Is gay okay?
Well, straight is okay. But "straight" is a term/slang created by gay people. "Straight" also informally refers to sobriety, law-abidingness and a subscription to convention and tradition.
"Straight" never existed. It is a name or a term given to an attribute of a common taken-for-granted reality in which we live. By naming it, it becomes noticeable and salient. By extracting, isolating and naming an attribute, or a unit, of a whole, we begin to segment, divide and organise our reality.
Some people(s) segment, divide and organise reality in a prescriptive manner so as to maintain their status of power over those who in turn become oppressed. By naming something, you have actually made a reconfiguration in the language you have been socialised into and ascribed unto it properties which you think that best fit this reconfiguration.
For example, what arises from such a process is the logic of binary opposition, as illustrated by the natural/unnatural dichotomy. The concept of natural/unnatural never existed. It isn't as universal as we deem it to be, although cultural, socio-religious, political and scientific boundaries have been erected over time to ensure its universality. The power to identify something also translates to the power to oppress and suppress something. When you prime one form of sexuality over others, you attribute terms accordingly, which justifies your political position and predispositions. Systems of discipline, (dis)incentivisation, rewards and punishment are created in the image of these predispositions.
Gay-ness, in such a framework as constructed, moulded and determined by heterocentrism, is often seen as unacceptable. In the times when there was no such thing as gay, or perhaps prior to urbanisation, society had a different concept of gay-ness. It was understood as sexual behaviour manifesting in acts which deviated from conventional man-woman procreational sex.
The concept of the family is also derived from most polytheistic religions, where the gods and their hierarchies of power and roles, all reflected that of society. The patriarch god would be the father figure, determining the economy of the cosmos, namely in the division of labour among other subordinate gods and everyone's duty to maintain the status quo. The female goddesses were more likely to represent society's view of femininity, which encompasses the role and function of the mother (milk-giving child-bearer), the lover, the daughter. For some monotheistic religions, there is more authoritarianism in the form of one ruling deity, who does all the work which would have been clearly designated to various gods in polytheistic religion. Gone is the autonomy of the subordinate gods and deities, which also translates to a more abstract understanding and prescription of rules to society.
The traditional family is a privileged entity of the microcosm that is society, for it consists of and fulfills all the necessary functions that are required of it as in the macrocosms. It is also economics that bind the family together given their various functions and roles toward maintaining and sustaining life. Society has come to institutionalise and normalise the family, ascribing layers and layers of meanings which eventually sanctify the family and marriage. The family is essentially an economic relationship that is later incentivised by modern states in modern economies. Of course, to digress, the liberalisation and economic independence of women has threatened the formation of the family.
Homosexual behaviour on the other hand, was the "recreation" to the heterosexuality's "procreation". Friendship and love between men for example, served no economic purpose, even in the times when women were still commodities and objects (like sea monkeys, just buy and add water and you get your sea monkeys).
By creating categories, some of which fall into another creation that is binary opposition, we implicitly discriminate. The imagination of the finite and limited resources in a social space has led us to device a system of distribution that best fit the needs of the dominant class. Armed with specific knowledge or intelligentsia which creates specific categories for the understanding and control of society, distribution is skewed towards certain categories.
By distribution, I mean rights and resources. Why should the distribution of rights and resources be discriminatory, unequal and imbalanced? Or rather, why do some people not even think about it and assume it is fair, equal and balanced?
The decriminalisation of male homosexual sex is seen as some as wrong, as upsetting a certain "balance" and "stability" that society is currently enjoying. People are living on an undulating plane, on which there exists many slopes of different inclines, such that one's concept of "balance" differs from others. Unfortunately, the criminalisation of homosexuality exists on a plane in which there are laws that ensure nobody is discriminated or marginalised. If heterosexual sex is allowed and not homosexual sex, isn't there embedded discrimination and marginalisation?
