It’s almost a month since the so-called hostile takeover of AWARE and it is much expected that things aren’t going clear up even after the 2nd May EOGM. Either way, this will be my final post on this matter, since I am not articulate enough to put my views across and I easily lose my temper, which usually means an end to a civilised and serious debate as we know it.
On looking back, I realised what triggered my response in the first place was simply my annoyance that Internet opinion is so one sided against the new AWARE ExCo. I am further annoyed that right from the first article on 10th April, Wong Kim Hoh (a Senile Senior Writer) started talking about the new ExCo’s stand on equality, sexuality and religion and even dug up letters they wrote to the press previously. (With this episode everyone should seriously be wary about writing to the papers. Remember you need to provide some very personal information when doing so – NRIC and phone numbers and address.)
Excerpts [Stooges Times, 10th April]:
A check showed that some of those at the AGM and on the new committee have appeared in The Straits Times Forum Page.
Ms Chua, Ms Thiang and Dr Alan Chin, a male member of Aware who attended the AGM and supported the newcomers, all wrote letters to this newspaper between August and October 2007.
In a letter on Oct 17 that year, Ms Chua said NMP Siew Kum Hong had overstepped his non-partisan role and advanced the homosexual cause by tabling a petition in Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises homosexual sex between consenting men.
I am quite impressed, actually. For once the Straits Stooge Times has lived up to the journalistic standards expected of it. Contrast that with their appalling lack of follow-up on the Geylang Serai Temporary Market food poisoning incident – such as the lack of spring cleaning for 3 years and the constant problem of rat plaguing all our markets.
I thought that would be the end of my annoyance but several days later (probably around 18th April), personal information of the new AWARE President appears on the papers. Her occupation, the name of her spouse and children were all over the mass media. All this along with the rest of the new ExCo, complete with photographs. Even the fact that several members attend the same church came to light. Consider that information on the Geylang Serai Temporary Market Committee was totally non-existent on the Internet, this is a remarkable effort worthy of George Orwell! (Personally, I hold the Stooge Times responsible for the death threats that Josie Lau and her family now receives. Whatever the case is, for sure I’ll not bother to subscribe or take any Stooge Times article seriously, probably for the rest of my life.)
That’s not yet the end, however. On 23rd April, Alan John (a deputy ISD Director Editor of the Stooge Times) joined the fray with an article titled “AWARE saga: Too many questions left unanswered”. Many points in it but really nothing new in particular. It was simply expanding on things that has been written by Wong about two weeks ago, with the new information now available. Looking at their articles, the naughty thought that these two are ‘coming out of the closet’ came to mind at times, though that was dismissed as quickly as it spawned.
Looking at the direction this has taken, I feel for Josie Lau and her family. It must have been a long and dreadful month for her. Hated by people who probably just got all their ideas from reading all these fxxked-up mass media reports and from public impressions formed over nothing more than an CNA interview. That’s not menmtioning, getting labeled as a power-hungry conservative and Christian fundamentalist, plus getting her family threatened and even ‘earning’ a reprimand from the employer.
And talking about the reprimand:
Excerpts from a comment here:
What is so perplexed about this matter is there are other people on board in DBS who are holding executive appointments with either NGOs’ or government positions, like Koh Boon Hwee, Liang Eng Hwa etc… only Josie Lau has been targeted for a personal reason & i know what it is, she is a VP, holding an executive appointment in the bank, she is also a Christian, is very vocal about homosexuality & its shortcomings, she got herself in hot soup, her hubby Dr Alan Chin is also an associate member of AWARE, their style of reasoning & leadership qualities is vastly different from the old guards.
Poor, poor Josie. Apparently singled out for reprimand. To me, DBS seems to be going out of its way not only to make up for their previous association with FOTF (Focus on the Family), but to kowtow to the LGBT lobby. Well done, DBS. Is there anything you have ever gotten right for a long time? Perhaps, while DBS is afraid of offending some LGBT loudmouths, it should also be reminded that it is even worse to offend the majority. (Seriously, from the implementation of service charges on accounts less than $500 after the purchase of POSB, to the apparent lack of supervision over the sale of DBS High Notes 5 minibonds to certain non investment savvy individuals, is there anything DBS has done that hasn’t shown itself to care about nothing more other than its own bottom line?)
