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

[lonelyglobe]

On 6/30/2022 at 3:58 PM, Spugnatura said:

Political manipulation of law!

Nothing new,  if elected can became selected,  what else cant be changed?

[sgmaven]

While some are quick to lay blame on the older generation and their conservative values, it is in fact the religious conservatives who oppose the repeal of 377A. Like some have stated, I doubt many of the older people know about 377A or care about its existence.

 

However, there is quite a vocal minority amongst younger religious types who are "brainwashed" by their religious doctrines into believing that they should fight for laws based on their religious principles. So much for the separation of "church" and state. "Church", because I may as well say religious organisation, since this phenomenon is not restricted to the churches.

 

While the minister and government always run to the position that says that the general population is not ready for the repeal of 377A, I doubt that it really reflects the thinking of society as a whole. The minister also forgets that a good majority are actually rather apathetic with regards to the laws of the land. They are much more concerned about getting on with life, and will be happy as long as laws don't get in the way of that. That is why so many are adept at "doing things as long as they don't get caught"...

[Spugnatura]

On 7/1/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sizzler said:

He said a lot but in actual fact, he said nothing

All sizzle and no steak!

[Spugnatura]

On 7/1/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sizzler said:

He said a lot but in actual fact, he said nothing

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

[singalion]

On 6/30/2022 at 9:12 PM, auscent said:

Some of the BBC interviewer's questions revealed lack of depth/ preparation.

 

He could have asked if certain policies might change faster in line with The Pledge "...pledge ourselves as 1 united people...".

 

How would a BBC reporter from the UK know about "the Singapore pledge"?

 

The foreign reporters only ask about 377 because it bumps up every year in the Human Rights report from the UN Human rights commission...

 

[sgmaven]

We all know that the government keeping 377A in the Statutes, but confirming that they will not prosecute based on it, is a contradiction in itself. If they are not willing to prosecute based on the Statute, then what is the point of keeping it?

 

If there were a referendum on whether 377A should be kept on the Statute books today, and if voting were not compulsory, I bet that hardly anyone would be bothered to vote. The only voters would be those who support LGBTQ+ rights, and those right-wing conservatives who have been rallied by their respective religious groups... The government will not call for a referendum, because either way, they face alienating a significant portion of voters. So, they prefer to keep the status quo.

 

To the majority of apathetic Singaporean voters, they would not vote since the issue does not impact them.

[singalion]

On 6/30/2022 at 6:38 PM, Spugnatura said:

If Buddhism is the dominant religion in England, 98% of our MPs will have been Buddhists.

 

It's herd mentality and the western educated, connected and affluent connotations of Christianity that compelled them to be Christians.

 

On 6/30/2022 at 3:58 PM, Spugnatura said:

More likely it is christian cabinet ministers who want the law retained to preserve the status quo for Christian members of their wards.

 

Political manipulation of law!

 

On 6/30/2022 at 6:19 PM, Spugnatura said:

I thought the percentage of Christian MP is more than 90%?

 

You maybe have an issue with Christianity, however would you have not learned anything from the Religious and Racial Harmony Act.

 

Further, Ireland's MPs are 99% Christian, the French MP's probably 80%, the German MP's 95% Christian... etc etc. 

 

All those did not have any issue to decriminalise gay sex... in the past.

 

I think you assume too much that there is a Masonic rite that prevents MP's or Cabinet ministers from repealing 377A. 

 

You should not permit some lonely religious souls from this evangelical fringe Christian community to be taken more important than they are.

 

Just pointing fingers on one religion seems not right in my view.

 

 

Singapore should act as a secular state (same as issues in the US,) it is the Singapore constitution that governs the country and not the bible...

 

 

In my view, the MP's would do better in placing those religious opponents into their section and prevent them from infringing into the secular space.

 

 

 

 

 

[singalion]

I personally see the main obstacle in the current PM...

Probably, he doesn't want to be remembered as the PM that repealed 377A...

 

 

After India had taken down the 377A, there is not much left for Singapore to object and do the same.

[singalion]

On 7/1/2022 at 2:43 PM, Spugnatura said:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Yes, there might be a lot of pain on the issue... you should focus more on the pain relief...

 

 

[singalion]

On 7/1/2022 at 12:32 PM, sgmaven said:

While some are quick to lay blame on the older generation and their conservative values, it is in fact the religious conservatives who oppose the repeal of 377A. Like some have stated, I doubt many of the older people know about 377A or care about its existence.

