377A

For a Christian and a potential political science undergraduate, i’d say i’m unusually ambivalent on all the major politico-religious issues out there. In a way it’s because i don’t want to settle on a stand before i’m wiser or learned enough.

But as an observer to The Homosexual Issue for more than ten years since i’ve coherently given the topic serious thought, i’ve finally come to conclusion: that everyone should mind their own business and stop asserting their personal beliefs on others.

Being in an IJ school at an impressionable age granted me a very strange, albeit interesting outlook. Firstly, of course, the strong Catholic influence at a young age planted a natural tendency to see homosexuality as ‘unnatural’. At the same time, it was a girls’ school, and an IJ one at that. That combination led organically to a hotbed of lesbians. Yes, at age 9 I bore witness to girls making out in dark alleyways while roaming around innocently eating curry puffs after school. So while ‘unnatural’, homosexuality also became – sort of – a norm!? A quarter of my school went through that whole homosexual experimental phase.

My take on it then was that homosexuality was constructed, and that people can’t possibly be born with it. This was derived partly from my own heterosexual orientation, the observable microcosm of society I had with its instances of sapphism, and what was taught to me religiously. It was just a personal opinion that I’ve never endeavored to solidify, but it remained my stance for years.

But over the years I’ve got to know people – sensible, real people, who are homosexual. There are plenty at my age – I suspect – who are still confused, still experimenting; but there are those who are undeniably homosexual; born – naturally and without the ability to change their predilection – to love the same gender. And once I was sure of that, there was no argument – they deserve every right heterosexual couples are given.

While I believe in God, I also believe in homosexuals. I don’t see the two as mutually exclusive. There are too many cogent arguments in support of gay marriages that do not contend or contradict with biblical beliefs, I don’t have to offer any more of them. What I do know is this: love is love is love. And if I love someone, there is no reason why I should be in any way condemned or disadvantaged.

In no way should I superficially be accepted but obviously categorized as ‘abnormal’, which I think is what is happening locally. The general political consensus right now is that homosexuals are allowed to lead their lives ‘freely’ and pursue their social activities, but within limits – in particular, they are not to ‘promote’ their homosexual ‘lifestyle’. I have never felt like homosexuals are in any way ‘promoting’ their choice. The reason why there is a pro-homosexual voice in society now is because they are rigorously restricted (a blatant message to society that what they’re born to be should not be accepted) and as ANY person indignantly oppressed for being who they naturally are, they make noise.

Homosexuals do not ‘promote’ their lifestyles. Heterosexuals do. We actively promote the ‘conventional’ family unit of father, mother, children – to the extent of forbidding any exception. Homosexuals are not asking others to be homosexual, all they are asking is for a right for them to be it. TO BE THEMSELVES. Which in my opinion is a very admirable non-intrusive attitude we should all adopt. Basically, the more intense the attempt to shelf this ‘lifestyle’, the louder they will get.

I do understand why a heterosexual will see homosexuality as abnormal and unnatural. Because, to be honest, I do too. I mean, obviously, if I loathe olives and can never see myself enjoying them, I can never understand how another can. It might seem disgusting to me. But in the same way, homosexuals cannot understand the sexual appeal of the opposite sex. To them, heterosexuality is unnatural. And if they truly feel this way, I cannot – in all logical sensibilities – tell them that they are wrong. It is a bloody tendency they are just… BORN with.

All I did was imagine myself as a heterosexual born in a homosexual world, with all the existing prejudices homosexuals are subjected to reversed and imposed on me – and it just made complete sense for us to stop. Stop making them so miserable for just.. being. It’s wrong. It’s bullying a black kid for being in a predominantly white playground. It’s morally wrong:

Making someone pay for having done NOTHING that harms or would harm another is morally wrong.

The one creed I wholeheartedly believe in is to love everyone and not to do harm on another. Legalizing homosexual marriage, as far as I can imagine, will do actual harm to NO ONE. Retaining 377A will, in one sweeping motion, disallow an entire group of people – many of which good and honest – from doing what the Christian God teaches one to: love.

The problem, I think, is that many people are still incapable of seeing homosexuals not as homosexuals but as people – which they are: before anything else, they are men and women. They are just.. us. With different preferences. If we think of them as people who want to love another, it seems counterintuitive to prevent them from. It’s this arbitrary distinction we’ve made between homosexuals and heterosexuals that makes it so difficult to see them as people with the right to want what they naturally want, and makes it difficult for us to understand that all homosexuality means is a different preference.

