Archie comic banned by MDA for depicting gay marriage

From ‘Archie comic breached content guidelines:MDA’, 16 July 2014, article in Today

The Media Development Authority (MDA) has confirmed that it has banned one volume of the Archie. The Married Life series because of its depiction of same-sex marriage between two characters in the comic.

In a statement, the MDA said it had received a complaint about the comic – Book Three in a series of five – in March. After an assessment, it found that the content breached MDA guidelines. “We thus informed the local distributor not to import or distribute the comic in retail outlets,” an MDA spokesperson said.

…Separately, the National Library Board (NLB), which carries copies of the comic, said it acquired the comic before the MDA found its content to be in breach of guidelines.

“We will be reviewing the book in the light of MDA’s decision,” said the NLB, in response to TODAY’s queries.

“It should be noted that Archie. The Married Life was acquired for our adult collection. NLB takes a broader approach for the adult’s collection than it does for its children’s collection,” added the NLB.

Bad Bromance

Archie used to be goofball entertainment for me in my teens, but he has all grown up since. In 2009, the series courted controversy by having the main character marry BOTH Betty and Veronica in consecutive issues, prompting conservatives to accuse everyone’s favourite freckled redhead of being a ‘ bigamist’. Not sure if polygamy is in breach of MDA’s guidelines because it’s an ‘alternative lifestyle’ that sure as hell isn’t in line with ‘community norms’. It’s not just narrow-minded Singaporeans making a fuss about a comic about gay marriage. In the US, the Christian group One Million Moms protested the sale of the comic, to little success. Why didn’t MDA completely ban the movie ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry’ instead of giving it a lax M18 rating then? Didn’t you spare a thought for OUR own 1 million mommies and their precious norms?

The gay character in question is military stud Kevin Keller, and in the banned comic he marries Dr Clay Walker, a black man. Keller first came out in a Veronica #202 (2010), when he told Jughead that he was not interested in Veronica because he was gay. Archie never dealt with such ‘sensitive’ topics in the past. He was flirting with either the brunette or the blonde, messing around with Jughead, or watching the resident jock Reggie getting beat up by Moose. Things became edgier when he gave his first ‘interracial kiss’ to Valerie from the all-girl band Josie and the Pussycats (whom he also married). You damn philanderer you.

You’d need to go back almost half a century to find another ban that’s more ridiculous than this. In 1969, our Ministry of Culture banned five MARVEL comics, including Fantastic Four, Spiderman, Daredevil, X-men and Avengers, for themes on ‘horror, violence, suspense and fantasy’.  In 1987, Elf Quest was banned for featuring a ‘ritualistic orgy’, along with No 64 Swamp Thing and the FIRST ISSUE of Green Arrow (which shot up in price from $6 to $50 following censorship).

But first lemme take an Elfie

With such ‘adult’ themes in the new-look Archie, I doubt young impressionable minds are reading it anymore. Most teens these days probably know Christian Grey (of Fifty Shades fame) or Glee’s Blaine Anderson but have never heard of Archie Andrews. Well thanks to the ban, now they do. And then they go and experiment with BDSM and choke each other for kicks. That’s better than falling in love with another boy, RIGHT.

Not a sweet ending for Archie or Keller then. News has already leaked of adult Archie taking a bullet to save Keller’s life in the final issue of the Married Life series. To those still holding on to the banned comics as loans: SELL THEM AS FAST AS YOU CAN before NLB raids your home like the Spanish Inquisition, seizes the books and pulps it all to hell. I’m sure you can make back at least 10 times the fine for ‘losing’ it.

UPDATE: On 30 July 2014, MDA clarified that an X-men comic also featuring gay marriage was, in contrast to Archie, allowed for sale with restrictions. Astonishing X-men Issue 51 supposedly offered a ‘balanced treatment of the issue’ because there were characters who disapproved of the union. By seeking such ‘balance’, MDA is already admitting ‘Gay bad, straight good’, and too much gay for their liking equals ‘ban’.

‘Balance’ of course, in most stories about ‘out’ characters’ mainly serves as dramatic narrative so that our gay couple can overcome opposing voices and daunting odds to be together, which is what happened to the gay couple in the end anyway. Moral of the story: Don’t care what others say, get married anyway.

If MDA had followed the Archie series, they would have realised that not everything went smoothly for gay Kevin Keller either, having to endure homophobic slurs like ‘twinkle-toes’. This sure looks like a ‘balanced’ portrayal of being gay to me, but apparently not balanced enough to allow for sale THAT ONE ISSUE where the marriage occurs with not one person charging into the chapel , fist raised, crying foul at the sheer audacity of it all. Obviously, MDA had no idea what Keller had to go through to finally put a ring on it.

Now all you needed in And Three Makes Tango was for one straight, furious penguin to try to destroy the gay family by stomping all over the unhatched egg and the book might have been ‘balanced’ enough to remain on children’s shelves, even if it involved first degree penguin murder.

About these ads

A-Mei’s Rainbow performance banned by MDA

From ‘No A-mei’s Rainbow for an outdoor event as it is accessible by anyone, including the young, says MDA’, 13 June 2014, article by Boon Chan, ST

The Media Development Authority (MDA) has confirmed that it had advised a music festival’s organiser not to have A-mei’s Rainbow performed. The Straits Times had broken the news here online on Wednesday that the Taiwanese diva had been prohibited from singing the track at the 2014 Spring Wave Music And Art Festival at Gardens by the Bay on June 7.

The song Rainbow is about gay relationships and A-mei is also regarded as a gay icon. According to an MDA spokesperson, this was because Spring Wave was an outdoor event accessible by all members of the public.

“For indoor events, consumer advisories are used to allow consumers to make more informed media choices for themselves and their children. The nature of outdoor performances at public spaces, such as Spring Wave which was held at Gardens by the Bay, makes it difficult to do the same. Hence, organisers of these events should ensure that their performances are suitable for general audiences.”

Overseas media reports noted that the singer was perplexed as she had previously performed the song at her gigs in Singapore.

Rainbow contains the following gay lyric: ‘Our loves are very similar, we get hurt because of men, yet we continue colliding’. It also makes a not so subtle reference to a closet (‘spacious enough to keep your paradise’). Yet it doesn’t make any explicit references to lesbian sex, or even kissing. On the other hand, despite our ban on a Katy Perry song from radio stations, the superstar still performed ‘I Kissed a Girl’ to an emphatic singalong at Singfest 2010. Which means the ban didn’t work one bit.

There’s also another platform to listen to Rainbow which is also ‘accessible by all members of the public’. It’s called YouTube. It has a live performance of A-mei waving a flag and showcases members of the audience spontaneously gay kissing.  In Singapore. Is MDA going to ban this from YouTube too?

From the video above it becomes clear to me why Rainbow is banned. It encourages heterosexual and homosexual people to smooch each other and spread the love around like a goddamn virus. Thanks for thinking of the children, MDA. Please make sure the song isn’t performed at Pink Dot too, lest we turn Hong Lim Park into a sticky mass orgy. And under no circumstances should you allow a situation where we have Adam Lambert and A-mei doing a Rainbow duet, indoor or outdoors, for the love of all things straight and innocent.

Before the rainbow became an international symbol of gay pride, it was a celestial slide into a pot of gold, a natural wonder that springs hope and brings smiles all round. The colours of the rainbow was the only mnemonic I still retain till this day after learning it in primary school. Now, thanks to the MDA, you can’t watch The Wizard of Oz or listen to a singing Kermit the Frog without wondering if their songs contain subliminal messages promoting this ‘alternative lifestyle’. My childhood is ruined forever.

Take ‘The Rainbow Connection’ for example, which can be re-interpreted as a gay anthem.

