Today the Straits Times has a shocking report about a crime committed by a gay man against some young boys: May 24, 2007Haha. Okay, I lied. This incident never happened. The above article never appeared in the Straits Times. Or rather, the genuine version of the article is as follows:
Three friends of gay man jailed for aiding sex crime
They persuaded their sons to have sex with the gay man
By Elena Chong
THREE men who persuaded their own sons to have sex with their 46-year-old male friend were jailed yesterday, bringing to a close one of Singapore's most shocking sex abuse cases in recent years.
ST May 24, 2007What's my point? Well, you know that Lee Kuan Yew recently spoke about decriminalising homosexuality. Since then, I've been hearing many silly arguments by many silly Singaporeans on why homosexuality should not be decriminalised.
Three wives of rapist-dad jailed for aiding incest
They persuaded daughters to have sex with their polygamous husband
By Elena Chong
THREE women who persuaded their own daughters to have sex with their 46-year-old polygamous husband were jailed yesterday, bringing to a close one of Singapore's most shocking sex abuse cases in recent years.
One remarkably silly argument that I keep hearing is that if homosexuality were decriminalised, society would become a more dangerous place and gays would go around raping people.
A woman even wrote on http://reach.gov.sg that if homosexuality were decriminalised, she wouldn't want to ever have any children (because she wouldn't want her children to live in such a dangerous world).
Foolish woman. Your time would be better spent guarding yourself against lecherous straight men. Or warning your daughters about them. Heterosexual crimes are far, far, faaaaar more common than homosexual ones.
And anyway, the fact that sex crimes do occur is not a good reason for criminalising private consensual sex between adults. Whether they're gay OR straight.
Can you imagine it? Heterosexuality being criminalised, because a man raped his daughters?
191 comments:
So many irrational fears.
I would like left-handedness to be a crime because I think it's weird.
I would like brown-eyed persons to be put into jail because only blue eyes are acceptable here.
I would like all Jews to be put into concentration camps because, hey, I think they're evil, and I'm right. We'll gas them all. (Hitler)
I would like to deny gays equality because, hey, I think they're evil, and I'm right. We'll make them all criminals. (Idiots)
This is what happens when we suppress all talk about sex. People start having superstitious opinions.
In fact, I don't support gayness. But I understand that a gay man need not be a hypersexed man. To ask someone about his or her sexual preference is not a question about how often he or her performs that activity, or about how often he or her WANTS to perform that activity.
You have to actually reach this level of understanding before we can argue sensibly for or against homosexuality. Like I said, I am againat it, and I think I have sound reasons for being against it.
It would be an error to associate my position with the reasons based upon fear and susperstition.
The way people argue against homosexuality, you would conclude that there is a dearth of critical thinking in Singapore. No wonder some people think we are an infantile nation.
As usual Mr Wang you throw in a straw man and beat him up. Feels good doesn't it? Homosexuality is a deviant act. And frankly I find a lot of homosexuals disgusting. They claim they aren't obsessed with sex. But check out their Gay Pride parades. Its totally bizarre. You can also check out the men's toilets at Orchard Road's California Gym.
Would it surprise you that AIDS is a disease largely spread by gays?
http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/10/12/1
http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=gay+man+jailed+aids&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
Mr Wang this is really in bad taste! I know you are not getting the hits that you are supposed too, bc someone out there is out to bury you permanently. Yes, the word is out. I shant mention who they are except it starts with "B" and ends with "D." And they are serious this time.
However resorting to cheap sensationalism at the expense of gays is simply downright digusting and cheap, pls free to censor this.
This is what I fear most about these anti-gay people. To achieve their aim, they are quite willing to spread misinformation, even about public health issues like AIDS.
This is very frightening, because AIDS is a public health issue, where we need to raise the level of public awareness and education, NOT spread misinformation.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE GAY TO GET AIDS. Please note.
Anyway, the real details are on the Ministry of Health's website:
http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/statistics.aspx?id=246#table1
As you can see, heterosexuals are overwhelmingly the biggest group of HIV-positive people in Singapore. If you look at the data, you see that the most typical profile is:
male Chinese unmarried heterosexual, aged between 30 - 50.
Action for AIDS has prviously described the typical AIDS victim in Singapore as a lowly-educated male who frequents prostitutes in Geylang.
As with many others, you can simply flip the terms homosexuality into heterosexuality to discover the absurdity, for example:
As usual anon you throw in a straw man and beat him up. Feels good doesn't it? Heterosexuality is a deviant act. And frankly I find a lot of heterosexuals disgusting. They claim they aren't obsessed with sex. But check out Geylang. Its totally bizarre. You can also check out Orchard Towers.
Maybe the real difference here is that prostitution is legal but homosexual acts between consenting adults are not?
Next, regarding AIDs, I quote:
>>Sub-Saharan Africa has just over 10 per cent of the world's population but it has 64 per cent of the world's HIV cases.
>>Women represent 59 per cent of the infected population.
>>Almost 9 in 10 children with HIV are living in Sub-Saharan Africa.
>>Aids is increasingly a disease of young women in the continent. Young women aged 15 to 25 are at least three times more likely to become infected than men in the same age group.
So to stem the HIV problem, African governments should criminalize heterosexual sex. (There was a letter recently that pointed this out, I can't remember where I read it)
But, I have to agree that the title of the post is a tad sensationalist.
I wasn't using "cheap sensationalism". I think my post is quite brilliant, actually.
Most arguments against homosexuality are flawed because they could easily be applied to heterosexuality as well. That's what my post demonstrates.
Further example - a reader alluded to gay parades, sex acts in toilets etc. Once again, the argument is flawed because the same could be said abt heterosexuality. No need to even mention Patpong, Amsterdam, Batam, Bintan etc, right here in Singapore we have our own Orchard Yowers, Geylang, Desker Road etc.
Sorry - who's "B" and "D"?
To Anon 12:35pm
Have you seen Orchard Towers, Geylang, Little India red light areas? I find heterosexual people so disgusting. All they can do is think of sex.
Sounds similar isnt it?
I think about sex all the time. I think I'm pretty normal.
Even if AIDS were a predominantly gay disease (which it is not), that wouldn't justify its criminalisation.
Smoking kills a lot more people than AIDS, yet no one talks about locking up smokers in prison for life.
Abt LKY's recent statements on homosexuality .... izzit it true that there have been studies in USA that show that for twins i.e. identical DNA, one twin may be homosexual and the other may not be.
I read your previous thread about LKY on homosexuality' with great interest. Seeing that you've reopened the topic, I'm sure you're opening the thread to a whole flood of bigots with laughably absurd arguments again.
While Mr. Wang's issue here is about whether homosexual acts should be criminalised the way it now (still) is, I'm sure that there'll be a certain camp here that argues for such criminalisation based on the fact that gay = personal choice = deviant act and hence = should be criminalised.
With that in mind I'd like to point readers to this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml
- Gabe
People find homosexual sex abuse to be shocking because it is a relatively new kind of immoral act, as compared to heterosexuality, which has been already been around for a long time.
Therefore people oppose new types of immorality because they don't adapt well to have new types of immorality appearing.
Society doesn't care whether gay sexual misuse is any more right or wrong than straight sexual misuse.
It is not exactly logical to compare the number of aids cases between straight and gay people. The majority of society is mostly straight people while a small minority of society is gay. So the number of aids cases would not surprisingly fall within straight people.
However, gay people are more promiscuous than straight people. I'm sure many people would agree with this.
And the government feels that the number of aids cases for the minority gays are overwhelming for their small population, due to their sexual promiscuity.
People are still dealing with the problem of straight sexual promiscuity, such as youths who campaign for abstinence. Until the present problems have been dealt with, I don't think any society would allow new types of immorality come into place without feeling some sort of disgust.
This is why the government has in place the penal code, to prevent such "new" types of immorality such as homosexuality from spreading its roots in society.
While society is dealing with the old problems of straight immorality, it does not wish new types of immorality to take root. People can forget about gay equality.
It is no point comparing straight and gay immorality because one is old sexual misuse and the other is new type of sexual misuse, and people don't want new problems of sexual misuse.
There is no logic in comparing straight and gay immorality and demanding equal rights because one is old and the other is very new.
There is this caution that if people just accept and allow any new types of immorality into society, more new types of immorality will seep in, regardless of what they are. Gay crimes are shocking very simply because they are relatively new.
Please absorb this: The penal code is all about handling new types of immorality.
Mr Wang, for al your self-proclaimed high IQ intelligence, you are not being very bright and possess good "critical thinking" to already realise what I have explained. This is the countless time I have explained the penal code in relation to sociology and psychology.
As a conservative Christian, I think it is a mistake to decriminalise homosexuality. It sends the wrong signals to our young. Homosexuality increases the risk for AIDS and lowers our birthrate. God hates all that.
But that's not enough. We need to send out the right signals to our young.
Yes, we should criminalise adultery. God hates adulterous sinners. Having multiple sex partners is the leading cause of all STDs, AIDS included. And these days, who commit adultery to have children? Adultery is evil. If we do not send the right signals to our young people, they will think it is okay to screw around! Our society will collapse! Singapore will go into recession, and the terrorists will attack!
So what if Jesus saved an adulterous woman from stoning? Jesus said nothing about gays and yet we still brilliantly inferred that God must really hate them. Do we need anything less than a commandment to tell us that God hate adultery more?
Criminalise adultery!
And God hates the lukewarm! This law must be actively enforced! In conjunction with our hatred for homosexuality, we should ban all unmarried couples, male or female, related or unrelated, from being in close proximity behind closed doors!
Oh, and criminalise work on Sabbath. That is a commandment too. If fact, God demands death. Install Sabbath lift in every building, so that on Sabbath day, the lift will open at every floor, so we do not end up wallowing in sin, doing forbidden work, by pushing a button on Sabbath day.
Criminalise pre-marital sex as well! We should build a moral police force to probe the virginity of brides on their wedding night!
Whybegay said:
Society doesn't care whether gay sexual misuse is any more right or wrong than straight sexual misuse.
So, by his logic, there is no reason to keep homosexual acts criminal, since society doesn't care.
Not that I agree with any of his confusing, incomprehensible post. What does he means by misuse... anything other than sex for procreation?
He also seems to think that heterosexuality is immoral, but not criminal just because it's been around for a long time.
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/whats-wrong-with-gay-sex.html
Fascinating blog from the link Piper - Flying Low.
"Criminalise pre-marital sex as well!"
How can that be enough? According to the Bible (Leviticus), adultery is punishable with death. And adultery means any kind of sex outside marriage. That would include pre-marital sex. Hang the teenagers!
"Gay crimes are shocking very simply because they are relatively new."
I'm a straight man and I certainly do not think gay crimes are any more shocking than heterosexual sex crimes. Maybe you're suggesting that normal sex crimes are more acceptable just because they are rather old, huh?
So I guess, if you have children, you would be more shocked that your son was raped by a man than if the same thing happens to you daughter?
wow, great religion you belong to.
Nothing very new about homosexuality, folks. It was around, and accepted, in the Song, Qing and Ming dynasties; also among the ancient Greeks etc.
It has also been documented and observed in 1,500 animal species, the majority of which were existing on planet earth before homo sapien (modern man) appeared.
"Criminalise adultery!"
That's not enough, jimmy.
We must all be like Jesus, who never had sex at all (it's never mentioned in the bible, right?).
Criminalise sex!
Funny how this topic always attracts the ignorant and the bigots.
