11/02/2008
Gay rights and gay movement
The gays are planning for a demo at Hong Lim to champion their rights, among which is to repeal the law against homosexual sex and their right to live their lives.
Our society has progressed quite far in this area and gays are generally accepted as part and parcel of life, with hardly any discrimination or aversion against them. They are accepted in the profession and as friends and colleagues. The question is whether it is a good idea to champion their lifestyle and sexual preference?
Would we also popularise incest, after all incestuous relationship is a secret to our success? Or what if someone's sexual preference is for animals? He/she is not harming anyone in particular and the animal may enjoy the intimacy?
I think the gays are pushing their luck too far and may turn society against them if they try to make their lifestyle as a glamorous way of life. Better to just live their life without disturbing anyone than to invite people to look at them under the microscope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Redbean,
never expect You to do article like this one.
Just like what You advocated, I will knowingly ignored all the content of the Article. Except that the incestuous statement does strike a cord.
We are kaypohs, but not in everything la.
I stared bloging about a year ago, because some ass hole Singaporean calling me Gay, homo,ect... in chinese and malay.
The saddest part is, on my last visit to Singapore, I never saw so many Gay and Lesbian singaporeans! Some of these gays are still in closet bearing children.
Ok like any Bean they have rights, ie. they can shout and yell, and can do whatever they do in private, no problem with me.
One thing they must understand is to agree to disagree that I will never accept their lifestyle or approve of it. This doesn't make us biggot.
Mr bean where do you think 'their lifestyle as a glamorous way' come from... welcome to 1st World & Paradise , we must not Encourage such behaviour. Like you say do it quitely.
a chinese proverb:
"What is the point of eloquence? Those who confront others with a ready tongue are often hated by them. "
Wonder why Singpore girls are marrying foreigners!!
I don't believe any special interest group should be allowed to have its own "rights".
Awarding a "right" to someone or some group means that there is an OBLIGATION on others to observe that "right".
Now, who would PRESUME to impose "obligations" on others?
The state.
i.e. Giving gays "rights" means the state imposes an obligation on EVERYONE to observe that right (whatever that right may encompass).
I don't have anything against anyone's sexuality — that is their own business.
But to award "rights" to sexuality is motherfucking absurd.
ya, i know that this is a sticky one. just to hear the different views on this.
If people could find no fault with gay rights, I am sure they could see no wrong with polygamy in our society too.
I forget to mention, Allah also say Credits, loans and morgages are tempting with fire.
BTW I judge the govts persecution of homosexuality by arbitrarily constructed state law in the Penal Code completely unacceptable.
There is absolutely NO PLACE for private matters like sexuality to be in the political arena. Personal choices, like sexuality — if peaceful — are no business of the state and have no basis whatsoever in LAW.
(Unless of course your law is anchored in mystical, religious doctrine)
Incest is a private matter too.
for anon 3:53pm
Get educated.
Incest is a CRIME, just like rape. Incest occur in power control families and not between consenting adults.
Sufism is not ISLAM.
There is a website called Yawning Bread which discuss these issues
in depth.
Address: http://www.yawningbread.org/
Homosexuality is a multi-layer issue. It would be helpful to discuss each layer of this issue to aid understanding for ignorant persons, than to pass unhelpful and unwarranted comments insensitively. What IS NOT sensitive to us, IS sensitve to others. Therefore, I always encourage myself and others to be kind to gays and lesbians. It is also not right to stand idly by, when others are making such unwarranted comments.
Francis Chua
Nov 05, 2008
hi francis,
welcome to the blog.
the gay group has indicated its intent to speak at honglim. i believe they want to tell people their side of the story.
i started this thread for people to discuss about the issue. privately i rather the gays just live their lives without trying to attract too much unnecessary attention to themselves.
of course there will be distractors or bloggers going astray in any discussion. your invitation to bloggers to visit yawning bread is noted. those who are interested may visit that site.
however, bloggers choose where they wish to go to blog. just like the govt have their feedback sites. that does not mean that bloggers must go there for feedback.
what the gay group can do is to engage other bloggers wherever they are and try to share their views, and educate them if possible. but if gays think that anyone who wants to talk about gay movement must go to such and such a place, i think you will be disappointed.
for anon 10.02am
get educated yourself.
homosexual act itself is already a crime by mutual consent or not, let alone those that are forced. and if you think gay has anything to do with genetics, incest could be induced by electra or oedipus complex.
