• 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.

[Singapore] - Faggot arrested for threatening court judge who threw out his pro-faggot challenge to the constitution

UltimaOnline

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
24,603
Points
113
https://www.todayonline.com/singapo...tories-over-dismissal-challenges-section-377a

“To the deadass boomer of a judge who dismissed the challenges against 377A, you better fucking watch out!!”
  • “Homophobic judges need to be put down immediately”
  • “Time to hunt down the oppressive judges, who basically maintained the legislation of discrimination against us, and make them pay the ultimate price”, posted as a comment on Pink Dot SG’s Instagram post
  • “Gonna begin my work work (sic) on some death curses to be inflicted upon the oppressive judicial (expletive)”
  • “Can we please torture the corrupted judges until they f***ing crumble & repeal S377A on the spot!? Pretty please; I’d love to personally torture them to their breaking point”
 
Throw the faggot to ZOO let ORANGE UTAN or DIVER GORILLA FUCK his faggot anus until he die.
 
fucking homos.
they should all be rounded up and put in pulau senang and let rsaf target practice dropping bombs on them
 
Never ever trigger a gayboy. M Ravi is one good example.
 
Man charged with threatening judge on Instagram Stories over dismissal of Section 377A challenges
Muhammad Hanif Mohamed Huzairi allegedly wrote, among others: “Time to hunt down the oppressive judges, who basically maintained the legislation of discrimination against us, and make them pay the ultimate price.”
Reuters file photo
  • 188
    Shares
SINGAPORE — A 30-year-old man was charged on Thursday (Aug 13) with posting Instagram Stories threatening the Singapore judiciary and a High Court judge, who had dismissed three constitutional challenges to the law criminalising consensual sex between men in March.
Muhammad Hanif Mohamed Huzairi faces two charges of using threatening words under the Protection from Harassment Act, and three charges of communicating an electronic record containing an incitement to violence.
He had allegedly directed one of his posts towards Justice See Kee Oon, who had dismissed the challenges seeking to strike down the legal provision against male homosexual acts in Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Court documents stated that Hanif purportedly wrote the Instagram Stories, which remain on a user’s profile for 24 hours, from about 4pm to 8pm on March 30.
He is accused of writing:
  • “To the deadass boomer of a judge who dismissed the challenges against 377A, you better f***ing watch out!!”
  • “Homophobic judges need to be put down immediately”
  • “Time to hunt down the oppressive judges, who basically maintained the legislation of discrimination against us, and make them pay the ultimate price”, posted as a comment on Pink Dot SG’s Instagram post
  • “Gonna begin my work work (sic) on some death curses to be inflicted upon the oppressive judicial (expletive)”
  • “Can we please torture the corrupted judges until they f***ing crumble & repeal S377A on the spot!? Pretty please; I’d love to personally torture them to their breaking point”
Court documents stated that Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong, who specialises in constitutional law at the Singapore Management University, saw one of the posts.
It is unclear if he reported Hanif to the police.
Hanif remains out on a S$15,000 bail, and intends to plead guilty on Aug 26.
If convicted of using threatening words towards a public servant, he could be jailed up to a year, fined up to S$5,000 or both.
If convicted of communicating an electronic record containing an incitement to violence, he could be jailed up to five years, fined or both.
The Section 377A civil suits were brought by three gay men — disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, 43, former executive director of advocacy group Oogachaga Bryan Choong, 42, and retired general practitioner Roy Tan Seng Kee, 61 — who challenged the constitutionality of Section 377A.
The cases were mounted following an Indian court’s decision to lift a ban on consensual gay sex in September 2018.
In dismissing them, Justice See ruled that the High Court was bound by the principles of legal precedent by the nation’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, in its reasoning and conclusions in a case in 2014, which was the last time a challenge was mounted to the legal provision.
 
