Sunday, July 29, 2007

Homo Phobic Young PAP

Once and again, our dear PAP will say something stupid. But unlike most of other people like us who criticise and oppose (oppositions), they won't get much shit for it. This recent post that I read on the young PAP bloggers (some blog site set up by the young PAP (MP potentials?) to represent the Government's viewpoint), just shows how plain closeminded they are and seriously homophobic.

http://youngpapblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/alternative-vision-for-singapore-and-i.html

Here they paint the horrible picture of how singapore would become if laws allow gays to behave the way they should. Woah .. you should read how scary it is.

"Imagine men walking hand in hand with other men down Orchard Road, kissing, fondling and making out.

For that matter, imagine all that taking place on the MRT.

Instead of teachers dealing with boy-girl relationships, teachers would have to deal with boy-boy relationships.

Then, you might have the homosexuals all over Asia descending upon Singapore to flaunt what they cannot in their own countries."

They talk as if all homosexuals have no sense of shame, and as if regular heterosexuals actually make out in Orchard Rd for everyone to see normally. I say if any heterosexuals kiss, fondle and make out (or just say petting lah) in MRT, people would have been shocked anyways. I recall when I was in kindergarten, they make us hold hands with our "partners" when we line up. So I bet these Young PAP MPs would have freaked out the moment they see that eh?

Gek Sim ... :P

Update:
The original poster of the entry in the young PAP blog added a comment in the comment section that further shows his view (and possibly PAP's?) on homosexuality.

"Leaving aside my religious views on this matter, I am against any change of law/policy on homosexuals because:

1. They threaten the social fabric of the nation. Their ways represent an alternative for which we should not accept as being mainstream.

2. They cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation.

3. They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.

I do not accept the notion that homosexuals are "creative" and thus we need homosexuals to make our nation more "creative". There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are any more or less creative than heterosexuals.

If an analysis is done, they seem to bring more problems than benefits."

My goodness. What disturb me the most is point #3. Walau!! Does he even know any homosexuals as friends at all? Does he think that homosexuals only think abt sodomizing pple everywhere they go??

And who the hell suggested to him "homosexuals are needed to make the nation creative"? Did he just make it up to justify the statement that homosexuals are not any more or less creative than heterosexual?

This guy is utterly hopeless ...

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

he's just voicing his opinion. why do you say that he's hopeless? do you feel that he's attacking you?

imp said...

heart pain. he has to be aware that he's voicing his opinion as a member of Young PAP.

i feel such 'heart pain' that there is no empathy, no understanding, no recognition that gays are also humans and can/had contributed MUCH to our society.

Anonymous said...

Nicholas Lazarus is hopeless because he failed to observe and adopt a balanced and rational stance when voicing his opinions.

Everyone may be entitled to their opinions, but they must be backed with sufficient, if not concrete, reasons.

Nicholas claimed homosexuals "threaten[ed] the social fabric of the nation". However, he made that statement without justifying it. If he had made the same statement and referred to one individual instead of a class of person, he would have been sued for defamation, and consequently very likely to lose the case because of his failure to back his claim up. His following sentence calls for similar justification.

Nicholas also said: "they cannot procreate and thus cannot produce offspring for our nation". That never was a 'criteria' in our Constitution, and it would be silly to think procreation as justification. We have heterosexual couples who are childless either by choice or because of health issues. We similarly have heterosexual individuals who choose to remain single. If we do not fault these heterosexual people for being childless or barren, why are we faulting the homosexuals?

Nicholas said: "cannot serve as soldiers... more keen to sodomize them". That is an irresponsible and sweeping statement. Like I stated earlier in relation to his first remark, if he had referred to an identified individual, he would have been sued for defamation, and likely to lose the case. He failed to realize that homosexuals are like heterosexuals; they have their preference, and value love and relationships too. Being a homosexual does not equate to being promiscuous, and certainly nothing more than how any other heterosexuals would behave.

Lastly, he said: "[homosexuals] seem to bring more problems than benefits". Again, he didn't justify this irresponsible remark.

We should be glad that our young PAP member made these remarks, because his remarks showed a clear lack of intellectual thinking and Nicholas was far from being rational. If anything good can be said to come out of his irresponsible comments, it would be that Nicholas would most unlikely be a future Member of Parliament.

Anonymous2 said...

to the anonymous who posted at 3.51am:
could you be that young PAP we're talking about here.

LOL

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this entry - it really brings to light how illogical, immature and utterly stupid some of our 'Young PAP' (though to be fair, are they the real Young PAP entity or just some bloggers calling themselves that?) can be.

zhenquan said...

see, that's where you don't get it; we NEED hopeless ppl like him.

Anonymous said...

his sweeping statements, over-generalisations and lack of evidence lead me to believe that he must have failed gp.

Anonymous said...

I always wonder why people get so upset when opinions against homosexuals are posted, that they must resort to personal attacks eg, using words like 'illogical, immature and utterly stupid' & threatening to sue the blogger.

Are these people fighting for perceived injustice or are they fighting for selfish reasons? Correct me if I'm wrong, the last time I asked mother nature, she told me that homosexuality is an 'unnatural' act, ie against nature. So pls don't force the mainstream to accept it as something normal.

Andrew said...

Hi Yee,

Actually the part about gay people being "creative" is from Lee Kuan Yew:

"They tell me and anyway it is probably half-true that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, etcetera ... and if we want creative people, then we got to put up with their idiosyncrasies."

I wonder what Nicholas Lazarus would think if he realises that he is disagreeing with the MM himself. Haha..

Unbelieveable homophobia by someone who calls himself "a litigation lawyer", this Nicholas Lazarus.

Anonymous said...

"Are these people fighting for perceived injustice or are they fighting for selfish reasons? Correct me if I'm wrong, the last time I asked mother nature, she told me that homosexuality is an 'unnatural' act, ie against nature. So pls don't force the mainstream to accept it as something normal."

It would be interesting to ask how did mother nature reply you? And what you mean by 'natural'? What is 'normal'?

Is it natural for men to fly? Is it 'normal' to be left handed? (try asking someone in the 60s)Is genetic engineering 'natural'? (half of what you eat now are genetically engineered)

I wonder who is forcing who to accept what is normal? Just because it threatens you (perhaps your masculinity/femininity is threatened?) does not render one to be unnatural or abnormal.

xtrocious said...

To the one who can talk to Mother Nature, you must really be "special"...

Are you related to George W Bush by any chance? He claims he can talk to God...

p said...

They cannot serve as soldiers because instead of serving alongside our men in green, they are more keen to sodomise them.

Based on the the same flawed logic, wouldn't it right to assume that women shouldn't be allowed to interact with men because all men are rapists?

Sining said...

to the idiot who thinks homosexuality is against nature, I'd just to like to mention that there are GAY animals in nature

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Anonymous said...

Animals are not gay. They may simulate sex, but there is no penetration, to them it's a sign of either asserting dominance, or sending signals or it has some social meaning ... for gay humans, those actions by animals is just another 'straw grab moment'.

Anonymous said...

the points listed by nicholas lazarus does not even explain why he is against any changes to law or policy. it plainly suggests that he thinks gays should not even be present in the society. It is inevitable. Gays are here to stay. With or without the changes. He is superficial and shallow with his comments.

Anonymous said...

Hope you folks don't have any homo in your own family now or in the future when you have your own kids ... ;)

Anonymous said...

Come on, Homosexuals should be
'shot pointblank'

It is ethically, morally, sexually, religiously, biologically INCORRECT!!