Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders

last SG · 2007-11-06T15:52:04+00:00

Yes, good or bad sometimes depend on the situations.But there are obective standards for an act too. Drinking bear can be considered good because the drink...

Icemoon SG

Actually what are we trying to convince him? Laughing

stupidissmart SG

It is .. you are increasing your chance of survivial

Evolution is survival of the fittest. Not survival of everybody. Medicine is not darwanina because it hinder the natural selection whereby the weaker one r cut off from reproducing

Just a thought. Only time will tell.

For your unconventional method, I thik it will probably have to wait many years, like your noah ark film which u r so convinced before.

I don't know his stand is no right & wrong about homo or homo is not wrong.Would he please state his stand.I think just debate about this point should be good enough.Otherwise the debates become unfocus.

I think before u say anything, why don't u try to answer some of the questions I asked ? I already told u my stand clearly about homosexual. There is no such thing as right and wrong in many issues and homosexual is one of them.

PRP SG

So your stand is no right and wrong for homo.What is your reason?Pls don't use the anology of choosing between coffee and tea again because it is inapporopriate.The analogy means one can choose something depend on one's liking.Is it to say one can choose either hetero sex or homo sex depend on one's liking?

Icemoon SG

Medicine also cannot guarantee the survival of everybody and not everyone has access to medicine.

Darwin's idea can be applied to nature; it can be applied to the society as well.

PRP SG

It is good that Icemoon pointed out that survey was different from census.SIS often put up seemingly correct arguments.

Icemoon SG

the devil mixes truth with lies? LOL

edit: we are all devils!! Mr. Green

stupidissmart SG

I have already answer on tis one. Let me just use back my old argument on u

07 December 2007 · 09:46 PM

Wat is good or not is subjective. Is drinking beer good ? Is eating oily and fatty food good ? Is taking more plastic bags during shopping good ? Is fasting to lose weight good ? Com'on... there r many things tat depend on the individual and r subjective. It is not good or bad or right or wrong, it all depend on who u r and the circumstances. In the above questions, it can be good or bad depending on the person who is doing it.

Medicine also cannot guarantee the survival of everybody and not everyone has access to medicine.

It has already hindered nature way of weeding out the weaker people from reproduction

Darwin's idea can be applied to nature; it can be applied to the society as well.

There r people who r genetically more superior than others but borned in the wrong country. Is tat darwanian if they r die without reproductino while others who r genetically inferior get to reproduce ?

It is good that Icemoon pointed out that survey was different from census

Then obviously the survey is not a convincing evidence

Icemoon SG

Medicine does have its side effect. You pay a price somehow. I don't agree that it will hinder nature's way of weeding out weaker people. What happens is, I believe, nature has a way to pick out weaker people.

I guess it is darwinian .. the environment does play a part?

Then obviously the survey is not a convincing evidence

Survey, if done right (e.g. sampling size correct), constitute as evidence. Well, didn't you use the example of APA? How can APA represent the worldwide community of psychologists anyway? Wink

Icemoon SG

SIS still wouldn't admit the majority of Singaporeans are still opposed to and undecided about homosexuality.

I find it funny. Even gays do not debate on this point. Laughing

stupidissmart SG

We r talking about natural here. It has totally twisted the way evolution works. Not all medicine have side effects, and side effects may work on people who r stronger genetically. It is not longer natural.

Survey, if done right (e.g. sampling size correct), constitute as evidence.

I just want to say tat it is not the right thing to do

Icemoon SG

If evolution is survival of the fittest, then evolution still works 'cos only the fittest will survive. Laughing

I just want to say tat it is not the right thing to do

Then what you want? A referendum?

stupidissmart SG

If evolution is survival of the fittest, then evolution still works 'cos only the fittest will survive.

Where got ? I find the african pretty fit but r they having a higher survival ratio ?

Then what you want? A referendum?

Not to tat extent. But to conclude tat most of the people hate and ban homosexual is wrong. I believe most r just silent and don't really care

Icemoon SG

The environment does play a part? Probably that's why migrations happen, e.g. when it is winter, you migrate to somewhere where crops grow and you can find food easier.

Not to tat extent. But to conclude tat most of the people hate and ban homosexual is wrong. I believe most r just silent and don't really care

Because Singapore is multi-religious as well, the law should cater to religious sensitivities.

Furthermore, those who are undecided doesn't count to the vote, so they only add to the status quo.

stupidissmart SG

The environment does play a part? Probably that's why migrations happen, e.g. when it is winter, you migrate to somewhere where crops grow and you can find food easier.

Wat has tat got to do with the natural point ? I think u r facing un uphill task trying to force medicine to be natural.

Because Singapore is multi-religious as well, the law should cater to religious sensitivities.

But singapore is secular and they should make secular decision

Furthermore, those who are undecided doesn't count to the vote, so they only add to the status quo.

If things r left normally, the politician have already decided to cross out 377A. Additional efforts r made by the extreme anti group which r probably the minority to change the ruling. In tis sense, the undecided should be the one tat doesn't count in the vote of anti gay.

Icemoon SG

I don't understand your definition of natural.

What do you want exactly then? Mothers giving birth outside the maternity ward, in a jungle like the apes? No caesaran birth allowed? So even our birth has to be natural?

So are you arguing we should go back to primitive conditions before civilization started?

