Homosexuality

[3Boys]

Lets get this straight, I do not advocate prejudicial behaviour against anyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or what not.


However, it does not preclude me from making a value judgement for myself about certain issues, and hold it for my children and family. There is an assault on traditional values and views on gender roles and family, and I am quite clear to myself which side of the line I stand on. There are liberal elements that would make it out as if they had a monopoly on progressive thinking, scientific knowledge and virtue. Pay a visit to the AWARE website once in a while to see the type of scorn they pour on anyone they deem to be conservative, or God forbid, religious in their outlook! The liberals will have it that if you were religious, you automatically deducted 10 points from your IQ.

Also be careful about the types of science thrown at you, sometimes the studies are sound, but the conclusions drawn by lay observers are inaccurate and do not represent what the studies are meant to answer.

I have no illusions about converting the liberals, so I write this for parents who feel conflicted about the messages they are receiving. Take the science presented with some suspicion, not because the science is bad, but because the context presented here may not be quite right. There is nothing old fashioned, nor are you causing damage to your children by providing strong guidance on issues of sex and gender orientation, and excluding influences contrary to your belief system.

[kiasimom]

Muffins:

Hi Kiasimom, I have actually had two experiences with these types of people, in p5, and in p6, but I still do not think that we should discriminate people due to the fact that they like people of the same gender. You should just decide on whether you are comfortable with them being your friends or not, and explain to them. Just my 2 cents worth.

Exactly. I feel we should not discriminate them. It is their personal choice.

[3Boys]

insider:

Extract of pastor Rony Tan:


\"He further linked homosexuality with bestiality saying: ”If you allow [homosexuality], next time people will want to get married to monkeys. And they will want rights. They’ll want to apply for HDB [a colloquial term to mean a government subsidised flat]. With a donkey or a monkey or a dog and so on. It’s very pathetic.”


Source: http://www.fridae.com/newsfeatures/2010/02/18/9670.police-reports-lodged-against-singapore-pastor-over-offensive-gay-and-lesbian-remarks

PS: Found the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-ZOKFOhtyM

insider, are you tying this in with your other post on the religion thread, in terms of your disdain for Ps Rony, or are you raising a different issue, 'coz I'm not really sure what point you are making with this link. That he may be an extremist and shouldn't be taken too seriously? I think we can all agree on that.....but what's the relevance in this context?

[Muffins]

kiasimom:

Muffins:

Hi Kiasimom, I have actually had two experiences with these types of people, in p5, and in p6, but I still do not think that we should discriminate people due to the fact that they like people of the same gender. You should just decide on whether you are comfortable with them being your friends or not, and explain to them. Just my 2 cents worth.

Exactly. I feel we should not discriminate them. It is their personal choice.

Yeah... I understand from my personal experience that some of these people do not want to act like that, but because they feel like they are not being accepted by the crowd, they want to achieve some sense of recognition from them, they just want to feel like the people know who they are.

I actually feel very sorry for the people who are like that, as inside, they could be very good and helpful friends, but because no one accepts them, they act like that.... :sad: :gloomy:

[Muffins]

insider:

3Boys:

but what's the relevance in this context?

The relevance / irrelevance is in the eyes of the beholder...

WOW! :shock: Very deep, insider! I have never thought of it that way. Maybe, if we treat them like normal people, they will act normal in front of us..... Besides me, have any of you guys had experiences with these types of people before? :?

[winth]

kiasimom:

How do you view homosexuality?


Do you discriminate your friends if they have a different sex inclination?

What will you do if you find out your spouse is bisexual?

Actually... I'm very against it.
My ex-boss was a gay but I didn't realise it. Then, I was still happily working and just felt that he behaved alittle differently and looks very well-built and clean shaven for a guy. I have never had friends who are homosexual, so I still lived in that 'perfect ideal' world with just pure males and pure females. The question on homosexuality was very far away from me.

That's why I guess I'm very 'blind' to realise such differences until things are spelt clear to me.

I had a shock of my life when my colleague revealed that to me. She even brought me out for a cuppa just to calm me down. And then, I never dared to talk to him normally.

Then another thing hit me! My another colleague was a lesbian, I didn't realise it too until she told me. I almost :faint:

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

WeiHan,

I'm afraid you do not get my point. I do not dispute that biology can pre-dispose, which is the main point you are making. I do dispute that we have no wilful choice in the matter, or that we cannot seek to influence, or that the influence will be invariably damaging.

As for your contention about 'no studies showing upbringing will affect sexual orientation', absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence. What if I were to pose the question the other way, have there been any studies conclusively proving that upbringing and societal norms DO NOT have any effect on sexual orientation of young adults? Are there any such? I have not seen, to my knowledge.

It is recognised that most behavioural traits are multifactorial in nature, a combination of propensity (i,e brain structure/neurochemistry) and environmental influences. In some cases the tendencies are overwhleming and environmental factors hold no sway, in some cases they are less so and upbringing can make a difference. Why should this be ANY different?

