Friday, May 01, 2009

Old AWARE exco prove to have promoted lesbianism

For background information, see: AWARE and the homosexual agenda.

The new leadership of the feminist organization AWARE in Singapore has released an interesting information sheet entitled On AWARE’s Changing Slant Towards Homosexuality and Comprehensive Sexual Education in Recent Years, proving beyond doubt the radical homosexualist agenda of the Old Guard, who after being voted out of power have engaged in a smear campaign against the so-called "coup leaders".

[HT: Isaiah Chua]

32 comments:

BEAST FCD said...

Question: How does supporting lesbian rights contradict against family values?

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Are you also so sure that "family values" equate to the one husband one wife mode of marriage?

You might want to read the Old testament. Some of the guys there have multiple wives.

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

Question: How does not supporting perversions e.g. LGBT promote family values?

Best FART

disenchanted said...

Are you also so sure that "family values" equate to the one husband one wife mode of marriage?

>Yeah, I'm belly belly sure. Why aren't you so sure?

You might want to read the Old testament. Some of the guys there have multiple wives.

>Wah, Beast, you try to bring in holy books into a SECULAR discussion? Are you trying to sow discord against Christianity in Singapore? What has the Bible to do with marriage in Singapore? Does the government read the Bible?

Best FART

BEAST FCD said...

Question: How do you define "perversion"?

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

Question: How do you define "perversion"?

>I can define it if you would kindly define "normal" i.e. "normal" sexual behavior.

Best FART

BEAST FCD said...

There is no one single "normal" sexual behavior, both in the animal kingdom and in human social behavior.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

"Wah, Beast, you try to bring in holy books into a SECULAR discussion? Are you trying to sow discord against Christianity in Singapore? What has the Bible to do with marriage in Singapore? Does the government read the Bible?"

Religious folks are the ones trying to bring religion into the picture.

Remember our stupid NMP, Miss Thio, who spoke out against gays in a bid to discredit the "Scrap 377A" campaign???

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

There is no one single "normal" sexual behavior, both in the animal kingdom and in human social behavior.

>Bare assertion. Proof?

Eh ... I asked for a definition, not a logical fallacy. ;)

Self-defeating ... sigh.

Best FART

disenchanted said...

Religious folks are the ones trying to bring religion into the picture.

>Huh? Really? Proof? Another bare assertion. That's worse than baring your buttocks like that A Star Scholar in Holland V. At least he tried to be logical. :)



Remember our stupid NMP, Miss Thio, who spoke out against gays in a bid to discredit the "Scrap 377A" campaign???

>Huh x2?

One - Did Thio quote the Bible or some religious texts? So whence did she "bring" religion into the picture?

Two - "spoke out against gays" = "stupid"? Now that's an ad hominem PLUS a non sequitur.

Is that the best FART you can offer us here?

Go ... for PETE"S SAKE!!! ... read some logic text. No wonder you are pro-gay! Hahahahahhahahahahahahh!!!

Best FART

Munchy said...

"You might want to read the Old testament. Some of the guys there have multiple wives."

There are also daughters who sleep with their fathers, brothers raping sisters... and so on..

Does this mean that such behaviour is condoned? I dont think so. In the same way, some bible characters have multiple wives, doesnt mean that such behavior is necessarily encouraged or correct

There are pple who get beheaded in the bible, does it mean i have to be beheaded too? there are pple who are circumsized does it mean i need to get one too?

BEAST FCD said...

Munchy, you are getting my point. The bible is a poor source for morality. And Christians who keep quoting scripture to condemn homosexuality have no leg to stand on.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

1. "Huh? Really? Proof? Another bare assertion. That's worse than baring your buttocks like that A Star Scholar in Holland V. At least he tried to be logical."

Your good friend Daniel Chew uses Scripture and brings it into "moral" arguments. And he is just one of them.

2. Dr Thio is a Christian, and her arguments against homosexuality mirrors that of the Christian community. Go read her articles in the Straits Times and you will know what I mean.

Disenchanted, if you wish to talk in that kind of Singaporean-style colloquial language, forgive me for not engaging with you.

Beast FCD

Munchy said...

No, the bible is THE best source for morality. But my point is that not everything written in the bible is to be used and interpreted in the same way.

There are books documenting history, books of poetry, narratives, letters, and apocalyptic literature. One does not read, interpret, and use everything in the same way. In this case, what you see documented as history does not necessarily make it encouraged, whereas 1 husband 1 wife is taught in the letters (epistles).

I disapprove of homosexuality, but I do not use the bible to condemn homosexuals themselves as I myself am guilty of sin. But I do use it to help understand why the world is the way it is, Romans 1:18-31. And I do disapprove of promiscuous sexual activity of which homosexuals can often be highly involved in, men having sex with each other men is sinful, Lev 20 (which also lists a whole bunch of other sexual sins)

you'll prob go on to misunderstand my point here. But i hope someday you'll see and agree with the whole point we Christians are trying to make.

BEAST FCD said...

"In this case, what you see documented as history does not necessarily make it encouraged, whereas 1 husband 1 wife is taught in the letters (epistles)."

But neither is it discouraged!

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

Your good friend Daniel Chew uses Scripture and brings it into "moral" arguments. And he is just one of them.

>Fallacy of equivocation; Daniel argues against LGBT within a religious context – this is a religious blog (in case you didn’t notice). Did Daniel argue using the Bible in i.e. parliament or the national papers?

Thio et al used secular arguments within a secular context e.g. parliament. Did she quote the Bible in parliament to push a particular point? Chapter and verse?



Dr Thio is a Christian, and her arguments against homosexuality mirrors that of the Christian community. Go read her articles in the Straits Times and you will know what I mean.

>Classical cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: Thio is Christian; her view on LGBT agrees with the “Christian” view (what is this “Christian” view anyway? Please define). Therefore, Thio is pushing a “Christian” view in parliament.

Eh … you sure “religious” people shouldn’t present their personal views on secular matters, even if their views coincide with a particular “religious” view? In that case, majority of Singaporeans with ANY religious affiliation CANNOT ever participate in any secular discussion, not unless the views so presented agree with those of their opponents. In other words, only secular humanists/pagans/heathens can voice their opinions in multi-religious Singapore.

Are you anti-religion? I hope you understand that Singapore is a multi-religious community, and democracy demands that the religious majority have their say.



>Disenchanted, if you wish to talk in that kind of Singaporean-style colloquial language, forgive me for not engaging with you.

So now you are against “Singaporean-style colloquial” language. Do you hate your own “colloquialism”? You are Singaporean, aren’t you? Or have you changed your citizenship, in which case I would understand why you are anti-religion and anti-“Singaporean-style” colloquialism.

Best FART

BEAST FCD said...

Ignore.

In case you do not know, I am not a typical Singaporean.


Beast FCD

Munchy said...

"But neither is it discouraged!".. if this is all you have to add to the discussion then there is no point continuing this.. we'll be going around in circles and we might as well continue another day..

But as for now, I note your point that you think the bible is a poor source of morality. Of course there is a lot of immorality documented in the bible, I dont dispute that.

But my point has been made. Different stuff written for different purpose. Documented immorality does not equate to 'thats what the bible teaches'. I hope you understand what context is.

BEAST FCD said...

Yeah yeah yeah, I know munchy. All you Christians always accuse me of taking your precious bibles out of context, but when it comes to face to face debate, all the Christians I have debated simply bit the dust.

Most atheists are not uneducated, Munchy, we can read; I was raced in Church, and I know what I am writing when I write commentaries for all those biblical stories.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor. 2:14)

So Beast FCD DOES not understand God's truth. Spiritual truths can only be spiritually discerned, so it is no wonder that regardless of Beast's intellect and being "raced" in church, he can never understand the Scriptures. Truly the Bible is correct when it says that the Truth is folly to those who are perishing (1 Cor. 1:18). It's like describing sight to a man born blind; impossible.

BEAST FCD said...

"raced"

Apologies. That was a typo. It is "raised".

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

Full of ad hominems and baseless statements, Daniel.

Why don't we cross swords again and see who fairs worst?

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

Ignore.

In case you do not know, I am not a typical Singaporean.

>Mas Selamat wasn't typical as well.

Ah ... the option to "ignore" an opponent with whom you can't offer a rational response to. That's a typical "kiasu" response. :)

BEAST FCD said...

I don't understand what "kiasu" means. Please refrain from using colloquial English, which I cannot comprehend.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

As a matter of fact, most of the arguments you have presented have been on the agenda on my blog, as well as my debates with Daniel. There's no need to repeat them.

Ask Daniel for the debate transcripts. I am sure he keeps them.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

A vote of no confidence for the new exco.

No more Christian propaganda........what a shame.

The people have spoken. No homophobic leadership for AWARE.

Beast FCD

BEAST FCD said...

More news coming in:

The New Exco spent $90,000 so far.....more than the 20,000 cap set by the AWARE constitution.

Damn, Christians sure love to spend secular money.

I am glad these religious fundies have been voted out. Secular organizations should not be hijacked by folks who are hell bent on imparting insidious religious propaganda, such as homophobia, creating the sort of sectarianism that will split the organization apart.

The people have spoken. Out with the fundies.

Beast FCD

PuritanReformed said...

Beast FCD:

Please sprout your Christo-phobic language elsewhere. We do not want your secular bigotry here.

It's a sad day when the secular jihadists maipulate the Press in their anti-Christian campaign. So much for "regardless of ... religion" in the creed.

BEAST FCD said...

Its ok, Daniel. This is my last comment on the post.

The people have spoken.

Beast FCD

disenchanted said...

Thanks to brainless secularists like the old exco (who accepted fat donations from pro-LGBT organizations), we now know how to hound these LGBT stealth parties that try to infiltrate schools with their perverted agenda. Well, the one who laughs last, laughs the best.

We'll see what the new-new exco is capable of. Yap Kim Hao and the LGBT movement can suck their thumb and cry mummy. :)

PuritanReformed said...

Yes, I have read the news. The hypocrisy is well.... astonishing.

disenchanted said...

I don't understand what "kiasu" means. Please refrain from using colloquial English, which I cannot comprehend.

>You are no retard, are you? I'm sure you know what "kiasu" means! You are, after all, an anti-religious, anti-family, anti-normality, anti-procreation, anti-democratic, anti-majority Singaporean ... and a good one at that too!

:)

Best FART

PS: When you can't argue your point rationally, RETREAT! Way to go, baby!