Rilek1Corner

Tag: Same-sex marriage

  • Gay Couple Vow Not To Leave Thailand Without Surrogate Baby

    Gay Couple Vow Not To Leave Thailand Without Surrogate Baby

    BANGKOK – A foreign same-sex couple Monday vowed not to leave Thailand without their daughter after a local surrogate mother rescinded permission for them to take the baby she gave birth to.

    Gordon Lake, an American, and his Spanish husband, Manuel Valero, say the woman decided not to let them leave the kingdom with their daughter Carmen after she discovered the couple were gay.

    The dispute has revived tensions in Thailand over its controversial reputation for once being a thriving international surrogacy hub.

    The couple, who have a surrogate son born in India, are currently caring for Carmen in Bangkok, but have not been given the necessary paperwork to leave the country with her.

    The woman, who has only been identified by her family nickname “Oy”, insists her refusal to sign the release papers has nothing to do with the couple’s sexual orientation.

    Lake, who lives with his husband in Valencia, Spain, fought back tears in an emotional television interview in which he pleaded with the surrogate mother to change her mind.

    “She’s our daughter, we’ll be here as long as we need to be. We’re not leaving Thailand without our daughter,” he told Channel 3.

    “From the very beginning we’ve wanted to solve this peacefully. We want her to be involved in her life. We want to sit down and figure out how we solve this situation,” he added.

    For years Thailand boasted a lucrative – yet largely unregulated – international surrogacy trade which was particularly popular among gay couples.

    But in February legislation was passed banning foreigners from using Thai surrogates after a series of high-profile scandals.

    The move was spurred by an Australian couple who were accused last spring of abandoning a baby with Down’s syndrome carried by a Thai surrogate while taking his healthy twin sister.

    A second high profile surrogacy controversy erupted when nine babies fathered by a Japanese man using Thai surrogate mothers were discovered in a Bangkok apartment.

    As those scandals broke, Oy was already pregnant with Carmen.

    She carried the baby to term and handed her to Lake and Valero, but did not appear for an appointment at the US embassy to sign the final paperwork, leaving the couple stranded.

    Speaking anonymously to Channel 3 last week Oy said she had no issue with Lake and Valero being gay.

    “But I’m worried about the baby, her future and that she might fall into the hands of human traffickers,” she said, without further elaborating on those concerns.

    Lake told Channel 3 he and his husband had tried to hold a meeting with Oy on three occasions but she had backed out each time at the last minute.

    “We just want to talk to her… and find a way where she’ll be comfortable knowing we’re good parents and where she’ll be comfortable knowing Carmen is in a good family,” he said.

     

    Source: http://news.asiaone.com

  • Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Mohd Khair: Pinkdot Agendas Undermine Familial And Social Fabric Of Singapore

    Talking about intolerance, we Singaporeans have been a very tolerant society.

    When a Muslim goes to a non-halal eatery and ask for halal food but none could be served by the eatery, we don’t see Muslims in Singapore suing the owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. In fact, there’s no distress whatsoever.

    Likewise, when a non-Muslim goes to a halal eatery and ask for pork or liquor to be served, we don’t see non-Muslims in Singapore suing the Muslim owner of the eatery for any form of distress caused by the rejection of the request. And really there’s no distress at all.

    Why?

    Because we respect each other’s beliefs and value systems.

    Alcohol drinkers don’t go around suing Muslims just because the latter believe and say that drinking alcohol is wrong based on their religious belief.

    Likewise, we don’t find Muslims in Singapore suing others who say that polygamy is wrong. We don’t. We simply don’t find that in Singapore.

    Why?

    Because this is Singapore, and we are Singaporeans who are very tolerant to different beliefs so long as they do not tear down our basic familial and social fabric. But the moment anyone or any activism is going all out to undermine that familial and social fabric, we Singaporeans will stand up and unite together to defend it at all costs. Defending that familial and social fabric that have been the bedrock of Singapore’s development and progress all these years cannot be deemed as intolerance, cannot be defined as bigotry and cannot be accused of propagating hate speech.

    Instead, those labels should be directed at those who undermine that familial and social fabric that we Singaporeans cherish and protect.

    Why?

    Because they are the ones that are intolerant. Any form of disagreement will be immediately labelled as bigotry and accused of propagating hate. And that is happening now even with the 377A still around. It is not hard to imagine the kind of absolute intolerance we can face if 377A is abolished from the Penal Code.

    How come?

    Well, just look at what is happening right now in the US. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage results in a legal suit. Refusing to solemnise gay marriages is now a crime. And yet lgbt activists here claim that legalising same-sex marriages will not affect anyone at all. It is instead absolutely clear from that legalising same-sex marriage will result in the absolute intolerance on the part of the lgbt activists. The slightest disagreement with them will result in lawsuits or even being charged in court for alleged crimes.

    So, to those lgbt activists and sympathisers, don’t go round saying that we are intolerant as a society in Singapore. Singaporeans have been and will continue to be tolerant so long as the familial and social fabric are not threatened. Once threatened, we will defend it. PERIOD.

    And Singaporeans are neither stupid nor illiterate. We know what the lgbt activism has done to other parts of the world once same-sex marriage is legalised.

