Sex Information & Education Council of the U.S. (S.I.E.C.U.S.)
The organization describes itself as "a national, nonprofit organization which affirms that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living. Incorporated in 1964, SIECUS develops, collects, and disseminates information, promotes comprehensive education about sexuality, and advocates the right of individuals to make responsible sexual choices." (SIECUS web site: www.siecus.org)
SIECUS advocates abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality, and actively promotes its agenda in the classroom, usurping parental control and undermining the family unit.
How does SIECUS promote its values ?
SIECUS promotes its beliefs by infiltrating the educational system, including elementary and secondary schools, with its agenda. The organization's web site, at www.siecus.com, states:
"A comprehensive sexuality program will respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community..."
What does SIECUS believe ?
According to the organization's own web site, SIECUS holds the following positions on major sexuality issues:
On Parental Involvement :
- SIECUS usurps the role of parents in sex education, and approves of providing adolescents with contraceptives, without parental knowledge, according to statements at its web site:
"While it is generally desirable for parents to be involved in their children's contraceptive decisions, the right of each person to confidentiality and privacy in receiving contraceptive information, counseling, and services is paramount."
On Homosexuality :
- SIECUS is partial to homosexuality and believes it should be legally protected as a civil right.
- Consider the following Position Statements of SIECUS regarding sexuality and religion, posted at its web site:
"Religious groups and spiritual leaders can helpfully involve themselves in sexuality education and in promoting the sexual health of their constituents, including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual.... professional guidance can assist religious leaders in how best to minister to their constituents regarding their sexual needs. It is important for religious institutions to minister and allow full religious participation to individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
"Individuals have the right to accept, acknowledge, and live in accordance with their sexual orientation, be they bisexual, heterosexual, gay or lesbian. The legal system should guarantee the civil rights and protection of all people, regardless of sexual orientation."
On Abortion :
- SIECUS believes abortion is a "right" of women:
"Every woman, regardless of age or income, should have the right to obtain an abortion ... and at a reasonable cost."
On Pornography :
- SIECUS defends pornography, according to statements posted at its web site:
"Adults should have the right of access to sexually explicit materials for personal use. Legislative and judicial efforts to prevent the production or distribution of sexually explicit materials endanger constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press ..."
On Masturbation :
- SIECUS promotes the use of masturbation, according to statements posted at its web site:
"Masturbation is a natural, common, and nonharmful means of sexual self-pleasuring that is engaged in by individuals of all ages, sexual orientations, and levels of functioning. It can be a way of becoming comfortable with one's body and enjoying one's sexuality, whether or not in a sexual relationship. No one should be made to feel guilty for choosing or not choosing to masturbate..."
The late Mary S. Calderone, M.D., M.P.H., co-founder and president of SIECUS for many years, previously was former medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest abortion provider in the world. "What Margaret Sanger did for birth control and Rachel Carson for the environment, Dr. Calderone has done for sex education," wrote People Magazine.
-------------------------------------
A.W.A.R.E. collaborated with S.I.E.C.U.S. and used their material to teach our school children with a good example being the “school C.S.E.” sex education programme.
What kind of Women's organization is this that espouses to fight for Women's rights in Singapore but also knowingly collaborate with such an organization with such stated aims. That shows that no matter how they try to get back into society, they will continue to try to fight for gay rights and create conditions espoused by S.I.E.C.U.S. in Singapore.
------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
- Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Music Playlist 1
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Letter From Thio Li-Ann In Rebuttal Of A Gay Supporter
1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is
(a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and
(b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue,it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching, and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are snickered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject.
I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree.
As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but
I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains.
We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores.
Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague
(a) be removed from her job
(b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training
(c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated).
We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected.
Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
------------------------------
Even in USA, she's fighting a battle against the House of Mr S.A.Tan.
------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is
(a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and
(b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue,it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching, and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are snickered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject.
I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree.
As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but
I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains.
We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores.
Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague
(a) be removed from her job
(b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training
(c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated).
We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected.
Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
------------------------------
Even in USA, she's fighting a battle against the House of Mr S.A.Tan.
------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Presentation1
View more presentations from guestfe7fdf.
Sleeping With The Devil
An Ardent Gay In The USA Democratic Party
Your Say - Posted : 15/07/2009 1:26 PM
- This is what's in store for us in Singapore & Asians in the near future if we carry on sleeping:
- Who's sleeping with Mr S.A.Tan?
USA Honors Anti-Christian Radical -By that definition: Anti-Religious.
The Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director John Berry — an open homosexual and ardent “gay” activist apologized to and honored homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny. Kameny calls religious conservatives like AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera " Christiaofascists" and says “gay is godly” — even though he is an atheist. President Obama’s agenda on homosexuality and transsexuality is as unknown to the public as it is radical. If he fulfills all of his promises to the self-styled “Queer” movement — including homosexualizing the U.S. military — the American people will be less free than we are today. Obama meets in the White today with homosexual and transsexual activists as part of his celebration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Pride Month".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
– Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Your Say - Posted : 15/07/2009 1:26 PM
- This is what's in store for us in Singapore & Asians in the near future if we carry on sleeping:
- Who's sleeping with Mr S.A.Tan?
USA Honors Anti-Christian Radical -By that definition: Anti-Religious.
The Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director John Berry — an open homosexual and ardent “gay” activist apologized to and honored homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny. Kameny calls religious conservatives like AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera " Christiaofascists" and says “gay is godly” — even though he is an atheist. President Obama’s agenda on homosexuality and transsexuality is as unknown to the public as it is radical. If he fulfills all of his promises to the self-styled “Queer” movement — including homosexualizing the U.S. military — the American people will be less free than we are today. Obama meets in the White today with homosexual and transsexual activists as part of his celebration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Pride Month".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
– Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
How Can I Tell if My Child is Struggling?
There are many things that can make parents wonder if their child is confused about their sexual identity. It’s true that this struggle is not one teens are eager to share with a parent, or anyone for that matter. In the often fuzzy arena of understanding your teenager, here’s how to recognize the serious warning signs.
Help Them Open Up : The best way to make it more likely your child might share a sexual struggle with you is to respond with an attitude of compassion and understanding whenever these types of issues come up. Your reaction to the subject of homosexuality when it comes up in conversation, on TV or through other relationships sends your children a message about whether you are a safe person to confide in.
Reacting with a grimace and saying, “That’s disgusting!” communicates hostility. Just consider: would you feel comfortable sharing a personal temptation with someone you knew thought “those people” were a disgusting abomination? Probably not.
Usually, people respond with hostility or anger to this issue because it seems so confusing and overwhelming. It’s not difficult, though, to overcome our fears of this issue by educating ourselves with a compassion or from a Religious standpoint.
When you can talk about homosexuality with calmness, knowledge and compassion, your children are more likely to talk to you about it. Basic truths to stick to are understanding that 1) nobody chooses to struggle with homosexuality, 2) a person isn’t guilty just because they’re tempted, 3) homosexual behavior is no worse than any other sin, 4) people can find freedom and healing in their religion or better still from some religious groups which does not proselytize or secretly advocate Gay values (like AWARE) but strictly offer professional assistance, with a compassionate heart, where it is needed the most.
Still, there is no way to guarantee that they will be confident enough to come directly to you. So you do want to know what to look for.
Sure Signs : If your son or daughter has been viewing homosexual pornography or visiting gay, lesbian or bisexual chat rooms online, that is a pretty solid sign that they are dealing with serious sexual identity issues. When confronted about this kind of involvement, most teens will try to dodge with an excuse like “I was just curious” or “I was trying to understand a friend better.”
Please understand that your child probably feels a deep sense of shame about their struggle, and whatever level of behavior they’ve become involved in. Whenever their struggle “comes out,” it’s crucial to reaffirm how much you love them, and that you do not see them any differently.
Other signs you ought to be concerned by include consistent and overt gender-atypical behavior (opposite-sex clothing, mannerisms, etc.), and unhealthy, overly-emotional attachments to a single friend of the same sex
Addressing It : When you observe these types of things, don’t be quick to label it as homosexuality. Simply address what you have observed and ask them questions about it. Don’t assume something is there if it is not plainly true–that can make things worse.
For instance, don’t say: “You and Ah Moy act like a couple of lesbians. You aren’t doing that, are you?” or, “Son, why do you act so feminine? You don’t want people to think you’re gay.”
Addressing without assuming would sound more like this: “I’ve noticed you and Ah Moy spend so much time together, you’re neglecting your other friends. Do you think that’s a good idea?” or, “Son, it seems like you aren’t really into hanging out with the guys. Did something happen?”
It is best for your response to communicate that you care about their well-being, and offer them opportunities to share their feelings. Plus if they already know that homosexuality doesn’t make you totally blow up, you’ve created a much more positive environment for them.
Not So Sure Signs : There are also sometimes “yellow flags” that go up for parents, but aren’t necessarily a sign your child struggles with “same sex attraction” (SSA).
For instance, if they come home from school with a book, flier or brochure mentioning homosexuality; that’s not necessarily a sign.
Material addressing homosexuality is becoming more and more common. Your children will most likely receive information or materials on the subject more than once.
Don’t assume they are struggling just because of something like this (pornographic material is another issue altogether) but take the opportunity to talk openly with them about issues of sexuality and see what they’re thinking.
Try not to get into a confrontation with your child, but do your best to have open dialog about what they’re hearing about these issues and what they think.
They probably just want to show their support for making schools safe. Let them know there are great ways for students to stand against bullying and harassment while still speaking the truth about sexuality.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=88c9a20d-ae82-4890-977a-3e0cd8b87f78)
Help Them Open Up : The best way to make it more likely your child might share a sexual struggle with you is to respond with an attitude of compassion and understanding whenever these types of issues come up. Your reaction to the subject of homosexuality when it comes up in conversation, on TV or through other relationships sends your children a message about whether you are a safe person to confide in.
Reacting with a grimace and saying, “That’s disgusting!” communicates hostility. Just consider: would you feel comfortable sharing a personal temptation with someone you knew thought “those people” were a disgusting abomination? Probably not.
Usually, people respond with hostility or anger to this issue because it seems so confusing and overwhelming. It’s not difficult, though, to overcome our fears of this issue by educating ourselves with a compassion or from a Religious standpoint.
When you can talk about homosexuality with calmness, knowledge and compassion, your children are more likely to talk to you about it. Basic truths to stick to are understanding that 1) nobody chooses to struggle with homosexuality, 2) a person isn’t guilty just because they’re tempted, 3) homosexual behavior is no worse than any other sin, 4) people can find freedom and healing in their religion or better still from some religious groups which does not proselytize or secretly advocate Gay values (like AWARE) but strictly offer professional assistance, with a compassionate heart, where it is needed the most.
Still, there is no way to guarantee that they will be confident enough to come directly to you. So you do want to know what to look for.
