Just wanted to say a few things with regard to this in terms of the issue itself (i.e. minus the progressive drama of how everything unfolded and concluded)-

Firstly, I think that the youth has been quite underestimated. What is presented in a material/session is not what a youth will automatically accept as 'fact'. A youth should be able to think for himself/herself, and with the benefit of a Singapore education, most singaporean youths would be equipped enough do some critical thinking (at the very least some la). They would be able to manage with skills like comparison and contrast, inference, and especially important with this case, discernment.

In fact, that should be a key lesson taught in sexuality education, wise discernment. Such discernment, on the plane of logic and concepts can be even easier than the discernment one needs when handling relationships. Discernment is useful and needed when it comes to content that can be perceived as sensitive and concern value systems. With discernment properly exercised, one is allowed to make a honest judgment of something that is unbiased and can be personal in expressing his opinion.

How should wise discernment be taught? We can explore a few examples of this in the logical mistakes along the way within this Aware thing.

One example, (and this is the one that everyone who is against the ousted new guards is particularly heated over) is the idea that being against homosexuality is considered a disruption of democracy and not being tolerant. Of course, a question like "Do you think homosexuality is wrong?" is not the sort of question can be answered with a simple, "Yes." nowadays. This is because there is a problem in that question, due to that embedded logical mistake (which I had bolded).

Or in other words, people mostly ask that question as a loaded question. The issue on their minds is not really the issue of homosexuality, rather it is the issue of choice. The issue that really angers them is that another individual's right and freedom is being violated, and that is why the question can be asked so easily as a taunt.

Using wise discernment, this is a logical mistake because an acceptance of persons is not the same as an acceptance of ideas. Democracy and freedom of rights should not be confused with relativism. The issue of choice and the broader issue of its implications on human dignity, rights to survival, rights to a quality of life etc. cannot be immediately linked to an acceptance (especially so for a blind acceptance) of ideas. In fact, the issue of choice and freedom has a more complicated dimension in terms of an individual's rights to justice and morals. But anyway, this should clarify that (at least in terms of ideas) the old guards and the new guards were disagreeing about something that can be less heated. The new guards and the people on their side, probably has no qualms with an individual's freedom of rights. They probably also have no qualms with regard to the acceptance of homosexuals as persons deserving of such dignity and choice. The issue that is in dispute here is the nature of homosexuality.

Another way of saying it, is how homosexuality is defined? Is it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or a moral issue? The lines between each may be a little blurred, but they are distinct.

Lifestyle issues are how decisions one makes in living his life. How much time he spends with family or work, how much energy he devotes to a hobby or social activity, what sort of mindset he has, how he chooses to spend his money etc. The decisions made will reflect on the values a person has. The choices made in such a domain can be judged as either positive or negative depending on the value system that the judgment is dispensed from (E.g. One who prioritizes money over persons would naturally find a guy chasing nothing but career advancement something 'acceptable') Of course, there are social norms that define what a right lifestyle should be. These norms are usually formed out of good sense. For example, its good to have balanced diet, proper nutrition and ample exercise.

Individual preference issues consist of decisions made on personal taste. Such matters, like a favourite eatery, enjoying long bus rides, always eating ice cream after dinner etc. don't have much bearing over another individual or society in general. And if I like Pepperoni Classic while you prefer Aloha, we don't really have to get too worked up about things.

Finally, moral issues are issues that concern right and wrong.

Not speaking on the side of the new guards, but rather, on my being a Christian, my view is that homosexuality is a moral issue. Because of how we were made and how the law-giver should be obeyed.

Having said that, let me revert to the original point - before any lesson on sexuality is conveyed, wise discernment should first be taught. Notice, that be it a lifestyle issue, an individual preference issue or even a moral issue, the person in question is never (or at least, he/she shouldn't be) refused of his rightful rights. A fat person will only be told that living a lifestyle with unhealthy nutrition and lack of excercise is not advisable and that he should try to lose weight and keep fit for his personal benefit, but he is should be still treated with the same dignity. Rights may be removed from him (such as requiring him to run during recess etc.) but its more of a form of challenge for him to reach an ideal weight rather than violate his freedom. People who likes Macs as compared to PCs are both equally human. And every convicted person would deserve a fair trial before he is given a rightful punishment (It is in some sense a right as well? A right to be corrected, so as to live a -better- life).

As a Christian, I rather be rejected on the basis of what I believe than what I do not believe.

And I'm sure everyone else would want such a form of right.



"The only reason our own government was able to betray our country and us and sell it to the Russians - our misery, this wary - all of that could only happen because we are stupid, because we know nothing, we understand nothing, we cannot read and write, we believe anyone who comes in front of us and comes out with clever stuff, holds a piece of paper and says this is the law from today onwards. We are a nation of the blind. Anyone can do what he likes with us. Push us in the pond, leave us standing somewhere, lead us astray, even kill us. Only one who can see knows where he is, and can make up his own mind whether he wants to be there, and he sees where he is going all by himself... I want you and my children to learn to read and write. I want them to learn to make their own minds up about what is good and what is evil, who is lying and who is telling the truth, who is an enemy and who is friend."
-- Afghanistan, Where God Only Comes to Weep, Siba Shakib

Labels: Life, muse

---

_Past

June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

---