SGChristianPost: Understanding the Homosexual Agenda

Source

Tuesday, Sep. 23, 2008

According to a news article, a gay (homosexual) pride parade is scheduled to take place on 15 November 2008 at Hong Lim Park, which the Government has earmarked for demonstrations. The organiser suggested parading the grounds with placards of “Repeal 377A” on one side and “legalise gay marriage” on the other side.

This seems to be the first time that a homosexual activist has come out in the open to call not only for the repeal of 377A, but also to legalise same-sex marriage. The proponents for the retention of 377A have always said that the real issue is not the decriminalisation of sodomy but whether Singaporeans would be willing to adopt the homosexual agenda. With this “outing” of the homosexual agenda, the homosexual activists can no longer call for decriminalisation without dealing with the ramifications of the homosexual agenda of which decriminalization is the first step. For years, there has been a refusal among homosexual activists in Singapore to talk about the consequences of decriminalisation of sodomy because of the adverse impact it would have to their cause.

Let us examine the homosexual agenda. It is a very aggressive political movement from the West which seeks to radicalise the institution of marriage and the family unit, both core values of our society. This is neo-colonialism. US homosexual activists are known to lobby their law- makers to pressurise countries which seek trade agreements with the US to decriminalise sodomy if their penal system criminalises homosex.

The homosexual activists seek to mainstream homosexualism as an alternative lifestyle. They demand societal approval because of their identity need. The controversy is nothing less than identity politics. As such, they are not content with the space given them to live their lives in Singapore, but require society to endorse their lifestyle. To this end, they follow their counterparts in the West and seek foreign intervention to advance their cause. We do not need foreign interference in a domestic political matter concerning the morality of our nation. This is a matter which should be determined only by Singaporeans.

The homosexual agenda consists of 5 steps. It has been successfully implemented in some of the countries in North America and Europe. The steps are:

1. decriminalisation of sodomy
2. equalization of age of consent for heterosexual sex and homosex 3. anti-discrimination laws e.g. equality in sex education which should cover heterosexual sex and anal sex.
4. same-sex marriage or civil union
5. homosexual parenthood and adoption rights.

On item 1, the decriminalisation of the homosex act, is regarded as pivotal to the mainstreaming of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. It removes the obstacle to demands on government funding to advance “homosexual rights”. The categories of homosexual rights are not closed but may be extended from time to time depending how liberal one is.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we wish to go down this slippery slope which a repeal of 377A signals. Are we prepared for our limited resources to be used to fund the lifestyle of a small group of people to advance what some call “inalienable rights”? Should there be government funding to re-vamp the curriculum of schools to normalise homosexuality as is done in UK where government funded programmes are geared to finding the best way to familiarise school children as young as four with homosexual relationships. In Australia, the right that is sought to be implemented has turned on giving lesbians access to IVF.

Item 2, deals with the situation where homosex is legalised and the age of consent required is higher than that for heterosexual sex. The assumption seems to be that a person has to be more mature to give his consent to homosex. The strategy of homosexual activists is to accept this higher age of consent to get homosex legalised and then contend for equalization in the name of equality. In some countries like Japan, the age of consent is 13 years. Is your 13 year old son ready to make such decisions?

On item 3, anti-discrimination laws passed to promote homosexual rights have in many jurisdictions become oppressive laws which infringe the rights of others.

In the arena of education, in England, schools are participating in a 600,000-pound project designed to introduce children as young as four to same sex relationships through e.g. the “King and King” fairytale about a prince who rejects the love of 3 princesses before falling in love with and “marrying” another prince. The Muslim Council of Britain and other Christian organisations protested against this project. As the representative of the Muslim Council said to Reuters, “Why are we introducing these ideas to such young children? A lot of parents will be very concerned about the exposure of their children to such books which are contrary to their religious beliefs and values.” The representative of a Christian group “warned that the project could expose children to sexual predators by making them think that ‘two boys fiddling with each other …is perfectly normal.’” ((http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/)(http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/printerfriendly.html). Should homosexual rights trump religious rights or even parental rights?

In the United States, David Parker, a father requested the principal of the school his 6 year-old son attends that his son be taken out of the class when the teacher teaches on homosexuality. He was arrested for criminal trespass when he refused to leave the school without such an assurance from the principal. He was brought to court hand-cuffed. The court made an order restraining him from entering the school premises. In the meantime, his 6 year-old son was brought to the back of the school by a group of boys and beaten up. This seemed tied to vitriol against his father by activist parents in the school.

David Parker filed a federal civil rights claim against the school, but the judge reinforced the right of schools to teach homosexuality without parents’ consent or choice to opt out. David Parker has appealed against the decision.(http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/)

In the arena of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, a Canadian human rights tribunal ordered Stephen Boisson, a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again to express moral opposition to homosexuality. Stephen Boisson’s wrongdoing was in writing to the local newspaper in Alberta denouncing the advance of homosexual activism. He stated: “children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The complaint was brought by an activist teacher. Stephen Boisson was ordered to pay $5000 for pain and suffering caused to the complainant even though the Tribunal conceded that the complainant was not injured. What a travesty of justice.

These stories are only the tip of the iceberg but they show the danger that besets a society when political claims are made in the name of “rights” and the proponents of such political claims are silent on their agenda with its wide ramifications which could tear the fabric of our society.

Thio Su Mien Ph.D (Law)
Christian Post Singapore Guest Columnist

Advertisements

0 Responses to “SGChristianPost: Understanding the Homosexual Agenda”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Archives


%d bloggers like this: