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
Music Playlist 1
Showing posts with label anal sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anal sex. Show all posts
Monday, July 6, 2009
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!
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.
Remarks by Education Minister on Sexuality Education Programme in Schools
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 03:10 AM
My reply to MOE’s email dated 03.07.09:
Dear Mr Yong
Thank you for your 3rd July, 2009 reply to my email.
I am heartened to hear of MOE's stand and I have seen the latest news that came out of MOE only recently.
These are my comments:
1) On the need of advising how a student should protect oneself in the event of heightened libido, I agree that it should be taught but, I hope that MOE will consider emphasizing the prevention aspect frequently and regularly in such a way as to drum it in the head of our young.
2) It is not without thought that I say this because, if we were to leave it to one chapter and that's it, it's as good as "preaching" to the wall.
3) I would like to state again as in my previous email that these days students tend to spend more time in school and they are not like students of yesteryear. Now, they are so exposed to a wide spectrum of the media daily and also do much school work on the computer such that it is hardly surprising that most parents are unable to influence them as before.
4) Schools being centres of learning, should be the primary source of moral learning and should be part of the yearly general curriculum from day one of school life of a child and there should be weightage applied for the course. Otherwise, the course subject will be considered redundant and a waste of time in the long run by the students. This is important in terms of nation building and maintenance of moral standards.
5) As the recent AWARE saga has shown us all, attempts were made to covertly disseminate and inculcate acceptance of a moral concept not compatible with the mainstream to our young through our educational system. From this incident, MOE should realize the effectiveness of regular moral & civic education. It is regrettable that we parents are now considered supplemental to the teachers in this respect.
6) Schools should be adequately funded so as to ensure this program achieves the required results at the end of a child's school going years.
7) It is hoped that sex education and other programs are properly scrutinized prior to offering to the students.
8) It is also hoped that school teachers and instructors of sex education and other programs are regularly scrutinized thoroughly and also in the way they teach the subjects. This is no nonsensical talk on my part but reflecting a known danger inherent as the 'educators' themselves may be the "wolfe in sheep's clothing" themselves.
9) As parents, seeing so many young ones displaying LBGT tendencies so openly in our schools is quite alarming and your comment and poxition on this aspect is NOT really assuring but rather quite disquieting to us. Therefore, I hope MOE will look further into this matter and provide more comprehensive support to the school counselors in lessening these tendencies and preferences.
10) Finally, I wish that MOE will prevent future "infiltration" of deviant views inconsistent with the mainstream by exhorting Principals and teachers to be vigilant when dispensing their lessons or advice to our young.
Thank you.
04 Jul 09 , 03:10 AM
My reply to MOE’s email dated 03.07.09:
Dear Mr Yong
Thank you for your 3rd July, 2009 reply to my email.
I am heartened to hear of MOE's stand and I have seen the latest news that came out of MOE only recently.
These are my comments:
1) On the need of advising how a student should protect oneself in the event of heightened libido, I agree that it should be taught but, I hope that MOE will consider emphasizing the prevention aspect frequently and regularly in such a way as to drum it in the head of our young.
2) It is not without thought that I say this because, if we were to leave it to one chapter and that's it, it's as good as "preaching" to the wall.
3) I would like to state again as in my previous email that these days students tend to spend more time in school and they are not like students of yesteryear. Now, they are so exposed to a wide spectrum of the media daily and also do much school work on the computer such that it is hardly surprising that most parents are unable to influence them as before.
4) Schools being centres of learning, should be the primary source of moral learning and should be part of the yearly general curriculum from day one of school life of a child and there should be weightage applied for the course. Otherwise, the course subject will be considered redundant and a waste of time in the long run by the students. This is important in terms of nation building and maintenance of moral standards.
5) As the recent AWARE saga has shown us all, attempts were made to covertly disseminate and inculcate acceptance of a moral concept not compatible with the mainstream to our young through our educational system. From this incident, MOE should realize the effectiveness of regular moral & civic education. It is regrettable that we parents are now considered supplemental to the teachers in this respect.
6) Schools should be adequately funded so as to ensure this program achieves the required results at the end of a child's school going years.
7) It is hoped that sex education and other programs are properly scrutinized prior to offering to the students.
8) It is also hoped that school teachers and instructors of sex education and other programs are regularly scrutinized thoroughly and also in the way they teach the subjects. This is no nonsensical talk on my part but reflecting a known danger inherent as the 'educators' themselves may be the "wolfe in sheep's clothing" themselves.
9) As parents, seeing so many young ones displaying LBGT tendencies so openly in our schools is quite alarming and your comment and poxition on this aspect is NOT really assuring but rather quite disquieting to us. Therefore, I hope MOE will look further into this matter and provide more comprehensive support to the school counselors in lessening these tendencies and preferences.
10) Finally, I wish that MOE will prevent future "infiltration" of deviant views inconsistent with the mainstream by exhorting Principals and teachers to be vigilant when dispensing their lessons or advice to our young.
Thank you.
Remarks by Education Minister on Sexuality Education Programme in Schools
REACH BLOG:
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 03:09 AM
Reply from MOE dated 03.07.09 to my email:
We refer to our interim email reply to you dated 15 June 2009.
School Sexuality Education
Minister, in his briefing to the media on 21 May 2009, reiterated the importance of sexuality education. He emphasised that MOE’s sexuality education programme respects the primary role of parents, reflects social norms and reinforces family values which uphold the conventional family as the basic building block of our society. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will be taking steps to enhance and strengthen the delivery of sexuality education in schools.
For full details on Minister’s remarks on sexuality education programmes in schools, you can refer to our website at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/. Details on MOE’s sexuality education programme can be found at the following link:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/05/information-sheet-on-ministry.php.
School Counselling
Please allow us to share that teachers interact regularly with students and are able to identify and guide those students who require help in their studies. Teachers may refer to school counsellors those students who require support to overcome social and emotional problems that have hindered their progress in school. Parents who have concerns about their children's school performance or social and emotional well-being may want to discuss them with the relevant teachers or school counsellor. Teacher, counsellor and parent can then collaborate to support the student.
Silent Majority
04 Jul 09 , 03:09 AM
Reply from MOE dated 03.07.09 to my email:
We refer to our interim email reply to you dated 15 June 2009.
School Sexuality Education
Minister, in his briefing to the media on 21 May 2009, reiterated the importance of sexuality education. He emphasised that MOE’s sexuality education programme respects the primary role of parents, reflects social norms and reinforces family values which uphold the conventional family as the basic building block of our society. The Ministry of Education (MOE) will be taking steps to enhance and strengthen the delivery of sexuality education in schools.
For full details on Minister’s remarks on sexuality education programmes in schools, you can refer to our website at: http://www.moe.gov.sg/. Details on MOE’s sexuality education programme can be found at the following link:
http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2009/05/information-sheet-on-ministry.php.
School Counselling
Please allow us to share that teachers interact regularly with students and are able to identify and guide those students who require help in their studies. Teachers may refer to school counsellors those students who require support to overcome social and emotional problems that have hindered their progress in school. Parents who have concerns about their children's school performance or social and emotional well-being may want to discuss them with the relevant teachers or school counsellor. Teacher, counsellor and parent can then collaborate to support the student.
Monday, June 29, 2009
REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 22:40 PM
Silent Majority
“CW”,
Although you posted your comments to LEE, I have some very strong views of my own and decided to comment on what you said. I hope others will follow suit since this is public space."
In your postings on 28 Jun 09 , 14:44 PM you were asked:
1) What are your PERSONAL views about constant acts of anal sex in homosexuality?
You replied: “I don’t have a personal view or stand on it as I have not been a participant in anal sex. However, I think the decision is private to the individuals. Mind you, anal sex is not restrictive to homosexuality. Heterosexuals can choose to do so. So long as both are consenting adults, and both register the risks and are willing to be responsible for their actions, I think it is ok.
Answer:
For a person who showed so much conviction about LBGT, it is unlike you to have no personal view or stand. It’s like telling another adult, I will have to participate in killing a person before I make a stand on my personal views.
You either agree it is “okay” or “not okay” to have “anal sex”. You are conveniently sitting on the fence with your reply.
Since you brought up about “Consenting”, Homosexuality has always been around Asian culture. Nobody in this thread denies that. NO issue here.
You also said “Anal sex, is a private act, thus everybody will come to their own decision on it. I will not put it to the subject of morality, as everybody will have different degrees of belief and will make their own decisions on the matter.”
Answer:
Ha! CW! I completely agree with you that it is private, as Asian society in general has always seen it that way for hundreds of years. Good that you agree it is a PRIVATE ACT. Also, NO issue here.
The core issue is whether society in general agrees with it and they do NOT. Society in general frowns upon it. But, unfortunately, most in society are passive on-lookers. As long as LBGT do not cross the line. That is fine with society. No argument from you can support it.
Even in USA, there is a swelling of public opinion against it. The Europeans, they are the root of many ills in this world. Mostly, faults of old world politics and still playing the same game.
INDEED, it IS All About MORALITY. No society can survive without upholding their morality. That is why when young, your parents teach you not to kill etc. Didn’t you learnt of ancient Roman society where Morality degenerated into permissive actions like debauchery, anal sex, etc, Society will fail in the long run.
Imagine, with your meaning of freedom of choice, and independence of action, next you’ll see the father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter.
This is individual independence you are proscribing as your comments goes. That is what will happen when society is bereft of a set of Moral values/ Core values to uphold. As in Holland, you can’t stop your daughter from becoming a prostitute.
Truly, do you think that “daughter” being an individual, wants to be a prostitute? And if you try me with “Freedom of choice” that means you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. A typical mantra of those who supports LBGT. I have worked with them and I tell you this, none wants to be one but only due to economic necessities.
You are clearly either a consenting partner or a pro-LBGT. This is all wayang kulit from you.
2) When asked whether you thought anal sex is unhealthy. You said “On whether it is unhealthy? I know from fact that it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. However, that is applicable to those who have multiple sexual partners or those come in contact with HIV positive partners. If the act is between a monogamous and committed couple, the risks can be mitigated.”
Answer:
Good that you agree it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. But, that’s the point. It boils down to Morality.
If it is to be based on the individual rights of a person/ couple as is your stand in all your comments, to do it freely and without fear or favour, where is the “Accountability” to the majority. Individual rights in Asian society entails some responsibility towards the majority. What you are constantly espousing in your “musings” is western concepts which are now undeniably slowly being overturned by a more vocal majority in their midst.
It’s a fallacy on your part if you deny that the minority in the West has been using all sorts of leverages and lobbying and discreet actions to get the recognition that they wanted, but, at what cost. Promiscuity, loose morals? Is that the way you want Singapore to go? Whatever your arguments you proffer will not hold water but only a “wayang kulit” because to you, as long as at the end of the day, your actions meets your aims.
3) When asked whether you felt anal sex is natural. You said “On whether it is natural? The word natural would, for me, draw a relation to reproduction. In this case, anal sex is not reproductive hence unnatural. However, I would not use “unnatural” to slant the term “anal sex” as the act is practiced in private. It serves no purpose unless the discussion was about reproduction.”
Answer:
Hello, if “CW” you still can’t see from the forest to the trees that “anal sex” is unnatural, you are either unnatural or just want to win the argument regardless of the natural order. There is no other interpretation or to put it in local jargon, “play backside”. Then, again, what is stopping the Father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter. That’s natural? No need to “slant” the term.
Let’s not continue playing with words here. You are evading a direct answer and the issue. Your anus was not meant for sex but for relieving yourself. Again you are playing with words, evading all the core issues and divert from answering directly.
My question to you : Is having “anal sex” natural? Do you think having your anus penetrated on a regular basis is natural? Don’t use the excuse that you don’t indulge in anal sex so you can comment. I don’t need to eat excrement to tell you it tastes bad.
4) “CW”, On being asked if you have watched the testimony of Christopher and Victor on http://christopheryuanvideo.blogspot.com/
You said : ”Not yet, but will do. Need Time. “
Answer:
If you are as impartial as what you try to portray, you would have seen it long time ago. Surprised you haven’t even watched it. If that’s the case, you really, really have lost the moral ground as your arguments are not impartial but evasive and suggestive towards pro-LBGT activism. Or perhaps you come from a background where no one taught you about morals and so this word is alien to you.
5) “CW”, you were asked if “Do you agree that Aware's CSE programme should have been suspended?”
You said: “…Yes, I believe it should be suspended. However, once the programme is refined to better reflect the necessary tones of society, it can request for the suspension to be lifted (subject to vetting and approval). ….I am not interested in the trainers’ manual, I am more interested in what was taught.”
Answer:
AWARE has rightly lost it’s moral authority by still standing by its position and no manner of ‘cosmetic’ application is going to change people’s mindset.
You are kidding if you think that the “trainer’s manual” is not important. It guides the “instructor” in formulating answers to the ‘students”. There have been comments by parents that said that the “instructors” themselves were pushing the line.
You should know that, recently, at a blogsite, a video clearly showed one of your AWARE “overseas” instructors trying to push their LBGT interpretations down the throat of a parent who was not convinced at all. Again, don’t tell me that you did not watch it. Then, how are you going to debate if you don’t watch something that you do not agree with. Again “wayang kulit”
Let’s talk about now. It’s very fine and noble that MOE should instruct the school counselors to do more but this is where they HAVE done so by “Outsourcing” them. But, you and AWARE and cohorts made slight of and took advantage of the people’s sincerity, ignorance, passivity and trust.
You don’t teach our “Young” that “anal sex” is normal and natural. It should not even be in the CSE. Unfortunately, CSE was taken directly from SIECUS, an organization from the USA or other, which are pro-LBGT as is AWARE (whom have stated their stance on this very clearly)
This is where the pro-LBGT took advantage to inveigle their agenda into the CSE to promulgate their views by trying to influence our “Children” at a very young age.
It is due to militant, aggressive and discreet actions such as by AWARE and it’s cohorts that brought out the “awareness” of the gravity of the danger to our young on how much MINORITY activism has secreted and permeated itself into our society through the Arts, Media, so-called NGOs & in Govt.
YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!!! WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!!!
“CW”,
Although you posted your comments to LEE, I have some very strong views of my own and decided to comment on what you said. I hope others will follow suit since this is public space."
In your postings on 28 Jun 09 , 14:44 PM you were asked:
1) What are your PERSONAL views about constant acts of anal sex in homosexuality?
You replied: “I don’t have a personal view or stand on it as I have not been a participant in anal sex. However, I think the decision is private to the individuals. Mind you, anal sex is not restrictive to homosexuality. Heterosexuals can choose to do so. So long as both are consenting adults, and both register the risks and are willing to be responsible for their actions, I think it is ok.
Answer:
For a person who showed so much conviction about LBGT, it is unlike you to have no personal view or stand. It’s like telling another adult, I will have to participate in killing a person before I make a stand on my personal views.
You either agree it is “okay” or “not okay” to have “anal sex”. You are conveniently sitting on the fence with your reply.
Since you brought up about “Consenting”, Homosexuality has always been around Asian culture. Nobody in this thread denies that. NO issue here.
You also said “Anal sex, is a private act, thus everybody will come to their own decision on it. I will not put it to the subject of morality, as everybody will have different degrees of belief and will make their own decisions on the matter.”
Answer:
Ha! CW! I completely agree with you that it is private, as Asian society in general has always seen it that way for hundreds of years. Good that you agree it is a PRIVATE ACT. Also, NO issue here.
The core issue is whether society in general agrees with it and they do NOT. Society in general frowns upon it. But, unfortunately, most in society are passive on-lookers. As long as LBGT do not cross the line. That is fine with society. No argument from you can support it.
Even in USA, there is a swelling of public opinion against it. The Europeans, they are the root of many ills in this world. Mostly, faults of old world politics and still playing the same game.
INDEED, it IS All About MORALITY. No society can survive without upholding their morality. That is why when young, your parents teach you not to kill etc. Didn’t you learnt of ancient Roman society where Morality degenerated into permissive actions like debauchery, anal sex, etc, Society will fail in the long run.
Imagine, with your meaning of freedom of choice, and independence of action, next you’ll see the father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter.
This is individual independence you are proscribing as your comments goes. That is what will happen when society is bereft of a set of Moral values/ Core values to uphold. As in Holland, you can’t stop your daughter from becoming a prostitute.
Truly, do you think that “daughter” being an individual, wants to be a prostitute? And if you try me with “Freedom of choice” that means you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. A typical mantra of those who supports LBGT. I have worked with them and I tell you this, none wants to be one but only due to economic necessities.
You are clearly either a consenting partner or a pro-LBGT. This is all wayang kulit from you.
2) When asked whether you thought anal sex is unhealthy. You said “On whether it is unhealthy? I know from fact that it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. However, that is applicable to those who have multiple sexual partners or those come in contact with HIV positive partners. If the act is between a monogamous and committed couple, the risks can be mitigated.”
Answer:
Good that you agree it carries a larger risk of contracting HIV. But, that’s the point. It boils down to Morality.
If it is to be based on the individual rights of a person/ couple as is your stand in all your comments, to do it freely and without fear or favour, where is the “Accountability” to the majority. Individual rights in Asian society entails some responsibility towards the majority. What you are constantly espousing in your “musings” is western concepts which are now undeniably slowly being overturned by a more vocal majority in their midst.
It’s a fallacy on your part if you deny that the minority in the West has been using all sorts of leverages and lobbying and discreet actions to get the recognition that they wanted, but, at what cost. Promiscuity, loose morals? Is that the way you want Singapore to go? Whatever your arguments you proffer will not hold water but only a “wayang kulit” because to you, as long as at the end of the day, your actions meets your aims.
3) When asked whether you felt anal sex is natural. You said “On whether it is natural? The word natural would, for me, draw a relation to reproduction. In this case, anal sex is not reproductive hence unnatural. However, I would not use “unnatural” to slant the term “anal sex” as the act is practiced in private. It serves no purpose unless the discussion was about reproduction.”
Answer:
Hello, if “CW” you still can’t see from the forest to the trees that “anal sex” is unnatural, you are either unnatural or just want to win the argument regardless of the natural order. There is no other interpretation or to put it in local jargon, “play backside”. Then, again, what is stopping the Father “do” the son, mother “do” the son, father “do” the daughter. That’s natural? No need to “slant” the term.
Let’s not continue playing with words here. You are evading a direct answer and the issue. Your anus was not meant for sex but for relieving yourself. Again you are playing with words, evading all the core issues and divert from answering directly.
My question to you : Is having “anal sex” natural? Do you think having your anus penetrated on a regular basis is natural? Don’t use the excuse that you don’t indulge in anal sex so you can comment. I don’t need to eat excrement to tell you it tastes bad.
4) “CW”, On being asked if you have watched the testimony of Christopher and Victor on http://christopheryuanvideo.blogspot.com/
You said : ”Not yet, but will do. Need Time. “
Answer:
If you are as impartial as what you try to portray, you would have seen it long time ago. Surprised you haven’t even watched it. If that’s the case, you really, really have lost the moral ground as your arguments are not impartial but evasive and suggestive towards pro-LBGT activism. Or perhaps you come from a background where no one taught you about morals and so this word is alien to you.
5) “CW”, you were asked if “Do you agree that Aware's CSE programme should have been suspended?”
You said: “…Yes, I believe it should be suspended. However, once the programme is refined to better reflect the necessary tones of society, it can request for the suspension to be lifted (subject to vetting and approval). ….I am not interested in the trainers’ manual, I am more interested in what was taught.”
Answer:
AWARE has rightly lost it’s moral authority by still standing by its position and no manner of ‘cosmetic’ application is going to change people’s mindset.
You are kidding if you think that the “trainer’s manual” is not important. It guides the “instructor” in formulating answers to the ‘students”. There have been comments by parents that said that the “instructors” themselves were pushing the line.
You should know that, recently, at a blogsite, a video clearly showed one of your AWARE “overseas” instructors trying to push their LBGT interpretations down the throat of a parent who was not convinced at all. Again, don’t tell me that you did not watch it. Then, how are you going to debate if you don’t watch something that you do not agree with. Again “wayang kulit”
Let’s talk about now. It’s very fine and noble that MOE should instruct the school counselors to do more but this is where they HAVE done so by “Outsourcing” them. But, you and AWARE and cohorts made slight of and took advantage of the people’s sincerity, ignorance, passivity and trust.
You don’t teach our “Young” that “anal sex” is normal and natural. It should not even be in the CSE. Unfortunately, CSE was taken directly from SIECUS, an organization from the USA or other, which are pro-LBGT as is AWARE (whom have stated their stance on this very clearly)
This is where the pro-LBGT took advantage to inveigle their agenda into the CSE to promulgate their views by trying to influence our “Children” at a very young age.
It is due to militant, aggressive and discreet actions such as by AWARE and it’s cohorts that brought out the “awareness” of the gravity of the danger to our young on how much MINORITY activism has secreted and permeated itself into our society through the Arts, Media, so-called NGOs & in Govt.
YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!!! WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING!!!
REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 19:53 PM
Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!
You are welcome, "Red Panda",
"MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore."
Yes, agreed. I spoke to a Primary school Teacher when I received the Opt-Out form from my child today. I asked if the CSE will be taught by external vendors or school teachers, and was told that it would be taught by its selected school teachers who have gone through about 2 days of training on this program.
I also asked if the teachers would be able to handle questions asked by their students and I had also asked to see the materials to be taught before I sign anything on the form.
The teacher has invited me to the school to vet the materials and I want to make sure that its contents is appropriate and its values are with the conservative mainstream majority.
And Dear "Beware Aware", I find your - "If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC." quite funny!
I think we should get the CSE materials from the school to read and vet first before we commit anything. We need to know what are being taught to our kids.
You are welcome, "Red Panda",
"MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore."
Yes, agreed. I spoke to a Primary school Teacher when I received the Opt-Out form from my child today. I asked if the CSE will be taught by external vendors or school teachers, and was told that it would be taught by its selected school teachers who have gone through about 2 days of training on this program.
I also asked if the teachers would be able to handle questions asked by their students and I had also asked to see the materials to be taught before I sign anything on the form.
The teacher has invited me to the school to vet the materials and I want to make sure that its contents is appropriate and its values are with the conservative mainstream majority.
And Dear "Beware Aware", I find your - "If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC." quite funny!
I think we should get the CSE materials from the school to read and vet first before we commit anything. We need to know what are being taught to our kids.
REACH BLOG-29 Jun 09 , 19:24 PM
Beware Aware!
Is "CW" from Aware?? Aware wanting to refine & offer their CSE to the schools again in the future? We must be crazy to believe these pro LGBT people. All singing the same tune on the anal retentive contents. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are still waiting longingly for the day when the shepherds are caught napping.
The natural role of the anus is for exit of faeces and excrement. Its for the exit of all things unclean. If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC.
Our nostrils are for breathing - you mean if people stick things up their nostrils in private just because there's an opening, that's considered ok??? Offering deviant programmes to our kids based on tis kind of logic?
You mean we all have to indulge in anal sex before we can have proof that its unnatural or unhealthy? Its common sense! Think of what your anus has been doing all these years - what is its NATURAL NORMAL function everday?? To defecate. Anything beyond that esp anal sex - is NOT NORMAL or HEALTHY!!!Think of what the anus has been doing NORMALLY throughout your life. PLAIN COMMON SENSE THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STICKING ANYTHING INTO YOURS ANUS REGULARLY EXCEPT FOR MEDICAL CHECKUP.
Thank you MOE for introducing sexuality programmes based on responsibility. Ask Aware to concentrate on welfare of women and tell them to leave our children alone!!Suspend Aware for good from our schools.
Is "CW" from Aware?? Aware wanting to refine & offer their CSE to the schools again in the future? We must be crazy to believe these pro LGBT people. All singing the same tune on the anal retentive contents. The wolves in sheep’s clothing are still waiting longingly for the day when the shepherds are caught napping.
