singapore stance on sexuality: totally confused

last SG · 2009-05-19T01:17:31+00:00

Anti-homo: 1000000000000000000000000000Homo: 1000000Using vulgar words member: 0

xtreyier SG

Take a look at the two issues I raised - they're not even new. And grow a mind of your own.

Haha..ok ok, i accept your criticism and let others here be the judge of that.

But on a more serious note is your 1st point. I fully agree with you on the first point and not jump to conclusions, afterall we are a democratic republic based on laws.

However, after 911, no country will dare ever again overlook threats in any form. If the pilot trainning school had been more perceptive on why middle eastern men wanted to learn how to fly a passenger liner, espacially when they were not even keen to learn landings, flags would have been flagged and perhaps, just perhaps 911 would have been avoided and lives not lost.

Democracy failed for it made the trainers casual and not suspect anything nor wanted to, or they would have been deemed racists, which the terrorists knew they could run rings around and hide under it. BUT NOT ANYMORE.

There is no need and practically no issue of blaming the few homosexuals here in our State, and any noise made of the senders whom claimed to be gays, is only an alarm, to make the gays be aware and more circumspect till investigation prove otherwise. We dont want any casualties and regret till too late.

Kuali Baba SG

Haha..ok ok, i accept your criticism and let others here be the judge of that.

But on a more serious note is your 1st point. I fully agree with you on the first point and not jump to conclusions, afterall we are democratic republic based on laws.

Democracy failed for it made the trainers casual and not suspect anything nor wanted to, or they would have been deemed racists, which the terrorists knows they could run rings around and hide under it. BUT NOT ANYMORE.

There is no need and practically no issue of blaming the few homosexuals here, and any noise made from the senders whom claimed to be gays, is only an alarm, to make them be aware and more circumspect till investigation prove otherwise. We dont want any casualties and regret till too late.

The sender CLAIMED to be a 'masculine gay' and a 'jihadist sleeper'. What became of him/her, if it's for real? And since we can't jump to conclusions, don't use this as basis for the existence of a local homosexual militancy.

jojobeach SG

Haha..ok ok, i accept your criticism and let others here be the judge of that.

But on a more serious note is your 1st point. I fully agree with you on the first point and not jump to conclusions, afterall we are a democratic republic based on laws.

You sure do have a lot of misconceptions about your western counterparts. I really hope that one day you can visit the other side of earth and try to understand the different cultures and beliefs before you make your comments.

In USA.. people are less distrusting than Asians.

Honour systems will never work in Asia. because Asians tend to love to take advantage of goodwill and trust.. given our predatory nature.

If we constantly have to look over our shoulders.. what kind of life do we lead ?

Ofcors.. 911 changed a lot of that laid back beliefs in US now.

Wouldn't it be better to live a life looking at everyone as a potential friend.. rather than a potential enemy ?

laurence82 SG

bigots need to be stamped out of course, even if they are in the minority

look at the likes of hitler...

Shotgun SG

Just two things:

- The source of the death threat has not been revealed, and nothing has come out of the investigations. We cannot jump to the conclusion that it was sent by a homosexual or an advocate of gay rights.

- Homosexuality was never meant to take over as the mainstream, and it shouldn't. Advocates want a world where it can exist alongside heterosexuality and bisexuality (given that it's a sliding scale).

No offense Kuali, irregardless of the source of the death threats, its very existence serves as a testimonial of how heated debates of opposing views can lead to violence if both sides push their agenda hard and fast.

I don't believe the intention was to promote homosexuality to become a mainstream norm since to promote in such of a manner would require some kind of unnatural conversion which many of the homosexuals themselves abhor. However, even their push to gain acceptance, if pursued with too much fervor can cause mainstream conservative heterosexual sections of society to feel threatened as they see it as an act of "promotion" of homosexuality. Hence, as a minority view, they need to responsibly exercise restraint in the promotion of the agenda so as not to offend mainstream beliefs, creating divisions and drawing battle lines.

