but there is a law regarding offending others via outrage of
modesty, you don't have to show off your privates, or any part of
your body, so long as the other party feels insulted, feels
offended, its just as bad. and the truth is, now people are
offended by the gay lifestyle. which is primarily the reason why
the secular law still declares it illegal. i thought you could come
to this conclusion yourself, but nvm.
Wat do u mean by the gay lifestyle ? If they do it privately wat
has it got to do with u ?
religious people never condemned gays, but they don't agree with
their lifestyle. apparently you condemn religion, but do you
condemn the people practicing it? if you do, then you're no better
than the worst of us. ok anyway, that's out of the point, why
should you be surprised at my answer? lol, its really how i feel
and that's really the way things should be done wat. you can't just
enforce ppl to agree with you if they don't.
I don't think so. I don't condemn religious people because I did
not start a petition asking them to outlawed religious people. But
I guess some religious people do. I am glad u knew u cannot enforce
peole to agree with u on wat u believe in. Then why r u enforcing
the authorities to agree with u by enforcing a law ?
that's abit hard, but I'll give you a good 36% at least.
consisting of praciticing buddhists, christians and muslims. and
for the other 15%, they usually emerge when they found out their
children are gay.
Com'on... Wat makes u think everybody will have sons tat is
gonna be gays when gays r allowed ? If u give such a biased
conclusion then I can give one saying tat the 36% tat banned gays
now will allow gay if they found themselves to be gays or have sons
tat r gays but cannot be straight ever.
Furthermore, buddhist r not as focus on condemning gays as the
other religion
as for your point that both side did the same thing, that's why
i said that if the roles were reversed, the religious rights should
do the same thing. i don't think i was wrong in this sense.
U mean sending hate mails ? I thought they already did
but by demanding for us to agree with their lifestyle, thus
legalizing their lifestyle, isn't that asking us to lie about our
feelings about the issue?
Legalising gays is not equal to accepting their lifestyle
It is acknowledging tat such
a group of people existing in tis world. If u don't like it, nobody
is asking to embrace them or force u to make friends with them. It
is just to allow them to live legally.
but they are living in singapore legally. i don't see them in
lockups or in concentration camps or living in some ghetto.
They r not living legally because according tot he law they r
outlawed. If u do not want them to live their life publicly, then u
should just work on a law tat prohibit open gays activities and not
banning them. There r other laws tat prohibit acts of indecency.
377A is simply banning gays
Do you know the consequence of telling the world you have a law
and you will not enforce it?
I felt tat the whole thing is a joke.
