An online comment from ST Forum.
Dear MOE,
The AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Trainer’s guide 2007) had been circulating in the internet, and based on its content, it does suggest a Pro Gay agenda which I will elaborate in detail in my following passage.
I do recall the main reason why the Penal Code Section 377A was not repeal based on the reasons I quote from MHA Official statement.
“Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore’s social cohesion…”
Therefore I find the Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education “Pro Gay” approach in contrary with the Penal Code Section 377A as well as our largely conservative Singapore Society.
Why I view the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Pro Gay?
In page 14, item 2, the Guide states that our law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural, however, it state quite clearly that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It did not mention like in the case of rape, statutory rape and carnal connection that homosexual acts could still be charge under S377A.
MHA official stand: “Police has not been pro-actively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane.
Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.”
The Guide had also not shown why the homosexual lifestyle should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life or why the Government had made such a stand?
Based on the Government statistic on HIV new cases, the homosexual lifestyle is the highest risks lifestyle, see the facts for yourself:
In 2006, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 26.3% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 19 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2006)
In 2007, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 30.8% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 22 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2007.)
In the first six month of 2008, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 32% of the new HIV cases of our national figure!
Therefore Homosexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle and should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life!
In page 17, item 2 of the guide state that, “We do not know the causes of homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter...” and further to emphasis that “Some scientific studies show people are born like this” period, without stating that there are also a number of scientific studies that show homosexual are not “inborn” as they claim to be and also some scientific studies had cast serious doubt on the earlier studies on homosexual been inborn!
One widely known study is the claim of ‘Gay gene” widely claimed by the gays based on Simons LeVay’s paper.
Extract on LeVay comment: He later added, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ... Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation
The Guide in Page 17, item 2 also state that “Since lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not ill or abnormal, they don’t need to “cured”?
May I ask Aware, based on what scientific concurrence among all the world’s scientific bodies do you arrive at this conclusion?
I do have scientific studies that prove that there are treatments that may be very sussessful and permanent if one’s is willing to take up, I have personnal witness two close homosexual friends change to lead a perfectly normal happy straight life with childrens of their own and having a wife.
For scientific studies on therapy, see below link;
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch12.pdf
Extract:
Dr Robert Spitzer, a prime mover in the 1973 decision to remove Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) from the Diagnostic Manuals as a mental illness which are often quote by gays that they are not abnormal or ill, had in fact change his mind after 30 years
After nearly 30 years later he interviewed 200 people who claimed they had change, and he concluded that real and extensive change had occurred in many cases. His studies publish in 2003.
A contrary study done by Karten in his doctoral project to show harm to some people particularly showing up in poorer self-image and suicidal thoughts, but including accounts of people who claimed they had been helped and had changed. His results were very similar to Spitzer’s studies in 2003.
Reference material/sites:
Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education Trainer’s Guide (There are many other sites): http://inspirationfortoday.files.wor...ware-20073.pdf and
http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061.i0.k0
http://www.aware.org.sg/?p=1319&cat=
MHA Official statement regarding rejection to repeal S377A:
http://www.spf.gov.sg/faqs/police_pph.htm
Posted by: cutthecrap at Thu Apr 30 13:37:56 SGT 2009
[To quote Shakespeare: methinks he doth protest too much.
Three European Knights during the crusades were gathered around a campfire and talking about their motivation. The British Knight proclaimed, "We British Knights fight for Duty and Honour!" The French Knight scoffed, and said, "We French, we fight for Love."
Then the two of them looked to the third, the Swiss Knight, and asked, "I hear the Swiss fight for money.
The Swiss Knight said, "Perhaps we each fight for that we most lack."
I cannot understand why a heterosexual would spend so much time and effort compiling information to explain why homosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right.
We fight our personal demons. We fight for what we feel we lack most. If we are secure about our identity, we do not need to demarcate it so obviously. It is when we are not secure that we feel the need to fight harder to protect what we are losing.
I know that for me, I like women. If there are men out there who like other men, that means less competition for me. Perfectly fine for me.]
Dear MOE,
The AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (Trainer’s guide 2007) had been circulating in the internet, and based on its content, it does suggest a Pro Gay agenda which I will elaborate in detail in my following passage.
I do recall the main reason why the Penal Code Section 377A was not repeal based on the reasons I quote from MHA Official statement.
“Singaporeans are still a largely conservative society. The majority find homosexual behaviour offensive and unacceptable. Neither side is going to persuade or convince the other of their position. We should live and let live, and let the situation evolve, in tandem with the values of our society. This approach is a pragmatic one that maintains Singapore’s social cohesion…”
Therefore I find the Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education “Pro Gay” approach in contrary with the Penal Code Section 377A as well as our largely conservative Singapore Society.
Why I view the Comprehensive Sexuality Education Pro Gay?
In page 14, item 2, the Guide states that our law does not recognize homosexuality and deems homosexual sexual activities as unnatural, however, it state quite clearly that homosexuality is perfectly normal. It did not mention like in the case of rape, statutory rape and carnal connection that homosexual acts could still be charge under S377A.
MHA official stand: “Police has not been pro-actively enforcing the provision and will continue to take this stance. But this does not mean that the section is purely symbolic and thus redundant. There have been convictions over the years involving cases where minors were exploited and abused or where male adults committed the offence in a public place such as a public toilet or back-lane.
Whilst homosexuals have a place in society and, in recent years, more social space, repealing section 377A will be very contentious and may send a wrong signal that Government is encouraging and endorsing the homosexual lifestyle as part of our mainstream way of life.”
The Guide had also not shown why the homosexual lifestyle should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life or why the Government had made such a stand?
Based on the Government statistic on HIV new cases, the homosexual lifestyle is the highest risks lifestyle, see the facts for yourself:
In 2006, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 26.3% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 19 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2006)
In 2007, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 30.8% of the new HIV cases of our national figure! (Homosexual is 22 times most likely to cause new HIV case than general male who is not homosexual in 2007.)
In the first six month of 2008, HOMOSEXUAL population size of LESS THAN 3% OF OUR TOTAL POPULATION HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 32% of the new HIV cases of our national figure!
Therefore Homosexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle and should not be encourage and endorse as part of our mainstream way of life!
In page 17, item 2 of the guide state that, “We do not know the causes of homosexuality or heterosexuality for that matter...” and further to emphasis that “Some scientific studies show people are born like this” period, without stating that there are also a number of scientific studies that show homosexual are not “inborn” as they claim to be and also some scientific studies had cast serious doubt on the earlier studies on homosexual been inborn!
One widely known study is the claim of ‘Gay gene” widely claimed by the gays based on Simons LeVay’s paper.
Extract on LeVay comment: He later added, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ... Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation
The Guide in Page 17, item 2 also state that “Since lesbian, gay and bisexual people are not ill or abnormal, they don’t need to “cured”?
May I ask Aware, based on what scientific concurrence among all the world’s scientific bodies do you arrive at this conclusion?
I do have scientific studies that prove that there are treatments that may be very sussessful and permanent if one’s is willing to take up, I have personnal witness two close homosexual friends change to lead a perfectly normal happy straight life with childrens of their own and having a wife.
For scientific studies on therapy, see below link;
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/Ch12.pdf
Extract:
Dr Robert Spitzer, a prime mover in the 1973 decision to remove Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) from the Diagnostic Manuals as a mental illness which are often quote by gays that they are not abnormal or ill, had in fact change his mind after 30 years
After nearly 30 years later he interviewed 200 people who claimed they had change, and he concluded that real and extensive change had occurred in many cases. His studies publish in 2003.
A contrary study done by Karten in his doctoral project to show harm to some people particularly showing up in poorer self-image and suicidal thoughts, but including accounts of people who claimed they had been helped and had changed. His results were very similar to Spitzer’s studies in 2003.
Reference material/sites:
Aware’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education Trainer’s Guide (There are many other sites): http://inspirationfortoday.files.wor...ware-20073.pdf and
http://voicethread.com/#q.b468061.i0.k0
http://www.aware.org.sg/?p=1319&cat=
MHA Official statement regarding rejection to repeal S377A:
http://www.spf.gov.sg/faqs/police_pph.htm
Posted by: cutthecrap at Thu Apr 30 13:37:56 SGT 2009
[To quote Shakespeare: methinks he doth protest too much.
Three European Knights during the crusades were gathered around a campfire and talking about their motivation. The British Knight proclaimed, "We British Knights fight for Duty and Honour!" The French Knight scoffed, and said, "We French, we fight for Love."
Then the two of them looked to the third, the Swiss Knight, and asked, "I hear the Swiss fight for money.
The Swiss Knight said, "Perhaps we each fight for that we most lack."
I cannot understand why a heterosexual would spend so much time and effort compiling information to explain why homosexuality is wrong and heterosexuality is right.
We fight our personal demons. We fight for what we feel we lack most. If we are secure about our identity, we do not need to demarcate it so obviously. It is when we are not secure that we feel the need to fight harder to protect what we are losing.
I know that for me, I like women. If there are men out there who like other men, that means less competition for me. Perfectly fine for me.]
No comments:
Post a Comment