Feb 28th, 2007
Why not be gay?
Email This Post
Print This Post
I’m not about to promote homosexuality here. In fact, I’m slightly homophobic. However, I am strongly against a witchhunt of any sort against gays/lesbians.
Whether being homosexual is biological, psychological or a matter of choice is something that is still being debated. The verdict is not out. Since the verdict isn’t out, I don’t understand why are some people rushing to conclude that homosexuals are bad, evil, etc. I thought that most societies these days operate on the presumption of innocent unless proven guilty?
Honestly, I see no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual in most aspects, other than sexual orientation. And, that’s perfectly fine with me. To me, sex is something that’s in the private sphere, and as long as public decency laws are observed, what’s the problem? I don’t see that it is necessary to treat homosexuals any different from the rest.
Admittedly, some people are not comfortable with the idea of homosexuality because the paradigm of a male pairing with a female is so firmly entrenched in our minds. I think that’s perfectly okay. What is not okay is to take things a step further and deny others of their right to an alternative paradigm just because we are not able to understand the worldview of those who subscribe to the alternative paradigm. Being different is not a crime.
Homosexuals are ultimately human beings too, so why should they be denied any right that is accorded to a heterosexual? Didn’t the Universal Declaration of Human Rights state that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”? Why should heterosexuals rush to condemn homosexuals instead of trying to understand them, and in return, get homosexuals to understand how heterosexuals feel?
I’m going to rephrase the words of the French philosopher Voltaire:
I may not like homosexuality, but I will defend to the death your right to be a homosexual.
Other reads
http://1moresg.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/to-be-gay/
http://kitana.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/there-is-no-why-to-being-gay/
Loading ...
I’m queer, and thank you for your gay-positive article! Many of us would tell you that homosexuality isn’t a choice, and coming out is a painful process for many. We aren’t asking for straight people to /like/ homosexuality; obviously they wouldn’t seek same-sex partners. It would be great, however, if people didn’t classify us under the same category as criminals or label us as “unnatural” when the concept of Nature is, after all, a human construct, and since scientific studies have observed homosexuality in animals as well.
Many straight and gay people fail to recognise that sexuality is a spectrum, not a binary model- there aren’t just heterosexuals and homosexuals, but there’re bisexuals, pansexuals, pomosexuals, the transgendered, asexuals and people who reject labels as well. The heterosexual model does not fit everyone, and if we would open our minds, accept and learn about people who perceive things in a different way than we do, it would do a world of good for all of us.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1998/yax-117.htm
http://www.plu.sg/society/?p=58
My blog is not a blog for witchhunt.
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.
For me, the verdict that homosexuality is a psychological problem is already out. Homosexuals are “guilty” until proven “innocent”.
If homosexuals want to say that homosexuality is normal, the onus is on them to prove that their behaviour is moral. Unless they can come up with a good explanation, my blog will always counter their propaganda.
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. Again the onus is on homosexuals to prove that homosexual paedophilia behaviour is normal and acceptable.
There are even homosexuals who harass people in public, a recent example is from this blog, http://tinkertailor.blogsome.com/
Is people being harassed by homosexuals not evident that public decency laws are not being observed by homosexuals? This is the problem that you must address.
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.
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.
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?
My blog is not a witchhunt blog but to counter homosexuals’ propaganda. If you feel that anyone should not jump to conclusions about homosexuality, why not tell the homosexuals not to preach their sexuality as a normal way of life? Because afterall you did accept the possibility that homosexuality could be biologically or psychologically influenced.
You said in your second paragraph,
“Whether being homosexual is biological, psychological or a matter of choice is something that is still being debated.”
Since you think so, and to be impartial to both sides, then consider writing another post to advise homosexuals not to promote their sexuality as normal since you feel that its neutrality is still being debated. I thank you in advance.
WBG,
And why are they “guilty until proven innocent”? Could you please explain your reasoning? and could u also give us some examples of homosexual propaganda?