Either way, this episode confirms just how easy it is to manipulate agenda on the Internet. On Twitter for example, I see ‘re-tweets’ (or replication) of comments and opinions among pseudo-communities like some kind of virus replication. How quickly these people replicate those Tweets makes me wonder how much time they have given the entire matter a more complete look through or evaluation before taking up the cause of friends or acquaintances as their own. In financial markets, this is called the ‘herd mentality’.
I won’t go so far to say that this is deliberate staged by god-knows-who as some kind of experiment, but just how single-sided the Internet opinion has been after the media has played up the LGBT issue, might actually go some way to reinforce the impression of the more conservative-minded people, and convince the government gahmen the Internet is dangerous, non-self regulating and thus in need some kind of control. If some laws may be put in place in the future for whatever excuses, I would understand the rational behind it and be far less vocal and vehement in opposing it even when I can’t agree with it.
I get the shivers when this almost convinces me that China has the foresight and has been utterly right in setting up the Great Firewall (GFW) to establish some control over the Internet. Almost, because I am not a big fan of censorship or Internet control and I am not in power. Can’t say I’ll feel the same way otherwise…
As I bring this article to a close, interestingly, a few things came to mind. One was this question where a friend asked: “So from this episode, can I ask now, whether we can logically consider that homosexuality causes division and disharmony to society?”
The other was a bit more abstract… and is based on my own interpretation of this friend’s usually enigmatic comments, ‘I let you sell curry puff in front of my store, doesn’t mean I have to advertise for you and SUPPORT you. I simply don’t drive you out.’
If I understands this little pearl of wisdom correctly, that summarises nicely about all that hullabaloo from the old guard, Internet opinion and media reports about gender equality and this… mess.
Insane Utterances:
We are the “Samurai Drinkers”. This is our code:
1. We drink for pleasure, not torture.
2. You buy one, I buy one.
3. Bo dah do lan pa? Don’t dah my jiu to to show my lan pa as yours. Buy your own drinks. See #2.
4. It’s people who gives you face, and you who throw it away. Do not disturb other customers.
I guess it is quite alright for anyone to label Christians who hold to their beliefs as “homophobic christian bigots”. Yet uttely wrong for a Christian to consider it as anything but normal and right. Hypocrites.
If you want to label Christians as as homophobic, I would proudly be labelled along as incest-phobic, pedophilia-phobic as well. Or do we pick and choose what to believe based on the secular world’s view?
I could also bring up articles where secularists ridicule students who are for creation science. Don’t go making it seem like a one way street.
You have your views and others have their own. To come in and bash everyone up without even actually reading, leaves much to be desired. have already stated many times, we are not against gays, but that does not mean we have to think homosexuality is normal. The same goes to you. Do you have to agree to someone’s beliefs to be able to be friends or fine with that person? Gays and their sympthisers somehow aren’t able to grasp that concept.
Hypocritically citing intolerance and hate, the gay lobby employs a much more hate mongering than they accuse others of.
so much for diversity and representing all women when the new exco has 6 members from the same church. something separate and equally abhorrent – check this out from toc:
I had been living in a bubble – dont read mainstream media- and was quite out of the loop regarding recent events at Aware. I’m grateful for Yawning Bread and TOC for highlighting the issue as it is one fraught with many implications for civil society.
I do have old connections with Aware, despite never having been a member (done some volunteer work with Braema mathi, a wonderful person, and met some of the old stalwarts) and though these connections have lapsed, it is chilling to read of how easily the old AWARE was outmanoeuvred by a shadowy clique with rather sinister motives. There’s a valuable political lesson in that for all of us!
To do my bit as feminist, atheist, and a staunch secularist, I have signed up as a member and will go down to the EOGM.
I have been concerned the last couple of years over the insidious ways religious propaganda (always christian) is being pushed at kids in school. A couple of examples of what I mean.
