Thursday, May 07, 2009

My problem with homosexuality II: What gays want

What does the gay movement really really want? They had worked had to create the perception that gay people are really just like the rest of us, but with special needs that are consensual and harms no one. But is that the complete truth?

4) Why GLBTQ and not GLBTQI

The I here refers to incest. Take a look at an example of "incest activism" here: Brother and sister fight Germany's incest laws. For all the talk of being tolerant and inclusive, the gay activists and their AWARE comrades are noticeably quiet about incest. Why dont these liberals fight for acceptance of this "alternative lifestyle" as well? I'm talking about mutually consensual incest, not Joseph Fritzl. Do they find incest "unnatural"? Are they suffering from traditional moralistic hangups, perhaps from the Abrahamic religions?

Do they think abstinence education will be effective for siblings sexually attracted to each other?

Who is the victim in consensual incestuous sex? If the increased risk for having children with birth defects is the main concern, all the more we need a good proper sexuality education to ensure birth control is done correctly, right?

Besides, couples do not have to be siblings to be at a heightened risk for having children with genetic defects. Therefore, such couples should be treated the same way as incestuous ones?

Or do they totally accept incest as a "natural and healthy" but recognizes that society abhors such behaviour and choose to ignore the needs of incest community, to save their self interest?

5) Gays dont really want to repeal 377A

It is a silly law. It attracts the sympathy of moderates, maybe even some conservatives. It creates an impression of an oppressed community.

However, in it's current state of no active enforcement, it does encapsulate the attitude of Singapore: As long as gay sex is discretely, privately, consensually done between gay men certain of their identity, there should be no need to fear the law.

It does leave open the possibility of blackmail and extortion, but so do heterosexual relations. It's not unheard of for women to regret having sex and falsely accuse the men of rape. Or other freakish circumstances, like police investigations on unrelated charges that reveal consensual gay sex taking place.

I think the law needs fine tuning, and is best left to people with smarter minds than me.

Until then, 377A will remain a powerful rallying cry for gays to lobby for more power and rights, and they are not in a big hurry to repeal it.

6) Gays don't really want to get married

Despite all the lobbying especially in the US, the gay community dont really believe in marriage as an institution. You can blame the homophobic society pushing them to extreme liberalism, but the gay community has no beliefs in monogamy, despite their attempts to manufacture an image of being just like regular folks who want to settle down, get married in a church and raise children.

Take a look at the first article on yawningbread.org regarding the AWARE takeover. Alex Au digresses in that article to talk, not about gay rights, but on the failure of abstinence education. Everybody sees the world through their tinted lenses, and clearly he wants as much sex with as many men as he can get, with consent of course. For such hedonists, marriage is an inconvenience.

So why do they still lobbying so hard for gay marriage? In the US, married couples have significant tax advantages, so there is a financial motivation. But more importantly, they want to chip away traditional concepts of relationships, and re-create the world in their own image and ideals.

I dont share the moral/amoral clarity of the Bible fundamentalists or liberal extremists. I find homosexuality a complex and delicate issue, often with no right or wrong answers that can last the test of times and changing attitudes.

Just as I dont think Bible fundamentalists are Christians, Christians should not succumb to the smearing tactics of the gay movement to either choose to support them or be labelled a "fundie", or a "sheep".

The gay movement dont really believe in being open or tolerant. The recent events show that these gay activists have no tolerance for Christians.

4 comments:

  1. *Gay* activists are just that - GAY activists. It is their right to champion their beliefs, which is homosexuality should not be criminalised. I don't see why they are obliged to take an active position on incest.

    They are no more obliged to take a position on incest than their opponents are obliged to have on on polygamy.

    Those against the decriminalisation of homosexuality often present themselves as champions of traditional family values. Polygyny was practised in many traditional Asian societies (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Javanese, Turkish, Arab, ancient Hebrew, etc). Yet, I've never seen any of those self-proclaimed defenders of traditional family values come out to argue against the ban on polygamy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fox,

    polygamy is banned in Singapore, unless you register all your marriages in Syariah court. Even then, most Muslim will point out that the Prophet only had sex with only one of his twelve wives. Maybe you want a ban on extra-marital sex. Wouldnt affect me. I am all for that.

    The question on incest is one of consistency. Incest, like homosexuality, is an act that is difficult to argue against on a scientific amoralistic basis. If we should suspend our moral revulsion towards homosexuality, should we suspend our moral revulsion towards incest too?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's not the point. Polygamous family units are part of our traditions. It would be inconsistent of those who oppose gay marriage in the name of preserving the traditional definition of marriage to not oppose the ban on polygamous marriages.

    You argue against gay marriages because they, in your own words, 'chip away traditional concepts of relationships, and re-create the world in their own image and ideals'. Yet, you are against polygamous marriages which have as strong a claim to traditions as monogamous ones.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The question on incest is one of consistency. Incest, like homosexuality, is an act that is difficult to argue against on a scientific amoralistic basis. If we should suspend our moral revulsion towards homosexuality, should we suspend our moral revulsion towards incest too?"Well, incest, being of the highest degree of consanguinity, produces offsprings which have much higher chances of congenital defects. If you subscribe to the harm principle, then it is clear that incest should be criminalised.

    On the other hand, I find it difficult to see what possible harm does homosexuality cause.

    ReplyDelete