Like I’ve said before, I was pretty much ambivalent/apathetic about the whole issue, and had assumed that most people were tolerant, if not accepting. But a pretty horrifying number of people, I’ve discovered on the internet today, are just pure NASTY about homosexuality without the grounds to be so. Not only are their comments crude, they are out to hurt. About homosexuals being a disappointment to their parents (punctuated with smug, evil little smiley faces), and something about filthy shit sex or wtv.

And I was just like dude. You just. don’t. say that. To homosexuals or ANYONE unless they raped someone’s child and dumped the body in a lake. So far, anti-gays have not given me a single cogent, convincing argument that hasn’t been properly debunked by the opposite camp. All I’m getting is a bunch of insensitive, unfounded assaults that make the homosexual cause seem very, very much worth fighting for to me.

So yes, I guess after 10 years of observation I’ve made my conclusion and I do wish it hadn’t been such an easy one because the way in which heterosexuals are damning homosexuals almost makes me ashamed to be a heterosexual.

That is about all.

, , ,

Published by


Responses

  1. Hui Ran Toh Avatar
    Hui Ran Toh
  2. rictusempraa Avatar
    rictusempraa

    Haha i used to go to his church!

    I believe him when he claims to have homosexual friends, etc. “We are NOT against the homosexual person, but we are unapologetically against the homosexual agenda”. I know there are a great many people who love homosexual friends/family members but reject their sexual orientation. But that doesn’t make it any more logical or acceptable. I’m questioning not his acceptance of the persons, but of the agenda itself. It’s somewhat like an Asian mom loving her daughter very much but rejecting her marriage to a caucasian. It doesn’t make the rejection any less wrong.

    If he presents convincing evidence to why I should judge two people for loving each other then I’ll reconsider my stand.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hey, my two cents,

    You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev 18:22)

    377A is not technically about love per se. rather the ambit focuses on the (unnatural physical) acts between two men and it states clearly in the Bible that such actions should be condemned.

    I suppose an argument can be made that these physical acts are a manifestation of love, and hence one should not criminalise them given other similar acts say, adultery, are not criminalised etc. Nonetheless, i guess there are many arguments put forth in favour for s377A because of the many potential and real inherent problems (ie health issues) in the unnatural act itself that could affect community at large. I suppose it boils down to the (act) and not the (actor) that this provision is seeking to address. Singapore being pragmatic and adopting mostly the utilitarian principle, chooses rather to protect the majority then to give (extra?) rights to the minority. I say (extra) because I suppose arguments have already been made that criminalising s377a does not in any way contravene the fundamental principles of Human Rights :)

    i hope i have addressed your concern about love (the argument above may be flawed, but just two cents on the issue!)~ ha ha sometimes i think of extreme examples like kill in the name of love and thats clearly wrong. so perhaps this provision is also taking a harsh stance on the unnatural act (given its effects) even though it concerns love too. i guess i’m in your position, thinking about all (these) and lyfe in general ha ha.

    God bless x

    1. rictusempraa Avatar
      rictusempraa

      Hi, thanks for your reply!

      Yeah that is pretty convincing. Knowing our government, it does make sense that they’d have a pragmatic, secular approach.. health issues arising from the act is definitely a problem to be considered.

      Besides love and sex, though, I think another aspect of 377A is that of marriage and commitment, as well as rights. Personally I predict that with or without the permission to be legally married, if someone had homosexual tendencies and wanted to have sex, he/she would do so anyway. The increase in health problems will be somewhat marginal. Then again, you may argue that legalizing it removes the fear of the act, which would be performed more frequently thus pushing forth health issues.

      However, I can also argue that be legalizing homosexuality, by reconstructing the current social conceptualization of homosexuality, we can bring about committed, monogamous homosexual marriages that might in fact reduce the rates of multiple sexual partners amongst homosexuals (who right now might have internalized society’s belief of them as individuals without the right to be married, manifesting in the self-fulfilling prophecy of promiscuity/polygamy). Without homosexuality in the equation, a society free from the institutions of (heterosexual) marriage would likewise see an increase in STDs.