 

However, there is quite a vocal minority amongst younger religious types who are "brainwashed" by their religious doctrines into believing that they should fight for laws based on their religious principles. So much for the separation of "church" and state. "Church", because I may as well say religious organisation, since this phenomenon is not restricted to the churches.

 

While the minister and government always run to the position that says that the general population is not ready for the repeal of 377A, I doubt that it really reflects the thinking of society as a whole. The minister also forgets that a good majority are actually rather apathetic with regards to the laws of the land. They are much more concerned about getting on with life, and will be happy as long as laws don't get in the way of that. That is why so many are adept at "doing things as long as they don't get caught"...

 

After the Government actually looked into the funding of the Pink Dot, they might want to look into the funding of certain religious congregations also.

 

The US has two very prominent religious organisations (Alliance Defending Freedom and the Family Research Council as an example) that fund many anti gay policies and sponsor court actions.

 

If Pink Dot cannot receive "foreign" funding, it is would be fair to restrict these churches also.

 

[singalion]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:07 PM, sgmaven said:

We all know that the government keeping 377A in the Statutes, but confirming that they will not prosecute based on it, is a contradiction in itself. If they are not willing to prosecute based on the Statute, then what is the point of keeping it?

 

If there were a referendum on whether 377A should be kept on the Statute books today, and if voting were not compulsory, I bet that hardly anyone would be bothered to vote. The only voters would be those who support LGBTQ+ rights, and those right-wing conservatives who have been rallied by their respective religious groups... The government will not call for a referendum, because either way, they face alienating a significant portion of voters. So, they prefer to keep the status quo.

 

To the majority of apathetic Singaporean voters, they would not vote since the issue does not impact them.

 

The danger is that the opponents come with all the nasty propaganda equating homosexuality with pedophilia, school education, protection of mi-nors and who knows what to make a point with the common men.

 

Referendums don't work with such topics.

 

It is similar to ask people if you want the death penalty for rapists.

 

Also be remembered that certain "barriers" will fall if 377A is gone (take censorship, gay actors, gay roles in TV soap operas, gay associations being registered and and and, ... how do you justify such restrictions if the 377A is gone?

 

I also see the above post about "gay marriage" (Guest Get real) as posted by someone anti gay and to torpedo the cause.

 

We should make clear that our goal is the repeal of 377A and nothing other.

Don't bring other topics into the issue as this will just endanger the main cause.

 

 

 

 

[Spugnatura]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:46 PM, Sizzler said:

U need to pay for steak .. in your case, I'll make sure it's laced with poison

Oh dear! I was talking about Shamugam, not you.

[Why?]

On 7/1/2022 at 11:31 AM, Sizzler said:

He said a lot but in actual fact, he said nothing

He possibly even doubts his own assertions after talking so much. 

[sgmaven]

On 7/1/2022 at 6:52 PM, Why? said:

He possibly even doubts his own assertions after talking so much. 

Then again, they don't want to risk alienating any voters who might then vote for another party during the next elections. So, they just keep the status quo, say a lot of "big words" without meaning a thing...

[Steve5380]

On 7/1/2022 at 1:43 AM, Spugnatura said:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. In voluptatibus neque dolorum ducimus est debitis dolores ab aliquid quod vel voluptatum minus. Non aperiam accusantium eos enim voluptatem non laudantium ipsum quo itaque culpa. Id galisum porro in iure voluptates eum nemo odit sit deleniti nulla et internos eveniet qui iusto officia.

Ex aliquam illum est totam totam et Quis numquam. Id magnam exercitationem in necessitatibus odio ex dicta nulla ad ipsum impedit qui quibusdam ipsa ad laboriosam officiis! Est harum galisum in tempora dicta eos odit omnis ut sapiente expedita.

Rem praesentium optio hic doloremque galisum qui sint maiores non laborum itaque in Quis illum qui tempore sint ut nihil doloremque. Qui soluta dolore est officia laborum qui voluptas commodi sed eius quasi a quia adipisci.

 

Yes, your minister is well educated in "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet"  (pure nonsense from a dummy text generator).  What he blabbered is nothing but hot air.

[Steve5380]

From a post by @Spugnatura the other days,  now deleted,  I learned about this religious organization in Singapore,  a "church"? named TrueLove.

