In Part 1, we looked at how Pink Dot’s “equality scorecard” blurs the lines between biology and belief, demanding that subjective identities be treated as if they were objective truths. But the agenda doesn’t stop there.
Now we turn to something even more consequential: how those claims demand the reordering of public life. Marriage, adoption, inheritance, employment policy, housing access—these aren’t private lifestyle choices. They’re public institutions built on specific aims: to support families, uphold fairness, and prioritise long-term social goods.
But when activists insist that unlike things be treated alike, equality becomes a tool not for justice—but for ideological capture.
We begin with the biggest ask of all: the redefinition of family.
1. LGBTQ Families
Same-sex Marriage
Heterosexual marriage reflects natural sexual complementarity and produces children – which is why the state is interested in regulating it. Same-sex unions do not. Equating them flattens biological and social distinctions.
Same-sex marriage does not merely expand access to marriage but redefines it, raising deeper questions:
- Why only two people, not more?
- Why only romantic, sexual love? Why not close friends or siblings too?
- Why permanence or exclusivity?
Each answer reveals that marriage rests on moral, biological, and social foundations. Change one, and the entire institution shifts.
Same-sex Adoption
Adoption is not a right. It is a child-centred process that prioritises the best interests of the child, not the desires of adults; background checks, home conditions, and criminal records all rightly restrict eligibility.
Same-sex adoption deliberately denies a child a mother or father. Opposite-sex adoption gives them both, which is what they naturally need. To frame this as discrimination is to reframe parenting away from children’s welfare and toward adult wants.
2. End of Life Concerns
Deputyship applications
Deputyships are granted when someone loses mental capacity, can’t make decisions on their own and haven’t made a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA). In Singapore, there is nothing stopping a same-sex partner applying to the court, with the court’s permission, to be appointed as a deputy for his same-sex partner who has lost mental capacity.
The court’s role is to assess—objectively and fairly—what best serves the interests of the incapacitated person, including who is to be appointed deputy. Factors could include the length and nature of the relationship between the Applicant and the person who lost mental capacity. The process isn’t about gatekeeping who qualifies to care, but about protecting the vulnerable.
Of course, to prevent any contest over decision-making rights, a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) may be created and registered before incapacitation sets in. Appointing a donee under a lasting power of attorney doesn’t require “family” status. Anyone, including same-sex partners, can appoint one another to manage affairs in the event of mental incapacity. This legal mechanism is already open to all Singaporeans, regardless of sexual orientation.
To demand formal “spouse” recognition here, however, is not a plea for access. It’s an ideological move to smuggle in marital recognition through the back door. The law provides the function. What’s being demanded is the label of family or spouse, which makes this a fight over symbolism, not substance.
Intestacy laws
These laws govern asset distribution when no will is made. Same-sex attracted individuals—like anyone else—can leave their assets to anyone they choose through a will. The only time the law defaults to biological family is when someone chooses not to make that decision.
The real complaint here is not about legal exclusion, but about the default structure of inheritance reflecting heterosexual norms. That’s not discrimination. That’s just society recognising the unique legal and social role of marriage as a procreative union.
3. Employment Discrimination
SOGIE-based Workplace Protections
SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression) is unlike other traits protected by workplace discrimination laws.
SOGIE differs from other protected traits in key ways. Race, age, and disability are objective and observable, not self-declared. Religion, while chosen, is organised around shared doctrines and communal practice. But SOGIE rests on subjective self-identification and internal states. Even within the LGBTQ community, there’s no unifying ethic—only the principle of self-definition.
Allegations of genuine mistreatment should be addressed through clear, impartial due process, not laws that may risk silencing those who disagree with LGBTQ ideology, not out of hate, but out of conviction and conscience.
Civil Service Non-discrimination Policies
The civil service already treats Singaporeans equally regardless of SOGIE.
There is no systemic discrimination in hiring or promotion. What activists want is not equal treatment but institutional endorsement. When the civil service declines to fund same-sex partner benefits, impose pronoun usage, or retrofit bathrooms, they label it discrimination. But disagreement is not oppression.
Refusing to alter policy to accommodate subjective identities is not bigotry. It is just governance grounded in reality and aimed at the common good.
SOGIE protections remain vague and open-ended. They risk enabling compelled speech, special benefits, and arbitrary enforcement. That is not a request for equality. It is cultural dominance through grievance.
4. Housing
Equal Housing Access
Public housing and grants in land-scarce, ageing Singapore are designed to support unions that produce the next generation. Heterosexual unions can naturally do this. Same-sex unions cannot, so they don’t receive the same privileges.
Same-sex couples already have access to public housing through the Joint Singles Scheme. What’s being demanded is not access, but recognition—state endorsement of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage.
Framing this as a lack of “equality” is not only false but also misleading. It’s strategic dishonesty. The goal is to smuggle in the contested idea that LGBTQ pairings count as families in the first place. Under the guise of a call for fairness, it’s in fact a push to rewrite national norms by presuming the equality of the very construct they are supposed to be arguing for.
That push ignores how public policy works. Governments aren’t obliged to treat all private arrangements the same. They regularly draw lines based on reproductive potential, long-term societal goals, and the structure of the family, not to punish, but to prioritise what sustains the nation. That’s not bigotry. That’s basic policymaking.
The rhetoric of “equality” here is a sleight of hand, used to collapse legitimate distinctions and bulldoze consensus without real debate.
Rental Discrimination
Here, PinkDot tries to piggyback on real concerns, (like landlords who post “no Indians” rental ads) to push a very different agenda. But not all exclusions are the same.
Rejecting tenants based on racial prejudice or cultural practice is unjust because it treats them as inherent traits. If a landlord objects to strong cooking smells, they can communicate that directly or even contractually. But using “Indian” as a shorthand is lazy, unfair, and discriminatory.
On the other hand, rejecting a tenant based on private lifestyle choices like swinging, same-sex cohabitation, or gender-ideological demands is not the same. That’s not racial profiling. That’s a moral or practical boundary about how one’s private property is used.
Pink Dot’s move is a bait-and-switch, not a plea for equality. They’re taking a legitimate debate about racism and twisting it into a demand for lifestyle endorsement.
Conclusion
Across all four areas—family, end-of-life decisions, employment, and housing—the pattern is clear. LGBTQ individuals aren’t being excluded from public systems. LGBTQ activists are demanding those systems be rewritten around their ideology.
They want family without marriage, inheritance without legal structure, benefits without the commitments those benefits were built to reward.
That’s not equality. It’s strategic redefinition, wrapped in the language of rights.
In Part 3, we’ll see where this all leads: the push to control culture itself—through media, healthcare, and civil society. Because once the institutions fall, the narrative must follow.