      Of course, all this is mere speculation. We’d never know what will actually happen.

      That said, I have thought of homosexuality and the judgement of the sexual act in a religious sense before. Just like the Catholic belief in not using protection, sex in Christianity is an act that is sacred and primarily of reproductive purposes. So of course homosexuality, not able to serve such a purpose, becomes unnecessary -> unnatural -> wrong. The fundamentals of this principle have been lost in a society where use of protection is an accepted norm though, so I’m not sure if it would still apply.

      So yes, I’m glad you raised that issue about sex, but I’d like to bring to light the aspect of rights and commitment too.

      I understand that the bible has explicitly stated that ‘lying with another’ of the same gender is wrong, but I still cannot understand the basis of this teaching, and I’m still struggling to understand it now. What I do know is that there are people who love and want their love to be recognized. Very real people with very real, reasonable demands for rights at this time in front of me, and I cannot possibly – in all the compassion God has given me – say no to them.

      God bless you too!

  4. Vanessa Avatar
    Vanessa

    Qing!! I just saw this and haha love your arguments as always, have always enjoyed reading your writing (: But I must say that this is where I love that friends can agree to disagree! Hahah~

    I must say that while Ps Khong might not exactly have presented his views in the most ‘loving’ way, it is with good intention. The problem here is of course the interpretation of the bible. There is nothing actually said in the bible regarding homosexuality (the tendency/ sexual preference towards someone of the same gender).

    However, as Anonymous above has mentioned, it is true that in the bible it does state clearly, that sex between males is a sin. Just as adultery, sex with animals, and incest is a sin, sex between males is listed in the same breath. Health conditions aside, there is something that I have found out from asking one of the leaders in my church, a lawyer and a very knowledgeable guy. Basically, after many many years, counselors all around the world have realised that when counseling homosexuals, a majority of them have had some sort of experience or trauma in their lives where they were influenced in a certain way.

    Examples :
    – they were sexually abused
    – they did not have a father figure in their life (absent father), where a son grows up longing for male affection, this could also be when a father is very harsh towards a son.
    – vice versa where a mother is absent, and a daughter grows up longing for affection from females
    – an abusive father in the family that frequently causes harm and inflicts pain on the mother or the children, that causes the child (be it a girl or boy) to project their hatred of this tyrant onto the entire gender -> males reject their identity, females are repulsed by males and feel that they cannot love them
    – and like you mentioned above, when you are completely surrounded by girls (or guys for that matter) and go through puberty, you are curious, you are horny, you take anything you can get X)
    – influence and peer pressure, particularly for teenagers la

    There are others i’m sure but I’m no expert on this X) But yeah so basically there is no scientific evidence that this is in-born. Even those who were completely sure they were born that way because they had no memory of any of such a situation as mentioned above, it was usually discovered later on that they had been through something before their cognitive years (say 5 years old), having gone through some sort of sexual abuse or trauma that affected the way they are. I know this is going to invite some flak because there will always be people who believe firmly that it is in-born and because I am not them I will not understand. But I guess we’re all entitled to what we believe, and this happens to be what convinced me :/

    Basically what I learnt from asking leaders and speaking to ‘elders’ in that sense, is that the stand of the church (our church at least) is that repealing 377A is a slippery slope that would lead to a plethora of effects. We’re not asking for new laws to criminalize homosexuals. We’re merely asking the government to KEEP this law which has existed since forever. Our fears (unfounded some people might think) is that after the repealing of this -> legalization of same sex marriage -> anti-discriminatory laws to protect homosexuals, it would come to a point where we are not allowed to say anything against the act even though we believe that it is a sin. This is quite scary because then we are not given the right to speech to even share our views?

    If say you lived in a society where sex with animals is okay, but you believe it to be wrong and disgusting, and so you teach your child that. Your child being innocent and precious, goes to school and tells his friends. He gets thrown in juvy and you’re fined and locked up. This may be an extreme situation that does not accurately reflect the current situation, but that is what the church is afraid of. Honestly i don’t think the Christians are the only ones who feel this way, just that it happened that Ps Khong decided to be vocal about it because he felt that it was what he had to do.

