Do Not Remove Ancient Landmarks -- Anti-Sodomy Statute in Singapore

                       

Singapore made a grave mistake when the national government repealed Section 377a.

Repeal of that moral sanction sent the false message that homosexuality and transgenderism are normal behaviors, and therefore should face no moral sanction or approbrium.

And look what has happened.

LGBT themed museums, classes, programs are becoming all too common in the city state.

When public sanction is rolled away for private perversion, private perversion becomes public pollution.

Dear Singaporeans, you should have looked to the West, and you would have seen what a foolish move it was to repeal Section 377a.

Singapore Comedian Admits Pornography Drew Him Into Homosexuality

Sam See, out-homosexual
Comedian in Singapore

This is a stunning, disturbing trend which cannot be ignored: Pornography is a gateway into homosexuality.

A growing number of former homosexuals (and transgenders) have admitted that their entry into sexual confusion and degeneracy started with pornography. Pro-family activists like Greg Quinlan of New Jersey, Christopher Yuan of Chicago, and Jason "Yolt" Lim of Singapore shared how introduction or discovery to such illicit materials at a young age put them on the fast-track to homosexual attraction and behaviors.

Many pro-family activists have sounded the alarm on this illicit industry, and thankfully more government jurisdictions are cracking down on pornography production and distribution. A number of states in the United States have passed age-verification requirements to ensure that only adults have access to this destructive, offensive content.

Now, we have Sam See of Singapore, a well-known comedian who is making the most of the fact that the city state has repealed Section 377a, the statute which criminalized indecent acts between men.

Here, during an interview with Singapore-based YouTuber Max Chernov, Sam admits how his exposure to pornography "revealed" to him that he was gay:

                    

Max: When you discovered to be a gay, when was it, and how was it?

Sam: I was fourteen years old. I kind of knew before that, because before that, when you are a kid of 12 or 13, your friends are like 'Here's Paul!" and I'm like "Ehh, it's OK." And I was looking through the categories, and I looked at one, and it said "Gay," and I thought, "Well, this is fun! I guess I like gay."

Then, Oh shit, I am gay, I guess. Thanks, porn! So, I found out I was gay through porn.

First of all, why does anyone think it's acceptable that 12 to 14 year olds have access to pornography?

Second, notice that that the interviewer does not press Sam See on this issue. This cannot possibly be the common view in Singapore. Does the general public really believe that there is nothing wrong with minors looking at pornography?

And finally, notice how Sam "realized" that he was gay when he looked at pornography. Here, you have all the evidence you need that the illict material induces young people like Sam at that time into sexual dysfunction and degeneracy. He readily admits that he did not know who or what he was when he was younger. He seemed to have trouble fitting in with his peers, for example. That's a common struggle for young people, but when exascerbated and unresolved, it can lead to same-sex attraction issues for youth.

But the lynchpin is that Sam See saw (no pun intended) pornography. He looked at illicit image that stirred him up. Let's not miminize the truth of the matter: porn induces confusion and dysfunction in users, especially children.

What was also really interesting is that I commented on this very revelation under Chernov's YouTube video, and he was not too happy about it:

Why indeed are so many people determined to cover up the connections between pornography and homosexuality?

Where Critical Spectator Errs re: Homosexuality in Singapore

Critical Spectator is a Polish expat who lives in Singapore. He loves the country, he often praised the country's unique state-capitalist environment.

He also had some interesting views on Section 377a of the nation's penal code. This statute criminalizes

Why Singapore is Correct on LGBT Rights

This may be my most controversial article yet (at least to some) - but precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is important to publish it. So, let's begin with a both baffling and bold statement:

LGBT supporters and their opponents are both right.

No. One side must be wrong, because one side has clearly declared that homosexuality is wrong and aberrant, and therefore the behaviors must be curbed and criminalized as much as possible.

Yet, let's allow Critical Spectator to make his case:

Impossible? Well, let me explain.

Let's Get Physical

Little over 100 years ago, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity, explaining gravity and, consequently, the behavior of large objects. About a decade later Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg gave the world their interpretation of quantum mechanics, which serves to describe the physical behavior of subatomic particles.

Unfortunately, while both are immensely valuable they lack a common link - in other words, what works for large objects doesn't seem to work at a single subatomic particle level - and vice versa.

This paradox keeps springing to mind whenever I'm observing disputes that extend from the interests of an individual to the interests of the society - clashing with them violently - with people on both sides of the front exchanging arguments, completely missing the simple fact that they are speaking from entirely different perspectives.

Indeed, people may get away with disgusting acts in private, but such behaviors cannot become appropriate or mainstream.

And, interestingly, it may mean that much like the physical theories, they are both correct, while being in conflict with each other.

One such war is being fought over LGBT rights.

That phrase "LGBT rights" is a misuse of the notion of right. A right must be universal, not particular, and not promoting one group at the expense of others. What homosexual and transgender activists want is privilege, not equality. They want promotion, not rights.

Individual Fights the Society

The differences in opinion boil down to a clash of an individualist against a communitarian view. The former - arguably more visible these days - suggests that individual freedom is of paramount importance and that people should have the liberty to do what they want even if it meets disapproval of the majority. Communitarianism preaches superiority of the common interest over individual rights.

Individual freedom cannot be the paramount value in any culture. It's simply not possible. The individual does not come into being via freedom alone. There is a culture, a political hegemony which exists before the individual. This tenet is a fundamental concern in real conservatism, and Conservatives across the country need to get back to adhering to it.

Both of these views - much like the physical theories - can coexist but will clash if they stray outside of the area they make sense in.

On an individual level there is nothing wrong with anybody choosing to live with and loving any other person regardless of their gender (and as long as the relationship is consensual). There is really no reason to deny two consenting adults the ability to live (and sleep) with each other.

Actually, there is plenty wrong with such destructive behaviors. It's a misuse of organs, it spread venereal disease, and it deprives children of the mother and father that they need to grow up. At this point, Critical Spectator starts to get the whole argument wrong.

However, while that works for individuals it does not necessarily work for the society at large.

Individuals make up society, but not exclusively. As stated above, there is a moral fabric, a cultural framework which must be respected in order for individuals to exist, survive, and thrive.

The value of a relationship to an individual is defined by the person's subjective interests and feelings. The value of relationships to the society is defined by their functional roles.

Since gay marriage does not serve a reproductive purpose it is therefore not equal to a heterosexual relationship (for the society), even though on an individual level they are both the same - i.e. are expressions of mutual love between two people.

There is no such thing as "Gay marriage." We need to stop allowing modern-day commentators to normalize this crisis of misusing language.

Conversely, forcing the communitarian expectation of a heterosexual relationship on a homosexual person is pointless for the society and harmful for the individual. It is therefore preferable that individuals retain their liberty in choosing whom to spend their lives with.

