Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
When most ppl think an action is wrong,it is possible the legislature would pass a law to criminalise it.Majority rule!Originally posted by Phaze:Er... once again you miss the point.
Sure. Most people think that homosexuality is wrong but does that mean that homosexuality should be illegal?
In the US, most people think that Islam is wrong. Should that be made illegal?
Most people (if you look at web traffic stats) would say that you should be able to download copyrighted materials freely and without fear of prosecution.
Anyway, we've gone over these arguments many times already. I understand your arguments but I cannot agree with them or respect them and you would probably say the same about my arguments.
By the way, I am thinking of starting a campaign to make prayer illegal on the basis that it's delusional behavior. I'm kinda busy now though. Maybe next year. Not that I think a law like this would pass. I just want to hear what the arguments are. -
SIS,
I concede most of the local geys are not promiscuous.But the fact that higher percentage of geys infected with AIDS does indicate something unfavorable to homo sex.The govt doesn't ban geys. Section 377A is just a piece of legislation which says the majortiy of the members of parliament don't approve gey sex and geys can't publicly promote it because it is a crime. -
I explain again why homo is wrong.It is wrong because:
1.The natural instinct of sex is heterrosexual.Homo goes against nature.
2.The natural purpose of sex is procreation.Homo sex can't achieve the purpose of sex.So it goes against the nature.
3.Higher percentage (than heterosexauals') of local geys are infected with AIDS.
Heterosex in marriage is right & good because:
1.It follows the nature (natural instinct & purpose of sex).
2.It is a happiness (& responsibilty) to have babies and bringing them up
3.One can be taken care by his children when he is old. -
Originally posted by PRP:
I explain again why homo is wrong.It is wrong because:
1.The natural instinct of sex is heterrosexual.Homo goes against nature.
But Homosexuals are created by heterosexuals. If homosexuality goes against nature, what about the heterosexuals that gave birth to them?
2.The natural purpose of sex is procreation.Homo sex can't achieve the purpose of sex.So it goes against the nature.
What about heterosexuals who have sex for pleasure? By your logic, this is against nature too!!! How? Means Heterosexuals cannot have sex without impregnating someone?
3.Higher percentage (than heterosexauals') of local geys are infected with AIDS.
That doesnt prove anything. If a higher percentage of heterosexuals suffer from terminal illness as compared to homosexuals, does that mean that heterosexuals are wrong too?
Heterosex in marriage is right & good because:
1.It follows the nature (natural instinct & purpose of sex).
Isnt it natural for homosexuals to have sex with each other also? Thats their natural instinct
2.It is a joy to have babies and bringing them up
What about infertile couples? DO they not have joy in their life? Is it unnatural for them to have sex now?
3.The children can look after their old parrents.
Whats wrong with hiring a nurse to look after yourself when you are old? Geys are more likely look after thier parents since they do not have child commitments. -
You have every right or whatsoever to retain that thinking of yours. I am just unhappy with the fact that you deem it as wrong and made unpleasant remarks about it. Who do you think U or they are to judge others?? Does it endanger the general public who are not involve it this?? And with regards to those virulent assualt you made on homosexual, it shows that you simply do not think or care about other fellow human beings and you are being extremely judgemental on others. But nevertheless, your signature still disgust me. I wonder what stupidissmart would say about that..
-
I can't believe that idiot is still here to flame hatred towards an innocuous group of people in our society. It shows what a pig-headed bigot he is. Someone please hunt him down and shoot him.
-
It's not all about majority rule. There's also protecting minorities. Just because most people believe that something is right or wrong doesn't make it so.Originally posted by PRP:When most ppl think an action is wrong,it is possible the legislature would pass a law to criminalise it.Majority rule!
At one time, most people believed the earth was the centre of the universe and it was heresy to say otherwise. That did not make it true though. And for the most part, we learned from that.
Hate crime laws were created especially to protect minorities though ultimately they protect everyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/12/subway.attack/index.html -
I have already said it is easy to say PROVE IT, to anything that is said, and add nothing.
It is important because we r discussing scientific facts and the best person to provide the answer is scientist.I have also said I do not have my own studies, or experiments, or reports.
I agree it is inconclusive. But I have already mention a point 3 times which u refused to acknowledge or comment.