    In that sense, I do respect him because he knew that making such statements and being so vocal about his views would bring about a lot of backlash. However, he put himself up to be attacked simply because he felt that it was important and he needed to at least make his point. Even if the law were repealed, we wouldn’t storm the streets and stage protests or riots, so I don’t understand why people keep saying that us Christians are trying to force our beliefs on others. We’re doing no such thing man. As much as you feel the law should be repealed, we feel it should not. So we have our differing opinions, we all voice them, and that’s that.

    I also don’t agree that by saying that the sin is bad, we are condemning them as people. Not at all. if you steal, your mother might be angry but she still loves you right? She does not stop loving you, she merely feels that what you did was wrong, but she loves you nonetheless. if you weren’t her child, she wouldn’t care less because she does not love you, you can go to hell for all she cares. But because she loves you and doesn’t want you to get in trouble, she corrects you. For us we believe that homosexual sexual tendencies are a sin, just like adultery is, or incest. And all of us have our own sins that we tend towards, that we are more likely to commit. For example, lying or greed, or stealing. It could be anything really. And while we feel that it doesn’t hurt anybody and we should have our way and do whatever we want, it’s a sin and so we work on it. That’s just how we look at it.

    I know many will not agree with what I said above, because this is an issue of beliefs, and lol beliefs are the most intangible and debatable crap in the world XD So yeah I’m not trying to convince anyone to agree, i’m just explaining a bit, because I think many people misunderstand and misrepresent the views of the church and Christians and that is sad :(

    1. rictusempraa Avatar
      rictusempraa

      HI VANESSA!

      Right back at you haha can always count on you to give me insightful replies.

      The prevalence of trauma as the root to homosexuality is a new thing to me. I mean of course I’ve heard of such cases but I didn’t know it’s so predominant. If the source of all homosexual cases really does originate from an external trigger, then yes i think everyone, homosexuals included, should re-examine their predilection. But as for now, just as how you don’t have scientific proof that it is unnatural, you cannot prove that all cases are caused by external trauma. And then there is the other question of – so what if it was externally induced? If the fact is that they right now love another of the same gender, who is to say it should not be accepted?

      Another thing i would like to address is the analogies often drawn as a parallel to homosexuality. A lot of times i hear it in conjunction with the sin to steal, or sex with animals, etc.

      Celine once mentioned that if we accept homosexuality, it is a slippery slope towards legalizing all sorts of sexual deviance e.g. incest, with animals. Initially i agreed with the risk of an overly liberal society, but then i figured the comparison is inherently flawed because, most strikingly, homosexuality is a union between two consenting adults. An animal is incapable of cognitively accepting, understanding, love in a way two humans share. It is very incorrect, in my view, to even compare the feelings of an animal of that of a human. We after all exist on a completely different plane of self-consciousness.

      Another point raised by Celine, similar to yours, which i felt was significantly strong, is that of natural tendencies that ought to be repressed. Here, homosexuality was alluded to kleptomania. Even if one were to be born with the tendency to steal, he or she should definitely suppressed such a tendency. This was pretty convincing to me, highlighting how not all things ‘natural’ and necessarily acceptable. Deeper thought revealed a stark difference between kleptomania and homosexuality though. Kleptomania is necessary bad because it is an act of stealing – which deprives another, and thus (no matter how small the effect) harms society. Does homosexuality deprive another of anything? Does it unfair to another, does it harm anyone outside of their sphere? Not as far as i can tell.

      1.  Avatar
        Anonymous

        Okay let’s not say sex with animals… How about incest? A father and daughter can both be consenting loving adults. Does that make it okay for them to have sex and get married? :/

      2.  Avatar
        Anonymous

        Oh yes that and this are me btw, Vanessa hahaha! And yeah to your second point… Incest doesn’t cause any harm to anyone either if you think about it.

      3. rictusempraa Avatar
        rictusempraa

        Incest causes generations of harm because inbreeding leads to genetic defects, and this goes on for..ever, actually. Committing one act of incest is putting all your offspring at the risk of deformity. So yes, it does cause harm. A lot of it and on a huge magnitude.

        You can argue that if incest couples use contraception, there will be no identifiable ‘harm’ in their love (which i argued should not be prevented). But i guess there is a very innate, biological ‘wrong’ in incest, in that it possibly mucks up our fundamental DNA. For homosexuals there is none of that.

