15 November 2008

Tea leaves from California's Proposition 8

What can Singaporeans learn from the failed campaign against Proposition 8? In my view, attention needs to be paid to opinion formation among ethnic minorities, and to developing an effective response to irrational fears that children will turn gay. Full essay.

4 comments:

zhongguo ren said...

I don't think that the equality rights groups said nothing would happen to the school curriculum if same-sex marriage is legalized.

They said it would not be mandatory for schools to teach about same-sex marriage, which is true, as opposed to the totally misleading claim from the other side.

In addition, parents could always withdraw their children from a class session if they are uncomfortable with the content.

Activists are already challenging the legality of the proposition in court in the hope of having it voided. Let us just hope that they win.

Of course, the most difficult thing is to change people's deeply ingrained biases. I guess one could bide one's time until the older population is not around any more. The voting pattern shows this age group to be most homophobic.

But not everyone could afford to wait that long, nor should they. Basic rights are at stake here. Let's hope that the California supreme court would once again do the right thing and void this hateful proposition.

By the way Connecticut just recently legalized same-sex marriage. So another success for the equal rights movement!

Marcus said...

How do you cure a homophobe?

Why is it that even the Health Promotion Board can endorse a 20-episode prime-time television series to advocate (hetrosexual) fidelity and educate viewers on HIV/Aids while homosexuality, in the eyes of our government, still warrants the retention of the weight and power of Section 377A to "keep in check"?

Is homosexuality, specifically being gay, more scary than HIV/Aids?

Anonymous said...

If it is indeed true what zhonguo ren said, then I think the equality rights group is heading in the right direction.
Why should any jobs be out-of-bounds for gays? The falicious argument that a child can become more gay if he has a gay teacher or if a school advocates fair treatment for gays is just ridiculous. That gays are more likely than straights to molest boys is also equally ludicrous. If a straight man is not as likely to molest his female students or a straight woman is not as likely to molest her male students, why should it be more likely for gays to molest their male charges? The same goes for priesthood. The recent statement by the Vatican on the unsuitably of gays as priests because of their greater tendencies to molest their young male charges smell of hypocrisy. If straight priests are not more likely to molest their female charges or their fellow nuns, why should it be more likely for a gay priest to molest his male charges? The institutional blindness is in not recognising that the problem lies with the requirement for celibacy for priests and not the sexual orientation of the priests. Similarly, that gays in the army will influence morale is also falicious. If blacks can serve in the army and the white platoon mates can treat them as comrates or if a straight male army personnel is able to treat his female counterpart with dignity and not merely as a sex object, why should it be more difficult for straight army personnel to treat their gay counterparts as comrates. The problem lies in the attitude of the society, not the sexual orientation of the personnel. Gays should take the cue from the women movement. They should not be barred from any jobs, whether it is as a teacher, priest or a soldier. Well, if a gay is capable, he could be the president too. No dreams are too high for anyone who dares to dream and works hard for it. In the past, there have been gay political figures who had done exceptionally well. Alexander, the great is an example. I think the gay movement should not just focus on union rights, they should also focus on the rights of gays to hold any job if he has the aptitude for it. When we have positive role-model like a gay president, then the paths for all gays will be much easier.

Anonymous said...

I will like to state my position here first in case there is any misunderstanding.

I believe that as long as a person is a rational adult, whatever thing he/she do is that person's own business as long as that action does not affect anyone else. Same for actions done between 2 consenting adults.

So controversial issues like gay marriage, suicide, euthanasia, incest etc, etc are all fine by me, I will even go and vote for your right to do so if required.

That being said, society's resistance to gays will never go away. The reason is simple. Anti gay is a survival advantage.

If a person's child is gay, that person could allow the child free to be gay and live a happy life.
Or, that person could bring all possible pressure he/she can muster and have some chance of getting that child to marry an opposite sex and have a miserable life.

Guess whose genes will be pass down? Your happiness is inconsequential to evolution, only the passing down of your genes is.

The yuck factor that cause people to be anti gay is biological, its instinctive, just like being gay is.

Most people have no control over this yuck feeling just like gays have no control over themselves being gay.

There is nothing anyone can do to change this, unless of course, gays can have their own kids (genetically related, not adopted), eliminating the survival disadvantage.