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

[Guest Ingrate]

1 hour ago, Guest Hsien Loong Fatally Flawed said:

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!

If LKY is still a PM, he would have it repealed long ago, and even more urgent after his grandson has came out of the closet.   Unfortunately LHL is a weakling, a lousy leader and petty brother in his own family.  He treated his own siblings and nephew like his enemy.  As such, he would prefer to keep S377A to attack his nephew if given a chance to do so.

[Guest Yay!]

3000 signatures added over the weekend....Yay!!  Now 43000 already.  Almost the entire gay populations are signing.  Let's target at least 50K in the next couple days....Yay!!

[LeanMature]

4 minutes ago, Guest Yay! said:

3000 signatures added over the weekend....Yay!!  Now 43000 already.  Almost the entire gay populations are signing.  Let's target at least 50K in the next couple days....Yay!!

 

I guess 43k is only one third of the gay population, still way to go.

[Guest He’s scum of the earth]

17 minutes ago, Guest Ingrate said:

If LKY is still a PM, he would have it repealed long ago, and even more urgent after his grandson has came out of the closet.   Unfortunately LHL is a weakling, a lousy leader and petty brother in his own family.  He treated his own siblings and nephew like his enemy.  As such, he would prefer to keep S377A to attack his nephew if given a chance to do so.

My sentiments exactly. He is an extremely weak and ugly human being. And I think he is misanthropic too, judging from his strange actions and behaviour around humans. He is a sociopath i tell you.

[Guest Disgrace of mankind]

Like father like son. But in this case, the son far exceeded the father in vindictivenenss. His father bullied others for the country, he bullied others for himself. 

[Oklor]

It might be largely hopeless to try to convince some religious groups not to think ill of homosexuality.  It still makes sense to engage them because they may eventually accept that their way shouldn't be imposed on the rest.  For example, I generally feel quite negatively about abortion, but I would not agree with banning it.

[Guest Missy]

1 hour ago, Guest He’s scum of the earth said:

My sentiments exactly. He is an extremely weak and ugly human being. And I think he is misanthropic too, judging from his strange actions and behaviour around humans. He is a sociopath i tell you.

His handshake with leaders across the world is also freaky.  I thought LHL should be the first to repeal S377A because his physical actions, they way he walk, sit and doing handshake speak volume about his own gayness.  I find him more sissy than me.

[Guest The world is run by dicks]

14 minutes ago, Guest Missy said:

His handshake with leaders across the world is also freaky.  I thought LHL should be the first to repeal S377A because his physical actions, they way he walk, sit and doing handshake speak volume about his own gayness.  I find him more sissy than me.

His sissiness easily beats 99% of out and proud gays. You know what they say? People deep in the closet will find ways to persecute, embarrass gays because they are in self-denial and jealous. Lawrence Khong is another prominent example. I really think these are such sad people. They couldn’t live their lives, so they want to stop others from living theirs too, is extreme cowardice. No wonder he is good friends with Najib, Putin and Kim, all the other major freakheads and dicks.

[Guest empress' place]

 

A Parody about those who subscribe to a particular   religion ,and  how they deal with existance of Gay people,  LOL

 

 

Another parody about that type of people and how they deal with Marrying a Gay closeted man.

 

 

 

 

A parody about how they deal with having Bull dyke family member.

 

 

 

A pre Marriage Equality parody that we all know what happen after  the supreme court decided to uphold , equal rights.

 

 

 

LOL, and watch again.

[Guest empress 's place]

 

More parody

 

 

 

 

[Guest empress 's place]

 

 

 

 

It is very controversial and confronting over there when one person upholds his/her religious convictions, and then applies it in public life and even in a secular work place.

Lets watch it and try to understand the issues.

 

Perhaps there will be a solution.

 

[LeanMature]

25 minutes ago, Guest empress 's place said:

 

It is very controversial and confronting over there when one person upholds his/her religious convictions, and then applies it in public life and even in a secular work place.

Lets watch it and try to understand the issues.

 

Perhaps there will be a solution.

 

 

It's not one person or a few persons, it is NCCS, the body representing all churches in Singapore that raised its strong objection.  

[Guest Elephant Room]

3 hours ago, LeanMature said:

 

It's not one person or a few persons, it is NCCS, the body representing all churches in Singapore that raised its strong objection.  

Not all churches would agree,  NCCS is an empty shell trying to talk big. 

[fab]

Just let 377a be applicable to those religions n their followers.

[Guest Brilliante]

1 hour ago, fab said:

Just let 377a be applicable to those religions n their followers.

CLEVER!!!!

 

Let the petitioners and constitutional challengers suggest to the courts and parliament!

 

Shut those christians up once and for all!

[Guest Brilliante]

Just now, Guest Brilliante said:

CLEVER!!!!

 

Let the petitioners and constitutional challengers suggest to the courts and parliament!

 

Shut those christians up once and for all!

It started as an ecclesiastical law anyway, so let it be applicable to ONLY christians since they like to retain it so much.

 

Something like molesting laws can only apply to molesters. The buggery law which it originated from in England was mostly used against the clergy by the King anyway, as so many bishops and priests are such creepy homosexuals.

 

Just need to add in one word “christian” and make it 377B:

 

Any Christian male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

[Guest Yay!]

Hitting 44K soon, I am confident it will hit 50K earlier than expected.  Let's keep on swimming, swimming,  keep on swimming, swimming......Yay!!

[Guest history lessons]

23 hours ago, 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?

 

 

You better take some history lessons boy. the Henry VIII has nothing to do with Reformation....

[Guest Correct lah]

2 hours ago, Guest history lessons said:

 

You better take some history lessons boy. the Henry VIII has nothing to do with Reformation....

I was refering to the English Reformation - it was the English missionaries that built Protestant churchs in Singapore. 

 

He reformed the English Church after separating it from the Roman Catholic one and became both the head of state and head of church in England.

 

Of course the actual Reformation was started by Martin Luther King from Germany and Protestanism had different birth places.

 

Had the English church not separated from the Roman Catholic one, Henry VIII would not have tried to grab power from the church by transfering christian sins requiring penance from the ecclesiastical court to his secular court to be judged as criminal offences. Buggery was one of them. The rest as we all know is history.

 

[Guest Correct lah]

3 hours ago, Guest Brilliante said:

It started as an ecclesiastical law anyway, so let it be applicable to ONLY christians since they like to retain it so much.

 

Something like molesting laws can only apply to molesters. The buggery law which it originated from in England was mostly used against the clergy by the King anyway, as so many bishops and priests are such creepy homosexuals.

 

Just need to add in one word “christian” and make it 377B:

 

Any Christian male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Just to add on, when the christian priests commited buggery, most of the time was with unconsenting male adolescents and male children.

 

Consenting non-christian homosexual adults in secular countries shouldn’t have to be policed by such a criminal law. It is abominable to do that in 2018 and also humiliating to homosexuals to have such a law in the book even if it is not enforced.

[Guest Just do it]

5 hours ago, fab said:

Just let 377a be applicable to those religions n their followers.

 

Good idea! Just set up a separate law for Christians like the Syariah Law for muslims. Move 377A there and let NCCS enforce the law on its own members so that they can comply strictly with their holy books without imposing their views on others. Muslims are also free to incorporate the act into the Syariah Law if it has not already been done. Then repeal the act from the secular law so that we won't have this terrible situation of having a law that is deemed by most if not all of the developed world to be discriminatory and which the government has no intention of enforcing anyway, which itself sends a very bad signal about law enforcement. This should keep everyone happy, unless the Christians actually do want to impose their views on everyone and/ or the government really do want to discriminate against gays by retaining this law?

[Guest Oops]

1 hour ago, Guest Correct lah said:

I was refering to the English Reformation - it was the English missionaries that built Protestant churchs in Singapore. 

 

He reformed the English Church after separating it from the Roman Catholic one and became both the head of state and head of church in England.

 

Of course the actual Reformation was started by Martin Luther King from Germany and Protestanism had different birth places.

