Tag: Pink Dot SG

  • Chee Soon Juan Counts On Local Celebrities Lim Kay Siu And Neo Swee Lin As Supporters

    Chee Soon Juan Counts On Local Celebrities Lim Kay Siu And Neo Swee Lin As Supporters

    Local celebrities Neo Swee Lin and Lim Kay Siu donned the SDP uniform when they attended the M1-Straits Times Life Theatre Awards 2016. They won best ensemble for their play HOTEL.

    They joined us at BB last night for coffee. Swee Lin’s father told me that he was a PAP grassroots leader for 25 years working with PAP MPs Ibrahim Othman and Lee Chiaw Meng.

    He left the outfit and has never supported any other party. Until now that is. He came wearing the SDP uniform. The SDP is honoured and grateful.

    Thank you, Swee Lin, Kay Siu and Uncle William.

    ‪#‎NowIsTheTime‬‪#‎BukitBatok‬

     

    Source: Chee Soon Juan

  • Pemerintah Harus Melarang Madonna Dari Membuat Persembahan Di Singapura

    Pemerintah Harus Melarang Madonna Dari Membuat Persembahan Di Singapura

    Tuan Yaacob Ibrahim,

    Saya baca dengan amat prihatin terhadap berita akhbar Straits Times pada tarikh 29 Nov 2015 mengenai rancangan bagi penyanyi terkemuka, Madonna untuk mengadakan konsert di Singapura Februari depan. Pernampilan Madonna di dalam konsert-konsert sebelumnya agak keterlaluan, dengan pakaian yang menonjol mata, dan aksi-aksi yang tidak sesuai hingga boleh dikatakan amat lucah. Dia pernah dilarang membuat konsert di Singapura pada tahun 90an, mengikut akhbar Straits Times kerana persembahannya bercanggah dengan ajaran Islam. Persembahan Madonna tidak banyak berubah walaupun telah dimakan masa, beliau masih terus manyajikan bahan bahan kontroversial di dalam persembahannya. Madonna juga adalah penyokong kuat LGBT.

    Madonna 1

    Madonna 2

    Dengan penyanyi Adam Lambert, yang sah mengaku dirinya sebagai seorang LGBT, dijemput sebagai tetamu khas di perayaan akhir tahun Singapura, tidakkah kehadiran Madonna akan menambah lagi anasir-anasir yang kurang sihat di kalangan belia-belia Islam di Singapura, yang masih mudah dipengaruhi minda mereka?

    Sebagai Menteri Bertanggungjawab bagi hal ehwal Islam, anda bertanggungjawab untuk melindungi kepentingan masysrakat Islam di Singapura.  Jadi saya amat berharap yang Madonna tidak akan diberi kelulusan untuk mebuat persembahan di sini, seperti mana yang dilakukan oleh pihak kerjaan pada tahun 90an. Masayrakat Singapura amnya, dan masyarakat Islam Singapura khususnya, harus dilindungi dari anasir barat yang kurang sihat, seperti kaum LGBT dan konsert-konsert yang menampilkan aksi lucah.

    Sebagai seorang Muslim yang bertanggungjawab, kita semua perlu memainkan peranan untuk membentuk belia yang bermoral dan kuat pegangan agama, bukan belia yang menyokong anasir anasir buruk.

    Wasalam,

    Syed

    [Reader Contribution]

  • Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.

    When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.

    Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.

    Why?

    Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.

    Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.

    Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.

    Why?

    Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.

    Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.

    Why?

    Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.

    How come?

    Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.

    So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.

    And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.

    Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.

    So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.

    And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.

    And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?

    Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.

     

    Mohd Khair

    Source: We Are Against Pink Dot

  • Xiaxue: Gay Marriage And All The Reasons To Oppose It

    Xiaxue: Gay Marriage And All The Reasons To Oppose It

    The topic that’s on everybody’s lips these days is the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states in America. For non-Americans who don’t know, many states have already allowed gay marriage prior to this, but now the Supreme Court have decided it is a constitutional right, meaning anywhere in the United States, gay couples can now get married.

    It was a big win for the gays, who celebrated exuberantly.

    Many straight people, who empathize with the discrimination gays go through, celebrated with them.

    Facebook brilliantly created a rainbow filter for everyone’s profile picture, and overnight everyone’s facebook feed looked like a thousand unicorns rampaged through it.

    At first, all I saw was approval at this new judgement. Nobody seemed anti-gay at all!! The overwhelming response seemed to be that everyone was pretty pleased.

    I marveled to myself how very far the gays have come in the last decade.

    I told my gay friends as much, that the fight is finally over, but they said it’s far from it… The silent majority in Singapore probably are still homophobic. But with the very vocal anti-homophobic crowd, they don’t dare to say much for fear of being labelled a bigot.

    Then, after all the celebrations died down, the anti-gay marriage arguments begin to appear, and I realised my gay friends are right. There is still a long way to go.

    9gag, for example, changed their logo to rainbow and posted this picture, which is pretty neutral.

    The comments were largely anti gay.

    9gag also experienced a huge unfollowing from the angry fans. From the comments, we can see that of 9gag’s audience (mostly straight men), many may not have openly voiced their anti gay marriage opinion, but still will express them in little things like comments.

    From my own facebook feed, a famous food blogger who is also a doctor posted numerous anti-gay marriage articles, some of which are truly appalling.

    Like this one, which is the most condescending, holier-than-thou crap I’ve ever read.

    Quote from the article:

    “Just we have shown compassion toward those who have gone to the abortion clinic and to the divorce court, so must we do the same for those who go to the altar of gay marriage.” — WTF just fuck off, gay couples who get married don’t need your sympathy or compassion!

    The blogger also shared this article, which says paedophiles now want the same rights as gay people.

    *roll eyes to the back of my head* Totally no evidence of this in the article… As if paedophiles will dare to ever speak up and say “I AM A PROUD PAEDOPHILE I WANT RIGHTS!”. Please!

    Anyway, whatever, he is entitled to his views no matter how skewed by his religion they are. And out of respect for him because I really liked him before this, I won’t mention his name.

    I wanted to point out the articles he posted because he is the only person on my facebook feed to be anti gay marriage.I read all the articles because I wanted an alternative point of view, a good LOGICAL reason to tell me why people can be opposing this new judgement so strongly. He is a doctor right? He is a smart guy, he must have some good reasons. I wanted to know.

    But article after article I read, trying my best to keep a really open mind.

    After reading all, I came to the conclusion that NONE of the arguments hold water.

    Here’s my response to all of them.

    Bur first, before that, let’s get something clear. Legal unions and sex are different things. You can approve of  homosexual sex or be ambivalent about it but not agree with legalizing gay marriage, and similarly, you can approve of gays getting married but don’t agree with their sexual habits. Although I guess the latter is a bit weird because most married couples have sex. Let’s discuss both.

    1) God doesn’t approve

    Religious people say this as if it is a good reason for everyone to change their minds.

    Firstly, the bible (or any religious text) can be interpreted in many different ways, and many religious people have chosen to believe that their God is about love and acceptance, not hatred and judgement.

    Secondly, for the vast majority of humans who don’t even believe in your God, that’s like saying the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t approve. ERM, SO?

    2) It isn’t natural. God created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

    Congratulations on your clever rhyme on Eve, which is a totally logical argument. NOT.

    So sick of hearing this stupid statement said as if it is so witty wtf. Btw if God created only two humans from the start, how did they populate the Earth without being incestuous? So now incest is ok but gay sex isn’t?

    Anyway, speaking of natural… Homosexuality occurs in animals all the time. It’s really quite natural.

    3) The government only gives a legal hoot about the union of two people because it usually results in children. And they want those children to grow up with responsible parents who are legally bound together.

    Of all the arguments, I guess this one sounds the most logical. Since gay couples are naturally sterile, why do they need to get married? Marriage is for the sake of children, not the adults.

    Erm hello? Firstly, many gay couples get married because they DO want to have children.

    They may not be able to do so naturally, but they can adopt or use surrogates or get a sperm donor.

    Whether they are legally able to get married or not, gay couples who want children will go ahead and have children. Being unwed isn’t going to stop them.

    So if you want the whole “for the child’s welfare” thing, you better let their parents get married so they have a harder time splitting up.

    Secondly, being legally married ISN’T solely for the children.

    There are other things like tax or wills that are different for legally married couples. If one part of a gay couple is hospitalized and only immediate family can visit, his or her partner, even if they have been together for decades, simply cannot enter. At the airport, Mike and I can get our passports stamped together at the counter because we are a family unit. A gay couple cannot.

    Marriage means that if your partner is a foreigner, they can must more easily get permanent residency or a green card.

    In Singapore, gay couples cannot apply for a HDB flat. Houses being as expensive as they are, are not-so-affluent gay couples destined to rent forever or stay with their parents?

    All these legal rights and privileges are denied to gay couples, which is pretty unfair, unless you are saying that marital rights should only be given to couples who have children.

    But that’s not the case, is it? Many heterosexual couples are sterile or do not plan to ever have children. Then why should they be entitled to all these privileges?

    If only people with children should be considered legally married, then let all couples be only engaged until they have a child. Only WHEN a child is born should they be awarded the certificate of marriage.

    Until then, I think it’s only fair for gay couples to be given equal rights.

    4) Children SHOULD grow up in a 1 man 1 woman household.

    People who say this sweeping statement come out with it from nowhere except their reluctance to stray from tradition. Research has shown that same sex parenting do not have adverse effects on children. (source 1)(source 2)

    If you think about it logically, who will be better parents?

    Parents who actually WANT a child… They thought things through and decided that they are ready to be parents, they are ready to take on the responsibility. They made their decision because they are financially able, and their relationship is stable. (Rhymes!)

    OR…

    Parents who stupidly shoot the sperm inside and accidentally got pregnant so they hastily get married and begrudgingly keep the child? Even if they have only been dating for a month, or if they don’t have the financial capability to raise a kid? After that they throw the kid to grandparents to take care.


    Gay parents will always be the former, because their sexual urges will never mistakenly result in a baby. 

    If they want one, they have to jump through hurdles to actually get one. Adoption protocol will put them through tests to make sure they are suitable parents.

    Many heterosexual parents, on the other hand, are parents only due to a mistake. Sure, some may belong to the former. Many aren’t.

    I’m sure you have heard of many shotgun marriages around you which ended in divorce or an unhappy marriage.

    If you ask me, children from same sex parents are probably better off, statistically speaking, that those of heterosexual parents. So many heterosexual parents are so terrible, just think of ghetto parents with a dozen kids they cannot afford!

    Not saying that all gays must automatically be rich or great parents but at least they won’t get a child just because they are horny and stupid, which is so often the case nowadays!

    Besides, this argument isn’t against gay marriage, it is against gay parenting.

    Since gay parenting will happen whether or not they are allowed to get married, then I say it’s better for them to be able to get married, right?

    Argument over, next!

     
    5) Who is supposed to be mother and who’s the father??? This will confuse the child.

    A child isn’t born knowing that he is supposed to have a father and a mother.

    These are gender roles we appoint after many years of tradition. As long as gay parents educate their child properly (“your Mommy and Mama are different from other children’s Mommy and Daddy but don’t forget we love you just as much as they love their children”), fulfil all the appropriate roles in the kid’s life, I don’t see what the problem is.

    Besides, single/divorced parents often have to take up the mantle of being both father and mother. Loads of these children have turned out fine.

    Children don’t need parents to be 1 female and 1 male. They simply need parents who love them and care for them.