 

Since I propose and encourage true love,  I did some investigation into the activities of this church.   It seems that this organization appeals to homosexuals and encourage them to come out,  to emerge from the shadows,  so that in its True Love the organization can educate them about the will of their God that they give up all sex that is homophobic.  They do this out of pure love and empathy for the poor gays who are victims of their horrible same-sex attractions.  Once they renounce to all same-sex acts, gays should be redeemed and attain the respectability they deserve in society.  And then it is all smiles from their God above.

 

In one video now on YouTube, they explain their ministry of true loveliness:

 

 

Here they lament that Christianity has previously only been condemnatory towards gays,  telling them that they are sinners,  when in reality the ministries should receive gays with open arms and hearts and with true love educate them about their terrible disgrace and lead them to ways to escape from the jaws of hell and once and for all reject all homosexual sex.  It is as simple as that  to recover their grace!

 

What do you think?    Is it possible that these pastors believe in good faith in their mission, in their work?   Is it possible that their religious education has washed their brains so thoroughly that they don't realize that the dysphoria felt by so many gays is caused mostly by the position of their doctrine that condemns homosexual sex while having absolutely no proof that it is something negative?    Haven't they heard that today's science of psychology finds that homosexuality is not a disease?   That we gays are perfectly normal people?   That we don't need to be "cured" of anything?    In all their studies of the scriptures and the doctrine of love preached by Jesus Christ, they don't realize the loud and clear directive:   live and let live ? 

 

There is a strong commonality between the attitude of your minister Shanmugam and the pastors of TrueLove.   They are not interested in THE TRUTH.   The minister is interested in the promotion of his Politics,  and the pastors are interested in the promotion of their Doctrine.   Probably neither of them is of evil nature,  they just close their eyes to the truth and open them to their personal interests.  Like so many other people do...

.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Steve5380

[Why?]

On 7/7/2022 at 8:23 AM, Steve5380 said:

 the ministries should receive gays with open arms and hearts and with true love educate them about their terrible disgrace and lead them to ways to escape from the jaws of hell and once and for all reject all homosexual sex.  It is as simple as that  to recover their grace!

 

What do you think?

 

How do I think?  I think you had limited knowledge of war-related issues. If you can't take down gay people from the public, then "welcome" them under the guise of affection so you can trap and destroy them quickly from the inside of "TRUE LOVE" facilities.  For the TRUE LOVE of God, I will run instead.

[Steve5380]

On 7/6/2022 at 9:11 PM, Why? said:

How do I think?  I think you had limited knowledge of war-related issues. If you can't take down gay people from the public, then "welcome" them under the guise of affection so you can trap and destroy them quickly from the inside of "TRUE LOVE" facilities.  For the TRUE LOVE of God, I will run instead.

 

I think you got the right idea!

[Guest Guest]

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.

[Guest No divorce]

Yes to protect sanctity of marriage, divorce should be banned. 

 

 

[Guest Guest]

Agree completely. Infidelity should be punished by law.

[Guest Guest]

Never ending debate. 

[Pubic01]

They should go plant some vegetables .. it’s more meaningful .. 

[Guest Conflation]

How does repealing a law that criminalises same gender sex affect the protection of family, marriage, freedom of conscience and children? 
 

Repealing it does not mean children are harmed. It’s not like once 377A is repealed, anyone hitting a child will get away with it. 
 

Men and women can continue to get married and have kids. 
 

Very conflated. 

[Guest Guest]

They r worry same sex marriage will influence their children.... I mean maybe later in life their children dun mind gog into a same sex relationship if they c a lot of such marriage in e society. 

[fab]

I lol at ex LGBT members.

 

Anti LGBT are LGBT in denial.

[Guest Lame]

Adulterer need to be stoned to death as well. 

 

Kids who disobey their parents also need to be punished as per Bible.

 

Wearing mixed fabric like cotton + polyester is also a sin

[Dreamaway]

Repealing 377a is really a matter of govt resolve, if they want to do it can be done. Don't need to talk to much. 

 

Just like the casino, not too much consultation. Just see the economic value and do it. 

 

We'll never be able to convince everyone to accept change. There will always be opposing views. Time to just move on. Majulah Singapura!

