Mar 1st, 2007
Why be gay?
Email This Post
Print This Post
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.
Loading ...
KTM is on holiday..perhaps can ask him to come and contribute? i think it would be quite an interesting post.
Will be better and more appropriate to invite Mr. Alex Au of Yawningbread fame, I think…
Hmmm…i dun believe we need to invite Mr Au…a few links to his relevant articles would be fine…of course seeing from the discourse it wont make a difference as the person’s mind is closed. Mr Au does not need to waste his time with such people in my opinion…
“Whether being homosexual is biological, psychological or a matter of choice is something that is still being debated.”
Actually it’s a mix of both environmental and biological. This is considering that people can be born with it and also can be influenced into it with different experiences or encounters. And it’s only a matter of choice, if the person is open enough to accept it as an alternative lifestyle, which is also partially due to nurture.
Homosexuality is definitely not normal. If you see from the fact that there are only about 10% gays in Singaporean males (the majority issue thing). But it isn’t “abnormal†at all, or any of the negative connotations that comes with abnormality.
Majority of mammalian species contain homosexuality (not sure if its all mammals actually). It’s just a normal part of nature. Humans, contrary to popular belief, are animals too and we are sharing similar ratio of sexuality as animals (especially the 10% gay thing).
It is only abnormal not to face that fact that gay is not abnormal in nature.
Just to state a fact, in ancient Greeks and Japan, gays proliferated. Furthermore homosexuality was in fact much respected.
Nobody said that we have to actively try to convert straight males to gays (like some religions try to make you join them) or that educating people that gays ought not to be discriminated against = promoting homosexuality.
Gays are as much a part of our life as disabled people or people who like gothic or people who like trance…the list just goes on. There is nothing wrong about it so what’s the point in condemning it.
2centsworth
Mr 2cents,
I am not condemning homosexuality but homosexual’s promoting of it as being normal.
Mr Aaron doesn’t know zilch about homosexuality, which is why people must go to my blog for the full objective views.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.. a classic WBG response. After I shred all his arguments, he just play the thick skin card and says that I know zilch.
Anyone who doesn’t know that the APA is the world’s authority on psychology and psychiatry truly knows zilch. And WBG doesn’t know anything about the APA.
Firstly i didnt say that u were condemning homosexuality.
2ndly, theres nothing wrong with promoting homosexuals as normal, its not abnormal as i already stated. Its the otherwise that should be not be encouraged.
You cant say that Mr Aaron knows zilch about homosexuality. Everyone involved in commenting didnt know too much anywayz (Cuz few were submitted). How many comments were actually involved in gay facts? Not too many especially for yours.
kwok // Feb 28, 2007 at 1:26 pm posted some interesting facts but i think bonobo monkeys presents interesting facts on homosexuality also
Mr 2 cents, refer to my blog and my latest blog post for more facts on homosexuality such as why it is a perversion. I do not usually state the facts from my blog in other’s blogs because other bloggers usually are not well-informed in the area.
In my previous comment I said, “I am not condemning homosexuality but homosexual’s promoting of it as being normal. ”
I meant to imply that my focus was more on the condemning of the promoting of homosexuality as being normal. And I do condemn homosexuality as well since I feel it is a perversion.
FYI, the promoting of homosexuality by gay activists are hindered by the government’s efforts, which is why you don’t see banners promoting homosexual parades in town. Please do your research thoroughly, especially if it concerns local politics. I have already said this to 2 people.
And lastly, judging by the questions you and Kitana ask in your blog titles which are “Why not be gay” and “There is no why be gay”. One implies that you have the consideration of being gay and Kitana’s implies that she does not question before doing something.
Going by both of yours logic, Should I conclude that you are considering to be gay and Kitana should be a PAP supporter without questioning otherwise?
Aaron, do consider supporting the government, the PAP, because it is only natural for the people to work together. We should not think it is not natural to work with the government we already have.
Let’s move on and build a nation.
Do you even have the guts to voice your displeasure of the government on the P65.sg blog? I challenge you to post a visible comment there as I already have done many times. Otherwise there is no point in further conversing with a whining coward who thinks only he/her wilfully ignorant opinions matters more than others..
Did Mr Goh Chok Tong not say that Gays are welcome in the Civil Service???
Hmmmmm….
Aaron, great post! I love you (erm, but not romantically, otherwise ur fiancee and the Ben will be exceedingly unhappy)!
Anywa, people advise us against attempting to engage with WBG, because it is obvious that he does not engage at any level except his own, which is so devoid from logic and rationale that no matter what you argue, the end result is the same - Aaron reasonably rebuts WBG’s many remarks, and I descend to WBG’s level to “engage him”, and he posts exactly the same comments to both of us.
Well, to everyone who is wondering, I think WBG is actually *very good* for civil discourse in society. Why, you might ask? Well, this is because if not for WBG, we would not even be discussing this.
I have never been a homophobe, but I never really questioned whether homosexuality was a natural phenomenon, or whether it was “psychological” before, until WBG started trolling my blog and I was led to his posts, which made me all the more inclined to find out for myself what was truth and what was not.
And for this reason, WBG’s blog needs publicity, so that rational people by reading the stuff tt he writes, will be forced to go to real sources such as the APA or to look at people like Alex Au who are gay but who appear peace-loving, rational and who do not resort to insulting people at a base level, and discern for themselves what is homosexuality and whether it is a cause for concern.
Aaron himself has admitted to being slightly homophobic (and so is Ben, a little), but because of this, they now believe that to be homophobic is what is wrong and unacceptable behaviour because it alienates, and I think that if this strange affair can somehow convince more people why they should not be homophobic without finding out more about what homosexuality entails, then I think that we have succeeded where… well, where WBG has failed, I suppose.
In any case, I think that WBG is doing everyone a great service, and I salute him. Besides tarnishing all anti-homosexuals by his association with them, he now seeks to tarnish the name of the PAP by attempting to include the P65 in this sordid discussion, even though this is of no relevance to them, and even though I honestly believe that they will definitely not hold the same views as WBG.
Someone said tt WBG could possibly be a PAPanon. I said tt that is completely unbelievable, because he will completely tarnish the name of the PAP by doing so, the way he is now.
So I salute you WBG, for your indirect tongue-in-cheek effort in promoting further civil discourse within the blogosphere.
“Aaron, do consider supporting the government, the PAP, because it is only natural for the people to work together. We should not think it is not natural to work with the government we already have.
Let’s move on and build a nation.
Do you even have the guts to voice your displeasure of the government on the P65.sg blog? I challenge you to post a visible comment there as I already have done many times. Otherwise there is no point in further conversing with a whining coward who thinks only he/her wilfully ignorant opinions matters more than others..”
Trying to change the topic eh? Unfortunately, it is not relevant. For one, you are still an anonymous. We all don’t know how you look like, and what you do. Would you still dare post those comments if you’re already as “visible” as Aaron? If you say “yes, I dare!”, then we can expect to see your photo, and where you work in your blog. After all, we have all seen aaron’s face, and know what he does. As for the last sentence, that applies to you too.
You must have noticed that currently you’re the only *one* voice here that argues that homosexuality is *absolutely* abnormal.
I’m going to use your own argument - the burden is on you to give us “proof” that homosexuality is *absolutely* abnormal. After all, you’re the one trying to convince us here.
I believe the people here have given quite a few “proofs”, which of course, you have conveniently sidestepped. Don’t worry, I do not plan to do the same to your “proofs”. Assuming you have any real undisputable ones that is.
WBG,
You never answered my questions. All you have done is to make personal attacks, e.g. calling people whiners, ignorant etc.
Please answer why should we believe you when you say that homosexuality is a psychological problem? Are you even an authority on the issue? Please write down your real name, your education and creditionals. Since you dare to claim that the APA, a world renowned body is wrong, why don’t you show us proof that you are right? And I don’t want your lame arguments. Show me empirical proof.
Secondly, where is the evidence that there is “consensus” as you claim that Singaporeans reject homosexuality? The most recent study done by one of the polytechnics (it’s a proper survey, not a straw poll) in Singapore showed that more than half of those aged 30 and below do not mind homosexuality. Where are your figures and statistics? Come on, stop your rhetorical arguments and take out your evidence. Or do you not have any?
Don’t be a nitwit. If I want to, I got more direct access to the government than to waste my time like you commenting on the p65 blog. You don’t even dare to put out your real name and credentials. What makes you think that p65 MPs who blog will take you seriously? Are you suffering from Alzheimer’s? Have you forgotten that the government only takes those who put out their real names seriously? If you have the guts, stop hiding behind a pseudonym and let’s take the debate publicly. I got the guts to meet you up and take you on in public. Do you have the guts (or even the evidence) to? Probably not.
WBG,
You said that,
“FYI, the promoting of homosexuality by gay activists are hindered by the government’s efforts, which is why you don’t see banners promoting homosexual parades in town. “
Then why are you being extra? You eat too full nothing to do? Nevermind that you are too free. Your blog clearly shows that you are inciting hate speech based on WBG’s brand of evidence. Please don’t cherry pick my points to argue back. I retorted all your points, and it is only fair you reply to ALL my retorts. (Sound familiar?)
Kitana,
I know that some people are of the opinion that WBG is trying to troll people. That’s fine with me. If WBG wants to maintain a blog telling people that homosexuality is a psychological problem, then my blog (and myself) will exist to tell people that people like WBG are crackpots.
I am indeed slightly homophobic, but I do not believe that I should allow homophobia (which is a feeling) to override rationality. WBG has stated very clearly:
“I meant to imply that my focus was more on the condemning of the promoting of homosexuality as being normal. And I do condemn homosexuality as well since I feel it is a perversion.”
He merely feels that homosexuality is a perversion. He implicity admits that he has no concrete proof. If feeling is all that is necessary to take action, please dismantle the judicial system.
I just think that wbg has a problem confronting and seeing a thick fat prick. That’s all.
Whoa, that was fierce. Aaron, have u considered a change in career? i think they are currently short of litigators now:P perhaps since he likes to use P65 MPs so much u can also borrow some phrases from MM Lee Kuan Yew with regards to such debate (Hatchet, knuckledusters etc):P
Kitana, ur point about people going to read up more on this issue because of a homophobic blog is a good one, i didnt consider it before.
And that perhaps is why its useful to have this debate, u can learn a lot of stuff (but of course this is predicated on the fact that u are a person who wants to learn…some people dun bother learning as can be seen from the comments). This merely vindicates my belief in the value a debate can bring to our society. Yes, there will always be those jokers who know nuts but act as if they know everything, but as can be seen from this exchange they will always be balanced by those who use reason and at the end of the day , in the words of Jack Neo, I Not Stupid.
Anyway why i get sick of the fellas self promotion efforts is because i do not wish for Intelligent Singaporean to become an oxymoron should the blog by fluke appear there…
Hey… Give Inspir3d some credit lah. I don’t think that guy’s blog will appear on Intelligent Singaporean anytime soon.
Sorry Ian,
I have no idea how intelligent singaporean works…if its not automatic then its ok. Cause i had the impression that it was …
Get this in your heads
!. The onus is on the minority homosexuals to convince the majority of singaporeans that Singapore should accept them. The penal code is already there, I do not have to convince anyone with what I say.
2. I am not here to convince any of you, since the trio here are wilfully ignorant of people’s views, but to bring out their ignorance so that people can see it for themselves.
3. A blog with little discussions from other people implies its readers doesn’t care. The blogger’s friends doesn’t count. They are birds of the same feather. Where are the other visitors besides these writers who are talking to me? Where are the ghost visitors? Maybe the numbers on the visitor’s counter is fake.
4. Maybe this blog has already been condemned and ignored by Singaporeans. And they only come and go from IS wihout much reading of the articles here. There is no point reading them because there is lack of legitimacy and maturity.
5. This blog is a waste of time for further visits.
Chi bu dao pu tao jiu jiang pu tao suan
Hi Aaron,
Didn’t think you would actually pander to WBG’s wishes. Thought there are more important things to consider like the Budget. And this must have surely brought the worst in the person making him at one point (1/3/2007 4:18) averaging 8 minutes per post for 4 posts in a row! That must be the highest rate anyone could come up with badly thought out retorts to be passed off as witty repartee!
WBG,
Well done! You outdid youself this time. What are you going to champion next? The banning of the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution from the classroom and replace it with Intelligent Design? I am of course willing to take that back if I am mistaken about your most cherished causes.
Ooh. Since he spam my bwog and here without reading any of Aaron comment, I guess I shall do another variation of the WBG sending off ceremony:
WBG au revoir! It was wonderful to have had you with us over the course of the past day and night, engaging in that long, hard and arduous intercourse with us. We had no intention to wear you out, and we are so sorry if your sexy ass is sore or bruised from the gang bang - you were a very tight fit.
But come back any time if you want more of us, we are more than willing to take that plunge.
Hello Stark,
No need to apologise to me lah…
WBG, if this blog really so inconsequential, then why bother posting so much man… don’t be so unhappy lah.
Ian,
make mistake must apologise…i also pai seh i dunno how IS work…
wah but he said the rest of us are ghosts!!! that sounds like a threat cuz i guess all of us are still alive and kicking! And i thought the leadership is hoping to turn Singapore into a Gracious society, how gracious can we be if we anyhow curse people who dun agree with us?
The last most important thing,
don’t assume that busy policy-makers have the time to visit no-name, no-class badly researched blogs. I only got here accidentally by clicking some link from another link from IS blog.
Assuming that it is the obligation of policy makers to visit a no-name blog out of thousands of local blogs is wishful thinking and living in a self-centered deluded world, and trademarks of LAZY, self-centered and TYRANT opposition fanatics.
At least the MPs at P65 know about my blog since I give comments at their site. If no one knows about what someone writes in their no-name blog, then the postings on their blogs are only good for the writer’s typing practise and killing time talking to oneself, which is one of my purpose too, to type and reply to my own echo.
So continue being a self-centered nobody with a no-name, no-class blog.
I am said to be trying to bring out ignorance and other such accusation as part of a trio by WBG in an earlier post.
I object to such remarks.
You are suggesting that I am a liar, you called me ignorant, and trying to promote falsehoods. You said Aaron lacks legitimacy and maturity.
Why don’t you repeat your remarks with your name and IC number?
Eh guys, I was just wondering, do you think this WBG got psychological problem? I’m speaking seriously.
I was thinking tt at first maybe he just choose some odd online moniker to mock at things. Or maybe he really homophobic, but he just like to create trouble for fun.
But now after this back-and-forth argument with him right, and his latest blog posts, I think he really taking himself seriously.
I think he got some kind of disorder. Revolves around the symptoms of delusion and paranoia, but I think this has to be why he seems to completely believe in his holey logic, and how he seems to think that just because he comments on the P65 blog, he is acknowledged as a PAP supporter.
You think?
BTW, Ben. If WBG really got psychological disorder, then we sue him will be a bit unethical right?
Should we refer him to IMH for counselling instead anot?
If the court finds him with a psychological disorder, wont they send him to IMH?
I think perhaps we should stop fighting WBG because third party observers might think we are ganging up on WBG. I think that it is perhaps important to say it is not WBG anyone is fighting, but his views and their consequences that I (we perhaps) find unfortunate.
But WBG is not alone. At least the Law thinks that WBG is not alone. There are examples….
Part 5 of the Free-to-air Television Code says “Information, themes or subplots on lifestyles such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, transsexualism… should be treated with utmost caution. Their treatment should not in any way promote, justify or glamorise such lifestyles.”
(From Yawning bread latest post)
This assumes that homosexuality-xx - are lifestyle choices.
There is the Penal Code that sends homosexuals to jail if they have sex. There are homosexuals who could have been denied a job. There are thousands and thousands of homosexuals abused, tortured, because people used to believed homosexuals could be treated for a ‘psychological’ problem. Nazis killed homosexuals. Many homosexuals growing up have committed suicide realizing that society consider them ‘abnormal’ and they cannot change.
In other words, it is to me perfectly fine to hold the view that homosexuals are unnatural based on your religion or your instinct. But to elevate it to a science you bring consequences and if you label homosexuals as having a disorder ’scientifically’ - this modern development have caused great harm to homosexuals ..
Haiz, but why would a person like WBG care?
Very coincidental coincidence: Today, at my tutorial session, my classmates and I were asked to discuss and debate the issue of whether homosexuality should be accepted.
As expected, the debate was fervent and, at times, heated even.
A few random questions popped into my mind during the debate: is there a case to be made for accepting/tolerating homophobia, considering that homophobics also have their rights to their own beliefs, be they right or wrong…? Can we adopt a “to each his/her own” attitude towards homophobics…? In other words, should we tolerate intolerant and/or intolerable people…? Or are some intolerant views just too intolerable for us to tolerate them…?
Interestingly LCC, Ben referred me to this page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
Frontline, which is a popular and credible PBS-run TV show in the US, now deals with homophobia as part of its program. And Dr Adams is helming a project that explores if homophobia could constitute a psychological disorder.
Studies on homophobia as a possibly psychological problem are in fact ongoing now.
No real point to make on this idea - just something for you to have a look at. I think the results will be interesting though.
Personally, I guess everyone has their own grips and grouses. Some people don’t like certain races, some people don’t like homosexuals. Personally, I don’t like stupid/illogical/intolerant people. But I think tt it’s okay to have differences or dislikes, so long as you don’t try to impose those dislikes on others or attempt to prejudice people against the group you dislike. It’s akin to spreading hate speech I think, and it’s very harmful to the esteem of persecuted minority groups. And it doesn’t speak well of the rest as inclusive either.
I think Dr. Adams has passed away..? That was sometimes back but I think increasingly racism and homophobia are increasingly seen as psychological problems - but I doubt they are ’serious’ types…but its debatable - journals and what not proliferate
Oops. I din realise that. Oh, but anyway got this link below. Better:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/freud.html
Haa… Coincidentally, I made reference to the same website for one of my comments (No. 60)for Aaron’s blog entry before this one…
WBG,
Stop being a wimp and quit running away from my questions. Answer my replies directly. If you have no answer, kindly admit that you have no answer instead of raising a tirade about something else.
I won’t be like you, whining about other people’s character, intellect, background etc. I will respond to you point by point, and please behave like a proper adult and respond in kind.
You mentioned the following 5 points:
!. The onus is on the minority homosexuals to convince the majority of singaporeans that Singapore should accept them. The penal code is already there, I do not have to convince anyone with what I say.
2. I am not here to convince any of you, since the trio here are wilfully ignorant of people’s views, but to bring out their ignorance so that people can see it for themselves.
3. A blog with little discussions from other people implies its readers doesn’t care. The blogger’s friends doesn’t count. They are birds of the same feather. Where are the other visitors besides these writers who are talking to me? Where are the ghost visitors? Maybe the numbers on the visitor’s counter is fake.
4. Maybe this blog has already been condemned and ignored by Singaporeans. And they only come and go from IS wihout much reading of the articles here. There is no point reading them because there is lack of legitimacy and maturity.
5. This blog is a waste of time for further visits.
Here are my replies, point for point. I wonder if you have the guts to respond. If you do, I’ll make an exception to my no gambling policy and buy Toto tomorrow.
1. Convince the majority? Once again, you ASSUME that the majority rejects homosexuality. Please show me your evidence. This is the umpteen time I’ve asked you for your evidence. If you can’t show the evidence, quit saying that the majority cannot accept homosexuality. No evidence = bald-faced lie
2. If you are not here to convince people of your point of view, why did you post so much? All you need to do is to post a nice, comprehensive reply backed with empirically valid and authoritative studies. Why did you resort to even personal attacks when you are unable to answer ANY of my points? And what makes you think you are so knowledgeable? The other commenters here have raised study after study after study. What have you raised? Just the WBG psychological theory of gay-ism that is not substansiated by any proper research.
3. My blog has little discussions? If that is indeed true, your blog has NO discussions. You got less than 150 comments, versus 1932 comments for mine. And of course I don’t think there’s a need to compare blog stats. You claim my site statistics are probably fake. Why do you check with the author of Firestats to see if he produces software that allows people to fake? The link is there.
4. Maybe my blog is condemned. I think so too. I’m so condemned that ST takes information from my blog and then forgot to quote me. I so condemned that according to Technorati, 69 blogs voluntary link to my blog. The link to Technorati is also available on my blog.
5. This blog is a waste of time for you ah. Why did you post another entry after you claim its a waste of time? You mean you cannot even keep your own word? How can we believe you then?
WBG,
You said,
“don’t assume that busy policy-makers have the time to visit no-name, no-class badly researched blogs. I only got here accidentally by clicking some link from another link from IS blog.
Assuming that it is the obligation of policy makers to visit a no-name blog out of thousands of local blogs is wishful thinking and living in a self-centered deluded world, and trademarks of LAZY, self-centered and TYRANT opposition fanatics.
At least the MPs at P65 know about my blog since I give comments at their site. If no one knows about what someone writes in their no-name blog, then the postings on their blogs are only good for the writer’s typing practise and killing time talking to oneself, which is one of my purpose too, to type and reply to my own echo.”
If policy makers are so busy, they won’t have the time to visit your site too. What are you talking about? Anyway, if my blog is a no-name blog, what’s yours?
Oh, don’t worry. I know which policy-makers visit my blog. I respectfully respond to their emails. They don’t go around trolling in the comments, unlike you. Of course, I have no need to let you know which policy-makers visit my blog. I’m now quite glad policy-makers do visit my blog to read the comments you posted above. Shows how credible you are.
And continue leaving comments on p65 blog while I correspond by email and phone with policymakers who read my blog. I’m happy with the way I’m doing things now thank you very much.
Am I still a self-centered nobody with a no-name, no-class blog?
Wow.
This is my first time commenting on this blog because I feel somewhat compelled to.
I’m just dying to know why are all of you still engaging WBG in a controversial debate that he has proven so inapt to even defend his grounds.
I might not be fully comfortable with homosexuality, but I am absolutely sure that I hate ignorant and specious arguments far more.
Hi Aaron,
A nice blog entry. Even if homosexuality were actively promoted on billboards and ads, I doubt that many heterosexuals would be “converted”. These people talk as if the entire straight population is just on the verge of turning gay at the slightest nudge. Or at the suggestion that gay people be given any kind of legal rights. (By legal rights, I mean no caning, no lifetime jail terms as provided under current Singapore law, and no censorship of Oscar winners who want to thank their gay spouses as Mediacorp did just a day ago.)
Your blog entries in general seem well thought out, sincere, and rational. Keep it up! When you speak up for the rights of minorities like gays and lesbians, you help to improve society for everyone else. As Ellen Degeneres said on the Oscars, “there wouldn’t even be Oscars without blacks, Jews, and gays.” Singapore is a long way from producing any Oscar-winning material in spite of the government’s pouring money into Digital Media. Irrational bigotry in our society is holding us back.
Teck Soon
Hi Kelvin,
The only reason why I respond is because I think that everyone has a responsibility to speak up against extremist views that are baseless. As I commented in ben’s blog, WBG reminds me of the KKK, just that the target is different.
I just realised that this has been classified under humour and rambling. Come to think of it there is abit of humour going on
however the fella’s responses seem to be recycled…perhaps its time to move on? Unless he comes up with more reasons that is…
Hi Teck Soon,
I speak because I don’t believe that anyone deserves to be discriminated against. We can state the facts, but we should not actively encourage hate or discrimination. In one of WBG’s entry, homosexuals were likened to “terrorists”. How can I keep quiet about a person who’s blatantly using such loaded terms? He’s obviously all out to incite hate, and he MUST be stopped.
Stark,
This was purposely filed under humour as well.
Kelvin:
People tend to self-destruct after being so angry for some time.
And then, they stop.
I just happen to speak from personal experience, that’s all.
kh
It’s just a matter of who outlasts whom.
Hi Aaron,
Just my thoughts on this issue that you have raised.
I do not support the promotion of homosexuality as a “normal” lifestyle in Singapore based on what I hold to be true in my religious beliefs. It does not mean that I am “homophobic” (scared of gays or hate gays). I believe gays deserve equal rights, but not simply on the basis of their lifestyle (e.g. receiving domestic partnership benefits equal to married couples’ benefits).
I also tend to believe that not all gays chose to be gay. I’m think many are born with certain tendencies. But I don’t believe that just because one is “born like that” makes it right. I happen to be born with rather selfish tendencies, just like most other human beings. That doesn’t make selfishness right.
You cited APA as evidence that homosexuality is perfectly “normal”. Just because they are professionals does not mean we have to agree with all their judgments. Most top scientists believe that God does not exist and that unicellular amoebas evolved into complex multi-cellular human beings with a myriad of emotions. That doesn’t mean that we are all bound to agree with them.
Lastly, I would argue that the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a consequence of moral relativity of our age. Now we say homosexuality is okay, but consensual sex with a 6 year old girl is not. In 20 years’ time, maybe a 2nd sexual revolution would challenge the latter. Would you accept it then? Where does one draw the line?
cheers,
Gerald
If persons are smart enough, they should remove the open evidence blog posts at multiple blogs promoting homosexuality, otherwise “third parties” could utilise the open evidence in filing a sedition charge.
Wow, I know once I start typing this, I’ll be sucked into this huge debate.
In response to Gerald:
“I also tend to believe that not all gays chose to be gay. I’m think many are born with certain tendencies. But I don’t believe that just because one is “born like that†makes it right. I happen to be born with rather selfish tendencies, just like most other human beings. That doesn’t make selfishness right.”
So you’re born with selfish tendencies, but each time you make a decision, you can make the conscious choice to be selfish or not. Suppose you were born with ‘gay tendencies’ as you call it, you’re saying then that you can choose who you fall in love with?
“Most top scientists believe that God does not exist and that unicellular amoebas evolved into complex multi-cellular human beings with a myriad of emotions. That doesn’t mean that we are all bound to agree with them.”
One big difference, the scientists have proofs and logic, and in science, one cannot pick and choose what they want to believe in.
“Lastly, I would argue that the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle is a consequence of moral relativity of our age. Now we say homosexuality is okay, but consensual sex with a 6 year old girl is not. In 20 years’ time, maybe a 2nd sexual revolution would challenge the latter. Would you accept it then? Where does one draw the line?”
About 50 years ago, it was still okay to make black people seat in the ‘black part’ of the bus. Back then people thought that was moral. For the lack of a better example, people in the past used to think it was moral too to burn witches… Hmm… so tell me which part of morality is absolute.
Hello Gerald,
I think its is perfectly fine for Christians or people from whatever religion of basis to think or feel that Homosexual is unnatural. There is no promotion of homosexuality as normal from that perspective. Religion always has a role to play in the discourse of any community. So has developments in science. And the economy. I don’t think for legislative reasons, any particular factor should trump the rest entirely.
All I think Aaron is saying is that the scientific consensus is that homosexual is not a psychological disease. You might choose or choose not to agree but in that case, you should not be prescribing medical treatment or promoting medical treatment for homosexuals. Or say that they are suffering from a psychological disorder. In that sense, homosexuals are normal.
Even if one will to accept the APA definition, one might still say that according to his religion, homosexuality is unnatural and respect should be accorded to that. Even a person who is simply offended by homosexuals.
I am not sure how the existence/no-existence of God matter to the legislative debate today. But it should suggest that people who actually believe that there is no God are not raving lunatics and should not be locked up etc…
And I here think nobody is asking anyone to accept a homosexual lifestyle. One is perfectly free to condemn homosexuals - as WBG has repeatedly done. I think most singaporeans find homosexual acts unacceptable but most of them won’t want them to go prison from doing those acts.
Why can’t people live homosexuals alone? Are we not living in an inclusive society? What kind of harm have homosexuals cause other people? What kind of harm have mainstream society caused homosexuals in the past? Community standards are very important, and so is morality, but why must be put homosexuals in prison because they engage in homosexual activities. If you think they are wrong based on one’s standard, do they really have to go to prison according to you? Surely from the criminality point of view, we got to think about other factors?
And we got our own lives to live…so why can’t we live and let live?
I am surprised by the intensity of debate generated by these two posts on homosexuality where gay rights are fervently defended by heterosexuals who may even be slightly homophobic.
Frankly speaking Aaron, my response to your poll on equal rights for gays would be, “undecided”. Why?
Because rights, like freedom, should not be viewed only from the perspective of the individual but that of the community. For if any individual’s right infringes on another individual’s right, should it be given or withheld?
If it is given, how do we resolve the infringement on the rights of other people? If it is withheld, then on what basis?
That’s where the issue of whether homosexuality is normal (and therefore acceptable) comes in.
But as we can see, there is no conclusive evidence. The studies that are close to being conclusive are apparently subject to bias in sampling and scope. The fact that APA has dropped homosexuality from their list only shows there is no concrete evidence that it is a mental illness but does not confirm that it is not. So how?
May I suggest that we think about these questions:
What is the meaning of “normal”?
If homosexuality is normal, then is heterosexuality abnormal? Or can both conditions be normal?
Why do we have male and female reproductive organs in separate bodies (male/female)? Would we consider a human being with both types of sexual organs normal? Can animal behaviour justify human behaviour?
If we have a choice, would we choose to be heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual etc? Why?
Would we prefer to have homosexual or heterosexual children? Why?
Personally, these are questions I am still grappling with before I can even decide if homosexuality is normal or abnormal.
As of now, I do recognise homosexuals as fellow human beings whose lives are equally important and valuable as those of heterosexuals. But whether I accept their practices as normal (and as rights in society), that is another question altogether.
Hi Gerald,
I’ll respond to a couple of points.
Just because one is born with something doesn’t mean it’s right. Fair enough. But the point here is not about whether being born gay is right or wrong. The point here is that it is not right to discriminate against gays for being born like that. In anycase, since you accept the possiblity of homosexuality as a biological phenomenon, which I can say is akin to being born with black skin, brown skin or fair skin, would you support discrimination against any of the people with the skin types mentioned, even when it is not necessarily “right” to be born with a certain skin colour? I think not. In anycase, who determines that heterosexuality/homosexuality/type of skin colour/type of hair colour/race is “right” or “wrong”. It’s not such a straightforward question.
It’s true that we do not need to agree with the works of top scientists. However, let me ask something. Do you visit a doctor when you are sick? If you do not agree with science, why are you visiting a doctor? If you do, that means you are selectively agreeing. Then my next question is, on what basis do you select what you agree to and what you do not agree to? You might want to think hard as to why you are inclined to believe something and not others. I am more inclined to believe a bunch of professionals who have data and evidence over an ambigious “God says so”, which anyway is much more contentious. At least within the scientific community, there is more consensus compared to the religious community (specifically Christians). Just do a Google search and you will see that there are more conflicts within Christianity over the issue than within the scientific community.
With regards to your point about moral relativism, I would like to point out that 50 years ago, no male and female dare to publicly display their affection in Singapore. What is happening now? Things change. That we do not agree with something now doesn’t mean we should deny the possibility that it can happen in future. If everyone denies the possibility of things happening in future, how can we ever make progress?
WBG,
Did you just write the line below a couple of comments back?
“5. This blog is a waste of time for further visits.”
Why are you back to comment? Can’t even keep to your own word? (Why am I not surprised)
Let me now respond to your latest comment.
If persons are smart enough, they should remove the open evidence blog posts at multiple blogs promoting homosexuality, otherwise “third parties†could utilise the open evidence in filing a sedition charge.
I think there are more open evidence for the cause of homosexuality than your WBG psychological theory of gay-ism, which is scientifically unsupported by current literature and standards. You too are vulnerable to sedition charges. If asked, I’ll pass on your IP to people who want to charge you for sedition.
Hello Shoestring,
A bit of an aside point,
“The fact that APA has dropped homosexuality from their list only shows there is no concrete evidence that it is a mental illness but does not confirm that it is not. So how?”
How do you think a negative point could be proven? For example, what I don’t understand is how one can prove that heterosexuals are not suffering from mental illness based on their practices. In that case, we simply assume that there is no evidence it is sick, it is not sick. What scientific evidence is there that homosexuals are psychologically sick?
I think if we accept that there are and there will always be bigots like whybegay like there are heterosexuals and homosexuals and let them be, there will be world peace. Asking why be gay also begs the question why be bigot and I guess we should all ignore wbg blog and comments. There are more important things in the world to change eg GST ?
God bless.
maybe wbg should continue to write so that the PAP ninjas can understand the kind of thinking that is going online and pray that before long, PAP will realise their own stupidity, bigotry and remove the ban on anal intercourse.
That would be great, so wbg - do write on and flourish!!
shoestring,
I currently do not see how giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals would be “infringing” the rights of anyone. Most of them just want to, well, lead a “normal” life.
anal,
It has already been removed. But for “straights” only.