I presume it is links you want. Or others peoples findings. These are accepted as inconclusive.
11 December 2007 · 05:09 PM
Ok, lets say the studies r not conclusive. Tat means gays maybe inborn. Since u cannot prove it to be wrong, then why r u punishing them by forcing them to remain single and lonely ? Given the benefit of doubt, we should practise tolerance and not discrimination. A person is innocent unless proven guilty. Why is tis good ? Because we rather jail 100 less criminals than jail one innocent person.
12 December 2007 · 02:03 PM
Tat is right. I never say tat the studies r conclusive. However there r studies, reason and ground to say tat gays r inborn. U cannot prove it wrong as well. And there r more studies showing homosexual is not a illness. Since we cannot say for certain, then why condemn them ? Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them live as normal people because it can very well mean they r inborn to be homosexual.
13 December 2007 · 01:10 AM
I already told u. The result is inconclusive. And tat is why we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I have stated tis point many times and u simply ignore them.
Wat is your comment on it ? Why ignore my reply then repeat your old point again ? R u covering up your ears and eyes and just repeat wat u thought which is proven to be wrong before ?Why is homosexuality not a perversion?
Who r u to judge wat is sexuality
Sexual intercourse is a liason between male and female. That is the basis for sexuality. This developed into courtship, intimacies, romance, foreplay. And the basis is male/female relationship . Any deviation is a perversion, even when it is harmless.
Homosexuality, the second syllably denotes sex, and it deviates from the basic male/female liason to a same gender liason. Is is a hybrid? No conclusive proof.
Who r u to define wat is perversion or not ? Sexuality, based on dictionary is simply sexual behavior in sexual organism. Homosexual is part of tis sexuality. Who r u to redefine the word and exclude it out ? Mother nature or god had made animals gay themself. Who r u to say they r wrong and tat tat is not wat sexuality is all about ?
Who r u to tell us how people should go about in their sexual intercourse ?Psychologist do not regard it as a perversion but u do. Wat give u the right to give such a conclusion ? Did u do any studies at all or u just tell us wat u think ? Wat do u think about chewing gums in singapore before ?IMO, homosexuality is buddy or sistership that went too far. A man can have a bossum buddy, and live with him, nothing wrong with that. But to screw his arse, kiss him, and the like, and marry him! that's the perversion.
I am glad u write the word "IMO" in the beginning. Well IMO, Homosexual r people who r born to like people of the same sex. They too can like someone and love someone. The difference is due to their physical body, they like someone of the same sex. U can imagine yourself liking men like a normal woman, but u have a man body. If u think liking someone is a perversion, then everybody is perverted.
Being buddies is not. Same with sistership. Just don't cross the line.Homosexuality is a perversion, whether you accept it or not.
I wanna say the old words again
Prove it. Otherwise u r just telling me wat u think which can be wrong.In my boyhood kampong, there were two men living together, whom I thought were brothers at that time. We did'nt think anything about them, were friends with them. Its only on hindsight that I realise they were gays. Now I don't know where they are, but if I meet them, I would greet them like any of my old kampong elderly.
Then why enforce a law making them illegal ? Why not just acknowledge such people exist and let the law die a nature death ?
At present, I personaly know of two women, who are like inseparable sisters, I and everyone else suspect they are lesbians. But we don't know, and don't care.I say again, what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business.
The law explicitly mention tat it is illegal whether it is done privately or not. I have mention tat in the previous statement before. If there is no complaints, u can do anything u want. A complaint only can make u go scotfree, but u still commit the offence. I can kill a vangabond with no families and friends and go away scot free because there is no complaints. But I still had committed the offence of murder.
And the law holds the same, unless there is a complaint.
Furthermore, who r u to say tat when the gays do it privately there won't have a complainant ? Maybe a busybody using a binoculars at their neighbour's window can spot the gay couple doing intimacy acts ? Maybe when gays r doing the act in their room, they forget to lock the door and a nun living at a next door in the hotel budge into the wrong room ? Maybe a burglar going into a room spotted the gay doing their act in their room ? U know I can go on and on... Who r u to say there won't be a complainant in all cases for the rest of time ? Just written in the law is already enough justification to show it is illegal to do it even in private.But the fact that higher percentage of geys infected with AIDS does indicate something unfavorable to homo sex
Indian have a worse case of obesity compared with other races. So does tat indicate something unfavourable about the indian race ?The govt doesn't ban geys. Section 377A is just a piece of legislation which says the majortiy of the members of parliament don't approve gey sex and geys can't publicly promote it because it is a crime.