        To summarize, we stop committing incest (as we/royalty) did in the past because we gained greater understanding, factual knowledge of our own bodies. We are stopping homosexuality largely as a social/religious/cultural movement. It is a meaning constructed by men, not distinctly innate as the wrongness of incest is.

        That said, i myself am dying to know if homosexuality can be a) inborn (or, like you said, always due to abuse) and b) if it has an inherent biological component that clearly defies it accessibility.

      4. Vanessa Avatar
        Vanessa

        Kinda sucks that all the research is inconclusive as yet haha. But okay la haha I’m not dying to know XD I honestly am not trying to argue my case or be right la, I can’t haha, I’m not equipped with the know-how. I’m just understanding for myself because I want to support my pastor in his statement and I want to know the stand my church is taking (: but I do understand where you’re coming from!

        And about the incest point, well, having offspring would lead to generations of inborn defects so sex between relatives is unnatural, can I conclude that? In that same sense, sex between men is unnatural as well since they are both built with penises which don’t fit in each other very well… And if we talk about anal sex being their form of sex, it’s unnatural as well because the anus is where feces is excreted, I don’t think we were made to have semen ejeaculated in there~ my opinion la hahaha. Ah well.

  5. Celine Avatar
    Celine

    Hey Qing! Hahaha I can see you’ve really been giving a lot of thought to this, and that’s awesome. You already know my stance on homosexuality and we’ve agreed to disagree, but I just wanna say something about personal beliefs vs the law, which is what I think a lot of people conflate.

    Our beliefs are shaped by our views of morality, but there are different versions of morality, shaped by different baselines. Like how I view morality based on natural law, which is what the church teaches, and you seem to (correct me if im wrong) view morality based on a hurt principle – that whether an action is wrong depends on its negative impact on others. So to me, homosexual sex is immoral because it is unnatural, whereas for you its none of anyone’s business to judge because its not hurting anyone anyway.
    But the law ideally should be beholden to the beliefs of the majority, so as long as most Singaporeans view the homosexual act as immoral and unacceptable, 377a will stand. One may believe that its not a moral issue (and therefore shouldn’t be governed by law) but if the majority believes it is, then its gonna stay.
    I personally feel that religious organisations should not be involved in the jurisdiction of the land, because the territorial law governs people of all beliefs. People can curse and swear about it under the banner of Christianity, certainly, but that does not give them any more authority than any other citizen. If someday, the majority decides that they are open to legalising homosexual sex, and maybe even homosexual marriage, then I’ll accept that as a decision of my fellow countrymen. But as of now, the whole furore shows that people are just not ready for that.

    Also, by not repealing 377a, Singapore is in no way denying homosexuals the right to love each other. It just indicates that society is not ready to accept such unions yet. And by instituting gay marriage, what is being asked for? It is definitely possible to have a committed, monogamous relationship outside marriage, or in cohabitation, which is what many heterosexual couples are doing nowadays anyway. Marriage is an institution set up to protect the family – that means the married couple and their children. It establishes rights and obligations between spouses and especially for the protection and care of the children who they are expected to raise. Homosexual couples dont need this protection because they are unable to have children. Even if we talk about adoption, there are alternate law governing that. There’s a way to share property, leave wills etc all outside of marriage as well.
    I believe that what many homosexual couples are asking for when they campaign for the legalisation of gay marriage is the recognition and acceptance of their coupleship from society. Since marriage is the conventional way of telling the society that the couple is committed to one another. But even if gay marriage was approved right now, there would be little appreciation or acceptance of such a proclamation.

    You know, I was super surprised to find that when France was debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there were quite a few homosexuals campaigning strongly against it. Their main reason was that they understood legalising marriage not just to be approving gay coupleship, but also their right to adopt and raise children, and they believed that children ‘have a right to a mother and father’ and should not be raised by a homosexual couple. Since many homosexuals also feel that their choice is not a natural one. In fact there was a huge study done about how children of homosexual parents suffered more negative effects.
    Check out this link:
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/french-homosexuals-demonstrate-against-same-sex-marriage

    In the end, I guess we can only present our own view, and let the majority decision swing the vote. And regardless, we should be careful not to judge the person for the act, or force our beliefs on others, which is what I also find so disgusting about those flamers on forums.

