Gays : To all Singapore Religious Leaders
-
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.Originally posted by stupidissmart:It has already hindered nature way of weeding out the weaker people from reproduction
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 ?
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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 -
If evolution is survival of the fittest, then evolution still works 'cos only the fittest will survive.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.I just want to say tat it is not the right thing to do
Then what you want? A referendum? -
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 -
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.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Where got ? I find the african pretty fit but r they having a higher survival ratio ?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. -
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 decisionFurthermore, 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. -
I don't understand your definition of natural.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
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.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.
Please prove that the extremem anti group is the minority. -
I don't understand your definition of natural.
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 ?
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.
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 nowSeems 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.
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.
And wat is your answer to the "invasion of basic rights" and "irony of having a paper tiger law" ?
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. -
Are you confused yourself?Originally posted by stupidissmart: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
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. -
Just some comments.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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
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. -
You cannot compare human beings with monkeys.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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
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. -
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 .
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.
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.
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 pointMy answer is .. repeal incest law 'cos it invades my private basic rights also.
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.
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. -
You cannot compare human beings with monkeys.
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 ?
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 -
Nope, I always said religious people uses religious arguments, not natural arguments.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
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? -
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. -
If you really want to compare, celibate people don't fark as well.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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 ? -
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.Originally posted by stupidissmart: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.
If you want to put the issue in the right perspective, gay supporters are the people who use the natural argument. -
Nope, I always said religious people uses religious arguments, not natural arguments.
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 ?
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.
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 ?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.
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. -
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. -
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 isnÂ’t 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 manÂ’s 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 ?By the way, both of us use darwinian and natural rather loosely and sometimes wrongly.
Then wat is unnatural ? Medicine do not allow survival of the fittest but survival of almost everybody. Nothing is unnatural right ?
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. -
Actually if you read back, what I tried to bring across was ..Originally posted by stupidissmart: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 ?
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.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.
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? -
Don't be silly. Those are RELIGIOUS arguments!!Originally posted by stupidissmart:I get all of them from religious sites. U sure u can say tat natural is not an argument made by religious people before ?
In any case, I think you have committed a fallacy. Amphiboly .. or at least equivocation. Go and figure.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. -
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.Don't understand. What repealing of 377A done by religous people?
I make it simple to understand otherwise u r denying it
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.
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 gaysDon't be boliao .. what are you trying to do?
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 !
We all know that it exists .. so what's your point?Don't be silly. Those are RELIGIOUS arguments!!
Let me ask u. Why do they use the word "unnatural" on it ? -
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.