Singapore Expats Forum

Keep or Repeal 377A Petition?

A moderated forum for serious discussions only.
User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 4:35 pm

Superglide wrote:ksl,

Implying homosexuality is the result of being a victim of sexual abuse is probably the stupidest thing I have heard of homofobics like yourself.

In fact I would be more worried for your children with such a father, then worry about a child being brought up by two gay parents.


Well Superglide are you insinuating something here? If so be very very careful, I find your reply quite provocating, to say the least. and i am by no means suffering from homofobia, like i said before I know many fairies. But what does annoy me, are the ones, that are over bearing since they come out of the closet!

You always have a tendancy to provoke for some reason, maybe the subject is personal for you, and not a general topic of discussion, of which it should be.

Personally i am well up to date on the word perversion, and in many Countries it is stll classified as such and illegal, why do you think it was made illegal? I don't know myself, although I can at least give an example while in the military, on how one or two have been court marshalled, for climbing into someones bed, because they fancied them, only to discover the person in the bed, was not a pervert, quite un natural behaviour, were human emotions are involved, because of hormone disturbance.

The only fear I would have, is that my children, would have to suffer the mixed feelings of identity, which is certainly not a normal situation for young adolescents.

Yes you maybe right that two homosexuals are capable of raising children, I'm not disputing that, you know has well as I do, that it is much more complexed than that. deviants tend to be the ones that are attracted to paedophilia against boys, because of their homosexual tendancies at a young age in my opinion...... Anyway I suggest you chill out and don't take it so personal......

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 4:46 pm

mayamomi wrote:not dysfunctional... neither are homosexuals... they are normal human beings with an abnormal sexuality (although i believe its not just about sexual desires) ... and their children, although not necessary would end up like them, there is a high tendency towards it..


Can you point to any evidence of this 'high tendency'?

While I agree with SMS that the visual environment may confuse children, I think it's a big leap from saying that, to concluding that these children will therefore turn out homosexual themselves. One indirect comparison I can think of: children have natural instincts which enable them to grow up watching their father hitting their mother, for example, and realising intuitively that this is not right, yet grow up to be wife-beaters themselves. So perhaps this is an argument against homosexual parenting.

I'm also curious how posters here define the 'norm'. Would that be 'the behaviour of the majority'? Because in that case polygamy is the norm - studies suggest that many people in marriages or relationships have affairs. Does that mean we should do away with monogamous marriage because it's not 'natural'? I suspect not. There is some sort of moral judgement involved in these decisions on what is right. In which case, what moral grounds do we have for determining the 'acceptable' lifestyle for gays?

Just to clarify, I have no particular standpoint on homosexuality, just a lot of questions. I'm just thinking out loud so these are philosophical questions rather than challenges to specific posters' viewpoints in this thread.

User avatar
mayamomi
Regular
Regular
Posts: 111
Joined: Wed, 25 Jul 2007

Postby mayamomi » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 6:32 pm

Wind In My Hair wrote:Can you point to any evidence of this 'high tendency'?

children have natural instincts which enable them to grow up watching their father .


u said it best ... natural instincts... do we need any other evidence??

Wind In My Hair wrote:intuitively that this is not right, yet grow up to be wife-beaters themselves. So perhaps this is an argument against homosexual parenting.


precisely. ... the example is apt, that also explains the "high tendency" there... i think thats also what sms meant by "brainwashing..."

however, after all that i've said, i'm going to contradict myself a little here... about the adoption of and bringing up children, should we then also consider adoption by single people abnormal? how about single parent family, although sometimes its inevitable... how about unwed mothers... are they then also able to bring the kids up "normally"?? should that be banned too... sigh.. thats why i say life's just too complicated ...

Wind In My Hair wrote:I'm also curious how posters here define the 'norm'.


norm in the oxford dictionary is defined as "a situation or pattern of behaviour that is usual or expected... or standards of behaviour that are typical of or accepted within a particular group or society"

so perhaps for superglide its a norm but in our society, then its a no no still... however, thats not the point...

"norm" for me in a marriage is between a man and a woman, to fall in love with the opposite sex and get married and have sexual intercourse in the way it is defined :oops: in order to produce the next generation... that is "norm", not defined by me, but is a fact ... can gay couples produce their own children? fact is they cannot...so thats not normal... pls do not take any offence in my post, i'm just trying to explain my thoughts as regards to whats normal and abnormal in this case..

Wind In My Hair wrote:Would that be 'the behaviour of the majority'? Because in that case polygamy is the norm - studies suggest that many people in marriages or relationships have affairs.


having affairs is not polygamy... polygamy means having more than one wife... there's a little contradiction here, u asked if the norm was the behaviour of majority, and state later that studies suggest many have affairs, hence polygamy should be a norm??
1stly, many does not necessarily mean majority, the word many is just too subjective, many as compared to what?? 4million people in singapore sounds like too many a people for me, but compared to most other countries... gee... its like a joke...