“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. ”
You say that homosexuals do not follow public decency laws and cite the example of some of them molesting kids in public. By your logic, thus homosexuals as a whole are immoral and have the burden of proof proving that they are not.
So based on ur premise, then i can also say that since there are also heteroseuxuals who commit rape, then heterosexuals are also immoral?
lets take this even further, in the past the Christians through crusades and the inquisition perpetrated violence against groups of people and are shown to be disrespectful of life? CSJ too does not exactly hold the law of Singapore, so using ur logic can i say that all Opposition Members are disrespectful of the law?
Last question, you say you want to discourage homosexuals from promoting homosexuality as a healthy way of life without recognising how problematic it is to good normal male relationships.
So could u qualify what is normal?
WBG,
Sorry man, but even within the scientific community, there has been no consensus on the issue. You claim that being gay is a psychological problem, but you conveniently ignore research that says otherwise. To me, you seem to be clear as mud about the reasons behind people being homosexual.
You mentioned that
“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.”
“There are even homosexuals who harass people in public, a recent example is from this blog, http://tinkertailor.blogsome.com/“
I believe there are also reports about heterosexual paedophiles and child molesters. Why are you not pointing out the cases of heterosexual rape of kids by their uncles/fathers/grandfathers is a complete bafflement. I’ve seen plenty of such stories being reported. As for harassment, your failure to mention stories of women who stalk men and vice-versa. Again, these reports are fairly common in the news. Once again you demonstrate that to prove your case, you will cherry pick examples to support your point but conveniently left out the other side of the coin to make your case convincing. It’s not surprising, because when such examples are taken out, your case falls apart completely.
I don’t think another post to advise homosexuals not to promote their sexuality is necessary. Since when is it that someone accused of a crime and that trial is pending, be it theft, rape or drug trafficking, are disallowed to promote their innocence publicly? The verdict is not out, but they have every right to tell their side of the story. If we apply such a yardstick to heterosexuals, why the double standard against homosexuals?
Nice post.
As I was reading Whybegay’s comment, I was shaking my head at all the logical fallacies and lapses in argument.Was about to post a comment pointing out these fallacies and lapses when I continue scrolling down and saw the rest of the comments. You guys beat me to it.
Hear hear!
Aaron,
One disagreement: No scientific consensus? Tio bo? I think there is leh…..
Not that it matters too much.
Ben,
It’s perhaps fair game to say that there isn’t consensus yet. After all, the recent brain image scans of gay sheep provides more evidence that homosexuality could be biological, but it hasn’t been proven conclusively that it is a biological phenomenon. I can give it to WBG that there might still be doubts, but I will not condone his style of witchhunt/promotion of hate speech against homosexuals (which he claims otherwise) based on faulty evidence.
LCC,
You want to shake your head somemore? Go read http://whybegay.blogspot.com
Your head will shake until it drops off and rolls on the floor. I’m just waiting for WBG to step back into the arena to defend himself before I respond more (if he’s coming back that is).
Aaron, kudos to you for that despite being slightly homophobic, you are able to see beyond your phobia for the greater good.
But ben is right, the scientific evidence is leaning in the favour of homosexuality being a natural phenomenon.
Besides ample and well-documented observations of homosexual behaviour in the natural world (the Oslo Natural history museum has an exhibit dedicated to ‘outing’ gay animals[0]), there is plenty of suggestive evidence that homosexuality has a neurochemical basis[1], and a recent paper[2] even proposes a mathematical model to determine the form of selection that favours genes (of the polymorphic sort) that influences homosexuality.Heck, there are papers documenting how certain genes alter sexual behaviour[3]
The other side of the debate is supported by a few dodgy, discredited studies.
There are certain quarters pushing the myth of more scientific uncertainty than there actually is. The supposed lack of scientific consensus is a red herring to lend an air of credence to their indefensible arguments.
But think, even if homosexuality is unnatural, how does it justify persecution or deprivation of rights for our fellow man?
Normally I’m pretty open-minded to debate but some arguments deserved to be stomped.
[0] To quote the curator: “Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them.”
[1]Most famous being LaVey(1991), it is controversial, but not discredited. The recent maligned Roselli study, which was accused of finding ways to ‘cure’ gays (Not. Even if it did, it demonstrates that homosexuality has a chemical basis). You can get the reference for the paper under Roselli’s list of publications:
http://physpharm.ohsu.edu/faculty/roselli.html
[2] Gavrilet S. et. al has their paper online, acessible from his website publications:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/Publications.htm
[3] Barry J. Dickson’s group published two different papers on how fruitfly sexual behaviour is controlled by a single gene in 2005 in the journal Cell. Catherine Dulac published in 2002 how disabling TRP2 in mice caused homosexual behaviour.
Hi Aaron,
What do you mean by consensus?
How does something be proven ‘conclusively’ in order that we speak of it as if it is true ?
We are dealing with tables and chairs here?
Does Aaron choose to be heterosexual? Is there consensus?
see this research published 2005
http://tigger.uic.edu/~bmustans/summary.htm
frogs changing sex in the lab from environmental pollution
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/27/frogchange_ani.html?category=animals&guid=20070227140030&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000
Published: 25 February 2007
Female koalas indulge in lesbian “sex sessions”, rejecting male suitors and attempting to mate with each other, sometimes up to five at a time, according to researchers.
This article, lifted from the Washington Post,
appeared in the Straits Times today, 7 Feb 07. It was
interestingly published in the “Review” section under
the heading of “Sexual Orientation”. I hope they make
articles of this genre a periodic feature.
Setting straight some ideas on gays
BY WILLIAM SALETAN
Just over the Montana border, closeted in their own
private Idaho, the gay sheep were getting it on.
Well, it’s not exactly private. They were doing it in
front of scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment
Station who are conducting “sexual partner preference
testing.” In a 15-by-10-foot “arena,” a young ram is
offered four choices: two ewes in heat, and two rams -
all restrained in stanchions. For 30 minutes, the
subject does as he pleases and the scientists keep
score.
A bare majority of rams turns out to be heterosexual.
One in five swings both ways; 15 percent are asexual,
and 7 to 10 percent are gay.
–
http://www.truthwinsout.org/
and http://www.soulforce.org/
are two organisations that descredits the ex-gay movement..
James Dobso’ns movement Focus on the Family which has such a prominent news article and is run by the singapore branch that is very anti condom and pro abstinence . they too are an organisation that uses deceit routinely and have been debunked in the press, but regularly tout the same fake conclusions of scientific articles.
heck, …
so now, the scientists themselves are speaking out against these organisations misrepresenting the facts and conclusions of their research…
(whybegay is probably that cocksucker tim tang (or excocksucker)
RSE,
I see the discrimination against gays to be at the same level as discriminating against say, a Malay, an Indian, a woman, a Jew or whatever else you can think of. What is so wrong about being a gay compared to the groups of people that I’ve mentioned earlier?
Of course, some people keep insisting that homosexuality is not natural blah blah.. even to the extent of maintaining a site to promote hatred towards gays. Sheesh…
Ben,
Hahaha.. I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt with regards to the scientific consensus. Think about it, if I don’t even give the benefit of doubt that the debate is unresolved, there’s nothing for anti-gay blokes to argue about. As it is now, the anti-gay people have problems arguing on a moral level, not to mention going a step further into biology.
Haha. That is very nice of you.FO calls you “the idealist” now..
I AM the idealist. Read the personality section of this blog (link at top). Long read, but you’ll have a good idea why.
Btw, I am exceeding surprised that you also wrote about homophobia about the same time I did and Kitana too.
WOAH! So who dissed you?
Hey Aaron…think that there are some people out there who just want to gain readership/attract attention.As MR Wang said during the freedom of speech forum…sometimes its better to just ignore and not give free publicity
I said in my last comment,
“You said in your second paragraph,
“Whether being homosexual is biological, psychological or a matter of choice is something that is still being debated.â€
Since you think so, and to be impartial to both sides, then consider writing another post to advise homosexuals not to promote their sexuality as normal since you feel that its neutrality is still being debated. I thank you in advance.”
