Jump to content
Happy Birthday Singapore

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


groyn88
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Gayleo said:

'The funny thing is that so many gay men have grown so accustomed to the implicit homophobia prevalent in Singapore that they don’t even recognise the ramifications this antiquated law has on their lives.

...

Maybe it’s political apathy. Or maybe it’s just low expectations. But the thing about Singaporeans is that we are very good at making do with what we have.

Full article: https://dearstraightpeople.com/2018/09/12/open-letter-section-377a/

 

This attitude permeates the entire singapore society ... not only ajs and aj issues ...

It has been repeated ad nauseum at us since youth: be grateful be grateful be grateful ... you're fortunate to be born in sg ... look at other countries ... dun rock the boat ... we're a small country ... with hostile neighbours ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religious people who think that it is only right to screw the opposite gender should keep that view within the confines of their own bedrooms.
We are not fighting to have the right to screw people in public nor asking them to start screwing people of the same gender. We are not even fighting for the right to have civil unions. Just for a law to be repealed so that we are not perpetually incriminated.

Reading their comments over these few days....it's just gone beyond obnoxious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tempted and jealous?

Religious people should be banned from the conversation. We all know they are forever stucked in the rut here in such topics. Why bother engaging with them? Wasting of breath.

 

Should just nicely ask them to shut the fuck up. It doesn’t concern them personally if they are really straight.

 

Unless they are scared of being tempted because they are also attacted to the same sex, or jealous of LGBTs who have the means to embace themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Oomplicit smoke & mirrors

All the christian “concerns” about family and young children are red herrings. Yes their worries of gay influence is very real. The christians are very scared of legalising gay sex because many of them are self-effacing, self-policing, self-censoring dormant homosexuals who would be tempted to sin because they are stucked in sexless, loveless but christianity approved opposite sex marriages. 

 

So many, if not majority of them are homosexuals working in the clergy. Look at all their pent-up sexual frustrations and internalized homophobia resulting in all their tirades against gays in public but same-sex child abuse cases in private they are always quick to deny or dismiss and sweep under the rug.

 

They needed the help of legal laws to hold their hollow marriages together because religious laws here are just paper tigers. Christians flout them all the time, like adultery, cheating, lying, gossiping, eating shellfishes, etc. 

 

But homosexual sins are the holy grail because it is inborn - why else would they insist it is not - and once they accept their real sexual identities and follow their hearts, they may enjoy it so much they may never want to get back to church!

 

That’s why they are so afraid of legalizing gay sex and for that matter gay marriage, you think they really care about families and children? It is so naive to believe that they are concerned about the country, family and children rather than themselves, their own marriages and their church being abandoned in droves due to the legalization of gay sex.

 

And they are naive too for thinking criminalizing gay sex is going to maintain their charades and facades of normalcy in the long run.

 

Their religion had long been unsustainable and their foundations shaky in the advent of modern science flying in their faces and their countless surfacing scandals exposing their deepest hypocrisies and rot.

 

The modern world shall prepare a requiem for their eventual and long-overdue demise in days to come.

 

The enlightened world will say amen to that final sending off of the last clinging, remaining vestige of medieval age nonsense and rot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Complicit smoke & mirrors
4 minutes ago, Guest Oomplicit smoke & mirrors said:

All the christian “concerns” about family and young children are red herrings. Yes their worries of gay influence is very real. The christians are very scared of legalising gay sex because many of them are self-effacing, self-policing, self-censoring dormant homosexuals who would be tempted to sin because they are stucked in sexless, loveless but christianity approved opposite sex marriages. 

 

So many, if not majority of them are homosexuals working in the clergy. Look at all their pent-up sexual frustrations and internalized homophobia resulting in all their tirades against gays in public but same-sex child abuse cases in private they are always quick to deny or dismiss and sweep under the rug.

 

They needed the help of legal laws to hold their hollow marriages together because religious laws here are just paper tigers. Christians flout them all the time, like adultery, cheating, lying, gossiping, eating shellfishes, etc. 

 

But homosexual sins are the holy grail because it is inborn - why else would they insist it is not - and once they accept their real sexual identities and follow their hearts, they may enjoy it so much they may never want to get back to church!

 

That’s why they are so afraid of legalizing gay sex and for that matter gay marriage, you think they really care about families and children? It is so naive to believe that they are concerned about the country, family and children rather than themselves, their own marriages and their church being abandoned in droves due to the legalization of gay sex.

 

And they are naive too for thinking criminalizing gay sex is going to maintain their charades and facades of normalcy in the long run.

 

Their religion had long been unsustainable and their foundations shaky in the advent of modern science flying in their faces and their countless surfacing scandals exposing their deepest hypocrisies and rot.

 

The modern world shall prepare a requiem for their eventual and long-overdue demise in days to come.

 

The enlightened world will say amen to that final sending off of the last clinging, remaining vestige of medieval age nonsense and rot.

The only thing stopping them from embracing their gay identities is most of them are not what our mainstream media standards would deem sexually attractive. Hence their dejection and rejections (perceived or experienced, by all the hot gays they lust after).

 

Oh, and they most likely have bland and/or sucky personalities too, from all my personal experiences of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Historian

https://consensusg.com/2018/09/11/digging-deeper-the-fascinating-history-of-section-377a/

 

 

Digging deeper: the fascinating history behind Section 377A

HenryVIIIChatsworthPortrait.crop_807x605_0,0.preview

Intentionally or not, Law Minister K Shanmugam fired the starting pistol for a new round of petitions both in favour and against the repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code which criminalizes consensual sex between men.

But where did 377A come from? Why does it even exist?

Not only was 377A a piece of colonial legislation (not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with colonial legislation), it is a statute with a deep and fascinating history that can be traced back to the late-medieval period. How bizarre that the decisions made by the parliaments of King Henry VIII (pictured above) nearly half a millennium ago continue to impact our society today!

Skimming the Surface of 377A

Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code was derived from the Indian Penal Code, which had a similar Section 377 of its own. Singapore’s 377A was an ‘update’ to the original Section 377A in 2007, courtesy of our Parliament, which itself was revamped by the British in 1938. Not only did it effectively decriminalize female homosexuality while retaining the criminality of male homosexuality, it also further divided each individual offence into a separate law.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code arrived in the Singapore in 1871, when the entire Indian Penal Code was adopted as the criminal code of Singapore with only a few modifications. The penal code was drafted by the Indian Law Commission under the leadership of Thomas Macaulay in 1833, and was adopted for British India in 1860. The commission attempted to distill and narrow down everything within the British code of law into a series of straight-forward statues. The precision, simplicity, and effectiveness of the Indian Penal Code made it a popular ‘template’ for constructing the criminal law in many other British colonies, leaving the world with a string of ‘377s’.

At the point of drafting, Section 377 was a part of a series of laws that outlined offences against the physical body of a person – these includes murder, battery, assault and of course 377’s ‘unnatural offences’. This itself was taken from the 1826 Offences against the Person Act of Britain, which itself was derived from the 1533 Buggery Act (buggery being a medieval term for sodomy).

Therefore 1533 is a critical point in the history of our own Section 377A. It was the first instance where what was normally an ecclesiastical (meaning religious) offence was brought into criminal law. Up till this point, England had separate courts – the ecclesiastical courts and the secular King’s court. The ecclesiastical court was responsible for the regulation of faith, and sins were punished with penance. It was the King’s courts that had power of imprisonment and execution.

Going Deeper – to 1533

Why did King Henry VIII decide to move one specific act of sin out from the ecclesiastical courts and into his own? If there were genuine religious motivations, it could have happened a thousand years earlier, during the Christianization of England.

The historical consensus at the moment is that the 1533 Buggery Act (the progenitor of 377A) was rooted in late-medieval politics. During this period, church and state were not entirely separate entities. Henry VIII’s reformation of the church finally managed to divorce the Church of England from the Catholic Church’s control in Rome. After decades of political tension, the King of England is now also the head of the Church in England. With this newfound position, Henry VIII moved to criminalise a series of ‘sins’ as a show of his primacy over the church.

On top of buggery in 1533, witchcraft and sorcery were criminalised in 1541, and polygamy in 1603. By taking these affairs out of the hands of the ecclesiastical courts, Henry VIII reinforced his power against his potential enemies in the Church, while shoring up his legitimacy by promising to ‘as well the care of the souls of his subjects as their bodies’. Furthermore, in the aftermath of these laws, commissioners were sent to survey members of the clergy and prepare charges of sodomy and other sins, which was later used to seize church property during the dissolution of the monasteries.

What is clear is that what many may hold today as a ‘natural’ or ‘self-evident’ part of our law was never implemented with the intention that defenders of 377A attribute to it. It was more about the struggles between the church and state during the time of Henry VIII, and less about the salvation of the King’s subjects. It is telling that the law was typically used against members of the Church as a way of seizing their property.

Of course, the original purpose of the law is likely no longer relevant in the current debate. Those in favour of retaining 377A have since attached a new and personal significance to the law that does not take into account the history behind it.

Nonetheless, the fascinating history behind Section 377A is still worth sharing, as it demonstrates how we sometimes take things we take for granted; these things that we might be tempted to view as ‘self-evident’ or ‘natural’ have in fact a historical trajectory that was constructed piece-by-piece by human action, and some might say, human greed.

Notes: 

  1. Bailey, Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 1955.
  2. Lafitte, Francois. Homosexuality and the Law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Epic Historic Irony!

Ironic that S377A originated from Henry the 8th of Medieval England’s decision to show and grab power from his political rivals in the English Church after separating it from the Vatican one in Rome due to him being enamored by Anne Boleyn that medieval slut of historic infamy! Lol. Well he had to do that in order to divorce his current Queen to marry that harlot.

 

So we have a murderous English King - who slain 2 of his 6 wives - and one amorous, serial adultering Queen to thank for our S377A that is perpetually retained by our Singapore government to professedly preserve our “Asian values”.

 

Homosexuality existed all over the world since antiquity with evidence, and S377A is evidently now the actual Western imported idea, birthed as much from amorous reasons for slutzilla Anne Boleyn as political ones against the English Church. Lol!

 

I find it stupendous this epic and historic piece of grating irony had been largely overlooked by our past S377A repeal efforts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Historian
 

https://consensusg.com/2018/09/11/digging-deeper-the-fascinating-history-of-section-377a/

 

 

Digging deeper: the fascinating history behind Section 377A

HenryVIIIChatsworthPortrait.crop_807x605_0,0.preview

 

Intentionally or not, Law Minister K Shanmugam fired the starting pistol for a new round of petitions both in favour and against the repeal of Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code which criminalizes consensual sex between men.

 

But where did 377A come from? Why does it even exist?

 

Not only was 377A a piece of colonial legislation (not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with colonial legislation), it is a statute with a deep and fascinating history that can be traced back to the late-medieval period. How bizarre that the decisions made by the parliaments of King Henry VIII (pictured above) nearly half a millennium ago continue to impact our society today!

 

Skimming the Surface of 377A

 

Section 377A of Singapore’s Penal Code was derived from the Indian Penal Code, which had a similar Section 377 of its own. Singapore’s 377A was an ‘update’ to the original Section 377A in 2007, courtesy of our Parliament, which itself was revamped by the British in 1938. Not only did it effectively decriminalize female homosexuality while retaining the criminality of male homosexuality, it also further divided each individual offence into a separate law.

 

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code arrived in the Singapore in 1871, when the entire Indian Penal Code was adopted as the criminal code of Singapore with only a few modifications. The penal code was drafted by the Indian Law Commission under the leadership of Thomas Macaulay in 1833, and was adopted for British India in 1860. The commission attempted to distill and narrow down everything within the British code of law into a series of straight-forward statues. The precision, simplicity, and effectiveness of the Indian Penal Code made it a popular ‘template’ for constructing the criminal law in many other British colonies, leaving the world with a string of ‘377s’.

 

At the point of drafting, Section 377 was a part of a series of laws that outlined offences against the physical body of a person – these includes murder, battery, assault and of course 377’s ‘unnatural offences’. This itself was taken from the 1826 Offences against the Person Act of Britain, which itself was derived from the 1533 Buggery Act (buggery being a medieval term for sodomy).

 

Therefore 1533 is a critical point in the history of our own Section 377A. It was the first instance where what was normally an ecclesiastical (meaning religious) offence was brought into criminal law. Up till this point, England had separate courts – the ecclesiastical courts and the secular King’s court. The ecclesiastical court was responsible for the regulation of faith, and sins were punished with penance. It was the King’s courts that had power of imprisonment and execution.

 

Going Deeper – to 1533

 

Why did King Henry VIII decide to move one specific act of sin out from the ecclesiastical courts and into his own? If there were genuine religious motivations, it could have happened a thousand years earlier, during the Christianization of England.

 

The historical consensus at the moment is that the 1533 Buggery Act (the progenitor of 377A) was rooted in late-medieval politics. During this period, church and state were not entirely separate entities. Henry VIII’s reformation of the church finally managed to divorce the Church of England from the Catholic Church’s control in Rome. After decades of political tension, the King of England is now also the head of the Church in England. With this newfound position, Henry VIII moved to criminalise a series of ‘sins’ as a show of his primacy over the church.

 

On top of buggery in 1533, witchcraft and sorcery were criminalised in 1541, and polygamy in 1603. By taking these affairs out of the hands of the ecclesiastical courts, Henry VIII reinforced his power against his potential enemies in the Church, while shoring up his legitimacy by promising to ‘as well the care of the souls of his subjects as their bodies’. Furthermore, in the aftermath of these laws, commissioners were sent to survey members of the clergy and prepare charges of sodomy and other sins, which was later used to seize church property during the dissolution of the monasteries.

 

What is clear is that what many may hold today as a ‘natural’ or ‘self-evident’ part of our law was never implemented with the intention that defenders of 377A attribute to it. It was more about the struggles between the church and state during the time of Henry VIII, and less about the salvation of the King’s subjects. It is telling that the law was typically used against members of the Church as a way of seizing their property.

 

Of course, the original purpose of the law is likely no longer relevant in the current debate. Those in favour of retaining 377A have since attached a new and personal significance to the law that does not take into account the history behind it.

 

Nonetheless, the fascinating history behind Section 377A is still worth sharing, as it demonstrates how we sometimes take things we take for granted; these things that we might be tempted to view as ‘self-evident’ or ‘natural’ have in fact a historical trajectory that was constructed piece-by-piece by human action, and some might say, human greed.

 

Notes: 

  1. Bailey, Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 1955.
  2. Lafitte, Francois. Homosexuality and the Law.

 

==============================================

 

Ironic that S377A originated from Henry the 8th of Medieval England’s decision to show and grab power from his political rivals in the English Church after separating it from the Vatican one in Rome due to him being enamored by Anne Boleyn that medieval slut of historic infamy! Lol. Well he had to do that in order to divorce his current Queen to marry that harlot.

 

So we have a murderous English King - who slain 2 of his 6 wives - and one amorous, serial adultering Queen to thank for our S377A that is perpetually retained by our Singapore government to professedly preserve our “Asian values”.

 

Homosexuality existed all over the world since antiquity with evidence, and S377A is evidently now the actual Western imported idea, birthed as much from amorous reasons for slutzilla Anne Boleyn as political ones against the English Church. Lol!

 

I find it stupendous this epic and historic piece of grating irony had been largely overlooked by our past S377A repeal efforts! Haha

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...  although this 377A is already an abomination independently of its origin. 

 

Looking at the picture of Henry VIII  I see confirmed the tremendous influence of clothes in the way we perceive people.

This fat ordinary guy, probably with a sizable belly, who could easily be panhandling in a street corner, looks so impressive and powerful in his glamorous garbs.

Similar is the case for the military in their uniforms and the image of power of police, security.

 

And... the same applies to the religious professionals.  The Holy Body of Cardinals in their impressive attire as Princes of the Church...

how would they look like naked in the steam room of a gay sauna?   YUCK!  we would rush away in full speed!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Guest Epic Historic Irony! said:

Ironic that S377A originated from Henry the 8th of Medieval England’s decision to show and grab power from his political rivals in the English Church after separating it from the Vatican one in Rome due to him being enamored by Anne Boleyn that medieval slut of historic infamy! Lol. Well he had to do that in order to divorce his current Queen to marry that harlot.

 

So we have a murderous English King - who slain 2 of his 6 wives - and one amorous, serial adultering Queen to thank for our S377A that is perpetually retained by our Singapore government to professedly preserve our “Asian values”.

 

Homosexuality existed all over the world since antiquity with evidence, and S377A is evidently now the actual Western imported idea, birthed as much from amorous reasons for slutzilla Anne Boleyn as political ones against the English Church. Lol!

 

I find it stupendous this epic and historic piece of grating irony had been largely overlooked by our past S377A repeal efforts.

 

 

King henry was actually a very sad and depressed king after he executed his second wife Anne Boleyn due to her adultery. 

 

After having his fifth wife Catherine Howard also executed due to adultery, he became so physically weakened and defeated.

 

The same ilk of psychologically deranged people we see today in Singapore singing praises of 377A!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Smack them in the face
1 hour ago, Guest Soh Wat said:

Unfortunately the keepers won't be interested in how it came about as long they get to keep it to serve their own purpose. Hard truths.

But it can make them look very morally feeble and intellectually diminished in front of a more intellectual and educated global audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest takes balls to throw ball

The judges don’t even need to strike down 377A, they just need to declare it as unconstitutional, that’s all.

 

Them the ball will be thrown to the parliament to repeal the law or otherwise be harshly berated for mistreating its own citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Try This
36 minutes ago, Guest takes balls to throw ball said:

The judges don’t even need to strike down 377A, they just need to declare it as unconstitutional, that’s all.

 

Them the ball will be thrown to the parliament to repeal the law or otherwise be harshly berated for mistreating its own citizens.

That’s how it should work. So now the lawyers have to argue and convince the judges how the Constitution includes LGBT citizens. 

 

Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees to all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. The Article also identifies four forbidden classifications – religion, race, descent and place of birth – upon which Singapore citizens may not be discriminated for specific reasons.”

 

 

According to Merriam Webster:

Definition of descent

1a derivation from an ancestor birthlineage 
  • of French descent
  • patrilineal descent
b transmission or devolution of an estate (see 1estate 4b) by inheritance usually in the descending line 
c the fact or process of originating from an ancestral stock  
  • the descent of modern humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor
d the shaping or development in nature and character by transmission from a source derivation
  • … could trace a faint but sure descent from Roman law.—R. W. Southern

 

We could argue from genetic evidence of homosexuality that “descent” in the constitution included gays as we are borned genetically this way, according to the definitions of “descent” on merriam webster 1a, which included derivation from birth - i.e. homosexual “genetic descent”, 1c, originating from an ancestral “genetic” stock - as genes do get passed down through generations, and 1d, the shaping or development in nature and character by transmission from a ”genetic” source.

 

Any clever and sassy enough lawyer should be able to power this through!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Smack them in the face said:

But it can make them look very morally feeble and intellectually diminished in front of a more intellectual and educated global audience.

 

Well, do they really care as long as they think the govt is willing to go along with the position of the "conservative majority" on this issue, however morally feeble and intellectually diminished it is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soh fat soh scardy cat
54 minutes ago, Guest Soh Wat said:

 

Well, do they really care as long as they think the govt is willing to go along with the position of the "conservative majority" on this issue, however morally feeble and intellectually diminished it is?

The courts do, trust me. *wink*

 

They are not politicians and are better versed in classical texts than the paper generals who came from electrician and pumping backgrounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kimchi rice balls pizza
8 hours ago, Guest takes balls to throw ball said:

The judges don’t even need to strike down 377A, they just need to declare it as unconstitutional, that’s all.

 

Them the ball will be thrown to the parliament to repeal the law or otherwise be harshly berated for mistreating its own citizens.

 

what, LPPL.

LAN PAR , PAR LAN.

 

Will the testicles strike and complaint against the penis , and will the penis strike and show disdain against the testicles.

 

The penis and testicles are all in a comfy cozy tight space hugging and loving and carressing each other, needing each other to survive, the penis needs the testosterone from the testis and testis needs the penis to be erect to shoot out the semen and sperm cells.

 

its LPPL, LAN PAR , PAR LAN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Soh Huat
8 hours ago, Guest Soh fat soh scardy cat said:

The courts do, trust me. *wink*

 

They are not politicians and are better versed in classical texts than the paper generals who came from electrician and pumping backgrounds.

 

I shall not say further lest I be accused of scandalising the court. *wink wink*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PeterPan

Difference responses to Penal Code 377a are documented here.

 

National Council of Churches in India where the Indian Supreme Court strike down the law. This statement by India NCC was issued in January 11, 2018 before their Supreme Court decision.

 

http://ncci1914.com/2018/01/11/towards-just-and-inclusive-communities-a-statement-on-sec-377-of-ipc/

 

Towards Just and Inclusive Communities: A Statement on Sec.377 of IPC

Part of the statement  reproduced:

 

“We recognize that there are people with different sexual orientations. Our faith affirmation that we are created in the image of God makes it imperative on us to reject systemic and personal attitudes of homophobia against sexual minorities. . . We envision Church as a sanctuary to the ostracized who thirst for understanding, friendship, love, compassion and solidarity. We appeal to churches to sojourn with sexual minorities and their families ministerially, without prejudice and discrimination, to provide them ministries of love, compassionate care, and justice.

 

The National Council of Churches of Singapore issued a statement to Retain 377a on September 14, 2018.

 

https://nccs.org.sg/2018/09/nccs-statement-retain-377a/

 

This is in support of their 2003 statement:

 

https://nccs.org.sg/2003/07/homosexuality-29-july-2003/

 

Part of the statement  says:

In this regard, we urge our government to maintain:

a) current legislation concerning homosexuality;

b) its policy of not permitting the registration of homosexual societies or clubs;

c) its policy of not allowing the promotion of homosexual lifestyle and activities.

 

The Alliance of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Churches of Singapore also call for the retention of 377a.

This group of about 50 churches is led by Rev Dominic Yeo who is also a supporter of Kong Hee's CHC, a member church..

Rev Lawrence Khong and others are part of this organisation.

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/national-council-of-churches-of-singapore-says-it-does-not-support-repeal-of-377a

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vjXdNsEz5g

 

The above is just to show the various responses to the same issue

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PAP MP Murali Pillai was interviewed by Channel NewsAsia journalist Bharati Jagdish on Saturday, 15 September 2018. Among the issues he was asked about included his stance on Section 377A in the light of India's recent decriminalisation of gay sex.
“It is certainly a vexed issue. My overriding view and hope is that whatever decision that is eventually made in Parliament about Section 377A, it is done after we have made our best attempt in reaching a consensus within our society on this matter. This may seem like wishful thinking on my part since our society is currently polarised. But I’m hopeful, I’m optimistic because I believe there is a general recognition that a homosexual is deserving of equal treatment, deserving of dignity and respect and should not be treated as a social outcast.”
But does he personally agree with this standpoint?
“Yes, certainly,” he says.
When Bharati put it to him that perhaps the Government should take a firm stand on the issue and set the tone as it has with many other tough issues, he says the matter has to be looked into holistically.
“At the same time, there is a belief that a decision on Section 377A may have an impact on important institutions such as marriage and family. This must be addressed too,” he adds.
“Hence, I strongly feel that we should take a holistic approach. This involves properly identifying all the issues associated with matter, a thorough engagement and discussion with civil society, religious groups, etc, and an effort at forging a consensus on the main issues involved. The hallmark of democracy at the end of the day is that we must be able to justify the moves we make even if not every single person agrees. We are not alone in this journey. This is happening in the rest of the world too. It is important that we study and gain insights from the global developments too. The efforts, the studies on these fronts should start now but will take time to complete. So be it. To be an effective interlocutor for this process, I feel that I should be open to suasion at this stage.”
Murali points out that while Section 377A is still in the penal code, it is not enforced. Some have remarked that considering this, it might make more sense to simply repeal it.
"The penal code is an old code and there were a number of other provisions which were removed over time. They were removed in a point in time when society kind of accepted it. For example, the provision outlawing adultery. That was in the books. There was a provision dealing with enticing a woman out of wedlock. That was in the books even after it became irrelevant. But over time, they were taken out. So let's work on looking at the issue holistically and let's see where that goes in relation to 377A.""
Links:
https://the-singapore-lgbt-encyclopaedia.wikia.com/wiki/Singapore_politicians'_views_on_homosexuality

Edited by groyn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy sounds like an idiot and a coward to me.   A "consensus within society" ?  Did the payment of taxes came as a "consensus within society"?  And the astronomical salary of the PM? 

 

His mentioning (justifications) with the words like "holistic approach"  is further proof that he is bullshitting.  The issue HAS BEEN treated "holistically" in that all the interested parties have given their opinion, some pro and many against, especially the religious and those hiding behind "family".   But if by "holistically" he means all in agreement, then noting is "holistic".

 

Doesn't this dirty politician look Indian?  In India, 377A was struck down totally "non-holistically" by the supreme court declaring it unconstitutional. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The quoted statements of this National Council of Churches are so outrageous that reading them is sufficient to recognize these churches as propagandists of falsities.

One doesn't even have to pass judgement on the Bible.  This book, subject to such wide interpretations, cannot be held responsible for the abominable opinions and directives launched by this "council of churches" in the Bible's name.  They are exactly like the biblical Pharisees that Jesus threw out of the temple...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

The quoted statements of this National Council of Churches are so outrageous that reading them is sufficient to recognize these churches as propagandists of falsities.

One doesn't even have to pass judgement on the Bible.  This book, subject to such wide interpretations, cannot be held responsible for the abominable opinions and directives launched by this "council of churches" in the Bible's name.  They are exactly like the biblical Pharisees that Jesus threw out of the temple...

There are many many hypocrites in various churches or you can also say in various religions ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Guest Perv perv said:

A Mad Cheena Man makes ridiculous arguments , that will not sway anyone, but will only get thrown smelly eggs .

 

Watch and laugh.

 

 

 

 

LMAO .......

I agree No.5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I DKY u are an idiot
2 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

This guy sounds like an idiot and a coward to me.   A "consensus within society" ?  Did the payment of taxes came as a "consensus within society"?  And the astronomical salary of the PM? 

 

His mentioning (justifications) with the words like "holistic approach"  is further proof that he is bullshitting.  The issue HAS BEEN treated "holistically" in that all the interested parties have given their opinion, some pro and many against, especially the religious and those hiding behind "family".   But if by "holistically" he means all in agreement, then noting is "holistic".

 

Doesn't this dirty politician look Indian?  In India, 377A was struck down totally "non-holistically" by the supreme court declaring it unconstitutional. 

 

Our government will tell you to leave Singaporeans to thrash out the issue, and then make their own decisions about this issue without external interference,unless you have a stake in the running and future of Singapore, I suggest you stay out of the topic of how we decide policies.

 

 

Decriminalising  S377A , will have far reaching results,   that needs to be thought out carefully,

 

The next issue will be since decriminalising, will be equal rights, then tights to housing, rights to IVF, rights to surrogate birth to create gay parents and their families , then will be special rights for admission to schools, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then you have this Buck Angel , who is born a female , transitioned to female and then is a Gay Porn Model, who get  fucked in His / her pussy.

 

All these variations of sexual gender roles will want Equality and access to jobs , housing, security.

 

Its all very confusing for our general population to be able to digest all this kind of variations.

 

 

Before our government Opens the floodgates of recognising and according equal rights to all these sexual minorities , the overall impact to Singapore needs to be studied carefully, 

 

Becos countries who have gone ahead before us , are facing all these mind boggling issues now and some of these cases have come back and bite those western countries back where it hurts.

 

 

Its not merely gay rights and  gay males , and their right to love,

 

 

its a whole pandora's  box of issues that needs to be studied which our govthave found the gemral popualtion may not have the ability or stomach to digest these issues.

 

 

Its not just plain vanilla gay rights, plain vanilla male and male fall in love..

 

 

There are issues about marriage, marital responsilbility, divorce and then child custody, asset distribution. all kinds of new legal issues that will bog down the whole parliament, when there are important bread and butter issues and Singapore 's survival in the long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I DKY u are an idiot

Buck Angel Headshot.jpg

 

Buck Angel, female to male transgender , whatever he/she calls himself/herself, is known to perform in Gay pornography as a  recipient/bottom/ catcher/ osyster.......

 

Its hard to wrap our brains around it, but its none of our business what "IT" does with  "its " private life and private life, but if "it " was living in Singapore as what it does. 

 

And wants equal rights, to do what 'it "wants, and send its child to our school and attends PTA, we must be able to digest and understand all these.

 

We may not be ready and we may not be there yet,

 

So its not right to force someone who is not ready and 

 

And then say to hell with you, I just want my equal rights.

 

And goes on to thump  table, flip tables, and leer menacingly at our civil servants.

 

I dont want that. 

 

It can happen, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Perv perv

But we must respect other people's religious believes , even if we find it totally ridiculous. we must still accord them a basic respect and not ridicule them.

 

 

 

Tolerance and space to practice what they hold sacred .

 

Our govt encourages that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Guest kimchi rice balls pizza said:

 

what, LPPL.

LAN PAR , PAR LAN.

 

Will the testicles strike and complaint against the penis , and will the penis strike and show disdain against the testicles.

 

The penis and testicles are all in a comfy cozy tight space hugging and loving and carressing each other, needing each other to survive, the penis needs the testosterone from the testis and testis needs the penis to be erect to shoot out the semen and sperm cells.

 

its LPPL, LAN PAR , PAR LAN.

I never say the court berate the parliament, no court will ever do that. That is not their business. They will only decide on matters of justice, if they are independent. *ahem* *stretches jaws* *scratches non existing itch on face* 

 

But if they ever declare 377A as unconstitutional, and scully the parliament die die also won’t do anything to strike down the law or make it fairer towards gays, all the stakeholders will descend upon our government and KPKB until their faces turn blue. That is going to be super ugly for our government and international news worthy, and an ever better bitching show than yanxi palace and zhenhuan combined. *evil laugh*

 

All the bitchy gays will baying and screeching, their claws will be unleashed and involved in a lot of scratching actions. And the macho maries will be descending upon the parliament house for some kickboxing and bodycombat practice. Will be even more entertaining than gladitatorial combats involving wild animals. Lol

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DISGUSTED

National Councl of Churches represents the Christian religion in the country.

 

From reading their various statements towards 377A, The National Council of Churches in India, compared to National Council of Churches Singapore, are like complete polar opposites in terms of compassion and inclusivity.

 

Their attitudinal difference is so jarring!!!!!

 

Shame on Singapore for condoning such fundamentalist religious views!

 

Even ultra socially conservative India is moving forward, yet “cosmopolitan” Singapore chooses to move backwards.

 

The hypocrisy of Singapore’s Church is so EXTREME, SHOCKING, OBVIOUS, AND APPALLING!!!!!!

 

They are a clear and categorical assault to this country’s foundation principles!

 

God save our country ! ! ! ! ! !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hard truths

Lets keep them happy and allow them to continue bullying the minority so that they will vote to keep us in power and not complain about other things like high ministerial pay and GST. So smart hor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scandalous YOU!
10 hours ago, Guest Soh Huat said:

 

I shall not say further lest I be accused of scandalising the court. *wink wink*

Ler shio gan si bo? Don’t anyhow wink wink at people hor!

 

You better go GAYlang and release....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Guest Perv perv said:

But we must respect other people's religious believes , even if we find it totally ridiculous. we must still accord them a basic respect and not ridicule them.

 

Sanctimonious video...

 

Tolerance and space to practice what they hold sacred .

 

Our govt encourages that

 

You are free to respect that what you find ridiculous.  But the rest of us should respect that what DESERVES respect.

 

One of the powerful tools of the religious organizations is their brain-washing directive that "religion" should deserve special, exclusive respect.

What is religion but a bunch of information?  Information that is not backed by any evidence but is pure hearsay.  Religiousness (not religion) may inspire some feelings in us, and the religious organizations are quick to attribute such feelings to a "proof" that their dogmas are true,  that our emotions are brought by their "god".  But it is well known that emotions don't necessarily reflect reality.

 

And who are the most intolerant people?  The religious ones.  They are totally tolerant of their own religion and totally intolerant of other religions, which they call false.  This is why religions wars were fought between religious societies.   If you are gay and you know the reality of your condition,  HOW can you RESPECT any beliefs that you are a sinner, an abomination, and all the other shit the religious throw at us ???  Not only should you not respect the beliefs, but also not particularly respect the believers either.

 

It is the believers' issue to be so stupid to let their brains be washed and give credence to such childish fairy tales in the Abrahamic religions, for example.  It is their lack of character to follow a religious professional like sheep without realizing that such "professional" does not have personal experience but is conveying, for his personal convenience, that what he was duped with himself.

 

And to PRACTICE RELIGION should be limited to the individual, the group, that is, regulate THEIR OWN conduct without attempting to have everybody follow their same fantasies.  In this sense, one should give credit to Judaism, which limits itself to the Jews and leaves the "gentiles" to fend for themselves,  something we do very happily.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guest I DKY u are an idiot said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you, You Are An Idiot, for posting these great videos that show how people can overcome their inborn problems and become such superior loving beings.  Especially the second couple is so amazing being indistinguishable from a common heterosexual couple with precious children.   And THEY SHOULD BE INDISTINGUISHABLE in all the rights and privileges given to married couples INDEPENDENT OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.   Great example for everyone, especially those who correctly defend the rights of LGBTs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guest I DKY u are an idiot said:

 

Our government will tell you to leave Singaporeans to thrash out the issue, and then make their own decisions about this issue without external interference,unless you have a stake in the running and future of Singapore, I suggest you stay out of the topic of how we decide policies.

 

 

Decriminalising  S377A , will have far reaching results,   that needs to be thought out carefully,

 

The next issue will be since decriminalising, will be equal rights, then tights to housing, rights to IVF, rights to surrogate birth to create gay parents and their families , then will be special rights for admission to schools, 

 

 

And then you have this Buck Angel , who is born a female , transitioned to female and then is a Gay Porn Model, who get  fucked in His / her pussy.

 

All these variations of sexual gender roles will want Equality and access to jobs , housing, security.

 

Its all very confusing for our general population to be able to digest all this kind of variations.

 

 

Before our government Opens the floodgates of recognising and according equal rights to all these sexual minorities , the overall impact to Singapore needs to be studied carefully, 

 

Becos countries who have gone ahead before us , are facing all these mind boggling issues now and some of these cases have come back and bite those western countries back where it hurts.

 

 

Its not merely gay rights and  gay males , and their right to love,

 

 

its a whole pandora's  box of issues that needs to be studied which our govthave found the gemral popualtion may not have the ability or stomach to digest these issues.

 

 

Its not just plain vanilla gay rights, plain vanilla male and male fall in love..

 

There are issues about marriage, marital responsilbility, divorce and then child custody, asset distribution. all kinds of new legal issues that will bog down the whole parliament, when there are important bread and butter issues and Singapore 's survival in the long term.

 

Yes, You Are An Idiot,   you are indeed an idiot.  You didn't take the care to investigate the situation in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage.  None of your alarmist warnings has become reality.  Look at The Netherlands after nearly 20 years of legal same-sex marriage:  heteros live in peace while homos live in peace,  none taking anything away from the other.   

 

And one explanation is simple:  we LGBTs are a small minority in the population.  How can equal rights passed on to a, say, 5% minority affect the social stability and economy of a progressive country?   You have let yourself be brain-washed with the false arguments of the religious conservatives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Magician
2 hours ago, Guest DISGUSTED said:

 

From reading their various statements towards 377A, The National Council of Churches in India, compared to National Council of Churches Singapore, are like complete polar opposites in terms of compassion and inclusivity.

 

Churches of Singapore is a very LUCRATIVE BUSINESS.  They appeal to the masses for MONEY.  Whether they truly preach the true gospel is beside the point, these pastors wanted to be popular, well-liked by their sheep and aimed to be a CELEBRITY.    These people needs to get a REAL JOB instead of hiding behind the veil of their robe to interfere with politics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Church own by Prada
19 minutes ago, Guest Magician said:

Churches of Singapore is a very LUCRATIVE BUSINESS.  They appeal to the masses for MONEY.  Whether they truly preach the true gospel is beside the point, these pastors wanted to be popular, well-liked by their sheep and aimed to be a CELEBRITY.    These people needs to get a REAL JOB instead of hiding behind the veil of their robe to interfere with politics. 

They do sound like thieves to me. I find it very hard to respect such people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest So much without Grace

NCCS sounds like barbarians to me. The way they grovel and scheme to directly interfere in people’s private and public lives through legislature force, is UGLY.

 

They sound like tortured souls, warmongering pagans in disguise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest So much without Grace
1 hour ago, Guest Kiddie poo said:

Nope. They are ultra-childish arch enemies.

All thanks to that infamous medieval whore Anne Boleyn, who caused Henry VII to separate the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago.

 

That was how the Reformation started, wars were fought between the Protestants and Catholics as a result. 

 

Protestantism later spreaded to Singapore through the English Church during colonial times.

 

Now, the protestants and catholics still curse each other to hell and believe the other is going to hell if they do not repent.

 

Scratch them a little. Beneath their facades of “grace”, that is how cantankerous and childish Christians fundamentally are. Can you believe?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest So much without Grace
Just now, Guest So much without Grace said:

All thanks to that infamous medieval whore Anne Boleyn, who caused Henry VII to separate the English Church from the Roman Catholic Church 500 years ago.

 

That was how the Reformation started, wars were fought between the Protestants and Catholics as a result. 

 

Protestantism later spreaded to Singapore through the English Church during colonial times.

 

Now, the protestants and catholics still curse each other to hell and believe the other is going to hell if they do not repent.

 

Scratch them a little. Beneath their facades of “grace”, that is how cantankerous and childish Christians fundamentally are. Can you believe?

 

*Henry the VIII*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signed and Proud.

The need for this petition underlines the lack of moral leadership in Singapore. 377a needs to be repealed because it is the right thing to do. Once Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu supported repeal of similar legislation in South Africa, there was no pushback from the opposing large majority.  This issue needs for the Prime Minister to put his head on the block and do the right thing by convincing parliament, and not a referendum. Please provide him with the arguments to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Hsien Loong Fatally Flawed
4 hours ago, Sh3rlock said:

Signed and Proud.

The need for this petition underlines the lack of moral leadership in Singapore. 377a needs to be repealed because it is the right thing to do. Once Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu supported repeal of similar legislation in South Africa, there was no pushback from the opposing large majority.  This issue needs for the Prime Minister to put his head on the block and do the right thing by convincing parliament, and not a referendum. Please provide him with the arguments to do so.

You have too much faith in that spineless creature. He is the most gutless man i have ever seen in my life.

 

A truly craven and yellow bellied wimp with daddy issues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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