I replied to his Facebook post saying:
"I absolutely agree, except for the part on political parties. Political parties are made up of members of the various communities, so on topics which do not directly touch on 'bread and butter' issues, the members will naturally be divided according to their own morals and religious beliefs. In such situations, it is impossible for the Party to come out with a collective view, as it will not be representative of all its members. The greater responsibility on such issues rests with the political parties that have elected members in the House. The respective parties should lift the whip on such issues so that the elected members can vote according to their conscience. Just my 2 cents."To which Walid replied that I had raised a fair point but that "non-elected politicians should state their stand too. Opposition politicians should not sit on the fence and hope to get elected based purely on anti-pap sentiments."
I did not want to comment further on that thread so as not to further draw a divide on the 'pink' versus 'white' issue. But now since that event is over, I can comment more freely on the topic.
My response to Walid would be, yes all politicians regardless of if they are elected or not, or if they are from the ruling Party or the opposition, should state their stand on various topics, including the topics relating to LGBT (provided the Party whip is not applied to that topic), but concerned individuals who feel a certain way about a particular topic should also not shy away from asking politicians on their stand on issues.
As for me, I have stated my stand on matters that concern LGBT community at various times (for example, see THIS and THIS). But please let me better clarify on where I stand on this topic.
My values and convictions
Although I am not a big fan of organised religion, I am a committed follower of Christ and according to my conservative worldview, sex other than the consenting one between married man and woman for one lifetime is unacceptable because it is sin.
But my worldview formed by the teachings, life and being of the person Christ also tells me that being in sin is a spiritual state of fallenness and that you need a spiritual experience to be convicted and repent of it.
But what if someone don't believe in spirituality like you do, or that there's such thing as spirituality? Should they be bound by the same convictions that you have?
I don't think so.
Laws in society
This is why we have laws in society - so that people with different worldviews can live harmoniously together in the same society. And my own convictions to do justice and to love mercy tells me that such laws in society have got to be fair and not discriminate unfairly.
That is the reason why I am for repealing Section 377A of the penal code which criminalises sex between consenting men because it unfairly discriminates against homosexuals as a minority social group. Regardless of how I personally feel on the topic, I have to draw a line somewhere and I cannot support a criminal law to express views on homosexuality.
Fear mongering and LGBT shaming
And it is because of these convictions that I can treat persons of the LGBT community with the genuine friendship and dignity that they deserve. And it is because of such convictions that I get upset when people peddle fear that the LGBT activists will not stop at repealing S377A, but when that's done, push for marriage and family to be redefined.
I say peddle fear because nobody will be criminalised because he or she married the person of the same sex. The marriage will simply be void and not recognised in Singapore.
"A marriage solemnized in Singapore or elsewhere between persons who, at the date of the marriage, are not respectively male and female shall be void." - Women's CharterAnd as a survey conducted by IPS indicates, that 72.9 percent of the people polled opposed same-sex marriage in Singapore, it is highly unlikely that this law will be changed in the foreseeable future.
It is also unacceptable for religious leaders to promote platforms which host untruths to shame the LGBT community.
I am not sure how people will be drawn to a religion or faith which they perceive is persecuting them based on misinformation and untruths.
Last Friday my son told me about a heated conversation he had and about how he told his friend that the topics of a person's sexual orientation should be separate from treating such persons with dignity, and not to confuse the two.
That conversation with my son set me thinking.
Because the pink dot event goes against my own beliefs on sexuality and marriage, I have never attended the pink dot event, and I don't intend to do so in the future. But I cannot stand idly by and conveniently keep quiet when a group of people are persecuted because of untruths and misinformation.
I don't believe in using colours unnecessarily to differentiate where we stand in various issues, which is why at the first White Paper protest last year where all the speakers were asked to come in black, I chose to wear yellow.
Yesterday however, for the first time, I wore pink by choice. Not because I am sold out on the ideals of the pink dot event, but I cannot conveniently remain quiet when a small group of people are oppressed and shamed because of misinformation, untruths and fear.
|my mother and I|