I would just like to remind you that the next post you are suppose to write in order to balance this post should be titled, “Why Be Gay?”, which is coincidentally the heading of my blog.
Really? I think aaron is doing a good job of asserting the important point that mainstream rational people do not endorse, support, and in fact, explicitly disagrees with the intolerance of WBG against homosexuals, to expose his purported expert views as bias, false and his ideas harmful.
Will WBG meet for coffee?
WBG,
1. You are avoiding responding to my points. I take it that you have no further arguments to what I put out. This would imply that you have no objection to my counter-arguments to your first comment.
2. Therefore, if your original stand about gays and homosexuality does not hold, there is no further need for me to continue another entry on a stand that you have implicitly admitted as holding no water.
Aaron,
Heh, of course. I have no idea why they are so obsessed sometimes, or how they manage to be only marginally more coherent than timecube.com. Laughing at them would be far more therapeutic, though if homophobia weren’t so influential and pervasive.
Give them something to argue about? Or give them more rope to hang themselves?
I still prefer the ‘no mercy nuclear explosion’ approach when it comes to debating with them. It’s a special treatment I reserve for them (and Creationists). Anti-gay people are beyond redemption, but damage control is mostly for onlookers.
Ooh. Aaron writes a nice post, Kwok provides more support on why real scientists (aka those not of the NARTH variety - see 1moresg blog for reasons why) have found evidence on why homosexuality is actually a normal thing, and then we have this person who comes and says tt we should tell gays not to promote their sexuality anyway?
But why? Being gay is as natural as being Chinese or Malay or Indian or Jew, and if you still cannot accept scientific confirmaiton, it is at least as natural as being Christian or Buddhist or Muslim! If I were gay, I would be damn proud of it! I would stand up and say it loud and proud!
So why should we tell homosexualities not to promote their sexuality? I think it’s wonderful!
Why SHOULD we not be gay, anyway? Gays are happy.
I will post one last comment.
the Stark In Winterfell said,
“You say that homosexuals do not follow public decency laws and cite the example of some of them molesting kids in public. By your logic, thus homosexuals as a whole are immoral and have the burden of proof proving that they are not.
So based on ur premise, then i can also say that since there are also heteroseuxuals who commit rape, then heterosexuals are also immoral?
Aaron said,
“I believe there are also reports about heterosexual paedophiles and child molesters. Why are you not pointing out the cases of heterosexual rape of kids by their uncles/fathers/grandfathers is a complete bafflement. I’ve seen plenty of such stories being reported. As for harassment, your failure to mention stories of women who stalk men and vice-versa. Again, these reports are fairly common in the news. Once again you demonstrate that to prove your case, you will cherry pick examples to support your point but conveniently left out the other side of the coin to make your case convincing. It’s not surprising, because when such examples are taken out, your case falls apart completely.”
I believe Aaron in his post has stated that there is no consensus whether homosexuality is normal or not, so it cannot be similarly compared to heterosexuality.
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?
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?
About heterosexual rape and molest, there are being condemned but what is stopping from heterosexuality as a whole per se from being condemned as well is due to the (consensus) fact that it is normal.
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?
Maybe I would have to post this explanation at my blog to prevent more people from getting confused about the fallacy and error of homosexual-heterosexual comparison.
So I urge Aaron to write another post titled “Why Be Gay” to balance this article. I will not be back.
(Please ignore or delete the last comment, it has spelling and punctuation errors.)
I will post one last comment.
the Stark In Winterfell said,
“You say that homosexuals do not follow public decency laws and cite the example of some of them molesting kids in public. By your logic, thus homosexuals as a whole are immoral and have the burden of proof proving that they are not.
So based on ur premise, then i can also say that since there are also heteroseuxuals who commit rape, then heterosexuals are also immoral?”
