PARIS — The invitation-only soiree at the Rond-Point Theater on the Champs-Élysées last Sunday gathered 1,000 of this city’s glitterati, among them government ministers, intellectuals, politicians, artists and even union leaders, to support the legalization of same-sex marriage in France.
The philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy waxed poetic on stage, warning of the “black tide of homophobia.” Lilian Thuram, the soccer hero who played on France’s World Cup-winning 1998 team, said he was supportive “because my grandfather was discriminated against because he is black and my grandmother because she is a woman.” Manuel Valls, the interior minister, opened his remarks with a letter of support from the president of Argentina, which he read in Catalonian-accented Spanish, his mother tongue.
Comedy and singing routines were performed, including one with a Lady Gaga impersonator as a lesbian bride in a long white wig and sunglasses. Texts by famous French intellectuals (Michel Foucault, Marguerite Duras) were read aloud.
It was all part of the country’s reaction to a proposed law that would allow gay couples to marry and adopt children, a measure that has prompted mass demonstrations and long discussions in the news media. On Tuesday, the National Assembly opened a debate on the proposed law that is expected to last more than two weeks.
France is both a secular republic that champions the rights of the individual and a traditional, religiously rooted country that glorifies family life; demonstrating and debating are national pastimes.
But even some supporters of the law are ambivalent about “marriage for all,” as the initiative is called.
Pierre Bergé, the longtime personal and business partner of Yves Saint Laurent, was the financial sponsor for the Rond-Point event, but even he had reservations.
Asked whether he and Mr. Saint Laurent would have married if same-sex marriage had been legal when the designer was alive, he seemed stunned into silence. Then he replied, “I don’t know.”
“Personally, I don’t like the word ‘marriage’,” he added. “I’d like it replaced in the civil code with the words ‘civil union.’ If people want a ‘marriage,’ they can have it — in a religious setting.”
Marriage, he said, had not been a burning personal issue for him.
“I’m 82,” he said. “And at my age, I’m not going to get married.”
(He and Mr. Saint Laurent had been joined in a civil solidarity pact, an initiative created in 1999 that offers couples regardless of sexual orientation some but not all of the rights of marriage.)
At times, the debate has gotten personal. When Valérie Trierweiler, the partner of France’s president, François Hollande, announced that if the law came into effect she would attend the wedding of two gay friends, Bernard Debré, a center-right deputy, wrote on his blog that she had no right to enter the debate. “She’s just the mistress of the French president,” he said.
Undeterred, she turned up at Rond-Point to add her support. “This was one of the promises of François Hollande,” she told reporters. “I defend his proposals.”
Elle magazine made the same-sex marriage matter chic with a Jan. 18 cover featuring two longhaired young women in white joined in a chaste embrace. The 30-plus-page special report was bolstered by full-page ads for diamond rings by houses like Buccellati and Chaumet and 10 pages of bridal outfits.
Karl Lagerfeld, meanwhile, ended his haute couture show for Chanel a few days later with two brides (the Vogue cover girl Kati Nescher and a fellow model, Ashleigh Good) holding hands and wearing identical gowns. Their eyes were made up heavily in black.
Mr. Lagerfeld’s views have evolved. In 2010 he told Vice magazine that he was opposed to same-sex marriage.
“I’m against it for a very simple reason: In the ’60s they all said we had the right to the difference,” he said. “And now, suddenly, they want a bourgeois life.”
Asked by reporters after his recent show if his use of lesbian couture was a sign of support for gay marriage, Mr. Lagerfeld replied, “Of course it was.” He added, “I don’t even understand the debate.” He pointed to the 1905 law that separates church and state in France. “Why can’t people who live together have the same security as bourgeois marrieds?” he asked.
But he said he was “less enthusiastic” about male couples as parents.
“Two mothers seem to me better than two fathers,” he said. “A child without a mother, that’s a bit sad.”
The campaign for legalizing same-sex marriage comes as the appeal of traditional heterosexual marriage is waning.
The sanctity of marriage was shaken forever by the social and sexual revolution of May 1968 that promoted equal rights between men and women and freedom from the tyranny of bourgeois institutions. That was especially true of institutions with strong ties to religion — like marriage.
“After May ’68, if you were modern, you didn’t get married,” said Frédéric Martel, organizer of the Rond-Point event and author of the new book, “Global Gay: How the Gay Revolution is Changing the World.” “Now we’re at a moment when we are all a bit hysterical about marriage — gay marriage. But this is really a conservative movement, about stability in society and being good parents and protecting children and becoming rather ordinary.”
Seventy percent of the French do not think it is important for couples living together to get married, according to an Insee poll in 2012. Fewer than four marriages for every 1,000 citizens were performed in France in 2011, compared with nearly eight in 1970.
The civil solidarity pact legislation, which was intended to give gay couples many of the rights of marriage, has been used overwhelmingly by straight couples as a kind of “marriage light.” It is so popular as an alternative to marriage that in 2010, there were four civil unions for every five marriages.
Mr. Hollande, who made passage of the same-sex law a campaign promise, is a model for unmarrieds. He never married Ségolène Royal, the mother of his four children; she called herself “a free woman” and marriage a “bourgeois institution” when she ran unsuccessfully for president in 2007. There is no indication he intends to marry Ms. Trierweiler.
Carla Bruni, the singer and ex-model who became the third wife of Nicolas Sarkozy when he was president, has urged France’s first couple to do the conventional thing and marry. In an interview with Elle last October, she said, “I think it is simpler to be the legitimate wife of the head of state rather than his partner,” adding, “I felt a real easing of the general concern about me when I married Nicolas.”
While 63 percent of the French favor same-sex marriage, according to a poll by the French Institute of Public Opinion released last Saturday, 49 percent favor the right of same-sex married couples to adopt. There is less support for legalizing artificially induced pregnancies for gay couples. And some liberals and feminists consider surrogate motherhood an exploitation of poor working women by the rich.
“It introduces the notion of the child as merchandise,” the historian Max Gallo said on France Culture radio last Sunday. “You rent a belly and buy the product.”
Some feminist lesbians think a change in the law is retrograde. In Elle, the historian Marie-Josèphe Bonnet called marriage an “instrument of domination” and same-sex marriage a project of gay men, not lesbians.
“We want to be able to exist socially as women, without being a mother or ‘the wife of,’ ” she said. Asked why she didn’t mobilize lesbians against the law, she said, “No one can be opposed to equality.”
Q1) Who are the parties involved and what are their roles in the issue? What is happening and why?
The primary parties involved are the gay couples (or rather, the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people). As a matter of fact, they have always been in the centre of attention. The matter of gay rights has been ongoing even before the eighteenth and nineteenth century, but more emphasis has been placed on it only now. As the world advances, more governments start liberalizing their states even further, and the issue of gay rights have been brought up. Same-sex marriage or limited alternative is legally recognized in only a few states today. The majority of the states have legally defined marriage to be between a man and a woman or amended the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The secondary parties, in this case, would be the rest of the world. While there have been people opposing the issue of allowing gay marriages to take place, there are also supporters, who see no harm in that. Many young people have viewed the act of legalizing gay marriage as an increased in tolerance of the public. Yet at the same time, most of their views differ from that of the older generation in their family, caused a divide between the different generations in the family, with the older generations being more conservative and disapproving of this matter. But liberalization, which the government hopes to achieve, includes gay rights, and the public should realize this fact.
Q2. How has this issue impacted various stakeholders?
This issue of gay rights is offensive to some people, and one of them is the religious group. Same-sex marriage is said to be blasphemy that goes against scripture. And because faith communities believe God was the one who said the scripture, thus, they condemn the act of same-sex marriage. Also, religious groups often put marriage on a pedestal, and in doing so, claim that same-sex marriages will taint the very perfection of it.
However, not everyone abides by the scripture, nor is every marriage perfect, and so I don’t really understand why are the religious groups affected by it.
Another stakeholder who is impacted by this issue of gay rights, is the government and the political parties who oppose the view of the government. One such example is in the US, where the Democrats, and the Republicans differ in their views of this issue. Barack Obama (a Democrat) was for same-sex marriages, and equal rights for both gay and lesbian couples, including the right to get married and adopt children. On the flip side, Mitt Romney (a Republican) was against the idea of it. He supported traditional marriage, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. However, such definition seemed to discriminate against the homosexuals. In fact, marriage should be a privilege, and not a right.
2AA1, 2SA4 & 2SB5 Online Resource Blog 
Discussion Questions:
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Wong Pei Ying 2SB5
As the society has become more open-minded and began to accept the idea of same-sex marriage, one of the new preferred family models is having 2 same-sex parents and adopting a child. Personally, i think that this family model should not be accepted. I think it is fine to have same-sex marriage but i feel that the child should have a choice if they want to accept his/her parents to be of the same-sex. Firstly, the child might be ostracized by his/her schoolmates. Secondly, the child would not receive the same motherly love from two fathers or fatherly love from two mothers. These might negatively impact the child’s life.
Many couples in Singapore are not keen in giving birth, as many of them are more interested in their own career instead of starting a family and the cost of raising a child is rather high. I think it should not continue this way as Singapore is experiencing an ageing population, thus,the government is trying to boost the birth rate in Singapore by introducing more benefits to couples who are willing to have children.
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Ans: Some of the new preferred family models are one 1 father, 1 mother and 1 children or even same sex marriages (2 fathers or 2 mothers) which are becoming more and more popular.
As the divorce rates for heterosexual marriages are rising higher and higher, many people doubt the effectiveness of marriage because conflict often arises after living with their partners for a prolonged period of time. Some attribute this to different mindsets and viewpoints that both gender have which leads to misunderstanding and inability to live with each other due to the many conflicting ideologies that they have. Hence they rather prefer to be find a partner of the same sex who can understand each other better. However this is facing much conflict within societies as this is considered a blasphemy in religions and also viewed by society as unnatural and concerns about the development of children in homosexual families and also about unnatural reproduction processes.
Many married couples also prefer to have lesser children because of the increased stress present in the modern society. They do not have as much time to nurture their children and hence think that having more children increases their commitment to the family and will not be a good option. Having one child also means that the parents can have more focus in nurturing the child by having more financial means to send him/her for personal development classes or for higher education with increasing living costs. This change may not be embraced by society because in light of the government’s concerns about the ageing population and also because of the character development of a single child who may tend to be more self-centred, selfish and may also tend to feel loneliness much more often than one with siblings.
The new preferred family models would be just the the married couple and with no children at all. This is because, people nowadays do not like the responsibility of having children and would like the live life with just their significant half for the rest of their lives without having to worry about paying for milk money and their children’s future college funds. Moreover, the people in the modern society are too career minded and are not really ready to forgo their illustrious future just to settle down and have babies. Hence, promoting no children marriages.
These changes should not be embraced by our population. This can be seen evidently by the white paper 2030 bill that was just passed by the Singapore government to help increase our current population to from 5.8 million to 6.9 million in 2030. This is because, the birth rates are very low whereas the aging population is increasing at a tremendous speed. This would thus affect the future generations as the younger generations would have more burden in taking care of the older generation in future. Thus, i think that Singapore should not embrace this form of change in family model.
New preferred family models include having only one child, or having no child at all. In Singapore, the case of having no child at all is becoming increasingly popular with the increasing cost of living here in Singapore. Even with the incentives and grants that the Singaporean government offers, couples in Singapore are still worried about insufficient funds in raising a kid in Singapore and thus most couples nowadays choose to do without a child altogether. I feel that these changes should not be embraced by society as this would not only negatively impact a country’s development in the long run (having a smaller talent pool) but it would also affect the well-being of society as society is now more and more work-orientated, such that couples would not experience the great amount of joy that other couples enjoy when they have a child.
One of the new family models in Singapore especially would be one with only one child. In the hectic pace of life nowadays and rising cost of living, couples, same sex or otherwise, find that having time to nurture your child and the financial means to support them is getting sparse. This model is increasingly becoming accepted in society.
The government, however, to boost fertility rates comes up with financial bonuses as that seems to be the major factor affecting their decision. However, the government has to recognize that the ultimate decision always lies in the hands of the population
1. A new preferred family model is one with either a single child or no children at all. Living in a country with a cost of living, a massive sum of money is needed to raise a child. In Singapore, it is estimated that the cost of raising one child is $700,000, an amount which individualistic Singaporean couples do not wish to part with. In a world where money means almost everything to us, many couples would not bear to sacrifice their standard of living for a new born child, which means a huge cut in their income which they can spent on themselves for enjoyment and pleasure.
However, government has been trying frenetically to boost the fertility rate by introducing baby bonuses and incentives to couples with children. However, they have to bear in mind that the main reason of Singaporeans to not want to contribute to the fertility rate boils down to our values which have develop in a society which the government had created.
In my opinion, one preferred family model in Singapore would be 1 Father 1 Mother 1 Child. This is because the cost of raising a child today is extremely high as compared to a decade ago. According to the Strait Times in 2010, it would cost a couple approximately $230k to raise a child to 19 years old. In other words, a child would ‘cost’ the parents about 1k a month on average and many would find this a financial burden. On top of this, the couple has to pay for their housing fee, electricity fee and what not. Therefore, bearing more than one child could take a toll on the parents significantly.
I find that society should embrace such a change as there are several advantages to this family model. Such families would have enough economic stability to provide the child with several opportunities in life. The child may be able to attend dance, gymnastics, music or other types of classes, especially both partners work outside the home. Such children who are provided with these types of opportunities are more likely do better academically and socially, as well as develop confidence and time management skills.
Also, spouses or partners can role model a loving, caring and supportive relationship for their children. This will translate into future success by teaching children how to seek out positive relationships and interact well with others. The child will benefit from watching partners work together to solve problems, delegate household responsibilities and support one another through positive and negative issues.
I agree with what Zhiming has mentioned about Singapore having prefered family of 1 father,1 mother,1 child. In my opinion, other than this model, the other ones include only a father and a mother. Due to increased level of employment in women who eventually become career-driven independant individuals because of enhanced education accessibility, wifes of married men are very reluctant to quit their careers due to various reasons like passion or the high salaries. They have to devote half their time on careers and the other half on their social lives, family and their beloved spouses. As a result, they will consider child-bearing as a no-no in their life plans and willing to have an incomplete family with only their life partners, enjoying undivided attention for each other at home. I feel that society should not embrace this as this will ultimately cause underpopulation in Singapore, resulting in dire consequences although this fwill result in economic benefits.
Another prefered models in the world are like what the article has mentioned, two fathers or two mothers with an adopted child, in other words, single-gendered marriages This family model is becoming increasingly prefered because more and more people around the world has accepted and recognized LGBT rights compared to the past, where they were used to be considered to be mentally ill according to psychologists. However, in 1973, American Psychological Association (APA) had already withdrawn this theory of mental illness, which i think is a rationale thing to do.
Some of the reasons why this family model is prefered are that the homosexual community has gained a new voice and can express their opinions on their deserved rights more openly. Currently, more and more countries like the United States have legailzed it and this will result in the prefered family model since more people can marry their beloved life partners without bearing the fear of being thrown into the jail and thus they have more courage to pursue their own happines.
I feel that this family model should be embraced by society as i feel that everyone has a right to pursue their own love, regardless of their sexual orientation. We empathize the feelings of animals where people fight so strongly for animal rights and organized compaigns to save torture from the evil and perverted animal abusers. So why cant we use the same mindset and thinking to consider the feelings of the “criminals” in the eyes of the law, who merely wanted to have a blissful marriage with his/her loved ones forever?
In my opinion, I agree with Peiying in that the new family model of today, would be that of an adopted child possessing parents of the same sex. As gay rights become a controversial issue approved in an increasing number of countries, such a new family model is becoming increasing popular especially in countries much more liberal toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage for that matter.
This is soon becoming the norm as homosexuality, once and issue that was ‘taboo’ and hardly mentioned or given any rights, is now being more prominently ‘mentioned’ and an issue much discussed today as pro-homosexuality individuals rise up and speak up, The increasing liberality of society today to go against social norms and traditional ‘boundaries’ hardly exist in many countries and people are often encouraged by media etc. today to ‘follow their heart’ and to fight for what they deem is worth fighting for.
While I personally feel that such a family model is not conducive for a child’s growth and development, I do agree that society should be accepting of individuals who are different / choose to be different. Hence, while some might oppose homosexuality, we should accept that everybody is different and embrace diversity as a form of society’s development.
I agree with both Alison and Pei Ying, that the emerging new family model of today, would be of parents of the same sex with an adopted child. As Alison mentioned, gay rights are being increasing approved and accepted. More people are starting to accept homosexuality and many have started to campaign for gay marriages. Hence, this family model will become increasingly popular in the future as society becomes increasingly liberal.
I agree with Pei Ying that the idea of having parents of the same sex may lead to negative impacts on the child, such as bullying. I also agree with Alison and Pei Ying that having parents of the same sex is not conducive for a child’s growth. Children are very honest and simple people and they may be somewhat tactless in their words at times. They may not be able to understand the idea of same sex marriages at a young age and if they have a friend who has parents of the same sex, they may tease or taunt them. Also, the love of a father and the love of a mother is altogether a different thing. Although they are both parents of the child, both the father and mother provide different forms of care and love towards their child. A mother’s love is important for nurturing a child. Similarly, a father’s love is important for nurturing a child as well. Hence, I still believe that having both a mother and father is the ideal for a child.
However, I do agree that society should be more accepting of individuals who are different. Everyone is wired differently and perhaps sometimes, people are affected by things in their life as they age that make them different from the norm now. Discrimination in itself, is something I do not advocate, hence I feel that society should be accepting of these homosexuals. Homosexuals are just different in the partners they choose to love. I feel that not accepting them is limiting their rights to love. As a society, we should embrace these people, help them and provide support for them – some may just be confused, some may just need a listening ear because they are constantly rejected by the public and some just need a friend. Therefore, we should be embracing of such different people and be accepting to move forth as a society.
I do agree with Pei Ying, Samantha and Alison, that our society today seems to have come up with a new family model that differs from what the older generation is use to. Perhaps some people feel that having both parents of the same sex is acceptable. However, it is undeniable that their child (adopted) may have difficulty understanding the situation. I agree with Sam, that they will definitely be critisized and perhaps harrassed by their friends for having parents of the same sex. This can be rather overwhelming to a young child who will also be trying to find themselves in the midst of it all. Hence,
However, I do not believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Perhaps this opinion may be unpopular in a society that perceives gay marriage as a sign of a more ‘accepting’ and ‘liberal’ society. Indeed being a more liberal society and accommodating different opinions is important. Gay marriage on the other hand, involves so much more than differing opinions on what a family should be or what love is. It involves changing of traditions, religious issues and so much more. Personally, due to religious beliefs I do not approve of gay marriage. However, it is an issue where society seems to be debating about nowadays. It may not be long till it is legalized in many more states, in the process of becoming a more ‘liberal’ society.
I agree with the previous opinions that a household with one mother and one father to care for a child/children, is seen as a more ideal and comfortable family model, however, that does not mean that other family models would not be able to function just as fine.
It is true that a child with two fathers or two mothers may face more difficulties as compared to a child with one mother and one father. As Sam and Sherie said, the child may be ostracised and bullied in school. However, the extent of such problems would depend on society’s view on gay marriages. If the society is more accepting of same-sex marriages, the children of same-sex couples will not face as many difficulties growing up.
On the question of whether or not gay marriage should be legalised, it really depends on the type of society. In a more conservative society where there is a common religion which does not support same-sex marriage, it definitely would not be very sensible to legalise gay marriage as it would anger a lot of people. In a more libel country, where there are many differing view and opinions, I believe that the question of legalising gay marriage should be thoroughly debated, so as to take into account the beliefs and opinions of the whole society. However, it will never be possible to please everyone. Whether or not same-sex marriage is legalised or not,there still might be a small portion of society who will not be happy with the decision.
I agree with the opinions that the household with one mother and one father to care for their children is more ideal of a model than that of a model with same-gender parents. This could be attributed to the harassment the child is exposed to and same-gender marriage as a blasphemy in most(all?) religions. In addition, we must question the fact whether or not the family with same-gender parents can function as well as the ‘ideal’ model. There are things a woman can do that a man cannot and vice versa.
However, contrary to all the beliefs and stereotypes set against families with same-gender parents, what if such a family is able to function just as well or even better? Maybe if parents of the same-gender are able to communicate more effectively leading to a better harmonious environment at home, or lesser relationship problems. This could possibly prove for the better if such a scenario exists, so the point is why not?
Thus, i believe the society should accept same-gender marriages but not totally embrace it, threading along a fine line of balance between both is critical as it gives the community a right to choose what they deem more beneficial.
Josias 2SA4
With divorce rates going up, single-parent families are becoming more prevalent. There are even cases where a father/mother walks out on their families, leaving his/her spouse with the children. This leaves the task of raising a family solely to that parent. He/she has to single-handedly raise the children. Some might be fortunate enough to engage the help of relatives, but others are not as fortunate. Many at times, he/she has to struggle to make ends meet, working double shifts or even taking on 2 jobs. However, such families do receive aid in the form of subsidies from the government or cheques from various social welfare organisations. Such a family model should not be promoted as it puts strain on both parent and child. Statistics have shown that children from a dysfunctional family are more prone to commit chargeable offences when they grow up.
(edited post)
…. Another prefered models in the world are two fathers or two mothers with no adopted child. in other words, single-gendered marriages This family model is becoming increasingly prefered because more and more people around the world has accepted and recognized LGBT rights compared to the past, where they were used to be considered to be mentally ill according to psychologists. However, in 1973, American Psychological Association (APA) had already withdrawn this theory of mental illness, which i think is a rationale thing to do…..
Claire Chong 2SA4
As society becomes more open minded towards the idea of same sex marriage, another family model is two fathers or two mothers. This is becoming more and more common around the world due to an increase in the legalization of same sex marriages. However in Singapore, people are more conservative and hence I believe that the most common and widely accepted family model in Singapore is still one mother and one father.
Another common family model is one father or one mother only, due to an increase in divorce rates recently.
I feel that single sex marriage should not be legalized in Singapore as Singapore is still quite conservative and we are not ready for it. As a result, the child may get ostracized by his/her classmates and may even get bullied or made fun of.
Ernest Low 2SA4
As generations pass, new views on marriage are made. This results in two new preferred family models– parents and child model and same sex parents model.
Due to the rising levels of affluence, more couples place high emphasis on their job advancement. Thus, cultivating a family would seem like a side project to them or even a hassle. The increased work-related stress, coupled with (no pun intended) the increased costs of raising a child deters many. This results in small families with either one child or none at all. In Singapore, where the people are often quoted as ‘the only resource’ it has, the government is unlikely to embrace such a family model. Ageing population, together with low birth rate, can harm Singapore’s productivity.
With the increased acceptance of same sex marriage, more and more gay couples are open about their sexual orientation. At home,Singapore being a conservative society, such a variation in marriage has yet to be legalised and is unlikely to be in the near future.
Delphine 2SA4
I agree with both Claire and Ernest in their stand, that Singapore doesn’t seem to be ready for the legalization of same-sex marriage, or rather, gay rights in general. The “conservative” roots in Singapore are still prevalent, and it is best if we leave that issue as it is for now. As Prime Minister Lee says and I quote: “These are not issues that we can settle one way or the other, and it’s really best for us just to leave them be, and just agree to disagree. I think that’s the way Singapore will be for a long time.”
Also, the nuclear family, as compared to single-parent families or remarriages, is a better choice generally. It can provide the child with a stable environment, with no emotional turmoil for the child to witness his parents breaking up, or the loss of love from one parent.
I totally agree with Delphine, Ernest and Claire as their stand that Singapore isn’t ready to legalize same-sex marriages. Being a more conventional and conservative society, which is common in most Asian societies, adopting such a liberal and unconventional law of legalising same-sex marriage would be unthinkable to many Singaporeans. This has been reflected in the case where Section 337A of the Penal code of Singapore, which criminalizes sexual activities between persons of same gender is being repealed, causing an uproar and disagreement of a pastor backed by his followers. This clearly shows that although being a secular and developed country, Singapore has yet to view same-sex marriages as a social norm although it might be pretty common in other more liberal societies which were equally secular and developed as Singapore, like Denmark and Sweden.
This issue has also exposed the fact that Singapore being focused on raising the fertility rate does not want to legalise such law as this might lead to a further decline of birth rate assuming that the people can now openly be gay or lesbian, which might not contribute to an increase in population since it is a new family model that cannot conceive children. Hence having this law might be detrimental to the idea of a “family” and the social fabric, adding more problems than solutions to our already declining birth rate and aging population.
I beg to differ. Singapore is a democratic country and everyone has equal rights and privileges. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told MPs before the vote that “Singapore is basically a conservative society…The family is the basic building block of this society. And by family in Singapore we mean one man, one woman, marrying, having children and bringing up children within that framework of a stable family unit.” Though I agree that Singapore is a conservative society, I do not see how legalizing gay marriages has any major disadvantages to the society. Every human being deserves the right to be happy, and if being means being with a person of the same sex, no one can try to take away their fellow human being rights.
I disagree that single-gender marriages and adopted child is the popular model of family now, while it may become acknowledged in several countries, there is still a social stigma attached to it. It is uncommon, amongst heterosexual marriages and it challenges traditional values and conservative mindsets. While people are becoming increasingly open-minded, it is still not the norm of society. There are 11 countries that have legalised same-sex marriages, with also some countries acknowledging same-sex marriage performed else where.
I agree too, with Delphine that Singapore is not ready for same-sex marriages to be legalised. While we may have a well-educated and globalised populace, and even though people are becoming more accepting of gay marriages, our policies remain rigid against it. Same sex couples are denied housing, legal status and immigration rights. The government is also strongly promoting couples having children with many incentives, including the 4 months maternity leave. With our ageing population and low birth rate, legalising gay marriages is indeed unlikely in Singapore.
Singaporeans are also holding back starting a family, as reflected in the increase in the proportion who were childless. There is an increasing trend of late marriages, especially amongst university graduates. In this frantic lifestyle that Singaporeans are leading, one child family is becoming more common, because of the high cost of living and a hectic working life.
Amanda Chua 2SB5
While I agree that same-sex marriage is unlikely to be a reality in Singapore in the near future, I still feel that it should be accepted by society. As Singapore is a multiracial society, young children are often taught of the need to be tolerant and accepting of people from all walks of life. While I concede that homosexuality is rather different from race or religion, I feel that it follows the same principle. In a society that boasts to be ‘based on justice and equality’, how can we discriminate against our friends who are part of the LGBT community?
~
While it seems that many think that a family with same-sex parents and adopted children should not be accepted, I personally think it should be.
Firstly, I believe such a couple would give their adopted child all the love they deserve. Adopting a child is a difficult process, and I suspect it is even more so for a same-sex couple. With same-sex couples, there is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. Every child taken in by a gay or lesbian couple is wanted, and the long, difficult process of adoption will ensure that the couple is capable of caring for the child. While, as mentioned by Pei Ying, having two mothers or two fathers will be very different from having both a mother and a father, I think having two parents or whatever gender is much better than having no parents at all.
Secondly, other comments have mentioned bullying as a concern. There have been cases of people being bullied because they come from households with same-sex parents. This is undeniable. However, to me, this is just another reason for society to be more open and accepting. Cases of bullying don’t indicate problems in the victims. Instead, they indicate that society is unwilling to accept those that are different, and that we believe that it is okay to treat people badly simply because they are different from us. Such a mindset is dangerous in any society, and even more so in Singapore.
Although society is increasingly becoming more open and liberal, I do not think that single sex marriages will become the norm in Singapore, at least not in the near future. Singaporeans are generally more conservative in nature and thus single sex marriages, which still have some sort of social stigma attached to it, is generally not accepted by most Singaporeans.
However, with the high cost of living in Singapore, couples may prefer to have a single child instead, thus making this one of the new preferred family models. This coupled with the fact that women in Singapore tend to be highly educated career women and thus settle down later further encourage this type of family model.
Timothy Straughan 2SA4
As the fertility rate falls, it can be safely stated that the model of the family has changed with regard to how many children there are in the family. Instead of having 2 children, may couples choose to have only one child or no children at all. Furthermore, many people choose to not even get married at all! Therefore, there is a chance that a person would not even start a family at all. In states where gay marriage is allowed, there may be families with two parents of the same gender.
The reasons are as follows, in summary. People choose to have fewer children because they can’t afford to have more, choose to focus on their careers, because the structure of family has changed leaving fewer people left in the household to care for the children and because society has changed such that women are now, like men, expected to work. Furthermore, there is the ideology of the sacred child, where children have come to be valued emotionally rather than economically.
I believe that these changes should be embraced by society. The number of children couples have and who people want to marry should be the decision of the individuals. However, this can be a dangerous mindset as it can lead to instability in the birth rate. Therefore, the government has allow people to see why it is good for them to have more children.
Furthermore, we should be accepting of same sex marriage because we have to respect the choices of individuals. Furthermore, states should not be governed based on Christianity alone. One religion should not be imposed on all the people of a country.
Asher Mau 2SB5
I personally feel that gay marriage should be accepted by society, even though the general consensus of a conservative society would be not to accept such a change.
In our society, we are conformist, and most of us do not readily accept others whose brains work differently from the norm. The stance against homosexuality is an example of a manifestation of non-acceptance.
In a world that is becoming increasingly liberal, a conservative society cannot hope to remain undisturbed on such issues. Eventually (although I do agree that this is in the far future), change will have to occur. In that case, it may be better to help the society be more accepting, because change will occur, whether one is ready or not.
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes. What are some of the new preferred family models? What are the reasons for it? Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Some of the new preferred family models include having two parents of the same gender and their children which could be adopted. These newly preferred family models could largely be due to ideals of people changing and becoming more liberal. I feel that these changes should not be embraced yet by the Singaporean society as I personally feel that Singaporeans are still conservative by nature. They probably require more time and such family models may be accepted in future. However, presently, it is still largely ingrained in us that the conventional family model is one of the nuclear family with two heterosexuals and their children due to our traditional mindsets coupled with our Asian roots.
1.
One of the preferred family models in dealing with the overwhelming human population, is the One Child Policy which is implemented in China, in which the mother of each family is only allowed to give birth once, or they will have to pay a fine.
When China was starting to face a fast growing population, as families were giving birth to many children, the state had to implement this law to prevent the impending dangers of overpopulation.
Such changes has been shunned by the public as it was being carried out in a very inhumane way. It was reported that Chinese officials forced pregnant women that already have a child to go for abortions. One disturbing case was about Chinese officials forcing a woman whom was going to give birth soon to undergo abortion without her consent, just so that they can get paid more. This strong taboo about forced abortion has caused quite a large controversy. However, I think that this change can be embraced by society if it is carried out correctly and more humanely. I think that families should have the freedom to decide how many children they want and should not be forced to go for abortions. Hence, officials should not be going around dragging pregnant women to the hospitals. Instead, if families want to have more than one child, they are allowed to do so only if they meet certain requirements and pay a fee. This way, it is much more ethical and tolerable.
Moreover, if gay marriage was to be allowed in China, gay couples would be more than happy to adopt all the unwanted girls that the traditional families are throwing away in want of a boy to carry on the family line. This way, officials don’t have to resort to forcing women to undergo abortions as well.
Homosexuality isn’t a bad thing, it might just be nature’s way of dealing with human overpopulation.
Wee Jian Yong
2AA1
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Currently, some of the new preferred family models varies and deviates from the traditional family models. More societies are gradually accepting same gender marriage, which was frowned upon by many and was a taboo in many of the conservative societies in the past.
One of the reasons for the rise in the new preferred family models( same gender parents) is largely caused by the media, with some shows such as Glee, a popular American show which has homosexual content in it. Viewers are desensitized by the media, leading to the trend of gradual acceptance of the new preferred family models.
Another reason is due to the increasing numbers of such individuals who are coming out of the closets, to readily admit their sexual orientation. People are unashamed to declare their homosexuality, they organise parades to try change society’s bias views against them, they are unafraid to challenge the government, calling for equal rights for homosexuals. For example, in Singapore, the Pink Dot event is held annually to raise awareness and garner support for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community in Singapore
Personally, I think such changes should be embraced by society to a certain extent. It is every individual right to like anybody, even if both are of the same gender. For a start, i feel that the governmemt can chip in to embrace these changes by abolishing laws such as Section 377A of the Penal Code of Singapore, that discriminates homosexuals. However. in the context of Singapore, changes have to be made slowly as it is still a conservative society that is wary of sudden radical changes.
Keith Tan 2SB5
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Some new family models would include those with no children, those with an only child, and those with two parents of the same sex.
As society has been developing economically and advancing technologically, stress levels have increased due to the fast pace of living which is required to sustain the society. The cost of living has also gone up. Thus adults nowadays have less free time and less disposable income. This is what leads to more and more families having only one child or no children at all, because the lifestyles just make it difficult for families to sustain the job and the family at the same time. Parents need to spend time with their children, which is something that they lack due to the fast pace of living. Trying to juggle would leave them drained not just mentally and physically but financially as well due to the high cost of living and providing for the children in terms of utilities, food, material goods and education fees. However, my opinion is that this model should not be accepted so readily. The Singapore government for instance, has continually encouraged families to have more children by making Singapore a very conducive country to raise children – giving benefits to families with more children, and subsidizing school and childcare fees. Low birth rates have many adverse impacts on the country like a smaller workforce and talent pool. With all the encouragement from the government, parents should consider having more children and not accept the new family models so readily.
Same sex marriages are also becoming more common. With global modernization, people are becoming more open to different views. Although issues like these might be controversial, they were unheard of in the past. More people have begun to accept same sex marriage and thus we see more couples becoming more public about it. Also with more freedom given to the people, groups have begun to gather to protest to let the world see their views. I personally feel that this model should not be accepted so readily. Same sex couples that want to get married are happy and should be allowed. BUt it would affect their children as the child would not be able to experience love from both a father and a mother figure. This would affect the child growing up, as the household differs from others greatly and would be unfair to the child if he/she gets ostracized or has difficulty relating to others. Hence one should consider the child of such a family and not accept it so readily.
Khoo Siao Ching Victoria 2AA1 (8)
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
Some of the new preferred family models include single parent families, same-sex couples with children, unmarried couples with children, and even couples with one or no children. The new preferred family models definitely deviate from what society perceives as “traditional” .
In the case of couples choosing not to have children,like in Singapore, where the growing number of it is perhaps due to the main idea of affordability. Affordability is one of the crucial factors parents give for not having more than one child (or not having any at all). One must not be too quick to label such couples as “unwilling and self-centered”, as many in society ( and leaders) often do. Perhaps we must consider that as society advances towards a better standard of living, and as costs of living in Singapore seem to continuously move upwards, couples seek to have fewer children ( i.e one) in order to allow their children (or in this case, child) to live a better quality of life.
While traditionalists (with regards to the idea of family) may sit aghast and wonder about whether there is even a modicum of “morality” left in society, change is an inevitable phenomenon. With society exposed to different ideas and different cultures, there is a change in societal values.Historically speaking, mankind has, generally speaking, evolved to become more liberal, not more conservative. The scope of what can be considered “moral” or “acceptable” in society has always seen changes. Since change is inevitable, I do believe that society should be more open-minded to differences and variation. In the case of same-sex coupling, denouncing such a choice does not mean that it will simply ” go away ” . If a same-sex couple can love and nuture a child just as well as any parents, why would that be considered wrong? What right do we have to tell people how they should love?
2SA4 James Wong
Some of the new models include two fathers with children, two mothers with children and single mothers with child. Another family configuration but with a male and a female as parents is the cohabitation or unmarried parents approach.
Greater acceptance of homosexuality in society is a large contributing factor to the occurrence of these same gender families while promiscuity and casual sex adds to the number of single mothers with children to bring up on their own. The increase in couples choosing not to get married but start a family anyway is a result of a dip in relevance of marriage and for others commitment issues.
Some of these changes face significant opposition and embracing them seems like too much to handle for now. Single mothers have been a fact for a while and should be supported financially if anything. Homosexual couples raising children raises many questions about appropriateness to parent and of the child’s own mental state. However it has been seen that homosexual parents can raise a child just as well as heterosexual ones if not at times even better. Unmarried couples with children tend to be viewed as enjoying the benefits but avoiding the detriments of marriage at the same time. All in all a skilful move. Growing up having parents who aren’t even married will surely alter children’s mindsets. I dread to think of the horrors of the generation to come
One new family model arising in the current age is that of same-sex parents with children. I do not feel that this family model should be encouraged or embraced by the society. This is firstly due to the fact that it is highly unfair for a child to live in such a family without a choice. This child will have to grow up trying to accept the fact that his or her family is different, and he or she might even be tormented in school. Secondly, homosexuality is condoned a sin in many religions such as Christianity, and many believe that legalising same-sex marriages will result in a revolutionised and redefined view of marriage, which, traditionally, should be between a man and a woman according to the scriptures.
However, despite the understanding that homosexuality is a sin that is fully punishable by God since it is a contradiction to his laws (Gen 1:28), it is not right of us – and neither do we have the right – to tell them that their way of loving each other and starting a family is wrong. I feel that it is not a good example of us to harshly condemn homosexuals we know; rather, we should love them as much as we love others, and continue to pray for their salvation.
In this modern society in Singapore, new preferred family models would be a married couple with only 1 or even no children at all. In other countries such as America, they are highly flexible with regard to the number of children they want to have, or even the gender of their life partner.
The reasons to why Singapore families choose to only have a child or even none is probably due to the high rising standard of living. Having more children would increase the burden on the working parent, as they have to provide for them as well. Families that are facing financial difficulties would not be able to cope well. Not only that, the traditional thinking of the women being the housewife is evolving. Currently, more women are entering the workforce, as they are independent and career-minded. Once they enter the work force, it is hard for them resign and give up on everything they worked for, just to start a family.
I feel that these changes should not be embraced by the society. Even though the fact that women are being more independent is a positive sign, Singapore is already facing an ageing population, and if more and more women continue to enter the workforce, the birth rate in Singapore would decline steeply, and our country’s future would be jeopardized. Since the children would eventually grow up to be leaders of the country, it is important that Singapore has a wide pool of talent.
Priyanka 2SB5
1. The institutions of marriage and the nuclear family (1 father 1 mother and 2 children) are undergoing tremendous changes.
What are some of the new preferred family models?
What are the reasons for it?
Do you think these changes should be embraced by society? Why/Why not?
I agree with the point that Pei Ying has pointed out. Nowadays the ideal family model may seem to be not always the best one. In a traditional family, there are often conflicts between the member such as the husband and wife due to conflicting opinions, egoism and not knowing how to raise a kid. However, if there are two women in a family taking care of a kid, sometimes it could be better as the saying goes , “a women best understands another women”. They together might know how to workout together in order to bring up the child. I feel can be embraced by the society if the involved members are fine with and especially the kid that they adopt is acceptable of gay – marriage and the fact that their parents of the same sex.