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

[Guest no speak ma?]

7 hours ago, Guest 好侣不跟蓝斗 said:

好女不跟男斗。

Guest 好侣不跟蓝斗

Guest Good companion does not follow the blue bucket

 

 

好女不跟男斗= Good girl doesn't fight with men

No can speak English ma?

[heliumduck]

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/volunteers-view-why-section-377a-big-obstacle-hiv-prevention-singapore

Published27 SEPTEMBER, 2018

UPDATED 27 SEPTEMBER, 2018

Quote

I refer to the letter “Controlling HIV infections: Not much to do with Section 377A” (Sept 24).

I am a Singaporean — born a woman and am heterosexual — working as a teacher with the special-needs community.

Having joined the non-governmental group Action for Aids as a volunteer since 2009, I have been involved in HIV counselling and testing through the Anonymous Testing and Counselling Service (ATS), and facilitating support for persons living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (Aids).

Like the writer, I share the view that HIV prevention is an area of concern.

However, I do not agree with his opinion that Section 377A has not much impact on Singapore’s efforts to control HIV infections and that they are separate matters.

As someone who has first-hand experience on this, I would like to illustrate how Section 377A of the Penal Code has been an obstacle to early HIV testing and infection control.

Under the ATS programme, counselling and HIV-testing services are anonymous for clients.

But yet, I see many clients — most of whom are men who have sex with men (MSM) — who are fearful of their sexual history being shared with the Government.

One client even believed that if he was spotted walking into the clinic by colleagues, he would be fired from his civil service job.

Saddled by the fear of the law, there are MSM who forgo HIV testing entirely.

The Government has often stated its position that it does not actively enforce the law and that no one has been prosecuted under it so far.

However, the impact of Section 377A extends beyond concerns of enforcement and it shows up in the apprehension that people have about early HIV-testing, which ultimately deters them from seeking early diagnosis and treatment.

A common misperception that many clients have is that HIV is a “gay disease”, with some even questioning the rationale for testing when “it is illegal for them to have sex”.

Section 377A has thus perpetuated homophobia in our society, pushing MSM into the shadows and making it more difficult for HIV control measures to reach them.

The reach and effectiveness of outreach programmes targeting MSM are limited, thereby impeding dissemination of accurate information to people who need it most.

When I facilitate HIV support groups, I see many clients who are newly diagnosed as having the virus being reluctant and fearful to share information with the Ministry of Health, especially information about their sexual history that is important for contact-tracing.

These people have expressed that their uneasiness stems directly from the possibility of being prosecuted under Section 377A.

The pressure of the state, coupled with struggles to accept their HIV status, often develop into self-stigmatisation and neglect in seeking treatment.

Section 377A not only perpetuates the public’s discrimination against people who have HIV, it implicates the treatment and support provided to them.

This law has no direct impact on myself or my family. But as a volunteer serving a marginalised group of people, my experience has shown me that it prevents the necessary work that must be done to control HIV infections and to support HIV sufferers in Singapore.

 

 

 

[heliumduck]

https://www.todayonline.com/voices/controlling-hiv-infections-not-much-do-section-377a

 

Controlling HIV infections: Not much to do with Section 377A  

By TAN MENG YAW

Published24 SEPTEMBER, 2018

UPDATED 24 SEPTEMBER, 2018

Quote

I refer to the article, "Calling for repeal of 377A, Action for Aids says law has negative impact on HIV prevention" (Sept 18).

The need for early testing and intervention for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections is important.

However, the claim that repealing 377A will help to control HIV and sexually transmitted infections needs further examination.

The Asian Internet MSM Sex Survey was done between 2009 and 2010. Data was analysed from the responses of 4,310 men who have sex with men (MSM), from member states of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean), including Singapore.

Among those who never went for HIV screening before, the main barriers include the perception of HIV exposure as being low risk, concerns related to the stigma of carrying the HIV, not knowing where to get tested, financial concerns and the dislike of needles.

In 2014, AFA did an online survey among men who have sex with men in Singapore. It looked into the reasons for never having a HIV test. The common reasons given were not knowing where to get tested, afraid of finding out, not wanting the Government to know, perception of low risk of infection, inability to afford HIV treatment, and the dislike of needles.

In both surveys, the fear of being prosecuted or discrimination for engaging in homosexual sex was not mentioned. The fears mentioned pertained mainly to HIV.

This is despite the surveys being done in Singapore and Asean, where laws against homosexual sex exist.

From this, it appears that among men who have sex with men, Section 377A is not a barrier to early HIV testing.