Aaron said,
“I believe there are also reports about heterosexual paedophiles and child molesters. Why are you not pointing out the cases of heterosexual rape of kids by their uncles/fathers/grandfathers is a complete bafflement. I’ve seen plenty of such stories being reported. As for harassment, your failure to mention stories of women who stalk men and vice-versa. Again, these reports are fairly common in the news. Once again you demonstrate that to prove your case, you will cherry pick examples to support your point but conveniently left out the other side of the coin to make your case convincing. It’s not surprising, because when such examples are taken out, your case falls apart completely.”
I believe Aaron in his post has stated that there is no consensus whether homosexuality is normal or not, so it cannot be similarly compared to heterosexuality.
If homosexuality 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?
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?
About heterosexual rape and molest, there are being condemned but what is stopping from heterosexuality as a whole per se from being condemned as well is due to the (consensus) fact that it is normal.
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?
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.
Maybe I would have to post this explanation at my blog to prevent more people from getting confused about the fallacy and error of homosexual to heterosexual comparison.
So I urge Aaron to write another post titled “Why Be Gay” to balance this article. I will not be back.
WAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAH!
WBG,
I find it extremely amusing that you call for a ban on promotion of homosexuality. If heterosexuals are so afraid of homosexuality, then go all out and promote their cause? Who is stopping the heterosexuals from promoting themselves? Since there probably are so many more heterosexuals around, if all of them come out to lobby and have a massive advertising blitz, the homosexuals are going to be drowned out. Is there a need to ban?
And, you have conveniently refused to answer me why we should we apply the presumption of guilt unless proven innocence. Just because we are somewhat unsure means that we should just ban first talk later? Will you protest your innocence that I declare you being guilty of inciting hate against another human being? Just because there’s no consensus on whether you are indeed promoting hate speech means that you have no right to claim your innocence publicly? Don’t run away from the question please. If you choose to run, it’s damn obvious that you do not have the guts or the evidence to back up your claims.
WBG:
I was always of the belief that people who knew most about a subject were intimately connected with the subject themselves. A person of a particular race, or a particular religion, is logically deemed to be most familiar with that race or religion and is therefore an authority on it.
So by this extrapolation, since you seem so intimately aware of homosexual behaviour, such that you deem yourself an authority on it… can I therefore ask:
Are you gay?
Let me correct the paragraph, (I am making moee errors because I am getting tired of explaining)
“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 which neutrality is still being debated, should it *still* be promoted as normal until there is consensus as Aaron said it should require?”
WAHAHAHAAHHAH! sorry Aaron, i just want to share my joy with WBG. He is so so so cute!
*MUACKS* *HUGZ* *LOVE YOU*!@
I &*(((((hearts))))))**&&^^^ WBG forever! &***((!!((()))!!()
,…..
….
…..
…
NOT!
Aaron, remember to write another article to balance this article..
homosexuality - does not have consensus
heterosexuality - has consensus
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? Therefore remember to write another article to explain why people should do something that is non-consensual, titled “Why Be Gay?”
(Correction, ignore the last comment)
Aaron, remember to write another article to balance this article..
homosexuality - does not have consensus
heterosexuality - has consensus
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? Therefore remember to write another article to explain why people should *not* do something that is non-consensual, titled “Why Be Gay?â€
WBG,
and with regards to normal and all…
who defines normal? what is normal to one may not be normal to another…
Eg,
in the Era of Imperial Rome when Christianity was a young religion, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. At that point in time they were not normal based on the conventions of Roman society. So becaus convention dictated that they were not normal, was it justified to get them fed to lions? If i use ur logic..then the persecution of Christians was justified. Likewise the persecution of Jews by Middle Ages Europe and the Church. And the persecution of Buddhists in China under certain Emperors.Likewise the persecution of African Americans.
So WBG could u address the questions at hand?
Kitana said,
“I was always of the belief that people who knew most about a subject were intimately connected with the subject themselves. A person of a particular race, or a particular religion, is logically deemed to be most familiar with that race or religion and is therefore an authority on it.