The natural role of the anus is for exit of faeces and excrement. Its for the exit of all things unclean. If "CW" thinks its natural and ok to keep sticking things inside the anus - something must be awfully mentally wrong with that kind of thinking! "CW", this kind of rubbish should be flushed down the WC.
Our nostrils are for breathing - you mean if people stick things up their nostrils in private just because there's an opening, that's considered ok??? Offering deviant programmes to our kids based on tis kind of logic?
You mean we all have to indulge in anal sex before we can have proof that its unnatural or unhealthy? Its common sense! Think of what your anus has been doing all these years - what is its NATURAL NORMAL function everday?? To defecate. Anything beyond that esp anal sex - is NOT NORMAL or HEALTHY!!!Think of what the anus has been doing NORMALLY throughout your life. PLAIN COMMON SENSE THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STICKING ANYTHING INTO YOURS ANUS REGULARLY EXCEPT FOR MEDICAL CHECKUP.
Thank you MOE for introducing sexuality programmes based on responsibility. Ask Aware to concentrate on welfare of women and tell them to leave our children alone!!Suspend Aware for good from our schools.
REACH BLOG-29 Jun 09 , 17:00 PM
Red Panda
Thanks to "Too Concrned to Remained Silent anymore!"
The MOE's New CSE Program is fine. MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore.
I recalled an argument by the pro-GLBT and pro-liberal in rebuking the concerned parents and religious persons by saying "Who are you teaching morality to us". I would counter argue by saying "WHO ARE YOU TEACHING IMMORALITY TO MY KIDS IN SCHOOL".
Thanks to "Too Concrned to Remained Silent anymore!"
The MOE's New CSE Program is fine. MOE and also parents need to ensure this program is carried out according the guideline. Make sure no more Wolves in sheep's clothing coming to our school anymore.
I recalled an argument by the pro-GLBT and pro-liberal in rebuking the concerned parents and religious persons by saying "Who are you teaching morality to us". I would counter argue by saying "WHO ARE YOU TEACHING IMMORALITY TO MY KIDS IN SCHOOL".
REACH BLOG - 29 Jun 09 , 15:26 PM
Too Concerned to Remain Silent anymore!
Hi All,
MOE has already release some info on its NEW CSE programs, here goes:-
THE GROWING YEARS SERIES
Overview
MOE’s Growing Years (GY) series is the main co-curricular package for sexuality education. GY is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society, and teaches abstinence as the best choice for adolescents. The topics in GY aim to
promote healthy relationships based on love and respect, and are categorised under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal
Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences.
GY is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary to post-secondary (JC/CI) levels.
The series comprises of the following packages:
- Upper Primary package “Curious Minds”
- Lower Secondary package “The Teenage Years”
- Upper Secondary package “Sense and Sexuality”
- Post Secondary package “Love Matters”
All schools are required to conduct sexuality education lessons using the GY resources, with minimal hours of lessons required for different levels: 8 hours for Upper Primary, 6 hours for Lower Secondary, 8 hours for Upper Secondary and 4 hours for Post Secondary. Adoption of GY is optional for aided and independent schools who may replace GY with their own programme.
1. “Curious Minds” (Upper Primary) package
The upper primary years mark the onset of puberty. With better nutrition and improved health care, children are reaching puberty at a younger age and have to grapple with physical, emotional and psychological changes in themselves.
The implication is that our children are becoming biologically ready for sexual activity sooner without necessarily having the corresponding cognitive or emotional maturity to modulate their behaviours. Easy access to information via the internet also means that unless properly guided, our young may find it a challenge to make appropriate choices on matters of sexuality.
“Curious Minds” is a response to these challenges. It is designed to underscore the importance
of character development and health. It consists of a multi-media package with interactive games, role-plays to engage pupils in learning facts about sexuality.
The topics covered include the reproductive system and anatomy, the changes involved in puberty, building healthy relationships, the importance of family, attitudes and values towards physical intimacy, legal issues relating to sexual abuse and exhibitionism, and constructive ways to express affection guided by society’s norms and values.
2. “The Teenage Years” (Lower Secondary) package
The values and attitudes of our youth towards sexuality are increasingly being shaped by their peers, exposure to the media, popular culture and the internet.
Adolescence is a complex stage in life as the adolescent attempts to find his/her own identity and often struggles with new social relationships.
The focus of “The Teenage Years” for Lower Secondary students is to guide adolescents on issues relating to the building of self-esteem, and to help them understand and value the following:
a. the underlying value for healthy relationships is respect;
b. abstinence as the best option for teens;
c. the possible consequences of sex outside of marriage;
d. sexual reproduction in human beings;
e. the legal issues pertaining to sexual behaviour;
f. how certain public displays of affection can affect others;
g. the influence of the media and the internet; and
h. how they can seek help, including professional help, when necessary.
3. “Sense and Sexuality” (Upper Secondary) package
Middle adolescence (generally from 15 – 17 years old) can be a turbulent period for adolescents. The gap between physical and emotional/cognitive maturity may
result in a tendency to act on impulse, experiment with various activities (including sexual activities), sometimes without understanding the unpleasant consequences that may arise from such experimentation.
The need for peer acceptance can be overwhelmingly strong, and hinder one’s ability to act responsibly. Given the pressures faced by the middle adolescent
from within themselves and from peers, it is important to build a strong sense of self-worth, personal convictions and an understanding of the possible consequences of sexual behaviour.
Through “Sense & Sexuality”, upper secondary students will have opportunity to build character, expand their understanding and repertoire of skills to deal with various issues related to sexuality, which are of prime concern at this age. These include:
a. Gender differences between males and females;
b. A better understanding of relationships;
c. Setting boundaries;
d. Commitment in relationships;
e. Understanding the influence of the media on sexuality;
f. Communication and relationship building;
g. Decision-making and assertiveness skills to say no to sex;
h. Discernment skills; and
i. Help-seeking behaviour such as coping with break-ups and rejection.
4. “Love Matters” (Post Secondary) package
The focus for “Love Matters” is on issues in relationships. Relating with peers is a major component in the lives of JC/CI students, who spend an average of half to two-thirds of their waking hours with their peers.
The focus of the Post Secondary package is on Interpersonal Relationships, with themes of Human Development, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences woven into the main focus on relationships.
The main objectives are to challenge students to:
a. examine their beliefs about relationships, cast off self-defeating and irrational beliefs and embrace healthy ones;
b. examine their behaviours in relationships in the light of their choices and consequences, and replace negative behaviours with positive alternatives; and
c. develop personal qualities in themselves that they desire in their friends and partners.
The overall desired outcomes are that students would be optimistic about life and relationships, respect the rights and dignity of others, and consider abstinence as the best option for themselves as teenagers.
Hi All,
MOE has already release some info on its NEW CSE programs, here goes:-
THE GROWING YEARS SERIES
Overview
MOE’s Growing Years (GY) series is the main co-curricular package for sexuality education. GY is premised on the importance of the family as the basic unit of society, and teaches abstinence as the best choice for adolescents. The topics in GY aim to
promote healthy relationships based on love and respect, and are categorised under four main themes: Human Development, Interpersonal
Relationships, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences.
GY is developmental in nature, spanning the upper primary to post-secondary (JC/CI) levels.
The series comprises of the following packages:
- Upper Primary package “Curious Minds”
- Lower Secondary package “The Teenage Years”
- Upper Secondary package “Sense and Sexuality”
- Post Secondary package “Love Matters”
All schools are required to conduct sexuality education lessons using the GY resources, with minimal hours of lessons required for different levels: 8 hours for Upper Primary, 6 hours for Lower Secondary, 8 hours for Upper Secondary and 4 hours for Post Secondary. Adoption of GY is optional for aided and independent schools who may replace GY with their own programme.
1. “Curious Minds” (Upper Primary) package
The upper primary years mark the onset of puberty. With better nutrition and improved health care, children are reaching puberty at a younger age and have to grapple with physical, emotional and psychological changes in themselves.
