Why can’t they understand?

In the case of the Repeal of Section 377A, homosexuals are NOT campaigning for the rights to rule the country. They are not campaigning for the right to have same-sex marriages. They are just campaigning for the right to maintain privacy behind doors, and the right to do what they please without breaking the law.

When I read Mr Ho Kwon Ping’s article on TODAYonline yesterday, I was pleased to see the Chairman of Mediacorp stand up for what he believes in, to the extent of putting it up on national papers, though it isn’t The Straits Times. I applaud but honestly, I don’t think anyone in the rainbow club will believe that it will change anything.

Today, however, I came across this other article written in response to Mr Ho’s commentary. And with all due respect, I’m afraid I have to say, this is something about Christianity I don’t understand. I thought God teaches us to love all brothers and sisters unconditionally? That was what I was taught in 10 years of convent education. Of course, my education is far from the tip of the iceberg. But that was one consistent teaching I was given for 10 whole years of my primary to secondary life. Isn’t this prejudice & discriminatory? I don’t remember the Ten Commandments having anti-homosexuality in it. But of course, I have only wikipedia and the movie to guide me. Please, correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not well versed in Bible studies. Anyway, before I digress further, the point of this post is NOT about Christianity & homosexuality.

Mr Anton Chan has it all wrong. And I’m sure he’s not alone. Singaporeans have become so paranoid that they seem to think that everything that goes against their perception of normal is dangerous. Then again, philosophically speaking, what is normality? The Merriam Webster dictionary explains normal as b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern. Normality is relative.

What’s next? Same sex marriages?
Letter from Anton Chan

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs, social well-being and families.

Being homosexual isn’t a lifestyle. Taking on a certain lifestyle means you have a choice. You pick & choose what type of actions you’d like to adopt. Being sporty is a lifestyle; clubbing is a lifestyle. Homosexuality is not. It’s a sexual orientation. You don’t pick & choose who you decide to fall in love with. Not unless you live in the past where nobody marries for love, only convenience. Yes, there are choices made. A choice of accepting yourself or not. That is the only choice to be made.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore because it’s against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I care because I don’t want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.

Honestly, if your kid is gay, he’s gay. No matter whether you expose him to such a ‘lifestyle’ or not. If he is being oppressed to be straight, he’s going to suffer real pain inside. Furthermore you are opposing ‘legalising a gay lifestyle’ but we are for the legalising of an act, which is mutally consented between two adult males.

Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore. What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children for gays?

Ah… I dont understand this line of thought. So, Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Massachusetts and California are all what.. beneath everyone else? Just because they legalise same-sex marriages? The last I know, Canada is a great place to live in.

Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Erm… Acceptance of all as one? Liberalisation?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on the next generation of children and parents who wish that their children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal course of their being?

In the first place, all Singapore citizens have the right in all areas such as education, welfare etc. So if I read this right, you’re suggesting that homosexuals are not supposed to be entitled to benefits that are given to ALL citizens? So they are, in your books, third-class ‘citizens’? Now I’m starting to get the picture. Also, your point of ‘produce children in the normal course of their being’ isn’t standing much. Heterosexuals are not having kids anyway, so what’s the fuss? If heterosexuals aren’t having kids and homosexuals would love to adopt one, hey! Good for the country’s population growth! 1 for the gays!

The only strong contention in Mr Ho’s proposal is the so-called gay leading edge in the “creative class”. Doesn’t our society have many other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

‘Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore?’ I think that’s because if otherwise, Singaporeans will be nothing but robots toiling away at work. Your national day parade won’t look so grand & well put together, you won’t have performances to watch, no designers, no artists, no musicians. No Dick Lee! Oh then again, we could always import foreign talent, to put together our national day parade.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In “None above the law” (Sept 8), he said: “If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations Act, they remain the law of Singapore.”

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament, he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended … But until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it remains the law of Singapore.

The thing is, the law is quite ridiculous if you don’t enforce it. What’s the point of having a law that is in black & white, yet you tell everyone in the country that you will not be prosecuting the offenders? It’s like saying rape is illegal yet people are free to do it. So why is it illegal in the first place?

It’s hypocritical to have a law to make conservatives happy, and turn around and tell those affect that they will not be prosecuted, so please continue to bring back glory for the country. Please continue to make waves in the international scene. Singapore wants to be number 1 in everything, but no, we will not repeal Section 377a. As the government, they should be doing what they preach. Singapore is conservative? Okay fine. Then prosecute all who do not abide by the law and stick to it. Don’t want to encroach on their privacy so will not prosecute? Then don’t even have this law in the first place. What a cognitively dissonant country we live in. *Sigh*

holeybaloney

Leave a Reply