For advertisement

Sample

5/08/2009

From tolerance to acceptance

As we slide down the scale between black and white, the black will first turn to dark grey, grey then to light grey before becoming white. An instant switch from black to white is too harsh and unacceptable. But if we slide it down bit by bit, over time, no one will know the difference or how the change took place when black is being accepted as white. The recent debate on whether homosexuality is neutral is akin to such a slide. In the past, there was no two ways. Homosexuals were not accepted in society. The effiminate males may be tolerated, but not the men who lusted for another men, or women for women. Today we have come to a stage when the general public have accepted these anomallies and accommodated their existence as just another human bean. Even then, explicit or overt homosexual acts are not accepted and still forbidden by laws. There is another section of the population that is very active in pushing for homosexuality to be accepted as normal, as an alternative way of life. If this quest is to be successful, we will eventually see boys dating boys, marrying boys and having sex among themselves. And the girls will do likewise. It could become a fad, a trend, something to be cool about. And the loud and trendy will set the mood and trend. What will happen to the boys dating girls or vice versa? Being impressionable and weak to peer pressure or so call fads and fashion, would these normal boys and girls succumb and feel that they are queer? Would they be ostracised by the homosexual boys and girls and bend backwards, to cease dating the opposite sexes just to be in the in group? Should such a day arrive, the normal will become abnormal, the heterosexuals will become the queer and the homosexuals the straight. We are seeing some of the silent majority speaking our in the letters to the media. If they do not, their reticent will be seen as consent just like what had happened in Suntec City last weekend, when 1414 women set the tone and direction of Aware. Is this what the majority wants? The MOE was very sure about the CSE programme but has now back tracked after some protests from the parents. If there were no protest, no complaints, the CSE programme would still be taught to the children as normal and appropriate. The majority must speak up for their own interests, fast. Failure to do so may turn their normal hetero children into queers for being hetero in the future.

14 comments:

CatFightLover said...

Mark my words. With homosexuals gaining more social, economic and political power, soon it will be fashionable for guys to carry LV handbags and butches to smoke pipes.

Already some jokers are wearing earrings on one ear. Soon, it will be on both ears and lo and behold, dabbing some lipsticks before they go out.

The family as we know it will be destroyed. At the rate things are going on here, the population will be further depleted as more gay marriages take place with or without official sanction.

Anonymous said...

Not to worry too much folks; when a society rots, rest assure that it will self-correct. The faster it rots, the faster it self corrects.

Worst comes to worst, let others take over.

There were and are predictions of Doomsday isn't it ?

patriot

Anonymous said...

hi Redbean
It is ironic that the opening paragraph of your post here talked about black slowing sliding to white, and gained acceptance. We can read that as literary applicable to the struggle against racisms in the past.

Now, you argued about not tolerating homosexuals because of the danger of sliding to acceptance. Let me tell you a story.

My parents were once, very much against a certain religion, who converted one of my sibling without their consent. The fear was that someday, us children would not properly respect their departed soul once they are gone. And they would be forever restless in their afterlife.

Today, we dismissed that belief as arcane. In fact, some of my family members have converted to that religion (including my mom).

Myself, I am vary the spread of that religion; it has taken over half my family members. But we live and let live; I tolerate (but not accept).

Similarly, I tolerate but not accept homosexual lifestyle. You might fear the "slippery slope", but the "slippery slope" is a weak argument.
Wikipedia: slippery slopeIt is possible to tolerate but not accept. The danger is to fear the unknown and discriminate against minority.

redbean said...

hi anonymous, a religion or the commonly accepted religions cannot be compared to the act of homosexuality. the latter is still a crime according to our law.

oh, i am not against homosexuality or homosexuals. i am against the preaching to the innocent children that it is something normal and probably an alternative lifestyle. for those who are biologically homosexuals, we need to accept them as they are. i don't agree to converting or preaching to impressional and defenceless children whose ability to differentiate values is still in the formative stage.

Anonymous said...

"The majority must speak up for their own interests, fast. Failure to do so may turn their normal hetero children into queers for being hetero in the future."

Stop being alarmist!

Francis Chua

Anonymous said...

"i don't agree to converting or preaching to impressional and defenceless children whose ability to differentiate values is still in the formative stage."

By your logically reasoning, most kids are in the growing stage of understanding values. Therefore, everything that is taught to them, is nothing but "preaching" anyway.
It is the adults like yourself who decide which are 'correct' values and which are 'incorrect' values.

