Dr. Li-ann Thio: An Update
Time for a quick follow-up on Monday’s post about NYU Law School’s controversial decision to invite Dr. Li-ann Thio, an outspoken proponent of criminalizing gay sex, to teach a course on human rights in the fall. The post generated almost 300 comments, many of them quite thoughtful — like this one:
I am a gay man living in Singapore. I have lived in Asia (including Singapore) for over 15 years. So, I have firsthand knowledge of the discriminatory environment for gay men and lesbians living in Singapore.I am not sure what the administrators of NYU Law School were thinking when they hired Dr. Thio to teach “human rights” in Asia. Asking a Singaporean tenured at a Singapore government-funded university to teach about human rights in Asia is like asking a Ku Klux Klan grandmaster to teach about racial equality. She will simply be a mouthpiece for the Singapore government’s positions on human rights issues. If Dr. Thio espoused views opposed to the Singapore government’s - trust me - she would not be teaching at the National University of Singapore. As everyone in the international human rights community knows, the Singapore government is not a “model” example for upholding human rights.
So Dr. Thio may not have been the best person in the galaxy to pick as a visiting professor of human rights. On the other hand, her views — definitely unorthodox in the American legal academy — could generate healthy and informative debate (like what we saw in our comments).
In our reader poll, which attracted over 3,000 votes, over 55 percent of you supported NYU’s decision to host Dr. Li-ann Thio. Not surprisingly, given the freewheeling, irreverent comments on this site, ATL readers are pro-free speech.
And so is the NYU OUTLaw Board, to its credit. In the wake of our coverage, the board issued a statement criticizing Li-ann Thio’s views, but simultaneously observing that it is “best to fight Dr. Thio’s offensive views not by silencing her but by engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights.”
The full OUTLaw statement — plus an adult-themed reader poll, by popular request — after the jump.
NYU OUTLaw BOARD — STATEMENT — DR. THIO’S VISIT TO NYU
This fall, NYU School of Law will offer a course “Human Rights in Asia,” to be
taught by the visiting professor from the National University of Singapore Dr. Thio
Li-ann. A distinguished academic whose work focuses on human rights and
international law, Dr. Thio has been a fierce defender of minority rights. Yet, in
her role as a Nominated Member of Parliament in Singapore, Dr. Thio has
proven to be a formidable foe to gay rights. She vigorously fought against the
repeal of a law that allows punishing sex between consenting adults with two
years’ imprisonment. During a debate over the repeal of a law criminalizing gay
sex, Dr. Thio asserted that the LGBT community’s long term goals included
gaining the right to sleep with 13 year olds, and that homosexuality was a mental
disorder whose true origins were masked by the pseudoscience of the left.
Moreover, she urged for the law to remain on the books even though it was not
enforced because “a non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be
enforced - who knows what another season may require?”
The NYU OUTLaw Board believes such intolerant, reprehensible words raise
serious questions about Dr. Thio’s fitness to teach a course on human rights.
Further, many of our members, allies in the student body, and alumni are
outraged that NYU School of Law — a longtime supporter of LGBT issues — is
supporting someone who would jail many of our students simply because of who
they are. Therefore, we ask NYU School of Law to make a public statement
condemning her remarks made in the Singapore Parliament, reassert its
commitment to diversity, and assure that the concerns of LGBT students be
considered in future hirings.
Nonetheless, the Board thinks it best to fight Dr. Thio’s offensive views not by
silencing her but by engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about the
boundaries of human rights. This fall, we plan to hold events to explore issues of
academic freedom, LGBT rights, and human rights in Asia, and we look forward
to Dr. Thio’s participation in the discussion. We very much appreciate the
comments from students, alumni, and other concerned parties, and we expect
the passion and interest to continue as we plan our events for next year.
President Obama recently invoked Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to affirm his belief
that the “arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” From the
cornfields of Iowa to the street markets of India, history is moving towards
equality for the LGBT community. We are confident that tolerance and diversity
will triumph over hatred and bigotry.
