Some of the dudes over at the Young PAP blog never fail to give me a good laugh. The latest joke from there is about gays (and note, it’s about GAYS, not lesbians or homosexuality in general) by Nicholas Lazarus (and I hear he’s a lawyer). In case he decides to pull down his entry, I’m going to reproduce it on my blog for the sake of posterity.

On 28th July, Nicholas Lazarus wrote on the following entry on YPAP blog:

The Alternative Vision for Singapore (and I mean Alternative!)
Posted by Nicholas Lazarus at 12:06 PM

With all this talk about legalizing homosexual acts, I was just pondering what would happen if such acts were indeed legalized.

Imagine men walking hand in hand with other men down Orchard Road, kissing, fondling and making out.

For that matter, imagine all that taking place on the MRT.

Instead of teachers dealing with boy-girl relationships, teachers would have to deal with boy-boy relationships.

Then, you might have the homosexuals all over Asia descending upon Singapore to flaunt what they cannot in their own countries.

Something to think about for the future of Singapore.

On 29th July, he wrote the following reply after some cyber-bombardment from fellow Singaporeans:

Nicholas Lazarus said…

Leaving aside my religious views on this matter, I am against any change of law/policy on homosexuals because:

1. They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.

2. They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation.

3. They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.

I do not accept the notion that homosexuals are “creative” and thus we need homosexuals to make our nation more “creative”. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any more or less creative than heterosexuals.

If an analysis is done, they seem to bring more problems than benefits.

Let me just quickly poke some holes in his argument.

  • Why is he singling out gays and not lesbians? Or even bisexuals? Does he support heterosexuality? Maybe. Is he anti-homosexuality? Maybe. Is he anti-lesbian? Maybe. Is he anti-gay? DEFINITELY. So his problem is not homosexuality but male homosexuals. Now, I call that discrimination.
  • With regards to the threatening of social fabric, I think he hasn’t the slightest clue what exactly is social fabric. And, whose definition social fabric are we talking about? His social fabric or mine? And what makes his social fabric mainstream? According to my definition of social fabric, gays are mainstream.
  • According to our dear Nicholoas, gays cannot procreate, so we should ban their existence. I laughed most loudly at this part. So, we should ban all impotent men along with women who have reached menopause. Since procreation is so important, why stop at gays?
  • As for the army, by his argument, we should ban women from the armed forces too. Why? Because the soldiers would be more interested to fantasize about screwing (or actually screwing) fellow female soldiers then to carry out military training.

    • Nicholas Lazarus just made my day. It was a welcome relief for all the stressful things about ROM and work that I’ve been enduring the past couple of weeks. :mrgreen:

    Addendum:

    OMG someone made almost the same remarks as I did on YPAP blog at almost the same time! Great minds think alike!