The implication is that our children are becoming biologically ready for sexual activity sooner without necessarily having the corresponding cognitive or emotional maturity to modulate their behaviours. Easy access to information via the internet also means that unless properly guided, our young may find it a challenge to make appropriate choices on matters of sexuality.
“Curious Minds” is a response to these challenges. It is designed to underscore the importance
of character development and health. It consists of a multi-media package with interactive games, role-plays to engage pupils in learning facts about sexuality.
The topics covered include the reproductive system and anatomy, the changes involved in puberty, building healthy relationships, the importance of family, attitudes and values towards physical intimacy, legal issues relating to sexual abuse and exhibitionism, and constructive ways to express affection guided by society’s norms and values.
2. “The Teenage Years” (Lower Secondary) package
The values and attitudes of our youth towards sexuality are increasingly being shaped by their peers, exposure to the media, popular culture and the internet.
Adolescence is a complex stage in life as the adolescent attempts to find his/her own identity and often struggles with new social relationships.
The focus of “The Teenage Years” for Lower Secondary students is to guide adolescents on issues relating to the building of self-esteem, and to help them understand and value the following:
a. the underlying value for healthy relationships is respect;
b. abstinence as the best option for teens;
c. the possible consequences of sex outside of marriage;
d. sexual reproduction in human beings;
e. the legal issues pertaining to sexual behaviour;
f. how certain public displays of affection can affect others;
g. the influence of the media and the internet; and
h. how they can seek help, including professional help, when necessary.
3. “Sense and Sexuality” (Upper Secondary) package
Middle adolescence (generally from 15 – 17 years old) can be a turbulent period for adolescents. The gap between physical and emotional/cognitive maturity may
result in a tendency to act on impulse, experiment with various activities (including sexual activities), sometimes without understanding the unpleasant consequences that may arise from such experimentation.
The need for peer acceptance can be overwhelmingly strong, and hinder one’s ability to act responsibly. Given the pressures faced by the middle adolescent
from within themselves and from peers, it is important to build a strong sense of self-worth, personal convictions and an understanding of the possible consequences of sexual behaviour.
Through “Sense & Sexuality”, upper secondary students will have opportunity to build character, expand their understanding and repertoire of skills to deal with various issues related to sexuality, which are of prime concern at this age. These include:
a. Gender differences between males and females;
b. A better understanding of relationships;
c. Setting boundaries;
d. Commitment in relationships;
e. Understanding the influence of the media on sexuality;
f. Communication and relationship building;
g. Decision-making and assertiveness skills to say no to sex;
h. Discernment skills; and
i. Help-seeking behaviour such as coping with break-ups and rejection.
4. “Love Matters” (Post Secondary) package
The focus for “Love Matters” is on issues in relationships. Relating with peers is a major component in the lives of JC/CI students, who spend an average of half to two-thirds of their waking hours with their peers.
The focus of the Post Secondary package is on Interpersonal Relationships, with themes of Human Development, Sexual Health and Behaviour, and Societal Influences woven into the main focus on relationships.
The main objectives are to challenge students to:
a. examine their beliefs about relationships, cast off self-defeating and irrational beliefs and embrace healthy ones;
b. examine their behaviours in relationships in the light of their choices and consequences, and replace negative behaviours with positive alternatives; and
c. develop personal qualities in themselves that they desire in their friends and partners.
The overall desired outcomes are that students would be optimistic about life and relationships, respect the rights and dignity of others, and consider abstinence as the best option for themselves as teenagers.
Friday, June 26, 2009
REACH Blog
31/05/2009
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER
By SuperAdamantium @ 4:08 AM :: 54 Views :: 0 Comments :: General
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER. Not convinced? Then read this factual account of what happened in the 1970s that forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders. Homosexual activists threatened and bullied the APA into submission. The APA did not come to this decision by scientific recourse. READ ALL ABOUT IT
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER
By SuperAdamantium @ 4:08 AM :: 54 Views :: 0 Comments :: General
HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL DISORDER. Not convinced? Then read this factual account of what happened in the 1970s that forced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders. Homosexual activists threatened and bullied the APA into submission. The APA did not come to this decision by scientific recourse. READ ALL ABOUT IT
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
REACH Blog
29/05/2009
In Defence of Society's Standards
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/576/In-Defence-of-Societys-Standards.aspx
By SuperAdamantium @ 9:38 PM :: 46 Views :: 0 Comments :: Aspirations for REACH
The last time I checked, the MOE had fired AWARE as a sex education programme provider because of the latter’s promotion of gay propaganda. If calling a spade a spade is deemed moral bashing, I wonder what would one call MOE’s action? Moral execution? Yet MOE’s action was widely applauded by mainstream society.
Most of the moral decline in Western societies and now in Singaporean society that allowed for the rise of homosexual militancy almost unchecked stemmed firstly from a misplaced sense of societal harmony ------ that moral indignations are called moral bashings, that groups with aberrant norms or morals must be included to reach a consensus for the sake of harmony, that an amoral, laissez faire attitude is best.
The issue now is a fight over standards, moral standards for society. Not a fight over whether homosexuals have the right to live.
Standards cannot entertain exceptions, just like 1 metre must equal 100 centimetres ------ there are no exceptions to this measure. Or that the passing mark for an examination is 50.
You may fail to live up to the standard; but the standard stays. You don’t change the passing mark just so that you can pass. That’s subversion.
So the moral standard for sexuality in our society is heterosexuality. That which doesn’t make the grade then is deemed immoral. What’s immoral ------ homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, sadomasochism, etc, whatever.
Homosexuals are now trying, through AWARE, through sex education programme in schools, through the media, the arts and politics to change society’s moral benchmark to include homosexuality as a pass.
Like I said, society’s moral standards should not change. You can fail to make the grade. You live to try another day. Nobody’s denying you the right to live. But mainstream society would and should deny homsosexual activists' efforts at corrupting and subverting our moral standards.
In Defence of Society's Standards
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/576/In-Defence-of-Societys-Standards.aspx
By SuperAdamantium @ 9:38 PM :: 46 Views :: 0 Comments :: Aspirations for REACH
The last time I checked, the MOE had fired AWARE as a sex education programme provider because of the latter’s promotion of gay propaganda. If calling a spade a spade is deemed moral bashing, I wonder what would one call MOE’s action? Moral execution? Yet MOE’s action was widely applauded by mainstream society.
Most of the moral decline in Western societies and now in Singaporean society that allowed for the rise of homosexual militancy almost unchecked stemmed firstly from a misplaced sense of societal harmony ------ that moral indignations are called moral bashings, that groups with aberrant norms or morals must be included to reach a consensus for the sake of harmony, that an amoral, laissez faire attitude is best.
The issue now is a fight over standards, moral standards for society. Not a fight over whether homosexuals have the right to live.
Standards cannot entertain exceptions, just like 1 metre must equal 100 centimetres ------ there are no exceptions to this measure. Or that the passing mark for an examination is 50.
You may fail to live up to the standard; but the standard stays. You don’t change the passing mark just so that you can pass. That’s subversion.
So the moral standard for sexuality in our society is heterosexuality. That which doesn’t make the grade then is deemed immoral. What’s immoral ------ homosexuality, bisexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, sadomasochism, etc, whatever.
Homosexuals are now trying, through AWARE, through sex education programme in schools, through the media, the arts and politics to change society’s moral benchmark to include homosexuality as a pass.
Like I said, society’s moral standards should not change. You can fail to make the grade. You live to try another day. Nobody’s denying you the right to live. But mainstream society would and should deny homsosexual activists' efforts at corrupting and subverting our moral standards.
REACH Blog
9/5/2009
OVERSIGHT ON MOE REGARDIN AWARE SEX GUIDE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/564/OVERSIGHT-ON-MOE-REGARDIN-AWARE-SEX-GUIDE.aspx
By Raymond Lo Wan Mou @ 5:52 PM :: 110 Views :: 0 Comments :: The Young Ones
Dear Reach Executive,
Ministry of Education (MOE) has announced the suspension of The Aware sexuality educational programme for all main stream schools.
I am thoroughly disappointed with MOE on why it takes so long to do this.