Sure Signs : If your son or daughter has been viewing homosexual pornography or visiting gay, lesbian or bisexual chat rooms online, that is a pretty solid sign that they are dealing with serious sexual identity issues. When confronted about this kind of involvement, most teens will try to dodge with an excuse like “I was just curious” or “I was trying to understand a friend better.”
Please understand that your child probably feels a deep sense of shame about their struggle, and whatever level of behavior they’ve become involved in. Whenever their struggle “comes out,” it’s crucial to reaffirm how much you love them, and that you do not see them any differently.
Other signs you ought to be concerned by include consistent and overt gender-atypical behavior (opposite-sex clothing, mannerisms, etc.), and unhealthy, overly-emotional attachments to a single friend of the same sex
Addressing It : When you observe these types of things, don’t be quick to label it as homosexuality. Simply address what you have observed and ask them questions about it. Don’t assume something is there if it is not plainly true–that can make things worse.
For instance, don’t say: “You and Ah Moy act like a couple of lesbians. You aren’t doing that, are you?” or, “Son, why do you act so feminine? You don’t want people to think you’re gay.”
Addressing without assuming would sound more like this: “I’ve noticed you and Ah Moy spend so much time together, you’re neglecting your other friends. Do you think that’s a good idea?” or, “Son, it seems like you aren’t really into hanging out with the guys. Did something happen?”
It is best for your response to communicate that you care about their well-being, and offer them opportunities to share their feelings. Plus if they already know that homosexuality doesn’t make you totally blow up, you’ve created a much more positive environment for them.
Not So Sure Signs : There are also sometimes “yellow flags” that go up for parents, but aren’t necessarily a sign your child struggles with “same sex attraction” (SSA).
For instance, if they come home from school with a book, flier or brochure mentioning homosexuality; that’s not necessarily a sign.
Material addressing homosexuality is becoming more and more common. Your children will most likely receive information or materials on the subject more than once.
Don’t assume they are struggling just because of something like this (pornographic material is another issue altogether) but take the opportunity to talk openly with them about issues of sexuality and see what they’re thinking.
Try not to get into a confrontation with your child, but do your best to have open dialog about what they’re hearing about these issues and what they think.
They probably just want to show their support for making schools safe. Let them know there are great ways for students to stand against bullying and harassment while still speaking the truth about sexuality.
Effeminate School Students & The Pressure To Compromise
Your Say – Posted : 14.07.09
1) School life is rough for a lot of people. Most teenagers get picked on, and sometimes hurt, to one degree or another throughout their school experience.
2) Students who struggle with their sexual or gender identity (or who are perceived as gay) are no exception, you’ll know that bullying and isolation during youth is almost par for the course.
3) Some people blame people of faith for this problem–that anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality is in some way perpetuating the violence..
4) The solution, they say, is to exclusively promote a viewpoint that says people are born gay, can’t change, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
5) Gay advocacy groups encourage teens to identify as “allies,” friends who celebrate homosexuality–supposedly the only way to make their campus safe.
6) As a result, these students often find themselves in a bind. Either they must compromise their belief in that there is another way or they compromise on their religion and say that homosexual behavior is okay–and be called an “ally,” a “safe person”–or they can refuse and be labeled a bigot.
7) We believe this is unfair to these students, who don’t hate their gay-identified (or struggling) peers, and have good reasons for believing what they do about sexuality and gender.
8) It’s also unfair to students who identify as gay. Imagine how it must feel to believe that the “normal” people everywhere hate you!
9)This problem is exacerbated by the “Gay Activists” like AWARE telling them that they are born gay and that sex with “same sex” is normal and “a*** sex” is normal.
10) In the diversity of opinion, people with differing–and even opposing–viewpoints can still work together to build a community of tolerance and respect.
11) That is why MOE has FINALLY come out with a new syllabus and tackles these issues but with the stated aim of “upholding” our family values.
12)Tolerance doesn’t mean conformity of beliefs. It doesn’t mean one point of view is upheld and others are silenced. It doesn’t mean a person can label a belief they don’t agree with as hatred so they don’t have to deal with it.
13) Tolerance means we can respectfully express our differences, but then put them aside and cooperate on the things we can agree on, like safety, fair treatment, and kindness.
14) Tolerance means You don’t try to convert our society secretly to accept your ideas.
15) Tolerance means You don’t try to deviously put your ideas into our children’s mind at a young age so that when they grow up, you hope that they will be “converted” to “gay practices & lifestyle”
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
1) School life is rough for a lot of people. Most teenagers get picked on, and sometimes hurt, to one degree or another throughout their school experience.
2) Students who struggle with their sexual or gender identity (or who are perceived as gay) are no exception, you’ll know that bullying and isolation during youth is almost par for the course.
3) Some people blame people of faith for this problem–that anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality is in some way perpetuating the violence..
4) The solution, they say, is to exclusively promote a viewpoint that says people are born gay, can’t change, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
5) Gay advocacy groups encourage teens to identify as “allies,” friends who celebrate homosexuality–supposedly the only way to make their campus safe.
6) As a result, these students often find themselves in a bind. Either they must compromise their belief in that there is another way or they compromise on their religion and say that homosexual behavior is okay–and be called an “ally,” a “safe person”–or they can refuse and be labeled a bigot.
7) We believe this is unfair to these students, who don’t hate their gay-identified (or struggling) peers, and have good reasons for believing what they do about sexuality and gender.
8) It’s also unfair to students who identify as gay. Imagine how it must feel to believe that the “normal” people everywhere hate you!
9)This problem is exacerbated by the “Gay Activists” like AWARE telling them that they are born gay and that sex with “same sex” is normal and “a*** sex” is normal.
10) In the diversity of opinion, people with differing–and even opposing–viewpoints can still work together to build a community of tolerance and respect.
11) That is why MOE has FINALLY come out with a new syllabus and tackles these issues but with the stated aim of “upholding” our family values.
12)Tolerance doesn’t mean conformity of beliefs. It doesn’t mean one point of view is upheld and others are silenced. It doesn’t mean a person can label a belief they don’t agree with as hatred so they don’t have to deal with it.
13) Tolerance means we can respectfully express our differences, but then put them aside and cooperate on the things we can agree on, like safety, fair treatment, and kindness.
14) Tolerance means You don’t try to convert our society secretly to accept your ideas.
15) Tolerance means You don’t try to deviously put your ideas into our children’s mind at a young age so that when they grow up, you hope that they will be “converted” to “gay practices & lifestyle”
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Is There A Gay Agenda That I Should Be Worried About?
Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09
When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.
While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.
Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:
• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.
These may seem like pretty extreme statements, but there are several organizations and tens of millions of dollars a year dedicated to these goals.
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.
While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.
Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:
• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.
These may seem like pretty extreme statements, but there are several organizations and tens of millions of dollars a year dedicated to these goals.
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Peril At Our Doorstep
Your Say - Posted : 14/07/2009 2:17 PM
Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. The world equates same-sex attraction with an innate homosexual identity, so those who struggle with homosexual feelings are told it must be who they are. This what the gay activists are PUTTING INTO OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD"
The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on onenewsnow.com:
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
----------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. The world equates same-sex attraction with an innate homosexual identity, so those who struggle with homosexual feelings are told it must be who they are. This what the gay activists are PUTTING INTO OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD"
The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on onenewsnow.com:
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
----------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Comment Taken From DorkyDawg:
Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.
- A.W.A.R.E. did it and now trying to insert itself into mainstream again with so-called pro-women activities for now.
- Another face has reared up – “New Charter of Compassion” raised by people from present A.W.A.R.E leadership.
This agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."
"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."
Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
(Such as - Pink parade, Sentosa parties, etc in S'pore)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
(Such as - Gays vs. Religion as in AWARE saga)
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
(Media coverage & Corporate Singapore)
4. "Make gays look good."
(Such as - Media coverage in Singapore)
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
(Such as - Josie group & Media coverage at EGM)
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
(Corporate Singapore doing same for A.W.A.RE.)
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“ Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
“SLEEP ON Singapore while the MENACE continues its work to convert you, your children & our Nation”
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.
- A.W.A.R.E. did it and now trying to insert itself into mainstream again with so-called pro-women activities for now.
- Another face has reared up – “New Charter of Compassion” raised by people from present A.W.A.R.E leadership.
This agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."
"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."
Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
(Such as - Pink parade, Sentosa parties, etc in S'pore)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
(Such as - Gays vs. Religion as in AWARE saga)
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
(Media coverage & Corporate Singapore)
4. "Make gays look good."
(Such as - Media coverage in Singapore)
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
(Such as - Josie group & Media coverage at EGM)
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
(Corporate Singapore doing same for A.W.A.RE.)
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“ Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
“SLEEP ON Singapore while the MENACE continues its work to convert you, your children & our Nation”
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Concerned Parent & Citizen
A letter sent to the Cabinet & MPs c/o REACH email.
09.07.2009
Dear
Prime Minister,
Senior Minister,
Minister Mentor,
Cabinet Ministers
& Members of Parliament,
From: Citizen
RE: Concerned Parent & Citizen
I am a regular contributor of REACH@reach.gov.sg since the start of the AWARE saga which enlightened me on the apparent dangers faced by our society today. Do forgive me if my letter is meet protocol due to my poor grammar and humble ignorance.
It is with a deep-seated concern for our children and our society and what the future will hold for us if citizens such as me and like-minded citizens do not start to take active participation in our own well-being and also our society that I am writing to you now.
As we journey into a new millennium, it is understandable that our society has to evolve within and without to keep step with the changes in and around us to stay relevant, be more cosmopolitan and survive the challenges facing our little Red Dot.
My family and I fully empathize with and support our Govt’s various initiatives & actions, as has been shown in the sacrifices which we have made past and present.
Nevertheless, the deep-seated concern we have is, albeit, my own opinion, is that our society is now beset by an organized and vocal “Minority” with “moral” issues, such that, it is now assailing the very bastion of our society, which is; the family unit, and where the “Minority” amongst the gay society is pushing for a change using our very private/ public institutions, media and also into the corridors of power in private business & in Govt, to subtly effect the very changes on our moral fabric as an Asian Nation.
What is happening in USA should not be a template for us as an Asian nation to follow. It is heartening that MOE did finally follow through on its stated objective to make the family unit as the moral backbone in our society. But, it will not be enough if nothing is done to forestall or even restrict the “unimpeded access and opportunities” that the vocal “Minority” presently has in penetrating all sectors of our society to convert our young and naïve children and a generally passive public. If Govt is not careful and watchful, we will one day turn into another “USA”.
I have attached an article on the “Gay Agenda” which of course is from a Christian movement, but, take away the Christian contents and you will see how the “Gay Agenda” is being implemented in our little Red Dot. Slowly and quietly.
Without doubt, our security agencies are competent and ever watchful but as a stake-holder, I wish to convey my apprehensions regarding these “Minority” and how it will affect our society. How has it come to that and why is it still allowed such “space” is a mystery which is still not being addressed? How is it that so many major companies are supporting them in kind?