There is really no such thing as a "homosexual." People are not born gay. There is no gay gene, and homosexuality as a facet of one's behavior or personality is not permanent. It's simply not true. Once again, Critical Spectator is critically off on this point. Notice how much the discussion has continued to veer to the left when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism. Commentators and pundits insist on treating the behavior as a static identity, when it is not.

Some people may argue that homosexual couples can have children via surrogacy or adoption but that's just trying to find a detour to reach a predetermined ideological goal, while ignoring broader implications, consequences of which we don't know yet - and this uncertainty warrants prudent behavior.

It's good that Critical Spectator throws some shade at this proposal. Homosexuals should not be parents. They cannot be parents, in fact, since they cannot reproduce.

Asia doesn't have a habit of taking all Western ideas wholesale, evaluating each of them for its usefulness instead or observing how they play out elsewhere before making a decision.

The normalization of homosexuality has wreaked untold havoc in Western Countries. The political tyranny, the cultural depravity, the moral vacuity which have ensued because of the destruction of natural relations cannot be ignored.

The first issue is the true long term impact on the children - and not only by the parents but also the society, as social stigma can impede good upbringing, even if both parents are perfect in their roles. Prevailing social norms have to be accounted for when enacting laws that address issues of a small minority. And while there is little scientific evidence of directly adverse effects, the samples used in research supporting same-sex parenting are neither randomized nor big enough - and possibly impacted by ideological bias.

More pundits need to point out how homosexual coupling hurts children. Destruction of marriage hurts children, and the corrupt proposal hurts communities as a whole.

Secondly, setting any legal precedents in one case often acts as a gateway for promotion of other ideological goals, which are even more questionable. One of them visible in the West today is an attempt at normalization of transsexualism and the queer theory, supporting the idea of gender fluidity.

Dr. Thio Li-Ann explained quite succinctly that decriminalizing sodomy was the first step in a much larger, more militant agenda. She outlined how reducing sexual differences to "Partner A and Partner B" in marriage would lead to genderless constructs throughout societies, as well as the imposition of this rank dishonesty onto every facet of the culture.

This has severely adverse effects in both formal and informal ways, with courts ruling that children as young as 3 or 4 years old can undergo gender transitioning, with parents finding it fashionable to have or raise a transgender child - including celebrities like Charlize Theron, who is transitioning her 7 year old son into a daughter. Or with informal initiatives which grow in popularity, like the "Drag Queen Story Hour", featuring men dressed up as women reading stories to children in schools and libraries around America and in a few cities abroad already as well.

Gender transitioning is child abuse through and through. One should call it what it really is: sexual mutilation of minors. Furthermore, countries should criminalize this practice for adults, too. Why should anyone--or everyone--participate in this lie that a man can become a woman, or vice versa? It's an abusive corruption of language and a vile imposition on the rest of the community. It's deceptive at its core, as well, and complicates medical as well as other cultural spaces.

Here's the summary from their website:

"Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real."

In other words, we're no longer talking about what two people do in their bedroom but what millions of children are being taught in schools at an especially important and fragile time in their approaching adolescence.

The normalization of homosexuality was never about the bedroom. Homosexual militants wanted to decriminalize their perverse conduct precisely so that they could live "out and proud" openly, then take steps to demand that everyone else accept them. This whole movement was never about consenting adults avoiding incarceration. This movement was about preying on minors and adults to practice their sexual perversion and proclivities with abandon and without limit.

I don't think it falls under "love is love" slogans. Especially as at least two of the men have turned out to be past sex-offenders. This is tantamount to a bait and switch scheme, and certainly does not inspire trust about the entire community - nor about the consequences of supporting LGBTQ causes only to be duped into letting both terrible people and terrible ideas dictate the new standards.

Those sex offenders were discovered by MassResistance at the Houston Drag Queen Story Hour programs three years ago. And MassResistance has found out that there

Is this the promised progress? Color me skeptical.

There is no possibility of tolerance when it comes to widespread sexual perversion. What people do in the privacy of their homes has public consequences. The government does indeed police and regulate behavior in the bedroom. The culture sets standards regarding what behaviors should be promoted, permitted, and prohibited within and without the bedroom.

Critical Spectator strikes me many ways as a neoliberal globalist. He supports individual freedom, yes, but within the constraints of the local culture's values and traditions. This neoliberal sentiment also means that individual freedom no matter what has some value. However, he wants to reconcile this globalist tendency with the more conservative leanings of his adopted country. That is a tension which cannot last long.

And has now frayed, since the Singapore government has declared that they will repeal Section 377a of the penal code.

Responsibility & Tolerance in Governance

I've often praised Singapore for its common sense and today is no different - even though it may sound counter-intuitive in this case. Section 377A, which (technically) criminalizes sexual relations between men is a remnant of colonial legislation, most of which was repealed in 2007. It is not applied in practice and the government has long declared it would not be enforced.

On the face of it, it would appear it is common sense to just get rid of it. But sometimes the most reasonable thing is to defend the status quo.

First of all, Section 377A serves as a political tool, appealing to largely conservative sentiments of the Singaporean society. Secondly - and crucially - it focuses attention of the pro-LGBT activists, who cannot progress beyond this obstacle with any other ideas.

The law has served as a stop-gap to prevent the spread of further LGBT perversion. Repeal the anti-sodomy statute, then the activists will clamor for the entitlement to get married, to throw parades in their honor, and then demand the "right" to adopt children.

As long as it exists, all protests will be revolving around its repeal. If it falls, one day, then it is safe to assume that Pink Dot will not dissolve - much like it never happened with activism in the West - but, instead, is going to turn to promoting other ideas, opening Pandora's box for the government.

Indeed, this is the case. With the repeal of 377a, activists across the island nation have voiced their deep displeasure. They want more, and they want it now. In fact, some see it as an insult that the government has taken the token steps to repeal a statute which they were not enforcing in the first place.

Singaporean authorities face an unenviable task of balancing the interests of the country (both its society and well-being of its citizens, as well as its global brand as a modern, supremely developed city-state) with the need to retain support from individuals across various age groups and beliefs.

I find it very frustrating that government policy must be discussed in terms of "balance." There is right and wrong, there is good and evil, there is wise and unwise, and as much as possible governments must insist on doing what is right, even if it is not popular in the short term, whether with the citizens of the country or the world at large.

At the same time the dead law exposes hypocrisy of the advocates of its repeal, proving that the government's reluctance to remove it is not unfounded.

Activists don't care about the real conditions in which gay couples live in Singapore today - free from any persecution and arguably being the safest and most prosperous in the entire region.

Homosexuals have been able to do quite a lot in Singapore, without fear or recrimination or retribution. The truth is that they condemn themselves for abusing their bodies and living in accordance with a lie. A number of Singaporean bloggers and commentators acknowledge that homosexual "communities" are fraught with abuse, negativity, and outright hatred. So much for "Love is Love."

These facts are irrelevant because political and ideological agendas are too valuable, leveraging this meaningless section as a symbol to rally support behind.

