Apart from her well sung covers of songs, Steph Micayle has garnered interest from Youtube with her controversial rants about Singaporean culture such as the video titled: " Why I'm not proud to be Singaporean". Recently, she posted another less controversial, but important, video about the 'Pink Dot' movement where they advocate gay rights in Singapore. My aim is to explore her video word for word to see if her arguments hold water.
The video link for her gay rights video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8PLSmAkv-Y&list=UU-Q0CZ73ywaFl-P6pf0_ZHg. If you do not wish to watch the whole video, I have decided to type out her entire dialogue here. This also helps me get a better grasp of her stances.
"So just this morning I was reading an article on facebook about the 'Wear White' movement going against the ' Pink Dot ' movement, and I got really angry because of it, so I've got quite a few things to say. Well firstly, I would like to establish myself as a supporter of homosexuality and same-sex marriages and even if I wasn't, I would have at least some sort of basic human respect to not call everyone who supports my cause to wear white on this day. So let's go through the history of ' Pink Dot ' rally. What is the purpose of the PD rally- to promote homosexuality or the freedom to love? The PD movement believes that everyone has the rights to love regardless of your sexual orientation and the turnout is getting bigger and bigger every year because more and more people are accepting the idea that people can love anyone they want and not be judge for it. So, if you, for a second think that everyone at the rally are gay and that the turnout represent the number of gays in the country, you're a f****** retard. I would like to respond to Mr. Kong's statement on PD and rebut it. So he clearly doesn't understand what PD is about. First thing he said is: 'I find it totally confounding that Pink Dot is allowed to promote their agenda. I find it even more disconcerting that the event is being used as a platform of public persuasion to push their alternative lifestyle.' What alternative lifestyle?! They have family and friends, they love and they live, the only difference is that they are attracted to people of the same sex. There is no alternative lifestyle being pushed here. The only thing that they're 'pushing' is their right to love, and are you going to be the one that takes away that right? 'Ultimately, they want to redefine Love, redefine Marriage, and redefine Family. Is this the kind of Singapore we can be proud of and want for our children? I feel sad at the thought of Singapore in moral decline.' Do you honestly think that PD can redefine all these things? There's no way to redefine it. Love is love. Marriage is marriage. Family is family. It's never going to change. Hell, even legalizing same-sex marriages isn't going to redefine all these things. They want to love, get married, and have a family just like everyone else, they just want to FIT IN. The Singapore that I would feel proud of is one that would accept people for who they are and what they stand for. That's the Singapore that I want my children to grow up in. To be friends with gay people and to know there's nothing wrong with it, just like the rest of us. And guess what? Singapore is already in moral decline thanks to people like you- Mr Khong, who choose to fight against such a beautiful movement. All PD wants to do is to push love and acceptance. So you people leading this ' Wear White' movement, shame on you. Aren't a little too old to be this immature? Stop trying to force your views on others. People have the right to love who the hell they want and you shouldn't do something that goes against it. Wearing white and the PD rally can't and won't change anything and here's the cold hard truth-If someone is born gay, then their gay. If your kid is born gay, then what are you going to do? See him or her as an abomination? Are you going to condemn them? Deny who they are? Try to change them or try to embrace your children for who they are? Scientific research that specialize in human sexuality have repeatedly shown that homosexuality is genetic. There's a reason why the term sexual preference have been changed to sexual orientation and I can tell you now, that it's going to be a lot easier to accept your children for who they really are than to try and change them, because the change you want is not going to happen. And if you have a straight kid, no amount of PD rallies will turn your kid gay. So who are you to tell people who they should and shouldn't love? You have every right to practice your religion, you have every right to be conservative in thought but you do not have the right to impose your views and impose others to live like you do if you do not agree with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with what this rally represents. The only reason these people rally together is not to promote homosexuality, it is to help you( Mr. Khong ). They're not trying to make you accept it or support it. All they want is for you to stop discriminating them and understand that this is how they are and that is all there is to it. If they want to love people of the same gender then so be it. They're not promoting anything. Like I said, homosexuality is not a choice. If you are born straight, then you won't be gay. All they want you to understand is that what they are is completely natural. There might be a point in life that people get a little bit vicarious, but that doesn't mean that they turn gay. This rally represents the message of love. The freedom to love as you are and as who you are. The freedom to be you, yet at the same time, they aren't asking you( Mr.Khong ) to be like them, they aren't asking for special rights. They're asking for the rights everyone has-The same freedom that everyone has. The right to get married, to love, and the right to have a family. What is wrong with that? So what should we do? Homophobes, stop being scared!Protesters, stop protesting! People love, who they want to love. Freedom of speech is the same as freedom to love. Homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals, heterosexuals, we're all people. The only difference is our orientation. I'm not asking you to join the PD rally and support, I'm asking you to not protest and leave them be. Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born. They're people too, just like me, just like you. just normal everyday people, no different from the rest of us. Their proud of who they are, and how they're different. So stop fighting, because the PD supporters are not fighting against you nor are they trying to push anything on you. They just want acceptance and they will get it. Some day same sex marriages might get legalized. Hell I hope it does! Because who are we to take away people's basic rights."
So, this is your typical gay rights advocate reasoning or lack thereof. It pains me to see that the entire video was not only emotional, but repetitive. Oh not to mention false as well. I will have four basic contentions in response to her views.
1.The interaction between 'Love' and law.
-The misconception that takes place in this video begins when she mentions that people should be able to get married simply in the name of 'Love'. Singapore's marriage laws strictly defines marriage only between a man and a woman. So in light of this, it is obvious to see why she would want to repeal the existing marriage laws in Singapore. Now I know very little of Singaporean law but the fundamental question that anyone can ask is: ' What is the governments role in marriage? ' Another way to phrase it is to ask what the criterion is for allowing marriage in a society, and what are the reasons supporting these criterion. 'Love' is definitely not one of them. It is never an imperative for marriage legals to legalize marriage on the basis of 'love'. But just imagine what this would lead to. Beastiality would be viable, so would polygamy, even incest becomes legitimate.
2.Hypocrisy of moral imposition.
-Large portions of her case revolve around the complaint that Mr.Khong is morally trying to impose his views on society at large, and how that is apparently morally reprehensible and discriminatory. What she doesn't realize, however, is that all laws are discriminatory. Every view on something requires that the advocate of that view discriminate on something, including her. Take for instance, the law against murder, isn't this discriminating on murderers? How about anti-theft laws? Does that not discriminate thieves? Discrimination isn't always wrong and the context must be carefully examined before arriving at conclusions. The irony of her comments is that she accuses Mr. Khong for judging people, yet in return, judges the 'wear white'-ers with statements like 'Don't ask your entire family to wear white and bring them to a rally, dominated by homosexual advocates, to protest against the way some people are born.' Is this not a blatant use of moral judgement? Isn't she trying to prohibit certain groups of people from protesting? Isn't she IMPOSING her views on others like Mr.Khong?
3.Scientific ignorance and misuse.
-Upon reading every 'science' article she provided, I realize that they were misconstrued. None of the articles give a definitive view that homosexuals are born that way, this is not to say that the opposite is true, but it does show that the evidence is insufficient. What is even more striking about the articles is that none of them provide any academic citations accept one. When you do actually go to the source, you realize it not a study that proves that people are born with the gay 'gene' but this is their conclusion: "The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters." Does this sound anything like :" It is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that people are born gay." ? The level of research done by is astoundingly childish. I will provide the actual link below. But let's just say for the sake of argument, that homosexuals are actually born that way. So what? That does not imply we should implement laws that allow homosexual marriages. There are people born with pathological killing desires, should we create laws that allow them to do it? How about kleptomaniacs? Should we allow them to steal? The ' it's natural' argument is probably the most baseless argument ever. In fact, all laws are implemented on the understanding that human nature is destructive, that's why laws are prohibitions.
*http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217
4. Issue of identity.
-This I believe lies at the crux of her rant. Ultimately what the Pink Dot movement wants is to tell the world that they are humans too. But the assertion here is, that deniers of same-sex marriages here regard homosexuals less of a human being. This is certainly false. What people like Mr.Khong is arguing against is not homosexuals, but homosexual behaviour and the ideas supporting it. You should love and accept someone who is gay, this is a must for everyone, But you cannot use sexual orientation as an excuse to revamp the entire marriage system. Laws by definition must deny liberty to harmful ideas. Same sex marriage is one of them. But of course, this is for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment