Why exposing your children to homosexuality is good

People, from the hordes of aunties and uncles who claim they constitute the “silent majority” to national leaders like Putin and the religiously-motivated anti-gay Ugandan ministers, tend to say that they are protecting the children by silencing and oppressing homosexuals.

But the reason why I choose not to return to Singapore or raise my children in Singapore (nor will I choose to visit or live in Russia or Uganda) is because I want myself and especially my children to be exposed to homosexuality from young.

The same way I want my children to be exposed to different genders, races and cultures FROM YOUNG. Not when they suddenly turn mature at the age of 18.

Because I don’t want my children to be raised perverted.

I don’t want them to see the world through the lens of stigma – judging everyone based on irrelevant stereotypes.

Because this is the real world made up of all kinds of people. Our sexual orientation is not good or bad. Just like our gender or race is not good or bad. I don’t want my children to be raised with even a little bit of prejudice. I don’t want them to worship light skinned caucasians the way many Singaporeans do, because we hate and abuse dark skinned asians. Just look at how we treat maids and construction workers. If our maids and workers were actually white, would we even dare to treat them like this? I also don’t want my kids to think that men can do all these great things with themselves and their lives, while women are confined to submissive roles. I don’t want my children to be taught generalizations about the roles of women and men in relationships and at work. I don’t want them to be squeamish about homosexuality.

I want myself and my children to live without borders. Go out there and live your life. Let other people live their lives without borders.

If I’m lucky and have precocious children, it’s still no good. They will be surrounded by peers who have small minds and are not afraid to use them (referencing the HCI-FotF incident where a group of classmates stood up for the FotF workshop). They will spend over a decade of their lives in classrooms where topics are omitted by the ministry and their educators for many irrational reasons, amongst classmates who grow up unable to define concepts of “consent” and “human right”.

You might as well take my child and raise them with apes in the wild. In that case, he/she might get an education.

Open letter to the Prime Minister of Singapore

Singapore should adhere to international human rights law

Closing one eye on anti-gay discrimination does not erase it from our national history. If Singaporeans are proud of who we are and where we came from, then we should be more careful of where we are going. In 2011, the United Nations reported on worldwide persecution of LGBT and reminded UN members of their obligation under international human rights law to decriminalize homosexuality. The British who bestowed 377 on us have decriminalized homosexuality since 1967. China has legalized homosexual acts since 1997. Yet Singapore remains one of 80 countries including Russia, Uganda and India where homosexual acts are crimes. 377A legitimizes the stigmatization and vigilante persecution of LGBT and should be repealed.

Family values, God and patriotism are often abused in a bait-and-switch campaign, as many historical and present leaders have done, to marginalize minority groups. Some anti-gay proponents are happy to fuel homophobic paranoia, but in contrast curiously silent about more prevalent and normalized behaviors that they consider immoral such as premarital sex, abortion, oral sex, embezzlement and religious idolatry. Their fear of sliding into a moral apocalypse and the lumping of homosexuality with pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and murder raise concern regarding the ability of Singaporeans to recognize human rights and distinguish scenarios where consent can be reasonably obtained. Their perversion of science and dehumanization of LGBT speak volumes about the soundness of these voices and their potential to generate societal conflict.

It seems that many people are voting and petitioning not for the happiness, prosperity and progress of Singapore, but for religious and personal convictions about what they think is for everybody’s own good. It is sad that they cannot imagine being in the shoes of LGBT and understand that peace should be built on mutual respect and not the intimidation of minorities. This mentality becomes dangerously extremist when leaders encourage their followers to put their lives and the well-being of others at stake. As a civilized nation, we should resolve conflict without threats of aggression.

Our Health Minister, Mr Gan’s recent display of integrity and several Straits Times letters defining meaningful values for Singapore are encouraging. Hopefully we will see further steps by Singapore to uphold international human rights law.

 

– Author info omitted in blog entry for security reasons.

Preemptive strikes

Many Christians I’ve talked to are worried about what happens after homosexuality is decriminalized and gay marriage is sanctioned. This is a very real motivation for them to strike preemptively and keep homosexuality criminalized.

A lot of church leaders focus on narratives where a cake shop owner or pastor or Mozilla’s CEO are sued or fired for being anti-gay. From their point of view, people should be allowed to choose whether or not to serve a customer based on the sexual orientation of the customer. A lot of my friends are outraged by the idea that laws could be passed to “protect religious freedoms” by legalizing discrimination. Almost happened in Arizona. 

