Rilek1Corner

Tag: Pink Dot

  • I’m Gay And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

    I’m Gay And I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

    Gay marriage has gone from unthinkable to reality in the blink of an eye. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that support for gay marriage is now at 61 percent—the highest it’s ever been. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case that many court-watchers believe will deliver the final blow to those seeking to prevent the redefinition of marriage. By all measures, this fight is over. Gay marriage won.

    As a 30-year-old gay man, one would expect me to be ecstatic. After all, I’m at that age where people tend to settle down and get married. And there is nothing in this world I want more than to be a father and raise a family. Yet I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.

    I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

    Marriage Is More than a Contract

    The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.

    This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.

    But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract.

    Government Is Involved in Marriage Because It Creates Babies

    People have forgotten that the defining feature of marriage, the thing that makes marriage marriage, is the sexual complementarity of the people involved. Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.

    Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

    A Good Dad Puts Kids First

    Same-sex relationships not only lack the ability to create children, but I believe they are also suboptimal environments for raising children. On a personal level, this was an agonizing realization for me to come to. I have always wanted to be a father. I would give just about anything for the chance to have kids. But the first rule of fatherhood is that a good dad will put the needs of his children before his own—and every child needs a mom and a dad. Period. I could never forgive myself for ripping a child away from his mother so I could selfishly live out my dreams.

    Same-sex relationships, by design, require children to be removed from one or more of their biological parents and raised absent a father or mother. This hardly seems fair. So much of what we do as a society prioritizes the needs of adults over the needs of children. Social Security and Medicare rob the young to pay the old. The Affordable Care Act requires young and healthy people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost for the old and sick. Our schools seem more concerned with keeping the teachers unions happy than they are educating our children. Haven’t children suffered enough to make adults’ lives more convenient? For once, it would be nice to see our society put the needs of children first. Let’s raise them in homes where they can enjoy having both a mom and a dad. We owe them that.

    At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

     

    Source: www.malaysiandigest.com

     

  • 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

     

     

  • 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

  • Austria: Overwhelming Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

    Austria: Overwhelming Vote Against Same-Sex Marriage

    A motion tabled by a group of MPs, requesting the Federal Government to submit a bill to provide for the possibility of same-sex “marriages”, has been rejected by 110 to 26 votes in the Austrian National Assembly.

    This shows once more that “homo-marriage” is neither inevitable nor unstoppable. Remarkably, however, there was no mention of this unsuccessful initiative, or of the vote against it, in any of the major media outlets in Austria…

     

    Source: https://agendaeurope.wordpress.com

  • Mohd Khair: Homosexuality Has Never Been Part Of Human Nature

    Mohd Khair: Homosexuality Has Never Been Part Of Human Nature

    Words pertaining to human lives have specific and special meaning.

    Eat: chewing and swallowing non-liquid EDIBLE stuff
    Drink: sipping and swallowing liquid EDIBLE stuff

    Normal human beings don’t use their mouths to chew and swallow inedible stuff like stones, wood, plastic and all other inedible stuff. We don’t call this act as eating. I don’t know what to call it because human beings don’t eat stones, woods and plastic to live. If they do, probably ravage would be a word that can be considered and definitely that act cannot be said to be an act of eating.

    Likewise, normal human beings don’t use their mouths to sip petrol, diesel, acids and all other inedible liquids, including poisons unless they are committing suicide.

    Likewise for marriage.

    Marriage is a word to describe a union, officiated by an appointed authority, between a man and a woman. A union between a man and a man, or between a woman and another woman, cannot be called marriage.

    The human anatomy itself has been created, and has been there since time immemorial to support one of the objects of marriage, and that is to procreate to ensure preservation of the human race. The sexual organs of both males and females play complementing and completing roles in procreation. This is a scientific fact, and not an opinion.

    For those who believe in the theory of evolution, probably some pertinent questions to ask would be these:
    If indeed homosexuality has been part of human living,
    1. “how come the anus has not evolved into an organ that can readily receive the insertion of the penis with ease, without any ill effects as currently reported by the medical fraternity?”
    2. “how come the female genitals have not evolved to include a penile-like organ?”

    Isn’t it so clear as day and night that even the theory of evolution cannot be applied to homosexuality. The human body has not adapted itself to include homosexual behaviour.

    Simply put, homosexuality, LGBTQ whatever included, has never been an acceptable lifestyle choice. It’s a behaviour chosen by those who simply want to defy nature – what men and women are supposed to do to love, marry, procreate and prosper on Earth.

    There has been no civilisation in recorded history that made homosexuality mainstream except those that were met with destruction.
    Homosexuality is a just a lifestyle choice. It is a chosen behaviour. It is not part of human nature.

    Human beings eat and drink edible stuff to live and prosper. No human being in the right frame of mind will take inedible stuff as his or her diet. The consequences are as clear as day and night.

    Likewise, marriage among humans means an official union between a man and a woman to ensure the continuity of the human race. It is as clear as day and night what the consequences will be when the institution of marriage is skewed way out of proportion to also include same-gender union. Even an unofficial union between a man and a woman is NOT called marriage. One way, it’s called cohabitation. But the LGBTs, unabashed, called their union marriage…isn’t that shameful?

     

    Source: Mohd Khair