Sunday, May 10, 2009

Pink Dot- It is your Right, but is it Smart?






Hi Friends,

I am liberal minded and I am happy with the triumph of secularism over intolerance in the recent AWARE EGM. Singapore is a secular state and no single religion should be allowed to impose its values on the rest- no matter how well intended this was. For me, tolerance and inclusivity is the only way to go.

Silent conservative majority awakened

However, many of you must have realised by now, how afraid the conservative majority are of the Gay lobby. These conservatives are not just the fundamentalist Christians, but include Muslims, Hindus and atheists. That the seeds of Homosexuality may actually reside in the human genes do not cut any ice with them. Most conservatives believe that Nurture also plays a role together with Nature in the emergence of homosexuality. No use telling them about gay animals in nature, or about objective scientific research etc.

They are not listening.

Some of them do accept that there are others around them who are gay or that other people’s kids are gay, but they will find it hard to accept their own children being gay.

What a liberal (like me )feels

Before I get flamed by the gay lobby, please know that this is not how I feel but what I observe around me.

For me, what you do behind closed doors is none of my business. I believe in the liberalism as espoused by John Stuart Mills. Gays should enjoy the same benefits as hetero-sexual Singaporeans. They pay tax too!

As gays are over-represented in the creative arts (maybe one day the “gay” gene would be found linked to “creative” gene?) and for Singapore to buzz like New York and Paris, gays should not just be tolerated in Singapore’s entertainment or creative industry but be encouraged to thrive. They will do this only in a Singapore where they do not feel ostracised.

Aware EGM and Laws of Physics

Newton’s Third Law of Physics says “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction”.

Rosie’s gang usurped (Action) Aware and suffered a backlash (Reaction) from Gay lobby/secularists/liberals/anti-Fundies etc.

People like me (?PLME) who are non-gay, non-anti-gay as distinguished from Gay lobby like People like Us (PLUS) are put in a difficult position.

For the longest time (since the EGM-seems like eternity), we defended against conservative barbs why the passionate and rowdy EGM was the result of Josie’s (and gang) actions ( eg turning off mikes) at the event and how the pent-up emotions of secularists needed to let off steam.

We defended the CSE and why being neutral is not necessarily bad and how the confidential instructors’ guidelines should have remained so and how choices about homosexuality and anal and pre-marital sex were something each person should decide for himself/herself. Of course until these teens reach majority ( 21 years), each family still has the right to impose its values on these kids.

Now PLME are expected to celebrate together with LGBT at the Pink Dot (click here )?

Conservatives are nursing wounds- not smart to push them too far

Sure, Gays ( and secularists/liberals/anti-Fundies) had a great victory at the EGM. The sacking of the Josie’s gang stopped anti-secularists in their tracks.

No groups who are essentially One Trick Ponies ( in this case Anti-Gay) will ever attempt hijacking national organisations again.

By organising the Pink Dot event (which is no different from Gay Pride parades in major western cities) so close at the heel of the conservatives’ defeat at the EGM shows a certain amount of insensitivity on the part of the Gay lobby.

Gays may retort that they had been on the wrong end of the stick for so long that it is time others cared about how they felt instead of the other way around.

My honest opinion is that this Pink Dot will confirm once and for all in the minds of the conservatives that they had been right all along. That given an inch, Gays would want a mile; That old Aware was hijacked by Gay lobby; That CSE was Gay’s infiltration of schools for indoctrination of their agenda;

That PLME ( People-like-Me) who are non-gay, non anti-gay liberals are stupid and are wrong to sit on the fence.

I have no doubt, it is legal and well-within your right to hold the Pink Dot at the Hong Lim Park ( so long as no foreigners present/ no religious or racial talks etc) but is it Smart?

Do not be surprised that the conservatives become stronger after Pink Dot or other such events. Can't you already hear the "I told you so's" ?

Newton’s Third Law of Physics says “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction”.

If forced to act, where do you think the government will lend its support?

No brainer. Where the votes are!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

32 comments:

Donaldson Tan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Donaldson Tan said...

To the Religious Right,

Shut Up and Sit Down. There is no such thing as God of Love. If there is, why would He create homosexuals for you to hate? Perhaps you didn't realise your God created them to test your ability to love and embrace fellow human being. You are just as human and as evil as the homosexuals. I am evil too. All humans are born evil

nofearSingapore said...

Hi Donald,
I believe tolerance is needed on both sides of the debate.
Like I mentioned, the middle-aged and middle-class ( in the hospital where I work)is conservative as far as the Gay debate is concerned.
The Christian right ( with various labels) is very sure that Gayness is not God's intention.
So if not God's will therefore not right therefore not welcomed in society.
Most of them are nice enough to keep their opinions to themselves but after AWARE EGM, more are becoming vocal and if Pink Dot become common-knowledge, even neutrals will join them. Let me assure you.
Don, we don't hate anyone, just as we hope no one hates the homosexuals.
Thanks for your super quick response!

Anonymous said...

... and since now the government has granted the Speakers' Corner for staging legal demonstrations, you shouldn't go beyond that designated area [to avoid public condemnation].

Got it?

Anonymous said...

Um, nothing's stopping conservatives/neutrals/etc from holding their own gathering and affirming their own values.

This event was planned way before the AWARE EGM, and isn't a gloating, reflexive response to 'conservatives licking their wounds.'

By the way, many gay people don't think the AWARE episode was a victory by gay people over their opponents. It was more an issue of how women in Singapore should decide their future course--espousing plurality and inclusivity vs homogeneity and exclusivity.

And lastly, there is no gay lobby. There is no gay agenda. What you might be observing of late, though, is the emergence of gay people who are not ashamed to state that they're gay, as well as straight people who are not afraid to express their support and affection for gay people.

You can see some photos here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2013025&id=1166152950&l=0bb21914c0

None of this amounts to a big scary gay menace that's threatening to tear society apart. : )

nofearSingapore said...

Hi anon 3.30pm,
I was also told in a separate conversation with Andrew Loh (TOC), that the Pink Dot was planned long before the Aware saga.
My answer to Andrew was that the timing is most unfortunate- coming only a couple of weeks after the EGM. Most people will not fail to link the two events.
It could be postponed- It is not that the organiser had to pay a huge deposit and that if the event got cancelled or postponed a large amount of money would be forfeited!
Such a coincidental gay pride event would lead to conservatives consolidating with erstwhile fence-sitting neutrals. Action and Reaction.
Sure there is no official Gay Lobby. If I Google “Singapore Gay Lobby” I don’t expect to get an address or PO Box, but Gays rally under unofficial umbrellas like PLUS or Fridae or with Alex’s activities.
You and I know that LGBT is not some mysterious monster out to make trouble- but try convincing the conservative people in your office and neighbourhood- esply after the Pink Dot event!

Anonymous said...

Hi nofearsingapore,

The day after May 16th is IDAHO--International Day Against Homophobia. Action for AIDS is also holding a candlelight memorial on Sunday. Given this cluster of events, I would think that the timing was quite right. : )

The organisers could have been 'sensitive' to conservatives, but I think there are many ways to do this, instead of postponing an event which involved many logistical complexities (it's not just about getting the space, it's about securing volunteers, etc).

One of these ways is to ensure that the tenor of the event will be kept at a socially acceptable level. This is not a pride parade--you won't find floats fronted by barebodied men. This is not a protest--there won't be pissed-off people carryong pickets proclaiming 'gay rights now!' (no, really, you won't. : )). It's a peaceful gathering of gay and straight people alike who would like to make a stand against discrimination and intolerance.

I'm not sure about all the spooking that goes on about generating a 'backlash'. A backlash is a response that occurs when people feel that they are being threatened. But a lot of these threats are more imagined than real: the fear that gay people will undermine the heterosexual family unit, the fear that children will pick up the 'gay lifestyle' if they are told that it's OK to be gay, the fear that gay people in Singapore will target religious institutions that maintain an anti-gay stance.

(COOS has been running a reparative programme called 'Choices' for years, and in 2001 put up a banner saying 'Homosexuals Can Change', despite wide evidence that only a small minority do, and that many suffer from 'relapses'. And yet gay people have a 'I'll wince at the blatant misinformation on the banner but I'll live and let live' attitude).

