.........lady's fingers!!
haha. so gross rite. i used to think it tastes gross coz it looked gross.
i'm the kind if the food looks funny, or i've never eaten it before, i wouldn't touch it coz i think it will taste as weird as it looks.
and lady's fingers was once one of those poor, rejected vegetables.
but not anymoreee! i actually think it tastes quite good. yay i'm so healthy. and i love beancurds too. it's bland and soft and jiggly and i like it! hurhur.
i still hate mussels and oysters though. it looks damn gross. and brinjals too. why would anyone wanna eat a purple vegetable. it just looks damn wrong la.
ok this is a nonsensical entry.
i'm watching munich with the bf later. as much as i wanna watch brokeback mountain, i shall be nice and declare today as jeremy sun day. but he keeps calling it the gay show.
it's NOT GAYYYYY lor. ok fine maybe it is, but i don't understand what's with the classification of 'gays' and 'lesbians'. it's just pure love between 2 human beings wat. does it matter if it's between the same gender or not? other than the sex being slightly more tricky, what is wrong with a girl loving a girl or a guy loving a guy?
i bet it was considered normal until one day, a bored retarded person decided to come up with names like lesbians, gays and homosexuals. n hence, the classification and the taboos that comes along with it.
ok i've lots more to comment about this topic but i need to write my political science essay so that i won't feel guilty watching a movie later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
it's never normal to be homosexual.
no animal nor early human does that.
so scientifically it's wrong. it defeats the scientific purpose of being alive - to reproduce.
Bible say no to that
so it's religiously wrong.
it's understandable how 2 guys can start loving each other, but it's wrong. i'm tolerant of homosexuals and i don't despise them but .. they're not doing the right thing.
btw homosexual was classified as a psychiatric problem till recently.
i wont say that its wrong, i would rather classify it as a genetic defect. sometimes somethings aint just as clear cut as a XX or XY chromosome. the person's mind is of a different gender as the body, hence, they start having feelings for people of the same gender.. and yes, it defeats the purpose of being alive eg. not being able to reproduce, but they're not wrong...nature's wrong... nature's fault...
whoops..another geeky discussion
hmm if it's genetics, and it can't be passed on, then it can't be genetics.
anyhoo, check out Leviticus chapter 18. all the "do not have sexual relations with...". and specifically in v22 "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
lam said "no animal or early human does that". not really. think homosexuality came into the world together with sin. the great flood came cos of all the sin that man was doing (Noah's time).
so. don't watch brokeback la. it's detestable. i heard got people just walked out even. *goosebumps*
OMG. what's with u science pple! i hope jeremy doesn't join in.
QUICK GAO WHERE R U HELP ME OUT HERE!!
anyway.
why is it not normal? just coz science says so? our purpose on earth is not SOLELY to reproduce wat. whoever said that? there's no rules governing us. it's our mind and body, we can choose what we wanna do with it, how we wanna feel, who we wanna love. who is to tell us what's right or wrong?
my main point is, what's with the big fuss over gays, lesbians or homosexuals? ultimately they are human beings like us. who are we, or even scientists, to judge that it's 'scientifically' wrong?
i'm not saying that homosexuality is inherited. i'm saying its a defect, something went wrong in the gene pairing. think down syndrome. anyway, the homosexuality gene can't be passed down to the next generation in the first place coz homosexuals can't produce off spring...
not to sound mean. Up until now, there's probably no gene known related to sexual orientation. but there may be. let's say its a genetic problem as you said, then it IS a problem. which means it's not normal and its something we have to solve. like down syndrome kids needs medical attention, homosexuals would need to be treated. However if you want to argue that it's a genetic variation instead of a genetic problem, then it opens up a lot of loop holes in our society like isn't violence a genetic variation and that we should accept murderers as they are and not punish them. or some people are prone to be easily influenced so when they commit a crime they should be less punished? i think ultimately my conclusion is that homosexuality is against natural order, on the one hand we should not despise or look down on them who might have make a mistake, it's not something that we should embrace and allowed to 'proliferate'. Imagine how troublesome toilets will be in the future if we don't take XX and XY as clear cut.
when i said no early human had homosexuality..i was argueing as if i was a science person(talking monkeys and big stone hammers)..using their logic. speaking their language.
i don't believe in those crap though. yes gao evolution is crap (ok i was just helping xh to get gao into this conversation coz i vaguely remember i told gao i don't believe in evolution)
but just to make gao argue in my favour, apple rocks!
I think it's all a matter of societal perspective. Just as how the world was thought to be flat and anyone who thought otherwise was thought to be mentally unsound or just plain stupid.
I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuals. Looking at the normal distribution curve, just because most of us are straight, that doesn't mean we should forget the extreme ends.
And I don't think you can consider all cases to be genetic defects.
From a religious point of view, homosexuality was considered taboo. But as society becomes more open, these issues are being openly discussed. (Hence brokeback mountain) And even in the Vatican, they now have members of the clergy who are gay.
Don't look at homosexuals differently. That would be similar to being racist. We're all humans after all.
guyz......
be a man .. do the right thangg
we should not forget the extreme end like how we do not forget about the people who are born sick. we help them lead a normal life. which include being straight.
on 'judging' whether homosexuality is wrong, i do not think that no one is allowed to judge. (still speaking on scientific and anthropological (sp) pt of view) human lives in a community, and as all animals, there are leaders and followers, we are not allowed to 'do anything we want', which explain why the intellectual human has written history for later generations to learn from past mistake (examples of pple that did wrong) why laws were written together with punishement (to stop people from doing wrong) and even the whole evolution of the theory of karma (to strike a balance between good and bad). so that's to conclude why i think there is such thing as right or wrong when it comes to 'sexual preference'
on sexual preference, how about paedophiles? where do they stand? they are also part of the distribution and why do we segregate them from our main population?it's also a sexual preference to prefer young kids than old maid or the other way round, why are those people put in jail for that? obviously everyone believe that it is wrong. and it's probably not because they're 'minority' or 'different' why do people who are 13 and in love cannot have sex with whom they want to but it's nothing wrong for a married woman to have sex with anything else?
in this whole accepting gay/lesbian into our society movement, do u think we are so called submitting to peer pressure? It's like how we used to think swearing was wrong when we were young, then u start hearing it...then u make peace with it...and then u become one of them. I don not believe that swearing is a right thing to do (even though i do it) but i do not embrace it and argue that it should not be wrong. I thus agree that it's alright and good for everyone that homosexuality be discussed and movies be made about them, because it allow people to understand them and find out 'what went wrong' there.
However, i'm sure something everyone'd agree is that homophobic is wrong. some people hate gays so much that they want to kill them, those people are the ones that should be associated to racist.
In comparing someone who thinks that gay is wrong to a racist, i think that it's inappropriate because i do not hate/dislike/despise a gay person, i see them as a lost sheep that needs direction. u might say that thats what the westerners thought of the black(thus slavery=education), it's different. Because i don't think gay people is anything worse than i am, just that it's wrong.
about gays in vatican, gays are human as well, like all people in vatican, they are sinners, being gay might be their sin. but i don't think the pope would agree that gay people should be 'proud' to be gay and accept their sin as it is.
u can't use the 'the world was flat theory' on everything. That was a scientific hypothesis and honestly, how many people can testify its true. Most of us have only seen photos of the earth.
the fact that 'reality' is all how your mind interprets it just show the fragility of this world.
so what is real? i think u know what i'm talking about.
in summary (and putting an end to this discussion coz i can forsee it to become a religious debate), i think the difference in opinion is due to a difference in our moral system and our own definition of good and bad. I like to see things as binary good and bad whereas some people believe that there are grey areas in life. i put religion as the backbone of all my arguments but some people think that we should learn from other people's opinion.
in the end.
i do not want to enforce my thinking into yours and piss anyone off (yes i like to avoid confrontation) but at the end of this, i'm sure everyone has given your own moral values a good thought?
btw i don't know whether it was freudian or what, when i type gay, i keep typing gao.
some humour would be good eh?
haha... kudos to ah hu who started such an interesting and controversial topic for us all to discuss... btw lam, what's not proven doesnt mean it doesnt exist. no one's proven that TCM is effective scientifically, but we all know that it is effective to a certain extent. anyways... END of discussion!!!!
err yeah..i give full marks to lam too...not for content..but for pure length. (which equates to how much free time he has)
i gave up reading after 2 lines.
ok. be a man. do the right thing indeed. hahahahaha
Post a Comment