I actually think these shops and services should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on the condition that they must hang a yellow star in their shop windows and websites. That way the rest of us will be able to tell which shops to boycott. I would hate to think that I in some way endorsed homophobia and bigotry by buying a cake. 

Maybe that’s why Mozilla fired its CEO – so all its users wouldn’t make an executive decision to flock over to Chrome. 

A lot of hard-line religious leaders are flabbergasted by this incident. I don’t think they see that having an anti-gay CEO is just like having a Nazi/KKK-affiliated CEO. They also tend to be very shocked that pro-LGBT public figures are perceived as heroes.

But getting back to business, refusing to decriminalize homosexual acts out of fear that one day they will not be allowed to refuse to provide services for homosexuals stems from a slippery slope paranoia. This comes from looking at the US. But if we slipped down the opposite slope, then everyone should be screaming that criminalizing homosexual acts is going to turn Singapore into Russia or Uganda. Unfortunately, global outrage, boycotting of the Sochi olympics and withdrawal of financial aid were not enough to persuade either of the offending countries to stop brutalizing the LGBT.

I think you have to deal with it. You can’t stop the good things from happening because you’re afraid bad things will happen. Otherwise you might support the extremist statement that “If we let girls go to school and learn independence, our religion and country will be destroyed”. Or the statement that “I will NEVER let my child start making his/her own decisions because they will one day make decisions that I do not agree with”.

So I’m afraid that I can’t accept the excuse that we should not give homosexuals the basic rights to live and love because it will one day threaten the rights of anti-gay individuals.

A lesson on voting and petitions

Many people around the world are quite confused about what voting and petitioning is for.

Many people seem to think they should vote for what they personally prefer or think is right – and that this preference or belief should apply to secular society at large regardless of individual freedoms and rights.

This is dangerous since the beliefs of the majority will be implemented regardless of sound logic or morality.

For example, if a teacher asks the class to vote on whether to punish kids with ear piercings, hopefully you would expect an intelligent and empathetic class to vote against this irrational penalization. Whether their classmates get their ears pierced or not has nothing to do with anyone else or the condition of their educational experience – well, hopefully your education is not so fragile that the ears or sexual orientation of your classmate can jeopardize your grades or sense of identity.

But today, a lot of people think that they are compelled to vote against something that they personally do not accept or think is immoral only because God says so (meaning without secular reasoning). I think the education systems and religious organizations in Singapore actually help to perpetuate this mentality that if authority (government, teachers, pastors, parents) says so, even if got no explanation, everyone should follow and not change status quo. So we don’t even bother to think or resist conservative beliefs that all hell will ensue if secondary school students are allowed to dye their hair or wear socks that do not cover their ankles or – God forbid – shave their heads for cancer charities.

A lot of Christians and Muslims are unsure of how to vote to keep homosexuality criminalized or whether to participate in anti-gay petitions. They believe that if they are not against homosexuality (which their faith regards as a terrible sin), then they are betraying their God and their faith. I wonder if they would take the same stand if we had to vote about religious harmony (idolatry or witchcraft), premarital sex (pretty sure a lot more people having premarital sex than homosexual sex in Singapore) or abortions (murder, often under attenuating circumstances).

Hopefully people understand that if particular religious groups are allowed to dominate society and politics – voting, campaigning and shutting out alternative voices based on their religious convictions which they would possibly die for – what we get is terrorism and conflict.

Two necessary beliefs of a terrorist are (1) the belief that they should die for their beliefs AND (2) the belief that oppressing and even killing non-believers is for their own good and is a good deed.

I think that if a certain decision does not violate the rights of another person, then it is pretty straightforward that we should not vote to criminalize this decision or behavior. 

Otherwise, if we’re working on the premise that we should criminalize everything that can be explained to be harmful to the individual even if it doesn’t affect others, I would have to recommend criminalizing a whole range of other decisions/behaviors for other people’s “own good”. For instance, the excessive consumption of sugary or fatty foods, smoking, mating with people who have bad genetics/habits, watching TV for extended periods of time, forgetting to brush your teeth twice a day etc. Got to shut down all of the bubble tea shops in Singapore or at least refuse to let them add any sugar to any drinks – those criminals!!! Killing Singaporeans slowly!!

In fact, there are many acts that are more likely to be harmful to others that we do not criminalize in Singapore based on the idea that these decisions are personal and that the law (funded by taxpayers) should not get involved. Adulterers are not put in jail or fined – they are not criminals. People who choose abortion are not criminals. People who engage in casual, unprotected sex are not criminals. People who gamble all their savings away are not criminals. Common liars (outside of the court) – everybody – are not criminals. I propose that anyone who wants to keep homosexuality criminalized should start with petitioning for the criminalization of these more prevalent sins.