Yea, gay people might band together for an event or cause, but as you've implied, this is on an ad hoc basis. Is it fair then to homogenise the whole community as having a say, five-step 'gay agenda' to 'ruin' society and marginalise straight people? Is it fair to make the baseless claim that they're supported by foreign bodies and that they're trying to infiltrate influential positions? That's almost like saying anyone who speaks positively about gay people is propagating this 'gay agenda', whether he/she is aware of it. Doesn't this smack too much of fearmongering conspiracy theories?

"try convincing the conservative people in your office and neighbourhood- esply after the Pink Dot event"

I intend to do just that, actually. And it doesn't matter if they're not convinced. Dialogue is good. : )

auntielucia said...

No Fear Singapore: I like yr even handed comment. Let the Pink Dot go ahead; because don't 4get what happened to Icarius!

"So why not me (or is it I)"

It's "why not me" because "me" is the object... many people get it wrong and say stuff like "between u and I" when it shld be "between u and me"...

Anonymous said...

@auntielucia

Yes, Icarus flew too close to the sun. It was hubris that did him in.

But don't worry, we're not going to soar into the stratosphere. It's good enough if we even manage to get off the ground, considering how clipped our wings are. : )

Thank you for that comment about letting the pink dot event go ahead. If only there were others who would abide by that simple principle: if you don't approve of something you can choose not to participate in it--you don't have to shut it down.

I think pink dot is all about making friends, not enemies.

All the best to you, auntielucia. And by the way, all that food on your blog is making me hungry! : )

(The same Anonymous as the 2 above.)

Jimmy Mun said...

Hi Dr Huang,

thank you for your blog post. Your position somewhat reflects my own. It's a horrible place to be stuck in the middle.

The Gay Lobby and Christian-bashers took full advantage of the situation to come out of the woodwork, forcing neutral people like me to head towards the conservatives.

As Donaldson Tan has shown, the Gay Lobby is just trading one form of intolerance with another. Once they get the upper hand, they wont even let liberal Christians off.

I for one don't hate homosexuals. You stay in your private space, and I'll stay in mine. But if you try to interfere with my children's education, expect no mercy from me.

nofearSingapore said...

Hi anon 6.58:
Thanks for clarification & justification about why Pink Dot should continue despite sensitivity of timing to conservatives.
None of your publicity materials in blogs or facebooks mention about IDAHO etc.
Anyway, many will construe this as "gloating". Whatever will be, will be.

Auntielucia: honored by your visit. Like anon, I too love your photos esply the ones on the Jap foods! Looks absolutely delicious. Must taste even better.
Thanks for the English lesson- I finally know that it is "me" and not "I".And I thought that this would remain to me one of life's hidden secrets! Phew!

Anonymous said...

Hi Jimmy,

First of all, what do you define as 'The Gay Lobby'? What is it, really? There's been mention of PLU, or People Like Us. It's been disallowed registration as a legitimate society by the Registrar of Societies. This makes recruitment close to impossible. Gay people don't want to come near it, because anything 'unlawful' in Singapore makes people scared. How, pray tell, has it been able to exert so much influence in Singapore?

There's the gay portal website, Fridae. Do you seriously think its members, many of whom use it as a personals dating site, convene regularly to discuss how to infiltrate schools? I'm kind of concerned that people bandy around words like 'Gay Lobby' and 'Gay Agenda' as if these things were somehow self-evident. Maybe you can talk about these things in the United States because there really are gay lobby groups that try to influence social policies. But in Singapore?

In other words, we don't have a 'Gay Mentor'. : ) You might mention people like Alex Au or Stuart Koe, but you'll really be surprised at how little influence they hold over the gay community.

Anyway, here's something about the 'Gay Agenda': "The phrase first appeared in 1992, as a video produced by the Family Research Council in the United States. The FRC is a Christian Right lobbying organisation which branched off from James Dobson’s evangelical group, Focus on the Family. This latter group, by the way, formed a branch in Singapore in 2002, consisting of around 800 volunteers and 15 full–time staff.

Ten thousand copies of the video, called ‘The Gay Agenda’, were distributed to voters in Colorado and Oregon in the fall of 1992, in time to influence voting on anti–gay initiatives that were on the ballots in those states. The 20–minute video mainly contained interviews with anti–gay ‘experts’, such as discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, whose studies make claims that 37% of homosexuals engage in sado–masochism and that 29% urinate on their partners.

Words shape our realities, and in many cases, can even conjure stuff out of thin air. The term ‘gay agenda’ was subsequently picked up nationwide in the US, especially since the video was disseminated to schools and the military under the guise of an educational tool. What began as a localized lobbying kit found its way to national consciousness. Ever since then, the religious Right has been using the term to cast gay people not just as moral menaces, but as social and political threats as well."

Also:

"As Donaldson Tan has shown, the Gay Lobby is just trading one form of intolerance with another. Once they get the upper hand, they wont even let liberal Christians off."

I could call someone like Thio Su Mien the 'female Fred Phelps or Pat Buchanan'. But I won't. Because those terms belong to a specific historical and social context, namely the culture wars in the United States. I have friends who call anti-gay Christians 'fundies', which is short for 'fundamentalists'. I always try to reason with them that these terms are empty labels and that they cause more hurt than understanding. Similarly, I hope that Singaporeans won't use labels like 'Gay Lobby' and 'Gay Agenda' as if these were reflective of an actual situation in Singapore.

By the way, in what way are gay people trading one form of intolerance for another? I don't understand. Pink Dot is an event that champions tolerance for ALL. It's not one where we're saying, 'If you're not gay, you can't join us. We're exclusive.' Everyone is welcome, no matter what their sexual orientation. This is in contrast to many spaces in Singapore where people are not welcome because of their sexual orientations--be it on an institutional level like the SAF or even the MOE, or even some churches who would excommunicate gay members unless they underwent 'change' into heterosexuals--ie behaved on the terms laid out by the church.

As for 'interfering' with children's education, have you ever considered, for just a moment, that it wasn't some lesbian planted in AWARE who drafted the course materials? That it could very well have been a straight person, and a parent even, who decided that it's all right to tell children in their teens not to condemn gay people? And that from her own experience, telling young people that gay people are 'normal' does not somehow compel them to suddenly want to turn gay?

You can try asking ANY gay person you meet, how they 'turned gay'. And nobody, nobody will reply that he or she was exposed to messages that say that it's all right to be gay. Most, if not all of them, will tell you that it's something so inherent, and so intrinsic, that they simply can't deny it. How do you try explaining your own attraction to the same sex? Even though you're surrounded, day in, day out, by all these other messages that uphold, champion, promote heterosexuality (anything from your own parents to Hollywood movies)?

You're suggesting that a five minute segment in one CSE programme has that much power to completely undermine the daily bombardment of pro-straight messages--anything from 'family is fun' campaign videos to 'when are you getting married' questions from relatives?

The thing is, straight people don't see how much their own lifestyles are valorised and reaffirmed every single day because it has been so 'normalised'--it's almost invisible to them. So when someone even suggests that there are other ways of leading one's life--these ways are termed 'alternative lifestyles'. I've repeated it many times, but it's worth repeating--homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's life itself to gay people, it's identity, it's culture, it's community, it's relationships, aspirations, hope, dreams.

And I don't understand the bit about 'letting liberal Christians off'. What does that mean? That we will go on the offensive? That we will start attacking those who don't agree with us? How? Have there been hate crimes against religious people and institutions in places where gay people are recognised as equals? How prevalent are these as compared to the number of hate crimes against gay people--many of which have led to actual deaths?

"You stay in your private space, and I'll stay in mine."

We can all stay in our private spaces. But we can't do that all the time. Sometimes we need to go out in public too. The question is--can straight people share that public space with gay people? And I don't just mean physical spaces.

Can straight people allow gay people to have the same opportunities that they have, including rights to employment and a right to register their associations? Can they have the right to be protected against harassment and bullying? Can they have the right to counter false claims and not be accused of advancing some insidious and unproven 'Gay Agenda'? : )

Anonymous said...