Man charged with threatening judge on Instagram Stories over dismissal of Section 377A challenges
Muhammad Hanif Mohamed Huzairi allegedly wrote, among others: “Time to hunt down the oppressive judges, who basically maintained the legislation of discrimination against us, and make them pay the ultimate price.”
Reuters file photo
  • 188
    Shares
SINGAPORE — A 30-year-old man was charged on Thursday (Aug 13) with posting Instagram Stories threatening the Singapore judiciary and a High Court judge, who had dismissed three constitutional challenges to the law criminalising consensual sex between men in March.
Muhammad Hanif Mohamed Huzairi faces two charges of using threatening words under the Protection from Harassment Act, and three charges of communicating an electronic record containing an incitement to violence.
He had allegedly directed one of his posts towards Justice See Kee Oon, who had dismissed the challenges seeking to strike down the legal provision against male homosexual acts in Section 377A of the Penal Code.
Court documents stated that Hanif purportedly wrote the Instagram Stories, which remain on a user’s profile for 24 hours, from about 4pm to 8pm on March 30.
He is accused of writing:
  • “To the deadass boomer of a judge who dismissed the challenges against 377A, you better f***ing watch out!!”
  • “Homophobic judges need to be put down immediately”
  • “Time to hunt down the oppressive judges, who basically maintained the legislation of discrimination against us, and make them pay the ultimate price”, posted as a comment on Pink Dot SG’s Instagram post
  • “Gonna begin my work work (sic) on some death curses to be inflicted upon the oppressive judicial (expletive)”
  • “Can we please torture the corrupted judges until they f***ing crumble & repeal S377A on the spot!? Pretty please; I’d love to personally torture them to their breaking point”
Court documents stated that Assistant Professor Benjamin Joshua Ong, who specialises in constitutional law at the Singapore Management University, saw one of the posts.
It is unclear if he reported Hanif to the police.
Hanif remains out on a S$15,000 bail, and intends to plead guilty on Aug 26.
If convicted of using threatening words towards a public servant, he could be jailed up to a year, fined up to S$5,000 or both.
If convicted of communicating an electronic record containing an incitement to violence, he could be jailed up to five years, fined or both.
The Section 377A civil suits were brought by three gay men — disc jockey Johnson Ong Ming, 43, former executive director of advocacy group Oogachaga Bryan Choong, 42, and retired general practitioner Roy Tan Seng Kee, 61 — who challenged the constitutionality of Section 377A.
The cases were mounted following an Indian court’s decision to lift a ban on consensual gay sex in September 2018.
In dismissing them, Justice See ruled that the High Court was bound by the principles of legal precedent by the nation’s highest court, the Court of Appeal, in its reasoning and conclusions in a case in 2014, which was the last time a challenge was mounted to the legal provision.
This just proves that faggots are mental cases
 
Singapore activists appeal gay sex ban court ruling


Last year, the High Court dismissed three challenges to the law, which it heard together, by a retired doctor, a DJ and an LGBT rights advocate.
Facebook screengrab/ Pink Dot SG



Share
https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php...re-activists-appeal-gay-sex-ban-court-ruling/
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...l-gay-sex-ban-court-ruling/&via=Independentsg
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...ore+activists+appeal+gay+sex+ban+court+ruling
https://telegram.me/share/url?url=h...ore+activists+appeal+gay+sex+ban+court+ruling
https://reddit.com/submit?url=https...ore+activists+appeal+gay+sex+ban+court+ruling
AUTHOR
AFP
DATE
January 25, 2021


- Advertisement -
Three Singapore campaigners launched an appeal Monday against a court’s decision to uphold a law banning sex between men, the latest effort to overturn the colonial-era legislation.
A holdover from British rule of the city-state, the law is rarely enforced but activists say it still jars with the affluent country’s increasingly modern and vibrant culture.
Others, however, argue that Singapore remains conservative at heart, and is not ready for change, while officials also believe most would not be in favour of repealing the legislation.
Last year, the High Court dismissed three challenges to the law, which it heard together, by a retired doctor, a DJ and an LGBT rights advocate.

