The following is first posted on A Wretch Reformed by a brother-in-Christ. It is reproduced here with his permission and without modification.
Much has already been said about the new sex education curriculum that the Ministry of Education of Singapore (MOE) announced in early July. A cursory glance at the commentaries seems to indicate that a majority disagree with the MOE’s approach, taking specific aim at what the curriculum will teach, i.e. “the importance of the heterosexual married family as the basic unit of society”, and that abstinence is “the best option”.
I must say that I am not surprised at the number of liberal responses out there berating and ridiculing the proposed curriculum. After all, we live in a world that is increasingly sexualized, and where the sacred union called marriage and the family unit are attacked daily and re-defined.
So, faced with the choice to either hold my peace and say nothing at all or utilize my blogging privilege to point out the foolishness of the liberal camp, I chose the latter and that’s why you are reading this post.
Let’s start with this “progressive society” that some love to point to. They contend that if the schools were to teach abstinence, it would set our society back to (gasp!) the Stone Age. It seems that a society or culture is only progressive or advanced if we let teenagers or people do as they please when it comes to sex. The teenagers are going to do it anyway, they say, so why not just teach them the proper method of putting on a condom?
First off, how does this tacit encouragement of premarital sex make us a progressive society? Perhaps they count teenage pregnancies, single mothers, and the murder of countless unborn human beings through abortion, progress? Really?
In her commentary Sexuality education in Singapore – Whose values are we teaching?, Kirsten Han of the Asian Correspondent asserts that abstinence would foster a generation of adults who will think sex and sexuality are dangerous and shameful things, and encourage an environment where those who don’t practice premarital sex are morally better than those who do.
Don’t you find it ironic that while Ms Han is questioning why the MOE would want to impose these “mainstream” values on others, she is actually trying to impose her own set of “mainstream” values on others? I would love to see the statistics on the mental state of these adults who were taught abstinence as teenagers with regards to sex. Without those figures, that’s just her assertion.
Is it such a bad thing to label premarital sex as being immoral? Since when have we as a society begun to call evil good and good evil?
I believe that teaching abstinence to teenagers also teaches them responsibility and respect for another. It takes a strong mind and someone with moral backbone to say “no” to premarital sex when all around you, everyone’s doing it and encouraging you to do it. Not teaching abstinence but tacitly encouraging premarital sex is teaching the young to always find the easy way out–it is always easy to just give in to temptation!
In other words, we cannot start off with the supposition that teenagers are ruled by hormones that cannot be curbed, or that they cannot be brought up with a healthy attitude towards sex in such a way that they understand sex to be sacred between a man and a woman in a marital covenant.
This is where parental oversight is necessary and important–with the increasing sexualization of our society, young people are constantly bombarded with images of sex everywhere. Advertisements, movies, and the easy availability of pornography on the Internet are all contributing to a generation treating sex as nothing but a pastime in an age where the gratification of the “me” is infinitely more important than the collective.
Is abstinence easy? No, but that’s no basis for us not to teach abstinence as the best option against engaging in premarital sex. Here’s a question for those who disagree: knowing that children will lie, do you teach your child how to lie without batting an eyelid or do you teach them to not lie at all? If we follow the liberal logic stated above, then parents and teachers should start classes on “effective” lying.
Secondly, following their logic that we should just provide condoms and teach teenagers how to use them since they are going to engage in premarital sex anyway, we should do the same for other forms of sexual vice, don’t we? After all, the other choice word that liberals love to throw at you is “inclusive”. We aren’t really being inclusive if we leave out the pedophiles, those that practice bestiality and necrophilia and so on, are we?
In the same article mentioned above, Ms Han seems to think that 15,000 people who gathered for Pink Dot 2012 at Hong Lim Park on 30 June more accurately define the “mainstream” values of modern Singapore than, say, the majority of the population who didn’t attend the event. The 15,000-strong turnout, she says, can be “seen as a sign of increasing acceptance of LGBT communities”, and goes on to question if the mainstream heterosexual family unit is still to be considered “mainstream” when seen in that context.
Huh? Really?
I seriously doubt that “mainstream”, God-ordained values such as the heterosexual family unit will be thrown out of the window just because 15,000 people went to support “the right of everyone to love and be part of society, regardless of sexual orientation.” at Hong Lim Park. If nothing else, this assumption of hers was just another push for the LGBT agenda. Again, note the irony I pointed out above.
