Sometime last year, I received an email from an editor in Hong Kong. He was compiling poems for a new publication. The book would be used as a literature textbook for high school students in Hong Kong.
The editor asked for permission to include a particular poem of mine in his book. He also said some very nice things about my poem. I felt pleased, not because of his compliments, but because I felt that this particular poem was indeed an excellent choice for his book.
Why? Because the poem addressed a topic which was very relevant to students (in fact it was based on a real-life event concerning a young student). So I could see how a teacher might use the poem to create and present a highly interesting lesson in class. And I could easily imagine the students relating very well to the poem.
So I replied to the editor - yes, please go ahead and include my poem in your textbook.
This year the editor wrote to me again. He informed me that the poem, unfortunately, would not be included in the new book. Apparently, a higher authority had objected. They did not feel that the poem was suitable for inclusion in a textbook for students.
Why? Because, in the editor's own words, the poem cuts "too close to the bone of everyday reality". The poem would not be suitable for teenagers in school, because it was "too real ...".
Anyway, here's the poem:
Suicide can be a disturbing topic. Nevertheless the issue is real, and worthy of discussion. Only a small proportion of students will ever become suicidal, but that takes nothing away from the significance of the topic as a social issue. To avoid the topic, on the grounds that it cuts "too close to the bone of everyday reality", is basically a kind of chickening out.
Homosexuality is also real. Only a small proportion of the general population is homosexual. Again, that takes nothing away from the significance of the topic as a social issue. For educators to deliberately avoid the topic, as if it did not exist, is somewhat like trying to pretend that in the real world, young people do not commit suicide.
The fact that a topic is controversial is a bad reason to avoid discussing it. It might even be said that the more controversial a topic, the greater the need to openly discuss it. We should bring the topic out into the light; analyse the facts; study the theories; and share our views. We should work towards gaining more clarity and understanding, instead of doing the ostrich thing and sticking our heads into the sand.
Unfortunately, it appears that some members of the Christian right have recently been insisting that schools in Singapore behave like ostriches. The specific targets? Junior colleges whose students have discussed gay issues in their General Paper classes.
Below you can see the Education Ministry's half-hearted defence against the attack of the Christian right:
The editor asked for permission to include a particular poem of mine in his book. He also said some very nice things about my poem. I felt pleased, not because of his compliments, but because I felt that this particular poem was indeed an excellent choice for his book.
Why? Because the poem addressed a topic which was very relevant to students (in fact it was based on a real-life event concerning a young student). So I could see how a teacher might use the poem to create and present a highly interesting lesson in class. And I could easily imagine the students relating very well to the poem.
So I replied to the editor - yes, please go ahead and include my poem in your textbook.
This year the editor wrote to me again. He informed me that the poem, unfortunately, would not be included in the new book. Apparently, a higher authority had objected. They did not feel that the poem was suitable for inclusion in a textbook for students.
Why? Because, in the editor's own words, the poem cuts "too close to the bone of everyday reality". The poem would not be suitable for teenagers in school, because it was "too real ...".
Anyway, here's the poem:
The Schoolgirl Kills Herself After Failing An ExamI mention the poetry incident now, because I've just been reminded of it - strangely enough, by the Aware saga. Let me explain.
She jumps from the tenth floor of a housing block
into the brief wild terror of freedom, dies and transforms
into twelve paragraphs of newsprint in the Straits Times,
cool and objective, black and white, verifiable facts only.
We are told that her classmates are "shocked".
And that her parents refuse to comment. We know that
she scored 41 marks for her last exam paper, a fatal result.
A teacher describes her as a "quiet, hardworking girl".
We feel obliged to pause to reflect. We wish to search
our conscience. She was only eleven, we remind ourselves.
There must be others like her. There must be another way,
we suspect, for children to grow up in this country.
But yesterday's news is quick to slide into the grey of memory.
She will become another incidental casualty. We turn the page.
We forget. Again we trip and fall head first into the future,
down into the depths of a national urge to never stop excelling.
Suicide can be a disturbing topic. Nevertheless the issue is real, and worthy of discussion. Only a small proportion of students will ever become suicidal, but that takes nothing away from the significance of the topic as a social issue. To avoid the topic, on the grounds that it cuts "too close to the bone of everyday reality", is basically a kind of chickening out.
Homosexuality is also real. Only a small proportion of the general population is homosexual. Again, that takes nothing away from the significance of the topic as a social issue. For educators to deliberately avoid the topic, as if it did not exist, is somewhat like trying to pretend that in the real world, young people do not commit suicide.
The fact that a topic is controversial is a bad reason to avoid discussing it. It might even be said that the more controversial a topic, the greater the need to openly discuss it. We should bring the topic out into the light; analyse the facts; study the theories; and share our views. We should work towards gaining more clarity and understanding, instead of doing the ostrich thing and sticking our heads into the sand.
Unfortunately, it appears that some members of the Christian right have recently been insisting that schools in Singapore behave like ostriches. The specific targets? Junior colleges whose students have discussed gay issues in their General Paper classes.
Below you can see the Education Ministry's half-hearted defence against the attack of the Christian right:ST May 7, 2009
GP teachers did not push alternative lifestyles
By Amelia Tan
IN ITS letter to The Straits Times yesterday, the Ministry of Education (MOE) revealed that it had received 'feedback' about materials on alternative lifestyles used in junior college General Paper lessons.
Among the issues raised was one contained in an e-mail which has made the rounds recently. It said that during a discussion of same-sex marriages, students at a junior college were given a worksheet with questions asking for their views of a nuclear family unit. They were also asked to discuss topics such as the legalisation of gay marriage and parents of the same sex forming families through adoption.
A documentary on the lifestyles of such families was also shown in class, the e-mail said. It questioned if it was appropriate to discuss such topics, and charged that this promoted homosexuality. It is not known who wrote the e-mail.
In its response yesterday, MOE said: 'GP lessons are meant to promote critical thinking and discussion on contemporary issues.
'These materials and lessons did not involve Aware...MOE investigations showed that the teachers had used these materials to initiate discussion on family structures, and not to promote alternative lifestyles.
'Nevertheless, MOE will remind school leaders and teachers to exercise greater professional discretion in guiding their students when such topics are discussed. They should also adhere to social norms and values of our mainstream society.'
Sigh ... I wonder what's next on the cards, for Singapore. Perhaps the Christian fundamentalists will insist that everyone subscribes to their view that the world was created in seven days. And then they will insist that the topic of Darwinian evolution be banned from discussion in our schools.
This kind of issue has already shown up in other countries. Read this article about Josie Lau's favourite "charity", Focus on the Family. When is Singapore's turn?
117 comments:
Dear Mr. Wang,
I have said this elsewhere, and I'll be keen to solicit the opinions of your readers.
It seems to me that Christian-bashing is the most 'in-thing' in the Singaporean blogosphere at the moment, but I think that this backlash against homosexuality is not simply a Christian phenomenon. Singaporeans are still by and large socially conservative, Christian or not.
Regards.
Mr Wang,
Why is it that so many of you, whenever you discuss about homosexuality, you have to bring in religion?
I see homo issue from a social perspective.
Click here
Not totally relevant, but this reminds me on the article on "Escapism" I just read on Celes' blog.
This also reminds me of The God Delusion debate between Professor Richard Dawkins and his Oxford University colleague Dr. John Lennox (a Christian academic) on the existence of God and Dawkins' book - The God Delusion.
I appreciate the fact that the debate was organised by Fixed Point Foundation, a Christian organisation that seeks thoughtful discussions on meaningful issues (as written on their website), instead of avoiding such issues altogether, a route unfortunately chosen by some.
You can stream it here -
http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/
It's a pretty interesting debate. Lively, thoughtful, occasionally funny and civil.
Hmmm...because certain christian factions are compulsive-obsessed with homosexuality and have taken to gay-bashing to win popular votes, now that black-bashing is out.
Other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism do not practise gay-bashing.
Conservative from whose perspective? The christian conservative perspective or the truly asian perspective? Is the 377A in place in asian countries not colonised by the British.
So don't extend "conservative christian attitude" to the rest of non-christians. Most people on the streets are not bothered about gay issue. The noise makers are the educated vocal elitish christian fundies!
If you will to speak to people on the streets, they are getting fed up with christianity now because they feared being ruled by fundies!
Well, social perspectives or not, alternative forms of sexuality are an undeniable fact of life and have been accepted by older civilizations in Asia and even in Europe.
If we examine history, patriarchal religions like Christianity- or at least, a particular interpretation of it has strong views against homosexuality and what it deems to be normal. This has unfortunately influenced much of the 'civilized' world via colonization, not only of land but of minds as well ....
We need to enlighten ourselves on where our values / social perspectives derive from and not be quick to jump to the conclusion that 'Asian values' need to be protected, when it is our minds that need emancipation from ignorance.
to the various anons who mention that Mr Wang always ties religion with the homosexual topic, i think the reason why he did that is because although it is true that disapproving homosexuality is not done just by the Christians but also by members of other religions and even atheists, it seems to be that although others disapprove, they acknowledge that it is a personal opinion (note that homosexuality is neutral in some religions). however, more often than not, the Christian disapproval is often amplified by tying their personal disapproval to teachings and words from their God.
away from this point, i believe that MOE had this defence because they also know that Singaporeans cannot afford to have their heads and ears covered up in sand. it's almost embarrasing enough that singapore bans homosexual acts even when both parties are consent and are adults (the taboo of homosexuality in singapore stupefied Ian McKeller), and it already gives a bad impression to what an "open" country singapore is. they cant afford to carry on this mindset by ignoring the existence and controversies surrounding homosexuality by being silent to the next generation of Singaporeans and hence GP discusses it.