2ndly, studies only suggested, were they proven?? so how can it be the norm in this case...

besides, i don't agree with "the norm is the behaviour of the majority" although there might be a certain and limited truth in the sentence.. take for example, being left/ right handed, is right handed the norm? many say yes, and they're probably right, if we're going according to the dictionary's definition since its expected... but the left handed and some others would say no... the older generation or in some cultures, they think the lefties are blasphemous, but as long as they can write.. who cares? but we cannot say the same for the difference being homo or hetero.... i'm a leftie by the way :P

WIMH, i'm not challenging u either :wink: and i'm also not against or for homos.. because after all said and done, its really their lives, and to have a law incriminating them?? its BS to me... :wink:

i just feel that there's a misunderstanding along the way in this topic for some posters...

accepting them (homos) is not equivalent to agreeing with them.. condoning behaviours does not mean we encourage...
To you, he's a dog...
To me, he's everything...

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 8:47 pm

mayamomi wrote:accepting them (homos) is not equivalent to agreeing with them.. condoning behaviours does not mean we encourage...


Precisely!

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 9:15 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
mayamomi wrote:accepting them (homos) is not equivalent to agreeing with them.. condoning behaviours does not mean we encourage...


Precisely!



Well said! Homosexuality is a behavourial problem, which should not be encouraged!

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/homosexuality.html

User avatar
road.not.taken
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat, 06 Oct 2007

Postby road.not.taken » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 9:33 pm

ksl wrote:
sundaymorningstaple wrote:
mayamomi wrote:accepting them (homos) is not equivalent to agreeing with them.. condoning behaviours does not mean we encourage...


Precisely!



Well said! Homosexuality is a behavourial problem, which should not be encouraged!

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/homosexuality.html


Yes, heaven forbid we should encourage love!

ksl,

That's Cro-Magnon thinking in a world where decisions are made by Homo Sapiens. The telltale signs in your argument are paranoia and ignorance. And although you wear them like a cloak to protect you, it's really just puritanism ideals between you and the cold world outside.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:08 pm

road.not.taken wrote:Yes, heaven forbid we should encourage love!


Not meant to be antagonistic here, just trying to steer the discussion back on track. Love or not is not the issue here is it.

When a pedophile tells you that he loves your 8 year old daughter are you going to encourage him? It is, after all, to him love. Maybe that doesn't fit "your" definition of love. There is the problem with love in this discussion.

Pedophiles love as well. Do you encourage that? I though not. Love can take place between homosexuals, heterosexuals, pedophiles, lesbians, necrophiliacs and any other type of pervert or perversion you can think of. It my not quite fit your or my definition of Love, but it is love non-the-less. The debate to me is not about love or the lack of. It is about aberration or normal and whether aberrations should be encouraged. I still say nay. But I am still for repeal of the stupid archaic law.

That's Cro-Magnon thinking in a world where decisions are made by Homo Sapiens.


Do you think we are that far removed from Cro-Magnon thinking? Look at Iraq, Belfast, the Congo, Afganisstan, Pakistan and all the other flashpoints in the world today. Not that far removed from clubs is it.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:22 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:The debate to me is not about love or the lack of. It is about aberration or normal and whether aberrations should be encouraged. I still say nay. But I am still for repeal of the stupid archaic law.

Wouldn't repealing the law be a form of encouragement though? The debate isn't about the law per se, since no one intends to reinforce it, but the domino effects once the law is repealed ie calls for recognition of gay marriages etc.

zhoumulian
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri, 18 May 2007
Location: Singapore

Postby zhoumulian » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:40 pm

wow..i find this topic extremely interesting. i don't think repealing the law would necessarily encourage homosexuality or homosexual behavior, as much as allow homosexuals the freedom to be full members of society as heterosexuals.

i find it interesting that so many people haven mentioned not agreeing with homosexual behavior or find it abnormal, and then talk about children having identity issues. what child wouldn't have identity issues when upon feeling or realizing that he/she is homosexual, he/she has to also deal with parents who disapprove of who he/she is?

as far as adoption is concerned, i must agree with a previous poster that the argumetn that children would be better off in foster care, especially considering the sad state of it where so many children are physially/emotionally/mentally abused (that comment's specific to the States as I can't speak on any other country) than with two parents who want and love him is absurd! Worries about subliminal messages that homosexuality is normal is so minor considering the other damage that children face in foster care or even heterosexual homes that to suggest otherwise to ignore the truth of the current state of marriage.

