single-sex marriages.
written: 6:22 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 16, 2004

So during GP class something mildly interesting transpired. Well, it was interesting in relation to all the other GP classes prior to today anyway, during which all I did was sit back and half-listened to the teacher and half-daydreamed. We were going through this dumb-as-shit handout, the pseudo-test I was bitching about the other day (if the bitching was not done here, I'm sorry; I get the contents of my online journal and my private diary mixed up sometimes) that required me to do stupid things like "State the four social functions of the family". What the fuck. We all have families don't we? Why do we even bother to pigeon-hole something so essential, hence denigrating its very essence? GP basically goes against what Dickens preaches in Hard Times, and that is the detriments of putting things into boxes and failing to see that everything is inter-connected. For it is. It pisses me off that I have to think like a retard and write like a retard in order to get an A1 for the stupid subject.

But I digress. My point is, we were at the bit that goes something like, "What are the causes of the family in decline?" or some other equally-asinine crap along those lines. Oh, I forgot to say this: We had answers printed for us to the questions, and I had to pay for the shit, nevermind that half the shit in there were already printed before in various handouts given to us during the course of the year.

So the teacher was going through the answers, nevermind that I could very well read them on my own and comprehend them, thank you very much, and one of the suggested answers for the above question was that single-sex marriages would become the norm or whatever, therefore subverting the traditional male/female marriage (of convenience).

(Needless to say, it was not expressed in such profound terms, but the idea is there and I don't know how to express it in a GP manner.)

So yeah, the teacher read that out, my eyes went over the few words, and I thought aloud, "What's wrong with single-sex marriages?"

I didn't intend for the teacher to hear, but he did. So that prompted a mini discussion amongst the teacher (for a while), myself, the girl I was bitching about yesterday and a few other girls behind me.

Seriously, my class is boring. I don't understand the apathy. Don't you guys have an OPINION on anything other than boys and silly Taiwanese pop stars at all? The issue of whether single-sex marriages should be legalised should provoke at least some semblance of that seemingly highly-elusive thing called an opinion, but oh no, not in my apparently braindead class.

What's wrong with everyone? I don't get it. GP is boring precisely because no one bothers to talk. I would rather have that banding thing back again. At least the supposed A-banders, even though I was the only one who got an A in the promos last year, were fun. My class? Puts me right to fucking sleep.

Anyway, I digress again. So my point is, I'm for single-sex marriages, and my reason is very simple: Why the fuck not?

So we talk about the subversion of tradition, the subversion of what is natural and of nature, the possibly-negative effects it would have on the child, the negative effects it would have on a country's birthrate, yadayadayada.

Right. I'm going to show you right now how the above arguments are crap, and they're crap because I said so.

First, the stupid "subversion of nature" argument. I think it's high time we get off the whole "it's against nature" nonsense. Think about it. The very act of me typing this entry into an entry box here on good ol' diaryland for strangers across the world to read using that intriguing thing called a "computer" and "cable connection" is, contrary to conventional wisdom, not natural. Were human beings equipped with technology when we first evolved? Or okay, let's say you belong to the 'creation' school of thought. Fine. Did Adam and Eve have computers when they were frolicking around the Garden of Eden?

The obvious answer is 'no'. If we want to be natural, we should destroy all computers, we should stop wearing clothes and prance around in a loin cloth and some other cloth for the women to cover our boobs (or we don't have to cover them at all), we should stop watching the television, we should demolish all concrete buildings, etc, because none of these are natural. Human beings are essentially naked apes, a fact both agreed upon by religion and science.

So stop giving me the 'homosexuality is unnatural' nonsense because the way of life of the developed world and the fortunate ones of the developing world is NOT FUCKING NATURAL. It's only commonplace because it's the result of progess and development. And since our supposed superior intelligent has such capacity to develop to where we are today, I don't see why our moral consciousness cannot evolve to accept people who are different, but no less human.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? Do they not feel love like the rest of us (okay, I'm exempt, but whatever)? Do they not want to have a family like the majority of us? Are they any less human simply because they're attracted to people of the same gender as them? Yes, marriages are traditionally between males and females, but the Chinese people traditionally spoke nothing but Chinese, the Malays nothing but Malay, and so on and so forth. Traditionally, Chinese girls are supposed to be subservient and to be demure, but I'm anything but. Traditionally, I'm supposed to wear a qipao or whatever related ethnic Chinese piece of clothing, but I don't even own one.

Once again, it's called progress. Some people would argue that we're regressing, but I shan't delve into that right now. Singapore is a melting pot of different cultures and customs, and as a result of our painfully-miniscule domestic market, everyone is forced to learn English as a first language. Traditionally, I'm not supposed to express any of these in English, but I can, because our traditional way of life has changed.

Why is marriage any different? Is it any more sacrosanct than the opulence of my culture and language? I don't think so. In fact, to me, marriage is a mere piece of paper, easily burnt if I want to set it on fire. In other words, it holds a lot less significance in my eyes, as compared to the significance of my language.

My point is, traditions have changed in our modern world. It's inevitable. And marriage is not so sacred an entity that it should be exempt from the forces of modernisation and change (especially since I don't think it's that big of a deal as compared to culture). Hence, if homosexuals want to get married, go the fuck ahead. My opinion is, however, that you don't need a contract to manifest how deeply in love you are, but not everyone thinks that way. Obviously.

Moving on to the potentially-devastating effects that growing up in a single-sex household might have on the child. One of the girls who sat behind me was like, "Is it right for the parents to influence the child's sexual orientation?"

(Once again, I must assert that the above sentence was worded by myself, bad English cleared up and all.)

I'm sorry, I like the girl and all, but that's as good as saying that parents basically have no role to play in the upbringing of their children except to provide for them financially. That is, of course, crap. Parents will always influence their children, regardless of whether they're gay or straight. It's the fundamental role of a parent. Why else do parents exist? Parents influence their children's religion, their children's moral values, their children's choice of art and entertainment, and so on and so forth. Are we saying that it's "wrong" for the parents to influence their children in their decision-making? That having the influence of the parents in a child's life is necessarily bad because the child, somehow or other, stops to think for himself? I don't think so.

And if we were to buy the preposterous argument that being brought up by homosexual parents would turn the child gay, then it would effectively mean that homosexuals should not exist at all. Since single-sex marriages are illegal, let's assume that everyone was brought up in a traditional, heterosexual household. In that case, wouldn't all children of such a household be straight since the parents apparently have the power to influence an individual's sexual orientation? Just because I have straight parents, doesn't mean that there isn't a slight chance that I might be lesbian. And if I were a lesbian in a straight household, I can't tell myself to be straight if that goes against my inclinations. Get it?

Her argument is also based upon the belief that homosexuality is something necessarily undesirable. To that, I cannot vehemently disagree any more. But I shan't delve into this right now because to do so will take up another bloody hour of my precious time and I don't have such time to waste, so let's move on.

The stupid falling birth rates argument. Frankly, I don't see the link. Legalising marriage between homosexuals = falling birth rates... HUH?

Are we so naive to believe that straight people would jump on the single-sex marriage bandwagon once it's legalised and start marrying people of their own gender? What the hell stupid sense does that make?

Fact: Teenagers are stupid, especially teenage girls. As a result, teenage girls, as young as 13, would start having sex, and since they're stupid, they probably wouldn't know the meaning of the word "protection". So they'd be having unprotected sex, the girl gets pregnant, the girl either aborts or delivers, and let's assume she delivers, and she's 13 so she's not gonna bring up the kid and expect to be spared by her folks, so voila, we have an extra baby!

Such stupid people, sadly, are not going to cease to exist anytime from now till the end of the world. And neither would wholly irresponsible mothers who deliver and then dumb the poor things in dustbins and public toilets. More importantly, there will always be heterosexuals around to procreate the traditional way. That's a fact as well.

And if we're worried that birth rates will fall because homosexuals can't technically procreate, have we not bloody heard of IVF and the likes of it? Hello? I thought we were technologically superior? Hello? Where the hell's our brains?

Okay, I'm exhausted and grotesquely out of time. You should have heard the things they were saying though. I wanted to laugh. Talk about narrow-minded and myopic! Those people should get out more.

And in case anyone is wondering, I am fully aware that I am judging other people on the basis that I think their opinions are crap, but you know what? I don't care. So what? I never claimed not to be a mean, nasty bitch anyway.

I am sad to announce that the girl I was bitching about was in favour of single-sex marriages. But still, her expression needs work. And the way she was going off today at the end of Tubby's (Utopian Lit teacher) class about what a bimbo she is and doing that stupid shrill, shrieky voice... shit, someone should have shot me. I can't stand her. I await the day that I would not have to see her anymore for good with bated breath.

People are so trite. Or maybe it's just the school in which I'm unfortunately stuck.

before sunrise // before sunset

Previously:
- - Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017
I'm moving. - Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010
In all honesty - Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010
What I want for my birthday... - Sunday, Jul. 04, 2010
On Roger's behalf. - Friday, Jul. 02, 2010