Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Why be gay?
The last entry has drawn a very active discussion on the issue of homosexuality, and WBG, the only anti-gay proponent in the whole wave of comments requested that I write an entry titled “Why be gay?” to balance the previous entry “Why not be gay?” So this is the entry is written to cater to his request.
I’m going to list down all the arguments made by WBG (in various comments on my blog and Kitana’s blog) on why homosexuality is bad/evil/dangerous and do a critical reflection on all of these points. All of his comments will be cut and pasted (in italics) and my thoughts will follow.
“But if there are homosexuals going around town and on the internet promoting homosexuality, my blog will explain my views of how I think it is a psychological problem.
My blog has been around for so long but no one seem to be able to provide a logical explanation as to how it is not a psychological problem that should not be resolved.”
Wait a minute. WBG says his blog explains how HE thinks it’s a psychological problem. So his words carry greater weight than the American Psychiatric Association? The APA has already removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Oh wait, hear what WBG has to say about the APA.
“APA is not WPA(World Psychological Association), please read other than research.”
Ok, bad english (or maybe just some typos) aside, WBG contends that the APA is not an authority on psychological issues. The World Psychological Association is. I went to Google, and got nothing. And in anycase, anyone who has studied psychology and psychiatry will know that the APA is THE authority on mental matters. It clearly shows that WBG knows jack about what he’s talking about (hi KTM, borrowing one of your favourite phrase). Now, would anyone believe in his psychological assessment about homosexuality?
Homosexuals are “guilty†until proven “innocentâ€.
*scratch head* Is he sure he’s living in Singapore? I don’t think this is the standard that we apply in Singapore society.
“If homosexuals want to say that homosexuality is normal, the onus is on them to prove that their behaviour is moral.”
What has homosexuality being normal got to do with being moral? Normal equals to moral? It is probably agreeable to most people that sexual intercourse is normal. Going by WBG’s logic, since sexual intercourse is normal, it doesn’t matter whether you have sexual intercourse with a eight year old or eighty year old; it’s perfectly moral. *scratch head even harder*
“Public decency laws are not exactly held by homosexuals. Examples are homosexual paedophiles who molest kids in public transport and those who go overseas to find children to sleep with. I’m sure you heard the news.”
Only homosexuals behave like that? I think I also read alot of stories about heterosexuals who molest kids in public, rape their own daughter/niece/grand-daughter and go overseas to find girls (not women) to have sex with. Hmmm…..
“There are even homosexuals who harass people in public, a recent example is from this blog, http://tinkertailor.blogsome.com/”
There are alot of Shin Ming and Wan Bao news about jealous wives harassing their husband’s mistresses and angry husbands confronting the secret lovers of their wives. Heterosexuals also harass people. Doesn’t seem very unique to homosexuals.
“My blog is to discourage homosexuals from promoting homosexuality as a healthy way of life without recognising how problematic it is to good normal male relationships.”
Lesbians leh? Even when dealing with homosexuals, there’s a double standard between gays and lesbians? Anyway, promoting heterosexuality as a healthy way of life is also very problematic to good male-female relationships. How many jealous wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends have wrecked the platonic friendships with a member of the opposite gender of their partners? Maybe we should ban heterosexuality too.
“I don’t care what homosexuals do privately but when they started to promote it, and brainwash youths into thinking that homosexuality is a viable way of life, I have to show them my point of view.”
Eh? I don’t see TV ads, bus ads, taxi ads, newspaper ads, MRT ads, bus shelter ads and magazine ads that promote homosexuality. Am I missing something? How come I don’t know homosexuals are launching a massive PR campaign? I do see alot of ads about alcohol and 1900 XXX XXXX chat ads of hot women. I think youths are going to be brainwashed into being alcoholics and phone sex addicts.
“Tell me why homosexual paedophiles should be accepted. They are afterall homosexuals. They do commit crimes but private, does that mean what they do should be condoned and not talked about? “
Tell me why homosexual heterosexual paedophiles should be accepted. They are afterall homosexual heterosexuals. They do commit crimes but private, does that mean what they do should be condoned and not talked about?
“If heterosexuality as Aaron himself said, its neutrality is still being debated, why should it be promoted when there is possibility(as Aaron has mentioned) that it could not be normal?
Well, if the safety of genetically modified food is still being debated, why is GM food allowed to be produced and promoted when there’s a possibility that GM is not normal? Maybe WBG might want to set up whyeatgmfood.blogspot.com
“Therefore if there are homosexual paedophiles and molesters committing their crimes, would it not be logical and intelligent to use these criminal instances as to further discourage the promotion of homosexuality?”
Therefore if there are homosexual heterosexual paedophiles and molesters committing their crimes, would it not be logical and intelligent to use these criminal instances as to further discourage the promotion of homosexuality heterosexuality?
“The neutrality of heterosexuality is not being debated as it is already deem as normal. But heterosexual molest and rape is a perversion of heterosexuality and is condemned. And homosexuality which falls out of a common consensus, its neutrality still being debated, should it not be promoted as normal until there is consensus as Aaron said it should require?”
Refer to the GM food argument above.
“Those who said homosexual sex is normal, please explain why normal people are not doing it. (Again refrain from comparing this to heterosexual sex since the neutrality of heterosexuality is not being debated, even though heterosexuals who do so are not encouraged) I would rather think homosexual (and heterosexual) non-procreative sex is just blind pleasure seeking.”
By homosexual sex, I take it that you mean oral and anal sex. I thought Tammy’s video was a good proof that oral sex is “normal”? As for anal sex, just do a Google on it. Who says heterosexuals are not doing it? I found a nice guide online titled “Anal Sex – How to give women incredible orgasms”.
Ah, now I see something different. WBG is now saying that homosexual and heterosexual NON-PROCREATIVE sex is just blind pleasure seeking. Even pleasure seeking also got problem now. It cannot be blind pleasure seeking. Please stop watching Youtube.
“Why should you encourage people to be homosexual when homosexuality does not have consensus? Are you asking people to commit something society does not agree with?”
I shall repost my original reply to him in the comments thread:
Ok, according to you (WBG), if something is non-consenual cannot be done, that means you support
1. Singapore not having the death penalty
2. Singapore not allowing caning
3. Singaporea banning of abortion and use of condoms.
4. Singapore banning of muslim girls from wearing headscarves.
5. Legalising of heroin sales on the streets
Since people cannot agree on the death penalty, caning, abortion, use of condoms, headscarves, drugs and even $1 brides, let’s forbid people from commiting any of these!!!
“Change doesn’t mean accepting psychological problems as normal. Singapore will never accept homosexuality as long as its people views it as a psychological problem. I don’t need to convince the majority because most Singaporeans already view homosexuality as a psychological problem.”
Who says most Singaporeans view homosexuality at a psychological problem? Another piece of wisdom known only to WBG and not to any other Singaporean? I tried searching singstat.gov but can’t find anything.
“If people want to change the view of homosexuality as a non-problem, they have alot of people to convince. The onus to convince others that homosexuality is a non-problem is not on me or on the majority, but on the minority, people who write blog articles that promotes homosexuality. They have to do the most work in convincing, not me.”
Assuming that he’s in the majority that is. Perhaps he might be in the minority if a statistically valid survey is done (no straw polls of newspapers please). Then he would have to convince the majority. 
“Homosexuality should not be promoted because it is a psychological problem.
Refer to my blog for my explanations of why homosexuality is a psychological problem. And give comments if people feel that they can explain it into a non-problem. If homosexuality is a psychological problem then why should a psychological problem be promoted?”
Drinking alcohol should not be promoted because it is a societal problem. It causes one to lose the ability to think properly, have delayed response and is a health hazard. It can cause wife-beating, fatal traffic accidents and liver cirrhosis. Why do I still see beer advertisements promoting the drinking of alcohol?
“It is not drinking a cup of beer that causes one to misbehave but the over drinking of beer.
Your brain would definitely be damaged if you over-knock it too many times on the wall. But who are so dumb as to knock their heads until it hurts? Maybe they are mentally unstable and require counselling.
Then there are the ads of Panadol. Normal amounts won’t kill but abusing the dosages will.
It is all about proper uses and abuses that causes a harmless substance to turn deadly.
it is okay for a person to like another same gender person, but to abuse that liking so as to develop perverted physical attraction is a psychological problem that requires counselling.”
Fair enough. So I take it that it is okay for a person to like another different gender person, but to abuse that liking so as to develop peverted physical attraction is a psychological problem that requires conselling as well, no? So what’s with singling out homosexuals if the same problem happens to heterosexuals? Maybe I have to knock my head a few times on the wall.
Coming to the end of it all, I only have one conclusion.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 01/03/2007 at 12:29 am, and is filed under Humour, Ramblings. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
KTM is on holiday..perhaps can ask him to come and contribute? i think it would be quite an interesting post.
about 4 years ago
Will be better and more appropriate to invite Mr. Alex Au of Yawningbread fame, I think…
about 4 years ago
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…
about 4 years ago
“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
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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..
about 4 years ago
Did Mr Goh Chok Tong not say that Gays are welcome in the Civil Service???
Hmmmmm….
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
“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.
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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?)
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
I just think that wbg has a problem confronting and seeing a thick fat prick. That’s all.
about 4 years ago
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…
about 4 years ago
Hey… Give Inspir3d some credit lah. I don’t think that guy’s blog will appear on Intelligent Singaporean anytime soon.
about 4 years ago
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 …
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
Chi bu dao pu tao jiu jiang pu tao suan
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
If the court finds him with a psychological disorder, wont they send him to IMH?
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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…?
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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
about 4 years ago
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
about 4 years ago
Haa… Coincidentally, I made reference to the same website for one of my comments (No. 60)for Aaron’s blog entry before this one…
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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?
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
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…
about 4 years ago
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.
about 4 years ago
Stark,
This was purposely filed under humour as well.
about 4 years ago
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
about 4 years ago
It’s just a matter of who outlasts whom.
about 4 years ago
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