned previously in other threads that a public debate is not an academic debate – everyone plays the role of an advocate, a spectator and a judge. You cannot force someone to adopt one role and adhere to it strictly throughout the debate, unless you are an oppressionist. Arix later questioned in #42: What evidence do you have that “a majority of us” will support the de-criminalisation of homosexuality? A selective application of my first point in this paragraph for Arix’s convinience and reinforces the Delhi Supreme Court Judgement – “criminal law held captive by popular misconception”.

I am quite curious about Gemami making this point in #199: I stand by the opinion that TOC has been giving too much time and space to a topic that interests only a small group of people in Singapore’s society. Given that Gemami has demonstrated countless times he is against censorship, I wonder whether Gemami #199 is the Gemami that has always been posting comments on TOC or Gemami #199 has been unjustly impersonated by Arix. If it is the later, then we can re-affirm that religious individuals know no boundary to implement their oppression.

Arix said in #65 that employers shouldn’t purposely not hire someone because that person is LGBT, though at the same time an LGBT person should not raise an alarm every time he or she gets a rejection slip. A LGBT person can raise alarm over the rejection slip over the same variety of reasons as a heterosexual person. Yet he said LGBT person should not raise an alarm.

Arix later said in #43 that he dislike the term “homosexual discrimination” because it covers both the “narrow” and “broad” spectrums – as if either “broad” or “narrow” homosexual discrimination is acceptable in the first place, unless Arix is advocating for the right for religious persons or groups to continue their discrimination. This point is further validated by Arix’s own statement in #160: In my ideal, the word “homosexual” doesn’t exist as a noun..

Q5 (#230),

1) I already explained why I support the abolition of 377A. And I support the abolition of Section 377A. I just don’t give absolute support to anything beyond S377A.

I support the abolition of S377A because:

1) I believe that the State should respect free choice of its citizens. So if people choose to be homosexual – consciously or subconsciously – the State should respect this choice. This however, in my opinion, does not preclude the State carrying out a campaign to discourage homosexual behaviour or something else more appropriate.

2) S377A is technically unenforceable without turning Singapore into a police state. Preserving a technically unenforceable law is a mockery of the Rule of Law. Law is only worthwhile when it can be effectively enforced.

[Aside -This is also why Copyright Law is becoming a mockery of the Rule of Law. If the majority of youth do not assent to it, then enforcing it to the full means putting at least one third of the population in jail, and punishing even more than one-third (since presumably you would have to fine their parents for negligence as well.) Cases like Odex show how the WIPO's legislation is becoming as bad as Section 377A.]

3) S377A is a barrier to healthy social debate.

Members of the Religious Right like Dr Thio & Company and the couple arrested for distributing Chick cartoons, are playing S377A as a meat shield to prevent them from having to deal with the issue properly.

This is matched by the ferocity of Alex Au and his supporters (including smallvice and sliim) in playing S377A as an archery target. S377A has become an unhealthy focus of anger for the Pink Lobby.

This long-drawn siege (attackers: Pro-Gays; defenders: Religious Right) has attracted a third party into the scene. The Militant Atheists, like Smallvice, see profit in adding fuel to the fire by blurring the distinction between moderates and fundamentalists. Their aim is to (secretly) promote the dilution and destruction of religions and religious institutions by arguing that all are essentially Fundamentalist.

The intervention by the Militant Atheists strains the tense relationship between the Pro-Gays and the Religious Groups even further. Pro-Gays get the misconception that the religions are anti-gay, or retreat into homosexual enclaves like Safe Haven, where they are fed with revisionist religion. The Religious Groups get a one-up on their siege mentality, and their followers start sliding into Ideological Fundamentalism. The remaining moderates are turned off my the wrongful association of them with Fundamentalists, and refuse to engage productively with the homosexuals. At the same time, it alienates people who truly and sincerely believe themselves to be ex-gays and ex-lesbians.

To me, removing S377A is an invitation for the moderates and the ex-gays to return to the discussion-and-research table, and a means of removing the harmful intervention by the Militant Atheists.

As per my other views elaborated so far on this thread, I believe that both the Pink Lobby and the Religious Groups need to make certain amendments to their view of things. Both need to listen attentively to each other, and not simply invoke politics (Pink Lobby) or God (Religious Groups) to act as filters for information they dislike to hear. (As a Religious Progressive, I would also remind Religious Leaders that invoking God too much is using His name in vain.)

2) Did you read the booklet “when passions collide”? That will give you the main POV of the moderates, and the evidence they use to back up their claims.

3) Endorsements are given for a variety of reasons, not all to do with the truth content of the material. Teachers might like the content, for instance, because it makes their students happier. Cousellors like it because it gives them one more thing to ignore, one less hazard to deal with. So out of the long list of associations you cited, the only ones with a professional opinion would be the APA and the Association of Pediatrics. Even the Interfaith Alliance is somewhat dodgy because it supports same-sex marriage from an ideological POV, not a scientific one.

4) “Mental” and “Psychological” are two different things. Even if homosexuality is not a mental disorder, it can still be a psychological disorder. And as the religious would argue, that it is not a mental disorder does not preclude it from being a moral disorder. Of course, this part is controversial, because – in my opinion – the religious groups’ interpretation of “moral disorder” is in need of revision.

6) Honestly, the APA’s statement that you quote here is simply neutral. It doesn’t make a conclusion as to whether reparative therapy is successful or not. “complex interaction” is scientific jargon for “sometimes it happens one way, and sometimes it happens the other; we just are not sure”.

Q5 (#232),

1) All these mental health organizations argue that current reparative therapy is ineffective, and in some cases damaging. This is not the same as saying that reparative therapy per se is ineffective. It is my opinion that because of the long-drawn siege between the homosexuals and the religious groups – prolonged by the Militant Atheists – neither side is willing to further research into better alternatives or to understand the phenomenon better.

2) It is also interesting to note the “internal conflicts”. What exactly causes these internal conflicts? biological factors? social factors? emotional factors? psychological factors?

“Social prejudices” is also a vague term. I clarified above that of Smallvice’s 5 points, the first three are acceptable as “social prejudices”, but the last two require more research before coming to a final conclusion as to whether they are social prejudices or not.

Then, note the cautious language “it seems likely”. As far as I see it, this statement is simply a political attempt by the APA to steer clear of controversy. (Not very successful, perhaps, but well a laudable attempt.) “Seems likely” is jargon for “We think that, but we are not so sure.”

Q5(#231),

For 70 years before that (decades too), medical evidence proved otherwise. Anyway, your quote in #232 doesn’t really confirm the claim here.

Lop (#240),

1) Those ways are technological ways. But the issue here is not reproduction. (The points on those other ways of reproduction are to be reserved for a separate and unrelated debate.) The issue here of complementarity of present functions (vis-a-vis the useless-driver analogy).

I used the word “possibility” because I didn’t want any confusion with “Capability” or “ability”. But you seem to have confused them anyway.

3) Why do you consider those people to be in disharmony with their bodies as per my definition? Please explain.

4) I don’t think that conceptual logic instantly makes one a “sage in an ivory tower”.

[Continuation of Post #241]

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

Arix wrote in #42 that nobody should come to a debate pre-determining that homosexuality is un-natural. By the same extension, nobody should be pre-determining heterosexuality is natural too in such a debate. Yet you don’t see if homosexuals publicly accusing or suggesting that heterosexuality is un-natural. Who is the one exercising prejudice in the first place?

Arix claims he is a Christian moderate and that the Christian Moderates accept that “LGBTs have a rightful place in society as people, but we believe that homosexuality as a condition should not afflict them, and can be overcome” in #49. Wow.. so according to Arix, reparative therapy is an indicator of the Christian Moderate, and not an act of Christian fanaticism.

Arix falsely accused me in #242 in blurring the distinction between the moderates and the fundamentalists and his own internal contradiction clearly disproves me of blurring the line between the moderates and the fundamentalists.

There is no such thing as a middle position on qualifying an act as moral or immoral. In this aspect, the Christian Right and the Christian Moderates are just as equally obstinate. Until the Religious Camp gives up on moralising the homosexuality issue, then homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

Strategically, in order to eliminate homosexual discrimination, religious institutions have to be deprived of moral authority. While some would say that religious institutions should continue to maintain its moral authority over its members, it is inevitably its members who would continue to propagate their religious values in legislature and public policy. Can we have one without the other?

[Continuation of Post #244]

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

I forgot to supplement one more point addressing Arix’s accusation.

Arix falsely accused me in #242 in blurring the distinction between the moderates and the fundamentalists and his own internal contradiction clearly disproves me of blurring the line between the moderates and the fundamentalists.

There is no such thing as a middle position on qualifying an act as moral or immoral. In this aspect, the Christian Right and the Christian Moderates are just as equally obstinate. Until the Religious Camp gives up on moralising the homosexuality issue, then homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

In another words, Arix is neither a Christian Moderate not Religious Prejudice. Arix’s position is a further degeneration from the Christian Right that seek to further oppress non-believers. Most gays are not Christians and he is already they should not be doing this and that. His own words speak for himself. Who is the true oppressor? Who is really profiting from discrediting atheists to glorify his own religion?

[Correction to Post #245]

3. Anti-discrimination law & public policy

I forgot to supplement one more point addressing Arix’s accusation.

Arix falsely accused me in #242 in blurring the distinction between the moderates and the fundamentalists and his own internal contradiction clearly disproves me of blurring the line between the moderates and the fundamentalists.

There is no such thing as a middle position on qualifying an act as moral or immoral. In this aspect, the Christian Right and the Christian Moderates are just as equally obstinate. Until the Religious Camp gives up on moralising the homosexuality issue, then homosexuality becomes a non-issue.

In another words, Arix is neither a Christian Moderate nor a Religious Progressive. Arix’s position is a further degeneration from the Christian Right that seek to further oppress non-believers. Most gays are not Christians and he is already they should not be doing this and that. His own words speak for himself. Who is arguing for the religious camp has the right to discriminate? Who is really profiting from discrediting atheists to glorify his own religion?

We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.

smallvice (#234),

A Theory of Everything says this:

the problem with the green meme (pluralism), is that it claims to respect all perspectives, but then professes polemics against all other perspectives other than itself. The Green Meme is unwilling to recognize the difference between growth hierarchies and dominator hierarchies.

Looking at the way you have responded to me thus far, I can conclude (finally) that you have a virulent green streak in you. Of course perhaps you also have an orange (Scientific Rationalism/Rational Materialism) streak in you.

*Sigh*

1) I wonder – do you know what positivism means?

Smallvice (#235),

1) I support neither of those actions. I think we need a re-definition of what is immorality.

2) You think that I use the conventional definition of immoral. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are wrong. I make a distinction between ethical and immoral. Ethics is constrained within a societal space; morality includes the idea of the ideal societal space.

3) I explicitly stated in a previous post that I didn’t make any demand for homosexuals to be “confined to their houses”. When I made that comment, I was expressing an opinion of what I thought other people meant by “private space”. Anyhow, in case you forgot, the law bars sex in public view, even for heterosexuals. In fact, it even bans nudity! So then, everyone in Singapore is “socially dissociated” simply because they cannot have sex in public?

And did I not assent to equality on the first three points of the Homosexual Agenda? In terms of “public” dealings, that is quite much “integrated into society” already.

As usual, you obviously are not reading my posts properly.

4) More misrepresentation again. Let me kindly quote that paragraph from #90 again:

“The government sees the repeal of 377A as a possible cause of Liberal-Conservative violence in Singapore, which would harm our political stability and the government’s prize treasure of FDI by MNCs. So it is a pragmatic policy to retain 377A.”

You kind of forgot about the first three words, didn’t you?

As I just replied to Q5 in #242 anyway, my view is the precise opposite. My view is that the retention of 377A is a cause of the prolonging of liberal-conservative divide.

5) I have not used the “natural” argument at all. I have not used it because the word “natural” is too vague. But “natural” also doesn’t mean “beneficial”.

You also commit the same fallacy that the Fundamentalists do. Failure to prove is not the same as disproof.

6) I am familiar with the three gene interactions – dominant, co-dominant and recessive. The Bible doesn’t teach genetics, because it is not a biology textbook; it is a book on salvific history. What “salvific history” is, you can go and figure out yourself or chock up some perfectly senseless definition.

7) Fine, let’s look at it. I don’t believe in the Gay Gene theory, but since you are harping on it, there are two cases:

(1)”S” codes for homosexuality; “D” codes for heterosexuality. S-gene and D-gene are co-dominant. Thus, SS codes for homosexuality and DD codes for heterosexuality, while SD codes for bisexuality.

(2) “M” codes for attraction to males; “F” codes for attraction to females. “MF” denotes bisexuals since M and F are co-dominant. “MM” paired with XY codes for hetero male, “FF” paired with XY codes for gay male. “FF” paired with XX codes for hetero female, while “MM” paired with XX codes for lesbian.

Case (1) is unrealistic, because sexuality includes a relational aspect, not merely a physiological one. (Even the APA admits this.) Relational aspects are determined by social environments. Genetics doesn’t pre-determine relationships.

Case (1) also does not appear to fit the demographic profile. But we can admit that the ‘S’ gene has two variants: S1, that is recessive to D, and S2, that is co-dominant with D. An S1-D would be heterosexual, similar to a DD; while an S2-D would be a bisexual.

Case (2) is conceptually plausible, but there does not exist a comprehensible reason as to why Evolution would produce such a genetic pattern. How is evolving an “M”-”F” gene-pair beneficial to survival of the species, which after all is the purpose of evolution? And since we are talking about evolution here, don’t try and throw in the Red Herring of “But we have moved beyond the stone age already!”.

Case (2) also does not fit the demographic profile at first glance. But we could admit the possibility that either the ‘M’ or ‘F’ gene has two variants, one which is co-dominant, and one that is recessive.

More importantly, if there is a genetic factor, it must have some impact on physiology, the size of the brain maybe? Maybe it causes the secretion of some hormones or something. And it must be immutable.

Anyhow, there is nothing in the “Gay Gene Theory” that precludes the Gay Gene being a genetic disease.

Is that sufficient genetics theory for you?

But the most important point still is that no such “Gay Gene” has been found yet. Until the Gene is discovered, all the above is mere conjecture.

(to be continued)

Smallvice (#236),

3) This statement is ludicrous. No religious organization that dislikes homosexuality would actually set up an association like NAMBLA in the first place. And NAMBLA itself declares that it is a secular organization.

1) My purpose of mentioning that question you misrepresented was to ask the other person to consider what other people think of such organizations, not to state my own view at all. I don’t know much about NAMBLA, so I would not bring myself to comment on what they do there.

To further validate my points in #246, will Arix accuse me of Atheist fanaticism? Which reasonable person isn’t willing to make concession as long as the Religious Camp agrees to stop moralising the homosexuality issue? Justifying homosexual discrimination as religious freedom is undoubtedly an act of Christian fanaticism.

Hi Arix #248,

NAMBLA declares itself to be a secular organisation. Focus On The Family (FOTF) Singapore also declares itself to be a secular organisation.

smallvice (#241),

Clearly you never tire of misrepresenting me.

1) That is a wonderful hasty generalization here. My comment was specific to Alex Au and specific to homosexuality. I have already specified earlier – in a post that you obviously didn’t bother to read – that I am not against TOC publishing articles by Alex Au, even articles on homosexuality. I just wish them to be sensible, well-reasoned articles, that is all, and not articles that rely on a bandwagon fallacy.

As for #12, I discouraged the publishing of articles “clearly biased”, not simply articles that were “Biased”. I do not expect TOC articles to be totally neutral, unless they are news reports. But I do expect them to be informed and as rounded as possible; I don’t believe that that is too much. Otherwise, I would feel it legitimate to question what the role of the editors at TOC – including you – are.

At the same time, I would still agree to the publishing of extremely-biased articles (like this one) provided that the simple, neutral disclaimer was included.

So your allegations against me are clearly unfounded.

2) No, that statement does not include mention of reparative therapy. Moderates argue that homosexuals can ‘repair’ themselves; Fundamentalists try to do the ‘repairing’ themselves i.e. reparative therapy.

As an Aside – what exactly is so fanatical about the notion of reparative therapy?

3) *Sigh* I have already explained before that I am not silencing anybody. I respect free speech. Alex Au still has the right to write whatever he wants on his blog, or create a website, or write letters to the press. I don’t care about all that.

“professionalism” was used to refer specifically to the presentation of the article, not the article itself. Including the disclaimer does not alter in any way the content of Alex Au’s article. As far as content is concerned, his “free speech” is still being respected. It simply preserves TOC’s editorial integrity and prevents it from being targeted by real hawks like LDS and by extension, MDA.

And FYI, “more strident terms” does not necessitate use of fallacies.

4) In an academic debate, there is a judge and a moderator and a group of spectators. In a public debate, there are only Advocates mostly. It is only when the debate pauses or concludes that the Advocates become judges to Judge the result of the debate. A spectator is the person who views the debate from the outside. Once a Spectator becomes involved, he or she becomes an Advocate.

As simple as that.

But anyway, this brilliant sidetrack is an elegant sophistry because it has no relation whatsoever to the comment. In fact, I rebutted your view of the public debate on the other threads because simply all this waffle about forcing someone to adhere strictly to a particular point of view is totally irrelevant.

In relation to your comment, I was quoting an earlier post by la nausee where he used “a majority of us”:-

ref #25:

“In fact, the main basis on which we as a community can legitimately criminalize homosexual sex is that a majority of us support it after a free and uninhibited debate.”

It has nothing whatsoever to do with me trying force la nausee to adopt a specific position of advocate, spectator or judge.

This particular allegation is not only spurious, but literally fantastical as well.

5) I have also demonstrated – in other threads where you were not present – that I am against censorship. But anyway, apart from the fact that calling me pro-censorship is a spurious allegation, saying that I impersonate genami is seriously unthinkable. I have not at all impersonated anybody on TOC, or anywhere else.

I am sure that genami would clarify this insane accusation from you.

Anyway, the position expressed on #199 contradicts mine directly. I support the repeal of 377A, Gemami disagrees with the need to repeal the law.

6) You are really not good at picking up subtlety, are you? That statement is saying that LGBT people shouldn’t immediately assume that they are being rejected because they are LGBT when they are given the slip.

7) I do not consider the parts of the “broad” definition that are not in the “narrow” definition to be true elements of discrimination, for reasons that I have already stated in other posts. (So I am not going to repeat myself.)

And … Another out-of-context quote. *Sigh*. That beautiful quote that you fished out was in response to:-

#158

we apparently now agree that a so-called ‘heterosexual’ who over-indulges in homosexual sex is in reality a ‘homosexual’.

The line “in my ideal, ‘homosexual’ does not exist as a noun” is there to tell la nausee that I do not think that a ‘heterosexual’ who over-indulges in homosexual sex is a homosexual. That is all.

(to be continued)

Arix #164,

[I’ll repost #169 since you failed to respond]

So I referred to #155; again, Ted Haggard is a heterosexual by the definition you set out (and repeated): “A Heterosexual can choose to have sex with a member of the same sex or opposite sex.”

1) So we are in agreement right? Ted Haggard is a heterosexual by your definition. (Straight forward question)

From #143: “No “nature” arguments are needed….”

2) And yet you put forth one. It doesn’t follow that because the biological urge to reproduce by heterosexuals is “natural”, the lack of such an urge by homosexuals is “unnatural”. Homosexuals are not heterosexuals to begin, get it?

3) You referred to “science” in #164. Back it up with evidence. (A gentle reminder in case you’ve forgotten: ID is not science).

[Continuation of Post #241]

4. same-sex marriage or civil union

Civil Union or Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other. Individually, the rights help spouses support each other; taken together, they help society express the importance of being a spouse and the fact that marrying changes who you are and your status in the community.

Civil Union or Marriage establishes a social contract between two persons entering into a strong, committed relationship with one another. Society is therefore justified in not granting legal recognition to a class of relationships that will predictably be less faithful, less committed, and more fragile. By denying homosexuals civil union or marriage, religious people are forcebly trying to weaken the relationship between 2 homosexual persons. Same-sex civil union or marriage also simplifies a lot of legal matters on issues such as inheritance, joint ownership of residential properties in time of death or divorce/separation and sharing of liabilities. Perhaps religious bigots are scheming to steal their homosexual relatives’ properties.

Same-sex civil union or marriage also gives legitimacy to homosexual relationship. Why are religious people so adamant to deny homosexual relations any legitimacy? Arix mentioned in #251: Moderates argue that homosexuals can ‘repair’ themselves; Fundamentalists try to do the ‘repairing’ themselves i.e. reparative therapy. Giving homosexual relations legitimacy reduces the incentive for homosexuals to “repair” themselves. Conversely, Arix had re-labelled the less extreme elements of the Christian Right as the Christian Moderates. As if Christians have any moral authority on non-believers, Arix seeks to propagate the message that homosexuals are “damaged”.

In Singapore, civil union or marriage is established under the secular laws of Singapore. While the secular law recognises marriage solemnised by religious institutions, in no way does the secular laws reject a non-religious basis for civil unions and marriages. Hence, religious people has no ground to demand that marriage is solely a religious rite. Clearly, unless a couple submits their civil union or marriage to a religious authority, no religious authority has any jurisdiction on the particular civil union or marriage.

Btw Arix wrote in #247: Anyhow, in case you forgot, the law bars sex in public view, even for heterosexuals. In fact, it even bans nudity! So then, everyone in Singapore is “socially dissociated” simply because they cannot have sex in public? Now we understand the full extent of Arix’s prejudice. He views homosexuals as a person who engages in homosexual acts all the time.

