I am not writing this because I am an offended social conservative offended by Pink Dot’s advertisement at Cathay Cineleisure or the comments dissing social conservatives.

Many of the readers who are for social liberalism have spoken and I thank you all for your arguments and cases in favour for your positions. However, just as much as you would like your arguments to be heard in the name of tolerance and diversity, similarly I would like to urge you to listen out to someone from the other side of the aisle too on the same grounds of tolerance and diversity.

I see that there is a perception of social conservatives as people who are “easily offended” or “old fashioned” in their worldview.

I would like to make it clear that just as much as our views on sexuality are deemed as “old fashioned” the same can be said about the LGBT movement too, for homosexuality was as old as ancient Rome, Greece and Babylonia itself.

But nonetheless, why many like myself take the stand we do concerning the activities and agenda of Pink Dot is as such. To say that we are an intolerant people is a misrepresentation of our position. We have never as a collective called for homosexuals to be persecuted and jailed or persecuted them. The government has said that it has no business of what one does in the bedroom and we respect that. Even those at the forefront of the “Wear White” movement such as LoveSingapore and Ps Lawrence Khong have no objection to that.

But what we are against is the propagation of the ideas of sexuality of the LGBT movement with the agenda of rendering it an acceptable and mainstream practice. And our objections are based on precedence that we should be concerned about. This debate about “old fashioned” vs “new fashioned” ideas of sexuality is not new. There was once a debate on whether sex within the confines of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage was “old fashioned” or “new fashioned”. The camp that held the view that sex within the confines of a monogamous, heterosexual marriage was old fashioned and should be thrown out of the window won the debate. And what is the fallout? The proliferation of HIV/AIDS to the point that it is now a pandemic and the numerous children birthed out of wedlock and lives broken by irresponsible sexuality.

It can be argued that HIV/AIDS is spread also by poor sanitary practices and drugs. But would it have reached pandemic stage if all sexual practices are kept with the heterosexual, monogamous confine? And just in case if you think the fallout and the bad fruits of the first sexuality debate in modern times is made up, readers should do well to check out the work by former Yale University professor Jennifer Morse on its damage to lives and societies.

So for those of you who diss our stance towards Pink Dot “old fashioned”, it would be better off for you to examine the merits of our case and arguments first. It is less about morality but more about lives, societies and the huge can of worms the acceptance of the LGBT movement’s idea of sexuality into the mainstream of society would open.

If ever, the lesson from the first sexuality debate in modern history is this, that playing with sexuality is like playing with fire. Fire, when used under time honoured contraints and boundaries is a force for good and brings benefits. But when used outside its time honoured constraints and boundaries it is a destructive and consuming force. And that is the same with sexuality.

Tolerance and diversity does not mean the imposition of one’s values and ideas upon another. It is just like racial harmony, We are willing to live side by side with one from a different race and culture. But does this mean that we accept the practices of our neighbour’s cultural practices (for example, dietary restrictions, and holidays) into the mainstream of our own unique cultural and racial practices? And this is the same with the LGBT debate.

I, and many others are willing to accept a homosexual colleague or neighbour. But where we have to draw the line is when this means accepting their views and ideas as part of ours in the name of tolerance and diversity. It is as good as asking a Hindu to eat beef to show that he can live alongside his Chinese neighbour, hypothetically speaking. It simply does not make sense. And for those of you who think that Christians, Muslims and others who don’t agree with the LGBT idea of sexuality should accept the LGBT idea of sexuality in the name of tolerance, even if it runs against our value systems and the values we hold dear, perhaps you are the ones with the problem with tolerance.

At the end of the day, it is about safeguarding our values and our children as well as the next generation. And that is what I am proud and willing to stand on and stand for.

N Chan
A.S.S. Contributor

Check Also

Woman Upset By Swensen’s Staff, Regretted It When She Realised They Were Autistic

She ended her post by telling people not to be too quick to judge like her. There may be more than meets the eye.