More Homophobia!
Contributed by Gabriel
In the ST....
Dec 17, 2004
Police did right in rejecting gay party
THE decision of the police not to give a licence for the Christmas 'gay party' planned by Fridae.com ('It's no go for planned Christmas 'gay party' '; ST, Dec 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming Aids epidemic Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger the public health cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed same-sex couples 'openly kissing and intimately touching each other' during other Fridae.com-organised events. Furthermore, they noted that the use by patrons of toilets meant for the opposite sex suggested most patrons were 'probably gays or lesbians and that the event was almost exclusively for them'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Andy Ho noted recently: 'It is homosexuals who engaged in condomless anopenetrative sex that are culpable of spreading HIV in Singapore', causing the 'second wave of HIV here and worldwide'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The Aids problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
Thio Su Mien (Dr)
The Moral Majority strikes again. This is just begging for parody.
July 17, 1964
Police did right in rejecting religious procession
THE decision of the police not to give a license for the religious 'procession to commemorate the Prophet Mohammad's birthday' planned by the Muslim society ('It's no go for planned religious 'procession'; ST, Jul 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming religious and racial tension Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger public safety cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed Muslim men 'touching their foreheads to mosque floors' during other events organised by the Muslim community. Furthermore, they noted that the use of mosques exclusively by men suggested that women were 'discriminated against by Islam and that the event was almost exclusively for them [men]'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Bob Tan noted recently: 'It is Muslims who engage in global Jihad, suicide bombings and running amok with parangs, that are culpable of wrecking the fragile peace we have in our fait city', causing 'the populace to live in fear'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The religious problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of muslim activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which is intolerant of other races and religions, and uses this secret intolerance as an excuse to uphold 'public standards of decency and morality' - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
George Lim
I trust all right-minded people will find the above parody offensive, bigoted, wrong-headed, intolerant and inflammatory.
They may then proceed to consider just how homophobia is different from religiophobia, or otherwise, as the case might be.
Quite right Gabriel.
I will, for one state my strong diagreement with Dr Thio's point of view now.
It is in fact, not inaccurate to say that there is a problem with the spread of AIDS amoung gays who are sexually promiscuous in Singapore. But then again the spread of AIDS is also a problem among males who pick up whores from Geylang, Orchard Towers, Joo Chiat, Batam, Haatyai etc. So if AIDS prevention is really the issue, the social conservative should also push for a complete ban on prostitution in Singapore, and to rigourously conduct HIV tests on all incoming males returning from suspect locations.
Of course this isn't being seriously suggested, for the simple fact that the authorities are aware of the greater evil of underground and wholly unregulated whoredom; it just leads to a greater likelihood of risky behaviour. The same principle would apply for Gay parties- they will happen, despite attempts at bans and crackdowns. Indeed, I would think that orgies are more likely to happen within an illegal party held within a private home than say, a nightclub in Singapore (since our vigilant Men In Blue conduct regular spot-checks to deter excessive behaviour anyway).
So what is the real concern? This is the revealing passage:
Ah. So it's simply because we're uncomfortable with seeing two men (or two women) being intimate with each other. Even if it is a closed door event, apparently the fact that we're aware that these things are actually going on in Singapore is enough to fill us with moral dread and drear. Well, so does the thought of Chee Ko Peks roaming round the islands of Riau province, Indonesia seeking underaged teenagers to exploit and deflower.
Please don't talk about "standards of public decency and morality" in Singapore when the average heartlander apparently thinks that the latter situation I described above is acceptable. Yet people like Dr Thio seem to think that eradicating the rights of homosexuals to have a little fun are a higher priority in protecting "family values" and "morality" than truly corrosive threats to the family and marriage in Singapore. Things like the wanton overspending and unrealistic expectations prevalent among young married couples, child and spousal abuse, as well as, of course the casual sex practiced by many Singapore males which puts so many of their wives and children at risk.
It's a placebo effect at work, really; you take action which makes you feel good while utterly failing to resolve the problem you are so apparently concerned about.
In the ST....
Dec 17, 2004
Police did right in rejecting gay party
THE decision of the police not to give a licence for the Christmas 'gay party' planned by Fridae.com ('It's no go for planned Christmas 'gay party' '; ST, Dec 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming Aids epidemic Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger the public health cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed same-sex couples 'openly kissing and intimately touching each other' during other Fridae.com-organised events. Furthermore, they noted that the use by patrons of toilets meant for the opposite sex suggested most patrons were 'probably gays or lesbians and that the event was almost exclusively for them'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Andy Ho noted recently: 'It is homosexuals who engaged in condomless anopenetrative sex that are culpable of spreading HIV in Singapore', causing the 'second wave of HIV here and worldwide'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The Aids problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
Thio Su Mien (Dr)
The Moral Majority strikes again. This is just begging for parody.
July 17, 1964
Police did right in rejecting religious procession
THE decision of the police not to give a license for the religious 'procession to commemorate the Prophet Mohammad's birthday' planned by the Muslim society ('It's no go for planned religious 'procession'; ST, Jul 9), as this undermines the public interest, is to be strongly commended.
Given the alarming religious and racial tension Singapore is facing, any event which would threaten to aggravate this problem and endanger public safety cannot be allowed.
The police noted in their press statement that they had noticed Muslim men 'touching their foreheads to mosque floors' during other events organised by the Muslim community. Furthermore, they noted that the use of mosques exclusively by men suggested that women were 'discriminated against by Islam and that the event was almost exclusively for them [men]'.