 

Had the English church not separated from the Roman Catholic one, Henry VIII would not have tried to grab power from the church by transfering christian sins requiring penance from the ecclesiastical court to his secular court to be judged as criminal offences. Buggery was one of them. The rest as we all know is history.

 

*Martin Luther King

[Guest Guest]

6 hours ago, Guest Yay! said:

Hitting 44K soon, I am confident it will hit 50K earlier than expected.  Let's keep on swimming, swimming,  keep on swimming, swimming......Yay!!

Hit 50k....then?  Life back to status quo......

[Steve5380]

9 hours ago, Guest Oops said:

*Martin Luther King

 

Well... both were reformists.  Both deserve thanks from many, many people.

[LeanMature]

13 hours ago, Guest Brilliante said:

It started as an ecclesiastical law anyway, so let it be applicable to ONLY christians since they like to retain it so much.

 

Something like molesting laws can only apply to molesters. The buggery law which it originated from in England was mostly used against the clergy by the King anyway, as so many bishops and priests are such creepy homosexuals.

 

Just need to add in one word “christian” and make it 377B:

 

Any Christian male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

 

10 hours ago, Guest Correct lah said:

Just to add on, when the christian priests commited buggery, most of the time was with unconsenting male adolescents and male children.

 

Consenting non-christian homosexual adults in secular countries shouldn’t have to be policed by such a criminal law. It is abominable to do that in 2018 and also humiliating to homosexuals to have such a law in the book even if it is not enforced.

 

In all fairness, add in two words “christian priest" and make it 377C:

 

Any Christian priest male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.

[Steve5380]

22 hours ago, LeanMature said:

 

 

In all fairness, add in two words “christian priest" and make it 377C:

 

Any Christian priest male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.

 

LOL!  You have a very healthy sense of justice!

Although...  should we really vent anger against fellow gays who happen to have vocation for priesthood and were sucked into the false facade of holiness of the religious institutions?  Or should the anger be better focused on the root of the problem, the institutions themselves?  How about the punishment being the closing of the religious institution of the Christian priest for a term of X years,  X depending on the gravity of the crime and the frequency they are committed by these priests.

[Vometra]

A grown man, dressed like a doll, claimed he speaks for an invisible sky daddy, has a bunch of predatory pedos under his wing, tells us "by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible."

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/catholics-urged-to-reject-repeal-of-section-377a

 

http://theindependent.sg/child-sexual-abuse-survivor-claims-church-has-no-moral-authority-to-speak-out-against-gay-sex/

Edited September 19, 2018 by Vometra

[Guest history lessons cont"ued]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:27 AM, Guest Correct lah said:

I was refering to the English Reformation - it was the English missionaries that built Protestant churchs in Singapore. 

 

He reformed the English Church after separating it from the Roman Catholic one and became both the head of state and head of church in England.

 

Of course the actual Reformation was started by Martin Luther King from Germany and Protestanism had different birth places.

 

Had the English church not separated from the Roman Catholic one, Henry VIII would not have tried to grab power from the church by transfering christian sins requiring penance from the ecclesiastical court to his secular court to be judged as criminal offences. Buggery was one of them. The rest as we all know is history.

 

 

Martin Luther King was an American black freedom fighter. The name of the German reformist is just Martin Luther.

 

I find the Christian bashing here unsuitable. Without the support of the Protestant churches in Europe there would not have been much movement to accept gays and to stop discrimination in the past. The Protestant churches in Europe even gave benediction to gay couples before the laws were changed to allow gay marriages or civil unions.

The bad movements always came from the USA or the South American "new" angelical churches, who were "protesting" (objecting) against gays just to clinch their followers more together.

However, we should stop bashing one religion or one type of religion.

Gays from Buddhist families in Singapore are living in the closet too and don't dare to come out. In fact, same for all religions.

 

Yes we can critisize those very "pretend to be" fundamentalist religious groups, who mainly oppose decriminalisation of gays to uphold the society from all "bads". Gays have always been easy victims because they are a minority, have been looked down and scapegoats.

I personally don't understand why people follow those very fundamentalist religious groups anyway. Mostly the ones running these religions are failed people and just suck out the money from their followers. Maybe the good thing with those groups is that they can keep some potential psychos calm. Eventually they would cause more danger without having the "support" of those very fundamental religious groups who give them something to believe in and calm them down.

 

But let's not generalise just against one religion. I could start a long list with other religions and their bad deeds.

[Guest history lessons cont"ued]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:27 AM, Guest Correct lah said:

I was refering to the English Reformation - it was the English missionaries that built Protestant churchs in Singapore. 

 

He reformed the English Church after separating it from the Roman Catholic one and became both the head of state and head of church in England.

 

Of course the actual Reformation was started by Martin Luther King from Germany and Protestanism had different birth places.

 

Had the English church not separated from the Roman Catholic one, Henry VIII would not have tried to grab power from the church by transfering christian sins requiring penance from the ecclesiastical court to his secular court to be judged as criminal offences. Buggery was one of them. The rest as we all know is history.

 

 

Please call them Anglican Churches, don't call them Protestant churches. thanks

"English missionaries that built Protestant Anglican churches in Singapore"

[heliumduck]

https://consensusg.com/2018/09/18/does-anyone-remember-singapores-abortion-act-debate/

 

Quote

• POSTED ONSEPTEMBER 18, 2018
•  
•  by LEE KE LIN

Lessons from Singapore’s Abortion Act debate

1

 

Quote

The recent arguments over Section 377A of the Penal Code quickly coalesced into two distinct and opposing camps – each armed with a set of values that they hold dear and immutable.

A 2007 study which examined the more than 10,000 comments left on the online petitions, both for and against repealing 377A, concluded that the main battleground was rights versus morals, and that is still likely the case today. This fault line looks deep and irreconcilable [1] – for one side to win, the other must lose; as a result, there is a fear that this will tear Singapore society apart. Because of this, there are some who would prefer not to talk about the issue at all – sure, it will not disappear, but at least things will not get worse!

However, we, the writers of this article, are more optimistic about Singaporean society. We believe that Singaporeans have the ability to accommodate, compromise, and ultimately respect each others’ beliefs and value systems. We say this because the lessons that we can learn from the debate between 1969 and 1974 over the issue of abortion tells us that we are far more capable of dealing with difficult, divisive issues that some might choose to believe.

Deja vu – a question of morals vs. rights again

Many Singaporeans may not be old enough to remember this divisive issue that, at the time, had split Singapore apart in a similar way. The arguments brought up by both sides resemble our current debate over 377A. Take a look at the parliamentary speeches made on the issue of abortion between 1969 and 1974 – we see the same dichotomy: morality versus rights. During the reading of the 1969 Abortion Bill:

“Mr. Sia Khoon Seng (Moulmein) said that liberalising the abortion law could undo the Government’s efforts to improve social and moral standards. Instead of allowing women to abort an unwanted pregnancy, one should find ways to make the mother learn to want the unwelcomed pregnancy.

The Bill, he argued, would work against the welfare of the community as it would infringe upon certain common moral values.

The fundamental principle behind a good law must generally concern itself with the general welfare of the public, even if such a law might encroach upon the rights of a minority group.” [2]

Sounds familiar? On the other hand, those who supported abortion argued:

“The issue is simple – the right of an individual to have a choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy under specified conditions just as it is the right of every human being to enjoy a meaningful life, a right to liberty and a right to privacy (Minister for Health, Chua Sian Chin).” [3]

Even though the PAP controlled the entire parliament at the time, and therefore passing any law was as easy as you can possibly imagine, the party whip was lifted. All MPs were told to vote according to their conscience – reflecting both the seriousness and the sensitivity of this issue. While there may have been utilitarian arguments of family planning and population control involved, it was recognized that this was ultimately an issue of rights and morality which mattered to those Singaporeans affected in a very deep and special way.

With 32 votes in favour, 10 against, abortion was legalized amidst a hail of objection from various segments of society.

What is the law supposed to do for us?

What was so special about Singapore’s decision to legalize abortion? What lesson can we learn from it? Singapore’s bold decision on abortion, which made us more progressive than most other countries in the world at the time, captures the essence of what the law should do for us – that is, to ensure that all communities have the opportunity to live fruitful and happy lives by ensuring everyone has minimumbasket of freedoms, and not by legislating for any specific majority or minority value system.

Despite the immense fault lines in relation to morality and individual rights, more than 45 years later, the legality of abortion is not something that comes under question. We have come to accept it as a fundamental aspect of women’s rights while also accepting that those who object to it are free to refrain from doing it, or to educate their children and loved ones about what they see as the moral ills of abortion.

In other words, their moral objections are viewed by society as an insufficient reason to restrict the rights and freedoms of those who do not share their beliefs. Today, the right to an abortion has been accepted part of a minimum basket of rights that all women should have access to, even though many might oppose it. Hence, even though both sides have diametrically opposed views on abortion, they nonetheless have found a way to co-exist peacefully.

Furthermore, this minimum basket of freedoms also involves certain ‘rules of engagement’ in relation to civic discourse that allows all communities to agree to disagree on the issues that they do not see eye-to-eye on.

Singapore’s stance on abortion appears to have captured this. Even though opponents of abortion cannot force their beliefs onto those who disagree with them, they remain free to express their views. This approach allows all communities to espouse their own preferred code of conduct while ensuring that they do not reduce the ability of other communities to live the lives they desire.

It is only with this in mind that Singapore, a country which legalised abortion could, in 1987, allow Mother Teresa come to the country to speak and publicly denounce abortion in front a predominantly Catholic Singaporean audience.

 

This approach to balancing the interests of different communities works because it allows Singaporeans from different walks of life to live the lives they desire, and enjoy for themselves the respective values they cherish.

Approaching 377A

Returning to 377A, it is easy to see how its divisiveness has led many politicians to avoid confronting the topic out of a fear that it would tear society apart. Yet, looking at how Singaporeans dealt with abortion since 1969, we are clearly a society that has the ability to respect each other’s beliefs and practices.

If we can confront the divisive issue of abortion without our society falling apart, we can do the same with 377A. Similarly, if we can accept that, in relation to abortion, everyone should enjoy a minimum basket of rights and be protected from those intending to impose their belief-systems on them, we can do the same with 377A. Finally, if we can accept that legalizing abortion does not infringe on the ability of anti-abortionists to live their lives as they desire and express their objections, we can also do the same with 377A.

We would like to end off with a 2005 quote from former Minister of Communications and Information and former Minister of Muslim Affairs, Dr. Yaccob Ibrahim, that is relevant to all communities in Singapore:

“[T]here are many things that exist around us which we do not agree with as Muslims, but accept as part of the wider landscape. Gambling, drinking and other activities that Muslims consider vices are not banned in Singapore. We understand that in our multi ethnic and multi-religious society, it is not tenable for Government policies to be dictated by the views of one or any groups. If we go down that road, then should we ban abortion or the use of condoms because some religious groups are against them? Or, should we ban the sale of meat in line with the convictions of groups who believe animals should not be slaughtered for food? It is in the interest of all Singaporeans that policies are not dictated by the view of any group.”

Written by Lee Ke Lin and Rio Hoe

 

 

Quote

Notes

[1] Detenber, Benjamin H., Mark Cenite, Shuhua Zhou, Shelly Malik, and Rachel L. Neo. “Rights Versus Morality: Online Debate about Decriminalization of Gay Sex in Singapore.” Journal of Homosexuality 61, no. 9 (2014): 1313-1333.

[2] The Straits Times. The Right to be Born vs the Pangs of Motherhood. 10 April 1969.

[3] The Straits times. Abortion Bill: Simple issue, says Minister. 9 April 1969.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by heliumduck

[Guest history lessons cont"ued]

23 hours ago, LeanMature said:

 

 

In all fairness, add in two words “christian priest" and make it 377C:

 

Any Christian priest male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years.

 

this goes the same. Just some weeks ago we were able to read about abuse from Madrasahs in Malaysia. I m sure it goes with Buddhism, Hinduism and who knows what. Abuse and sexual exploitation is not just restricted to one religion.

 

On one hand you want the law to be repealed by mere secular reasons (in separating religion from the state laws, i.e. separating the justification for laws or abolishing laws from religious beliefs) but here you all argue with the religious backgrounds.

This is not very persuasive.

 

Please get back to searching for secular reasons to abolish 377A. that helps more...

[Guest history lessons cont"ued]

On 9/18/2018 at 1:05 AM, Guest Just do it said:

 

Good idea! Just set up a separate law for Christians like the Syariah Law for muslims. Move 377A there and let NCCS enforce the law on its own members so that they can comply strictly with their holy books without imposing their views on others. Muslims are also free to incorporate the act into the Syariah Law if it has not already been done. Then repeal the act from the secular law so that we won't have this terrible situation of having a law that is deemed by most if not all of the developed world to be discriminatory and which the government has no intention of enforcing anyway, which itself sends a very bad signal about law enforcement. This should keep everyone happy, unless the Christians actually do want to impose their views on everyone and/ or the government really do want to discriminate against gays by retaining this law?

 

Please no!

Singapore has separated the criminal law from the religion, hence, Muslims receive the same punishment as non muslims, which seems in my eyes fairer to achieve equality in the punishment.

I m very sure most gay Muslims in Singapore wouldn't want the section to apply for them only.

You are contradicting yourself and actually pushing for the implementation of Hudud for muslims. There is already sufficient discussion on this in Malaysia.

 

Can you please stop this discussion on this level.

 

Not all Christians are against abolishing 377A, only the very very fundamental Christian churches (who are a minority as well).

Please do not confuse things.

 

Let religion out of this discussion.

By doing so, you only support the moral shouters against a change!

Please think smarter.

thanks

[Guest Of skirts and bowl cuts]

5 hours ago, Vometra said:

A grown man, dressed like a doll, claimed he speaks for an invisible sky daddy, has a bunch of predatory pedos under his wing, tells us "by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible."

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/catholics-urged-to-reject-repeal-of-section-377a

 

http://theindependent.sg/child-sexual-abuse-survivor-claims-church-has-no-moral-authority-to-speak-out-against-gay-sex/

Ahem. *the empress’s new clothes* *echo chamber*

*evil laughter*

 

And, he had a choice to retain that bowl cut..... OR NOT. 

Guess he thinks it makes him look so cuteeeee and adorbs, to other pedophiles.

[Guest Ong Ye Kung you mean this?]

14 minutes ago, Guest Of skirts and bowl cuts said:

Ahem. *the empress’s new clothes* *echo chamber*

*evil laughter*

 

And, he had a choice to retain that bowl cut..... OR NOT. 

Guess he thinks it makes him look so cuteeeee and adorbs, to other pedophiles.

 

Hairy issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Not only Anglican]

Anglicans are halfway between catholics and protestants.

 

Not all english churchs are anglican.

 

There are lots of protestant churches and missionaries from England too.

[Guest history lessons continued]

1 hour ago, Guest Not only Anglican said:

Anglicans are halfway between catholics and protestants.

 

Not all english churchs are anglican.

 

There are lots of protestant churches and missionaries from England too.

 

Yes, you are right, there are even still some Catholics in England...

Missionaries, not sure they are from England would guess more that they come from the US.

[Guest same ol soup with faded t]

 

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore's Archbishop William Goh said:

"In a letter posted on Tuesday (Sept 18) night on the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Singapore's website, Archbishop William Goh said he would not object to a repeal "if it were merely aimed at removing all potential criminal penalties against homosexuals".

He wrote: "However, until and unless Parliament puts in place a formulation that more perfectly encapsulates the spirit of the law, guaranteeing the protection of the rights of the majority who favour the traditional family, and that no further demands be made to legalise same-sex unions, same-sex adoption of babies, surrogacy, or to criminalise those who do not support the homosexual lifestyle, I am of the view that S377A should not be repealed under the present circumstances.

 

"This is because, by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible."

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

 

This is the same old soup we always hear for years from your church but you never evidenced nor gave any serious evidence that the "stability of families have eroded" and that the "well being of the children" was endangered by decriminalising gay sex.

Please come up with some real scientific evidence  and statistical substantiated basis to justify what you claim.

 

For sure, the amount of marriages has not declined in the Western societies due to deliberalisation of gay lifestyles. The same goes for break up of marriages.

 

Please don't bore us with the same old soup which taste has faded a long time ago.

 

Thank you,

 

[Guest Brit brittlest bitter]

18 minutes ago, Guest history lessons continued said:

 

Yes, you are right, there are even still some Catholics in England...

Missionaries, not sure they are from England would guess more that they come from the US.

THAT, I’m sure English missionaries came with the colonisers... which moonstruck, nutty, crazed, obsessive and frenzied christian maniac would pass on such a GOLDEN opportunity to infiltrate and brainwash new populations provided by colonies like sitting ducks?

 

Of cos, there were missionaries from USA too, and i’m sure even New Zealand and Australia too - which were also British colonies at that time. 

 

America almost became a British colony too but luckily didn’t!

[Guest history lesson con"ued]

12 minutes ago, Guest Brit brittlest bitter said:

THAT, I’m sure English missionaries came with the colonisers... which moonstruck, nutty, crazed, obsessive and frenzied christian maniac would pass on such a GOLDEN opportunity to infiltrate and brainwash new populations provided by colonies like sitting ducks?

 

Of cos, there were missionaries from USA too, and i’m sure even New Zealand and Australia too - which were also British colonies at that time. 

 

America almost became a British colony too but luckily didn’t!

 

the point was whether the missionaries were Anglican or Protestant. the missionaries from England most probably were propagating Anglican churches.

 

America was a British colony but then declared independence.

You better get some history fresh up classes man!

[Guest Viola!]

“America was a British colony but then declared independence.“

 

MY POINT THEN!!! VIOLA!

 

All the homophobic laws and ideas came from English “Victorian” laws and morals which came from late medieval Henry VIII’s political manoeuvres and sleazes.

[Guest history lessons continued]

11 minutes ago, Guest Viola! said:

“America was a British colony but then declared independence.“

 

MY POINT THEN!!! VIOLA!

 

All the homophobic laws and ideas came from English “Victorian” laws and morals which came from late medieval Henry VIII’s political manoeuvres and sleazes.

 

The last sentence I would not subscribe. A lot of stupid things came from England. But I don't think homosexuality was only forbidden by Victorian laws (which was past long time after Henry VIII)

 

Send me your address and I buy you the complete Compendium of History for Christmas. You need to read it up.

[Guest Laws are meant to Protect]

Doesn’t matter the missionaries to Singapore were protestant, anglican, catholic, or all of them. Britain had all of those religions, which have worked together to impose christian laws and moral values in Singapore.

 

2018 Singapore is NO MORE a British colony, those late medieval English originated christian laws should go too.

 

It is anachronistic to have such antiquated laws that are also unfairly discriminatory and holistically injurious towards gay men retained in the books.

 

These outmoded laws are more than symbolic. In socioculturally and politically stunted Singapore, they are justifiably and HARMFULLY PRESCRIPTIVE.

[Guest Auestion]

8 minutes ago, Guest history lessons continued said:

 

The last sentence I would not subscribe. A lot of stupid things came from England. But I don't think homosexuality was only forbidden by Victorian laws (which was past long time after Henry VIII)

 

Send me your address and I buy you the complete Compendium of History for Christmas. You need to read it up.

The Victorian era “offences against the body act” was derived from late medieval Henry VIII’s buggery act.

 

YOU NEED TO READ THIS UP IF YOU HAVEN’T, NOW!!!

 

Besides the stupid Victorian era English laws, which other country’s or religion’s laws forbided homosexuality then?

[Guest Laws are meant to Protect]

13 minutes ago, Guest Laws are meant to Protect said:

Doesn’t matter the missionaries to Singapore were protestant, anglican, catholic, or all of them. Britain had all of those religions, which have worked together to impose christian laws and moral values in Singapore.

 

2018 Singapore is NO MORE a British colony, those late medieval English originated christian laws should go too.

 

It is anachronistic to have such antiquated laws that are also unfairly discriminatory and holistically injurious towards gay men retained in the books.

 

These outmoded laws are more than symbolic. In socioculturally and politically stunted Singapore, they are *justifiably and HARMFULLY PRESCRIPTIVE.

 

*UNjustifiably

[Steve5380]

10 hours ago, Vometra said:

A grown man, dressed like a doll, claimed he speaks for an invisible sky daddy, has a bunch of predatory pedos under his wing, tells us "by accepting homosexual acts as a social norm, the dreadful consequences for the stability of our families, the well-being of our children, and the risks to the common good will be long term and irreversible."

 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/catholics-urged-to-reject-repeal-of-section-377a

 

http://theindependent.sg/child-sexual-abuse-survivor-claims-church-has-no-moral-authority-to-speak-out-against-gay-sex/

 

Thank you for posting the second link, to a strong article that makes a good case for the Catholic church having lost its moral authority.

As for the quotation in your text that was a statement by the Archbishop of Singapore,  here is a link to his "Pastoral Letter":

 

https://www.catholic.sg/pastoral-letter-archbishop-s377a/

 

An archbishop is supposed to be a person with culture, education, intelligence.  I don't see how it can escape his mind the distortions of REALITY in his words.  I have to accept with sorrow, I honestly say, that the upper levels of the Catholic organization is purely POLITICAL.  Politicians are supposed to bend the truth (lie) to attain their objectives,  blandly rationalizing this with the excuse that "the goal justifies the means".  This is not how the Church is portrayed, as a MORAL institution and not a POLITICAL one.  And late in life I keep getting confirmation of my realization since childhood that this Church stands for a false religion, even if its historical figures have a (small) probability of having existed. 

 

With all this said, my condemnation is not for the priests, of which I have known personally many good people, but for the institution.  If one day the Catholic church folds, a cloud of evil will detach from the surface of the planet and vanish into deep space,  eventually cleaned up from space by a black hole!

[heliumduck]

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/[gpgt]-goh-meng-seng-says-gay-marriage-should-not-allowed-since-against-natural-selection-5904749.html

 

Quote

 

 

[Guest Amazed]

Oh gosh such a confused individual this Goh Meng Seng. Want to discriminate just say so lah. Give so many convoluted excuses.

[Guest Hard truths]

3 hours ago, Guest Auestion said:

 

Besides the stupid Victorian era English laws, which other country’s or religion’s laws forbided homosexuality then?

 

Whatever the history, it's time to move on, as have most of the developed world. Those who wants to keep the law can always move to any of the 73 countries that continues to criminalize gay sex, mostly in Africa and Middle East. And while there doesn't seem to be any country in Europe on the list, these people should feel quite at home in Russia or Chechnya where gays continue to be persecuted.

 

https://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

[fab]

15 hours ago, Guest Hard truths said:

 

Whatever the history, it's time to move on, as have most of the developed world. Those who wants to keep the law can always move to any of the 73 countries that continues to criminalize gay sex, mostly in Africa and Middle East. And while there doesn't seem to be any country in Europe on the list, these people should feel quite at home in Russia or Chechnya where gays continue to be persecuted.

 

https://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

 

This really fits the saying that we r a first world country with a third world mentality.

[Guest Yes]

16 hours ago, Guest Hard truths said:

 

Whatever the history, it's time to move on, as have most of the developed world. Those who wants to keep the law can always move to any of the 73 countries that continues to criminalize gay sex, mostly in Africa and Middle East. And while there doesn't seem to be any country in Europe on the list, these people should feel quite at home in Russia or Chechnya where gays continue to be persecuted.

 

https://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

Good! Or china where it is even more politically and socially repressive. The Xi government is now cracking down on christians rightly accusing them of eroding chinese traditions and security threats. They can then rightfully kpkb they kena targeted this time.

 

Peace will then be restored and Singaporeans can breathe easier with “western influenced” troublemakers gone.