[Guest Roy Tan]

This is the letter recently sent out by Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong of Cornerstone Community Church, who has been a long-time opponent of the repeal of Section 377A and LGBT rights in general, to other church leaders. The PAP has informed them that Section 377A will be repealed within the next few months.

 

"Letter from Ps Yang Tuck Yoong to church leaders

 

Repeal of S377A

 

Hi Pastors

On Thursday, several of us were invited to meet with Ministers Shanmugam, Edwin Tong and Desmond Lee to discuss about the future of 377A

 

To summarise a few salient points of the meeting which are important:

 

In a nutshell, we have been informed that 377A will be repealed in the coming few months because there is a general understanding that though it may be a sin, gay sex ought not be criminalised.

 

To balance this, the government is likely to put in a constitutional clause referencing the definition of marriage in the Woman’s Charter.

 

This is different from enshrining a definition of marriage in the constitution itself.

 

It is a technical move that merely prevents constitutional challenges to the standing definition of marriage (on the basis of it discriminating against homosexuals).

 

This means that while the government of today says it is ideologically committed to a one-man, one-woman marriage, this is not set in stone.

 

The definition of marriage can be changed with a simple majority of parliament rather than a supermajority if it was enshrined in the constitution.

 

This puts the crosshairs of LGBT activists squarely on marriage and the new battleground of our country will shift to marriage.

 

LGBT activists will seek to shape public consciousness of what marriage is, and attempt to get parliament to enact gay marriage because they believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry.

 

Likewise, the church must now protect the definition of marriage as a comprehensive and conjugal union of a man and a woman, ordered toward reproduction and the raising of healthy children.

 

We would do well to ground our churches in robust thinking about WHY the ordinances of God are the way they are. This will require us unpacking these things for our flock – things that have always been taken for granted.

 

We must also equip our congregations to have these conversations, as these will certainly become hot-button topics in a very short time.

 

The minister stressed that it was important Singaporeans speak up and defend this view of marriage if this is what they want to be the norm in Singapore.

 

(This is in my opinion not the best outcome but we are grateful the current leadership has the political will to tackle a hot potato issue head on rather than keep silent)”

 

Ps Yang"

[mate69]

377A will be repealed before 2022 is up

For sure

[fab]

Any sauce to go along with it?

[yhtang]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:12 PM, Guest Roy Tan said:

This is the letter recently sent out by Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong of Cornerstone Community Church, who has been a long-time opponent of the repeal of Section 377A and LGBT rights in general, to other church leaders. The PAP has informed them that Section 377A will be repealed within the next few months.

 

"Letter from Ps Yang Tuck Yoong to church leaders

 

Repeal of S377A

 

Hi Pastors

On Thursday, several of us were invited to meet with Ministers Shanmugam, Edwin Tong and Desmond Lee to discuss about the future of 377A

 

To summarise a few salient points of the meeting which are important:

 

In a nutshell, we have been informed that 377A will be repealed in the coming few months because there is a general understanding that though it may be a sin, gay sex ought not be criminalised.

 

To balance this, the government is likely to put in a constitutional clause referencing the definition of marriage in the Woman’s Charter.

 

This is different from enshrining a definition of marriage in the constitution itself.

 

It is a technical move that merely prevents constitutional challenges to the standing definition of marriage (on the basis of it discriminating against homosexuals).

 

This means that while the government of today says it is ideologically committed to a one-man, one-woman marriage, this is not set in stone.

 

The definition of marriage can be changed with a simple majority of parliament rather than a supermajority if it was enshrined in the constitution.

 

This puts the crosshairs of LGBT activists squarely on marriage and the new battleground of our country will shift to marriage.

 

LGBT activists will seek to shape public consciousness of what marriage is, and attempt to get parliament to enact gay marriage because they believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry.

 

Likewise, the church must now protect the definition of marriage as a comprehensive and conjugal union of a man and a woman, ordered toward reproduction and the raising of healthy children.

 

We would do well to ground our churches in robust thinking about WHY the ordinances of God are the way they are. This will require us unpacking these things for our flock – things that have always been taken for granted.

 

We must also equip our congregations to have these conversations, as these will certainly become hot-button topics in a very short time.

 

The minister stressed that it was important Singaporeans speak up and defend this view of marriage if this is what they want to be the norm in Singapore.

 

(This is in my opinion not the best outcome but we are grateful the current leadership has the political will to tackle a hot potato issue head on rather than keep silent)”

 

Ps Yang"

 

I would wait for the official announcement and Parliamentary change in the act before any plans for the future are made based on the repeal of S337A.