They are supposed to be professional educators moulding the future of this nation. Their fundamental responsibility is to nurture our children into good citizens, conscious of their responsibilities to their families, society and country.
Being a cabby and had picked up countless number of times students and youth, I know for a fact that our young ones of both sexes are very aggressive, covetous, disrespectful, destructive and full of expletives and vulgarity whenever they speak- every expression contains the 4 letter word. From some of their conversation, they have given me the impression that they had already engaged in all forms of sex at young age. Is it surprise that there are many teenagers’ abortion nowadays?
Allowing AWARE's sex guide in our mainstream schools for so long wittingly or unwitting by MOE has made the matter worse on our impassionate youth. And please MOE do not tell me that there is an oversight on your part on this important educational programme.
Of course, bad role model and indulgent parents also plays a crucial part on bad development of our young ones.
And why is it that MOE must wait for parents to complain of this unhealthy sex programme - only then they will review the guideline? Is it not their primary duty as professional educators to do this in the first place?
It is in this aspect that MOE has let down our parents and children in particular, and our society and nation in general.
Warmest Regards
OVERSIGHT ON MOE REGARDIN AWARE SEX GUIDE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/564/OVERSIGHT-ON-MOE-REGARDIN-AWARE-SEX-GUIDE.aspx
By Raymond Lo Wan Mou @ 5:52 PM :: 110 Views :: 0 Comments :: The Young Ones
Dear Reach Executive,
Ministry of Education (MOE) has announced the suspension of The Aware sexuality educational programme for all main stream schools.
I am thoroughly disappointed with MOE on why it takes so long to do this.
They are supposed to be professional educators moulding the future of this nation. Their fundamental responsibility is to nurture our children into good citizens, conscious of their responsibilities to their families, society and country.
Being a cabby and had picked up countless number of times students and youth, I know for a fact that our young ones of both sexes are very aggressive, covetous, disrespectful, destructive and full of expletives and vulgarity whenever they speak- every expression contains the 4 letter word. From some of their conversation, they have given me the impression that they had already engaged in all forms of sex at young age. Is it surprise that there are many teenagers’ abortion nowadays?
Allowing AWARE's sex guide in our mainstream schools for so long wittingly or unwitting by MOE has made the matter worse on our impassionate youth. And please MOE do not tell me that there is an oversight on your part on this important educational programme.
Of course, bad role model and indulgent parents also plays a crucial part on bad development of our young ones.
And why is it that MOE must wait for parents to complain of this unhealthy sex programme - only then they will review the guideline? Is it not their primary duty as professional educators to do this in the first place?
It is in this aspect that MOE has let down our parents and children in particular, and our society and nation in general.
Warmest Regards
REACH Blog
6/5/2009
My Humble Thoughts on AWARE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/561/My-Humble-Thoughts-on-AWARE.aspx
By Charisso @ 6:47 PM :: 85 Views :: 0 Comments :: Women, General
I am among those who attended the EGM on Saturday. I must say I have witnessed a demonstration of 'whoever is louder wins', because by sheer volume, one side has many times deprived the other of its right to deliver statements and even to reply to questions posed to them. While I am impressed by the pro-Old Guards party for their passion and firm belief in inclusiveness, I cannot say the same for the behaviour. I think it is basic courtesy not to interrupt when another person is talking, what's more, answering a question that was posed by themselves. Don't they want to hear the answer to their question? Or were they are only interested in shouting out their displeasure and fanning the emotions of the crowd? Throughout the meeting, there were cutting-in, booing and jeering while the Ex-Co was trying to reply. Josie did not even get a chance to deliver her President's Message in peace. I am appalled. I wonder what is the indication of this for the civic space in Singapore. I really have to applaud Josie's team for their courageous effort, standing up to the thousand plus people, railing and yelling at them for a full 7 hours. I for one, would not have been able to withstand it.
One other issue that bothered me was besides the 3000 who turned up, I wonder how informed the rest of the Singaporeans are about this matter. I recalled a survey done by the papers during the month-long report of this entire saga, majority were either not aware or not bothered. I think this is a cause for concern because everyone has to realise that their stand matters. We cannot rely on another person to make a choice for ourselves because logically, the other person may not make the choice that we want. If we have a choice, we should make it. If not, we have robbed ourselves of that right. And if the final result is not what we wanted, then we only have ourselves to blame because we did not voice out what we want. It is a consequence that the entire society has to bear because of apathy.
Thirdly, I have great reservations on the impartiality of the reports we have seen so far on the papers. One would have noticed a severely unbalanced 'air time' given to the Old Guards compared to the New Guards. Day after day, reports of perturbed, upset and disappointed Old Guards were splashed across the prime pages. May I ask, is this stirring up for sympathy votes? Is this stirring up of anti-New Ex-Co feelings? In my humble opinion, it really looks like it. Why do I not see the same treatment for the new Ex-Co members who received threats to their life and careers just because they stood up to fight for the good of our next generation! What is this! For as far as I can remember, when the first report came out on Good Friday papers, the New Guards were portrayed as power-grabbers who overthrew the overly-trusting Old Guards, the report likening it to a merciless coup. May I ask, which is merciless – a civilised and legitimate voting in of new people into the Ex-Co on the 28 March AGM or that unruly and unreasonable yelling and jeering for full 7 hours at the 2 May EGM? By the way, does the Constitution say that they can vote in a replacement Ex-Co right on the spot? Perhaps someone can clarify this.
Finally, as a parent to-be, I am most concerned what will be taught to my son in school. The unearthing of the contents of the CSE programme is the most harrowing yet consoling thing that has come out of the entire issue. Harrowing because of the questionable values that the programme imparts to unsuspecting young minds. I remember the astonishment I felt when I read that anal sex can be healthy so long as it is practised with a condom and with consent. The statement that pre-marital sex is actually neutral also sent a chill to my heart. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but for me, even to see such statements in adult magazines would have been mind-boggling, what more for 12 to 18-year olds? What is the point of telling them that? Nevertheless, it is a consolation that the programme is being investigated now, and I think this episode has awakened many parents to take more interest in their children's lives. They are after all our precious ones, do we not want the best for them?
My Humble Thoughts on AWARE
http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/YourSay/BlogUs/tabid/54/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/561/My-Humble-Thoughts-on-AWARE.aspx
By Charisso @ 6:47 PM :: 85 Views :: 0 Comments :: Women, General
I am among those who attended the EGM on Saturday. I must say I have witnessed a demonstration of 'whoever is louder wins', because by sheer volume, one side has many times deprived the other of its right to deliver statements and even to reply to questions posed to them. While I am impressed by the pro-Old Guards party for their passion and firm belief in inclusiveness, I cannot say the same for the behaviour. I think it is basic courtesy not to interrupt when another person is talking, what's more, answering a question that was posed by themselves. Don't they want to hear the answer to their question? Or were they are only interested in shouting out their displeasure and fanning the emotions of the crowd? Throughout the meeting, there were cutting-in, booing and jeering while the Ex-Co was trying to reply. Josie did not even get a chance to deliver her President's Message in peace. I am appalled. I wonder what is the indication of this for the civic space in Singapore. I really have to applaud Josie's team for their courageous effort, standing up to the thousand plus people, railing and yelling at them for a full 7 hours. I for one, would not have been able to withstand it.
One other issue that bothered me was besides the 3000 who turned up, I wonder how informed the rest of the Singaporeans are about this matter. I recalled a survey done by the papers during the month-long report of this entire saga, majority were either not aware or not bothered. I think this is a cause for concern because everyone has to realise that their stand matters. We cannot rely on another person to make a choice for ourselves because logically, the other person may not make the choice that we want. If we have a choice, we should make it. If not, we have robbed ourselves of that right. And if the final result is not what we wanted, then we only have ourselves to blame because we did not voice out what we want. It is a consequence that the entire society has to bear because of apathy.
Thirdly, I have great reservations on the impartiality of the reports we have seen so far on the papers. One would have noticed a severely unbalanced 'air time' given to the Old Guards compared to the New Guards. Day after day, reports of perturbed, upset and disappointed Old Guards were splashed across the prime pages. May I ask, is this stirring up for sympathy votes? Is this stirring up of anti-New Ex-Co feelings? In my humble opinion, it really looks like it. Why do I not see the same treatment for the new Ex-Co members who received threats to their life and careers just because they stood up to fight for the good of our next generation! What is this! For as far as I can remember, when the first report came out on Good Friday papers, the New Guards were portrayed as power-grabbers who overthrew the overly-trusting Old Guards, the report likening it to a merciless coup. May I ask, which is merciless – a civilised and legitimate voting in of new people into the Ex-Co on the 28 March AGM or that unruly and unreasonable yelling and jeering for full 7 hours at the 2 May EGM? By the way, does the Constitution say that they can vote in a replacement Ex-Co right on the spot? Perhaps someone can clarify this.
Finally, as a parent to-be, I am most concerned what will be taught to my son in school. The unearthing of the contents of the CSE programme is the most harrowing yet consoling thing that has come out of the entire issue. Harrowing because of the questionable values that the programme imparts to unsuspecting young minds. I remember the astonishment I felt when I read that anal sex can be healthy so long as it is practised with a condom and with consent. The statement that pre-marital sex is actually neutral also sent a chill to my heart. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but for me, even to see such statements in adult magazines would have been mind-boggling, what more for 12 to 18-year olds? What is the point of telling them that? Nevertheless, it is a consolation that the programme is being investigated now, and I think this episode has awakened many parents to take more interest in their children's lives. They are after all our precious ones, do we not want the best for them?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Objectivity In Media Reporting
Even Straits Times with huge resources and many years of experienced reporters has kept quiet
23 Jun 09 , 17:30 PM
ha ha, more likely that gay activists cannot rebut against "handful" of upset parents. Even Straits Times with huge resources and many years of experienced reporters has kept quiet against "handful" angry parents here. At least now people know that capable people are not only in Straits Times only.
-------------------------------
One-sided story
22 Jun 09 , 22:27 PM
We are surrounded by Muslim Neighbours (Countries). Our very own National Anthem is in Malay. Isn't it insulting to the Muslim Community if we were to open up to liberalism, promoting homosexual activities? Our PM is definitely right to stand firm on this issue to remain a conservative society, unless we be a laughing stock by our very own neighbours.
23 Jun 09 , 17:30 PM
ha ha, more likely that gay activists cannot rebut against "handful" of upset parents. Even Straits Times with huge resources and many years of experienced reporters has kept quiet against "handful" angry parents here. At least now people know that capable people are not only in Straits Times only.
-------------------------------
One-sided story
22 Jun 09 , 22:27 PM
We are surrounded by Muslim Neighbours (Countries). Our very own National Anthem is in Malay. Isn't it insulting to the Muslim Community if we were to open up to liberalism, promoting homosexual activities? Our PM is definitely right to stand firm on this issue to remain a conservative society, unless we be a laughing stock by our very own neighbours.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders
1
Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into
Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders
from: http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexualactivists-
intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removinghomosexuality-
from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
Posted by foospro86 on October 1, 2007
BY RYAN SORBA
“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”
“That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist
Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric
Association (APA).
Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)
In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered.
Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder.
Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex.
Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public
attitude.
Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists.
Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.
‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’
shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked
psychiatrists looked on in disbelief.
‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)
Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.
On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the
Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions.
In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an ncreasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of
psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”
(The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)
Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A samegender
sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40)
As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same gender
sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p.107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists.
Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p.97)
After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some
members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the
APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)
On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905
APA members had voted in the election.
The results were as follows:
Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a
mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a
mental disorder: 5,854
It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of
the total membership of the APA.
Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s
membership approved the change.
It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM.
Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106)
Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation.
In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in hisbig black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)
Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as
well.
Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries.
At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex.
Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)
Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am
not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting
and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216).
The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli.
By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants,
by Donn Teal, p.272-273)
Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275)
Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender
sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)
Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the
book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.
Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.
Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came
so fast.
After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of
Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental
disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)
The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
(Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was
taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex,
remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.”
Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.
Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual
member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time.
Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one
of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk.
A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her
book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality.
One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69)
On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control
estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis
cases in the U.S.”
Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the
book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American
Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)
Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy.
Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a
small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of
international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)
If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic
requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all?
If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political
reasons.
Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.”
Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk
their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political
movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science
suffers and leads society astray.
One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats
the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.
Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their
deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from
the public.
Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.
Here is a link to a video about same-gender sex activist, Frank Kameny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_4S_iQ3fEo
Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into
Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders
from: http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexualactivists-
intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removinghomosexuality-
from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
Posted by foospro86 on October 1, 2007
BY RYAN SORBA
“It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move.”
“That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
-Barbara Gittings, Same-gender sex activist
Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric
Association (APA).
Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)
In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered.
Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder.
Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex.
Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public
attitude.
Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists.
Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.
‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’
shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked
psychiatrists looked on in disbelief.
‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)
Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.
On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the
Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions.
In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an ncreasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of
psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”
(The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)
Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A samegender
sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40)
As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same gender
sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p.107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists.
Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p.97)
After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some
members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the
APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104)
On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905
APA members had voted in the election.
The results were as follows:
Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that “Abstained”: 367
Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a
mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a
mental disorder: 5,854
It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of
the total membership of the APA.
Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s
membership approved the change.
It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM.
Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106)
Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation.
In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism. “We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in hisbig black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)
Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as
well.
Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries.
At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex.
Gittings tells about her activism against the APA. “Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. “Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)
Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am
not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting
and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216).
The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists on the subject of ‘aversion therapy,’ a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli.
By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.’” (The Gay Militants,
by Donn Teal, p.272-273)
Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275)
Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender
sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280)
Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. In the
book, Making History they are quite open about the reality.
Kay: This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.
Barbara: It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came
so fast.
After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first sapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of
Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental
disorders. It was a political move.” (Making History, p.224)
The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”
(Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was
taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex,
remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.”
Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda.
Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual
member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time.
Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one
of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk.
A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her
book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality.
One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69)
On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control
estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis
cases in the U.S.”
Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the
book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “January…The American
Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)
Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy.
Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a
small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of
international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)
If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic
requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all?
If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political
reasons.
Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.”
Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk
their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political
movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science
suffers and leads society astray.
One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats
the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.
Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their
deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from
the public.
Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.
Here is a link to a video about same-gender sex activist, Frank Kameny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_4S_iQ3fEo
Sunday, June 21, 2009
THINK AGAIN - 21 Jun 09 , 15:21 PM
Those who read ST article “COMING OUT IN CHINA”. Do you realize how the media sensationalized the issue as if there’s such a large majority that’s beginning to accept homosexual acts?
Quote from ST: “”In a survey of 400 people across Chinese cities last year, sociologist Li Yinhe, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, found what she termed a 'quite high' level of tolerance of gays - 'possibly because China has no widely held religion and hence no religion-based opposition to homosexuality like in the West', she wrote on her blog””Unquote.
MY VIEW: China has over 1.3 BILLION people. The survey is from only 400 people across the Chinese cities. Yet they actually quote this sociologist as saying that this is a “quite high” level of tolerance? 400 surveyed out of 1.30 BILLION PEOPLE is “quite high”?
----------
http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/China/Story/STIStory_392792.html?sunwMethod=GET
June 20, 2009
MEMO FROM BEIJING
'Coming out' in China By Sim Chi Yin, China Correspondent
While homosexuality is still largely a social taboo, Chinese society is slowly opening up .
A crowd of 200 gay, straight, Chinese and expatriate guests gathered ..at the Songzhuang Art District on the city's outskirts for what organisers quietly hailed as a breakthrough for gays in China, where homosexuality was delisted as a 'mental illness' only in 2001.. Unquote
MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.
Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
-----------------------------------------------
MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.
Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
Quote from ST: “”In a survey of 400 people across Chinese cities last year, sociologist Li Yinhe, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, found what she termed a 'quite high' level of tolerance of gays - 'possibly because China has no widely held religion and hence no religion-based opposition to homosexuality like in the West', she wrote on her blog””Unquote.
