Rilek1Corner

Tag: transexual

  • Munah, Hirzi, ShiGGa Shay, Inch Chua And Daren Tan Among Acts Lined Up For Pink Dot Concert 2015

    Munah, Hirzi, ShiGGa Shay, Inch Chua And Daren Tan Among Acts Lined Up For Pink Dot Concert 2015

    Held in conjunction with the annual Pink Dot rally, the Pink Dot Concert 2015 is set to bring Hong Lim Park to life with an exhilarating line-up of some of Singapore’s hottest local talents.

    Performers include YouTube sensations Munah and Hirzi, Project Superstar winner Daren Tan, singer-songwriters Inch Chua and Gentle Bones, hip-hop artist ShiGGa Shay as well as dance group Plus Point.

    IMG_20150529_074108

    Starting at 6:30pm on Saturday, 13th June, the Pink Dot Concert 2015 will conclude as participants come together in a sea of shimmering pink lights to form the iconic Pink Dot; a symbol of support for the freedom to love. Please remember to wear pink-coloured clothing!

    According to regulations governing Speakers’ Corner, only Singaporeans and Permanent Residents may participate in events held at Hong Lim Park. However, foreigners are most welcome to watch and observe the concert as well as the formation of Pink Dot 2015.

    Support the #FreedomToLove with Pink Dot SG: YouTube| Facebook | Instagram & Twitter: @PinkDotSg | Website | Social Media Campaign

    Hashtags: #PinkDotSg #FreedomToLove #WhereLoveLivesSg

     

    Source: http://popspoken.com

  • The Gay Revival

    The Gay Revival

    I’m going to address some very controversial topics today. If you have trouble with God moving outside your comfort zone, you may not want to read this article. I’m serious: be careful! This may push your buttons.

    We’re going to talk about homosexual Christians, LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] Christians.

    The Bible is clear, Old Testament and New: homosexual behavior is sinful behavior. Since we’re talking about Christians, we could go on about how there are loads of sins that we overlook in the church, while we call out certain others, but that hypocrisy is another topic for another day.

    One day, years ago, I was with a small group, praying for some folks we knew that were stuck in homosexuality. It was one of those prayer gatherings where you just know that God is hearing your prayers, even as he’s helping to shape them and encourage us in them.

    In the midst of that, I had a vision: tens of thousands of people in the homosexual community were encountering Jesus. It was a huge movement, and God was in their midst. They were worshiping powerfully, and God was delighting in their praise. There were signs and wonders. Many were in tears, some because of His love, some because of their sin, but it wasn’t always the sin I had my own eyes on that they were convicted of. It was a genuine revival.

    I began to praise God for that revival, for the many sons and daughters that were coming back to their Father, and as I did, the vision became even more real: I was in their midst as they were worshiping God.

    And then I realized: they weren’t – most of them weren’t – leaving their culture. Nearly all of them stayed in the homosexual community, and a very large number of them didn’t appear to repent of their homosexual ways.

    I began to react to that: That’s not right, I said in my mind. Father began to gently instruct me in this vision:

    1)         When he calls people to himself, he does not call them to leave their culture. American Church Culture is not our goal. Relationship with Jesus is the goal. Hmm. OK. That’s true enough.

    2)         When he finally got ahold of my life (after a longer fight than it should have been), I was not sin-free. There were several sins that he took decades to put his finger on. In fact, He said, There are some things I haven’t pointed out to you even yet. Yikes.

    But it’s true. If he didn’t point out– and by pointing out, give me grace to deal with – some of my sins for decades, why should I expect him to be less patient with other sons and daughters?

    3)         And son, he said so very gently: these are my children, not yours. I am their Father, you are not. I am capable of raising My own children without your getting in their way.

    Since that experience, I’ve received a few reports that it’s beginning to happen, that substantial numbers of people inside the LGBT community are discovering the Lover of their Souls!

    I have received credible testimony from different people in different streams that tell me about the revival that is going on among the homosexual population. (At their request, and for their safety, I will not be releasing their identities. Some people do not respond well when God moves outside their box.)

    These people have been among gatherings of gay believers – we might call them church meetings or conferences – where the worship is powerful, where the Holy Spirit is present, where signs and wonders are in abundance, where Jesus is lifted up high. They have recognized God’s favor on the gatherings, and experienced His delight in them.

    I have met believers who are homosexuals. Some appear to be your basic, timid churchgoers, some flaming transsexuals proclaiming the gospel to their community. Some are content with their homosexuality; some want out but don’t know how; some are proud of their status, though these seem to be the ones who’ve taken the brunt of the church’s accusations.

    I’ve said all this to arrive at this conclusion: God is moving powerfully in ways that we never expected. And hold on to your hats, because he has more than this that he’s going to do.

    So how shall we respond to homosexuals that call themselves Christians? That’s simple: we love them. Just like we’re called to love self-righteous people who call themselves Christians.

    We surely have no right to challenge the faith of either group, and nearly always, we lack the right to challenge either their behavior or their culture. But we have the right to love them.

    Let’s love one another, as Jesus commanded us, shall we? And let’s trust our good Father to raise His children well.

     

    Source: www.pilgrimgram.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

  • Diana Abdul Rahim: Not A Case Of Secular Fundamentalism

    Diana Abdul Rahim: Not A Case Of Secular Fundamentalism

    I refer to Mr Walid Jumblatt’s letter, “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15), which was a reply to Mr Hairol Salim’s letter, “Efforts of Pink Dot ambassadors should be lauded, not condemned” (May 13).

    Secular fundamentalism connotes scorn of religion and its adherents, and is usually accompanied by attempts to exclude and limit religious expressions in public. The burqa ban in France is an example.

    Secular fundamentalism seeks to trivialise the persecution faced by adherents of a certain religion who are confronted by structural disempowerment. This is, however, not the case in this debate.

    Mr Hairol’s point about “religious-driven emotions” was addressed to a particular group of “activists and individuals from certain religious communities”. It was not a sweeping statement against the legitimacy of religious voices.

    Indeed, he stated that “views of all faiths and belief systems should be given fair consideration”, which echoes Mr Walid’s sentiments.

    It is illogical to construe this willingness to provide fair consideration for all perspectives, religious or otherwise, as an expression of secular fundamentalism.

    If we are serious about being inclusive, then Mr Hairol’s appraisal of those who voice the concerns of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community should hold no controversy.

    Claims of respecting the democracy of dialogue have no legitimacy if we are unwilling to allow the people we disagree with the space to speak on their own terms.

    To me, there is much common ground between both writers. For dialogue to work in a reasonable, respectful and empathetic manner, however, interlocutors should be charitable and avoid misrepresenting the positions of their counterpart.

     

    *Article written by Diana Abdul Rahim was published in Voices, Today, on 22 May 2015

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi: Religion-based Ideas In Public Sphere Must Face Scrutiny

    Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi: Religion-based Ideas In Public Sphere Must Face Scrutiny

    The writer of “Don’t let secular fundamentalism be the norm” (May 15) makes a simplistic argument for the unqualified acceptance and veracity of ideas based on religious or moral convictions in the public domain.

    While we can accept that religious sentiments have a role to play in public discourse, this does not mean that all views based on religion or morality are therefore legitimate and deserving of consideration.

    First, to play a constructive role, religious claims must be transparent and not be hidden behind vague assertions of common good, public interest or family values. Second, religion-based views must be subjected to the same analytical rigour and scepticism we extend to non-religious claims.

    The writer seems to agree that any value, religious or otherwise, “must be open to scrutiny and critiques once they enter the public domain”. This is often difficult, however, since many of the proponents of religion-based views would allege offence against their faith when these views are criticised.

    Third, we should distinguish between making a religiously inspired contribution to public discourse and simply making a religious demand.

    For example, the former involves articulating support for certain policies in line with one’s religious convictions but simultaneously being cognisant enough to offer other public reasons in support of said policies.

    These public reasons are those that people from different faiths and backgrounds could endorse, whereas making a religious demand limits itself to translating religious dictates into public policy demands.

    Such demands are generally articulated in a non-negotiable manner and usually seek to confine the scope of freedom for others. This approach impedes further conversation and can potentially be divisive.

    The role of religion in the public sphere is indispensable. Many progressive causes in history, such as the abolitionist and civil rights movements, have been spurred by religion.

    We should also realise, however, that not all religious views are legitimate for public discourse, even if religion is dear to many people.

    It is thus simplistic to rail against “secular fundamentalism” when the greater danger comes from those trying to narrow public space and conversation with their religious demands.

     

    This article written by Muhammad Fadli Mohammed Fawzi, was published in Voices, Today, dated 19 May 2015.

    Source: www.todayonline.com