of righteous Indignation

Of Righteous Indignation

I was taking a fence-sitter stance on the recent AWARE episode, preferring to defer opinions until concrete statements were made, with regard to the new guard's agendas. This is the measured and considered reticence of one who is willing to give them the benefit of a doubt.

This morning's paper galvanised my thoughts and feelings into this sublime state of simmering indignation; a sentiment which is now being echoed amongst the friends whom I had laid this news upon.

Whilst the broad-minded urges objectivity and, perhaps, a certain sense of the broader spectrum of the world beyond our own, one cannot help but envision the demarcations being drawn into the sands. How can this not devolve into a standoff between a certain religion and homosexuality is beyond me.

Retrospectively: is the media to blame for polarizing this issue? I cannot help but sense a certain smack of sensationalism in this, and although AWARE is NOT a primarily gay establishment, the points raised by the new guard (or selectively highlighted by the press) seems to be making homosexual issues a cornerstone of their agendas.

Churches peddling gay rehabilitation programs are a nuisance but generally tolerated as they operated within an esoteric ideal. Secular programs should largely, remain secular or they risk ostracising the very diversity they seek to include. At this,AWARE's old guard has much to be blamed as well, but that is largely water under the bridge.

While I have to take the whole broad context of the fiasco into consideration, the issue I am most concerned with is the signal that homosexual family units are considered an aberration of the term "Family". A progressive society continually reinvents itself, seeking to discard archaic dogmas.

Approaching the word "Family" semantically reveals :

fam·i·ly (fm-l, fml)

n. pl. fam·i·lies

1.

a. A fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.

b. Two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another, and reside usually in the same dwelling place.

If two gay men or women forms a unit of love and trust, is that not preferable to the free-loving going around? If monogamy and stability is the preferred status, who is anyone to deny them that? Religions are coloured spectacles of dogma, tainted world-views of bygone people. The only absolute that exists is in Love and Choice. No one has the right to take that away, no matter the justifications.

Likewise, I believe the coup of AWARE serves a largely symbolic purpose; it is fairly easy enough for these ladies to form their own NGO serving the "pro-family", religious fundamentalist stance. In the taking of AWARE, they are sending the clear, unequivocal message that the "wrong" has to be "right-ed", and that their justifications is soundly based in the moral fabric of the larger socio-environment.

The question then is this:

How should Singaporeans respond to this?

PS: Typed in a flurry, and posted without editing, will add in more later when I'm off work.