-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Vincent and his No Gay agenda...
- Thread starter BuiKia
- Start date
I cannot take it when people try to hoodwink others saying that gay is genetic when it is obviously not.
It is either a choice or nutured and the LGBT cannot accept it because it would mean that they are actually sick people.
It is either a choice or nutured and the LGBT cannot accept it because it would mean that they are actually sick people.
his gay agenda would backfire on him and sdp in 2016. right away lose the christian, muslims and older votes.
Not just that. it also puts SDP in a bad light because the party will appear to be untruthful since CSJ mentioned SDP will not pursue gay agenda.
but he'll gain votes from the LGBT depending on where he is standing. At the rate this country is evolving, votes from the LGBT could be quite sizeable.
To be fair to Vincent and SDP:
1. Vincent can speak in his personal capacity just like WP's YJJ, CSM and GG or NSP's Nicole regularly post on their Facebooks.
2. Even a non-gay can put up posts like that.
3. Supporting LGBT and setting LGBT as party agenda are 2 different things.
That being said, Vincent and/or SDP has to be prepared to lose some votes over it.
1. Vincent can speak in his personal capacity just like WP's YJJ, CSM and GG or NSP's Nicole regularly post on their Facebooks.
2. Even a non-gay can put up posts like that.
3. Supporting LGBT and setting LGBT as party agenda are 2 different things.
That being said, Vincent and/or SDP has to be prepared to lose some votes over it.
Since when is there discrimination against Gays? Are they arrested for being gay? No! They get arrested for giving BJ in public space :p
There is no such thing as 'personal' for politicians. Whatever u say and behave can be politicized.
LGBT issue isn't a vote winning issue. If VW/SDP leaderships think like a politician, they shouldn't push their luck too far on this.
If politics was about fairness then the incumbents would have been thrown out eons ago.
There are some things that can be said publicly even though they are said in a private capacity.
There are some other things that cannot be said publicly even though they are said in a private capacity.
This is a simple rule-of-thumb.
Yeah, good points, and agree including the last sentence which we discussed previously.
As for you, be prepared for you and your great grand children to be ruled by pap for the next 100 years.
I say this even though we both probably agree that WP is doing a good job as the opposition.
Lee Kuan Yew himself that being gay was genetic, not a choice.
Are you trying to contract Lee Kuan Yew here?
Lee Kuan Yew himself also said gay people are no different from you and I.
So again, are you going against LKY here?
I am wondering what will happen if WP decides to field a known gay candidate or one of their MPs is revealed to be gay. Will you be made to eat your words?
Lee Kuan Yew on homosexuality:
The following text is excerpted from page 377 (Hard Truths to keep Singapore Going):
Page title: "Homosexuality - It's in the genes"
Preamble from the editors: "As in many societies, the issue of homosexuality is controversial in Singapore. From the heated parliamentary debates in 2007 over whether to retain or repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which prohibits sex between men (it was eventually retained), to the unease over homosexual content in student sex education manuals, the subject polarises the public. It was no surprise then that we received questions on this topic from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide, including one that asked how Lee would feel if one of his grandchildren were gay."
Q: What is your personal view on being gay? Do you think it's a lifestyle or is it genetic?
A: No, it's not a lifestyle. You can read the books all you want, all the articles. There's a genetic difference, so it's not a matter of choice. They are born that way and that's that. So if two men or two women are that way, just leave them alone. Whether they should be given rights of adoption is another matter because who's going to look after the child? Those are complications that arise once you recognise that you could actually legally marry, then you say I want to adopt. Vivian Balakrishnan says it's not decisively proven. Well, I believe it is. There's enough evidence that some people are that way and just leave them be.
Q: This is more of a personal question, but how would you feel if one of your grandchildren were to say to you that he or she is gay?
A: That's life. They're born with that genetic code, that's that. Dick Cheney didn't like gays but his daughter was born like that. He says, "I still love her, full stop." It's happened to his family. So on principle he's against it, but it's his daughter. Do you throw the daughter out? That's life. I mean none of my children is gay, but if they were, well that's that.
Q: So what do you see is an obstacle to gay couples adopting children? You said, who's going to look after the child?
A: Who is going to bring them up? Two men looking after a child? Two women looking after a child, maybe. But I'm not so sure because it's not their own child. Unless you have artificial insemination and it's their own child, then you have a certain maternal instinct immediately aroused by the process of pregnancy. But two men adopting a boy or a girl, what's the point of it? These are consequential problems, we cross the bridge when we come to it. We haven't come to that bridge yet. The people are not ready for it. In fact, some ministers are not ready for it. I take a practical view. I said this is happening and there's nothing we can do about it. Life's like that. People are born like that. It's not new, it goes back to ancient times. So I think there's something in the genetic makeup.