In Singapore, HIV testing and treatment are available to all without judgement or prosecution, regardless of sexual orientation.

Moreover, there has been no known prosecutions under Section 377A for homosexual men who sought testing and treatment for HIV and sexually transmitted diseases.

The Government has also publicly said that Section 377A will not be actively enforced.

For the above reasons, repealing the law and encouraging more HIV testing and care are two separate issues.

HIV, especially among men who have sex with men, is an area of great concern. Efforts should continue to be directed at the real public health issues at hand, rather than Section 377A.

 

 

[heliumduck]

- removed due to formatting errors-

Edited September 29, 2018 by heliumduck

[heliumduck]

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/calling-repeal-377a-action-aids-says-law-has-negative-impact-hiv-prevention

Calling for repeal of 377A, Action for Aids says law has negative impact on HIV prevention  

By VICTOR LOH

 Published18 SEPTEMBER, 2018 UPDATED 25 SEPTEMBER, 2018

 

Quote

SINGAPORE — Advocacy group Action for Aids (AFA) has lent its voice to the heated debate over a law here that criminalises sex between men, saying its repeal will significantly strengthen programmes to control the spread of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and sexually transmitted infections in Singapore.

The repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code will help to control HIV and sexually transmitted infections not only for homosexual men, but everyone, AFA president Roy Chan said in a statement on Tuesday (Sept 18).

Section 377A is discriminatory and stigmatises men who have sex with men as well as people living with HIV and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Aids), Professor Chan said.

Stigma and discrimination are the main barriers to early HIV testing and treatment. “Many men who have sex with men fear that if they go for HIV testing, they will have to reveal that they engage in illegal sexual activity,” Prof Chan said.

Section 377A has stifled HIV prevention campaigns for this group, in particular those who are not “out” and do not patronise gay-identified venues, he added.

Heterosexual and bisexual men at risk of HIV are also deterred from being tested because, in addition to the fear of testing positive, they may fear being suspected to be homosexual.

AFA's stance is not new. In a 2012 forum letter, it said that Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code "have been obstacles to targeted educational campaigns and our ability to reach out especially to young (male homosexuals) who are the most vulnerable".

The number of HIV cases in Singapore, especially among men who have sex with men, continues to rise, Prof Chan noted.

Last year, 408 new HIV/Aids cases, or 94 per cent, involved male Singapore residents, compared with 380 of such cases in 2016. Of the 408 cases, 261 identified as homosexual or bisexual.

Cases involving heterosexual male Singapore residents also jumped from 121 in 2016 to 132 last year. About 41 per cent had late-stage HIV infection when they were diagnosed, which worsens their prognosis, AFA said.

"Earlier diagnosis and treatment will mean better health outcomes for patients and lead to better HIV prevention and control of the epidemic in Singapore," Prof Chan said.

Besides stifling research of gay and other identities and sexual behaviours here, Section 377A has also made it difficult to reach young men who have sex with men. 

"School-based sexuality programmes do not provide information that discuss homosexuality in a sensitive and unbiased manner. They do not include accurate or useful information on same-sex relationships and safer sex practices relevant to (male homosexuals)," Prof Chan said. "This has resulted in young (male homosexuals) being especially vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases and HIV infection compared with their heterosexual peers.”

The debate over Section 377A here was re-ignited by the Indian Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month to strike down a similar law. Activists here on both sides of the divide started online petitions, while some religious groups spoke up about the matter. One deejay submitted papers last week to the High Court to challenge the law.

Responding to a question last Friday at a conference, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said that that there is no discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community "at work, housing (and) education" in Singapore.

He said it is in Singapore’s DNA to be inclusive, but added: “However, on the issue of LGBTQ, it is also an issue of social mores and societal values.”

9

 

[lovehandle]

Y typed when u can hear it live from the public??? Watch till the ending

For the conclusion:

stop focusing on such issues! Learn to respect and live w both schools of tots

 

people r suffering from typhoon and yet we....

[lean n mean]

The writer V K Rajah is the ex Attorney-General who retired in January 2017. 

Edited September 30, 2018 by lean n mean

[lean n mean]

[heliumduck]

3 hours ago, lean n mean said:

The writer V K Rajah is the ex Attorney-General who retired in January 2017. 

 

1

 

 

Section 377A: An impotent anachronism; Time for serious reconsideration of Section 377A

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/section-377a-an-impotent-anachronism

 

 

 

Quote

 

Copyright 2018 Singapore Press Holdings Limited

 

Section 377A: An impotent anachronism; Time for serious reconsideration of Section 377A

BYLINE: V. K. Rajah For The Sunday Times

SECTION: INSIGHT

LENGTH: 2473 words

 

In a recent landmark case, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India ("Navtej"), the Indian Supreme Court broke new ground by declaring parts of the Indian equivalent of Section 377A of our Penal Code to be unconstitutional.