I count myself as a moderate liberal on the social front, and a moderate conservative in my personal practices.

In the past, I am rather nonchalant about LGBT events. However, after the AWARE saga which exposed the Christian right's ambitions, I decided to be less apathetic and to support the diverse voices of the society. Thus, I am planning to go to the Pink Dot event, even though I am straight.

nofearSingapore said...

Hi
Jimmy Mun:
Hi Jimmy,
Thanks for visiting.
All of us have to decide what’s best for ourselves and our kids.
No one can do that for us.
On the other hand, the same goes for people who have different sexual orientations from ourselves.
I do not tell them what they should do (unless asked).

anon: 2.08:

Hi anon:
Thanks for your very measured and comprehensive response to Jimmy.
Personally, when I use the words “Lobby” I do not mean it in a formal way. If anyone gets upset when I use this word, I apologise. But I think I still have to use words like ”lobby” and “ agenda” because my vocabulary is quite limited and unless there are better & more suitable words, I may still have to use these, but not to cause anyone pain and anguish but because words , for me, are just a means of communication and not as weapons.
I state categorically here, as far as formal official organizations go , in Singapore, there is no “Gay Lobby” and gays do not sign up to adhere to any formal or official document called the “Gay Agenda”. I hope no one gets offended from now on when I use these two words. Thank you

anon:3.09:
Hi
I am moderate liberal on all fronts.
I am nonchalant about LGBT and most other matters. “Non-chalant” to me does not equate “can’t be bothered”- it means I accept that people are different and have different opinions about everything. I do not know why they are like that or who influenced them to be like that ( I know but the reasons are myriad so it is meaningless to count them), but I accept them as they are and they can be my friends, if they want to. ( Of course there are exclusions- but I can’t think now and just leave it as that).
It is nice that straight person like u to support LGBT.
I am just not happy about the timing.

Jimmy Mun said...

1) I was following Dr Huang's lead on "Gay Lobby".

2) You are using a strawman argument. Just because you dont have the form and organisation of the Bible Fundamentalists (I reject them as Christians), does not mean there is no organised underground movement.

3) Have you actually read through the CSE instructor's manual? Did you read the part that says some people derive pleasure from pain during sex, and it is PROBABLY a negative if there is NO CONSENT. I wonder why the CSE does not cover urination, with consent of course, as a healthy and neutral sex act. Do we want to be ostriches and let our children find out about all this on the internet?

If I add 5 mintues of gay porn into an animation movie like Ice Age, would you still rate this movie as "G"?

4) You failed to address Donaldson Tan's example of intolerance. Just because the Bible Fundamentalists do you injustice does not give you the right to attack all Christianity.

6) I dont believe I expressed a stand on pinkdot. It's all Dr Huang. Like I said before, you leave me alone, I leave you alone.

7) If you are talking about everyday acceptance, ranting at Christians is barking up the wrong tree. I had an effeminate BMT platoon mate, and I assure you all the gay jokes were not cracked by the Christians.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jimmy,

I'll just address your points in turn for clarity. : )

1) Yes, and I don't blame you for it. : ) I'm just saying that meaningful dialogue can better proceed once we demystify such labels.

2) Again, there needs to be evidence of this 'underground movement' for claims such as these to be valid. As I've mentioned, it's unfair to accuse gay people of infiltrating certain positions--let's say in the media, in entertainment, or the arts--so that they can 'promote' their agendas. Gay people have always been over-represented in certain fields. And gay people are in certain occupations because of personal career choices, not as foot soldiers of a 'Gay Agenda'. Imagine asking a gay man: 'Why do you want to be a teacher?' Do you really think an answer will be, 'To shape impressionable young minds and make then accept homosexuality', instead of 'because I have a passion for teaching', 'the pay is not bad', 'it's one of the few things my degree is good for', 'my parents are teachers' etc?

3) Yes I have. And I am not comfortable with some of the content. Especially upon learning that they are being taught to 12-13year olds. I'm really quite conflicted about some of the stuff. I don't understand, for example, why one would want to adress the idea of anal sex with a young female audience, and the term 'healthy' is inappropriate--in the sense that people would associate it as 'good for health' (like, exercise???), instead of its intended meaning, that it 'can be safe, does not result in rectal tearing if practised with condoms and appropriate lubricants'.

I actually agree that perhaps at that particular stage of their lives, girls should be taught the rudiments of vaginal sex, instead of being treated to the rather graphic 'advanced module'--which as you have noted, includes a discussion of alternative sexual practices like sado-masochism. : /

I also find myself very concerned with the issue of gay youths. I have sometimes, as part of outreach programmes, found myself in internet chatrooms where there are many gay teenagers--some as young as 13 years old. The first question I ask is: 'what are you doing here?' Some of them are really sexually precocious, and I really fear that they might not be receiving the proper kinds of information, or might even fall victim to online predators. It might be hard to believe, but I do believe in a code of ethics for the gay community--one of which is to not engage in sexual relations to anyone below the age of 16. Well, maybe even higher, 18 even...for reasons that are perhaps too complex to detail here, but which includes the lack of messages out there targeted specifically to gay people about the importance of safe sex, monogamy, having a support network etc.

However, I do think that it is also important to maintain the line that homosexuality is neutral. We can perhaps disagree on this point, but I think it's important to communicate to the young that homosexual people do not deserve to be condemned for their sexual practices.

4) & 7) Again, I reiterate: gay people in Singapore are NOT attacking Christianity. There might have been some people who are secular or of other faiths, who might have felt threatened by what they see as aggressive encroachment during the AWARE saga.

I have tremendous respect for the Christian faith, and I am not myself a Christian. I think someone like the late Mother Teresa has shown the world a certain face of Christianity, one of benevolence, compassion and service to the poor. I think Christian humanitarian organisations have been instrumental in the alleviation of suffering in many parts of the world. I think it is always inspirational to see people of the cloak denouncing the worldly to serve the poor and underprivileged.

I recognise that the ones who have an avowed anti-gay agenda among Christians are those of a particular bent, who go as far as to subscribe to the idea that even having gay people at a particular location is to invite God's wrath--a la Sodom and Gomorrah (which begs the question of why places like Sweden and the Netherlands have yet to be assailed by a rain of fire). But I want to assure you that I'm not one of those who are 'ranting at Christians'. : )

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, the reason why I didn't respond to what Donaldson wrote was because I don't quite understand what he wrote, especially that part, "There is no such thing as God of Love." Really catch no ball. If benevolence is what defines an idea of God, then he just put forward a paradox. Sorry bro, can't wrap my brain around that.

BTW, example of gay porn in Ice Age is quite hilarious. You have a point there.

Fargoal said...

Dear Dr Huang

Thank you for a measured and balanced views, which I find myself agreeing with. I believe you are acting in good faith in weighing in on this matter. It is useful advice for the pro-LGBT. Whether they want to take those views in is another matter. To each his/her own.

Warm regards

Donaldson Tan said...

Hi Jimmy Mun,

For goodness sake, the Religious Right does not include liberal or moderate Christians. It seems that you don't understand this label but I can forgive your ignorance. After all, all liberals like you and me are an inclusive crowd.

The Religious Right refers to religious fundamentalists who not only preach the strict adherence to their interpretation of Scriptures, but also seek to politicise their religious values at the level of civil society and the State.

I hope you now understand that I had never attacked all Christians. I do not intend to do so in future too. I only target the Religious Right.

If you accuse me of intolerance, you are trading one intolerance for another: "But if you try to interfere with my children's education, expect no mercy from me". However, given that intolerance is unavoidable, then we must choose the intolerance that will marginalise all groups equally - that kind of intolerance is called Secularism.

The Bible is full of victim card strategies. The fact that Christianity survived the Roman Empire is a testimony to this truth. Hence it is hardly surprising that the Religious Right will use the victim card to propagate their cause.

I just want to highlight The Homosexual Agenda written by public hate figure Dr Thio Su Mien. Look at how she invents the homosexual agenda.

http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/editorial/330/section/1.htm

Donaldson Tan said...

One more point to make - I am not from the Gay Lobby. I am from the Secular Lobby and do not welcome Religious Invasion into any space.

Here's something by Dr Gwee Li Sui:

http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=3114

Alan Wong said...

I believe the Pinkdot event is just another way of appealing to our conservative society to accept gays as normal people like you and me. What is exactly wrong with this, may I ask ? As to whether it is timely or not, it is besides the question.

The critics will forever contend that the gays will push for their rights at the expense of the family unit. To me, this is just the convenient excuse as they have yet to produce any hard evidence to back up their claims.

So what is going to be the backlash if the Pinkdot goes ahead ? That our Govt and society as a whole should continue to condemn them as pariahs, undeserving of any decent rights at all. Or demand that our Govt shall have more anti-gay laws. Or implement more housing or job discrimination policies against them ? It is as if we have not been at the receiving end.

Believe it or not, gays will be gays while non-gays will remain as non-gays, no amount of influence will affect a person's sexual preference. The sooner we accept this as a fact, the better it is for our conservative society to understand and accept gays.

If the Christian fundies or critics have their self interests for not accepting this fact while our Govt has its vetted interest not to antagonise lobbyists, I really don't see why there is anything really wrong with going ahead with the event.

Donaldson Tan said...

Hi Anonymous 1:44 PM, May 11, 2009

The fundies subscribe to circular logic. To get through their dense skull, one has to speak their kind of logic to them.

brick said...

PINK DOT is a gathering of people who support LGBT Singaporeans and their freedom to love the person they are attracted to.

Participation is not limited to gay people. Every Singaporean can be part of it. And that is the whole point. Inclusiveness should not be practised with exceptions.

If you look carefully through the two campaign videos making their rounds, you will observe that everyone in there are straight - these are sensible and compassionate Singaporeans who know that oppression of sexual minorities will never do any good to our society.

You wrote that "given an inch, Gays would want a mile". The irony is that no one should need to be give the liberty to love in the first place. This is not the era of arranged marriages and child brides.

Among many those who have said they are going, are family and friends of countless LGBT Singaporeans. It will be good to ask these straight people, when you meet them, why they bother to spend a weekend afternoon out in the field doing this. As if "asking for a mile" will make any difference to their lives and to their beloved country. But it probably does, in ways you have never imagined.

Inequality among Singaporeans and institutionalised prejudices leave behind nothing but damage to our social fabric and accumulate social costs which future generations will have to pay. It breaks up families, friendships, erodes patriotism and breeds conceit. Remember the lessons learnt from apartheid, slavery, colonism and feudalism.

Everytime you let an injustice pass and wish it will cease by itself, a little bit of you and your ability to love as a human dies with it.

auntielucia said...

Hi NoFearS'pore n Anon:

Thanks for visiting my blog. Glad u folks like the food pix, altho most of my frens say I've a lousy fone camera and I take lousy pix. Nice that strangers appreciate them.

Pink dot or polka dot: really, I find the arguments headache making, becos I belong to the group of S'poreans who only ask one all not to be too much "in yr face" abt anything.

Becos life is very short even if one lives to be 108!

PS Grammar lessons: pity they stopped teaching kids how to parse sentences at school.

Jimmy Mun said...

Hi Anonymous,

I wouldnt have any disagreement with you then.

My problem with the CSE is not so much that it brought up some issues, but with the inherent bias it has.

For starters, I believe we can promote tolerance of homosexuals without promoting anal sex.

PZ said...

Sexists, racists and homophobes NEVER give ground willingly.

History has taught us that minority rights have been won through agitation. It has to be fought for. Where would Black rights be if Rosa Parks hadn't sat down and refused to move to the back of the bus?

I guess she should have taken your advice. Just shut up and don't rock the boat. Martin Luther King shouldn't have organized the million man march. The racists will push back you know!

It isn't a question of smart but what is right. I know it's terribly inconvenient for people like you who are not anti-gay but not pro-gay either. Fence sitting whilst a minority group faces injustice is not exactly noble. Moral cowardice anyone?

PZ

nofearSingapore said...

