Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Why be gay?
The last entry has drawn a very active discussion on the issue of homosexuality, and WBG, the only anti-gay proponent in the whole wave of comments requested that I write an entry titled “Why be gay?” to balance the previous entry “Why not be gay?” So this is the entry is written to cater to his request.
I’m going to list down all the arguments made by WBG (in various comments on my blog and Kitana’s blog) on why homosexuality is bad/evil/dangerous and do a critical reflection on all of these points. All of his comments will be cut and pasted (in italics) and my thoughts will follow.
“But if there are homosexuals going around town and on the internet promoting homosexuality, my blog will explain my views of how I think it is a psychological problem.
My blog has been around for so long but no one seem to be able to provide a logical explanation as to how it is not a psychological problem that should not be resolved.”
Wait a minute. WBG says his blog explains how HE thinks it’s a psychological problem. So his words carry greater weight than the American Psychiatric Association? The APA has already removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Oh wait, hear what WBG has to say about the APA.
“APA is not WPA(World Psychological Association), please read other than research.”
Ok, bad english (or maybe just some typos) aside, WBG contends that the APA is not an authority on psychological issues. The World Psychological Association is. I went to Google, and got nothing. And in anycase, anyone who has studied psychology and psychiatry will know that the APA is THE authority on mental matters. It clearly shows that WBG knows jack about what he’s talking about (hi KTM, borrowing one of your favourite phrase). Now, would anyone believe in his psychological assessment about homosexuality?
Homosexuals are “guilty†until proven “innocentâ€.
*scratch head* Is he sure he’s living in Singapore? I don’t think this is the standard that we apply in Singapore society.
“If homosexuals want to say that homosexuality is normal, the onus is on them to prove that their behaviour is moral.”
What has homosexuality being normal got to do with being moral? Normal equals to moral? It is probably agreeable to most people that sexual intercourse is normal. Going by WBG’s logic, since sexual intercourse is normal, it doesn’t matter whether you have sexual intercourse with a eight year old or eighty year old; it’s perfectly moral. *scratch head even harder*
“Public decency laws are not exactly held by homosexuals. Examples are homosexual paedophiles who molest kids in public transport and those who go overseas to find children to sleep with. I’m sure you heard the news.”
Only homosexuals behave like that? I think I also read alot of stories about heterosexuals who molest kids in public, rape their own daughter/niece/grand-daughter and go overseas to find girls (not women) to have sex with. Hmmm…..
“There are even homosexuals who harass people in public, a recent example is from this blog, http://tinkertailor.blogsome.com/”
There are alot of Shin Ming and Wan Bao news about jealous wives harassing their husband’s mistresses and angry husbands confronting the secret lovers of their wives. Heterosexuals also harass people. Doesn’t seem very unique to homosexuals.
“My blog is to discourage homosexuals from promoting homosexuality as a healthy way of life without recognising how problematic it is to good normal male relationships.”
Lesbians leh? Even when dealing with homosexuals, there’s a double standard between gays and lesbians? Anyway, promoting heterosexuality as a healthy way of life is also very problematic to good male-female relationships. How many jealous wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends have wrecked the platonic friendships with a member of the opposite gender of their partners? Maybe we should ban heterosexuality too.
“I don’t care what homosexuals do privately but when they started to promote it, and brainwash youths into thinking that homosexuality is a viable way of life, I have to show them my point of view.”
Eh? I don’t see TV ads, bus ads, taxi ads, newspaper ads, MRT ads, bus shelter ads and magazine ads that promote homosexuality. Am I missing something? How come I don’t know homosexuals are launching a massive PR campaign? I do see alot of ads about alcohol and 1900 XXX XXXX chat ads of hot women. I think youths are going to be brainwashed into being alcoholics and phone sex addicts.
“Tell me why homosexual paedophiles should be accepted. They are afterall homosexuals. They do commit crimes but private, does that mean what they do should be condoned and not talked about? “
Tell me why homosexual heterosexual paedophiles should be accepted. They are afterall homosexual heterosexuals. They do commit crimes but private, does that mean what they do should be condoned and not talked about?
“If heterosexuality as Aaron himself said, its neutrality is still being debated, why should it be promoted when there is possibility(as Aaron has mentioned) that it could not be normal?
Well, if the safety of genetically modified food is still being debated, why is GM food allowed to be produced and promoted when there’s a possibility that GM is not normal? Maybe WBG might want to set up whyeatgmfood.blogspot.com
“Therefore if there are homosexual paedophiles and molesters committing their crimes, would it not be logical and intelligent to use these criminal instances as to further discourage the promotion of homosexuality?”