    Same-sex marriage has become the demon that is out to destroy the institution of marriage and family in those countries. If ever 377A is abolished and same-sex marriage is legalised in Singapore, the same level of intolerance or more will also set foot. SSM will then be used to knock out anyone, any organisation, any religion and any law (including AMLA – Administration of Muslim Law Act) that is against same-sex marriage.

    So, don’t ever say that pinkdot is an innocent movement just for a group of lgbts and their supporters to celebrate diversity and the freedom to love. Pinkdot is a political movement that is intolerant of the familial and social values so dearly upheld by Singaporeans all these while. These are the very familial and social values that have seen us through the ups and downs of Singapore’s development and progress. Pinkdot wants us to abolish Section 377A and legalise same-sex marriage. And should that be allowed to happen, the pinkdot will transform itself into a demon that will be so intolerant to any form of disagreement to same-sex marriages and to its lifestyle choice of freedom to love anyone and anything at all.

    And by the way, Singaporeans have long been tolerant of lgbts living in our midst. They live, work and play together with all of us for as long as we can remember. The Government also acknowledges that they are in almost every sector of the economy, including the public sector and public service. And for the record too, no lgbts have been persecuted in Singapore by the Courts just because of them being lgbts. But the lgbt activism at the level we are seeing right now, especially in the form of pinkdot, is a recent phenomenon fuelled by external parties, and has now become brazen and emboldened with the recent US Supreme Court ruling. We Singaporeans have been a tolerant society all these while. The very existence of pinkdot now in our midst is testimony to that. But that does not negate our right to say that it is wrong and that we are against pinkdot in Singapore.

    And why are we against pinkdot in Singapore?

    Because pinkdot is pushing for the repeal of Section 377A and the legalisation of same-sex marriage. These two pinkdot agendas will undermine the very familial and social fabric that Singapore has been based on in its years of development and progress. And if we can sum up what PM Lee Hsien Loong has said in recent weeks, it would be this: The society in Singapore is deeply religious. The social sphere has developed taking into account the religious and ethnic beliefs of the multireligious and multiracial societies found in Singapore. So don’t push it.

     

    Mohd Khair

    Source: We Are Against 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

     

  • 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

  • Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Kirsten Han: Time To Make Singapore A More Inclusive Space

    Ireland – a largely Catholic country which only decriminalised homosexuality in 1993 and divorce in 1995 – voted resoundingly to amend their constitution and approve same-sex marriage last weekend. They have become the first country in the world to approve gay marriage by popular vote, and at a count of 62 per cent to 38 per cent, no less.

    This piece of news stood in stark contrast to another development circulating on social media in Singapore: that the Media Development Authority (MDA) had apparently banned from radio and TV a song and music video by Jolin Tsai, presumably because its pro-gay message would encourage a push for same-sex marriage here.

    It feels a bit as if the MDA has jumped the gun; there *is* no push for same-sex marriage in Singapore, mostly because everyone is still wondering how to shift the supposedly-not-enforced-but-somehow-still-important-to-keep Section 377A, which criminalises sex between men. On top of that, many in the LGBT community find themselves struggling against the fact that some Singaporeans don’t even recognise that discrimination exists.

    That conservatives exist in every country is beyond doubt; I’m sure there were some fundies praying for the Lord to chuck rain down on gay people in Ireland too.

    But while we’re riding high on the inspiration generated by Ireland’s stellar example, it’s time to think of how our own country could be so much better for everyone living in it. To not just dwell on hate and fear, but on love.

    The repeal of 377A would have little to impact on the lives of heterosexual – or even religious – people. It would, however, mean a lot for LGBT people in Singapore, all of whom have parents, siblings, relatives and friends who would in turn be affected. It would be a strong signal that Singapore’s government will no longer be in the vanguard of discrimination against LGBT people, that it will no longer support the symbolic legislation that validates countless forms of bullying, dehumanising language and prejudice.

    It would be a step towards telling young LGBT persons that they *are* accepted in Singaporean society; that they don’t have to be ashamed of who they are and that they can have a future without stigma and fear in Singapore. It would tell the parents of these LGBT persons that they are not alone, that they don’t have to worry about their children being branded as deviants and criminals. Conservatives aren’t the only ones who care about family; gay people have families too. Love, even familial love, is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

    The court has rejected the constitutional challenge to 377A, essentially pushing the responsibility back to the legislators. Yet legislators have often pointed to Singapore’s conservatism as a reason for maintaining the status quo. As we see from the MDA’s move, the state is not only unwilling to change, but actively restricting the conversation.

    Ireland has done something wonderful and historic in this past weekend. Let us Singaporeans not be caught on the wrong side of history; let us not wait for court cases or politicians to bring us the equality that we should have.

    Make it to Hong Lim Park for Pink Dot. Write to your MP about LGBT rights and the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Talk to your friends about acceptance and diversity. Reach out to LGBT people around you who might need support. Do what you can to create a safe space for them to be who they are and say what they need to say.

    377A continues to loom over us all – a symbol of prejudice and discrimination. Yet we cannot simply wait for it to disappear; we as Singaporeans can do our part to start making Singapore a more inclusive place. Today.

     

    Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com