Fact is, homosexuals and heterosexuals have existed together in many civilizations for ages. Today, homosexuals are not "witch-hunted" and Singapore is also slowly liberalizing and opening up towards them. To create a conflictual situation with mainstream heterosexual section of society is counter-productive to their goal of "existing alongside." If they want to coexist with heterosexual society with acceptance, then they should be working to create cohesion and not division within the society itself? Does that not sound rational?

On a side note, it seems that there is a popular belief that its only the Christians that do not see eye to eye with homosexuality. Many religions in fact do not, eg Islam. The conservative views towards homosexuality may have religious influence, but religious components are not the sole "opponents" to it.

We really need to becareful to prevent the debate from taking on a religious nature. Religious "opposition" is only one aspect, and Christianity is only one of the many religions.

laurence82 SG

Do you see Muslims execute a hostile takeover of a secular civic organisation to propagate their own agenda?

laurence82 SG

i laugh at this paragraph

its akin to North Korea accusing South Koreans of hostile reaction and provocation after they fire the missiles

angel7030 SG

i laugh at this paragraph

its akin to North Korea accusing South Koreans of hostile reaction and provocation after they fire the missiles

Good to see u laughing, for laughter is the best medicine. Laugh more ya.

Me today laugh all the way to the bank.

angel7030 SG

Gay or no gay, we are all humans, not just because there is no toilet mend of gay, we have to look gay on a different perspective, gay also got parents, and all parents do not wish to see their child becoming a gay, but what choice do they have, we have to respect our own human race.

And frankly speaking, to me, i find gays, no matter male or female, are very friendly and helpful, as long as you respect them, they can be a good friend. They tends to go to the extreme to help you and feel very happy when we honored their helps. Together with my gal frens, some are back stabber, some are trying to lure my bf away, some are thrifty who like to use other people things, some are even borrowing money but never return to me. Damn!

Of course walking with a tomboy or girly guy looks awkward to me, but then, why care so much, a fren should not be bother by their action when the inner self produce that trust. Anyway, i had lot of fun with gay frens, they are a jovial lots and can stand jokes anytime.

Please hor, me not gay ya

angel7030 SG

Do you see Muslims execute a hostile takeover of a secular civic organisation to propagate their own agenda?

Wha!!, gay vs religion, coming soon.

As i see the argument here, it seem like more worst than Aware. But anyway, good for knowledge.

stupidissmart SG

wow never realise tis thread have risen from the dead again

Liberty for womanhood and enfranchisement from slavery are noble aims that perpetrate humanity and the human race. Your fight has nothing noble and will only doom mankind with your lifestyle choice.

In the past, there r people arguing tat woman right should be controlled and slavery should not be aborted. And some of them uses religious scriptures as justification

Smoking had been with us for ages. No one knew of its bad effects, but with the advance of science, we realized it this century and had sought to eradicate it. It causes cancer later in one's life and as well as the financial savings for medical cure, not to mention the unnecessary loss of one precious life to societies.

Did homosexual reduce the mortality rate or age of homosexuals ? No. So why link smoking with homosexual ?

So in the event if everyone or half becomes monks/priests - who will work the fields and manage trade? Such an economic order do not exists and have never before in the history of mankind. Simply because even our cavemen ancestors understood such concepts.

U say it is noble because of hindsight. As said there is no harm caused by homosexual. The harm is as bad as priest or monks who chose not to reproduce. There is no time where half of the population become priest or monks but there is not a time where half or more of the population become homosexual either. Extrapolating vividly into the future is really... a BIG IF.

And strictly speaking, a lot of thai male chose to be monks in their life time. The scenario where a large bulk of people become religious and not reproduce is higher than a society become full of homosexual and not reproduce. Going by your concern, we should ban religion first

And talking about economy on issues such as religion or homosexual is really... humorous. Don't tell me if a person wanna be a priest or monk, he will not do so because he feel there is too little farmers out there ? Will the church ban people from becoming father if there r little farmers ? Then why bring out such a strange reason ?