 

This promptly reignited local debate as to whether private sexual acts between males (or homo-sex for short) should be similarly decriminalised in Singapore. Section 377A, which penalises only male homo-sex, is regarded by many as an anachronistic expression of Victorian morality imposed on several British colonies. Far from expressing a universal morality, the sentiments inspiring this provision seem to be misaligned with the contemporary social mores of a multi-cultural, multi-religious and secular society.

 

It is noteworthy in this regard that no other colonial power apart from the British penalised such private acts. Indeed, no Asian society outside the Middle East has independently criminalised it. Even Indonesia's national criminal code deems this to be a matter for the independent navigation of its individual provinces.

 

The Navtej decision, though instructive, is not in itself a legal pivot for Singapore. It is substantially premised on legal recognition that every individual has a right to privacy. This translates to a "right to be left alone... to enjoy life". While the comparable constitutional provisions are broadly similar, Article 9 of our Constitution has for some time been construed more narrowly. Our courts do not recognise privacy as a constitutionally protected right. Personal liberty in Article 9 has been interpreted to mean freedom from unlawful incarceration. Nevertheless, much that was said in Navtej will resonate with many here.

 

For instance, it was compellingly emphasised that fundamental rights should be insulated from the "disdain of majorities", whether legislative or popular. The parts of India's Section 377 that criminalised private male homo-sex were held to be "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", violating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex ("LGBTQI") rights to equal citizenship and protection under the law without discrimination. The court held that the provision failed to recognise that consensual intercourse within private confines is not harmful to society; what was in fact harmful was the stigmatisation that the criminal prohibition caused to members of the LGBTQI community.

 

Interestingly, the Indian government took a neutral stance on this matter. While the Bharatiya Janata Party continues to be unwaveringly opposed to gay marriage, it has adopted a policy of "no criminalisation, no glorification" - a momentous step for the right-wing Hindu party in a conservative country.

 

 

In the local context, indecent acts in public of any nature are already amply proscribed without Section 377A. In continuing to criminalise consensual private male homo-sex, Singapore is adhering to peculiar Victorian mores that now seem to have been duly discarded in all First and Second World democracies. In the wake of extensive Parliamentary deliberations on Section 377A in 2007 culminating in the contentious decision to retain the provision, strong and polarised reactions to this issue persist in our society. The notion that decriminalisation is warranted only after a societal consensus is reached may be seen as an expedient rather than just approach.

 

From a legal point of view, the assurance given in Parliament that Section 377A although not repealed will not be enforced, is constitutionally unsatisfactory. The Government, or even Parliament for that matter, cannot selectively decide which laws in force to enforce. The public prosecutor alone is constitutionally charged with the responsibility for enforcement. He is duty bound to consider enforcement of all laws that are infringed. Selective enforcement of laws undermines the rule of law, creating perceptions that prosecutions can be directed by the Government or pursued on non-legal grounds.

 

In 2014, the Court of Appeal in Lim Meng Suang upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377A, deeming it to be consistent with the protection accorded in Article 12 (1) of the Constitution that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". In other words, laws cannot be discriminatory in their application or enforcement. That said, many laws validly differentiate between different classes of people: for instance, the Accountants Act exclusively yet legitimately regulates public accountants. So, the important question is how to decide whether a law is not merely legitimately differentiating but unduly and unconstitutionally discriminatory.

 

To this end, the courts employ a "reasonable classification" test: First, the classification prescribed by the law must be based on an intelligible differentiating factor; and second, the differentiating factor must bear a rational relationship to the purpose intended by the law. So, in the case of the Accountants Act, the differentiating factor is that it applies exclusively to registered public accountants, and that factor bears a rational relationship to the intended purpose of the Act, which is to regulate the profession of public accountants.

 

In Lim Meng Suang, the Court of Appeal decided that Section 377A passed the reasonable classification test. First, the differentiating factor on which it was based was intelligible and easy to understand: Section 377A criminalised only male homosexual sex and nothing else (not even female homosexual sex). Second, that factor bore a rational relationship to the intent and purpose of Section 377A, which was apparently to criminalise that very conduct. The Court of Appeal also decided that Section 377A should be presumed to be constitutional, unless shown otherwise by the person challenging it.