In conclusion, I applaud the Ministry of Education for doing the right thing. The teaching of abstinence as the “best option” and the importance of the “heterosexual family unit” are, in my opinion, all the more important in this day and age. In a society where social mores are eroding and in a world where even the sacred institution of marriage and gender identity are being redefined, we need to continuously uphold these pillars of a strong and healthy society. There is no turning back the clock once the pillars crumble, and the consequences of a total breakdown will be dire.
The above post has expressed my views too. To add, can it be denied that abstinence is the most effective in deterring sexually transmitted infections and diseases, and unwanted pregnancies (and the horrific consequence of abortion that often comes with that)? While abstinence is the hardest to achieve, that doesn’t mean we forego it entirely even though I am not against teaching male teenagers how to use a condom. But we shouldn’t go so far as to provide the condoms.
As for Pink Dot, another acquaintance wrote on his blog that he hoped that one day we will all accept the freedom of people to love. That, is a fallacy. There has always been a freedom to love. We are all free to love our friends, our pet and even our gadgets. But there are different levels of love and there are boundaries to them. For e.g. if I have a brother, I will love him as one because we are kin. But I will not consider marrying him. I can love another male as a good friend, a good brother, maybe even a good mentor, but I won’t consider marrying him either. In fact, I won’t considering marrying my pet, or my tablet either even if I loved them as dear as my life. So why are we even talking about accepting the freedom to love when there was never in fact, any objection in the first place?
Since I am now on the matter of Pink Dot, I would also like to address the comment of that same acquaintance who further wrote that he hope to see Section 377A repealed one day. I am curious that the matter of Section 377A always come up when matters of homosexuality are discussed. First of all, Section 377A does not affect lesbians. Though it would also subject homosexual and bisexual males to punishment under the law, the law did not specifically single just them out for punishment when it would also punish any other man who would ‘just stick his penis into someone’s anus’ for sexual pleasure or humiliation, and also those who are offering sexual services to other men with such desires.
Now, if Pink Dot is all about the freedom to love then Section 377A should not even be on its agenda since love and sex are not one and the same even though they are not mutually exclusive. Even if I grant those behind the Pink Dot movement that their main objective is about love, and removing the social stigma and discrimination of homosexual people, the impression they are giving me is that they are also promoting the rights of those whose would love to see Section 377A repealed for some other, more personal agenda (see the screen capture of an SMS received by a friend).
It is these people I object to. Is this what you would call love? I am sure not every homosexual person is like this, but if you don’t consider the proposal in this SMS to be plain wrong, then let us agree to disagree. Call me a homophobic hater for all I cared, but over here in my country, homosexual people have equal rights to health care and jobs opportunities, and also universal suffrage. Those who are clamoring loudly against discrimination here would be a lot less hypocritical if they are fighting for any homosexual person’s right to live in those countries that would execute them.
Let me quote Steve:
“Well I guess cos u have lesbian friends, 377a does not affect them at all and so it’s ok for you to push for the retention of the law?”
So, yes, because I have friends who are still alive, i.e. they have not been murdered, so the law against murder does not affect them and it’s ok for me to push for the repeal of the law against murderers?
“And if u think schoools should provide complete information of a subject – then abstinence, along with sex Ed for gay people and condom usage for those who choose not to practice abstinence before marriage, should be taught as well.”
You are right, Steve. In fact, why stop at just teaching the use of condoms to both heterosexuals and homosexuals? Now, in case we get labeled as bigots, we should start getting inclusive. Let’s write in to suggest that the ministry also covers bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, and all forms of sexual preferences be included in the curriculum too. I agree that those who prefer have the preferences I just mentioned should also learn to use condoms!
Well I guess cos u have lesbian friends, 377a does not affect them at all and so it’s ok for you to push for the retention of the law?
What is your justification for the existence of this law? The fact that gay people go online or in public and harness straight people for sex? And straight people dun do that to each other? They don’t molest , haress or rape?
Let’s not get blinkered about this whole issue. The reality is there are gay people, they are living with and around us and it’s possible that they are your relatives, siblings and even children. And you want them to forever be labelled as criminals?
And that’s not being a bigo?
And if u think schoools should provide complete information of a subject – then abstinence, along with sex Ed for gay people and condom usage for those who choose not to practice abstinence before marriage, should be taught as well.
And you’ still insist you are not being hypocritical, blinked and a bigot?
Read properly. I also have a kindergarten classmate who is homosexual and male. It wouldn’t please me if he’s arrested and charged under Section 377A. Then again, I know there are more than one way for a homosexual male to have sex other than that stipulated under Section 377A.
As for justification, I noticed that Section 377 also has subsections B – G if I am not wrong. You tell me whether those were justified or not. I would love to hear your reason for those, Steve.
Next, I make a separation between homosexual people and people who are just out for sexual pleasure (homosexual or not). Now, tell me something I don’t already know when you go about homosexual people existing around me, Mr Obvious. Why do you equate anal sex with homosexual males? Who is being the sick, dirty minded bigot here? Who, is telling me that it is about love not gender?
Now, before you get blinkered by your own bias, read that I am also for teaching people about condom use. However, if you insist that the matter of sex education of gay people be taught, then don’t leave out necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia as well for complete information of a subject. Or, you are insisting that only I am a hypocritical, blinkered bigot when you think it is alright for some sexual activities but not some others. You are demanding that I tell you what is so wrong about homosexual sex, and I am asking you what is so wrong about the other kinds of sex.
Read up on Freud regarding “moral projection” for your own enlightenment.
~~~
I grow increasingly tired of refuting those who would called me a bigot while failing to see themselves as one. As far as these people are concerned, there is only one opinion that is allowed – their own. No opinion other than their own is allowed. There is only one option for everyone else – agree. It simply proved to me that there is no possibility of holding a logical, meaningful discourse with those who would charge others for hate and bigotry when they are incapable of anything else themselves.
As such, I have decided to close the comments section. Anyone else who disagrees can flame me anyway you want in another forum, your Facebook wall or even a blog of your own.
Leslie,
You’re a bigot, plain and simple. It’s narrow-minded people like you who opened my eyes to the wonder that is the hypocrisy of atheists. You clearly don’t understand that pedophiles are men who lust after children or fall in love with children. It exists, and your failure to imagine that there are people out there who are not exactly like you makes you a self-centred bigot whose idea of compost is one filled with people exactly like you.
some points to note which so far no one has addressed:
1) is sex ed = moral ed?
2) is the secular school an appropriate platform for sex ed and/or moral ed??
for example: the chemistry class can teach about nuclear fission/fusion, but it does not need to tell/teach students that creating nuclear engery/ nuclear weapons is good or evil…
3) should schools stay purely informational, factual and morally neutral? what is the roles/purpose of school in relation to upbringing of the child in the family? how to define “family”? secular family? christian family? buddhist family? as u can see, its problematic if schools want to go down that route..
1) No.
2) You are mistaken. This was never a question of whether schools is an appropriate platform for sex and moral education. I am not against teaching children the proper use of condom and contraceptives.
For e.g. If I teach my child about fire, I will also tell him about the dangers of fire – on how he may get hurt. What would be immoral, would be failing to let the child know that and then let him play with fire – providing him the fire even.
I am however against ridiculing people who talks about abstinence. What is wrong with telling people about that? We tell people not to abstain from drinking if they want to drive even when we know there will still be those who would flout that advise, do we not? Or perhaps we should just let people drink and drive because cars have air bags? Doesn’t matter that the air bag might save you in a crash, but it might kill an innocent bystander, right?
3) In my opinion it would be EVIL for schools not to provide the complete information about something. As for family – my opinion of family is that it is an institution to protect both the husband and wife, and a core unit whereby children can be brought into the world and raised with protection and care for the greater objective of the continuation of society. I failed to see how the MOE’s stand on that is in anyway a problematic route when the real and present problem we have is low total fertility rate.
You’re a bigot, plain and simple. It’s narrow-minded people like you who opened my eyes to the wonder that is the hypocrisy of Christians. You clearly don’t understand that homosexuals are men who fall in love with other men or women or fall in love with other women. It exists, and your failure to imagine that there are people out there who are not exactly like you makes you a self-centred bigot whose idea of heaven is one filled with people exactly like you.
I laughed out loud reading your comment, leslie. What do you really know about me when you called me a bigot? A pub I usually frequent is full of lesbians and a few gays. Had I been a bigot I would have walked out of that pub and never to return. Some of those lesbians are my friends, and I have a kindergarten classmate who is gay. The 2 of us met for dinner not too long ago.
Next, I haven’t talk about heaven and who will be in there. How you come to the conclusion that I think it will be filled with people “exactly like me” is amusing. I am quite sure whether I get to a heaven or not is up to God, but I sure hope that if I end up in hell, it won’t be filled with people exactly like you!! Eternity is a really long time to live next to nuts and assholes.
You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. How is it that the only thing you people know when someone stood up against what you believe in, is to send them hate mails or comments like these? If you think I am a bigot for disagreeing with you, then it falls to the same logic (yours not mine) that since you disagree with mine, you’re a bigot. In fact, you are a worse one, considering you are exactly what you accuse others of.
Read up on Freud regarding “moral projection” for your own enlightenment.