So by this extrapolation, since you seem so intimately aware of homosexual behaviour, such that you deem yourself an authority on it… can I therefore ask:
Are you gay?”
Obviously you have such illogical thinking because you are not in the habit of doing thorough research in the articles you write, you think that people doing thorough research is not normal. Therefore such accusations of the researcher being the researched himself, is due to you being envy of researchers who are able to do thorough research. There must be barriers stopping you from doing it. Therefore you have the symptoms of being “researching-envy”.
WBG,
Ok, according to you, 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
Just giving you some food for thought on the fallacies of your argument.
the Stark In Winterfell,
anything can be normal, private or public, as long as the acts do not irritate others into thinking it is abnormal.
People cannot possibly know what is done in secret, as long as they don’t get to know about it. This is why public acts have to be done in respectfull manners so as not to irritate others into thinking it is a threat and abnormal to their well-being.
Aaron, yes, while I contemplate about those issues you listed, do write your “Why Be Gay” article as well.
I will write. Watch out for it tomorrow.
What is this fetish for thorough research? There are people who also selectively research stuff…and conveniently choose to ignore research which does not suit their agenda…
and with regards to ur definition of normal, thats ur definition. As they say one man’s meat is another man’s poison…
As “Neo” would put it: woah… A mere timespan of 4 hours and the comments are flooding in… And it looks like there will be more to come…
Suggestion: perhaps you should invite Mr. Alex Au to join in the discussion or have him debate Mr. (I’m assuming he’s a he) Whybegay…
Haahaahaa. WBG completely amuses me. I wonder what his idea of “thorough research” is, because both his comments as well as his writing seem to display a complete lack of any of it at all, unless you can consider writing while under the influence or on something “sufficient research”. Oh my dearest WBG, I have been unable to find any of the sources from wherein you derive your information, if they so exist, please do share with us because I don’t know any rational earthly sources. I suppose you can thus say I have research-envy; I envy where you get your sources from because it seems they aren’t accessible to the rest of the world.
Dearest WBG, come out of the closet! If I were the male, I’d be the first to embrace you with open arms! We must spread the love!
Kitana, you are promoting something that society does not have consensus of. Good luck to your law career.
Chi bu dao pu tao jiu jiang pu tao suan
Change is a necessary characteristic of progress, and every society needs that. Many developed nations in the world accept homosexuality as a part of change, and are moving away from discrimination. So too is Singapore, and so too, are its law. I will have a career here.
You unfortunately, are stuck in some far distant century; the only difference is that instead of a pitchfork and racist cries to accompany it, you use ur laptop.
I think it is more likely that:
1) your employers don’t know that you are the famous WBG; or:
2) you have no career to speak of.
You thus need luck much more than I do.
I’m just going to work on one of “the logic”
If normal people don’t do it, it must then be abnormal.
I am normal. I don’t smoke. Therefore, all those who are, are abnormal. After all, smoking is *scientifically proven* to be detrimental to your health. Which normal person do that kind of thing?
If you can’t see the sillyness of this logic, then there’s no point debating further.
No matter how person A tries to prove something to person B, it would be useless as long as person B already have a strong conviction of what that “something” already is. You may as well be trying to convince the Pope that God does not exist.
Carry on.
(I wonder if anyone else has noticed that he does not seem to have as much baggage with lesbians - who are by strict definition - homosexual)
Hmmmmm….true true…B will not listen to A even if the truth knocks him on the head
But lets look at it from a courtroom perspective. A’s job is not to convince B, but to convince C
and debate is very healthy esp in debate scarce singapore …
Just passing :
(I wonder if anyone else has noticed that he does not seem to have as much baggage with lesbians - who are by strict definition - homosexual)
Duh, because lesbians only act that way because they secretly want the attention and lusty glances of men! But “human rights terrorists” (his words, not mine) are scary because they can actually sex him up!