Talking about "work" and how to sustain the economy, frankly speaking religious people often do not face problems of poverty. The catholic church, tibet buddhism, islamic etc often have much more money than the peasants could afford. In fact when people have become very poor in the past, it is common for them to throw the babies at the steps of religious organisation in the hope tat they be taken care by them. And in time of grave poverty, it is not uncommon to see monks become part time farmers after their daily prayers. So your concern about economy is really... flawed..

stupidissmart SG

Homosexual and Heterosexual proponents need to learn to live with each other in a non conflictual manner. Sometimes, the minority needs to recognise that as a minority, they cannot push too hard on certain issues that would inflame the majority. Majorities also have to learn to be gracious to minorities, giving them space to grow and a contribute to the society as a whole. If Singaporeans can adopt the same gracious and considerate mindset that we have gained from living in disproportionately multi-racial society, we can also adopt that same mindset to live peacefully a Singaporean multi-sexual-orientation society.

Actually wat u have written so far is not wrong. Nobody here want to replace a heterosexual family unit to become a homosexual one. The pro gays people just want less discrimination, more education and less "religious taking over secular" events.

stupidissmart SG

To create a conflictual situation with mainstream heterosexual section of society is counter-productive to their goal of "existing alongside." they want to coexist with heterosexual society with acceptance, then they should be working to create cohesion and not division within the society itself? Does that not sound rational?

Firstly, I believe it is the christians tat dealt the first blow. They banned homosexual literally and taking over a secular organisation because they educate neutrally about homosexual. They r working to create division within the society

Secondly, there r some religions or other segments of society tat do not see eye to eye with homosexual but the one being the most vocal now r christians. If talking about proportion wise on the anti homosexual topics, I guess it appears to be 80% christians, 20% the rest. It is therefore natural people (such as me) r associating to a certain extent anti gays as christians.

BotaHead SG

nabel....one side support homo, one side dont support homo..u tell me lah, the policy how to set? if set favor to one side the other side not happy. headaches sia...

then hor i also wanna complaint lah. all this problem hor the big boss suppose to settle but in the end hor push all the way down from the very top to the very bottom asking a worker like me for a solution. knn pay so low some more.

how about this, since one side the group is bigger then set the policy favor to the bigger group lor, if not everyone of them give me punch sure die.

but then again if set the policy favor the bigger group then the smaller group also not happy. so ok lah in order to make the smaller group happy give them some incentive lor, ask angel open some gay pub for them to enjoy free lah...how?

like that everyone happy now?

tan ah kow

an unhappy working in a garment factory alway no promotion but need to work hard hard.

xtreyier SG

nabel....one side support homo, one side dont support homo..u tell me lah, the policy how to set? if set favor to one side the other side not happy. headaches sia...

how about this, since one side the group is bigger then set the policy favor to the bigger group lor, if not everyone of them give me punch sure die.

like that everyone happy now?

tan ah kow

an unhappy working in a garment factory alway no promotion but need to work hard hard.

Dear Mr. Tan Ah Kow,

I understand your predicament and share your feelings on your employment, for these are not the best of times and for many others too in our world, not just Singapore, are suffering similarly as well, working extremely hard, and smart, to get out of the crisis created not of our doing, but by a few international greedy men.

However, there are bigger issues such as the homosexual agenda set by this group on hand that may have a longer lasting impact on our lives, affecting us even after the crisis had been overcomed, and must be dealt with, with care and careful deliberation.

It's not about favouring who is the bigger group or the smaller group.
It's not about who is the loudest or most vocal or the silent ones.
It's not about who threatens who.

We can remain silent and let the loudest and most vocal set the policy.
We can remain silent and be cowled or bullied by militant threats to allow the bullies to set the policy.
We can allow the smaller group to set the policy, small only because it is limited by choices made by others, allowing them to set the policy even if it makes no sense for the majority to go down on their knees to please them.

It is how you and your future generations will be able to live with the consequences of any policy set.

Some just talk nonsense, or arguing for the sake of arguing and not worth responding, while some others talk sense.

Thing is, for any policy to exist, it must be based on the most RATIONAL course of action after deliberation, that can protect not only you, but society that makes up your family, your children, your relatives and friends as well as mine

You matter, for without you and your resiliant courageous forefathers, regardless if a roadsweeper or the chief cabinet officer, in our equal society, regardless of race, language or religion as in our constitution, there can be no Singapore.

Alone we are only individuals, but collectively, we represent a nation on Earth, with protection and strengths to help one another progress and prosper, if not for ourselves, at least for our next generations within our precious independant society.

By the power of your sacred vote and the representation you make to your elected MP representatives, you and others collectively determine the direction of our society and its future. So choose wisely, and rationally.

laurence82 SG

Good to see u laughing, for laughter is the best medicine. Laugh more ya.

Me today laugh all the way to the bank.

me already in a bank

should i stop laughing?

Herzog_Zwei SG

hetrosexual bigots vs gays. in the long run, i put my money on hetrosexual bigots.

And I can put my money on dumbdumb! sucking his unholy father's penis every night.

Shotgun SG

I don't quite understand what you mean by they banned homosexuality literally. Their religion has always viewed homosexuality to be wrong, hence I'm not sure if they "banned" anything. I am not clear to what was in the sex education program, but I only know that it has caused MOE to review and introduce changes to it. To me, that does imply that there was some level of inappropriacy to how homosexuality was being educated.

Christians around the world have always been a vocal lot in politics and raising alarms about contradictions to "moral fiber." However, I do feel that to assume a minority religion in Singapore to represent the interest of the majority mainstream heterosexual society is a little "under-representing" of heterosexual interest. =)

stupidissmart SG

I don't quite understand what you mean by they banned homosexuality literally. Their religion has always viewed homosexuality to be wrong, hence I'm not sure if they "banned" anything.

it is again a group of religious people tat caused 377A to exist, thereby making homosexual to be illegal

I am not clear to what was in the sex education program, but I only know that it has caused MOE to review and introduce changes to it. To me, that does imply that there was some level of inappropriacy to how homosexuality was being educated.

To me it is a sign tat the gov wanted to appease all parties in the incident by giving a step in. Previoulsy the program is already approved by MOE to be appropriate to be educated

Wat r u suggesting as "minority religion" ? R u saying secularism or homosexual as religion ?

Shotgun SG

it is again a group of religious people tat caused 377A to exist, thereby making homosexual to be illegal

To me it is a sign tat the gov wanted to appease all parties in the incident by giving a step in. Previoulsy the program is already approved by MOE to be appropriate to be educated

Wat r u suggesting as "minority religion" ? R u saying secularism or homosexual as religion ?

To your first point, I have to admit I am also not clear behind the history of 377A. To my understanding, most Singapore laws are actually similar to English laws due to our colonial heritage. The original law was English, and introduced by the English to India, and then applied to all her colonies. England was a very "Christian" country, and that you somewhat correct, but unclear.

Whether it is a sign or not, it seems that MOE indeed will be tightening control over the message that is to be carried forward by sex education programs.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/430857/1/.html

What the MOE has instituted, are clearer guidelines of mainstream conservative views towards homosexuality, and not otherwise. I think we really need to understand that, contending views such as homosexuality where a general "middle point" is hard to reach due to the polarity of views and principles are very sensitive and require both parties to act with restraint, tact and grace. The stronger one side tries to push an agenda, the stronger the other side will resist... At the end, it really benefits no one.

I was referring to Christianity as a minority religion in Singapore. They thus cannot fully be said to be the only ones who disagree with homosexuality since the majority of Singaporean society also disagree. I think they just happen to be more vocal.

« Previous Page Next Page »