What complicates matters is the politics of the "majority", or basically, politics in general. It puts a lens before the eyes of society, such that society is viewed from a heterosexist and patriarchal point of view, among many other possible readings. For example, there is discrimination based on age. Maybe it has its economic roots. But more importantly, society is able to articulate and confront this form of discrimination because it is a common problem which affects the ruling elite.
Homosexuality on the other hand does not pose that common a problem. Hence its sparodic appearance provides society with a (mis)understanding of homosexuality as an illness or a lifestyle, which can be unlearned and discarded. The laws of the land and science too were governed by this belief. And in the process, embedded in the structures and institutions of society are such specific (mis)understandings of reality, and rather prescriptive in nature too.
How we come to understand humanity is also shaped accordingly. Most people are comfortable with the clear-cut, defining, yet limiting concepts of what makes a "man" and what makes a "woman". A "man" has to possess certain "universal" properties, abilities, mannerisms and functions to be recognised as a "man", and the same goes for the "woman". Any idea that falls outside what has come/grown to be accepted, will result in dissonance and anxiety on the part of people who devote their minds to defending and protecting this ideology.
Deviant identities and character traits become isolated, de-socialised, de-politicised. The gay identity has been reduced to genetics, as well as rational choice/behaviour. Such isolation, medicalisation, pathologisation lead to the allocation of resources to correcting these "reversible" and "curable" problems. The "ill" person undergoes re-integration, recovery and re-institutionalisation, so he/she becomes well again, as in well enough to be accepted by the moral majority.
Identity, being fluid in nature, becomes rigid when mechanisms, apparatuses and institutions come into the picture to establish and sustain a certain desired order. An order established over time and immortalised in literature, becomes taken for granted, acquiring the status of "natural", thus being prescriptive. And it's because of the belief that the "natural order" is the default, the status quo, measures are in place to ensure no transgressions. Deviant sexual identities are resultantly viewed as trangressions against "nature", and thus require policing, and to a large extent the deprivation of civil liberties.
When the homophobic moral crusaders speak of the slippery slope that is gay rights, they forget that they too are equally complicit in the political discourse - they are the snowball (no pun intended) that is gaining size and pace as it tumbles down the slippery slope.
Each time the sexual minority rights movement is silence, invisibilised, rebuked and challenged, the moral agenda of the crusaders is pushed to the fore, along with their political and social ideals. I do not see the sexual minority rights movement in Singapore as the hand that pulls society down into the moral abyss, but a movement that tries to create another lens for the rest of society to view - and in the process, confront the existing biases and predispositions and taken-for-grantedness we have. It is so comfortable looking through the same lens, the very one we think might lead us to the truth, but might in turn make us dependent and myopic.
Sitting on the fence is neither a golden position, but the most political. Some "neutrals" have come to fold their arms and entice both camps/poles/ends to win them over, as though without the support of the "apathetic" middle, there will be a stalemate, creating no influence in the political and legislative domain. The fence-sitters see themselves as objective and arm themselves with a "go ahead and try to convince me to believe you" mentality, similar to the snooty "customer-knows-best" worldview. The people who do not really care about the issue at all, are the ones who see no side and no fence.
Every side is a side. To choose no side is also taking a side. Why "normal" people like myself have to speak up is to provide a check for society. Using the rhetoric of the moral crusaders, we have to be wary of the threat posed by moral crusaders, with them pushing their moral agenda, wanting to mainstreaming a certain worldview and legitimate lifestyle, and it is a slippery slope to moral totalitarianism.
What people fail to understand is that sexual minorities, not only gay people, but bisexual, transgenderred and transexual people just want to be treated equally. Maybe it's time to revise how we privileged straight people come to understand "equality" - isn't it already rather skewed, slanted, limited and enframed within a certain heteronormative discourse? Gay people don't want special treatment or relatively more rights and superiority, as posited by the moral crusaders/police. And of course, gay people do not harm our children. The black sheep among straight people are as dangerous to children as the black sheep among gay people, but it is sad some people think that all gay people are black sheep.
