Homosexuality was the title of the post I created last night but didn't had the courage to post it because I don't really know which side of the fence I'm actually standing myself. There were varying opinions and voices on the forum and I do agree and disagree with things they say regardless of whether they are for or against homosexuality. For myself, I think i know very well that it is innate and can't be changed but on another hand, since I'm not born with a preference that is not accepted by the social norm, I wouldn't know if people are indeed born with a different set of chromosomes. Looking at countries like Thailand, it makes us believe that it's more of the environment or the upbringing and less of the inborn characteristics. Doesn't statistic show that most homosexuals "beginnings" occur in single gender schools as compared to a co-ed school? Having said that, what is wrong with homosexual relationships?
Well, according to "Muscle Tree", God did not intend for male and male, or female and female to have sexual relations. As the popular saying goes, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!". Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. Men and women are given very special capability in their union coming together and be able to procreate and in Gen 1:28 of the Holy Bible, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply".
And speaking about legalising homosexuality unions, the inevitable consequence would be the redefinition of marriage, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality. From the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.
For me, I do not have any issues with my queer friends and on top of which, I always feel that the society should have a high level of tolerance but not necessarily acceptance. But what "Muscle Tree" really got me thinking, that this is a "foot past the door" technique and eventually, legislation is unavoidable. From there on, society might transform and lose it's meaning. I cannot disagree but neither will I agree on this. I do feel that on a certain level, homosexuality is still unavoidable and being put under the magnifying glass and blown up focusing on the evils by bad press.
I've always felt that everyone should have the basic human right to love whoever they want, regardless of their gender but unfortunately, things are not as simple. To legalise homosexuality unions, there are still so much more to be smoothen out and frankly, this will and should not be done in Singapore in the short run. We're merely the 2nd or 3rd generation from the superbly conservative Chinese who did not go through the Cultural Revolution. I don't know for sure for the other races but for the 70% of Chinese, I think we're not ready as much as some of you might think that we are.
It's better that we tread every step we take with care than to decide to legislate against the general consensus in a rush.
1 comment:
From a legal stand point.
It's only right that the Penal Code should march in steps with the current social climate. I could hardly even regard it as decent jurisprudence of a country to punish one for his/her sexual preference, especially when the social discourse is such.
Having said that, the Australian jurisdiction have various issues with regards to just de facto relationships viz breakdowns. Question of what stands as adequate remedy and due course in the administration of justice are just dust on the limestone. What I have in concern is this attitude when some gay rights activists advocate i.e. that they can be as happy, healthy and functional as a family unit. I have no issue with the statement and to be frank, I do very much agree with it but in substance it codes a certain attitude. Most of the time when I met such discussion, there were hardly any concerns on what if a relationship breakdown happens?
In law, we could and ought not to disregard that. It's really not a hippie happy world and I belief since we route our rights and remedy to law, the system ought to have time to assess and adjust. Both the tradition elements i.e. Asian perceptions and British legal heritage that is so well rooted in the Singapore jurisprudence that the current system would need a lot of time and have far more concerns to address.
From a social stand point.
What are they really fight against? It's a very simple question but you would likely find scrambling answers and scratchy grievances.
Post a Comment