sorry i came in real late. i just want some clarification by KEN, if possible he mentioned, ''If it's true... it's a good thing - only the more vibrant and desirable cities in the world boost a higher population of homosexuals - it's a good symtom =) 

pray tell what are the more vibrant and desirable cities?? perhaps the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? and we all know what happenned to those two cities.

Hi late

Please read ST's ''Making room for the three T's'' 

''Technology, talent, tolerance. They define the new creative class which a city must attract and retain, says a new major US study. ZURAIDAH IBRAHIM explores the issue

FOR Singapore to thrive economically, it must accept immigrant talent, artists and homosexuals.

At least, that is what a major new study of American cities suggests.

Richard Florida, a professor of regional development at Carnegie Mellon University, surveyed 49 urban centres with populations of at least one million, to try to discover the secrets of economic dynamism.........

So how do homosexuals come into the equation? Gays are a proxy determinant of how tolerant and diverse a place is.......''

I must add that diversity and tolerance is the key to a vibrant, desirable and successful city.

Just look at Islamic countries -
zero gay scene implies zero tolerance implies zero many other things.

How well do you think they will do if you take away their oil?

The gay scene is a measure of how open-minded a city is and hence its tolerance and diversity.

But unfortunately, I don't think we are anywhere near San Francisco or Sydney.

late,

you must have been really late! what happened to those cities. is sodom and gomorrah the only cities you can think about. what about singapore...

Ken,
Homosexuals make a society more vibrant? What is the evidence? The Mardi Gras in Sydney, as an example? Sorry, that does NOT fit my definition of vibrant. That's more like a definition for ''deviant'', ''perversion'', ''abnormal''.

Tolerance? Are we to tolerate murderers because they cannot control their anger and hate? Are we to tolerate the thieves and robbers because they cannot be satisfied with what they have through good honest work? Are we to tolerate the adulterers because they have ''natural'' urges they cannot control? Sorry - homosexuality is a deviation from the natural order of things. It cannot be justified or tolerated. It is a disease that requires the afflicted to receive treatment - not indulgence.

If I sound intolerant, well, I guess I am. As SM Lee said, Singapore is NOT ready for the homosexual lifestyle. It may be inevitable in the next generation because of our exposure to the West and their liberalism. But as far as this generation is concerned, homosexuals would be better off seeking treatment than lobbying for their perverted cause shamelessly in public - or anonymously on the web.

Erm... Profundis, I think you have painted a very extreme picture of homosexuality.

In the first place, no one ever likened the vibrancy Singapore needed with the Mardi Gras, it is merely your own view. And since the government in Sydney allows the parade, does that mean that the government is ''deviant'', ''perversion'' and ''abnormal''?

You likened homosexuals to murderers, theives, robbers and adulterers. Once again, I think you are using your own moral yardstick to measure things. Personally, I feel that as long as one don't hurt someone physically, mentally and emotionally in one's actions, what one do will be correct. (Note that murderers, theives, robbers and adulterers indeed cause hurt in the forms I have mentioned)

By the way, I agree with you that all murderers should be condemned, no questions about it.

You said that ''homosexuality is a deviation from the natural order of things''. Well in nature, we have something called natural selection. And organisms that deviate from the ''natural'' state of things are born eg. mutated, without a limb, with an extra finger, albino, with Down's syndrome, the list goes on. If we agree with the theory of natural selection and view things only in this extremely simple perspective, won't we just want these people to die off and only allow the other ''normal'' people to survive? I am not trying to liken homosexuals to the organisms I mentioned above, I am just trying to show that even though some things may not be in the natural order of things, they should be given a chance to live in dignity and with respect.

If all else fails to let you see a more balanced view of things, I will quote a Bible verse from Matthew 5:17. ''Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.'' I think you can understand something as idiot-proof as this.

Oh... sorry for saying that you have extreme views earlier, I missed your ''It may be inevitable in the next generation because of our exposure to the West and their liberalism.'' A big thank you and ''phew! There is still hope!'' to you for acknowledging this fact. So in light of this acknowledgement, why can't people speed things up a little? You can say that if the harsh truth is going to come eventually, why not let it arrive now because the sooner the better?

Lastly, after reading your ''... lobbying for their perverted cause shamelessly in public ...''. I really wanted to wash my hands off you, but I believe in education. A slow, patient and sometimes painful process that is done out of love. But over time, even water can drip through stone, so what cannot be done over time? But I think I will leave the education part to my other fellow gay brothers and sisters.

To conclude, I would like to say that I sympatise with your cause, Profundis. And I hope you can do the same for us too.

(PS: Sorry my brothers and sisters if I didn't do a good job here. I am sure many of you can do much better)

Someone said:
''Are we to tolerate the adulterers because they have ''natural'' urges they cannot control?''

Hahahaa. And what would you do to adulterers - hang them? I think at least 10% of the married population in Singapore would have to have their heads chopped off then.

You could start by rounding up the male married Singaporeans on the daily flights to Bangkok, for further investigation. Or the crowded ferries to Bintan. Or the nice Chinese businessmen who tell their wives that they are stopping by in Geylang ''for supper''.

And this ''natural order of things'' argument - eeeks, I am very doubtful about it.

To oversimplify, the following propositions have been put forth, at various times, by various organisations / people, using the ''natural order of things'' argument.

-- ''Feeding babies with formula milk is immoral and against the natural order of things.'' [This was an oft-heard argument when formula milk had just been invented]

-- ''It is against the natural order of things to say that the earth rotates around the sun.'' [Copernicus was burned at the stake for suggesting that the earth rotates around the sun]

-- ''Artificial insemination is against the natural order of things.'' [Still heard quite often, nowadays].

-- ''Using condoms is against the natural order of things.'' [Yeah, yeah, the Roman Catholic Church].

-- ''Sending people to the moon is against the natural order of things.'' Such protests were made when the USA was making plans to send our good friend Armstrong to the moon.

-- ''Oral sex is against the natural order of things.'' Well, in practice it is captured under s 377 Penal Code, under the description of ''unnatural sex''.

-- ''Heart transplants are against the natural order of things.'' [Getting so cliched, but a real controversy when a baboon's heart was used for the world's first heart transplant, around 1984(?)]

-- ''The death sentence is against the natural order of things.'' [Regularly raised even today]

-- ''Living on artificial resuscitation is against the natural order of things.'' [when life support became common, this argument was used by pro-euthanasia people]

-- ''Growing genetically altered, Vitamin C-enhanced tomatoes is against the natural order of things.'' [Protest against French scientists]

-- ''Letting black men have the same rights as white men is against the natural order of things. White men are superior.'' [Read American history]

-- ''Blond, blue-eyed people are superior to other human beings. This is the natural order of things.'' Hitler's Aryan theory.

-- ''Global warming is Gaia's way of punishing mankind, for acting against the natural order of things.'' [Read native Indian mythology - Gaia is mother earth - New Age environmentalists revived this.]

-- ''Abortion is against the natural order of things.''

-- ''Wearing clothes is against the natural order of things.'' [Remember this one? That's when nudist colonies were fashionable in Europe].

You get my point. ''Natural order of things'' is a pretty feeble argument. You gotta think more deeply than that.

GET OVER WITH THIS ALREADY WILL YOU ?!?!

This is because Singapore, is putting on years - aka growing old, just 37 years only ( imagine 100 years more down the line...).

What is this? Can't except the human race? Think that Singapore is really sterile ?

Pleaassssse.........

Looks like we have a class of homosexuals who are very SKEWFUL cyber-communicators.

Hello homosexuals, where in the Remaking Singapore topics talks about homosexuality ?

Are you sure you are in the right forum ?

Just want to remind you that homosexuality is about one man's dick in another man's hole, and one woman's lick on another woman's hole.

That is the most civil way I can put it across, and afterwards I am going to puke.

Do you, in any way, know the concept of Shame ?

People who know shame do not defecate in public, do you ?

Are you aware that you are trying to pass off dung as gold, to the public ?

I not stupid, I know what you are doing.

Chee Seng

Erm again...

Do you agree that it is pointless to educate this Tan Chee Seng guy?

Does anyone out there who has such a big heart for such an arduous task? I plead you to come forward.

By the way, I find his postings rather amusing to read. Does anyone feel the same?

I can say that if our Tan Chee Seng would even bother to do a little research, he would realise that homosexuality was part and parcel of pre-PRC Chinese culture. Ever heard of the term ''torn sleeve''? I can also say that heterosexuality is about one man's dick in a woman's hole, but then, I'll be just as guilty as Tan in oversimplifying matters. Of course, I can also say I want to puke after reading what Tan wrote. Imagine that in this time and age, we still have ignorant and intolerant people like him lurking about. I can say all the above, but I won't. What's the point? It's like playing the zither to a cow. It's like trying to light a leather lantern.

Heey, what are you people doing in a forum like this ? Totally disgraceful !

Remember what SM Lee said, he said you can be bohemian, but don't touch the heartland.

Johnston
Per your hope to ''educate'' me, thanks but NO THANKS. Not your definition of education. But yes, I am learning and ever-learning about human behaviour. One lesson learnt: if a person is fixed in his mind about something, nothing can change his mind. That includes me. And my attitude toward homosexuality is FIXED. And on good grounds too. You quote the Bible. But of course you would conveniently leave out the numerous passages that condemn homosexuals and homosexuality. Those condemnations provide the basis upon which penal codes in the western countries against homosexuality were written. So I am at least certain I am standing on good ground, whereas homosexuals and homosexual sympathisers stand on shifting sand.

But there is difference between speaking out against homosexuality and hating homosexuals. You may find this paradoxical and hard to understand, but it is precisely because of love that one who believes the Bible has to speak out against homosexuality with the hope that homosexuals and those with that kind of deviant inclination will change their ways. Used to be there was a time when people would pay attention to the warnings of hellfire. Nowadays many just prefer to believe there is no such thing and give free reign to their perversions and other evil desires.

OK, OK - I am ''extremist'' in my views and you give up hope ''educating'' me. But hey, where there is clear black and white per what is written in the Bible, the only position that is acceptable is that which is written, regardless of whether others think it is ''extremist'' or not.

Stray cat
On the subject of ''natural order of things'', this is probably not the right forum to get into depth in this subject. Many of the examples you gave have NOTHING at all to do with ''natural order of things''. Some do. Well, you could say that's one man's opinion vs another. For me, there is one source of definition of ''natural order'' - viz the Bible - on the subjects that it touches on. Homosexuality is most certainly covered in it in clear terms.

We've just seen one of the most depressing features of Singapore on this board: intellectual mindblock. I have noticed it's rather common among Singaporeans to refer to authority and not enquire beyond it.

Just quote so and so, and voila, it must be true. End of argument.

The Chinese used to do that a lot. Just quote Confucius, and no need for further debate. Maybe it's the same instinct carried down to us. (But look what happened to a China in the 19th Century whose intelligentsia relied too much on Confucius!)

(Meanwhile up in Kelantan and Trengganu, they quote the Quran...)

Sida has referred to the Senior Minister, though there's no indication when that quote came from or in what context.

Profundis has referred to the bible (which translation, not stated)

Both these suffer from a similar fatal defect - that other participants in the discussion may not agree that these are in any way authorities to be relied upon, in which case, the discussion falls off a cliff.

Relying on self-selected authority in an attempt to win an argument is intellectual laziness. What is needed is an open mind to search for empirical fact, rationality and philosophical depth.

The tone also suggests an absolute certainty inimical to enquiry and learning, and thus inimical to arriving at practical solutions and compromises that are required in any society made up of diverse human beings with diverse interests.

Such participants basically rule themselves out of the discussion because they don't actually engage with the others. Their arguments are a form of verbal brow-beating: Shout louder, quote more, insist harder. Close minds more tightly.

I agree with Yawning Bread totally.

What is the point of a discussion board when people make no room for discussion? It only means that that person doesn't really want to discuss. In that case, what is he doing here?

Maybe he is here to educate people his version of truth. Well, there is nothing wrong with that.

But let us see what the real objective of this Remaking Singapore project are. If I am not wrong, it is for people to voice out their grievances so that the government authorities will know what the people are unhappy about.

To achieve this objective, the most fundamental thing to do is to let them know what they don't know. There is no point in regurgitating what they already know. (of course the government know about the Bible right?)

What Profundis is doing is re-iterating what they already know. Thus, I don't think that is very constructive.

On the other hand, I might be wrong regarding the real objectives of this Remaking Singapore project. What is it's real objectives then?

I too am offended by the 'gay bashing' and insults in this debate. No matter what a person's orientation, they do not deserve such treatment.

I'm just wondering about natural law here - that basically sex is for the continuing of the species. And YES, sex is for pleasure too ok, I'm not anal about it (pardon the pun). But the pleasure is the BENEFIT of sex, not the PURPOSE.

So gay sex is going against the natural purpose of sex, that's why it's considered 'deviant'. Also, if gay sex is natural, why then are there two sexes on this planet? And the same-sex gorillas and animals can rub each other up all they want - after all it's for pleasure, but when it comes to mating time they look for members of the opposite sex. And even if homosexuality is 'innate', as some argue, it still doesn't mean that it's moral.

Profundis,

I did not say that gays will make Singapore more vibrant.

But whether a city is tolerant of gays or not speaks a lot more about that city - its tolerance in general and hence how vibrant and dynamic it can be.

Similarly, the fact that you are intolerant of gays does tell me more than the fact that you are homophobic.

You are unlikely to be the liberal open-minded creative type personality that Sinagpore needs in order to remake itself.

Chee Seng

How is seeking understanding and tolerance defecating in public?

I noticed that it's the intolerant ones that is using lewd and suggestive language here - defecating in public.

BTW, dung has value too you know. Those who have phobia for dirt will never see the gold in dung.

Oh... I'm not surprised that gays are creative =)

''Natural order of things''? From the Bible?
You mean like the Sun go round the Earth???

The natural purpose of sex is not merely reproduction - sex is the most dangerous method of reproduction among organisms but yet it's prefered by nature - for genetic diversity.

In the early years of life on Earth when sexual reproduction was still in the small minority, one could be forgiven to think that sexual reproduction is unnatural, dangerous and immoral.

So, do you really know what nature is up to?

And why are there still people who think unnatural = deviant = immoral? This idea belong to the old dino colonial Victorian era.

Paisley – while from your post, it appears we may have a difference in opinion, I'd like to say, starting off, that I also sense you're prepared to engage, and I respect that.

I'd like to respond to some of the points you raised:

Quote:
that basically sex is for the continuing of the species. And YES, sex is for pleasure too ok, I'm not anal about it (pardon the pun). But the pleasure is the BENEFIT of sex, not the PURPOSE.
:unquote

Many Singaporeans may share this opinion without realising that this is not a universal perception. Adducing purpose to sex/sexuality and assigning values to various sexual practices is very culture-specific, and can be traced to Judeo-Christian values that were dominant up till about a generation ago. Judeo-Christianity is generally anti-sex and this is the construction used by this culture to delegitimise sex in all settings except reproductive and even then, only within a sanctified marital union.

There are many other possible constructions, of which I shall first mention the Chinese. Up till the 20th century, when westernisation made inroads, the Chinese construction, based largely on the Taoist view of nature and humanity, saw sex as inalienable aspects of our natural selves. There was much to be said for going with the flow, and not resisting nature. Sex had neither purpose nor value, anymore than, say, smelling or looking or appreciating the breeze. It's just part of us, who in turn are part of the natural world. Nor did the Chinese see any essential difference based on the object of one's sexual interest. It mattered little whether one was interested in other males or other females.

It is one of the most remarkable cultural shifts that in the space of one or two generations, the Chinese (in China as well as the diaspora) have forgotten this tradition. Many of us, esp the English-speaking, have so absorbed Judeo-Christian constructions, we don't even know it. We now have such restricted understanding of sexuality, we don't realise that there are other ways of looking at the subject.

It's as if someone grew up in a monolingual country, has never heard another language all his life, and therefore can't imagine that other languages are possible.

Now, to really throw us off our unquestioned assumptions, let me mention the indigenous culture of Melanesia. There, it is believed that boys can't grow up properly into men unless they ingest semen. In their culture, they believe that babies grow when they are fed mother's milk, but around puberty, male children need ''men's milk'' to take them through the next stage of growth. Hence there is a ritual which outsiders like us might describe as insertive oral sex by adult men upon the boys. To them, that is the noble ''purpose'' of the oral sodomy rite. Fathers do it out of parental responsibility to their sons.

Why then, do we think that our construction of the ''purpose'' of sex is universal and unassailable?

[con'td]

[continued from previous]

Quote:
And even if homosexuality is 'innate', as some argue, it still doesn't mean that it's moral.
:unquote

Agreed. Morality is a cultural or religious construction, and it does not hinge on biology. But the point to remember is that one would be hard put to find a universal morality, simply because there is diversity in cultures and religions. Even within one culture, there is never 100% unanimity among individuals as to what is or is not moral.

(By the way, if something is not moral, it doesn't necessarily mean it's immoral. It can be amoral, sort of like neither good nor bad. Is sneezing moral or immoral? Is playing the piano moral or immoral? And no, the answer isn't as obvious as we might think. There is a religion today, some of whose fundamentalist adherents consider music as immoral. I would imagine then, that to them, playing the piano is immoral.)

It's important to see that not everyone shares the same morality. In fact, there can be big differences of opinion, and debating what is or is not moral is an endless exercise.

The pertinent question is: what kind of society do we need given that there are differences of opinion?

Well, we can argue for a society that puts a premium on uniformity. There are pros and cons to that. Detractors would use the word 'conformist', and the tools which that society uses to promote uniformity of thought, behaviour and worldview, must necessarily be illiberal ones, heavily value-loaded, with a high degree of implicit or explicit censorship and social pressure, and restricted room for intellectual questioning or experimentation (otherwise how does one maintain uniformity?)

Or, we can argue for a society that puts a premium on diversity -- and not just diversity only in selected dimensions (race, language, religion, as Singapore is wont to do), coupled with intolerance in other dimensions (politics, sexuality, arts, etc, including any interrogation of the Chinese/Malay/Indian/Others paradigm).

Why is diversity (and the tolerance for it) healthy? Because it enables adaptibility through creativity. It's like having an ecosystem, highly variegated, with a diverse gene pool. It throws up new species that can exploit new niches, or resistance to adverse conditions…

I'm not arguing that everybody should adopt my value system, my morality. And I'm not saying your morality is wrong. I'm saying a liberal environment that allows diverse viewpoints to flourish will be good for our future, and therefore that the State should pull back from its habit of enforcing narrow norms.

My earlier posting drew much flak as I expected it too. There is unlikely to be any productive dialogue between the gay community and the normal population because sides have been chosen and clear lines drawn. But know this all you gays, there will come hellfire if you do not abandon your perverted lifestyle. And know this, your agenda is NOT welcome here. Migrate elsewhere - we do NOT want to remake Singapore into SinGAYpore!

Ken
I'd love to say the Bible invented the natural order of things, but that would be untrue.

And no, I don't know what nature is up to or why it was more asexual at first. But my Creator does.

Natural law means that God's law (of what must be done, and what is to be avoided) is someplace within us, in our nature, and is good for us, friendly to our being. I guess it's our conscience.

Conscience often conflicts with feelings. Instinctively we know it's wrong to steal. But we're broke, our family needs to be fed, and so on. So our feelings, driven by circumstance, lead us to rationalise that it's okay to steal. But at the back of our minds, there is that guilty conscience!

CS Lewis sums it up in his book Mere Christianity: ''First, that human beings all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.''

See that from Profundis? Like I said, shout louder, insist harder.

Most objections to gay people posted on this board rely on a Biblical perspective. Yet Christians are a minority (about 20 percent, I believe) of Singaporeans. Nonetheless, their arguments are wrapped around terms like ''normal population'', where they conflate themselves with the majority.

I have noticed that non-Christians don't articulate hate in the same way. They may feel unease with the subject and with gay people generally, but this is often more to do with being in cultures that value silence about sex and sexuality, and lack of personal familiarity with the gay men and women.

When pushed, Profundis' argument is ''we don't want you here''. What does this imply? That what he wants ultimately is that the society he lives in should have no place for non-Christian views and attitudes? Best of all, that this should be a Christian theocratic state?

I have always worried that, perhaps due to the unconscious way in which our English-educated elite valorise Western Culture, we tend to treat fundamentalist Christianity with indulgence. Frankly, fundamentalist Christianity is as much a threat to Singapore's founding principles of tolerance as fundamentalism of any kind.

I notice that Profundis used the term ''gay agenda'', which at a glance suggests that we're out to make everybody gay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead it seems that fundamentalists have agenda to make others become like them. Which is the agenda that looms darkly on the horizon?

i think whatever Profundis said is uncalled for.

Personally, as a christian, i do not subscribe to homsexuality, but we ought to have open hearts and mindsets towards others, whether they are labelled 'deviants' or not.

I'm perfectly fine with my friends who are homosexual, but as a christian, i find it a struggle to balance my beliefs with their orientation. But it doesn't stop me from befriending them, or attempting to understand more from their perspective. we ought to treat everyone with respect, like how we want others to treat ourselves.

but as i said, its a struggle. but not necessarily a conflictious one.

At the risk of making this ''Gender Issues'' forum a religious one, I would like to say this.

What a particular religion (eg. Christianity) teach might not be good for the whole country. If not, why is our government still secular? Why does the government still promote multi-religious/race harmony?

If a person were to follow religious ideals like the way Profundis does, shouldn't that person be flinging remarks like ''...there will come hellfire if you do not abandon your perverted lifestyle. And know this, your agenda is NOT welcome here. Migrate elsewhere...'' in the ''Race and Religion'' forum at all other non-Christians? Why isn't he doing that when he believes that all Buddhists, Taoists and Muslims (ie. all non-Christians) will go to hell with the homosexuals?

Or maybe he is flinging such remarks... I better check the ''Race and Religion'' forum. Heehee.

Yawning Bread
I was looking at your older posting. You said: ?Relying on self-selected authority in an attempt to win an argument is intellectual laziness. What is needed is an open mind to search for empirical fact, rationality and philosophical depth.?

Looking at your reply to me that ?different cultures have different perspectives on sex?, your position may not hold up to empirical scrutiny you prize. So a Melanesian group practices an oral sex rite (I?ve read about this as well). But if we examine at random another hundred cultural groups, and if 95 out of the 100 said oral sex is unnatural, it would make the Melanesian group the exception to the rule. Statistically, the higher the incidence of something, even a belief, indicates there must be something which works about it, and which works for the good of the human race.

There are still many areas of ALMOST complete agreement on certain moral norms. The vast areas of agreement between moral codes of different societies throughout the ages and throughout the world is strong evidence that these moral norms were discovered in light of an unchanging and objective set of moral principles that find their source in the realities of human existence. What?s the purpose of all these moral norms? To protect the person and his/her quest for fulfilment. (loosely quoted from The Augustine Club?s website, www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/ )

You?ve brought up some really great points, too many in fact, to ever sit down and consider one by one. But the general drift I get from you is this, that since there is so much diversity in society, we should stop saying ?this is wrong? and instead accept it. In fact, the general mood in this debate seems to be one of moral relativism, ie, ?if it?s good for me, and it harms no one, then it?s okay?.

Using moral relativism as a basis, this discussion will go nowhere. Really. Because we?ll never have the same assumptions or starting point. Pope John Paul II in his address to the UN General Assembly, October 5, 1995 was quoted as saying, ?But it is one thing to affirm a legitimate pluralism of ''forms of freedom'', and another to deny any universality or intelligibility to the nature of man or to the human experience. The latter makes the international politics of persuasion extremely difficult, if not impossible.?

My religious assumption for debate is homosexuality is a disordered practice and sinful. My rational/empirical assumption for debate is that homosexuality is not a universally accepted norm and statistically speaking, is still a minority practice.

But the minority are very vocal so it just seems that everyone is gay or sympathetic to it. That?s what we?re seeing here in Singapore.

Quote.....
My religious assumption for debate is homosexuality is a disordered practice and sinful. My rational/empirical assumption for debate is that homosexuality is not a universally accepted norm and statistically speaking, is still a minority practice. Unquote.

While generally agreeing, I have to add that while rationally speaking, my assumption is that homosexuality is not an universally accepted norm, this need not necessarily mean that because its a minority practice, it is 'wrong'.

I watched a documentary on homosexuality, done by the BBC. And the scientific evidence (hence empirical) for homosexual behaviour was something i never knew existed. There was this argument... something along the line that there's an extra growth somewhere in the brains of homosexuals (sorry, not a biology student, perhaps Yawning bread would know more about this?), and this caused them to have different orientations from 'normal' people, so to speak.

At the risk of portraying homosexuals as 'biological freaks' to those blindly preying on such data, my point is that the orientation for homosexuals is at least partly biologically conditioned, and in scientific terms, not perverse, but rather, you can say 'naturally inclined'.

Hence my struggles in balancing christian beliefs with scientific enlightenment.

Paisley,

You said: ''My religious assumption for debate is homosexuality is a disordered practice and sinful. My rational/empirical assumption for debate is that homosexuality is not a universally accepted norm and statistically speaking, is still a minority practice.

But the minority are very vocal so it just seems that everyone is gay or sympathetic to it. That?s what we?re seeing here in Singapore.''

You said it very well but what do you think with your assumptions should a gay do? Are they supposed to suffer in silence when there is a law against their natural sexual needs?

Do your religion and rational/empirical assumption condemn their cry for acceptance and lead a 'normal' life in the society?

The debate and search for the cause and cure for gay is ongoing and I doubt you would know the answer till you meet your almighty. Would your almighty approves all the indirect prejudice and suffering put on his creations?

Paisley –

Let me get past one nitty-gritty before I come to the main thrust of your reply.

You said: ''But if we examine at random another hundred cultural groups, and if 95 out of the 100 said oral sex is unnatural, it would make the Melanesian group the exception to the rule. ''

I know you said ''if'', but we need to be careful with postulations left standing when there is little evidence to support its plausibility. As far as I know, oral sex is only an issue with one specific culture group: the three Religions of the Book that came out of the Middle East, and which share a common root. The Indian and Chinese civilisations, the ancient Greeks (source of secular European civilisation) had very little to say about it. They were busy doing it, perhaps. Ditto with the issue of what is natural and unnatural sex. Only the Religions of the Book ask this question. The others don't even pose this as an issue. Thus it is misleading to posit ''if 95 out of the 100'', when we are nowhere near five!

But Kevin's point is also correct. We mustn't confuse popularity with ''good'' or ''right''. I'm not going to assert that just because the Indians and Chinese outnumber other culture groups, their worldview is more ''correct''.

Paisley –

Your main point concerns moral relativism, and you are right that if you extrapolate from what I was saying, it leads in that direction. I too was aware of it as I typed the earlier post, but I decided to keep it for later; it was long enough already!

Bringing up examples of the Chinese and Melanesians was to serve a specific purpose – to demonstrate how other cultures can construct their ideas about sex and sexuality quite differently, and that unlike the (sexophobic) Religions of the Book, for these other cultures, touching on sex does not automatically bring in the question of morals. I wanted to show that it was false to assume the Judeo-Christian construction to be universal.

But I didn't mean to say, and I don't want to say ''anything goes''.

Take the Melanesian bit – did anybody notice that it also raises questions of incest and pedophilia? That it also suggests that our views on incest and pedophilia are likewise cultural constructions? That not all cultures are as aghast as we are?

Personally, I'm not comfortable with incest or pedophilia either.

I would suggest we make distinctions between what I call ''Public morality'' (not a very good term, I admit) and ''Private morality''. Private morality is what we believe should guide ourselves as human persons, and it goes without saying, this is going to vary tremendously from person to person.

Public morality is a different (shorter?) list of values to which members of a community can subscribe to, sort of like the common understanding that keeps a society harmonious.

You can try, as some fervent believers do, to make public morality in your society as comprehensive, as culture- or religion-specific as your own private morality, but in a city as open, as multi-cultural as Singapore, you're going to exclude a lot of people if the norms are too tightly drawn. What you gain in purity, you're going to lose in frustration and disharmony.

A more realistic solution is to have broad inclusive norms, which lots of people, despite varying private moralities, can still agree to. OK, you can call it disparagingly, the lowest common denominator approach, reduced to the bare essentials like: no incest, no pedophilia, no porn except for consenting adults, no public fornication on the sidewalk, please. But also, non-discrimination, respect for privacy, equality before the law, etc, etc. (would you call these lowest common denominators, or lofty noble principles?) When we as a society see value in diversity, in adaptability and in being open-minded, this liberal approach may be best.

In this Remaking Singapore forum, we should concentrate less on whether we privately believe homosexuality is good, bad or neutral, than on asking where the boundaries of our societal norms should be.

Kevin –

I think you're referring to an old study (early 1990s) that found some differences in the structure of gay men's brains. I have an article somewhere with the details, but am too lazy to look for it now. Sorry.

We need to beware of misunderstanding biology. It is false to think in terms of a ''standard'' type, and then variations. Everybody is a variation. Consider how each person's face is unique. That tells you his genes, his hormonal make-up, etc, are unique.

Another common falsehood is to think that personality, character, emotions, likes, dislikes, who we fall in love with, are non-biological. There is mounting evidence that biology plays a part.

All the facts aren't in yet. Will they ever be? But even at this stage, we can guess that biology isn't going to provide answers to moral questions.

Some test-cases:

Left-handedness correlates with a significantly different brain organisation from right-handedness. In other words, it has a strong biological basis. Does that tell us whether it's good or bad or neutral?

Linguistic genius, musical or artistic genius almost surely comes with a differently organised brain. They're also a tiny minority and therefore, to use cold statistical jargon, ''abnormal''. Should we apply moral sanctions against them?

Blue eyes and blond hair have genetic bases. They're also a small minority of humankind, thus statistically ''abnormal''. Should we outlaw that, and force them to conform, dye their hair?

Some men have a double Y chromosome, and they have a tendency to more violent behaviour. How does this affect a moral judgement on violence?

Prejudice is learned, socialised behaviour with very little biological basis. Does this make it good, bad or neutral?

So biology's no help. We are left on our own. But sometimes, our socialisation, our acculturation is no help either. We know how people can be socialised to be racists or inconsiderate. Or our acculturation leads us to assume that what we believe is true for everybody else. It's a difficult process to keep learning and unlearning, and re-examining ideas, and I ain't anywhere done yet. It's going to be lifelong I guess.

Paisley

Oh... I've heard the Pope said it,
Statistically, few cultures accept homosexuality as morally right, therefore, its immoral. (or something to this effect)

Thus, By the same argument,

Statiscally, genius is in the small minority, therefore genius is flawed?

Statistically, pretty girls(or gorgeous men) are in the small minority, therefore beauty is flawed?

Statistically, your belief is not popular, therefore your belief is not true?

Paisley, you would get an F9 if you wrote this kind of statistical conclusion in any statistic exam!

Most stats students know they have to be careful with statistical conlusion.

In case you meant that evolution has kept homosexuals at a small minority coz homosexuality is flawed, let me remind you this:

The are certain poison that can kill at large dose, but at small dose, it can save life.

The problem with religious people is they tend to think in terms of absolute - if it's bad, it's bad, no questions!

Remember Profundis could not see the gold in dung.
But dung can be used as a fertilzer. That's what exactly Singapore needs - some kind of fertilizer to accelerate Singapore's growth of creativity and innovation!

Many different cultures all over the world had been corrupted by Middle-eastern religions (Christianity and Islam), especially true is the Chinese culture.

That's why homophobia is so universal now.

Ken said:
/quote/
Many different cultures all over the world had been corrupted by Middle-eastern religions (Christianity and Islam), especially true is the Chinese culture.

That's why homophobia is so universal now.
/end quote/

Ken,

i'm not sure if you are saying that these religions are the historical source of modern homophobia (which i might be open to accepting) or that these religions are *fundamentally* homophobic, and that where ever they go, even today, they corrupt and spread homophobia.

I get the impression that you (like me) would like to see greater acceptance of gay people in Singapore. from a purely practical and political perspective, i don't think its helpful to demonise chrisitianity and islam, to blame them for homophobia. it positions these faiths as being essentially antagonistic to gay people. How would a Christian or Muslim, whom you are trying to persuade see your point of view, react? you are telling them that their faith is opposed to homosexuality. but if their faith is very entrenched, what reason do they have to try and see homosexuality in a different light? they might just say, oh, does my relgion say that? ok then, i guess thats the way it has to be, since i have already committed to this faith, and i have no strong views on homosexuality, i am happy to go along with it (i.e. rejection of homosexuality as being valid)

Instead, we should point out (the truth) that there are many devout christian and muslim individuals who do accept homosexuality as a natural and acceptable facet of human life and behaviour. in fact, in many countries, they are gay or gay friendly churches. (look at the recently appointed head of the anglican church). many gay men and women are themselves devout christians and muslims. in various ways, rational, fair-minded many straight and gay people have managed to come to terms with both their faith and their views on homosexuality.

i cannot give theological arguments for reconciling homosexuality with these faiths, as i am not either chrisitan or muslim, but i do know of many such people and groups who have reconciled the two issues.

there *is* such a body of people, there *is* such an ideology / way of thinking, there *are* such organised churches, i.e. being christian or muslim and being at the same time gay or gay-friendly IS an option. its not a case of - either / or.

Hello Kevin, Yawning Bread et al...

I have been silent these couple of days because of work and family commitments that kept me away from the site.

With regards to Kevin's latest email, I say I agree. I think this topic has strayed from the original question asked, and frankly, I'm not sure the original question was well phrased at all. It's just an observation that there 'seem to be more gays and lesbians' and somehow, it seems to have exploded into many different sub-topics or sub-questions.

As for the question of whether it's right or wrong, let's all face up to the fact that we aren't going to change each other's minds, no matter how hotly we debate. (And thank God, Yawning Bread, that I never took stats at NUS! I guess I would have failed) :-)

Can anyone think of a constructive spin on the original question? Or else I think I'm gonna check out the other postings and lurk around in some other debate. YB? Some of your replies to me contain the nuggets of a constructive question.

I think, after over 100 postings, we've mostly said what each of us has wanted to say. We're a bit exhausted perhaps?

A constructive spin on the original question? Hmmm… Well, if I may deconstruct this : ) … what's constructive or not depends on one's idea of the goal to be attained. If we ask the constituency that wants a society that is 100% heterosexual, and the eradication of ''deviance'' as they see it, we'd get one set of answers; if we ask another constituency that sees value in diversity, tolerance and equal justice, we'd get another set of answers.

No prizes for guessing what my position is. But why do I sincerely believe Singapore needs to change? Because the world is changing, and we cannot live apart from it.

The present official position seems to be a selective gag on discussion of homosexuality, and a refusal to rethink existing discriminatory policies. The gag is selective because homophobic viewpoints are never censored, but anything that presents homosexuality in a positive light is. I have lots of friends who work in press and broadcast media, and the rules are often more ridiculous than sane people can imagine.

It's a risk for Singapore's future to perpetuate this silence and lack of information, thereby keeping too many in our society homophobic.

For the last few decades, there has already been a steady brain-drain of gay and lesbian Singaporeans. Artists, film-makers, playwrights, have left, and contributed to other countries' cultural wealth (for most of that period, we didn't think there was any value in cultural wealth either, but that's another story). Lots of other professionals, in science, engineering, etc have not returned after studies abroad. I admit, my information is anecdotal from my (fairly extensive) gay network; there are no statistics. (But I wonder if our govt is too homophobic to even think of collecting such statistics, perhaps they're so blind to the issue, they can't even imagine it's a factor?)

In an era when human talent is going to be the key for success, and when human mobility is accelerating, to continue to let our gay minority feel excluded and discriminated against, and thereby fueling their emigration, is sheer foolishness.

Furthermore, as I have argued in a previous posting, mobile foreign talent may be disproportionately gay, since they're usually sans children, sans spouse who may not want to give up his/her existing career. How to be effective in attracting them when the first thing they hear is that oh, in Singapore they're going to be criminals the moment they savour a little love? How to sell Singapore when you're demeaning your sales potential at the same time?

[continued ...]

[...continued]

For those Singaporeans who aren't gay, letting them remain homophobic is also foolish. Being a globally-plugged-in society, Singaporeans have to interact with people from other cultures. All Europe, Canada, Australia and much of America are moving to equality for and acceptance of gays and lesbians. Even the intellectual edge of the Chinese world is moving in that direction (note, for example, quite a number of Chinese movies in the last 10 years, screened widely and to acclaim in the Chinese countries but censored or banned in Singapore!).

Singaporeans' careers, business dealings and livelihoods are going to depend on interacting with these other cultures and economies. Imagine how stupid it is if we remain racist and have to deal with and win over business partners in other countries? Imagine then how stupid it is if we are homophobic and have to work for a gay CEO in a multinational and meet his partner! Or if we have to welcome a gay Prime Minister and her partner!

I'm speaking the language of economic imperatives here (the usual language when engaging with the authorities in Singapore). I haven't even begun on issues of fairness and justice, family values, privacy rights, etc, etc. -- issues which Singaporeans would do well to examine generally, not just in the realm of sexuality. By the way, re family values, homophobia tears families apart, understanding and acceptance keep families together … not the usual fictional ''family values'' one hears from religious conservatives, eh?

Alright, so this is the goal as I would put it: a more tolerant, informed, understanding and accepting society, and non-discriminatory policies and institutions. How to get there? What are the constructive steps to get there?

I've detailed them in a posting under the thread ''What should be done'' on 15 July. In a nutshell,

+ Loosen up censorship, so people get balanced information;

+ Revamp sex education, stop the indoctrination, give people balanced information;

+ Shift social policy away from promoting a specific sexist, paternalistic, nuclear family model (a la suburban USA 1952) that excludes and penalises outsiders (e.g. singles, divorcees, single fathers, ''bohemians'' and yes, gays and lesbians) to one based more evenhandedly on broad principles of equality, non-discrimination and social justice. A more inclusive, less contentious, less economically-distorting approach to social issues.

I'm not going to tell other people what their private beliefs should be, as I mentioned in my last posting about public and private morals, but Singaporeans should stop being like the proverbial triplet of monkeys covering eyes, covering ears, covering mouth.

Having been silently reading this topic for weeks, now I can't help uttering some of my personal feelings. Firstly many thanks to Yawning Bread, your posting is always that thought provoking and encouraging.

I used to often think of suicide 2 years ago when I realized I was gay. The extreme scare occupied my mind as I saw I was hopeless and ''abnormal'' because most people said it was something guilty and abnormal. But I examined myself carefully as I couldn't find the representation of scathing words people usually related homosexual to, I began to question the idea of ''abnormal''. Todate after seeing tons of debate, this one seems to be the most temperate and the least cacophonous. Indeed, I am not exaggerating because those unreasonable resentment and calumny did hurt me bad but none of them will work any longer.

Well, what I want to say is let those stubborn straight people retain their dissension. I can fully understand their response of ''feeling like to puke'' because if one dislikes something from the bottom of his/her heart, it's not easy to let him/her be even in its proximity. Personally I thank all those openminded and friendly and I won't petition for understanding. We are all humans. Straights have their fate of having the fair share, while we homosexuals also have the rights to pursue the way we live. Yes I do believe.

The definition of perverse is simply continuing to do something even if it is wrong. And a pervert is someone who commits unnatural sexual acts, and that includes homosexuals.

If something is perverse, to broadcast it as not perverse is wrong. Which means that the media is doing the right thing in not broadcasting homosexuality.

Hey, guys and gals, it is still not too late for you to walk away from homosexuality and stand on the right side of morality.

May God bless your soul.

To Chee Seng

It's people like you who is driving young gays to committing suicide.

You think God is going to bless your soul???

Get real!

Studies in America have recorded a disproportionately high rate of suicide among gay and lesbian teenagers. Here, nobody even asks if this is a problem. It's another aspect of the fatal silence that persists in Singapore. We're in denial that teenagers can be gay, and that it can be a driving factor to suicide.

Many social service organisations I've come across don't give me any confidence that they are able to deal with this problem. Their line on sexuality (which they think is very neutral, ha!) tends to be ''you're in an experimental phase, you're not really gay, wait till later.'' This is just not credible. Most gay people know they are gay by their mid teens, soon after puberty. If the social service organisation itself thinks that denial or whitewash is the right thing to do, they can't really help. If they belittle the source of the person's anguish, they can never build trust.

Neither have I come across any social service organisation reaching out to well-adjusted gay people as a resource for their work. I'm still waiting for one of them to say, ''hey guys, come help our counsellors know more about what being gay means and feels like.'' Or ''hey, we need well-adjusted gay people as befrienders to some of our cases.''

In Singapore, it seems this is impossible, because to reach out to gay people would be tantamount to legitimising homosexuality, and everybody thinks they must follow the party line and keep a mile away from this issue, otherwise they'd be seen as anti-government, and then no more funding!

What advice do I have for gay persons feeling isolated, hopeless and hurting? Go find other gay people, e.g. on irc, or email them at their webpages. Ask around for more and more contacts, find the courage and meet up. Through these informal contacts, you'll be surprised how many groups we have in Singapore, each catering to different interests. There's a volleyball group, a Christian group, a Buddhist group, etc. A group recently put up a musical concert, with stand-up comic and broadway songs. All the performers and 95% of the audience were gay.

In my experience, socialisation is a powerful tool. It helps a gay person leap from feeling isolated to feeling normal. You feel normal when you see that there are others like you. You feel a burden lifted when you hear that others too have gone through similar experiences, and continue to face the daily hurdles we face, and better yet, can still laugh about it.

I met someone in a gay bar earlier tonight, and he told me how his family in their own taciturn way, acknowledged his gayness. For a few years, his lover lived with him in the family home. Shared the same room, same queen-sized bed. The family knows that almost all his friends are gay. They know where he keeps his porn VCDs and they're careful not to touch them, except once, when he left them in a big brown envelope, then went out. His brother meanwhile needed a big envelope. So he went to the drawer, carefully emptied out the VCDs, and borrowed the envelope. Like the way brothers borrow shirts, borrow watches, borrow email addresses. Nothing to it. The family is Malay and you might have thought that they'd be among the most conservative, what with Islam and all. But it only goes to show there are all kinds of possibilities in the world.

The real world, human, fallible, loving, adaptable, often at a loss, often giving others the benefit of doubt, is more wondrous than a lot of simple-minded fanatics would want us to believe.

Haven't we heard it all ? Suicide among young homosexuals ? Are you sure you are in the loop ?

Have not you heard of drug addicts jumping out of window, just to avoid arrest ? It is unfortunate, it is sad.

Should we, therefore encourage drug-addicts to continue drug-addiction rather than to take action against drug addiction ?

In any case, the suicide among young homosexuals has been proven to be a myth, so there, you are trying to fool the public again.

To ming

Did u imply that I was trying to fool around? I am sorry to say but actually you are mercilessly speaking in that tone. I don?t know other similar cases but I know myself quite well because it?s I not you who felt the pain!

I don?t fear death itself. What I feared was the circumstances that all the people around would suddenly turn their backs on me once they knew the real me, the gay me. What I feared was my parents might have to suffer a lot from the gossip and malignancy.

Well, you cited drug addicts. So are they comparable, anti-homosexual and anti-drug addiction?

I would have regretted if I had committed suicide because it?s really worthless to sacrifice my life for something I don?t deserve.

Thank you for draining your brain to upset me. You almost succeeded.

To Mr. Tan

Is it moral that I pretend I am not what I am and cheat an innocent girl for life who I might claim I love her while actually I don?t?

I know I can?t reverse your disgust against homosexual but at least, our voices are to be heard to some extent.