We are too used to questioning people and outsiders, sizing them up and criticising them. It is about time we turn the spotlight onto ourselves and question our beliefs. Then again, there may be mechanisms that prevent such self-reflexivity. Then it's up to us to confront these mechanisms.
There's inequality in society, what are you going to do about it? This is no MRT train where you can fake a nap.
You don't even need to stand up for sexual minority equality. All you have to believe is: Gay is okay.
.JPG){kind=avatar}
Quoting Solo Bear: "Pro-gays appear to say that anti-gays see homosexuality from the religious perspective. Maybe it’s true."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, which I too concur with. Now, my two-cent's worth of thoughts:
I shall not be apologetic even if my view on homosexuality is perceived as very much a religious perspective or even if I am accused of fanaticism. And if it is true that pro-gays find it unacceptable that religion is an element in a discourse on gay lifestyle, how then does one explain gays wanting to be part of a religious outfit - like being ordained a priest, or being married in a church, or practising a religion which by tradition equates homosexuality with the commission of a sacrilege and a scourge...?
If pro-gays or gays themselves deem it unjustified to argue along the line of religion in wanting to justify their stance, it is only fair not to link their cause and their battle to any religion which preaches otherwise, nor should gay proponents make attempts to convince and influence heterosexuals or offspring of heterosexuals into embracing their way of life, and penalising those who choose not to play by their rule.
This had happened where I work when certain gay educators were proven to have given preferential treatment towards effeminate male students (who are not necessarily gay) they wanted to 'convert' to their lifestyle, or students who seemed to be inclined towards a gay lifestyle. They failed to observe professional work ethics, put the students at ransom (some succumbed to their veiled threats to ensure good grades). In so doing, they have blatantly imposed on the students' beliefs and convictions to satisfy their baser needs. And that is certainly disgusting.
Yet gays and pro-gays would often see themselves as victims, helpless and discriminated against. As illustrated through the above account, they are very much the predators. In wanting to satisfy their carnal desires, they compromised on the vows they were supposed to uphold as educators.
I share your view when you said "They can engage in their relationship for all I care..." as I take the stand that we should agree to disagree. Yet in my faith, the status of a gay is even lower than that of a prostitute. One may have heard of how the devils would rejoice at an illicit, out-of-wedlock carnal relation, but those same devils would distance themselves from being witness to the same act involving two of the same sex.
As stated earlier, I shall not be apologetic in presenting a religious perspective on the issue of homosexualism. If God had wanted gay lifestyle to be the accepted way of life, would there not be Adam and Adam instead of Adam and Eve; or would not one son be married to another son of Adam, or a daughter be married to another of his daughters. And would God not have created a womb in the man as well as the woman for the purpose of procreation through same-sex intercourse ...?
Even in the animal kingdom, mating would involve two, each from the opposite gender. As a believer in the Creator, I would say that God has designed life on earth such that the opposite attracts and the opposite complements one another.
And we would talk of the natural thing to do in nature, as opposed to an unnatural thing to do, like engaging in a lifestyle that is traditionally, customarily, generically, unnatural. And something which is unnatural is abnormal, bizarre, preposterous, pseudo, outrageous, perverse, perverted, made-up, freaky, deviant, gross, weird, irregular, sham, queer, man-made, phony... the list goes on and none too pleasing to hear.
The gays and pro-gays are fighting tooth and nail to force down the throat of their detractors their world view of a world devoid of time-tested morality and social mores - whatever the faith or religion; yet cry "Foul!" when faced with views which oppose their idea of an ideal lifestyle.
If the animals (which are devoid of humanistic thinking skills) can understand the need to complement, be attracted by or be attractive to the opposite sex, then where would gays be placed, really, in the hierarchy of living beings...? Below that of creatures in the animal kingdom...? If that's the case, is it right then to take society down with them to a level below that of creatures in the animal kingdom...?