3boys. There has been abundance of wilful effort to change homosexual people straight especially among some conservative religious groups. But as the example that I have provided, i.e. ex-gay ministries, so far, it is a total sham and there has been zero case of success to show-case by them but many cases of psychological damage.

There has been studies trying to show that wilful influence can change a person sexual orientation but the conclusion is that they cannot find. That means there is no evidence. In fact, the failure of ex-gay ministries, is a strong proof that sexual orientation cannot be changed with wilful influence. What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. Nothing is 100% conclusive in real life. you go to work everyday but always assume that your house will still be there when you return in the evening. You don't , for example, call back and check out first before you return back home, correct? When you keep trying to prove something, but evidences kept popping out showing the reverse of what you believe, then you have to seriously consider revising your stand.

Homosexuality is not a behaviorial trait. It is not a behaviour! It is deeply seated innate feeling which dictates how and who they fall in love with. Like what I have said, if you claim upbringing can influence sexual orientation, wouldn't it be an anti-thesis that in our straight-laced world where everything is stacked against being homosexual, most homosexual people would have turned straight. The family of many homosexual and their upbringing is no different from the norm.

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

However, it does not preclude me from making a value judgement for myself about certain issues, and hold it for my children and family. There is an assault on traditional values and views on gender roles and family, and I am quite clear to myself which side of the line I stand on.

How does it affects traditional families? That is what I am always curious to ask when this line is uttered. How does other people choice to form family unit with partner of the same sex adversely affect traditional families? On the contrary, prejudicial views escially that which convert into active politically effort do affect the life of a group of people significantly.

[WeiHan]

winth:

Actually... I'm very against it.

My ex-boss was a gay but I didn't realise it. Then, I was still happily working and just felt that he behaved alittle differently and looks very well-built and clean shaven for a guy. I have never had friends who are homosexual, so I still lived in that 'perfect ideal' world with just pure males and pure females. The question on homosexuality was very far away from me.

That's why I guess I'm very 'blind' to realise such differences until things are spelt clear to me.

I had a shock of my life when my colleague revealed that to me. She even brought me out for a cuppa just to calm me down. And then, I never dared to talk to him normally.

Then another thing hit me! My another colleague was a lesbian, I didn't realise it too until she told me. I almost :faint:

You see. The tell the whole world except you. Now you should know why.

Actually, 3-5% of population of every cultures are gays. That is the number that people are getting closer as we understand more. So, from now on, the world should not be \"perfect\" for you, every 100 people that you come in contact with, you can expect 3-5 gays at least.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

3boys. There has been abundance of wilful effort to change homosexual people straight especially among some conservative religious groups. But as the example that I have provided, i.e. ex-gay ministries, so far, it is a total sham and there has been zero case of success to show-case by them but many cases of psychological damage.


There has been studies trying to show that wilful influence can change a person sexual orientation but the conclusion is that they cannot find. That means there is no evidence. In fact, the failure of ex-gay ministries, is a strong proof that sexual orientation cannot be changed with wilful influence. What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. Nothing is 100% conclusive in real life. you go to work everyday but always assume that your house will still be there when you return in the evening. You don't , for example, call back and check out first before you return back home, correct? When you keep trying to prove something, but evidences kept popping out showing the reverse of what you believe, then you have to seriously consider revising your stand.

Homosexuality is not a behaviorial trait. It is not a behaviour! It is deeply seated innate feeling which dictates how and who they fall in love with. Like what I have said, if you claim upbringing can influence sexual orientation, wouldn't it be an anti-thesis that in our straight-laced world where everything is stacked against being homosexual, most homosexual people would have turned straight. The family of many homosexual and their upbringing is no different from the norm.

Ain't talking about converting adult homosexuals to straight my friend, I am not sure that works either. That is the straw man you keep setting up to knock down, but it is a straw man and not what I am trying to say. You say that the failure of the ex-gay ministry is strong proof that wilful change cannot occur. Well, it is not, it is strong proof that the ex-gay ministry has failed in adults who are strong in their homosexual tendencies. It says nothing about influencing the young, or those on the borderline.

You will see that I am nuanced in my position, I have 3 sets of scenarios, which I believe is more meaningful, when we understand that the human condition is a continuum and not black and white. I'd really like to see how you define the difference between a behavioural trait, and a 'deep-seated' innateness. You flip-flop on this, first by linking it to the anatomical/physiological, and when I bring up the example of other behavioural conditions that ALSO have markers that can be elucidated, you know insist (not prove, by the way), that this is somehow different.

The most puzzling statement you make, considering the context of this discussion, is \"What science is trying to prove is more than what you understand, it is pointing to the fact that it is not just a biological basis, but it is a deep seated trait of a person. \" :?

Have you not been spent the last 5 posts trying to establish a biological basis for this trait, and now you are saying it is a trait separate from a biology?