The NYU OUTLaw Board
Earlier: NYU Professor of Human Rights: Not a Fan of Gay Rights?




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Legalize cannabis god dammit
"given the freewheeling, irreverent comments on this site, ATL readers are a pro-free speech crowd."
Is that what you like to tell yourself Lat?
1 = roxana
Jamie Waylett has been charged with growing ten cannabis plants and faces 14 years in prison.
Those fucking bastards.
How many cannabis has God grown. How many!?
2 - It's true. That's why we hate it when our comments get "moderated."
"From the cornfields of Iowa to the street markets of India, history is moving towards equality for the LGBT community. We are confident that tolerance and diversity will triumph over hatred and bigotry."
Bravo. If only conservatives would make this job easier by realizing that they are on the wrong side of history and human progress. It's sad that conservatives lose every cultural battle, if only because it's always a bit pathetic to be a constant loser.
it's only gonna be a matter of days before a sassy NYU student gives her a creampie in the face.
6 - if you are as cute as you are stupid, we should get together sometime for coffee or casual sex.
Sorry 8, but no one wants to have sex with you because you are a douche.
Legalize it!
If Dr. Thio ate a pot-brownie or smoked a little of the ganja, she'd be a lot nicer person.
She probably thinks marijuana turns you into a homosexual.
Seriously.
When I taught human rights at NYU, I always said, "love your brother." I mean, I didn't actually say it . . . I didn't actually mean it, but still, I think the message was clear.
12 = fail.
I think at this time it is important to again note the gigantic mitts on this woman. Like bear claws.
12 = win
Lat, I like you in that picture with long hair. It looks good on you.
This comment is both freewheeling and irreverent.
New York Law School is such a TTT.
Dr. Thio has man hands!
If you really wanted to be humorous, you would have replaced the "fetching results" load screen with "felching results."
17 = Roxanna
I'll be on the LGBT bandwagon when I hear Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson proclaim that the struggle for the right of a man to wear panties is morally equivalent to the struggle of the African American community for basic human rights.
BTW--Where are the gay ghettos?
Don't we already have tolerance? What's next? Affirmative action for gays?
I wonder if this is just some political horse trade, whereby a connected Singaporian professor gets a nice gig, in return for some quid pro quo benefit bestowed on the NYU program in Singapore.
"BTW--Where are the gay ghettos?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay_villages#United_States
ugh. of course you go and ruin a perfectly interesting and well-thought out post, with an asinine poll. well done.
I'm not against her teaching at NYU, but as a visiting Human Rights Professor? Really? No one from N. Korea had any time to spare? Iran can't give up a law prof for a year?
I mean, hell, our space/missile defense program was practically founded by Nazis, but they weren't also teaching civil rights. Huge disconnect.
And, while I support the clearly mature NYU OUTLaw Board, I disagree with their quote that it's "best to fight Dr. Thio's offensive views not by silencing her but by engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights."
Really? Is that how we won WWII? By engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about human rights? No, we bombed and burned down the Germans and their scumbag allies.
I bet Dr. TTThio likes to drink from the sweet sweet honey pot
Jeez, that woman does have man hands.
Lat is a gay homosexual Asian lawyer blogger person of color.
Dr. TTThio has man hands
Under no circumstances could you convince me that Dr. Thio holds her strong views for some reason other than beause she is in the closet.
I would encourage NYU law to host a panel on gay rights and invite Dr. Thio to attend.
Hiring TTThio to teach human rights is like shoving a straw up your nose to drink.
she does have some big man hands. or maybe its the camera angle (sort of like the porn close-ups)
Jesus, is that Bolo Yeung?
TTThio looks like a pre-op tranny
27- agreed except for going as far as the bombing...etc
my fear is that those students who wish to enter positive debate with this professor will find themselves with a failing grade...sure academic freedom can promote debate outside the classroom, but what about the discussion going on inside?
