Friday, December 19, 2008

Fudgy Wudgy

Judgy Dudgy
Yummy Tummy
Chocky Wocky


You know what's good for you.

Sunday, December 14, 2008


Chocolate Covered Cherry Cookies

The Bf had some.The Brothers had some. The Mum had some. Lingyi had some. Ting had some. Weini, Jamie,Janet, JT and the rest who are going to her party on Monday will get some:)


Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Homemade Dinner for 2

Tag: Meatloaf cupcakes 1, 2, 3, 4 (clockwise starting from left)

Tag:(In order of pictures displayed from left) Meatloaf cupcake 3, Meatloaf cupcake 2, 3, 4, Meatloaf cupcake 3

Tag: Linzer Sablés 1,2

Tag: Linzer Sablés 3,4,5

Tag: Linzer Sablés 6,7

Tag: Linzer Sablés 8,9,10

Tag (above): Meatloaf cupcake 1,4, Boiled African Broccoli

Tag(below): (From left, clockwise direction) Linzer Sablés 1-10 with icing sugar, Cherries, Wayne, Boiled African Broccoli, Meatloaf cupcakes 2,3 Scrambled eggs, Plastic fork 1, 2, Meatloaf cupcakes 1,4, Boiled African Broccoli

Friday, December 5, 2008

Jingle Bells

Merry Christmas to all my dear friends!
Yes. Its that time of year again and I am glad its that time of year again!
Even though the malls are crowded, the hole in your pocket is getting bigger and the same old christmas songs are replayed over and over but yes. I still love Christmas!:)
Looking back at the 19 Christmasses that i spent, well, not reallly 19 because i cannot really count those that i did not really 'celebrated consciously', I still cannot really figure out why i love Christmas so much!

This year is the third Christmas I am going to spend with the boyfriend and it is particularly exciting because he is going to meet my extended family. Anyway,I figured, if it gets too weird, we can probably run off to Mt Faber and continue our Christmas tradition. Yes. we are suckers for fake snow.

I baked more oatmeal choc-chip cranberry cookies yesterday.
No prizes for guessing who they are for.

P.S For having a true Haagen dazs experience. Please go with Wendy KTingwen.

P.S.S I had fun lah Ting! Your friend is funny too.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Red Balloon

It was cold and clammy. Just like his hands which he just nervously ran through his stiff waxed hair and stopped halfway, swearing silently in his head. He forgot he had waxed his hair. He clenched his fist and jammed them into his coat pockets which were full of melted toffees. He swore silently again and sighed. She gave a light laugh and they stopped. Leaning against the railings, they stared at the grey waters.

Just as she was about to speak, he blurted out, “I want to be with you.”

She slowly tucked her loose strands of hair behind her ear and continued to stare at the waters in front of them. Then she said, almost inaudibly, “Do you see the red balloon over there?” He frantically searched for the red in the grey and nodded vehemently when he finally found it. The red balloon that she mentioned did not bob with the rhythm of the waves. It was not floating. It was almost like there was someone walking on the seabed pulling the ballon along. She spoke again softly, “Balloons are supposed to be in the sky.” He looked at her, confused. “Do you want to be the red balloon?” she asked.

The big clock tower struck twelve as he trudged down the uneven stone path. He stuck his hands into his coat pockets of melted toffees and swore silently. Only this time, his hair was not waxed like a few days ago and his socks had holes. He stopped. Leaning against the railings, he stared at a red balloon high up in the dark grey skies.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008


i know.
i am not supposed to be blogging when i have an exam tomorrow.
but i really cannot help myself.
my notes are boring.
and i got excited about this:


Enid Blyton is like one of my favourite childhood writers and i read almost all her books. Yeah. i know. my mum bought me almost every single one of those books.but i realized i do not have those two!!!i really loved the magic faraway tree series. i kind of want this:

for christmas.

i think i will probably get it myself for myself:)