It's one thing to disapprove homosexuality, but to completely ignore the topic, is totally taking steps backwards. It's almost like ignoring the topic of Aids and HIV because u're supposed to assume that universally, parters are loyal to each other, by educating people on HIV and Aids, u're promoting infidelity and wrecking the sanctity of marriage. and that condoms are not the way to prevent the spread of STDS (sounds familiar?)
about christianity and darwinism..
[url]http://www.livingstreams.org.sg/sac/news.html[/url]
i might be reading too much into this.. but "This is a great opportunity to bring friends, family, pastors and youth groups to combat the pro-Darwin saturation that is already occurring this year." .... HMMM
Mr Wang
Homosexuality is more widely accepted in the "Christian" nations than Buddhist/Taoist/etc rest of the world. FACT.
Until the day when science is able to bring the dead back to life, religion is here to stay.
If there is a soul\spirit\whatever then there is a higher power.
Just to remind you again that experiments with atheist/anti-religion nations include communist Soviet Union and the early communist China have all been failures too.
Why do u link the death of a schoolgirl over grades to Christianity?
I believe most Singaporean parents would prefer that MOE do not glamourize the gay lifestyle.
Ajahn Brahmavamso talks about "Homosexuality and Buddhism"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajahn_BrahmAjahn Brahm came from a working-class background and won a scholarship to study Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University in the late 1960s. After graduating from Cambridge he taught in high school for one year before travelling to Thailand to become a monk and train with the Venerable Ajahn Chah Bodhinyana Mahathera.
In the early 1980s, he was invited to start a Buddhist monastery just outside Perth, Australia. He is now its abbot, and in October last year, was awarded the John Curtin Medal by Curtin University of Technology, for building a strong Buddhist community in Australia.
His proudest achievement took place on a Sunday two or three years ago in an Anglican cathedral in Perth.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=9,680,0,0,1,0'For the first time in the history of Christianity, a Buddhist monk gave a sermon and performed the Eucharist in a church on a Sunday, and that was me.'
Ajahn Brahm had become firm friends with the dean of the cathedral who invited him to talk. When word of that leaked, the dean received death threats. Countless letters debating the issue were printed in newspapers.
'In the end, it happened. People packed the hall and crowded around the windows. Half of them were Buddhist, half of them Christian, but no one knew who was what.'
He spoke on 'harmony and peace and love at the heart of all religions'.
'After giving that speech, we put our arms around each other and walked down the hall. The audience gave us a standing ovation for a long time,' he says, visibly moved by the recollection.
Sometimes I really don't understand the logic of the Christian teachings. If their God is so intelligent as what they claim, then isn't it logical that their God would not have allowed one single gay to be created in this world, let alone a "whole nation of lesbians". So why are they still so worried about young people being influenced by pro-gay materials ?
Definitely their God would make sure no Christian will be gay ? Correct or not?
Singaporeans are more apathetic than anything else, although 'conservative' is a convenient description to hide under, and an excuse to shy away from issues people are not comfortable with for the right or wrong reason. Many people like to throw the word around without really caring if other people would interpret the word in the same way.
If fundie-bashing is considered Christian-bashing, how about Taliban-bashing as Muslim-bashing? This is really old as a line of argument.
I wonder what will happen when vegetarians start insisting the schools teach that
- humans are born herbivores
- eating meat is unnatural and evil
- eating meat is an addiction that should be cured
- meat eaters should be ostracized until they agree to seek treatment for their meat eating addiction
- eating meat destroys families
I wonder the extent of public backlash.
Vegetarians will be saying it is the "in-thing" to bash vegetarians without reflecting on their actions.
The fundies are over-reacting to anything short of condemning sin. What would Jesus do?
Joel's Army is posting right here.
MOE tend to operate on a knee-jerk reaction, even if its just one complaint. If another group should complain or petition to MOE about the myopic teaching content and not meeting the diverse standards they expect of a quality education, another poor group of MOE staff will probably have to do another review. It is all in the spirit of "following mainstream norm", and the norm is thus dependent on the more visible and vocal feedback.
Dear Mr Wang,
I like your poem.
It IS a very nice poem. I was wondering when someone was going to say that.
Mr Wang, I think I must buy your book. :)
To Anonymous said on May 8, 2009 11:09 PM
"I believe most Singaporean parents would prefer that MOE do not glamourize the gay lifestyle."
Where ah?
Is homosexuality a very contagious "disease"?
I agree if GOD is truly a perfect CREATOR, all his creations should be perfectly
STRAIGHT
F**K in the name of the LORD (remember lust is a sin!)
Have wonderful children who fear GOD before their parents...
who eventually grow up to be wonderful straight parents
who know perfectly well what the bodily orifices are meant for...mouth for eating FOOD only, ANUS for shitting ONLY...
and what a wonderfully ....BORING straight life!!
but then GOD got bored first...and he planted a tree..
and tell his children...DON'T EAT THAT FRUIT!
Try telling YOUR kids..don't eat that apple on the table...you will be sure it will be eaten...
Will you punish your kids with SIN?
Geez..how did a fairy tail become a religion???
If a Chinese book on how the human race was created
PAN-GU: Giant Creator God born of the Cosmic Egg. became a HOLY book..
we would all be descendents of fleas!!
"Some legends tell that the fleas infesting his shaggy fur dropped to Earth and became the ancestors of the human race. But you can't believe everything you hear as NU-GUA also claims responsibility."
The way I see it, homosexuality can't be "promoted".
It is merely a condition, and in that sense, it's pretty much like left-handedness, or skin colour.
(Sad to say, history has shown us that people do get persecuted for being left-handed, or for having a particular skin colour. The same happens to gay people).
Homosexuality occurs in a minority of the human population, which in my view is quite natural and something to be expected.
After all, the condition also occurs in a wide range of other animal species, such as penguins, dogs, cats, elephants, giraffes, chickens and dolphins.
I'm all for the repeal of Section 337A, and gays should not be criminalised or discriminated against. But MOE should also ensure that a neutral stance should be adopted for the subject of homosexuality i.e. do not say it's o.k. to be a homosexual..instead ask your parents! And anal sex should not be okayed. OTOH all the negatives of anal sex should be told, without explicitly saying it is wrong. I think I speak for the mainstream, and I'm not Christian. By the way, there's an interesting discussion on steeplejacking in Singapore churches going on at wayangparty.com. It's scary.
To Anonymous (8 May),
Ape has also responded to calls similar like yours in other blog.
Most religious faithful knows exactly what their faith tells them... but like what a muslim friend of ape said, "... that's our teachings but we don't have to go around telling others to follow our teachings".
Another have no problem sharing the same table with ape while he eats his halai dulang and ape eats his pork knuckle.
Back to your assumption of "Christian-bashing is the most 'in-thing' in Singapore". Ape say not true that there is Christian bashing. It will be more accurate to say that a minority of Christians are pushing their fundamental beliefs into the secular society. Rational people are pointing out the flaws in this group's thinking... and doing it openly.
"And anal sex should not be okayed. OTOH all the negatives of anal sex should be told, without explicitly saying it is wrong"
What is your view about anal sex between a man and a woman?
Some people are just so blinded by their faith that the moment they see comments that are anti-(put your faith in here), they retaliate arguing that your comments should not link to blah blah and such.
I think this is missing the point. Mr Wang is simply pointing out that the action of the 'higher authority' is an escapist reaction to a very real situation in today's society. Therefore, the analogy of the 'higher authority's action to the complaint of the author of the email to MOE. He is by no means linking the girl's suicide to Christianity.
When a real problem exists, the right attitude is to face the problem, as opposed to acting if the problem did not existed, regardless the topic be homosexuality, AIDS/HIV or the rising teenage suicide rates.
I don't care about anal sex, I am not interested in it therefore I don't engage in it. As long as people look after themselves and take their partner(s) into consideration, why should it bother me? Unlike some people, I don't feel that I have an obsessive compulsive need to dictate what my future kids will do in bed beyond 'keep yourself and your partner safe'. I don't intend to watch or make videos, so why should I care?
On the other hand, if parents wish to guilt kids into suicide/psychological problems over their sexual preferences, is it then just their business? The blood is on their hands, sure. I only know that if they wish for MOE to perpetuatobligatione that choice for everyone else's kids, it is a concern for society. It is a concern for ME.
So, Singapore, let me ask you, what do you prefer:
a) MOE teaches some sexual practices are wrong, parents who care enough to teach kids that it is OK.
b) MOE teaches certain sexual practices are neutral/ok/whatever, parents who care enough, teach their own kids it is Wrong.
As of now, people who prefer 'a' have more influence than people who prefer 'b'. Guilting everyone's kids into developing issues will stay (for now). A little blood doesn't matter as long as imaginary incidences of wanton anal sex is averted right?
-RSE
Criticising the right wing fundamentalists is not the same as "Christian bashing". Those who hide behind religion or use it as a shield should be exposed as such.
I don't give a rat's arse about anal sex between a man and a woman.
What they want to do in the privacy of their own room, with both parties consenting, is none of my bloody problem.
Go worry about your job or your credit card bills. It's more productive!
Essentially the same might be said about any two adults (gay or straight).
Why would you give a rat's arse about anal sex between any two adults. What they want to do in the privacy of their own room, with both parties consenting, should also be none of your bloody problem.
I wonder what it is they are really afraid of. Thanks for your insight.
Mr Wang:
The way I see it, homosexuality can't be "promoted".
It is merely a condition, and in that sense, it's pretty much like left-handedness, or skin colour.
I totally disagree that "homosexuality can't be promoted".
Why don't you try a simple experiment. Just let your son watch homosexual porn movies on a regular basis.
I can guarantee that he will turn out to be a gay. Of course based on your thinking, your son happened to be "born a gay".
Why don't you try a simple experiment. Just let your son watch homosexual porn movies on a regular basis.
I can guarantee that he will turn out to be a gay. Of course based on your thinking, your son happened to be "born a gay".Need to experiment meh? I thought the 2000 year book already said showing gay porn to kids will change them.
Frankly, the argument from Anon 10:34 pm isn't very intelligent. And its flaws are easily exposed by a few questions?
1. Does a heterosexual person need to watch heterosexual porn movies, in order to become heterosexual? I don't think so.
2. Does a gay elephant or giraffe need to watch homosexual porn movies, in order to become homosexual? Again, I don't think so.
3. Did homosexuality in human society exist well before the days of modern technology, films and movies? Yes of course. Some details from that link:
"In many societies of Melanesia, especially in Papua New Guinea, same-sex relationships were an integral part of the culture until the middle of the last century.
In Persia homosexuality and homoerotic expressions were tolerated in numerous public places, from monasteries and seminaries to taverns, military camps, bathhouses, and coffee houses. In the early Safavid era (1501–1723), male houses of prostitution (amrad khane) were legally recognized and paid taxes.
Homosexuality in China, known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, the cut sleeve, or the southern custom, has been recorded since approximately 600 BCE
Similarly, in Thailand, Kathoey, or "ladyboys," have been a feature of Thai society for many centuries, and Thai kings had male as well as female lovers. While Kathoey may encompass simple effeminacy or transvestism, it most commonly is treated in Thai culture as a third gender. They are generally accepted by society, and Thailand has never had legal prohibitions against homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
Among indigenous peoples of the Americas prior to European colonization, a common form of same-sex sexuality centered around the figure of the Two-Spirit individual. Typically this individual was recognized early in life, given a choice by the parents to follow the path and, if the child accepted the role, raised in the appropriate manner, learning the customs of the gender it had chosen. Two-Spirit individuals were commonly shamans and were revered as having powers beyond those of ordinary shamans. Their sexual life was with the ordinary tribe members of the same sex.
Though often ignored or suppressed by European explorers and colonialists, homosexual expression in native Africa was also present and took a variety of forms. Anthropologists Stephen Murray and Will Roscoe reported that women in Lesotho engaged in socially sanctioned "long term, erotic relationships" called motsoalle.[122] E. E. Evans-Pritchard also recorded that male Azande warriors in the northern Congo routinely took on young male lovers between the ages of twelve and twenty, who helped with household tasks and participated in intercrural sex with their older husbands. The practice had died out by the early 20th century, after Europeans had gained control of African countries, but was recounted to Evans-Pritchard by the elders to whom he spoke."
To Anonymous May 10, 2009 9:39 AM
I presume if you are parent and so insecure of your son or daughter's sexual orientation, you are screening "heterosexual" porn (presumably indulging in ONLY missionary positioning and god-forbid, NO fellatio, cunninlingus and analingus) from day one when your child is born?
You are being ridiculous!
We, including gays, are subjected, especially in good old puritannical Singapore, to heterosexual materials on our public media, how come there are still gays?
Stop being obsessed with gays corrupting the straights. Go look at the glossy magazines on the newstands, go look at the flourishing business in geylang,go look at the values portrayed on the TV media like Desperate Housewives.
the line of thought from anon may10 9.39am seems to be that if you show a child homosexual porn, the child becomes a homosexual, if you show a child hetero porn, the child is "normal" (i say "normal" because it's not that it's biologically normal. it's just socially conceived normal), and if you show both types to the child, the child becomes a bisexual. it's almost ridiculous. this is the type of argument that supports the view that external environment is the only determinant that nurtures gays and it is not something that might have been triggered internally.
Mr Wang:
"Frankly, the argument from Anon 10:34 pm isn't very intelligent. And its flaws are easily exposed by a few questions?
1. Does a heterosexual person need to watch heterosexual porn movies, in order to become heterosexual? I don't think so.
2. Does a gay elephant or giraffe need to watch homosexual porn movies, in order to become homosexual? Again, I don't think so.
3. Did homosexuality in human society exist well before the days of modern technology, films and movies?
Honestly I expected a more relevant answer from you.
Answers to your questions:
1) Answer is no. Because heterosexuality is natural. But homosexuality is not, but can be 'promoted'.
2) I would rather skip this question, as I'm referring to human beings e.g. your son (not being sarcastic here)
3) Going off-track here. I'm not focusing on 'movies' but that homosexuality can be 'promoted' - and in many ways.
Your answer did not answer my assertion: That your son WILL become a gay if shown homosexual porn movies regularly.
Of course I KNOW that you, being a responsible parent, will NOT do so. (Perhaps in your sub-conscious, you know that he may be 'persuaded' to turn gay).
Why don't you try a simple experiment. Just let your son watch homosexual porn movies on a regular basis.
I can guarantee that he will turn out to be a gay. Of course based on your thinking, your son happened to be "born a gay".
The rest of us do not have the habit of showing porn to our kids, but to answer your question - if your son becomes gay after you force fed him gay porn, you should be able to make him heterosexual again by force feeding him heterosexual porn.
Another question - is this how the "cure gay addiction" programmes work? Force feed the kids heterosexual porn?
"Perhaps the Christian fundamentalists will insist that everyone subscribes to their view that the world was created in seven days. And then they will insist that the topic of Darwinian evolution be banned from discussion in our schools."
Mr Wang, I am also concerned that if the Christian Right muster enough numbers and political clout, they will push for creationism to be included in schools. Our scientific research and religious will be jeopardized then.
However, I don't think that is unlikely to happen soon. Singapore is a conservative society with regard to homosexuality so they could still count on support of majority of Singaporeans including Muslims, Hindus and many non-Christian Chinese.
However, evolution is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence and has become mainstream a hundred years ago while homosexuality is only beginning to gain acceptance.
While creationism will not gain acceptance so easily here yet, but its still possible partially. This is because many Singaporeans are not even exposed to what evolution is back in school. The teaching of it is only limited to the bio students. Just as apathy over homosexuality makes it easy for the Christian Right to capitalise on existing homophobia, apathy about evolution makes Singaporeans an easy target for creationism.
While they might seem to be different topics, homosexuality could be even be explained by evolution. When threatened by increasing evolutionary evidence about homosexuality, the fundamentalists might just campaign to remove evolution altogether, in the name of "religious harmony." It has happened in US and it can happen here.
I have written an article on the lack of evolutionary understanding among Singaporeans here: http://winter-lion.blogspot.com/2009/04/lonely-darwin-in-lion-city.html
Jianyue
"1) Answer is no. Because heterosexuality is natural. But homosexuality is not," Sorry, my friend, do try reading my earlier post again. If homosexuality were not natural, it would not show up in:
lions
elephants
giraffes
penguins
sea gulls
skinks
lizards
chimpanzees
dogs
cats
chickens
dolphins
bison
sheep
spotted hyenas
fruit flies
dragonflies
black swans
and
(of course)
human beings.
What else would you expect from a country and newspaper that practises racial harmony, aka reverse discrimination?
When a person of the majority race commits a crime, society makes a lot of noise. When a person of "tanned complextion" commits a crime, no noise from society!
When a person of the majority race commits a crime against a "tanned complextion" person, society makes a lot of noise. When a "tanned complextion" person commits the SAME crime against a person of majority race, no noise from society!
is this topic worthy of discussion in schools, yet not being discussed due to sensitive nature? Do we call this hypocrisy?
I don't know why some individuals are sprouting nonsense here. I suppose it's based on their lack of understanding on the realities of life.
To enlighten the ignorant, I am a gay man and since my early childhood, I managed to get a hold of my uncle's straight porn. that did not turn me straight, and why? I was focusing more on the sexual activity of the man rather than the woman.
So based on my experience, it is not the type of porn (or the external environment) that determines the sexual orientation, but one's innate characteristic determined from birth.
Just want to share a couple of (non-pornographic) videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4kwk5jV2nU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSOm4FERc4M
If conservative societies like Hong Kong, Taiwan and China already accepts the fact that there is really nothing abnormal with homosexuals, it is just a matter of time that Singapore will do catching up to accept this fact.
The only exception of course will be those who still want to live their lifes now based on an ancient unholy book written a few centuries ago.
Wait up lah!
mr wang
There is a problem with using animal kingdom to compare with the human society. In the animal kingdom there is polygamous relationship and it is perfectly natural but would you consider that ok for humans? How about cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Is it ok for humans? What is natural does not make it socially acceptable to all.
Personally I think your call for cancellation of DBS cards has become personal. In my opinion it is a call for discrimination. Just because she believes differently from you, you choose to destroy her career.
palmist
Showing homosexual porn consistently over prolonged period of time is considered brainwashing and I think that is a totally different issue altogether. With brainwashing, I reckon you can twist the mind of anyone into whatever devious state possible.
Personally, I do have a friend who is homosexual. No, his parents did not show him porn over and over again during his childhood. In fact, he thought he was hetrosexual and even had a girlfriend in puberty times. I think we should acknowledge the fact that some people are different from the majority of us. You don't go around critizing people who have mega memeories nor exceptional IQs, do we?
Try asking your father what he loves about your mother, I reckon the answer is either something stupid, ridiculous or there is no answer. I believe that feelings for someone does not have a reason to it, and it's just happened that the one for some turns out to be of the same gender as themselves (Act of God?). I accept homosexuality as long as they do not enforce their mentality on me, which I did not ever faced in my life. I do encountered alot of 'reglious' people telling me that I am a sinner by birth though and that I tell you is the real b***s**t.
Palmist:
You miss the point entirely. Let me explain.
1. Suppose X is natural.
2. Nevertheless it may or may not be acceptable.
3. If we want to say that X is not acceptable; clearly we should have a proper reason.
4. "X is unnatural" is not a proper reason. Why? because we already know that X is natural.
It's the dishonesty and lack of integrity that irks me, you see? (Sorry if that kinda reminds you of my stance with Josie Lau).
These people go around saying: "Homosexuality is bad ... Homosexuality is evil ... Homosexuality is wrong ...".
And I'm actually prepared to hear them out. I say: "Okay, tell me then. What are your reasons for saying so?"
And they say: "Because homosexuality is UNNATURAL."
So I think about it, and I check it up, and the science clearly shows that homosexuality is unnatural; on the contrary, it's widespread throughout nature.
So I then say: "Look, homosexuality is quite natural, see, there are 1,500 animal species which exhibit homosexual behaviour."
But there's just a steadfast refusal by these bigots to acknowledge this simple truth. Either:
(a) they will just ignore my point, and go on chanting 'Homosexuality is unnatural ... Homosexuality is unnatural";
or
(b) they will say, "Just because animals do it doesn't mean that it's right for humans", FORGETTING that it was they themselves who FIRST brought up the nature point, by arguing that "Homosexuality is unnatural".
I mean, you people, seriously. Why cling with such determination to your own prejudices?
I really suggest you take a small little brave step, and privately ask yourself why and how you developed such prejudices to begin with.
/// Mr Wang Says So said...
(Sad to say, history has shown us that people do get persecuted for being left-handed... ///
Yes, indeed. When the word "sinister" was derived.
/// Honestly I expected a more relevant answer from you.
Answers to your questions:
1) Answer is no. Because heterosexuality is natural. But homosexuality is not, but can be 'promoted'.
May 10, 2009 5:21 PM ///
Anon @ May 10, 2009 5:21 PM,
Honestly, I expected just a modicum of intelligence from you. What is say is not the truth. What you say is just your assertion. It is called "circular reasoning". Just because you say it can be promoted, so it master be true? By whose authority? Yours? God's? The Bible? Do you know the meaning or "natural" or "normal"? Natural as in occurring in nature. Homosexuality does occur in the animal kingdom and insects, and of course human beings.
Mr Wang,
I see the issue of homo in Singapore context this way.
If homos want to keep their homo activities amongst themselves, who cares?
It is when they cross the line, forcing their ideas on others that is where the dispute begins. The biggest issue now is that the homosexuals are telling us how to teach our children.
Of course, I know that you have said that you are comfortable with your children being taught homosexuality. Yes, I too teach my children about it. Difference is that we see homosexuality is to be approached differently.
Now why can't gays accept that?
Anon 8.26am
"Showing homosexual porn consistently over prolonged period of time is considered brainwashing and I think that is a totally different issue altogether. With brainwashing, I reckon you can twist the mind of anyone into whatever devious state possible."
Actually you are basically agreeing that homosexuality can be "promoted". You call it by a different term "brainwashing".
Subtle teachings in schools that 'homosexuality is perfectly normal', 'anal sex can be healthy' is not exactly brainwashing, but more like preparing the ground.
I fully agree that the mind can be twisted into devious states, especially young minds.
/// There is a problem with using animal kingdom to compare with the human society. In the animal kingdom there is polygamous relationship and it is perfectly natural but would you consider that ok for humans? How about cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Is it ok for humans? What is natural does not make it socially acceptable to all. -- palmist ///
palmist, I am glad you bring in these examples. You see, you have accepted that it is "natural", but not socially acceptable. That is a giant step forward. But as you can see, there are still many people here who do not think that homosexuality is normal or natural.
Homosexuality, like polygamy, and cannibalism, for some people, and in some culture in some previous era, are natural.
So, the real questions then is, who decides on morality and social acceptability? Don't you realize that humans are also polygamous by nature - it is to improve the chances of survival of your offsprings. It is society who decides much later to make monogamy the "social norm" in most societies. Even so, as we speak, in this modern era, there are societies and religions that regard polygamy as normal and natural. You know Islam of course - it is quite normal to have up to 4 wives. And is certain Polynesia societies, it is socially acceptable to have a few husbands.
And it was not too long ago, that certain jungle tribes do practice cannibalism. And of course the extreme recorded examples of cannibalism of those survivors of plane crashes.
Now, back to the real issue of human homosexuality. I hope we have agreed that it is natural. Who then decide whether it is socially acceptable? The Church? The Buddhist Temple? The Mosque? Or the government?
The real problem, I think, is to confuse sin and moral with legality.
Adultery is a sin. Adultery is immoral. But it is not a criminal offence. Sure, the partner can sue for divorce for adultery, but can you put him or her in jail for adultery? Likewise, homosexuality may be a sin or immoral for those with strong Bible learnings, but should it be a criminal offence?
BTW, I am straight as an arrow.
P/S - Yes, I consider polygamy ok for humans. If you can get the relevant laws changed (Woman's Charter?), I will be the first to get a few more wives (of course my current wife will be real pissed).
I definitely agree that the mind can be twisted into devious states.
If organisations go around teaching things like:
1. "Gay people are evil"
2. "Those who worship idols other than our own are also evil"
3. "If we let all these people who are not of our religion do what they like, then they will cause God to inflict tsunamis and earthquakes on Singapore ..."
Yes a lot of young stupid minds might get twisted.
Sorry, typos at 9:25 AM above:
"What is say is not the truth" should be "What you say is not the truth"
"so it master be true" should be "so it must be true".
Mr Wang,
I agree that the mind can be twisted into devious states. Look at the mob mentality of the gays - especially pertaining to the AWARE issue and at the last EGM. Just because you don't agree with them, you are a homophobe?
I have not once used the religious argument when I debate with gays on my stance. Yet, they lump me with the Christians.
All my arguments are based on social reasons and/or the right to my own space - just like I respect gays have the right to their own space.
My peeve is that gays expect others to respect their space, while at the same time do not respect the space of others.
"It is when they cross the line, forcing their ideas on others that is where the dispute begins. The biggest issue now is that the homosexuals are telling us how to teach our children."
There is general assumption among critics that homosexuals are all out to impose their agenda on society and brainwashing children in schools, and therefore they are no better than Josie and co.
Is there any specific evidence of homosexuals imposing their agenda on others and forcing others to adopt a homosexual lifestyle? I hope that these critics please cite them, and then we can discuss from there.
Merely making statements about homosexuals dictating sex education and imposing their lifestyle on others without specific examples does not help. On the contrary, I can find plenty of accounts of evangelicals preaching and forcing religion down others' throat. I have experienced it myself. There are tons of preachers on the streets harassing people too.
Jianyue
Mr Wang, your link shows that homosexuality is widely accepted in Asian and even native African and American societies in the time before time.
Then the Christian Right is wrong to support "Asian values" while campaigning against homosexuality. And since we ackhnowledge that the older times and societies are more "conservative", the Christian Right cannot be going for "conservative values"!
They are supporting "religious propaganda" and should be sued under the Sedition Act.
Wang, I need to speak out against this. The Christian image is getting tarnished badly by these bunch of fundamentalists. Just like how Islam is getting an undue bad name due to the likes of Osama.
That certain pastors preaching any and all worships not in agreement of the Bible or twards the Christian GOD is wrong and the act of Satanism, should not be accepted in our society.
Our harmony is at stake. Religion is below the State. Not above.
"I have not once used the religious argument when I debate with gays on my stance." But Solo Bear, you are already quite well-known in the local blogosphere. Year after year, you offer your same old arguments against homosexuality.
And they are quite illogical arguments, so after some time, you'll have to excuse the world for generally ignoring your blog.
Are you still going on and on about how homosexuality is bad because gay couples don't produce children? Conveniently forgetting that nowadays, a whole big bunch of straight people also choose not to?
Solo Bear,
The issue is not one of homos telling you what to teach your children. Neither is it about us forcing our ideas on others.
It's about telling you as it is, that homosexuality is natural, that you don't sweep it under the carpet and pretend it's not there just because you think it's unnatural.
It's about educating people on the facts of homosexuality.
Just how did we homosexuals force our ideas on others? WHAT ideas? Did we go around telling people what to do in the bedroom with a person of the same gender? Please quote us some instances.
Keep the activities amongst ourselves? Sure, but who was it who went around telling us not to do it? Again, do what? Thio Li Ann's "shoving a straw up the nose to drink"? Maybe you should ask why these people are so obsessed with degrading/condemning these activities, which brings me to my next question: Just who IS forcing whose ideas onto who? Just WHAT did we tell you to do, w.r.t. teaching your children?
Des
Mr Wang
>>But Solo Bear, you are already quite well-known in the local blogosphere. Year after year, you offer your same old arguments against homosexuality.
>>
That’s because year after year, gays have been using same arguments, no? What do you expect? Different counter-arguments for same arguments used?
>>And they are quite illogical arguments, so after some time, you'll have to excuse the world for generally ignoring your blog.
>>
Which issue have I brought up is illogical? Be specific.
>>Are you still going on and on about how homosexuality is bad because gay couples don't produce children?
>>
Where have ever I used that argument? My two basic arguments are these.
1. The Traditional family is the basic building block of society. If gays want to keep gay activities to themselves, be my guest. But don’t touch the traditional family and force others to believe that homosexuality is “neutral” or even good, when traditionalists have the right to believe that it is not.
2. Respect of space. If gays want their space to be respected, then please respect the space of others. The AWARE/CSE is a clear cut case where gays think they have the right to tell parents what to teach their children – a clear violation of their (gays) own principles (if they have any in the first place) that every person has his right to his own space.
Those are the 2 principles I hold onto ever since I have begun discussing gay issues. No religion involved. In fact, I have been holding onto these 2 principles so tightly, you even noticed that I have been using “same old arguments year after year”.
My biggest grouse is that if gays want others to respect their space, why are they not respecting the space of others?
>>that also means respect the parents’ right to teach their children.
>>
Irrelevant argument. I have never used the “cannot have children” argument to support my stance.
I do not support anyone who says, "gay people are evil" or anything to that effect. I have no problem with homosexuals. They are fellow citizens and human beings to be respected and with compassion. This is what my Church teaches.
On a personal level, I understand that many face huge emotional difficulties in regards to their orientation. I do know of a few who want to lead healthy, wholesome lives and thus have to muster a lot of self-will to avoid many things. They understand the dangers to their own well-being that such a lifestyle will bring. They choose not to engage in it.
Hi Mr Wang
In which Islamic\Hindu\Buddhist state are gays widely accepted to the level of say Christian USA (In God we trust)?
And is constantly refering to the Bible as a 2000 year old book (fairy tale) is a form of respect\tolerance? Or even just targeted at the Christian Right?
Now, animals go naked. many animals eat their young. So its ok in singapore? Nudism maybe :-)
I spoke to a Myanmar colleague and she said she was hearing an increasing number of conversion to christianity amongst of the children of Myanmar nationals working here and has resulted in strain in family relationship and in some cases, a regret in moving to Singapore. MOE should investigate into teachers evangelising as there is a large percentage of christian teachers.
Solo:
I don't think any gays are infringing MY space. Please explain how they've stopped you from having a heterosexual lifestyle, or raising your family.
Annon at 11 May 11.29am.
Not just Myanmar. They have been targetting the PRC and Vietnamese too.
I heard from a friend of mine who recently quitted his evangel church, that they take up some form of counselling jobs from MOE to their foreign scholars. From there they "make friends" and "reach out" to convert.
They are making use of our Civil Service to their convenience through creative avenues to evangelise and convert the nubile.
Very very dangerous. Not to mention the strain on the family members of the new converts. The type of unnecessary pain and hurt imposed by their need to "spread the word" and gain membership, is just being conveniently being ignored by the very people who "try to heal".
Very sad.
Are bisexuals and ladyboys(trans?) considered gays?
>> "1. The Traditional family is the basic building block of society. If gays want to keep gay activities to themselves, be my guest. But don’t touch the traditional family and force others to believe that homosexuality is “neutral” or even good, when traditionalists have the right to believe that it is not."
Solo Bear, how has gays 'touched' the traditional family? I don't see gays telling straight people that the traditional family is wrong and they must follow the gay lifestyle at all costs. Homosexuals never say heterosexual lifestyle is wrong either. Please quote an example that says so.
What exactly do you mean by "traditionalists"? It's very vague. Not all religions or Asian societies condemn homosexuality. In fact, in Buddhism, Singapore's largest religion, homosexuality is neutral and natural. It also depends on how far back in history you want to dig. The ancient Chinese and Greeks do not condemn homosexuals. Shouldn't they be considered even more "traditional"?
>> 2. Respect of space. If gays want their space to be respected, then please respect the space of others. The AWARE/CSE is a clear cut case where gays think they have the right to tell parents what to teach their children – a clear violation of their (gays) own principles (if they have any in the first place) that every person has his right to his own space.
In that case you could conclude most of the psychology and biology books in universities and research institutions which teach that homosexuality is inborn as having clear violation of principles that every person has a right to his own space.
Jianyue
I think the issue is that the CSE thing is apparently "teaches" that anal sex and homosexual acts is normal and natural.
Christians have no problem with gays. But Christians do not practice homosexual acts.
Really. if they do so, they are not christians. what others do in their own bedroom is their problem. But Christians believe homosexual ACTS are wrong. even if it is natural. So Christian parents teach christian kids that homosexual ACTS are wrong. And therefore are not happy if MOE (or whoever they approve) teaches that it is natural. Christian parents have rights too. And I believe there are no natural homosexual parents. Now the best compromise would be perhaps if MOE sends out a consent form?
Btw, which Buddhist sutra teaches that anal and homosexual acts are normal?
which confucian law(whatever) teaches that anal and homosexual acts are normal?
Ancient chinese openly indulge in homosexual acts? not really. they did it underground cos it is ... shameful?
Ancient greeks ... now all the greek visitors say "aye" ...
And I believe sex of any kind under 16 is illegal.
PS: Mr Wang may be interested to note that
1. Saul was a fierce enemy of Christians. He became Paul.
2. Rome was a fierce enemy of Christians. It is now the "Holy City". Part of it anyway.
... Archbishop Mr Wang? :-p
Personally, the issue is how one defines one's space to be intruded.
In my opinion, it is intrusive when you tell people what they CANNOT do. i.e. limiting of choice.
However, everyone should have the right to tell what others CAN do. i.e their choice.
For example, proselytizing, as much as I hate it, falls under this category. Anal sex 'can be' healthy is also here.
Christian fundies or conservatives telling homos what they cannot do, is thus, from my perspective the one intruding into other's space.
Lobo,
Glad you are not in charge of MOE.
Otherwise, our school children will be taught more 'informed options'.
Options such as group sex, swing parties, bestiality and of course good old homosexuality. Mind you, all these activities are conducted between consenting adults.
Based on your 'liberal' philosophy (no moral?), you cannot tell people what they CANNOT do i.e. limiting of choice.
To those who are guided by the bible:
- It was the same bible that was quoted to justify the inquisition
- It was the same bible that was quoted to treat Jews as second class citizens
- It was the same bible that was quoted to justify slavery
- It was the same bible that was used to throw Galileo into jail
- It was the same bible that was quoted to justify women's position in society
You see, one can use the bible to justify anything. It really boils down to interpretation. And in all these melee, I fear the spirit of Christianity is lost.
Even in pre-dominantly Christian Europe, you don't see such hate spewing out, certainly not from the churches. Because, you see, Europe has seen what religion can accomplish, the good as well as the bad.
So, to anon (May 11, 3:32 pm), your children could one day be accepting of homosexual couples, just as you now accept (I hope) of interracial couples (which was also condemned as going against the bible once upon a time).
@ annon May 11 3.32pm
That is the difference.
Buddhisim teaches relativity. Not absolutes.
Buddhisim teaches awareness, not unquestioning fellowship.
Buddhisim asks its follower to see, understand, forgive, and most of all, not be led by absolute faith into obsession.
One teaches one about balancing. Not about about judgements.
In the face of new evidence, the strength to admit an earlier error, and understand the founding values to re-evaluate a position, is what many do not understand.
>> Actually you are basically agreeing that homosexuality can be "promoted". You call it by a different term "brainwashing".
Promotion and brainwashing are totally two different things! It's like saying physically disciplining your child is equivalent to child abuse.
I think we are getting off topic, we are not saying that teachers should start going to classes and lecture the students "Homosexual is the right thing to go!People out there who are attracted to the opposite sex out there, you MUST start courting the same sex or you will die of a horrible death!"
I believe that the right way is to explain to the students that the existence of homosexuals in the society; that they are not monsters, evil nor devious in nature due to this trait of theirs. They are just like you and me and we should tolerate each other; just like how we tolerate one another of different religion beliefs. They too build and contribute to the society, pay taxes and should enjoy equal rights as a citizen of the country.
Just because others thinks that the sexuality of these people is unnatural, doesn't mean that homosexuals will cease to exist. For centuries, it's a taboo to be homosexual but homsexuals did not die off from evolution! What does it mean? It means that this is not something that will go away if you stop acknowledging its' exisitence.
After interactions with a couple of homosexual people, I am a strong believer that they did not chose to be homosexual, their DNA make up made them so. Do not judge them, talk to them, listen to them. You might find them actually more likeable than your 'non-homo' friends.
Anon @ May 11, 6.46pm:
As an animal lover (no, not that kind), I must point out that bestiality does NOT take place between consenting adults. It is an adult human being taking advantage of an animal whose consent we cannot establish. It more closely resembles paedophilia, since children are (legally) unable to give consent. Please do not put either act in the same category as homosexuality, group sex or swing parties.
As for group sex and swing parties, the trouble with them is that they are particularly high-risk due to the increased risk of STDs from the many persons involved. I'm sure the risks of non-monogamous sex is already covered in sex ed classes (or at least it should be), so - there you go. It's already in the syllabus. THEY HAVE MENTIONED NON-MONOGAMOUS SEX OH NO. OUR CHILDREN ARE ALL GOING TO BECOME ORGY BUNNIES.
Really, you can keep your 'morals' to yourself, thank you. Come to think of it, shouldn't you moralising fundies be more concerned about swingers and orgy-goers than gay sex?
fact: hate crimes- it is very very often that homosexuals are victims of hate crimes by hetero sexuals, irrigardless whether the hate crime was triggered by faith or personal opinion.
i'm curious. why does the general public seem to perceive anal sex as an act only done by homosexuals? and why do they also think that homosexual rights are only being pushed for by homosexuals?
Anon May 11, 2009 3:32 PM
it may be true that there is no sutra or prophecy that claims that anal sex is natural or normal. but they (and i mean the actual teaching) dont go around condemning it either.
may i remind you that religious teachings are often influenced by cultural traditions as well. it is often that religious teachings are general and broad in description of what is a sin and what is not, but in modern context, what is a sin and what is not is influenced by political as well as cultural pressures. if you really want to drag religion in, Buddhist teachings mentions that it does much rather that its follwers remain celibate throughout their life, irregardless of their sexual orientation.
taken from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
" The fourth of the eight steps is called Samma kammanta: Right conduct or right behavior. It has been stated as:
"Do not destroy any living creature; take only what is given to you; do not commit any unlawful sexual act." 9
The prohibition against engaging in sexual misconduct is also listed as the third of the five Buddhist precepts. Sometimes it is expressed as simply forbidding adultery.
When applied to sexual behavior, this step would seem to imply that one must:
Practice safe sex to minimize the chance of passing an STD to a sexual partner that could, in the case of HIV and HPV, cause death.
Engage in only consensual sex. It is a bit of a stretch, but forced or manipulative sexual behavior could be interpreted as theft.
Avoid "unlawful" sexual acts. This is a difficult phrase to interpret. From a legal standpoint, the U.S. Supreme court decided (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) that all private consensual sexual activity between adults is lawful. Unlawful sex in the U.S. would include activity between an adult and a child, sex in public, sex that is forced, sex for money, etc.
From a moral standpoint, "unlawful" sex could involve many activities depending upon the specific faith group to which a person adheres.
Unfortunately, the Pali Canon, which documents the teachings of the Buddha, do not include any direct reference to homosexual orientation or homosexual behavior. Some have interpreted this to mean that the Buddha believed that the same rules governing sexual behavior apply to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples. 7
To summarize: Buddhism's basic teaching discourages sex, and particularly condemns adultery, rape, non-consensual sex, and unsafe sex. This would seem to apply to same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally. However, some groups within Buddhism condemn homosexual sex because of cultural teachings that have merged with their religious beliefs."
the CSE to students did not mention about the anal sex being natural or healthy. it was in an instructors manual that is strictly for the eyes of the instructors. and instructors are adults, don u think they already have better judgement whether to disclose about the anal sex? or what they should or should not disclose about anal sex when the topic is raised by students? it has already been addressed that "the students’ manual says no such thing however, about pre-marital sex, homosexuality or anal sex.
Because of our value system of not imposing our values, we do NOT EVER tell students that homosexuality or anal sex or what have you is MORALLY OK — because in our value system all these are morally neutral."
who is in power to dictate if anal sex is morally wrong? are you going to say that only anal sex between hetero couples are morally neutral and if it is between homo couples it's to be condemned? in my opinion, a proper sex ed should be teaching "it's not good. it's not bad. it's neutral. but if you're really gng to do it, do it safe to protect yourself, so long as you are of legal age (s'pore means it's 16)"
anon may 11 2009 6:46PM
you already show your prejudice against homosexuality by grouping them with group sex, swing parties and what not. you seem to imply immediately that homosexuals are individuals who are not loyal to their partners or have many sexual partners at one time. group sex etc are a whole different set of moral problems, distinct from homosexuality as a general term.
Hi Solo Bear:
After considering your latest comments, I decided not to publish them. I have also decided not to publish any more comments from you.
My guess is that you genuinely believe what you say. Therefore you are not a malicious person, but merely unintelligent. I can tolerate some degree of stupidity in the comments left by my readers, but in your case I decided not to tolerate it, as it may cause confusion and misunderstanding among my younger readers.
I can see that you need some sex education too. So here are a few simple facts for you:
1. Having sex does not cause AIDS. This is true whether you are a man or a woman, and in either case, whether your partner is a man or a woman.
2. It is sex with an already-infected person that can cause the spread of AIDS. This is true whether you are a man or a woman, and in either case, whether your partner is a man or a woman.
3. The more people you have sex with, the higher the probability that you will get a sexually-transmitted disease. This is true whether you are a man or a woman, and in either case, whether your partners are men or women or both.
I don't like your comments because they may mislead some foolish, naive readers into believing that AIDS is a predominantly gay disease. This is nonsense, and a dangerous comment to make. Because it may lead to a false sense of security, among promiscuous heterosexuals.
In a 3-hour sex education workshop for teenagers, my approach would probably something like this:
(1) I'd spend maybe only 15 minutes specifically on homosexuality. This is because of two reasons:
(a) homosexuals are a minority in the audience; and (b) a lot of good information in the rest of the programme is equally applicable to homosexuals and heterosexuals.
(2) I would assert that homosexuality is normal and naturally shows up in a minority of the population. This would be true of the human populatons, as well as populations of penguins, gorillas, monkeys, dolphins, salmon, fruit flies etc etc.
(3) I would say that society unfortunately still has a lot of prejudice against homosexuals. I would say that unfortunately, this doesn't make homosexuals very special. Many minority groups in society are discriminated against - eg because of their race, religion, caste, physical handicaps etc.
(4) I would tell the gays that the important thing is for themselves to understand themselves as ok, that they're not born evil or wicked or anything like that. I might warn them not to do anything stupid like this unfortunate gay person Julian here, who committed suicide. Essentially he was murdered by the prejudices & bigotry of modern society.
That's pretty much it. The rest of the sex education programme would be roughly the same, and a lot of it would be mutually applicable to homosexuals and heterosexuals (eg info about STDs, condoms, perspectives on abstinence etc).
Even anal sex is nothing unique to gays. Plenty of straight people do it.
In fact, Singapore legalised anal sex for heterosexuals just two years ago (but not for gays). Makes you wonder why, doesn't it, LOL.
Mr Wang,
I am a non-believer. Your Christian bashing seems like a revenge on this group of people. I believe Josie Lau and her group got together not to take over a secular organisation, and convert it to do their religious bidding. I believe they got together like a group of friends while chatting over coffe and decide that there's something that's not right with AWARE. So they decide to do something about together.
And they were right. AWARE has not left the decision of anal sex pre-marital sex and homosexuality to the audience. They have indirectly condone these practises. I am not against homsexuals. I think they are some of the most intelligent, courteous and creative people around. If my kids happen to be one, i wud be dissappointed no doubt. I would try to reason out with my kid and if I cant convince my kid, the so be it.
But I really detest your Christian bashing like as though they are worst than some of the muslim fundalmentalist.
I don't usually leave comments..but I am seeing this Silly Bear roaming and 'hijacking' here and many other blog space with his very warp and illogical argument...I just have to say this " Silly Bear , can you roam further away cos you are really annoying.."
"It is an adult human being taking advantage of an animal whose consent we cannot establish."
I've always thought it was funny how we slaughter animals for food without too much concern, then fuss about their consent when it comes to sex... kinda of like condemning the rapist when most of us are murderers or accessories to murder... :)
Anyway, here's a (non-pornographic) video on anal sex between gays...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTeB4KeeaQg
Oh, and congratulations on making it to the 'ignore' list of another blog, solo bear.
If homosexuality is bad because it is "unnatural" and not "condoned by GOD", because it does not follow the "natural path" of procreation between men and women, as sex is "made to be".
Then, natural infertility, which surely is an act of God in selecting certain people who are not suitable for children. Then, shouldn't then, the same "unnatural" principle in this case be appiled to fertility treatments, including and not limited to IVF? So the same people who are campaigning against homosexuality, should in the same breath, condemn and campaign against fertility treatments!
Mr Wang - I think not publishing Solo Bear is the right thing to do. As someone who believes in free speech and open debate, I generally don't feel comfortable exercising my role as moderator over at Glass Castle, but having seen the fate of many feminist blogs worldwide I knew it had to be done, because otherwise people derail threads and huge amounts of time are spent debating basic premises. However cleverly disguised, and however superficially "civil" and "rational", a lot of discriminatory argumentation simply boils down to devaluing and endlessly questioning the humanity of the marginalised group. And I think it is a wholly unfair burden for marginalised people to have to explain and justify and argue for their own humanity over and over and over again. Activists for the rights of autists have coined a phrase for it - "self-narrating zoo exhibit". Instead of being allowed to simply exist and interact with others, marginalised people are expected to repeatedly prove their humanity, to explain their experiences in terms of the experiences of other people before they can be granted any validity.
There's no doubt that - for example - gay people have to do this on a regular basis in Singapore. ("What made you gay? How do you know you are gay?" etc ad nauseum.) I'm not sure how much in the way of productive conversation can be had in any space where they are required to do so again.
I don't think that a "no platform" approach to such issues threatens anyone's freedom of speech. There are plenty of other places - notably their own blogs - where people who are determined to maintain that gays (or any group) are subhuman can do that. It doesn't take away anything from them to designate this space as free from it: whereas it does create a space where people who would otherwise feel threatened or silenced can engage in production exchange.
Sorry this comment is so long - I just wanted to register understanding and support for what will undoubtedly be characterised by others as a form of censorship.
Jolene
As we clobber one another let's tkae a step abak and reflect. Check this out thought-provoking videoout. It has more than 1 million hits already. Pass it around for national education.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Mr Wang, just wondering what are your thoughts on the AWARE CSE instructors teaching the children ethics that some parents may not agree with.
Shouldn't they at least ask the parents before they conduct the lessons, since the instructors would know that many parents are against such teachings?
Mr Wang, you said it right.
Since young, I had this niggling disagreement with the media's info saying that AIDS is a homo disease, just because it is predominant with the homo population.
It never made sense to me, because it is a not a biological reason that made it so, but more of the social/cultural circumstance that made it so. And it has proven so over the years, now that AIDS has spread to become a disease that inflict all, regardless of sexual orientation.
I never bought that media thing, but suspect many people fell for that because they just don't think.
Anon May 11, 2009 6:46 PM
Personally, I have nothing against group sex or swing parties. It's just that there is a higher incidence of getting HIV if you have so many 'partners', as pointed out Wang in his reply to Solobear.
On bestiality: I have no idea how you are going to talk to an animal to acquire consent. Even if you could somehow communicate, their level of intelligence may make it impossible to really acquire consent. The closest example, would be a child. The child may give consent but it is not valid because of their inability to understand the consequences of saying yes.
In extreme cases, you might extend my ‘theory’ to saying that you can tell others to do murder/rape/steal. Of course, just what the CSE did, you need to present the consequences of doing so as well. In the end, it becomes really a warning to NOT do it.
Going back to homosexuality, you’ll find there really isn’t any consequences SOLELY because out of being one. The risk of HIV and others, are result of unsafe sex practice, NOT because one is homo, thus one contracts HIV.
The other ‘consequences’ about it isn’t natural, it is wrong according to Bible, or it’s not a Asian value, aren’t even consequences. They are perceived reasons to not do it, the RESULTS of doing something.
I would like to share my views regarding GP lessons in my JC (fully government).
For GP lessons, no value judgements are made regarding homosexuality. We are just presented with the facts and figures from around the world. About the greater acceptance of homosexuals in the public sphere in more and more countries, the changing family structure, implications for government policy...
We were then encouraged to provide views on the topics discussed. Whether we make value judgements on this issue or not is based sorely on our personal beliefs. I think this is a good way to teach such topics.
Perhaps those in the know would like to comment.
Many times, 'proponents' of homosexuality explain that gays and lesbians are born that way. They have no choice but to be attracted to the same sex (and have no interest in the opposite sex).
Then there are those who claim that homosexuality is their choice of lifestyle and sexuality.
Do gays & lesbians have the ability to choose?
Finally, what about bisexuals? Were they born that way, or did they make a choice?
my oldest son is 2 and a half years old and too young for sex education. anyway, if i were to teach him in this area, i will first teach him to respect others. for we are far from perfect and we really do not deserve to prosecute others.
i have gay friends and i respect them, though i do hope my children will not be one of them. i guess it's my part to teach him the natural risk that come by the choice of sexuality.
in term of sex education in school, i certainly hope that the school will offer my children an neutral view of sexuality. i think discriminate actually caused people to stay in homosexuality while they are actually not, just to be rebellious...
Solo Bear ..i think you need to be comfortable with your own sexuality before you start worrying about homosexuality. Satisfy your wife/gf first rather than coming on online against homosexuality all the time. Everytime you come blogging about how gay people have somehow "destroyed" society, you've wasted precious valuable time getting jiggy with the Mrs. Because it makes readers wonder, are you getting healthy bed time? Maybe you should blog more heterosexual stuff like a sex guru or something like that, then maybe I can still listen to your homo sexual rants. Ha
And then channel your ennergy into something more productive ...like pro-creation? ErniesUrn
anon May 13, 2009 8:48 AM
i find it very hard to answer your question because there are those who were naturally born this way, and then there were those where environment had played a role one way or another. and by environment i dont mean families that have a homosexual member, i mean single gender schools. not that mixed schools don have homosexuals, but if a homosexual from a mixed school still remains as a homosexual throughout his adulthood, then there's not much dispute that it was a natural thing rather than a choice. i have to admit that i'm a little more biased towards homosexuals that came from single gender schools because i have seen those who claimed that they were homos, eventually becoming a bi after leaving school. is it a choice? well.. we cant just slam that it is a choice onset when they declare to be a homo or a bi. we can only decide when we see what eventually is their sexuality after adulthood and after being exposed to different environments.
anon May 12, 2009 8:56 AM
my first reply to you got lost somewhere in blogger (unless mr wang managed to find it somewhere in his comments list, but i hope he publishes both since this one might have missed some stuff from the old one but this one also have additional stuff) so i'll try to recall as much what i had typed.
perhaps some parents might have rathered that they were in the know of what is in the CSE and had their consent seeked. but consider this, if parents had not given their consent and pulled their child out of it, how many of these parents are actually going to give their children proper sex ed with a fair judgement that is unbiased towards sexual minorities or controversial issues? judging from the number of petitioners that were "against" the CSE irregardless of whether it was because they mentioned that the CSE mentioned the use of condoms which "encourages the child to experiment", anal sex "is wrong" (if i'm not wrong, the students manual actually didnt mention about anal sex. it was the INSTRUCTORS manual for ADULTS) or homosexuality "should be negative not neutral", i find it quite hard to believe that these parents are up to task to dishing out proper sex ed to children who readily have access to pornography, who are approaching independent adulthood in a blink of an eye, especially so for men who are going to NS and are pretty much out of range of their parents or their teachings. for one, i give my own example. i'm 21, my sister is 26, my brother is 28. all my mother says to all three of us is "dont do it. dont try it. with or without a condom". and i have a gut feeling that this is the advice that parents give best to their children on sex ed because it is the easiest thing to say, it doesnt require and case studies or statistics. like it or not, sex is a taboo for our parents in their communication with their children (and it appears to still be so). precisely because it is this way, we need CSE which gives us a more objective view that is suitable for these teens who are fast approaching independent adulthood and exposed to the real environment.
does this mean that abstinance education should be done away altogether? well, abstinance education still has it's place, like in secondary schools since it is illegal for them to have sex under the age of 16. and abstinance education does cover topics such as teen pregnancies and STDS, though i dont find the topics sufficent or in-depth enough. but to my knowledge, it doesnt cover the issue of homosexuality, which is a fatal weakness since it doesnt cater for students who might have realised the emergence of their homosexual tendencies and are still a little lost. this is when CSE comes to place and should be given to students of junior colleges. contrary to pro-abstinace beliefs, i dont think that CSE assume that students do not have the ability to say no to sex or do not practice abstinance, but rather it teaches students what should they do when they start to make their own sexual decisions and how best to protect themselves and their loved ones, which may be then, may be in a few years.
hi.
This mini-debate going on in here is pretty amusing.
The anti-gay group has clearly defined homosexuality as unnatural, which has been debunked by the American Psychological Association. Firstly, even if there was sufficient proof that homosexuality is gene-related, hereditary-related (note: carriers may not express the trait) and "natural" so to speak, the anti-gay lobbyists would never accept this as natural. They have sunk so deep in their false beliefs which are:
1) that homosexuality is unnatural,
2) and that it is caused by pro-homosexual groups spreading the message to heterosexual people to turn them into gays (like a disease)
3) that people are not born homosexual
i pose the question to the anti gay group: what if in the near future, there is sufficient proof that homosexuality is determined at birth? would you then continue on your burn-the-gays-on-the-stake crusade? or would you then open out to these people?
Moving on, the anti-gay people adopt the "appeal to nature" fallacy in their argument (which is nothing but basically homosexuality is unnatural and therefore evil and wrong)
ASSUMING homosexuality is unnatural. Does it mean unnatural is necessarily bad? I don't remember nature having made things like plastics, buildings, computers, things that improve the quality of life.
secondly, if we really think that unnatural = bad. Why don't we close down all the hospitals? Nature's biggest rule, is the survival of the fittest. Since these old people with cancer are too weak to survive on their own, why should we help them? why not let nature weed out the weak? as per the case mentioned above on IVF.
lastly, if anyone has noticed, that the homosexual people in question have mostly identified with not being able to make an active choice about which gender they have an attraction for. I think i would rather believe it from the horse's mouth, than assume that people are naturally born heterosexual.
The "horror stories" of homosexuals pushing agendas are really about them screaming out for rights for THEMSELVES, and themselves only. They do not care whether the large heterosexual community switch to homosexuality or not.
The people who claim that the homosexuality community are pushing their wrong thoughts and want to "convert" people to be gay/lesbian...these are the people who go around converting others and forcing their own beliefs down other people's throats.
So most of the 'pro' are saying that homosexuals are born that way.
There are documentaries and accounts of how gays were effeminate from young, how they behaved more like girls. So they grew up attracted to men, in fact behaving like a 'girlfriend'.
That 'explains' the gays who take the role of the female.
What about the gays who assume the role of the male ? They did not grow up as 'sissies'. In fact they are as manly as heterosexual men.
Why do they prefer effeminate men rather than women? Were they born that way, or was it a matter of choice? Or just taking advantage of the opportunities. Perhaps the pro-homosexuals would like to elaborate.
What has the fundies got say about this?
News @ AsiaOne
Hubby had sex using cucumbers and brinjals
Man in trouble with law after misusing vegetables on wife. -The Star/ANN
Thu, May 14, 2009
The Star/Asia News Network
A MAN who misused cucumbers and brinjals while having sex with his wife is in trouble with the law.
The woman claimed that he had forced a cucumber or a brinjal into her private part at least seven times in the past six years ago, police sources told Harian Metro.
Apparently, the man, who is in his 40s, had erectile problems after an accident.
It is learnt that the man began abusing his wife, who is in her 30s, with the vegetables after he got the idea from watching pornographic videos.
"The victim suffered physical and mental anguish because of that. She had pleaded with her husband to stop his improper act," a source said, adding that she was concerned about her health, besides the discomfort and pain.
The woman, who lives in Kajang, Kuala Lumpur, made a police report on Friday. --The Star/Asia News Network
Just as there are gays who do sleep around, there are straights who do the same, no?
Just as there are straight couples who are truly faithful to each other, there are gay ones who do the same, no?
Is simply being gay a greater sin than married people sleeping with others?
Is it any coincidence that the bulk of HIV transmissions come from heterosexual intercourse?
Hi Mr Wang,
I have not followed your posts for a while until recently. But I noticed that quite a number of comments here mentioned something about "Asian Values".
Correct me if I am wrong, I do not believe that you have not written anything on it, a surprise given the breadth of topics you write on.
I believe it is important to be clear what it is. There has been some incidents as I construe of commentators tying their moral positions to it. Mostly, it broadens its supposed applicability: What is moral to a small conservative segment is also applicable to a larger segment with conservative "Asian Values".
This "Asian Values" has been made out to be a uniform. Thus, examples of liberal views in Asia could be shrugged off as anomalous. It is an generally appealing idea, to be able to define a group so one-dimensionally. Thus, all gays are promiscuous; Singaporeans are heirs to conservative "Asian Values" diametrically opposite to the decadence of "Westerners"; all Christians are exculsivists; all Muslims are anti-American etc.
It is important to agree on what key-terms mean to have a meaningful discussion. Thus if you are up to it, I would like to see you attempt it =) You may want to check out Amartya Sen's critique. Even now, the two camps do not even to have an agreed understanding of homosexuality. Thus, the assertion that "homosexuality" (the act, not orientation) does not need to have a genetic basis is not exactly wrong.
Well, Kama Sutra and Romance of the Red Chamber are also Asian values...
Your future is in your handsI do hope more people like Isk (12 May, 0905pm) who have attended the CSE or talked about the homosexuality during GP speak up and share with us your views.
Traditional/Conservative ValuesWho defines such values? My dad's idea of traditional values include addressing all your elders present at the dining table before having your meal. Make offerings (at least a joss-stick) to the ancestors once a day. Help mum clean the house... even if you're a boy as an act of filial piety. Good thing he was pluralistic as well. Thus, when he saw me giving thanks to this seemingly "ang moh" entity instead of appreciating his humble salary that was used to feed us, or when I refused to hold the joss stick, he was upset but never once had he said something to the effect of "these people had invaded our traditional way of life". He pluralistic approach had won me over eventually. I share his belief and will do the same for my children.
BTW, the other side was also getting a bit too... demanding? so this prodigal ape punched out and returned to his father.
"Thus, the assertion that "homosexuality" (the act, not orientation) does not need to have a genetic basis is not exactly wrong."
So it's very unclear what the pro-homosexuals stand is. Are gays & lesbians born that way, unable to choose their sexuality. Or did they choose to be a gay or lesbian ?
Some seem to say that they are hardwired that way, just like heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex (what most would call 'natural').
But others seem to voice out that it is their choice of lifestyle.
Then there is the issue of the effeminate gays and the 'male' gays. Born or influenced? All very confusing....
"Asian values" can also mean spitting and emptying nose in public.
Great. Another spoken word poet. Has this blog jumped the shark?
Hi Ape,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I would like to think that cultural pluralism is also an important strand in "Asian Values", rather than a weakness =)
Anon 11:29
I think the greater problem is with the side holding anti-homsexual stand. It is even less clear. Do you or do you not get this:
A person with homosexual orientation tends to take part in certain sexual activities congruent with it. However, it is logically flawed to say that a person's participation in these activities imply that he has that orientation. It is called converse error. Elemetary logic. Think hard about it.
YCK,
Wow your 'elementary logic' is not that easy to grasp.
You seem to imply that there are some homosexuals (those who engage in homosexual activities) who are not born that way. They sort of join in with the others who do have homosexual orientation.
Some had no choice; others had a choice, and chose to join in the homosexual activities ?
Ah. Was it that hard? Thought you got it then you lost it in the very next line.
Shall leave it so. They have classes teaching logic.
YCK,
I shall accept that your train of reasoning is above me.
I don't see why this is difficult to understand.
A person may be heterosexual, but he may or may not have a heterosexual lifestyle. For example, he may choose to be a priest or monk; or for whatever other reason, he may choose not to have sex.
Similarly a person may be homosexual, but he may or may not have a homosexual lifestyle. For example, he may choose to be a priest or monk; or for whatever other reason, he may choose not to have sex.
The question is whether society should leave people to make their own decisions about their own private lives, or whether society should compel people to be priests or monks or to have sex with particular types of partners.
The answer is quite clear to me.
According to YCK:
"However, it is logically flawed to say that a person's participation in these activities imply that he has that orientation."
Mr Wang, your interpretation doesn't seem to agree with YCK's statement. According to him, a person engaging in homosexual activities does not imply that he has a homosexual orientation (heterosexual?).
Ok, shall leave it at that.
Let me try, let me try :p
Simple people (natural tendencies)
Heterosexual - have sex with opposite
Homosexual - have sex with same gender
People by choice, who chooses celibacy (no sex) e.g.
Heterosexual monk/priest - no sex
Homosexual monk/priest - no sex
People by choice, who chooses not to follow their own natural tendencies:-
Heterosexuals - have sex with same gender
Homosexuals - have sex with different gender
Anon (May 15, 11:55AM)
"You seem to imply that there are some homosexuals (those who engage in homosexual activities) who are not born that way. They sort of join in with the others who do have homosexual orientation."Hi Anon, you seem to imply that there are heterosexual who engage in homosexual activities because of the existence of homosexuals... I don't think, this is what YCK meant and I hope this is not what you understand from YCK's comment.
Solo Bear,
I see the issue of fundies in Singapore context this way.
If fundies want to keep their fundie activities amongst themselves, who cares?
It is when they cross the line, forcing their ideas on others that is where the dispute begins. The biggest issue now is that the fundies are telling us how to teach our children.
Of course, I know that you have said that you are comfortable with your children being taught right-wing nutjob Christian Fundamentalism. Yes, I too teach my children about it. Difference is that we see christian fundamentalism is to be approached differently.
Thanks to Mr Wang and Ape for showing patience when explaining the point =)
I dont understand all these debates.
Pro-gay, anti-gay.
Everyone is so defensive about their point of views.
All arguing based on religions, the issue about what's natural/moral/normal and what's not.
And people not supporting a political figure becuz of his stand on this controversial topic.
People, can we all just pause and think?
Firstly, there's SOOO MUCH MORE to a person than just his/her view on this homosexuality topic, or whether he/she is gay/straight/bi/transgender.
Secondly, one person's voice does not represent the whole community he's speaking for. Because human beings are just imperfect, we tend to take sides, be defensive and etc. And EACH and everyone of us is brought up differently.
People arguing about what's natural and what's beneficial to the society, what if one day, someone who saved your life is a gay personnal, will you deny that he/she has never helped you in any way, just becuz he/she is gay? I believe you wont, becuz we all have emotions and any person in their right mind will be thankful.
And the same goes for what's being taught in school. As parents, we can influence our kids in many ways, but we also know certain things are beyond our limit and it should be, like the kinds of friends our kids hang out with, we can advices and give informed choices but the child should be able to explore his/her life himself/herself. Even us as adults, there are always things in life there are beyond our control.
So what will you do if your conservative views on this taboo topic caused your child to be distant from you, because what if it's so happens he/she's gay and need someone to talk to? Or worse, some cases, gay teens have killed themselves because of this feeling of being "abnormal"
Of cause, pls do note that i'm (like many others) who are supporting my claims/arguments with bits and pieces of infos i've read/heard and citing what could be individual cases. We all arent that free to be collecting data and facts from all over the world. What we believe is from what we see and what we've heard.
Emotions. Emotions are the key factor that control a human being. And parents are to ensure that their children make informed choices. If you truly love your child, you'll be happy knowing she/he is in the right hand and is really happy, no matter who he/she's with. I will be angry if my daughter is dating someone who doesnt value her and treat her well, regardless of that person's gender/religion/age. But hey, who are we to complain if all i see is a smile on her face all the time? We, parents sometimes tend to force our values and beliefs on the children. My mom often told me to never date people of other skin colour or religion. We all know every individual is different.
Sterotypically, we say men are stronger, able to protect and thus we think that our daughters will be safe in a man's hand. But we all know it's not the case for all.
Whether homosexuality enables procreation or not, the birth rates are falling anyway, due to social factors other than homosexuals themselves. So not like heterosexuals are contributing much to the society in this sense too, but it's all an individual's choices. Some people choose not to get married, some people choose to marry later, some people choose not to have kids, some people wants plenty of kids.
So please pause and think, guys.
We say that homosexuals are no good cuz they bring in AIDS. but are ALL homosexuals HIV positive and do ALL of them go round having sex with anyone that comes their way? If you dont know, then go figure out before you say something.
Just like when i was younger, i heard things like "All men are no good". But are ALL men really no good?
We said that teaching about neutrality of homosexuality will cause disturbances to the mainstream and traditional values, but what if the teacher who saved your daughter from being cheated by a sexual predator and who eventually played a part in her being happily married to a guy is a gay teacher, will we still say the same?
I'm not here to tell you why homosexual is good or heterosexual is good.
Everything in this world has advantages and disadvantages.
I'm here to plead everyone to try and see people for who they are and what's in their hearts, instead of arguing for god-knows-what.
The ability to change the world
The ability to put smiles on others' faces
The ability to be compassionate,
It doesnt depend on what the person is on the outside, but rather on what's inside.
You can be a homosexual and be all rotten.
You can be a black and save people's life
You can be a chinese who walk away while a person's dying and refuse to tend to him/her.
You can be anything and not do anything to a situation that you could have otherwise saved.
Or you can also be anything and yet making changes to this dying earth with what's in your heart.
We all have choices.
And yet we are also limited by our knowledge.
Sometimes i find this endless discussion about homosexuality issue sickening.
The points of arguments are always repeated.
I often wonder, "dont you people get tired of this?"
Why not, for a change, go make friends with homosexuals and see if they really are sick-in-the-mind or just everyday-people like you and i?
-Cheers
Well most Christians, not just fundamentalists, take a stance against homosexuality, because it is clearly listed in the Bible as a sin, no matter what detractors say.
I have for the record read and heard many former homosexuals. According to scientific research, there is a predilection for some people to exhibit homoerotic tendencies, but it is certainly not a genetic trait (ie. you may be more prone to homosexuality, and certain factors such as estrangement with your father as a child often make it worse, but no one is really "born" a homosexual). If a homosexual is truly genetic, then the other half of an identical twin would definitely be a homosexual. Research however shows otherwise (many "other" halves of a homosexual twin lead heterosexual lives).
As per the debate, I like to remind some people that a lot of Asians, like myself, are still conservative (this sounds pretty much like a bad word nowadays). Although most people may pretend premarital sex is alright, some still regard it as "wrong", basically because of the problems arising from an unwanted pregnancy.
did you really think the authorities would allow you to play games with conditioning that makes trillions annully?
A joy to read. So true, so close to home.
Post a Comment