The law is not meaningless, in that curtail the normalization of sexual perversion is good for individuals as society as a whole.

Ultimately, the whole 377A drama has little to do with love or ending discrimination - even if many people who join in may idealistically believe it does. It's about exerting ideological influence on the country and political one on the government that leads it. But the authorities cannot yield, in no small part because the pressure on them would only intensify to give protesters even more later.

And yet the government has given in, and more pressure will follow.

There's always some cause in bad need of support, after all.

As a result, the best thing to do is not to enforce the law and yet leave it there to prevent more ambitious pursuits of even more dubious aims. All of that while waiting to see where these ideas lead in the Western countries, respecting the will of the majority while leaving the door open for a safe and comfortable life to the minorities.

The homosexual activists will never leave well-enough alone. They can't, since they are not well themselves, harming their bodies and struggling with issues

And that's easily the most balanced, considerate and tolerant approach you'll witness anywhere in the world.

Final Reflection

The analysis provided by Critical Spectator is thorough, for certain. He could not have predicated that the Singapore government would repeal 377a. I do find troubling his equivocation that both the government and the activists are right about 377a. This is his globalist neoliberalism standing out: "Everyone is right, and everyone has their own truth" is the jist of this misplaced mindset. No, one side is right and one side is wrong, and in politics the powers that best should strive for choosing the right side of the fight as much as possible.

The Singapore government has chosen poorly in their decision to repeal 377a. They most likely fear the potential commercial backlash from Western countries, which are intent on normalizing the destruction of the family. Rather than respecting its own borders, language, and culture, the Singapore government wants to wander further into the globalist, secularist experiment, one which treats identity politics and globalist grandstanding as more important than the long-seated traditions of the different peoples within the island nation.

One has to wonder how much longer Singapore will survive, now that the country is turning away from its singular identity as a conservative enclave in the midst of an ever-increasing globalist neoliberalism.

What the Heck, Unicorn?! "Repeal 377a is Not Enough!"

This cartoon is my latest clapback at the pro-LGBT propagandist/cartoonist Heckin' Unicorn.

When it comes to homosexuality and the LGBT agenda, the slippery slope is real.

Repeal of 377a is the first step in a much larger, destructive agenda.

How could the Singapore government not see this?

What the heck, unicorn?!

More Caving? Singapore Officials Unclear About Protection of Marriage

First, the Singapore government announces that they will repeal Section 377a, the section of the criminal code which sanctions indecent acts between men.

Then, in order to safeguard long-standing concerns about the protection of natural marriage, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:

Hence even as we repeal s377A, we will uphold and safeguard the institution of marriage. Under the law, only marriages between one man and one woman are recognised in Singapore. Many national policies rely upon this definition of marriage – including public housing, education, adoption rules, advertising standards, film classification. The Government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage, nor these policies.

This measure does not inspire confidence. If homosexual conduct is acceptable, why shouldn't those individual actors agitate for the right to get married, to host a parade, and flaunt their gayness, as well? The notion that the Singapore government can "split the baby" so to speak, allowing for the repeal of Section 377a but at the same retain the natural definition of marriage, is asking for nothing but trouble.

However, as the law stands, this definition of marriage can be challenged on constitutional grounds in the courts, just like s377A has been challenged. This has indeed happened elsewhere. If one day such a challenge succeeds here, it could cause same sex marriages to become recognised in Singapore, and this would happen not because Parliament passed any such law, but as the result of a court judgement. Then, even if the majority of MPs opposed same sex marriage, Parliament may not be able to simply change the law to restore the status quo ante. Because to reverse the position, Parliament may have to amend the Constitution, and that would require a two-thirds majority.

It seems rather strange how judicial activism has become so prevalent throughout the Common Law, English-speaking world. Courts did not wield such outrageous authority in the past, yet jurisprudence in the Western World has stretched civil rights litigation to unfounded limits, and now judges are just creating new rights out of thin air.

The Singapore government should amend the Constitution to recognize marriage between one man and one woman, just as the Hungarian government had done a few years back.

But is that what the PAP-run government intends to do?

Minister of Law K Shanmugam appeared to throw cold water on that bold move:

In line with the move to repeal Section 377A (S377A) of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises gay sex, Singapore’s Constitution will be amended to ensure the right of Parliament to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said on Monday (22 August).

The Parliament will move not to ensure the natural definition of marriage, but rather to ensure that only parliament can define marriage. That is not the same thing at all.

The Prime Minister said that the government would move to protect the natural definition of marriage. The Minister of Law moves away from the measure right away. What do we see here? More caving. The slipperly slope to normalize sexual perversion is real. This whole LGBT agenda does not stop with the decriminalizing of gross indecent acts between men. Inevitably, they will demand false marriage, fake adoption, and sexualized propaganda onto students and adults alike. This move will not end will for the Republic of Singapore.

The move is to guard against challenges in court on the definition of marriage, and is different from enshrining it in the Constitution, said Shanmugam in an interview with The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.

It's really distressing how the government went from announcing the repeal of Section 377a to backing away from a full-force definition protecting the institution of marriage. What a shame. I fear that false marriage will become the law of the land in two years time, should the people of Singapore not push back on the government's misguided, inappropriate measure to repeal 377a.

Another Moment of Anguish: Singapore Caves to the Globalist LGBT Movement

Lee Kuan Yew during his "Moment of Anguish"

When Malaysia expelled Singapore from the Malaysian Confederation in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew wept publicly on live television, decrying the sad day as "A moment of anguish." As Lee's son and successor Hsien Loong declares his government's intention for the full repeal of Section 377a, the general citizenry should declare a greater moment of anguish as well as mourning.

The repeal of Section 377a is but the first step toward a slow and steady dissolution of the entire country. I have met a number of Singaporeans ... outside of the country. They are leaving. They don't want to live there anymore. Those expatriates feel that the country has reached its zenith and is now embracing a slow decline. Repealing 377a is hastening that decline.

Singapore aspired to be a Red Dot with great power and influence in a blue sea of competition, the Antioch of Southeast Asia for a growing, thriving Christian community as well. Now, as the Singapore government caves to the globalist LGBT movement, one has to wonder how much longer the glories of that little island nation will last.

Section 377a of the Singapore criminal code criminalizes gross, indecent acts between men, i.e. sodomy, homosexual acts, etc. Yes, the British colonial governments had enacted this law during their rule over the Malaysian peninsula, but ever after independence, many of the Commonwealth countries retained these statutes, as the local populations still found those behaviors (rightfully) reprehensible and worthy of sanction.

The British brought many welcome reforms to Southeast Asia (as well as other countries around the globe). Eliminating the tolerance and promotion of sexual perversion was one of those well-founded developments. Many remain unaware of this, but even in Mainland China, before the British showed up, homosexuality was rampant and compromising for the general culture. It was a destructive vice prevalent among the higher political classes. Better governance, strong rule ensued throughout Southeast Asia when homosexuality was criminalized.