#209 gemami;;Hi gemami;;;;Further on the ‘alternative theory of sexual freedom’ that i am advocating, i have only partly touched on the main points of this new, revolutionary and radical theory. Therefore, let me go into a more detailed explanation on the ideals and the objectives of this movement. This theory is called the “BUDAMAX MIDDLE_WAY THEORY OF SEXUAL FREEDOM”. The main points in brief again are (1) All of us are born bi-sexual, and thus all of us have bi-sexual tendencies right from conception onwards, and also the likelihood that there is a bi-sexual gene in all of us (2) Due to propaganda, harrasment and repression from religions, state, teachers and family people are molded into the ‘productive heterosexual’ identity, which is a distortion of the pure bi-sexual state of man (3) This ‘distortion’ of man(woman) results in a ‘reaction’ from part of the population which results in the ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ phenomena’ (4) Thus from all of the above explanation we can see that the 2 extremes of ’strict heterosexuality’ and the reactionary ‘gay and lesbian’ movement are both artificial creations as opposed to the pure bi-sexual nature inherent in us (5) When these 2 extremes of artificial creation are rejected in this void will flourish the natural bi-sexual middle-way;;;;This in brief is what the new, revolutionary and radical alternative theory, called the ‘Budamax middle-way theory of sexual freedom’ is all about.

#209 gemami;;Next, the objectives of the ‘Budamax middle-way theory of sexual-freedom’ movement;;;;(1) To let the natural pure bi-sexual nature of man ‘flow’, without interference from religions, state, teachers and family, which retards the growth of man to his full potential (2) To reconcile society in regards to the split that is now seen between the conservative and the pro-gay lobby (3) To abolish all discrimanatory laws like the 377 and the 377A

Wow! The gay lobbyists are surely in full swing!

Yet no one find any fault with theories like the Buddha propagating bi-sexualism as the birth-norm. This alone tells clearly that we have here a bunch of people who only want to hear what they have programmed themselves to hear.

Sure, my comments were meant to touch some raw nerves. I had harboured the hope that proponents of gayism and the gay group would take a step back to see how they have been taking their fight to the battleground to have PC377A repealed for their own sake. Unfortunately, they are still dwelling on the ‘intricacies’ that cause the divide.

Wake up! I have mentioned before, that you have to start realizing that the heterosexual society at large dictates the order of the day. There is no denying that there is discrimination at play here when one looks at the issue of equality. Unfortunately, equality does not just fall on one’s lap overnight. It is like one who proclaims himself, for example, a Muslim and hope to walk into the mosque to do the things that a Muslim does. It does not work that way. It has to be earned, in the sense that such a person has to prove to the Muslims that he is just as Muslim as the next Muslim standing next to him.

Some have questioned why the gays are being discriminated against and why they cannot be free to decide what they prefer. I have said that the reasons are there when the government decided to keep 377A. Has anyone even taken the trouble to understand these reasons? Or, have they preferred not to know what they are? Worse, they assume that it is the fault of religion. How naïve and foolish!

To every gay I ask this. When you first break news to your parents, your relatives and your friends (non-gays) that you are gay, what were their immediate reactions? That is the answer to all your questioning on whether the society at large is ready to accept the gay group into the mainstream of things. Let us be truthful and stop the self-denial. Let us not even talk about religion.

So sloo, I can accept minority groups, Arix may be able to accept minority groups – but the problem does not go away with our acceptance of the minority groups – when your own families, relatives, friends and neighbours are still keeping their distances from you. Yes, it is discrimination, but what are you going to do about it? More importantly, how are you going to address it? Do you persuade or demand?

You see, it is no use questioning my confidence in my own sexuality. I am happy the way things are. It is you who has to do the worrying. It is your fight. And, I am telling you where your fight is going wrong. Why take offence at opinions that reflects the position of the majority? Face up to them. Stop the self-denial and pretend as if you are already and integrated part of society. You are not, and you have some serious persuasions to do. Your job is already cut out for you.

I have intended to give a leg up to the gay lobbyists by suggesting that they stay away from hardliners like Alex Au. He is doing more damage than any good. His articles on gayism are mainly a ‘jumping to conclusion’ type, picking out an event and quickly tie it to his lobby for gay-freedom. I worry for TOC.

This is very different form what smallvice585 have suggested about me and my stand on moderation. Knowing smallvice585 from the numerous postings he have made, I will accord him the respect he deserves for speaking unreservedly on most occasions, but I will not stand by the side and do nothing if he has misrepresented or misunderstood my comments. I therefore condemn his comment that Arix is an impersonation of me. I also condemn the comment that I am a religious fundie. I have never argued religion in any of my postings. It is insane indeed.

gemami on July 9th, 2009 8.30 am

***I have mentioned before, that you have to start realizing that the heterosexual society at large dictates the order of the day. There is no denying that there is discrimination at play here when one looks at the issue of equality.

Le me be truly dense and thick headed here and go back to my initial questions.

If the majority dictates what is right and wrong in society, then you would agree with those who imposed slavery in the past, who discriminated against women in the past, or even against the jews in NAzi Germany. You would, in these examples, agree that the majority was right and that discrimination was justified.

Explain to me then how your stand in these situations make you right in the eyes of History, knowing what you know now how wrong the majority was then. In fact, if you took this stand, then Jesus himself in nazareth would be wrong as the majority was against him when he first started preaching his sermon and claiming to be the son of god.

Your only argument – the majority is always right?

***when the government decided to keep 377A. Has anyone even taken the trouble to understand these reasons?

Again let me be dumb headed about this.

Explain to me in detail what the reasons are the govt decided to keep 377A? Cos the only reason i deciphered from all their public announcements was that the ‘majority’ was not ready for the repeal. Is that the reason?If it is, then your only argument against the repeal is the ‘majority’ complex again.

And if that is your only reason, then explain to me how discrimination in any form benefits anyone in society.

And explain to me why when equality and inclusiveness is enshrined in our constitution, we have one law that openly discriminates one particular group. If you stand by 377A, you stand by discrimination, then you should support discrimination in many other instances as well.

***That is the answer to all your questioning on whether the society at large is ready to accept the gay group into the mainstream of things. Let us be truthful and stop the self-denial. Let us not even talk about religion.

I am being truthful and definitely not in self-denial. The society here is not ready to accept gays as equal. What i want to know is why? What are the rational and logical reasons for this?

And cos i have not heard any valid or satisfactory reasons for the keeping of the law, i, along with other gays, continue to ask for the repeal of such an unjust law.

And if you keep rewinding the same old broken record of cos the majority cannot accept it, then you are living in self-denial of where the world is moving towards. More importantly, you are living in total ignorance and intolerance.

***Why take offence at opinions that reflects the position of the majority? Face up to them. Stop the self-denial and pretend as if you are already and integrated part of society.

What’s even funnier is that you are taking offence by the opinions of the minority, people like Alex Au and myself, who really do not have a voice at all in the mainstream presses – unlike the ‘majority’.

It is insightful that a member of the majority, yourself, can be so rattled by the voices from a tiny group like us.

And i should repeat the same advice to you. Open your eyes, ears and mind and stop living in self-denial. We may not be accepted legally in society here but in more and more countries, gays are becoming respected individuals and are fully accepted and integrated in society.

Stop being blind and deaf. Its only a matter of time. Start shouting louder and maybe you will drown out our cries for equality.

*** have intended to give a leg up to the gay lobbyists by suggesting that they stay away from hardliners like Alex Au. He is doing more damage than any good. His articles on gayism are mainly a ‘jumping to conclusion’ type, picking out an event and quickly tie it to his lobby for gay-freedom.

And please do not even attempt to condescend to our intelligence and pretend to show concern for us when u have said so far smacks of hard core discrimination and intolerance. Alex Au is one of the most intelligent scribes in all matters social and political and to even try and box him into a narrow space just shows how small minded you are.

At the very least, I can respect alex for his courage and guts. Cannot say much for others who hide behind a anonymous name and criticize him. Start your own blog for goodness sake!

Arix,

Not sure if you realised… but your Printer and Printer Driver analogy weakens your position. There are now many third party drivers for a multitude of hardwares. Some of these third party drivers in fact work better than the ‘original’ driver.

Case in point, the creative X-fi soundcard. The original drivers by Creative, compared to the one made by a third party, were crap. The latter sound card drivers maximize the potential and allow it to be more compatible with Vista. So much so that Creative felt threaten and decided to sue the guy. End up, the sound card reverted to it’s ‘crap’ status.

Linking back to context: the ‘complementary’ nature of the bodily functions, as majority knows it, may not be the best one (for all people). The ‘conceptual logic’ does dictate so… but empirical logic may say otherwise.

Under atheist prompting, Arix researched and produced the description of the “Gay Gene” theory in #247. This cannot be achieved without Atheist enlightening Christian fanatics. However, this is also a manifestation of the same “wonderful trick” mentioned in post #31 – Arix revises his view, then accuses people of mis-representation.

However, Arix finds fault with the “Gay Gene” Theory because it rules out the possibility that possessing the Gay Gene is a genetic disease. This is in agreement with Arix’s statement about the need for homosexuals to either “repair” themselves or seek “reparative therapy”. He goes on to say that the “Gay Gene” has not been found without realising the “Straight Gene” has not been found too.

sloo

“If the majority dictates what is right and wrong in society, then you would agree with those who imposed slavery in the past, who discriminated against women in the past, or even against the jews in NAzi Germany. You would, in these examples, agree that the majority was right and that discrimination was justified“.

Come on sloo. this is your justification based on assumption. Stating a simple factual point that the larger society is dictated and govern by the majority heterosexual community does not mean that I agree with all the evils you have found it fitting to attribute me with.

However, since you have broached on the topics of Nazi Germany and slavery, I would like you to see that these atrocities were the works of a minority group of people, not the majority. This is why we could address them and see the wrong for what they were. So, the eyes of history have shown us that we need to be careful with minority groups who push their agenda too hard – to the point of demanding it. Even Obama, in a recent Times article, has cautioned that minorities must seek to restraint themselves even as they continue to push their agenda. It cannot position itself under the banners of secularism & liberation and demand that the world accept them under these banners.

You have stated the underlying reason that the majority is not ready for the repeal of 377A, yet you do not see the need to question why – why is the majority not ready? Or, are you suggesting that the government is lying? Call it a ‘majority complex’ if you like but that is the fact staring back at you.

Inclusion and equality are goals for a society to go after. It will always be a work-in-progress. You are talking as if we must already be there – the end result of these goals. Foolish don’t you think? Discrimination is part of this work-in-progress. The ex-prisoners, the single parent, the handicapped, the poor, the intellectually disabled – an entire endless list of minorities – they are all being discriminated against day to day.

It is sickening to think that the majority is progressing at snail’s pace to give equality to these minorities. But it is a fact that the majority do not see it fit to be as inclusive as they ought to be. This is a fact of life. How then do we change all these? By education, by changing mindsets, by persuasion. It is no different to with the gay lobbyists. They have to persuade, not bang table like Mr Au.

One thing you can be sure is this. That 377A will eventually be repealed. And if you want to hasten this action, then persuade your case. You won’t do yourself any good by suggesting that I am rattled and offended. The longer people like me do not see the need to lend support to your cause, the longer your struggle will be. Convince us if you think we are offended and rattled. No point succumbing to name-callings and useless jibes.

Hi Gemami #257

You said: No one find any fault with theories like the Buddha propagating bi-sexualism as the birth-norm? One religion at a time, my friend. I am dealing with the most vocal religious group first – Christians.

You wrote: you have to start realizing that the heterosexual society at large dictates the order of the day. There is no denying that there is discrimination at play here when one looks at the issue of equality.

Your views indeed reflect the opinion of the Indian Supreme Court – “criminal law held captive by popular misconception”. When it comes to rectifying inequality, the majority will definitely feel “pinched” for loosing a “privilege” to discriminate minorities.

People like me who support dignity of homosexuals are working with homosexuals to achieve equality in society and the law. Section 377A is a clear bias against homosexuals. While we are working hard to establish equality between hetero- and homo- sexuals, you tell us that the right to recognition has to be earned.

Assume it is the fault of religion? We are not blaming religion. We are blaming religious institutions for propagating and protecting this misconception. Like it or not, religious institutions set the moral tone of society (according to Minister Wong Kan Seng). Obviously, targeting the legitimacy of religious institutions would reduce resistance to the rectification of inequality in society and their influence on society’s morals.

I only asked if Arix had impersonated you in #199. Did I talk about you unless you describe yourself as a Christian Moderate or Christian Right. I had mentioned that Arix had deliberately fused the definition of the Christian Moderate to the Christian Right, so please don’t fall prey to Arix’s treachery.

Gemani,

As you have mentioned in a much earlier post in the wake of the AWARE saga, you are actually for the abolishment of any discrimination against minority groups, and your purpose in taking a contradictory position is to show how the ‘gay lobbyist’ is doing it all wrong by further entrenching those who oppose them in the same position. You see their methods as further pushing the majority against them as well.

To sum it up, those who are discriminated against have to ‘earn’ their rights by doing it in a way that is pleasing to the the oppressors. Which includes us.

But the simple fact is, the opressors are opressors BECAUSE they are not keen to be otherwise. Pleasing the oppressors only gives more reason for them to continue the status quo.

A look at the civil rights movement in the USA, the anti-arpatheid movement in South Africa, how India fought for her independence will show you that some degree of non-physical aggression is necessary to win over people and force the oppressors to change their position via legislature.

Seldom has playing the meek victim first knowing his place in society and nicely persuading people to the conditions of his oppression work.

I enjoy Alex Au’s writing but I don’t dwell upon the LGBT issue. I am very open minded about many things but there were some aspects in Alex’s articles that pushes the LGBT issue too much. I have read an article of his whereby he spins a story of married bisexual men who have sex with other men behind their wives’ backs. What disappoints me is that the article he wrote did not condemn these men’s dangerous and selfish behaviour but instead treats it as an example of “open-mindedness” of the men concerned. So, I read his very good articles about governance and democracy but I take what he writes on LGBT issues with a pinch of salf. Overall still,he is a good bloggist.

Hi Sparklingscent #266,

One great tragedy among homosexual males is to enter a heterosexual marriage because he felt pressured by society and his family to do so, only to realise one a great mistake this is, at the expense of his wife and probably kids. Such tragedies should be avoided, and it can be avoided through elimination of homosexual discrimination.

Dear everyone,

Please keep your comments to within 500 words. Anything more than that will not be allowed.

Also, this thread is going in the personal attack direction. Please stick to the issue and avoid disparaging anyone.

Else, this thread will be closed for further postings.

Thank you.

This tread is getting confusing and meaningless…

What with the person such as Arix keep changing his stands.
One day, he asserted that TOC shld censure Alex Au but when i said for what, hsi reply to me is I misunderstood him. TOC shld censure Smallvice. Later, he/she wrote, TOC shld censure bias articles like Alex Au….Confuse. Then Arix further claimed some of the stands are not his. His stand assumingly is so complex no one here will get it. And we all contribute and argue for what.

Whatever it is, this is my stand and shld be for all if this world is freed of discrimination.

1. An adult has the right to decide what kind of lifestyle he/she chooses. If this person wants to be gay, so be it. Talking abt gay gene or what is meaningless. Any individual as an adult has the right to decide the kind of life he/she wants. And if this choice brings abt certain disadvantage/ consequences, that is the person’s choice. No one shld be nanny or act like a moral principle and impose others of what they think is gd and right for them. It is barbaric to do that.

2. Look at the comments here. It is enough prove that a pov like Alex Au will invite readers to be interested. Therefore, to those who ‘ZZZZZZZZ’, ur comment is counter productive as the fact that u bother to comment is enough proved that u find the article interesting enough to read. So with some many comments and readership by yawning bread, why shld TOC stops publishing yawning bread.

3. We can all use very ‘Chiam’ english and technical terms to confuse or misled readers. But let’s hv some common sense and be down to earth. Telling someone that lying is wrong will not stop an adult from lying . Telling someone that greed is bad will not stop the society from encouraging greed…look at all the incentives all there for greedy people. Similary, telling gay pl that u will hv Aids/ morally wrong/ unnatural will not stop a gay person to be gay. So for godness sake, LIVE AND LET LIVE.

And if ppl like Arix is sincerely want to understand this issue, pls talk to a read gay man. Not some conflicted ones. One that is living and happy to be one. And he will tell u why he does not see the need to change.

Smallvice585, you are free to use terms like “popular misconception”, but whether it is a misconception or not is only one way of looking at it – the gay’s way of looking at it – through the eyes of the letter of the law. Unfortunately, the governing aspect, represented by the Indian government, who presumably, are more in tune with the lives, needs and sentiments of the Indian society at large, does not reflect this same legal sentiment. We must see this in two different contexts.

It is good to hear that people like you are bringing action to the forefront of gay-lobbying. This is exactly why I feel TOC needs to reach out, to more of such people instead of depending on one, whose voice is now regarded a broken record.

Coming back, do you not see the lobbying by the gay activists is one that works along the lines of perfection – that is, the activists are pursuing their case as if the society has to be perfect – perfect in equality, in choice, in expression and in preference. Sorry, my man, this is just a wishful dream. Wake up to reality please.

For example, you do not see the mature worker getting at the throats of businesses and companies for not employing them. These mature workers know exactly what they are up against, and it is through persuasion that they can hope to land the job they seek after. It is as simple as that. There is actually no need to even speak of religion, of majority, of minority or of anything else.

One more thing, I cannot quite follow you on how one can put blame on a religious institution without blaming the religion it stands for. Whatever it is, do you not see also that Christianity belongs to the minority group in Singapore? And each time someone from this minority group tries to say something, he gets bashed to no end. With this in mind, I ask, is this being fair? Is there no discrimination here too?

Hi Zefly,

Care to back up your claim that “ the oppressors are oppressors BECAUSE they are not keen to be otherwise?

I am one ‘oppressor’ who wants to live in harmony with the minorities – any minority. So there goes your theory. Let’s take your example of the anti-apartheid movement. Why did it take one man to bring acceptance to South Africa. Did he use force? Did he demanded an overnight acceptance? No, it took him years of blood, sweat, tears and wasted years. Those who had fought aggressively for freedom there, how many of them are now remembered and revered – practically none – in the years of struggle for freedom in South Africa.

Indeed it took non-physical persuasion to win the society there over. What’s more. It became the model for anti-apartheid philosophy the world over. And this is what I am hoping the gay activists and lobbyists in Singapore would strive to do – not the Alex Au way – where everything that has a gay connotation will be quickly captured and broadcasted to sound out, in disgusting and irritating fashion, the agenda of the gay Singaporean. He is no authority on such matter as societal co-existence between the masses that are made up of many minorities – who share one common heterosexual trait.

Arix seems to be good at telling others “you are confused” when he is cornered for equivocating or for making ludicrous assertions or arguments.

In post #253 Arix says, inter alia:
“As for #12, I discouraged the publishing of articles “clearly biased”, not simply articles that were “Biased”. I do not expect TOC articles to be totally neutral, unless they are news reports. But I do expect them to be informed and as rounded as possible; I don’t believe that that is too much. Otherwise, I would feel it legitimate to question what the role of the editors at TOC – including you – are.
At the same time, I would still agree to the publishing of extremely-biased articles (like this one) provided that the simple, neutral disclaimer was included.”

So, Arix, let’s analyze these words of yours: you would discourage the publishing of “clearly biased” articles and at the same time you would agree to the publishing of “extremely-biased” articles, “provided that the simple, neutral disclaimer was included.”

What the hell are you spouting here, Arix?

Question 1: would an article be considered to be “extremely-biased” if it contains a “simple, neutral disclaimer”? Yes/No?

The post script to your post #241 reads “This is conceptual logic, not empirical logic.”

Question 2: Can you elaborate, explain what is meant by [a] conceptual logic [b] empirical logic?

Question 3: This assertion [excerpted from another thread] of yours: “All humans err, anyway” – does it fall under “conceptual logic” or “empirical logic”?

I have more questions for you, Arix, but let’s start with these first.

Hi JC,

If the gay wants to persuade, he has to get his own house in order first. You say that an adult has the right to decide what kind of lifestyle he/she chooses. To the gay, he is not talking about a lifestyle choice. He is talking about a birth-right. He is talking about an identity that is very much like the one that describes a man and a woman. What then do we call a gay? I agree with your however, that talking about genes (and religion) adds nothing to the persuasion.

No one should be nannied you say, but the Singapore way has always been one of nannyship. It is nowhere near as barbaric as banning chewing gum.

Proof that AA’s article creates interest? Nah, no one is talking about the contents of his article more than the person that he is. His articles on gayism is a big yawn if you haven’t realize it.

Live and let live? Wish it is that easy right? Unfortunately, this is what we want to get at ,and the gay lobbyists are not doing anyone any favour by demanding what is perceived as a birthright. I’d say: “Wish and let’s wish”.

“….lobbying by the gay activists is one that works along the lines of perfection – that is, the activists are pursuing their case as if the society has to be perfect – perfect in equality, in choice, in expression and in preference. Sorry, my man, this is just a wishful dream. Wake up to reality please.”
No other comment in this thread concurred with what I had in mind better than this one above. Non-gays don’t necessarily reject everything a gay does, or the way he thinks.
The fact is I have engaged gays who still remain gays and yet understand the reality, and and both parties appreciate exchanges in well meaning.
However, I get the impression that there are gays/ non-gays (reference to this this thread) looking for an all-encompassing/ near-all-encompassing acceptance (or endorsement ?) of their attitudes and behaviours.

244) Arix on July 9th, 2009 1.54 am

1) I believe that the State should respect free choice of its citizens. So if people choose to be homosexual – consciously or subconsciously – the State should respect this choice. This however, in my opinion, does not preclude the State carrying out a campaign to discourage homosexual behaviour or something else more appropriate..”

Er, how could there be “free choice” if that “choice” results in being liable to be prosecuted as a criminal, and indeed people in the past have been convicted and jailed for life for being a homosexual, if not in Singapore, then in many countries subjected to control by Christian fundie regimes, not to mention about homosexuals being burnt on stakes in the past?

Surely to deem homosexual sex between consenting adults a crime, the State should show that there is harm done to a victim.