A lesson on consent

I often hear people comparing homosexuality to other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia.

This is worrying for several reasons – mainly that the people who make these comparisons are unable to differentiate consensual sex from rape.

Heterosexual and homosexual sex are more similar to each other than pedophilia, zoophilia or necrophilia. Consent cannot be obtained from a child, an animal or a dead body. But it can be obtained from adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

I once got questioned about my stance against bestiality, considering that I eat meat. Yes, I am violating animals. So does bestiality. It is a sad truth and we need to do something about it to alleviate animal suffering. If we, as humans, cannot even treat one another with respect, I think it is a lost cause trying to persuade our species to not exploit animals (or even dead bodies in the case of necrophilia). For instance, if in Singapore women were not allowed to have an education or wear what they want in public or go about without a male chaperone, talking about equality for homosexuals in such a culture is like smashing eggs on a rock.

I also got questioned once about the age of consent e.g. Japan where 13 years old is considered old enough to have consensual legal sex. I think this is a totally separate issue from homosexuality because it is a problem for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. It is a problem that 13 year olds are considered mature enough to agree to have heterosexual or homosexual sex with anyone. It removes protection from the potential victims e.g. if the 13 year olds were exploited online or by much older individuals.

Some other strange scenarios that people have asked me to consider:

Q. What if in future someone makes a machine that can ask animals for consent? (Bestiality)

A. We would need to carefully investigate this machine and its ability to ascertain consent from animals. However, I highly doubt the ability of an animal to understand what the owner is asking in terms of sex. This is similar to why we establish an age of consent because we think that children cannot understand the full implications of sex and are not able to consent.

Q. What if a woman wills her dead body to be plasticized and preserved for her husband to have sex with her corpse? (Necrophilia)

A. If the husband agreed and wants to do this, we should probably let them do it over her dead body. I do not think it is worth our taxpayers money to go after these individuals considering that there are much more severe violations of consent of living humans to deal with.

I also hear from some people that they think homosexuals are bad because they have been harassed by homosexuals for sex; a man harassing another man for sex. 

This is actually very interesting because it is like a woman saying that all men are bad because some chauvinistic guys sexually harassed them. In a sense, guys are able to feel what it is like to be a woman for once – it does not feel good to be leered at or sexually assaulted and then, in many cases of rape, the woman is accused of being or dressing like a slut. But in the case of a man being leered at by a homosexual man, the straight man is not accused of dressing seductively.

This disparity highlights male privilege AND heterosexual privilege. If someone is to be blamed, of course it is the woman or the gay man. Even if the aggressor (violator of consent) is a straight man. For instance, the Maryville rape and bullying case or the New Delhi gang rapes that are motivating the anti-slut-shaming campaigns.

But if people take time to make friends with LGBT, they will realize that many are normal respectful people who just want to live happily and be able to love the people they love – just like you and I. Homosexuals are no more inclined to rape than heterosexuals.

I am Malala – an incredible read

“The extremists are afraid of books and pens, the power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women.” 

“Education is education. We should learn everything and then choose which path to follow.” Education is neither Eastern nor Western, it is human.” 

“I couldn’t understand what the Taliban were trying to do. “They are abusing our religion,” I said in interviews. “How will you accept Islam if I put a gun to your head and say Islam is the true religion? If they want every person in the world to be Muslim, why don’t they show themselves to be good Muslims first?”

― Malala Yousafzai, I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban

An FAQ on homosexuality and family values

Since a lot of religious groups in Singapore have decided to petition to input their unscientific opinions on health FAQs, I also decided to express my personal convictions in a family values FAQ.

1. Does homosexuality threaten marriage?

No. Whether or not homosexual people can get married does not change what marriage means and does not affect the marriages of heterosexual couples. Married people will still be able to do all of the following entitled to them (taken from wikipedia):

  • Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s labor, and property.
  • Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
  • Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
  • Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
  • Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
  • Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
  • Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

2. Does homosexuality promote promiscuity and infidelity?

No. Many homosexuals desire a family and marriage in the traditional sense of binding oneself to another. Yes, there are homosexuals who do not want to be in a monogamous relationship. There are also many heterosexuals that are promiscuous and adulterous – none of these are crimes by the law.

Furthermore, homosexuals are legally not allowed to get married so perhaps that is why they are associated with promiscuity – it is a problem with the law. Homosexuals are also not brought up to desire a homosexual family or marriage – it is a problem with society.