Following Singapore's independence in 1965, the new republic's criminal code retained this contentious yet necessary statute. Based on a number of reports throughout the next forty years, this code indeed served many purposes. Some haunts in the island Republic became oft-frequented cruising spots for homosexual trysts. The ongoing abuses in public toilets and metro stations also affirmed the need to protect boys and girls from predatory behavior.

In 2007, there was a petition to repeal 377a, as gay activists contended that it is cruel, arbitrary, and unnecessary to criminalize sexual acts between two consenting adults of the same sex. However, members of the Singapore parliament were paying close attention to the cultural and political ravages which afflicted countries throughout the world when they allowed for so-called "same-sex marriage" as well as the full decriminalization of homosexuality (and transgenderism).

Those warnings were well-said and well-put. Dr. Thio Li-Ann, a nominated member of the Singapore parliament at the time, gave the strongest defense for Section 377a. Her statements helped ensure the retention of the statute for 15 more years, and her thorough logical, historical, cultural, and political analysis ensured that other pro-family activists could make strong remarks to defend natural marriage and reject the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism.

Sadly, fifteen years later, and following multiple court cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 377a, the Singapore government has caved. Mostly likely heeding globalist pressures, especially de to rising economic downturns and greater competition in the Southeast Asian markets, the Singapore government has announced that there is no longer a need to retain the statute criminalizing indecent acts between men.

Prime Minister LHL shared during the 2022 National Day Parade speech:

A major issue for gay Singaporeans is Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes sex between men a criminal offence. It was originally introduced in the 1930s by the British colonial government. It reflected moral attitudes and social norms that prevailed back then. But over the decades, homosexuality has become better understood, scientifically and medically. In many societies, including Singapore, gay people have become more accepted for who they are, instead of being shunned and stigmatised.

The implication of this statement is that everyone else in society has learned to stop being so "bigoted." The problem with homosexuality is not the individuals who engage in the practice, but rather the people who refuse to accept the lie that people are "born that way."

Many countries that used to have laws against sex between men have since repealed them. They include several Asian countries, but so far not Singapore.

I find this tag particularly offensive. "Singapore is behind the times" is the subtle pretext for this statement. Has it ever occured to the government that perhaps the other countries are wrong for normalizing a perversion which harms the public square?

Parliament last debated whether or not to repeal Section 377A in 2007. MPs expressed strong views on both sides. I joined in the debate to advise restraint and caution. I acknowledged that what consenting adults do in private is their personal affair, and the Government should not intervene. But I pointed out that not everyone was equally accepting of homosexuality. Quite a few had considerable reservations, particularly within certain religious groups, including the Muslims, Catholics and many Protestant denominations.

Actually, the "Retain 377a" side gave the strongest arguments. The "Repeal 377a" side relied on emotional arguments fraught with legal and cultural fallacies. They hoped to shame proponents of 377a, and yet such emotional wrangling failed.

Sadly, emotion has won over reason, more importantly fear of global pressures and fear of losing potential investment and economic capital.

Prime Minister LHL continued:

Now, 15 years later, attitudes have shifted appreciably. While we remain a broadly conservative society, gay people are now better accepted in Singapore, especially among younger Singaporeans. It is timely to ask ourselves again the fundamental question: should sex between men in private be a criminal offence?

"Gay people are now better accepted in Singapore ..." In other words: "All you backward Singaporeans have finally stop being so hateful." Again, the general import of this remark is quite offensive. It is necessary and proper to oppose the normalization of homosexuality. These behaviors are rooted in trauma and abuse. The behaviors themselves are harmful and self-demeaning. The spread of venereal disease and the assault on marital and family life cannot be ignored, either. 

Why has such a widespread attitude toward pro-family elements proliferated in Singapore? Foreign influence and Internet promotion certainly has changed attitude. Much of the propaganda on homosexuality promotes the conduct as benign and natural. Liberal mockery has also contributed to disdain for pro-family efforts, as well, like the skits produced by the Ministry of Funny (MOF). These actors have poked fun and demeaned the pro-family movement for a long time. In their 2018 skit producing a sequel to the 2018 NDP video celebration (see photo above), the MOF portrayed pro-family "Wear White" activists as violent, hateful extremists. This false impression has made a sadder impression on the greater public, certainly.

In particularly disturbing fashion, LHL makes the case for normalizing homosexuality because of "younger Singaporeans." One has to wonder what Lee Kuan Yew would have said to such an argument. Very likely Singapore as a strict yet well-governed nation would not have existed if the Founder cared more about what the younger generation thought. Younger people want to abolish the death penalty, allow for widespread recreational use of controlled substances. Most young people have a host of issues, not the least of which is that they are, well, immature! Why would any serious government care what the younger generation thinks about ANY issue?

Yet here we are. Singapore is caving. This is another Day of Anguish for the island Republic.

Gay Blogger (Unawares) Reveals Source of Same-Sex Attraction: Child Abuse

It's time to declare a harsh truth on the matter of homosexuality and transgenderism. The destructive behaviors, the false identities are the result of neglect, trauma, confusion, and molestation.

People who engage in these behaviors are victims themselves, so it's understandable that people are initially reticent to criticize the behaviors and condemn the agenda. No one wants to be labeled "anti-gay" or "anti-trans."

However, the origins of these harmful behaviors and pernicious lies are neither gay nor transitory. They create a lifetime of harm, and they are based on hurt at the outset.

We need to stand for truth so that we can set people free and help them (and others) stand up to abuse, hate, and lies.

In Singapore, homosexual activist Sean Foo shared his story:

Sean Foo as a child

              

Growing up, I struggled a lot with my masculinity.

Why would a child struggle with being a boy or a girl? These are not innate problems or issues. You are born male or female. There is nothing inherently wrong with a person just on account of this fact. If someone struggles with this identity, or if they feel unsure about their identity, that problem is the result of an environmental issue, pressure or shame from the outside of the person.

So, where did this source of confusion come from for Little Sean?

At home, I was always getting scolded for not being manly enough. In school, my effeminate nature made me an easy target. I lost count of the number of times someone called me a ‘sissy’. I grew to really hate that word.

Here, we have a boy who was shamed by his family, and he was rejected by his peers. This is a perfect storm for fomenting same-sex attraction, same-sex attraction. I can't imagine the sense of hurt, the sense of rejection that he endured because his parents, presumably his father, told him that he was not really a man, that he was not acting the way that a man should. That kind of shame takes its toll on a person.

And that is precisely what happened:

So I tried very hard to adopt conventionally masculine mannerisms. Not doing so had consequences. I learnt to sit the ‘right’ way. Walk the ‘right’ way. Hold my wrists the ‘right’ way.  And over time, I succeeded. I moulded myself into someone most would consider ‘straight-acting’. So, the bullying stopped. And for a while, all was well.