So u expect them to live a life of calibracy for your... ehh.. wat reasons do u have to force them not to have sex ? Because u don't like it ? Because u do not like it u force them to remain a virgin forever ? Does tat sounds ridiculous to u ? It sounds ridiculous to me.1.The natural instinct of sex is heterrosexual.Homo goes against nature.
Nature shows animals r homosexual themselves. The nature instinct of sex is mixed.2.The natural purpose of sex is procreation.Homo sex can't achieve the purpose of sex.So it goes against the nature.
The purpose of sex is also enjoyment. And most, and I mean 99% of the world population people in tis world have sex some time in their life simply for enjoyment. If tat is the case everybody is guilty. And u should state a law banning all contraceptives too3.Higher percentage (than heterosexauals') of local geys are infected with AIDS.
So ? Higher percentage of car accidents r motorcyclists. So we should label it as dangerous and ban motorcycle ?1.It follows the nature (natural instinct & purpose of sex).
True, But u cannot prove nature does not allow homosexual2.It is a joy to have babies and bringing them up
Tell tat to the monks and catholic fathers.
3.The children can look after their old parrents. -
Bravo. Well said!!!
-
SIS,
All your arguments to rebut my opinions in my last msg are flawed.It is right that u debate the topic ratiionally -
My stand is I accept geys as any other human beings but i believe homo is wrong.Originally posted by Fairness:You have every right or whatsoever to retain that thinking of yours. I am just unhappy with the fact that you deem it as wrong and made unpleasant remarks about it. Who do you think U or they are to judge others?? Does it endanger the general public who are not involve it this?? And with regards to those virulent assualt you made on homosexual, it shows that you simply do not think or care about other fellow human beings and you are being extremely judgemental on others. But nevertheless, your signature still disgust me. I wonder what stupidissmart would say about that..
If one think something is wrong,he says it out.I don't think it is something wrong.U may be unhappy with my view and we can debate about the issue rationally.Just don't be insulting.I find SIS debates with me intellectually.That's the way.
Just because i say homo is wrong doesn't mean i am unfair.If it is realy wrong,how can one say in order not to offend geys?Maybe one just don't speak out so it wouldn't offend anybody.
Because of different in opinion,so we all can have interesting debates.Whether it is interesting or not depend on how members debate about the topic.. -
Originally posted by PRP:
The above opinions are general knowledge and simple reasons.The pro-homo members gave their comments.Now I leave it to the readers to judge themselves whose view is right.Maybe i will rebut their points in future.
I explain again why homo is wrong.It is wrong because:
1.The [b]natural instinct of sex is heterrosexual.Homo goes against nature.
2.The natural purpose of sex is procreation.Homo sex can't achieve the purpose of sex.So it goes against the nature.
3.Higher percentage (than heterosexauals') of local geys are infected with AIDS.
Heterosex in marriage is right & good because:
1.It follows the nature (natural instinct & purpose of sex).
2.It is a joy to have babies and bringing them up
3.The children can look after their old parrents.
[/b] -
HELLO GUYS!!!!! IT'S ME AGAIN!!!
Who knows what there is to do in Frankfurt? I am quite hungry now, and I am not sure what there is to eat. What's good in Frankfurt other than sausages?
Boy, ther girls here are nice......on TV. -
PRP said this is tedious (some where previously). I quite agree with him on that.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It is important because we r discussing scientific facts and the best person to provide the answer is scientist.
I agree it is inconclusive. But I have already mention a point 3 times which u refused to acknowledge or comment.
11 December 2007 · 05:09 PM
Ok, lets say the studies r not conclusive. Tat means gays maybe inborn. Since u cannot prove it to be wrong, then why r u punishing them by forcing them to remain single and lonely ? Given the benefit of doubt, we should practise tolerance and not discrimination. A person is innocent unless proven guilty. Why is tis good ? Because we rather jail 100 less criminals than jail one innocent person.
