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...

stupidissmart 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

U r trying to change the point to another direction. Reproduction does not means reproduce a lot. People who sworn calibracy have zero offsprings, same as true homosexual. And u r arguing from a natural and darwanian perspective. Now why r these 2 groups of people different from a "darwanian" and "natural" perspective. Did we talk about monkeys or gorillas ? If u don't see natural as a reference, then wat is natural to u ? Man made concepts ?

Icemoon SG

Nope, I always said religious people uses religious arguments, not natural arguments.

As far as the natural arguments are concerned, I have tried to clarify that we cannot import the definition wholesale from the natural world. Medicine does follow darwinian law, i.e. the practice of ingesting a cure for illness is so that you can survive.

It can get confusing .. 'cos gay supporters are also using the natural argument! For example they cite homosexuality as being rampant in the wild.

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

Nobody is pushing 377A. It has already been there. It is mainly gay supporters talking about repealing 377A. There is no need to do any pushing 'cos the official stand is that the majority of Singaporeans still cannot accept. This is a pragmatic and secular argument.

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.

Har? But incest is banned here right?

stupidissmart SG

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.

If tat is the case, then nothing is unnatural anymore. Anything tat comes from a man brain become natural and tat really defined everything in tis world. If medicine is natural, then cloning is natural too because it can help to prolong our lives as well.

Icemoon SG

If you really want to compare, celibate people don't fark as well. Laughing

Icemoon SG

that's why i always try to shun the natural argument. Can't you see that? You are the one who brings in the medicine and contraceptive, not me.

If you want to put the issue in the right perspective, gay supporters are the people who use the natural argument.

stupidissmart SG

Why don't u read back wat PRP had written on natural ? Aren't u the one tat start tis natural argument with me in the first place ?

It is surely not darwinian in nature, since the role of sex is to pass down your genes.

Now we r talking your definition of natural isn't it ?

377A is gonna to be phased put until religious people push it to exist isn't it. The reason is not because gays r repealing 377A, but people r repealing on 377. And the movement of repealing 377A is done by religious people. The majority of the people cannot accept is not substantially back by evidence.

Har? But incest is banned here right?

Show me the evidence from the singapore statues first.

Icemoon SG

By the way, both of us use darwinian and natural rather loosely and sometimes wrongly.

When I mean darwinian, I am thinking of survival of the fittest. Nothing more than that. Don't read me like I am talking about evolution and natural selection. NO.

In that regard, medicine is still darwinian.

stupidissmart SG

If you want to put the issue in the right perspective, gay supporters are the people who use the natural argument.

Let me find some arguments used by religious people on natural

I was taught that homosexuality is immoral because it isnt natural. The simplified argument is God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. There was the rather lame joke that the right tool should be used for the right job and poking another mans butt with your penis was definitely a misuse of the tool.

A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.

We know by reason what the natural law tells us the sexual organs are designed for certain functions.

I get all of them from religious sites. U sure u can say tat natural is not an argument made by religious people before ?

Then wat is unnatural ? Medicine do not allow survival of the fittest but survival of almost everybody. Nothing is unnatural right ?

Icemoon SG

Actually if you read back, what I tried to bring across was ..

Homosexuality is rampant in the wild. Seems natural to us. But then if the role of sex is to pass down your genes, then we must admit those homosexual animals are just .. basket cases. As far as sex is concerned in darwinian terms, they are unnatural.

Don't understand. What repealing of 377A done by religous people?

Like I said, even gay supporters admit that the majority of people cannot accept it:

1. They refer themselves as the minority and maintain that minority rights shouldn't be sacrificed for majority rights.

2. They did not bring out counter statistics to prove the majority supports it.

Show me the evidence from the singapore statues first.

Don't be boliao .. what are you trying to do?

We all know that it exists .. so what's your point?

Icemoon SG

Don't be silly. Those are RELIGIOUS arguments!!

In any case, I think you have committed a fallacy. Amphiboly .. or at least equivocation. Go and figure. Wink

Then wat is unnatural ? Medicine do not allow survival of the fittest but survival of almost everybody. Nothing is unnatural right ?

I refrain from commenting until you figured out the fallacy.

stupidissmart SG

Homosexuality is rampant in the wild. Seems natural to us. But then if the role of sex is to pass down your genes, then we must admit those homosexual animals are just .. basket cases. As far as sex is concerned in darwinian terms, they are unnatural.