**all images from

Friday, November 21, 2008

A million things in between the mistletoe

I told my friends on a particular day that when i woke up that morning, it felt like it was Christmas and they burst out laughing at my idiocy. It definitely feels like Christmas now with the chilling weather, the new Christmas Starbucks flavour, the mall Christmas decorations all up, the special Christmas platter at Ikea, the sudden craving for ham, turkey and maybe some eggnog. My sister has gotten into the habit of playing my prehistoric nsync christmas album and the platinum christmas compilation every night and it just makes me feel all christmassy. Christmas is like my favourite season in the whole year and i know it is more than all those stuff i mentioned up there or the lights in orchard road, its so much more because the whole reason we are celebrating is because its the 'birthday' of our saviour. Even if you are not celebrating the birth of christ, I am sure christmas means something to you!

There is going to be so much going on from now till Christmas that it will definitely be a miracle if i make it through to kiss my boyfriend under the mistletoe.

Not that i need the mistletoe that is.

P.S Definitely making christmas cards this year.
P.S.S update with a more christmassy post when i am not so fed up arguing with my sis halfway when i was writing this post.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Click on the picture.

The boyfriend is at a wedding dinner.
I acutally do like going to a wedding dinner.
I know.
1.The food is not great and you are probably stuffed by the 3rd course.
2.The dessert always suck.
3.You have to be in frills and shirts.
4.Its wayyyyy too long.
5.You probably do not even know the married couple.
but its just nice to have an occasion to dress up for.

bimbotic i know.

As much as i like going to one.
I do not (if i ever get married) want to have one.
and the list of why i do not would be too long to fit in my short post.
It seems too far to think about them.
but time flies.

and I want my Vera Wang.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Death by baking

Chocolate & Strawberry Shortcake

I baked this------------------------------------------->
just this afternoon when I am really supposed to be working on my SC2101 Methods of Social Reasearch Essay and fine-tuning my Philosopy Paper and writing comments on the Philosophy module blog. This is bad. I totally suck at being focussed on what I am supposed to do. Guess all that will have to wait till after dinner!

P.S The shortcake was DELICIOUS :)

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Weather Report

Its not make-up.
Its not for halloween.
I did not get abused.
I was not grabbed by some ghost. (as suggested by my sister)
Combine golden metallic bangles plus hard clutching of laptop to chest and tada.
Don't get me wrong.
I love rainy days.
The lovely smell of the rain,
of the crisp clean air,
the chilly wind that kisses my cheek and toys with my stray strand of hair.
I do occasionally take walks in the pouring rain.
Get myself drenched silly and maybe think about screaming "Cat, Cat!" like Holly in Breakfast at Tiffany's.
But when you feel like you feel like you are trapped in some typhoon when you are walking underneath HDB void decks, wearing a white T-shirt and carry a million things to go attend a 2 hour lecture, then its maybe time to say:
"I'll take a raincheck."
and mean it.

Thursday, October 30, 2008


I am always late.
Late for appointments. (friends/bf should know best)
Late for class.
Late for tuition.
But i always turn up. (eventually)
Cliche:" Better late than never."
I rather be late.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Fusion food

This was the only decent shot i could get of my crumble.
Blame my poor photo-taking skills.
Well. it does not look too photo-worthy anyway.
"Yummy," my brother says. He also says:"Looks kind of like
chicken though, maybe your friends will ask you,
Amy, are you doing fusion food?No. its apple crumble."

Monday, October 13, 2008


I bought my first pair of designer jeans!
Nudie Jeans!
He looked so good in it.
Will take pictures of it soon!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Not another one!

Is it taboo to post 2 posts in one day?
Note: I am a real sucker who loves doing personality tests and whatnots.
Anyway, the point is, i did one. Came across it at my friend's blog and my hands just could not resist clicking.
So here it is.

Your view on yourself:You are intelligent, honest and sweet. You are friendly to everybody and don't like conflict. Because you're so cheerful and fun people are naturally attracted to you and like to talk to you.

The type of girlfriend/boyfriend you are looking for: You are a true romantic. When you are in love, you will do anything and everything to keep your love true.

Your readiness to commit to a relationship: You are ready to commit as soon as you meet the right person. And you believe you will pretty much know as soon as you might that person.