12 December 2007 · 02:03 PM
Tat is right. I never say tat the studies r conclusive. However there r studies, reason and ground to say tat gays r inborn. U cannot prove it wrong as well. And there r more studies showing homosexual is not a illness. Since we cannot say for certain, then why condemn them ? Shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and let them live as normal people because it can very well mean they r inborn to be homosexual.
13 December 2007 · 01:10 AM
I already told u. The result is inconclusive. And tat is why we should give them the benefit of the doubt. I have stated tis point many times and u simply ignore them.
Wat is your comment on it ? Why ignore my reply then repeat your old point again ? R u covering up your ears and eyes and just repeat wat u thought which is proven to be wrong before ?
Who r u to judge wat is sexuality Who r u to define wat is perversion or not ? Sexuality, based on dictionary is simply sexual behavior in sexual organism. Homosexual is part of tis sexuality. Who r u to redefine the word and exclude it out ? Mother nature or god had made animals gay themself. Who r u to say they r wrong and tat tat is not wat sexuality is all about ?
Who r u to tell us how people should go about in their sexual intercourse ?Psychologist do not regard it as a perversion but u do. Wat give u the right to give such a conclusion ? Did u do any studies at all or u just tell us wat u think ? Wat do u think about chewing gums in singapore before ?
I am glad u write the word "IMO" in the beginning. Well IMO, Homosexual r people who r born to like people of the same sex. They too can like someone and love someone. The difference is due to their physical body, they like someone of the same sex. U can imagine yourself liking men like a normal woman, but u have a man body. If u think liking someone is a perversion, then everybody is perverted.
I wanna say the old words again
Prove it. Otherwise u r just telling me wat u think which can be wrong.
Then why enforce a law making them illegal ? Why not just acknowledge such people exist and let the law die a nature death ?
The law explicitly mention tat it is illegal whether it is done privately or not. I have mention tat in the previous statement before. If there is no complaints, u can do anything u want. A complaint only can make u go scotfree, but u still commit the offence. I can kill a vangabond with no families and friends and go away scot free because there is no complaints. But I still had committed the offence of murder.
Furthermore, who r u to say tat when the gays do it privately there won't have a complainant ? Maybe a busybody using a binoculars at their neighbour's window can spot the gay couple doing intimacy acts ? Maybe when gays r doing the act in their room, they forget to lock the door and a nun living at a next door in the hotel budge into the wrong room ? Maybe a burglar going into a room spotted the gay doing their act in their room ? U know I can go on and on... Who r u to say there won't be a complainant in all cases for the rest of time ? Just written in the law is already enough justification to show it is illegal to do it even in private.
Indian have a worse case of obesity compared with other races. So does tat indicate something unfavourable about the indian race ?
So u expect them to live a life of calibracy for your... ehh.. wat reasons do u have to force them not to have sex ? Because u don't like it ? Because u do not like it u force them to remain a virgin forever ? Does tat sounds ridiculous to u ? It sounds ridiculous to me.
Nature shows animals r homosexual themselves. The nature instinct of sex is mixed.
The purpose of sex is also enjoyment. And most, and I mean 99% of the world population people in tis world have sex some time in their life simply for enjoyment. If tat is the case everybody is guilty. And u should state a law banning all contraceptives too
So ? Higher percentage of car accidents r motorcyclists. So we should label it as dangerous and ban motorcycle ?
True, But u cannot prove nature does not allow homosexual
Tell tat to the monks and catholic fathers
This thread is not moving in any direction.
You only post coments on people's post.
Therefore it is very regressive.
You do not share any of your experiences, and you are extemely defensive.
Do you need to be scientific on this matter?
People have contributed to this subject, it is their 2 cents worth.
Have you contributed?
Will one, whatever their stand, walk away with more understanding all around?
I have a feeling that gays are annoyed with you because you do not help their cause by being defensive.
I am not gay, neither am I anti-gay, but I will not support the call for the establishment of a gay lifestyle.
Thats my perogative, so don't ask me for scientific proof for it.
BTW, who are you to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Anyway I am hungry, i think I'll head for Chinatown for some sausages, that Austrian has a very yummy cheese sausage, that very filling. Just one and you are full.