Realizing the inadequacy of REACH as an instrument to voice out our disquiet, as a parent and concerned citizen, I speak for others of my kind when I say that we are unhappy about how a major media, ST, has not shown impartiality as was seen in the recent article on AWARE which was accorded a full page when our new NMPs were announced.
Hopefully, MOE and all departments in our Govt, on it’s part, will stay vigilant in accepting AWARE or any of it’s kind which comes in various shape & colour such as the new entity, “New Charter of Compassion” which, in my opinion, may be another “front” by the same people who espouses and actively promotes gay Rights. The “Gay Agenda” is very real and has been working overtime within our society as we sleep. It veils itself in “sheep’s clothing” and usurps the position of fighting for “Human Rights” & “Diversity” & “Inclusiveness” while surreptitiously pre-positions itself in promotion of the “Gay Agenda” in our own backyard.
As Govt has stated clearly that ‘gays” have now been openly accepted into the Govt fold and even into our various political organizations such as PAP Youth, I am fearful that the “Minority” will try to effect changes within our organizations, such as attempted by an individual, who joint PAP Youth for some years and openly stated her intentions in public. I am fearful that one day we may see (maybe not in my lifetime but in my children’s lifetime) it may culminate into another “Lee Teng Hui” who destroyed the primacy of the Kuomintang from within; which is how the “Gay Agenda” works.
My letter to your Excellency and honoured Members of Parliament is to highlight this creeping danger within our society. That is all we, as concerned parents and like-minded people can do as I have indicated earlier in this letter that we have only one avenue to voice out our concerns and that is REACH where our concerns and opinions hardly reach the masses. We hardly have any defenses against such machinations and manipulation. We do not even have a support organization.
Furthermore, this is hardly a religious angle but actually an issue which concerns our very well-being as a Nation state, its ideals and its promotion of family values.
Last but not least, on behalf of concerned parents and citizens, I wish Govt will come to the fore on these matters to assuage our concerns and fears and consider looking into this “Gay Agenda” issue, creeping into our society and Govt; with utmost urgency and speed.
Thank you.
09.07.2009
Dear
Prime Minister,
Senior Minister,
Minister Mentor,
Cabinet Ministers
& Members of Parliament,
From: Citizen
RE: Concerned Parent & Citizen
I am a regular contributor of REACH@reach.gov.sg since the start of the AWARE saga which enlightened me on the apparent dangers faced by our society today. Do forgive me if my letter is meet protocol due to my poor grammar and humble ignorance.
It is with a deep-seated concern for our children and our society and what the future will hold for us if citizens such as me and like-minded citizens do not start to take active participation in our own well-being and also our society that I am writing to you now.
As we journey into a new millennium, it is understandable that our society has to evolve within and without to keep step with the changes in and around us to stay relevant, be more cosmopolitan and survive the challenges facing our little Red Dot.
My family and I fully empathize with and support our Govt’s various initiatives & actions, as has been shown in the sacrifices which we have made past and present.
Nevertheless, the deep-seated concern we have is, albeit, my own opinion, is that our society is now beset by an organized and vocal “Minority” with “moral” issues, such that, it is now assailing the very bastion of our society, which is; the family unit, and where the “Minority” amongst the gay society is pushing for a change using our very private/ public institutions, media and also into the corridors of power in private business & in Govt, to subtly effect the very changes on our moral fabric as an Asian Nation.
What is happening in USA should not be a template for us as an Asian nation to follow. It is heartening that MOE did finally follow through on its stated objective to make the family unit as the moral backbone in our society. But, it will not be enough if nothing is done to forestall or even restrict the “unimpeded access and opportunities” that the vocal “Minority” presently has in penetrating all sectors of our society to convert our young and naïve children and a generally passive public. If Govt is not careful and watchful, we will one day turn into another “USA”.
I have attached an article on the “Gay Agenda” which of course is from a Christian movement, but, take away the Christian contents and you will see how the “Gay Agenda” is being implemented in our little Red Dot. Slowly and quietly.
Without doubt, our security agencies are competent and ever watchful but as a stake-holder, I wish to convey my apprehensions regarding these “Minority” and how it will affect our society. How has it come to that and why is it still allowed such “space” is a mystery which is still not being addressed? How is it that so many major companies are supporting them in kind?
Realizing the inadequacy of REACH as an instrument to voice out our disquiet, as a parent and concerned citizen, I speak for others of my kind when I say that we are unhappy about how a major media, ST, has not shown impartiality as was seen in the recent article on AWARE which was accorded a full page when our new NMPs were announced.
Hopefully, MOE and all departments in our Govt, on it’s part, will stay vigilant in accepting AWARE or any of it’s kind which comes in various shape & colour such as the new entity, “New Charter of Compassion” which, in my opinion, may be another “front” by the same people who espouses and actively promotes gay Rights. The “Gay Agenda” is very real and has been working overtime within our society as we sleep. It veils itself in “sheep’s clothing” and usurps the position of fighting for “Human Rights” & “Diversity” & “Inclusiveness” while surreptitiously pre-positions itself in promotion of the “Gay Agenda” in our own backyard.
As Govt has stated clearly that ‘gays” have now been openly accepted into the Govt fold and even into our various political organizations such as PAP Youth, I am fearful that the “Minority” will try to effect changes within our organizations, such as attempted by an individual, who joint PAP Youth for some years and openly stated her intentions in public. I am fearful that one day we may see (maybe not in my lifetime but in my children’s lifetime) it may culminate into another “Lee Teng Hui” who destroyed the primacy of the Kuomintang from within; which is how the “Gay Agenda” works.
My letter to your Excellency and honoured Members of Parliament is to highlight this creeping danger within our society. That is all we, as concerned parents and like-minded people can do as I have indicated earlier in this letter that we have only one avenue to voice out our concerns and that is REACH where our concerns and opinions hardly reach the masses. We hardly have any defenses against such machinations and manipulation. We do not even have a support organization.
Furthermore, this is hardly a religious angle but actually an issue which concerns our very well-being as a Nation state, its ideals and its promotion of family values.
Last but not least, on behalf of concerned parents and citizens, I wish Govt will come to the fore on these matters to assuage our concerns and fears and consider looking into this “Gay Agenda” issue, creeping into our society and Govt; with utmost urgency and speed.
Thank you.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Unmasking The Gay Agenda
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm
Excerpts from Concerned Women of America (CWA). Although it is a Christian movement but by no means irrelevant to what’s happening in our own backyard. For non-christians, just delete away the religious aspects and look at how the “Gay” activists “conquered” America.
This will provide you the “Reader” an insight as to how and in what manner our home-grown “Gay” activists in Singapore have been working overtime to influence our children, our young, our society, in our educational institutions, in our public spaces such as in the Arts, theatre, Media and in Govt. While you are sleeping, they are always working. Many Companies are supporting them and their programs financially:
The Goal:
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the gay agenda. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are equal. If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.
This creates cultural and moral anarchy.
Plan of Attack:
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct by force of law through federal edicts such as hate crimes legislation, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned same-sex marriage. All such government mandates grant special protected minority status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be tolerated, but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan celebrate diversity supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of tolerance and diversity.
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded homophobic, hateful or discriminatory. They are to be silenced by all means possible.
Homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the gay agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled,
The Gay Agenda:
• On hate crimes laws: Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.
• On hate thoughts and hate speech laws: Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.
• On influencing public policy: Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.
• On same-sex marriage: Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.
• On gays in the Church: Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.
The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.
In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.
Desensitization:
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
Jamming:
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.
Not even churches are safe.
Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.
Conversion:
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.
Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.
Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
Excerpts from Concerned Women of America (CWA). Although it is a Christian movement but by no means irrelevant to what’s happening in our own backyard. For non-christians, just delete away the religious aspects and look at how the “Gay” activists “conquered” America.
This will provide you the “Reader” an insight as to how and in what manner our home-grown “Gay” activists in Singapore have been working overtime to influence our children, our young, our society, in our educational institutions, in our public spaces such as in the Arts, theatre, Media and in Govt. While you are sleeping, they are always working. Many Companies are supporting them and their programs financially:
The Goal:
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the gay agenda. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are equal. If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.
This creates cultural and moral anarchy.
Plan of Attack:
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct by force of law through federal edicts such as hate crimes legislation, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned same-sex marriage. All such government mandates grant special protected minority status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be tolerated, but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan celebrate diversity supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of tolerance and diversity.
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded homophobic, hateful or discriminatory. They are to be silenced by all means possible.
Homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the gay agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled,
The Gay Agenda:
• On hate crimes laws: Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.
• On hate thoughts and hate speech laws: Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.
• On influencing public policy: Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.
• On same-sex marriage: Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.
• On gays in the Church: Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.
The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.
In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.
Desensitization:
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
Jamming:
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.
Not even churches are safe.
Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.
Conversion:
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.
Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.
Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
AWARE On ST’s “Prime News”
AWARE On ST’s “Prime News”
ST dd 07.07.09 (PgA10)
So, what a blaze of “glory” for ST. Very well timed to give AWARE a big boost and even a full page.
AWARE has still not given up and will push the boundaries as per their stated stand. You can see from today’s ST news.
In the first place, they have no business giving the “man” a vote as they are a group created to fight for “Women’s” rights.
In my view, the general public has been hoodwinked all these years. They did not realize that fighting for women’s rights was only the platform and a guise to a bigger issue and that is (a) repealing of Section 377 & 377A (b) to change people’s mindset to embrace the LBGT views.
The time will come soon, when, AWARE will allow male associate members the right to vote. No more “associates” by then. Anybody can join then, but, the first criteria to be used will be that you must “either be pro-gay” or already a gay. Therefore, if you are a woman and don’t belief in their constitution that supports gay rights, then, you as a woman, cannot join up. Sorry-lah, you have to look elsewhere for help.
What is AWARE? It stands for “Association of Women for Action and Research”. Maybe in future, they should take out the “Women” bit.
You can bet that many of the “men” are “gay”. So, no more chance for a takeover. What a washout and a sell-out for women as a whole.
In those early days, who would have figgered that the “inclusive” part in their constitution will be used to get involved in gay issues? Govt and the Public have been “had or suckered”.
Finally, it’s not Josie Lau’s fault that the “money” had to be spent. Given the short time and the constraints and pressure by the Old Guard, it was laughable that the Old Guard now have the temerity to say that Josie’s group should have asked for help from AWARE volunteers. What a big joke. AWARE’s new committee wont “sue” Josie because they have no grounds for it. Period!
Another IMPORTANT thing to point out is that Concerned Parents & People should take note of those Companies involved in supporting the Old Guard. Without these Companies’ monies, the Old Guard will not be able to promote their “Gay” causes. They should extract out a “caveat” from the Old Guard that “donated monies should not be used in support of “Gay” rights”. Those Companies can also be considered in cahoots with the Old Guard for supporting anti-family values. We should voice out our views loud so that these Companies will not help AWARE in furthering their stated goal of supporting anti-family values.
