Excerpts from Yawning Bread.
Singapore’s Penal Code is based on India’s. We too used to have a Section 377 that criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which like India’s applied to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but this was repealed in 2007.
However Singapore has an additional Section of the Penal Code, known as Section 377A which specifically targets gay men, criminalising “gross indecency between two males”. The government deliberately let 377A stand in 2007, even when they repealed Section 377. Explaining why, the Singapore government said they wanted to decriminalise oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, but keep it a criminal offence between gay men. Society was still conservative (i.e. many people didn’t know a damn thing about homosexuality and wanted their prejudices enshrined in law), the government said.
In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.
Read the full article here.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
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?