From a constitutional perspective,I find it troubling that marriage is so inextricably linked to government control that the denial of marriage basically means of the denial of full participation. Considering that there was once a time when mixed marriages and children were seen as abnormal and abhorrent, and against nature and God, that homosexuals are still denied rights and privileges that heterosexuals are granted without second thought, merely because they are homosexual is abhorent, abnormal, against nature and God.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:45 pm

Not really, dominos are for parlor games only. The Fall of Vietnam in the early '70's was going to cause a domino effect throughout SE Asia. Did it happen. No.

It ain't gonna happen here either. How is decriminalizing the sexual going to encourage anything. It hasn't lead to the road to doom anywhere else has it? The only difference between here and another country is there is no difference. Statistically speaking I would almost be willing to bet, truth be known, that there are as many gays here as almost anywhere else. Will it stop them? No. Will it encourage them, I doubt it seriously.

The law isn't saying that they can now do it on the MRT. There are other laws against that that pertain to all. The law isn't saying that they can jump children, there are other laws against that as well. So what are we encouraging? Nothing. Nobody is saying anything about legalizing gay marriages. To me the law is just about as stupid as the law that pertained to sexual practices that did not lead to propagation (a good hummer or an cunning linguist! :wink: ) even in the privacy of a couples own home. One more thing.... If they don't intend to enforce it, they why have it on the books at all? I'd say that is pretty silly wouldn't you?

As you mentioned earlier, you are just trolling for information. :wink:
Do you feel it would encourage them? To do what?

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:54 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:As you mentioned earlier, you are just trolling for information. :wink:
Do you feel it would encourage them? To do what?

Just because my views aren't as fixed or strong as yours and a few others here doesn't mean I'm trolling. It does mean that I'm actually listening to both sides of the debate plus considering the reality of the gay relationships I'm witnessing in my own life, and genuinely weighing up the issue.

I don't feel it would encourage them. Like I said, I don't have strong views either way at this point. I was simply asking a question. Unlike some posters here who have all the answers, I have mainly questions right now.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35106
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:58 pm

zhoumulian wrote:Considering that there was once a time when mixed marriages and children were seen as abnormal and abhorrent, and against nature and God, that homosexuals are still denied rights and privileges that heterosexuals are granted without second thought, merely because they are homosexual is abhorent, abnormal, against nature and God.


In all of my 60 years I've never heard of mixed marriages and children from those unions as being abnormal and/or abhorrent nor against nature or God. Strange, yes. Don't fit in, yes. Discriminated against, yes. Abnormal or abhorrent, nah. Please be so kind as to point me to some statutes stating same.

Also, please show me in the bible or in nature where homosexuality is condoned. Nature usually casts out aberrations from the flock/herd so that they are picked off by predators to weed out the aberrations from the blood lines. And I doubt you can show me a passage in the bible supporting your stance.

And I still say marriage (without the religious connotations it's not a marriage - it's just a contract) was meant for Adam & Eve and not John & Joe or Linda & Lucy. Marriage was meant to be a union that was to provide the nucleus for a family of offspring from their loins. Granted that has been somewhat diluted today given the me-me-me generation of self gratification and not having children at all. That's another topic altogether though.

User avatar
jpatokal
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue, 09 Dec 2003
Location: Terra Australis Incognita

Postby jpatokal » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:15 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:When a pedophile tells you that he loves your 8 year old daughter are you going to encourage him? It is, after all, to him love.

But not to her, and there's the catch. Pedophiles have victims, homosexuals don't. Pedophiles hurt others, homosexuals don't.

Anyway, there's a ridiculous amount of tosh being tossed around in here, so here's Homosexuality 101 from Alex "Yawning Bread" Au:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1998/yax-117.htm

And drop the ridiculous "lifestyle choice" sh*t. I'm straight as an arrow, but have enough gay/lesbian friends to have seen the kind of bullshit and/or outright physical violence that they have to put up with to assure you that nobody would voluntarily "choose" to become gay.
Vaguely heretical thoughts on travel technology at Gyrovague

User avatar
jpatokal
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3014
Joined: Tue, 09 Dec 2003
Location: Terra Australis Incognita

Postby jpatokal » Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:16 pm

And here's a great analysis by Molly Meek:

http://mollymeek.livejournal.com/167752.html
Vaguely heretical thoughts on travel technology at Gyrovague

User avatar
Superglide
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri, 17 Aug 2007
Location: In a spacious appartment

Postby Superglide » Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:46 am

Not only are your thoughts refreshing JP, but also right on time.

The discussion here needed it badly.

roadnottaken, cromagnon fits ksl very well, excellent.
If only we could pull out our brain and use only our eyes.
Pablo Picasso


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Strictly Speaking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests