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

[Guest Bernard]

So all those who are against repealing Section 377A, are they scared they will become LGBTQ once Section 377A is repealed?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

[StockBottom]

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LGBTQ community unlikely to 'seek same-sex marriage or to redefine families', should 377A be repealed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

[singalion]

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of Singapore also said on Sunday that its concern is for marriage to remain between a man and woman, should 377A be repealed.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 August 1, 2022 by singalion

[StockBottom]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/section-377a-putting-children-first

 

 

Same old same old. Grown men hiding behind children.

 

[Guest Prey]

On 8/3/2022 at 9:59 AM, StockBottom said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/section-377a-putting-children-first

 

 

Same old same old. Grown men hiding behind children.

 

Thier priests prey on Children more than gay people prey on whatever.

[Guest Sure]

Yeah think about the children. 

 

What an entitled bunch. Keep oppressing others in the name of love. 

[StockBottom]

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

[fab]

V true.

 

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

[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. 

[StockBottom]

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

[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

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Thursday, 4 August 2022, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reminded foreign businesses to be “careful” about advocating LGBT issues in Singapore, following comments made by United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during a visit to the country earlier this week.
In a statement issued from Singapore on Monday, 1 August 2022 as the American politician kicked off a high-profile Asia tour, Pelosi asked business groups to support the local LGBTQ community as more American companies set up offices here.
In response, the MHA said on Thursday, 4 August 2022: “The Government would like to remind foreign businesses that while they are free to promote diversity in their companies, they should be careful about advocacy on issues in Singapore that could be socially divisive."
These included LGBT issues, said the ministry, adding that “these are matters for Singaporeans to discuss and come to a consensus on how to move forward”.
In May 2021, a webinar co-hosted by the US embassy and local LGBTQ non-profit organisation Oogachaga also prompted a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).
“MFA has reminded the US Embassy that foreign missions here are not to interfere in our domestic social and political matters, including issues such as how sexual orientation should be dealt with in public policy,” said the ministry.
“These are choices for only Singaporeans to debate and decide.”
Debates over Section 377A - a Singapore law criminalising sex between men but is not actively enforced - had gained traction in recent months.
In February 2022, Singapore’s apex court ruled that Section 377A was "unenforceable". 
But the Government said that it was considering the best way forward on the law, while respecting different viewpoints including those of a significant group who wished for 377A to be retained.
Singapore would also look to safeguard the current legal position on marriage against challenges in the court, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam the previous month.
The existing legal position on marriage was defined under Section 12 of the Women's Charter as being between a man and a woman; same-sex marriages were considered void.
Links:
https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore
https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Singapore

[StockBottom]

"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

[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. 

 

[singalion]

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???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[StockBottom]

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.

[singalion]

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?

 

 

[singalion]

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 August 5, 2022 by singalion

[StockBottom]

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

[StockBottom]

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

[StockBottom]

 

[Guest Think of the children]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/father-rape-14-year-old-daughter-wife-cancer-treatment-2866416

 

Think of the children la. 

Protect family la. 

 

Heterosexual family is not safe at all. 

This won't happen if the parents are gay. Cause gay cock can't enter daughter vagina. 

 

Limp.

[StockBottom]

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/section-377a-review-involves-broader-issue-societal-concerns-over-family-and-marriage-lawrence-wong-1970296

Edited August 16, 2022 by StockBottom

[Guest Why]

So apparently my friend told me 377A only criminalise two male sex. 

 

So lesbian can have sex with lesbian no problem. 

 

Two transwoman can have sex also no problem?? 

[Guest Roy Tan]

On Monday, 15 August 2022, Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait interviewed Singapore's finance minister and premier-in-waiting Lawrence Wong. One of the issues he raised was Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalised sex between men.
Wong said, "In Singapore there are many segments who feel that it’s not just about the law, but the law is a marker for other things, things that they care about, about society, societal values, about family, about marriage.”  He added that while the government was aware that views on the law had “evolved,” they were a separate matter from views around “family and marriage,” which people felt strongly about, and officials were considering how to move forward without causing “deeper divisions in our society.” When asked about assurances for foreigners working in the financial and trading hub facing difficulties obtaining visas for same-sex partners, Wong explained that the authorities had seen some feedback from them and “have been able to deal with some of that on a case-by-case basis.”

Links:

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.fandom.com/wiki/Lawrence_Wong's_views_on_LGBT_rights

[singalion]

Hey Guest Roy Tan,

 

someone posted this into the Singapore LGBT 377A thread.

 

 

I don't think we need a new thread for every interview of who knows who.

 

Better to compile all into one thread.

[Guest No need repeal]

Honestly repeal or no repeal makes no difference. 

 

Most gay just looking for short term gay fun. Or short term companionship in the form of boyfriend or fuck buddy. 

 

Most gay don't want to be tied down. Legally. 

 

Very few actually want to get married etc. Why would they? That option never existed before 2004

 

Plus if they can't get married, they can't have children also what. No adoption etc. No hdb subsidy. No family care leave. No legal ownership when one party die. Nothing legally binding. Can't buy house together. One buy under his name. The other is just a roommate. Anything happened, breakup also just temporary. 

Nothing is permanent. 

 

If one of the partner die, not a legal partner. Can't visit icu. Can't do this. Can't do that. Need to pay unnecessary money to lawyer. 

 

Everything is just surface level. Relationship is just cock deep in ass. 

 

That's exactly how the hetero want to keep the status quo. And gay don't bother fighting it also. Why would they? The generation before including the current generation all die alone. Why must the next generation be so privileged? 

 

Should just let the young generation of sex hungry voyeuristic onlyfans social media worshipper fight for their own rights la.

 

Think about the children? 

 

No need. 

 

Repeal or no repeal makes no difference to the majority of gays right now. And that's the truth. 

 

All this agenda are nothing just a political instrument. 

 

Gays will always remain the same. Hidden. Unloved. Unwanted by society in Singapore. Just the way we like it. Self hate. 

 

Indonesia and Malaysia punishable by stoning, public caning, jail... 

 

Singapore don't actively punish gay sex is already good liao. 

[Guest Try and see]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:10 PM, singalion said:

Hey Guest Roy Tan,

 

someone posted this into the Singapore LGBT 377A thread.

 

 

I don't think we need a new thread for every interview of who knows who.

 

Better to compile all into one thread.

We have the freedom to post what we want, DF.

[singalion]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:28 PM, Guest Try and see said:

We have the freedom to post what we want, DF.

 

Exactly, that I why I have the freedom to voice my opinion!

 

 

[Why?]

I didn't watch the entire video because it was too predictable and the Bloomberg man came across as timid and somewhat patronizing, which would have given LW the necessary comfort and leeway to respond with a "non-answer."

 

We do understand that....BUT, BUT

We heard their view.....BUT, BUT

 

Lawrence Wong doesn't seem to be a very autonomous thinker. He completely shaped himself after his predecessor.  I have said it repeatedly, he is not in my approved list of being a PM.

[Guest No nonsense]

On 8/17/2022 at 1:28 PM, Guest Try and see said:

We have the freedom to post what we want, DF.

 

Are you gay? 

If you are gay, you have no freedom and basic rights extended to normal human being. 

[singalion]

Looks like they are more and more preparing the public on the repeal...

 

 

 

 

ST Explains: What if 377A is repealed and what it means to constitutionally protect a marriage?

3,568 views Aug 17, 2022

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by singalion

[Why?]

On 8/18/2022 at 1:49 PM, singalion said:

 

 

 

When all he needs to do to touch the CORE value known as CO-EXISTENCE is 1 second (at 11.03), the interviewee wastes 12.34 minutes of my time playing the Heterosexual narrative.

[Guest Marriage a piece paper]

On 8/18/2022 at 1:49 PM, singalion said:

Looks like they are more and more preparing the public on the repeal...

 

 

 

 

ST Explains: What if 377A is repealed and what it means to constitutionally protect a marriage?

3,568 views Aug 17, 2022

 

 

Protect marriage by banning divorce la.

Protect marriage by not allowing second marriages. 

Protect marriage by removing all benefit and legal rights of second marriages la. 

Protect marriage by removing illegitimate entity conceived outside of marriage. 

Protect marriage by terminating one partner when the other succumbed prematurely. 

 

Everyone so scared that the fabric of society will collapse when they allow gay marriage in 2004.

 

Fast forward 18 years.. Have society collapsed yet? 

 

Marriage so scared any singles beyond 40 need to be terminated also right... 

 

Family so important... Then just have a factory of horny man impregnate woman to give birth to babies to run the society lo... 

 

Then give the babies to any couples as a gift to their marriage.... 

[singalion]

On 8/18/2022 at 3:44 PM, Why? said:

When all he needs to do to touch the CORE value known as CO-EXISTENCE is 1 second (at 11.03), the interviewee wastes 12.34 minutes of my time playing the Heterosexual narrative.

 

As said before: I never understood the link between 377A to straight marriage...

 

Do gays who have sexual activity with men prevent any straight people to marry?

 

And even if Singapore "legalised" homosexual marriage, would this prevent any straight people to marry???

 

So what is the point actually? 

 

 

[fab]

Repeal of 377A and straight marriages are not mutually exclusive. 

[30yochinese]

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3189419/singapores-section-377a-how-attitudes-towards-anti-gay-law-have

[StockBottom]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/section-377a-gay-sex-law-history-countries-lgbt-repeal-2885976

 

CNA Explains: The history of 377A and how some countries have repealed it

As Singapore considers its next steps for Section 377A of the Penal Code which criminalises sex between men, CNA looks at the history of the legislation inherited from the British penal system and how some countries have repealed it.

 

[singalion]

Some people some time ago contested what I wrote in a different thread on 377A...

namely that 377A was introduced in Singapore to deter homosexuals British officers intermingling with locals and being prone to release "state secrets" as they would be exploitable...

 

 

Here you have it in black n white:

 

 

The law was generally believed to have derived from the British government’s desire to "safeguard" public morality by prohibiting homosexual activity in the Straits Settlements. 

 

However, documents from the British National Archives that were declassified in 2014 and 2016 reveal that Section 377A was originally intended to curtail the spread of male prostitution, and not consensual private sexual acts between men.

These were brought to light in 2019 by a legal team that sought to repeal the law.

 

The documents showed that male prostitution was a widespread problem in the area at the time, especially among British civil servants. This eventually led Section 377A to be passed in the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements, and was later inherited by Singapore.

 

 

 

[StockBottom]

What will he say? Repeal, same old same old, or push to Lawrence Wong?

 

 

[StockBottom]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-day-rally-to-cover-spores-covid-19-experience-how-it-can-secure-its-future-pm-lee

 

He believes another topic likely on the agenda is an announcement on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which many have been anticipating given that the Government has been preparing the ground for a possible policy change. The law criminalises sex between men.

The Government has been consulting various groups of Singaporeans on the law in recent months, as it decides on the next steps.

Last month, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said the Government is considering how best to strike a balance between dealing with Section 377A and safeguarding the current legal position on marriage from challenges in courts.

Prof Ho said: "As many Singaporeans are concerned about whether this would have implications for the traditional model of marriage and family, there has been talk about the possibility of new constitutional safeguards to define marriage.

"How the government seeks to balance the divergent views on this matter bears watching at this year's National Day Rally."

[sgmaven]

While topics like 377A are often contentious issues, I believe that the government will never put it out in public. They will say they consulted various groups, but there will never be a referendum or statistics to point in a particular direction. Why? Because with any decision, it will alienate a particular group, and they will stand to lose votes in the next elections. Better for them to keep status quo. While people will be unhappy, this unhappiness will not be as extreme as if there will be changes like the repeal of 377A.

[StockBottom]

Churches

 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/section-377a-strongly-caution-removal-2889561

 

Section 377A should be retained until adequate safeguards around areas of social vulnerability are enacted: Churches alliance

The Alliance of Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of Singapore also "strongly cautioned against removing the moral marker" established in Section 377A of the Penal Code.

 

Same old same old "arguments"

[Guest Get real]

The main obstacle of gays coming out has never been about 377A, but more to do with family/friends acceptance. Seriously, even if 377A is repealed after this Sun's National Rally speech, many gays will still remain closeted due to family objection. So what are you guys fighting so hard for?

[sgmaven]

On 8/19/2022 at 10:25 PM, StockBottom said:

Churches

 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/section-377a-strongly-caution-removal-2889561

 

Section 377A should be retained until adequate safeguards around areas of social vulnerability are enacted: Churches alliance

The Alliance of Pentecostal and Charismatic Churches of Singapore also "strongly cautioned against removing the moral marker" established in Section 377A of the Penal Code.

 

Same old same old "arguments"

The very core of their "argument" is that homosexuality is not "normal", and hence it should not be "normalised". Frankly, considering the societal pressure against gays, why would anyone who is not otherwise inclined towards the same sex, choose to be gay? Have they asked themselves that?

[Guest Roy Tan]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-day-rally-to-cover-spores-covid-19-experience-how-it-can-secure-its-future-pm-lee

Prof Ho believes another topic likely on the agenda is an announcement on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which many have been anticipating given that the Government has been preparing the ground for a possible policy change. The law criminalises sex between men.

The Government has been consulting various groups of Singaporeans on the law in recent months, as it decides on the next steps.

Last month, Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam said the Government is considering how best to strike a balance between dealing with Section 377A and safeguarding the current legal position on marriage from challenges in courts.

Prof Ho said: "As many Singaporeans are concerned about whether this would have implications for the traditional model of marriage and family, there has been talk about the possibility of new constitutional safeguards to define marriage.

"How the government seeks to balance the divergent views on this matter bears watching at this year's National Day Rally."

The rally will begin at 6.45pm on Sunday with the Malay and Chinese segments.

[Guest CCB]

Hope he doesn't tarnish our name and set conditions to repeal S377A.

[Guest CCB]

Repealing S377A is unconditional .

[singalion]

On 8/19/2022 at 10:41 PM, Guest Get real said:

The main obstacle of gays coming out has never been about 377A, but more to do with family/friends acceptance. Seriously, even if 377A is repealed after this Sun's National Rally speech, many gays will still remain closeted due to family objection. So what are you guys fighting so hard for?

 

You just don't get it, is it?

 

We don't want to be scared while having fun that the police knocks on the door only because an oldfashioned conservative religious PM has a different view...

 

Just look at US and abortion... 

 

Also, when I travel overseas I want to kiss my bf/hubby/lover... good bye without any straight idiot making discriminatory, disparaging remarks...

 

That makes the difference...

 

 

[Steve5380]

On 8/19/2022 at 11:10 AM, Guest CCB said:

Hope he doesn't tarnish our name and set conditions to repeal S377A.

 

On 8/19/2022 at 11:12 AM, Guest CCB said:

Repealing S377A is unconditional .

 

Yes, it SHOULD BE unconditional.  But even if it will not be,  first things first.

 

It is important that gay sex is decriminalized.  Period.  This can make the whole difference in the world  ( not a practical difference, but a conceptual one ).  Once gay sex is legal, sooner or later the issue of same-sex marriage will come along.   Whatever they do now to prevent it,  like making it unconstitutional, this can be reversed at a later date ( the fact that they can make unconstitutional now shows that the constitution can be changed,  and change can go in both directions )