Q: It took time for Singaporeans to be able to accept single women MPs. Do you see Singaporeans being able to accept a gay MP? It's already happening in a fairly widespread fashion in Europe.
A: As far as I'm concerned, if she does her work as an MP, she looks after her constituents, she makes sensible speeches, she's making a contribution, her private life is her life, that's that. There was a British minister, I shouldn't name him, a Conservative. He was out of office but he was hoping to become the leader of the party and we had dinner with a few friends. He thought he had to come out upfront that when he was at university at Oxford, he did get involved in same-sex activities. But he's married now with children, he's quite happy. So he came out with it. He didn't become leader of the party and that's Britain. He thought he had come out upfront and it'd protect him from investigative reporting. It did not help him. But had he kept quiet they would have dug it out, then it's worse for him. So there you are. You know, there are two standards. It's one thing the people at large, it's another thing, your minister or your prime minister being such a person. I mean Ted Heath was not married. I shouldn't say who the ministers were who said he's a suppressed homosexual. So the opposition party leaders were telling me because it's very strange. Here's a man in the prime of his life and getting on, 40, 50 still not married, and he was that way at Oxford. So they said, suppressed homosexual. That's the opposition talk by very reputable leaders who tell me that seriously. So? And with it of course is disapprobation, that he's unworthy to be a leader. But that was in the early 1970s.
Q: Did you come to this view on homosexuality just through scientific reasoning alone?
A: No, by my observation and historical data. I mean, in the Ottoman empire, they had a lot of it. And there was one story that D. H. Lawrence was captured in Arabia and they sodomised him. The Ottomans had their share of homosexuals and I'm sure there were also women in the harems. So? So be it.
Q: What about your acquaintances or your friends rowing up throughout life, were any of them gay as well?
A: I'm not sure about acquaintances, but not my friends. I mean, they were all married. But I'm sure there must have been. This is not something which is recent, it goes back into historic times. And you have animals sometimes acting that way. So it's not just human beings, there's something in the genetic code.
Q: So this is one aspect where the conservative views of society are diametrically opposed to your own practical views?
A: I'm not the prime minister, I told you that before I started. If I were the prime minister I would hesitate to push it through against the prevailing sentiment, against the prevailing values of society. You're going against the current of the people, the underlying feeling. What's the point of that, you know, breaking new ground and taking unnecessary risk? It will evolve over time, as so many things have, because after a while my own sort of maturing process will take place with other people. You don't just live and then you cut off your ideas after a certain time. You keep on living and you watch people and you say, 'Oh that's the way life is.'
Q: But are you, personally speaking, frustrated by this conservatism?
A: No, I take a purely practical view.
Q: But are you frustrated by how this conservatism is perhaps opposed to the practical view?
A: No, that is life. I cannot change them overnight. I think society, their own experiences, their own reading, their own observations, will bring about the change despite their innate biases.
Excerpt from page 247:
Q: Within the Singapore Cabinet, when there are discussion on issues, to what extent do ministers’ religious beliefs influence the positions they take, for example, on moral issues — casinos, homosexuality and so on. Does that ever come up?
A: They’re modern thinking people. This is the reality of the society, we decide what is in our interest and how the people will react. Homosexuality will eventually be accepted. It’s already accepted in China. It’s a matter of time before it’s accepted here.
I don’t see the grassroots being converted to Christianity. If the grassroots are converted, and it’s total, then we become a different society.
The following text is excerpted from page 377 (Hard Truths to keep Singapore Going):
Page title: "Homosexuality - It's in the genes"
Preamble from the editors: "As in many societies, the issue of homosexuality is controversial in Singapore. From the heated parliamentary debates in 2007 over whether to retain or repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which prohibits sex between men (it was eventually retained), to the unease over homosexual content in student sex education manuals, the subject polarises the public. It was no surprise then that we received questions on this topic from both sides of the conservative-liberal divide, including one that asked how Lee would feel if one of his grandchildren were gay."
Q: What is your personal view on being gay? Do you think it's a lifestyle or is it genetic?
A: No, it's not a lifestyle. You can read the books all you want, all the articles. There's a genetic difference, so it's not a matter of choice. They are born that way and that's that. So if two men or two women are that way, just leave them alone. Whether they should be given rights of adoption is another matter because who's going to look after the child? Those are complications that arise once you recognise that you could actually legally marry, then you say I want to adopt. Vivian Balakrishnan says it's not decisively proven. Well, I believe it is. There's enough evidence that some people are that way and just leave them be.
Q: This is more of a personal question, but how would you feel if one of your grandchildren were to say to you that he or she is gay?
