Normally, I won’t bother to reply to established nonsense, but one problem with that is that when it goes unchallenged and gets repeated enough, it becomes the truth. This is what the right-wing movement in Americas tries to do with their agenda from abortion to evolution. Some people, even gay people, will say “enough of this debate already.” But like I said, if harmful assumptions goes unchallenged they soon become reality. Anyway, Let’s just get on with it:
First of all, I want to very clearly state that I don’t believe in discriminating against anybody in terms of the basic human rights. In fact, I just spent a whole day rehearsing with the dancers for my magic show, and more than half of them are living the homosexual lifestyle. It’s not a problem. They are good dancers, we use them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.
Again, lifestyle is used to describe gay people. “Gay lifestyle” as we know it is used primary by Christian right-wing movements to justify their involvement in reparative therapy and it became so mainstream that even gay people use it.
And there is a difference between loving people, including homosexuals, and allowing the homosexual lifestyle to become normalised in society. The reason I stand firm on asking that this law not be repealed is that Section 377A is a standard that is written down. The history of many countries tells us that if you remove it, the homosexual community is not going to stop there. They first ask for tolerance. Tolerance means: Don’t bully me, don’t make me a criminal. The minute you take that away, they will ask for acceptance, in the form of gay marriage. And then, before long, they will go for celebration of the lifestyle. I’m talking about the gay pride days all around the world. Then the next thing you know, they will persecute those who disagree with them, by labeling those disagreements as hate speech. We have seen that path. Singapore does not need to go that way. I do not believe this is good for any society. And I will stand firm because I love my nation very much.
Here he tried to create an apocalyptic scenario of what is going to happen if 377a is repeal. Indeed, some of those that he spoke of are natural progression of equality when citizens become more sensible. However, he does nothing to proof that repeal of 337a, same-sex marriage or even gay pride will bring chaos or even harm to society at large. It’s just empty scare tactics because it just doesn’t exists.
As to discrimination against hate speech, actually that is also a naturally progression of equality. The same can be said of racial segregation, apartheid, antisemitism, women’s right, slavery or even people practicing other believes. The Christian traditions have been at the forefront of opposition to equality, using their books to discriminate, to bring harm and to kill those who seeks equality. In fact, church leaders used to openly give hate speech against Jews and black people, they are even against inter-racial marriage, but do they do it now or do they still say it even though some may still interpret the scriptures as such?
Another worry by some religious leaders is that they are forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Personally, I think this should never be enforce and it should still a choice. Its a pretty grey area, but to me at the moment, it would be the same as enforce a law that allows any religious marriage to be held in any religious place.
This homosexual agenda is being pushed with great aggression. For example, inasmuch as they ask for tolerance, they are some of the most intolerant people that I have ever met. Anytime you disagree with them, you are said to be homophobic, you are said to have made hate speech. We do not say that they are heterophobic or Christophobic. We don’t engage in name-calling. But they do, all the time. Why can’t we argue on the merits of a case instead of slapping on labels?
The “aggression” or opposition only arises because people like Khong have ask thousands of their people to rise up against equality for gay folks. If he had read news, he will see that it is mostly religious folks who are doing the aggression especially in America. Isn’t he lying through his teeth (thou shalt not lied!) to point the finger of intolerance at gay folks? How many gay church goers had his agenda force them to contemplate suicide, had their family drive them out of their homes or beaten severely or have homophobic religious employers sack their employees? Whose aggression and intolerance are we talking about really?
And of course we are not called heterophobic or Christophobic because there are gay people who are Christians and there are equality supporters who are heterosexuals! Duh!
That human right is the right to employment, the right to education, the right to live as a normal citizens. But not the right to change the laws of society to normalise that agenda.
I guess when he talks about normalising the agenda, he was talking about the churches previous oppositions to normalising the agenda to women’s rights, black rights and freeing slaves also?
Behind that is a presupposition that says, anything that I do privately is none of anybody’s business. So what about consenting incestuous relationships? It’s against the law. What about taking drugs? It can be argued that it’s none of your business, since I take it in my home. I know people have different opinions. But in my view, there are certain things that are basically harmful to society. The homosexual lifestyle is not a normal lifestyle.
Again the straw man argument. When women demanded rights, Churches were predicting the downfall of families structure, when blacks demanded rights, Churches were calling inter-racial marriage abnormal and worry about a devil child creating from the union! Dear Khong, there is a difference between private consent has not no provable harm and one that does. He keeps saying homosexuality is not normal, but that is religious position not a secular one, because there is no scientific basis for that assertion. Also just because its not normal doesn’t mean it will bring harm, S&M is not normal by many people, but its not outlawed, either is wearing clothes, spectacles and eating with chopsticks. By the way, if Adam and Eve were the first humans and they had children, who else did their children and their children’s children have sex with to give birth to the rest of humanity?
No, no. Let’s draw the line between theology and code of conduct or ethics. I don’t think we should ever make a law that says: You’re not a Christian, you have committed a crime. That’s theology. And I do not go for that because I believe in a secular state.
You got it right my dear, this is a secular state, there a lot of more people who are not Christians and society should not be governed by your agenda!
I can live with that. But I feel like it should be there as a line, as a standard, as a benchmark that is drawn. The most basic thing is: This is not normal. The natural marriage between a man and a woman is normal.
Er.. what the fish is “natural marriage”, again another fluffy term created by his agenda
There is no proof at all. Zero proof, according to the researchers who have gone into this.
As I always argued, it doesn’t matter if we can proof the homosexual genes, because if we use genes to determine what is allowed in law, what if someone found genes related to serial killers? Should that be allowed because of genes? The genes argument is a distraction created by their agenda to proof their point. Also until now there are still gaps in the evolution theory (which the creationist took up with delight!), does that mean if we cannot provide direct evolutionary links, we should discard it? It should not matter whether something is in the genes or not because religion is not in the genes, yet don’t outlaw against religion, do we? There is yet objective prove, I say again, OBJECTIVE PROOF, that laws giving equality to gay people will cause harm to society or even oneself, than the law against it should be repealed.
Well, I challenge the nation to do a study and lay out all the evidence. And I’m confident that the research as a whole will show you that that isn’t true. Every ex-homosexual is proof that people are not born this way. There are no ex-blacks, no ex-Chinese, but there are ex-homosexuals.
His statement about ex-homosexuals is so harmful and dangerous that it cannot be left unchallenged. For one, the only ex-gays are those who have gone under the harmful reparative therapy now banned in US (I think). Secondly, there are more than even evidences and cases of ex-gays and those ex-gays leaders who admitted that their approach is wrong and became ex-ex-gay again and apologized for the harm that they have done to society and gay folks that they treat. In fact, it can be testified that many ex-gay suffer from suicide tendencies, depression and self-hatred. Have you even heard of an gay gay-activist who actually apologized for fighting for gay rights and that they are actually not homosexual after all? Never right? Also, until now there is never a published objective and peer review medical nor psychological assessment about the ex-gay and the effectiveness of its programs. The only claims are from research centers sponsored by the very own people to support the cause. Duh!
The Aware saga took us all by surprise. Nothing like that has happened before. But in retrospect: One, they did not do anything illegal. What they did happens in clubs all the time. I don’t like this committee, I take you out. You go to some club annual general meetings, it’s like a war zone. Looking at the big picture, in the end, we did discover that there were elements in the materials that were used by the Aware people that promoted the homosexual lifestyle. So this group of people was correct in raising the alarm. As a result of that, the Ministry of Education could adjust their system of tendering (of sex education classes) to vendors. That was good, right? I mean, how do you like things to be sneaked up on your children without you knowing it? So I see them as a group of conscientious citizens who had concerns about what was being taught in schools.
Yes, indeed harmful right-wing ideas of abstinence only sexual program have indeed crept into our secular schools and the government knowingly participate in them even though there are enough studies to show that they are not effective and leads to more harm for those youth then one that combines objective, unbiased and non-judgement sexual education (with includes abstinence education also) to youths. Such slip-streaming of Christian ideology should indeed be outlawed and banned!
Lastly, it is not possible to promote homosexuality. Honestly speaking I don’t even know how to promote it; you mean “its good for you, try one today”? If homosexuality can be promoted then surely heterosexuality can be promoted also and would have been every effective. Anyway this has already been going on for ages in our text, radio, TV, movies and even policies, yet people are still coming out gay despite all that and indeed despite coming from a heterosexual parent family. Does saying homosexuality is normal make people more homosexual? If that is the case, then many gay-rights activists who are not homosexual would have turned homosexual because they see it as normal, like eons ago!