First!
8 = Roxana
27 - umm...that's the kind of unnecessary militant talk that has stymied our efforts to gain equality. We are not being hunted down as a demographic. Yes, there are instances of violence against the LGBT community, but those are relatively isolated. It pales against what other demographics have faced, so such a strong, militant stance will only hurt our cause.
I like to believe the main reason why I can't marry my boyfriend is because the majority of people don't understand what it is I am asking from them, not because they are rabid homophobes (though many are). To cure that misunderstanding, respectful discourse is required. Contrary to what you imply, we are not at war with anyone, whether it be Rush Limbaugh, American Values, or the institution of marriage. So settle down and stop being so angry. Rational heads will win in the end. Don't think I'm not grateful for the enthusiasm, though.
I WILL HAVE NIGHTMARES ABOUT THOSE GIGANTIC CANNED HAMS SHE HAS FOR HANDS! ! ! !
"Really? Is that how we won WWII? By engaging in a respectful and productive dialogue about human rights? No, we bombed and burned down the Germans and their scumbag allies."
Just so we are clear, we mostly just enabled the Russians to do it for us (by providing good, gas and trucks). They inflicted most of the casualties. We were the John Stockton to their Karl Malone, so to speak.
good=food
- 42
Mystal just ate an entire deli.
27 - We bombed the Germans because it wasn't over when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Cause when the goin gets tough...
The First Amendment requires that you allow someone to speak about their stupidity. It does not necessarily require giving them a forum.
I really hope the next human rights visiting professor is a representative for NAMBLA.
44 = Roxana
the smaller the straw the better. also, you need to learn to relax your nostrils...
Even within the LGBT community there continues to be a debate about the nature vs. nurture aspects of sexual orientation. On the one side, you have those who state that homosexuality is a trait similar to skin pigment, hence discrimination based on sexual orientation should be illegal. They have a strong argument, as most agree that you cannot "convert" a homosexual to being a heterosexual.
Considering that genetics does play a large part in determining sexual orientation, it is just a matter of time before science is able to fairly well determine in the womb, those fetuses that are more likely than not to be homosexual.
Hence, should abortion on the basis of sexual orientation be allowed? I await the steel cage death match between the militant abortionist wing of the democrat party and the LGBT wing of the democrat party...
I think that statement seriously calls into question the literacy of the OUTLaw board.
This woman is unfit to teach human rights law in Asia for the following reasons, neither of which have to do with her views on certain actions.
(1) "Human rights" are ridiculous, metaphsical posits.
(2) Singapore is a repressive regime on a slew of issues.
What really irks me is the disrespect for Dr. Thio masked by overly flowery language, the fetishistic invocation of MLK, and the refusal to define the limits of toleration.
By speaking of these issues in such conclusory terms, OUTLaw admits no debate. Their word choice is stultifying, oppressive, and opportunistic. And yet, they are correct as regards the "inevitability" of their political preferences, because OUTLaw and their ilk represent the new HUAC.
i love the " # = ____ " meme. hope that one sticks around for a while. Oh, and 47 = roxanna.
40 = Lat.
"my fear is that those students who wish to enter positive debate with this professor will find themselves with a failing grade...sure academic freedom can promote debate outside the classroom, but what about the discussion going on inside?"
Oh cry me a river, Federalist Society. Debate outside the classroom is good enough for you reactionary types.... too good even.
Guys in my highschool used to move from the street markets of India to the cornfields of Iowa all the time. It was a big deal because they were busted for opium trafficking after their classmate informed on them. Now they're serving 50 years each in federal prison.
~Rat Stud
27 -- I'm curious, are you equally outraged at the numerous communists that teach at virtually every major University in America. Are you outraged every time you see a Mao pin or a Che Guevara tea-shirt? Recall that both Stalin and Mao, respectively, killed several times as many civilians as Hitler ever managed. Che fell short not by lack of trying, but only by being small potatoes.
