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 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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!!
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
Opps, just read whybegay’s comment. Sorry, whybegay, I am not here to take sides.
about 5 years ago
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* **
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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…
about 5 years ago
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes…”
To Aaron and everyone here… Happy CNY! Got fifteen days so I think its not too late!
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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
.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
Hmmmm…surely there is no need to pursue the matter? This is purely my opinion though…
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
Ben, since when did I ever refer anything to you in this post? lol
about 5 years ago
Artillery is arriving. whybegay, for a blind man, i must say you have quite a lot of insight.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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 ?
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
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/
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
Kitana said, “They are open from 8am to 5.30pm everyday.”
I see you have been there already, and frequent.
about 5 years ago
Amatu has said it all, that a discussion has to be objective. This is what is missing in this blog among these people.
about 5 years ago
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.
about 5 years ago
i hope people see, most importantly, the kind of character you show – unstable, better-than-thou and all. happy trails
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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?
about 5 years ago
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.