A secondary two student I was tutoring(at an anglican girls’ school ) had the crudest sort of creationist mumbojumbo pushed at her, not during science class but as an english comprehension exercise. It was so preposterous that I at first I thought it was a critical-thinking task and asked her to politely clarify the issue with her teacher as it was impossible to answer the comprehension questions they were then phrased. She , with several other students was, punished for daring to ask such a question and asked to write a letter of apology for insulting christian belief. Then there was the class ‘debate’ (part of the eng lang assessment – Evolution versus Creationism. My student was the debate moderator (she is very bright and one of the top students) and she asked for my help in understanding the issue. None of that preparation was in the least bit useful – she said the girls for evolution won hands down in terms of arugument- BECAUSE the teachers (another expat teacher joined them) had only one winner in mind all along. It appeared that things got somewhat emotional and my heart bled for the smart kids who got so nastily rubbished and sidelined by the fundo teachers. I wanted to raise a complaint with the school but the parents declined. Ironically this was about the time the Church of England was delivering its long overdue apologia to Darwin late last year.
I have had bio teachers praising god’s creative efforts, math teachers sending out emails with biblical quotations attached, wishing non-christian parents a ‘blessed’ weekend. Intrusive or what? These teachers teach at govt schools, not the christian aided schools
seemed that this blog is for homophobic christian bigots who continue to consider gays as sinners to be condemned to helll. Gay haters and gay bashers, nothing less.
For those who might still be interested, regarding information on the old AWARE ExCo being pro-LGBT
1) http://www.aware.org.sg/?p=1319
2) http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061
Hey hatasan,
I didn’t offer my opinions on heterosexual paraphilias. But if they want to indulge in it, I am not going to go to their bedrooms to stop them. Just as I will not be asking to homosexuals to be staked out and arrested for being butt buddies.
As for you asking “Do you think calling it anal sex confers upon it a semblance of normalcy?” Did I in any way infer that calling it by any other name confers upon it a semblance of normalcy? I already made it clear I think it is abnormal.
You simply failed to understand my comparisons to anal and vaginal sex, in terms of normalcy. The vagina is meant for penetration with special linings and natural lubrications for that very purpose. The anus? If you haven’t go figure why it is not hygienic. Hands and lips and mouths are inevitably used in shows of affection. Taste and feel is quintessential. So your examples simply reinforce their normalcy. But describe rectal tasting to anyone and watch how many people’s faces change in color.
So yes, biology does tell you why anal sex is harmful. Go read up on how it actually is harmful, compared to vaginal, oral and masturbation.
And since you mentioned polygamy. Yes, why don’t we lobby for it to be legal too, since history is so full of it? 🙂
It doesn’t matter whether we want to use science or history as a basis to define abnormality. I used science because the gay lobby is using it, and since u mentioned history, I used it along with you. If we take them both out of the equation, tell me, do you put a plug in a socket meant for it? Or do you force the plug into a socket not meant for it? Or do you place two plugs together for no apparent productive reason at all?
The simple fact that a belief or religion originated from the east, simply means that your orginal statement that western civilisation influenced the rest of the world, is wrong. After all the “west” was influenced by the east first. 🙂
Oral sex, by the way, has never really had an abnormal tinge to it. It has always been a subject within even the religious sutras and Bible even. Poetry even. So there simply is NO comparison between anal and oral.
The view that other sexual lifestyles are not being lobbied for currently, and so it will not happen, is simplistic. Take a look at the internet and you will see a host of such “alternative sexual lifestyles” everywhere. Do you seriously think it will not happen in the future?
And yes, if you think this is not already happening? I think you should take a good look at NAMBLA. Such organisations are already underway. So its not just an assumption
As for the old exco fighting for gay rights, it can be found simply from the very words uttered by themselves in recent news conference. After all, the ‘catfight’ began over this topic in the first place. If you are not familiar with this, then there is no point over us talking about it.
The statement you made, that upon helping a lesbian in a sexual harrassment situation will lead to the victim having to go through sexual therapy as well is just assumptive and unfair. If you were to take position in an organisation or workplace, would you like people to assume what you are going to do because of your beliefs and ostracise you for it? When you have not even begun to act, do you like people to assume something which may be entirely untrue? I can also assume that as a woman’s organisation, AWARE should NOT be seen as pro-gay or otherwise as well, since being a “rainbow” (I just hate how words get hijacked and mutated into something it was never mean to be) coaliton, I would assume it also includs women who advocate only man/women relationships.
The whole issue I am against is the gay lobby’s attitude in its condemnation of anyone who believes only in a man/women relationship. Taking potshots at religion while crying foul when religious advocates speak their minds as well.
And as I have mentioned before, you have your views, and other will inevitably have their own. But why are people so adamant in their assumptions before even the new exco has begun to work?