First, homosexuality is NOT a new thing. It's been around for centuries. It was prevalent in ancient Rome, China and Japan. In fact, the criminalisation of homosexuality is almost exclusively a modern Judeo-Christian concept.
Second, the Penal Code is NOT about handling 'new immoralities'. It is arguable that the Penal Code is about handling morality at all. We inherited our Penal Code from India, who in turn had it imposed upon them during the colonial era, as part of the 'civilising mission'. It certainly wasn't derived from any consensus of opinion on what is or is nor moral. It was simply written by one white guy. Yes, ONE. And it was intended to control the natives with. It was intended to impose order, not morals. Why do you think Britain doesn't have a Penal Code themselves?
In any case, if the Penal Code is about dealing with morality, then why isn't adultry a crime? And why do we not hear howls of protest when our proposed Penal Code amendments is decriminalising the crime of enticement? Aren't people who argue for criminalisation on moral grounds guilty of hypocracy with their silence? (Hmm. Should hypocracy be a moral crime too?)
Interestingly, Whybegay's arguments about old and new immorality actually accepts the idea that new immoralities may one day become old immoralities. It also assumes that if society is able to 'handle' the new immoralities, then it can be decriminalised.
In that case, we are all agreed? If we change the way society thinks, then we can get rid of our archiac colonial laws?
Regarding Gabe's link to CBS, on twin studies in homosexuality:
Adam and Jared are twins. Adam's behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, meaning a child whose interests and behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex. Research shows that kids with extreme gender nonconformity usually grow up to be gay.
Sounds like homosexuality is genetic? Not that straightforward actually.
1) Turns out Jared and Adam are fraternal twins, and not identical twins. So they don't even have the same genes.
2) A possible theory is that people treat boys with gender non-conformity like girls. The social environment then causes them to grow up to be gays.
This is just one of too many theories in this field. Maybe nature and nurture factors are too interlinked for us to ever truly separate them?
I'm just wondering, what if one day scientists find strong evidence for environmental and lifestyle causes of homosexuality?
Would that change the minds of any pro-homosexuals here?
I can't see why it would make any difference.
Adam behaves a girl. Maybe it is genetic; maybe it is because the way his parents treat him; maybe it is because of something in the way his brain developed; maybe it is a combination of all these factors.
So? Would that be a reason to make Adam a criminal? Why should we throw him in prison, because he doesn't behave like a boy?
"However, gay people are more promiscuous than straight people. I'm sure many people would agree with this."
I am gay and my colleague is straight. Both of us r around the same age. My straight colleague, although he's married, talks about visiting Geylang almost every week. I have remain celibate for quite some time.
Now who is the promiscuous guy? How can I agree with your statement?
whybegay,
Just out of curiosity (and I suspect many other readers would also like to know):
Have you ever had sex?
Actually I am not to bothered about gays. Just give them a stick and let them go craze over it.
Just picture this, 2 gay guys holding hands while walking along the road and kissing each other.
homosexuality is a sin.
seek forgiveness and change your ways.
Yes, to echo random, I am curious about whybegay as well.
Hey whybegay, have you ever had sex?
Male think about sex more often than female. Some researchers even go so far as to claim that while female think of sex about once a day, while male think of sex all hours of the day.
So drawing from this, it is not wrong to conclude that two gay male partners will naturally have sex more often than a male and female partners.
Which is also why it is the male who created the demand for female prostitutes.
So if sex between two male is legalised, I will not be surprised that there will be more male prostitutes to cater to the increase demand from male who go for the assholes.
Hi Mr Wang, this is a topic to which there is no end!!!
so, all i have to say is
i vote for decriminalization.
ps: i do not think it is right to enforce religious views on others. we're a multi-racial, multi-religious country. that's very insensitive :)
Mr Wang, do you support your sons being gay? Are you hiding in the closet?
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/177881.asp
Teacher guilty of molest says he's tired but at peace
William Ding convicted on three charges, now faces jail and penalties
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
FRIDAY started out well for William Ding Chun Fong — the physics teacher and water-polo teacher-adviser, accused by four students, was acquitted of the first six molest charges he faced.
.
But there his luck ran out, as he was found guilty of three other charges of molesting and committing lewd acts with three students, aged 13 and 14, between 2001 and 2004.
.
District Judge Jasbendar Kaur felt the prosecution had proved "beyond reasonable doubt" that the 34-year-old had used "criminal force" in outraging the three students' modesty. Ding, who is up for sentencing on April 12, now faces a jail term not exceeding two years, a fine or caning, or any two of these penalties.
.
The 80-day trial, believed to be one of Singapore's longest ever for molest cases, saw 33 witnesses testifying for both sides.
.
The four complainants were members of the secondary school's water polo team at various times between 2001 and 2005. Ding was said to have touched one boy three times in the groin, and to have molested another twice by massaging his groin and bare chest. He also allegedly pulled down the trunks of one teen, and groped and stroked the buttocks of another.
.
The defence had tried to show that the four teens, who were good friends, harboured ill will towards Ding. They were also "united in their collective resentment and dislike of the accused", the defence argued.
.
As there were no witnesses to the incidents, District Judge Kaur said any decision depended on the credibility of the four complainants and the accused, and their supporting evidence. She also noted that it would be dangerous to convict based on the young complainants' words alone, unless their testimonies were unusually compelling or convincing.
.
She accepted that the prosecution had proven the case against Ding where three allegations were involved — groping and stroking one boy's buttocks when they shared a sleeping bag during a camp in 2004; massaging another boy's groin area and holding his penis during a back check in 2001; and massaging and rubbing another boy's bare chest in 2001.
.
When the guilty verdict was read out, Ding appeared calm. Later, outside the courtroom, he thanked the more than 60 supporters who had turned up — including family, friends and former students.
.
"This is not the sentence we wanted to hear. I'm at peace even though I'm very tired," he said. He was extended bail of $20,000.
William Ding convicted on three charges, now faces jail and penalties
If homosexuality is decriminalised, then such cases would be as common as heterosexual ones because such criminals would feel encouraged to pursue their sexual misuse. What would parents think?
It is very telling that whybegay did not appear to have posted his laughable comments on the yawningbread site. He probably knows that his cockamamie arguments will be torn to shreds.
Hang on, they have already been torn to shreds in numerous other blogs!
My bad.
Talking about bigots. Seems the big bigots are those who assume that everyone who opposes homosexuality and talk about morality is a conservative christian. Brilliant thinkers they are.
"Seems the big bigots are those who assume that everyone who opposes homosexuality and talk about morality is a conservative christian. Brilliant thinkers they are."
Well because, if you're not a conservative christian, you're either a conservative or a christian, or maybe even a muslim. Otherwise why would you impose your sense of morality on others, bigot?
And by the way, I don't assume that you're not a human if you don't stand up for human rights, so you bigots should not assume that straight people who support gay-rights are closet gays.
anon May 24, 2007 11:33 PM said:
"If homosexuality is decriminalised, then such cases would be as common as heterosexual ones because such criminals would feel encouraged to pursue their sexual misuse. What would parents think?"
Wow, you're really good at playing up irrational fear aren't you? We're talking about decriminalising sex between two individuals at and above the age of consent.
This case would STILL be criminal regardless of the law passing or not.
Actually, I will pose an alternate view to yours. I would even suggest that by decriminalising gay sex, this teacher may have a healthy and legal outlet to have sex with consenting guys of legal age without having to resort to minors. I'm sure parents would be MUCH happier to know this!
All the people here who encourage sexual misuse of homosexuals are disgusting and immoral people with no sense of shame.
There is no point talking sense with perverts, their indecent minds have been eaten rotten by worms.
"All the people here who encourage sexual misuse of homosexuals are disgusting and immoral people with no sense of shame.
There is no point talking sense with perverts, their indecent minds have been eaten rotten by worms."
There is no point talking sense and facts with religious conservatives either. Their narrow minds have been obscured rotten by their, erm, holy books.
And what do you mean by sexual misuse of homosexuals? Is masturbating considered "sexual misuse" too?
i believe the reign of humanity wont be ended by a catastrophic disease, natural disasters nor invading aliens. it will be the homosexuals. as homosexuality becomes more common, kids will grow up thinking that being homo is natural. logically, homosexuality would become popular. by then, only a few STRAIGHT ones will be left to repopulate the world. who know's, their kids might become homosexuals just like the rest. therefore homosexuals can and SHOULD be considered as terrorists. As the human race would be wiped out not by bombs, but homosexuals. KILL THEM ALL BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!! accepting them in society will be like nurturing a DEADLY virus.
-G Chan ZX
i agree with wat g chan zx stated. th rising popularity of homos myte one day slow the the alrdy-slow-birthrate in singapore. however, sugestin 2 kill them is abit out of pt. isolation wud be sufficient. or a huge demonstration against homos shud keep thm in check. imagine watchin spiderman deep kissing harry osbourn. wont u feel disgusted initially??
"as homosexuality becomes more common, kids will grow up thinking that being homo is natural."
Look, this won't influence their sexual orientation. How do you account for the fact that homosexual people in societies which shun homosexuality exist in the first place, then?
Homosexuality is not a conscious choice. Some people are "born gay". Sexual orientation is not something that can be changed just because of a social norm.
By your logic, no homosexuals would exist in Singapore. If heterosexuality is so common, won't homosexuals become heterosexual?
"As the human race would be wiped out not by bombs, but homosexuals. KILL THEM ALL BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!! accepting them in society will be like nurturing a DEADLY virus."
Your alarmist, insensitive and homophobic comments are uncalled for. Homosexuals are as human as anyone else. You might as well discriminate against heterosexuals because the majority of AIDS patients are heterosexual.
-Michaelk
Only perverts themselves would support homosexuality.
to michaelk. what use are homosexuals. can they reproduce? since you're so pro-homosexual, can i assume if your child turns homosexual, will your heart not break? all hopes of carrying a grandchild, dashed in an instant? or will you not reproduce as you yourself might be a homosexual? no offence btw. just trying to get to my point. people cannot be born gay. have you not heard the phrase "you are what your environment made you to be"? do you not agree this statement is true? i have heard of cases where straight men turn homosexual because they found their true love in another guy. logically, if society was strongly against homosexuals, this cases would not even exist. thanks anonymous for agreeing with me. i meant the KILLING part as a joke.
-G Chan ZX
Then how do you account for all the perverted heterosexuals?
"people cannot be born gay."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Biological_explanations
Please read up about biology before making such a sweeping statement.
ask the psychiatrist abt the perverts. i have completely no idea and all im talkin about is the homosexuals ceasing reproduction. must be their religion telling them its ok to be a pervert. or some kinda restricted pervert sex story book found in some pervert country which made them wanna do pervert stuff.
-G Chan ZX
what use are homosexuals. can they reproduce?
LOL. No, they can't. They're just like most married couples in Singapore these days.
Shall we imprison them all?
you got a point. but straight couples dont encourage homosexuality. as in, they dont advertise "NOT REPRODUCING IS GOOD". at least they know where the dick is supposed to be poked into. =X
-G Chan ZX
"but straight couples dont encourage homosexuality."
Do homosexual couples "encourage" homosexuality? How? Can you prove that?
-Michaelk
Yes G Chan ZX, straight couples know where to poke their dicks into. They (well guys anyway) like to poke them into mouths and asses too these days.
By the way, you sure sound like Jerry Falwell. Did you graduate from Liberty University?
Homosexuals don't go around lobbying for the end of reproduction.
Homosexuals do not go about asking people to become homosexuals.
It's funny, because homosexuals are all products of heterosexual intercourse. So heterosexual parents raise homosexual children. So should we criminalization all procreation altogether?
Roger,
I agree. I think that there are so many myths about homosexuality, most of them spread by religion, that many people don't even try to put themselves in the shoes of homosexuals. Even though I am a heterosexual, I don't believe in discriminating against homosexual people because they already face enough irrational social stigma.
Michaelk
prior studies have estimated homosexuals at about 4% of society (probably the figure is slightly higher, with those still reluctant to be outed)
alright, even if they stand at 10% of the population, you mean they're able to convince the other 90% to "cease reproducing"?
wow. talk about a new social revolution.
so homosexuals "advertise "NOT REPRODUCING IS GOOD""? cool, could you give me a link? i need to watch this advertisement right now!
- gabe
This is rather interesting considering that some people believe that if we decriminalise homosexual, more people will become homosexual and society will collapse.
I don't know if these people realise this but majority of countries in the world don't criminalise homosexuals. And I don't see homosexuals become the majority in those countries. Even countries who have legalised gay marriage/unions didn't see a huge surge of homosexuals. The percentage of homosexuals have always been in the area of 4-8% and that hasn't changed in any country you go.
I really find it rather funny, that when we have real life examples of countries that don't have laws against homosexuals and some even have unions/marriages for all, some of us still cling to our unproven facts of breakdown of society and such.
One last point, researchers have noticed that legalising same-sex marriage/unions, the number of divorces remained the same, the number of births remained the same, the number of unwed mothers remaind the same. And to shut these people up, countries like the Netherlands had gay partnerships for 6 years. Their society hasn't broken down, in fact they seem to be thriving. And South Africa (the MOST discriminating country in the world) has legalised gay partnerships and it seems that their society didn't crumble, in fact apathy was worse, much worse. That I must add, was what destroyed society.
change your ways, it is a SIN.
"change your ways, it is a SIN."
Yawn... working on a Sunday is a sin too.
" Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death." ( Exo. 31:14-15)
Assuming that you're Christian, though. Sorry if I assumed otherwise.
Michaelk
i mean, assumed wrongly..
Michaelk
"Even though I am a heterosexual, I don't believe in discriminating against homosexual people because they already face enough irrational social stigma."
ur only sayin this cos ur a homo urself n u wna pave the way for the homosexuals of the future.
"Their society hasn't broken down, in fact they seem to be thriving"
homo's thriving? this cant be good. why protect the homo's. im nt a christian bt if im nt wrong, god created adam and eve. not adam AND adam. if homos were meant to be, why shud there be males and females. just be single cell oganisms tht reproduces by splitin itself. *pfft*
-G Chan ZX
Gah wrong article. Please delete!
if homos were meant to be, why shud there be males and females.
LOL. There is actually a theory on that, by a biologist who has studied homosexuality in social mammals. Go look it up.
You DO know, of course, that homosexuality occurs widely in nature? Not just in social mammals, but also birds, insects etc.
In one interesting case, a pair of male gay penguins found an abandoned penguin egg, and successfully hatched it, and raised the offspring as their own.
I guess there may be a biological explanation to gay (human) couples wanting to adopt children as well.
have u also read that SOME animals are on the verge of extinction? they blame it on human actions. i blame it on their homosexual counterparts.
have u also read that SOME animals are on the verge of extinction? they blame it on human actions. i blame it on their homosexual counterparts.
This is what I mean .... An example of an argument made for the sake of argument, by someone who doesn't even believe it.
This whole thing about "the extinction of the human population" ... Just ask yourself - in countries that suffer from serious overpopulation issues, would these people really say "Yes, in these countries, homosexuality should be encouraged"?
Heheh
"ur only sayin this cos ur a homo urself n u wna pave the way for the homosexuals of the future."
Yawn... another mudslinger on Mr Wang's blog. I won't bother to reply to trolls any more than I already have with this comment.
"Their society hasn't broken down, in fact they seem to be thriving"
homo's thriving? this cant be good. why protect the homo's. im nt a christian bt if im nt wrong, god created adam and eve. not adam AND adam."
haha if you really believe god created adam and eve, then you must be a christian. Maybe you even believe in the genesis as well?!
"if homos were meant to be..."
Meant by WHOM to be FOR WHAT?
"have u also read that SOME animals are on the verge of extinction? they blame it on human actions. i blame it on their homosexual counterparts."
Yea you would also blame global warming, natural disasters, and tsunamis on homosexual huh.
But why dont you blame your god for all that? And I could also blame your god for all the religious fighting between the abrahamic faiths.
"i believe the reign of humanity wont be ended by a catastrophic disease, natural disasters nor invading aliens. it will be the homosexuals. as homosexuality becomes more common, kids will grow up thinking that being homo is natural. logically, homosexuality would become popular. by then, only a few STRAIGHT ones will be left to repopulate the world. who know's, their kids might become homosexuals just like the rest. therefore homosexuals can and SHOULD be considered as terrorists. As the human race would be wiped out not by bombs, but homosexuals. KILL THEM ALL BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!! accepting them in society will be like nurturing a DEADLY virus."
Sounds like you're making threats about killing people. I think I'll report you to the police.
It is the rights of (some) Christians to hold the view that homosexuality is immoral.
It is however disgusting that these Christians seek to impose their view via law on everyone in Singapore.
A rational Christian would say: "I feel that homosexuality is wrong, but I shall keep the discrimination against homosexuals to my own family. I support the decriminalisation of homosexuality for the country because Singapore consist also of Atheist, Buddhists, Hindus etc, and it is not right for me to impose my view on others. Politics and Religion should not mix".
But alas, I have yet to encounter such a rational Christian yet. Have you?
If you are one such rational Christian, proclaim it here, and let us know that there are some rational ones among you people out there.
If I see no response to my "challenge", I can only conclude that none of you are rational - i.e. all of you are insisting on imposing your personal views on everyone via law!
I think the issue has moved beyond homosexuality and has become a 'test case' on the secularism of our society.
The religious right want to keep S377A not so much because they hate fags (they don't, they just feel they have to because fags are an abomination to God) but because repealing it will affirm the secularism of our laws.
Well, the mental image of a man having sex with another man disgusts me, but I don't think men deserve to be jailed or threatened with a jail term for my disgust.
The knowledge that people want to use the law to make them feel secure about their religious beliefs disgusts me more.
to all u monkeys out there. i think wat 'G Chan ZX' meant when he spoke of adam n eve was only to express what he felt was natural.
"im nt a christian bt if im nt wrong, god created adam and eve. not adam AND adam. if homos were meant to be, why shud there be males and females. just be single cell oganisms tht reproduces by splitin itself. *pfft*"
like he said, he's not a christian. can u baffoons pls open those things called eyes and read properly.. but im not all on his side. the killing part is abit 2 much. HOWEVER, if u guys will spend a second or 2 to read the posts, he did say he was joking. look for the post tht starts wif ' to michaelk'. he said "thanks anonymous for agreeing with me. i meant the KILLING part as a joke."
so anonymous, whichever kid u are. please learn to read b4 calling the police. thanks.
wow. i leave this site for a few hours and every1's flaming me. look, i didnt say im christian AND i didnt say i was serious about killing the homo's. i am a buddhist and its free thinking. they dont ban homo's from the world or whatever shit you guys are flaring at me. all we think of is being fillial 2 ur elders(within the family).
so, imagine you're your parent. you come up to you(parent) and say,"mum/dad. im a homo." how would you feel? woot my child's a homo or wtf i raised a homo? if u think your parents would say the first one, u must be one unfillial son of a *****.
last words: imagine. your ancestor was a homo. would you even be here? think of how selfish u are towards all the future generations you're supposed to create. thnks anonymous for clearing the air. but i felt i should fight my own battle. the baffoon part was funny btw.
G Chan ZX(signing off pissed bcos of all the blind 'baffoons')
LOL, some incredibly strange thinking there, by G Chan ZX. Tell us, G Chan:
1. So you're a Buddhist. What then is your view do you think of Buddhist monks? Since they are sworn to celibacy, they must be terribly immoral amd unfilial people according to your own logic. After all, they won't be making any babies.
2. You dislike homosexuals for not procreating? Why then, you must hate Lee Kuan Yew with every fibre of your being. After all, he did what no ordinary homosexual would be able to do - implement a nationwide policy to get women to ligae themselves, and "Stop At Two" .... and penalise those who actually wanted to have 3 or more kids.
3. By the way, if you have children so as to honour your parents, then I feel sorry for your children. You can't be a very good parent, if you raise children for someone else's sake.
My My, time to quote all Atticus Finch,
" I don't understand why people get all riled up everytime a homosexual is involved".
And to that fella's comments,
There are rational Christians. In fact i remember a priest talking about discrimination against homosexuals and saying that they are good people. Only a fool will not recognise that there are those who use religon as an excuse. As the Hospitaller said in Kingdom of Heaven,"By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness."
G Chan ZX,
No-one is flaming you. If you read the definition of "flaming", you will understand that we are only rebutting your comments.
Also, no hard feelings from me or anyone here. Right? =)
Lastly, if you have an opinion, defend it to the death!
Michaelk
qeto mr wang. your comments r more of an insult than debate. let me jus answer ur ridiculous qns accordingly.
1. Monks dont become monks unless their parents gives the nod.
2. LKY realised his mistake. BUT, in the first place, he did not say stop at 0. which means there was still 'reproduction'. so, wat the hell are u trying to say here? or are u just trying to piss me off?
3. I did not say raising children was to honour parents.
"so, imagine you're your parent. you come up to you(parent) and say,"mum/dad. im a homo." how would you feel? woot my child's a homo or wtf i raised a homo? if u think your parents would say the first one, u must be one unfillial son of a *****. "
tell me, which part of that said raising children was being fillial? u must be seeing things Mr Wang.
To michaelk, i am defending to the death, and im taking this as debate practice, thats why im firm on my "stand". but people like Mr Wang seem to be trying to insult me indirectly by putting words in my mouth, or rather in my text. he uses big words but his points are tiny.
-G Chan ZX (i dare u to delete this)
G Chan ZX,
I think Mr Wang would not delete your post just so everyone can see how absurd your arguments are. No matter what we say here will not change your bigotry and prejudice (same goes to the rest). I just hope you will not hurt or harm anyone in the future with your stubborn and narrow views.
Rob
dear rob,
i admit i was abit 2 stubborn, only bcos i was pitting my debate skills against michaelk's, and apparently i concede defeat. but tht doesnt mean wang can insult my religion and lky, the guy who built SG. he even put words in2 my mouth, or rather text. so is tht ethical or isit another debating skill? pls justify.
-G Chan ZX
to readers. my prev posts might sound sloppish as im rushin on my projects n i cant think of better ways to phrase my words until now. i took time off 2 come 'clear' my name. pls understand n refrain from 'shooting' at my poor constructions like what rob did. "absurd" n such. thnks.
-G Chan ZX
"but tht doesnt mean wang can insult my religion and lky, the guy who built SG."
How did Mr Wang insult your religion? The statement in question:
"So you're a Buddhist. What then is your view do you think of Buddhist monks? Since they are sworn to celibacy, they must be terribly immoral amd unfilial people according to your own logic. After all, they won't be making any babies."
I don't see how he insulted your religion. He was rebutting you using logic as his basis.
The statement about LKY:
"You dislike homosexuals for not procreating? Why then, you must hate Lee Kuan Yew with every fibre of your being. After all, he did what no ordinary homosexual would be able to do - implement a nationwide policy to get women to ligae themselves, and "Stop At Two" .... and penalise those who actually wanted to have 3 or more kids."
Same thing. I don't see how he is insulting you.
Pitting your debating skills against me? Well, I certainly didn't intend to have any kind of "contest" when I sent you the link to this post. =)
Michaelk
Hello G Chan CX,
I say this in as friendly a manner as typographically possible: please take a moment to understand the basic rules of logic and deductive reasoning.
for example, you said: people cannot be born gay. have you not heard the phrase "you are what your environment made you to be"? do you not agree this statement is true? i have heard of cases where straight men turn homosexual because they found their true love in another guy.
Simply having heard of straight men "finding true love" and "turning homosexual" alone cannot cause your statement that "people cannot be born gay" to be true. In fact, it is contradictory because if this supposedly straight man finds true love in another man, he is actually gay and not straight, so there is no "turning homosexual" involved.
Frankly, going on to call for homosexuals to be killed is very Hitler'esque of you even if you intended it as a joke. (Do you hear me laughing? No. )
And lastly, please please don't claim that LKY built Singapore. Singaporeans built Singapore, not LKY. Have a little faith in your fellow countrymen.
Frankly I am quite tired of rebutting the same stale old arguments and irrational fears over and over again. Only to have hate speech hurled all over the place when people abandon logic and resort to prejudice and bigotry.
I just hope that someday, when it becomes apparent that there are real people involved - your friends and relatives, even your children, you would have the humility to look past your stereotypes and irrational fears.
I think I've said what I've wanted to say. That's it from me. Cheers.
But Roger, I think that this discussion has been highly constructive (as was the discussion of my previous post "Lee Kuan Yew on Homosexuality").
You see, when people read through all the comments, those who didn't understand the issues (or were undecided) will be able to examine the arguments and draw their own conclusions.
As I see it, if the points are discussed one by one, systematically, then in the end, the anti-gay camp seems to be left with nothing more than the meaningless assertions like the kind that G Chan makes.
In other words, their bigotry and irrationality is exposed for what it is. And that exposure is surely a good thing.
In a sense, discussions like these are my opportunity to contribute to public education, on all the different aspects of this matter.
Since G Chan mentioned Buddhism, I'd just take this opportunity to invite people to read up on Buddhism and homosexuality. You can just google, but I chose this particular link to highlight:
http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/T/Trembath/buddhismAndHomosexualityTrembath.html
... because it also happens to mention something about the Buddhist position on procreation (which GX Chan raised). And you'll see that nothing that GX Chan mentioned was actually based on Buddhism at all.
"1. Monks dont become monks unless their parents gives the nod."
By the way, this is another piece of misinformation spewed by GX Chan.
The Buddhist scriptures do not say anything like: "Please obtrain parental approval before becoming a monk." [or lawyer, or banker, or human resource officer, or salesman].
Many of my gay friends are Christians. To them, life is like a torture. Speaking for themselves, they say it is so hypocritic of the Christian elders to preach "love the sinner but not the sin". Unless and until they throw out the old theories and respect gays as fellow human beings rather than sexual perverts, they will remain as irrational bigots till Doom's Day.
As the saying goes, "live and let live" is the key solution to all human crisis, whether real or imagined. Don't we human beings (and for that matter, the Gahmen) have more important things in life to worry about than to be concerned whether someone gay is having consensual sex.
That's my 2 cents worth of thinking!!!
michaelk. i mean no offense but ur rather insensitive. th text are thr n u missed it. he was mocking at G Chan's religion.
"they must be terribly immoral amd unfilial people." do u not see this?
"The Buddhist scriptures do not say anything like: "Please obtrain parental approval before becoming a monk." [or lawyer, or banker, or human resource officer, or salesman]."
i seriously think ur jus shooting at him my wang. no offense thou. since when does one need a contract to follow their believes? the teaching is already there, to be fillial. shouldnt it be automatic that "Monks dont become monks unless their parents gives the nod."? i feel its pretty obvious.
to roger. "And lastly, please please don't claim that LKY built Singapore." well, i kinda agree with u. G Chan, i feel you should have used the word LEAD, not built. but of course lookin at the time of ur post, u were probably 2 tired 2 choose th right words.
mr wang, one more point to touch on as i dont see u answering it.
"By the way, if you have children so as to honour your parents, then I feel sorry for your children. You can't be a very good parent, if you raise children for someone else's sake."
what on earth made u think G Chan meant raising kids was 2 be fillial. im curious. u literally put words into his text. explain urself, wild shooter.
to g chan. ur points are kinda weird though. what has buddhism have 2 do wif homosexuality?
-alex
to alex. thanks but you missed a few points by michaelk. he said and i quote:
"You dislike homosexuals for not procreating? Why then, you must hate Lee Kuan Yew with every fibre of your being. After all, he did ..."
Same thing. I don't see how he is insulting you."
well mike, since when did i say he insulted me through tht quote? all i said was "so, wat the hell are u trying to say here? or are u just trying to piss me off?" did i say he was insulting me?
to alex again, buddhism didnt really come in because of me. people were assuming i was christian, so i cleared the air. i dont understand why mr wang suddenly 'attacked' the monks though. it was uncalled for. he probably thought abit too much.
anyway, im withdrawing from this 'debate'. mr wang cant seem 2 be able to answer me about the third point. kinda shows what kinda person he is.
-G Chan ZX
Alex,
Please read what Mr Wang said before you say that Mr Wang insulted G Chan's religion:
"1. So you're a Buddhist. What then is your view do you think of Buddhist monks? Since they are sworn to celibacy, they must be terribly immoral amd unfilial people according to your own logic. After all, they won't be making any babies."
G Chan,
Why do you think that people are making personal attacks against you here? For example, you said that you left "this site for a few hours and every1's flaming" you.
Next, why are you making personal attacks, such as "u must be seeing things Mr Wang.", "kinda shows what kinda person he is.", when you already complained that others are "flaming" you?
Before you leave this room, please understand that people rebutting your arguments is not the same as insulting you. Please don't take any of this flak personally.
The point is very simple.
I think that Buddhist monks are very good people. In fact I have great respect for all people who devote themselves to spiritual life.
However, GX Chan indicates that homosexuals are bad people because they do not procreate. I disagree with this logic, because there are many good people who do not procreate. Such as Buddhist monks.
Actually the more GX Chan goes on, the more he ties himself in intractable knots. For example, he says that it's ok for people to become monks and avoid procreation, if they get their parents' permission. Such monks would not be "unfilial" and their behaviour would be considered moral.
According to his logic, it would also be ok for gays to be gay and avoid procreation, if they get their parents' permission. Such gays would not be "unfilial" and their behaviour would not be considered moral.
But would GX Chan then be prepared to accept the next consequence of his own logic - that if the parents give their permission, it would be perfectly ok for a person to lead a homosexual lifestyle?
Somehow I don't think so. What do you think? ;)
G Chan,
Please do not interprete questions on your arguments as attacks on yourself; more importantly, please do not use that as an excuse to not answer the legitimate questions posed to you.
You wrote:""if homos were meant to be..."
I asked:"Meant by WHOM to be FOR WHAT?"
You have not answered that.
You assume that people should procreate, but do not explain why. You argue that gays should be jailed because they do not procreate, but do not answer the question posed to you of why heterosexuals who choose or are unable to procreate shouldn't be treated similarly.
As for a child entering the sangha, it can be considered a great honour and merit. Please do not misrepresent the Buddhist position.
"Next, why are you making personal attacks, such as "u must be seeing things Mr Wang.", "kinda shows what kinda person he is.", when you already complained that others are "flaming" you?"
like, what the f***. im not sure if ur blind but if u would CARE to scroll up 2 point 3, he 'put words in my text'. its the third time im saying this. whats the matter with u?
mr wang, i agree with u. if parents give th nod for u to become a homosexual, then so be it, i have nothing to say. im not sure about u, but i have not heard of a parent telling their child to marry a homo. anyway, you seem to be dodging your mistakes. after so many posts from you, there's still no answer about point number 3. n my name is G Chan. not GX Chan. such simple details, and yet, sigh...
btw michael, do u have something personal against me? its as if ur extracting every flaw of my comments and throwing them at me. ever heard of a balanced statement? u said all my flaws. FINE. but what about Mr Wang's third point? care to defend yourself?
-G Chan ZX
to random. im sory i missed ur post. well, i dont care about this homo thing anymore. anyw, i said if homosexual was meant to EXIST, why would there be males and females. and someone said theres a research on that or someth by some guy. NOW, if u guys would read what i say abt MR wang, pls explain 2 me, if there's any explaination, why he said this:
"3. By the way, if you have children so as to honour your parents, then I feel sorry for your children. You can't be a very good parent, if you raise children for someone else's sake."
Since WHEN did i say having children was to honour ur parents. wtf man.
-G Chan ZX
I'm not here to win debates, G Chan. I'm glad that you clarified your position.
As a matter of fact, I think that parents should continue to love their children, even if the child turns out in certain ways or makes certain decisions that are not quite the way the parent would have wanted it.
There is a book (you can read about it somewhere on Yawning Bread's site) where gay Singaporeans, and their family members and friends, talk about their experiences -
it is heartening to read accounts of parents who express love and encouragement for their children who have "come out".
Oh, the author of the book is Ng Yi Sheng, a blogger too, and himself a gay.
G Chan,
Why do you suppose that something which exists is MEANT by someone or something to exist?
Why do you assume that there is PURPOSE for everything that exists?
Those are very important questions to answer, because you are basing whether being homosexual is right or wrong based on whether they fulfill the PURPOSE which they are MEANT for.
Who or what decides what purpose we are all meant for?
As for Mr Wang's point 3., he used the phrase "honour your parents" to carry on the religious theme (I think); it is merely another way of saying "being filial".
You made that point that people who do not procreate are unfilial, and Mr Wang is mererly giving his opinion that if being filial is the only reason for you to want to procreate, then it is not a very good reason.
"its as if ur extracting every flaw of my comments and throwing them at me. ever heard of a balanced statement? u said all my flaws. FINE. but what about Mr Wang's third point? care to defend yourself?"
Off the gay topic, but since you are here to hone your debating skills...
In a debate, no one owes you a "balanced statement". If you bring an argument into a debate, you should be prepared to defend it and withdraw it if you cannot do so.
Also, just because someone does not go around attacking everyone else's arguments doesn't mean they cannot or shouldn't attack yours.
I don't know if Michael has something personal against you (I don't), but if you can defend your arguments against his attacks, then why worry?
ok random. when did i say "people who do not procreate are unfilial, and Mr Wang.." all i said is people who break their parents heart are unfillial.
why do u like homos so much? im still young. i dont see how this is normal. pls explain.
and mr wang, its not debating. im questioning u. why did u say something that wasnt even there in the first place? its the 5th or 6th time im asking u. if u know ur wrong, pls apologise, or are u jus too proud to do so.
once again i apologise for asking homos to be killed. it does make my frens laugh whn i said it verbally last yr. guess its not funny in text.
btw, about that book, does it have the sad stories? if it doesnt, then its not reliable. the world's not a fairy tale where every story ends happily u know?
-G Chan ZX
ignore my english pls. i noe its supposed to be "it does make my frens laugh when i said it last year."
hey who's that. anyway its 'it did make my frens laugh' not does. whos mocking me?
-G Chan ZX
Mr Wang, how can you promtote sexual misuse of homosexuality to the young such as Chan GX?
Why are you propagating such bad habits in your blog?
i think its bcos he didnt realise im a kid. and its G Chan ZX. not GX Chan. dont repeat th old man's mistake. =P
im still waitin to know why u hetros are dedicating urself to defend the homosexual. yes they are human beings. and ppl say its natural. but i thought to myself, what if the first apes were homosexuals? would we even be here. being homosexual or a hetrasexual who refuse to reproduce is denying the existence of the future generation. of course, we cant blame the infertile. about hetras who dont reproduce, they should be ashamed of themselves. there are ppl out there who wud love to reproduce, or 'procreate', but are not fertile enough to do so.
-G Chan ZX
G Chan must possess low IQ. Mr Wang has already rebutted his flawed arguments.
He doesnt see the fundamental logic that whatever homos do is their own business because usually its consented between 2 parties. The thing he probably chooses to conveniently elude is that, whatever they do in privacy does not affect G Chan and his cronies.
G Chan probably doesnt realise that because homosexuals are not the norm, they should be castigated along with *insert undesirable character(s)* etc.
Let me guess, this fellow must be a poly student.
G Chanm,
I notice that you keep on harping on the fact that homosexuals do not reproduce. And you then say heteros should be ashamed of themselves for not reproducing. Therefore the question to you is why do humans have the responsibility to reproduce? For the continuation of the human race? Who imposes this responsibility?
To add to the debate;
In so far as there are "disgusting" homosexuals, though there is no evidence to prove that, there are also disgusting heterosexuals as seen in the report, and there are those who go sleeping around and creating all sorts of trouble.
But does that necessarily mean we criminalise heterosexuality, adultery, pre marital sex?
Well on hindsight, I shall take back the part that he's a poly student. Smacks of elitism and insenstivity.
FYI,I was a poly student too but my impression that he's acting like an ass clown still stands.
to anonymous. my IQ level is 139, yes im a poly student and where's ur quote on what mr wang said.
to ned, nice name btw, im 'harping on the fact' because its the only reason why im against homosexuals. instead of wondering why i harp on and on, why dont u answer me why they're being defended. i didnt say not reproducing was bad. i only said it was denying the future generations from existing. imagine ur grandparents didnt want to reproduce. u wouldnt even be here enjoying the great sensations life has to offer.
-G Chan ZX
well 'anon' i think the 'ass clown' here is u. ur not even backing up ur statements with quotes and ur attackin me personally here. all u got are insults. im surprised u WERE a poly student. because u 'debate' worse than my younger brother.
-G Chan ZX
They are defended by people who believe that they are essentially human beings who are just abit different from the normal. At the end of the day, we are dealing with human beings, like you and me. If you put yourself in their shoes, how could u feel faced with calls to crucify you by people like WBG and George Lim?
With regards to the denying future generations a chance, there are many people who also choose to deny future generations a chance, people who take religious vows and so on so forth. And with regards to denying people life, as fertilisation of an egg or sperm has not occured, scientifically there is no foetus and thus no new life and nothing is denied. Your point is more suitable for abortion.
Now G Chan, this isnt a forum and i can tell u its incredibly difficult to debate on this little comment box. But I shall do so just to let you see the big picture.
He has already rebutted you on your points 1 to 3.
I think ure just unhappy about Mr Wang so called accusing you that to have children is to honour the parents.
I quote one of your much earlier entries:
"so, imagine you're your parent. you come up to you(parent) and say,"mum/dad. im a homo." how would you feel? woot my child's a homo or wtf i raised a homo? if u think your parents would say the first one, u must be one unfillial son of a *****. "
This is how I interpret it. Your last line is indirectly telling me or anyone who reads it, that its wrong for a child to think his/her parents do not actually mind them being a homo if they became one.
Now begets the pertinent question... Why is it unfilial to think that way? Im not Mr Wang but if any passer-by would think a step ahead, I would have conveniently concluded it is shameful for the family. After all, for us chinese, considered sia sway?
Your posts have already subtlely show that you disdain homos, regardless or not they actually pose a threat to society. Yet, you still argue for the sake of arguing by asking redundant, rhetoric questions when you have already made your stand on homos.
I think it's extremely cruel to stop people from having a sex life. A few individuals may make this choice - for example, priests or monks. But it clearly is not a viable option for the vast majority of the human race.
I think that people should be free to make decisions about their own sex lives. I would be shocked if someone wanted to set rules on what my wife and I cannot do in bed.
I think that what adults do in their private sex lives is basically their own business. I do not feel, for example, that I have no moral right or duty to tell my boss or neighbour that he is not permitted to have sex with certain kinds of people, or not permitted to have sex in certain kinds of ways.
I think that the procreation angle is, quite frankly, absurd. The vast majority of the times when people have sex have, in any case, nothing to do with procreation. I have two children, but I definitely have had sex with my wife many, many times more than twice in my life.
I think that parents can be very hurt, if their children turn out to be gay, especially in societies which are not enlightened enough to accept gays. However, I do not think this is a remotely good reason for criminalising homosexuality. After all, parents can also be just as hurt if, say, the child marries someone from another religion, or of another race, or caste, or of a much lower socioeconomic background (or for that matter, if the child backs out of an arranged marriage - still common among Indians). However, we would not criminalise such marriages, so there is no reason to criminalise homosexuality.
Wow! It sure is noisy in here...I am surprised you can still hear yourself think, Mr Wang!
:)
ok.. both of u have a point. now ur argueing more maturely anon, not so much mud throwing. oh well, i'll just leave the homos alone. but i hope their number wont increase. i dont wish to enter the public toilet lookin out for homo peeping toms in th future. =P
i jus remembered someth tht wud contradict my prev statements. for a number of times, i wish i wasnt born, due to the stress frm my studies. so i guess i should be siding with homos then.
-G Chan ZX
"not so much mud throwing. oh well, i'll just leave the homos alone. but i hope their number wont increase. i dont wish to enter the public toilet lookin out for homo peeping toms in th future"
Homosexuals are not all perverts. The percentage of homosexuals who are perverts is probably close to the percentage of heterosexuals who are perverts.
The word "homo" is pejorative slang for homosexual people. They are human beings too, not sub-humans!
"ok random. when did i say "people who do not procreate are unfilial, and Mr Wang.." all i said is people who break their parents heart are unfillial."
Yes, I was wrong about that part. Sorry.
"why do u like homos so much? im still young. i dont see how this is normal. pls explain."
I don't like homos, or rather I do not base my like or dislike of people based purely on their sexual orientation.
My question is: do you think you are justified in hating homos or supporting a law that discriminates against them, based primarily on the fact that they do not reproduce?
Why do you attach so much importance on procreation that you think we should hate gays and that people people who choose not to reproduce should feel ashamed of themselves?
Is 'not denying a future generation the chance to exist' always a bad thing?
Was it a good thing that Hitler's parents did not deny him the chance to exist?
Should the poor people who have children bron into such poverty that they must take up child labour be considered good parents?
Surely there are more important considerations to whether someone is good or bad than whether he or she chooses to reproduce?
to michaelk. see what i talked to u about. cant u jus see it that im not against homos. why do you always just point out my flaws. what about the other points? do you not agree with them. anyway, just to spend some time answering your redundant arguement, i did not say they are all perverts. a woman would naturally look out for male peeping toms. does that mean that all males are perverts? there are so many homosexuals around, one cannot say for sure if there arent any perverts amoung them.
as for random, im sry, but i dont want to argue about homosexuals anymore. i think i've been thinkin abt them for too long. im not sure if u saw my last post before u posted that thick layer of words(which gave me a headache when i looked at it).
-G Chan ZX
ur being negative, random.
"Was it a good thing that Hitler's parents did not deny him the chance to exist?"
why dont u say "wasnt it a good thing that lee kuan yew's parents did not deny him his chance to exist?"?
and as Chan has stated earlier, or rather last night, he is only taking this as a debate practice. this "do you think you are justified in hating homos..." hating part is uncalled for. let me ask u a question. did he declare: "I HATE HOMOS"?
michaelk, G Chan is right. u only hit on the 'flaws'. do u not see this: "so i guess i should be siding with homos then." so why would he think that homos are 'SUB-HUMANS'?
-danHO
>"Was it a good thing that Hitler's parents did not deny him the chance to exist?"
why dont u say "wasnt it a good thing that lee kuan yew's parents did not deny him his chance to exist?"?
I could have, and the question would have been equally valid or meaningless. Giving life to another generation is not in itself a good or bad thing, and we shouldn't use that as a basis to judge if someone deserves to go to jail.
While G Chan did not declare that he hates homos, I think his words show that he does, and I stand by my statement.
"but i hope their number wont increase. i dont wish to enter the public toilet lookin out for homo peeping toms in th future."
My point is, coming to such a quick association of homosexuals and perverts is insulting to homosexuals. Furthermore, the word "homo" is a derogatory term.
In online discussions, do you expect people to give you balanced statements?
michaelk replied: My point is, coming to such a quick association of homosexuals and perverts is insulting to homosexuals. Furthermore, the word "homo" is a derogatory term.
when i said: "i did not say they are all perverts. a woman would naturally look out for male peeping toms. does that mean that all males are perverts? there are so many homosexuals around, one cannot say for sure if there arent any perverts amoung them."
wat i initially said: "i dont wish to enter the public toilet lookin out for homo peeping toms in th future. =P"
why are u so worked up for? i used the word homo in a sense like one would call emmanuel as man, gabriel as gab, nicholas as nic. whats with u getting all worked up bcos i 'insulted homos' when im only kidding? cant u see the '=P' sign? ok, i predict critics are gonna say "its a joke? well im not laughing".
seriously, if wat i said wasnt a joke, this is wat my reply would be: so if sayin that there will be a minority of perverse homos is insulting, are u implying that there are no homo perverts at all?
fine no balanced statement then. but really, i dont see why you should be so worked up. its as if ur one of them. *gasp* are u one? its ok to declare u noe? we will be here for u. ^^
-G Chan ZX
I just like to reply to Chan on the issue of "monks must ask their parents for permission".
When Buddha first went out of the palace to seek the way, he sneaked out in the early morning and never asked permissions to do so. When the monastic order was started, many of those who joined the order never asked permission from the parents. In fact, it was only after Rahula, his own son became a monk and that upset his father, King Shuddhodana, that Buddha added that children up to 15 years old, must seek parent's permission before becoming a monk. Having said that, would-be monks/nuns are encouraged to ensure that their parents are well-taken care of before joining the monastic order, or let them know. This is to prevent negative thoughts from arising. This is just a basic love we should exhibit to our parents, not the filial piety of procreation which is predominantly a Chinese ideology, nothing to do with Buddhism.
Also for those who claimed that Buddhism is against homosexuality because of non-procreation, I hope that add that procreation is not a duty of Buddhists, unless someone can produce a direct reference to a Buddhist scripture to infer such a duty. The ideal Buddhist is non-procreative. Marriage is not a sacred nor religious duty, but a social contract, nothing to do with Buddhist practice again. The Buddhist practice is to resolve our aversions, greed and ignorance and to practice love, compassion, equanimity and joy. Procreation is not in that picture at all.
"so if sayin that there will be a minority of perverse homos is insulting, are u implying that there are no homo perverts at all?"
No, I previously said,
"Homosexuals are not all perverts. The percentage of homosexuals who are perverts is probably close to the percentage of heterosexuals who are perverts."
i used the word homo in a sense like one would call emmanuel as man, gabriel as gab, nicholas as nic.
Going off on a little tangent - I've heard a story about how US Marines first used the term "jap" to refer to the japanese. Their rationale for it was that it 'dehumanised' the japanese soldiers they were killing. They were just killing a "jap", not a living human being.
Of course, Chan would say it's an over-reaction to compare his use of "homo" to the Marines' use of "jap" but I would still advise greater caution in use of words.
so michaelk. wats wrong with making "association of homosexuals and perverts" if u agree that there are pervertic homosexuals.
i strongly agree with saltwetfish. buddhism has nothing to do with pro-creation. its more of fillial piety and giving up whats around u. examples of "Monks dont become monks unless their parents gives the nod" would be tibetian monks, where becoming a monk brings honour to the family. watched that on national geographic.
even in china, parents send off their kids to shaolin for temporary monkhood, just to learn wushu. -.-
this discussion is getting out of point btw. supposed to be abt homosexuals. so pls stop with the buddism or christianity thing. mayb wang shud start a topic abt th differences btwn buddhism n taoism. my muslim frens thought my family were one of those inconsiderate ppl who burn offerings by the drains.
-gabz`
anon. how reliable is ur 'story'. is addressing George bush as bush dehumanizing? fyi, rapper Mike Shinoda of Fort Minor made this rhyme titled "kenji". "japs not welcome anymore" was part of the ryhme. well, he's a jap, so if its dehumanizing, wouldnt he be dehumanizing himself?
~harchoo.com
If Chan was arguing against another identifiable group, say, Eurasians or some other racial minority, his motion to kill would be extreme to say the least. His speech would even (probably?) violate some Singapore law, in the same manner some bloggers were charged for racially insensitive speech (or something along those lines).
But, not so when spoken against homosexual persons. Are we not humans as well?
How would you feel if you were a minority group and individuals found it acceptable to "joke" about killing you?
Chan found it acceptable to "joke" about killing me and accused me of being a terrorist, by virtue of my sexual orientation. He claims it was a joke, but frankly we all know there are reasonable limits on what can be jokes and what cannot.
While this discussion is indeed a good chance to educate the public regarding this contentious issue, heterosexuals are persons who will not personally feel the direct effects of this discrimination. So while I truly appreciate the effort enlightened heterosexuals take to educate the unenlightened, talking about laws which exist to castrate the rights of a minority brings about a whole new personally invasive meaning when it is your right which has been castrated and not someone else's. And along with it comes the feelings of uncertainty, fear, resentment, anger and finally resignation...
It is emotionally draining to feel as if I bear the burden of proof - whereas it should lie upon those who seek to constrict the rights of a minority to justify beyond doubt the necessity for such constrictions.
(Once again to be clear, I am not saying I do not appreciate the effort taken by many to understand the issue at hand. Perhaps it is my own deficiency in being unable to decouple my personal feelings from this discussion)
Black rappers routinely refer to black men as niggers and black women as 'hos. One white guy used those same words on radio and the black community went on a massive witchhunt to get him fired. He got fired, eventually. Google "Imus". It is a very recent event. Even the word "black" is considered derogatory, depending on who you are talking to, but I personally think it is pushing political correctness a bit too far. But referring to the Japanese as Japs or calling gay men homos is no different from calling Chinese chinks. Now that you know, you cannot claim ignorance. Don't do it.
Thus far, almost all the comments against decriminalising homosexual sex have been lame, not to mention G Chan's sms english. If there is any rational person who is against decriminalising, he or she would have figured Mr Wang's arguments are not watertight.
1) If you argue that no harm can come from two consenting adults doing things behind closed doors, you are begging association with incest. How many are willing to argue, for consistency sake, to legalise incest, especially if there is no possibility of pregnancy?
2) It is cruel to stop people from having sex. And yet we do that to incestuous couples, paedophiles and those cant get their sexual fix without violence. Many of these traits are hereditary as well.
3) We jail people for torturing dogs and cats, but we feel little revulsion if the same is done to a rat or a cockroach. What rational, scientific standard can we apply to make a dog's life worth more than a rat's life? Our affection towards dogs and cats is irrational, and we enshrine that in our laws.
4) According to Alfred Kinsey, most people are not discretely homosexual or heterosexual. One orientation may be more dominant, but we can still have latent opposite orientation. In other words, we are all bisexuals with a natural inherited bias, some more strongly, some less so. Not everything Kinsey says is gospel truth, but if you buy this idea, then another primary pro-gay tenet, that your sexual orientation cannot be changed by environmental factors, is bunk.
Tell me, how many clearly heterosexual men do you know had tried gay sex and concluded that there is no joy? In US prisons, for example, male prisoners who are exclusively heterosexual when free, use other male prisoners for sex as a substitute. This is where the term "Who's your daddy?" originates. In prison, your daddy is the guy who owns your ass, not the one who fathered you.
-----
Having said all that, I am against criminalising homosexuality. Yes, the act makes me feel queasy, and I WILL flip if any of my sons tell me he is gay. But like smoking or nose digging or people talking loudly in theatres, we do not use the law to attack every single nuisance in our lives.
In fact, I do not see homosexuality as necessarily a bad thing, from an evolutionary standpoint. There is a report that says that gay men, like women, are lousier at map reading than straight men. It is no coincidence that gay men tend to excel in the creative arts. Nature wire them differently because they have a different role to play.
We do not need every single member of a species to procreate for that species to prosper. Studies have shown that gay men tend to be the youngest male in a family with many older male siblings. If the elder siblings are procreating, having younger siblings to help in child rearing may be more beneficial than the younger siblings having children of their own, competing for the same scarce resources like food.
If the number of gay men seems to be increasing, we have to ask ourselves: Is it nature seeking to rebalance our selective abortion of female foetuses, thus preventing the disproportionate males from having to fight for an ever shrinking pool of females?
It is silly to jump to the conclusion that gays are useless or offensive just because they cannot procreate.
Some day, we may see gays, like autistics, to have have an intended role to play, and was a careful design by natural selection, rather than a reproduction flaw.
Ha ha you guys are so funny. Go on building your straw man and bugger him to death. Check out how the great empires all fell- Greece, Rome, etc.. the men adopted homosexuality as their way of sex- the birth rate dropped - end of story for their civilization. Sex between men and men is unnatural - how hard is that to understand?
Hi all,
I may seems strange but sort of in defense of Chan, I know that the term "homo", "faggots", "caq (chiao ah qua)" are used to dehumanise us gay people. But I personally don't feel that its that bad, after all I know what I am and no matter what you call me its reflects one's minds. I think a matured gay person would not be too offended by such callings.
In many a ways, I think gay people have a big part to play in this form of dehumanization. If there were more of them coming out and more involved in socio-political issues, perhaps, Chan may get to know real good gay friends and may treat and see gay people differently. So in many ways, I think the gay community must be able to come together to encounter such discrimination, together with their good straight friends.
Its a blessing to have bloggers who constantly help to bring social awareness of the discrimination of gay people into the public arena. and hopefully over time, many in 100 years, people will come to see the wisdom of such debate.
To Jimmy:
1) To tell the truth, I personally have no issues with incest that is consenting and within the age of consent and does not result in an offspring. After all, I think a lot of older cultures find it acceptable. Globalisation have watered down diversity of cultures, especially towards very Judeo-Western thinking.
However, if an offspring is produced, I think that there are mounting scientific evidence of issues of inbreed, not hundred percent, but I think that its significant enough to avoid it.
For those Abrahamic religion that are totally against incest, I wonder how abel and cain and their sisters have children if not through incest over generations? Also if Noah's ark is true than, I wonder how many incest is being committed by the animals and maybe Noah's own family to sire the next generation?
Lastly, I don't see why I should waste time arguing for incest when we have our hands full with religiously and value crazed people around touting end of the society. Let the incest-rights people come up and make their point first and I may support them depending on their positions. It just a silly waste of time trying to cover too much grounds.
2) Ah... sex with kids again and rape. First question, do you think there is consent in those circumstances or enough mature thinking for consent? If not, doesn't this constitute harm and exploitation towards others? Compare this to 2 consent gay men having sex.
3) I totally agree with you about animal rights. Our laws do not do enough for them and that's I why I am in full support for more animal rights, animal charity and environmental rights.
4) "According to Alfred Kinsey, most people are not discretely homosexual or heterosexual."
Actually, I think you misinterpreted that. Not ALL people have bisexual tendencies. There are people at the polar opposites that are strong hetero or homo-norminative, with a middle with a varying degree of bisexual attractions, from just interest, to erotical, physical attraction.
That's why I think that its silly to think of people as homosexuals or heterosexual, as sexual preference is not bipolar like this. Everyone is just human beings with differing sexual preferences.
You are incorrect again to say that because of this, we can prove that sexual orientation can change. It doesn't those who are bisexual just can choose their preferences, which makes them appear to be able to change. Also there are no scientific evidences of actual change for those who are strongly homosexual, just like those who are strongly heterosexual, imaging forcing yourself to be homosexual. The only "evidence" comes from Christian sciences which are not peer-reviewed and are not accepted as scientific in mainstream research. Morever, those that
"do change", how many of them are bisexual to start with? Unless you can show me more evidence about changing sexual orientation.
you guys are just too sensitive. i get people calling me a chink in battle.net but i dont feel a thing. whats there to be unhappy about? its only a short form of chinese. sheesh... and if ur a homosexual and people call u homo, whats there to be ashamed about. its what u are.
"Greece, Rome, etc.. the men adopted homosexuality as their way of sex- the birth rate dropped - end of story for their civilization."
wow. shit. if thts credible, we better stop the homos then.
"Also if Noah's ark is true than, I wonder how many incest is being committed by the animals and maybe Noah's own family to sire the next generation?"
i dont think theres a rule for animals not to commit incest right? i mean, my neighbour's cat gave birth to a litter. the kitten grew up n made love to its mother. n fathered another bunch of litters. (the father of the first litter was a stray.)
-G Chan ZX
Jimmy,
I have to agree with your points 1) and 3).
1) There is probably a biological basis to aversion to incest, and even a male Bonobo chimp will not have sex with his own mother.
3) Yes, protecting some anmal species and not others is discrimination.
On the same note, I think to argue that bestiality is wrong because an animal cannot give consent is ironic when you realise that we will kill that same animal for foord without ever thinking about asking for consent.
We jail people for torturing dogs and cats, but we feel little revulsion if the same is done to a rat or a cockroach. What rational, scientific standard can we apply to make a dog's life worth more than a rat's life? Our affection towards dogs and cats is irrational, and we enshrine that in our laws.
I don't think that the point is very relevant; but anyway I should point out that AFAIK, statutes like WABA (Wild Animals and Birds Act) generally do not draw any distinction between different animal species (except on the basis that some are granted more protection by virtue of being endangered).
1) If you argue that no harm can come from two consenting adults doing things behind closed doors, you are begging association with incest. How many are willing to argue, for consistency sake, to legalise incest, especially if there is no possibility of pregnancy?
If you argue that harm can come from two consenting adults doing things behind closed doors, then you must demonstrate why there is any special or different kind of harm arising from the fact that the two adults are two men, or two women, or one man and woman.
And yet we do that to incestuous couples, paedophiles and those cant get their sexual fix without violence. Many of these traits are hereditary as well.
Yes, I agree that the law must deal equally with paedophiles and violent sex offenders. By equally, I mean they must be treated the same way, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual.
Not everything Kinsey says is gospel truth, but if you buy this idea, then another primary pro-gay tenet, that your sexual orientation cannot be changed by environmental factors, is bunk.
I never quite regarded this factor as a pro-gay tenet. I think that homosexuality should not be criminalised - and I have gone through my reasons - those reasons really have nothing to do with the possible cause(s) of homosexuality.
i dont think theres a rule for animals not to commit incest right? i mean, my neighbour's cat gave birth to a litter. the kitten grew up n made love to its mother. n fathered another bunch of litters. (the father of the first litter was a stray.)
LOL. When I was a kid, my dad bought me two hamsters, a male and female. Over time, I ended up with several generations of hamsters, the population (at its peak) numbering 24 hamsters (excluding those I gave away to friends and relatives). Ah yes, there were plenty of incestuous relations.
"Greece, Rome, etc.. the men adopted homosexuality as their way of sex- the birth rate dropped - end of story for their civilization."
wow. shit. if thts credible, we better stop the homos then.
Among other things, you have to lose this silly idea that a declining human population is a bad thing.
The fall of the Roman Empire and the decline of Ancient Greeece had nothing to do with homosexuality. In fact homosexuality was not frowned upon in these civilizations. People like Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Hippocrates, to name a few were, for lack of a better word, products of such society; therefore the idea that homosexuality will cause the downfall of civilization is nonsensical.
Hey just address the issue. Aids is a disease caused largely by gay men. Check out the stats from Australia or the US. You pontificate- but at each clever phrase or statement you make- you just trap yourself in your own precious little mind. Stop blaming Buddha or God, Muslims or Christians for your problems. Sex between men and men is just plain wrong. Deep down you know its true. Stop justifying in your minds.
Is it now anon? There are those who have contracted Aids from heterosexual acts. I guess its you who needs to stop justifying hate speech.
Basically he just doesn't get the point.
Lung cancer kills far more people than AIDS. But that's no reason to imprison smokers in jail.
Obesity-related diseases like heart disease kill far more people than AIDS. But that's no reason to imprison fat people in jail.
And I'm sure it's far easier for fat people to lose weight, than for gay people to "become" straight.
If we all stick to just one sex partner throughout our lives, all STDs will be wiped out in a few generations. All STDs, including AIDS, can be seen as a punishment for sexual immorality in the form of promiscuity, not homosexuality. If there is anything we need to criminalise in the name of stopping AIDS, it should come in the form of banning promiscuity, not homosexuality.
My dog and cat torture point was poorly worded. I should have just said what I had in mind: in the absence of some religious code or some irrational value system, how can one rationally conclude a human life is more important than that of, say, a pig? Pigs are highly intelligent, more so than dogs, and yet most people do not feel revulsion in killing and eating them. Clearly a pig is harmed here usually without consent.
I am not trying to argue for vegetarianism. I am certainly not one. All I am trying to say is that we cannot rationally explain all our laws. A lot of it boils down to what "feels" right. And to a lot of people, homosexuality "feels" wrong.
But to the champions of the morality, I want to ask: why are you so worked up about homosexuality but yet so tolerant about adultery? Nobody declared in a legal ceremony to screw only with the opposite sex. But every person who commits adultery had violated their marital vows, made in front of friends and family. How can anybody champion against homosexuality, but tolerate adultery? If we want to lock homosexuals for life, then the only stiffer punishment for adultery, should be death.
jimmy,
It is in fact already an offence under the Infectious Disease Act for someone who knows himself or herself to be HIV-positive to have sex with a person without informing him or her and obtaining a consent.
As for your point about killing, as a human being I have a vested interest in a law that forbids killing of a human being by another; it is more self-preservation than any religious code or value system. In fact, if my religion teaches reincarnation, I might want a law that forbids killing of pigs just in case I came back as one...
All I am trying to say is that we cannot rationally explain all our laws.
Yes but that is no excuse for not trying to change the irrational ones.
Some laws also grow irrational over time; or are attributable to particular historical reasons or conditions which no longer apply. Other laws have to change and adapt, as society develops.
"All I am trying to say is that we cannot rationally explain all our laws."
Of course WE CAN.
1. All the jailed wives were legal wives, ie bonded, not contractual. In other words, they are local talent. Pressured by the existence of all the foreign talent (on-contract) around them.
2. If the law allowed him to screw 10 at the same time, the gods must have implied he could screw all he desired.
To those who cited other species involved in homosexual activities, may I say that they are not human beings and therefore should not be used to make comparisons or worse used as examples.
scb has a point.
anywway, i realised something today.
i was on bus 184, on my way to school. as usual, i stared into the clouds and began to think about stuff(random). suddenly i thought of the phrase "all lawyers go to hell". then i thought of mr wang(lawyer). after which, i remembered his post about homosexuals. this was when i wondered, how can a guy ever get turned ON by another guy?
so right now, im thinking, could it be that they have mental issues and all they need are tons of councilling? im not saying that they are perverts though. all i want to know is, how do they ever get 'it' to 'stand' in the presence of another guy? i certainly cant erect in the public changing room by the pool.
-xuan
Whether or not scb has a point, if you had read the comments, you will see that it has been stated that homosexuality has existed for a long, long time. And it was accepted by society until the rise of monotheism.
As for your question of "How can a guy ever get turned on by another guy", one could similarly ask: How can a guy be turned on by a fat girl? How can a girl be turned on by a pimply guy? How can a Malay be turned on by a Chinese? It is neither here nor there, and is irrelevant. It is very well that you have your opinion, but to suggest that one needs psychiatric help for liking a member of one's gender is offensive.
Also, Mr. Wang, I applaud you and others who use reason and logic to make your cases and to hopefully, broaden the mind of a Singaporean sitting at his/her desk. Most importantly, I applaud the strength of your gag reflex in the face of constant ignorance, irrationalism and prejudice.
anonymous, i applaud your courage of revealing ur name while commenting on people's comments which are of "ignorance, irrationalism and prejudice". or did you?
"How can a guy be turned on by a fat girl? How can a girl be turned on by a pimply guy? How can a Malay be turned on by a Chinese?"
i strongly feel your going out of point. assuming your malay n chinese thing involves a male n a female, these people are called hetrasexuals. at least its guy meets girl = erection. xuan was wondering how can guy meet guy = erection.
to reply xuan, i seriously am curious too. can any homosexual please explain what goes on in your head? no offence by the way, just a plain 17year old's curiousity. your bravery will be very much appreciated.
-G Chan ZX
"but to suggest that one needs psychiatric help for liking a member of one's gender is offensive."
to the dude with no name: i did not suggest. i was asking. i hate people like you who changes others words. despicable.
to add on to ZX on the boy meets boy n boy meets girl thingy, theres this thing called magnets. northpole n northpole cant attract no matter how hard u try. n the theory on magnets is that the southpole attracts the northpole. in other words, the northern magnetic waves head for the south magnetic waves. like a dick to a pussy. so how can a north wave ever head to a north?
people who are unahppy would probably say:" how can u associate humans with magnets". but i want all u critics out there to know, that the purpose of my post is TO FIND OUT HOW A DICK RISES INFRONT OF ANOTHER. clear?
ZX, nice one on the bravery thingy. cheers.
-xuan
i meant courage thingy. not bravery. that one's serious.
-xuan
"i strongly feel your going out of point. assuming your malay n chinese thing involves a male n a female, these people are called hetrasexuals. at least its guy meets girl = erection. xuan was wondering how can guy meet guy = erection."
I feel that you're not getting my point. He wonders how guy meet guy = erection. Another may wonder how Chinese meet Malay = Erection? Who's to judge who's right and who's wrong?
As for how homosexuals' brains work: Could you similarly explain how/why you like (insert gender)? I am curious to know as well.
Xuan, what i said was "to suggest that one needs psychiatric help for liking a member of one's gender is offensive."
What YOU said was "could it be that they have mental issues and all they need are tons of councilling? " Yes, it ends with a question mark, but it IS a suggestion.
On your quest to find out why a dick rises in front of another, I have nothing to add, because argument from ignorance* is a logical fallacy.
Note: Ignorance as in lack of knowledge. It is not meant as an insult.
My question to you is: Even if you think homosexuality is unnatural, do you think the state has the right to imprison two consenting adults whose business affects no one else?
cause im straight and follow this thing called instincts. when im married and mature enough, i would wish to put my stick into the right hole.
'Chinese meet malay = erection.' firstly, we're human. secondly, its still male and female, if i assumed correctly. its still putting the stick into the right hole. its still north meets south, like what xuan says. of course, like what wang said before, even hetras dont always put into the right hole. but now we wonder, how does 1 'piece of meat' erect infront of another 'piece'. this question should also be open for bisexuals if they would kindly enlighten us.
a few more things that i would like to say as to what u wrote to xuan. a question is not a suggestion. and i sense that he/she is hoping that there's hope for homosexuals to revert back to becoming hetrasexuals. wouldnt it be nice if a family consisted of a mum and dad rather than a dad and dad or mum and mum? i feel its like, balancing yin and yang.
"Ignorance as in lack of knowledge. It is not meant as an insult"
i thought ignorance was bliss. haha. and i dont think he/she said they should be imprisoned. right?
-G Chan ZX
An unmagnetised piece of iron will be attracted to both the north pole and the south pole of a magnet. A superconductor will repel both the north pole and south pole of a magnet.
A homosexual is just not a magnet with north or south pole, maybe an unmagnetised iron rod, maybe a superconductor.
If a penis is not meant to go up a man's anus, why is the male prostate positioned there? That is the male G-spot, the hot button for maximum sexual arousal. Never tried it myself, but some heterosexuals claim to have the best climax ever with stuff shoved up their ass. For women, the G-spot is inside the usual place designed where the penis should go. Am I getting too explicit that you may need parental guidance?
"a question is not a suggestion"
Could it be that GX Chan is stupid, which is why he does not understand that the discussion is not about whether gays are natural, but whether they should be criminalised?
hahahaha! u left me laughing my anus off jimmy. no need for PG. im interested to know what adults do with their equips.(im gonna be one soon.)that doesnt mean i want a practical session wif anyone of u.
anyway, is anonymous so stupid that he doesnt realise xuan n i(WE) are using this opportunity to ask "whether gays are natural".
u had the balls to start the insult, so why not show ur initials(signiture, watever). kiss my cyber ass, coward. u cant even spell my initials right. what GX Chan. too stupid to notice its G Chan ZX? my IQ's 139, unlike yours, the size of my shoe(size 12).
-G Chan ZX (experienced mud slinger against the low down)
"If a penis is not meant to go up a man's anus, why is the male prostate positioned there?"
so that we can sit while we shit? would u rather the hole be in our belly? anyway ZX, im a guy. one who seriously doesnt think putting stuff up where shit comes out from is right.
-xuan
Apparently xuan doesnt know what a prostate is. It is a gland up your anus, inside the rectum, and stores semen. Check out the graphic details in wikipedia.
Women doesnt have this fun gland up their anus.
What is sexual attraction?
Humans are alone in the natural in the fact that our women's breast start enlarging, not just at pregnancy, but at puberty. The obvious reason why they need to do so is because we men are so obsessed with big breasts. Which doesnt make any sense really. The bigger the breast, the more likely the woman is pregnant or lactating. If you have sex with a pregnant or lactating woman, chances are, your "hard work" will be wasted as far as procreation is concerned. Yes, a "normal" man who wants to procreate should be obsessed with flat chests, not big boobs. From this angle, it would appear that paedophiles who go after young girls with flat chests are the "normal" ones, while the rest of us, those who crave for big breasts are the ones who need counseling.
Let me give you another example. Female hyenas have penises. From the outside, it is impossible to tell a male hyena from a female hyena. In that sense, all hyenas can be said to be gay. What's more, hyena sex involves an exquisite art of a male penis penetrating a female penis. Does that sound unnatural? Do you think the entire species of hyenas need counseling?
Homosexual tendencies are no secret affairs, however definitely private affairs that are best enjoy privately. There is no need to justify it openly(publicly) much less promote it!
"whether gays are natural".
I thought this was already discussed. Homosexuality is widely observed in the animal kingdom - there are about 1,500 animal species which have exhibited homosexual behaviour.
It seems more common in social animal species (ie animals which live together in groups, eg man, penguins, seagulls, chimpanzees, giraffes). Theory is that one evolutionary purpose of homosexuality could be to reduce intra-species sexual aggression.
Eg if all males were heterosexual, there would be much more intense competition for the females - leading to more violence in the form of male-vs-male conflict; where some could get hurt or killed.
However, if a proportion of the members of the population were homosexual, such sexual competition & aggression would be reduced, and this is better for the species as a whole.
-- "there are about 1,500 animal species which have exhibited homosexual behaviour."
Correction - what I meant was that scientists have observed and documented homosexual behavior in about 1,500 animal species. There are probably other species where such behaviour has not been documented yet.
But Mr Wang, scb has already decided that animals "are not human beings and therefore should not be used to make comparisons or worse used as examples."
By that definition, gays can only be 'natural' if it is 'natural' for human beings to be gay. :)
Heheh. But if animals should not be used to make comparisons, then we have no evidence that heterosexuality in human beings is natural.
We can only compare ourselves to plants, which propagate by seeds ...
"then we have no evidence that heterosexuality in human beings is natural."
hetrasexuals are the only reason why your here in the first place mr wang. isit unnatural for u to be here? ^^
-G Chan ZX
G Chan ZX and xuan,
I'm a gay man. To be honest, I really don't know why I am attracted to another man, I just am. Also, I have to say that while physical attraction is one thing, I am also attracted by a guy who is mature, is even keeled, has a good personality and is intelligent.
Would it be easier from a societal point of view if I were straight? Most definitely. But to pretend to be straight would betray my sense of integrity. It would not be fair to my wife and kids, if I got married and chose to pro-create.
By the way, animals that usually reproduce via "straight" sexual intercourse have been known to reproduce without mating. See the most recent case of "immaculate birth" by a shark here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/23/science/23shark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I will not say whether homosexual activities are right or wrong, first I deem it as subjective as religions, secondly it is difficult to establish and define its' naturalness. Next whether or not it is sanctioned, approved, accepted and legalized, the practitioners will live the way they do be it openly or clandestinely. Humans are said to possess intelligence whereas lower species are supposedly instinctive. Personally I subscribe to the distinctions cause other species have mating seasons while plants too have flowering seasons. I have no scientific proof to my belief, as such maybe those with knowledges could enlighten me. I am of the opinion that it is a trivial issue by virtue of the fact that a insignificant number of people are indulgent in it and as said earlier they will practise what are are proned to whether or not it is acceptable. Another angle which I look at it is that it is hardly a bread and butter issue. Next is the question of naturalness, does naturalness makes it condonable? If it is, then nakedness must and should be the most acceptable as we are born so, however the world seems to say that is indecent exposure. Nevertheless as I have posted earlier, it is a private affair that needs no public justification if done privately and in practise, dare I say again the law is likely to look other way unless the perpetrators want to exhibit themselves wittingly. I stand corrected, yours humbly.
Next is the question of naturalness, does naturalness makes it condonable?
Well, to answer this question, I think that whether something is natural or unnatural does not in itself say anything about whether it is good or bad or should be legal or illegal.
For example, all of these things are definitely much more unnatural than homosexuality:
(a) Panadol
(b) prosthetics
(c) Coca Cola
(d) artificial insemination
(e) genetic engineering
(f) stem cell research
(g) Lasik surgery
(h) blood transfusion
(i) ligation
(j) vasectomies
(k) hydrophonic agricultural produce
(l) consumption of fermented mind-altering grape juice (aka alcohol)
yet I don't see why it necessarily follows that any of the above should be made illegal on the grounds of its unnaturalness, much less homosexuality.
hetrasexuals are the only reason why your here in the first place mr wang. isit unnatural for u to be here? ^^
Heterosexuals are also the reason why homosexuals are here in the first place. Is it unnatural for homosexuals to be here?
It has been many thousand years since mankind embroiled themselves with religions. Countless people have put in their whole heart and time trying to decipher Will(determination) and Fate. And many put their fates to faiths(beliefs) and hey! they look no further for their answers to their existences! Other than the last category(believers in god(s), the rest are(were) truth seekers to a certain degree, within this group there are also those defining their own purpose of existence such as Mr Wang(determination) and those who wonder about the purpose of existence; foolhardy people like me. Having put myself into the curiosity and inquisitive paths in the past few decades, I am no wiser today. What is clear to me was understood by many before and that is; we all equalize and level at the end no matter who and what you are. The holy men of yore beg to keep themselves alive and their donors gave; hoping the former will blessed their ways upward to heaven. The begging and giving are tangible(material) whereas the wishes for blessings are spiritual(intangible). In between the two we; believers, agnostics and atheists reside discoursing over mundanes spiritedly. The Sciences say evolution! The Believers say Creation! As though evolution does not commence after creation and evolved species do not procreate after their evolutions! Oh shit! I am beginning to get lost again, please do not follow me, be at peace with thyself!
"Heterosexuals are also the reason why homosexuals are here in the first place. Is it unnatural for homosexuals to be here?"
no. its natural for them to be here. because their humans. BUT, its their mindset that is UNnatural to me. im very glad my ancesters did not possess the homsexual mindset(in terms of choosing sex partners). how abt you, mr wang?
-G Chan ZX
GarHH!! my post didnt publish. so here's what i think i said.
"Heterosexuals are also the reason why homosexuals are here in the first place. Is it unnatural for homosexuals to be here?"
no. they are fellow human beings after all. it's their mindsets which i feel is unnatural. i definately am glad my ancestors didnt possess or adopt the homosexual mindset(choice of sex partner). how about you, mr wang?
-G Chan ZX
Btw Mr Wang, intrinsic in .G Chan ZXs' post on May 30, 2007 at 1027pm is the indication that you are here because your parents are not homosexuals. Those homosexuals who are made by their normal parents will however not be able to function biologically (to procreate) like their parents do though I will not say they(Homosexual) must. Regards!
One tends to demonize -insert sexual orientation-, -insert race-, -insert religious group- when you don't know anyone close who belongs to that respective group.
Check out this blog from Andrew Sullivan:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/why_were_winnin_1.html
Kind of reinforces some of the arguments made by Mr Wang.
Mr Wang exists depend a lot more than whether his ancestors copulated. In order to get to the copulation part, Mr Wang's ancestors must
1) grow up
2) not get killed by other species while hunting for food
3) not get killed by own species while fighting over the mating partner
Anybody with average IQ will realise that the more homosexuals there are, the less competition Mr Wang's ancestors will have while fighting over a mate. In fact, anybody with above average IQ will wish that all the other men in the world is gay. Women will queue up and beg for your seed.
And as I mentioned before, gay men tend to be younger siblings. Having no children of their own helps in
1) child rearing
2) less demand for food as a tribe, which leads to less risk in hunting
Andrew Sullivan is a brilliant writer. His topics include New Conservatism and Gay Rights. I encourage you to look him if homosexuality and gay rights interest you as a topic.
God made Adam and Eve, then ran right out of moulding material.
Anybody ever considered that if Adam wasn't allowed to screw his daughters (and so on), how on earth could we ever reach 12 tribes of Israel?
(But then, of course, his daughters couldn't complain because the policemen would also have been related.)
"it's their mindsets which i feel is unnatural."
LOL. And what else do you feel is unnatural?
Siamese twins? Extraordinary mathematical geniuses? Century eggs? Contact lenses? Plastic bags? Synchronised swimming? Artificial intelligence? In-vitro fertilisation?
"LOL. And what else do you feel is unnatural?"
eh ah pek, i think we're talking about homos now ryte?
Point is very simple. Assuming homosexuality is unnatural
(which I doubt, for if it were, penguins, bats, gorillas and sea gulls wouldn't be doing it)
why should that justify making homosexuality illegal?
'why should that justify making homosexuality illegal?'
lets see.. which part of
'no. they are fellow human beings after all. it's their mindsets which i feel is unnatural. i definately am glad my ancestors didnt possess or adopt the homosexual mindset(choice of sex partner). how about you, mr wang?'
tells you i feel they are 'illegal'? is avoiding questions a debating skill you use in court mr wang?
Oh, if you do not know what topic is being discussed, please refer to the post.
Gay men have less testosterone (the male hormone, which leads to aggressiveness, competitiveness, and other 'male' behaviours and outer appearances, such as beards and other bodily hair growth) in their systems. Acts of aggression are normally caused by overly 'testosterone-y’ men...gun shooting, gang fights, raping....Therefore, gay men are less likely to commit crimes of the sort the woman who wrote on http://reach.gov.sg was afraid of. They would also be far less likely to ‘go around raping people’ than straight men would. Two gay men would also probably take care of a baby better than two straight men, who might possibly use the baby as a football (kidding, kind of an extreme example). So, let’s ban heterosexuality altogether! Duh. Sexual preference is a biological thing and there’s not much you can do about it.
karen: So, let’s ban heterosexuality altogether!
yup n lets watch the human race deplete too.
karen: Two gay men would also probably take care of a baby better than two straight men.
where is the baby gona come frm if hetrosexuality is 'banned'.(i know you're kidding)
karen: better than two straight men.
yup. thats why there is this gender called the female gender. 1 female could take even better care than 3 gays. 4 example, she could provide human milk. and nothing beats her motherly instincts.
-GCZX
As an aside, saying that we cannot compare homosexual behaviours in other animal species with homosexual behaviours in humans, simply refuses to acknowledge the fact that the animal kingdom is so much more than merely "human" and "non-human".
It is important to take note that if we compare the degree of relatedness, a chimpanzee, gorilla is far more related to us than it is to a rat, or dog, or cow. And if we look into the sexual behaviour of the great apes in the wild, sexual activity, both homosexual and heterosexual, is very common, and is not merely for procreation. For all ape species, sex is one of the means through which members of a troop or community bond together, whether it is to find favours with a high-ranking male, or to establish and reaffirm a friendship, and even sometimes, or as a way to relieve tension.
If we look beyond our close relatives the apes and monkeys, we discover that other more distantly related families of highly intelligent mammals, such as the whales and dolphins, and the elephants, also have plenty of examples where individuals participated in sex (both hetero- and homo-), apparently without procreation in mind.
My point is that while yes, we do have certain qualities that set us apart from the other so-called 'dumb beasts', we cannot deny that we are still very much alike.
Chimpanzees will hunt live prey, make tools, have close friends they prefer to spend time with, seek to rise up the hierarchy by trying to suck up to higher-ranking individuals, and more. Some chimpanzee communities have been recorded invading neighbouring troops and seeking to wipe out the neighbours in an attempt to expand their territory - in short, they wage war against others of their own species. Some chimpanzees turn cannibal. And yes, many chimpanzees engage in homosexual or bisexual behaviour.
I am not saying "Just because chimpanzees do it, so therefore there is nothing wrong with humans following suit", but rather, that if you delve deeper into the intricate social relationships of many other species, homosexual behaviour does not seem so "unnatural" after all.
G Chan ZX,
Must say I am pretty impressed by your debating skills. You do not let yourself be misquoted or distracted by people, some probably much older than you, who try to put words into your text or try to digress and worm their way out.
You appear to me also more level-headed and then some emotional ones.
Two thumbs up.
is anal sex normal for a hetrasexual couple?
Post a Comment