Why are bisexual and gay people more caring? Why do straight people want to have kids while gay people don't?

Due to my temp job at a mall, I have made the prolonged observation that bi and gay people seem to have more of an added acuity in being more connected, sensitive, aware and empathizing towards other people, which makes them polite/respectful and caring individuals compared to straight people. This is confirmed all the time, even for some irritating gay people who hit on me.

Bi and gay people have both the masculine/aggression and feminine/passiveness qualities in them, It seems as though such both qualities cooperated together within a person would combine to form a wholesome kind of greater awareness.

In comparison, straight people seem to be a little adequate. They seem to be missing something, which makes them seem a little "lost" and disconnected to reality and other people.

Bi and gay people remind me of Counselor Troi In Star Trek who is an empath, they are empathetic like her and behave just like her. It is as though bi and gay people are being close to becoming empaths who can read minds. Perhaps they are close on their spiritual evolution in reaching such a psychic state.

Bi and gay people make very close and strong eye contact as if they have very strong focusing power in their consciousness. On the other hand, straight people lack the mental power in establishing such a connection. Perhaps the souls in straight people are not yet ready to take on such a state of being(bi and gay) that requires a stronger operating consciousness.

The heightened masculine/domination quality enables a person to expand the consciousness to reach far out to interpret reality beyond the scope of the self, while the feminine/passive quality enables one to feel and interpret the various aspects in reality. Because straight people are not heightened in both qualities, their consciousness is limited to just interpreting and feeling mostly their own needs.

Having children enables straight people the opportunity to CARE MORE for other people, and also to give them the opportunity to expand their sensitivity, connectivity, empathy etc that can help them to become more caring and respectful individuals.

The reason why straight people need to have children is because their souls need more experience in experiencing the masculine/domination and feminine/passive qualities from their children.

Many rigid and serious adults change and behave like kiddish retards when they look at small cute kids and babies, they temporarily become more passive. This just shows that they need kids to help them become more passive and connected to other people. For bi and gay people, they don't change when they interact with babies and kids, they remain in their friendly and caring self when they behave around kids.

The reason gay people don't need to have kids is because they don't need more assistance in experiencing more feminine/passive or masculine/dominating qualities.

Many straight dominating dads are more feminine/passive due to having children, many passive moms have become more masculine/dominating due to having children as well. Cooperating the feminine and masculine within parents would no doubt enable them to become more empathetic towards others, especially when parents discovers that their children are bi or gay and have to accept their kids as being normal.

So it is obvious to me that straight people have children because they still need much experience with the masculine/domination and feminine/passive.

So when some straight people think less of bi and gay people, I feel that those straight people are the ones who are actually "less". It's like how stupid people think that other people(including intelligent ones) are more stupid than they are, when it is actually the stupid people who are the only ones who are really stupid.

A 'stupid' thermometer that measures only up to 100 degrees can measure only up to 100 degrees, that's only how high(low) it can measure.

US Research Implies Abstinence-Only Message of Section 377A Does Not Lead to Abstinence Behaviour, This Implies Section 377A Would Have No Deterrence Effect in Keeping in Check Homosexual-Related STDs and Hypothetical Sexual-Related 'Social Immorality'

(This is a copy of an email that I sent to the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament about my request to amend Section 377A of the Penal Code.) 


Research reports from the United States have found that abstinence-only sex education does not lead to abstinence in sexual behaviour.

This implies that keeping Section 377A would not have an effect in keeping in check the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among homosexuals. This also implies that Section 377A would not have an effect in keeping in check any hypothetical sexual-related 'social immorality'.

People who assumed that Section 377A can keep in check any hypothetical 'social morality' would therefore be proven wrong.

Section 377A was recently mentioned in Court to have been enacted during colonial times to curb male prostitution long ago. This new research report would prove that even such a possible deterrence to curb male prostitution with abstinence would not have any resultant effect in the past. Male prostitution during that time could have dwindled due to other factors.

If people need to or are desperate to have sex for any reason, they will continue to do it out of need or desperation.

The better way to prevent any sexual-related diseases is through public education such as sex education and behaviour-related campaigns, and not through abstinence as seen in the keeping of Section 377A.


Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, UGA researchers find
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129185925.htm

"States that prescribe abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools have significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs, researchers from the University of Georgia have determined.

