Rilek1Corner

Tag: lesbian

  • Pink Dot Supporters Should Look In The Mirror

    Pink Dot Supporters Should Look In The Mirror

    Pink Dot supporters cite the event as one emphasising tolerance, respect and love.

    Ironically, there was an intolerant, disrespectful call for governmental action against religious communities who disagree with it, in the letter “End the slurs on LGBT people and their allies” (June 22, online).

    Conservatives who disagree with Pink Dot are labelled as hatemongers. Religious leaders are accused of using the pulpit to attack persons attracted to the same sex. People with religious convictions are to be barred from discourse in “secular” public spaces.

    Of greatest concern, however, is the assumption that all persons attracted to the same sex support Pink Dot. There are many of them who disagree with its agenda, which is to “change society’s attitude”, whereby regulations “will naturally also change”.

    When an agenda seeks to alter a country’s laws and moral norms, it is only natural that society examines the merit of the movement. To suggest then that religious communities be silenced, when the movement imposes on everyone, is incredulous.

    Such uncivil attitudes and double standards have resulted in discrimination against conservative communities. For example, Focus on the Family was unfairly branded a sexist organisation (“Ministries studying feedback on relationship workshop”; Oct 9).

    Ms Agatha Tan’s accusations against it were taken wholesale and spread by news platforms and the public, with little critical thinking applied to her arguments.

    It did not take rocket science to reach the logical question one should have asked: Would the Education Ministry have approved a sexist programme promoting rape to be run for 17-year-olds?

    Even when her schoolmates who had sat in the same lecture wrote to address her allegations, little effort was made by the media, the school or the ministry to redress the issue publicly.

    The organisation and its staff have suffered real loss to their reputation and livelihood. Has integrity been compromised in a world that prizes tolerance over truth?

    Bullying of persons attracted to the same sex must be addressed. But remarks by Pink Dot supporters, such as those of the letter writer, divide the society and attack Singapore’s conservative religious communities.

     

    This article, written by Leo Hee Khian, was published on Voices, Today, on 1 Jul.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

     

     

  • Why One Cannot Be Gay And Muslim

    Why One Cannot Be Gay And Muslim

    “Can one be gay and Muslim?” is one of those loaded questions that I am certainly not fond of. I believe that it is a meaningless question except in the vulgar context of efforts to alter traditional attitudes towards homosexuality and recast it as acceptable both morally and legally.

    The very posing of such a question imposes on the one being asked the assumption that, at the very least, homosexuality or the notion of “gayness” is morally and legally neutral. Otherwise, asking the question would itself be objectionable.

    The fact that most who publicly pose this question (like journalists and activists) are fully aware that Islamic teachings censure and reprimand people to varying extents for homosexual inclinations and activities gives it an insidious, manipulative character.

    Indeed, given the tacit moral approval of homosexuality implicit in “Can one be gay and Muslim?”, it is in fact the very moral integrity of the religion and its adherents that is being questioned. I therefore maintain that those who pose this question to Muslims out of other than genuine ignorance do so as actors who are part of a wider context and agenda.

    And that wider context that surrounds the discourse of which this question is part is dominated by the imposing presence of powerful special interest groups and organizations (including those in the third world directly and indirectly funded by agencies of the U.N and the governments of select industrialized nations). Those groups, through sustained public awareness campaigns; popular entertainment; legal and political activism; and the like, have brought the matter of homosexuality and traditional attitudes towards it conspicuously into the center stage of public discourses virtually everywhere in the globalized world.

    This heavily influenced and charged discourse simply cannot be ignored when addressing this question.

    Now that discourse is characterized by themes and indeed its related activism is propelled to a great extent by incidents of illegal violence, discrimination, and other forms of morally reprehensible conduct directed at real or perceived homosexuals.

    I believe it is of the utmost importance for Muslims to make it clear that illegal abuse; violence; and discrimination against innocent parties are all repugnant and unacceptable and should not be condoned.

    Yet we must also point out that deliberately conflating those matters with the matter of the legality and morality of homosexuality itself in order to foster societal acceptance of it is likewise repugnant and objectionable.

    While violence, discrimination and so forth merit their own consideration, using them (along with “Science”) as rhetorical and emotional tools to effect pro-homosexual social engineering is shameful and manipulative conduct where the suffering of individuals is used for the furtherance of socio-political goals. I view any group or movement that is guilty of such as being morally challenged.

    To be specific, it is to the LGBT movement that I thereby refer. That movement is made up of establishments that market themselves as human rights or anti-discrimination advocacy groups. In reality they exist in order to further their widely acknowledged goal of “Gayism” that entails the “full acceptance of LGBT people in society” which is just a clever, personable way of saying that they want to change society such that homosexuality is no longer regarded as evil but is accepted as neutral or good. Their daily work concerns pursuing the political, legal, and moral steps necessary to effect that goal.

    With that in mind, I maintain that the question, “Can one be gay and Muslim?” is part of an effort to perpetuate a, what I would regard as unhealthy, discussion about the legal and moral status of homosexuality in society. That discussion, which seeks to legitimize homosexuality and has its roots in post French Revolution anti-religion sentiment, is being brought now to the shores of Islam and Muslim minds.

    Obviously the question is not intended at face value. It is not asking the obvious: is it physically possible for a person who self identifies as gay to also self identify as Muslim. Rather, what is really being asked is this: can homosexuality become legally and morally acceptable to Muslims given Islamic teachings regarding it?

    The answer to that question is simply no.

    The only way homosexuality can become legally and morally acceptable to Muslims is if they depart, in a grossly unprincipled manner, from both the letter and spirit of the teachings of the prophet Muhammad and indeed all other prophets (peace be upon them all) regarding it.

    Those teachings are clear and definitive. The fact that homosexuality in general and sodomy in particular are deemed vile, morally abhorrent, and legally criminal in the corpus of Islamic teachings is evident and is among the things necessarily known of the religion. As a matter of scholarship, to deny that fact betrays a thorough disregard for demonstrable historical and anthropological truth that could only be the result of a lack of scholarly integrity or competence.

    As a matter of faith, Muslim theology and law are unambiguous: denial, in principle, of anything that is necessarily known of the religion is disbelief (kufr) – it being effectively the same as denying or opposing a direct instruction of the Prophet of God (peace be upon him). Failing to abide by something necessarily known in action (without denying it in principle) is deprivation and corruption of the highest order though not outright disbelief.

    Thus to attempt to legitimize homosexuality morally and legally among Muslim believers despite the foregoing is profoundly unprincipled and disingenuous to say the very least. And yes, it could entail apostasy depending on the particulars. For there is no definition of integrity or uprightness, let alone faith, that permits one to simply deny in principle undeniable realities of one’s professed belief system while insisting on being nevertheless ascribed to that system.

    It being the case that matters of faith, integrity, and morality are at stake here, talking about whether, for example, scientific research establishes that homosexuality is genetic or chosen, or even about the types of criminal abuse faced by those perceived as being homosexual represents something of a distraction.

    I say that because the fact is that LGBT groups are insidiously advocating the right to choose to engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transgender activity and forms of expression on a whim and with “pride” regardless of factors related the scientific data, or whether abuse or discrimination are present or not.

    If I am mistaken on that point I would love to be corrected but that is what the conduct and results of the activity of groups attached to the LGBT movement suggest to me.

    The libertine position advocated  by such groups is not based fundamentally on the espoused high ideals of justice and equality, rather it is based simply on those activists’ belief, contrary to every revealed scripture, that homosexuality and Gayism with their various attending moral deprivations are perfectly acceptable. It is only after that premise is accepted that justice and equality take on their relevance.

    Now it is that type of advocacy, grounded, as was mentioned, in post French Revolution rejection of faith, that should be brought to the forefront of the discussion by Muslims. And it is that kind of wicked ungodly activism that should be untangled from the emotional web of legitimate grievances such as illegal violence and abuse. It should then be exposed and opposed, not through violence; boorishness; and raw uninformed emotion, but by all lawful, intelligent and upright means.

    That is the Sunna and that is what those without a moral compass need to see from the Muslims in this and indeed all other matters.

     

    Source: http://muslimvillage.com

  • Take Studied Approach To LGBT Endorsement

    Take Studied Approach To LGBT Endorsement

    I refer to the commentary, “Why we need more light, less heat on sexuality issues” (June 30). I agree that on contentious issues such as this, we need more resources from all possible disciplines of knowledge to achieve mutual understanding.

    For that to happen, however, we must identify the heart of the dispute and why arguments of religion versus rights have dominated the debate.

    When the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community cries for equality and against discrimination, especially with the Pink Dot slogan Freedom to Love, their ultimate interest is the inclusion of homosexual relationships in the institution of marriage.

    Only then would the LGBT community be equal before the law and thus be protected from discrimination. But this would be deemed a threat to the religious community, wherein marriage is defined strictly as between a man and woman.

    The United States Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage based on the argument that it is a constitutional right. This has implications for religious communities across the US because granting such marital rights redefines marriage itself for Americans.

    So, the foremost task of various knowledge disciplines would be to provide perspective and research on the LGBT issue, contributing towards answering the question in dispute between the religious and LGBT communities: What makes a marriage?

    Is it an emotional bond in which fidelity is a choice and commitment, or can it happen only between a man and a woman? Does same-sex marriage benefit a democratic society?

    Our Government is wise to uphold public opinion. The majority are conservative, and the research on same-sex marriage and its societal effect has just begun, as the Netherlands was the first country to endorse it, in 2001.

    The debate on its benefits and harm to children and society are ongoing. More time is needed before one can make a correct judgement. Thus, to uphold our current policies is to safeguard our society’s common good.

    The West’s experiment in same-sex marriage is irreversible. As a young nation, it is best that we take a cautious approach, to allow knowledge of different disciplines to inform us of the consequences of endorsing this movement, and we can decide from there.

     

    This article, written by Jervin Lim Teng Lai, was published on Voices, Today on 2 Jul 2015.

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • More Light, Less Heat On Sexuality Issues

    More Light, Less Heat On Sexuality Issues

    The past debates on the rights of LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender) individuals and their implication on public policy in Singapore have generated much heat. These debates have also almost exclusively centred on the arguments of religion versus rights.

    Though these two perspectives matter, they leave out other fields of studies, from science to philosophy, that ought to be considered. Additionally, the narrow focus means that those in the middle ground, who may not be well informed on LGBT issues, remain unaware of other perspectives.

    This is further exacerbated by the severe lack of LGBT resources from diverse sources, which are able to provide different points of view.

    The lack of diversity in the debate is worrying for two reasons. First, the religion-versus-rights-only debate does not lead to mutual understanding. This is illustrated through a 2014 study done by researchers from Nanyang Technological University. They analysed nearly 10,500 comments left on two different online petitions in 2007 that called for a repeal or retention of Section 377A, the law that criminalises male homosexual sex.

    They found that the “retain” side argued almost exclusively from a religious perspective. The “repeal” side, however, focused on the rights perspective. Neither side engaged one another or invoked other perspectives.

    Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Government justifies its LGBT policies based on public opinion. At a Singapore Perspective Conference 2013 organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said “the conservative roots in society” is the reason that the “status quo will remain”. The question, then, is on what basis are the uninformed middle ground, whose views influence state policies, forming their opinions on LGBT issues? Possibly, their views are based on half-formed impressions derived from incomplete facts or arguments.

    Beyond rights and religion, the other domains of knowledge which ought to matter include philosophy, ethics, history, science and anthropology.

    Anthropology will help us answer questions about the nature and diversity of sexuality and family structures. Science, in particular psychology and biology, can shed light on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and if it exists in other species.

    History will tell us if homosexuality and non-heterosexual, non-monogamous families are part of our Asian heritage. Ethics provides a compass to navigate the waters of right and wrong. Finally, philosophy illuminates concepts and points to the relevance of all the above.

    EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE

    These fields of studies are vast. They may even raise more questions than answers. But knowledge — not just of the facts, but of the concepts, arguments and the logic that are essential to making decisions on matters of public interest — is crucial.

    Indeed this knowledge is essential to the proper working of a democratic society, one where citizens make decisions based on the best of what they ought to know, not on what they think they know, or gleaned from hearsay or from partial knowledge.

    Who provides and how to provide the range of information mentioned above?

    First, just as the Government provides resources for citizens on other issues, it should also provide resources on LGBT issues. This is especially so as it cites public opinion as the reason for maintaining the status quo on LGBT policies. This can be done through all its agencies, including statutory boards such as the Health Promotion Board and the National Library Board (NLB).

    An excellent start would be with NLB’s recently announced 19-member advisory panel to review library materials, which may include books that have LGBT content. The NLB should ensure that its panel members, who include taxi drivers, students and corporate leaders, have access to the full range of diverse information in order to fulfil their roles.

    Panel members should then deliberate this information instead of solely drawing from their own perspectives and understanding of an issue. Political scientists who study deliberative democracy, which is concerned with improved collective decision-making, have shown that fuller knowledge of the issues at stake results in better outcomes in decision-making.

    Such information should also be made public for citizens to deliberate.

    Second, non-governmental organisations, academics and individuals should also add to the pool of knowledge by going beyond rights and religion and into the areas mentioned above. Their views might be different and even contradict one another, but it is the process of sifting through conflicting material that makes us better decision makers.

    Of course, exposing people to facts contrary to what they previously thought does not always result in them changing their minds.

    Academic studies by American researchers such as Mr Brendan Nyhan and Mr James Kulklinski have shown that misinformed individuals who care strongly about a topic (on, say, whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example) will hold more strongly to their beliefs even when they are presented with facts that disprove their beliefs.

    This is even true of supposedly more open-minded, “politically sophisticated thinkers”.

    As the American novelist Mark Twain quipped: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    As bleak as this sounds, there is a silver lining. Other studies have found that the misinformed are more likely to consider other facts and change their beliefs if they feel more secure about themselves, or if the information is presented directly to them.

    Furthermore, the Nyhan and Kulklinski studies did not focus on those who do not hold strong views and who are ignorant of the many facets of an issue. This group of people would benefit from the diverse and factually correct information and arguments.

    So, the next time the middle ground are asked to participate in a survey on LGBT issues, they would hopefully be able to give a more considered response.

    About the author: Siti Nadzirah Samsudin is a research assistant at the Institute of Policy Studies of the National University of Singapore.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • US Supreme Court Rules For Legalised Same-Sex Marriages In All US States

    US Supreme Court Rules For Legalised Same-Sex Marriages In All US States

    The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry. (Tweet This)

    “This ruling will strengthen all of our communities,” President Barack Obama said in a speech after the ruling. “I know change for our LGBT brothers must have seemed so slow for so long.”

    “Today, we have made our union a little more perfect,” Obama added. “Progress on this journey often times comes in small increments. Sometimes two steps forward [and] one step backwards.”

    Calling the ruling “a victory for America,” Obama also said it “affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free.”

    The Court ruled 5-to-4, with Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting. All four justices wrote their own separate dissents.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, thought to be the swing vote on the ruling, authored the majority’s opinion.

    “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. … [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” the opinion said.

    “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest,” the majority added.

    Roberts, the court’s chief justice, wrote the principal dissent.

    “If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,” Roberts said.

    In his dissent, Scalia said the ruling is a “threat to American democracy,” adding that “Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. … With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the ‘reasoned judgment’ of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.”

    Shortly after the ruling’s release, United Airlines praised the court, saying the ruling “is a long-awaited victory for all those who chose to take a stand for marriage equality.”

    “The business community was really way ahead of our political institutions on this for years and years, recognizing that for America to be great, we don’t have people to waste and we have to let everyone participate and everybody play. And the business community really led the way and continues to in many of the states where we still see discrimination, where we see backlash and anti-gay laws,” Sean Patrick Maloney, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, said in a CNBC “Squawk on the Street” interview.

    American Airlines also applauded the court for finding in favor of same-sex marriage. “This is a historic moment for our country and for many of American’s employees,” Doug Parker, the airline’s chairman and CEO, said in a statement. “Today’s decision reaffirms the commitment of companies like American that recognize equality is good for business and society as a whole.”

    Jacques Brand, CEO of Deutsche Bank North America, said in a statement, “We are thrilled that the Supreme Court has made this historic decision in favor of marriage equality and that our LGBT colleagues and friends now have equality in this fundamental aspect of life.”

    In a tweet, Apple CEO Tim Cook said, “Today marks a victory for equality, perseverance and love.”

     

    Source: www.cnbc.com