    6) Same sex marriage always denies a child of either a mom or a dad.

    Wrong. Same sex marriage denies a child of a BIOLOGICAL mom or dad. People who use this argument act like gay couples cruelly tear a child away from their natural mother or father, but the truth is that these mothers and fathers often don’t want the child.

    The child is either adopted (both biological parents don’t want the child, or maybe orphaned), or a surrogate is paid to give birth (rare case), or there is a sperm donor somewhere who most likely doesn’t want anything to do with the kid that his sperm created. You can’t deny someone of something that actually doesn’t want them.

    Mom and Dad are more than just the egg or sperm donor – they are also terms for the main caretakers of the child.

    Heterosexual adoptive parents can have their children call them figuratively mom and dad, so why can’t gay couples? They can be called dad and dad but they can actually take on mom and dad roles. It is just a name.

    7) Homosexuals, especially gay men, are often infidel, which will harm their children.

    So marriage will make them think twice about being infidel right? How is this an argument against gay marriage?!

    Next.

     
    8) Homosexual civil marriage would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. 

    “After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children.”

    I actually copied this chunk from some website. It is one of the dumbest shit I’ve ever read, substantiated by nothing.

    Asshole men ditch their kids and wives because they want to fuck other women, have freedom and no responsibility.
    What has it got to do with lesbian couples???! Lesbian parents ain’t gonna make asshole men any less assholey by not existing!! Ridiculous!
    If you think lesbian parents will affect dad abandonment because they see that 2 women can raise a child, why don’t you also say the opposite is true? That a man seeing that two men can also raise a child, perhaps he will be heartened and think he can do it too.
    Lame. Next.

    9) Comparison to Incest

    One of the arguments that people love to put forth is that supporters of gay marriage should not be hypocrites and should also support incest.
    After, incest is also attraction to what is different from the norm. It could also be between two consenting adults.
    Firstly, INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ARE LEGAL.
    Yes, you can marry your family members, legally and legitimately. Surprise!
    So arguing that people who are pro gay marriage also also support incestuous marriage is redundant. It is legal, never been illegal, so there is no notion to support.
    However, once that marriage is consummated, the sexual act itself is illegal. You cannot have sex with your nucleus family.

    The law exists to protect an innocent child from being born out of that union because it probably will end up with genetic deformities.

    When a sex act involves harming a minor, then obviously nobody supports it. Is it fair to draw a parallel to gay sex, where nobody is harmed?

    What about incestuous sex which doesn’t result in pregnancy? Like if both parties went for sterilization?

    My personal opinion is that if brother wants to fuck/marry sister, that’s their business, as long as they don’t get pregnant. I don’t really give a crap as they aren’t harming anyone. None of my beeswax. Of course I find the idea distressing and disturbing, but after reading Middlesex (it’s an awesome book) and watching Game of Thrones and seeing my hamsters go at it, I guess such attraction does happen. O_O
    I draw the line at parents having sex with their children because I find that the children, even if they are consenting adults, must be in some way manipulated or educated by the parents into thinking this is ok.

    So yup. Conclusion: No need to support incestuous marriage as it is legal; if people want to have incestuous sex that’s their business if they aren’t harming anyone and don’t get pregnant.

    10) Comparison to sexual deviants/fetishes

    People also love to compare gay sex to various sexual fetishes, and how the public will soon be forced to also accept these fetishes as “normal”.

    Besides, they say, if gays can marry gays, then what’s to stop paedophiles from marrying children or a man from marrying his dog?
    10a) Paedophilia

    I don’t even understand why I have to explain this.

    The glaring difference is CONSENT.

    Children cannot make life decisions that are supposed to last for a lifetime (marriage), nor are they emotionally developed enough to say yes to sex without understanding the consequences, ok?

    HOW IS THIS THE SAME AS GAY SEX/MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO CONSENSUAL ADULTS?? HOW??

    I can’t, I just can’t. People are too stupid.

    As for the idiots claiming that because gays are asking for equal rights to get married, paedophiles will now do the same?

    DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THE PAEDOPHILIC ASSOCIATION WILL COME OUT AND ASK FOR RIGHTS TO FUCK PEOPLE’S YOUNG CHILDREN, TODDLERS AND BABIES?

    Do you HONESTLY believe that?

    If yes, you need to jump off a cliff.

    10b) Bestiality

    Again, a man cannot marry his dog because his dog is incapable of giving consent. Even if the dog shows it obviously loves its owner, the dog cannot possibly understand the notion or consequences of marriage. So no, no animal marriage, ok?

    With regards to sex with animals… Now here is where it gets a little iffy.

    The mere idea of this will probably set most people gagging. I guess it’s safe to say that this isn’t to everybody’s taste. Bestiality is illegal in most countries. It is considered animal cruelty to do sexual acts to an animal, because they cannot give consent, right?

    I must admit that when I was younger, there was no doubt in my mind that bestiality is wrong, it is beyond disgusting, and everyone who does it is a pervert who should be locked up in jail (and probably not allowed to be near the animals in the jail if any).

    Reddit changed everything for me. Two of my friends linked me to an IAMA article about someone who has sex with his dogs.

    (Article 1)(Article 2)

    If the dog is the one humping him, isn’t it consent? For further discussion, read THIS. It is very interesting.

    We can neuter our animals, force them to breed for our profit, slaughter them for meat, but it isn’t ok to allow them to hump us? It does seem a bit unfair, doesn’t it? Afterall, cows would rather have sex with you than to be made into a cheeseburger. Maybe the issue here isn’t really animal cruelty in some cases. (Of course you shouldn’t force yourself on an animal too small for your genitals or is obviously unwilling and shrieking. Or in the reverse hurt yourself by being impaled with giant animal penises.)

    Anyway, whatever. I’m not here to champion for the rights of zoophiles or that of animals. I eat the latter, can’t talk so much.

    But it is food for thought.

    But no, just because gay marriage is now legal in 50 states will not suddenly cause everyone to begin having sex with animals, ok? It remains a very niche sexual preference that few can accept.
    10c) Necrophilia

    I can’t. Desecrating a corpse without consent. Upsets the beheaved loved ones. Not the same as gay sex. Sigh… It is an insult to Blogger.com’s server space to have to explain this.

    11) I feel like gays are forcing gay marriage down my throat and I don’t like that. Why can’t I just say I don’t agree with it without being labelled a bigot? It simply doesn’t feel right to me, can’t that be a reason?

    No, it can’t. 

    If you can’t find a logical reason to oppose it, then simply be ambivalent or apathetic about it. You don’t have to care about the issue. If you are straight, it most likely won’t affect you in any real way. But if you are against it, then you better give a good reason other than an emotional knee-jerk response.

    It is very easy for you to say “It just doesn’t feel right” and decide to take away the rights of other people, but for the people affected, it makes a HUGE difference to their lives.

    In the past, many have probably voted against abolishing slavery or the right for women to vote simply because “it just doesn’t feel right”. No other reason, except you are resistant to change.

    How would you feel if you are fighting for something you feel is the right thing to do and others oppose you just because? Don’t even bother to give you a logical reason, except they don’t like it? Won’t you find that very insulting and get angry?

    12) Gay sex is disgusting

    This, at the end of the day, is the reason why anyone would oppose gay marriage. They simply find gay sex disgusting.And because of that, they find all sort of nonsense reasons to justify their feelings.

    Gays have no rights to be all huffy and offended just because someone tells them that gay sex is gross. 

    Just as homosexuals have no control over what they find attractive, other people have no control over what they find disgusting – so don’t be hypocrites when asking for acceptance! 

