Jump to content
Happy Birthday Singapore

Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)


groyn88
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/28/2022 at 1:05 PM, Startup said:


 

 CONCERNS REGARDING THE REPEAL OF SECTION 377A
I am a citizen of Singapore who is deeply concerned about the PAP’s plan to REPEAL Section 377A of the
Penal Code in the near future. My concerns are listed below: 1. ENDORSING THE NORMALISATION OF ANAL SEX
 Dear PAP Government,
  LGBT activists have been pushing a narrative to normalise LGBT sexual behaviours.
Anal sex is NOT "healthy" and poses significant health risks for those who engage in it. For starters, Monkeypox is now a "public health emergency of international concern". The outbreak is "concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSMs), especially those with multiple sexual partners" and “98 per cent of infected people were gay or bisexual men.” https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/who-chief- declares-monkeypox-global-health-emergency-2831241
    One study also found “strong new evidence that anal sex itself, although not necessarily ejaculation, is a major source of transmission.” https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/monkeypox- driven-overwhelmingly-sex-men-major-study-finds-rcna39564
As monkeypox spreads through close skin-to-skin contact, there is potential for an outbreak of the virus beyond the currently affected demographic. How long will it be before it reaches a critical mass or if/when the virus mutates will it start spreading rapidly to the heterosexual demography?
Monkeypox aside, MSMs are disproportionately infected with HIV, STDs, anal cancers and other health detriments. While LGBTQ+ persons must be accepted in society, it would be detrimental to Singapore that anal sex be accepted as “normal” or “healthy”. The facts and harms associated with anal sex must be clearly articulated to society, particularly our young in schools.
Take smoking for example. Smokers are accepted in society but the facts and harms associated with smoking are clearly articulated in society. Smoking is discouraged (not normalised) and there are policies in place that restrict smoking. Imagine if our young are taught that smoking is “healthy” and “normal”!
“Homosexual acts... are significantly more injurious to health than smoking...How is it that there can be warning labels on cigarettes... yet no cautionary admonitions regarding homosexual practices?” (Robert Reilly. Making Gay Okay, 2015. Kindle: https://a.co/2lqnaUB)
Section 377A does not discriminate against “people” but against a “conduct” – gross indecency between men, like anal sex. Identity politics are irrelevant to the law. There are “straight men” who regularly have sex with other men. https://dearstraightpeople.com/2016/12/05/confession-i-am-straight-but-i-regularly- have-sex-with-other-men/
The existence of Section 377A, while not enforced as a political compromise, informs society that anal sex is neither normal nor healthy. The Ministry of Health needs to accurately inform the public of the risks involved instead of allowing the myth that it is “just as healthy” a sexual activity to perpetuate.
Repealing Section 377A, at this time, would be irresponsible and sends a signal that the incumbent government is not only not taking steps to curtail the normalisation of anal sex but also endorsing its normalisation to the detriment of the public health of Singapore. I cannot, in good conscience, support such a decision and would seriously question the wisdom of this government.
        
 2. NEGLECTING PUBLIC SENTIMENTS
According to the 2021 IPS survey:
“59.3% of Singaporeans feel that “Homosexuality is never or seldom justifiable.” https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-exchange-series-16.pdf
Repealing Section 377A sends a signal that the incumbent government is not only caving to the pressures and demands of LGBT activism but also neglecting the sentiments of the majority. I cannot, in good conscience, support such a decision and would seriously question the wisdom of this government.
3. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF LGBT ACTIVISM IS REAL
LGBT activists in Singapore have made known their agenda:
** The list below is non-exhaustive given the ever increasing demands of LGBT activists.
     1. Implement Comprehensive Sexuality Education in Singapore Schools
 - Normalise risky LGBTQ+ sexual behaviours and LGBTQ+ ideologies for children
 2. Recognising Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting in Singapore
3. Assisted Reproductive Technology (e.g Sperm Donors and Surrogacy) 4. Permitting “LGBT-Affirming Only” Mental Healthcare & Social Services 5. Ban All Forms of “Conversion Therapy”
 - Defined as any therapy that is “non-LGBT affirming” including prayer.
 6. Government Funded Transgender Surgeries
7. Rectify IMDA Media Codes To Allow LGBTQ+ Content For Children 8. Taxpayer Subsidised Housing For “LGBTQ+ Families”
https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=8486&file=EnglishTranslation https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=8473&file=EnglishTranslation
LGBT activist, Finian Tan, said at the Ready4Repeal Townhall in 2018, “It’s not a slippery slope. It’s a series of steps and at each step, there is a locked gate, which requires the Executive to propose a change and Parliament to approve it before that gate is unlocked. So we are only asking for one - for the FIRST one.”
LGBT activist, Remy Choo, said at PinkDot this year, “If 377A is repealed, it's the beginning of a long road to equality, not the end."
The slippery slope is REAL.
In December 2021, PM Lee said Singapore will face challenges in future looking at the trend in many countries to legalise drugs for recreational use and how things could go "awry" despite best intentions to advocate for a "harm-reduction approach" to drugs. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/future- challenges-drug-control-legalisation-trend-lee-hsien-loong-2363431
In March 2022, Minister Shanmugam stressed that the Death Penalty must stay as the floodgates will open once this deterrence against drug trafficking is gone. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/no- doubts-death-penalty-right-policy-drug-trafficking-shanmugam-2776746
Where drugs are concerned, PM and Min Law recognise the slippery slope reality and have taken a firm position to protect our society from the dangers of that slippery slope.
With regards to thge slippery slope of the LGBT agenda, Singapore will not be spared the widespread consequences to society caused by LGBT activsm that we are now seeing in the west.
         
