Read in YahooNews that a former ST editor by the name of Alan John is calling the people to take a stand for secularism when religious people use religion to impose their values on the secular. He posted an article in in face book and reported in coconuts.com titled, Former ST editor highlights the importance of standing up for secularism in the face of religious pressure.
This debate arising from the movement calling for the abolition of an 'outdated' law that forbids sex between men is seeing people taking sides for and against the law. Many prominent and eminent and influential elite and natural aristocrats have joint forces with the anti S377A law, calling for its abolition. The religious groups are also up in arms against this threat to the natural order of things, the natural order of creation. With the growing presence of LGBTs, the old natural order of things is looking like unnatural and the new natural order of things is like everything LGBT. So what is the natural order of things?
At the moment the majority is belongs to the old natural order of things. What if the LGBTs become a majority and the new natural order of things? We do not really know how big is the LGBTs as many are still hiding in the closets, many shy to own up to their sexual inclinations and preference, the number could be very large.
While the debate is going on and with stranger and stranger people, once thought of as the old natural order of things, speaking for the new natural order of things, one begins to question where are these people coming from? What is their agenda and who they really are?
Perhaps it is proper for the two camps to come clean and reveal their sexual preference or religious background before making a stand. In this way we will know why are these people taking the stand they chose to and not because of hidden motive or agenda. Ya, please come clean and be transparent. These two words are the key principles of Singaporean affairs. Anyone not coming clean is as guilty and sinister as the devil. When one fears coming clean, it means one is hiding something.
Let the debate continues with everyone declaring upfront who and what they are. I can understand the points raised between a sin and a crime, one a religious norm of what is acceptable and what is not, the other a legal position, a law to forbid a certain act. There are times when the two coincide and there are times when the two differ, sometimes by a lot, sometimes a little.
What do you think? Are the neutral, central, non partisan, hetero bias also taking sides, or those taking sides are actually not the neutral, central but partisan and homo bias, with vested interests in saying what they are saying?
PS. It is understandable that those born with such biological traits would behave or prefer to have their own ways or life style. But there are many that are born straight but unthinking or thinking that it is fashionable, after a few intakes of drugs, to think that this is the in thing to go for, the new natural order of things.