Haha.The whole absurdity of WBG’s argument is *so worth* the coming out of lurkerdom for.
Not only that, I find WBG personal attacks on this blog and other blogs distasteful. He said
“Kitana, you are promoting something that society does not have consensus of. Good luck to your law career.”
There is one innuendo and one assumption here. The first is an assumption that society holds WBG’s view - which is not the case for the blogosphere apparently.
The first innuendo is a clear innuendo that holding a view that the society does not approve will cause you to suffer in your law career.
That is a naked threat - something to strike fear in people’s heart.
His further refusal to engage with Aaron’s logical point bespeak the reluctance to engage reasonably, and will use what passes for him as science as a shield, as a pretense of intellect.
Whybegay is a person who once argued that Asian commit suicide because they are not growing fast enough etc.
http://whybegay.blogspot.com/2006/03/asian-teens-are-not-growing-up-fast.html
Whybegay is a person who once argued that Homosexuality is caused by poor fatherly skills and more.
http://whybegay.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Even if someone disagrees with me, I will look at his views carefully, and consider them for their merits. In this case, WBG refuse to extend this simple rule of normal conversation in the blogosphere. When you disagree with him, it soon shall delve into personal attacks.
Hence after first engaging with WBG, i decide I shall not engage WBG in a rational conversation.
But still, WBG, and I know you are reading this, you need to rise above your own feelings, above your own muck that is trapping you down. This takes a lot of bravery of you. You have here an opportunity to see things for what they are.
Take the chance,
Regards,
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. I only need to convince confused people who are unsure of what being gay means. 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.
I think you never read http://1moresg.wordpress.com, which states conclusively with evidence to boot, that:
“The American Psychological Association (APA) and ALL other mental health agencies in the states as of 2006 is of the opinion that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and discourages all sorts of ‘treatment’.”
The only exception is NARTH, but then NARTH is not even considered a real mental health agency by the majority (the only exception being WBG, but then it seems that he is not a member of the majority).
“The American Psychological Association (APA) and ALL other mental health agencies in the states as of 2006 is of the %opinion% that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and discourages all sorts of ‘treatment’.â€
Since when is opinion proof? And what has the opinions in the US got to do with Singapore? If going by your logic that we must follow the opinions of the US in whatever we do, then we should continue with the death sentence and start a war? Are you proposing Singapore becoming a state of the US?
Give up.
!!!!!
People not like you lar! People dun come to opinions based on nothing. Wah liew! Please grow up. I mean….I don’t know wat to do with you!
We are not talking about some cheap shot organisation or bias people here.
You are so blind you are so seeped into this…dark vicious cycle of irrational discouse till you spend hours online fighting on every popular blog.
You think why so many people disagree with you?
You think why so many people say you are intolerant?
You think why so many people laugh at you?
Why?
The reason is obvious, whybegay,
you just have to put some brain into it. Why don’t you check in with a SINGAPORE PSYCHOLOGIST! Show him or her what you have written so far, and talk to him or her about it!
Poor WBG. He a bit deluded. He dun seem to recognise tt APA = world-recognised authority on psychology. And Singapore dun have so established centres of psychology; our research and findings come from US one. (Also see http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm, which analyses gayness thoroughly and comes to the same conclusions as well, everyone except you.)
Never mind WBG. Since you say that we cannot follow US, you show us your Singapore psychologist that say tt gay is psychological problem lor. Since you talk so much about it, you give us your Singapore proof. We want conclusive evidence ah, not any of tt half-baked opinion that you put up on your blog.
But in the meantime, aiyah. Who ever said anything about giving up? I haven’t had so much fun in weeks. Keep on going! The more you make me laugh, the more I feel inclined to share the lurrrve with you. =)
BTW, I think Ben asked if you are interested in meeting for coffee. You didn’t reply. The invitation’s been re-extended. =)
APA is not WPA(World Psychological Association), please read other than research.
And the burden on proof is on people who want to encourage homosexuality to a society who does not accept it. My blog is a counter to them so it does not have to proof anything.
