Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Do you consider China as west or east for example ? Now that I think about it I'm not sure I could even put the empire of the middle inside one of the two.

"The East" generally refers to all of the Asian countries. This is based more on location and history than on current cultures, since many countries are now "westernized." Russia and India are a little more ambiguously grouped. Russia straddles the West and East geographically, but historically it has "done its own thing" and thus isn't grouped as part of "the West." India is geographically a part of Asia, but most people (or to clarify for the detail-oriented who are looking for an argument, most Americans) do not think of India or Indians when they talk about the East and Asians.

[maplehurry]

China is not east or west. China is the center of the world !

Japan is the land of rising sun, so she's definitely eastern.

[Archon_Wing]

And this gets to my point. I believe if you tell someone in South Korea or China that their ideals are lumped in with Japan together despite cultural similarities, they would get quite offended.

The east/west divide is not that clear since the 20th century saw a great deal of imposition of certain political philosophies on countries all over the world, so "western" influence is everywhere these days. For example, during the Cold War, there was a clear East/West divide, and this is why you see a large difference between Western and Eastern Europe. If there's any reason why so many locations in the Middle East, Africa and Asia are often lagging behind on human rights, we have an entire history of exploitation to talk about. I mean go back 1000 years and you may find the Islamic world being an incredibly cultured one, with numerous contribution to the arts and sciences-- they're not inherently backwards and devoid of culture as some would have you believe.

Not to mention that communism itself is an originally western concept-- in actuality the ultimate example of collectivism is actually about individual freedom, although of course in practice it turned out to be dictatorships-- but this is no different from dictatorships established in the name of democracy.

Also, even going further back, China once tried democracy, though it was ruined by corruption and external conflicts, but they actually have had a history of overthrowing oppressive governments, if there was a strong sentiment that the rulers were unjust. The ability to rise up against oppressive governments in the name of the freedom of the people is not unique to west or east, despite the erroneous positive or negative connotations associated with both sides.

In the end, while western liberalism entails strong values that I live by, it can be said that it's not the sole monopoly on the desire for individual rights. And thus people across the world are most likely willing to fight for them, on this very topic of gay rights, though the opportunities may be limited.

[Fireminer]

Human is weird!

[Archon_Wing]

They are.

That's why it's very dangerous to use black and white definitions to define them. Bisexual people, for example, are almost completely forgotten when discussing the matter.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

And this gets to my point. I believe if you tell someone in South Korea or China that their ideals are lumped in with Japan together despite cultural similarities, they would get quite offended.

Yes they would
But truth be told, there's hell of a lot more similarities than any of them would ever admit.
(and conversely, hell of a lot more differences than the average Westerners have a clue )

[Anh_Minh]

Plenty of differences between Westerners too. Doesn't mean we have to fly off the handle whenever someone speaks of "the West".

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Plenty of differences between Westerners too. Doesn't mean we have to fly off the handle whenever someone speaks of "the West".

Not even when someone assumes that 'all Westerners are 'Murikans'?

[Lord of Fire]

So, what alternative should we use, then?

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Plenty of differences between Westerners too. Doesn't mean we have to fly off the handle whenever someone speaks of "the West".

You be wrong homey, clearly them Vikings in Norway are exactly the same as those damn Romans down south.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by sbg711

...and why so much attention is given to every little fart the LGBTs make; or if you just ask yourself, why the fuck did all this suddenly receive so much global attention in the early 2000s, even though no one seemed to talk so much about it anytime prior in history?

I feel that you asked a valid question, but I wouldn't have framed it the way you did.

The thread resurfaced because I posted a link to a BBC radio documentary on homosexuality in Pakistan. And I think it's clear that few people here listened to it, because we wouldn't then have had this argument over the so-called social differences between East and West.

Pakistan is every bit a part of Asia as China or Japan. And while the social consensus on homosexuality is as negative in Pakistan as in most parts of East Asia, the important thing to note is how it's not necessarily all bad. Pakistani society is aware that homosexuality exists and, in effect, allows it to flourish by turning a blind eye to it.

Much more importantly, as one woman in a lesbian relationship observed:

"By fighting for gay rights, I think I'm being selfish, to the other women in my family who are just fighting for the basic right of education, and to get married to the man of their dreams and, you know, possibly not get married at all. If you don't fight that battle first, I don't see the gay rights movement going anywhere."

She completely echoed my view from my very first post in this thread nearly four years ago.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Unfortunately, in public life, I cannot call for nor defend marriage for homosexuals. It's simply not possible, because doing so would kill all chance of getting conservative Singaporeans to even accept homosexuality in the first place.

When I say that we should be careful about how far we push gay rights in any society, it is with concerns like the above in mind. It's not about opposing homosexuality per se, but rather a call to be sensitive towards the different contexts of each and every society that is grappling with the issue.

It has really not that much to do with whether the society is East, West, Northern or Southern. Rather it's about acknowledging that, for homosexuality to be discussed openly in any society, a lot of things have to happen first. Pushing the agenda too strongly before these preconditions are met will serve only to polarise the debate, making compromise and acceptance difficult, if not impossible.

On that note, here's a brilliant rebuttal against a pastor's objection to gay marriage by Kevin Rudd, who will be facing the vote in Australia on Saturday.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/TzV1r5SCc8U

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Pastor: "...marriage is between husbands and wives. Jesus said that a man shall leave his father and mother and be married, and that's the biblical definition. I just believe in what the Bible says, and I'm just curious…why don't you believe the word of Jesus in the Bible?"

Rudd: "Well mate, if I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition. Because St Paul said in the New Testament, 'Slaves, be obedient to your masters…' I mean, for goodness' sake, the human condition and social conditions change. What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament? It is one of universal love. Loving your fellow man. And if we get obsessed with a particular definition of that through a form of sexuality, then I think we're missing the centrality of what the Gospel, whether you call it a social gospel, a personal gospel or a spiritual gospel, is all about. And therefore, if you think that homosexuality is an unnatural condition, then frankly I cannot agree with you, based on any element of the science."

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

So, what alternative should we use, then?

Nothing much. There's nothing specifically wrong with using such separations, but It would be better to more specific when you talk. The broader the implications are the stronger your evidence needs to be.

Well, I guess you don't need evidence. You'll just look silly, especially if people are mean.

[NoemiChan]

It's better to build another new Church like Martin Luther, where everyone is free and has the right who they want to marry. It's far more realistic and quick than force the whole organization to accept something that will change itself forever in an instant.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

It's better to build another new Church like Martin Luther, where everyone is free and has the right who they want to marry. It's far more realistic and quick than force the whole organization to accept something that will change itself forever in an instant.

They already exist. In Singapore, we have the Free Community Church.

The FREE COMMUNITY CHURCH is a congregation of diverse individuals and families gathering to worship and grow as a Christian community. We desire to develop a vibrant heart relationship with God and a thinking-mind relationship with the Bible. We do not believe in easy answers to life’s challenging questions but in the wisdom of a great and loving God, who surpasses our human understanding. We aim to nurture Christ-centered communities so that members can develop a faith relevant to our times.

The FREE COMMUNITY CHURCH affirms that all individuals, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons, are individuals of sacred worth created in God’s image. Our church affirms that same-sex and transgendered relationships, when lived out in accord with the love commandments of Jesus, are consistent with Christian faith and teachings. Indeed, we find discrimination based on negative judgment of others, fear of difference, and homophobia inconsistent with Christian teachings.

It's churches like these which tell me that the problem was never about religion. If anything, religion became a scapegoat for more fundamental fears about differences in sexuality, particularly male sexuality. For example, the fear that comes from associating homosexual men with emasculating behaviour.

Religion becomes a convenient crutch for people who wish to suppress such fears. But this doesn't mean that religion itself is at fault. That being the case, bashing religion therefore becomes counterproductive, as it inevitably becomes an attack on the beliefs that form the social fabric.

It becomes a case of "us versus them". And when you're in the minority, such a debate instantly becomes a losing proposition.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

They already exist. In Singapore, we have the Free Community Church.

Good.

It becomes a case of "us versus them". And when you're in the minority, such a debate instantly becomes a losing proposition.

It's not a matter of winning or losing. It's better to have some place where you can be free of your beliefs rather forcing a unwelcoming place to accept something they don't want. This will only result to more conflicts even serious ones.

Look how the Reformations was successful...... come to think of it....that later led to the Inquisition.. darn.....

[Seitsuki]

Inquisition was all Catholic.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by GenjiChan

It's better to build another new Church like Martin Luther, where everyone is free and has the right who they want to marry. It's far more realistic and quick than force the whole organization to accept something that will change itself forever in an instant.

The fight for homosexual matrimony isn't about forcing religions to perform ceremonies. Finding a funnily dressed guy to make you and your SO promise to stay together isn't that difficult, even if the SO in question is a gameboy character.

It's about the administrative and legal aspects. And you can't found a country with its own set of laws the way you would a religion.

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Inquisition was all Catholic.

Yeah, also called the Counter Reformation versus the Protestants

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's about the administrative and legal aspects. And you can't found a country with its own set of laws the way you would a religion.

What I'm saying was regarding religion, many gays wants the Church to fully recognize them, yet the Church refuse to do so because they think it's wrong and against the teachings. If that's the case, then make a new Church, a legitimate one if the current one is wrong.... just as Martin Luther did.

[Fireminer]

But then tommorow, the teaching of that Church would be outdated!

[Ithekro]

Fundimental swings go in all directions with churchs. See the Church of God gaining popularity by removing the parts added by the Catholic Church over the last 2000 years.