The seriousness of your love: You have very sensible tactics when approaching the opposite sex. In many ways people find your straightforwardness attractive, so you will find yourself with plenty of dates.

Your views on education: Education is very important in life. You want to study hard and learn as much as you can.

The right job for you: You're a practical person and will choose a secure job with a steady income. Knowing what you like to do is important. Find a regular job doing just that and you'll be set for life.

How do you view success: Success in your career is not the most important thing in life. You are content with what you have and think that being with someone you love is more than spending all of your precious time just working.

What are you most afraid of: You are afraid of things that you cannot control. Sometimes you show your anger to cover up how you feel.

Who is your true self: You are full of energy and confidence. You are unpredictable, with moods changing as quickly as an ocean. You might occasionally be calm and still, but never for long.

For the like-minded :

Can you say love?

I am in LOVE with Herve Leger and his bandage dresses.
Yet another addition to the WISH list.
Ooogle at them here:
(in order of preference)

Someone please send me this for christmas. Adore the back!






If only dresses dropped from the sky.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Oatmeal Raisin/Cranberry/Chochip Cookie

Woke up with a craving for oatmeal cookies.

Soft and chewy with crispy edges.

Missing the boyfriend.

Sunday's supposed to be boyfriend day (Saturday too!)

Thus explains the delivery that took a bus and 1-2 km walk/hike.

Thursday, September 25, 2008


Its official.
I just want to sit on the clouds and waste my days away.
Can't really fulfil the cloud part(afraid of heights) but definitely wasting my days away.

Sunday, August 31, 2008


I think I may be the last to know that if I were to write anything political at all on SINGAPORE POLITICS, I would have to REGISTER my blog and that I may not write anything that constitutes election advertising during the election period.

wow. gee.

Of course, no prizes for guessing if they would prosecute people who are pro-'a certain party'.
Not that they NEED any extra advertising of course with those wads of election funds.
Again, not like they NEED any advertising at all.

Friday, August 8, 2008


I watched 'The Dark Knight' and let me just say that it was an 'on-the-spot' decision. It is not because of the million and one reasons listed by my friends to convince me that it is a must-watch movie or how every review of this movie never fail to mention it is Heath's spectacular LAST performance as Joker, and much less because it is a superhero movie. I for one, if you were to discount my childhood naivete, do not like anything superhero. I do not know which of the two; acquiring super powers or the notion of some 'super' human saving the world sounds more absurd.Anyways, the point I am trying to make is that since I am dedicating my blog entry to a superhero movie, it must not have sucked too much.

Maybe I am thinking too much into things like how my boyfriend always says I do (and obviously he is not
the only one) but I observed some pretty interesting things.

In my opinion, 9/11 brought about massive changes (to use a more ‘neutral’ word). For one, if words took part in popularity contests, the word ‘terrorists’ would probably come out tops in the post 9/11 era. Similarly, 1 and 9 would probably win the number popularity contest. Therefore it was no surprise that the word ‘terrorist’ came up in ‘The Dark Knight’ and there are no prizes for guessing who is the terrorist. Terrorism and the whole war against terror is pretty much Bush talk and I really want to pronounce all that bull. Any act of violence, 9/11 scale or not, cannot be de-politicised. In the media-centered world that we live in, 9/11 being a major media spectacle supplied the much needed political fuel for Bush to declare a war against Muslims. Of course, he sugar coated this so called just war using words like terrorism, safety and quoting the figures of innocent deaths in 9/11 and I guess it did help that everywhere in the world, all you see in the news,off-news were images of the hijacked plane crashing into the twin towers again and again. If one wants to really announce a war against terror, it would probably be the one against inequality. In a capitalistic world, the haves are constantly "terrorizing" the have-nots. One should look at figures tabulating the number of innocent deaths are there due to starvation in Africa, innocent deaths of people due to their inability to meet the barest of requirements for survival and that to me is true violence, violence way beyond the scale of 9/11.

The "heroes" of the show Harvey and Bruce, to me represented the US. Harvey plays this knight in shining armour of Gotham, full of promise to deliver the city from corrupt ruins but turns bad in the end listening to the evil joker. Gordon said," Joker has taken the best of us and turned him bad" (something like that) and to me it somehow sounds like the " The terrorist is the culprit for the rise in anti-US feelings". When Batman declared that he is going to be whatever Gotham needs, even if it means playing the bad guy, I cannot help but think that the US wants to portray themselves as the dark knight-telling people that even though the world no longer views them as the good guy, they are willing to play the bad guy for the "good" of the world.

The state of US relations with China, or to be more accurate, the state of US economic relations with China, or to be even more accurate, the state of US TRADE relations with China cannot be more explicit observable. In the movie, Bruce Wayne cautions Fox of Lau's company tremendous growth and in the end dissolved the partnership. Likewise, to me, the US seems to be cautioning the world of China's growth and portraying Lau as the baddie does seem to have a silent underlying equivalent meaning of China being the baddie. I cannot help but want to shout "sour grapes".

Another something I picked up from the movie: No one panics when everything goes according to plan but when just a small something goes wrong, the whole world goes topsy turvy. If one were to apply this to the order of the world, 9/11 would be that something that made the whole world go topsy-turvy. The world was supposed to be run smoothly with the US sitting comfortable at the altar but the jab from the planes threw them off the pedestal. First, there was slavery, then was cold war divde, now the US vs anti-US. Do we really need a system of oppression to have a 'peaceful' world?

School has barely stared but procrastination has kicked into full swing.

Friday, June 6, 2008

A Not-so Anti-Capitalist Rant

I have not read Marx or Becker. Nevertheless, I find that I have been repeating this phrase to many people: “Capitalism is the root of all evil”. I vaguely remember Marx saying that but being the half-past six that I am, I cannot remember. I was trying to explain to my boyfriend (who probably wish I would just shut the hell up) the possibility of an overhaul of our moral systems if there was no such thing as private ownership. Robbery would not be wrong or rather the act of robbery probably does not exist because we do not own anything, so technically speaking; they are not taking away anything. Hold that thought and jump to the reactions.

My boyfriend wrinkles his nose and frowns very deeply at me and looks at me with a sickened expression as though I said something like ‘I am in love with my brother’, L proclaimed that it would be a chaotic and order-less world and WYang thought about it for awhile and said, interesting.

Speaking of order, well, it would be true that probably it would be chaotic because essentially capitalism keeps order in the oppression form. (Again, my own two unpolished cents worth) Social contracts which are probably the foundation of democracy (correct me if I am wrong) are based in capitalistic thought and thereby democracy has ‘oppression-istic’ roots which are no much more different from a monarchy or any other forms of governance. Maybe it is an unfair statement but I would, in my very opinionated view think that the oppression in democracy is very much hidden and not so blatantly displayed in visible forms like the others.

Communism (according to me) does not work in our world because we live in a capitalistic world. Of course it has its shortcoming like all other systems. I mean, sure, acknowledge all the benefits of democracy, democracy probably being the best of the worst systems or whatever, but we are able to say that because we experience the benefits of capitalism. The ability to type on my laptop or sit in a coffee joint debating, those are advantages of us being on the favourable side of the inequality that capitalism. To even speak about inequality or theorize capitalistic devils, we have to be on that side--the ‘upside’ of the see- saw of inequality.

Disclaimer: This is a “coffee-shop talk” argument. Pardon my lack of depth and any other wrong concepts I have. Would be grateful for corrections or guidance.

Well, I am probably not going to stop going to Starbucks or not lust after the pairs of Christian Louboutins and that just makes me feel like a bad, guilty person after being so oh-communism-sucks.BLAH.

Monday, June 2, 2008


Labels. They have more function that they get credit for. Like how we think we can choose to ignore the effects on the dictating they do in our lives and just claim it is just a label but it is not so. We do not choose the label. We are labeled. (Well, most of us.)The point is not about the label but who labels. The labeler decides the good or bad of that label. The powerful label the less.

I think I should read up on Labeling Theory by Howard Becker and probably Marx. This is like a 5 minute non-thinking post.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

Haruki Murakimi

This post is not really dedicated to him but he is definitely one of the authors that I love. I read most of his work and even though I do not know if I actually get half of what he wants to say, I still find it such a pleasure to be sucked into his stories. (Even though I have to admit I have a tendency to lose myself in any story). Kalfka By the Shore and Hard-boiled Wonderland and the End of the World has got to be my favourite.

Currently reading this collection of short stories by him :
Blind Willow, Sleeping Woman and I want to share just these two short paragraphs by him.

Chapter The Ice Man
Ice contains no future, just the past, sealed away. As if they’re alive, everything in the world is sealed up inside, clear and distinct. Ice can preserve all kinds of things that way- cleanly, clearly. That’s the essence of ice, the role it plays.

Chapter Firefly
Death is not the opposite of life, but a part of it. As we live, we breathe death into our lungs, like fine particles of dust.

Maybe I want our relationship to be like ice because then I’ll know it is going to me you forever sealed up and there is no talk of leaving or staying because we are frozen in our place. Where our love may not be that transparent and even fuzzy in the ways we show it but it is simple. And I am a simple girl hoping you are a simple boy.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

A conservation with the boyfriend.

I don’t know how it actually started but just so you know the whole conversation went something like this:

At Tanjong Pagar MRT Station after our “night cap” (mocha brownie and strawberry-banana @ Pacific Coffee [Red Dot Museum]

Him: Let’s say you had to choose between two guys- a game addict or a porn addict, which would you choose?
I think.
Me: Porn addict.
Him: Really? Why? Majority chose the game addict.
Me: Kind of expected that.
He states all the reasons why people chose the game addict and porn addict.
Me: I think it is really because I can watch it with him or something. I am not really a game person anyway. PLUS, what kind of a choice is THAT? If they were the last two guys on earth, I would rather live by myself. I mean I so do not need a guy.
Him: Are you going to start on the whole feminist thing again? (grunts)

Train arrives.
On the train. Think Him= Durkheim, Me=Feminist-Marxist

Me: What do you mean start “ the whole feminist thing again”? I DO NOT start THAT THING. Gender bias is everywhere. Hello.
Him: I still believe everyone has a role to play in society because they have attributes that is suitable or beneficial to take up that role.
Me: So you are a functionalist. But who defines what attributes are suitable for whatever role they are supposed to play? Suppose the breadwinner for example, who do you think of, or think should be the breadwinner of the family? (I am assuming a sole-breadwinner family structure here. Of course, in this era, there is an increasing trend of dual-income families however let us just stick to one variable)
Him: The men of course.
Me: Ok. So what’s the problem with the women being the breadwinner?
Him: There is nothing wrong with that. I mean let’s say this woman is the breadwinner and the man is the house-husband and the woman falls terribly ill, the man even though having been a house-husband for most of his married life would have to go out and get a job to support the family. Vice versa.
Me: So you are saying it depends on the situation? Like whoever that fills the shoes of the breadwinner is determined and dictated by the situation? It is situational based?
Him: Well. Something like that.
Me: OK. I can accept that. However, going back to your example, of the woman being the breadwinner, that kind of family structure is not very common is it? So I am asking you why, is that kind of family structure not very common and even frowned upon if it is a perfectly fine way of arrangement?
Him: It is their choice. As in when a couple gets married, they probably decided who should go out and earn money and who should stay at home and look after the children. AND majority of these couples chose the man to be the breadwinner and the woman to be the housewife.
Me: So you think majority of the people adopt this family structure solely based on their own choice which was not influenced in one way or another by some other mechanisms besides their own neurons?
Him: Uh huh. I know what you are thinking. You are going to say that the society shapes these thinking and emotions blah blah right? Why can’t you accept that it is the combination of the majority people’s choice that shape the society or something.
Me: Do not tell me what I think. Anyway, before I state my case, you have any more stuff to add?
Him: Not really.
Me: Ok. First of all, yes, I do believe that society shapes our choices no matter how hard we want to believe that we are capable of making our choices independent of any or minimal influence. Remember how I told you about how sex is determined but gender is learnt. The whole I am not a woman because I have a vagina and I am not a men because I have a penis? We learn to play the role of woman or a men. In this case, primary socialization (imparting of knowledge and teaching from the parents) would have already melded the characteristics of “masculinity” with the suitable characteristics of what is needed of a breadwinner. Together with the gender bias in the work structure, it further fortifies the whole idea of a male breadwinner. Furthermore, it even fits into the ‘rational decision making’ theory because guys earn more! Not because they are entirely more capable than woman but..
Him: (cuts in) What gender bias is there in the work structure? If more than anything, the guys lose out because they have to serve 2 years of NS (National Service) which puts you in an advantage because you have that 2 years to climb ahead of me.
Me: Do not talk to me about that as if you are sacrificing a lot more than me. You get XXX amount every month in your paycheck because you served NS. I do agree that OK, I may get that 2 years of advantage but I am faced by a glass ceiling (being able to see ahead but unable to reach it)! In no time, we would be probably vying for the same promotion. Big sacrifice. Whoopee. The whole idea of NS is just so to keep the patriarchal system intact for goodness sake.
Him: What the hell is a glass ceiling?
Me: Let’s say we assume that a man and a woman possessing the same level of qualifications, be it degree or work capability and that they are slated for a promotion, who do you think the boss would give the job to?
Him: Is this a trick question?
Me: (rolls eyes) NO. The boss would give it to the guy.
Him: You do not know that!