And yet the thing you're outraged about is a woman who neither killed nor physically harmed anyone, a woman who has merely expressed an opinion you don't like.
We didn't go to war with Hitler and Tojo because we didn't like their social policy agenda. Hitler was a big government progressive vegetarian who prioritized public education, worker's rights and infrastructure. We went to war with Hitler because he was killing lots and lots of people and threatening our security. And, oh yeah, he declared war on us after his ally, Japan, bombed Pear Harbor.
Other than that your analogy is completely reasonable.
As a community, are those in the LGBT well-armed? There are some on this blog who are taking a fairly militant stand against Dr, Thio and others who share her views. Yet I'm not sure that the community for which this commentator speaks can back up his smack. What are the odds of the toughest 8,000 men from the Castro District taking Hoover, Alabama by force?
54 -- I love my Che Guevara tea-shirt. It produces the most pungent oolong I've ever tasted!
guys in my high school used to have anal sex with girls all the time. it was a big deal.
So are you allowed to stick a straw up your nose in Singapore? Please advise. This is important to my three days of BigLaw vacation next year.
Is Elie moonlighting?
Misspellings continued to plague the Obama administration on Thursday, after two more releases containing errors were sent to reporters in the last 24 hours.
After misspelling the president's name as "Barak Obama" yesterday on an official document sent to reporters, the General Services Administration messed up another message when announcing it had awarded an $18 million contract to redesign the website keeping track of spent stimulus dollars.
"Recvoery.gov Version 2.0 $18 Million Contract Awarded," the release's subject line read. ("Recovery" was spelled correctly in the body of the email.)
The White House also sent out a release containing a typo in its joint statement from White House and the spokesman for U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the leader between Obama and the British PM today.
"The Prime Minister wlecomed the President's plans for a nuclear security conference in 2010," the sentence read.
elephants use their noses as straws to drink... just saying.
Um, Lat, surely you know that supporting free speech is not remotely the same thing as giving someone a prestigious and well-paid soapbox from which to say it.
Upon review, I guess my WWII comparison appears a little too militant. I didn't mean it to read like that, rather I meant that sometimes you DO have confront ideals and beliefs that just have no place in modern rational thought.
I'm a straight married man, so this whole debate doesn't have anything to do with me in the micro sense, and I support anyones right to be racist, anti-religious, anti-gay whatever - I don't believe in thought police or anything like that. However, I AM a strong believer in "if it doesn't/can't hurt other people, and you want to do it, have-fucking-at it."
And it drives me nuts that conservatives do NOT want more government to tell them what to do about taxes, the economy, gun control, etc., but they're MORE than willing to try and pass a constitutional amendment (state or federal) to ban certain people from showing that they love another person. Oh sure, some argue that gay people have the same option in many states, the civil union, but then that only makes the whole argument about a word. Which is even dumber, because I have seen the word "marriage" used in more dumb advertisements - "the perfect marriage of peanut-butter and chocolate, the perfect marriage of vodka and fruit." Where are the laws banning this?
It's nothing but hate, pure and simple. I'm not against people hating other people, it's dumb, but it's their right to do so. But when you start talking about passing laws to exclude a segment of our society, that's wrong. That's Nazi thinking.
- 27
27/62 -
Do not impute to all conservatives the hypocrisy of pushing government out regarding economic issues while inviting it on social issues.
Most Republican libertarians (which most Northeastern Republicans are), support gay marriage. I don't want to be taxed up the ass and I don't like it when Congress tries, umm, "control the weather," but I support gay marriage.
To be sure, I don't think ANY government benefits (or detriments) should turn on marital status. Let people marry whoever the fuck they want and let elephants fuck each other in the ass with their trunks, or whatever we are talking about.
48 -- um, it's actually the radical religious right-wingers, not the "militant abortionist wing of the democrat [sic] party" (which I'm not convinced even exists), who have proposed engaging in eugenics-style tactics once the "gay gene," if it exists, has been isolated. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891
Also, essentialist notions of sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc., largely do gays and straights alike a disservice. As human beings, we're more than the sum of our parts. Being gay is not socially acceptable because it's written somewhere in your DNA; it is socially acceptable because we live in a society that (purportedly) respects basic human dignity and autonomy (with limits on our freedoms having something to do with harm to others). You also can't discriminate based on religion or ethnicity or disability or veteran status -- none of which are (necessarily) written into a person's DNA either.
Whether or not someone is "born" gay is mostly irrelevant, and fretting over genetic studies as though they're some kind of roadmap to what's appropriate for society is as dangerous as it is misguided.
Lat = gaysian homsexual gay blawger type of a person
27/62--This is a battle between two separate constituencies of the democrat party--African Americans v. LGBT. Most libetarian/conservatives could care less, so long as the characteristic/behavior is not subsidized by tax dollars.
I invite you to attend an AME service this Sunday and ask to speak to the congregation about how the grievances of the LGBT community are similar to those of blacks in 1965 Mississippi. Be prepared to have your ass kicked.
The fact is that the LGBT community is one of the most affluent in the country. Their whining, bitching and complaining is really annoying to those in the African American community who have really suffered.
*notices TTThio's monstrous mahands, realizes there is no god*
64---blah blah blah. Do you work for Biglaw? If so, I assume you bend over whenever your partner/client calls. So much for basic human dignity and autonomy.
What tripe.
64--So I take it you'd be happy to have these "radical religious right-wingers" join the abortion parade once the gay gene is isolated? I mean after all, if a woman has an unfettered right to choose, then aborting based on sexual orientation should be just dandy.
Further, you state: "Whether or not someone is "born" gay is mostly irrelevant, and fretting over genetic studies as though they're some kind of roadmap to what's appropriate for society is as dangerous as it is misguided."
I assume you believe the same logic applies to skin pigment...
66 - The kicking of my ass aside, there are simularities between the struggles both African Americans and the LGBT communities. Are they exactly the same? No, of course not.
One could always "blend into the larger community" better than the other. On the other hand, both were/are targets simply for being different.
And what does affulence have to do with anything? Guess what, you get to save up a lot of money when most of your population doesn't have any children.
Being pulled out of bars/profiled/beaten up for merely having a sexual preference is just as bad a reason as for ones skin color.
To paraphrase: "If there's injustice anywhere, then there's injustice everywhere."
70=27 - my bad.
68, fail. I left biglaw for the very reason you allude to.
69, huh? What logic applies to skin pigmentation? People are rather obviously born looking a certain way (though environment and illness can certainly change this over time), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... that because some things are coded into our DNA therefore everything must be? That's obviously preposterous. We aren't born knowing how to speak English, for instance.
And I also don't get your point about the "abortion parade." My point was that the original commenter was fabricating a group that didn't exist and thereby setting up a straw man in an apparent attempt to discredit reproductive rights advocates in the eyes of their fellow social liberals. The original comment was alarmist and absurd along the lines of "ZOMG THE ABORTIONISTS WANT TO KILL TEH GAYS!!!1!1" I was simply demonstrating the error of this point of view and offering an example showing that this sentiment is in fact coming from the RIGHT wing, not anyone on the left.
66--Please. If this was a battle between 13% of the population vs. 5% of the population, no one would even know it was going on. The AME church did not get anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in virtually every state or pass DOMA and you know it. The "blacks vs. gays" meme is just the latest Republican divide and conquer talking point--it's tired, and it's not working.
54 - exactly, and well said.
as a survivor myself of many courses under doctrinaire leftists in undergrad and law school, it makes me laugh when leftists get all itchy and scratchy because a professor who opposes one of their most passionately held positions has actually been hired to teach.
welcome to liberal education, lefties. liberalism means skepticism and open (and civil) debate. it is not about programming students for a particular agenda. hiring someone who dissents from what is now academic dogma is more likely to help than hurt the cause of liberal education.