- Advertisement -
The trio challenged that decision Monday at the Court of Appeal.
M. Ravi, a lawyer representing retired doctor Roy Tan, said in a Facebook post he had argued the gay sex ban should be deemed “absurd”.
Tan said the appeal was based on the grounds that the judge hearing last year’s case was wrong to reject arguments the legislation breached several articles of the constitution.
These include the right to equality before the law, the right to life and personal liberty and the right to freedom of expression, he said in a statement.
Challenges to the law have been rejected twice, first in 2014 and again last year.
The failure to overturn it contrasts sharply with progress made elsewhere in the region on LGBT rights.
In 2018, India’s Supreme Court decriminalised gay sex by overturning legislation from its own time under British rule.
In Taiwan, lawmakers took the unprecedented step in 2019 of legalising same-sex marriage, making the island the first place in Asia to do so.
Singapore’s ban, introduced in 1938, carries a maximum penalty of two years in jail for homosexual acts.
cla-sr/am/jfx
© Agence France-Presse
 
So what guidance does christianity give towards faggots?

Does God hate gays / homosexuals?
412teensdoes God hate gays, does God hate homosexuals
Question: "Does God hate gays / homosexuals?"

Answer:
There is a “church” in the United States that promotes the slogan “God hates fags.” This group pickets gay parades, gay bars, gay events, gay funerals, etc. This group also sometimes protests at military funerals, claiming that the soldier was killed because the USA is supporting the homosexual agenda. Is there any truth to their claims? Does God hate gay people?

Proverbs 6:16-19 tells us, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.” Notice that homosexuality does not make this list. It would be more biblical to promote phrases such as “God hates liars” and “God hates murderers.” While the Bible declares that God hates all workers of iniquity (Psalm 5:5), the Bible nowhere singles out homosexuals as objects of God’s hatred.

That does not mean, however, the Bible approves of homosexuality. The Bible consistently tells us that homosexuality is a sin (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches explicitly that homosexuality is a result of a continual rebellion against God. When people continue in disbelief, the Bible tells us that God “gives them over,” allowing them to experience their sinful desires and the resulting consequences. First Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. It is a disruption of the “natural order” and, more importantly, of God’s view of sexuality.

With all that said, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a greater sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, all have sinned and are outside the kingdom of God in their own merit (Romans 3:23; 6:23). No one is good enough. But God’s offer of forgiveness is through Jesus Christ is extended to all people; anyone who puts his faith in Jesus can be forgiven of all his sin and become God’s child (John 1:12; 3:16–18; Ephesians 2:1–10). God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, fornicator, idol worshiper, thief, greedy person, etc.—it is equally available to all sinners, which is all human beings. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (2 Corinthians 5:17). First Corinthians 6:11 says, “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (emphasis added).

Does God approve of homosexuality? No. Can a person truly be a Christian and at the same time a practicing homosexual? According to 1 Corinthians 6:9, no. While Christians should stand firm in the biblically based conviction that homosexuality is sin, we must also keep the tone of the message biblically based. Ephesians 4:15 instructs us to “speak the truth...in love.” First Peter 3:15 teaches us to proclaim the truth, but to do so with “gentleness and respect.” Our message should be focused on the forgiveness and freedom from sin that are available through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Recommended Resource: What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
What does the Bible say about anal sex?
Bible anal sex, sodomy Bible
audio
Question: "What does the Bible say about anal sex? What is sodomy according to the Bible?"

Answer:
There is no overt mention of anal sex in the Bible. In the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, a large group of men sought to gang rape two angels who had taken the form of men. The reasonable presumption is that the men of Sodom wanted to have forcible anal sex with the angels. The men’s homosexual lust is obvious, but again, anal sex is not mentioned in the passage. The words sodomy and sodomize come from this biblical account. Sodomy is, literally, “the sin of Sodom.”

In modern language, the term sodomy has acquired a broader definition than what is biblically warranted. Today, “sodomy” often refers to any form of non-penile/vaginal sexual act, which includes anal sex and oral sex. If the biblical text is used as the basis for the definition, though, “sodomy” cannot include oral sex or, technically, even anal sex. The strict understanding of sodomy, based solely on the events of Genesis 19, would have to be “forcible anal sex, with one male homosexually raping another male anally.”