Dear Parents & Supporters of Family Values, can you see what obstacles we have in front of us? Regrettably, if not for my young children and my humble job, I would have started a lobby group myself. People like us still have some ways to go to be free of the shackle to carry the banner. What of you who are retired and still strong in mind and spirit and free? Is there any amongst you who would take up this challenge. I will not think twice and be the first to be a member.
ST dd 07.07.09 (PgA10)
So, what a blaze of “glory” for ST. Very well timed to give AWARE a big boost and even a full page.
AWARE has still not given up and will push the boundaries as per their stated stand. You can see from today’s ST news.
In the first place, they have no business giving the “man” a vote as they are a group created to fight for “Women’s” rights.
In my view, the general public has been hoodwinked all these years. They did not realize that fighting for women’s rights was only the platform and a guise to a bigger issue and that is (a) repealing of Section 377 & 377A (b) to change people’s mindset to embrace the LBGT views.
The time will come soon, when, AWARE will allow male associate members the right to vote. No more “associates” by then. Anybody can join then, but, the first criteria to be used will be that you must “either be pro-gay” or already a gay. Therefore, if you are a woman and don’t belief in their constitution that supports gay rights, then, you as a woman, cannot join up. Sorry-lah, you have to look elsewhere for help.
What is AWARE? It stands for “Association of Women for Action and Research”. Maybe in future, they should take out the “Women” bit.
You can bet that many of the “men” are “gay”. So, no more chance for a takeover. What a washout and a sell-out for women as a whole.
In those early days, who would have figgered that the “inclusive” part in their constitution will be used to get involved in gay issues? Govt and the Public have been “had or suckered”.
Finally, it’s not Josie Lau’s fault that the “money” had to be spent. Given the short time and the constraints and pressure by the Old Guard, it was laughable that the Old Guard now have the temerity to say that Josie’s group should have asked for help from AWARE volunteers. What a big joke. AWARE’s new committee wont “sue” Josie because they have no grounds for it. Period!
Another IMPORTANT thing to point out is that Concerned Parents & People should take note of those Companies involved in supporting the Old Guard. Without these Companies’ monies, the Old Guard will not be able to promote their “Gay” causes. They should extract out a “caveat” from the Old Guard that “donated monies should not be used in support of “Gay” rights”. Those Companies can also be considered in cahoots with the Old Guard for supporting anti-family values. We should voice out our views loud so that these Companies will not help AWARE in furthering their stated goal of supporting anti-family values.
Dear Parents & Supporters of Family Values, can you see what obstacles we have in front of us? Regrettably, if not for my young children and my humble job, I would have started a lobby group myself. People like us still have some ways to go to be free of the shackle to carry the banner. What of you who are retired and still strong in mind and spirit and free? Is there any amongst you who would take up this challenge. I will not think twice and be the first to be a member.
Nine New Faces In Parliament
Image by willposh via Flickr
It is refreshing to see new faces in parliament and to openly state their intentions upon taking up the NMP posts.
Pushing for change was one of the reasons Govt has introduced this new lot to add a different dimension in terms of diversity of views. This is laudable of Govt.
The worry of having another Siew Kum Hong in their midst to stir up another controversy is still relevant.
My opinion is that it is not wrong to stir up another controversy which is good for society at large so long as it does not involve anti-family issues. Controversy helps to facilitate changes in society.
The remark by SMU Law lecturer Eugene Tan, taken from today’s ST dated 07.07.09 that SKH “brings something different to the table” is a fair description of what Govt is doing as Ex-NMP Banerjee said, quote ”After all, the NMP scheme seeks to provide diversity and different perspectives in Parliament” unquote.
But, Eugene Tan should realize that ‘SKH did more than that by “stirring” up the public with the LBGT issues and with his open support of the AWARE old guard’, and did not see the bigger picture where SKH’s activities and association with a pro-gay movement caused much duress to the public at large and a danger to society’s moral setup.
You cant tell the public that ‘he was at AWARE’s EGM in his personal capacity’ since he was the one who raised the issue of LBGT rights. Being an NMP also required of him to be impartial. You cant hide your actions behind the cloak of “personal capacity”.
Hopefully, the Art’s nominee, Audrey Wong will “walk the talk” by raising only issues facing the Arts scene vis-a-vis the public & Govt. She has kept a low profile and there’s really much material on her on the internet. Mostly all work related. As long as she does not end up as “the other” side of SKH, her motives are for the promotion of the Arts to the people, then, the general public will welcome her. We’ll just have to wait and see.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=39026007-3ff6-4816-b91f-f19f11e67086)
New NMPs In Parliament
Silent Majority
07 Jul 09 , 11:44 AM
Agree with "A brand new slate of NMPs in the House"
Happy are those who belief.
On the other hand, having read Audrey Wong's position in the news, she highlighted her stand on issues facing the Arts scene. I hope she is the real deal where promotion of the Arts vis-a-vis society & Govt is involved and not end up as another Siew Kum Hong espousing anti-family values.
07 Jul 09 , 11:44 AM
Agree with "A brand new slate of NMPs in the House"
Happy are those who belief.
On the other hand, having read Audrey Wong's position in the news, she highlighted her stand on issues facing the Arts scene. I hope she is the real deal where promotion of the Arts vis-a-vis society & Govt is involved and not end up as another Siew Kum Hong espousing anti-family values.
Newly Elected NMPs - A brand new slate of NMPs in the House
REACH Blog:
07 Jul 09 , 10:40 AM
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090707-0000120/A-brand-new-slate
IT WILL be a slate of completely new faces in the House, all nine of them - the maximum number of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) allowed by the Constitution. But you might recognise a few familiar names
One surprise is former national swimmer and Olympian Joscelin Yeo, who makes the move from pool to politics; She views being an NMP as an extension of the work she is doing at the swimming school she runs with her brother and with the Youth Ministry of New Creation Church.
Mr Laurence Wee is the executive director of Presbyterian Community Services.
Conspicuous by their absence? Any of the former slate of NMPs - including Mr Siew Kum Hong whom had sought second terms.
------
Loretta Chen and Beatrice Chia were not shortlisted either.
Thanks for the wise decision of Parliamentary Select Committee in shortlisting NMPs that reflects the majority view of Singaporean who prefer upholding family values.
07 Jul 09 , 10:40 AM
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC090707-0000120/A-brand-new-slate
IT WILL be a slate of completely new faces in the House, all nine of them - the maximum number of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) allowed by the Constitution. But you might recognise a few familiar names
One surprise is former national swimmer and Olympian Joscelin Yeo, who makes the move from pool to politics; She views being an NMP as an extension of the work she is doing at the swimming school she runs with her brother and with the Youth Ministry of New Creation Church.
Mr Laurence Wee is the executive director of Presbyterian Community Services.
Conspicuous by their absence? Any of the former slate of NMPs - including Mr Siew Kum Hong whom had sought second terms.
------
Loretta Chen and Beatrice Chia were not shortlisted either.
Thanks for the wise decision of Parliamentary Select Committee in shortlisting NMPs that reflects the majority view of Singaporean who prefer upholding family values.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Latest Comments On Sex Education Thread
REACH BLOG:
(Some general debates on-going)
Red Panda
05 Jul 09 , 21:56 PM
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/440540/1/.html
Law Minister K Shanmugam has said:
- Singapore will not decriminalise gay sex but the courts have the power to decide how the law, Section 377, is applied. Section 377A of the Penal Code deems sex between men a crime.
- Section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.
- We have the law. We say it won't be enforced. Is it totally clear? .... we don't think it's fair for us to prosecute people who say that they are homosexual
- the government will not take the lead in repealing the law.
----------
The government stand is firm, clear and fair to both mainstreams and GLBT. Homosexuals have freedom to do it in their bedroom, but pushing their lifestyle to be accepted by mainstream majorities is a BIG NO.
----------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 18:24 PM
Dear CW
Just in case, my last sentence "If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you" is not a personal attack, given the limited time I have.
Let me rephrase it better, "If you still dont catch the drift on our point of view, then, no matter how else we explanation the result will still be the same.
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 18:09 PM
Dear Silent Majority,
I can now clearly understand where you are coming from. I also understand that this is your approach/style when communicating to others. I do appreciate the effort and time you took to detail your reply. In all, thank you.
Regards,
CW
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 15:32 PM
Dear CW,
Whatever comments made on my part is never personal. I am not a demon. Ha!Ha! It is always with the intent to communicate a point and effectively. That is my style. I am thoughtful when I jot down my comments. So, don’t get overly excited when in a debate. Like I said, this is an open forum and some have they own way in conveying their stand for effect.
You are spot on in your opinion from your various past comments. The thing you do not realize is that, there is no 100% proof. We are not God and so no proof. That is why if you had understood all the previous input from other forumers, you would by now have gathered that the forumers have always “accepted” the LBGT as an individual and do not judge them or try to change them “forcefully”. That is why we have gay friends. But, in terms of society “acceptance” does not mean “agree” with their lifestyle but not with their “kind”.
But, we are talking about gays as “adults”. It is still the parent’s right to decide, guide and make the decision whether his/her son/daughter is a gay or not and how to confront the issue.
I have known close childhood friends who were very feminine but grew out of it in adulthood. I have also known close childhood friends who are feminine and turned gay in their late teens and one of them even changed his name and took his boyfriend’s surname. Do you know why I quoted these experiences of mine to you? The reason being these two individuals were influenced by the environment they live in. When I talk about environment, it would mean such as the people you are in contact with: your family, friends you hang out with, location, etc. Mostly, it’s your family and friends. A good example: If you are the youngest and you have 4-5 elder sisters and the strict parents who are generally at arms length away? How do you think the boy will turn out? He will come out with feminine traits, mostly. I haven’t even added in the outside influences. These forces act, mould and influences a child’s mind and what do you think will be the outcome at the end of the day? I don’t need a scientist to proof to me. You are dealing with an individual and you handle them differently when as a child, teenager and as an adult. If you are 3 or 5 years old or even 12 years old, if I were to let you live on the floor daily for the next 5 years, your body and mind will automatically learn to accept it. One thing you have to know, presently, science, it’s a tool in the hands of either sides now to be used to bolster their arguments. The thing with scientific studies is that if you leave out a factor/equation, then, the rest of your studies and it’s outcome is just “rubbish”.
Above were “live” experiences that I quoted. Therefore, no need for scientific studies. Commonsense and logic is the word here. I have quoted you examples from my personal experiences. You can ask for proof until the sun goes down and you will still not get it. Another slightly similar example to quote: If you are kidnapped for long periods under abject conditions deliberately, you will even fall for your kidnapper and die for him probably.
From these examples, I left out something important for last. If you were to play these examples in your mind you will realize that, at the end of the day, the individual can still change. In the end, we are talking about “concepts”. How do you define “concepts”: how a person or culture behaves, or how nature, reality, or events are perceived? This tells you a person CAN change. It’s HOW much he/she wants to change. Sometimes when they go through willing a program of self-help, they might or might not succeed in changing their lifestyle because (a) it’s up to them (b) the environment they go back to. It’s a forum column so I can’t elaborate further as there’s more, but, enough has been said to derive the required answers.
FYI let me go back to “anal sex” where an adult should know better than to engage in such acts. Is it instinct or ingrained in us that it is wrong? Why is that so? It’s because we were taught that it is wrong and the anus is not made for sex but for excretion.
Suicidal behavior is due to the environment we live in; you may call it “society”. I fully agree that they need help, as do kidnapped victims. That is why I myself belief that after the parents, school counselors or any other organizations should help out but, this is only a temporary respite. Because, when in later life, they will have to come face to face with the stark reality that the world will not “agree” but only accept their choice of lifestyle. Let me remind you, I did not say anything about “force”.
The problem with our society in Singapore now is that the activism by vocal minority groups and individuals are trying to push and influence our young’s mindset. That is a No-No. Even Govt has accepted the gay as a person into their midst. What have you to say about that? Nobody is forcing change on them. PAP youth even accepted one or more of them too.
Probably LEE was being too polite to tell you straight what he/she felt, from his/ her replies to you. I have no such qualms. I prefer to engage directly and face the issue outright, even enforcing my point of view if I felt my logic/arguments justifiable and/or sound.
Nobody is forcing a lifestyle change on them. As Asians, we even accept them into our midst, as family, as friends, etc. A good example is Thailand. But, do you think the parent/s agree with their lifestyle? It’s like the Chinese say, “Bo pian”
The final conclusion is that they can change but, it’s how much they want it.
The ACTIVISTS and HARDCORE amongst them are not helping them poor individuals by they militancy, collective peer pressure tactics and deliberate one-sided arguments/ talks/ teachings such as from AWARE & it’s CSE programs. It’s their promotion of their lifestyle and trying to make it stick onto the individual by saying to them that they cannot and really cannot change. Society is not the problem; it’s their minority amongst them that are the problem and the stumbling block for a 2nd chance or maybe a “chance” to “try” for a different lifestyle.
If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 06:23 AM
Dear All,
I recently stated I would not be participating anymore. However, I posted a reply regardless of this. I writing to hopefully nip any thoughts that I am a fool for saying one thing and doing another. I don't want to faulted. I posted because I wanted to share a thought. I could have ignored and left it as it is, but I needed to throw this out there. I don't think it did harm.
In any case, I will be less vocal and eventually exiting this thread. Part of it was because of the unpleasant episode, the other was the exhaustion. I wish to leave (soon) on much more respectful note. Therefore, I want to express my gratitude for at least engaging me and my apologies for my own less-than-outstanding replies. Thank you for giving me the time.
Regards,
CW
----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:59 AM
Why do I set this rule? It’s simple. These are people’s lives and we should never go on hunches or internal beliefs. Many in general note individuals, who may identify themselves as homosexuals, are more at-risk to suicidal attempts or other wayward items such as drug abuse.
That is why LEE and I were able to easily come to an agreement on this that both options should be presented to the conflicted individual. If he/she chooses to change, we should have the necessary support systems and encouragement to help him make the change. If he/she chooses to remain homosexual, then we should provide counsel where necessary to help himself/herself have a safe and meaningful life. Regardless of the choice, parents must play an integrated role in the decision-making process.
To that end, if the nurture/environment viewpoint is your personal belief and your preferred method to protect your children from homosexual influences, I will unreservedly respect it.
I will respectfully object if anyone makes the choice to forcefully impose a single option on others. If the day comes that the proof is nurture, I will be on the side to change the environment. Till then, we must learn to respect the differences as well as the boundaries.
Dear Silent Majority, this is only a thought to share. If this is a difference of opinion, I hope we can let it be.
Regards,
CW
-----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:58 AM
Dear Silent Majority,
I read your reply, partly out of guilt and part out of curiosity. Your latest reply was pleasant compared to your previous one. I therefore wish to offer my apology on being emotional in my previous post.
I have read your points, and generally have no objections to what you said. On point d, I wish to I impart something which I spoke to LEE before.
To any probable homosexual, both options should be presented to the individual. One, should be the option of change, and the other, the option to remain. Let me explain.
I will tell (and will continue to tell) any LGBT who believes their traits were in-born to show me the proof. By proof, I mean hard science and proven facts. Not experiences or statistics.
To be fair, I will ask anyone, including you, to show me the proof that homosexuals result from nurture or environment. I will still set the same standard for proof as I demand it from the LGBTs.
---------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 01:20 AM
Dear CW
I do not know if you’ll be reading it and yet I do know that this has to be written, if not for you, then, for the benefit of others. Whether I was over-reacting or not to your replies to “LEE” is now moot. It was not against you as a person. May I offer my apologies if it adversely affected your well-being. After all has been said, I see that you have still not understood our point of view. I, like most parents and concerned people, are not insensitive or unreasoning people where the LBGT individuals are concerned. The unveiling of AWARE’s CSE program made us realize what a precarious precipice we are standing on. I count some gays as amongst my many friends and we get along very fine.
Our views are very simple:-
a) LBGT shouldn’t seek to impose their views on others:
As PM said, the harder you push, the worse the backlash. Blame the minority amongst the LBGT who are vocal, activists, well organized, highly educated, variously ensconced in public media, Arts groupings, NGOs, etc, taking every opportunity to push their agendas into our majority passivistic throats. They even have a lobby group amongst them.
b) Being LBGT is the individual’s choice:
But, parents, have always had a say in their child’s upbringing. Similarly, the activists should not try to use our educational systems to covertly imbue LBGT views on our children hoping that our young will carry it over into adulthood. That’s really mind-blowing. Can you even comprehend what AWARE tried to do? To change whole generations of our children’s mindset about LBGT from within our educational system. That’s nasty!
c) Homosexual activities:
How do we differentiate ourselves from other living forms? We have a thinking brain, moral ethics, we defecate through the anus. This is the general understanding.
d) A person born feminine does not mean he is outright a gay. The environment at home & outside plays a major part in your life. If you continuously mix with gays, then, your tendencies become more pronounced towards being a gay. But, it does not make you one permanently. Take that environment away and you’ll be able to change under proper guidance and support. Unfortunately, it’s those gay die-hards from bitter backgrounds and/or westernized, that wants to stay different and seeks to expand their kind freely.
e) Asian society is mostly accepting of them but “agreeing” is different from “accepting”. What we are seeing now are western ideals being imposed on us using the mantra “freedom” and “human rights”.
My two cents worth!
Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:20 PM
To LEE,
I can’t really comprehend what happened but I’m sorry as I have to end my participation in this thread. If I do see you in other debates, maybe about GST or NS, I would probably participate or at least say Hi. Thank you very much for engaging me earlier and for your time. I truly enjoyed debating with you. Please do not reply to my earlier posts as I won’t be responding.
Regards,
CW
------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:17 PM
..contd...
I know this reply is not worthy because it holds alot of emotions. That's why I want to drop out, it takes too much out of me. Silent Majority, I apologise for the reply, but as you said: who is to say one is being civil or uncivil.
With Apologies,
CW
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:14 PM
Dear Silent Majority,
We have to put an end to this bicker between us. I have always stated my intention was to understand where you guys were coming from. I believe I did declare this in my first post to LEE from the “Objectivity” thread. My purpose of coming to this thread was to seek a reply from LEE after the “Objectivity” thread closed. I got it and I replied back to him. I was not expecting someone else to reply on a post not directed to them.
I, based on my feelings, felt your 7 pages was more an attempt to cast me as a “wolf in sheeps clothing”, and thereby discredit me. I was offended by this. You used terms such as “you and AWARE” in your reply and suggested I had views that was pro-LGBT even though I don’t associate with them. This form of a reply were not counter-arguments, they more an attempt to discredit the person who were suggesting the arguments. I did not understand why you brought incest into the picture as I never suggested it. If your reference to incest was because my argument related to the rights of adults, then please go ahead and support a ban on pre-marital sex, sex other than the purpose of procreation, homosexuality, drinking, smoking, abortion, 4D, toto, women's dress code, death penalty and whatever else you feel is immorally wrong that you wish to impose on other adults.
Your recent reply suggested a very important thing:
“One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil.”
I cannot rebut this because it is very true. It’s only sad you applied it to defend your actions. To that end, I withdraw myself from this debate. I can no longer see whether individuals such as yourself are truly interested in debating and whether you are any different from the pro-LGBT activists. Just like them, you too seem more interested in rejecting anyone who espouses a different view and wish to lobby people for your own causes, regardless of the implications.
I know this reply is not worthy
(Some general debates on-going)
Red Panda
05 Jul 09 , 21:56 PM
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/440540/1/.html
Law Minister K Shanmugam has said:
- Singapore will not decriminalise gay sex but the courts have the power to decide how the law, Section 377, is applied. Section 377A of the Penal Code deems sex between men a crime.
- Section 377 will remain as homosexuality is still not accepted by most Singaporeans.
- We have the law. We say it won't be enforced. Is it totally clear? .... we don't think it's fair for us to prosecute people who say that they are homosexual
- the government will not take the lead in repealing the law.
----------
The government stand is firm, clear and fair to both mainstreams and GLBT. Homosexuals have freedom to do it in their bedroom, but pushing their lifestyle to be accepted by mainstream majorities is a BIG NO.
----------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 18:24 PM
Dear CW
Just in case, my last sentence "If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you" is not a personal attack, given the limited time I have.
Let me rephrase it better, "If you still dont catch the drift on our point of view, then, no matter how else we explanation the result will still be the same.
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 18:09 PM
Dear Silent Majority,
I can now clearly understand where you are coming from. I also understand that this is your approach/style when communicating to others. I do appreciate the effort and time you took to detail your reply. In all, thank you.
Regards,
CW
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 15:32 PM
Dear CW,
Whatever comments made on my part is never personal. I am not a demon. Ha!Ha! It is always with the intent to communicate a point and effectively. That is my style. I am thoughtful when I jot down my comments. So, don’t get overly excited when in a debate. Like I said, this is an open forum and some have they own way in conveying their stand for effect.
You are spot on in your opinion from your various past comments. The thing you do not realize is that, there is no 100% proof. We are not God and so no proof. That is why if you had understood all the previous input from other forumers, you would by now have gathered that the forumers have always “accepted” the LBGT as an individual and do not judge them or try to change them “forcefully”. That is why we have gay friends. But, in terms of society “acceptance” does not mean “agree” with their lifestyle but not with their “kind”.
But, we are talking about gays as “adults”. It is still the parent’s right to decide, guide and make the decision whether his/her son/daughter is a gay or not and how to confront the issue.
I have known close childhood friends who were very feminine but grew out of it in adulthood. I have also known close childhood friends who are feminine and turned gay in their late teens and one of them even changed his name and took his boyfriend’s surname. Do you know why I quoted these experiences of mine to you? The reason being these two individuals were influenced by the environment they live in. When I talk about environment, it would mean such as the people you are in contact with: your family, friends you hang out with, location, etc. Mostly, it’s your family and friends. A good example: If you are the youngest and you have 4-5 elder sisters and the strict parents who are generally at arms length away? How do you think the boy will turn out? He will come out with feminine traits, mostly. I haven’t even added in the outside influences. These forces act, mould and influences a child’s mind and what do you think will be the outcome at the end of the day? I don’t need a scientist to proof to me. You are dealing with an individual and you handle them differently when as a child, teenager and as an adult. If you are 3 or 5 years old or even 12 years old, if I were to let you live on the floor daily for the next 5 years, your body and mind will automatically learn to accept it. One thing you have to know, presently, science, it’s a tool in the hands of either sides now to be used to bolster their arguments. The thing with scientific studies is that if you leave out a factor/equation, then, the rest of your studies and it’s outcome is just “rubbish”.
Above were “live” experiences that I quoted. Therefore, no need for scientific studies. Commonsense and logic is the word here. I have quoted you examples from my personal experiences. You can ask for proof until the sun goes down and you will still not get it. Another slightly similar example to quote: If you are kidnapped for long periods under abject conditions deliberately, you will even fall for your kidnapper and die for him probably.
From these examples, I left out something important for last. If you were to play these examples in your mind you will realize that, at the end of the day, the individual can still change. In the end, we are talking about “concepts”. How do you define “concepts”: how a person or culture behaves, or how nature, reality, or events are perceived? This tells you a person CAN change. It’s HOW much he/she wants to change. Sometimes when they go through willing a program of self-help, they might or might not succeed in changing their lifestyle because (a) it’s up to them (b) the environment they go back to. It’s a forum column so I can’t elaborate further as there’s more, but, enough has been said to derive the required answers.
FYI let me go back to “anal sex” where an adult should know better than to engage in such acts. Is it instinct or ingrained in us that it is wrong? Why is that so? It’s because we were taught that it is wrong and the anus is not made for sex but for excretion.
Suicidal behavior is due to the environment we live in; you may call it “society”. I fully agree that they need help, as do kidnapped victims. That is why I myself belief that after the parents, school counselors or any other organizations should help out but, this is only a temporary respite. Because, when in later life, they will have to come face to face with the stark reality that the world will not “agree” but only accept their choice of lifestyle. Let me remind you, I did not say anything about “force”.
The problem with our society in Singapore now is that the activism by vocal minority groups and individuals are trying to push and influence our young’s mindset. That is a No-No. Even Govt has accepted the gay as a person into their midst. What have you to say about that? Nobody is forcing change on them. PAP youth even accepted one or more of them too.
Probably LEE was being too polite to tell you straight what he/she felt, from his/ her replies to you. I have no such qualms. I prefer to engage directly and face the issue outright, even enforcing my point of view if I felt my logic/arguments justifiable and/or sound.
Nobody is forcing a lifestyle change on them. As Asians, we even accept them into our midst, as family, as friends, etc. A good example is Thailand. But, do you think the parent/s agree with their lifestyle? It’s like the Chinese say, “Bo pian”
The final conclusion is that they can change but, it’s how much they want it.
The ACTIVISTS and HARDCORE amongst them are not helping them poor individuals by they militancy, collective peer pressure tactics and deliberate one-sided arguments/ talks/ teachings such as from AWARE & it’s CSE programs. It’s their promotion of their lifestyle and trying to make it stick onto the individual by saying to them that they cannot and really cannot change. Society is not the problem; it’s their minority amongst them that are the problem and the stumbling block for a 2nd chance or maybe a “chance” to “try” for a different lifestyle.
If you still don’t get it, I have no more words for you other than there is a “block” in you.
Regards
----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 06:23 AM
Dear All,
I recently stated I would not be participating anymore. However, I posted a reply regardless of this. I writing to hopefully nip any thoughts that I am a fool for saying one thing and doing another. I don't want to faulted. I posted because I wanted to share a thought. I could have ignored and left it as it is, but I needed to throw this out there. I don't think it did harm.
In any case, I will be less vocal and eventually exiting this thread. Part of it was because of the unpleasant episode, the other was the exhaustion. I wish to leave (soon) on much more respectful note. Therefore, I want to express my gratitude for at least engaging me and my apologies for my own less-than-outstanding replies. Thank you for giving me the time.
Regards,
CW
----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:59 AM
Why do I set this rule? It’s simple. These are people’s lives and we should never go on hunches or internal beliefs. Many in general note individuals, who may identify themselves as homosexuals, are more at-risk to suicidal attempts or other wayward items such as drug abuse.
That is why LEE and I were able to easily come to an agreement on this that both options should be presented to the conflicted individual. If he/she chooses to change, we should have the necessary support systems and encouragement to help him make the change. If he/she chooses to remain homosexual, then we should provide counsel where necessary to help himself/herself have a safe and meaningful life. Regardless of the choice, parents must play an integrated role in the decision-making process.
To that end, if the nurture/environment viewpoint is your personal belief and your preferred method to protect your children from homosexual influences, I will unreservedly respect it.
I will respectfully object if anyone makes the choice to forcefully impose a single option on others. If the day comes that the proof is nurture, I will be on the side to change the environment. Till then, we must learn to respect the differences as well as the boundaries.
Dear Silent Majority, this is only a thought to share. If this is a difference of opinion, I hope we can let it be.
Regards,
CW
-----------------------------------------------------------
CW
05 Jul 09 , 05:58 AM
Dear Silent Majority,
I read your reply, partly out of guilt and part out of curiosity. Your latest reply was pleasant compared to your previous one. I therefore wish to offer my apology on being emotional in my previous post.
I have read your points, and generally have no objections to what you said. On point d, I wish to I impart something which I spoke to LEE before.
To any probable homosexual, both options should be presented to the individual. One, should be the option of change, and the other, the option to remain. Let me explain.
I will tell (and will continue to tell) any LGBT who believes their traits were in-born to show me the proof. By proof, I mean hard science and proven facts. Not experiences or statistics.
To be fair, I will ask anyone, including you, to show me the proof that homosexuals result from nurture or environment. I will still set the same standard for proof as I demand it from the LGBTs.
---------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
05 Jul 09 , 01:20 AM
Dear CW
I do not know if you’ll be reading it and yet I do know that this has to be written, if not for you, then, for the benefit of others. Whether I was over-reacting or not to your replies to “LEE” is now moot. It was not against you as a person. May I offer my apologies if it adversely affected your well-being. After all has been said, I see that you have still not understood our point of view. I, like most parents and concerned people, are not insensitive or unreasoning people where the LBGT individuals are concerned. The unveiling of AWARE’s CSE program made us realize what a precarious precipice we are standing on. I count some gays as amongst my many friends and we get along very fine.
Our views are very simple:-
a) LBGT shouldn’t seek to impose their views on others:
As PM said, the harder you push, the worse the backlash. Blame the minority amongst the LBGT who are vocal, activists, well organized, highly educated, variously ensconced in public media, Arts groupings, NGOs, etc, taking every opportunity to push their agendas into our majority passivistic throats. They even have a lobby group amongst them.
b) Being LBGT is the individual’s choice:
But, parents, have always had a say in their child’s upbringing. Similarly, the activists should not try to use our educational systems to covertly imbue LBGT views on our children hoping that our young will carry it over into adulthood. That’s really mind-blowing. Can you even comprehend what AWARE tried to do? To change whole generations of our children’s mindset about LBGT from within our educational system. That’s nasty!
c) Homosexual activities:
How do we differentiate ourselves from other living forms? We have a thinking brain, moral ethics, we defecate through the anus. This is the general understanding.
d) A person born feminine does not mean he is outright a gay. The environment at home & outside plays a major part in your life. If you continuously mix with gays, then, your tendencies become more pronounced towards being a gay. But, it does not make you one permanently. Take that environment away and you’ll be able to change under proper guidance and support. Unfortunately, it’s those gay die-hards from bitter backgrounds and/or westernized, that wants to stay different and seeks to expand their kind freely.
e) Asian society is mostly accepting of them but “agreeing” is different from “accepting”. What we are seeing now are western ideals being imposed on us using the mantra “freedom” and “human rights”.
My two cents worth!
Regards
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:20 PM
To LEE,
I can’t really comprehend what happened but I’m sorry as I have to end my participation in this thread. If I do see you in other debates, maybe about GST or NS, I would probably participate or at least say Hi. Thank you very much for engaging me earlier and for your time. I truly enjoyed debating with you. Please do not reply to my earlier posts as I won’t be responding.
Regards,
CW
------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:17 PM
..contd...
I know this reply is not worthy because it holds alot of emotions. That's why I want to drop out, it takes too much out of me. Silent Majority, I apologise for the reply, but as you said: who is to say one is being civil or uncivil.
With Apologies,
CW
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 18:14 PM
Dear Silent Majority,
We have to put an end to this bicker between us. I have always stated my intention was to understand where you guys were coming from. I believe I did declare this in my first post to LEE from the “Objectivity” thread. My purpose of coming to this thread was to seek a reply from LEE after the “Objectivity” thread closed. I got it and I replied back to him. I was not expecting someone else to reply on a post not directed to them.
I, based on my feelings, felt your 7 pages was more an attempt to cast me as a “wolf in sheeps clothing”, and thereby discredit me. I was offended by this. You used terms such as “you and AWARE” in your reply and suggested I had views that was pro-LGBT even though I don’t associate with them. This form of a reply were not counter-arguments, they more an attempt to discredit the person who were suggesting the arguments. I did not understand why you brought incest into the picture as I never suggested it. If your reference to incest was because my argument related to the rights of adults, then please go ahead and support a ban on pre-marital sex, sex other than the purpose of procreation, homosexuality, drinking, smoking, abortion, 4D, toto, women's dress code, death penalty and whatever else you feel is immorally wrong that you wish to impose on other adults.
Your recent reply suggested a very important thing:
“One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil.”
I cannot rebut this because it is very true. It’s only sad you applied it to defend your actions. To that end, I withdraw myself from this debate. I can no longer see whether individuals such as yourself are truly interested in debating and whether you are any different from the pro-LGBT activists. Just like them, you too seem more interested in rejecting anyone who espouses a different view and wish to lobby people for your own causes, regardless of the implications.
I know this reply is not worthy
Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!
REACH BLOG:
05 Jun 09 , 23:42 PM
Thank you to [Details removed] and "Letters to ministers"!
It is indeed reassuring and comforting for us parents to know that there are people like yourself that take up our conservative cause and write to the relevant ministries and people in charged.
We are grateful to you and wish to thank you immensely for your concerns, efforts and well written letters. Thank you for posting your letters here.
Also thank you for highlighting this:-
"Dear Mr Han,
I need to raise two issues with you.
First, you asked our Education Ministry "Don't sacrifice sex education" (ST Editorial, May 8) when they announced that all externally generated sex education was suspended. Among many things, you hoped that after the ministry's vetting exercise, they will continue "to draw on the support of...Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), in expanding the scope of sex education" because they offer useful perspectives and expertise. Both these organizations are generally perceived as good because they seek to improve the welfare of women, but before you make such recommendations, you need to understand the organizations' intentions (visions and mission) by appreciating their history.
SPPA is part of the International PPA, which in turn has its roots in the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). PPFA is founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, who is well known for her strong racist and discriminatory advocacy (http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm). Like AWARE, PPFA is an advocate for women's rights but unlike AWARE, their roots and their programs are not pure; they being the largest abortion provider in the USA. For all the good PPFA does, their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their actions show that 'some people matter some of the time' as opposed to 'all people matter all of the time'. Without seeing their program or instructor's guide, I will be very wary of their teachings on sexuality.
If AWARE and SPPA seeks to promote feminism comprehensively, it must be within the context of healthy lifestyles, marriage institution and family unit. You would like to know that no where in AWARE's Comprehensive Sexual Education Instructors Guide v.3 was marriage mentioned (except in an example where marriage was coerced), and thus their sexuality program can hardly be considered comprehensive."
We do Not want Aware or Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA) to teach our children and minors CSE programmes, irrespective of whether their revised instructor's manual is deemed suitable or not.
We simply do not trust these two vendors.
I know that Focus on the Family is good and Fei Yue too.
So parents, please write in to MOE or the Feedback section here on the REACH Home page to voice our disapproval for Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA).
Thank you and appreciate!
05 Jun 09 , 23:42 PM
Thank you to [Details removed] and "Letters to ministers"!
It is indeed reassuring and comforting for us parents to know that there are people like yourself that take up our conservative cause and write to the relevant ministries and people in charged.
We are grateful to you and wish to thank you immensely for your concerns, efforts and well written letters. Thank you for posting your letters here.
Also thank you for highlighting this:-
"Dear Mr Han,
I need to raise two issues with you.
First, you asked our Education Ministry "Don't sacrifice sex education" (ST Editorial, May 8) when they announced that all externally generated sex education was suspended. Among many things, you hoped that after the ministry's vetting exercise, they will continue "to draw on the support of...Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA), in expanding the scope of sex education" because they offer useful perspectives and expertise. Both these organizations are generally perceived as good because they seek to improve the welfare of women, but before you make such recommendations, you need to understand the organizations' intentions (visions and mission) by appreciating their history.
SPPA is part of the International PPA, which in turn has its roots in the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). PPFA is founded in 1916 by Margaret Sanger, who is well known for her strong racist and discriminatory advocacy (http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm). Like AWARE, PPFA is an advocate for women's rights but unlike AWARE, their roots and their programs are not pure; they being the largest abortion provider in the USA. For all the good PPFA does, their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their problem is that they are inconsistent in their views of human sexuality; their actions show that 'some people matter some of the time' as opposed to 'all people matter all of the time'. Without seeing their program or instructor's guide, I will be very wary of their teachings on sexuality.
If AWARE and SPPA seeks to promote feminism comprehensively, it must be within the context of healthy lifestyles, marriage institution and family unit. You would like to know that no where in AWARE's Comprehensive Sexual Education Instructors Guide v.3 was marriage mentioned (except in an example where marriage was coerced), and thus their sexuality program can hardly be considered comprehensive."
We do Not want Aware or Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA) to teach our children and minors CSE programmes, irrespective of whether their revised instructor's manual is deemed suitable or not.
We simply do not trust these two vendors.
I know that Focus on the Family is good and Fei Yue too.
So parents, please write in to MOE or the Feedback section here on the REACH Home page to voice our disapproval for Aware and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association (SPPA).
Thank you and appreciate!
A LESSON FROM THE FROG
REACH BLOG:
03 Jun 09 , 11:57 AM
I have to copy this here from "Come, Let Us Reason". Very Good!
A Lesson from The Frog
If a frog were to be thrown into a pot of boiling water, it would propel itself out of the boiling water instantaneously, or it would have been killed in no time. If the same frog were to be put into a pot of water at room temperature, and the water slowly brought to boil. The frog would frolick in the water, and be boiled alive.
This analogy very aptly describes us in this very rapidly changing society of Singapore in the area of morality. At one time the issues of homosexuality and lesbianism are like hot water that the society shunned like the plaque. Today the plague is the sanctity of marriage and the practice of a wholesome family-oriented heterosexuality.
We pride ourselves as being educated people, rational, open and perfectly capable of doing what is best for us, and society. We believe that our nature has evolved to such a level that nothing can go wrong with us, and that we can determine our own destiny. This thought has become central in individuals and groups, be they government, civic or religious.
The frog has a characteristic that is completely in it’s nature. It is the characteristic of being cold-blooded. Its body can adapt to the external environment so much so that as the temperature of the water rises from 30 to 60, to 80, and to 100 degrees Celsius, it just accommodates, and accommodates, and accommodates till it is cooked. We are like the frog.
We have accommodated, and accommodated and have become “cooked” and no more sensitive to abominations to our fellows. We call our ability to accommodate tolerance, non-discrimination and inclusivity. We pride ourselves with having a ‘higher-order’ psyche, a sacrosanct openness and a conscience to boot. Alas, could it be that even our conscience is seared? To anyone or any group who dares say that we are wrong, we do not care to tackle the issues, we would just resort to name-calling and attack the person like ferocious dogs. In time, they will cower and we will have our ways.
We have become a very accommodating society, often to our detriment. We only have to look at the USA and how it had evolved in immorality. If there is anything we need not learn from the American infidels, it is to ‘progress’ in the way they had ‘progressed’.
03 Jun 09 , 11:57 AM
I have to copy this here from "Come, Let Us Reason". Very Good!
A Lesson from The Frog
If a frog were to be thrown into a pot of boiling water, it would propel itself out of the boiling water instantaneously, or it would have been killed in no time. If the same frog were to be put into a pot of water at room temperature, and the water slowly brought to boil. The frog would frolick in the water, and be boiled alive.
This analogy very aptly describes us in this very rapidly changing society of Singapore in the area of morality. At one time the issues of homosexuality and lesbianism are like hot water that the society shunned like the plaque. Today the plague is the sanctity of marriage and the practice of a wholesome family-oriented heterosexuality.
We pride ourselves as being educated people, rational, open and perfectly capable of doing what is best for us, and society. We believe that our nature has evolved to such a level that nothing can go wrong with us, and that we can determine our own destiny. This thought has become central in individuals and groups, be they government, civic or religious.
The frog has a characteristic that is completely in it’s nature. It is the characteristic of being cold-blooded. Its body can adapt to the external environment so much so that as the temperature of the water rises from 30 to 60, to 80, and to 100 degrees Celsius, it just accommodates, and accommodates, and accommodates till it is cooked. We are like the frog.
We have accommodated, and accommodated and have become “cooked” and no more sensitive to abominations to our fellows. We call our ability to accommodate tolerance, non-discrimination and inclusivity. We pride ourselves with having a ‘higher-order’ psyche, a sacrosanct openness and a conscience to boot. Alas, could it be that even our conscience is seared? To anyone or any group who dares say that we are wrong, we do not care to tackle the issues, we would just resort to name-calling and attack the person like ferocious dogs. In time, they will cower and we will have our ways.
We have become a very accommodating society, often to our detriment. We only have to look at the USA and how it had evolved in immorality. If there is anything we need not learn from the American infidels, it is to ‘progress’ in the way they had ‘progressed’.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
REACH BLOG:
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 16:27 PM
Dear All,
It is precisely that this is an open public forum that one has to state a stand clearly and in support of one’s convictions. The notion of civilized debate is noble and applauded but then, this is where things go wrong. How do you define “civilized”? In whose context? It works both ways! One may also be construed as insulting or casting aspersions on the other by politely insinuating that the other party is not civilized in its verbal reply. It is surprising that the recent 7 pages of comments is considered as “uncivil” and not logically debated. Using the example of “Father do the son”, etc” is a powerful, direct and effective way to convey the message in no uncertain terms the implication and seriousness of the “Latter’s” comments in a public forum. Is that considered “uncivil” and illogical?
One does not recall any four letter words being bandied around in the commentaries.
Rightly, this is an open forum and it is polemics you should expect from time to time such as some heated and emotional responses as can be seen from some recent responses in this thread. On the other hand, one also has the right not to reply the other.
The Matter of “Intent”
Past experiences have shown that passivity awards oneself zero points. It only opens oneself to more ingenious and subtle messages and subconscious manipulation as is the case of AWARE where they tried to start their manipulation and subversion of our naïve young from an early age with their pro-LBGT views.
The “latter’s” recent replies to “LEE” questions was considered evasive and unsustainable and pandering to pro-LBGT views even from other forum contributors who were more harsh with their comments. Actually, mine should be considered “soft” compared to the others.
As the “latter” commented, our debate might not even move further than this thread. So what? As long as it’s a public forum and our comments are open for others to read.
Paranoia or suspicion will always abound as all contributors are anonymous but it doesn’t make one out as such because of his/her comments. It’s as the “latter” commented, “I am not from AWARE”. That is what you say now after our replies.
Are these above comments considered civil enough? No sarcasm intended.
A “rumbling” is expected from others if some comments are considered ridiculous from a mature adult. Therefore, it begets paranoia and suspicion from others? This is a serious thread with a serious public issue and when comments are played out like a carousel, it smells of pro-LBGT activism at play. One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil. The pro-LBGT has a huge head start with lobbying and we parents are just starting to wake up from our passivity. But, it doesn’t mean we will act like the “Fish market” AWARE EGM where the pro-LBGT was so “loud”. In the end, we are all anonymous to each other. The others can agree to disagree. After all, we are talking about safeguarding our young and nothing is more important than ensuring that such issues as “anal sex” and pro-LBGT activism in our schools and civil society be vigorously challenged.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 13:29 PM
Dear All,
I have a suggestion, following a well-written post on accountability. In the event of a reply that you felt was unsatisfactory or insufficient, I would appeal to you to consider writing back a reply to request for greater clarification? This request can be written politely (If you only choose to do so). My opinion is no matter the argument; we must never take the down road of insulting one another. We must strive to be civil.
One part of the post focused on intent:
It is regardless of the intent (if there is any to begin with) of the forum participant. What is important is the discussion that is taking place. So long as both parties have no qualms in debating each other, let them be. What does anyone, including myself, honestly expect when debating here? Do we really believe that just by debating at the “REACH” forum, our views have greater say than other Singaporeans or that the Government would listen here and not elsewhere? The point of any forum is to have a debate. This is an online forum, thus anonymity exist. However, so long we can debate respectfully and logically, I think we need not worry who is on the other side of the screen. The paranoia or suspicion can never truly be put to rest unless all of us were gifted with clairvoyant powers.
Therefore, I hope we can encourage all to participate respectfully and not chastise each other during a debate. Thank you.
Regards,
CW
-------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 04:01 AM
Hi All
There is an accountability issue here.
When one debates, it is expected that issues such as found in this thread touches a raw nerve in most people.
That is why when a debate was carried out between 2 parties recently, regular contributors to this thread mostly stood aside and avidly followed the exchanges.
It is only when certain issues raised are answered with unsustainable replies which a mature adult is able to answer without much thought; that makes it more suspicious of the latter's intent.
In view of this, at that point of time it was not being ingracious or impolite barring rudeness if certain comments by the "latter" was answered as such. Emotive surely precisely due to the "Latter's" replies to "LEE's" comments which defies the mind.
If not for the challenges made point for point, forthcoming answers would not have been received. Of course it was only "mussing" but the "latter's" "mussings" was too much.
One has to take note that the “other” side had or are more boorish as compared to us in this thread. We are the sane ones here.
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 00:43 AM
On Redemptive Love:
I am not sure what redemptive love exactly stands for but I have watched the video.
To me, the video did not at all offend me, and I think it is applaud-worthy that such an approach was taken to address the issue. To care for someone throughout, but to not judge was refreshing to me. I personally believe that some homosexuals may not actually be homosexual and may be misguided. I draw a possible example to where homosexuals overly love their idols or mentors, and that contorts their view.
On speaking your mind:
I resolutely respect your right to speak what you believe. Of course, we must be sensitive and not offend others, if the issue is regarding race or religion. On the matter of sexuality, I think homosexuals know full well the stand of many religions.
On Writing Letters to Govt:
I know it is your right to express your view to the administration. However, what scares me is the belief that other side is also “lobbying”. Once both sides share this belief, then a cycle will begin. Back and forth the arguments and accusations will be thrown resulting in nothing. I wish and hope that both sides will sit down and respectfully discuss their views. This should be the true principle and I believe it does not become less worthy even if it takes a longer time.
To clear the air:
1) I’m not from AWARE
2) I never supported the idea of incest (ever!)
3) I withdraw my opinion on the trainer manual. It does play a role.
4) Nobody is impartial, everyone here’s brings an opinion.
5) I was trying to be polite and respectful, not impartial.
Just to share a piece of advice, if you have someone (who often acts as a spokesperson) that chooses to blast off on others whenever he/she sees fit, then your watchdog grouping will be affected. People will not listen and most likely label you group as neurotic and unfriendly. If you wish to make an impact, I think it is logical to learn to communicate to others and debate in a respectful manner.
This post is emotive, because I honestly feel my discussion and my attempt to be polite as well as be respectful was violated. Therefore, my apologies for being emotional.
Thank you for reading.
-----------------------------------------------------
CW
03 Jul 09 , 22:22 PM
Dear LEE,
Thank you for being patient. I have reflected on your arguments and wish to share the following.
On Point 2:
My idea of refraining from hurtful words was meant for adults and older teenagers. I am concerned that they might be an at-risk suicide group and I don’t wish to aggravate the situation. When we say children, I am assuming them to be under 16 yrs old, and for this age group, I believe there is no requirement or education needed to mention anything on the homosexuality matter. If the issue arises, I feel parents must take the proactive role to guide their own young on the views of homosexuality. Regardless of the age group, the morality aspect should still be left to parents, and their respective faiths. Every parent should have their right to bring up their children in the manner they see fit.
I watched the Talking Point video (back then), and felt that anal sex should not be promulgated to young children, aged 12. So, I believe no contest on that issue.
On Point 4:
The smoking reference is well-explained, but lacks an important consideration in my view:
Smoking is easily and unanimously agreed by all including scientists and religious scholars to be harmful. The facts and evidence is extremely cut-throat clear that there is no ambiguity. Homosexuality, sadly to say, has not been clearly understood or researched enough. When there is ambiguity, especially on something that can be considered an identity issue, you will naturally have people on both sides who take offense once a premature decision has been made.
BTW, please note you have convinced me to be an individual who knows how to respect other people. Definitely.
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 16:27 PM
Dear All,
It is precisely that this is an open public forum that one has to state a stand clearly and in support of one’s convictions. The notion of civilized debate is noble and applauded but then, this is where things go wrong. How do you define “civilized”? In whose context? It works both ways! One may also be construed as insulting or casting aspersions on the other by politely insinuating that the other party is not civilized in its verbal reply. It is surprising that the recent 7 pages of comments is considered as “uncivil” and not logically debated. Using the example of “Father do the son”, etc” is a powerful, direct and effective way to convey the message in no uncertain terms the implication and seriousness of the “Latter’s” comments in a public forum. Is that considered “uncivil” and illogical?
One does not recall any four letter words being bandied around in the commentaries.
Rightly, this is an open forum and it is polemics you should expect from time to time such as some heated and emotional responses as can be seen from some recent responses in this thread. On the other hand, one also has the right not to reply the other.
The Matter of “Intent”
Past experiences have shown that passivity awards oneself zero points. It only opens oneself to more ingenious and subtle messages and subconscious manipulation as is the case of AWARE where they tried to start their manipulation and subversion of our naïve young from an early age with their pro-LBGT views.
The “latter’s” recent replies to “LEE” questions was considered evasive and unsustainable and pandering to pro-LBGT views even from other forum contributors who were more harsh with their comments. Actually, mine should be considered “soft” compared to the others.
As the “latter” commented, our debate might not even move further than this thread. So what? As long as it’s a public forum and our comments are open for others to read.
Paranoia or suspicion will always abound as all contributors are anonymous but it doesn’t make one out as such because of his/her comments. It’s as the “latter” commented, “I am not from AWARE”. That is what you say now after our replies.
Are these above comments considered civil enough? No sarcasm intended.
A “rumbling” is expected from others if some comments are considered ridiculous from a mature adult. Therefore, it begets paranoia and suspicion from others? This is a serious thread with a serious public issue and when comments are played out like a carousel, it smells of pro-LBGT activism at play. One may be wrong but an opinion is an opinion and who is to say one is being civil or not civil. The pro-LBGT has a huge head start with lobbying and we parents are just starting to wake up from our passivity. But, it doesn’t mean we will act like the “Fish market” AWARE EGM where the pro-LBGT was so “loud”. In the end, we are all anonymous to each other. The others can agree to disagree. After all, we are talking about safeguarding our young and nothing is more important than ensuring that such issues as “anal sex” and pro-LBGT activism in our schools and civil society be vigorously challenged.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 13:29 PM
Dear All,
I have a suggestion, following a well-written post on accountability. In the event of a reply that you felt was unsatisfactory or insufficient, I would appeal to you to consider writing back a reply to request for greater clarification? This request can be written politely (If you only choose to do so). My opinion is no matter the argument; we must never take the down road of insulting one another. We must strive to be civil.
One part of the post focused on intent:
It is regardless of the intent (if there is any to begin with) of the forum participant. What is important is the discussion that is taking place. So long as both parties have no qualms in debating each other, let them be. What does anyone, including myself, honestly expect when debating here? Do we really believe that just by debating at the “REACH” forum, our views have greater say than other Singaporeans or that the Government would listen here and not elsewhere? The point of any forum is to have a debate. This is an online forum, thus anonymity exist. However, so long we can debate respectfully and logically, I think we need not worry who is on the other side of the screen. The paranoia or suspicion can never truly be put to rest unless all of us were gifted with clairvoyant powers.
Therefore, I hope we can encourage all to participate respectfully and not chastise each other during a debate. Thank you.
Regards,
CW
-------------------------------------------------------
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 04:01 AM
Hi All
There is an accountability issue here.
When one debates, it is expected that issues such as found in this thread touches a raw nerve in most people.
That is why when a debate was carried out between 2 parties recently, regular contributors to this thread mostly stood aside and avidly followed the exchanges.
It is only when certain issues raised are answered with unsustainable replies which a mature adult is able to answer without much thought; that makes it more suspicious of the latter's intent.
In view of this, at that point of time it was not being ingracious or impolite barring rudeness if certain comments by the "latter" was answered as such. Emotive surely precisely due to the "Latter's" replies to "LEE's" comments which defies the mind.
If not for the challenges made point for point, forthcoming answers would not have been received. Of course it was only "mussing" but the "latter's" "mussings" was too much.
One has to take note that the “other” side had or are more boorish as compared to us in this thread. We are the sane ones here.
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
CW
04 Jul 09 , 00:43 AM
On Redemptive Love:
I am not sure what redemptive love exactly stands for but I have watched the video.
To me, the video did not at all offend me, and I think it is applaud-worthy that such an approach was taken to address the issue. To care for someone throughout, but to not judge was refreshing to me. I personally believe that some homosexuals may not actually be homosexual and may be misguided. I draw a possible example to where homosexuals overly love their idols or mentors, and that contorts their view.
On speaking your mind:
I resolutely respect your right to speak what you believe. Of course, we must be sensitive and not offend others, if the issue is regarding race or religion. On the matter of sexuality, I think homosexuals know full well the stand of many religions.
On Writing Letters to Govt:
I know it is your right to express your view to the administration. However, what scares me is the belief that other side is also “lobbying”. Once both sides share this belief, then a cycle will begin. Back and forth the arguments and accusations will be thrown resulting in nothing. I wish and hope that both sides will sit down and respectfully discuss their views. This should be the true principle and I believe it does not become less worthy even if it takes a longer time.
To clear the air:
1) I’m not from AWARE
2) I never supported the idea of incest (ever!)
3) I withdraw my opinion on the trainer manual. It does play a role.
4) Nobody is impartial, everyone here’s brings an opinion.
5) I was trying to be polite and respectful, not impartial.
Just to share a piece of advice, if you have someone (who often acts as a spokesperson) that chooses to blast off on others whenever he/she sees fit, then your watchdog grouping will be affected. People will not listen and most likely label you group as neurotic and unfriendly. If you wish to make an impact, I think it is logical to learn to communicate to others and debate in a respectful manner.
This post is emotive, because I honestly feel my discussion and my attempt to be polite as well as be respectful was violated. Therefore, my apologies for being emotional.
Thank you for reading.
-----------------------------------------------------
CW
03 Jul 09 , 22:22 PM
Dear LEE,
Thank you for being patient. I have reflected on your arguments and wish to share the following.
On Point 2:
My idea of refraining from hurtful words was meant for adults and older teenagers. I am concerned that they might be an at-risk suicide group and I don’t wish to aggravate the situation. When we say children, I am assuming them to be under 16 yrs old, and for this age group, I believe there is no requirement or education needed to mention anything on the homosexuality matter. If the issue arises, I feel parents must take the proactive role to guide their own young on the views of homosexuality. Regardless of the age group, the morality aspect should still be left to parents, and their respective faiths. Every parent should have their right to bring up their children in the manner they see fit.
I watched the Talking Point video (back then), and felt that anal sex should not be promulgated to young children, aged 12. So, I believe no contest on that issue.
On Point 4:
The smoking reference is well-explained, but lacks an important consideration in my view:
Smoking is easily and unanimously agreed by all including scientists and religious scholars to be harmful. The facts and evidence is extremely cut-throat clear that there is no ambiguity. Homosexuality, sadly to say, has not been clearly understood or researched enough. When there is ambiguity, especially on something that can be considered an identity issue, you will naturally have people on both sides who take offense once a premature decision has been made.
BTW, please note you have convinced me to be an individual who knows how to respect other people. Definitely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