When someone has to "try" to be something that they already are, there you have the basis for a emotional disorder, a mental challenge. To shame a child for not measuring up to a strange, if not unattainable standard, is child abuse. Kids need to be nurtured, strengthened, supported. They need to know that they are loved and accepted, even when they fail. That is how children grow strong, how they settle into their identity as men or as women.

I must repeat, based on the emotional harm that he endured as a kid, it's clear that Sean was abused as a kid, it's just that simple. He was not "born in the wrong body," nor was he gay at the outset. Just because boys have slightly different mannerisms does not make them any less of a boy. And the same holds true for girls.

But then… puberty struck.

Sean Foo as an adult

                             

I was 13 when it happened. A handsome senior in school caught my eye. And for the first time in my life, I experienced same-sex attraction. I panicked. So I rushed home to conduct some research to seek an explanation for what I was feeling.

Why did Sean experience this attraction? For years prior, he had been told, and thus he did not feel that he was a proper male. The lack of affirmation creates an emotional void, a dire need within a person. As a result, he was drawn to fit in with other males and try to fit into their mold. A number of reparative therapists talk about this issue at great length, that males will have emotional attachments to other males if they do not get the confirmation they need as children. That need, if left unresolved, turns into a sexual desire. For so long, Sean had felt that there was something wrong with him--because so many people in his own household told him that he was not male enough. What a shame. It's such a shame that he was treated so poorly by his family.

I do not want Sean to think that his family is essentially wicked. Whatever happened to his parents, whatever wrong believing they harbored, whether it was his father or whoever else, they projected this lie onto their son. Sadly, Sean has suffered under this lie, and that is wrong. Someone should have affirmed him as a boy when he was a boy.

I remember vividly the wave of relief that swept over me when I read that same-sex attraction was a normal phase during puberty. That made sense to me. After all, I was in an all-boys school. I was convinced that once I graduate, I would grow out of all this confusion.

Sean himself recognized the confusion in his life. He was confused early on because he was told that he was not really "boyish" or manly enough, when the truth is that he was already a male, and that there was no need for him to try to be "more manly."

In my case however, it was never a phase. My homosexual tendencies followed me as I proceeded on to junior college. It didn’t matter that my junior college had an abundance of girls. My heart only saw men.

These identity issues will linger with people if they do not hear the truth and get the proper care and attention that they need. It's no surprise that these issues did not abate for him, because at the outset his own family dishonored him unfairly.

I was so deep in denial that I somehow managed to convince myself that I was straight despite the fact that I was crushing on guys around me all the time.

The only denial that Sean has been struggling with is the lie that he is not really a man, when true to form he was born a male, and he has nothing to be ashamed of. The shame and misunderstandings from his childhood were wrong, and they imposed on him a false impression. Notice the pain and confusion that he went through? I cannot stress enough how abusive it is for parents to shame their children, to damage them emotionally by denying and denigrating their true basic identity.

In my desperate bid to conform, I tried very hard to develop feelings for the opposite sex. I dated a couple of girls over the years. But for obvious reasons, none of them worked out. But I never gave up. Convinced that it was just a matter of meeting the right girl. Being gay was simply not an option for me.

Notice throughout his testimony this theme of "I tried very hard." This constant effort to try to be something that he already is will create so many problems. There is something about human nature, that the more one tries t be something that seems unattainable, the worse the problem becomes.

In fact, Paul the Apostle writes extensively about this struggle in Romans 7:

"19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

"20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

"21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me." (Romans 7:19-21)

It took me some time. 10 years to be exact. But I finally had that long belated epiphany at the age of 23. There was no life changing incident that triggered it. I just woke up one day and acknowledged to myself that I was gay. And with that simple revelation, the inner turmoil that plagued my life for a decade dissipated.

Here, Sean just gives into the lie, because he cannot understand why he continued to have that struggle. The fact is that he has operated under a larget yet more subtle lie, one which was imposed at him at too young an age: that he was not "manly" enough.

I can only hope that someone someday will inform him that there was nothing wrong with him as a boy, and that he needs the affirmation in the truth of who he is, nothing more:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

It's time for us to intervene against these lies and stand for truth. It's time for us to tell people who struggle with LGBT issues that they are not defined by their feelings, nor should they limit themselves to what people said about them when they were younger. They need to embrace the radical and releasing truth that they were not born "gay," and that they do not have to give into feelings that will lea them to more harm, pain, and loss.

The True Source of Homosexual Pain: Self-Fixation

There is no greater source of pain for an individual than ... self.

The more that we look at ourselves, the more that we try to fix ourselves, the more that everything falls apart, the more that we see how so much of us does not measure up to a standard that we revere or seek to emulate.

Consider what happened to Adam and Eve when they sinned, eating from the tree that was good, but not good for them:

"6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." (Genesis 3: 6-7)

When they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve looked at themselves. They knew the Law, a standard which will forever bear witness to our failures, to our incapacity to live or do anything right apart from God. We cannot live independently of His life in us. It's just not possible. 

But Adam and Eve sent the message to God, their loving, gracious Creator, that they did not need Him, when they ate from the fruit of the tree that was good, but not good for them.

This is sin at its core: defiant, empty independence from God. "I don't need you, Lord. I can fix myself. I don't need you, Lord, I can figure out what to do on my own."

And such has been the tragedy of mankind since then. To be in bondage to oneself, to fall into this trap that we can fix ourselves if we keep looking at ourselves, look for faults, and look for ways to correct those faults on our own, is the fast road to disaster.

With this revelation in mind, consider now the testimony of a young homosexual in Singapore:

Confession: I Wish The Gay Scene Was More Accepting & Inclusive

This candid piece from a 25-year old gay Singaporean reveals how lonely and isolating it can be for guys who don’t fit into the mould of the insta-famous gays.

Dear Straight People,

I’m a 26-year old who has got nothing else to do on a Sunday night besides feeling depressed, so here’s me writing my story to pass the time.

How sad indeed, that he is dwelling on his feelings, how depressed he feels, and that he has "nothing else to do on a Sunday Night."

We can see right away why he is depressed: He is focused on himself. That is going to make anyone depressed.

Being a December baby has it’s pros and cons when I was younger, but nowadays, it just signifies how lost I am with where I am in my life.

Keep track of the number of times he uses the word "I" as well.

I guess the first time I realised I was attracted to boys was when I was in primary school. He had this boyish smell that made me want to know him better, and that somehow became the first time I felt something towards someone, wanting to do things for him just to know him better.

As a boy in primary school, he was preoccupied with himself early, as though he was not enough of a "boy." I have found this trend quite common among many of the testimonies from out-homosexuals, whether male or female. They are so uncomfortable in their very being as boys and girls, and they want to find some sort of affirmation of fulfillment from someone of the same sex.

This is not a sexual issue, though. It's an emotional lack, often originating in a lack of affirmation from the same-sex parent.

When I was in secondary school, I felt attracted to another boy in my class because he wore this super tight pair of pants that made his butt pop. Yeah, that was when I realised I was really into guys but I never spoke about it to anyone. I told myself to focus on my studies.