Rainbows are visions, but only illusions, (the illusion that sex can only be heterosexual)
and rainbows have nothing to hide. (come out, gays of the world!)
So we’ve been told and some choose to believe it.
I know they’re wrong, wait and see.
Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection.
The lovers, the dreamers and me.

Oh, Kermit. Miss Piggy ought to know.

Safra gym ad condoning sexual harrassment

From ‘Seeing red over Safra’s healthy distractions’, 10 March 2014, article by Lee Wan Sim, My Paper

AN ADVERTISEMENT aimed at attracting people to sign up with the Safra National Service Association’s clubs has ended up riling some online. The ad shows two men working out at a gym ogling an attractive woman behind her back, with the tagline: “A great workout, good friends and some healthy distractions.

Several netizens saw the ad as degrading to women. A woman named Cindy Ng posted a picture of the ad, which she said appeared at a bus stop in Upper Thomson Road, on the Safra Facebook page on Saturday.

She said this was “outright distasteful, completely disrespectful to women and borders on condoning sexual harassment”. Several other commenters – both men and women – agreed, with one user called Faith Toh claiming that “through this ad, Safra has endorsed the objectification of women”.

However, others disagreed, saying it was “harmless” and did not degrade women. In a Facebook comment, Safra said the ad was meant “to showcase some bonding moments among our NSmen while having a tongue-in-cheek approach to life experiences”.

“Be it in the gym or anywhere else, it is not uncommon for some women to be checked out by men or vice versa,” it said, adding that the ad was “not aimed to devalue women and neither does Safra condone it”.

Pumping iron never looked so good

Pumping iron never looked so good

AWARE, as expected, got into the thick of the ad controversy, saying that the poster encourages perverted leering and makes gyms dangerous for women. I’m not a fan of gym workouts, but I’d gather one reason why there are often mirrors there is not so you can sneak a glance at someone’s rack, but to ogle at your own bulging awesomeness like the narcissistic handsome devil that you are.

Ogling is universal for both sexes of course, but it’s only played to comedic effect in pop culture when men are the ones doing the eyeballing. Women complain about the sleazy attention to the point of calling it a precursor for gangrape, but few would realise that staring at a comely woman tends to depict men as the more IDIOTIC sex. Whether it’s having them fall into a manhole, walk face first in a pole or fall off a chair, the gag is always on the one nursing a ridiculous hard-on and drooling from the mouth. It happens in sex comedies and ads selling products from shampoo to low-fat yogurt. Why isn’t anyone complaining that the ad undermines our ability to think outside our genitals?

If anything, attractive women are usually the total opposite of HEALTHY distractions. They turn men into total morons, and no exception in a gym if in your attempt to impress the babe on the treadmill, you pump more iron than your body can take and end up with a torn triceps, injuring yourself before you can even think of doing any actual molesting of your own. Even if a woman does get any kind of unsavoury propositions from stinky men in a gym, there are plenty of defensive weapons at her disposal, like the little dumbbell the SAFRA model is carrying for example. The last thing we want to do is chat up a girl who’s all pumped up for her boxercise class, with a devastating 5 pounder in her grasp.

No one in the right mind would sign up for SAFRA just to check out the ‘healthy distractions’. You could do it tactically on the MRT, at work, the beach etc and it would be the perfectly normal thing to do since most men have control over their animal urges and have gotten away with daily ogling without turning into sex maniacs. When you take a staged snapshot and stamp a gym membership product on it on the other hand, it suddenly becomes a glaring endorsement of rape culture and sexploitation. AWARE sure knows how to flex a feminist muscle or too, what with the flag-waving and man-bashing and all. They may get an army song lyric banned, but I doubt their argument here holds much weight.

NUS Malay Studies Prof calling lesbianism cancerous

From ‘NUS looking into complaints over prof’s views on homosexuality’, 28 Feb 2014, CNA

The National University of Singapore said it is looking into a complaint from two alumni and a student on a professor’s views on homosexuality. In their letter to university authorities, the three took issue with two Facebook posts by Professor Khairudin Aljunied from the school’s Malay Studies Department.