 Repealing Section 377A will not only lead to a moral and cultural decline, but also a deeply fractured and divided society, as is the state of the United States of America. PM Lee warned in 2007, “Instead of forging a consensus, we will divide and polarise our society.”
UNTIL and UNLESS the PAP government has mounted tangible and adequate safeguards against the slippery slope of the LGBT agenda, repealing Section 377A will lead to a slew of adverse effects on society and future generations. (https://www.everthoughtofthat.com/#S377A)
Repealing Section 377A sends a signal that the incumbent government is not only not concerned about opening the floodgates of LGBTQ+ activism but also not concerned about protecting society (our families and our future generations) from the harmful social impact of LGBTQ+ ideologies. I cannot, in good conscience, support such a decision and would seriously question the wisdom of this government.
Thank you for hearing my concerns above. As a citizen, I have a duty to elect responsible leaders. I see the repeal of Section 377A, at this juncture, as a reckless move and irresponsible governance. This will impact how I will vote at the next elections.
     I strongly urge this government not to buckle to LGBT activism and endanger society by removing the “fence” standing between the floodgates of LGBTQ+ ideologies infiltrating our society and causing harm to our future generations, and tearing apart this nation.
Signatures collated via:
https://tinyurl.com/S377ALetterofConcern
 

 

if you look at the whole post... the letter is full of this anti gay hate junk that you read everywhere.

 

All the buzzwords...

Anal Sex

attack to marriage

Slippery slope...

LGBT activism.

 

Just wonder whether the author of this letter is the same as that Counselor of HCI. 

 

I can see all the intestinal worms in his brain.... 😂

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 11:19 PM, Guest Ming said:

Imagine if someone’s daughter married a man who loves only men and was merely forced by his parents to marry a girl, how much damage to both families

Huh? So heterosexual marriage should be banned too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange the letter starts with monkeypox as indicator to have a ban on anal dex. Should a vaccine be found later, then how?

 

Also, about how giving in to LGBT activism tears the nation. Yo, what about an honour to our Pledge that we should stay as one united people..based on equality?

 

If you want to convert your child to heterosexuality, use logic not law.

Edited by auscent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 7/23/2022 at 8:57 PM, Guest Guest said:

https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmustsharenews.com%2Fprotect-377a-townhall%2F&h=AT3JXSrZGfyfB-adLCBafdmdKbabMZHWn13MGUkYH9ai305FYUgi2_Def0Sk8AftG6iJ9TKZdso0B2qXZ65OL5OVoh7rHamQMXZxUKt_6kux40WqPm-elm79dO3c0DdVVKSTA_LxYzuVW7sz12C8VA

 

Protect 377A Townhall Attracts Over 1,200 Attendees Who Want Govt To Preserve Traditional Marriages

 

Protect 377A Townhall Attracts Over 1,200 Attendees From All Walks Of Life

 

Just like the death penalty which has been garnering significant controversy, Section 377A of Singapore’s penal code is a polarising subject that divides many Singaporeans.

 

Though there are many who wish for its repeal, there are also those calling to preserve it.

 

Recently, some 1,200 individuals from the latter camp gathered for a ‘Protect Singapore Townhall’ in support of the preservation of 377A.

 

Dubbing members of the other camp as an “intolerant, vocal minority”, the organisers said they will no longer be silent.

 

Protect 377A townhall featured ex-LGBT members

 

On Saturday (22 Jul) afternoon, Mr Mohamed Khair and Mr Jason Wong – presumably the organisers of the event – took to Facebook to acknowledge the 1,200 Singaporeans who attended the event, which took place at an undisclosed location and date.

 

The crowd apparently comprised people from all walks of life, who gathered for the same agenda — to protect family, marriage, their freedom of conscience, and their children.

 

The pair shared that folks in favour of Section 377A have been “relatively restrained” by opposers whom they described as,

 

An intolerant, vocal minority that seeks to overturn the order in all areas of society.

 

Rather than engaging supporters “with good faith”, they claimed that those against 377A have been referring to them as “bigots” or “haters”.

 

Said they will no longer remain silent

 

Declaring that they “will be silent no more”, 377A supporters demonstrated their strength in numbers at the townhall.

 

They made their intentions clear, which is for the Government to maintain the status quo. To them, in order to do that, Section 377A must remain.

 

They did, however, mention a condition that could make its repeal possible, which is when:

 

[T]here are adequate safeguards for our marriages, families and freedom of conscience. This includes enshrining man-woman marriage in the constitution.

 

Mr Khair and Mr Wong expressed their happiness with the large turnout, which they said included over a dozen former members of the local LGBT community. These individuals apparently shared their experiences during the event.

 

Originally on an invite-only basis, the pair claimed that the event had an overwhelming response. Hundreds of people ended up on a waitlist and Eventbrite even allegedly removed their listing five days prior.

 

Calling on fellow Singaporeans to join their cause, Mr Wong and Mr Khair said that keen parties can contact them at protectsingaporetownhall@gmail.com.

 

Let’s engage in cordial discussions

 

Section 377A of our constitution will likely remain a touchy subject for the near future.

 

While it’s only natural for us to hold different views, it’s important not to let such issues divide our society. Rather than be at loggerheads with each other, we should have cordial discussions so we can arrive at a consensus.

 

Let’s hope that more constructive developments regarding this matter will emerge as time passes.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just explain why does it bother people IF a same sex person decide to marry each other? WHY DOES IT BOTHER THESE PEOPLE? I hope all these people will have gay children someday in order to learn what empathy, inclusivity, compassion, and equality is. And for the "former LGBTIQ" people? I hope you stop kidding yourself and wank to gay porn secretly in the bathroom!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don’t understand those so-called religious people! 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️
 

It is not as if LGBT are robbing from them or doing any harm to them. LGBT are just minding their own business including loving another of the same sex. 👬🧑‍🤝‍🧑 They DIE DIE want the government to criminalise LGBT!

 

So if 2 LGBT fell in love🥰🥰 and as a result got criminalised or punished, will those so-called religious people be very happy already? Rejoicing because somebody get punished for loving another? Will say Amen etc?? Only when people are force to a dead end 无路可走, then they will all be happy issit??🤮🤮🤮

 

What type of religion are those so-called religious people involving in??? Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Son of God
On 7/29/2022 at 10:00 AM, Zinc said:

I just don’t understand those so-called religious people! 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️
 

It is not as if LGBT are robbing from them or doing any harm to them. LGBT are just minding their own business including loving another of the same sex. 👬🧑‍🤝‍🧑 They DIE DIE want the government to criminalise LGBT!

 

So if 2 LGBT fell in love🥰🥰 and as a result got criminalised or punished, will those so-called religious people be very happy already? Rejoicing because somebody get punished for loving another? Will say Amen etc?? Only when people are force to a dead end 无路可走, then they will all be happy issit??🤮🤮🤮

 

What type of religion are those so-called religious people involving in??? Wow!

You might be startled to learn that some LGBT persons are more familiar with Jesus than are Christians. Because of this, the majority of those who are anti-LGBT are phony, deranged Christians who use the cover of religion to incite hatred and war against those they perceive as intelligent rivals and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Woo

We will be silent no more too! who say the child from both dad / or both mum, or single dad or single mum is not a family ?  U all who insist family must be only by 1 m /1 f really don’t deserve any respect seriously!  Basic human being respect and understanding hello . whoever organized this event I despise u .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ian

I don’t know much but this is what I think. 

 

As if lgbtq community actually doing anything to jeopardise marriage or families. Hell, some are actually trying to start their own families or marry as well, why they wanna jeopardise the order of the very thing they want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to Singapore's LGBTQ & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)
Guest Prophet

After 377A is repealed, straight guys would suddenly want to find out how cock tastes like, just as gays would suddenly try vag. Married couples would file for divorce and go for same-sex. This phenomenon only happens here, cos nowhere else are the people as stupid, lost or misguided. Blessedly a group of very wise men came forward to save this country with a Protect Singapore Townhall. Hallelujah!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 2:42 AM, Guest Prophet said:

After 377A is repealed, straight guys would suddenly want to find out how cock tastes like, just as gays would suddenly try vag. Married couples would file for divorce and go for same-sex. This phenomenon only happens here, cos nowhere else are the people as stupid, lost or misguided. Blessedly a group of very wise men came forward to save this country with a Protect Singapore Townhall. Hallelujah!!!