So where is the HARM and or VICTIM ?

Quite unfortunately, despite the enormous amount of verbiage you have posted on this page, you do not deem it fit to summarise in less than 500 words why you think S377A should be retained. (I don’t have the time read read whatever and in any case how authoritative is the publication u mentioned?)

I note that the Singapore Govt justification for the retention of S377A is that the Singapore society is CONSERVATIVE without providing any basis for making that claim, whereas the status quo ante was that the Chinese (who form the majority of our population on its own) and the Indians who together constitute the overwhelming majority of the population came from China/India where homosexuality was NEVER considered a crime prior to the arrival of the British colonialists.

As for your comments on APA etc, can the Christian fundies and so called moderates provide more convincing evidence/studies to counter the arguments/position taken by APA etc? The answer is NO…….why logically mean that, as it is, the fundies and whatever moderates you claim HAVE NO BASIS for the abolition of S377A.

In any case, almost ALL if not ALL first world countries have abolished the Bible inspired law criminalising homosexuality which was first found in the Book of Leviticus written thousands of years ago when human reproduction was considered eseential, but definitely not during this age. In these First World countries, esp in the US which is even MORE CONSERVATIVE than Singapore, any law criminalising homosexuality has been ruled to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON for Singapore to retain S377A

Apology, typo error, Q6 should be Q5

270) gemami on July 9th, 2009 1.06 pm

First para:
in the end, it’s still the ‘majority complex’ point you are labouring on. But the law exists not just for the majority, it is also for the minority. Are people not supposed to be equal before the Law? That really the only context that matters.

Third para (on ‘prefection’)
Isn’t that always the Aim?
Do religions say do SOME good SOME of the time?
Do companies not aim to ‘maximize’ returns for shareholders?
Are students not encouraged to aim for 100 marks in their tests?
Yes. reality always fall short… but that doesn’t mean one then aims for less.

Fifth para (putting blame on religious institution without blaming the religion)
Of course it can be done. Religious institutions are always organized in a such way that it may be hijacked by individuals/minority/vocal group. It’s a very top down organization, without much in terms of ‘power’ control. i.e An abbot or head priest will not step down after x number of terms and let others take his/her place.

275) Q6 on July 9th, 2009 1.46 pm

FYI, somewhere in the huge wall of texts, Arix did mentioned that he is supportive of repealing 377A for it’s unenforceability. What s/he is against is homosexuality in general.

Hi lobo76,

You still do not get it. Let me try and make it simple. I am a minority, belonging to a certain dialect group. I am a minority, being a Christian. I am a minority, who is opened to accepting the repeal PC377A. We are all minorities in our own little ways, in one aspect or another. Do I go about demanding that society accept my dialect, or my faith or to share in my belief that 377A must be repealed? No I would not. I would persuade by providing facts and examples that I am not a threat to the social fabric of the society I live in. Neither would I demand that since so-and-so has been accepted, so must I, or, if it can work there, then it must work here. It won’t work.

It would be wonderful if everyone could do ALL good ALL of the time but what does that tell you? You cannot honestly argue that we are only as good as doing some good some of the time. It is not about aiming for more or for less. If it is, then the majority would definitely want to adopt a ‘majority complex’ to protect themselves.

I still do not follow your argument that one can blame a religious institution without blaming the religion. You have it knotted up when you switched reference from an institution to a group of religious hijackers. It does not support the point.

Thanks kf for seeing my point.

Hi Gemami #270

The repeal of S377A in India is made possible under the separation of powers. The Supreme Court is merely asserting its role as the Judiciary Branch of State Power in interpreting the Constitution and the Laws of India. The Judiciary Branch does not falter to popular sentiments since the Judiciary consists of unelected officials.

This repeal has nothing to do with the governing aspect, which falls under the Executive Branch of State Power. Hence, there is no need to consider popular sentiment. The only reason why the Executive or Legislative Branch has yet to repeal S377A under their own initiative is because they are elected officials.

Alex Au is not a broken record. He may have been a long time advocate of homosexual civil rights but, just as you said, civil rights and equality are always work in progress. That’s why neither he nor I (or anyone who supports equality for homosexuals) should stop our hard work. Alex Au is an excellent writer and irreplaceable activist.

You said it is wishful thinking among gay activists that lobbying works along the lines of perfection. I don’t think so. I think it is wishful thinking that reason alone will convince people to do the right thing and stop homosexual discrimination. Opponent groups have to weakened, damaged and isolated in order to prevent them to act as effective opponents.

In America, Atheist Foundations regularly investigate tax irregularities of religious organisations and attempt to bankrupt specific religious leaders. What really matters is that religious institutions can no longer function meaningfully to assert any moral influence or take on moral leadership. This is a power struggle.

Hi smallvice585,

Very interesting viewpoints. I would like to hear from those who are on your side on the comments you posted above, particular those in para 4.

Hi gemami on July 9th, 2009 1.42 pm

You stated
“he is not talking about a lifestyle choice. He is talking about a birth-right.”

Before my retort, let me state my belief system so that we all kn where we come from. I am Agnostic, preiously Christian. Terminology and Label are meaningless to me. Whether Gay is a lifestyle or Birth-right, to which his own. I am straight, I will be straight whether the label is a lifestyle or a birth-right.

However, it is a right of every human to live the kind of life they deem fit. If they think it is their right to be gay, i agree. It is my right to be straight. Why is wrong. I do not see any gay man tell me that it is not my right to be straight or I shld be gay. Similarly, Why shld I impose my ideas to the other person who has a diff ideas and ways to their life. Question is why are you so bother?

You said:
“No one should be nannied you say, but the Singapore way has always been one of nannyship.”

This does not give you the rights or the basis to nanny other people. Singapore has been opening up. Thks God. And why do we want to retard progress by hvg individual ‘concerned citizen’ to raise up and nanny others. It is barbaric to the core. I am an adult. I tell my child and nanny my child. I do not go around nanny other ppl. This is imposing.

“Proof that AA’s article creates interest? Nah, no one is talking about the contents of his article more than the person that he is. His articles on gayism is a big yawn if you haven’t realize it.”

Does it matter? One of the reasons for ppl to hv comment is to discuss on the issue of this topic. Whether u read or find it interesting is no the pt. The pt is his article has created a reaction. Look at other articles. Do u see as many viewership and comments. No. Why? So u want to improve response rate, write something gay so that christian will write and gay will chip in and ppl like me who does not want to be nannied will state my case too.

You said
“Live and let live? Wish it is that easy right? Unfortunately, this is what we want to get at ,and the gay lobbyists are not doing anyone any favour by demanding what is perceived as a birthright. I’d say: “Wish and let’s wish”.”

They do hv their wish if u still live in the cave. There are as free to roam as any straight gay. And in some industry, they are prefered. So yes, they do hv their wish come true just tht some hv more wishes than others.

Hi JC,

Lifestyle, birthright – these are terms coined by the gay groups, not me. It is the same with religion and cultures – these are all favourite topics that the gay activist uses to fight their cause for acceptance. They run down everyone who stands in their way, putting hands to eyes, ears but not the mouth. The grabbed at everything they can use and throw them all toward the bystanders who are not of the same orientation as them. Tell me, will this manner of activism deliver them?

Take a look at the opinion expressed by smallvice585 above. He said: “Opponent groups have to weakened, damaged and isolated in order to prevent them to act as effective opponents”. Surely you are not saying that declaring war is the way forward?

You have to understand your position that, on its own, has no bearing on whether 377A is discriminatory or not. You are convinced that every individual has to have the freedom to decide and choose what’s best for himself. How naïve you are, to say the least. Do you honestly believe this is the best system to adopt. Everyone will want to be the Indian Chief then. Why settle for less?

No, my friend. Everyone’s place has to be earned. The blind have done it, the deaf have done it, the crippled have done it and the gays will have to do it too.

One more thing, AA’s article is not the driving force behind all these comments. Go read the first 100-plus comments and you will see that the driving force behind the number of posts can be attributed to the replies to one poster. Anyway, like you, I am not interested to engage in all these useless side snipes.

One thing is certain, even if the number of posts reach a thousand, or ten thousand, it is not going to change the mindset of the majority, enough to have the desired impact to have 377A lifted. You know why? Because these are rant posts. They have not persuaded anything to have the majority sit down to ponder whether they have been discriminating against this minority gay group.

Germami

Truth in SG remains that Gay grp are too small to effect and real impact as compared to the more vocal Christian group.

Truth in SG remains that the more aggresive christian right are the ones that organised themselves and take over AWARE.

Truth remains in SG that beside blogging, held a peace demonstration for their Pink dot event, and published books and plays, you do not see any organised gay group go to church and burn down churches, or any demonstration of any kind.

Most Singaporeans are skeptical and find your trains of thoughts of ‘militant securalist’ or militant gay group a myth concorted to spread fear and hate on a grp of minority.

What have the gay actists did? Of course, hvg read a few, the usual ones are ‘death threat’ issued to TSM, Josie Lau…etc. Seriously, from where we stand, they are well and alive and going abt their own biz. Seriously, whether this death threat is real or not, i am skeptical. Even if it is real, it is more like a work of individual than a grp. Any person of any kind of orientation can be crazy enough to do such a thing.

So if LIVE and LET LIVE is navie. What do u suggest? Round up the entire Sg and listen to your pastor’s sermon and follow the moral leadership of your pastor? U wish. Put this practise within your church and not try to spill over to secular society. no one wants and appreciates that.

This is the impt message. RESPECT. Do we always need to earn respect – yes most of the time. But in some cases no need. As an adult living a life that does not hurt another person, it is only humanistic for another to learn how to respect that.

A gay person living no matter how decadent or sinful in your pov has every right to live that way – RESPECT. u do not hv to agree with this person’s lifestyle but u cannot impose ur to him. By doing so, u hv shown disrespect. And when u disrespect them and they show color back to u, u deserve it.

If u think by talking abt this 377a will be dispel, u r very navie. U r right. no one will repel 377a based on what AA blog. So back to my question, why is this bothering u. So far, no one can give me any straight answer why is some gay guy blog, and it bothers them and need to be censured in an adult platform like TOC. Why can’t u let ppl form their own opinion. What is the fear? IRRATIONAL fear,

Hi Gemami #284,

I sense your myopia in describing my stance “Opponent groups have to weakened, damaged and isolated in order to prevent them to act as effective opponents” as warmongering.

Reason is hardly an incentive to change status quo for the majority who benefits from it. I am merely prescribing a system of incentive and disincentive to lead the majority towards a pre-determined outcome. It involves competing for moral leadership, diluting foes’ influence and setting opponents against each other.

279) gemami on July 9th, 2009 2.25 pm

So, your dialect group, your christian sect, your “minority in different ways”… got a not-enforced law against it or not?

I can’t really say I understand what you are trying to convey in your second para… in fact, I don’t get it at all… Maybe you’d like to elaborate more. My point was it is natural to aim for perfection/best regardless of the fact that it is hard to achieve.

third para (I still do not follow your argument that one can blame a religious institution without blaming the religion. You have it knotted up when you switched reference from an institution to a group of religious hijackers. It does not support the point.)

Maybe we should start with definitions?… my feeling is that we have different idea of what ‘religious institution’ is.
My take is.. X church/temple group is an religious institution. Due to it’s ‘top people’ who are the ‘authority’ in it, they become very money minded (or very rightist, etc). Hence I blame X. but X is but part of a religion that is much broader than X itself. So the religion is blameless. It’s just X that is the black sheep.

278) lobo76 on July 9th, 2009 1.52 pm

‘FYI, somewhere in the huge wall of texts, Arix did mentioned that he is supportive of repealing 377A for it’s unenforceability. What s/he is against is homosexuality in general.”

I’m aware Arix had mentioned that S377A unenforceable.

Apart from the fact that Arix is INCORRECT, as I would explain, surely whether it should or should not remain on the statute should be based on the merits or otherwise on whether it should be a crime.

Although the Constitution is NOT EXHAUSTIVE, criminalising homosexual violates the intent and principle of the Constitution, as the Delhi High Court, and I believe this view is shared by judges of the First World countries, esp the US of which I am slightly more familiar, has so decided.

As for whether S377A is enforceable, I think Alex Au is more familiar. I can’t believe that over the hundreds of years such law was in existent in Singapore and other countries which criminalised homosexual sex, no homosexual has been prosecuted & then jailed.

I remember that a couple of years or slightly more ago in Singapore, a young doctor undergoing housemanship was ENTRAPPED by our Central Narcotics Bureau officer after the latter posted that he was a homosexual but wanted a male partner who could provide certain stimulant drug or something similar. Although I think the young doctor was charged and subsequently jailed for drug possession, he could easily have been charged under S377A

From what I’d come across on the Internet, there are gay bars and health centres where the Police could stake out if they are out to enforce S377A rather than intrude into the bedrooms of the gays.

If Alex Au &/or other gays have more facts on this, he/they could enlighten us.

I just want to repeat that the Christian fundies and others who Arix claimed to be moderates have NOT shown with FACTS, LOGIC or other evidence for the justification of retaining S377A. On the contrary, I repeat again that the Singapore govt justification that Singapore is a CONSERVATIVE society is NOT founded on FACT.

285) Jc on July 9th, 2009 4.37 pm

“Most Singaporeans are skeptical and find your trains of thoughts of ‘militant securalist’ or militant gay group a myth concorted to spread fear and hate on a grp of minority.”

The term “militant secularitst” is just a ploy coined by the Christian fundies whose arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny to instill fear and alarm amongst the majority of the population who don’t share the fundies views.

Even most Christians do NOT share the Christian fundies views on homosexuality, with the mother of all Protestant Church – the Anglican Church of England having HOMOSEXUAL BISHOPS and pastors.

Simply put, Christian fundies like Thio Su-mien, COOS Derek Hoong, Dr Alan Chan, husband of Josie Lau and those associated with them like the few female law lecturers have NO CREDIBILITY.

smallvice58 #286,

“Opponent groups have to weakened, damaged and isolated in order to prevent them to act as effective opponents”

My curiousity is piqued. What exactly do you mean by this?

I think the Arix/Gemami connection is groundless. I don’t find Gemami slippery at all, and he/she has demonstrated the gracousness/willingness to concede a point

Gemami,

I agree with you in that interest groups can overstate their case to their own detriment, even if the cause is worthwhile and genuinely deserve attention. Braless feminists (all the more to objectify), Al the-sky-is-falling Gore, gays with boa feathers (who takes clowns seriously?).

But I don’t think this is the case with Alex Au, not with the article in question anyway. For sure, his style is forceful but considering the odds he is up against (“gays should rot…”), I believe it’s justified and not gratuitous at all. In any case, it’s a question of taste.

However, it seems like you might have accidentally tip your hand:

“…there are many other acts that are made criminal to protect the interest of the majority. In this case, man-to-man marriage and sex between men are two areas that need to be protected from the mainstream.” [#225]

after all the hot air, here is something to bless all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTYn3eXHxT8&feature=related

lobo76 (#261),

I do not mind continuing this debate with you. But I sincerely hope that we can continue this debate while ignoring all the personal attacks smallvice is making on me. Deal?

1) The analogy is about having the driver without having the printer, so I am not sure how the idea of superior third-party drivers has anything to bear.

3) How do you define “best”? Also, well … the issue here is the existence of a choice/possibility, not whether that choice/possibility is the best.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

sliim (#254),

I am willing to continue this discussion with you, but let’s agree to ignore smallvice and his ranting on this thread, okay? Deal?

Back on point:-

1) I apologize; I have kind of got sidetracked by smallvice’s ad hominem attacks on me. Yes, Ted Haggard is a heterosexual.

2-4) “naturalness” and “unnaturalness” are vague terms. I use the terms “ordered” and “disordered” which I explained to la nausee earlier.

Thanks very much for the civil discussion.

***However, since you have broached on the topics of Nazi Germany and slavery, I would like you to see that these atrocities were the works of a minority group of people, not the majority.

Pls get your history facts right. Slavery exsited for decades BECAUSE e majority supported it. It was only through the brave actions of a vocal minority who chose to initiate changes that eventually won over more people to the cause of abolishing it. Even when slavery was eventually abolished, there were many in he States that was against it and as such discrimination against blacks still exsits today.

***Even Obama, in a recent Times article, has cautioned that minorities must seek to restraint themselves even as they continue to push their agenda. It cannot position itself under the banners of secularism & liberation and demand that the world accept them under these banners.

Its truly ironic that you should cite Obama support our arguments. H is known for his stand on equality for gay rights and even supports civil unions for gays. He is totally against and law discirminating gays and has passed legislation in the States targetting this.

So do you agree that gays are entitled to civil unions? thats discriminator laws against gays should be scrapped?

***You have stated the underlying reason that the majority is not ready for the repeal of 377A, yet you do not see the need to question why – why is the majority not ready?

Pls do tell me why.

***Inclusion and equality are goals for a society to go after. It will always be a work-in-progress.
***Discrimination is part of this work-in-progress. The ex-prisoners, the single parent, the handicapped, the poor, the intellectually disabled – an entire endless list of minorities – they are all being discriminated against day to day.
*** ***By education, by changing mindsets, by persuasion. It is no different to with the gay lobbyists.

I agree with you that changes to end discrimination is an on-going process. But where does this process start? Keeping quiet and listening to others condescend condemn and marginalise us?

What we are doing is starting that process – and in very many levels. But whichever way we try to initiate this change- through discussions, talks, awareness programs, sex education programs, conferences etc – the majority says we are going against the law and pushing our gay agenda.

Do tell us how to initiate change? Or should we just sit back and wait for the majority to decide when and how to start the process?

As it is here are already many campaigns to end discrimination against the old, ex-prisoners and the disabled. So why not one for gays?

Gay lobbyists are lobbying for change through very many means and at this stage any means of getting our word out there to the public and mainstream consciousness is more than welcome considering how everything gay in SG is censored and relegated to tiny back end reporting.

only toc is concerned about alex au, who cares about what alex au wrote, he is just one of the many bloggers, too much attention on one blogger just really shows that toc is just like Straits Times, what a joke, complain about others but yet follow the foot steps of others, visitors will slowly leave here for others, can see only a small group arguing here or astro surfing only.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/08/nyu

The University that Thio Li Ann is visiting later this year as a visiting professor has students protesting her visit. heck out the link

check out the comments!

Arix #293,

Sure. I’ll ignore the parts I consider rants.

“Yes, Ted Haggard is a heterosexual.”

1) I take it that I am cleared of the strawman charge.

2) You invoked nature AND science. Where’s the science and the evidence?

The Gay Gene is a red herring. The last I heard, the results weren’t replicated. So that’s a bogus argument (gay camp) and strawman (anti-gay camp).

That said, the burden of proof lies on the anti-gay camp because the default position is there is no distinction between heterosexuality/homosexuality, because not enough is known about sexual orientation—by anyone. And yet the anti-gay camp makes positive claims all over the place: its disease, sin…

You have to try harder than “it’s dirty”, and I think you know it.

smallvice (#246),

1) more selective quoting. I also said “homosexuals should not come to the debate with the pre-determined conclusion that homosexuality is ‘natural’. Missed that out?

2) I already clarified this. You are repeating the same point again. Yawn.

3) Your turn to qualify: what “internal contradictions” have you discovered?

4) No, there is no theoretical middle ground in whether an action is moral or immoral. There is a middle ground though called “Ethical”. More importantly, there is a middle ground when it comes to dealing with immoral behaviour.

5) That is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even if all religious institutions perform “homosexual discrimination”, as you allege, there are many other benefits that they bring to society, through the various welfare agencies and other services that they run for other people. Perhaps you moralistic atheist don’t like these services, but many others benefit and would not like them removed for the sake of a few anti-religious bigots.

No, people shouldn’t be judged on their “ability to use tools”.

Concurrently, however, right-handers do have the free choice between right-handed activity and left-handed activity that left-handers don’t have (because their left-handedness limits them).

I have a “conclusion” that left-handedness is ‘disordered’, and I am still looking for the person who can decisively disprove this. On the other hand (hehehe pun), I am raising the question of what is the best way to deal with the issue, and I admit that I have no answer for that.

I admit that the current method of reparative therapy isn’t effective, and sometimes resembles the treatment that used to exist in mental institutes. I have heard from the older generation of how some strict parents subject left-handers to beatings to rid them of left-handedness. That, in my opinion, is severely dysfunctional.

On the other hand, I see the view of the Left-handed Lobby as that of a group of ostriches burying their head in the sand. Even if society gave up all its discrimination overnight, left-handers will not live in peace with themselves prior to “realizing” that they are left-handed. All this playing around with left-handed tools is an exercise of self-denial. The problem is that the Left-handed lobby is fighting against both real and imaginary discrimination. They should understand that not everything fits on the civil rights bandwagon.

Why has nobody ever questioned why people need to “realize” that they are left-hander? Do you need to “realize” that you have yellow skin, or that you are Muslim or Christian? Even political opinion is something you “decide”, not something you “realize”.

Of course, I am of the opinion that if we had a fundamental transformation in the way humans with opposable thumbs grapple with objects (ie, we can use our mouths to grasp objects instead), then left-handedness and ambidexterity would no longer exist.

Gemani,

“The blind have done it, the deaf have done it, the crippled have done it and the gays will have to do it too.”

Erm… I think that’s what they are doing? If you haven’t noticed the acceptance and ‘destigmatization’ of gay people have grown over the years.

What do you think caused it? Do you think it’s straight folks like us who otherwise wouldn’t have cared if not for the vocalness of the gay lobby?

You mentioned Nelson Mandela – “Why did it take one man to bring acceptance to South Africa. Did he use force? Did he demanded an overnight acceptance? No, it took him years of blood, sweat, tears and wasted years.”

