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”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