As Straits Times Senior Writer Bob Tan noted recently: 'It is Muslims who engage in global Jihad, suicide bombings and running amok with parangs, that are culpable of wrecking the fragile peace we have in our fait city', causing 'the populace to live in fear'.
To facilitate or allow such activities to carry on unchecked would constitute a gross breach of the public trust and be highly irresponsible. The religious problem cannot be ignored.
Blatant flaunting of muslim activities is offensive to the conservative mainstream which is intolerant of other races and religions, and uses this secret intolerance as an excuse to uphold 'public standards of decency and morality' - it would be regressive to allow this to degenerate.
It is heartening to read that the police authorities will be scrutinising applications for similar future events with an eye to protecting the health of our nation and our social well-being. Such vigilance warrants the nation's gratitude and thanks.
George Lim
I trust all right-minded people will find the above parody offensive, bigoted, wrong-headed, intolerant and inflammatory.
They may then proceed to consider just how homophobia is different from religiophobia, or otherwise, as the case might be.
Quite right Gabriel.
I will, for one state my strong diagreement with Dr Thio's point of view now.
It is in fact, not inaccurate to say that there is a problem with the spread of AIDS amoung gays who are sexually promiscuous in Singapore. But then again the spread of AIDS is also a problem among males who pick up whores from Geylang, Orchard Towers, Joo Chiat, Batam, Haatyai etc. So if AIDS prevention is really the issue, the social conservative should also push for a complete ban on prostitution in Singapore, and to rigourously conduct HIV tests on all incoming males returning from suspect locations.
Of course this isn't being seriously suggested, for the simple fact that the authorities are aware of the greater evil of underground and wholly unregulated whoredom; it just leads to a greater likelihood of risky behaviour. The same principle would apply for Gay parties- they will happen, despite attempts at bans and crackdowns. Indeed, I would think that orgies are more likely to happen within an illegal party held within a private home than say, a nightclub in Singapore (since our vigilant Men In Blue conduct regular spot-checks to deter excessive behaviour anyway).
So what is the real concern? This is the revealing passage:
Blatant flaunting of homosexual activities is offensive to the
conservative mainstream which wants to see enduring standards of
public decency and morality upheld - it would be regressive to allow
this to degenerate.
Ah. So it's simply because we're uncomfortable with seeing two men (or two women) being intimate with each other. Even if it is a closed door event, apparently the fact that we're aware that these things are actually going on in Singapore is enough to fill us with moral dread and drear. Well, so does the thought of Chee Ko Peks roaming round the islands of Riau province, Indonesia seeking underaged teenagers to exploit and deflower.
Please don't talk about "standards of public decency and morality" in Singapore when the average heartlander apparently thinks that the latter situation I described above is acceptable. Yet people like Dr Thio seem to think that eradicating the rights of homosexuals to have a little fun are a higher priority in protecting "family values" and "morality" than truly corrosive threats to the family and marriage in Singapore. Things like the wanton overspending and unrealistic expectations prevalent among young married couples, child and spousal abuse, as well as, of course the casual sex practiced by many Singapore males which puts so many of their wives and children at risk.
It's a placebo effect at work, really; you take action which makes you feel good while utterly failing to resolve the problem you are so apparently concerned about.
posted by Koh at 12/19/2004 01:07:00 am
2 Comments:
Gabriel:
I'd like to add a comment I left on Sintercom with regards to homophobia in Singapore, and the feeble justifications given based on an illogical argument about AIDs infections.
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=18
Well, lets just say, let the homos fuck each other and give each other AIDs, we don't need to do anything to them right? In fact, since you hate them so much, ALL THE MORE you want them to fuck each other and give each other AIDs, then when they all die out, you'll be happy correct? And since gays only fuck gays anyway, there's nothing you or I or any other hetero person need worry about AIDs at all isn't it?
I was being sarcastic. I notice that religion has a tendency to make a person stupid, and you're a fine example.
I wonder if you would advocate those who are childless, whether involuntary or by choice, should be punished according to your “law of nature”. As far as I can tell, it is the “law of nature” for the strong to survive and the weak to fall. That means stupid people like you have no business being alive to propagate your stupid genes. The “law of nature” also basically means evolution by natural selection. Meaning your Judeo-Christian fiction of a religion is just a mass delusional cult.
You should rethink your position that something is wrong simply because it is “against the law”. Remember that during the Communist contagion during the 50's, the totalitarian regimes were avowedly atheistic, using “public interest” laws to outlaw and oppress religious groups. Many good people were murdered and massacred because religion was “against the law”.
I think you do not realise that institutionalised discrimination can so easily be turned against ANY group, as long as the group is a threat to the preservation of state power. The structures of power that are created to oppress one group can easily be turned to oppress another. Beware the state. For you can, and will be next.
We do not want a government that promotes homosexuality. But then again, we do not want a government that promotes ANY kind of sexuality. We want a government that lets people decide for themselves the kind of lives that they want to lead, as long as they do not harm others in their choices. The state has no business legislating morality. It is up to the people to decide for themselves what is moral and what is not. That is the essence of the free wil that God has given us. To push that responsibility onto the state guarantees that on Judgement Day, YOUR place in the kingdom is no more guaranteed than any of the others you condemn.
Most people missed the point that the govt raised about gays and HIV. Or maybe the media only choose to publish the juicy 101 words out of 3,071 words speech of Dr Balaji. He did announce hoslitic measures on the spread HIV via normal means. But do the press cares? they only publish his infamous 101 words on gays and left the other 2,970 words unsaid...
pity him for taking on such difficult topic....
Post a Comment
<< Home