Walking to his house.

Me: I do so. Most bosses, note that I am not saying all have the perception that it is more “worth their while” to promote a man rather than a woman because he is less likely to leave the job to take up a domestic duties full time. Moreover, the role of woman as seen in the eyes of society would be to be a mother, wife first in which both roles lie in the domestic realm. Plus, with the biological assumption that women have a stronger and special unbreakable bond with the children because every child spent around 9 months in the mother’s body, one would generally expect that it would be more suitable for the mother to play the role of the primary caregiver. Therefore, no matter whether the woman is planning to have a child or not, the possibility is enough a reason to give the promotion to the man.
Him: The man can also choose to be the one that wants to stay home and take care of the children!
Me: Yes. I do not disagree but the fact remains that it not about who would stay home and take care of the children but the higher possibility that the woman would be the one to do that. There is a possibility of both but the boss would think that the other is more possible.
Him: But the woman has to take leave anyway when she is pregnant or post pregnant what.
Me: (confused) Yes they do. So that kind of supports my point. Even if the woman is not going to stay home and take care of the children, she would still have to take leave to give birth or recuperate. And, don’t you see that it is precisely because the man can choose to take care of the children and can be persuaded not to take up the domestic role while the woman cannot deny her ability to conceive that make the favour tip in balance of the man. It is because the woman is able to conceive and so there is always a possibility of getting pregnant even if she swears she would not or do not want to and therefore the job she holds is a constant jeopardy. And being the boss, like all boss would think in terms of long-term benefits and therefore in this case, as the man has a higher chance of staying at the job, it would be more worthwhile to “invest in him”.

We arrive at his house. While taking off his shoes, he asks his dad.

Him: (in Chinese) Dad, let’s say if a man and a woman possess the same level of qualifications, be it degree or work capability and that they are slated for a promotion, who would you give the job to?
Dad: (in Chinese) They cannot be the same, they would have their own unique capabilities? Plus it would have to depend on the nature of the managerial position because there are many types. If the managerial post requires a lot of entertaining I cannot possibly give it to a woman?
Him: (in Chinese) Let’s just assume they are exactly the same. Who would you hire?
Dad: (in Chinese) The Woman.
Him: (in Chinese) (shocked) Why? Aren’t you afraid they would need to leave the job someday to take care of the children?
Dad: (in Chinese) There is a higher chance of the man jumping ship to take up a better job offer. Women are more loyal than men and would stay in their job positions longer than men.
Him: (turns and grin at me) What do you have to say to that?
Me: (smiles at his dad)(shoots my boyfriend a can we talk about this NOT in front of your dad?)

