The recent news splash about the gay film festival that took place in Indonesia on Sept 24 provides an example of the situation discussed in my earlier letter about ‘gayism’ not being simply an organic phenomenon. Rather, it is increasingly promoted through the entertainment media as something normal (‘common’ is a perhaps better word) and at the same time portrayed as a private matter of between individuals who have a choice of two equally viable sexualities (heterosexuality and homosexuality).

It is against this background that I want to distinguish – as I did in my earlier letter – between the heartfelt appeals to recognise homosexuality as an individual’s reality in (what I perceive to be) a minority of cases (Pang Khee Teik’s letter ) on the one hand, and the casual promotion of gayism as something common in society on the other. The former situation is too complex to be discussed here. As such, it is the latter situation that I want to discuss in this article.

The promotion of gayism occurs in the wider context of the promotion of Western-style feminism. The latter ideology makes valid points about male chauvinism and oppression. But as a by-product of its reactionism, it pits woman in competition with man at all levels to the point of making the latter redundant. It has nothing to say about complementarity within the context of marriage, let alone allowing for a discussion of social roles in wider society.

All such discussions are summarily dismissed as ‘stereotyping.’ In this context (since men and women are redundant opposites of each other), the question arises: why not be gay? Thus, the promotion of gayism within the context of a larger Western feminist/human rights ideology spells dark days for marriage and society as we know it.

Digger and Josh Hong have used the human rights argument to support gay rights but seem oblivious to the fact that the human rights also includes those defined by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Cultural rights, in particular, is a right held by societies rather than individuals. Westernised human rights activists should understand that in traditional societies the choice of sexual unions is not unlimited.

The Kadazandusun societies of Sabah, for example, impose penalties on marriages of blood relatives to the point where even third cousins who want to marry can be fined under customary law. This practice dates back to before the advent of genetic studies. It is based on the view that marriage between blood relatives, especially from first cousins upwards, is abhorrent.

Thus, sexual unions are not simply a matter of individual choice when you live in a community. Leaving aside the modern issue of gay rights, traditional societies as I have shown above determined that certain kinds of unions are not permissible. I presume none of the writers who have used ‘human rights’ arguments to support gay rights would condone the sexual union of two consenting adults if it was the case of a father and his 21-year old daughter.

I am less familiar with this next society. But going by the textbook, the Minangkabau of Negeri Sembilan have social structure of that features a system of matrilineal descent and uxorilocal residence by which property (land, in particular) is passed down to subsequent generations. How will this social structure fare in the brave new world envisioned by pro-lesbian rights activists?

Even for urban/nuclear-family types, one needs to take into consideration the still-upheld practice restricting ‘close proximity’. This restriction is codified in some religions but it is also a customary (common-sense) practice among people not affiliated with religion. It is the case of the parents of a school-going daughter who will now no longer allow her to have sleepovers at her friend’s house, where the latter’s mother is no longer resident as a result of a recently concluded divorce that gave custody to the father.

It is the case of the husband who objects to his wife’s regular one-on-one leisurely outings with a male friend but is not worried about with her going out alone with female friend. And many more similar cases that I am sure your readers have witnessed as a commonsense way to structure life in heterosexual society.

And your brave new ‘society,’ where people - egged on by the entertainment media, big business interests in the sex industry, Western governments and NGOs - are increasingly departing from the heterosexual norm and indulging in an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) lifestyle, is going to establish a new kind of clarity in social relations? Talk to you again in a generation or two.