A beautiful blog entry

I just read a beautiful blog entry by a father of 2. This dad shows what it really means to be Singaporean and living the real Singapore dream, a multi-cultural society where justice and equality is for all.

The Irrational Section 377A

I'm sad. Sad that the country that I love, hates me in return for the service (NS and ICTs) I've given to her. I'm a criminal in the eyes of the law and the parliament. My hatred for the PAP has run it course and now I'm just sad.

Good bye, Singapore. We (my partner and I) have decided to divorce you since you hate us so much.

My predictions

I predict that S377A will be around for the next 50 years. It will survive even after Singapore dies.

I predict that Christians and Christianity will rule Singapore in the end and it will because a Christian country (where laws are biblically based) even though more than 60% of the population will not be Christian.

I predict that Singapore will fall into the same trap as USA now, where Church and State is not separated.

I predict that Singapore's economy will grow strong inspire of discrimination and injustices in the law.

I predict that as more Asian countries because more accepting of the GLBT community, we will leave Singapore and plant our roots overseas.

I predict that even if the whole of Asia (apart from the Muslim countries) allows same-sex unions, Singapore will still have S377A.

I predict that the PAP will never right this wrong because it will never effect Singapore economically.

I predict that even if 70% of the population is neutral (don't care one way or another) or pro-repeal S377A, the PAP will still site the usually,"Singapore is a conservative society..." and keep S377A.

I hope my predictions will never come true, but I'm really doubtful that Singapore will become any better for GLBTs, esp. when the gahmen panders to the fundamentalist christian minority, but having most of them (I think 50%) Christians does make one understand why.

Let's make adultary illegal too

Sometimes I wonder how stupid the fundamentalist christians think we are. Just because you don't put your religious views into a letter, we don't know where you are coming from?

Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.

Today, Voices
18 October 2007

Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei

I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.

I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.

Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?

And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)

Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?

But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.

So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?

Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.

This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.

Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.

Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.

The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.

The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.

I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.

Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".

Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."

Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.

And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:

Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"

I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.


Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007

The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li

I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.

However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.

Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.

The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.

Back with bad news

I just got back from a nice vacation with T. And read that S377A is still around. Am I surprised? No. Is it typical? Yes. Do I want to comment on it and on PM Lee's remarks about it? No. I have said all that I can say. Since the PAP doesn't care two hoots about anything else except their re-election possibilities (amongst other things), there will be no change until their "iron rice bowl" is threatened. That is something I believe will never happen (and they know it too). Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but then again, having a sword of Damocles on me is not something that will make me have any feelings towards the PAP or have any positive things to say about Singapore in general, so pessimism it is. And so far (since I've started this blog), the PAP has never failed to re-enforce my pessimism.

As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".

Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.

Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.

Laughing Stock

IndigNation has been over for a week and I think it is time for me to get off my lazy chair and write about it.

Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.

IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".

I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.

My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"

One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.

With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"

There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").

What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.

I don't think we are homophobic

"I don't think we are homophobic" Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says

Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?


International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing

The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007

SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."

The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.

The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.

"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.

The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.

"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.

"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."

Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.

The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.

"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."

Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.

Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.

___

On the Net:

"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/

Mouth Diarrhoea

Our million dollar ministers are sometimes so stupid. I will now proceed to tear apart the points that Mr. Lui stated.

"If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said."

"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said."

Did society allow the casinos? Did society allow "Crazy Horse"? Did society allow the R(A) rating? Going by his premise it would seem that society allowed the above 3 things even though "majority" of Singaporeans didn't want it, one must not forget we are a "conservative" society. This is the same thing as the "majority" of Singaporeans don't want to remove S377A from the books. It would seem that heterosexuals having oral and anal sex is acceptable to "majority of Singaporeans" (plans to remove S377) and yet not homosexuals. It would seem that heterosexuality is more superior than homosexuality.

"In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs." "

Let us look at their beliefs.

1) Welfare is a vulgar word. We shouldn't have it because it would make people have crutch mentality.

2) If we don't pay people this amount, then we cannot get good people into politics.

3) Debate over a $30 increase was part of the parliamentary proceedings and yet increasing the pay of ministers was not part of a debate, as Ms. Sylvia Lim said (and I parapharse), "... no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government." So there was actually no debate and as most of us would say, what is the point of even "discussing" it in parliament?

Sylvia Lim's statement on the Ministerial pay"

4) The increase in public transport fares (or adjustment as it is known) is due to the rising cost of oil and other things. Do we see prices dropping of oil becomes cheaper? So the millions earned by the public transport vendors is never enough (net profit was 54.55 million in 2006).

Oh now I get it, the belief that homosexuality is a sin condemned by Christians and even though our constitution says every one is equal under the eyes of the law, some people are just more equal than others.

"4 legs good, 2 legs better"

Can we say, "White Horse"? Even though the official statement is there isn't any all of us who have gone through the army know better.

Who are they actually trying to bluff?

While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe global warming is happening even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe in evolution because the bible says so even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe that homosexuality is biological NOT MEDICAL even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.

The same way a lot of... you get the picture.

Sometimes you wonder how long people can keep their heads in the sand (or ass) before they actually start thinking.

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

No because pedophilia and murder is NOT a victimless crime. Or stalkers for that matter. Or even causing grievous hurt. These are crimes that have VICTIMS! Mr. million-dollar-a-year-because-you-are-the-best man, please put your brain into gear before moving your mouth.

The best thing is this, homosexuality is NOT medical condition but a biological one. Both paedophilia and psychopathy are medical conditions.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."

Let me paraphrase this weird and incoherent statement of his.

Bullshit that homosexuality doesn't affect others in society, that it is between 2 people. Incest and bestiality. There are social norms.

WHAT? HUH? If anyone can understand this, please tell me. What has incest and bestiality got to do with this? Number 1, there is NO law against incest. Number 2, bestiality in NOT a victimless crime.

Gosh, does he really understand what's he saying?

I'm not against people who think homosexuality is wrong (the way I not being green is wrong), I mean if you say, "I think homosexuality is wrong and that is my opinion". I can accept it in fact I'd applaud it. Everyone is different and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to use illogical statements to justify your opinion... especially when illogical statements can be crushed by logical ones. And from last I checked, we live in a logical world.

Furthermore, to justify why we have to retain S377A because of these illogical factors and "conservatism" is discrimination in its purest form. It would seem that in the Singapore context, not everyone is equal, even though it states in our constitution article 12(1) "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". So we homosexuals are NOT equal before the law and are NOT entitled to the equal protection of the law. Maybe we should change the constitution instead?



Taken from Today 23 May 2007

Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality


Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.

Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.

In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs."

While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".

"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.

He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."

The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.

Nostalgia

I was listening to Dave Koz's Cheng Fu (The Dance Alubm) last night. I actually wasn't really playing the album, iTunes was on shuffle mode.

I find this song by Dave Koz very beautiful and romantic. When I close my eyes all I see is T and I holding each other. In the dark, in my room, listening to this song, it just makes me realise how much I miss him and how much I love him, even though he sometimes irritates the hell out of me. But then again, what couple don't have their quarrels.

I realised how safe I feel when I'm in his arms. I realise how much I trust him.

T, my life partner, I love you. :*

Crap from Christians again (what's new?)

Note: I'm using the general term Christian to mean all followers of Jesus Christ, be they Catholics or Protestants. I know a lot of people think that only Protestants are Christians but by definition it is not.

Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.

To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.

The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.

So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?

Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.

Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!

I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).

further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders

Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.


P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.

------

Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'

-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore

THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.

In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).

Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.

Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:

'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"

The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.

Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?

Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?

In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.

To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.

The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.

(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.

(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'

Will still be a criminal

I am pissed.

Very pissed at the PAP (who is the gahmen) for not wanting to change, for using 3rd world notions to govern a 1st world country, to treat all of us as fools and idiots.

I'm am still a criminal after they amend the law. It is suppose to be decided by parliament in the few months but knowing the gahmen is self-serving and closed minded and most importantly homophobic, the amendment will go through without any problems. So sex between gay men will still be considered illegal but anal/oral sex between straight couples is okay. This shows that discrimination against any citizen is okay. This is so true, they allow discrimination again the old, the poor, the uneducated, the handicap... so what's new? Well, the discrimination against those people are not written in law, whereas discrimination again gay men is.

The gahmen says because Singapore is still conservative even though they are quick to add that consenting gay men have never been prosecuted under the law from having sex. SO WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP IT?

To think that we who sacrificed our time in NS and ICT will still be criminals. No matter how they try to say that they are not homophobic. Allowing gay men/lesbians hold top offices in the civil sector doesn't make you less homophobic (how many are anyway? 1 or 2). It just makes the gahmen a hypocrite, a white-washed wall. But then again what is new. the gahmen has always been a hypocrite.

GLBTs exist in all facets of the working environment. We are doctors, engineers, nurses, IT professionals, lecturers, CEOs, etc. To make us all remain as criminals really sucks big time. This really shows the narrow-mindedness of the gahmen and the fact that their opening up is totally NATO.

Conservative, oh please. With STD rates going up for straight teens, I really wonder who this monster "conservative" is. The one that keeps appearing when they want to keep their own self-serving agenda.

So why would I want to return to Sg? Even if I return, why would I want to be Singaporean? Why would I want to be Singaporean if I'm going to be a criminal in the country I was born and raised? Why would I want to be a criminal even though I have not done anything wrong but because of some individuals, who pretend to be open minded when they are not, who decided that I am a criminal.

Why would GLBTs want to still be in Singapore or return to "contribute to society" when time and time again, the gahmen shows that we are not welcomed and not wanted.

I am pissed.

And it seems, I'm not the only one.
MHA is disappointing
Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?
Partial decriminalisation is not good enough
Media release: Government should repeal both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code
Minority Report

My hero

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been a very long time hero of mine. He's such a great, kind and loving man. So very much what Christ would be like. He speaks out against the injustices in the world, even if it "contridicts" the bible.

OHANNESBURG, South Africa Archbishop Desmond Tutu said he was ashamed of his Anglican Church's conservative position that rejected gay priests.

In his biography, "Rabble-rouser for Peace" the Nobel peace laureate said he was deeply saddened at the furor caused by the appointment in 2003 of New Hampshire Espiscopal Bishop Gene Robinson.

The retired archbishop was critical of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for bowing on the gay priest issue to conservative elements in the 77-million member Anglican Church that includes Episcopalians in the United States.

As archbishop, Tutu criticized but could not change a policy in South Africa that said gay priests would be tolerated as long as they remained celibate. He did approve church blessings for gay and lesbian relationships, without calling them marriage.

Nature vs Nature

This is such a beautiful summary of the research done being gay "nature vs nature".

Sifting through divergent theories

Stefanie Frith
The Desert Sun
September 21, 2006
Nature versus nurture.

Biology versus environment.

Scientific studies have led to many divergent theories about what makes people gay, including the announcement in 1993 that there is a "gay gene."

But none of these biologists, psychologists and academics have a concrete answer.

Organizers of the Love Won Out conference, to be held Indian Wells on Saturday, say they can change homosexuality.

Others say this is simply impossible.

The following are some of the studies and theories that claim to support the two major theories:

American Psychiatric Association It took the APA until 1973 to remove "homosexuality"
from its manual of mental disorders.

Today, the group remains opposed to psychiatric treatment to "cure" homosexuality, such as
"reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental
disorder.

The APA's handbook on homosexuality says the following:

"There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. ... There is also
considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a
significant role in a person's sexuality ... there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual
orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."

American Medical Association In its official statement concerning homosexuality,
the American Medical Association includes the following:

"(The AMA) opposes the use of 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy that is based on the assumption
that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should
change his/her homosexual orientation."

First Biological Test
In 1957, Karen Hooker conducted the first psychological test for biological determination on a
grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Looking at both homosexuals and heterosexuals, Hooker conducted three psychological tests. The results
yielded no significant differences in answers to the tests. Because both groups had similar scores, Hooker
concluded a zero correlation between social determination of sexuality.

As a result of her study, the APA removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

1990 Brain Size Study
D.F. Swabb was the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of gay men's
brains.

In a post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the brain believed to control
sexual behavior was structurally different than a heterosexual brain, a small portion of the hypothalamus was twice the size of a heterosexual's.

At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen, also made a similar discovery that the hypothalamus
was larger in homosexuals' brains.

1991 Brain Size Study
San Diego-based neuroscientist Simon LeVay said in 1991 he had found a key difference between the brains
of homosexual and heterosexual men he had studied. A tiny group of neurons of a part of the brain believed
to control sexual behavior was, on average, more than twice the size in straight men than gay men.

A limitation, however, is that the clumps could have changed size because of homosexual behavior.

A Twin Study
Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist announced in 1991
that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay.
In fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent.

Since identical twins share their genetic makeup and fraternal twins only half, the researchers believed
genes were the explanation. The more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they are
to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

Still, twin studies remain a highly debated area of experimentation.

Gay Gene Study
Harvard-trained Dean Hamer announced the biggest news in 1993 with his discovery of the "gay gene." The
National Cancer Institute researcher found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome
at a higher rate than gay men shared with straight brothers.

Hamer took 40 DNA samples from homosexual men and genetically examined them. He found there was a
remarkable link for five genetic markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28.

Hamer hypothesized after examining the family trees of the same men that on each of the subjects' mother's
side, there were higher numbers of homosexual men.

Parental Manipulation Theory
This 1974 theory from Richard Alexander says that one or both parents are able to neuter and control
offspring to promote their (the parent's) evolutionary fitness, which passes the genes into the next
generation. If heterosexuality is the only acceptable practice, parents are then attempting to promote their
passage of genes.

Kin-Selection Theory
This 1963 theory from William Hamilton states that it doesn't matter how genes are passed to the next
generation, as long as they are passed along. For example, regardless of a homosexual outcome, the
similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow family genetics to be passed to the next generation.

Planophysical Theory
Freudian psychologist David Halperin believed homosexuality is a freak of nature, an error.

He said that a weak father and strong mother with an unresolved Oedipus complex will lead to a weak, then
homosexual son because the mother has a strong image. Other psychologists have argued the opposite, however. A stronger son who is compensating for his weak father.

Homosexuality Unequal
Social theorist Jean Foucault believes homosexuality was created 100 years ago, after a German neologism
came up with the term 20 years later.

According to John Thorp's "The Social Construction of Homosexuality," Foucault believes that homosexuality
appeared as one form of sexuality, only "after it was transposed from the practice of sodomy into a kind of
interior androgyny, a hermaphrodism of the soul."

The Ex-Gay Study
In 2001, Robert Spitzer, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, discovered that some highly
motivational people can change people from gay to straight.

He conducted 200 telephone interviews with people who had already changed their sexual orientation.

About 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women he interviewed had, over the course of a few years,
achieved a level of "good heterosexual functioning."

There were limitations, though. For example, there was no way to tell if the subjects were telling the truth.
Also, many of his subjects were religious figures who said they had changed.

Opposite Sex Twin Study
In 2002, Peter Bearman from Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner from Yale studied factors related to
same-sex attraction in a group of 20,745 adolescents.

They found that males with an opposite-sex twin were more than twice as likely to report same-sex
attraction compared to males with a male or female non-twin sibling.

Unlike studies looking at the fraternal birth order effect (FBOE) that state the more older biological
brothers one has, the more likely one is to be gay, no FBOE was found in this study.

Instead, Bearman and Bruckner found the opposite-sex twin effect was eliminated by the presence of an older
brother. Furthermore, they found no evidence for genetic or pre-natal effects. For example, the
presence of a twin sister with no older brother could push family and peer life away from male-gendered
activities.

Sweat and Urine Study
Last year, Swedish researchers reported finding differences in how the brains of straight men and gay
men responded to women's urine and male sweat, both believed to be pheromones (scent-related chemicals
that are key to sexual arousal in animals).

When straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. Not so with the gay men.
Instead, their brains lit up when they smelled the male sweat compound.

Fruit Fly Study
In 2005, scientists in Vienna isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in fruit flies.
When they flipped the switch, the genetically altered females ignored advances from males and attempted to
mate with females, even doing to the courting dance and song that males use.

Gay Brothers Study
A five-year genetic study of gay brothers is now under way in North America. A sample of 1,000 gay brother
pairs will be used, as well as the latest in genetic screening. The study aims to bring clarity to what role genes play in homosexuality.

Sources: American Medical Association, American
Psychological Association, Boston.com, allpsych.com,
wikipedia.com, narth.com, family.org, glad.org.