73 = fail
Republicans aren't involved in the meme at all. It's the struggle to claim champion victim status.
Isn't the analogy flawed? Shouldn't it be 'being entered through the back door' rather than entering? Pitcher/catcher?
72 - the evangelical right wing wants to convert homosexuals, not kill them. preventing the growth of "undesirable populations" through birth control and abortion is the province of the progressive left. see, e.g., margaret sanger. or see the (disapproving) comment by justice ginsburg in today's nyt - "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=print
If only black Democrats would make this job easier by realizing that they are on the wrong side of history and human progress.
77 -- eugenics movements and fascism are historically aligned more closely with the right. A handful of outliers on the left does not a movement make.
Tell you what: you can say that Margaret Sanger represents the left when we can say Mussolini represents the right. Deal?
Oh, also, you're intentionally misreading Ginsburg's quote, which was meant to express her assumption, at the time, that class-based "soft" eugenics was more in vogue than it apparently was. It is blindingly obvious even to those with only half a working brain that she was not expressing her personal desire that more poor people have abortions so as to decrease the population.
d'oh. 80=79.
Hey, no one seemed to be upset when she was cast in that famous Seinfeld episode... Manhands :)
80 - i didn't misunderstand anything. read what i wrote. i said that ginsburg's comment was "disapproving" - i.e., it didn't reflect her own view.
77 - i understand why you would be embarrassed by the racism and eugenics of the early progressives. but margaret sanger was very squarely on the left, and very, very much a progressive.
racism and eugenics flow logically (not inevitably, perhaps, but logically) from some of the basic tenets of progressivism - in particular, its belief in rule by experts (i.e., the progressive leaders themselves and those like them) rather than by the people, and its religious belief that the latest fashion of modern science represents progress.
you can't take only what you want from early progressivism and discard the rest as not representative. they were who they were.
I listened to Dr. Thio's linked speeches on this topic and found them to be cogent. The LGBT forces in the US have done a persistent job of shouting down any opposition, but the inconvenient truth will keep poking its little head up from time to time -- gay sodomy, particularly gay male anal sodomy, is a particular health and health insurance problem and is a much more efficient and dangerous transmitter of pernicious disease than heterosexual sodomy (typically an occasional part of heterosexual sex). As Dr. Thio correctly states, gay sodomy involves unnatural uses of the relevant organs and is very often practiced in a promiscuous cultural setting that multiplies the public health problems. (You can make juvenile jokes about the somehwat clubmsy "sticking a straw up your nose" analogy, but you know in your heart that that thing was not meant to go into that place and it causes damage when it does go into that place.) Forget about morality and religion, these are just scientific and historical facts, as we unfortunately know from the sad history of the last 25 years.
Let's just talk about science and public health. Let's not even get into society's right to promote the most stable and healthy form of family units (two parent, heterosexual families) and society's right to afford families the freedom to raise children in an atmosphere that promotes those values without being indoctrinated that "both ways are equal". Sorry, both ways are not equal. Scientific fact. You may find it morally problematic, but it is scientific fact. Sorry to bust up your little tea party. In your heart, you know this to be true. It still leaves plenty of room for gay love and gay unions. But let's not confuse that state of relationship with heterosexual marriage -- they are in fact scientifically, definitively different.
Thank you Dr. Thio for speaking truth and articulating what the silent majority -- the 100 million or so American parents raising children -- knows to be true. You go girl!
85, I am not aware of any legitimate study that says that the heterosexual family unit is "more stable and healthy" compared to the same-sex family unit. There are, however, a number of studies that say just the opposite.
85.
Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
Industrialization, Modernization are also just as unnatural, and just as harmful to the society, and the world.
What is natural, and what is not? Where do we draw the line? Jogging damages your knees and ur joints from the repeated impact. How much is harmful, how little is acceptable?
On what basis do we decide?
87 - your link requires a log-in. In any case, it doesn't matter how many "studies" you quote. I don't see how scientists can tell us how well a child does with two men as parents as opposed to a man and a woman.
Second, it's just common sense that children need a mother and a father. Two fathers or two mothers are no substitute. (I'm sure you'll consider such a statement very unsophisticated.) We have seen in the last two generations just how poorly children are served by any alternative to having a mother and a father together in one household.
I am not for open homosexual activity and societal acceptance thereof but I have to hand it to these homosexual advocates for their very civilized demeanor in advocating acceptance for their perverse lifestyle. Unfortunately, for them, their respectability is not enough to offset the despicable acts of their cohorts as show below:
http://www.a12g.com/blog/images/gay13.jpg
And to preemptively rebut all the "Your religion has no place in regulating society" arguments: I am an atheist.
88
I am 87. Sorry, my coy has subscription to it. Did not realise it is not visible to the public.
It depends on the measures u take. One can argue if the measures accurately reflects the ability of the kid to perform as well as his/her peers. It is an endless debate. It is like, I can u tell if I am a better person than u are?
U can't in absolute sense. The fact is studies have found that although these kids grow up to be slightly different, but these differences has in no way have any significant effects on their ability to live normally. In fact they grow up to be more sensitive and more tolerant of differences than a normal kid, because of the social discrimination they have to endure as they grow up.
And common sense can be fallacious. One should instead use formal logic. The fact is, where are the evidences? What are the so called alternatives are u implying?
I have know no studies that indicated what u implied. So I have to assume that ur "alternative" meant families that have only 1 parent? So is this an accurate representation of a mother-mother, or father-father family?
Can u conclude that a methodology will fail just because thus far u have only observed a workable solution? That there is only a single solution? And that the solution is global?
Maybe it is just a local solution?
The LGBT groups will push their propaganda insistently at every chance. There is no meaningful large scale study of children raised from infancy in same sex couple homes, just some anecdotal "studies" of a few children who appear to be well adjusted after their teen years. Forgive us unsophisticated parents if we are not convinced that these wonderful "Heather has two mommies" stories do not exptrapolate to a large population, based on other anecdotal evidence and common sense.
But this is a digression. Dr. Thio's defense of the Singapore law prohibiting gay sodomy (but not heterosexual sodomy) was based upon both public health concerns and prevailing moral values in that society. The public health concerns are valid and justify society saying "do not do this".
The role of prevailing moral values may be more controversial. In my opinion, prevailing moral values does justify the law in question and also justifies drawing legal lines between gay couples and heterosexual couples.
89.
Do you mean heterosexual do not commit despicable acts?
And I fail to see what so despicable in the image that u had shown.
And to preemptively answer u. I am not homosexual, nor am I actively involve in any pro-gay movement. But I do support basic human rights regardless of race, religion, or orientation.
I wonder what public health issues?
92,
The fact that you don't find it despicable is evidence that your open on what is despicable is outside the standard definition of despicable that most members of our society subscribe to. Therefore, I cannot explain it to you. Further we are unlikely to have a similar definition as to what "basic human rights" entail. To me basic human rights do not entail such things a being able to marry a member of your own sex, being able to walk around the town in a lascivious and provocative dress and manner, and other openly homosexual activity.
Yes, heterosexuals commit despicable acts. Why do you even raise that?
94
[quote]Unfortunately, for them, their respectability is not enough to offset the despicable acts of their cohorts as show below:[unquote]
So what is your point of the above mentioned statement?
94 - No one is against your right to express how you feel about morals. But, aside from being against murder (which, I trust, most people can get behind), basing laws strictly on the majority's so-called "moral-values" is a slippery slope.
At one time, these values prevented the Irish from obtaining government jobs, kept African-Americans as slaves, kept women from voting or even owning land, allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans merely b/c they were Japanese-Americans during WWII, and prevented people of different races from marrying each other.
The most basic human right, in my humble opinion, is the right to think for yourself. If you are a man and you want to love a man, have at Hoss. If you are a woman and want to love a woman, go get some. If you are a straight white male and only want to marry a straight blond female, get to it. If you are an orthodox/devout religious person and only want to marry people of your same religion, congrats.
That you're uncomfortable with some people's expression of their love is, unfortunately, your problem, and hopefully, not someone elses problem. You're clearly not tolerant, maybe in public, but not on this board. If these people aren't bothering you (and no, being in your sight-line on occassion doesn't count as "bothering"), then they have every right to do so.
The fact that this "majority" you refer to finds it morally reprehensible acts mostly out of a conservative sense of fear. Guess what, gay people cannot hurt you. Not in anyway that straight people can't, anyway.
Basic human rights means all people should have the same rights. If you believe that you're a "better" human than other types of humans, and that those who don't deserve basic human rights, what then? You get to be a better class of human?
96 - Nothing in our laws stands in the way of what you described here:
"The most basic human right, in my humble opinion, is the right to think for yourself. If you are a man and you want to love a man, have at Hoss. If you are a woman and want to love a woman, go get some. If you are a straight white male and only want to marry a straight blond female, get to it. If you are an orthodox/devout religious person and only want to marry people of your same religion, congrats."
Everyone has the freedom to love anyone he wants.
Whether we should stamp the love of two men with marriage is entirely different question. It is not merely a question of individual freedom but of the meaning and purpose of marriage.
89-
I've seen far more despicable acts on HCWDB, and those guys are all straight.
96,
Your post is rather ramble-listic. How can one begin to approach it?
1) The demand for societal acceptance of homosexual activity and the demand for laws giving special privilege to those claiming homosexual orientation is NOT akin to the discrimination of people based on ethnicity.
2) Everyone in the United States has the right to think for themselves and express their opinion. Even opinions that 99% of us find reprehensible such those of the KKK and NAMBLA. Or that a majority of us disagree with such as those of Communists, Homosexuality Advocates, and PETA. That you can advocate an opinion or idea does not mean it should be accepted.
3) People who advance homosexuality as a lifestyle that is akin to and compatible with the nuclear heterosexual family are flat wrong. It is a deviation from the societal norm which as numerous other posters have mentioned has real consequences. Just as polygamy is banned in the United States we may withhold or approval of homosexuality.
4) If 48 is right homosexuality as a genetic trait may soon (within 100 years) be eliminated by selective abortions. Or it may be selected for and heterosexual nuclear families will be uncommon or isolated from a new dominate culture. Or it will be identified as primarily based on nurture and a fight will continue on whether to encourage or discourage such sexual practices.
99.
1. In what way it is NOT akin to discrimination of people based on ethnicity?
2. Same goes for yours.
3. Many years ago societal norm also felt that blacks can never mix together with whites. And it is plain flat wrong, and there certainty will be numerous real consequences. The crux is should there be a shift in societal norms? And why?
4. Disagreements always exist for anything, everything.
100 - in response to your first question
skin color and national origin are not acts. two men engaging in intimate activity is an act.
just being a homosexual is not the issue, but rather what level of respect should be accorded to the union of homosexuals.
Hey, 100,
Opposing homosexual marriage is like supporting segregation, eh? Why does a majority of African Americans oppose homosexual marriage? I guess they're just a buncha bigots.
And that goes for nearly every minority in this country, the majority of which oppose homosexual marriage.
(I can hear all the progressives thinking, "Dang prejudiced minorities. They just don't know any better. Why can't they think more like middle-class white people?" Heh.)
101
sexual orientation is not an act. A black taking the same bus as a white is an act.
Just being a black is not the issue, but rather what level of respect should be accorded to the sharing of common space with whites.
Wilco?
102
And if all we were talking about was a homosexual getting on a bus, you'd have a point.