Well. .. the people here have been voting for PAP for the longest time  so they can't be that smart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2022 at 2:33 PM, singalion said:

 

LGBT groups clap back at townhall held against repealing Section 377A

The LGBT community has expressed their dismay over a recent private town hall meeting held to voice and organize opposition against the repeal of Singapore’s gay sex law. 

 

Coconuts, 26 July 2022

 

The three-hour meeting, which was attended by at least 1,200, mostly middle-aged Singaporeans, was held at the Singapore Expo convention center on Saturday. 

The meeting’s speakers argued that retaining Section 377A of Singapore’s penal code, which criminalizes sexual relations between men, was necessary to protect families, the institution of marriage, children and freedom. 

 

LGBT advocacy group Pink Dot SG today condemned the townhall and its organizers, saying they were impeding Singapore from becoming a progressive nation and arguing that repealing 377a would not affect the rights of those outside the LGBT community.

 

“It is not right for a group to hold the whole country hostage on social progress, especially when the concessions that they are demanding in return for acceptance of repeal will disadvantage a group that they do not represent,” Pink Dot SG spokesperson Clement Tan said in a statement.

 

The Protect Singapore Townhall – Safeguarding Our Future event was organized by Jason Wong, founder of the Dads for Life movement and the Yellow Ribbon Project, and Mohamed Khair, the CEO of training and development company SuChi Success Initiatives. 

 

Wong, Khair, current and former members of the LGBT community and other unidentified speakers reportedly spoke during the event.

In a Facebook message posted on Saturday, Wong said their hearts were “full” seeing the “oversubscribed” turnout to the townhall, with hundreds on the waitlist. He called supporters of repealing Section 377A “intolerant” and said he decided to because he believes repealing the law will damage the nation’s values and younger generations.

“Youths, parents, educators, workers, and more decided that it was #timetoactSG to protect family, marriage, our freedom of conscience, and most importantly our children, who are at the heart of these social institutions,” Wong wrote.

 

The law can be repealed when the government introduces safeguards to “marriages, families, and freedom of conscience,” including protecting heterosexual marriages, Wong added.

 

Pamphlets passed around during the event said LGBT groups are pushing for “many changes to law, policy and society” like approving same-sex marriages and housing policies.

 

They also said that children should be protected from LGBT beliefs and shouldn’t be discriminated against for not accepting them.

 

Another LGBT group, Oogachaga, today said they were more worried about harassment their community might face because of the event. They said they have already been getting hate calls and emails from the public.

 

“When we advocate for the repeal of 377A, we do so because we know about the very real impact it has on individuals, couples and families in Singapore’s LGBTQ community,” Oogachaga’s executive director Leow Yangfa said.

 

The Ministry of Home Affairs yesterday said the police had received reports on the gathering but concluded that they didn’t break any laws since it was privately held and everyone is “entitled to their views.”

 

The ministry also said the event’s organizers had applied for a police permit, which wasn’t required.

 

Although the government has stated that they would no longer prosecute individuals under Section 377A, they have refused to repeal it as a form of compromise with the country’s conservative values. 

 

Advocates for repealing the law say that its continued existence provides a green light to society that discrimination against the LGBT community and individuals is still acceptable.

 

I just had an interesting thought ... Repealing 377A / allowing gay marriage may suddenly seem like a godsend to these town hall idiots if the government decided to promote polygamy instead. Now that (polygamy) would be a real threat to current mainstream values and family ties. But it could also solve the population growth problem 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Chee Bye

These bigots thought gay people are pandemic, can spread and turn straight people into Gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 2:42 AM, Guest Prophet said:

After 377A is repealed, straight guys would suddenly want to find out how cock tastes like, just as gays would suddenly try vag. Married couples would file for divorce and go for same-sex. This phenomenon only happens here, cos nowhere else are the people as stupid, lost or misguided. Blessedly a group of very wise men came forward to save this country with a Protect Singapore Townhall. Hallelujah!!!

 

93% of straight males don't get aroused by thinking of homosexual sex or dicks.

 

Homosexuality is not interchangeable.

=> 93 % of straight guys are not inclined to taste any cock.

 

Your idea is quite hypothetical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 5:27 PM, Sizzler said:

I just had an interesting thought ... Repealing 377A / allowing gay marriage may suddenly seem like a godsend to these town hall idiots if the government decided to promote polygamy instead. Now that (polygamy) would be a real threat to current mainstream values and family ties. But it could also solve the population growth problem 

 

In my personal opinion it is futile in trying to argue with these townhall guys.

They have their preconceived ideas and nobody will convince them at all. Not one inch.

 

Their motives might be different, the background why they reject gays also.

 

I assume it is wasted energy to trying to convince them of anything different.

 

Their arguments are very weak also. Not worth to spend any thought.

 

I don't think the Ministers or MP's would find their arguments persuasive.

 

If the Government doesn't interfere into consensual straight sex, whether anal, vaginal, oral or otherwise, why should they into homosexual consensual sex?

 

Do gays really pose any danger to society?

I doubt so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-government-looking-how-safeguard-legal-position-marriage-k-shanmugam-2846946

 

But the minister stressed that authorities “will step in if there is any incitement and attacks or running down of any groups by either side".

This is rubbish of cos. Try saying the same thing about religionists what they said about us daily. They have laws protecting them, we have laws doing the opposite.

 

“These matters really ought to be discussed in Parliament, and decided in Parliament, and not decided in the courts.”

How to decide? Will there be a vote? Will the ruling party MPs toe the line, no doubt under great pressure from their "concerned" constituents?

A national referendum?

What about the opposition's view? WP is not known as PAP Lite for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

I have a feeling 377A will be abolished very soon, probably to be announced during this national day rally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Garbage Motherthood
On 7/30/2022 at 7:31 PM, StockBottom said:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/377a-government-looking-how-safeguard-legal-position-marriage-k-shanmugam-2846946

 

But the minister stressed that authorities “will step in if there is any incitement and attacks or running down of any groups by either side".

 

The need to put words onto paper to show sincerity.  Otherwise mere talking is pure RUBBISH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bernard

So all those who are against repealing Section 377A, are they scared they will become LGBTQ once Section 377A is repealed? 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • G_M changed the title to Singapore's LGBTQ News & Section 377A Discussion (compiled)

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/lgbtq-section-377a-oogachaga-pink-dot-marriage-womens-charter-church-2849591

 

LGBTQ community unlikely to 'seek same-sex marriage or to redefine families', should 377A be repealed

 

Firstly, who represents the LGBT community? Did we vote for a representative? Did we decide on what to seek or not seek?

 

Secondly, for those so inclined, it's important to have legal recognition or protection, esp with respect to partnership, housing, finance, inheritance, children, life and death issues, ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from that article:

 

While APCCS agreed that LGBTQ individuals should be able to live their lives free from the fear of harassment, it also said that it supports the retaining of Section 377A "until and unless sufficient safeguards and policies are in place across all affected ministries”.

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore also said on Sunday that its concern is for marriage to remain between a man and woman, should 377A be repealed.

"The fruitfulness of marriage also necessitates that marriage must be open to procreation," it said.

The Archdiocese said it supports the Government’s clear articulation of its position on marriage, and is assured that Singapore is looking at safeguarding the current position of the law.

 

 

 

Not sure what this talk about marriage and 377A is about?

 

The real reason for having 377A was to enable / foster straight marriage and procreation?

 

What does the discriminalisation of male homosexuality has to do with marriage?

 

The amount of gays and gay sex does not prevent straight people to marry?

 

Does decriminalised male gay sex diminish h the procreation of married straight couples in Singapore?

Is homosexuality a threat to straight marriage and straights procreating?

 

Is there any legal link that decriminalising gay sex would impact marriage or would result in a right for gays to seek "gay" marriage also?

 

Further, how does the gay marriage impact straights to marry?

Would 100 male to male marriages affect straight couples to marry? Would they reduce the amount of straight marriages?

 

Can someone tell me what this is all about?

 

I am a bit lost with that reasoning?

Since when was 377A the bulwark against procreation and straight marriages???

 

Is it some face saving measure by the Government to sell the repeal of 377A?

 

 

Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said. Whose definition of marriage should we enshrine in the constitution?

1 man 1 woman? 1 man 4 women? 1 man 1 wife and many 妾? 1 woman many men (polyandry)?

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-religious-beliefs-should-not-dictate-laws-relating-to-lgbtq-matters

 

Forum: Religious beliefs should not dictate laws relating to LGBTQ matters

Published

11 Hours Ago

The Catholic Church in Singapore has reiterated its position on marriage and called upon the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community to respect the Church's rights to do so (Catholic Church reiterates stance on marriage, says it respects dignity of LGBTQ community, Aug 1).

I have no doubt that the majority of the LGBTQ community and its allies do not take issue with religious groups maintaining and preaching their beliefs within their religious circles.

Where the disagreement lies is in whether religious groups should be allowed to dictate the laws in a secular state.