The researchers looked at teen pregnancy and birth data from 48 U.S. states to evaluate the effectiveness of those states' approaches to sex education, as prescribed by local laws and policies.

"Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates," said Kathrin Stanger-Hall, assistant professor of plant biology and biological sciences in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences."


My Concluding Thoughts:

Keeping Section 377A has no proven benefits but has been suggested to have more harm than good as in the case of higher increased rates of unprotected sex and STDs mentioned in the research reports.

I therefore propose the government to amend Section 377A so that it can start to impose safe-sex education for homosexuals as well as counselling. I propose the government to not grant any future requests for same-sex marriages and adoptions.

If the government really wants to do something about social health for homosexuals, it should consider removing the abstinence-related law of 377A and start to implement safe-sex education and counselling for homosexuals right away.

Homosexuals are also citizens of Singapore(even though they are in the minority), the government should do its best to ensure their well-being.

I See Lots of Logically Fallacious False Dilemmas and Slippery Slope Arguments(unproven hypothetical scenarios) Used By Parliament MPs in 2007 in Not Supporting Repeal of Section 377A, Also the Intention to Restrict Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship

(This is a copy of a thread topic that I made at the government-operated REACH forum)

I See Lots of Logically Fallacious False Dilemmas and Slippery Slope Arguments(unproven hypothetical scenarios) Used By Parliament MPs in 2007 in Not Supporting Repeal of Section 377A, Also the Intention to Restrict Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship

I took a look into the arguments used by parliament MPs in 2007 in their non-support of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, and found lots of misconstructed and logically fallacious slippery slope arguments.

I am extremely well-trained in formal debate and I find these false dilemmas and slippery slope arguments very faulty and disturbing.


[The Logically Misconstructed Arguments]

Some MPs have assumed that repealing Section 377A is equated to people accepting homosexual lifestyles. But I cannot see the logic in this line of thought.

Here are the lists of Parliment videos on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5AB3D0B89F8206C7

Saying that just because people don't accept something then the only option should be criminalisation? This is not logical.

In formal debate, this line of faulty reasoning is known as False Dilemma

FALSE DILEMMA
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma

"Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices."

Many people do not accept prostitution, yet it is not criminalised. Many people do not accept smoking, yet it is not criminalised. Many people do not accept gambling, yet it is not criminalised.

There are lots of logically misconstructed arguments that put one's non-acceptance of something into the same category as criminalisation.

If people don't accept certain behaviours, they can simply don't practice it themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should criminalise it. Going by this logic, if people find certain religion unacceptable, they should make a law to criminalise the followers of such religion? I see no logic in this line of thought.


[The Slippery Slope Arguments]

Many MPs who opposed the repeal of Section 377A say that if it is repealed, then gay-rights activists would definitely push for same-sex marriages and adoptions. However, there is no evidence that this will happen.

In formal debate, this line of argument is known as Slippery Slope.

SLIPPERY SLOPE
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/163-slippery-slope

"Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”

Even if Section 377A is repealed, it doesn't necessarily mean that gay marriages and adoptions will be allowed by law. The gay rights activists can request all they want for such things but Parliament and the people do not necessarily have to give in to their requests.

Why should Parliament and the people be afraid of such requests when they have the power and support not to grant such requests? This is not logical.


[What do I think is the agendas of the LGBTs in Singapore?]

Homosexuals can already get married overseas, they don't need to request to enact laws and wait forever for them to get married in Singapore. If they want to adopt children and can afford it, it would be much easier and affordable for them if they migrate overseas and do it there.

I feel that the request of gay-rights activists to ammend Section 377A is simply to lessen the bullying and hatred they receive so that they can have a neutral common space to live their lives in peace and harmony.


[Restriction on Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship]

If the argument of not repealing Section 377A is simply to prevent gay-rights activists from not hypothetically requesting such gay marriages and adoptions in future, is this not an intention to restrict on their freedom of speech to talk to parliament and the government? Is this not unfair censorship?

Please Consider to Amend Section 377A to Create a More Neutral Common Space in Society for Greater Peace and Harmony

(This is a copy of an email that I sent to the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament about my request to amend Section 377A of the Penal Code. I made this post just to share with more straight and LGBT people about my thoughts on Section 377A and the LGBT community in Singapore.) 

Please Consider to Amend Section 377A to Create a More Neutral Common Space in Society for Greater Peace and Harmony

By Timothy Tang


To the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament,

I am writing to share my most concerned thoughts on the crucial need for Parliament to amend Section 377A of the Penal Code with much legitimate good reasons. I hope you can hear my reasons and give much consideration to them.

Today, I read a news article about Racial Harmony Day where Education Minister Heng Swee Keat stressed the need for Singapore to build strong community bonds to meet the challenges of today's volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous global environment.

We must embrace diversity - and not just among Singapore's 'main races': Heng
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/we-must-embrace-diversity/1274208.html

He mentioned a recent study on indicators of racial and religious harmony by the Institute of Policy Studies and OnePeople.sg where it showed that there is room for improvement, specifically, in building interest in intercultural understanding and interaction.

He also said,

"We also need to go beyond understanding the main races to respecting all people regardless of race, language or religion, who live and work in Singapore - for the happiness, prosperity and progress of our nation."

I agree with everything the Education Minister said in the article, which is why I feel that Section 377A of the Penal Code is best to be amended for the good of all Singaporeans.

A Voices writer to TODAY newspaper recently mentioned the need for a common space in the library. The letter was addressed to NLB’s withdrawal of 3 books about minority families.

Preserve common space or regress to a feuding society
http://www.todayonline.com/voices/preserve-common-space-or-regress-feuding-society

I totally agree for the need of a “common space” in the public library where people are unrestricted in getting educated about the complex modern world we face today.

Other than the need for a crucial neutral space in the library, I also see the crucial need for a common neutral space in Singapore society.

The recent Philippine Independence Day celebration was meant to be held at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza until it received complaints from some Singaporeans. The complainers misunderstood the event and thought that it would be held in a public space. They perceived the celebrations to be infringing on a common neutral space in society, which they saw as disrespectful and conflicting with the interests of Singaporeans. I eventually wrote in to TODAY to try to resolve the misunderstanding and explained that the venue for the event was actually non-public space.

Venue for Philippine celebration would not have been ‘public space’
http://www.todayonline.com/voices/venue-philippine-celebration-would-not-have-been-public-space

I feel that the establishment of such a common neutral space in society is of the utmost importance especially as Singapore heads towards a more challenging and demanding future. If left unchecked and unmaintained, the infringement of such a crucial neutral space in society could go on to create lots of misunderstanding that can erode social peace and harmony, leading to instability and loss of confidence for citizens and foreign investors.

A neutral space for citizens and foreign workers is created out of strong respect and tolerance for one another’s race, religion, lifestyle, sexuality and beliefs. I feel that such a neutral space is based on a neutral secular morality. This mention of a secular morality has recently been mentioned by ex-civil servant Donald Low, Associate Dean & Senior Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

NATIONAL LIBRARY BOARD AND THE EROSION OF OUR SECULAR MORALITY
https://www.facebook.com/notes/806203306080312/
http://www.therealsingapore.com/content/national-library-board-and-erosion-our-secular-morality

In his article, he mentions the need for civil servants to practice secular morality, a neutral form of morality rather than their own private (or religious) morality – to assess decisions that affected the common good.

NLB’s wise decision to place the 3 books in a proper section of the library finally led to a compromise and resolved the matter. The whole experience taught me something very important, it is very important for a nation like Singapore that has so much diversity to create a common neutral societal space where peace and harmony can reside.

To me, the presence of Section 377A of the Penal Code creates a loop-sided imbalance for the creation of a common neutral space in society. Extremists can use the lack of a neutral common space to enforce their bias and hatred for homosexuals, which can lead to much anti-social behaviour. Examples can be seen from the recent Wear White Movement and the “We Are Against Pinkdot in Singapore” Facebook group.

I feel that the haters of the LGBT community have seriously misunderstood the LGBT’s ‘pride’ events as a promotion of their “lifestyle”, which the haters perceive to be infringing on a common neutral space. Rather, I perceive the local ‘pride’ events held by the local LGBT community as a show of request to gain a common neutral space for themselves to live their own lives without facing much hatred and bullying. I really do not believe such pride events are meant to promote homosexuality in society that some haters have believed.

Such a misunderstanding is very similar to the Philippine Independence Day celebration where the complainers misunderstood the event to be held on public space and therefore infringing on a common neutral space.

People can use the lack of a common neutral space due to the presence of Section 377A, as a good reason to justify anti-social behaviour and bullying towards homosexuals and people they perceive to be similar to them. If they are parents of children, such behaviour from parents can influence their children to bully other kids that they perceive to be homosexuals.

In addition, people can also use an “appeal to the majority” tactic to justify such anti-social behaviour if there are many people who are also behaving like them. I recently wrote to TODAY newspaper to address such a “majority wins” tactic that was employed by people who support NLB’s initial decision to pulp the 3 books on minority families.

‘Majority wins’ not representative of true democracy
http://www.todayonline.com/voices/majority-wins-not-representative-true-democracy

I feel that the presence of Section 377A can promote much bullying and much anti-social behaviour in society. Every little bit can add up to become very large. Many people can get caught in the middle and suffer due to such conflict.

I urge the government to create a more substantial common neutral space between the LGBT community and their opposers, by amending Section 377A so that the LGBT would not be seen to be socially-discriminated against.

If Section 377A remains, bullying and anti-social behaviour could become more established in Singapore. I have recently heard of a cyber-bullying of a 12-yr old Singaporean boy by those who perceived him to be homosexual:

Singaporean boy, 12, stands up to “gay” bullies
http://sg.theasianparent.com/theo-chen-stands-up-to-gay-bullies/

Theo Chen's speech on homophobic bullying during International Women's Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx7-Jl8vwuI

The hatred shown to the Philippine Independence Day celebrations as well as the intolerance shown by some Singaporeans in other examples has worried me greatly as a citizen. I worry for Singapore’s economic future and social stability. I hope that the government, along with the help from concerned and outspoken citizens like me, can help to create a strong neutral common space in Singapore as much as it can for the benefit of all Singaporeans. I strongly feel that amending Section 377A is a good step in this direction.


I would also like to talk about the on-going appeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code in Singapore's court of law.

Trio appealing against court’s ruling on Section 377A
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/trio-appealing-against-courts-ruling-section-377a?page=1

In the news report of the appeal proceedings, surveys on gay acceptance in Singapore were brought up by Chief Prosecutor Aedit Abdullah to justify the need to keep section 377A.

(He said, "Recent survey results on gay acceptance in Singapore “shows the controversy in society”.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-14/singapore-top-court-tackles-challenge-to-1938-gay-sex-ban.html

Upon closer examination of the most recent government-commissioned survey of 4000 Singaporeans, with data collected from 1 December 2012 to 31 January 2013, it was found that 47 percent rejected “gay lifestyles,” 26 percent were receptive and 27 percent neutral.

OUR SINGAPORE CONVERSATION SURVEY
http://www.reach.gov.sg/Portals/0/Microsite/osc/OSC-Survey.pdf

(Bloomberg report mentions 47 percent of 4,000 Singaporeans rejected “gay lifestyles”)
Singapore Top Court Tackles Challenge to 1938 Gay-Sex Ban
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-14/singapore-top-court-tackles-challenge-to-1938-gay-sex-ban.html

The survey asked people's acceptance of "gay lifestyle", which included options indicating "neutral", "satisfied", "very satisfied", "dissatisfied' and "very dissatisfied".

Even though the survey indicates of a controversy related to "gay lifestyles" in society, there was absolutely no mention in the survey that indicated anyone to suggest or favour a jail sentence for such "gay lifestyle". Nor was there any mention of the public to favour criminalising homosexuals for consented sexual acts done in private.

Is the mere public opinion of feeling "dissatisfied' and "very dissatisfied" sufficient and accurate to be equated with their intention to criminalise homosexuals? This important question needs to be carefully considered.

Such a survey that has absolutely no mention of the public's desire to criminalise homosexuals is not sufficent and appropriate to be used to measure the public's view of section 377A. Using such a survey in arguments to justify keeping section 377A is therefore inappropriate, illogical and unfair.

When asked about the case in an interview in June, Law Minister K. Shanmugam was quoted saying, “The majority of the population still favors the current legal framework”. With all due respect to the law minister, I could find no indication to support this.

(Law Minister K. Shanmugam's quote in an interview)
Singapore Top Court Tackles Challenge to 1938 Gay-Sex Ban
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-14/singapore-top-court-tackles-challenge-to-1938-gay-sex-ban.html

I urge the government to look into a better way of gauging public opinion on Section 377A.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Timothy Tang