I believe if you read my post carefully you would see the words ’some degree of NON VIOLENCE aggression’. You may also wanna read up a bit more on his earlier years to see if he had used armed resistance at one point of time. As for the point about ‘demanding for overnight acceptance’ – you know what, I really can’t think of any person fighting for rights etc not to want it as soon as they can. Recognizing it’s gonna take years of persuasion doesn’t mean they are going to postpone asking for the rights till twenty years later. How foolish would it sound if Martin Luther King had said his fight is not for removal of racially discriminatory policies NOW but fifty years later, but in the meantime he’ll just keep campaigning to show white folks how nice black folks are.

I dunno what you mean by ‘getting the house in order’. As if there has to be one monolithic entity to ‘manage’ their own people so that they don’t get out of line and appear pleasing to the oppressors? FYI, contrary to popular portrayal, any civil rights/independence movement isn’t the sole effort of one individual or his group. Ghandi, MLK, Mandela are merely the most charismatic and public face of movements that comprised a diverse range of groups with different methods.

What you see as the ineffectiveness of the vocalness of the gay lobby, I see as a continuous effort that is paying off. The vocalness is not meant to please always. It makes you uncomfortable because it is meant to provoke. It has provoked thought and discussion, and that’s what we are doing. And you are also mistaken to think that the message is for the conservatives. Every person running for election knows that it’s a wasted effort to try to convert the firmly entrenched. You work on the swing voters. And if you think that hadn’t worked, why do you see so many straight people speaking up strongly FOR the gay people? You think they are all born to be gay supporters? What has persuaded them if not for the same message that you saw as ineffective?

Now I’ll tell you what is ineffective.

Your playing of the Devil’s Advocate is highly ineffective. It is cynical (but claiming to be realistic) and defeatist. Anyone who have triumphed in the face of adversity will tell you that the difference between a winner and a loser is the attitude – the belief that you will get there.

I’m sorry but I don’t think you’re helping the cause that you claim to support.

#288 Q5

“On the contrary, I repeat again that the Singapore govt justification that Singapore is a CONSERVATIVE society is NOT founded on FACT.”

I fully concur with you, Q5.

Keep up with your logical arguments. Kudos.

sliim (#298),

1) No, you are not cleared of the strawman accusation. The example of Ted Haggard doesn’t prove anything whatsoever. There is no proof that Ted Haggard is a homosexual or a bisexual. Not to mention, does the word “adultery” mean anything to you?

2) My bio textbook, remember?

3) Yes, the Gay Gene Theory is a Red Herring, a Red Herring that originates from the Pink Lobby. So no, it is not the ’science’ that I am referring to.

4) That is what I find funny. The default position is the position of the anti-gay lobby, because that was the predominant belief for so many centuries. It is the onus of the accuser to find data to prove the contrary. The accusers in this case are the Pink Lobby, so it is up to them to find evidence to disprove the convention.

That is even the practice in science, where a new theory must be examined and experimented thoroughly, before it can be used to displace an old theory.

The problem now is that because the Pink Lobby (incl. Alex Au) is so caught up with the rhetoric of “equality” that they are purposely filtering away anything that doesn’t sit comfortably with that notion. TOC published recently an article examining the opposite perspectives of whether homosexuals can change.

Clearly, people like Leslie Leung believe that Change can happen. In fact, so does TOC’s Deputy Editor Terence. (I wonder, smallvice, do you dare to call Terence a bigot?) And these people sincerely believe in that. Pink-Lobby Activists are unwilling to engage in any form of conversation with these people because of the “gay rights” ideological straitjacket.

These people are miles away in character from pulpit-pounders like two Dr Thios. (An interesting note: Dr Thio Su Mien claims that she had a Pauline-style revelation that convinced her to convert from an atheist into a Christian.) Yes, people like Dr TSM have an ideological straitjacket that they need to remove too.

But, as I mentioned before, it takes two hands to clap to produce a conflict.

Hi sllim #290

I mentioned this in #286: “Opponent groups have to weakened, damaged and isolated in order to prevent them to act as effective opponents.”

This is just offline politics where the real lobbying takes place. Reason is hardly an incentive to change status quo for the majority who benefits from it. I am merely prescribing a system of incentive and disincentive to lead the majority towards a pre-determined outcome. Online chats do not change the world.

smallvice (#247),

Wow, repeating the same things over again. Talk about broken record!

smallvice (#248),

3) You hardly know my religious beliefs, and you immediately label me a Christian Fanatic. Here is why I think myself to be a Religious Progressive:-

(1) I believe that all religions – including Christianity – should aim back towards First Religion;

(2) I believe that the role of the Pope and Curia in the Roman Catholic Church should be re-evaluated and re-examined;

(3) I believe that the Magisterium should open-source doctrinal development to the laity;

(4) I believe that the Bible needs to be re-interpreted in a properly-contextualized manner, and have its essence distinguished from its form. (Naturally, I argue that the Atheists also should do the proper contextualization of biblical passages, and stop playing strawmen on way-off interpretations of the Bible and other religious texts);

(5) I believe that there should be talks of integrating the Koran into the Bible;

(6) I believe that Christianity needs a re-definition of the concepts of sin and idolatry. The concept of idolatry needs to be abstracted in relation to religion. Sin needs to be defined in a less legalistic manner;

Of course, I still contend that as long as the Pink Lobby keeps drumming “gay rights” and the Militant Atheists keep shouting “Down with Religion!” these two crucial reforms are not going to occur;

(7) I believe that The Church and other religious groups need to be open to re-examination of their own social-administrative structures.

smallvice (#256),

That is a splendid jump, which as as usual nonsensical. Please show us your peculiar track of thinking that leads to such a hasty conclusion.

Smallvice (#303),

So you are not really interested in the truth or the welfare of society. You are just interested in pursuing your own “pre-determined” outcome. I object to your dehumanization of people as pavlovian dogs as implied by your “incentives and disincentives”.

smallvice (#262),

1) Don’t brag to yourself too much, or you will get a sore head. I didn’t need to do any research – it was just logical deduction. But as I pointed out, all these are conjecture. I didn’t need any “Atheist Enlightnement” to produce such elementary stuff!

I find fault with the Gay Gene Theory because there has been no such gene found! The mention of genetic disease is suggestion of an alternate possibility that could exist if the Gay Gene were found.

2) The “Straight Gene” has not been found either. On the other hand, people know what the functions of ovaries, testes and the other parts are. No doubt those functions are capable of being realized only in a heterosexual setting.

Whether people want to deprive themselves of these functions is another question altogether.

JC (#269),

1) No, I have not changed my stand at all. Just because you didn’t understand my stand in the first place doesn’t mean that I changed my stand throughout this debate.

ALRIGHT, I am going to clarify this sickening Alex-Au thing once and for all. If you (and others) still don’t get it, I really can’t help you:

I have nothing else against Alex Au’s other articles because they show better form. Thus, I do not urge their censoring or censure.

I hope this is finally clear, and we can put this hopeless confusion to rest.

2) So what now? On one hand, there are the members of the Pink Lobby that argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice; on the other hand there are other members of the Pink Lobby that argue that homosexuality is genetically-determined. When can the homosexuals make up their mind?

3) No, there is no reason why TOC should stop publishing yawningbread per se.

4) Well, everyone wants to change the world for the better. Because an adult doesn’t stop lying doesn’t mean that lying is right.

rwkc (#272),

3) See my #309.

4) Yes.

5) Empirical Logic means logic from data on the ground. Conceptual logic means logic derived through reasoning through situations.

6) That is empirical logic, albeit compressed. Come on, you don’t really need proof for that statement, do you?

Arix,

TOC publishes a range of articles on many issues. We highlight articles from various blogs which we feel would stir discussions. This does not mean that TOC agrees with what the blog article says.

The purpose is to let our readers discuss the merits or demerits of the writer’s or blogger’s opinion.

This includes the opinions in articles written by our own writers. It is their personal opinions. Not TOC’s.

I do not feel TOC needs to put a disclaimer on these articles. I feel our readers are able to distinguish what is TOC’s stance and what is not. For the record and for clarity, TOC’s stand on any issue is reflected in our Editorial pieces.

I hope this clarifies things.

Regards,
Andrew Loh

Q5 (#289),

1) “Militant Secularist” is a term not coined by Christian Fundies, but by Atheists and Agnostics themselves.

2) I agree. But I stress that just because it shouldn’t be considered a crime, doesn’t mean it is moral.

3) I don’t know about the Indian Constitution, but I know that our Constitution has a reservation on “public morality”. And as far as it seems, the government classifies homosexuality as a violation of “public morality”.

4) The Mother of all Protestant Churches is the Lutheran Church, not the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church split over the decision to appoint homosexual bishops. Some of the dissenters re-joined the Catholic Church, which is not a Fundamentalist Church.

5) Do you recall that COOS is an Anglican Church?

Andrew (#311),

I accept your decision.

3) But I believe that the TOC editors do scrutinize the articles somewhat and make recommendations. I should know – I have contributed some articles already.

4) Accepted.

Regards,
Arix

P.S.: But none of these in any way validates Smallvice’s consistent swipes against me, which he has continued even after your prior warning. And now he is trying to bring it into the “Constructive Disharmony” thread.

India, the land of messy politics, chaos and loads of smelly and poor people actually has courts that enforce the laws with fear or favour to anyone – or in the Singapore context – Iressponsible courts.

Singapore, the land of super efficient politics, no corruption and highly educated people has “Legal Ambiguity” because common sense and a sound basis of the law is secondary to the politicians fear of being outvoted by grumpy old women who have not enjoyed ….for a long time.

Hi Arix #303,

You wrote: Clearly, people like Leslie Leung believe that Change can happen. In fact, so does TOC’s Deputy Editor Terence. (I wonder, smallvice, do you dare to call Terence a bigot?) And these people sincerely believe in that.

In the 4-part TOC Series on Reparative Therapy which you mentioned, the people which Terence interviewed professed to be either Christian or Catholic.

My business venturing into the realm of believers ends at stopping believers asserting moral tone in the realm of non-believers. That’s why I didn’t find fault with Terence’s work. Terence should be applauded for his investigative journalism.

Sloo, you have taken a long road to get at what I am trying to drive at. Leaving the question of whether slavery was driven by the majority or minority, it boils down to one factor why it was eliminated – the support of the majority. How did such turn of event came about? How did the minority convinced (in your case) the majority, that slavery was wrong? Did they take to the streets? Did they blame their own and call their own fools? Did they fight their cause with reason or with fists? Please do not miss the point I am driving at.

You are right that Obama supports equality for gays. Do you not then question why he still have to caution them from being too over-zealous in their pursuit of equality? Why did he have to do that if not for the greater interest of the majority, whose welfare and well-being also come under his care and charge? Try to understand this.

Good that you agree with me that working against discrimination is a work in progress, so let us take stock and see how we want this ‘work-in-progress’ to pan out. One thing I have been questioning is this: Do we always need to borrow from AA to push this cause for non-discrimination? There are so many articulate writers here who can contribute an article or two and I will gladly share my thoughts with them. My disdain for AA is his frequent push, using something that is not of his own, instead of thinking up solutions which may fit the Singapore society better. We can learn from gay activists elsewhere but we cannot implant those models without tweaking them to fit our own social and societal environments.

No one is asking you to sit back and do nothing to effect change. We are questioning the manner in which you are trying to bring about change. You guys support AA. It is very disheartening for the rest of us who are not in this fight. Do you know why? Because we have been branded ‘fools’ by him. How do you think he is going to garner support from us? Do you honestly think the gay activists and lobbyists can win the rest over without a certain level of support from them? This is why I question his intention and the manner he goes about fighting his cause. Do you not see the danger here?

You claim that the gay lobbyists are “ getting our word out there to the public and mainstream consciousness”. Is this the way you are proposing, by calling us fools, that you hope to get at the ‘conciousness’ of the mainstream? Do you not see the connection here, by your own words, that you are dependent on the opinion and support of the mainstream.

So you see, sloo, you are wise enough to know the problem but it is your fight, or rather, the manner of your fight, that is wrong.

Zefly,

It is always a pleasure to share thoughts and exchange opinions with you. I agree that my more recent comments may not have been as helpful as I had hoped them to be. This is because of the inevitable deviation when questions have to be answered.

Having said that however, my points remained the same (see post #200).

1. Why do the gays always have to depend on one or two persons before we get to hear anything about the gays and their concerns?

2. Why does TOC always borrow gay articles from the same writer (who is known to have no qualm in offending the rest of us to pursue his own agenda) when there are numerous other GLBT blogs and websites to borrow from, or, when there are numerous other writers who may perhaps consider penning their thoughts to share with us, if only they were asked.

3. Is the gay voice limited to these one or two persons?

Also, no one has yet answered any of my questions.

You said: “ I really can’t think of any person fighting for rights etc not to want it as soon as they can”. It is reasonings like this that really baffles me. You know your history well enough to now that such battles take time, yet, instead of learning from past fights in history, and finding ways to make the fight more effective, you are advocating the same fight-plan. Why? Can we not do better? Is targeting the mindsets and values of the mainstream going to help your cause? No.

You see, the gays today (like you have correctly stated, are ‘decriminalized’), do not have to restate and replay those sentiments expressed during the early years of their fight for equality. This is where Alex is trapped in. Many in mainstream society know what these issues are, which now make the job easier for the gays to fight their cause. Yet, they are struggling, why? This is why the AA way is so ineffective. Not only that, it becomes damaging – especially when he borrow thoughts from other societies that are not in tune with the Singapore society, in terms of what we are not, compared to what these other societies are.

You talked about convincing the ‘swing votes’, yet I am one example of a ‘swing voter’ who is yet to be convinced in any measure. No one wants to answer my hard questions, preferring to tell why they are oh-so-wronged and why we are oh-so-discriminatory. Come on, give us reasons to believe that you are no more different than any of us. Calling us fools for what India does is not the way to do this, surely you must agree.

Whether my comments are effective or not is not my concern. They are honest, sincere and straight from the heart. If the gay lobbyists are concerned enough, then it is up to them to read it they way they want to read them. This is not my fight but theirs.

Thanks for the history lessons though.

smallvice585,

Is this a ‘gay-world system” or is it a system for the society as a whole?

292) Arix on July 9th, 2009 9.22 pm
( 1. The analogy is about having the driver without having the printer, so I am not sure how the idea of superior third-party drivers has anything to bear.)

The driver original provided by the manufacturer of the printer is perceived to be the ‘natural’ one, analogous to the natural use’ of the anus and the penis when you use that driver to power the printer. But it is not the ONLY usable driver. There are alternative ways that may sometimes give better ‘performance’.

The point, do not be limited by what is ‘original’ design of the printer and its driver.

p.s I still prefer the original driver. but others may feel different. =)

( 3) How do you define “best”? Also, well … the issue here is the existence of a choice/possibility, not whether that choice/possibility is the best.)

Best is defined by the person himself. It is subjective.
Which is why I added “for all people” as a qualifier.

Hi sllim,

Thanks for agreeing with me. That part about “tipping my hand”, was meant to show to the gay lobbyists that these are the kind of mindsets they are up against. Whether they agree that this is a majority sentiment or not is up to them. One thing is for sure, the salt they are going to get won’t be in any moderate portion.

316) gemami on July 10th, 2009 8.13 am
It is very disheartening for the rest of us who are not in this fight. Do you know why? Because we have been branded ‘fools’ by him.
————–

Someone else brought up a good point… it’s the swing votes that people like Alex Au may be aiming for. People who have not reached a “conclusion” on homosexuality. Despite the huge number of comments garnered by such topics, you do not really see a lot of different people posting. Forgot who brought it up, but yes, I also agree that the ‘conservative majority’ as voiced by the govt is not proven. i.e many people are still on the fence.

To be frank, I see you as a person who is entrenched in his view that homo=bad… I see all who based their ‘conclusion’ from a religious starting point as entrenched… While other posters and I ‘aim’ (reference to perfection issue) to persuade you, we are not really trying to persuade you. You aren’t really the part of the swing vote.

Arix

You have to ask yourself this question. Why is it that so many people in this thread seems to not understand what is your stand. And seems to be ‘confused’ time and again by what you assert abt ur stand. Is it the owner of the contributors to make their stand clear and meaningful or the listener/reader of the thread.

Communication 101 will tell us that to have a communication/engagement it is a 2-way process. And it is the work of the communicator (initiator) to speak in a manner that the audience can understand. This means as a gd communicator, it is ur responsibility to make yourself clear. So if one person does not get u, it can be that person’s ‘fault’. But still, u need to make it as simple as possible despite ur complex ideas as u claim to the one that does not get u.

I am not a pink lobbist. I do not attend Pink dot event either. But if there is someone out there that wants to assert as a moral leaders/ silent free speech/ discriminate without basis or on religions basis, i will speak up.

So if certain pink lobbist wants to assert the implication of gay gene as their basis for removing discrimination, this is not my stand. My stand is simple and from a humanistic pov. That no one shld be a public moralist not even the govt. SG is secular society. Morality is to be practised within the insitiution of their home, religion and interpersonal relationship. And it shld not be a law by itself.

Yes I am not saying lying and greed are right thing. But pragmatically, no one can stop that from happening and in fact, our society encourage it somewhat. Why is it that the bankers are earning so much? Think abt more. ‘Immorality’ is practised within our society and in fact accepted and encouraged if u are not living in the cave.

#301

Kudos to you, Zefly.

Good points and logical. Keep up the good work.

The current ongoing raging debate between the gay and anti-gay establishment is going to be an endless, entertaining merry-go-round, mainly because proponents of both camps base their arguments on false premises. These warring mortal enemies don’t realise that their arguments are based on their ‘blind-faith’ support of the twin pseudo-sexualities, the ’strict-heterosexuality’ and the reactionary ’strict-homosexuality’. To bring some Light into the darkened chambers of their minds, lets have some ‘enlightenment’ from some experts of the past;;;;;Krafft-Ebing(1840-1902);;German professor of psychiatry, also called ‘the father of the psychology of sex’ was the first to suggest that bi-sexuality is the original state of human sexuality. Sigmund Freud has famously summarized on the basis of clinical observations “We have come to know that all human beings are bi-sexual….and that their libido is distributed between objects of both sexes, either in a manifest or a latent form”. According to Freud people remain bi-sexual all their life in a repression to monosexuality of fantasy and behaviour. This idea was taken up in the 1940s by the zoologist Alfred Kinsey who was the first to create a scale to measure the continuum of sexual orientation from heterosexuality to homosexuality. Kinsey studied human sexuality and argued that people have the capability of being hetero or homosexual even if this trait does not present itself in the current circumstances.

Budamax, I fully agree that this debate is a wonderful merry-go-round, very much spiced up by your ‘naturally-born’ bi-sexual theory. Leaving that aside, I would like to throw some questions to all the gay lobbyists here.

1. What have you achieve from this discussion thread, in terms of bringing your cause nearer to fruition?
2. What have you learn from your opponents, in terms of their fears and their continued inability to accept and support equal rights for gays?
3. What positives can you take out from this discussion and where do you think you can go from here?

You see, if such discussions is going to bring you nowhere nearer to the cause you are fighting for, then something must be utterly wrong. What is it? More importantly, are you guys serious about your fight, or, do you only want to sound clever and correct?

After over more than 300 comments, and if you cannot note down a few items to work on, then this discussion is nothing but (according to budamax) a wonderful merry-go-round. We’ll just wait for TOC to publish another AA article and we’ll all have fun, once more.

JC,

Have you not realised already, that every word uttered by non-gays are discriminitory while those uttered by gays are not? The majority of us are being called ‘fools’ for being the way we are and this is not discrimination? How much more coherent do you want us to be?

Let’s look at some of Arix’s irrational, disjointed, equivocal or loose assertions [anyone with finer adjectives?]:

[1] Arix considers an article to be “extremely-biased” even if it contains a “simple, neutral disclaimer”.
[my #272 and Arix’s #310]

[2] in #253 Arix says: “I discouraged the publishing of articles clearly biased… At the same time, I would still agree to the publishing of extremely-biased articles (like this one) provided that the simple, neutral disclaimer was included.”

[a] From [1] and [2], Arix, you are contradicting yourself; and I just wonder how you can keep on producing contradictions/equivocations in such an oblivious manner.

[3] In post #6 Arix makes this ridiculous assertion [which has of course elicited a great deal of discussion]: “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”

[4] Arix has produced no premises, valid or otherwise, to support his claim; when challenged for evidence he said [#94]:” Whereas, Homosexuals publicly claim that their genetic make-up explicitly stops them from any possibility of having sex with a member of the opposite sex for any reason.”

[5] I do not know where Arix got the info that “Homosexuals public claim..”. But Arix has not been able to respond to my inquiry as to when/where this was supposedly said, and by whom. Did this claim emanate from all homosexuals or only some?

[6] Arix, there is no factual evidence for your ludicrous assertion [3] and it would be only naïve of you to think otherwise. But naivety can be associated with intellectual dishonesty.

[7] Arix has said he would like to see evidence that homosexuals or at least some of them have engaged in heterosexual activity, but Arix has [a case of carelessness or amnesia?] forgotten that he/she himself said [#138]: “There are cases of homosexuals that married and had children.”

[8] So Arix, as usual, you have once more evinced an incapability of understand your own assertions.

[9] Arix has all along argued that “a Homosexual can only have sex with a member of the same sex, because some physiological barrier exists preventing homosexuals from being physiologically and psychologically attracted to members of the opposite sex”; in my #175 I gave Arix a couple of links to look up, for further evidence that homosexuals are NOT inhibited from heterosexual activity/relationship. I made these comments in my post: “They contain literature about homosexuals engaging in heterosexual activity/relationship. You were looking for evidence that rebuts your contention that homosexuals can only have sex with someone of the same sex because of some physiological barrier, right?”
[10] And lo and behold, this shocking admission came from Arix [#189]: “my intention is to argue just that: homosexuals are not inhibited from heterosexual activity.”

[11] I am not sure whether I should continue at this point. Arix, you are so hilarious and, may I add, so confused.