For instance, the Catholic Church has expressed its concern for marriage between a man and a woman to be safeguarded, and has called for this position to perhaps be enshrined in the Constitution.

But whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed legally in Singapore has no logical bearing on whether the Church is allowed to maintain its religious position on marriage, given the separation of state and religion in Singapore.

Even if the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman were revised, it would not stop any religious group from refusing to recognise same-sex marriage within their religious institution.

They would also remain free to preach their beliefs about marriage to their believers and discourage same-sex marriage within their religious circle.

Just as the Church asks for the LGBTQ community to respect its religious stance, it should also respect the boundaries in a secular state and not try to impose its beliefs on non-believers.

Leslie Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

V true.

 

These busy bodied groups should just impose these rules to their own followers. 

鍾意就好,理佢男定女

 

never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want.

 

结缘不结

不解缘

 

After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say.

 

看穿不说穿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gahmen fault not religion

Sorry to say but this is caused by government. 

 

Do you guys remember those few gays who challenged this 377A in court? 

 

Court basically said something like court can only interpret the law and enforce it. They can't change the law or something... 

 

Need the parliament. 

 

So parliament feels like wanna test water what if they repeal. So they scared. 

 

So they ask the religious groups... Cause the biggest objection are from religious group. 

 

So if gahmen send letter etc to religious leader. The religious leader send that message to their believers and all suddenly wanna protect family la, protect children. 

 

All this knee jerk reaction is due to the gahmen hinting to them and getting input. 

 

Then ofc the religious group will give their feedback based on their belief... So the religious group is not wrong. 

 

As to why Christian Point of view is the loudest. That one dunno la. Buddhist say what? Muslim say what? Tamil say what? 

 

Probably their religious leader just feedback based on their belief and didn't initiate their crazed believers. 

 

They wanna protect cause they felt attacked! 

 

Again gahmen fault. 

 

If wanna be truly secular. Let the citizen vote on this matter. Call a vote and let the majority decide. 

 

But alas if only everything is settled by democracy then everyone will vote no ERP. No coe. 

 

So again. Its all gahmen fault la. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest We gay are nothing
On 8/4/2022 at 12:16 PM, StockBottom said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mha-reminds-foreign-businesses-in-spore-to-be-careful-about-advocacy-of-divisive-issues-like-lgbt

 

MHA reminds foreign businesses in S'pore to be careful about advocacy of divisive issues like LGBT

 

Yet a reglious group aimed at socially dividing LGBTQIA in a townhall is not breaking law. 

 

Talk about lgbt = dangerous. 

Talk about protecting families, children from lgbt = not breaking any law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I disagree that the separation of state and religion in Singapore means religious groups do not have the right to impose their beliefs on non-believers"

 

Wow, just wow 😠

 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-common-ground-between-religious-moral-values-and-secularism-amid-lgbtq-matters

 

Forum: Common ground between religious moral values and secularism amid LGBTQ matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Christian are not moral
On 8/5/2022 at 12:09 PM, StockBottom said:

"I disagree that the separation of state and religion in Singapore means religious groups do not have the right to impose their beliefs on non-believers"

 

Wow, just wow 😠

 

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-common-ground-between-religious-moral-values-and-secularism-amid-lgbtq-matters

 

Forum: Common ground between religious moral values and secularism amid LGBTQ matters

 

Then we impose our gay religion on them? 

 

Christian are one kind one. 

I have a colleague, always talked about his church. He play guitar la. This church session. That la. 

 

But he's also the kind that have no morale values. 

Always late. 

Always have excuses at work. 

Always lie about being sick. Then still not recover yet mc again. 

Always lie that he's working on the report but haven't even started. 

 

He called it "managed expectation". 

I call it no morales la. 

 

Funny how you cant tell someone is a Christian other than that they find gay sex is a sin. 

 

How many of your colleagues you see and can guess who is Christian?

 

Look at the city harvest Church. Very moral meh? 

 

Just because they are religious doesn't mean they dictate the law. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2022 at 2:00 PM, StockBottom said:

Well said. Whose definition of marriage should we enshrine in the constitution?

1 man 1 woman? 1 man 4 women? 1 man 1 wife and many 妾? 1 woman many men (polyandry)?

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-religious-beliefs-should-not-dictate-laws-relating-to-lgbtq-matters

 

Forum: Religious beliefs should not dictate laws relating to LGBTQ matters

Published

11 Hours Ago

The Catholic Church in Singapore has reiterated its position on marriage and called upon the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community to respect the Church's rights to do so (Catholic Church reiterates stance on marriage, says it respects dignity of LGBTQ community, Aug 1).

I have no doubt that the majority of the LGBTQ community and its allies do not take issue with religious groups maintaining and preaching their beliefs within their religious circles.

Where the disagreement lies is in whether religious groups should be allowed to dictate the laws in a secular state.

For instance, the Catholic Church has expressed its concern for marriage between a man and a woman to be safeguarded, and has called for this position to perhaps be enshrined in the Constitution.

But whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed legally in Singapore has no logical bearing on whether the Church is allowed to maintain its religious position on marriage, given the separation of state and religion in Singapore.

Even if the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman were revised, it would not stop any religious group from refusing to recognise same-sex marriage within their religious institution.

They would also remain free to preach their beliefs about marriage to their believers and discourage same-sex marriage within their religious circle.

Just as the Church asks for the LGBTQ community to respect its religious stance, it should also respect the boundaries in a secular state and not try to impose its beliefs on non-believers.

Leslie Lee

 

I don't think it is forward looking to create laws that might be outdated in 5 - 10 years.

 

To limit the marriage in Singapore on these terms seems not any good move.

 

The society make up will change, the younger people have less issues with two men or two women marrying.

 

My main argument is:

 

Do the 0.05% of homosexuals that marry seriously endanger the society?

Is it worth to focus on this?

 

Also Singapore might look very outdated against other parts of Asia if these countries shift their stance on homosexual marriages. What then?

Want to be in the same club as Brunei???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 12:09 PM, StockBottom said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-common-ground-between-religious-moral-values-and-secularism-amid-lgbtq-matters

 

Forum: Common ground between religious moral values and secularism amid LGBTQ matters

 

Oh my ...

 

https://www.proquest.com/openview/982294e7862895a67ea251bb596affcb

Equipping Christians in Singapore with Natural Law to Engage LGBT Issues Effectively in Singapore’s Secular Culture

Lai, Jervin Lim Teng. 

Biola University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,  2021. 28867993.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 1:01 PM, StockBottom said:

 

Oh my ...

 

https://www.proquest.com/openview/982294e7862895a67ea251bb596affcb

Equipping Christians in Singapore with Natural Law to Engage LGBT Issues Effectively in Singapore’s Secular Culture

Lai, Jervin Lim Teng. 

Biola University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing,  2021. 28867993.

 

Are you doing a research paper or PH.D on this issue?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forum: Common ground between religious moral values and secularism amid LGBTQ matters

 
Published  5 Aug 2022, 2:00 am SGT

 

I disagree that the separation of state and religion in Singapore means religious groups do not have the right to impose their beliefs on non-believers (Religious beliefs should not dictate laws relating to LGBTQ matters, Aug 3).

In Singapore, a secular state, contentious moral issues such as Section 377A are best communicated not on the platforms of religious language but on secular ones. Nevertheless, this does not mean the non-influence of religious values.

 

In 1991, the Government formalised the five shared values of Singapore, part of which concerned morality and religion.

It was stated that the Government recognised that "religion is for many Singaporeans the source of their sense of morality... (and) religious faith is a constructive social force".

The separation of state and religion does not imply the separation of the state and religious moral values. This separation is impossible in Singapore's context.

 

There is a common ground between religious moral values and secularism, which is natural law. Natural law provides a common ground for the secular society and the religious community to discuss ethical issues based on the belief that there is an objective, universal human ethic.

 
 

That is why humanity shares common moral values such as "do not kill our fellow person", and different states share common laws that protect society.

 

Deep inside most of us, we know marriage is formed when two heterosexual persons commit to one another to build a family, whether one is a believer in a religion or not. This objective understanding reflects the existence of natural law.

The Catholic Church calls for the Government to protect traditional marriage if it were to repeal Section 377A because natural law is the foundation of religious moral values which promote traditional marriage. A non-believer can share that value without becoming a believer.

Jervin Lim Teng Lai

 

----------------------

 

My comment on the above "opinion". I wonder that the Straits Times took no effort to point to the falsehoods in above Forum letter.

 

From the historical context the above opinion is false.

 

The marriage was a non religious act at the beginning as evidenced through the Code Ur-Nammu (2100 BC)  and the Hammurabi Bills.

 

In that sense the marriage was always a secular act and still is.

It was distinct from religion.

 

While in Singapore, you can marry by religious means, you still need to register your marriage in a civil secular run registry that is governed by secular regulations and has nothing to do with religion.

 

I suggest to the opinion writer in the Straits Times to do a historical research first instead of posting false backgrounds.

 

The first known "European" monogamous marriage was in fact recorded by Tacitus when he discussed the norms of the Germanic people. Initially, with the Germanic there was up to 3 parties involved in a marriage, but it shifted to a monogamous marriage.