PZ:
I have been called names.
But to be called a “moral coward” in my own blog really takes the cake.
Anyway, I have no wish to get into any “flaming war” with so-called “brave” people like yourself – who does not feel “brave” enough to even reveal his/her name.
If I can tolerate anti-gay religious extremists, I guess I should tolerate their opposing counterparts!

Fargoal said...

Dear Dr Huang

Just to let you know that I support your views. It's ridiculous how people are labelled "moral cowards" or "bigots" just because we do not automatically support the pro-LGBT views. I hope those activist-minded folks realise how many people they alienate when they make such statements. But I wish them well anyway.

Regards

chan said...

Just to drop by to show appreciation for your honest and unbiased views.

Had seen too many biased and bigoted views around the forums.

U are one of those who views humans for what they are, and that is remarkable to me.

I can't articulate in English that well. Just here to express a simple and appreciative thanks as I can see your sincere and genuine concerns.

nofearSingapore said...

Hi Fargoal and Chan,
Thanks so much for your heartfelt expressions of support.
Please know that your inputs in my blog are always welcomed.
This is not to say that those who disagree with me are not. They are equally welcome so long as their points of views are honest and they desist from name calling and ad hominem attacks. Some of them are in this conversation thread and be they gay advocates or just liberals ( like myself) who want more space for all, they are welcome as if feel that open and honest debate is positive.
I was more worried ( or some think too cautious) about ignoring the potential backlash from conservatives. I thought if we left some time for wounds to heal, there would have been more understanding on both sides.
Let’s just see what happens now.
I treasure liberty but I treasure harmony too and I think both can exist together.
Peace to all.

Donaldson Tan said...

Hi

I revised my position. Check out what I have written.

Anonymous said...

The Push by a minority to get homosexuality accepted is upsetting many.

Argument such as man should love other man has been badly misinterpreted to mean man can express that love carnally to another of the same gender. Love for other man simply means man(humanity) should have kindness, care, sympathy and respect for all other fellow beings regardless of their genders.

To equate a physical relationship(carnal) to love is a very worrisome misrepresentation. Love, use in general, means ones’ concern and care for others. There are loves (feeling of respect/personal emotional feelings) for specific others such as parents, siblings, teachers, pets, antiques etc. And there is universal love for all fellow humans/living species anywhere of any denomination.

Love specific to a sexual relationships between two private individuals is different from all other loves in that there is carnal relation. Traditionally and normally this love happens between opposite sexes. Sexuality variants exist since time immemorial, some countries legislate Laws specifically to deal with same gender sexual intimacies, others are rein by religions and ethnic traditions. Some countries outlawed such relationships while others permit or do not interfere.

Such same gender sexual relationships are highly controversial, the reason why it has generated contradictions, conflicts and debates.

In SIN, such relationships are ‘illegal’, however, our rulers have openly said that sexual acts between two adults(of whatever gender) done in private are not targetted for Law Enforcement. This, i must say, is a magnanimity bestow by the Authority which homosexuals should be happy and thankful.

To lobby for public acceptance by pursuing for legal recognition of same gender sexual relations is one push too far. When all turns blind to accommodate the private needs of some individuals, the latter should not be asking for more.

Sexual relation have to and must be connected to the sanctity of marriages.

Historically, traditionally and EMPIRICALLY, marriages(union of the sexes) are sanctified, solemn and ceremonious affairs, in every culture everywhere in the World.
There WERE no civilization that sanctions and condones same gender marriage.

Virginity, which was and is still very much valued, has been one very important even vital requirement by many cultures in marriages. Now, this has becomes debatable as sexual activities are no more as rigidly control as in the past by family, society and government.

Union of the Sexes are consequential to the wholesomeness of any society, so much so that all marriages have some forms of rituals and records to register them, mostly at state level and in tribal communities, the village elders will oversee the procedures. The families and tribes of both the couple are also likely to have agreements of sort.

The socio implications of marriages and sexual activities in relation to the society is inextricable and complex. The individual culture exacts very stringent conditions on marriages too, such is the seriousness of the human sexual exploits.

patriot