 

[Why?]

The one man, one woman rule should only be followed by Muslims and Christians. If non-Christians preferred to live their own lives in their own ways, it is none of the Christian people's business. Singapore is neither an Islamic nor a Christian state, which PAP needs to comprehend. Please show more respect to everyone who does not follow one of these two religions.

[Guest Official secret act]

Is this an official secret? I think we should delete this thread and not propograte. 

 

People get jailed for just sharing early announcement. 

 

Also I wonder will people report to police that the pastor share out this kind of information before its official. 

 

Official secret act applies or not. 

Any lawyer? 

[superflawless]

We can also organise a few of such "Townhall Meetings" and call it "Liberate Singapore"

Or "Bring Singapore into the 21st Century".

We atrract ouver 5000 (or more) attendees and blast this throughout the local news media, foreign news media, use all the social medias and show what solidarity means. 

 

[fab]

On 7/25/2022 at 4:19 PM, superflawless said:

We can also organise a few of such "Townhall Meetings" and call it "Liberate Singapore"

Or "Bring Singapore into the 21st Century".

We atrract ouver 5000 (or more) attendees and blast this throughout the local news media, foreign news media, use all the social medias and show what solidarity means. 

 

 

Good idea.

 

I think better to advocate whatever laws these religions wanna have, it should be applicable to their own followers only. Thank you.

[Guest No rights]

But gay people have no basic right to organise or attend this kind of event le. 

 

Hur hur hur. 

 

I remember there was some event about gay literature or something. Invite the author of a gay book or something to talk or discuss about the gay literature or something. 

 

Gahmen ban le. 

 

Why crhsitian can openly hold this kind of event? 

 

Then why the Indonesian Muslim denied entry to prevent preaching those terrorist ideology 

 

But Christian is allowed to hold masses to preach hate on lgbt? 

 

Sometimes I don't understand. Why society hate me. 

 

Its not my choice to love another guy. 

[Guest Roy Tan]

On 7/25/2022 at 3:09 PM, Guest Official secret act said:

Is this an official secret? I think we should delete this thread and not propograte. 

 

People get jailed for just sharing early announcement. 

 

Also I wonder will people report to police that the pastor share out this kind of information before its official. 

 

Official secret act applies or not. 

Any lawyer? 

It's not an official secret.

[averageguy]

If this is true… the government is just telling everyone “who is the boss and who calls the shots”

[Why?]

Lawrence wong is hand full of problems given to him by his predecessor. Inflation, Geo-political shifts, war, pandemic, HDB depreciation, GST...etc.  Getting rid of S377A will allow the govt to focus on my important issues in this country.  Otherwise, S377A will be a hurdle for LHL's successor, bringing dishonor to the nation on the international scene.  The world and our government must confront reality, not listen to any delusional religious belief.

[singalion]

On 7/25/2022 at 12:12 PM, Guest Roy Tan said:

This is the letter recently sent out by Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong of Cornerstone Community Church, who has been a long-time opponent of the repeal of Section 377A and LGBT rights in general, to other church leaders. The PAP has informed them that Section 377A will be repealed within the next few months.

 

"Letter from Ps Yang Tuck Yoong to church leaders

 

Repeal of S377A

 

Hi Pastors

On Thursday, several of us were invited to meet with Ministers Shanmugam, Edwin Tong and Desmond Lee to discuss about the future of 377A

 

To summarise a few salient points of the meeting which are important:

 

In a nutshell, we have been informed that 377A will be repealed in the coming few months because there is a general understanding that though it may be a sin, gay sex ought not be criminalised.

 

To balance this, the government is likely to put in a constitutional clause referencing the definition of marriage in the Woman’s Charter.

 

This is different from enshrining a definition of marriage in the constitution itself.

 

It is a technical move that merely prevents constitutional challenges to the standing definition of marriage (on the basis of it discriminating against homosexuals).

 

This means that while the government of today says it is ideologically committed to a one-man, one-woman marriage, this is not set in stone.

 

The definition of marriage can be changed with a simple majority of parliament rather than a supermajority if it was enshrined in the constitution.

 

This puts the crosshairs of LGBT activists squarely on marriage and the new battleground of our country will shift to marriage.