Therefore if there are homosexual heterosexual paedophiles and molesters committing their crimes, would it not be logical and intelligent to use these criminal instances as to further discourage the promotion of homosexuality heterosexuality?
“The neutrality of heterosexuality is not being debated as it is already deem as normal. But heterosexual molest and rape is a perversion of heterosexuality and is condemned. And homosexuality which falls out of a common consensus, its neutrality still being debated, should it not be promoted as normal until there is consensus as Aaron said it should require?”
Refer to the GM food argument above.
“Those who said homosexual sex is normal, please explain why normal people are not doing it. (Again refrain from comparing this to heterosexual sex since the neutrality of heterosexuality is not being debated, even though heterosexuals who do so are not encouraged) I would rather think homosexual (and heterosexual) non-procreative sex is just blind pleasure seeking.”
By homosexual sex, I take it that you mean oral and anal sex. I thought Tammy’s video was a good proof that oral sex is “normal”? As for anal sex, just do a Google on it. Who says heterosexuals are not doing it? I found a nice guide online titled “Anal Sex – How to give women incredible orgasms”.
Ah, now I see something different. WBG is now saying that homosexual and heterosexual NON-PROCREATIVE sex is just blind pleasure seeking. Even pleasure seeking also got problem now. It cannot be blind pleasure seeking. Please stop watching Youtube.
“Why should you encourage people to be homosexual when homosexuality does not have consensus? Are you asking people to commit something society does not agree with?”
I shall repost my original reply to him in the comments thread:
Ok, according to you (WBG), if something is non-consenual cannot be done, that means you support
1. Singapore not having the death penalty
2. Singapore not allowing caning
3. Singaporea banning of abortion and use of condoms.
4. Singapore banning of muslim girls from wearing headscarves.
5. Legalising of heroin sales on the streets
Since people cannot agree on the death penalty, caning, abortion, use of condoms, headscarves, drugs and even $1 brides, let’s forbid people from commiting any of these!!!
“Change doesn’t mean accepting psychological problems as normal. Singapore will never accept homosexuality as long as its people views it as a psychological problem. I don’t need to convince the majority because most Singaporeans already view homosexuality as a psychological problem.”
Who says most Singaporeans view homosexuality at a psychological problem? Another piece of wisdom known only to WBG and not to any other Singaporean? I tried searching singstat.gov but can’t find anything.
“If people want to change the view of homosexuality as a non-problem, they have alot of people to convince. The onus to convince others that homosexuality is a non-problem is not on me or on the majority, but on the minority, people who write blog articles that promotes homosexuality. They have to do the most work in convincing, not me.”
Assuming that he’s in the majority that is. Perhaps he might be in the minority if a statistically valid survey is done (no straw polls of newspapers please). Then he would have to convince the majority. 
“Homosexuality should not be promoted because it is a psychological problem.
Refer to my blog for my explanations of why homosexuality is a psychological problem. And give comments if people feel that they can explain it into a non-problem. If homosexuality is a psychological problem then why should a psychological problem be promoted?”
Drinking alcohol should not be promoted because it is a societal problem. It causes one to lose the ability to think properly, have delayed response and is a health hazard. It can cause wife-beating, fatal traffic accidents and liver cirrhosis. Why do I still see beer advertisements promoting the drinking of alcohol?
“It is not drinking a cup of beer that causes one to misbehave but the over drinking of beer.
Your brain would definitely be damaged if you over-knock it too many times on the wall. But who are so dumb as to knock their heads until it hurts? Maybe they are mentally unstable and require counselling.
Then there are the ads of Panadol. Normal amounts won’t kill but abusing the dosages will.
It is all about proper uses and abuses that causes a harmless substance to turn deadly.
it is okay for a person to like another same gender person, but to abuse that liking so as to develop perverted physical attraction is a psychological problem that requires counselling.”
Fair enough. So I take it that it is okay for a person to like another different gender person, but to abuse that liking so as to develop peverted physical attraction is a psychological problem that requires conselling as well, no? So what’s with singling out homosexuals if the same problem happens to heterosexuals? Maybe I have to knock my head a few times on the wall.