MY VIEW: China has over 1.3 BILLION people. The survey is from only 400 people across the Chinese cities. Yet they actually quote this sociologist as saying that this is a “quite high” level of tolerance? 400 surveyed out of 1.30 BILLION PEOPLE is “quite high”?
----------
http://www.straitstimes.com/Asia/China/Story/STIStory_392792.html?sunwMethod=GET
June 20, 2009
MEMO FROM BEIJING
'Coming out' in China By Sim Chi Yin, China Correspondent
While homosexuality is still largely a social taboo, Chinese society is slowly opening up .
A crowd of 200 gay, straight, Chinese and expatriate guests gathered ..at the Songzhuang Art District on the city's outskirts for what organisers quietly hailed as a breakthrough for gays in China, where homosexuality was delisted as a 'mental illness' only in 2001.. Unquote
MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.
Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
-----------------------------------------------
MY VIEW: The media loves to say homosexuality was delisted as a mental disorder. But they fail to report another side of it: Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders.
Read it on:
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/#more-20
LEE - 21 Jun 09 , 14:19 PM
Thank you "good seed", that was very assuring.
To those who may be discouraged or wonder why MICA or the Govt doesnt seem to be doing anything about the pro gay activists stand by our media.
Have faith that if you are writing to our leaders, you are being heard. It could be that the Govt or MICA is "silent" because they dont want to give the LGBT bullies in the West the smugness of saying ST and company are puppets of the Govt. If the Govt comes out to publicly shame the Press and Media, it may backfire.
My advice is continue doing what we have been doing, let our voices be heard loud and clear and dont fret about ST and their arrogance. Let the public and leaders know the truth and inform them about what the media will not write about. That's important than waiting for apologies that wont come.
To those who may be discouraged or wonder why MICA or the Govt doesnt seem to be doing anything about the pro gay activists stand by our media.
Have faith that if you are writing to our leaders, you are being heard. It could be that the Govt or MICA is "silent" because they dont want to give the LGBT bullies in the West the smugness of saying ST and company are puppets of the Govt. If the Govt comes out to publicly shame the Press and Media, it may backfire.
My advice is continue doing what we have been doing, let our voices be heard loud and clear and dont fret about ST and their arrogance. Let the public and leaders know the truth and inform them about what the media will not write about. That's important than waiting for apologies that wont come.
a good seed - 21 Jun 09 , 13:08 PM
limited its present abilities by the
limitations of its past.
Like the elephants, how many of us go through life
holding onto a belief that we cannot do something
simply because we failed at it once before? How
many of us refuse to attempt something new and
challenging because of our so called MINDSET?
Your attempt may fail, but never fail to make
attempt............................
And CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE FALSE BOUNDARIES
LIMITATIONS CREATED BY THE PAST.............."
ST and CNA are now tools of the LGBTs and their activists/lobbyists. They blame Josie and her group of good Christians and played the religious issue (when none exists).
On CNA's primetime news a fortnight ago (to be exact on Tuesday, 2 June 2009), the pair of newsreaders when exchanging small talk on US President Obama's pending vivit later that day to the Saudi kingdom showed an interview with a Saudi gentleman who said ".. it is not what he (Obama) says but what he does (that matters).." Immediately, a picture of 'Obama' in the form of an Indonesian orang utan was shown to viewers swinging across a tree-top. Are these newsmen trying to embrass our PM and his good people by insulting the US President and the American people?
Like ST, CNA saw it fit not to apologise to the US President and the American people for their backers and the very same group now in control of many of the states in US.
How many of us were aware (more likely unaware) that when our PM H S Lee visited US recently, during a meeting of US businessmen, sourcing for new enterprise and business opportunities for these would be businessmen in Singapore, the LGBTs and their activists during question and answer, quizzed our PM on why his government allowed the "hijacking" (same lingo being used here by ST and CNA) by Josie and her group of Aware then. This clearly shows the immense power of the LGBTs in the States.
Their Singapore's side must have relayed to the US counterpart of the Aware
limitations of its past.
Like the elephants, how many of us go through life
holding onto a belief that we cannot do something
simply because we failed at it once before? How
many of us refuse to attempt something new and
challenging because of our so called MINDSET?
Your attempt may fail, but never fail to make
attempt............................
And CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE FALSE BOUNDARIES
LIMITATIONS CREATED BY THE PAST.............."
ST and CNA are now tools of the LGBTs and their activists/lobbyists. They blame Josie and her group of good Christians and played the religious issue (when none exists).
On CNA's primetime news a fortnight ago (to be exact on Tuesday, 2 June 2009), the pair of newsreaders when exchanging small talk on US President Obama's pending vivit later that day to the Saudi kingdom showed an interview with a Saudi gentleman who said ".. it is not what he (Obama) says but what he does (that matters).." Immediately, a picture of 'Obama' in the form of an Indonesian orang utan was shown to viewers swinging across a tree-top. Are these newsmen trying to embrass our PM and his good people by insulting the US President and the American people?
Like ST, CNA saw it fit not to apologise to the US President and the American people for their backers and the very same group now in control of many of the states in US.
How many of us were aware (more likely unaware) that when our PM H S Lee visited US recently, during a meeting of US businessmen, sourcing for new enterprise and business opportunities for these would be businessmen in Singapore, the LGBTs and their activists during question and answer, quizzed our PM on why his government allowed the "hijacking" (same lingo being used here by ST and CNA) by Josie and her group of Aware then. This clearly shows the immense power of the LGBTs in the States.
Their Singapore's side must have relayed to the US counterpart of the Aware
LEE - 21 Jun 09 , 11:08 AM
Dear "Too Concerned to remain silent"
You have done a lot of work by extracting certain portions of Mike Haley's book. Thank you very much for the effort. I am sure many have found it helpful.
May I offer some suggestions?
1) You can transport all your posts on this book to REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER ON SEXUALITY PROGRAMME. Then whatever NEW extracts you wish to type can be continued from there.
2) The information you have is good for MOE and the Education Ministry so having it on their thread is good. Best to do it asap so Reach can feedback to them.
3) You have covered quite extensively from your current pages on this thread on Mike Haley. The information was useful. Perhaps you can just put a latest comment for others to read the rest of it on the REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER thread.
4) I hope others out there will take the initiative to check with the bookstores and ask them to order the book if it's not available. Please share if any of you managed to find it from any bookstores here. They will order it for you if you request esp Borders.
You can also can be order direct through the Net via Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Homosexuality/dp/0736914706
I found out that a friend has it and will be borrowing it to read.
5) Each one of us must continue to be pro-active, take the initiative and steps to do what is needed if you are interested in the contents of the book. That way, "Too Concerned to remain silent" doesnt have to do so much work. I understand what you mean about being tired. This is time consuming but its to stem the tide of moral decay.
6) Do take note of copyright laws when extracting as it should only be a small portion of the book.
Regards
censorship rules
You have done a lot of work by extracting certain portions of Mike Haley's book. Thank you very much for the effort. I am sure many have found it helpful.
May I offer some suggestions?
1) You can transport all your posts on this book to REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER ON SEXUALITY PROGRAMME. Then whatever NEW extracts you wish to type can be continued from there.
2) The information you have is good for MOE and the Education Ministry so having it on their thread is good. Best to do it asap so Reach can feedback to them.
3) You have covered quite extensively from your current pages on this thread on Mike Haley. The information was useful. Perhaps you can just put a latest comment for others to read the rest of it on the REMARKS BY EDUCATION MINISTER thread.
4) I hope others out there will take the initiative to check with the bookstores and ask them to order the book if it's not available. Please share if any of you managed to find it from any bookstores here. They will order it for you if you request esp Borders.
You can also can be order direct through the Net via Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Homosexuality/dp/0736914706
I found out that a friend has it and will be borrowing it to read.
5) Each one of us must continue to be pro-active, take the initiative and steps to do what is needed if you are interested in the contents of the book. That way, "Too Concerned to remain silent" doesnt have to do so much work. I understand what you mean about being tired. This is time consuming but its to stem the tide of moral decay.
6) Do take note of copyright laws when extracting as it should only be a small portion of the book.
Regards
censorship rules
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