 

LGBT activists will seek to shape public consciousness of what marriage is, and attempt to get parliament to enact gay marriage because they believe that homosexuals should have a right to marry.

 

Likewise, the church must now protect the definition of marriage as a comprehensive and conjugal union of a man and a woman, ordered toward reproduction and the raising of healthy children.

 

We would do well to ground our churches in robust thinking about WHY the ordinances of God are the way they are. This will require us unpacking these things for our flock – things that have always been taken for granted.

 

We must also equip our congregations to have these conversations, as these will certainly become hot-button topics in a very short time.

 

The minister stressed that it was important Singaporeans speak up and defend this view of marriage if this is what they want to be the norm in Singapore.

 

(This is in my opinion not the best outcome but we are grateful the current leadership has the political will to tackle a hot potato issue head on rather than keep silent)”

 

Ps Yang"

 

Better to wait for something official.

You never know these religious people might just intend to incite some "protests" and action against any potential repeal to make any change more difficult for the MPs and government.

 

 

 

[singalion]

On 7/25/2022 at 2:12 PM, Why? said:

The one man, one woman rule should only be followed by Muslims and Christians. If non-Christians preferred to live their own lives in their own ways, it is none of the Christian people's business. Singapore is neither an Islamic nor a Christian state, which PAP needs to comprehend. Please show more respect to everyone who does not follow one of these two religions.

 

Equal rights for everyone!

 

You don't create equality if you start separating. Maybe you should know that Singapore has more than 200 religious groups.

 

Don't differentiate by religion please. Singapore is a secular country and marriage is a civil act.

 

Please note that Singapore does not impose Muslims to marry under Muslim Law at ROMM, they are free to register a civil marriage if they declare that they are not practising Islam, same in cases that one partner is Non Muslim. 

 

If the news is real: The marriage thing sounds to appease the "conservatives" who are afraid or oppose gays marrying in Singapore or adopting children.

 

As I wrote often before, let the government go one step first....

=> namely to abolish 377A.

 

 

[Guest Try and see]

Yah, if this is genuine, it's not wise to leak it out.

Remember the news below?

 

Ex-public servant jailed, her husband fined for leaking embargoed Covid-19 circuit breaker info

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ex-public-servant-jail-leaking-circuit-breaker-info-husband-fined-1916036

[mate69]

Flee vile island

[doncoin]

I find it amusing that it was referred to as "former members of local LGBT community..." as if being LGBT is some club membership where if you missed paying your dues, you get kicked out. 

 

 

[singalion]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:40 AM, Guest Conflation said:

How does repealing a law that criminalises same gender sex affect the protection of family, marriage, freedom of conscience and children? 

 

Your dick is in their way!  

 

You should ask them why marriage and divorce numbers remained at same level in those countries that decriminalised homosexuality. 

 

It's all flawed reasoning. 

 

What gay prevents any straight guy or girl to marry and have children. Do the straight men suffer Erectile Dysfunction because there are 3 - 7% homosexuals in a society???

 

That they have nothing much in their hand already shows as they need to name ex members of the LGBT community as having attended the event....

 

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by singalion

[singalion]

On 7/24/2022 at 12:40 AM, Pubic01 said:

They should go plant some vegetables .. it’s more meaningful .. 

 

Aren't they vegetable already?

 

[singalion]

On 7/25/2022 at 4:19 PM, superflawless said:

We can also organise a few of such "Townhall Meetings" and call it "Liberate Singapore"

Or "Bring Singapore into the 21st Century".

We atrract ouver 5000 (or more) attendees and blast this throughout the local news media, foreign news media, use all the social medias and show what solidarity means. 

 

 

You just need to refer to the numbers who attended Pink Dot!

 

[Guest Jade]

Pity these uncles and aunties, so stressed about other people’s marriage they’re losing all their hair 🥺

[Guest 1to4]

On 7/25/2022 at 11:01 PM, singalion said:

 

What I heard is that the requirements are very high in Singapore.

 

I am not sure whether any Muslim polygamy has been approved the past 15 years...

 

You must be very wealthy, stable job with high pay etc etc...

 

According to Singapore Fifth CEDAW Periodic Report, polygamous marriages constitute 0.3% of Muslim marriages registered from 2009 to 2014.

 

 

 

Yes, requirements are high but that doesn't mean they are not allowed to. They will not be criminalised if they do so. Get it? 😉