What's your view on homosexualtiy in Singapore
-
Gay are of flesh, blood, etc.... all that we know.
the world is but a jungle in another form... the gay folks struggle to get attention and visibility... no doubt they have a bunch of high posts folks across the various industry, but the wave of mainstream will tell you the direction to flow.
history of that time, was made at that time... and history can change
the case is indirectly fundamental, is there a place for the gay lifestlye here in singapore ?
should the place be as big as we our tolerance ? if yes, how far...
having an undergrad over the public radio proudly saying his is gay, and he don't see anything wrong with it, is acceptable ?
do our straight female or straight male population want our men to be a man or a gay ? -
i hate homies
-
What about metrosexuals? How do you rate them?
-
1) Single cannot be equated with gaysOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Housing policies in Singapore reflect the society and the government's stated objective of promoting core family values. For that reason, subsidised public housing and even certain resale flats at one time were not available to singles like myself. So this form of discrimination is not targeted at the gay community. As for taxes, I can honestly say that I pay far more taxes than my married colleagues and consume less of the society's resources. Of course it's not fair for me...
The fact is that my single lifestyle and the gay lifestyle of some others fall outside the mainstream of society. Singlehood and homosexuality are not considered to be desirable traits in our society and so we are 'tolerated', as long as we keep our personal preferences to ourselves. To demand for more egalitarian treatment is to challenge the deeply held values of the majority at a time when the society is, by and large, not ready for such a change.
I fear a backlash is building up against the gay community as a result and it is quite conceivable that even the few liberties that were once permitted would now be withdrawn. I see the issue involving the gay parties as a case in point.
Thank you for bringing this up. And I totally agree. In fact, you have just put forth an argument for gay marriage without realising it. Yes, Single is just a sub-set of Straights, be it male or female. However, in the gay community, there are single, those in monogamous relationship, those in open relationship, etc, etc... Why can't a monogamous relationship between 2 persons of the same gender be considered as a marriage? At the end of the day, isn't this the definition of marriage? Singlehood can be a choice, but being gay is not.. As a gay, you can choose to remain single, or you can choose to settle down. If you decide to settle down, do you have sex in your parent's house? Do you see the complexity of the issue now? Unless you want to claim that all gays should be like single.. But we are not, as clearly pointed out by you in your argument.
I know I've jumped the gun.. But just listing this as a discussion point.
2) A clearer discrimination
Okay, let me point out an even more fundamental discrimination then. In Singapore, the only permitted sex is the "regular" intercourse with a male genital and a female genital. You can perform fellatio (oral sex) but only as a foreplay. You can not have oral sex just for the sake of having it. All other kind of sex can be criminised. Do you consider this as a discrimination then?
3) Gay lifestyle
Most people use the term Gay lifestyle and gay community interchangeably. Or more specific, they use gay lifestyle in a degrading manner to describe the hedonistic lifestyle which involves only sauna, pub, gym, bedroom. The gay community has a part to play in giving this impression. But then, the hedonistic lifestyle is not the only lifestyle in the gay community. Very much like a single lifestyle. A single can be single because he prefers the freedom? Couldnt find a mate? Not active in looking one? etc, etc, etc.. The same thing can be said of the gay community.
4) Backlash
I have addressed this issue earlier. Since the formation of gay groups are disallowed officially. Gays do not have weights in the political arena. Simple as that. You have been talking about gays fighting for rights. Yes, it might be the case in San Francisco, in New York, in other parts of the world. But definitely not in Singapore. Hence, where's the backlash. If you have any specific examples, could you please bring it up? -
Nah, not to worry.. Gays exist since the beginning of time.. we have survives thousands of years.. why afraid now?Originally posted by coffeeortea:i just fear that one day there will be a cease in production of babies
If straights have decide not to give birth, to abort, to throw babies in the rubbish chute, do you want to blame it on the gay community too?