Francis Chua

Anonymous said...

CatFightLover wrote:
"Already some jokers are wearing earrings on one ear. Soon, it will be on both ears and lo and behold, dabbing some lipsticks before they go out."

I have checked with some of them. For goodness sake, THEY are the hetrosexual guys!

Francis Chua

Anonymous said...

Please stop pointing the finger at gays and lesbians whenever something go wrong especially when it is none of their faults.

You created and maintain a hetrosexual oriented society and you dare to blame the other persons of other sexual orientation for the faults of your own created society.

The world is not entirely consisting of hetrosexuals only.

Francis Chua

gtuckerkellogg said...

redbean, you write "oh, i am not against homosexuality or homosexuals."

Sure you are. Just own up to it.

Anonymous said...

hi Redbean
Quote your comment from May 09, 2009 9:55 AM:
"hi anonymous, a religion or the commonly accepted religions cannot be compared to the act of homosexuality. the latter is still a crime according to our law."Only one act of homosexual, that is sodomy between two men, is a crime. Technically, government has said it's a symbolic law which will not be enforced. Being homosexual is not illegal in Singapore.

But that's not the only point. Most, if not all religions, if you go back far enough was once a "crime" as well.

I'm not saying homosexual is a religion. But removing emotion (fear) from the issue, I can't find a rational reason for ostracising homosexual.


Quote:
"oh, i am not against homosexuality or homosexuals. i am against the preaching to the innocent children that it is something normal and probably an alternative lifestyle. for those who are biologically homosexuals, we need to accept them as they are. i don't agree to converting or preaching to impressional and defenceless children whose ability to differentiate values is still in the formative stage."Thio and gang was being alarmists and quoting facts out of context, when they asserted that CSE is aimed at converting kids into homosexual. There is no rational argument; therefore, they resorted to pushing hot buttons, get people emotionally riled up to their support.

It's unfortunate that you are buying into this scaremongering tactics wholesale.

I suggest you think deep, and find within it you, why you feel this irrational fear of the homosexual. Why you felt the need to speak in support for those who seek to oppression against the homosexual.

redbean said...

i quote the law, as this is similar to statutory rape. have sex with an underage girl and see what happens. section 377A may be the only protection for innocent young boys being sexed without their consent. and if a boy comes out and said it was against his free will, it is going to be criminal. removing section 377A will remove the protection the boy will have.

what is important is that the conservative and the liberal shall live their own lives and not to impose their values on each other. to teach children that homosexual, anal sex etc are normal is not fair as the conservatives do not accept them as normal.

the two sides will not see eye to eye on these issues. that does not mean that they cannot talk about it and disagree. what i am seeing is the hostility being shown instead of agreeing to disagree.

let's talk and express our views. we need not agree. we can have our differences. that is diversity and inclusivity.

i made some comments in catherine lim's blog on her neutrality that was not too neutral and i could sense the hostility shown to me by some bloggers.

ha, tolerance of diversity?
cheers

Anonymous said...

There are already adequate protections for young boys in current law, even without section 377A. I'm not a lawyer and don't have the knowledge to quote relevant sections.

But I recalled a recent case of a female teacher being convicted of sex with his male student (a minor). And someone (male undergraduate?) convicted for oral sex with some boys. Section 377A is not applied in these cases.

My observations were that there are hostile people from both sides. I concurs that both sides need to agree to disagree on this issue.

However...

I have been following your blog for a while now, and I find your posts to be generally rational. Except in recent posts you made about the AWARE issue; I perceived that you failed to know all the facts and jumped straight to condemning CSE.

Case to point, your statement about Section 377A is needed to protect young boys.

redbean said...

hi anonymous,

i do not condemn Aware's CSE programme as a whole. only the parts that i don't agree. some may say, 99% is good and only 1% is bad. but one needs only that 1%, if it is poisonous, to kill.

now that the curriculum is out in the open, does anyone think that teaching innocent young children that pre marital sex, homosexuality, anal sex, as normal and healthy is the right thing and not in violation of MOE's objective? but if MOE has approved of it, than i can't blame Aware for it. i will take issue with MOE.

did MOE approve of it? if not, why did Aware do it?

my reference to 377A is that it is a possibility. with such a section in place, homosexuals need to be very careful in who they have sex with for the victim may cry foul and this section can be used against them.

Jaunty Jabber said...

1% of red dye added to 99% of clear water is enough to add hues of pink to a piece of white fabric.

1% in this case is a big deal.