-
You only post coments on people's post.
Tat is my style of writing in forum
Therefore it is very regressive. I have answered all queries, explained my position and rationale for it. Wat about u ? U never answer ay questions posed. How sincere is tat ?Do you need to be scientific on this matter?
We r talking about science isn't it ?People have contributed to this subject, it is their 2 cents worth.
I believe I have highlighted several points and misconception. I believe people will walk away with more understanding. At least u understand tat chewing gums is banned in singapore, there is no science proving homo as a peversion or not nature and 377A affect private life as well. To PRP he understand wat is homosexual, no clear cut case on wat is right and wrong and generally homosexual r not promiscuous. Wat understanding have u managed to achieve ?
Have you contributed?
Will one, whatever their stand, walk away with more understanding all around?BTW, who are you to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Any kind person will not punish another when he has no concrete evidence. It is cruel and unfair to punish people based on wat u think and not wat is true. -
Hey guys!!! I just tried this pork knuckle thing from frankfurt and I must say it puts bak kuh teh to shame in some ways. Downing the thing after 15 min walk in 1 deg can certainly make you feel like a king. The dish comes with a generous serving of radish and potatos. If you ever come to frankfurt please try it. Also do not miss the roadside stalls selling bratwurst. The key to this is to come during the cold season, and it is all the mor satisfying. Oh, give asia quisine the miss, it sux here, especially the vietnamese joints. Somehow they think all germans like salt.
The beer is great. Oh and I saw some gay couples. -
I try to argue like pro-homo ppl for smokers.Originally posted by PRP:Smokers
Smoking is a bad habit.Smokers are discriminated against in many public places. They pay a lot of cigarette taxes.They don't say they want human rights.They never say their smoking is possibly due to their genes.They also never say smoking is neither good nor bad.
Gey sex is wrong.Geys claim homo is born.They say homo is neither right nor wrong.They want human rights.
Geys should learn from the smokers.
No right or wrong for smoking.If u like it,u smoke.If u don't like it,u don't.Just like durians,ppl who love it eat them.Ppl who think durians are smelly don't eat.
There is a posibility that smoking habit is born.Even if scientists have not proved it,who knows one day scientists may find a gene which causes one to smoke?
Smoking is harmful to health?Where is the proof?Not every smoker die of lung cancer.Some ppl like Teng Xiao Ping,who is a smoker, died at the age of 90+.Everybody must die,if one doesn't die of lung cancer,he may die of other diseases.If it is harmful to their health,does it concern u or harm u?
Smoking pollutes the environment?The cars pollutes the environment even more.Why don't u complain?Why don't ban driving car too?U disciminate against and are unfair to smokers.
Smokers pay so much taxes to the govt,the govt can use the money for health services.If smoking is banned,how many ppl will be jobless.So smoking contribute to the GDP.
Smokers have the human right to smoke.Why can't they enjoy themselves if they like it?Banning them to a small corner in public place is discriimination.They should be allowed to enjoy themslves and socialising with friends like any others.
I wish all a Happy New Year! -
smoking affects other non smokers ma
And smoking cannot be nature because cigerrettes r man made
But u know wat. According to how anti gay people argue, people with asthma should be banned u know.
Why ? Because asthma can be caused by the environment and not by birth ma. Can anyone prove tat these asthma guys r not caused from environment ? No conclusive studies means they must be wrong and I am right. These guys have a very serious problem u know. They have a higher proportion of dying due to lung diesease. Man isn't tat terrible !
And u know wat, these people have to take medication regularly and tat is an abomination ! Asthma is against nature because they have to take medication and drug to curb their diesease. Men should not have to take medication everyday, men should not breath through machine, but these people violate these nature rules and so should be banned. They eat medicine because they r addicited to eating medicine. Isn't tat a perversion ? Nope, I don't care if science show tat they eat medicine because they have to. I don't care if psychologist say it is not a perversion. I say it is a perversion is enough and my thinking is the more right compared to scientists or psychologists.