Sitting on the sofa after his dad retreated to his room.

Me: I do not disagree with your dad, what he says probably makes sense. But why is the characteristic of loyal more associated with the women than man? Socialization of “masculine qualities”, like strong, assertive and “feminine qualities”, like weak, delicate. Why is it that there is a higher chance of the man jumping ship? Because they are offered BETTER jobs! That itself is a promotion. More men would get that promotion as compared to the women. You see what I mean?
Him: What is that thing about masculine qualities and feminine qualities again? It is not exclusive to men or women what.
Me: Simple. You don’t think that qualities are gendered? Then why do you call someone a sissy or a butch? They act in a certain way that goes against the expected appropriate behaviour they should be displaying in relation with sex. That is why they get snide looks or are frowned upon. Same for gays and lesbians. Why is it that you think they get so much negative sanction? They act in a way that goes against the expected appropriate heterosexuality which is accepted by the people as normal. But why is heterosexual labeled as normal and homosexual as deviant? Because the power lies with the heterosexuals! If you go back to the Greek times or something, men probably had sex with men a lot and they were not stoned to death.
Him: Homosexuality is bad and harmful because they go against the natural laws. If everyone was a gay or lesbian, the population would stagnate and decline rapidly which would lead to the extinction of our race. They are breaking the natural cycle.
Me: Ok. So you are saying it is bad and harmful because then humans would not be able to procreate and thus would eventually die out? Well with our technology now, we can still procreate as long as there are eggs and sperms. Plus, let us assume that we do not accept them because they disrupt the natural cycle because of their inability to procreate naturally? Then why is it that we do not persecute the infertile couples or couples who are not willing to procreate as harshly as gays and lesbians? They are also disrupting the natural cycle.
Him: For the infertile couples, it is not their fault that they cannot have children! As for the couples who do not want to have children, at least there is the possibility of being able to persuade them to have children. For the gays and lesbians, they choose to go against the natural cycle and cannot be persuaded to have children because there is no way to do it.
Me: You think there is no way because you are thinking of having children the ‘natural’ way. Like I mentioned before, with technology, lesbian couples just need a sperm donor, gay couples can get a surrogate mother or even without technology, they can also adopt. Ok, let’s just put it this way, even if there is no IVF and all, if like what you said being heterosexual is part of the natural cycle thing, then you are suggesting that we are biologically built to be heterosexual? So all men should by right all be programmed to like women unless they have a mutated gene or something so are you saying that all the gays in the world have a mutated gene?
Him: OK. Since you say that power defines normalcy, imagine the power lies with the homosexuals and only by being a gay or lesbian then is one normal. By accepting gays and lesbians, it would mean accepting that monogamy is going to fail. I remember you once saying that monogamy is the best system of society or something.
Me: Why? Monogamy just means having one partner. Gay couples are two people, lesbian couples are two people.
Him: But they can don’t stick with one partner and have many partners because they think that since there is no fertilization going to be taking place, they do not have to be responsible because there are no consequences to bear.
Me: Monogamy is not going to fail because you think gays and lesbians are just going to sleep around with random partners. And by assuming that the whole world would turn to be gay or lesbian would be absurd. Just because the power lies with them does not mean everyone has to be gay or lesbian. Just like how the power lies with the heterosexuals now does not mean that everyone is a heterosexual.I did say that monogamy is the best system but I did say it is the best of the worst.

He rests his head in my lap and says, “Let’s stop. I am tired.” I ruffle his hair and say, “I’m tired too.” He mumbles, “I’m hungry.” I bend down to kiss him on the forehead and got up to cook noodles.

For further read-up on the theories and concepts I mentioned, please leave a comment and I will try to find the relevant sources as needed. I am a Sociology major I tend to lean more towards the social-constructionist sidet. I do not mean to harm or offend anyone. I probably also used ideas without proper referencing but as this is a spontaneous out of the blue conversation so hopefully I would not be breaching any copyright issues or plagiarism.