Rights Aren't Always Right

 
Reportedly, Singapore recently saw at least 85 people, including filmmakers Sun Koh and Royston Tan (frankly, I have no idea who they are) have lodged police reports over the long Chinese New Year weekend. This was against the local pastor of some church (Lighthouse Evangelism), Rony Tan’s comments about homosexuals and lesbians in an online video, in which he interviewed an ex-lesbian.

I am so touched by the fact that while most of us enjoyed and spent quality time with our familes and loved ones, our homosexual community decided to take precious time to do such a heartwarmingly gay act, by hunting down old videos from the archives of a website they would normally avoid. Perhaps they thought it would be a firecracker of an idea in the midst of gaiety.
 
It all apparently stemmed from a certain Kenneth Tan who maintains a blog while working in Shanghai. I guess he felt it was his righteous calling to sift through a church’s website (likely maintained for the use of and updates for the church’s members) to extract anything which he would find offensive and hopefully cause a furore from a public that was once largely uninterested in an old entry in the church’s archive. I suppose his motives to focus and encourage public enmity a particular religious organisation’s belief in what was right or wrong, is somehow not seditious.

So it goes that the police reports were made, because homosexuals were provoked by a religious group within the confines of that religious facility. I can certainly see how a public tirade against the religious group’s private (more or less) statement of belief is less provocative. Kinda like someone who claims his nose is offended by someone else’s massive diarrhoea in a public toilet, by taking pictures of the latter and displaying it in public with shouts of indignant righteousness.
 

Royston said his decision to make a police report, was because this would be a “good opportunity to kick-start a debate in the public square.” Posting his actions on Facebook, the rest of the sheep followed up with similar reports, despite not having been involved at all. So it would seem homosexuals and their supporters think it is wrong to proselyte religious views in a religious congregation, but it’s cool when proselytising their anal rights in public. Hooray for logic going down the proverbial chute.

Sun Koh, award winner for her film "Dirty Bitch" (hopefully it isn't autobiographical), seeks an apology for these comments which were not even directed at her. Maybe someone can also make a police report claiming offence with her film's title. We certainly have the capacity to find offence in everything, don't we?

Kenneth the 'righteous' ferret for 'offensive' material to homosexuals, reportedly asked in another article, “The Sedition Act prohibits speech that promotes ‘feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore’. This will be a good opportunity to test the government just what it means by ‘different classes’. Are sexual minorities considered a ‘class’?”

Yes, they are, Kenneth. In Singapore, last I read the statutes, they’re considered a criminal class. :P Perhaps I should suggest that anytime we happen to encounter homosexuals indulging in anal love (especially in public toilets), maybe we can also begin exercise our rights and call the police. Believe me, these 'loving' rendezvous by homosexuals are not uncommon occurrences. Yet tolerance by the general public and the authorities' not following up with the law at all, seems to be considered intolerant and discriminatory by the homosexuals who blatantly flout and publicise their activities.

For every homosexual point or ‘fact’ to state its normalcy and place in nature, there is an alternate point of view. But of course, to state them would be intolerant because the homosexuals tolerate only one point of view. Theirs. What a farce.

However, on another front, such a fight for the rights of an alleged “minority class” could possibly turn out to be a blessing for many other “minority classes”. After all, should we discriminate against others and only allow homosexuality free reign? That would be unfair wouldn’t it?

Kleptomaniacs should form their own groups and demand for non-discrimination. Struck by a disorder by no fault of theirs, they should not be condemned or punished for stealing, which is after all a symptom of what they are.

Science has also shown that a specific gene has a role to play in certain numbers of men who react with compulsive violence. Come on, let’s accept them and what they do. After all, they were born to be violent. They should be allowed to beat the shit out of any willing party, if another ‘class’ is allowed to stir up shit, in more ways than one.

In fact, I was born naked. I should demand my rights (and anyone’s for that matter) to be free of any clothing wherever I go. Why should any righteous moralist’s belief stop me from being myself? If we were meant to wear clothes, we would emerge from our mothers’ wombs with naturally made ‘clothes’, wouldn’t we?

Homosexuals like to supplement claims to their 'rights' due to existence and approval in certain cultures, yet they find it offensive to be compared to any other form of sexual deviancy that may also be found in other cultures. What about the people from cultures or countries where the legal age of consent for sexual activity is below 16? Let’s look at some information Wikipedia provided.

• Some countries in Africa allow it from ages 12 to 13 onwards.

• Japan’s and South Korea’s age of consent is 13.

• China’s ok with 14,

• Countries in South America and Bangladesh are happy with 13 and 14 year olds.

• Saudi Arabia recognised a marriage involving an 8 year old girl.
 

Paedophilia is horrid, yet, in this context, where are we to draw the line? Should only the homosexuals be given the right to draw whatever line they choose, or make any definition to suit their rectal tastes?
  

How about bestiality or zoophilia? Even the homosexuals shun comparisons with this deviant minority. I would dare say they ironically but happily discriminate the ‘rights’ of just such a practice which is legal in countries such as Belgium, Cambodia, Denmark, Hungary, Mexico, Russia, and Switzerland. In fact Finland, Germany and Sweden legalised sex with animals in recent years, right along with legalising homosexuality. Isn't it interesting that many of these are the so-called progressive countries? So is Pastor Rony or anyone wrong in pointing out that permitting one backdoor to open would lead to the possibility of opening doors to which even the homosexual would claim aversion?

So should we just endorse or approve of any act, which goes against our inherent beliefs, religious or otherwise? Tolerate yes, but I refuse to see why anyone should endorse or approve of something they cannot accept. I get indecent proposals and disgusting gropes by homosexual men, despite courteously telling them to back off. Have I been silly in tolerating their behaviour, which offends my very being? Hey, I should also start making police reports, before gay pride skidmarks our landscape.

Aww look, the world can only be better with propagating gay love, can it not? Tsk.

We should accept people regardless of what they may be, but not necessarily what they do. There is a difference between what or who we are and what we do. It’s called choice.

And now, it would seem the one minority that everyone seems to agree can be abused with impunity and without penalty, is the religious believer. More precisely, Christians. So much for our national pledge eh?

Addendum:

An interesting note about the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is like an umbrella group of hundreds of homosexual movements and groups.

In the 80's they included homosexual pedophile groups like NAMBLA. In fact it even passed a resolution in 1985 which stated that "young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect."

Then during a massive public outcry against pedophilia in the 90's, the ILGA suddenly distanced themselves and homosexual groups began to repeatedly state that they find child sexual abuse abhorrent and immoral, and that relationships between the two camps are mostly invisible, if not non-existent.

Interesting isn't it? I guess there really isn't any link between homosexuality and pedophilia, is there? :P