U can try telling me anything u want, but I don't like means I don't like. And I have the right not to like them and discriminate them and remain as bigot because it is my right. If u try to convince me not to discriminate people, even if discrimination of all types r wrong, I want, like and proud to discriminate people based on stupid invalid reasons. Wat have they done to me ? Nothing. But tat is not important because i don't like means I don't like
The law tat we should set is okie too mah... just tat we forced them to do something incredible difficult just because we do not like them. They just don't marry, don't have sex, don't reproduce and live alone for the rest of their life which should be easy to do ma.
The real reason is simply because I got a 5000 year old book tat tell me these people r nothing but enemies to my superstitious idol being and tat is why they r my enemies too. Shhhhh... don't tell other people okie... Wat ? U don't believe in my 5000 years old book ! Well I don't care, I am still gonna force my belief on u -
still arguing?
aiya .. why don't all of us shake hands and be friends?
think God will not want to see His creations bickering. -
SIS doesn't like my above argument.There is no word insulting them.There are just flaws or fault in logics in the argument.This is something he doesn't realise in his past argument but he did see them in my above msg.It is a disapointment that the honourable lawyer started to use insulting words on members who oppose homo.Yes,like Icemoon say making frends,no more debating from now on.Peace on earth!Originally posted by PRP:I'll try to argue like pro-homo members for smokers as below.
There is no right or wrong for smoking.If u like it,u smoke.If u don't like it,u don't.Just like durians,ppl who love it eat them.Ppl who think durians are smelly don't eat.
There is a posibility that smoking habit is born.Even if scientists have not proved it,who knows one day scientists may find a gene which causes one to smoke?
Smoking is harmful to health?Where is the proof?Not every smoker die of lung cancer.Some ppl like Teng Xiao Ping,who is a smoker, died at the age of 90+.Everybody must die,if one doesn't die of lung cancer,he may die of other diseases.If it is harmful to their health,does it concern u or harm u?
Smoking pollutes the environment?The cars pollutes the environment even more.Why don't u complain?Why don't ban driving car too?U disciminate against and are unfair to smokers.
Smokers pay so much taxes to the govt,the govt can use the money for health services.If smoking is banned,how many ppl will be jobless.So smoking contribute to the GDP.
Smokers have the human right to smoke.Why can't they enjoy themselves if they like it?Banning them to a small corner in public place is discriimination.They should be allowed to enjoy themslves and socialising with friends like any others.
I wish all a Happy New Year! -
Have a wonderful stay there!Originally posted by crosshairs:Hey guys!!! I just tried this pork knuckle thing from frankfurt and I must say it puts bak kuh teh to shame in some ways. Downing the thing after 15 min walk in 1 deg can certainly make you feel like a king. The dish comes with a generous serving of radish and potatos. If you ever come to frankfurt please try it. Also do not miss the roadside stalls selling bratwurst. The key to this is to come during the cold season, and it is all the mor satisfying. Oh, give asia quisine the miss, it sux here, especially the vietnamese joints. Somehow they think all germans like salt.
The beer is great. Oh and I saw some gay couples. -
What is your mother wearing inside today ?Originally posted by PRP:The above opinions are general knowledge and simple reasons.The pro-homo members gave their comments.Now I leave it to the readers to judge themselves whose view is right.Maybe i will rebut their points in future.
A old woman wearing red inside is wrong ..
The above opinions are general knowledge and simple reasons.
==> Is this my business ?
No.. exactly no .. this applies to you too ..
So.. mind your own business and carry on .. -
Originally posted by PRP:SIS doesn't like my above argument.There is no word insulting them.There are just flaws or fault in logics in the argument.This is something he doesn't realise in his past argument but he did see them in my above msg.It is a disapointment that the honourable lawyer started to use insulting words on members who oppose homo.Yes,like Icemoon say making frends,no more debating from now on.Peace on earth!
-
All geys & gey supporters,
I argue that geys are not born & homo is not right make u all unhappy.But really i accept geys as any other human beings.All men including myslef commit sins -- big or small one.So all men are equal and should not discriminate against others just because of their sins or cirmes.
Wishing u all a happy new year -- whole year & not just the new year day. -
Yes,time to stop the debate.Originally posted by Icemoon:still arguing?
aiya .. why don't all of us shake hands and be friends?
think God will not want to see His creations bickering.
Wish you a Merry Christmas!