To those disputing the meaning of ‘normal’:
Generally in field of psychology (psychiatry, rather), it is taken to mean ‘not abnormal’. There are good reasons for defining normal in terms of abnormal rather than the other way round. Even then when psychologists define ‘abnormal’ e.g. schizophrenia, they always attach a disclaimer along the lines of “must significantly interfere with the person’s ability to function in society etc…” Thus, even if homosexuality is defined as abnormal, as long as the person can function in society, they won’t be psychologically ill.
You people do *need* to prove homosexuals by virtue of being homosexual and having the same rights will infringe on your rights. Will you less be able to ‘marry’ if homosexuals marriage is recognized? Will you be more persecuted as a heterosexual if homosexuality was not illegal?
Then think the other way round: Will homosexuals be less able to marry if their marriage is not recognized? Will they be more persecuted if homosexuality is illegal?
Short answer: homosexual-heterosexual rights are NOT zero-sum. There is no reason to discriminate against them. Period. Society only stands to benefit if they are given more rights.
Also to those who worry so much about ‘moral relativism’, you need to ask yourself if a prescriptivist’s view of morality is moral or a immoral? Short answer: moral relativism is better than the latter.
Long answer: first, in order for this question to exist, you must acknowledge there are different brands of moralities. To be morally absolute, is to subscribe to one and only one of them, and the absolute moral may or may not be yours. Furthermore, being ‘morally absolute’, in judging it’s own desirability, we either assign the value moral or immoral or amoral.
So, the question is: a) Is moral absolutionism only ‘moral’ when the absolute morality is yours (relative to you, of course), but immoral when the absolute morality is not yours? b) If not, what is it’s moral value? If you answer yes to the first question, you are saying the moral value of moral absolutionism is ‘relative’, which means you subscribe to relativism. If you answer no, it is ‘moral’ regardless of whose morality it is being absolute, congratulations, you have reached a position such that you deem all morals having the same moral value (moral relativism)! If you answer no, it is ‘immoral’ regardless of whether the morality is yours, you are saying ‘moral absolutionism’ is immoral! If you are saying it is ‘amoral’, then you are possibly acknowledging that ‘moral relativism’ is also amoral and hence, absolute morality is overrated.
But if you bypass the entire question and say that we should not use reason to determine the morality, you are being unreasonable. :p
Hi shoestring,
to add to what Just_Passing said about homosexuals not infringing the rights of heterosexuals. I agree with you saying “if any individual’s right infringes on another individual’s right” it might be withheld. Precisely because sexual activities are usually matters depending on consensual participants, it is almost impossible for a disinterested person to be forcibly involved. I guess if the person is a homophobe he cannot help but feel offended by just the knowledge of it, but that is another matter. Thus, I do not see any infringement of rights.
On the normalness of homosexual orientation, I would like to know how you understand normal. Part of what you see as normal could be influenced by your culture. For example, it appears to be quite acceptable for Chinese Singaporeans to consume animal innards. But if you watch Fear Factor, you cannot help but be amused by how fearful and disgusting the process is for Americans.
Another aspect of being normal could be whether something occurs naturally. By this concept, homosexuality is normal. Refer to these two links on a sheep study.
But it is really more than that. It is also about morality and ethics. This makes everything a lot more complicated. Is what is what it ought to be? If not what standard should your morality go by? And could it based on something unchanging even in the winds of cultural upheavals and scientific paradigm shifts?
On th lack of conclusive evidence, could you cite the source of this view? I would be really interested. Karl Popper proposed a Falsibility criterion for scientific endeavours. It means that Sciences work by refutation of conjectures and replacing them with better ones. If that is how APA chose to remove homosexuality as a disorder, it is because there is no substantial evidence to refute the hypothesis that “homosexuality is not a disorder”, i.e., there is lack of corroborating evidence to say that it IS a disorder. As I see it, there is no problem. Maybe someone who knows more about Psychology and Psychiatry, and the Philosophy of Science could correct me if I am mistaken.
On you last minor point on sexual organs “Would we consider a human being with both types of sexual organs normal?” I am quite confused. Do you mean that being a hermaphordite (having both male and female sexual organs) would not qualify a living being in all other respect human like as a human or even a “person”? Also consider the difference between biological sex and societal gender roles. As a side point hermaphoditism occurs in many plants and invertebrates. Some even have the option of changing sex. The human fetus is at one point of undecided sex.
Thanks for the points you brought up
kwok = psuedonym of my real psuedonym.. cos I don’t want wbg finding my real blog cos he SO ANNOYINGLY RETARDED, (he’s probably another Ted Haggard. a self loathing self delusion gay person who cannot come to terms with his gayness so loaths himself and gays)
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-704.htm
“There has been a dramatic change in attitudes towards homosexuality. In 1985, 70% of people thought it was “always” or “mostly” wrong. Now under half (47%) think this, while a third (33%) says it is “not wrong at all”.”
the trend is there.
in a democracy, we move towards liberterian thought. once freedom is granted or rights are won, its is too late, the horse is out of the barn. no woman has been denied the right to work/vote (woman’s suffrage), no african american has been reenslaved (american civil war),
in the usa, even with all the crazy pot right wing nuts there, the debate is not whether gays are illegal , its moved on to equality of marriage .
in countries all over the world, things are changing and it is inevitable, as a plant moves towards light, humanity will move towards freedom and equality. (even though some asshats try to stop it… like BUSH, or islamic extremists)
of course, singapore is such a special country, the MDA is such a turd.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-716.htm
Hi RSE,
Thnaks for filling us in on the Physchaitric details. And yes it is not a zero-sum game and moral absolutism (relativism from other angles) cannot solve it. Good points
My IP address is already deposited at the P65.sg blog for their reference however “third parties” “may” require yours and Kitana’a IP addresses for filing the sedition charge on promoting homosexuality on blogs. Surely you people do know there are local laws prohibiting the encouragement of homosexuality?
So if you guys are smart, it is wise to remove the propaganda from your blogs right now.
I see there are reinforcements who are here to argue for me, so I’m glad I do not have to waste more time coming here. You guys can continue to play echoing games with them.
I just wasted another minute of my time in this visit.
Ben,
I am not drawing any conclusions on whether homosexuality is a mental/psychological problem or not. I am just leaving it open because the reason for the APA’s decision is not clear. Has it got to do with the criteria, definition, or degree of severity, scope (think ST index), relevance to broader research objectives?
It is also not the only consideration that will affect my opinion of whether homosexual practices are rights.
Even when we talk about rights, we have to be clear about what they are, whether they should be absolute or conditional etc.
I am also guarding against focusing on only one aspect of the issue, be it psychological, biological, scientific, social or even political because human kind is multi-dimensional and society, very complex.
In short, I am not comfortable making any decision on this issue simply on the basis that gays are human beings and therefore they have the right to do what they want and have those activities legalised.
So, I hope I will be given the right to my opinion, to accept or to doubt. If my thoughts and comments are unacceptable or disturbing, it is perfectly fine for Aaron to delete them.
Cheers.
Opps, just read whybegay’s comment. Sorry, whybegay, I am not here to take sides.
this wbg is definitely ass-o-ciated with the pappies. he never fails to promote p65 blog in his comments to popular blogsites e.g. Mr Wang Says So and this, of course.
do you think he is one of the miw mps or close assistants??? *shudder* **
I find it amusing that one can ‘promote homosexuality’.
It’s like saying that one can ‘promote charity’ or ‘promote heterosexuality’.
Then again, I suppose this goes back to the essential question of whether Singaporeans are lemmings and/or sheep.
kh
WBG,
I’ve read through all my entries and comments and I find nothing seditious. I only say that we should allow homosexuals the same basic rights as everyone else. Is that promoting homosexuality? You got to be kidding. If I say allow Muslim girls to wear headscarves to school just as we allow Sikhs to wear turbans to school, does it mean that I am promoting Islam? Your logic is beyond my comprehension.
However, I am quite sure that statements such as homosexuals being a “terrorist” of human rights is quite seditious. You might want to remove your own blog altogether.
WBG:
I refuse to back down on what I have said unless you can convince me reality is otherwise. If the law is not on reality’s side, all the more reason to change the law.
Shoestring:
We all have a right to an opinion, even WBG– and yes, opinions are affected by many things. The thing about airing your opinion in public is you should expect some form of debate and even derision. I, for one, expect that.
It certainly helps our self-growth if we are introspective enough to know what our opinions are shaped by. So a good question to ask is: On what basis will I be comfortable to grant homosexuals rights? You don’t have to answer this one for me– do so for yourself (or not) :). You decide what to do with your own answer after that.
But if you want to see APA’s official reason, you can go to this site:
http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
To quote the relevant bits:
“Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.”
There you have it.
Shoestring,
If I am going to delete comments, WBG is higher on my priority than you. I appreciate your thoughtful frankness. Homosexuality is not an easy issue to grapple with because of all the assumptions and emotions involved. However, we should not be afraid to question out own assumptions and emotions. If we make a concerted attempt to critically question our deeply held notions, sometimes we will realise that these notions are not as “right” as we originally thought of them to be.
Aaron,
i did a check on the sedition act…
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore
I think its important to find out what is meant by the word “classes of the population”. So if homosexuals can be considered a class by law…there u have it…
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes…”
To Aaron and everyone here… Happy CNY! Got fifteen days so I think its not too late!
RSE, thanks for the reference. To answer your question, I will be comfortable making a stand only when I am sufficiently convinced about the answers to questions I have posed against a holistic backdrop of the various aspects of humankind that I have mentioned.
Aaron, rest assured I am questioning myself, otherwise, I wouldn’t have bothered to ask those questions.
I refer to whybegay comments on
whybegay SINGAPORE // Mar 2, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Those comments attributed to me were not said by me. It was instead said by shoestring at
Mar 2, 2007 at 7:47 am
Dear Owner of the Blog, I will suggest a deletion of that comment for it is inaccurate and slanderous. That constitute prima facie libel. He also suggested that by so doing I have committed a crime.
regards
Dearest WBG has no knowledge of our laws. I am further amused. Oh, plus the fact that he has once again retured. Amused, again.
“My IP address is already deposited at the P65.sg blog for their reference however “third parties†“may†require yours and Kitana’a IP addresses for filing the sedition charge on promoting homosexuality on blogs. Surely you people do know there are local laws prohibiting the encouragement of homosexuality?”
Once again, back to the “I-have-the-support-of-the-PAP-behind-me-coz-I-visit-their-blog”. I personally find it interesting that when WBG comments, he doesn’t get a reply from the MP in question anyway (http://www.p65.sg/2007/02/26/outside-the-recording-studio/).
The Stark In Winterfell: Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to post s 3 of the Sedition Act for our friend to peruse. For some reason he believes that the protection of homosexuals from discrimination by bigots like himself constitute sedition (I know WBG doesn’t understand what a bigot is, so might I recommend him to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot), whereas his own personal war on all homosexuals (who in my opinion lead lives that have nothing to do with him whatsoever) is considered perfectly acceptable because he is of the misguided belief that society does not condone homosexuality, although we have sufficient evidence that most people do not think that declaring an outright war on homosexuality is acceptable.
WBG: Tell us how we are being seditious, since I cannot find anything of the sort in the statute? Isn’t it more likely that you are being so, because your words are hate speech designed to attack a certain minority group and to break the social fabric?
Shoestring:
It will be more helpful to be more specific (e.g. specifically under what criteria under each identifiable aspect do you consider sufficient, lest someone accuses you of shifting goalposts and stuff). Still, you mentioned psychological, biological, scientific, social and political. Psychologically, APA is a good starting place. Biologically and scientifically, you can use Pubmed (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/) or google scholar (scholar.google.com) to search for papers (some papers may require subscription, but most journals can be accessed from an NUS/NTU library account, so if you are a student, you are in luck, if not ask someone you know). Sociological papers can be obtained using google scholar as well. Politically, I can’t think of much except reading newspaper articles from all over the world.
Questioning your assumptions is always good, but I come from the school of thought that goes: if you there’s no substantial reason to deprive anyone of human rights, then they get to keep their rights. They don’t have to prove to me they deserve it. On the other hand, to take away rights, that will require much convincing and gnashing of teeth.
I have seen zero convincing arguments to deprive gays of their rights. And that’s good enough for me :).
Ben,
I’ve noted your objections and have removed ther libelous entry.
My logs are available if you wish to pursue the matter. By my estimate, there has been anywhere between 100 to 200 page views of this page since the comment was posted.
Hmmmm…surely there is no need to pursue the matter? This is purely my opinion though…
[...] on March 2nd, 2007. Recently, I have been slightly disturbed a particular member of the blogosphere has been threatening me and my two friends with the Sedition A…t. That same member of the blogosphere has been accusing the same people for promoting falsehoods, [...]
aaron,
as always i’m impressed by your fair mind and articulateness. however i think you wasted energy on this WBG person who is obviously, to use an American term, BAT-SHIT INSANE and unhealthily obsessed with gay-bashing.
I think the whole debate misses a crucial point.
Does it matter whether the source of homosexuality is nature or nurture? What matters is whether there is harm on a non-consenting adult party. If there is not, then its none of anybody’s business.
Ben, since when did I ever refer anything to you in this post? lol
Artillery is arriving. whybegay, for a blind man, i must say you have quite a lot of insight.
Now I get what Ben was trying to say.
I remember he was quoting someone else and asking after the quote if there is no evidence whether homosexuality is normal or a disorder, then what is the problem with it. Then I answered his question in his comment, “Then don’t promote it”.
However I gave the advice to not promote it, I never implied that he was promoting homosexuality. And I only accused the “trio” of being wilfully ignorant, not all of them of promoting homosexuality.
So accuse me of accusing you of promoting homosexuality and being seditious, and I will only counter-sue you.
This Ben was the one who eariler on harassed me with a hug at SingaporeAngle and later asked me for coffee invitation in this blog. This is harassment that can also be taken into consideration.
This stranger on the net asked me to give him a hug at SingaporeAngle and then asked me out for coffee? I can actually charge the person for harassment as well.
If I go to the police station today and file charges against all three of you, I will really win in court. Two charges and 1 counter-charge. No kidding, the law is on my side. And I don’t have to pay any lawyer fees for your information. This is assuming any third parties don’t file charges first.
Aaron: Somebody now asserts that three people are wilfully ignorant, and that I am harassing him because I type ‘gimme a hug’ and ‘would you like to meet for coffee.’ He further asserts that he did not referred to me then later assert he did.
He further suggests that we have did something that deserves criminal punishment. That clearly again is defamatory. Can I suggest that the party who are making these false accusation please go to the police and make those reports or stop his remarks?
I further suggest that WBG latest remarks and my this particular remark be deleted as it adds nothing to the debate.
I think it is fair because WBG himself censor views on his own blog.
WBG, if you continue to suggest in any form that I or Aaron or Kitana has committed any crimes, please show us your proof - a police report of any sort.
Can we just discuss the issue without you calling people names and purporting to use the ruling party or the law ?
Hmm… I am obviously not Singaporean then…
Because I make friends with Melburnians by asking people out for coffee on their blogs and on the streets.
Hmm… Different culture: Me no belong.
WBG:
If you are convinced that we need to settle this in the offline world, then so be it. You are welcome to make a police report or to sue us.
But just to let you know, sueing us doesn’t mean that we go to jail. There is a difference between a criminal suit and a civil suit, and you don’t have that kind of power. You do not sue people for being “seditious” - that is for the state to decide.
As for what constitutes harassment, you may go to a lawyer’s and submit the above evidence as you see fit and ask for legal advice. Once you have legal advice, let us know what actions you wish to take against us. My guess is that the lawyer will advise you not to waste your money. But it is okay since you assume that you won’t have to pay a single cent.
May I thus refer you to the following number 63892200 to schedule an appointment.
The address is :
Institute of Mental Health
Buangkok Green Medical Park
10 Buangkok View
Singapore 53947
They are open from 8am to 5.30pm everyday.
My personal opinion is that you are in need of help. It will be nice if you could find someone to talk to and to share your problems.
Kitana:
Some people are beyond help. The extent of his psychosis is plain for all to see. Psychiatrists and psychologists would flock to his blog posts and comments like gays to a Mardi Gras. lol
Aiyoh…no grounds to sue also want to sue. Pls dun waste the Judges time. They have better things to do…
WBG has threatened to report u all to the cops. Pardon my ignorance but doesnt that constitute intimidation?
Hello ppl,
I dont think WBG views are valid but the problem is being not recognised conventionally, by a group of people and by authority, hence the many issues surfaced. However, that doesnt mean he/she is right but there must be an objective debate and consensus to the subject. In addition, you have to credit him/her for having an individualistic point-of-view.
(Individualism means opinions or judgements made by one without using any references but through one own logical analysis of the subject; a study of the subject by oneself - just like how darwin came out with his own theory of evolution or newton’s law of gravity)
Debates are good but be true and objective. Otherwise, you lose the whole essence of debating for the sake of winning.
Hi Amatu,
I know what you are getting at. But you have to read his comments to understand what we are getting at. Alternatively, you should read his blog.
Free publicity: http://whybegay.blogspot.com/
kwokheng,
you did say that you have homosexual tendencies so your example of decent invitations doesn’t apply to Ben, unless you are saying that Ben also has homosexual tendencies.
Kitana said, “They are open from 8am to 5.30pm everyday.”
I see you have been there already, and frequent.
Amatu has said it all, that a discussion has to be objective. This is what is missing in this blog among these people.
I can’t be bothered visiting this blog full of mentally unstable people anymore, I have better things and better people to attend to. I hope people now see the kind of character or non prevalent among these people.
i hope people see, most importantly, the kind of character you show - unstable, better-than-thou and all. happy trails
and wait a second…YOU? Objective? WBG, ‘mentally unstable’ is not a very objective view…accusing people of homosexual tendencies aren’t too…
amatu, a discussion has to be objective. But is WBG being objective? It’s easy to say it must be objective. If anyone can be truly objective, come and show it to everyone! WBG is a serious example of being deluded into objectivism. WBG, go and comment on yawningbread’s blog…come here and attack people because you don’t dare to face others?
WBG:
On your comment of Mar 3, 2007 at 2:29 pm, you asserted:
you did say that you have homosexual tendencies so your example of decent invitations doesn’t apply to Ben, unless you are saying that Ben also has homosexual tendencies.
And thus I reply:
You are still being very amusing. I’ve never been attached, nor have I penetrated anyone’s holes, nor have I been penetrated.
In Melbourne, you can just ask people out for coffee very easily.
It’s just amazing about the ‘un-inter-connectivity’ that you assume about people, as people.
*kh ignores WBG and starts cuddling his plush teddy bear*
But, oh my, oh my, does that—even though kh does sleep with a plush toy at 26—so readily offend you?
Dear Adrianne,
In a way, perhaps the existence of such a person is good in a way: he presents such an extreme view that turns off even moderates. I’ve repeatedly asked him time and again to show his evidence, but he has done anything but that ( and of course, he continues parroting his assertion that homosexuality is a psychological problem). Any fair minded person reading this entire exchange will, at the very least, wonder if such extreme views about homosexuality perpetuated by WBG is sensible. And if people have ended up doing that, it’s only good for society.
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.
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.
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? =)
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.
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…
kwokheng: i think the song ‘if you’re gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough’ is more befitting…hahaha…
guojun…
no… you mustn’t take it so literally.
That song in itself, is very paradoxical.
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
maybe we should set a topic: ‘what do you think of WBG?’
then we all only comment symbolically by posting lyrics.
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.
hahaha…nono i don’t mean it that literally. But dumb people have to be tough. it’s true.
Oh yes, and lastly, i strongly believe that homosexual should be respected as well because they are also human with feelings.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
i think it ok to be gay coz it is up to them if they wanna be gay luv ya xxxxxxx
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