 

Also the opinion writer requires some more historic education as the Hawaiian people knew a marriage between different woman and men, meaning that two men were able to marry one woman or more or two women married one man or more.... while partner sharing was free.

 

Definition of punalua

1 : a group marriage formerly practiced in Hawaii in which a group of brothers is married to a group of sisters or in which the husbands are of the same kinship group and the wives are members of another kinship group not restricted to those of the opposite gender
2 : the two or more husbands of a wife or the two or more wives of a husband in such a group marriage
3 : the relationship of the persons in such a form of marriage
 
 
What you can see is that moral values in the past had been different, and there is no way to say that religious morals built marriage. What we take from the history is also, that at the beginnings marriage was a secular act, distinct from religion.
 
Humanity shared a lot of values, plenty of them would not be much liked by certain religions.
 
Let's keep religion and state clearly separated.
 
Religion should not infringe into secular rules and the priority should always be for secular acts.
If Singapore started to permit religions to infringe into the secular rules, then it would be near to impossible to reconcile the moral values of all different religions.
 
 
 
Edited by singalion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-concern-about-childrens-well-being-is-reason-for-advocacy

 

Forum: Concern about children's well-being is reason for advocacy

Published

6 Aug 2022, 2:00 am SGT

I note with concern the misleading points presented in the article, "Section 377A: Putting children first" (Aug 3).

Based on available research evidence, and in my experience as the pastor of an inclusive church that welcomes people from all walks of life, I find that the article mischaracterises the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community.

The LGBTQ community has been advocating public awareness and acceptance. Our concern about the well-being of vulnerable LGBTQ young people and children is one of the reasons we seek to promote awareness and acceptance of individuals who are different, in the hope of destigmatisation, leading to happier outcomes for our community.

Today, many such LGBTQ children are bullied and ostracised and may become suicidal because they, and those who bully them, are told that being who they are is immoral.

Nobody is encouraging children to be "sexually experimental since all sexual behaviours are equal". This is different from supporting people to celebrate who they are, which is to be encouraged as a form of affirmation to promote positive self-esteem and identity.

The authors mentioned that young children are taught that "gender confusion is not just normal but should be celebrated and accompanied by irreversible treatment from a very young age". The correct term is gender dysphoria. Transgender young people do not undergo any "irreversible treatment" until their mid-teens or later. This happens only after extensive assessments and decisions made by healthcare professionals working closely with the family.

I know many transgender young people who struggle badly with gender dysphoria. Transition is life-saving for them.

When it comes to parenting, it is often significant but poorly supported life changes, such as divorce and remarriage, that can have a negative impact on children, not the gender of parents and step-parents.

Out of 79 scholarly studies identified by Cornell University, 75 studies have found no significant difference in outcomes between children raised by opposite-sex versus same-sex parents, and that a stable and loving family environment, not parental gender, is a strong predictor for positive child well-being.

I acknowledge that disagreeing with ideas is not discrimination. However, advocating legislation that denies equality is. For that reason, I hope Section 377A of the Penal Code will be repealed.

Miak Siew Meng Ee (Reverend)

Pastor, Free Community Church

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/forum/forum-repeal-section-377a-then-discuss-issues-separately

 

Forum: Repeal Section 377A, then discuss issues separately

Published

6 Aug 2022, 2:00 am SGT

In their commentary, "Section 377A: Putting children first" (Aug 3), the authors have conflated different issues in arguing for the protection of children.

First, criminalising homosexual sex does nothing to protect children. Some sexual acts are riskier regardless of whether they are practised by homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Moreover, sodomy between consenting heterosexuals was decriminalised in 2007 in Singapore. The key is then to educate people to practise safe sex regardless of sexual orientation.

Second, transgenderism is separate from homosexuality. Sexual dysphoria is a medical condition that should be diagnosed by trained professionals, and children should not be allowed to undergo sexual change until their brains are fully developed as adults. We can all agree on this while disagreeing on other issues.

Third, outside of religion, marriage is merely a legal contract that confers rights such as inheritance as well as division of assets during a divorce. Gay couples can have legal civil partnerships without threatening the status of religious marriages.

Finally, there is no doubt that in a perfect world, we would all live in happy, stable families with our biological fathers and mothers.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Abandoned children need stable, loving adults who can adopt them, regardless of sexual orientation.

In Singapore, single women can adopt children, and this recognises that there should be no stigma to single motherhood. Gay adoption should be considered within this framework.

As it stands, Section 377A is an archaic colonial-era law. It is not enforced and should be repealed. Other separate issues can then be discussed by a mature electorate. This is much better than demanding that one's viewpoint be set in stone in the Constitution.

Calvin Cheng Ern Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
counter