Yes, in fact based on the comments by PAP’s Vivian, it was clear what he meant when he said “”We want to protect and nurture the special place religion has in our society. We don’t want our religious organisations to be compromised or be damaged by the hurly-burly of politicking which appears on the ground. It is not a good idea.” And also when he said there are many more challenges facing Singapore and women. It would be good to focus on them and not get distracted.
The fact remains that religion is a private matter too. Accusing people of actions which have not even been mentioned or implemented is just plain ludicrous. Many of the ministers in parliament are also religious. Do we see them being prejudiced or do we hijack their intentions by assuming they are fighting only for their religious beliefs? Give me a break.
As for data on the harmful effect of having a dick pound your butt, I suggest you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex where interestingly, you’ll find that even some gays denounce anal sex as degrading toward the receptive partner and an unnecessary health risk.
Anyway, I’m kinda done on this topic, and leave you to your own views and a word that I am not against anyone being gay. But that doesn’t mean I have to approve of it. And thanks for the civil discussion. 🙂
Hi Terence69,
Evil rights
What’s with this butt sex thing? Do you think calling it anal sex confers upon it a semblance of normalcy? I know of heterosexual couples who engaged in a spot of anal sex once in awhile, myself included. Butt sex as you so aptly called it is not the prerogative of the homosexuals.
As for me brushing up my biology, well… sex is going to be kind of boring right? No masturbation dude, your hand is not meant for that! And of course, the mouth is meant for eating. And nipples, don’t even go there! For your information, biology does not explain everything. If it does, we’ll be having polygamy right now. 🙂
Homosexuality in history
So how do you define abnormality then? Through science? But I thought you find them to be bias in itself? Through social norms? But isn’t that what we are trying to establish now – looking at homosexuality through history and how it evolves along with society overtime.
Christianity was not the first organized religion to frown upon homosexuality in the world but in the Western civilization, it was if we take the linear approach of Greek, Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. You are right in saying that Christianity has its roots in the East but the predominant development of state and religion has always been in the West. Look no further than the Roman Catholic Church and its influence on Western civilization.
Baring the appalling factor (which is a matter of personal taste) what differentiates homosexuality from say, bestiality and pedophilia? Is bestiality a consenting behavior between two adults? Is pedophilia a consenting behavior between two consenting adults? So what’s wrong with love between two consenting adults of the same sex? You mean you would find it more acceptable if they don’t engage in anal sex, maybe just oral sex? Oh no, wait, even that is biologically abnormal. 🙂
Last but not least, ask yourself this. In the countries where they decriminalize homosexuality, do you find bestiality pride day propping out? Do you see people pushing for a parade for pedophiles? So you see these group of people acting to legalize their behavior now that the government gave the go ahead for homosexuality. So where’s your slippery slope? In Singapore you have people fighting for gay rights. Why did we not see similar ground swelling of support for bestiality and pedophilia in overturning the laws? They are more? They are more organized? Or perhaps they are right, that they should be allowed to lead their lives accordingly without any stigmata attached to their sexual inclinations.
AWARE
I don’t have the facts. Can you point me to relevant materials stating that the old EXCO was actively fighting for gay rights? 🙂
Oh I don’t doubt the new EXCO will fight for lesbians in sexual harassment cases but I assumed once that is over, the poor lesbian will have to go for the follow-up counseling advising her that her sexual inclination is abnormal. You know, once they do that, who knows what they will stop at? Proselyting to vulnerable females? Conduct similar covert operations on civil society deemed to be friendly towards gay rights? TOC & Wayang Party seems to be going against the new EXCO. Who knows, they might be next. See, I am happily going down the slippery slope. Today, AWARE. Tomorrow, the PAP. After all, with Geylang and Marina Barrage, who’s to say our nation’s not crossing the line set out by God? 🙂
I am glad that this whole episode was made public. You are right in saying that the old EXCO was legally voted out. I have no qualms with that. Sure the old EXCO picked up a big fuss and in the early days the net’s opinion was roughly equally divided, with one half asserting that the old EXCO loses fail and square and they have no one else to blame but themselves. But as the days goes by, more sordid details began to emerge. They questioned the integrity of the new EXCO and the direction they are setting themselves. AWARE is a secular organization with a rainbow coalition. Now it is becoming strangely monotone – consisting of one particular organized religious view. I find it ludicrous that you can tell me that the new EXCO is just as inclusive as the old one. The way I looked at it now, AWARE seems to resemble more and more a subset of COOS.