[12] But don’t worry about the compliments, Arix. Please continue to keep us entertained. Tks,

Hi Arix #309,

You finally conceded on the issue of presentation of TOC’s opinion in #313. Your “disclaimer” is unnecessary and only TOC editorial reflects its position.

The key quarrel here is your continued homosexual discrimination and not the red-herring / distraction you mentioned in #309 that the Pink Lobby is divided between homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and homosexuality is a genetically-determined. There is no such divide.

It is the Christian Camp that has been arguing that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. I had mentioned earlier that Dr Thio Su Mien published an editorial last year that hailed homosexualism as a lifestyle choice.

Moreover, you wrote this yourself in #6: Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them.

325) gemami on July 10th, 2009 12.40 pm

Everything you say, presupposes that the people here arguing for gays, are gay lobbyists. That we have some realistic target in mind. We are not, and do not. We (or rather I) just voice out our pov. If there is a target, it is just a vague idea that some time in the future, 377A will be repealed.

Actually, I might ask the same 3 questions of you. What you have achieved, what positives you have gotten out of this exercise, etc.

326) gemami on July 10th, 2009 12.46 pm
” that every word uttered by non-gays are discriminitory”

actually, I think a pretty significant number of us arguing FOR gay are non-gays. So you are saying what we say, which is sometimes in line with gay are discriminatory, and yet theirs are not? … ???

Very interesting dissection rwkc.

I would like to offer one positive we can derive from such seemingly contradictory offerings. I am not suggesting they are contradictory because I believe only Arix knows what he wants to put across. I am offering what the gay groups can do from his comments.

I suggest they see each of Arix’s post as postings from different individuals. By doing this, you get to see the numerous and endless concerns of those in the heterosexual world. I believe Arix is attempting to speak the minds of many – all at one go. It’s hard to do this. What I am saying is: if you go ask a hundred heterosexuals who are not as opened to gay values, these are the replies you would get.

Anyway, this wealth of knowledge would do the gay lobbyists a world of good because it helps them understand the fears and concerns of those who are still apprehensive in granting them the equal rights they are clamouring for.

I think there exists a need to clarify certain terminologies:

Lobbyist refers to a person who persuade legislators to vote for legislation in a particular direction.

Activist refers to a person who advocates or engages in actions to support a political or social goal.

Supporter refers to a person who backs a specific cause.

What differentiates an activist from a supporter is their level of commitment.

What differentiates an activist from a lobbyist is the former focus on public engagement while the latter focuses on policy makers.

All 3 roles complement each other although a lobbyist may work independently of the other 2 roles.

lobo76,

I thank you for addressing my questions to me ;) You see, even if I don’t answer those questions, or, even if the answers to those questions are not what I expect, they do not have any effect or impact on me. I am not the one asking for equal right. I am not the one being discriminated against. This is why I do not yet understand why so many of you are offended by what I write. Would it make a difference to me whether 377A gets repealed or not? It does not.

However, I cannot say for the rest who are not sympathetic to the gay cause or who are indifferent to the gay cause. There are many things I understand and know about the gay life. I walk with gays practically on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, I have been hoping that the gays get what they want and be free to live the lifestyle they long for.

This is why I feel that it will do no good to the gay group and gay champions (since lobbyist might not be an apt description) to harp on what some heterosexuals are already biased against. You have to work at removing this biased mindset instead. Everyone can be converted. This must be the belief and driving force.

And no, I am not saying those like you are discriminatory when you speak up for the gays from a heterosexual pov. I am referring to those that are purposely calculated and written for maximum hurt impact.

@gemami (#317), you said:
You talked about convincing the ‘swing votes’, yet I am one example of a ‘swing voter’ who is yet to be convinced in any measure. No one wants to answer my hard questions, preferring to tell why they are oh-so-wronged and why we are oh-so-discriminatory. Come on, give us reasons to believe that you are no more different than any of us. Calling us fools for what India does is not the way to do this, surely you must agree.

In fact, the arguments against s. 377A has already been exhaustively canvassed in various settings. Numerous compelling reasons have already been given why GLBTs are “no more different than any of us”, or at least shouldn’t be treated differently for legal purposes. It’s up to the alleged ‘conservative majority’ to take the trouble to consider those arguments, and if so, revise their views. The problem (and here I agree with Arix) is that the majority is apathetic, complacent, self-centred. “Not my rights what, so why should I give a *beep*?”

You urge that debate should be civil and temperate, and not descend into name-calling. But at the same time, surely you also see (even if you don’t agree) that for the GLBT community, this is an issue which brooks no compromise? If rights of dignity, privacy and equality that We the People have guaranteed to ourselves are being trampled upon, we don’t sit around sipping Earl Grey and enjoying a pleasant morning chat — we redress whatever wrongs are being committed, or we make a good case that no such wrongs were committed.

And naturally, you can’t expect a minority that believes itself to be systematically marginalized to always be restrained and inoffensive. Indeed, one sometimes needs to metaphorically ‘raise one’s voice’ in order to jolt the majority out of its complacency, to dramatize the plight of its fellow citizens, to prod it into defending its position. That’s what Alex Au is doing in this article.

You say “such battles take time”. That only invites stalemate, pacificism. It’s precisely what blacks in America were told in the first half of the 20th century, when they were subject to Jim Crow laws, ’separate but equal’ regimes and rampant violence: “such battles take time”. Had there not been such an intense, concerted sense of outrage expressed by the civil rights movement of the 1960s, would things ever have changed?

la nausea,

I am glad you make more sense than any other thus far and I take my hat off to you for having the dare to agree with one who is so well-bashed. This is what I have been calling for – to see through the smoke of the fire.

It is no surprise that majority are apathetic toward such a cause. Does it not then underline the fact of the reason why the majority behave this way – because they are not gay. So now the apathetic heterosexuals are to be blamed for the plight of the gays? Surely you are not suggesting this?

I call for a civil debate because the Singapore society is privileged to be able to draw from past examples from other societies, and take the measures necessary to avoid the free-fall into those pits that are violent in nature. We have to be able to do this if not we will have to go through those very steps that these societies have gone through. Perhaps this is why those people who wield this authority are not so ready to compromise? You surely know by now that the Singapore government does not give in to threats and demands.

Taking time does not mean stalemate. It will be a stalemate if the time taken is not an effective one. Hard-line approaches are not the way forward and the dangers are well-documented.

This is one point I do not agree with. You are the fourth person today suggesting that such an approach is the best way forward. It is dangerous. Other than this, you do provide some food for thought.

Section 377A from a scientific view point, you said:

“According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the species is one of the main points. So on scientific grounds Section 377A should be cast in stone.
If man goes after man, women after woman, Singapore as a nation would soon die off seeing as our reporduction rate is about 1.3 per family.
Yawning bread should approach this issue from a scientific view point.”

Ever wondered why males have nipples when it serves practically no use nor relevance to the survival of the species?

To answer your fears of the postulated dystopia. In such a scenario, I can envisage a proliferation of IVF techniques when gays and lesbians would form domestic partnerships devoid of any sexual/romantic relations. So no. We won’t die out just like that. Just as your pseudoscientific claims founded on dogma won’t. The plasticity of life can be stranger than the conservative can fathom.

@gemami, I’m not preaching physical violence, whether actual or threatened (nor was the 1960s civil rights movement founded on violence).

What I’m saying is that, in principle, a range of options should be available to the GLBT movement in making their case, some more civil and respectful (e.g., talks aimed at public education), some less so (e.g., strident criticism of GLBT opponents (including caricature), ‘Gay Pride’ events, etc.). The latter set of tactics must sometimes be used to “raise consciousness” amongst a majority which is otherwise prediposed to fence-setting (and that means keeping 377A).

But I guess I do agree with you that, on a strategic level, ’soft’ persuasive methods might go further. As the Government is fond of saying, push too hard and you’re likely to elicit a ‘push back’ reaction.

However, as Zefly accurately observed, the GLBT community isn’t monolithic (and don’t forget the liberal camp, which cannot be subsumed within that community). Hence, there is no overarching ’strategy’ which ‘it’ (the GLBT community) can adopt, only a series of disjointed efforts, some ’soft’ and some ‘hard’. What you’re effectively asking with your exhortation that the GLBT community should “get their house in order”, is really for them to mount a highly-organized campaign, with an emphasis on persuasion over vilification. Interestingly, this sort of gives lie to the conservative claim that anything like a coherent ‘gay lobby’ presently exists, at least in Singapore.

Arix #303,

1) So where exactly is the strawman at #139? Where did I misrepresent you? Direct quotes please. I didn’t claim there’s proof that TH is a homosexual or claim that you claimed TH is a homosexual or a bisexual. I didn’t bring up morality [#148] or adultery either. As strawmen/red herrings go, the mileage on those is pretty low.

2) Can you back it up with direct quotes from your bio textbook? That says, according to science, our bodies are supposed to act “heterosexually”? I’ll go out on a limb (I didn’t take biology) and say that your biology textbook is silent on homosexuality, for or against.

3) The Gay Gene Theory came from scientific efforts to isolate the GG. The gay camp tried to use it to bolster their inborn-gay argument. The anti-gay camp attack it as though that’s all there is to the being gay is inborn argument (strawman).

4) You don’t seem to understand the burden of proof. It lies with those who make positive claims. Whole scientific groups have already pointed out the line drawn between heteros and homos is groundless: any assertion to the contrary is bald prejudice. If anyone (you) wants to assert otherwise on the nature/science grounds, they take on the burden of proof.

Not that they met the burden of proof for their position in the first place. Simply being the predominant belief for centuries doesn’t make it right. False beliefs can be held for centuries. The earth is flat because the bible says so, for example.

Likewise, the prejudice is not comparable to scientific practices.

5) Simply believing something sincerely doesn’t make it so. Faith isn’t proof for anything, whoever might have it. Did I really have to point that out? Well, maybe I do: again, faith alone isn’t proof for anything.

The “change” camp doesn’t bring anything to the table besides “we don’t like the way you are, and neither should you, so change.” And If the “change” group is religiously-motivated, there is the additional non-negotiable, it’s immoral dimension. I am not sure how gays are supposed to converse with that.

Your “two hands to clap” platitude applies equally to any oppressed minority group seeking to redress inequality. It says nothing of whether its cause is justified even as it tries to attribute blame.

[Off topic: what’s a Pauline-style revelation anyway?]

Arix, you are calling for the disclaimer assuming that TOC does not support Alex Au’s views.

But so what if TOC actually does (support Alex’s views)? Are you going to boycott TOC? Maybe you should take it as that and go and read the Straits Times? But wait, I find Straits Times to be quite gay friendly these days. How about you go read TLA’s blog or something?

gemami (#326),

Kudos for reminding all here of this point.

Mint (#337),

I am concerned over Alex Au’s tone, not his views. His tone is technically against the TOC moderation policy.

But let’s put this issue to rest and discuss the views, okay?

Seth (#300),

your post would be valid satire if you used an appropriate analogy. But the analogy of homosexuality with handedness is a lame-duck analogy:-

(1) While it is a little harder for left-handers to use right-handed tools, they can still learn how to use them. I should know – I am a left-hander. And the so-called “bias” against left-handers is more negligence than intentional discrimination.

(2) Being left-handed doesn’t deprive you of engaging in any of life’s activities. my heart still works properly, lungs still function as they should. I can still think, and so on. Whereas the reproductive function is clearly not available naturally to the homosexual, artificial reproduction notwithstanding.

(3) Being left-handed doesn’t mean my right hand is useless. I can still use my right hand to hold things, write stuff or paint pictures. It’s just that I do these things more poorly with my right hand than with my left.

Conversely, being homosexual is like tying my right hand permanently behind my back in the name of “free choice”. (by the way, I am typing this post with both hands.) Therefore, I am intentionally making my right hand ‘useless’.

sliim (#337),

1) A strawman is a worthless argument. And that is exactly what the entire Ted Haggard argument you put up so far is. Even if Rev Haggard is a homosexual or bisexual (which he himself denied), it does not excuse him from being a hypocrite or cheating on his family. (I would add that soliciting with a prostitute is another ethical problem in itself; male or female is no issue.)

2) Bio textbooks do not speak on ethics. But they teach the functionality of the human body and how the sexual reproduction system works. That’s the science I am talking about here. Surely I don’t need to describe the various components of sexual reproduction here?

To summarize, the sperm meets the egg for sexual reproduction. the purpose of the sperm is to fertilize the egg, and the purpose of the egg is to be fertilized by the sperm.

A homosexual relationship clearly excludes this possibility from occurring any time during the relationship, choice immaterial, except through artificial means. (Each artificial means has its own set of ethical/moral problems, which are not relevant to this discussion.)

3) You misrepresent the anti-gay camp. Except for maybe a few deranged Fundamentalists, the majority (the ‘moderates’) opposes the Gay-Gene Argument because they don’t believe that there is a Gay Gene. Their intention is to prove that homosexuality is a conscious or subconscious choice made by the person who claims to be a homosexual.

As an interesting side-point, just how old are the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual”? (English biblical translations don’t count.)

4) The Pink Lobby is making a positive claim: Homosexuality is of the same standing as heterosexuality. And so it is their job to prove that positive claim.

It is the role of convention to bow down to novelty only when novelty is decisively proved to be superior to convention.

In the case of the “whole scientific communities”, it is pertinent to ask if they made their conclusions based on genuine medical data, or if they simply capitulated to the demands of a vocal minority.

The 1973 APA decision was made on the basis of a vote. How scientific can a plebiscite be?

6-7) You forget that the “change” camp is not only made up of “preachers”, but also “cured patients”. My point is that those “cured patients” should be given a serious scientific forum to air their views, instead of being shut out of the debate because of political pressure from the Pink Lobby.

These claims by the “cured patients” can be conversed with, since they are empirical data. And they do exist. So we shouldn’t be ignoring them.

The “immoral” thing is a little complex, because there is a silent disjunct amongst the religious groups of how criminal immorality is. In the Catholic Church, there is actually a hierarchy of immorality i.e. some acts are more immoral than others. As far as I have seen, homosexuality is not classified as a mortal sin.

9) Well, it does go both ways. My point was that conflict is caused because both sides are stoking the conflict. (Plus the not-so-silent third-party represented by smallvice, whose key agenda is not equality at all, but simply the destruction of religious groups.)

It is the same as the PAP-SDP conflict. I told Dr CSJ myself that I was reluctant to join the SDP because I wasn’t sure that their NVA campaign is that effective in Singapore’s context.

10) St Paul was on the road to Damascus when Christ appeared to him and blinded him, asking him why he was persecuting Christians. Before that, Saint Paul had been colluding with the Roman and Jewish authorities to root out and capture the early Christians.

#333

Excellent points and well articulated, la nausee. Kudos to you.

@gemami (#326) (Arix at #339 brought this to my attention), you said: “The majority of us are being called ‘fools’ for being the way we are and this is not discrimination? How much more coherent do you want us to be?

Nope. The majority is not being called ‘fools’ for “being the way we are”, or even for having latent prejudices against or reservations about gays.

As Alex makes clear even in the short extract above, what is irredeemably foolish is having those prejudices (or ‘judgments’, to use a more neutral term) “enshrined” in the law. This is criminal law “held captive” to popular misconception. The real question is whether criminal law is an appropriate weapon for safeguarding morality in this case, even if homosexual sex is morally wrong or disgusting.

#312) Arix on July 10th, 2009 2.20 am in reply to #288

“2) I agree. But I stress that just because it shouldn’t be considered a crime, doesn’t mean it is moral.”

How is the private conduct of an homosexual couple differ morally from that of an heterosexual couple in how they conduct sex?

“3) I don’t know about the Indian Constitution, but I know that our Constitution has a reservation on “public morality”. And as far as it seems, the government classifies homosexuality as a violation of “public morality”.”

As my reply to your item 2) above and in addition I would like to ask who defines “PUBLIC MORALITY” standards, what is the basis, what is/are the criterion/criteria which is/are considered in coming up with ‘PUBLIC MORALITY” standards?

Does “MORAL” and the associated term “PUBLIC MORALITY” cover only matters pertaining to sexual conduct of a person as a member of the society or does it include other personal values like unethical practices, double standards, abuse of power, exploitation etc?

I’d hv thought that the intent, purpose and principle of non-discrimination based on the INNATE being of a person – not sure if that’s putting it correctly – in the Constitution OVER-RIDES all other provisions in the Constitution, assuming that you are correct about the “public morality” provision, unless of course it can be shown that it (homosexuality consideration) causes PUBLIC HARM or a threat to the security and existence of the country.

“5) Do you recall that COOS is an Anglican Church?”

Yes but what’s your point?

From what I’ve read recently, there is a breakaway movement of the Anglican Church community consisting of a MINORITY of fundamentalist Protestants in the US and a few African countries from the Church of England. The report also mentioned that the breakaway faction only constitute around 10% of the worldwide Protestant churches.

Separately but relatedly, Thio Li-ann’s comment about the Kennedy vs Texas case that differences of views persist in the US Supreme Court decision is quite lame as the three dissenting Judges, including the CJ, are known Christian fundies whose dissenting views were obviously guided by their unquestioned reading of the Bible.

P/s:

I post below extracts from Wikipedia on MORALITY. Note the highlighted words in Capital letters. It would seen that the Christian fundies moral code have not changed since the days when Leviticus was written many thousands of years ago. Not surprising that the Christian fundies like Thio Li Ann’s revulsion of homosexuality on so called PUBLIC MORALITY grounds (she said homosexuality is IMMORAL) is again based on Leviticus book of the Bible, which means of course that she/Christian fundies have run out of arguments against the repeal of S377A. The fact that many or all first world countries have repealed S377A or its equivalent also shows that so called PUBLIC MORALITY consideration does NOT hold.

Morals are ARBITRARY created and SUBJECTIVELY defined by society, philosophy, religion, and/or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be “common conceptions of morality have CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER TIME” The arbitrariness of morality stems from the observation that actions that may be deemed moral in one culture in time may not be classified as such in others or in a different time. The SUBJECTIVENESS of morality is shown by the observation that actions or beliefs which by themselves do not cause any harm may be by some considered immoral, e.g. marrying someone of opposite gender, not being an atheist, etc. Descriptive morality does not explain why anything should be considered immoral, only that it may classified so. While for the most part immoral acts are classified as such because they cause harm, this is not by any means an all encompassing criterion. Many acts or beliefs are often then classified as such because of prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.

la nausee (#333),

1) There is a thin line between “legal purposes” and “social purposes”, because after all, laws regulate society and act as a social standard too.

Apathy also does not always mean doing nothing; it can mean simply doing anything that is convenient; that does not rock the boat. People who say “live and let live” are examples of the apathetic persona.

2) Making a good case does not necessitate name-calling, I agree with gemami on that. name-calling has no place in civil debates, only in the kind of twisted pre-engineered debates that people like smallvice favour.

3) The problem with “Dramatizing” is when does the drama become real drama? Does the Pink Lobby leave reality and fly into its own dramatic fantasy? Zeal feeds zeal, imagination feeds imagination.

Q5 (#345),

1) I am not going to re-explain that, look at the bold portion of my post to Zefly in #192.

2-5) Here is the article of the Constitution [14(2)]:-

“”"
Parliament may by law impose —

(a) on the [freedoms of speech and expression], such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

(b) on the right [of peaceful public assembly], such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and

(c) on the [freedom of association], such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
“”"

So, Parliament has the right to decide on what constitutes our “public morality” in Singapore’s Constitution. And by the way our Parliament works, it means that generally the cabinet gets to decide the definition of “public morality”.

Your assumption is clearly proven wrong by this article. As Dr Thio correctly argued, explicit harm and public security are not the only grounds on which a law might be imposed.

The Equal Protection Clause in the Singapore Constitution is equally as specific:-

[Article 12(2)]

“”"
(2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens of Singapore on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.
“”"
Note the word “only”.

The protection in our Constitution is not offered to any “innate being”, but to the four specific areas of religion, race, ancestry and place of birth.

7) Anglicans are not the only protestants in the world. So perhaps you would like to give a different figure for the proportion of Anglicans that separated?

8) Accusing COOS and Dr Thio is one thing, but accusing Supreme Court Justices is another. What is your evidence to prove that these 3 Justices are “Christian Fundies”? What “fundie” actions have they performed?

9) The biblical support that is quoted to support the immorality stand are more than just the book of Leviticus. St Paul also apparently makes a stand agaisnt homosexuality, for instance.

10) Hmm, I believe that you are misquoting wikipedia. I will quote you wikipedia too, and note the words in CAPITALS.

morality refers to an IDEAL CODE OF BELIEF OR CONDUCT one which would be espoused in preference to other alternatives by the SANE “MORAL” PERSON, under specified conditions. In this “prescriptive” sense , moral value judgments such as “murder is immoral” are made.

‘MORALITY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH ETHICS. Ethics is the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.[2] Ethics seeks to address questions such as HOW A MORAL OUTCOME CAN BE ACHIEVED in a specific situation (applied ethics), HOW MORAL VALUES SHOULD BE DETERMINED (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by (descriptive ethics), what the FUNDAMENTAL NATURE of ethics or morality is, including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its NATURE is (moral psychology).

Oh, these happen to be in the article on “Morality”. Are you sure you read wikipedia carefully?

I would say that based on this, what Dr Thio and your Christian fundies thinks is not off the mark at all. Wouldn’t you agree?

More seriously, if you want to quote something, look at what it says carefully. By doing duan zhang qu yi, you merely exposed your shallow understanding of the wikipedia article you tried to quote.

(1) While it is a little harder for homosexuals to have sex with members of the opposite sex, they can still force themselves, for whatever reason, to engage in heterosexual sex. I should know – I am a homosexual. And the so-called “bias” against homosexual is more ignorance and bigotry than logical thoughts.

(2) Being homosexual doesn’t deprive you of engaging in any of life’s activities. My heart still works properly, lungs still function as they should. I can still think, and so on. My sperm works fine and could inseminate a nubile female just okay.

By the way Arix, let’s start a campaign to discriminate people who have sex for pleasure, ban condoms, and denounce the evils and unnaturalness of celibacy and asexuality. While we’re at it, can I deny you and southpaws of the rights to use your left hands dominantly? You guys are seriously damaging the family unit by causing unpleasant clashing of elbows with the normal right-handed majority during family dinners.

(3) Being homosexual doesn’t mean my I can’t socialize with girls. I can still make friends with them and form meaningful lifetime friendships. It’s just that I feel much more natural being with a guy than a girl.

Conversely, being homosexual is like tying my right hand permanently behind my back in the name of “free choice”. (by the way, I am typing this post with both hands.) Therefore, I am intentionally making my right hand ‘useless’.

By the way I think it’s interesting to note how Arix was pointing out that are gene-related causes of left-handedness. Let me remind that he was also the one to say that there are such things as genetic diseases. And of course, who can forget the ludicrous argument that a gay gene will cause a homosexual to be unable to have heterosexual sex. Hey Arix, is your left-handed gene causing your right hand to type illogically? I think some reparative therapy is in order, and a new penal code 378A.

@Arix (#346):

Apathy is unbecoming here. The boat has already been rocked, the Collective has drawn first blood by outlawing the acts of a minority. The onus is on us to justify why this should be so. Simply saying “live and let live”, if anyone in fact says that, is either deceitful or doltish, because “letting live” emphatically not what the Collective is doing with 377A.

As for ‘civil debates’, there’s a nice ambiguity in the word ‘civil’ here. Civil debate (i.e. debate among people in their public roles as citizens) is not always ‘civil’ and temperate. Nor should we force it to be. Instead, it’s up to each of us to grow thicker hides, and to put our point across as best as we can, whether our audience is reasonable or not. The option remains open for us to ignore them, or to drop out of the debate altogether.

As long as the speaker is not being intimidated or harassed (which require a relatively high threshold), there’s no reason why the audience must obediently quieten down, sit cross-legged with fingers on their lips for the speaker to rattle off his podium-talk. Debate in a democratic society is often noisy, heated, impassioned. That’s what meant by the phrase “robust and uninhibited”.

2) Bio textbooks do not speak on ethics. But they teach the functionality of the human body and how the sexual reproduction system works. That’s the science I am talking about here. Surely I don’t need to describe the various components of sexual reproduction here?

A homosexual relationship clearly excludes this possibility from occurring any time during the relationship, choice immaterial, except through artificial means. (Each artificial means has its own set of ethical/moral problems, which are not relevant to this discussion.)

Noted. Our priorities are indeed screwed up. Why should we call for fairer laws when we should be banning relationships between:

1) couples which don’t intend to have children;
2) couples which consists of at least one infertile partner;
3) couples which consists of at least one partner too old to reproduce

Arix, you misrepresent the anti-left-handedness camp. Except for maybe a few deranged Fundamentalists, the majority (the ‘moderates’) opposes the Left-hand-Gene Argument because they don’t believe that there is a Left-handed Gene. Their intention is to prove that left-handedness is a conscious or subconscious choice made by the person who claims to be a left-handed.
As an interesting side-point, just how old are the terms “right-hander” and “left-hander”? (English biblical translations don’t count.)

The Left-handed Lobby is making a positive claim: Left-handedness is of the same standing as right-handedness. And so it is their job to prove that positive claim.

It is the role of convention to bow down to novelty only when novelty is decisively proved to be superior to convention.

In the case of the “whole scientific communities”, it is pertinent to ask if they made their conclusions based on genuine medical data, or if they simply capitulated to the demands of a vocal minority.

But, as I mentioned before, it takes two hands to clap to produce a conflict.

But I thought your left-handed gene doesn’t allow you to use your right hand?

And I didn’t particularly think that we should operate on left-handers. I oppose reparative therapy methods. I also see counselling as ineffective.

I also am puzzled nowadays when I hear alarm over the idea of ‘curing’ left-handers. In case you were wondering, I don’t intend ‘curing’ to mean dumping someone in a straitjacket and force-injecting him or her or else electrocuting that person or something like that.

Aside on mental illness: Even away from left-handedness, IMH faces a hurdle in delivering mental medicine because of the popular misconception that only ‘crazy’ people need mental medicine, and unsurprisingly nobody likes to be called ‘crazy’.

When I have a flu, I take pills or syrup to cure it. That a doctor tells me to take these to ‘cure’ my flu doesn’t imply any peculiar agenda on the doctor’s part, or that I am somehow ‘abnormal’ in aspects other than my flu.

I do blame the religious right for causing the stigmatisation of medicine. Oh yes, and Hollywood too.

Anyhow, I don’t actually believe that left-handedness is an individual disease. I think that it is a disease of society that needs to be ‘cured’ through societal reform, particularly the abolition of dominant hand roles.

My opinion (clear now?) is that left-handedness is caused by a mismatch between physiological identity, psychological identity and hand domination. Physiological the person who is born with a set of healthy arms. Hand domination are fixed by the social context – Eg. Chinese use the right hand to write, handle chopsticks, Muslims eat with their right hands etc.

Psychological identity acts as either the bridge or the fence between the other two. It is how a person relates to the world, and is determined by both nature and nurture. (Which affects more is an open debate.)

Where there is a bridge (”order”), the person grows up to be right-handed.

Where there is a fence (”disorder”), the person grows up to be either ambidextrous or left-handed, depending on the thickness of the fence. Because psychology affects physiology, the physiological responses of the person subconsciously adapt to the person’s psychological-fence identity.

In this view, people who exclusively use their left hands dominantly are those whom the fence is absolute. Thus, they feel a need to use their left hands dominantly instead of the right.

347) Arix

I’ll just deal with your last sentence as I need to go through the rest.

“More seriously, if you want to quote something, look at what it says carefully. By doing duan zhang qu yi, you merely exposed your shallow understanding of the wikipedia article you tried to quote.”

I said that I was quoting the exercpts which I felt was more relevant. Others, like you can quote the parts which you feel better explain your stand.

I thought of reproducing the whole article, but in view of TOC’s appeal to limit to 500 words, I decided otherwise.

What I feel is important are the words SUBJECTIVE and clearly Thio Li Ann view of public morality is based on moral values found in the Bible.

Can you show otherwise?

347) Arix

“Accusing COOS and Dr Thio is one thing, but accusing Supreme Court Justices is another. What is your evidence to prove that these 3 Justices are “Christian Fundies”? What “fundie” actions have they performed?”

The three dissenting SC Judges were said in whatever US media reports to be endorsed by Christian conservatives.

Interesting Sandra O’Connors who is also reported to be on the Conservative side, sided with the majority.

“9) The biblical support that is quoted to support the immorality stand are more than just the book of Leviticus. St Paul also apparently makes a stand agaisnt homosexuality, for instance.”

Yes, I’m aware of the fact.

The point is that those Biblical passages deeming homosexuality as SIINFUL were written thousands of years ago. Could you explain the rationale for homosexuality being a SIN in Biblical teachings?

As you have probably read, the Iranian scientist working in the UK has just created sperm from stem cells.

To Arix

I asked of you in my #345

“How is the private conduct of an homosexual couple differ morally from that of an heterosexual couple in how they conduct sex?”

No answer?

@Arix (#347), to deal specifically with your reading of Article 12(2):

You say the word “only” implies that the grounds of discrimination referred to therein are exhaustive. This is one possible reading of the provision (and it is supported by some legal scholars, who should know better), but I think it’s deeply mistaken.

First, it would seem odd that Article 12(2) would expressly exclude any ban on gender discrimination, which is surely one of the big, universally-agreed-upon forms of discrimination. What about class/caste discrimination as well?

Second, that reading of Article 12(2) does not make sense in context. Presumably, the ‘equal protection clause in Article 12(1) is wide enough to cover forms of discrimination other than those referred to in Article 12(2). if we accept your reading, this would mean that non-Singaporean ‘persons’ receive greater protection than Singaporean persons, an absurd outcome.

Third, your reading of Article 12(2) is grammatically awkward for its supposed meaning. Why is the singular “ground” used, rather than the plural “grounds”, if Article 12(2) is indeed limiting ‘discrimination’ to the four grounds stated? Why does “only of” precede “religion, race…”, when a much more natural rendition would have been “on the grounds of religion, race… only“?

The overall interpretation is a highly contorted one. To see that, let’s use a substitution. “No discrimination on the ground only of race” = “only racial discrimination is prohibited”. “No awarding of prizes on ground only of personal connections” = “only the awarding of prizes on the basis of personal connections is prohibited”, i.e. I can award prizes on the basis of eye colour.

The far more natural and sensible reading is this. Article 12(2) prohibits any measure which uses race etc. as the sole criterion for singling out people for different treatment. So, I employ a person because she is Chinese — that’s prohibited discrimination. But if I employ a person because she is Chinese, speaks Mandarin fluently, and the job requires someone conversant in Mandarin, that’s not prohibited discrimination. In the former, I’m discriminating on the ground only of race. In the latter, I’m discriminating on the basis of race, but also on other grounds, i.e. language skills.

Hence, Article 12(2) does not exclude the banning of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Seth #351,

“Left-handedness is still strongly discouraged in some cultures. In the Maswai culture in Africa, “almost 90 percent of teachers and parents said that if children show a left-handed tendency they should be forced to change to right-handedness.”[5] They believe that, “left-handers are less skilled and powerful.”[5]

“Until very recently in Taiwan, left-handed people were strongly encouraged to switch to being right-handed, or at least switch to writing with the right hand. Indeed, the words right/left, 正/倒 in Taiwanese Minnan also mean correct/backwards. It is considered more difficult to write legible Chinese characters with the left hand than it is to write Latin letters, though difficulty is subjective and depends on the person in question.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handedness#Social_stigma_and_repression_of_left-handedness

Dear Arix:

I am curious but what do you understand of homosexuality from the scientific viewpoint?

Kelvin #359,

Let’s not be hasty. I don’t even think Arix understands what is science.

Kelvin (#360),

I understand that homosexuality is caused by a variety of factors, both genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture). Although, it is my view that the environmental factors (esp. gender roles) play a larger role.

Therefore, if the environmental factors are changed, I believe that homosexuality can be eliminated.

My precise view is:

[the genetic factor]

It is scientific fact that infants are born with 11 different personalities. Well, many different personalities, but 11 have been distinguished clearly so far. (Perhaps more by now, because the source I am quoting is from before I was born) This a result from experimental research.

“personality” here is jargon for attitude and behaviour tendency. So, these “personalities” determine emotional reactions, learning capabilities and likes and dislikes. These personalities are blue-prints; they can be altered under techniques such as Neuro-Linguistic Programming. However, generally they remain buried within a person’s subconscious. So, if an in-born artist likes to swim, then the artist will express itself in the swimming-style.

These 11-plus “personalities” are in no way connected to any Gay Gene or Gay Genes, since neither has been discovered so far.

[the social (environmental) factor]

For a very long time, the world was under the rule of absolute monarchs. Absolute Monarchs were supported by powerful – sometimes too-powerful – clerical hierarchies and patriarchal social arrangements. Patriarchy defined very strict roles for each of male and female. This roles not only included occupational roles, but also character roles as well. So patriarchy defined both masculinity and femininity. (maleness and femaleness in contrast are defined by biology, unless you want to go into very abstract philosophy.)

Then the merchant class in Europe rose to power. To rise to power, the merchant class appropriated the ethos of the Liberal minority, who preached individualism, including release from gender roles. Startups sell their products based on uniqueness, one-of-a-kind, being better than all the rest and so on.

However, the Liberal Class was only a tool. Once the pragmatic merchants no longer needed the tool, they cast it aside. Entrenched merchants – who in the past also gained royal favours – now sided the conservatives, who were still in the majority, and more importantly still in power. Majority or not, Conservatives always form Nations. With no Conservatives, there are no Nations.

The descendants of the Merchant Class are the great MNCs of today. MNCs market their products based on both Individualist (“unique”, “fresh”, “sexy”) and Conservative (“safe”, “Secure”, “life”) platforms, but operate on very Conservative platforms (e.g. in Intellectual Property).

Because of the MNCs’ (and their lesser counterparts) pragmatic attitude, both the Individualist and Conservative forces are consistently on a collision course in every society.

(to be continued)

Kelvin (#360),

(con-d from #362)

[The Crash Course]

Individualism and Conservatism/Conformism are ideological trends. Therefore, they would be reflected as components of the genetic personalities.

We thus have 5 possible psycho-genetic profiles:-

(1) Conformist who has tendency towards same-sex gender role

(2) Individualist who has tendency toward same-sex gender role

(3) Conformist who has tendency towards opposite-sex gender role

(4) Individualist who has tendency towards opposite-sex gender role

(5) Individualist or Conformist that has neutral tendency towards gender roles

(1) and (2) are ‘natural’ heterosexuals.

(3) is a ‘nurtured’ heterosexual.

(4) is a homosexual or a transexual. [LGT]

(5) is a bisexual. [B]

Intellectually, we can distinguish between sex and gender, but subconsciously gender roles and sex roles overlap. Therefore, the body ‘adapts’ to fit the new sexual perception for (4). The extent of the ‘adaptation’ determines whether that person will become LG or become T.

In (5)’s case, the body ‘adapts’ too, but the neutral tendency balances out the disjunct. Actually, there are very few pure Bs. Most are minor Ls/Gs or minor heterosexuals.

Why is it accurate to call homosexuality an “objective disorder”? Because the body perceives itself to have a sexual identity that is opposite to that of its physiology. This is the basis that is not erased by raising Red Herrings of “free choice”. B is also an “objective disorder” but somewhat less disorderly than L or G. T is the most disorderly of the 4.

That LGBT are “objective disorders” stands apart from any claims that any is a “sin” in any religion.

I hope that you and sliim can understand all this.

[The Cure]

To me, I can posit 2 possible cures:-

(1) Some form of psychotherapy to re-align the body with its physiological identity. That is attempted in conversion therapy, but I don’t believe that Conversion Therapy has discovered the proper method yet;

(2) The abolition of gender roles. The conflict only exists because gender character roles are still pervasive, even in otherwise ‘modern’ societies. And Fundamentalist Religion has a large part to play in this.

(to be con-d)

Kelvin (#360),

(con-d from #363)

[Extra: On the Pink Lobby]

The Pink Lobby is made up of Individuals who have been overly taken-in by Individualism. Their extreme Individualism makes them hostile to any attempts at empathy with the Conservatives and their gender roles.

This is in part due to the segregation these individuals have faced since “coming out of the closet”. In order to escape their discomfort, they latched on to the idea of civil equality that was then being promoted by the feminists and the racial-rights activists.

They failed to see the difference between their condition and those of the other civil rights lobbies. Race and Sex are independent features, but homosexuality is a pyscho-genetic opposition.

The Pink Lobby was further fanned by the Militant Atheists, who saw the Pink Lobby has a tool to promote their hidden agenda, the destruction of all religious institutions in the world.

la nausee (#349),

1) Refer to JC (#249), he directly said “live and let live”. Also, S377A was passed by the British, not by our government, so be clear what “Collective” you are talking about.

2) Passion is acceptable, in fact laudable, but it should not spill over into personal attacks. “Civil Debate” includes for me debates of any level of activity on points and ideas, and not on people.

3) Hmm, I would say that Smallvice is harassing me on so many different threads.

Is this thread still alive? I thought we have moved our attention to the “Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University” thread already.

Hi Kelvin #359,

Arix’s flawed exposition has exposed his bigotry. He still promotes cure or any reparative therapy for homosexuals. He goes on to hail homosexuality as a psycho-genetic opposition and falsely claim that there is such thing as militant atheists who want to destroy all religious institutions in the world when it was he himself who assert that religious institutions set moral tone for non-believers. His religious oppression knows no boundary

smallvice (#366),

I believe that Kelvin can think for himself, without you giving him cues. Anyway, you yourself are so biased, being a Militant Atheist, that you are not qualified to give a reply anymore.

I was hoping you would have adequate vision to see that I have reservations about the nature and effectiveness of conversion therapy, and that my main view lies on the presence of gender roles; their elimination is the long-term “Cure”.

I did not “hail” anything. I made a thesis and supported it with elaboration. If you want to make a counter-argument, make it based on that elaboration.

And of course, you as a Militant Atheist, would deny the existence of Militant Atheists, as much as Terrorists would attempt to claim that they are Freedom Fighters or God’s Fighters.

It is you who said that religious institutions set moral tone for non-believers. As mice reminded you in the here, I said that religious institutions offer a moral tone for all of society.

It is clear that your Atheist Misinformation knows no boundary.

Kelvin and Smallvice,

for the moment subtract 1 from the post numbers in my posts. I am waiting for a comment #359 to be moderated and published.

@336) la nausée on July 10th, 2009 5.07 pm,
“….a range of options should be available to the GLBT movement in making their case….“….

This is what I am saying too. This is why I question TOC on it frequent use of AA’s opinion pieces as the be-all and end-all of all matters gay. A ‘highly organised campaign’ might even be better than the sort of challenge articulated by smallvice, for example.

We musn’t forget our geographic location too, and the influence of some very conservative religious majority. Religion, in this sense, becomes a national security threat. This is as far as I will go in terms of religious influence on the gay agenda. Other than this, I thank you for some very excellent points you brought up.

@344) la nausée on July 10th, 2009 9.39 pm,
We will then need to debate this ‘misconception’ you speak about and why the ‘misconception’ exists. It will bring us back to where we started.

@365) smallvice585 on July 12th, 2009 3.44 am,
The thread is still very much alive. You haven’t answered the many questions posted to you.

Hi Arix #366,

Militant atheists are figments of your imagination. Responding to your comments has to be a measured action that must not give legitimacy to your religious motivation. Moreover, your absurdity has achieved a new level – you wrote this: … you as a Militant Atheist, would deny the existence of Militant Atheists

I have debunked your market-fruit-vegetable analogy on religious meddling (see #105 to justify why unsolicited advisory is meddling). Entering the wet market and visiting the stallholders are conscious exercises of choice. Please stay out of non-believers’ affairs.

I really wonder who is playing the role of the oppressor. Initially, you advocate to deny LGBT the right to be themselves. Now, you advocate that heterosexuals should be denied the gender roles they have been subscribing too. Why can’t each person subscribe to his own ideal gender role? Where is the pluralism for gender roles?

How does religious institution set moral tone for non-believer? By offering the moral tone because this is a case of the might of an institution versus the conscience space of an individual non-believer. Unless requested for, all forms of religious advisory are meddling and crouches onto the individual’s freedom of conscience. There is no atheist misinformation, but despicable flowery rhetoric from the religious camp.

Arix #361-362,

Not exactly a seamless transition from “scientific facts” to “LGBT are ‘objective disorders’ stands apart from any claims that any is a ’sin’ in any religion.”

Besides the tricky problem of bridging “is” and “ought”, If the LGBT “objective disorder stands apart from any claims that any is a ’sin’ in any religion,” can you provide an example of a group that thinks the same way that is not affiliated to a religion?

Otherwise, that’s just one bald assertion after another?

P.S. Linking “scientific fact” and NLP is also pretty goofy.

Arix #342,

1) A strawman more accurately, is a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. It’s not an argument. Even if it is, I didn’t put up a Ted Haggard argument. I pointed him out to illustrate what you thought a heterosexual is, because quite a few posters thought your statement (and yourself) was duplicitous. As you clarified, I was spot on: You would consider TH a heterosexual after all. So there’s no misrepresentation, and consequently, no strawman, much less a perfect one. If you insist there is, do account for how I misrepresented you.

Hypocrital, cheating Christians is all very amusing but I am not interested in rabbit trails.

2) Besides ethics, science is silent on purpose too.

3) Me: The anti-gay camp attack it [Gay Gene] as though that’s all there is to the being gay is inborn argument (strawman).

You: “…the majority (the ‘moderates’) opposes the Gay-Gene Argument because they don’t believe that there is a Gay Gene. Their intention is to prove that homosexuality is a conscious or subconscious choice made by the person who claims to be a homosexual.”

How did I misrepresent the anti-gay camp? You just expanded on what I said, and I didn’t discount the expansion. Please explain in detail.

4) The Pink Lobby is making a positive claim: Homosexuality is of the same standing as heterosexuality. And so it is their job to prove that positive claim.

It is the role of convention to bow down to novelty only when novelty is decisively proved to be superior to convention.

In the case of the “whole scientific communities”, it is pertinent to ask if they made their conclusions based on genuine medical data, or if they simply capitulated to the demands of a vocal minority.

The 1973 APA decision was made on the basis of a vote. How scientific can a plebiscite be?

4)

There are really two burdens of proofs you are conflating here.

a) Colloquial usage of “burden of proof” which points at whose job is it without reference to default positions:

“It is the role of convention to bow down to novelty only when novelty is decisively proved to be superior to convention.”

That might or might not be the case here. But I am not interested in this rabbit trail.

b) Who takes on the burden of proof in regards to “standing”, homosexuals and heterosexuals?

I have already pointed out, again and again and again, that homosexuality is not of the same standing as heterosexuality is not substantiated in the first place. That’s a claim that has to be backed up before asserting “it is [the homosexuals’] job to prove that positive claim.”

What is it that you do not (or refuse) to understand? The default position for any claim should defer to “I don’t know” or the best available information currently, NOT folk wisdom or “the bible says…”

As for the APA decision, new studies/information came in, so they threw out the garbage. That’s how science works. You can look up the studies yourself or keep to the conspiracy theories, which by the way you also held for The Big Bang Theory. Do you have any real evidence of either conspiracy theory?

[continued]

6-7)

You are pointing at anecdotal evidence, which is antithetical to empirical evidence. What experiments have they conducted? And if they did (which I strongly doubt), what were the experimental conditions? Are they blinded? What efforts were taken to falsify their hypotheses? Do they release failure rates? Which peer-reviewed journals were their findings published in? Have their results been independently verified?

