These are reasons enough for me as a gay person to react.

and shoestring: it would seem most (nearly all?) of what I’ve said is in response to you. no offence though – just thought you raised some interesting points

As a parent, if I so oppose, my moral right would be to bring it up with the school, or the Ministry, my objections to the programme, and the right to withdraw my child from the programme. I have no right, however, to gather my friends and those others who have similar objections, and take over the organisation who is organising such talks, and I certainly have no right to use it to push my own agenda, claiming to speak for the majority of the country.

However, as institutions of a secular state, schools reserve the right to teach children that yes, there are Christians, there are Buddhists, there are Muslims, there are Hindus, and there are many many other religions in Singapore; just as there are straight people and gay people and people in between; that there are people who will approach them for ill intentions and how they can protect themselves; just as there are safe abortion procedures if one needs them, but there are long lasting emotional, psychological and biological impacts; because these do exist in Singapore and it would do them no better to conceal it than to provide an authoritative but as non-judgemental a voice as possible on sensitive issues. Not doing so would risk exposing them to misinformed and inaccurate opinions so easily found in the mass media and the internet.

*

That said, I couldn’t agree more with your last point – everyone should be entitled to his or her own opinion and believes, as long as it doesn’t affect others negatively. As much as it is one’s right to disagree, it is also another’s right that one does not make derogatory generalisations about the people who are either born differently or choose to lead different lives.

And that, I hope you’ll agree, is the foundation of a secular, inclusive and pluralistic society.

*

My 3rd paragraph: indeed a lot of people already have.

I hope you realize I am not saying it is absolutely wrong or right. Sure, there are circumstances and exceptions, but my observation is that the rights activists are taking it to the extreme absolute. Wikipedia is not as authoritative, maybe (actually I disagree that not authoritative = not credible), but not the references.

I have been told in absolute terms that the fetus has no rights. The mother has the rights. Full stop. But that is hardly the case. The fetus does have right in some areas/countries. Why tell me half the story?

About love, again, it is not absolute. I am asking the feminazis, who argue for absolute rights, whether terminating a fetus is always about desperate cases where women have no choice. I do not think so. For those other cases, it is done out of convenience so as not to hamper the full development of women in career, lifestyle choices etc. In these cases, I am asking, do you know what love entails? Many things but it is definitely not selfish, let alone killing another. As it is, fetal rights are still being debated.

Your 3rd paragraph, you need to ask the government

Your question about parent’s responsibility is besides the point. The point is, if you wish others to respect your space, please respect theirs. Leave it to parents to educate their children in their own timing, their own ways.

If we do not even care about an unborn’s right to life, why do we care so much about how other people’s children are educated? Only reason I can think of is that it benefits us, right?

If that is allowed, then do you have the moral right to demand that Christians, for instance, do not try to educate your kids about Christianity? Because to them, it is beneficial to a person’s well-being.

That is why I say it goes both ways. You do not want me to bother you, don’t bother me.

Yes, what the new exco did was sneaky and underhanded, but nonetheless, they still won in a CONSTITUTIONAL manner, and that alone legitimizes them. Impeaching them SHOULD NOT be on the cards UNLESS they did something contrary to the interests of women or AWARE. Ending gay activism to focus on women’s issues definitely does NOT come under either category.

Should they press for the outlawing of abortions and contraceptives, or promote discrimination against homosexuality? An emphatic NO, but then again, the old exco should NOT have been promoting gay sex or premarital sex in schools in the very first place. If they had not done such things, it is quite unlikely the supporters of the new exco would have ousted them. And NO, what they did is NOT a coup: technically speaking, a coup is an unlawful grab for power by force of arms. By its very nature, a coup is unconstitutional, and like it or not, that’s something the new exco’s supporters did NOT do.

Finally, for all the gay activists out there, the vast majority of Singaporeans think that what the Church of Our Savior did was wrong, but that does NOT mean that they approve of the gay lifestyle either. Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that homosexuality is a sin; so does Islam. In fact, in Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, gays are executed for their “sinful lifestyle”. I have no problem if my son or daughter told me they’re gay. Frankly speaking, I’d much rather have my teenage daughter experiment with lesbian sex than heterosexual sex if she’s really determined to have premarital sex despite parental disapproval; at least there’s no chance of her becoming pregnant before she’s ready to be a mother. However, I DO have a problem if she told me she’s pregnant because AWARE taught her it’s okay to experiment with premarital sex, and likewise, I DO have a problem if my kids are encouraged to experiment with gay sex in school.

So be gay if you want; it’s your legitimate human right. Equally, you have the right to DEMAND an end to discrimination against gays, because discrimination against anyone for any reason whatsoever is wrong because it’s a fundamental violation of human rights. However, what you do NOT have a right to is to promote your lifestyle to impressionable children. They have a right to choose to be gay when they’re old enough to decide for themselves, but it should NEVER be forced upon them.

second, you’re right in saying that a loving mother would not terminate her unborn child’s life. but what if the mother is an unloving person anyway – if she is not going to show the child care and concern, treating it with neglect and abuse – would the child be better off? I understand this argument is full of holes by itself, but I just felt I should point out the “fetal rights” you’ve talked about applies mainly to crimes of violence committed against THE MOTHER that also put the life of the foetus at risk.

third, “Yes, the library may be a boring lifestyle choice to you, but not for others.” you’re right. but should laws that forbid people from going elsewhere be kept in place? should a secular, neutral organisation be allowed to push the idea that anyone who does not go to the library be viewed negatively, and that the state should reserve the right in its laws to persecute those who do so?

forth, “but bringing the subject of homosexuality to impressionable young minds without parents’ knowledge or consent is already crossing the line.” I believe most schools allow parents to take their child out of such lessons if they feel that the schools’ views disagree with those they want their child to pick up. Whether or not parents are aware of the content being taught, shouldn’t it be the parents’ duty to find out? If they have not taken the initiative to find out what their children are being taught at school, then who have they to blame?
Although, frankly, I think taking the child out of these lessons only provides the environment for a closed mind to develop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

Homosexuality
I am not asking you to change yours either, but keep your hands off my loved ones.

The old AWARE can even claim they treat it as negative, but bringing the subject of homosexuality to impressionable young minds without parents’ knowledge or consent is already crossing the line.

Homosexuality
I am not telling you to change your values. You can teach your daughters and nieces whatever you want, if they are willing to learn from you. There was no problem to begin with, just everyone teaching whatever they believed in. The old Aware treated homosexuality as neutral. That is the keyword, “neutral”. Not positive, and not negative. This whole issue arises now because the new exco is imposing their values that homosexuality is bad on a major civil society group. You can believe it is bad, I have no problem with that. Just don’t tell people it is bad. And I’m not telling anyone it is good. I am merely fine with however gays choose to exercise their choice.