A: That's life. They're born with that genetic code, that's that. Dick Cheney didn't like gays but his daughter was born like that. He says, "I still love her, full stop." It's happened to his family. So on principle he's against it, but it's his daughter. Do you throw the daughter out? That's life. I mean none of my children is gay, but if they were, well that's that.
Q: So what do you see is an obstacle to gay couples adopting children? You said, who's going to look after the child?
A: Who is going to bring them up? Two men looking after a child? Two women looking after a child, maybe. But I'm not so sure because it's not their own child. Unless you have artificial insemination and it's their own child, then you have a certain maternal instinct immediately aroused by the process of pregnancy. But two men adopting a boy or a girl, what's the point of it? These are consequential problems, we cross the bridge when we come to it. We haven't come to that bridge yet. The people are not ready for it. In fact, some ministers are not ready for it. I take a practical view. I said this is happening and there's nothing we can do about it. Life's like that. People are born like that. It's not new, it goes back to ancient times. So I think there's something in the genetic makeup.
Q: It took time for Singaporeans to be able to accept single women MPs. Do you see Singaporeans being able to accept a gay MP? It's already happening in a fairly widespread fashion in Europe.
A: As far as I'm concerned, if she does her work as an MP, she looks after her constituents, she makes sensible speeches, she's making a contribution, her private life is her life, that's that. There was a British minister, I shouldn't name him, a Conservative. He was out of office but he was hoping to become the leader of the party and we had dinner with a few friends. He thought he had to come out upfront that when he was at university at Oxford, he did get involved in same-sex activities. But he's married now with children, he's quite happy. So he came out with it. He didn't become leader of the party and that's Britain. He thought he had come out upfront and it'd protect him from investigative reporting. It did not help him. But had he kept quiet they would have dug it out, then it's worse for him. So there you are. You know, there are two standards. It's one thing the people at large, it's another thing, your minister or your prime minister being such a person. I mean Ted Heath was not married. I shouldn't say who the ministers were who said he's a suppressed homosexual. So the opposition party leaders were telling me because it's very strange. Here's a man in the prime of his life and getting on, 40, 50 still not married, and he was that way at Oxford. So they said, suppressed homosexual. That's the opposition talk by very reputable leaders who tell me that seriously. So? And with it of course is disapprobation, that he's unworthy to be a leader. But that was in the early 1970s.
Q: Did you come to this view on homosexuality just through scientific reasoning alone?
A: No, by my observation and historical data. I mean, in the Ottoman empire, they had a lot of it. And there was one story that D. H. Lawrence was captured in Arabia and they sodomised him. The Ottomans had their share of homosexuals and I'm sure there were also women in the harems. So? So be it.
Q: What about your acquaintances or your friends rowing up throughout life, were any of them gay as well?
A: I'm not sure about acquaintances, but not my friends. I mean, they were all married. But I'm sure there must have been. This is not something which is recent, it goes back into historic times. And you have animals sometimes acting that way. So it's not just human beings, there's something in the genetic code.
Q: So this is one aspect where the conservative views of society are diametrically opposed to your own practical views?
A: I'm not the prime minister, I told you that before I started. If I were the prime minister I would hesitate to push it through against the prevailing sentiment, against the prevailing values of society. You're going against the current of the people, the underlying feeling. What's the point of that, you know, breaking new ground and taking unnecessary risk? It will evolve over time, as so many things have, because after a while my own sort of maturing process will take place with other people. You don't just live and then you cut off your ideas after a certain time. You keep on living and you watch people and you say, 'Oh that's the way life is.'
Q: But are you, personally speaking, frustrated by this conservatism?
A: No, I take a purely practical view.
Q: But are you frustrated by how this conservatism is perhaps opposed to the practical view?
A: No, that is life. I cannot change them overnight. I think society, their own experiences, their own reading, their own observations, will bring about the change despite their innate biases.
Excerpt from page 247:
Q: Within the Singapore Cabinet, when there are discussion on issues, to what extent do ministers’ religious beliefs influence the positions they take, for example, on moral issues — casinos, homosexuality and so on. Does that ever come up?
A: They’re modern thinking people. This is the reality of the society, we decide what is in our interest and how the people will react. Homosexuality will eventually be accepted. It’s already accepted in China. It’s a matter of time before it’s accepted here.
I don’t see the grassroots being converted to Christianity. If the grassroots are converted, and it’s total, then we become a different society.
Last edited:
We have Former PM Lee Kuan Yew explicitly stating homosexuality is genetic, and that does not make them abnormal human beings, in fact, ordinary like you and I.
Would like to see PAP IBs here contradict him on this point.
Would like to see PAP IBs here contradict him on this point.
Similar threads
