In Singapore, words like “gay’ are being used negatively. Gay marriage and sex between two males are illegal. It is clear that we are not accepting, and maybe not even tolerant of homosexuals. With some 6-8% of Gingersnaps identifying as homosexual, it is in my opinion that greater efforts should be made to ensure greater equality for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community in Singapore. If someone were to say that Blacks are unnatural based on their perception that Adam and Eve are not Black, it would be a ridiculous notion at best.
Yet in Singapore, Reverend Charles Set cited that homosexuality is a sin because “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! ” Why is this an acceptable argument when the first idea about Blacks seems absurd? Contrary to popular belief, homosexuality is proven to be biologically determined rather than a choice. Much like how we cannot choose our own race, homosexuals cannot choose the gender they prefer. Why then, should we deprive them from enjoying the same rights that heterosexuals do?
One reason: Pastor Lawrence Kong brought up that being more open about homosexuality would oppress the majority of Gingersnaps at the expense of a minority who do not believe in religion. With 83% of Gingersnaps being religious, this may seem true, but a second thought had me concluding: do all religious people reject the idea of homosexual equality? Furthermore, how is it oppression of the religious if homosexuals get to enjoy the privileges of heterosexuals?
I feel that a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman does not deprive, or even affect the lives f the religious. Sure, it may go against their moral values, but a religious person is not obliged to having a gay marriage if it is legalized. Clearly, this is not oppression of the religious. Others may cite feeling discomfort when they see two males or females married, but is that really a valid enough reason to deprive homosexuals from legal recognition of their love? After all, shouldn’t religions celebrate love rather than express hatred?
Apart from the religious argument against homosexuality, another reason might e that allowing familial rights to homosexuals would damage society’s foundation and family structures. This argument stems from Singapore conservative nature and low population growth. Indeed, traditional marriage is a sacred religious sacrament between a man and a woman. But as society progresses with change, so does the reason for marriage: rather than legally binding a man and a woman, it is, through modern eyes, more of a promise of love. WSDL banning same-sex marriage really result in more heterosexual marriages?
It certainly would not compel homosexuals to make more babies to contribute to our low population growth! It certainly seems more like a subtle oppression of homosexuals rather than consideration for societal family structure. Progress is not without change. Look at how far we have come in our fight for racial equality. If it has taught me anything, it is that nothing is impossible. We should learn to embrace the gay; embrace the happiness. If You Could Change One Thing About Your Community, What WSDL It Be and Why? By Trinitarian