Coming to the end of it all, I only have one conclusion.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 01/03/2007 at 12:29 am, and is filed under Humour, Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
WBG,
Once again, I would like to request you to answer ALL of my contentions to your replies. You have skirted around my questions with anything but a proper, direct reply. If you want people to believe you, come up with a robust response. Else, you will just dig a deeper and deeper hole for your own credibility.
about 3 years ago
Ben,
True that some of the comments posted by WBG is not helpful to the debate. However, it shows something about WBG’s character. And I think it’s important for people to infer from WBG’s messages his character and perhaps mental state as well in order to come to a conclusion whether the words of such a person is actually believable.
about 3 years ago
Hello WBG:
Oh no. Unfortunately I haven’t been to IMH before. It’s a little far from my house, and until now I’ve never actually found a reason to find out more about it.
But thank God IMH has a website – aren’t you impressed with how technologically-advanced we are? IMH can have a website and mad people can access http://www.blogger.com! This is good stuff. But anyway the information is all avaiable on this page, FYI:
http://www.imh.com.sg/our_services/bmc.htm
So you can decide if and when you want to go, and what you want to bring. I’m not sure how much it costs per consultation, though, and I don’t think you can use your Medisave yet. But don’t let that stop you.
Since I am on the topic of websites, I figured that if you are really interested in suing us, you should go for the best. So here is the Drew and Napier website:
http://www.drewnapier.com/
You can check out their lawyers’ profiles and decide who you want to represent you.
BTW, since Ben also happens to be my bf, and I happen to be a girl (although it is obvious that you keep forgetting that), he can’t have homosexual tendencies.
Of course, you might then argue that Ben is thus a bi-sexual – he tends towards both men and women, perhaps? =)
about 3 years ago
Aaron; True, I say you are an idealist
– he says now you and Kitana commit a crime, and you want people to read his messages. Kitana even want to recommend him a course of action. I must say you guys are nice people and are very good natured.
But seriously, I think civil discourse must exclude hate speech. For example, I think political parties which advocate violence should not have public hearing.
. But that of course is up to you. 
Kitana: Unicycles very tough. Bicycles common. Tricycles are super easy.
about 3 years ago
Dear WBG:
For you (see below). It’s one of my favourite songs by a favourite songwriter/musician.
The Gothic Archies, “The World is a Very Scary Place”, The Tragic Treasury
The world is a very scary place, my dear
It’s hurled and it’s twirled
Through outer space, I fear
So many ways to lose your skin in it
The number of ways to die is infinite
The world is a very scary thing, I find
It curled all my toes and it’s curling my mind
When I was young, my study was candies
But they attract tarantulas and bees
Some people act as if there were nothing wrong
Due to the fact they haven’t heard this song
The world is a very scary place to go
It’s whirled and it’s swirled
With death-like pace, you know
You may have found my views unorthodox
But now the wolf is at the door – it knocks…
about 3 years ago
kwokheng: i think the song ‘if you’re gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough’ is more befitting…hahaha…
about 3 years ago
guojun…
no… you mustn’t take it so literally.
That song in itself, is very paradoxical.
about 3 years ago
wbg maybe right…about the mental part…cuz i have this song which keeps playing in my head…
Where is the Love?
What’s wrong with the world, mama
People livin’ like they ain’t got no mamas
I think the whole world addicted to the drama
Only attracted to things that’ll bring you trauma
Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA
The Bloods and The Crips and the KKK
But if you only have love for your own race
Then you only leave space to discriminate
And to discriminate only generates hate
And when you hate then you’re bound to get irate, yeah
Madness is what you demonstrate
And that’s exactly how anger works and operates
Man, you gotta have love just to set it straight
Take control of your mind and meditate
Let your soul gravitate to the love, y’all, y’all
People killin’, people dyin’
Children hurt and you hear them cryin’
Can you practice what you preach
And would you turn the other cheek
Father, Father, Father help us
Send some guidance from above
‘Cause people got me, got me questionin’
Where is the love (Love
about 3 years ago
maybe we should set a topic: ‘what do you think of WBG?’
then we all only comment symbolically by posting lyrics.
about 3 years ago
Hi Kitana,
I have read WBG’s blog before albeit not everything. Frankly speaking, i have to admit there are good analysis made of the homosexual psyche. However, the problem with the analysis is due to the extreme difficultly to prove and sounded rather far-fetched.
The reason for my agreement is that the human mind is the most powerful organ or tool or whatever you called it. If one is to think that he/she is strong, strength will be injected or what perhaps like the winning mentality of atheltics. Perhaps Nietzche can be a good example as well.
But this doesnt mean i agree on his/her attitude towards others. Contrary, i feel he/she might need to restraint a bit of his/her aggression. I think this is the major gripe people are having with WBG now.
Perhaps everyone should take a step back and reflect on individual’s action and identify what and where wrong then continue the debate.
about 3 years ago
hahaha…nono i don’t mean it that literally. But dumb people have to be tough. it’s true.
about 3 years ago
Oh yes, and lastly, i strongly believe that homosexual should be respected as well because they are also human with feelings.
about 3 years ago
My oh my, what is happening? How has a discussion of gay rights turned into an exchange of darts.
Wait ah, Ben, I am confused about your reference to whybegay’s comment referring to points I have supposedly brought up. Don’t see any connection or reference in whybegay’s comment attributing my comments to you.
??? Anyway, hope it’s been resolved.
RSE, I think you are an encyclopedia of sorts. Thanks again for the references. I am not a student (so no privileges
), neither do I have the time to do extensive research, so you have been pretty helpful.
Regarding shifting posts and allowing rights when there is no reason to withhold it, well, I am here to clarify my thoughts, not to win any arguments or annihilate opponents, so, I should in fact be allowed to shift my positions in the process of finding answers, do you think?
I can see your point when you say rights should be given where there is no reason to withhold. That is from your perspective, based on your values, disposition and personal guiding philosophy. Unfortunately, mine differ from yours and I do not make decisions that way. When in doubt (e.g. what rights are we talking about?), I prefer to to mull things over instead of issuing a blank check. Something like the “look before you leap” principle, especially when it is something that may have repurcussions on a wider scale.
For instance, and please bear in mind that I am only giving an example, if we say gays have the right (meaning it is legal) to kiss in public, just like heterosexuals, what are the implications? Will we feel it is okay for our children to witness those acts and mimick them or think it is cool to do so? Because it signals to them that it is normal for a man to kiss another man passionately if we accept that kind of acts in public. In this situation, I am not objecting to what they are doing to each other but the wider impact on society as a whole.
I hope you get what I mean.
about 3 years ago
I was in Canada sometimes back and I was taking the bus. Suddenly two guys in front of me starting kissing. Lo! and Behold, I was stunned. Kind of shocked but nobody else in the bus blinked an eyelid. I realized my reaction was due to conditioning in Singapore because intimacy, not least gay intimacy, is surprising. Oh yes, btw, I hope you get what I mean.
What wider impact are you talking about?
about 3 years ago
I think that part of the reason why we cannot see eye to eye on this topic, is because our starting assumptions are radically different.
Christians and the conservative tend to see homosexuality as either “wrong” or “unnatural” based on religious doctrine or on societal norms, but there are also people – myself included, who don’t see why a normative judgment has to be put on homosexuality. I don’t claim to speak for everyone, or for Ben for that matter, but I personally see homosexuality as a natural phenomenon. To me, it’s genetic.
And this is because Science has disproved that it is a psychological problem, but through studies involving people and aninmals, have come to the conclusion that it recurs naturally and therefore cannot simply be psychological. Not to doubt the power of the human mind, but I honestly don’t believe that people actually want to convince themselves into being gay.
Life isn’t easy when you’re gay. I know of people who date people of the opposite sex to fit in, or people who repress their sexuality no matter how unhappy they are, or people who commit suicide, because they cannot come to terms with the fact that they are gay. The internal struggles by many people are not helped by discrimination against them based on outdated arguments or religious dogma.
In Science, you never conclusively prove anything. All you start off with is a theory, that you subsequently disprove. That is what it is like with homosexuality. There was a theory that it was a psychological problem, and it was a theory that through years of study by Dr. Adams and the like, was finally accepted as disproved by the APA and other authorities on psychological health.
Thus seeing that homosexuality is a natural state and not putting any moral implications on it at all, I don’t see why children seeing gay people hold hands on the street or kiss or anything like that is a problem. There is no problem. Seeing 2 gay people kissing on the street will probably be as well… indecent… if it were 2 straight people kissing on the street. That just means too much public display of affection, and have nothing to do with sexuality per se.
Perhaps it’s because I’ve been to Canada. I loved being in the Gay Villages. I’ve seen and talked to gay and lesbian couples who hold hands and kiss and who are very much in love with each other. There are people in domestic partnerships who love each other, and the common conception in Singapore that gays only want to fuck your ass is completely warped and outdated. Perhaps the whole community has been tarnished by the few black sheep who have hit on straight guys sexually, or who have committed rape on the unconsenting.
But that to me, is not reason enough to condemn homosexuals as wrong or unnatural. Frankly speaking, I’d be perfectly okay if my child were gay. His or her sexuality will not affect the way I look at him or her. I’d honestly be much more horrified if he or she were a fundy, actually.
Darling *looks at Ben*, perhaps we should move to Canada if we do decide to have kids. At least our children will definitely be happy and accepted there. Lol.
about 3 years ago
Hi kwokheng,
I think it is too simplistic to categorize only children of certain ages as vulnerable to influences. Even adults are and you’ll be surprised how many are actually asking questions. Even if they ask, many children and youngsters are a rebellious and experimental lot. It may not necessarily be bad, but what are the implications?
And as I have mentioned, it is an example to illustrate my approach to the problem, kind of like convergent vs divergent modes of thinking and problem solving. I am basically a divergent thinker, in particular when the issue at hand is a complex one like this.
Also, I think it is easier to lay out the a set of criteria to be satisfied when I want something, but no so easy and advisable when I am not sure whether I want it or not.
about 3 years ago
Han is right, nature/nurture is a red herring. It, however, is a myth that needs to be put to rest. Science says it’s very likely nature and that there is no evidence for nurture, anyone who pretends otherwise is lying, deluded or ignorant.
The harm/non-harm principle is only convincing to liberal (classical) and libertarian types, unfortunately. Will need additional ‘splaining to use in a debate.
Shoestring,
Google is my friend, and research is a skill anyone can pick up. Just try, and be amazed at what you find/learn in the process.
I’m a divergent thinker too, so I can sympathize. Setting specific criteria helps A LOT, trust me, and do more good than harm if set properly. If you are really unsure, then pretend that you are sure for once (e.g. gays don’t deserve rights or gays deserve rights). Gay rights is a fairly simple topic to investigate, actually, and investigating it helps to kick many of your own unjustified prejudices/assumptions out of the door.
If you hate the finality of being certain, like me, you can always leave it an option to revisit the issue later (under a different set of criteria if you want).
Needless to say, homosexual rights is one of the issues I am glad to stand firm on. (Now, why is it that I keep making all sorts of bad puns when discussing this issue? um.. fnord.)
There are good reasons for my view, but that’s another story. From my observations, you don’t have to worry about children/imitator adults. 1) They outgrow it. 2) As far as science is concerned, homosexuality isn’t contagious 3) homosexuality isn’t as bad as most of us think 4) most young children are way smarter than we give them credit for. In fact, many homosexuals make excellent role models.
Plus, there are plenty of places where homosexuals do as they please, and I have not heard about it affecting children in those places. Believe me, if it ever did, plenty of people would be trumpeting and exaggerating each and every incident.
about 3 years ago
I dont think there’s much you (WBG) can prove that 10% of the men in S’pore are gay. Cause you have to face the fact that there are people who are not taking part in the survey or not admitting the fact that they are gay.
I totally disagree with the fact that you mention that homosexuals are mostly preverts and what-so-ever. (Check out newspapers please.) List down how many such crimes are actually committed by heterosexuals? Or are you simply running away from such facts and making up your own facts to promote “heterosexaulity”?
If being homo is a crime, then i guess everyone should be eating not just healthy food (ban junk food), but too be eating meals specially planned in case they overdose themselves with “vitamins, iron, and all the other nutrients (or junkies)”.
Afterall,
“It is all about proper uses and abuses that causes a harmless substance to turn deadly.”
about 3 years ago
Hi,
I’m so sorry that I posted this so late. i would have loved to comment on things like this since it seems that some people can’t see the POV of others sometimes.
Yes, Homosexuality may seem “absolutely” abnormal, but, have you given some thoughts abt the fact that it could all have been a pure manifestation of the society’s perception?
What I would say is that Singapore is growing up. It’s simply a passing phase where we are opening up. (“Macdomination”)
Now, if we were to keep arguing about whether it is allowed or not, we will never, NEVER make any progress if WBG keeps on attacking Aaron personally.
I salute Aaron for standing up and bringing up his questions again which until now WBG has never answered directly.
WBG, please, answer those questions and make your stand using FACTS, not reteorical Qns and give EMPIRICAL FACTS like Aaron said.
If you were to again claim this blog to be filled with ghosts, FYI, I’ve never met Aaron in my life and yet I’m still arguing in his favor. Why?
Because he has shown me the proper way of debating, arguing with facts. Yet, you have not. You have not shown me that your arguments are based on facts. Instead, you have based it mostly on assumptions and speculations (I do allow some room for B.O.D). If you wish to continue talking abt this matter, please present your facts again.
P.S. if there is something known as WPA, which gie us the link. Cos, it seems to evade us entirely.
Thanks.
about 3 years ago
i think it ok to be gay coz it is up to them if they wanna be gay luv ya xxxxxxx
about 3 years ago
i fink it is fuked up that people r gay cos its sick u want sum fanny u stick to it same wid cock:)lolxxxx