And tell Ben I am not interested.
WBG spam both Aaron + my bwog, but I reply on my bwog liao, so you can see comment here: http://kitana.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/there-is-no-why-to-being-gay/#comment-2345.
Can keep discussion to 1 place better?
WBG,
Please show me some concrete statistics that Singapore is a society that does not accept gays. Did the Department of Statistics conduct a study that I don’t know of that says 90% of Singaporeans are anti-gay? Please don’t quote me cheesy newspaper statistics. Show me statistically sound numbers. If you cannot qualify your premise that Singaporeans are anti-gay, your arguments are invalid.
对牛弹ç´ã€‚。。(Just a Mandarin idiom which comes to mind when reading this discussion)
Diversifying to different blogs allows said person to “tap” into two blogs readerships…heh…
WBG,
as a matter of curiosity, what is ur religion?
Anyway i think that even if what u claim is true that u have a lower burden of proof…the fact of the matter is…u must have proof. So where is ur proof? I dun think a judge would rule in a party’s favour if the party claims that it has a low burden of proof but has naught to prove it.
Interesting relevant websites…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
I guess Mr. “Whybegay” (again, I assuming that it’s a “he”) will score quite high on the questionnaire at the second website…
[...] RSS ← Why not be gay? [...]
[...] Why Not Be Gay? [...]
The question ultimately is not a question of justice or equality, for no peoples group whether black, brown, yellow or white, or mixed have been called “sinners” for being who they innately are.
Homosexuality is not only seen in humans.
It is a natural behaviour documented in over 400 species in the animal kingdom.
Watch these National Geographic excerpts on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DA7E030D2ECA1DFA
It is homophobia that is unnatural and immoral.
Hmmm, for some strange reason, the playlist link above doesn’t work.
So, you’ll just have to click on my YouTube profile and look for the animal homosexuality videos amidst all the other “Homosexuality in Singapore” videos I uploaded:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=groyn88
My apologies.
i haven’t read all the comments but i want to say that homosexuality has long been depathologised. therefore, it is unconstitutional to propagate dated misinformation to people that it is a pathology.
it is just like how christians in the early 2nd millenia view inter-race sex as beastiality.
i think it’s not really nice for wbg’s blog to post such views which promotes intolerance towards a minority in singapore.
Thanks to a university education, I have learned the beginnings of what passes for logical discourse.
But that is not the thrust here. In a ‘freer’ society, we have to accept that certain people hold opinions that may not truly reflect what the larger populace may hold. It will be up to the silent majority to speak up to show that the vocal minority do not speak for them.
If evinced from the postings on this comment thread, about 5 to 10 people are seeking to show that the premises proffered by WBG have logical fallacies. If we take this as an example of the blogging world in SG (59 samples to go), then, WBG’s views could be seen to be a minority opinion.
If we truly seek public discourse, than, yes, we will also have to “defend to death” his right to say what he wants. (however, the nice logic about hate speech laws ELSEWHERE is that if his turn at the lectern incites violence, then he can also be indicted/charged for bringing harm to others!) Its just a matter of time before his views may open himself to such risks.
What this thread has shown is, WBG is a minority view, and that at the end of the day, education can bring about a more enlightened and accepting society.
And in that sense, the unreality construct in SG will continue to implode, as the fallacies in its arguments appear more hollow with each passing cohort of students. I just wish logical analysis is taught to students at an earlier age instead of waiting until GP(?) or at university, so that the masses that may not reach tertiary education are not denied their opportunity to let their minds flourish with and without the alternative perspectives of demagogues.
E.o.M.
[...] have said before that I’m slightly homophobic (don’t ask me why, but I just don’t like the idea of [...]
gay sex at $50 at little india.
totally lawless area. indians gather in hundreds and thousands in hdb void decks, lying on the floor, picnic with food and drinks and spit orange indian chewing gum on void decks floors. interesting. but noone doing anything
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/viewPost5731.aspx