As far as sexual activities are concerned, the darwinian reason is that of reproduction.

But singapore is secular and they should make secular decision

Seems to be a secular decision to me. We are not talking about whether the 10 commandments should be hung in every classroom. Homosexuality is still not widely accepted among our traditional 'confucian' society.

The government did not quote the religious books in their reason for keeping 377A. Their reason is pragmatic - because the majority still cannot accept.

Edit: If it is true like you said the statistics is skewed, then bringing out the 'right' statistics will be the no. 1 counter-argument by the gay supporters. But then they don't do it; instead they rebuke with reasons like invasion of basic rights and the irony of having a paper tiger law.

Please prove that the extremem anti group is the minority.

stupidissmart SG

Tat is right. I was wondering why people r arguing about natural when clearly everything we do already defeat nature purpose. It is true tat the reason for sex is for reproduction, so as diesease is to control population. We have no problem with eating medicine, why have problem with sexual activities ?

Take note if u talk about darwanian, the purpose of life itself is reproduction, not just sexual activities. Clearly there r many groups of people, not just gay, defeat tis purpose.How about people who use contraceptives ? How about people who perform operation to stop reproduction and still have sex ? Clearly most sexual activities r rarely on reproduction now

But the ones arguing for it, as well as the title of the thread, already suggested it is more of a religious movement than a society one.

The government did not quote the religious books in their reason for keeping 377A. Their reason is pragmatic - because the majority still cannot accept.

Edit: If it is true like you said the statistics is skewed, then bringing out the 'right' statistics will be the no. 1 counter-argument by the gay supporters. But then they don't do it; instead they rebuke with reasons like invasion of basic rights and the irony of having a paper tiger law.

And wat is your answer to the "invasion of basic rights" and "irony of having a paper tiger law" ?

Icemoon SG

Are you confused yourself?

You said that the people arguing against gays are the extreme religious minority right? But the religious minority do not use the natural argument!!

If the reason against gays are darwinian, then it is not religious but secular liao right?

wah leow!!

And note, fundamental Christians are not fond of citing Darwin .. ahem .

But the ones arguing for it, as well as the title of the thread, already suggested it is more of a religious movement than a society one.

If we are a multi-religious society, of course you find religious people everywhere. Kaoz.

And wat is your answer to the "invasion of basic rights" and "irony of having a paper tiger law" ?

My answer is .. repeal incest law 'cos it invades my private basic rights also.

I asked a question before .. if I can prove parties under incest have no chance of reproduction (like guys do vasectomy), does it mean it is not criminal anymore?

My view of a paper tiger law is .. just leave it. Govt is right that the majority of our society cannot accept homosexuality yet. The law represents the stand. The govt will STILL be inconsistent later even if 377A is repealed.

Icemoon SG

Just some comments.

The natural people are arguing about does have certain religious overtones. Note, I am not saying religious people quote natural arguments, but that natural arguments have certain religious basis in them.

For example, the official Catholic stand is no contraceptive. So natural .. but religious also.

Ultimately the darwinian purpose of life is to .. survive and pass down your genes. I disagree that medicine is not natural, because mankind has evolved to an advanced stage, compared to other animals, where our brain move the society, create technological advances .. and help prolong our lifespan. If a monkey is to evolve to a stage whereby they can grind medical powder from plants to cure their own diseases, well we wouldn't call that unnatural right? Haha .. though hard to think monkeys can do that anytime in the future.

I guess until the day we become immortals, darwinian will play a part in our life, at least in the society where only the fittest will survive.

Icemoon SG

You cannot compare human beings with monkeys.

Just because monkeys live naturally in the wild or a simulated wild environment like the zoo, does not mean we can live equally well in their kind of environment.

While the purpose of life is reproduction, it does not mean we SHOULD reproduce as much as possible .. or that will be promiscuity. Laughing

stupidissmart SG

In the end u agree tat natural argument is used by religious people isn't it ? And u still want to argue using the nature argument as well ? Darwanian is started by u yourself and the other talk about natural. U talk about natural and darwanian and when it some to medicine, u say tat it is natural and follow darwanian law. I think it is really just biased.

Why is homosexual against nature while catholic, contraceptives, surgery etc r all natural ? Wat is the natural conclusion for dieseases ? Eliminate weaker population. Is it natural for men to take medicine ? No. It is a totally man made thing and it do affect the whole earth given tat human r using and polluting the world too much. U say it is a natural progression why isn't homosexual a natural progression given tat animals do it too. Why the biase ?

Lastly, if using natural and darwanian perspective and u view homosexual as a disorder, then natural has a natural means to regulate tis "disorder". They don't reproduce. So wat is your problem with it ?

When it comes to sex, u find catholic fathers follow natural but not homosexual ? Why ? Isn't living being ultimate purpose is to reproduce ? Then why treat them special ? If u think it is not natural, calibracy is not natural and against darwanina theory. If tat is the reason to impose impossible rules on homosexual, then we should impose impossible rule for catholic father too to make the whole world "natural" and "darwanian"

If we are a multi-religious society, of course you find religious people everywhere. Kaoz.

The argument is tat the people pushing 377A r religious people. From your answer, u seemed to agree with tis point

I have asked u a question before. Quote me the law tat ban incest in singapore. Only after u quote me tis law then we talk about it otherwise u r just talking of something tat may not exist.

« Previous Page Next Page »