And talking about the PAP, you really think they will just let this slide by? Based on the recent comments by Vivian and Iswaran, I think the PAP is smarter than that. 🙂
Oh, and please enlighten me on the harmful effects of anal sex. I would love to collate data and do an analysis comparing the damage of a cigar on the human body and a dick in the butt. That would be so interesting. 🙂
Thanks for the points, hatasan. 🙂
First and foremost, I should say that everybody has their own points of view and beliefs. Some believe homosexuality is normal, others do not. Some view bestiality and even necrophilia as normal alternative lifestyles, others do not. What I am unable to stomach is the atiitude of the LGBT lobby that theirs is the one and only view that can be preached as correct.
1) Gay rights will lead to other Evil rights.
I find it amusing that you should use the word evil now. You can view other alternative sexual lifestyles as evil, and yet, deny the rights of others to view homosexuality as evil.
It matters not if I can argue whether homosexuality should be looked upon in the same light as bestiality and necrophilia or other paraphilias. The point remains that you view butt sex as normal, but view bestiality and the others as appalling. The people who indulge in those appalling activities might actually also find a man having butt sex with another man appalling too, wouldn’t you agree?
There is no murkiness there, except those stirred up by the gay lobby’s probing and anal vision. What a group of people find normal, another will find appaling. All it needs, is a growing number of people who comes forward publicly and insist that it is normal along with funded “scientific” research. Who’s to say that would not happen? Can you argue convincingly that it will never come to pass?
I find homosexuality (and its practice of sodomy) abnormal on very basic science. The nature and purpose of the anus (defecation, not penetration). Get some lessons in biology. It would almost be as natural as having nasal intercourse.
2) Homosexuality in history.
One cannot simply use history as the basis to show that an abnormality is normal. By the way, the Christians were not the first to frown upon sodomy. You might want to do a little bit more research on that. Citing it as western influence is not exactly right either. Judaism and Christianity and even Islam did not come from the west (its middle eastern, to be precise).
If it was indeed a case of the church’s (or as you call it western) values that criminalised homosexuality, I suppose they were wrong with stopping men from marrying girls under a certain age as well, despite having reached puberty? After all, if you like history, you’d realise child marriage was an even more common practice. I suppose we should also begin to lobby for the rights of people to marry or have sexual relations with what we term as minors today. I suppose that incest should be legalised as well? History also shows incestuous relationships rampantly practised by many cultures. I suppose prostitution should also not be marginalised, after all, it is the world’s oldest profession. Bestiality has been prevalent in many cultures in asia, middle east, europe and north america in antiquity too. Even the Romans you referenced had women tortured and raped by animals. So do you pick and choose what you term as evil while denying others the right to do so? It would be hypocritical wouldn’t it?
So yes, it is a slippery slope. Picking out sodomy from Section 377A to declare it normal, while acting all appalled by the other acts mentioned within the same section and then claim that it isn’t a slippery slope, is being naive.
3) As for the picking on Christianity;
Would any of the gays so incredibly brave in their fight for the rights of their homosexual ‘brethren’, want to fight for their gay cohorts in muslim countries? Come on, don’t just show false bravado against people who may speak out against homosexuality but actually tolerate it. Toleration simply means to tolerate. It doesn’t mean having to welcome and accept changes in which their fundamental moral beliefs may be jeopardised.
The new exco were very clear on this in a recent news conference. Homosexuality and the repeal of that law was a MALE issue. Why on earth did AWARE, a woman’s organisation have to be involved in a male issue? Lesbians aren’t discriminated legally. There is no law to say a woman is not to perform cunnilingus or “scissor” each other.
Inclusiveness (in AWARE’s context) should also mean being able to include the beliefs of ALL women, including those who reject homosexuality as a norm. And I’m very sure the new exco will not reject a lesbian’s plea for help should the latter be involved in a sexual harrassment issue etc. They were simply against the repeal of Section 377A. Perhap the old exco might want to pick up the case of the woman who had sexual relations with a young boy? That should be pretty inclusive too. 😛
Grievous has already covered other points as to whether their methods were right or wrong. Though personally, I find it amusing. They were voted in legally and democratically. The issue was only made public BY the old ex-co, like a call for outside help from the gay lobby and anti-christians. Its like PAP complaining to the world media when the opposition parties took them by surprise and won those constituencies back in the day. Thank goodness the PAP is at least smarter than that.