    Just mention to a gay guy about licking a cunt or a lesbian about male penetration and surely their response is EWWWW. (Witnessed it many times) So if gays can find heterosexual sex gross, straight people are allowed to find your sexual proclivities gross too.

    When you first found out what (heterosexual) sex was, what were your thoughts? I was 12 when a friend told me about it, she found her uncle’s porn video tapes and saw it.

    “OH MY GOD THAT’S SO DISGUSTING WHY WOULD I WANT TO TOUCH A BOY’S KUKU OMG OMG OMG I WILL NEVER EVER DO THAT!!!! YUCK!!!”

    That was my reaction. I had thought people kissed and slept on the same bed and the woman will get pregnant the next day.

    Well… Let’s just say that Dash wasn’t conceived that way. LOL… Which goes to show the best of us eat our words.

    If you find something disgusting, it is easy to also decide that it is wrong, sick, and shouldn’t be allowed. 

    And that the people who like it, must be either crazy, perverse, ignorant, or has to be “fixed” in some way.

    Grow up. Just because you find celery disgusting doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be allowed to eat it.

    A mature person separates his emotions from his judgement. It is hard to do so, I’ll admit it. Being an emotional person, I still wish there are laws against all the things I dislike (ban parsley and crocs), but a small part of me knows that isn’t right.

    Read a sentence on reddit which pretty much sums up this post:

    “Just because you find it disgusting doesn’t mean that it’s reprehensible.”

    Are your feelings about gay sex affecting your opinion on gay marriage? If yes, you need to take those feelings out of the equation and think again.

    CONCLUSION:

    So there you have all my response to all the reasons why people are opposing gay marriage. I find each and every reason pretty invalid, but if you can come up with a good, logical argument, I welcome your views on it.

    The only reason that cannot be argued with is 12) Gay sex is disgusting.

    If someone feels that way, nothing will change their opinion.

    Personally, I find anal sex disgusting (whether on females or males), and no amount of reading up on it or talking to people who engage in it will change it for me. I tell my gay friends my opinion and they laugh about it. I don’t like the act; it doesn’t mean I don’t like the people who perform the act.

    So if you find homosexual behaviour disgusting, so be it.**

    But those who oppose gay marriage for this reason…

    PLEASE DO NOT HIDE BEHIND SCIENCE AND MORALITY TO OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE.

    That, I really cannot stand. 

    Don’t act like you are so much more morally upright, educated, informed than others.

    Don’t share articles that use fake science and statistics to get invalid arguments across.

    DON’T CLAIM YOU ARE OPPOSING GAYS FOR THE BETTER OF SOCIETY.

    Don’t act like it is for the children.

    Worst of all don’t tell me you pray for the gays and will show compassion towards them despite your disgust with them. JUST FUCK OFF.

    Just say it as it is.

    You don’t like it because you find it disgusting.

    Great, then people will know to simply dismiss your opinion as it is a personal one with no bearing on society’s welfare.

    Or they can let you know frankly that they find you disgusting too.

    (**Of course, you shouldn’t be unkind or insensitive about your disgust, just like it isn’t nice to tell someone an outfit makes them look fat, even though you truly feel that way and there is nothing wrong with feeling that way)

    Source: http://xiaxue.blogspot.sg/2015/07/gay-marriage-and-all-reasons-to-oppose.html<

  • More Light, Less Heat On Sexuality Issues

    More Light, Less Heat On Sexuality Issues

    The past debates on the rights of LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender) individuals and their implication on public policy in Singapore have generated much heat. These debates have also almost exclusively centred on the arguments of religion versus rights.

    Though these two perspectives matter, they leave out other fields of studies, from science to philosophy, that ought to be considered. Additionally, the narrow focus means that those in the middle ground, who may not be well informed on LGBT issues, remain unaware of other perspectives.

    This is further exacerbated by the severe lack of LGBT resources from diverse sources, which are able to provide different points of view.

    The lack of diversity in the debate is worrying for two reasons. First, the religion-versus-rights-only debate does not lead to mutual understanding. This is illustrated through a 2014 study done by researchers from Nanyang Technological University. They analysed nearly 10,500 comments left on two different online petitions in 2007 that called for a repeal or retention of Section 377A, the law that criminalises male homosexual sex.

    They found that the “retain” side argued almost exclusively from a religious perspective. The “repeal” side, however, focused on the rights perspective. Neither side engaged one another or invoked other perspectives.

    Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Government justifies its LGBT policies based on public opinion. At a Singapore Perspective Conference 2013 organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “the conservative roots in society” is the reason that the “status quo will remain”. The question, then, is on what basis are the uninformed middle ground, whose views influence state policies, forming their opinions on LGBT issues? Possibly, their views are based on half-formed impressions derived from incomplete facts or arguments.

    Beyond rights and religion, the other domains of knowledge which ought to matter include philosophy, ethics, history, science and anthropology.

    Anthropology will help us answer questions about the nature and diversity of sexuality and family structures. Science, in particular psychology and biology, can shed light on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and if it exists in other species.

    History will tell us if homosexuality and non-heterosexual, non-monogamous families are part of our Asian heritage. Ethics provides a compass to navigate the waters of right and wrong. Finally, philosophy illuminates concepts and points to the relevance of all the above.

    EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE

    These fields of studies are vast. They may even raise more questions than answers. But knowledge — not just of the facts, but of the concepts, arguments and the logic that are essential to making decisions on matters of public interest — is crucial.

    Indeed this knowledge is essential to the proper working of a democratic society, one where citizens make decisions based on the best of what they ought to know, not on what they think they know, or gleaned from hearsay or from partial knowledge.

    Who provides and how to provide the range of information mentioned above?

    First, just as the Government provides resources for citizens on other issues, it should also provide resources on LGBT issues. This is especially so as it cites public opinion as the reason for maintaining the status quo on LGBT policies. This can be done through all its agencies, including statutory boards such as the Health Promotion Board and the National Library Board (NLB).

    An excellent start would be with NLB’s recently announced 19-member advisory panel to review library materials, which may include books that have LGBT content. The NLB should ensure that its panel members, who include taxi drivers, students and corporate leaders, have access to the full range of diverse information in order to fulfil their roles.

    Panel members should then deliberate this information instead of solely drawing from their own perspectives and understanding of an issue. Political scientists who study deliberative democracy, which is concerned with improved collective decision-making, have shown that fuller knowledge of the issues at stake results in better outcomes in decision-making.

    Such information should also be made public for citizens to deliberate.

    Second, non-governmental organisations, academics and individuals should also add to the pool of knowledge by going beyond rights and religion and into the areas mentioned above. Their views might be different and even contradict one another, but it is the process of sifting through conflicting material that makes us better decision makers.

    Of course, exposing people to facts contrary to what they previously thought does not always result in them changing their minds.

    Academic studies by American researchers such as Mr Brendan Nyhan and Mr James Kulklinski have shown that misinformed individuals who care strongly about a topic (on, say, whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example) will hold more strongly to their beliefs even when they are presented with facts that disprove their beliefs.

    This is even true of supposedly more open-minded, “politically sophisticated thinkers”.

    As the American novelist Mark Twain quipped: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    As bleak as this sounds, there is a silver lining. Other studies have found that the misinformed are more likely to consider other facts and change their beliefs if they feel more secure about themselves, or if the information is presented directly to them.

    Furthermore, the Nyhan and Kulklinski studies did not focus on those who do not hold strong views and who are ignorant of the many facets of an issue. This group of people would benefit from the diverse and factually correct information and arguments.

    So, the next time the middle ground are asked to participate in a survey on LGBT issues, they would hopefully be able to give a more considered response.

    About the author: Siti Nadzirah Samsudin is a research assistant at the Institute of Policy Studies of the National University of Singapore.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com