The Bible clearly and explicitly condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). And the Bible strongly condemns rape, as well (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). So, clearly, the Bible condemns sodomy in the sense of male homosexual rape. The more difficult question is whether the Bible condemns all anal sex.

Ultimately, our answer is the same as our answer for “What does the Bible say about oral sex?” Outside of marriage, all forms of sex, including anal sex, are sinful and immoral. Since the Bible nowhere condemns, or even mentions, anal sex within the confines of marriage, it would appear that anal sex falls within the “mutual consent” principle (1 Corinthians 7:5). Whatever is done sexually should be fully agreed on between the husband and his wife. Neither husband nor wife should be coerced into doing something he/she is not absolutely comfortable with. If anal sex occurs within the confines of marriage, by mutual consent, then there is no clear biblical reason for declaring it to be sin.

In summary, the word sodomy does not occur in the Bible, although it does originate from a place name in the Bible. The specific sin of Genesis 19 was forcible anal rape of a man by another man. This passage does not concern marital relations. Anal sex between a husband and wife, within the confines of marriage, in the spirit of mutual consent, cannot be definitively categorized as a sin.

Please note – while anal sex between a husband and his wife might not be sinful, that does not mean we endorse it. In fact, it is our conviction that anal sex is wrong, even within the confines of marriage. Medically speaking, anal sex is neither healthy nor safe. Anal sex increases the risk of tissue damage, infection, and the transmission of STDs.

Recommended Resource: The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
Can a person be born gay?
born gay
audio
Question: "Can a person be born gay?"

Answer:
In 1996, The Advocate, a gay and lesbian magazine, asked readers what they believed the potential impact would be to the advancement of gay and lesbian rights if a scientific discovery proves a biological basis for homosexuality. About 61 percent of the magazine’s readers asserted that such scientific research would advance the cause of gays and lesbians and lead to more positive attitudes toward homosexuality. For example, if one can be born gay, much as one can be born with brown eyes, then a fair society could not possibly condemn him as being unnatural or immoral. To that end, gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought scientific evidence to back up that claim. Unfortunately for the pro-homosexuality movement, the research on this subject has failed to establish any scientific evidence that shows a purely genetic basis for homosexuality.

The controversy began with the work of Simon LeVay, M.D. In 1991, LeVay tested the brains of 41 cadavers and noted differences between homosexual versus heterosexual males. The hypothalamus, an area believed to regulate sexual activity, was smaller in homosexual males than in heterosexuals. Dr. LeVay believed the differences proved a biological basis for homosexuality, but he failed to consider a variety of reasons, other than genetic, that the brains were different. First, all 19 of the homosexual cadavers had died of AIDS, a disease known to affect the neurological system. It could be that the disease had shrunk the hypothalamus. Second, scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions; specifically, it affects the neurochemicals released in the brain and the way certain pathways grow and change. Could the structural brain differences have started with the difference in thoughts between homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather than with genetics? Third, there is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect.

In 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer, a pro-gay activist, made the astounding claim in his research that there may be a gene for homosexuality. His team of researchers began a series of gene linkage studies, in which families with several homosexuals underwent genetic analysis to determine if any chromosomal variants could be found in the family and if the variant correlated with those individuals who displayed the homosexuality. Although Hamer’s study sample was very small, he found a significant linkage between gays and a marker on the maternal X chromosome, Xq28. Additional studies with larger sample sizes produced conflicting results in the linkage to Xq28. It is important to note that Hamer’s experiments have never been validated; in fact, other groups of researchers have discredited Hamer’s work as non-replicable or even fraudulent.