The emotional need turn into a sexual temptation. This transfer happens a lot for people who struggle with same-sex temptations.

And then booyah, NS came about.

SERVING NATIONAL SERVICE

It was 2013, I was just a dumb fat kid, actually looking forward to BMT since I wanted to lose weight.

Yet another reason he was so self-conscious. He focused on Himself a great deal, this time because of body image issues. 

The moment I stepped into my bunk, I glanced around the bunk and met eyes with another guy. I felt attracted to this person but it wasn’t intense, so I thought that hey, I should be ok.

 Again, keep track of "I ... I ... I ..."

But when I met another person from another bunk in the same platoon, I realised how utterly screwed I was with what I was feeling. I felt confusion and the confusion only grew worse when guys were just running back and forth from the bunks to the toilets in just their briefs.

We are getting a window into the intense inner dialogue of an individual. The fact that he has fixated on his inner stirrings, his inner worries and cares shows once again how much he is in bondage to himself.

I grew depressed, hated myself for what I felt as I believe that it was wrong to be gay. I longed to fit in with the rest of my army mates, to be able to sit around the table to discuss girls and be a ‘regular straight male’.

 Self-hatred is a form of self-centeredness, nothing more ... and nothing less. Notice that he wanted to fit in with the rest of his fellow soldiers. That sense of feeling left out, of feeling out of place because of a sense of inferiority, of inadequacy, better explains his same-sex temptations.

But I couldn’t change who I was. During my 2-year stint in National Service, I fell for another 2 guys. All 3 of them are straight and it totally crushed me. My depression got worse as a result. I wished that there was a pill that could turn me straight.

 None of us can change ourselves using our own knowledge, reason, or experience. The answer to this fixation with self cannot be found within ourselves, for all this self-preoccupation is precisely the problem. What is needed, then, is to be preoccupied with the truth.

ROAD TO SELF ACCEPTANCE

The road to self acceptance took some time for me.

 When reading the rest of this blog, you will find that he has not accepted himself. He started out this post talking about how depressed he felt. That does not sound like "self-acceptance" one bit.

The first time I came out to someone was when I told my best friend from poly. I remembered how frightened I was. Fortunately, she told me that it’s okay, that she kinda figured what I wanted to talk to her about.

 

Fast forward to now, I’ve finally accepted myself for who I am. But the road to self acceptance certainly wasn’t a smooth journey for me. I still remember knocking on the door of my school counselor and crying in her office during my college days.

That counselor really failed this young man. She needed to tell him that his feelings do not define him, and that his proper sexual bearings will fall into proper alignment when he deals with the deeper sense of loneliness and inadequacy.

Although it took me quite some time to come to terms with my sexuality, slow progress is still better than no progress.

 The truth is that there has been no progress for this young man, based on the overall theme of what he has been sharing.

FEELING REJECTED BY THE GAY COMMUNITY

I may have accepted myself for who I am. But I feel unwanted by the gay scene in Singapore.

Again, notice the refrain of "I ... I ... I." The fact that he bases his sense of peace on whether others will accept him or not shows the true source of his depression: looking to other people to make him feel fulfilled and accepted.

I feel that I’m not good enough when I look at myself in the mirror and I compare myself to the insta-popular guys. It makes me feel like I shouldn’t exist. Even though I do want to know them (even trying to slide into their DMs), I know they’ll never reply.

 Again, we have proof that he really does not accept himself. This "self-acceptance" talk all comes up empty at the end of all his musings and ruminations.

Of course, like every other gay guy in Singapore, I did try the apps. But all it resulted in for me was silence.

 Oh Lord! Nothing will bring emptiness, loneliness, and depression more

I guess all I really wish for is just to have friends to celebrate my birthday with me or even just bring me to the gay scene and enjoy their time with me. But it feels like even that is too tough.

 The real need is companionship and peace, then? The real problem is a sense of loneliness. That is what is bothering him. The issue is not one of "self-acceptance" into homosexuality. Sadly. his delving into this sexual perversion only worsens the loneliness, the emptiness, the loss of identity and peace.

Being at work in the private sector, sometimes it still gets to me how I have no other way to spend time besides being at work, at home and doing some volunteer work.

I want to be called out by friends, hang out at tantric, have a few drinks, go to taboo, meet guys and have sex. But sadly, I still feel like I’m not good enough. Even though I went to the extent of losing weight from 86kg to 72kg recently.

Again ... "I ... I ... I ... I." No wonder this guy is sad, and small wonder that not many people want to hang out with him. People are self-centered, selfish, focused only on self are not that much fun to be around!

I’ve never been in a relationship nor have I had sex with anyone. Haha, I don’t even know if I’m a top or a bottom or versatile. I don’t even know what love feels like and that is really the saddest thing I could say.

Will writing all this here result in anything? I highly doubt so but yeah, I’m lonely and maybe I’ll just die sad and lonely.

I wish the gay scene in Singapore isn’t that hard to be a part of. But sadly, it is. I’m not sure if I’m the only lonely one here or if there are other gay guys out there facing the same issue.

But wouldn’t it be great if there was a club for LGBT youths to hang out together where it doesn’t feel like everything depends on your physical appearance.

Final Reflection

Homosexuals like this young man are focused on themselves. They see themselves as inadequate, failing to measure up. They are lacking something, they feel lost or incomplete in some way. In too many cases, that sense of self-focus is a result of sexual or emotional abuse, all of which is NOT THEIR FAULT!

But, how these individuals deal with these traumas, that is their responsibility.

One has to remark, also, that for all the talk about "gay lifestyle," and "being gay," we have yet another admission that there is nothing really gay at all about the homosexual scene or the lifestyles, behaviors, and customs attached to it.

Consider Paul the Apostle's struggle in Romans 7:

"15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." (Romans 7:15-20)

Notice all the focus on self! Notice all the self-effort, too! Notice that Paul is constantly looking at himself, trying to make himself better through self-efforts.

And this self-fixation cannot fix anything!

The answer is to look to the source of our life, Christ HIMSELF (Romans 8:1; Colossians 3:4)

Open Secret: Homosexuals Are Homophobic

"Dear Straight People" Pro-Gay Website
Has Lots of Homophobia

It's not very often that one finds homosexual activists telling the truth. They offer all kinds of lies to justify their broken lives and destructive habits:

1. I was born this way.

2. Society is punishing me for being born this way.

3. If only society would accept it the way that I was born, I would be OK.

4. My parents love me because they accept me for whom I am, i.e. gay, trans, etc.

And so on.

Of course, no one is "born that way."

It is not the fault of any culture that there is so much harm and self-destruction among homosexuals.

Even in the most LGBT-affirming countries, all the health and mental problems that afflict homosexual populations are still prevalent.

And it's not love for parents to enable their children to fall into LGBT behaviors. That is actually a form of hate.

But, as I wrote at the outset, homosexual activists will sometimes tell the truth.

Check out these rather blunt truths that Sean Foo from "Dear Straight People" shared with the public:

Why Open Relationships Are Common Among Gay Men

The original URL link writes "Why Polyamory is Common Among Gay Men."

Homosexuals engage in multiple relationships, indulge in multiple sexual partnerships.

What's going on? Why is this happening?

Sean Foo "spills the tea":

Open relationships are rampant among gay men! No, I do not have any credible statistics or evidence to back my claim up. But if you happen to have any gay friends, chances are, he will probably tell you in a very jaded tone that monogamous gay relationships are fast becoming nothing but a gay fairy-tale.

Ok, maybe that was a slight exaggeration. Monogamy isn’t completely dead in the gay community, but it isn’t exactly the norm either. While polygamy does exist among heterosexual couples, it isn’t frowned upon in the gay community in the same way that it is among straight people. Polygamous straight couples tend to keep their swinging practices to themselves. Polygamous gay couples on the other hand, are generally pretty open to acknowledging that they aren’t sexually exclusive to one another.

Sean Foo
Out-Homo ... Phobe

It's an official and unofficial fact that homosexual conduct is conducive to promicuity, and as Sean himself admits, they are "proud" of it!

But Sean shares more:

And the general consensus for why open relationships are not only common, but generally accepted among gay men is that simply well, gay men are sluts!

Wow! This is pretty derogatory. One out-homosexual admits that other homosexuals are sexual deviants, promiscuous, abusing their bodies with themselves and other people. Pretty shameful, but clearly honest.

Indeed, a number of studies confirm that homosexuals have on average fifty partners. FIFTY!

And the self-loathing, the homophobia does not stop there:

Gay men however, aren’t as heavily influenced by social norms as straight people are. Gay men have always lived outside the rules of society. The same-sex attractions we experience naturally makes us social misfits. Thus, it follows logically that gay men aren’t going to adhere to social norms as much as straight people do. We are left to our own devices, each of us developing our own perspectives on how a relationship should be like. Some gay men subscribe to the heteronormative concept of monogamy. Others however, find the monogamous nature of heterosexual relationships irrelevant, thereby choosing to have an open relationship instead.

In other words, homosexuals only care about themselves. They don't care about the needs of their partner or rather "partners." They give themselves permission to break all rules, customs, and modes of acceptable conduct, because, once again, they want to play victim, claiming that their attractions are "normal."

However, is there anything really normal, or even acceptable about a male having abusive intercourse with fifty strangers on average?

Here's more proof of homosexual homophobia, from Sean Foo no less:

Dear Gay Men, Let’s Stop Hating Each Other!

Wow! Sean admits that homosexuals hate each other ... but they also hate themselves!

Let’s face it, we hate a lot of things. We hate homophobic people. We hate ourselves. We hate each other.

Homosexuals are a pretty hateful bunch, aren't they? And they admit it!

Homophobia within the gay community is a longstanding issue, one that is often swept under the carpet. Instead of addressing the homophobia prevalent within the gay community itself, we often rather focus on the hate coming at us from the straight community because that seems so much more easier to deal with.

Yet again, homoexual activist Sean Foo plays victim, talking about the so-called "straight community" and their hate for homosexuals. The truth is that people who oppose homosexuality do not come from a place of a hate, but a place of truth. The behaviors themselves are intrinsically disorderded, and they harm the individuals who practice them along with society as a whole. The people who push for militant, imposed "acceptance" of these behaviors are wreaking untold havoc on communities around the world, as well.

Again, telling people the truth is not hate. Lying to people, that is a form of hate. Forcing a deceptive, deceitful agenda on adults and children--that is a form of hate.

So, already, we expose that homosexuals are hateful to themselves, because they are giving into a lie to abuse their bodies. And now they plainly admit that they hate each other:

The cause of homophobia from within the gay community itself however, isn’t as obvious. Despite the fact that gay activists regularly preach about the importance of love during their campaigns, their message of love seems to have gotten lost within the gay community.

"Love is love" really is just an empty slogan among homosexuals, both the activists and those who don't really say or do anything besides ... one another. (However, the truth is that every homosexual is inevitably an activist, determined to normalize his--or her--perversion to the world and to seek then demand acceptance.)

From here, Sean Foo does not merely "spill the tea," but rather releases a tsunami of homophobia:

I mean, homophobia within the LGBT community is rampant! There are the gay men who taunt the fat ones. The gay men who detest the feminine ones. The gay men who ridicule the closeted ones. The gay men who only talk to other gay men of a certain race or ethnicity. The gay men who get labelled sluts after having sex on the first date. The gay men who get labelled sluts after having sex on the fifth date. The gay men who get labelled sluts after only having sex once. I could go on and on but I am sure you get the picture by now.

There is so much hate, and so little time to keep up with all of it.

Truly, the homosexual movement is built on homophobia. So much self-loathing inevitably leaks out into loathing other people. No matter how many sexual encounters a male (or female) may have with other same-sex partners, the love, respect, and intimacy they are seeking remains wanting. The deeper emotional, emotional, and psychological turmoil which they face on a day-to-day basis is never assuaged, never appeased, never resolved.

They have been lied to by a dedicated political effort to normalize something which can never be normal, and to believe something which is emphatically untrue, from the inside out.

Homosexuals are homophobic, and they cannot help but be so. There is no escape for them out of those perversions, and they are embittered by the pain and suffering which fines no outlet in sexual promiscuity.

Singaporean Defends Home Country's Limitations on Freedom of Speech

From R_Ramendump:

Free speech is good, but calling singapore a dictatorship, that many are saying in the comments is not a true statement. A dictatorship is a country under the rule of a single person or party, with no tolerance of any other ruling ideologies, yes there is a law against speaking out against the government and religions in singapore, but that is for a whole other reason than muting the people and making sure the party is at the top. I am myself, I have no bias towards any ruling party for I am unable to vote. 

In 1965, there were racial riots between the prominent races in singapore at the time, this was due to a few uneducated or badly educated troublemaking people back in the day, they spread false information and accused certain races of things, causing hatred to brew in their racial groups. A huge riot was a result of that, many people died, yes not as much as wars and some other riots in other countries, but if a country had the ability to prevent this from happening again, would they not? 

If a riot ensued in Singapore in modern times this would mean alot of problems, Singapore is a international port, many countries including the US, China, India, Japan, Canada and many others use our port ofr entrepot trade, if Singapore ceases to function, all countries would be affected, not only us. At the cost of slight free speech, against racial disagreements and political disagreements to ensure stability of the relations between the people in our country, I feel that it is an ok trade off, instead of the sadly, dysfunctionality of some parts of countries with Free Speech, such as the US. 