It doesn't matter whether homosexuality is this that or the other.
The common fact that everyone has no choice but to agree upon is that in the realm of the human species, homosexuality is a trait found in humans. All humans have self-ownership and therefore already have the natural rights to be themselves — whether out of choice or chance (genetics), as long as they do not physically interfere with the rights of other humans to do the same.
Gays do not need special rights, simply because they are gay (by choice or chance is irrelevant). The fact that they are humans means they already have rights.
Any move to exact "more rights" should be resisted.
You don't get any "special rights" just because you're DIFFERENT from other people!"
Hey, they aren't even allowed to get married (in a hetrosexual-centric) society! SEe http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_en_tv/people_ellen_degeneres
The problem with that is that The State controls matter of marriage.
Marriage, historically, was the purview of the church, the small tribe, or the village community. The govt had no business in marriage, and to a point respected the social institution of marriage, because those people in govt were themselves married and had families.
For gays to marry each other, the best thing is to get the state OUT of the marriage business and allow social institutions to handle it.
If the state wasn't in-charge of licensing marriages, then gay people could simply and legally form their own institution solely directed in uphold the institution of marriage between gay people.
There are always solutions in the free-market. Get rid of the govt, and you will find that the solutions found on the free-market uphold HUMAN DIGNITY each and every time
though historically, marriage was under the purview of the church and not the govt, was gay marriage sanctioned by the church then?
if marriage is not a matter of govt concern, and gays could get themselves married. does this mean incest would be legal too?
The gay movement has shown that gays and lesbians themselves are often NOT the problem. It is those persons who deny their existence that IS the problem. How can a gay person who is celibate, and a regular church-goer, pay taxes dutifully, do community work, and is kind to animals, BE THE PROBLEM? (I'm not asking gay persons to be the above, but using the above example to point out the problem) It is the same problem of those who deny the existence of the disableds. Some persons, for some reasons, cannot accept that gays and lesbians exist. They cannot accept that disableds exist. It also touch on the topic of acceptability of talent, and the prevalence of discrimination in our society.
as matilah said, any special interest group should not have its own rights, i think we are all in harmony with this. nobody says gay is a problem. but it starts to become one when it wants to impose its rights. havent we have gays and lesbians living here already since angmoh set foot here?
if theres a group of people as you alleged who cannot accept that disabled people exist, such people are the problem. they should go and get educated also.
It is true that gays are more discriminated against than any other legal group.
However, every individual has the right to discriminate for whatever personal individual reason. This does not give the discriminator the right to violence however.
For e.g., we discriminate against individuals, groups and their creations EVERYDAY in the free market. You like that shirt, you choose to buy it over some other shirt. You prefer the company of a particular person over company say of others. You choose your religion and congregation — you do all these and more everyday without any govt interference or central planning.
Giving "special groups" (because they are simply different) special rights has bad consequences, especially to those members of the special interest groups — i.e. the "rights" come back to fuck them.
In Malaysia, ethnic Malays were given, by constitution, special status "bumiputra". This has cause racial tension — resulting in violence, a "dependency mentality" amongst the Malays which has made them rely on the state more than themselves to "make it" in life, a fast dwindling economy due to the adverse political climates such policies have caused.
OTOH in Singapore, no such "special interest" favourings were imposed by the state — at least, not in this case. Every race was "united" and the word "nationality" was used. Individual and collective competitiveness was encouraged. People of all races improved themselves — economically, intellectually and culturally. People of all races do business and interact with each other. Yet they still have their own festivals and feasts and even their own ethnic areas of concentration: Geylang Serai for Malays, Chinatown for the Chinese, Little India for the Indians... and Orchard Towers for the expatriate men, Holland V for their fat and saggy wives.
Discrimination is part of life. You cannot force people to like you, let alone accept you for who you are, or want to be. The best for gay people is to continue with public awareness (freedom of expression) and to succeed in their chosen fields, as many undoubtedly have.
Elton John is gay. Alan Turing pioneer of the computer was gay. So was Oscar Wilde. Singapore has many successful gay entrepreneurs and mighty individuals.
You want to make a point? Succeed. Respect can only be earned. To get a state to force others to acknowledge you is force, and in the long-run people will hate you more.
OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here:
The state has no place in policing incest, as terrible as that may sound. At best that is is in the purview of the "moral authority" — be it the village elder, local church or a family elder. (which sometimes maybe the initiator of incest)
BTW, incest is different form rape. Rape is criminal because it violates self-ownership by an initiation of force.
Incest, I take it to mean in this context consensual.
'cuse me, I have to go vomit now...
wah, the mention of incest (that which is consentual)you got to go womit. if you hear story of patrick and susan in germany you womit everywhere? but when its man give head to another man you think savoury, is it?
Certain things might be consensual — but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
As for guys sucking each other off ... not my scene, but then, different strokes for different folks
i see, so you are a bigot.
And proud of it :)
no wonder you have this place your sanctuary.
OK anon if that is your best shot, you don't get any sympathy from me. If you have to resort to ad hominem, then I'm afraid you only feed more facts to confirm your ignorance and lack of intellectual rigour.
No matter. I shall present a libertarian opinion on gay rights and marriage.
As with all libertarian analyses, private property is the foundational idea.
So here is goes:
1. Sexuality or skin colour, or race or whatever individual or group trait one might pick is no basis for special rights.
2. Since we all are individuals, we already have natural rights founded on the fact fact that we own ourselves. (self-ownership)
3. From the self-ownership idea: private property, legitimately acquired or endowed at birth can be used in any way as long as it does not violate the same rights of others. i.e. You can use your hands any way you want, but you cannot use them to steal, murder or assault anyone else. You may only touch another person or their property with their permission.
Therefore:
The Penal Code of Singapore is both immoral and illegal in the sections which PERSECUTE people for being gay and conducting themselves in gay sexual behaviour.
Since I am against the state involving itself in marriage, I am against state-controlled marriages for both straight and gay couples.
However, the institution of marriage existed BEFORE the creation of states. As an extension of the right to private property, the right to exchange private property and the right to contract, marriages (a contractual relationship — i.e. the "property" is in the spirit and definitions of the contract itself) is proper fro both straight and gay people.
The state has no business in one-on-one relationships, no matter how "strange" they might be to some.
Therefore, in summary:
Gay people have the right to exists as they are as they already have the universal rights we all have, protected by law.
Gay people can get married without anyone's "permission", least of all the state.
my resorting to ad hominem? you acted smug with your flippant answer in affirming your being a bigot that invited the riposte. you must know its no use talking to one who’s hidebound.
nevertheless, you have cited libertarian opinion on gay rights and marriage. we’re not totally libertarian are we? but libertarian or not we live as a society. and there are overiding societal principles and convention that we have to abide by them, one of which is averse to gay rights and gay marriage.
you say – “from the self-ownership idea (in libertarian opinion): private property, legitimately acquired or endowed at birth can be used in any way as long as it does not violate the same rights of others ie you can use your hands in any way you want, but you cannot use them to steal, murder or assault anyone else. You may only touch another person or their property with their permission” I can prove you wrong by reductio ad absurdum - just go around and show your middle finger to everyone without touching them and your libertarian rights will forsake you. or, go streaking in the city if you want and see what happens.
by your libertarian opinion. you cannot criminalize incest, every cult practices or, even stopping a man wearing tudung entering the bank, can we? there are a lot more. its like openning pandora's
box.
it would be better for every interest group to be a bit circumspect and enjoy their lives by not pushing the boundaries too far. and i think the gays are able to live their lives quite normally here. but if they want to go further, like kissing in public, getting married legally, have a special place for themselves etc, they may turn the people against them, or at least provoke some of the less tolerant beans in our midst.
better to live and let live.
anon 1022
Bust a gasket if you must, but I'm not responding with an ad hominem rejoinder.
