NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report

crosshairs SG

When retro folks like you die out in a few years......things will inprove.

Here farouk, have some ghee laden murtabak, and shut up.

crosshairs SG

Eat up. Chew. Ok, have some milo dinosaur as well. Here’s a jug.

adetet SG

Just out of curiosity, is it only Christian religion that oppose gay life style?

LazerLordz SG

No. Even some agnostics and atheists oppose.

It's just a personal choice. But you don't have to use a law to enforce your dislikes on others do you.

lansin.party SG

Hi. Can i ask,

Will you endorse a law that says

"The use of the Indian Language should be banned and any offender will be fined $1000" OR
"The eating of bread as a religious act is an offence liable to 5 weeks in jail"

if the government ASSURES you this law is a paper tiger and will never ever be enforced?

Since the law is not enforced, then it is not discriminatory to Indians/Christians, so going by the same argument you give for 377A, isn't it acceptable to make the above two statements laws?

iveco SG

Your argument makes sense. Who knows if she is the one being dodgy and the only reason she gets away with it is due to the condition of parliamentary immunity.

However, if the letter writer was found to be our own Laurence82, it wouldn't surprise me either. I have doubts about his sexuality considering his catty nature. Rolling Eyes

PRP SG

So u admit u bash me.So pls don't cry geys are the bashing boys!

Do u have a selfish motive on this topic?

My position is i accept geys but homo is wrong.I can't debate with a basher.

crosshairs SG

As you said it so clearly and I said it just as clearly, I am bashing you, and it is not a debate.

LazerLordz SG

Not ALL homosexuals are bashing you. Some are heterosexuals that have been bashing your argument, and I am one of them as well.

Can you even accept this fact?

crosshairs SG

Question thrown to the floor:

What do you guys think of people who claim to accept gays but frown upon homosexuality?

Icemoon SG

I suppose you can have gay friends but you frown upon their lifestyle.

It is the same with gambling isn't it? Wink

Icemoon SG

This is my question too.

Even if the government is not inconsistent now, it will be inconsistent later when the lobby for marital rights and same sex marriage starts.

It will also be inconsistent too if some pervert asks for the incest law to be removed, or bestality to be legal.

*shrugs*

Icemoon SG

The argument given for 377A is one that looks at the big picture and potential implications.

So my counter-challenge to you is,

1. So what if the Indian language is NOT banned?
2. So what if the eating of bread as religious act is allowed?

But I think you are blurring the issues. The crux of 377A is about acts behind closed doors. Is the Indian language mainly used behind closed doors?

Clandestine SG

My research lecturer taught us the use of "so what" last night in class.
Important question to ask to help put things in perspective. Very Happy

Clandestine SG

After 377a is repealed,

1) I want to have the option of being able to legally buy a house(hdb) flat with my partner...yes. Food / Shelter / Clothing - Thanks Maslow~ Very Happy

2) I want to be able to get married to my partner and have our marriage recognised constitutionally....Not so much.Seeing as how the marriage system is generally a failure amongst the heterosexual crowd, i don't see why homosexuals should follow in their footsteps.

3) I want to be able to adopt. No. But thats because personally i don't think I would make a good father. I'm much too strict and 'anal'

--------------------------------------

So yes....377a is just the first step.

I see so many deny it...and avoid the subject all together when the discussion veers in the direction of "long term"....mainly because it would hurt the argument 'in the now' ...and the opposition is using the "long term" objectives in their argument against the 'first step'.

but if i apply icemoon's "so what" notion....

1) So what if i want to apply for a hdb flat with my partner?

2) So what if i want to get legally married to my partner?

3) So what if i would want to adopt and provide a loving, nurturing environment for a child?

Can anyone answer these questions without using the notions...

a) Because its not the way god intended
b) Just because its not natural
c) It's not how things have been practiced in the past
d) The child will grow up screwed up
e) The population of Singapore will decline

---------------------------------------

Open question to everyone, regardless of their standpoint on the issue Very Happy

Gedanken SG

Mr. Green

Icemoon SG

This issue goes beyond whatever is in 377A.

How about 376 (incest)? Who is to say incest is forbidden if the couple loves each other?

How about beastality? Necrophilia?

In fact, why should underage sex be criminal if defense can show the girl is the initiator and fully aware of the consequences?

Gedanken SG

Yes, it does all go against nature, doesn't it?

Icemoon SG

Actually it doesn't.

No wait .. it depends on what you mean by going against nature. Homosexuality seems to be quite common in nature, yet this behaviour is not very darwinian in nature. Isn't it the nature of living things to reproduce?

wah .. so many 'nature' in one reply .. think got fallacy liao. Laughing

Gedanken SG

I’m just trying to get a sense of why you would introduce bestiality, necrophilia and incest into a discussion about homosexuality. As far as I can tell, the common thread seems to be the “against nature” argument, but could you clarify?

« Previous Page Next Page »