If the religious want to sit at the adult table and “talk science”, they have to abide by certain practices.

In any case, all that is really moot, change camps don’t represent research institutes (do they even pretend to be? Like the Discovery Institute?) and they won’t find any contradictory evidence, because, let’s be honest, their conclusions were pre-determined. It’s just like their premise, by the way. Science simply doesn’t work like that: anecdotal evidence sandwiched by supernatural premises and pre-determined conclusions.

There is actually decent evidence for the “choice” argument, divorced from religion, FYI.

It really depends on which Christian you talk to, doesn’t it? The bible is nothing if not flexi-user-friendly. Take Fred Phelps, a lovely character. The last I heard he condemned Sweden to hell legalizing homosexual marriage. There were also claims (from Christians) that homosexuals attract hurricanes. That one can actually be tested but I think we can agree that no proper scientist would bother.

9) That explains a lot. It’s all the rage to fudge religion and politics, natural bedfellows those two; for the love of telling others what to do.

10) There’s good evidence that Paulie might have suffered an epileptic fit (instead of seeing Jesus). A series of experiments were conducted which simulated epilepsy. Various participants saw various religious personalities/icons. (FYI, Dawkins registered squat.) A priest was used as control, and even when his brain readings flew off the charts, he vehemently denied seeing anything,

Maybe TSM was just spazzing out.

Arix, I totally support you!

When are we going to round up the left-handers for psychotherapy to convert and realign them into the proper right-handed majority?

I understand that left-handedness is caused by a variety of factors, both genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture). Although, it is my view that the environmental factors (esp. hand roles) play a larger role.

Therefore, if the environmental factors are changed, I believe that left-handedness can be eliminated.

My precise view is:

[the genetic factor]

It is scientific fact that identical twins have identical DNA, but there’s an estimation of about 20% of identical twins having different handedness. Thus, it can be seen that handedness is not caused entirely by genetic factors.

[the social (environmental) factor]

In Hinduism, the right hand must be used for all auspicious and respectful activity, including eating, giving, receiving, and worshipful offering.

In the Islamic and Arabic culture, one prefers using the left hand for tasks such as wiping oneself after using the bathroom and the right hand for eating so they can keep their level of hygiene high. Also Muslims believe that on the “day of judgment” your good deeds will be represented in a book and in your right hand and your bad deeds also in a book will be in your left hand, therefore whenever Muslims do something they must do it first with their right hand then their left, even with such small things as putting on a shirt, so that they are forever reminded about the “day of judgment”.

Applying more specifically to cultures where text is written left to right, writing either with a pen or a pencil in the right hand is definitely more favorable. This is because as a right handed person writes from left to right, part of the hand resting on the writing surface would be resting on plain, unused surface. In the case of left handed writers writing from left to right, their hand is much more likely to accidentally rest on the newly written text which may still be wet in the case of ink, and this would cause it to smudge and look unprofessional, and in some cases render the writing unusable and it would need to be re-written. This is one reason why right-handedness is encouraged when children learn to write.

A very good number of technological devices are made primarily for right-handed people; examples of everyday objects primarily designed for right-handed people include refrigerators, scissors, microwaves, cameras, can-openers, computer mice, and padded kitchen mittens (padded on one side only).

Musical instruments such as guitars are also set up for right-handed people, although one can usually find a similar, yet reversed shape to play in a left-handed way.

Military rifles designed to be shot only from the right shoulder have resulted in injuries from spent cartridge casings hitting left-handed users in the eye and head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hander#Right-handedness_in_society

Why is it accurate to call left-handedness an “objective disorder”? Because the body perceives itself to have a hand domination that is opposite to that of its physiology. This is the basis that is not erased by raising Red Herrings of “free choice”. Ambidexterity is also an “objective disorder” but somewhat less disorderly than left-handedness. People use exclusively their left hands are the most disorderly.

That left-handeness is an “objective disorder” stands apart from any claims that any is a “sin” in any religion.

[The Cure]

To me, I can posit 2 possible cures:-

(1) Some form of psychotherapy to re-align the handedness with its physiological identity. That is attempted in conversion therapy, but I don’t believe that Conversion Therapy has discovered the proper method yet;

(2) The abolition of hand roles. The conflict only exists because hand roles are still pervasive, even in otherwise ‘modern’ societies. And Fundamentalist Religion has a large part to play in this.

Hi sllim #371,

You wrote: … because quite a few posters thought your statement (and yourself) was duplicitous. As you clarified, I was spot on: You would consider TH a heterosexual after all.

What’s TH? Temasek Holdings? Haha..

smallvice #376,

Ted Haggard.

Here’s some unsolicited advice: you go into full swing way too early in the game. It doesn’t look warranted at all. By doing so, you are handing over the victim card on a platter.

Interesting Arix. But what made you conclude that homosexuality is more of an environmental than genetic phenomenon? In order to conclusively say that homosexuality is more environmental than genetic, you need to have a study that where you have a group of subjects with gay genes/built-in biological tendency, with one exposed to a homosexual-forming environment and another to a non-homosexual forming environment.

And even if you want to pursue an environmental arguement, you need to be aware of the fact that environmental causes to a phenomenon does not necessarily mean that when you change the environment, the phenomenon changes. One simple example is the environmental condition for the germination of a seed. When you move the seed to one environmental condition, it starts germinating and becomes a shoot. But lets say you move the shoot back to another unfavorable environment, do you expect the shoot to revert to a seed? No.
And if it is indeed shown that homosexuality works by such a mechanism and say it is brought about by certain environmental conditions (diet, psychology, social interaction, type of water you drink, etc etc) which led to the permanent imprinting of homosexual tendency, then reparative/conversion therapy will not apply.

I have one last comment with regards to reparative/conversion therapy. It is NOT scientific, and not what you call evidence-based medicine. Coming up with a therapy for a disorder (are we even sure that homosexuality is a disorder?) entails a full understanding of the exact mechanisms involved in the etiology and progression of the disease. But, the study of homosexuality is far from complete and we don’t even know the exact mechanics behind it. Which is why I think such talks of reparative therapies are premature. What if the mechanics leading to homosexuality is part and parcel of Mother Nature, and that such tendencies even exist in the animal kingdom. Yes, I am sure you can find instances of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

Arix, I see you have not commented regarding my #327.

From your post #6 and arguments subsequent to that, but prior to #189, you were arguing that homosexuals were inhibited from heterosexual activity/relationship, right?

But in your post #189 you said: “…my intention is to argue just that: homosexuals are NOT [emphasis mine] inhibited from heterosexual activity.”

Before I put a closure to this, I would like you to admit that [1] you were not aware of what you were saying or asserting, or [2] you were equivocating, wittingly or unwittingly, or [3] you were dishonest in arguing the way you did.

So, which of the three is the right one, Arix?

Kelvin (#379),

1) Because the conflict is caused by the social environment. The genetic factor would have little impact if not for the social factors that force it into a straitjacket.

2) True. But the case of a seed is a physiological one. Psychology is certainly more malleable than physiology. So theoretically, it should be easier to reverse homosexuality than to reverse germination.

Anyway, as a thought, it was possible for Michael Jackson to change his skin colour – which is supposed to be permanent too – so why should it not be possible to change sexuality?

3) Indeed, as you stated, the study of homosexuality is far from complete, therefore we shouldn’t be making any conclusions either way, but should be studying all possibilities equally and without discrimination. The problem is that studies of homosexuality is being held hostage by a vocal Pink Lobby fuelled by a group of Militant Atheists.

What usually makes people “realize” their non-heterosexuality (LGBT) is that they feel “uncomfortable” about something. And we do need to study more accurately why this “uncomfortable” exists; prematurely arrowing “prejudice” as the reason for this “discomfort” is inadequate. Prejudice only manifests itself after the coming-out-of-the-closet, but this discomfort exists before the revelation. The Pink-lobby rhetoric serves as a way to rationalize away the discomfort; to externalize it. Of course, the simplistic rationales (the famous parental-alienation) theories put forth by both the Fundamentalists and the Moderates don’t quite cut it either.

Arix: Again, I don’t think there is any study to prove that it is more of a psychological factor. Most would believe it is a combination of factors.

Secondly, I think it is too early to make a conclusion that homosexual psychology is “theoretically malleable”. At least from the medical standpoint, we are starting to understand homosexuality from the neurophysiological standpoint. And there are differences in the structure and physiological function of a homosexual brain. I would highlight the abstracts of two studies, both of whom are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract

Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation. We addressed this issue by studying hemispheric asymmetry and functional connectivity, two parameters that in previous publications have shown specific sex differences. Ninety subjects [25 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW), and 20 homosexual men (HoM) and women (HoW)] were investigated with magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres. Fifty of them also participated in PET measurements of cerebral blood flow, used for analyses of functional connections from the right and left amygdalae. HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. No cerebellar asymmetries were found. Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in HoW and HeM, on the other hand, from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate, in HeM and HoW with the caudate, putamen, and the prefrontal cortex. The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.abstract

The testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and the estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) are candidate compounds for human pheromones. AND is detected primarily in male sweat, whereas EST has been found in female urine. In a previous positron emission tomography study, we found that smelling AND and EST activated regions covering sexually dimorphic nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, and that this activation was differentiated with respect to sex and compound. In the present study, the pattern of activation induced by AND and EST was compared among homosexual men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. In contrast to heterosexual men, and in congruence with heterosexual women, homosexual men displayed hypothalamic activation in response to AND. Maximal activation was observed in the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus, which, according to animal studies, is highly involved in sexual behavior. As opposed to putative pheromones, common odors were processed similarly in all three groups of subjects and engaged only the olfactory brain (amygdala, piriform, orbitofrontal, and insular cortex). These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.

Both the studies show functional and physiological similarities between the homosexual men’s brains and a heterosexual women’s brains. If the above studies show that there is already structural and physiological differences between the homosexual and heterosexual brain, does it land weight to your arguement that homosexuality is theoretically malleable? No, in fact it is too premature to say.

Hi Arix #380,

You wrote: What usually makes people “realize” their non-heterosexuality (LGBT) is that they feel “uncomfortable” about something. And we do need to study more accurately why this “uncomfortable” exists;

What about the case people realising their non-homosexuality?

@Arix (#364)

1) Refer to JC (#249), he directly said “live and let live”. Also, S377A was passed by the British, not by our government, so be clear what “Collective” you are talking about.

Yes, but JC also said: “An adult has the right to decide what kind of lifestyle he/she chooses…. No one shld be nanny or act like a moral principle and impose others of what they think is gd and right for them.” He opposes 377A on the ground that everyone has a right to free conscience — exactly the same right which religious believers appeal to for their freedom to worship, I might add.

What I’m taking issue with are people who support 377A’s retention, and yet urge that we should “live and let live”. That’s hypocritical — we need a better justification for 377A than that.

As for the ‘Collective’, while 377A was passed by the British, that point is moot, since our elected representatives in Parliament have exhaustively debated its legitimacy and consciously decided to keep it. So the Collective (speaking through Parliament) has clearly endorsed 377A and what it stands for.

2) Passion is acceptable, in fact laudable, but it should not spill over into personal attacks. “Civil Debate” includes for me debates of any level of activity on points and ideas, and not on people.

Any open debate, especially on a controversial issue, is likely to include some personal attacks. That’s human nature. The issue then becomes who should bear the costs: should the speaker hold his/her tongue, or should the audience grow thicker hides? I’d argue that we should err on the side of the latter. A point of view is often not easily separable from its mode of presentation. If I’m a gay who’s pissed about what I think is discrimination against me, asking me to speak in hushed and moderate tones will also inhibit my ability to fully express my opinion; whatever I express is neutered, emasculated.

So the onus is the audience to tolerate some degree of offensive speech. Unless it amounts to one-to-one harassment, of course.

3) Hmm, I would say that Smallvice is harassing me on so many different threads.

Well, smallvice585’s attacks on you are repeated enough (one of the elements of harassment), but I doubt they cause you any significant emotional distress (another requisite element). Besides, there are reasonable steps you can take to avoid his attacks without disrupting your normal activities (ignore his posts, avoid visiting TOC, etc.). So no, probably not harassment.

Kelvin #381,

Nice. If I recall correctly, there is also correlation shown between the hormonal levels in the womb at a certain stage of pregnancy (when the sex of the baby is yet t be determined, I think) and the eventual sexual-orientation of the child.

I believe you already know this but it needs to be said that Arix’s arguments and conclusions are not based on science to begin with, however he/she might assert. If we strip away the inane inferences, shell-game arguments, and pseudo-science (religion in science’s clothing), he/she will still believe the same thing.

@Arix (#361, 362), I take these two posts to be a relatively complete summary of your scientific hypothesis about sexuality, and homosexuality in particular.

An awful lot turns on your claim that there exists a “genetic personality” or “physiological identity”, and that this somehow exists separately from the rest of our identity or personality which you suggest is socially-constructed and/or environmentally-determined Hence, it’s possible that there is a mismatch between between the 2 personalities (‘genetic’ and ‘psychological’). Where this is so, it’s easier to realign ‘psychological’ to ‘genetic’ rather than vice versa, since our ‘genetic’ identity is far more deeply rooted. So that to you is the function of reparative therapy.

The problem is that a distinct “genetic personality” is nonsensical. There is no ‘identity’ or ‘personality’ which is grounded in a person’s biological or reproductive features only. Rather, our physiology and sex are a genetically-determined aspect of a single but multifaceted personality: we can only understand this ‘genetic’ side of ourselves by interpreting it in relation to the other aspects of our identity and our social environment. Say I as a man am driven by my genes to aggressive/assertive behaviour (apologies for the simplification). I can only understand this drive for self-assertion in light of other aspects of my personality and social context.

This means there is no distinct and antecedently-formed “genetic personality” around which we must mould the rest of our identity. Rather, our physiology (sex, physical appearance, stamina, mental health, etc) is an aspect of a single, complex self that we’ve to try to shape as coherently as possible. The upshot is that there no such thing as an inherent psycho-genetic conflict, just an insufficiently integrated self. This means that there may well be well-adjusted homosexuals not needing any kind of ‘repair’ to live to their fullest potential. And there may be maladjusted homosexuals/heterosexuals too, just like there may be people chronically unhappy with their physical appearance.

#384 sllim

“I believe you already know this but it needs to be said that Arix’s arguments and conclusions are not based on science to begin with, however he/she might assert. If we strip away the inane inferences, shell-game arguments, and pseudo-science (religion in science’s clothing), he/she will still believe the same thing.”

That’s an insightful observation, sllim.

Maybe, that’s because Arix is only 21 years old [or so he/she claimed]; however, gender still unknown at this point.

But at 21 years a person is considered to be mature, physically at least. Intellectually? Arix has to be judged by his/her arguments and he/she has been found wanting on several occasions, for his assertions made in this forum.

corrigendum:

#386 “his assertions” should read as “his/her assertions”

@rwkc (#386), I think Arix made his sex quite plain in post #136. ;)

rwkc #386,

Thanks.

21, really? That’s interesting. I don’t know about intellectual maturity , he (good catch la nausee) scores abjectly low on the intellectual honesty scale, for me. Have I judged Arix outside of his arguments? Those already provide a buffet of material.

Out of curiousity, are you an atheist?

rwkc #387,

I also think Arix resorts to the “Gish gallop” at times.

“Named for creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish, the Gish gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised.”

Arix, don’t be put down by them.

Singapore needs people like you to rid us of homosexuals and left-handers. The normal, heterosexual right-handed majority will not stand for such nonsensical antics by these unnatural deviants.

rkwc (#380),

Sorry for not replying to #327. I am replying to posts from a number of people on each of 3 different threads. Sometimes I overlook 1 or 2 replies, or simply don’t have the time. (I reply from 10 pm to 4 am.)

Strictly speaking, none of the options you raised are absolutely correct, but [1] is the closest.

smallvice (#383),

Ask me that when such a case actually occurs.

la nausee (#384),

1) I am for the repeal of Section 377A on roughly the same grounds as JC, plus some others. (I contend that the State has no right to meddle in citizens’ affairs.) What I am arguing against is the legalization of same-sex marriage/civil union.

2-3) Okay, I accept your point here.

4) You can be passionate and argue loudly, but that does not need to include generalizing about a person’s character.

5-6) They are giving me emotional distress. You cannot see it, of course, since I am typing from behind my screen. But you can compare the texture of my recent posts to him against my posts to everyone else.

In fact, I felt sufficient distress to issue a complaint to the Editors.

No matter how thick the wall is, it will eventually break.

la nausee (#386),

1-2) “genetic personality” and “physiological identity” are terms I use to reference to 2 different constructs, so you have misread me here.

*Sigh* I am beginning to tire of having to make repeat explanations because people keep misunderstanding my posts, even when I laid everything out in detail. Between reiterating myself and responding to smallvice’s ad hominems, I scarcely have time to do anything else at night. Please try and understand me properly this time.

The “genetic personality” I alluded to has nothing to do with other biology or the reproductive system. And it is the result of a research in 1986. A serious psychological research, so this is definitely not “pseudo-science”.

If you prefer the word “Aspect”, fine, we can use that word. My argument is that there are genetic aspect clashes with social expectations. Genetic Factors and Environmental factors both play a role. But my view is that the environmental factors (i.e. gender roles) are the main culprits. This creates LGBT.

I hope that you can at least get this point.

3) Again, the “genetic personality” itself has nothing to do with physiology. It governs how the person thinks and feels, not how the person looks or is biologically structured.

I am going to break down my argument semantically for you:

There is a “genetic personality” that determines G1 and G2.

There is a gender role R expected by society.

G2 may or may not conflict with R.

If G2 conflicts with R, G1 may step in to resolve the conflict or strengthen the conflict.

When G1 strengthens a R-G2 conflict, LGBT results.

Do you see where you have gone wrong in the interpretation of my argument?

The psycho-genetic conflict is not internal; it is external-projected-onto-internal. (I am too tired to think of a better way to phrase it.)

Arix is either unwilling or unable to explain why left-handers should be treated any differently from homosexuals.

@Arix (#395), I did misread your use of the term “genetic personality”, and I apologize.

However, the criticisms I raised in post #385 apply with full force to the concept of “physiological identity”. That term is nonsensical. And you admit that the science you’ve cited in no way backs up any notion that we each have a “physiological identity”. The term implies that there is, besides our “psychological identity”, some other locus of self-understanding from which we can interpret the world. But that’s highly improbable. The fact that I have male genitalia, for example, is too small a peg from which a distinct ‘identity’ can be hung.

There being no “physiological identity”, there is nothing which a psychological identity needs to orient itself towards. The reverse is true: the fact that I am tall, have male genitalia, etc. are facts that may be interpreted and incorporated into our identity. Otherwise, these physiological facts are entirely inert, meaningless.

To return to your posts on “genetic personality” (#361, 362), I remain highly disturbed by your mechanistic and truncated account of history-cum-psychology-cum-biology. It’s entirely deserving of the label ‘pseudo-science’ (among others), not because it cites pseudo-science, but because it takes some actual science, but then makes all sorts of wild extrapolations. The result is this strange chimera which is half-fact and full-drivel.

Your pseudo-Marxist synopsis of modern European history is alarmingly simplistic. You never once specify what ‘Liberal’ and ‘Conservative’ mean in this context. Were the Enlightenment philosophers ‘liberal’? (And there were many: do you mean to lump the anti-clerical, polemical Voltaire with the considerably more measured Montesquieu?) What about English philosophers like Bentham, Locke and Mill, who were not nearly as fervent as their Continental brethren? And what’s ‘Conservative’ — Hobbes, Burkes or the Catholic Church? Perhaps all three, but they were conservative in quite different ways. And how is free-market ideology (which the bourgeoisie were especially attached to during the Industrial Revolution) necessarily related to either ‘Liberal’ or ‘Conservative’ sides? And what about plain ol’ nationalism and/or irredentism (not ‘conservatism’), which was in full bloom during this era?

Next, you make this gi-normous leap: “Individualism and Conservatism/Conformism are ideological trends. Therefore, they would be reflected as components of the genetic personalities.” Somehow ideological trends (derived from a grade-school level historical survey) are traced to features embedded in the human genotype.

Lastly, you contort the labels ‘Individualism’ and ‘Conservatism’ once more. Now, they refer instead to a person’s tendency to accept or reject his/her social roles… which has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. And the outcome is a useless tautology: if I have a tendency towards a gender role R, but I also have an opposite tendency, then I may or may not accept gender role R. The model offers us no insight into the nature/causes of such a tendency. When, for example, does Individualism manifest itself as a disregard for one’s gender role, as opposed to other social roles? Mightn’t my Individualism lead me to conform to my gender role even if I have what you call an ‘opposite sex-gender’ tendency? Society imposes a norm that values physical grooming. Being an ‘Individualist’, I reject that, and so I act more ‘masculine’, hence conforming more to my gender role.

Arix, one tip for you.

Don’t attempt to reply to every post or every comment as soon as they are published. This is something I learned from previous exchanges I was caught up in, right here in TOC.

Take your time, let as many posts appear before crafting your reply. Align your thoughts and views to your reply. Ask lots of questions to get your opponents to use some of their time to work on them. Press them for answers. Do not let them deviate. Should they deviate, pull them back to give you the answers to your questions before tacking new grounds.

If you are going to post replies all over the thread (sometimes multiple threads), you will not only get lost in your own thoughts but also begin to contradict yourself when fatigue sets in. You are but only one but they are many.

Seth @ 375 – great job!

The Indian (New Delhi) court’s decimalization of 377A has all to do with the rising statistics of HIV/AIDS infection in the country (TIME July 20).

Somehow, the link between being gay and HIV transmission is the reason for suggesting to Indian’s Supreme Court to repeal 377A throughout the country. And if there is going to be a successful outcome, it will not be because the gays have finally found their rights on equal footing with the rest of society, but because of the need to address the HIV/AIDS issue by the government – which is a major problem there.