Wat is your comment on contraceptives and calibracy ? And medicine is not darwanian as well since it is unnatural too.

I make it simple to understand otherwise u r denying it

1) 377A is gonna be phased out with 377
2) religious people set a motion preventing 377A from being phased out

And for your point 1 & 2, they say minority r gays, not minority r pro gays

Don't be boliao .. what are you trying to do?

We all know that it exists .. so what's your point?

Prove it la ! Why u talk about incest law when u don't know where to find it. I want to read the actual wording of it before commenting. If u say it exist then quote it la !

Don't be silly. Those are RELIGIOUS arguments!!

Let me ask u. Why do they use the word "unnatural" on it ?

Icemoon SG

Haiz .. that's why i said invoking the 'natural' argument is dangerous because people are approaching it from two different directions.

The same people who quote the natural law (religious people from the website you quoted) WILL NOT agree with gay supporters who cite homosexuality as natural because it is rampant in the wild. I myself pointed out this apparent irony.

But people like SIS like to conflate them and thus muddle the issue.

stupidissmart SG

We r talking about your approach isn't it ? U say homosexual is not natural. Then wat is your view on celibracy and contraceptives ? Comment on them. R they different from homosexual from a "darwanian" perspective ?

And your medicine is not truly darwanina as well because it does not control population and making weaker people reproduce while removing fitter people. Comment on tat too. Aren't these from your perspective ? If medicine is natural, then cloning is natural too. Comment on tis as well.

Icemoon SG

I can agree with you that religious people do not wish to see 377A being phased out.

However the official stand of our pragmatic government (the same one who ignores the religious stand AGAINST casinos) is that the majority of singaporeans still cannot accept it.

Yup, the minority are gays, but pro-gays belong to the minority too!

Prove it la ! Why u talk about incest law when u don't know where to find it. I want to read the actual wording of it before commenting. If u say it exist then quote it la !

There is no need to prove it. We know it exists. And it is just in the section before or after 377.

Basically it says it is criminal to have sex with your close relations. And penetration is enough to consitute as sex.

stupidissmart SG

Then u agree tat it is the religious people who push for the law to exists isn't it ?

Prove it la ! Lets just say I don't think it exists and it is phased out as 377. Prove it out to me it exist la.

Icemoon SG

I refrain from commenting 'cos you are muddling up the issue. heck, the issue is already confusing to begin with.

I have no wish to go into celibacy and contraceptives.

Icemoon SG

The law has already existed .. is there a need to push?

And don't use religious people as your punching bag. According to the govt, we are still basically a society with confucian values.

As a society, we are still not ready to accept it.

Icemoon SG

don't be an idiot.

you dunno where to find the penal code?

Icemoon SG

SIS, in case you don't get it .. haiz ..

The 'natural' cited by religious people, especially Christians, have religious overtones. Because you are anti-religion, there is no point discussing their 'natural' with you .. because all along you are thinking of darwinian!!

You know in chinese the term .. liang3 tou2 bu4 zao2 an4 .. like you are in the middle of the lake and the shores are far away from you. We are neither here nor there.

Wah leow.

stupidissmart SG

I refrain from commenting 'cos you are muddling up the issue. heck, the issue is already confusing to begin with.

I have no wish to go into celibacy and contraceptives.

I think u r confused yourself ba. U stated tat homosexual is against "darwanian natural" and when it comes to contraceptives and celibracy which is equally against "darwanian natural" , u refused to comment on it. To be frank your natural argument is just a slippery slope

The law has already existed .. is there a need to push?

U don't confuse the people. The law is going to be phased out and now it is retained because the religious people r pushing for it to be retained

And don't use religious people as your punching bag. According to the govt, we are still basically a society with confucian values.

People who have confucian value don't feel as strongly on the homosexual issue. And whether the majority of the people r against gays r unknown as the gov stand is simply

"The decision on whether or not to decriminalise gay sex is a very divisive one and until there is a broader consensus on the matter, Singapore will stick to the status quo"

The 'natural' cited by religious people, especially Christians, have religious overtones. Because you are anti-religion, there is no point discussing their 'natural' with you .. because all along you are thinking of darwinian!!

The darwanian argument is started by u isn't it Rolling Eyes

« Previous Page Next Page »