 

 

However, the decision in Lim Meng Suang is inherently unsatisfactory and raises a number of concerns.

 

First, Section 377A is a pre-Independence provision imposed by the British in 1938, principally to bring the criminal laws of what were then the Straits Settlements "into line with English criminal law" in other parts of the colonial empire. But beyond that historical basis, the Court of Appeal conceded that the original purpose of Section 377A was indeed obscure. The speech of attorney-general C. G. Howell in June 1938, in introducing what ultimately became Section 377A, was found by the Court of Appeal to be "extremely cryptic". The court concluded that "what objective evidence we have on the purpose and object of Section 377A is itself unclear". In such disquieting circumstances, Section 377A should not and could not have been presumed to be constitutional. Once the court found the objectives of the provision to be opaque, it should have struck down the provision definitively, instead of attempting to give it life by referring to post-legislative material not placed before the colonial legislature.

 

The presumption of constitutionality should not have applied to such a dubious, stand-alone legal provision introduced willy-nilly across a host of disparate colonies across the British empire. It bears mention that around the same time, i.e. in February 1938, the Singapore naval base, Great Britain's impregnable eastern fortress, was completed. There is material suggesting that Section 377A may therefore have been introduced for a collateral purpose i.e. to maintain discipline within the exclusively male British forces. If the British were genuinely concerned about male debauchery in the context of the local population, then why introduce this to Singapore only in 1938 when a similar provision had already been imposed on Hong Kong in 1885' Second, given the lack of clarity surrounding the historical intent and purpose of Section 377A, it should not have passed the reasonable classification test. An archaic Victorian law that punishes only men for private acts can hardly be seen to satisfy the high constitutional standards required for a discriminatory law to be valid. Section 377A seems to have served no useful general social purpose apart from targeting male homosexual conduct.

 

Third, there is a difference between Section 377A and the Accountants Act. There is no inherent right to be an accountant, and one must actively choose to become an accountant. In sharp contrast, secular societies recognise that a key facet of human dignity is the right to have private, consensual, non-procreative sex between adults.

 

Indian members and supporters of the country's LGBT community celebrating the Supreme Court decision to strike down a colonial-era ban on gay sex on Sept 6. The ruling reignited debate in Singapore as to whether private sexual acts between males should be similarly decriminalised. Some of Singapore's most senior political leaders (including founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew) have accepted that homosexuality is an innate genetic trait. From this perspective, it is no different from all other distinctive attributes that each of us is born with. Criminalising private male homosexual sex could by logical extrapolation be the basis for discriminating against other genetic differences as well.

 

Fourth, Section 377A does not embody a universal value, religious or otherwise. It originated from a Victorian construct of Christianity and is premised on beliefs that are shared only by a limited number of monotheistic religions. Significantly, since 1988, Israel stopped regulating same-sex activity. From a legal point of view, the assurance given in Parliament that Section 377A although not repealed will not be enforced, is constitutionally unsatisfactory. The Government, or even Parliament for that matter, cannot selectively decide which laws in force to enforce.

 

 

 

Religious views, insofar as these are not universal, are not an ideal lodestar for governance in a secular state. For instance, some religious texts view adultery with the same degree of abhorrence: but why is adultery not criminally proscribed as well? Such conduct is inherently very harmful as it damages families. Ironically, in 2007, Parliament deliberately removed the last remaining law proscribing adultery by abolishing the offence of criminal enticement.  Surveys have been regularly wheeled out to gauge and express public opinion. However, surveys on matters that offend ideological views are often contestable. Considerable care should be exercised before according them weight. Experience and science have shown that the findings of such surveys grossly depend on and vary according to who is asked, what questions are asked, how they are asked and who asks them. There may also be a tendency in such matters for Some of Singapore's most senior political leaders (including founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew) have accepted that homosexuality is an innate genetic trait. From this perspective, it is no different from all other distinctive attributes that each of us is born with.

 

Criminalising private male homosexual sex could by logical extrapolation be the basis for discriminating against other genetic differences as well. participants to try to give the politically correct responses. No simple survey can seek to satisfactorily query or explain why private same sex between females is somehow more acceptable than between males. If it is accepted that sexual orientation is naturally pre-determined, then it is baffling that a significant minority should be criminally stigmatised for behaving naturally, simply because other sections of the community find their behaviour offensive.

 

A line can certainly be drawn between private "self-regarding" conduct, and public "other-regarding" conduct. Certain laws, such as those designed to prevent self-harm like sado-machoism and necrophilia, can be legitimately paternalistic. Section 377A is not one of them, even if it is not universally accepted that individuals "are born that way".