If this is the case, then there is nothing for the gays here to celebrate over. It is also wrong for AA to brand Singapore a fool.

#399 gemami

“The Indian (New Delhi) court’s decimalization of 377A has all to do with the rising statistics of HIV/AIDS infection in the country (TIME July 20).

Somehow, the link between being gay and HIV transmission is the reason for suggesting to Indian’s Supreme Court to repeal 377A throughout the country. And if there is going to be a successful outcome, it will not be because the gays have finally found their rights on equal footing with the rest of society, but because of the need to address the HIV/AIDS issue by the government – which is a major problem there…”

Am I correct in inferring that you are saying, in the context of these two paragraphs, that:

[1] homosexuality is linked to the increased level of incidence of HIV/AIDS infection in India?
[2] yet, the Indian [New Delhi] court “decimalized” section “377A” [of the Indian Penal Code].

Am I right to say that what was overturned was only part of section of 377 [NOT 377A] and the overturning of this area of the section means that it is no longer criminal for adults to engage in consensual homosexual activities. However, the judgement keeps intact the provisions of Section 377 insofar as it applies to non-consensual non-vaginal intercourse and intercourse with minors.

If homosexuality has led to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS, why did the New Delhi court [High Court] decriminalize homosexuality between consenting adults?

The answer, it seems, can be found in these passages [excerpted from Wikipedia]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code

The essence of the section goes against the fundamental right of human citizens, stated the high court while striking it down. In a 105-page judgement, a bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.
The two judge bench went on to hold that:
“ If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes ..
Where society can display inclusiveness and understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of dignity and non-discrimination. This was the ’spirit behind the Resolution’ of which Nehru spoke so passionately. In our view, Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconceptions of who the LGBTs are. It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster the dignity of every individual.[18]

The Indian Supreme Court may concur with the judgment of the Indian High Court about upholding equality before the law. And if section 377 is repealed throughout India on this basis, it is not because of HIV/AIDS but about the equality of every citizen before the law, right?

Hence your #399 is clearly a projection of several inaccuracies, Yes/No?

#389 & #390,

sllim, you are welcome.

In the article titled: “Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University” someone [#52] posed this question to Arix: “Look Arix, how old are you exactly, 15?” and Arix responded [#73]: “I am 21, incidentally.”

One way of judging Arix’s intellect is through analyzing his assertions or arguments. At 21 yrs a person can still be highly mentally mature, but such a person would be an exception rather than the norm.

I do not agree with Arix’s accusation of smallvice585 of resorting to ad hominem. I have read most if not all of smallvice585’s posts and I have not detected any ad hominem in them. I would like Arix to pinpoint smallvice585’s message[s] that Arix perceived as ad hominem, and we can assist by reevaluating whether Arix is correct.

Yes, I am an atheist peppered with a small dose of agnosticism.

And, yes, Arix did make known his gender in #136.

#392

Arix, tks for the feedback.

rwkc on July 13th, 2009 3.32 pm:

#1 & #2: I suggest nothing. This is the deduction made by the TIME writer, using HIV/AIDS as the underlying reason why there is a need to decriminalize some aspects of 377. I picked it up to show that even with societies that are supposedly more liberal than Singapore, the perception that HIV/AIDS is linked to gays is just as rampant, if not more rampant than our more conservative society.

And to think that so many have hailed such a breakthrough when in actual fact, it is for health reasons that the New Delhi court had allowed for this decriminalization – not because of the perceived equal rights for gays.

Your lengthy text is nothing but an essential point of argument anyone would make to state their position. It now depends on the Indian Supreme Court to determine if such an argument has any merit to have the entire 377 decriminalized – very much like Singapore and the raging debate we are seeing here and elsewhere.

The Indian Supreme Court agreeing with certain aspects of this argument cannot be taken to mean full acceptance of the argument, and if it had suggested any upholding of equality, it must mean those aspects of equality that benefits the governance of the people, and the people as a whole.

In this sense, for the greater good of the Indian population, equality is therefore the right, in general, of every citizen before the law,. It’s the same with Singapore.

403) gemami on July 13th, 2009 4.44 pm

The problem with that ‘theory’ (regardless of if it is yours or TIME’s writer) is that India’s Court and govt seemed to be separate entities (not like Singapore’s).

If it was a health reason, isn’t it more likely that the Decision to decriminalized 377 would have come from the govt, rather than the Court?

Seth (#397),

I have at least explained that 5 times already. I do not wish to be explaining that for the sixth time!

rwkc (#402),

3) Very simple. Every single of Smallvice’s posts where he calls me either a Christian Fundamentalist or a Christian Fanatic or a Christian heretic (as if he understands what that means), is an ad hominem, because it totally misrepresents my actual position, and paints me in a monolithic colour.

I talked with Andrew, and he agreed that Smallvice was throwing personal attacks on me. If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.

@gemami (#399, #403)

You’re both right and wrong here.

The essence of the Delhi High Court’s decision (here, if you’re interested) was rights-based, rather than invoking utilitarian calculations of what’s in the common good, such as whether s. 377 is for or against public health, for example. The Court ‘read down’ 377 only because it considered the government’s argument that 377 protected public health to be an unpersuasive reason for restricting homosexuals’ rights; it did not really deal with the obverse question of how the abolition of 377 might protect public health, by e.g. allowing for better solutions against HIV/AIDS.

But I find your statement that the Court’s decision is “nothing for gays to celebrate over” puzzling. Sure, it acknowledges the HIV/AIDS problem, but I’m sure the GLBT community were already fully conscious of that. Their issue was that the government was not helping, but actively impeding, efforts to resolve that problem. And here the discrimination-based argument dovetails with the public health one: GLBT’s health issues are not being adequately addressed because 377/377A licenses discrimination against them. And if the Court’s decision allows the HIV/AIDS problem to be dealt with more effectively, why isn’t that cause for celebration?

And it bears noting also that Alex Au himself (and also Action for AIDS Singapore) has highlighted the HIV/AIDS problem as a reason for repealing 377A.

@Arix (#406), just to split hairs, personal attacks do not strictly speaking equate to ad hominem arguments.

From Wikipedia:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#In_logic

#403 gemami

“And to think that so many have hailed such a breakthrough when in actual fact, it is for health reasons that the New Delhi court had allowed for this decriminalization – not because of the perceived equal rights for gays.”

Have you read the written judgement of the New Delhi court? The reason for decriminalizing is clearly stated in the excerpt I gave in #400 and it was all about equality before the law.

Your post #399 consists basically of three paragraphs.

You did not use parenthesis [inverted commas, for example] for the first sentence so anyone reading your post cannot be sure whether you were quoting Time verbatim or merely paraphrasing from Time.

But since you closed off the first sentence with “(TIME July 20)”, it can be assumed that what you said subsequently [second and third para] has nothing to do with Time. However, you were still referring to 377A when it was 377 that was before the New Delhi court. You were following Time unwittingly but erroneously.

Please produce an extract from the written judgement of the New Delhi court that says that it is for health reasons that it repealed part of section 377. Otherwise, please refrain from imputing a reason for the repeal which from the facts of the case appears irrelevant or non-existent.

la nausée #408,

Would this qualify as an ad hominem or just the run-of-the-mill non sequitor?

Arix: “If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”

#406

“If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”

Arix, let’s analyze this argument of yours.

In my #401 I say: “I have read most if not all of smallvice585’s posts and I have not detected any ad hominem in them. I would like Arix to pinpoint smallvice585’s message[s] that Arix perceived as ad hominem, and we can assist by reevaluating whether Arix is correct.”

Arix, please read these sentences carefully; have I said that I have read all of the messages posted by smallvice585? The obvious answer is a resounding NO, right?

Could I have missed those posts that were tinted with ad hominem? The answer must be Yes, right?

So, how could you say “If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”?

If I didn’t see the personal attacks. It could mean that I didn’t come across them. But even if I did see them I might have interpreted them as non ad hominem, from my subjective viewpoint, right?

Thus the conclusion that I am overly pro-gay is a non-sequitur, would you agree?

Arix, please extract smallvice585’s messages [and post ref no] wherein smallvice585 calls you “a Christian Fundamentalist” or “a Christian Fanatic” or “a Christian heretic”.

You claim you talked with Andrew and he agreed that that “Smallvice was throwing personal attacks on you”.

Let us have the evidence, Arix – show us the messages.

rwkc (#412),

4) You said you read most, and indeed most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems.

5) Yes, you could have missed them. But there is more than 1 reason why you could have missed them.

6-7) I know that I am the only one who is actually arguing a case against homosexuality here. Apart from buda, who occasionally intervenes in the debate to support my general points, there really isn’t any other person supporting me. (I don’t count people like interested as supporters.)

Unfortunately, the words “bigot” and “Fundamentalist” are used so often in a LGBT Rights debate that people sort of forget that these are terms of personal attack as well. Therefore, I stand by my comment. I would not rule it out that your pro-gay position makes you filter out any personal attacks made on a person of the so-called “anti-gay” position (which is a slight, but tolerable, misnomer) as something “normal” and “acceptable”.

8) Evidence?

#248: “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.”

That is one.

#113 (TLA course thread): “Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”

that is another.

There is 2 for starters. And I have made exact quotes, not paraphrased.

9) The messages are in SMS. Andrew posted his reply in #268 (still trying to be friendly) and emailed me that he had a talk with smallvice (who is one of TOC’s sub-editors).

la nausee (#409),

Thanks for clarifying the meaning of “Ad Hominem”.

Why don’t you check the India Thread #113 and explain why that isn’t a Ad Hominem? For one, it is not even related to any arguments about the topic of the thread – homosexuality.

@Arix (#413), I presume you’re referring to the comment which beings:

Dear Christians and Muslims,

Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread: …

Some of smallvice585’s comments are “not the model of calm deliberation”, as WKS would say. And to the extent that his aggressive tone may chase you off these threads, we’d be left the poorer, because it’s mainly your contributions which have been the focal point of most of the debate.

However, I would also urge you to show some fortitude dealing with offensive remarks, or alternatively, ‘avert your eyes’ (a reasonable step in these circumstances). In any robust debate, it’s inevitable that people will get offended, but that shouldn’t dictate the parameters of our conversation. Some of what you’ve said in this thread is offensive to some GLBTs and to some atheists, for example. But as I said, the onus is on the audience to grow thicker skin, not for the speaker to hold his/her tongue.

Lastly, might one not characterize smallvice585’s comment (extracted above) as precisely the sort of ‘disclaimer’ you wished to append to Alex Au’s article? :P

la nausee (#398),

1) Apology accepted. I like talking with you; you are sensible, unlike a certain smallvice.

2) You can catch me for clumsy terminology again. “physiological identity” as used in context really refers to “the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”.

4) In #362, I type “Conservatism/Conformism” to indicate that in my writing context, Conservatism is equalized with Conformism. To use your examples:-

If this guy is a Conformist, then he will adapt to like vanilla ice-cream. If this guy is an Individualist, then he will think of himself as a girl. This is independent of whether he chooses to favour the free market or endorse absolute monarchy. This is a personality trait, not a political ideology.

405) Arix on July 13th, 2009 5.33 pm
Seth (#397),
I have at least explained that 5 times already. I do not wish to be explaining that for the sixth time!

Really? I have not yet seen you addressing rebuttals to #341.

Why the bias? Let the normal right-handed, heterosexual majority discriminate against deviants like homosexuals and left-handers alike.

@Arix (#415):

On the issue of “physiological identity”, thanks for clarifying that you meant ““the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”. I do not deny that our bodies, or individual body parts, have specific evolved ‘functions’ which go towards ensuring the human species’ survival.

I do deny that such functions have any inherent relation to our psychological identity and self-understanding. Traits like skin colour, height, reproductive organs, hair curliness, hand preference etc. are meaningless and inert, unless interpreted by our conscious self. And each trait may or may not play a role in our psychological identity (hair curliness is irrelevant for most people), and is liable to be interpreted in different ways (some regard skin colour as irrelevant, others not so). As such, I fundamentally disagree with your ‘Bridge’/'Fence’ analysis, because it suggests a connection between our psyche and our evolved reproductive functions is necessary for any complete self-understanding.

Next, on the Individualist/Conformist divide. Any theory is to some extent a simplification of reality, because it’s only through models and representations that reality makes sense to us. Nevertheless, we must be wary of over-simplification. I think you’re verging on over-simplification:

(1) Even along the Individualist/Conformist axis alone, there is a continuum of ‘Individualists’ and ‘Conformists’. Voltaire was more ‘Individualist’ than Locke, who was more ‘Individualist’ than Hobbes.

(2) More importantly, a single person or class of persons is usually scattered across the whole continuum, rather than fixed on a single point. The Enlightenment philosophers were also in one sense ‘Conformist’, because they were conforming to the intellectual spirit of their age, as well as to the fashionable beliefs of their social class (both nobility and bourgeois). Free market can be ‘Conformist’ too, as seen by how the U.S. Republicans support the tyranny of Big Business, which largely dictates power relations in American society today. Nationalism can be ‘Individualist’, when you’re talking about a separationist ethnic/religious minority within a State.

On to personality traits. I’m not sure how this fits in with the rest of your thesis, or with your recommendation of reparative theory. After all, you also say that these personality traits are hardwired in our genes, so we can’t change those, can we? Unless you mean some form of reverse psychology: e.g., somehow persuade the ‘opposite sex’-tending Individualist to think that it’s cool to stick to traditional gender roles…

Also, you’ve only referred to 2 personality traits. Throw in other traits which interact with gender roles in different ways, and you get an extremely complex portrait of the human psyche that will frustrate any attempt to ‘tweak’ people through counselling and therapy. To borrow from 16PF: if you’re high in ‘Dominance’, you may tend towards the ‘Masculine’ gender role; if you’re high in ‘Warmth’ (easygoing) or ‘Sensitivity’, you may tend towards the ‘Feminine’ gender role; if you’re low in ‘Vigilance’, you may be more suggestible to what people in your immediate environment tell you are proper gender roles; and so on.

Seth (#417),

It is pointless talking to a satire wall, but I shall try anyway.

Handedness is only biological; homosexuality is both biological and psychological.

Wow, who made you the absolute authority on such matters?

la nausee (#418),

Thanks for your swift reply.

1) okay.

2) Ah, now I see that you have misinterpreted the Bridge/Fence aspect. The Bridge/Fence is emotional/psychological, not structural. It is a semantic disjunct between interpretation and reality.

In other words, the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level. It is a rationalization, that then becomes conditioned when it is repeated several times.

The relation is not inherent, but extrinsic.

To analogize, take a software program:-

function f(){
if(s==m) do_m1
}

now changes to

function f(){
if (s==f) do_m1
}

the condition changes, but the task remains the same. (i.e. the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.)

(to be con-d)

Hi la nausée #417,

Why are you giving Arix’s pseudo-science legitimacy by engaging it?

Arix is a follower of American Mystic Ken Wilber’s Theory of Everything (ToE).

I am sure you have engaged Arix’s understanding of ToE on the discussion of integralism.

Hi la nausée ,

Thanks for the link. I stand corrected, insofar as suggesting that it was for health reasons that 377 was decriminalized by the Delhi Court.

I admit I have not been able to read all the 205 pages of the written judgement but glancing through it, it gives the impression that the link between HIV/AIDS and gay is one factor that had prevented the decriminalization of 377.

However, taking this outside of the judgement settings, it cannot be helped that the general perception (or misperception, as the gays would have it) is that there is a link between the two. This is why the issue was painstakingly deliberated upon during the judgement.

Once again, thanks for the lesson. It is arguments like yours that wins the debate. This is something I hope we can all learn from, instead of useless jibes and meaningless self-centered opinions.

Hi Arix,

There is no need for you to provide any evidence to the attacks your are being subjected to by smallvice. Those of us who have been in TOC long enough knows very well that smallvice is one very anti-Christian fanatic.

Having said that, it can also be a good thing, only if one cultivate the skill to read only those comments from him that make any sense. Other than that, ignoring them would be the best and wisest option.

It is important to be civil in any debate because we cannot just jump to the conclusion that we have hit upon the truth in any matter. The relationship between thought and statements on the one hand and the thing and object on the other is frought with difficulties because belief and statement a lot of times don’t correspond to the actual state of affairs. And, also what sometimes we think is the truth is actually just a ‘construct’ which comes about through social processes which are shaped through power struggles within a community. And when we cling on tightly to these ‘half-truths’ and we combine it with our ego/pride thats where we tend to lash-out at people who hold the opposing views.

Handedness is only biological; homosexuality is both biological and psychological.

The ludicrous basis that homosexuals must be discriminated against because it’s both biological and psychological notwithstanding, are left-handers born with only with left hands? If so then it is clearly a pure biological condition. However, nearly all left-handers are born with a set of healthy right and left hands, but yet we observe a significant minority of people using their left hands dominantly, and yet a even smaller number of people who are able to use both hands dominantly.

This is analogous to sexuality, whereby the majority are heterosexual, and we have a significant minority who are homosexual and bisexual.

Till this date it remains murky to why some people are left-handers, and why some people are homosexuals. To be so sure that one condition is purely biological while the other is both biological and psychological takes a certain kind of arrogance. What facts are there to back these claims?

And even if so, why should it matter what is psychological or biological? Religion is purely psychological. Shall we postulate ways to cure the religious now?

It’s a rich tinge of hypocrisy when Arix, a left-handed minority himself, discriminates against homosexuals, and tries to come out with ways to cure something he has none the slightest idea about. Shall we, the right-handed majority, come up with ways to cure you of your left-handedness?

Arix,

Should I be expecting a response to 371,372?

the government needs you people! you guys are fighters… whichever side you’re on. and i would love to see this played out in the parliament.. it’s so much more interesting and engaging.

all you get now on television is some MP fast asleep while the other’s talking.

Arix

Whether it is psychological or biological….it still does not justify discrimination. Adult/ human has free will. We are allow to make choices. If I chose to be single all my life, if I chose to be gay, If I chose to be straight, it is my life….It has nothing to do with you, state and God. PERIOD. No amt of verbal intercourse will swing otherwise. Can I ask u to chose this girl to marry and not that one because I think God says so? Of course if u are ’silly’ enough, u will do it. But let me tell u this, life is too short. Why short change urself over sthing u cannot prove (Existence of God). And whatever it is, u only live once. And u r too young to limit ur life this way.

@Arix (#420),

You say: “the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level.”

The implicit assumption here is that there is some ‘pre-interpretive’ (sub-conscious) understanding of what the person’s sex is, which conflicts with the brain’s interpretation and thus produces the “cognitive dissonance”. My contention is that a person’s sex has no inherent meaning at all, so that a male who believes himself to be female would not necessarily have any form of inner psychological conflict. The conflict usually arises because his interpretation clashes with social norms around him.

Also, I think your programming analogy is wrong, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the second function be:
function f(){
if (s==m) do_f1
}

In any case, the mechanistic causal link you seek to draw between sexual identity and sexual attraction is dubious (you say that because of the reversed sexual identity, “the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.”) If there is anything like a causal link, it seems to flow the other way, i.e. a person is first attracted/repelled on a sexual level to one or the other sex (or both), and after several iterations, this feeds back into his or her sexual identity.

The even better account is that sexual identity and sexual attraction have no necessary connection at all, i.e. each develop separately, and a person has to try to reconcile them (especially at society’s behest). This seems to capture reality far more accurately than your model: gays and lesbians often report a time growing up when they struggle with, e.g. feeling entirely male (with predominantly male traits such as competitiveness, physicality, self-motivation, emphasis on logic, less attention to grooming, etc.) and yet being attracted to other males (contrary to expected gender roles). This indicates that sexual attraction is a free-standing component of the human psyche, and that the linkage between sex and sexual attraction is made by society.

#406 & #412 Arix

“Every single of Smallvice’s posts where he calls me either a Christian Fundamentalist or a Christian Fanatic or a Christian heretic (as if he understands what that means), is an ad hominem, because it totally misrepresents my actual position, and paints me in a monolithic colour” [#406].

I have tried scouring the messages posted by smallvice in this thread for evidence of ad hominem against you and the only piece of evidence, provided we can all agree it is indeed ad hominem, is the line you quoted “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.” [#248]. I cannot deny that the person referred to is you but I am skeptical as to whether saying someone is infected with fanaticism amounts to an ad hominem or can be considered derogatory. I would like to hear the views of the others.

In none of the other posts initiated by smallvice in this thread have I found anything that can be termed as ad hominem. If I am correct, smallvice initiated 35 messages [taking #421 as his last] of which 10 were addressed to you directly. And all the ones addressed to you were couched in very civil language.

Thus your assertion “…most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems” {#412] is completely baseless and I would challenge you to read through all the posts initiated by smallvice and come up with something of substance to support your assertion, for all of us to see. Otherwise, you were just asserting a falsehood.

In post #113 under the TLA thread, smallvice said:

“Dear Christians and Muslims,

Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread:

(1) I believe that all religions – including Christianity – should aim back towards First Religion;

(2) I believe that the role of the Pope and Curia in the Roman Catholic Church should be re-evaluated and re-examined;

(5) I believe that there should be talks of integrating the Koran into the Bible;

(7) I believe that The Church and other religious groups need to be open to re-examination of their own social-administrative structures.

Please pause and think for a while – Who are your real enemies? Atheists defending minority rights? Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”

Again, it is debatable whether smallvice was guilty of ad hominem when he referred to you as a religious heretic for making known your beliefs as expounded in (1), (2), (5) and (7) above which, coming as it were from someone who professed to be a Catholic, can be construed as heretical.

In posts #244 and #366 you accused smallvice of being a Militant Atheist. In #115 you accused sllim and smallvice of being sophists. Would you say you were not guilty of ad hominem yourself?

You have also accused smallvice of “poisoning the well.” Can you recall the many occasions when you were poisoning the well yourself?