Your reductio ad absurnum is flawed. It depends where or rather who owns the property you are on when you are showing the middle finger or dancing around in the buff.
It is the property owner who ultimately decides what can go on on his property by who and when ...
A point I note to those who criticise libertarian opinion: they usually don't fully have a grasp on two fundamental ideas:
1. Individual rights
2. Private property
and the 3rd concomitant principle: voluntary action, agreement and contract.
Those 3 principles can be applied quite easily to your mention of cult practices (perfectly alright as long as they are voluntary and don't physically interfere with others who choose not to be a part), or tudung wearers entering banks -- which are private property (depends on the banks' policies - which would depend on how to serve their customers best and make the most money, no doubt).
> its like openning pandora's box. <
Not really. We are only discussing and debating these ideas. The actual opening of pandora's box implies ACTION.
Further thoughts on incest, and how to outlaw it using libertarian principles:
This activity could easily be "demonised" by applying the principles of private property and voluntary association (implied contract).
Suppose a community where people know each other and commune in places of worship or social interaction. Let us also suppose that in this community incest is frown upon and normatively accepted as "immoral behaviour".
No law or regulation can prevent a crime or rule-breaking from occuring. At best laws and rules can dissuade action by acting as a deterrent. What might be a deterrent for incest?
Social ostracisation. Anyone caught committing incestuous acts will be instantly discriminated against in that community. It might even affect their ability to get a job, or for the community to support businesses run by the perps.
Since there is no government to offer welfare state assistance, people committing incest actually have a lot to lose if they go ahead with their "immoral" behaviour. in fact the social ostracisation could be so severe, the perps may have to leave the community. If word spreads, it could be difficult to gain acceptance in another community.
With the libertarian ideas of self-ownership, private property and the right of voluntary association comes extremely rigid, no-nonsense personal responsibility.
Therefore the "pandora's box" you're referring to could be this:
Everyone is TOTALLY responsible for their actions and the consequences resulting from those actions.
you sound resolute in dismissing my rebuttal as flawed. i wonder why it didn’t get into your head that i had meant you have a go to do your stuff at public places. instead you portrayed the platform as being private properties and went away to expound on a lot of balonies about owners seal of approval before you are allowed do the act. forget the humbug, you have yet to refute my view.
and what a rigmarole that you dished out. its all red herring. your thesis on how to outlaw or demonize incest could also apply to gay. they are like a pair of shoes.
I don't know what your beef is. I merely stated that whether or not you are allowed to conduct an activity depends solely on the question: Who owns the property? What's so hard to grasp?
> ref: to incest and gays:
they are like a pair of shoes. <
I don't understand the metaphor. I must admit I have no clue in what you're saying.
WHY they are like "a pair of shoes"?
i said 'at public places'
as regards 'they are like a pair of shoes' your discourse on the evils of incest is an approach subtly to draw a veil over that for the gays. my remarks then was like a reminder that no matter what, they go hand in hand – both are immoral. you cant make one good and vilify the other.
> i said 'at public places' <
In that case there is no "clear" ownership, which means the state makes the rules — statute law (regardless of what's in the constitution)
> my remarks then was like a reminder that no matter what, they go hand in hand – both are immoral.
The context of "morality" here would be a personal one — i.e. your own set of values — what is right or wrong to you.
For example voluntary incest is a political issue in Tasmania where this sexual activity is widespread:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/07/2083798.htm
> you cant make one good and vilify the other.<
My "vilification" of incest was a personal one. It has no bearing on the fact that the state should keep its hands off voluntary human association — despite my own huge distaste for what I consider to be deviant sexual behaviour. As mentioned before my "morality" here is relevant only to how I conduct myself. (as opposed to forcing others to adhere to my rules)
Post a Comment