By playing up the religion card, the old exco already shows their contempt for our national pledge, “… Regardless of race, language or religion…” Or perhaps we should lobby to add in “sexual orientation as well”?
No one has really discriminated the gays in Singapore, or you’d see the gay pubs around town watched by our policemen who have lots of time in their hands. Show me a case where gays were brought to court and charged for having sexual relations in the privacy of their homes or cheap motels. If you’re gay, fine, you’re gay. But it doesn’t mean I have to accept the way you find sexual pleasure as normal, or sit idly by and let it be made an officially approved sexual lifestyle.
In fact, I think smokers are way more discriminated when compared to gays now. Perhaps AWARE would like to figh for women smokers who are publicly segregated like lepers. And don’t talk about the harmful effects of smoking, unless you’d like to hear the harmful effects of anal penetraton.
Terence69´s last blog post: AWARE Wasn’t Aware
To Terence69,
There are several points I wished to raise for discussion.
Gay rights will lead to other Evil rights
I find your arguments about the slippery slope of gays amusingly familiar. So you are equating gays with people who likes making out with animals and corpses? Can you argue convincingly that homosexuality should be looked upon in the same light as bestiality and necrophilia? I find this frankly quite appalling. The arguments made in favour of the latter are not the same as the former. Do not confuse the issues or murky it with false analogies.
Homosexuality in history
Are you sure throughout history homosexuality was not considered ‘normal’? Certainly not the Greeks and the early Romans. In fact it is only with the entry of Christianity that homosexuality was ‘officially’ frowned upon in the West. So can we safely say that it was due to the strong ‘lobby’ group by the church that turned homosexuality into a sin and subsequently, a crime and a mental disease? If we look at homosexuality historically in China, it was not an issue throughout the dynasties until the Self Strengthening Movement, when the Chinese imported Western ideas and technology. Talk about lobbying!
Why pick on Christianity?
In reference to the AWARE issue, how NOT to pick on Christianity when the new EXCO and its supporters wear the religion on their sleeves? Yes, we should encourage them on their bravery to stand for their rights but may I ask you, what kind of rights has AWARE been trampling on? Promoting gay rights among vulnerable women? Promoting gay values in schools? Why did they not write in to the ST to complain about AWARE? Why did they not write in to MOE to complain about AWARE’s program? Why did they not raise this in AWARE AGM last year or any other years before? Why these need to conduct a covert operation to take over a clearly SECULAR organisation? And you ask the public, why was Christianity picked on? It was picked on because these people are clearly exhibiting values not consistently with what’s taught in the Bible. And yes, no one here is a saint but the consistent flouting of ‘bad’ behaviour (lying, slandering etc) is surely a cause for concern.
So what is the issue here? I am open to debate and I enjoyed reading what the net has to offer in terms of perspective. What I do not like about the nature of the new EXCO is its ‘inclusive’ nature. I am not sure about the religious and ethnic make-up of the old AWARE but I can safely said that most religions and ethnic groups are represented in there. Can we say the same for the new AWARE?
hatasan´s last blog post: "Darling, shall we go apply for a HDB flat?"
Science is ever changing according to new discoveries anyway. One day something can be a proven scientific fact, the next day another discovery can render it fiction.
Though I must say, I can’t help but find the following statement within the press release extremely funny and pretty unscientific.
” …holds the view that lesbian, gay …the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating…” I’d love to see them achieve that without going bi or heterosexual or involving the opposite sex, which would totally mean “… no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed” isn’t quite right.
Oh wait, if anyone suggests artificial insemination, I wonder which part of artificial denotes natural.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2009/statement.aspx
2009 press release
The Royal College shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992
—
One does not need to resort to the Bible or Christianity to refer or infer that homosexuality is somewhat unnatural. Throughout history, when did homosexuality actually find actual acceptance as “normal”? Only in recent decades, due to the lobbying of powerful gays. Before then, even the American psychiatrists called it a mental illness, tho’ now that the gay lobby has taken over, the psychiatrists claim that gay people can never be straight even if they wanted to. Have biology classes been wrong? Do we put plugs into sockets?
Igoring any part of the Bible is just an excuse. Why not ignore everything. Perhaps the 10 commandments too. But it is a person’s perogative to do so, and even if I may disagree, I won’t disparage the person’s right to do so. Anglicans in another country may have gone down the gay road, but I can assure you, others like the ones in Singapore, aren’t very happy with that. And when Christians stick to their beliefs without being shaken by new worldviews, they are termed as fundamentalists. For one, I would be proud to be a fundamental Christian. And not bend over (like certain people of alternative sexual orientations).
Scriptures never change. Doctrine remain the same. But people change, and views change. Science itself is ever changing, even according to powerful lobbies and people who may fund research.
As for cherry picking verses, that is an innately narcissistic quality of people to use it to justify their own points of view. Religion does not teach anyone to cherry pick scriptures. People teach people to do that. For anyone not familiar with the Bible, it calls upon the believer to read the Bible and check with it against people who may teach it. Don’t just follow blindly. A real Christian will tell you the Bible is not wrong, it is the people who may intepret it wrongly for the wrong purposes. Just because some Christians are like that doesn’t make every one of them that way. Christians are still sinners and are not perfect as well. If anyone of them says so, then he or she needs a wake up call.
But that is not the real argument here is it?
Why pick on the Christians? Just because they made a move to lead Aware? Because they are strongly grounded in their stand and beliefs? Then again, being an all-inclusive organisation, isn’t Aware supposed to include views and beliefs which may also disagree with sexual orientation?
I can safely say the muslims aren’t exactly smiling with kindness at the gays. Or are the gays only brave enough to talk down to the Christians who are actually tolerant? Look at the way gays are treated in “christian” countries and compare it to an “islamic” state.
And are the gays the only ones with the rights to “preach” and hell be upon anyone who has a differing opinion.
For all we know, going down this slippery slope, pedophiles, bestiality, necrophilia and incest will also be on the list of law repeals. Oh there are people in the world who practise that and I have a feeling their arguments will be pretty similar to those which the gays are using.
Terence69´s last blog post: AWARE Wasn’t Aware
Who gets to decide that “LGBT, they must aware that this is never a right path for any humanoid” ? The Bible? One reason why I never believed in the Bible is because religion teaches us to cherry pick scriptures that are applicable and convenient to today’s society. Well, perhaps it’s time to ignore parts of the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin, if any.
Ironically, Anglicans are one of the few denominations that are open to same-sex marriage and female ordination. And we all know Anglicans have a history of cherry picking the most. ^^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality#Anglicanism
Priss´s last blog post: The Face of Imedeen
“Fairness” ….. haha, it seems like I have been contantly seeing this word very frequently lately from people that trying to “justify” the unjustifiable subjects. Wait wait, let me clarify something 1st, me ain’t a person that hold prejudice against others having an “unusual sexual orientation and fetish”, but than again, I didn’t disagreed doesn’t means I “agree” (or even accept) LGBT coz, in my definition, this is really flipping the nature (yeah, can you imagine two male lion fxxking each? Hey, this is something seriously wrong).
The subject of LGBT has always been a tricky and nasty subject in our modern day’s society, but for those who are LGBT, they must aware that this is never a right path for any humanoid, so if they choose to take this route, than be prepare to lose their basic rights (or even respect).
As for the influence of internet, I say this is the ignorant and stereotyping. I really wonder, why can’t people just take whatever they read in the internet or newspaper as a piece of information rather than to “believe” (or disbelieve) them. Whatever it is, I think is about time for everyone to move on.
I guess, if nobody had taken over Aware, the old guard would eventually be supporting women who fuck underaged boys too. They all-inclusive after all (except if you’re a Christian and do not support the same causes). Aww why not? They can claim to be born that way and have a natural tendency to be attracted to children, or animal genitalia. Do homosexuals find this disgusting? If they do, they’re hypocrites, and they’ll know the disgust people who do not support gay lifstyles, feel. And well if they don’t, I guess that wouldn’t be very surprising, would it? ;P
Perhaps they’ll even start supporting women who visit stables to give blowjobs to horses as well. Bravo, catty bitches, I wonderif they really want a Christians vs Gays ‘war’. I’m pretty sure I know who is in the majority, especially when we have Muslims who aren’t exactly smiling kindly at the homosexuals.
Terence69´s last blog post: AWARE Wasn’t Aware