Even if there were some genetic commonalities among homosexuals, associated characteristics do not prove a causal link. To illustrate, a genetic study among professional athletes would probably show that a significant percentage of these stars share certain genetic sequences. One might erroneously conclude that the genetic sequences for increased speed, agility and strength prove that engaging in professional sports is a heritable trait. However, no genetic sequence can account for human choice and the effects of environment. People who have the genetic traits of an athlete may naturally gravitate toward professional sports or be encouraged to play. Although athletes share some common traits, being a professional athlete itself is not heritable. The culture in which an individual matures and the choices he makes decide his career path.

There are many researchers who cite environmental factors as major contributors to homosexual feelings. They strongly believe that negative early childhood experiences in an unloving or non-supportive home environment are a critical part of this process. Common elements seem to include an emotionally withdrawn or physically absent father and an overbearing, fawning, or over-protective mother. In many cases, there are reports of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Disruption of gender identification may contribute to the development toward homosexuality. This process begins between ages two and four. During this phase, children move from their primary connection with the mother to seek out deeper attachments with the parent of the same gender. For males, the relationship between a boy and his father is the primary means of developing a secure gender identity. As a father and son share time together, the father expresses his value and interest in the son and gives to the son a sense of masculinity. The boy begins to develop a sense of his own gender by understanding himself in relation to his father. Conversely, a mother who is distant, abusive, or physically absent or a mother who is viewed by her daughter as being weak (such as when the mother is abused by males) may disrupt her daughter’s identification with being feminine.

Peer attachments with same-sex friends also play a role in developing gender identity. Eventually, after years of interaction and bonding with same-sex peers, children enter puberty and begin to pay attention to the opposite sex. When this natural process is disrupted, it feels natural for a child to love and crave the attention of those of the same sex. When children with certain temperaments initially perceive rejection of the same-sex parent, they detach and bond with the other parent. They begin to adopt the patterns and attributes of the opposite sex. However, there is always a longing for a connection with the same-sex parent, love and affirmation from the same gender. These children believe that they were born that way, having craved love and attachment with the same-sex parents for as long as they can remember. Homosexual behavior thus begins as an emotional craving, not a sexual craving. It reflects a legitimate need for non-sexual love, an emotional need that ultimately becomes sexualized with the onset of puberty.

Most researchers have concluded that sexual orientation is a complex, multifactorial issue in which biological, social, and psychological factors combine to play a role in the ultimate sexual orientation of an individual. According to Julie Harren, Ph.D., the formula for this interplay between factors might be represented by these equations:

--Genes + Brain Wiring + Prenatal Hormonal Environment = Temperament.
--Parents + Peers + Experiences = Environment.
--Temperament + Environment = Homosexual Orientation.

What’s missing from these equations are the existence of a soul, the choice of the individual, and the temptation of the devil (see James 1:14).

Although it may be easier, psychologically, for a homosexual to believe that homosexuality is inborn, the accumulated scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Homosexuals may have a genetic predisposition, but human choice is still a factor. A predisposition is not a constraint. Ultimately, sexual orientation is determined outside of the womb. For those who are unhappy living a homosexual lifestyle, this truth offers hope for change. Clinical experience has shown that, with help, some homosexuals can change learned responses and defense mechanisms to early painful experiences.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, the sin of homosexuality is listed right next to theft. Just as there is no genetic excuse for stealing, there is no genetic excuse for homosexuality. Environment, culture, and choice make one a thief, and the same factors make one a homosexual.

Christ died for homosexuals. God loves persons of all sexual orientations, just as He loves all sinners. The Bible says, "God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). Jesus Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). The gospel of Christ "is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). In Christ alone we find the definitive source for healing, restoration, forgiveness, and comfort. He is the way by which we can all experience the affirming, unconditional love, value, and acceptance of our Father in heaven.

Recommended Resource: 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley

More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free!
 
[QUOTE="Patriot, post: 3312232, member: 4592"
[/QUOTE]
All is well in the christian habit of changing what God says.
First we have the Paulist teachings that subsumed what Jesus taught.
Then endless changing of the bible.
And then, the tradition continues to this day until now they 'approve' of homosexuality.
 
Back
Top