Again, many people are allowed to have many of their own opinions, just that the opinions that could cause potential trouble in Singapore are silenced with a limit. Singapore still allows for people to talk out against the government for inequality and problems, as long as its viable to the other groups and societies in the country. Singapore has also many parties, but one party has been ruling for a long while due to their immense popularity with our people, there is doubt in the party controlling the votes as their votes seem to be decreasing in the past few years, as younger voters, uninfluenced by the party's past deeds have been voting. 

The only thing I have against the current party is how they convicted "communists" without much solid evidence, as a push for independence from the British. Feel free to discuss about this topic with me, calmly.

The Tragedy of "Free Speech" Miscreant Amos Yee

Amos Yee, Singaporean Blogger turned Pedophile Advocate
Turned convicted criminal

For the last two years, I have been following the perverse tragedy of Amos Yee.

A refugee from Singapore, Yee ran afoul of his country's strict laws regarding freedom of expression. In Singapore, one can face stiff fines or even jail time for insulting or wounding religious or ethnic sensibilities,

In 2015, Yee did exactly that, even though he was still a minor. He produced a number of videos denouncing Singapore's Founding Father Lee Kwan Yew. His rhetoric included a great deal of vile cursing and vulgar statements, as well. He also called Jesus Christ a fraud, and he even shared a picture of Lee Kwan Yew in bed with Margaret Thatcher, mocking the Founder's pro-free market economic policies.

He ended up spending over 50 days in jail for his hateful remarks. At the same time, he turned into a cause celebre among the liberal elites in Singapore, and even some free-speech activists in the United States.

Fearing that he would be jailed again if he shared his views further, he fled Singapore and sought refuge in the United States in 2018. President Trump attempted to block his asylum application, but a federal judge in Chicago granted his request, and so Yee was allowed to stay.

For the next year, he toured the "conservative" free speech circuit, shocking audiences with his radical, even licentious, criminal views on speech. He became an actual advocate for pedophilia! Disgusting, but true. He even shared that people should be allowed to threaten immediate and immiment violent threats. The United States has a very liberal policy when it comes to freedom of speech, no doubt. Mr. Yee would not have faced prison time for writing vile things about different religions or the founders of any country.

Here is his interview with Dave Rubin. Click here.

Here is his interview with Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. Click here.

(Check out the title for Rev. Jesse's video, too: Far-Left Anarcho-Communist Demands Open Borders, More Illegals, & Pedophiles Roaming Free (Full Ep.))

However, even the United States, whether in state or federal statute, does not permit individuals to make immediate, provocate, dire violent threats against others. Such threats are indeed taken very seriously.

The greatest alarm comes from his active, flippant, extremely disturbing endorsement of pedophilia. He actually argued that child can consent to sexual relationships with adults, and that such relationships should be legal. So-called conservative influencers and commentators, like the ones above, gave him free access to spew his views. Frankly, freedom of speech is essential for hashing out views and for allowing people to critique and challenge ideas and ideologies that they favor or disapprove.

Yet the situation with Amos Yee was different. By the time he arrived in the United States, he had become an adult. But before then, as a minor, he had been proppped up in all kinds of ways, enabled to speak his mind, to speak evil of dignities, to defy mores and traditions. Many activists on the cultural and political left celebrated this twerp.

But I sensed what a number of people also shared with me on an individual basis: this Amos Yee child was a very troubled young man, to say the least. He was clearly very bitter, angry. He wanted to lash out at all authority. In his interview with Dave Rubin, he was still a minor living in Singapore. His mother was busy doing housework behind the scenes. Where was his father? Did either of his parents have enough sense to discipline their child and teach him manners, to respect the laws in his country--or at the very least, prepare him for the legal fallout for expressing his views?

Why were national speakers and commentators giving this disturbed, disrespectful kid a platform? How was any of this going to help the cause of spreading freedom of speech or ensuring that the Singapore government would grant full recognition and protection for freedom of speech? How would this help the cause of spreading and assuring freedom of speech in the United States or the rest of the Western world?

When one considers all of the above questions and factors, it's pretty clear that these social media influencers just wanted to cash in on the latest "free speech" craze, nothing more. It is really troubling, since this young man really need help, not enabling.

And the enabling turned into a very disgusting, criminal outcome.

Amos Yee was arrested last year for soliciting sex with a minor. He faced multiple counts, a high bail amount, and a very long prison sentence should he found guilty in a court of law.

Here's a complete run-down of the charges that he faced:

Yee was charged with child pornography and grooming after he allegedly exchanged nude photos and “thousands” of messages with a 14-year-old girl while living in Chicago back in 2019.

They met in February that year over the Riot chat app.

Not only did he send her nude photos, Yee also asked for nude photos of the girl over Whatsapp, and got them. He also persuaded the victim to appear on video and other mediums, which is why he was handed a charge of child pornography.

Child pornography, folks. This is not a joke. This is not funny. And he was sending out warning signs for at least two years during his stay in the United States. He actively and repeatedly endorsed sex with children. Does anyone find it surprising that he wanted to engage in such unseemly behaviors himself?

How could free speech advocates sit idly by and let him pontificate like he was some kind of free speech hero? He was a free speech miscreant, more or less, and had serious emotional, mental, and character issues, to say the least. He needed some real discipline, not people who allow him to dish on just about anything.

Earlier this year, he ultimately plead guilty to two charges of child pornography and grooming. He will serve six years in a federal penitentiary, then most likely be deported back to Singapore, where he will most likely face more jail time for reneging on his citizen-based duty to serve in Singapore's national service for two years full-time.

This is really tragic. When I learned about the final plea deal, I was sickened and outraged. All the adults in Singapore and the United States who were dancing around this guy, celebrating him and holding him up as a role model for full freedom of speech, were in reality hurting him and leading to harm against other people, too. Indeed, it's necessary and proper for citizens in their respective countries to fight for freedom of speech. I do believe that countries should take every step they can to ensure freedom of expression.

However, Amos Yee was the wrong vehicle for doing so. He was a troubled youth who needed help, and adults--who are supposed to be adults and put the needs of children first ahead of their own desires--used him to get views, likes, and to broaden their own appeal as "woke" activists for fighting repressive authority or pushing the limits of permissible expressions of speech.

I must say, I don't think I have ever felt so outraged, so angry about a situation as this one. There is so much wrong with what happened her: bad parents, selfish commentators, a corrupted media culture invested in shock and awe rather than truth and true advocacy--and in the midst of it, a troubled kid who became a troubling young adult who troubled other kids.

All of this was preventable. Shame on every adult who did not step up and push back on Amos Yee's perverted insolence. They could have saved his life, and at the very least ensured he had a life worth living. It's disgusting that adults, both in Amos Yee's home country and the United States, enabled and celebrated this creep for his "free speech" antics. All the while, he was an active advocate for pedophilia and other sexual perversions, along with other communistic ideologies. Where are all the anti-authoritarian free speech advocates now? They enabled this troubled young--now a troubling adult. This whole affair really outrages me. It's such a tragedy that a kid with such intellect could turn into a troubled adult with a criminal record, and no one stepped up to stop him when they had the chance.