Oh, forgot to mention Virginia Woofe is a Lesbian too.. Well, she got married.. But ended her life because of depression.. See, a gay/lesbian does not resolve his/her problem by getting married.. The problem will still persist.. And in the process, might even drag down the other party.. -
Nah, not to worry.. Gays exist since the beginning of time.. we have survives thousands of years.. why afraid now?Originally posted by coffeeortea:i just fear that one day there will be a cease in production of babies
If straights have decide not to give birth, to abort, to throw babies in the rubbish chute, do you want to blame it on the gay community too?
Oh, forgot to mention Virginia Woofe is a Lesbian too.. Well, she got married.. But ended her life because of depression.. See, a gay/lesbian does not resolve his/her problem by getting married.. The problem will still persist.. And in the process, might even drag down the other party (their husband/wife).. -
I have answered the part about being vocal in my response to Oxford Mushroom. Do take time to go through them..Originally posted by enjoys456:Gay are of flesh, blood, etc.... all that we know.
the world is but a jungle in another form... the gay folks struggle to get attention and visibility... no doubt they have a bunch of high posts folks across the various industry, but the wave of mainstream will tell you the direction to flow.
history of that time, was made at that time... and history can change
the case is indirectly fundamental, is there a place for the gay lifestlye here in singapore ?
should the place be as big as we our tolerance ? if yes, how far...
having an undergrad over the public radio proudly saying his is gay, and he don't see anything wrong with it, is acceptable ?
do our straight female or straight male population want our men to be a man or a gay ?
And the part on gay lifestyle. Please define too. I've make it clear in my response to Oxford Mushroom that gay lifestyle is not gay community.
If an undergrad knows of his sexual orientation and have the courage to stand up to announce to the whole world. I will salute him.
Gays are men too. I do not know what's your impression of gays in general. Not all gays are feminine. Just like there are feminine straights too.
And again, it's not a matter of choice.. If you are gays, you do not have sexual attraction towards the opposite gender.. Just imagine if you married someone who do not want to have sex with you.. Do you think that marriage will work? -
Nothing to say.. Everyone has the right to hate specific things..Originally posted by mr nice guy:i hate homies
For my case, I hate stupid bigot who can process information only in single dimension.. -
Hey bro, I would be careful to make this comparison..Originally posted by iveco:What about metrosexuals? How do you rate them?
The only distinction between gays and straights is that of sexual attraction.. It's sad (to me at least) that the gay community seem to pay too much attention to physical attributes..
But then, everybody loves good-looking people, so there you go.. -
if gay is by nature according to some forumers, then can incest is by nature as well?
-
For those who argue that gays are the minority and hence should not have any rights.. Just a note to say that the incidence rates of gays is about 10% regardless of skin colours, religions, socio-economic status..
10%.. that's even higher than the proportion of Indians (or other minorities) in Singapore.. But why is being gay not okay but being Indian is okay?
I'm bringing up this point not because I'm a racist.. Just to illustrate that this line of argument is flawed.. We all know how we feel about Malaysian Bumiputra policy.. even though Malays is only a slight majority.. -
For those who argue that gays are the minority and hence should not have any rights.. Just a note to say that the incidence rates of gays is about 10% regardless of skin colours, religions, socio-economic status..
10%.. that's even higher than the proportion of Indians (or other minorities) in Singapore.. But why is being gay not okay but being Indian is okay?
I'm bringing up this point not because I'm a racist.. Just that this argument is flawed.. We all know how we feel about Malaysian Bumiputra policy.. even though Malays is only a slight majority.. -
From what you have wrote earlier, I will assume that you are talking about r/s among siblings..Originally posted by Glen999:if gay is by nature according to some forumers, then can incest is by nature as well?
it depends on whether you belief in the theory:
"there some and ONLY that someone who can make my life complete"
or ask in another way.. are you borned to love only someone in specific..
I guess the answer in No.. you can have a choice of whether you want to love your siblings in a sexual way or not and continue to build a relationship or not..
but then, the same statement can be applied to gays or straights.. gays (or straights) can find that someone through his social interaction.. the only difference is gays can find attraction only with the same gender.. And straights can find attraction only with the opposite gender..
I hope I've answered your question adequately..
And my views.. If both are consenting adults, I would say why not?
But then the proportions of siblings love are rare and almost unheard of.. Do you have any specific examples to illustrate? Or are you just wondering because the Book of Leviticus stated so? -
http://www.m-a-h.net/library/abuse/article-sibincest.htmOriginally posted by Glen999:if gay is by nature according to some forumers, then can incest is by nature as well?
http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/sib_abuse.htm
More research articles for you to digest.. If you are keen, type siblings incest research using Google..
The literature seems to suggest the siblings incest is a state.. usually with 5 years between the perpetrator and the victim.. and hence, the Power play as I've argued earlier still creep in..
I've tried to search for possible "siblings" romantic relationship but couldnt find.. Hence, can you please let us know whether there are any cases that you have come across? -
Why can't a monogamous relationship between 2 persons of the same gender be considered as a marriage? At the end of the day, isn't this the definition of marriage?
This may be what you want marriage to mean but that is certainly not the current definition in many jurisdictions. Legally, marriage is a contract that has implications relating to numerous issues such as inheritance, property, child custody, etc. To recognize same sex marriage will involve a very fundamental re-look at many legal issues. It is not impossible, but there many legal obstacles to overcome, and that's the reason even the UK is not keen to change the current definition.You can not have oral sex just for the sake of having it. All other kind of sex can be criminised. Do you consider this as a discrimination then?
You are alluding to the Chief Justice's ruling on an earlier case. The issue is whether oral sex falls under the definition of 'intercourse against the order of nature' in section 377 of the penal Code:
"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The CJ indeed ruled that oral sex is considered an unnatural act unless it is part of foreplay, prior to usual sexual intercourse. There has been legal debate about this ruling but it is not directed at gay people. In fact, the case in question involved heterosexual activity. Oral sex alone between man and woman is illegal, based on the current understanding of the law.
Is this discrimination? Back to my argument about how you cannot leave moral and religious questions out of this debate. The reason why this offence of unnatural carnal intercourse appears almost draconian (maximum punishment is life imprisonment) is because it has come to us right out of the pages of the Bible:
Eg. " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20:13
At a time when society regarded the teachings of the Bible to be the basis of social behaviour, the laws reflect such a view. What I am saying is that our society still holds these values and does not intend to change them.they use gay lifestyle in a degrading manner to describe the hedonistic lifestyle which involves only sauna, pub, gym, bedroom.
No, that is not my understanding of the term 'gay lifestyle'. That is reading too much into the phrase. I am a simple man. I understand it to mean the way of life for a gay person, period.
You take pains to argue that because gays are born, society must allow them liberty to live as they have been designed to do, even if the majority feels repugnant by that behaviour. Not intending any offence, may I suggest that people with a psychopathic personality disorder also do not choose to be psychopaths, they are born that way. But should we therefore allow these 'natural born killers' to behave in accordance to the way they were born?
In fact, when I entered University years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a disease condition and listed in our textbooks of psychological medicine. At the time, we all agreed that gays cannot help themselves any more than you can be held responsible for being born a psychotic. Over the years, there has been a move away from that and it is now removed from medical texts as a psychological disease condition but considered as an alternative lifestyle, a subject more suitable for the sociologists than medical doctors. I might say that the gay community was in part to blame for giving the impression that being gay is not a medical anomaly, but a lifestyle choice based on personal likes and dislikes.
Whilst there is much research in the area, it is not universally accepted that gays are born. For every piece of data supporting this argument there are criticisms and alternative explanations. It will be interesting to see if genetic profiling work that has been so successful in tracing racial lineages and human anthropology has anything to offer in this regard.Since the formation of gay groups are disallowed officially. Gays do not have weights in the political arena.
True. When I say gay people are becoming vocal, I mean they are given visibility. The government and most Singaporeans seem to be prepared to have gay people in their colleges and workplace, as long as they don't hear about them or see them as a community. "Don't ask, don't tell, don't know."
But gay people are not willing to accept that, isn't that true? They see that as discrimination and desire more acceptance and a greater share of civil society than just lurking in the shadows. Isn't that right? That desire is what I mean by being more vocal in recent years and that is precisely what the conservatives in society want to deny them.
Finally, thank you for engaging me in this debate. Incidentally, I count a number of gay people among my very good friends and I am not against the gay community at all. But I fear I might be more accepting than many in our society. -
Marriage in the most fundamental sense is the union of 2 people. Law has make it complicated. Yes, you have brought up many issues like inheritance, property, child custody, etc... But other than the child custody, shouldn't inheritance and property affect gays too. After the passing away of one of the gay couple, shouldn't he pass on the property, money, etc to his other half, by default? As for child custody, what's the difference between a gay couple and a couple that does not reproduce? There is a difference between what is right in principle and what is right based on the law. It's even worse to argue that it's difficult to change the legal constitution and hence, let's do nothing about it. But then again, I did mention that I've jumped the gun a bit. We have not even address the more fundamental issue yet. That of gay sex being criminised.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:This may be what you want marriage to mean but that is certainly not the current definition in many jurisdictions. Legally, marriage is a contract that has implications relating to numerous issues such as inheritance, property, child custody, etc. To recognize same sex marriage will involve a very fundamental re-look at many legal issues. It is not impossible, but there many legal obstacles to overcome, and that's the reason even the UK is not keen to change the current definition.
I dont know why you can't see the difference between how such a ruling has different implication between the gays and the straights. The straights can continue to have "natural" intercourse. But the gays can't. They will have to end off with anal sex which is again, being criminalised. Hope I am as clear as I can now. Oral sex by itself = criminalised.. Anal sex after oral sex = criminalised.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:You are alluding to the Chief Justice's ruling on an earlier case. The issue is whether oral sex falls under the definition of 'intercourse against the order of nature' in section 377 of the penal Code:
"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The CJ indeed ruled that oral sex is considered an unnatural act unless it is part of foreplay, prior to usual sexual intercourse. There has been legal debate about this ruling but it is not directed at gay people. In fact, the case in question involved heterosexual activity. Oral sex alone between man and woman is illegal, based on the current understanding of the law. -
Yes, I agree that religion is the biggest obstacle to gays having rights now. But wait, isn't it just Christianity. Or Christian fundamentalist? There are progressive church elsewhere in the world that do not hold so much grudge against gays. Have you ever questioned why? Differences in the interpretation of the bible?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Is this discrimination? Back to my argument about how you cannot leave moral and religious questions out of this debate. The reason why this offence of unnatural carnal intercourse appears almost draconian (maximum punishment is life imprisonment) is because it has come to us right out of the pages of the Bible:
Eg. " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20:13
At a time when society regarded the teachings of the Bible to be the basis of social behaviour, the laws reflect such a view. What I am saying is that our society still holds these values and does not intend to change them.
An even more fundamental question is Singapore is a multi racial, multi religions society. So must the law but based on Christianity? Some kind of egoistic beliefs on your part?
And where did you quote the Book of Leviticus from? Or which translation did you use? Based on the following link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&version=31
The actual quote from the book is "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Where does the part on "They must be put to death" come into picture?
Among other things, the same book also has this paragraphs:
"Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. 10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. 11 And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. 12 Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you."
Which means people who eat prawns are as detestable than people who lie with a man. In fact, People who eat prawns should even be more detestable since the bible devoted a whole paragraphs just to condemn these people. Is this your stand? -
Glad that you have brought this up. You have effectively done a Dan Brown here. The fact that homosexuality has been removed from psychopathology is a fact. The rest is obviously false. I happened to be a graduate in Psychology and currently working as a Psychologist. The main reason why homosexuality was removed was because it is not seen as an abnormality anymore. Period. But then, Psychology is a huge area. There's a new field set up which is devoted to studying homosexuality.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:No, that is not my understanding of the term 'gay lifestyle'. That is reading too much into the phrase. I am a simple man. I understand it to mean the way of life for a gay person, period.
You take pains to argue that because gays are born, society must allow them liberty to live as they have been designed to do, even if the majority feels repugnant by that behaviour. Not intending any offence, may I suggest that people with a psychopathic personality disorder also do not choose to be psychopaths, they are born that way. But should we therefore allow these 'natural born killers' to behave in accordance to the way they were born?
In fact, when I entered University years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a disease condition and listed in our textbooks of psychological medicine. At the time, we all agreed that gays cannot help themselves any more than you can be held responsible for being born a psychotic. Over the years, there has been a move away from that and it is now removed from medical texts as a psychological disease condition but considered as an alternative lifestyle, a subject more suitable for the sociologists than medical doctors. I might say that the gay community was in part to blame for giving the impression that being gay is not a medical anomaly, but a lifestyle choice based on personal likes and dislikes.
http://www.apa.org/about/division/div44.html
The American Psychological Society has set up a division that look into the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues. It is still very much a psychological issue. Very much opposite of what you have claimed.
As the the argument on psychotic. It is an abnormality. Because these people can't function appropriate in a normal society. But homosexuality is not an abnormality.
Yes, it is true that the Gay gene concept has not been accepted as universal truth. But there are more and more studies that approximate the holy grail we are looking for. Nothing in this world can be proven correct. It can only be disproved. The basic principle of Science.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Whilst there is much research in the area, it is not universally accepted that gays are born. For every piece of data supporting this argument there are criticisms and alternative explanations. It will be interesting to see if genetic profiling work that has been so successful in tracing racial lineages and human anthropology has anything to offer in this regard.
The following article is rather objective and neutral:
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
The question is: r u going to criminalise someone who has not been found guilty yet? Remember "Minority Report"? -
The gay community is happy to be left untouched, to be honest. The person who triggered all these issues up is SM Goh, ironically. Somehow, the press became interested. Are these the voices you are talking about? Or are you hearing other voices? Prior to SM Goh's statement, most people do not know about Nation party. But then, the press is the one covering it, degrading it, etc.. Not that I support the gay parties myself. But just to say that your argument here is untrue and hence invalid since one of the premise, that part about gays being vocal, is not true (I hope you have taken intro to logic in University).Originally posted by oxford mushroom:True. When I say gay people are becoming vocal, I mean they are given visibility. The government and most Singaporeans seem to be prepared to have gay people in their colleges and workplace, as long as they don't hear about them or see them as a community. "Don't ask, don't tell, don't know."
But gay people are not willing to accept that, isn't that true? They see that as discrimination and desire more acceptance and a greater share of civil society than just lurking in the shadows. Isn't that right? That desire is what I mean by being more vocal in recent years and that is precisely what the conservatives in society want to deny them.
I'm glad to hear that. It's important for the society as a whole to understand, to be aware. And not just to engage in bashing without knowing why they are bashing. A lot of negativism towards the gay community is simply a misunderstanding of what gay means.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Finally, thank you for engaging me in this debate. Incidentally, I count a number of gay people among my very good friends and I am not against the gay community at all. But I fear I might be more accepting than many in our society. -
So must the law but based on Christianity? Some kind of egoistic beliefs on your part?
No, I didn't say that....just suggesting why our law is the way it is. I certainly had no hand in formulating our laws. Too bad it was the British that colonised us, not the Japanese....with the Christians came their laws as well. Unfortunately, 40 years after independence, our society still thinks these laws reflect the values of the majority.And where did you quote the Book of Leviticus from? Or which translation did you use?quote]
Friend, read my post carefully. I quoted from Lev 20:13, from the same website, by the way. You were reading from Lev 18...look here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=31
[quote]People who eat prawns should even be more detestable since the bible devoted a whole paragraphs just to condemn these people. Is this your stand? [quote]
Hey, I didn't say that is my stand...merely explaining why Christians find it difficult to accept homosexuality in our society. I didn't write the bible...go complain to the author. I understand the food laws in the Old Testament were set aside in the New Testament. You can read Acts 10 if you are interested but I am not interested in a theological debate (that's not my field):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=10&version=31
Unfortunately for you, the prohibitions against homosexuality were just as robust in the New Testament. I am given to understand that the Koran takes a similar view against homosexuality. -
since one of the premise, that part about gays being vocal, is not true (I hope you have taken intro to logic in University).
Hey...no need to be so confrontational and start making snide remarks...let's focus on the argument.
As I said, what I meant by the perception of gays becoming vocal was that they appear to want more visibility rather than keep out of the public arena. SM Goh and Balaji more recently certainly brought the issue to the fore but is it true that the gay community has been content to lie low?
Well, gay parties in public places aren't exactly the way to go if you don't want others to hear about gay activities. Young people in Singapore already can have access to websites such as fridae.com and utopia-asia.com. And of course, there are plays on gay themes such as 'Glass Cathedral' and books published in Singapore such as 'Sisterhood' and "New Moon over San Francisco'. We didn't have them when I was in school 30 years ago...so to me, the gay community is becoming vocal.
According to yawningbread.org, SM Goh was quoted to have said:
"Certain things that homosexuals want are not feasible, such as holding gay parades, Mr Goh said."
Is that not a desire for more visibility? You may not be aware of it but certainly representations from the gay community have been made to the highest level. You can disagree and I hear you, but there's really no need to be unpleasant
-
ROTFLMAO.Originally posted by HENG@:how about people who screw italian buses?
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
What's wrong with holding a Mardi Gras in SIngapore? It will only add more vibrancy to our festival calendar. For the straights, it is just another day of entertainment, much like Chingay or NDP.
According to yawningbread.org, SM Goh was quoted to have said:
"[b]Certain things that homosexuals want are not feasible, such as holding gay parades, Mr Goh said."
Is that not a desire for more visibility? You may not be aware of it but certainly representations from the gay community have been made to the highest level. You can disagree and I hear you, but there's really no need to be unpleasant[/b] -
I do not disagree with this argument. Since this is what I have been arguing all along. Law is needed to ensure Justice. But Law can only approximate Justice. It is never Justice itself. Arguing against the notion of gay rights from the Law angle is flawed. Law should reflect the progress of the society, and not to blockade. And Law should also ensure the minority is being considered.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:No, I didn't say that....just suggesting why our law is the way it is. I certainly had no hand in formulating our laws. Too bad it was the British that colonised us, not the Japanese....with the Christians came their laws as well. Unfortunately, 40 years after independence, our society still thinks these laws reflect the values of the majority.
In fact, UK has passed the Civil Partnership Law. If our Law has roots in UK, shouldn't we progress with them?
http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/article.php?articleid=1453&viewarticle=1
Err... If certain "Laws" in the Old Testament can be aside, shouldn't we start thinking about what other "Laws" can be set aside? I believe if Bible is indeed written directly or directly by God, he will not leave the content of the bible to chance.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Hey, I didn't say that is my stand...merely explaining why Christians find it difficult to accept homosexuality in our society. I didn't write the bible...go complain to the author. I understand the food laws in the Old Testament were set aside in the New Testament. You can read Acts 10 if you are interested but I am not interested in a theological debate (that's not my field):
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&;chapter=10&version=31
Unfortunately for you, the prohibitions against homosexuality were just as robust in the New Testament. I am given to understand that the Koran takes a similar view against homosexuality.
As for the New Testament, could you kindly refer us to any part of it that refers to gays being sin? Out of the bible, I just know of 2 references. The most direct one is the Book of Leviticus. And the other one being the Sodom and Gomorrah in the Book of Genesis, which I had responded in an earlier post.
Sorry, brother... I was rather offended by your previous post because of 2 issues. That particular translation of the Book of Leviticus. I was amused by that translation. And secondly, your argument that homosexualism had been removed from psychopathology and hence, has became a Sociology issue. And hence, it has become a lifestyle problem. Which is not true.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Hey...no need to be so confrontational and start making snide remarks...let's focus on the argument.
But thank you so much (I'm sincere, not being snipe) for bring up all these misperceptions. It's in my belief that the negativism towards the gay community is due mainly to misperceptions and misunderstanding.
In principle, I do not disagree with the statement "More display of hedonistic lifestyle will draw backlash" or "More voices might draw suppression". However, I am just wondering exactly which kind of activities or voices were you refering to. Thanks for clarifying this.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:As I said, what I meant by the perception of gays becoming vocal was that they appear to want more visibility rather than keep out of the public arena. SM Goh and Balaji more recently certainly brought the issue to the fore but is it true that the gay community has been content to lie low?
Well, gay parties in public places aren't exactly the way to go if you don't want others to hear about gay activities. Young people in Singapore already can have access to websites such as fridae.com and utopia-asia.com. And of course, there are plays on gay themes such as 'Glass Cathedral' and books published in Singapore such as 'Sisterhood' and "New Moon over San Francisco'. We didn't have them when I was in school 30 years ago...so to me, the gay community is becoming vocal.
Personally, I am ambivalent about gay parties. Not everyone who attended these parties are there to seek sexual gratification. Even though I must admit that this is still the case. Don't you think it's more efficient if the gay community can have more organised efforts to educate ourselves rather than to switch back to the denial mode?
As to books, plays, websites. All these are not open-door affairs. Those who are interested in these are usually gays. Simple as that. And with the world so connected these days. I do not have to rely on local suppliers anymore. Even if fridae.com is banned, I can switch easily to gay.com. For movies, TV-series, I would simply purchase through Amazon. Again, all these materials are not publicised. You need to have certain insider knowledge to get hold of it.
In summary, I agree about the need to control the more hedonistic lifestyle. But that's it. There's no political voices to "brain wash" the population to endorse gay activities. Most gays would just love to operate within their own confinements.
Yup, one thing at a time. Who would care about gay parades, if we cannot even have sex without being criminalised. And gay parades will not be feasible in near future. But then, let's take one step at a time. Set the priorities right. And slowly move up the awareness and tolerance ladder.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:According to yawningbread.org, SM Goh was quoted to have said:
"Certain things that homosexuals want are not feasible, such as holding gay parades, Mr Goh said."
Is that not a desire for more visibility? You may not be aware of it but certainly representations from the gay community have been made to the highest level. You can disagree and I hear you, but there's really no need to be unpleasant
Again, sorry if you are offended. I've stated my reason for unfriendliness earlier. It's bad enough to have people discriminising us. It's even worse if such discrimination was the result of false information. I do agree to disagree. But let's just continue the debate (if there's a need) based on facts only, okay? -
Brother,Originally posted by iveco:What's wrong with holding a Mardi Gras in SIngapore? It will only add more vibrancy to our festival calendar. For the straights, it is just another day of entertainment, much like Chingay or NDP.
Mardi Gras is beyond a parade. It's the event that draws gays internationally to one single spot. Which means, there might be many prior/after parade action (that's my impression which might be false)
And Singapore also has this distinction of having the least sexual people in the world. Singaporeans are generally anti-sex. To the extreme Religious bigots, they couldn't even understand the need for sex beyond procreation.
Maybe you can label me conservative. But I do hope we can take one step at a time. I'm not thrashing you or the community. Just that we must know our priorities. =)
You do not need a parade to exhibit gay pride. Just know who are you. And be proud of yourself leading a much more challenging life than the rest.
May the force be with you.
Love.