    Thanks for posting about this, really made me think deeper about this even tho we’ve been discussing it on and off.
    Do you mind if I reblog this post and its replies etc? I’m trying to start my blog again haha!

    1. rictusempraa Avatar
      rictusempraa

      YES you should restart your blog!

    2. Justin Avatar
      Justin

      Homosexual sex is unnatural – that’s why so many animals practice it. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx Makes sense.

      Many homosexuals feel like their choice is not a natural one because they have been stigmatized and brainwashed by the rest of the population to think so. http://www.ishkbooks.com/stigma.pdf
      Page 5.

      If marriage is an institution set up to protect the family, it still doesn’t explain why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Hell, with the prevalence of homosexual couples adopting children, it should be allowed now, more than ever. And don’t give me that “homosexual people provide a bad example to their children” or any horseshit like that, I’ll just point you back to the paper about stigmas; there is plenty of evidence that prove otherwise – homosexuals are as capable (or if luck would have it, incapable) of parenting as any straight couple.

      Plenty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
      Of. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php
      Evidence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000058/

      Of course I think I have to plug that there has been some evidence to the contrary which I will not link because I’m biased and I’m allowed to do this nyeh. As far as that goes, it’s all about the community. If they’re stigmatised, the kids have issues. When they’re not, they don’t. In other words, people are the cause of the problem, and they like to quote the problem as an argument to why it stuff like this shouldn’t be allowed.

      They’re their own evidence, don’t be their evidence; Don’t be a dick.

      Live life, love people, fuck everything – the secret to happiness.

    3. rictusempraa Avatar
      rictusempraa

      Hi Celine

      I agree with the entire logical flow of your argument. The only thing i question is your assumption that physical rights – that of financial, housing, legal, logistics, etc. – are fairly granted to homosexuals.

      Without legalizing homosexual marriages, it is setting an implicit, but very blatant social message that we, AS A NATION, do not accept homosexuals. This will necessary deprive them as members of the society – whether in their workplace, in the political arena (a potentially great leader but not given the opportunity to enter politics). And that is just the underlying collective tone. How about physical laws?

      You mentioned that there are ways to share property, leave wills, adopt, etc. But how attainable, how accessible are these laws? And at what cost? Many times, to bypass legal complications and live as a homosexual with the same rights in Singapore, a lot of cash must be at hand. This is also why you see a lot more of the wealthy who can afford to come out, than those of the middle-class, blue collar workers. Just like divorce, homosexuality becomes a ‘right’ only the richer can have. And, just like divorce, the costliness of it is meant to deter.

      They stand, i believe, greatly disadvantaged relative to the heterosexual citizen. It makes their actions, otherwise perfectly reasonable wants, seem covert and illegitimate.

      I understand and agree with your point that Singaporeans, the majority at least, are not ready to accept homosexuality. And this stays true whether or not 377A is repealed. Legalizing homosexual marriage does NOT force citizens to accept it. All it does is grant homosexuals equal legal rights they deserve.

  6. Matthew Chiglinsky Avatar
    Matthew Chiglinsky

    People who label homosexuality as “unnatural” are choosing the wrong term. What they really should say is “without purpose”.

    Homosexuality has no good purpose. Homosexual sex is basically just a drug, and a homosexual relationship is basically just a drug addiction. It’s not real sex because there’s no possibility of creating children. Heterosexuals who use condoms and birth control are nearly as guilty but unfortunately aren’t condemned as much, but they are better than homosexuals because there’s a chance they will eventually use their sexual desire for the right purpose (which is TO CREATE CHILDREN).

    1. Justin Avatar
      Justin

      Oh yeah, contraception is terrible. Never mind that not only is it important to make sure that you have enough money to support your family before having children, but also that you have enough money to support any future children you might have (while still having a healthy amount of sex). It’s not like you don’t want to starve, or anything. Not like you need to pay your water bills and your kids’ school fees at the same time.

      But never mind contraception, this is about homosexuality. Which is apparently drug.

      Oh, did you know that caffeine is a drug? See, in regards to coffee, there are two possible results – if you don’t drink coffee regularly, you feel energetic then crash, much like having a sugar rush; if you do drink coffee regularly, you function as someone else would without coffee. That’s right, if you’re a regular coffee drinker, you actually suffer from withdrawal when you stop drinking it.

      Thank god caffeine’s legal, huh? I hate that sex is the kind of drug that isn’t addictive to most people, what a stupid drug. Hell, I’d hardly even call it a drug.

      As for homosexual sex not having any purpose, I have to disagree. The people who have it seem to enjoy it a lot, they find it very entertaining – how is that not purposeful? Is entertainment not a purpose? In that case, plenty of things have no purpose.
      Fashion shows; video games; making jokes at the expense of your mother; your mother; friends; FRIENDS (the TV show); TV shows; Music; Painting; Skydiving; Bungee Jumping; Rollercoasters; etc. etc.

      Please listen to yourself and think for a little bit before you post these kinds of sweeping, uninformed statements – it tends to make you sound really ignorant.

      Also, while the math is still inconclusive, experiments show that it also makes you sound like a fucking idiot.

  7. Loh Avatar
    Loh

    An amazing read: Coherent, simple and to the point.

    I generally agree with your perspective. It is open-minded, sensitive and logical.

    However, I have to disagree with the lack of contradiction to biblical beliefs. (i.e. Above mentioned: Lev 18:22, Sodom & Gomorrah, David & Jonathan, etc.)
    My personal religious views stem from Christianity. I only read about anti-gay and pro-gay arguments online, where there is often the act of dissecting biblical references. My personal opinion is that pro-gay biblical arguments are absolutely pointless.
    I believe that the coherence of biblical messages comes from Genesis 1:1 to Revelations 22:21. There is a progressive ‘redefining boundary’ of Christianity noticed in the New Testament, such as the superior covenant (Luke 22:20, Eph 2:8-9, Roms 8:9-11, Hebrews 9:15), however it cannot be misunderstood to be a ‘changing’ theology. I’d say that Lev 18:22 and Eph 5:31 are sufficient theological proofs that this topic has NOT been within the area of a ‘redefined boundary’ of Christianity.
    This does not mean that my ‘religious’ view has stood triumphant. It does not and will not. This is simply because ‘religious views’ are a limited scope of arguments that is often misused to condemn people with alternative beliefs.
    To close my point, I’d say that pro-homosexual arguments should stand away from Christianity. There are still many valid arguments that justify anti-ban of homosexuality.

    Regarding your view of homosexual activities which happen with or without 377A, I’d like to respond with a long argument (Sorry for my indirect approach!).

    We cannot deny that Singapore is still a conservative society. Whether or not it should remain being so is a separate matter I’d like to avoid discussing for now.

    I’ll say that there are certain similarities when it comes to homosexual activities with smoking or even chewing gum. It is a stretch to relate the above examples to homosexual activities but I do see its similarities in the fact that it is a need for the individuals to share from the perspective of a larger community.

    Smoking and chewing gum are less contentious matters.
    The former, causes the user to suffer health problems. However, both are discouraged in society because of its ‘intentional’ discomfort caused to the bigger community around the user (i.e. second hand smoke and disposing gum irresponsibly). It is due to the lack of personal responsibility that a ‘government figure’ justifies its actions to discourage such acts (I feel.).

    I believe that there are possible ‘awful’ futures of our society if a Pandora’s box is carelessly opened. To illustrate my point, I will reiterate common anti-homosexuality arguments on family complications: Having gay parents that cause embarrassing or emotionally scaring childhood for the kid. (A conservative view of mine: I do feel the need for an innate, almost divinely ordained, parental role of a heterosexual couple.) You also did mention about the increase in health problems.

    It is aggressive and I apologize to directly associate homosexuality to that of a ‘Pandora’s box of society’. In my opinion, our global society is very sensitive and responsive to abrupt changes. The whole issue of anti-banning homosexuality is obviously part of the bigger international trend. Should this ‘abrupt change’ to the moral fabric of our society be permitted to continue its reckless spread, I fear that our society will lose its grasp of morality. I am clearly conservative when I say this but I fear that once gay marriages are approved, totally separate matters like anti-abortion and sexual harassment may go wayward as well.

    I don’t disagree with anti-banning of homosexuality but its approach and eventual outcome has to be respectfully and sensitively considered by both parties. In my opinion, Singapore is not, and should not, be ready for such an abrupt change (i.e. abolishing 377A) yet.

Leave a reply to Loh Cancel reply