They claimed that Professor Khairudin had described “alternative modes of sexual orientation” as “wayward”, and as “cancers” and “social diseases” to be “cleansed”. One of the posts has been removed while the other has since been edited.

The FB post from Prof Khairudin ended with the fiery, call-to-arms salvo: ‘Make the pure message of Islam VIRAL to cleanse the IMPURITIES of liberal Islam and lesbianism. Together we will stop these CANCERS in their tracks!’ Ironically, there’s nothing more ‘viral’ than monotheistic faiths, which in the course of history have done its fair share of genocidal infidel ‘cleansing’ of its own. PERGAS (Singapore Islamic Scholars & Religious Teachers Association) were more subdued in their disapproval, calling the HPB FAQ’s merely ‘insensitive’. Fellow NUS staffer and Law Prof Thio Li-Ann thankfully has nothing further to add on the gay issue. YET.

Incidentally another zealot Lawrence Khong had this to say today in response to Minister Gan Kim Yong defending the same FAQs, in particular about the common level of ‘commitment’ required between two lovers regardless of their sexual orientation:

That is like telling our young they can pump themselves up with illegal and harmful drugs as long as they self protect by not sharing needles. (Pastor hits out at Health Minister’s reply on homosexuality FAQ, 28 Feb 13, ST)

So one Christian pastor compares homosexuality to crack, while a Muslim professor and scholar brands it, rather flippantly, as a debilitating disease that affects millions of people all over the world, including Christians, Muslims, atheists and yes even homosexuals. It appears that in religious texts ‘cancer’ is still synonymous with a vile scourge, but we’ve long left that medieval stigma of cancer as a biblical plague behind us. As someone who’ve seen good, perfectly kind people fight a losing battle against the dreaded disease, I find the Prof’s use of metaphor, given his position in academia,  unfortunate and dehumanising.

An inclusive society has no room for the Prof’s ultra-conservative ‘school of Islamic thought’. In Indonesia, we’re already seeing moderate Muslim scholars adopt a more compassionate stance towards homosexuals, that all beings are equal in the eyes of God. At the other extreme, a ‘Teachers Foundation’ in Malaysia has organised seminars and published handouts on how to spot a gay child so you can nip the homosexual ‘problem’ in the bud early. A gay boy would be wearing ‘tight, light coloured clothing’ while a lesbian has ‘no affection for men and like to hang out and sleep in the company of women’. You also can’t make a movie about gay people in Malaysia unless the gay protagonist converts into a ‘normal’ heterosexual. Meanwhile, in smack-in-the-middle Singapore, films about gay love among Muslims like ‘A Jihad for Love’ remain completely banned. You can, however, download the entire film off Youtube, and no you won’t get cancer after viewing it.

In a 2012 interview with kita.sg, Prof Khairudin divulged that he ‘always wanted to be a celebrity of some sort’. If his FB anti-gay post goes ‘viral’, he may very well become one. For all the wrong reasons.

More spouses straying within 5 years of marriage

From ‘Rise in couples who split within five years’, 16 Feb 2014, article by Janice Tai, Sunday Times

The first five years of marriage are proving a challenge for more Singapore couples – that is when partners stray, and a rising number of marriages break down. A study on straying couples by Touch Family Services found that slightly more than half the 164 respondents polled had affairs within five years of marriage. For one in three, the affairs happened in the first two years of married life.

…The Touch study, done over the past two years, invited individuals who had unfaithful spouses to complete questionnaires online. Close to 1,000 people responded, but only 164 met the criteria of having been married and of having an unfaithful spouse. The researchers found that nine in 10 of the troubled marriages involved dual-income couples and one in three cheating spouses earned more than $5,000 a month.

…Counsellors point to several reasons the crisis point of the modern marriage seemed to be arriving sooner, and especially among better-off working professionals. They say there is a diminishing social stigma attached to divorce and some couples are more willing to give up on a marriage in trouble.

…As to why adultery seems more prevalent among better-off couples, he (Dr Terence Yow, Reach Family Service director) said overseas studies have also established that people with a higher socio-economic status have a higher risk or propensity for infidelity. They tend to be more stressed, have the means to maintain an extramarital affair, have a bigger social network and are more attractive to others.

In a separate CNA report of the same study, 6 out of 10 people surveyed would remain married despite having a spouse cheat on them. CNA also revealed that Touch Family Services is an affiliate of Touch Community Services, whose chairman is renown as a staunch opponent of the ‘looming threat’ to family that is homosexuality. His name? Lawrence Khong.

Knowing who’s in charge behind Touch, it’s only natural to scrutinise this study for selection bias. A surprisingly high number of those 164 polled were spouses who were earning good money, a finding milked by the investigators to suggest that the higher your income, the more likely you’d stray. This simplistic assumption correlates status with sex but ignores other factors that contribute to infidelity. No details were given on how the researchers defined ‘unfaithful’ and how the subjects and investigators verified that cheating was even real, or whether they were delusional. Did the spouse go out on a ‘date’ alone? Did the subject stumble upon a naughty Whatsapp message? Did the spouse surf porn behind her back? Were ‘in-depth’ interviews conducted such as those in a 2012 study which concluded that half of about 500 married couples ‘considered’ divorce?

I’d be interested in the demographics of those polled, namely their race and religious inclination and whether it was representative of the general population. Are people who respond to Touch initiatives more likely to be Christian than Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus? Or the fact that they were looking for resources or help from the Touch website before even participating in the poll suggests that they’re already motivated to salvage the marriage (hence the 6/10 who want to remain married).  Given the complexity and diversity in attitudes towards marriage across cultures and social class, the Touch results appear skewed towards those ‘well-off’ and puts high income earners under an unnecessary spotlight. As for keeping marriage alive, whatever motivations you have in saving it may also depend on what your religion says about it, rich or poor.

The jury is still out on what causes spikes in early cheating and ultimately divorces given recent mixed results and anecdotes from elsewhere. One report last year cited wedding expenses as a reason for Muslim couples splitting. Another concluded that OLDER couples above 45 are breaking up because parents ‘don’t know what to do with each other’ once the children move out. In 2011, the top factors were ‘unreasonable behaviour’, ‘infidelity’ or ‘domestic violence’ depending on whether it’s a civil or Muslim marriage.  There’s also the issue of parenting troubles, dealing with crazy in-laws and in some cases, taking offence toward one’s cooking. Other counsellors have encountered relationships strained over simple household chores. Why not blame the rise of social media, online dating/chat apps, and sexting too?.

In short, a broken marriage can’t be explained by income alone without adjusting for all the little petty things unique to each couple that pave the way to destruction. Experts also talk of this ‘diminishing social stigma’ but don’t have any data to back up what appears to be a ‘still-hot divorcee’ theory. Even if the stigma is diminished, it doesn’t mean more people are taking divorce lightly. Divorce is emotionally and financially taxing, and the possibility of being back ‘on the market’ instead of branded as ‘used goods’ may not be worth the cost, time and effort of killing a marriage especially one with children involved. Unless you’re ‘born again single’ Allan Wu, of course.

Lim Biow Chuan utterly disappointed in HPB Sexuality FAQ

From ‘Disappointed MP criticises HPB for its FAQ on sexuality’, 7 Feb 2014, article by Siau Ming En, Today

Mountbatten MP Lim Biow Chuan yesterday hit out at one of the responses, which said homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not too different. Writing on his Facebook page, he said: “I cannot agree that ‘A same-sex relationship is not too different from a heterosexual relationship’. The two relationships are different and they go against the Government’s policy of promoting heterosexual married couples to have healthy relationships and to build stable nuclear and extended family units.

“I am utterly disappointed at the HPB’s stand in issuing such a statement,” said Mr Lim, who has also filed a question asking the Health Minister to clarify his ministry’s stand on the board’s online resource when Parliament next sits on Feb 17.

…Noting that the bulk of the FAQ seemed to suggest that a homosexual relationship “is quite normal”, he added: “If we say a homosexual relationship is quite normal, then people get confused because that’s not the state’s pro-family position”.

It would be nice for once to hear from someone expressing disapproval about homosexuality who isn’t also an active church member. According to Mr Lim’s Facebook intro, he serves as a church leader at Ang Mo Kio Methodist Church and occasionally preaches in it. Looks like he’s bringing the pulpit into the sphere of politics, and no less preachy either. In 2007, the same MP objected to PM Lee’s acknowledgement that there might be some evidence to show that the gay tendency is inborn. If Lee Hsien Loong’s father had been the one instead to suggest in Parliament that homosexuality is a genetic variation, not an ‘aberration’, I doubt Lim would have stood up to protest against the very idea of homosexuality being as normal as one having double eyelids.

Some readers have noted that the gay issue is no longer a private matter, but has been ‘politicised’ into a emotionally- charged national one, with MPs unleashing their personal views while shielding themselves behind the Government’s ‘pro-family’ position. The ‘nuclear family’ argument doesn’t account for heterosexual couples who, by choice or biology, do not have children themselves, compared to say same-sex couples who adopt children and take better care of them than broken, estranged families do. Lim Biow Chuan’s tirade against the sin of homosexuality is tame, however, compared to how one ex-NMP refers to it as a ‘gender identity disorder’, ‘immoral’ and that anal sex is like  ‘drinking a straw through one’s nose’. She’s none other than Law Professor Thio Li-Ann, and unlike our disapproving, silently cringing MPs today, she had no qualms about letting everyone know how she REALLY felt about homosexuality. None of this ‘family unit’ nonsense, and yes, she’s a Christian too.

We can’t help but ‘politicise’ homosexuality, because we have a law that specifically targets men who engage in it, and somewhere along the way when our fertility dipped, the government adopted a pro-family ‘position’ that opponents to homosexuality love to trumpet to their advantage because they don’t want to be accused of hate-crime and homophobia.  To individuals like Lim, it is really discomfort, aversion and the niggling, irrational feeling that ‘something’s not right’ with gayness and it shouldn’t be championed, and the more they try to express their views ‘scientifically’ or how gayness goes against a national ‘call of duty’, the more it sounds like a cow telling a tiger that eating other animals is wrong and that a life of abstinence from meat makes the world a better place.

Other politicians like to speak for the ‘majority’ of Singaporeans that we’re not ‘ready’ for open homosexuality, that Singapore is still a ‘conservative’ nation at heart, conveniently forgetting about the many sex corruption scandals that put perpetrators in our highest public office to shame, wild heterosexual behaviour which has done more harm to the reputation of government agencies than, in the vein of Thio Li-Ann’s vivid analogy, sucking things up your nose behind closed doors.

In 2012, Lim was whacked in the back of his head by a stray skipping rope thanks to Tin Pei Lin in a community event. He later went on to mention that the skipping campaign was ‘part of building an inclusive society’. Wonder if the knock on the head had anything to do with the blatant irony of that sentence.

HPB sexuality FAQs smacks of liberationist propaganda

From ‘HPB’s sexuality FAQs undermine family’, 6 Feb 2014, contribution by Lawrence Khong, Opinion, MyPaper

The FAQs On Sexuality page on the Health Promotion Board (HPB) website is shocking and deeply upsetting. The tone of the entire article gives the impression that HPB condones same-sex relationships and promotes homosexual practice as something normal. The author appears to have taken sides on a highly contentious and politicised subject. Here, I address five issues covered in the FAQs.

ISSUE 1

The FAQs draw a false equation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships in a manner that smacks of liberationist propaganda intended to mainstream homosexuality.

ISSUE 2

HPB adopted a biased and selective approach by naming only a pro-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) group to help those who are looking for support. We are disappointed that HPB’s original article referenced only one option for help, namely Oogachaga. Its hotline is run by specially trained LGBTs or LGBT-affirming counsellors.

To exclude other available avenues of care, such as Liberty League and Focus on the Family, is to discriminate in favour of LGBT-affirming organisations. This is both unjust and harmful.

Lawrence Khong is an avid supporter of the arcane 377A law that criminalises gay sex and believes that repealing it is a ‘looming threat’ to the family unit. His idea of ‘avenue of care’ is undoubtedly seeking a ‘cure’ for homosexuality. One of the support groups cited, Liberty League, aims to help people who want to ‘overcome same-sex attractions’. It is also partly financed by the Government. The ‘Focus on the Family‘ website is largely silent on LGBT issues, and pretty useless if you want to know more about sexual identity. What is ‘unjust and harmful’ is misdirecting gays who need counselling to what is secretly ‘sexual rehab’, the risks and consequences of which remain unknown.

Oogachaga, on the other hand, embraces LGBTQ individuals and ‘diversity’. The site itself has a wealth of resources for those interested, though it can be challenging telling your LGBTs from your GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, intersex). Then there are the bears, cubs and G-men from the ‘Bear Project’, which celebrates big gay men though it also sounds like a special interest group for ‘furries’.  HPB somehow deleted links to Oogachaga among other support groups after FAQ launch, and it remains to be seen if the conservative tyranny of Lawrence Khong, among other religious types, had anything to do with it.

ISSUE 3

…We disagree with the claim that moral objection to homosexual behaviour is based on “irrational fear, disgust, or hatred” of homosexuals or bisexuals because they “do not conform to traditional sexual roles and stereotypes”. Far from it. Moral objection is based on the intrinsic physiological nature of the male and female bodies.

I think what Khong meant is ‘human male and female bodies’. Anyone who reads beyond the Holy Bible would have heard about same-sex shenanigans going on even among our primate, God-created, cousins.  A pastor and magician, Khong is even claiming to be an expert in not just human biology, but ALL biology.

ISSUE 4

The FAQs fail to give an accurate picture and clear warnings of the health risks posed by alternative sex. According to medical research and mental-health studies, the threat is real and severe. Homosexuals have a shorter lifespan, more sexually transmitted infections and more health problems than the general population.

General population meaning compared to heterosexuals? What does Khong mean by ‘health problems’? If they do experience greater problems such as depression, could it be because of the rest of us – the ‘conservative majority’? A ridiculous, sweeping statement made with all fire and brimstone emotion and not an ounce of rational thinking or data to back it up, using annoyingly vague categories to disguise the fact that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

ISSUE 5

The FAQs make an unproven assertion that homosexuals can have long-lasting relationships and, in this way, the FAQs clearly promote a “mainstreaming homosexuality as normal” bias. We disagree because this claim is only theoretical. Some research findings show a different trend. Homosexuals register a higher incidence of short-lived relationships and sexual violence.

Looking at the rate of cheating, divorces and domestic violence among ‘normal’ couples, I find this assertion rather hard to swallow. We can, however, study the rates of divorce among same-sex couples eventually, since SEVENTEEN other countries in world have already legalised gay marriage. Lawrence would have none of that, obviously, and even if someone could convince him that gay marriages can work long term, he’ll pull some ‘research findings’ out of his magician’s hat to support his point that homosexuals are worse off than heterosexuals.

What I would like to see, however, is a live debate on national TV between pastor Khong and gay champions like Alex Au, though the entertainment of such a confrontation may be ruined by the likelihood of Khong making himself vanish into thin air when he’s on the verge of losing a critical argument.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 297 other followers