 

 

How will the present stand-off be resolved? The courts have lobbed the problem back to Parliament, which in turn is waiting for a consensus to emerge. If anything, the differences today are significantly more pronounced than they were in 2007. Meanwhile, significant numbers of our citizens harshly continue to be deemed criminals. Statements made by bodies opposing the repeal of Section 377A fail to consider the trauma exacted on Religious views, insofar as these are not universal, are not an ideal lodestar for governance in a secular state. For instance, some religious texts view adultery with the same degree of abhorrence: but why is adultery not criminally proscribed as well' individuals labelled as a criminal minority. Deep repercussions arise from the public tendency to view all legally tagged criminal conduct as grossly reprehensible.

 

To that extent, conceding that such a law will not be enforced is cold comfort to those statutorily condemned. Conflicts within families and ostracisation are not uncommon as some teens grow up to discover that they are "different". International studies have reflected inordinately high suicide rates among LGBTQI youth as a group. A palpable lack of acceptance and support could well be a contributing factor. Although no local statistics have been published on the topic, it would be surprising if the position here should be any different, especially with the added stigma of criminalisation.

 

A society is to be judged for its fairness by the compassion it shows to its most vulnerable citizens and the measures it takes to reduce their suffering. Yes, Singapore is a conservative society. But it also aspires to be a more equal and inclusive one. It is highly unlikely that a consensus on this topic will ever be reached, especially when significant opposition is fuelled by implacable religious and moral dictates. Ideology can both bind and blind, with condemnation unduly eclipsing compassion. This will have the unfortunate effect of further dividing rather than healing society.

 

 

Understandably, there are concerns that repealing Section 377A could be the thin end of the wedge, inexorably moving towards same sex marriage and same sex adoptions. Nonetheless, other conservative Asian societies such as China, Japan, South Korea and now India have shown that a line can in fact be drawn without criminalising such conduct, even while societal mores evolve organically. Concerns about future imponderables do not justify the continued criminal stigmatisation for an innate trait.

 

Even if one were to insist that such a trait is not innate, it is not the province of either the State or society to regulate such inherently private consensual conduct among adults.

 

 

· V. K. Rajah is an international arbitrator and independent legal counsel. He was Attorney-General from 2014 to 2017 and has been a judge on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

 

LOAD-DATE: September 29, 2018

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

 PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

 

All Rights Reserved

38

7

40

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1861561763878869&set=a.125203547514708&type=3&theater

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/section-377a-an-impotent-anachronism

Edited September 30, 2018 by heliumduck

[Guest ghous]

thank you for your work of digging up all those legal arguments from people of credential and people who the establishment will  sit up and listen

.

 

 

[Guest chendeqiade]

17 hours ago, -Ignored- said:

Y typed when u can hear it live from the public??? Watch till the ending

For the conclusion:

stop focusing on such issues! Learn to respect and live w both schools of tots

 

people r suffering from typhoon and yet we....

 

people commiting suicide, kicked out of homes, killed because of lgbt discrimination. i dont see how this is a small matter.

[lovehandle]

ask the audience in the video
and this is how netural and higher-level they are looking at 

 

committ suicide doesnt mean it is a big matter
Many killed themselves just cos they broke off w a gal
many  have suicidal bhaviours just cos they cannot scored 90marks
various reasons

A person who suicide is weak, no wonder they said gays are sissy-looking, weakling, broke wrist

and will a suicide helps?
 

[Guest Guest Guest Guest Guess]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ready4repeal-section-377a-townhall-anti-gay-law-10773704

[heliumduck]

45 minutes ago, Guest Guest Guest Guest Guess said:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ready4repeal-section-377a-townhall-anti-gay-law-10773704

 

Quote

Not if but when 377A will be repealed, says Singapore movement against anti-gay law

 

Leaders of the “Ready4Repeal” petition are urging gay and straight people alike to speak up and encourage MPs to support their cause.

 

SINGAPORE: The question is not if but when Singapore’s anti-gay law will be repealed, said members of the “Ready4Repeal” movement on Sunday (Sep 30) at a private town hall discussion attended by over 800 people.

 

The group is calling for the removal of Section 377A of the penal code, a remnant from British colonial rule which criminalises sex between men.

A similar law was scrapped by India in early September, sparking a nationwide debate in Singapore. An online petition by Ready4Repeal closed on Thursday with 44,650 signatures by Singaporeans and PRs.

 

The petition is authored by theatre director and filmmaker Glen Goei and legal trainee Johannes Hadi. Lead signatories include prominent figures such as diplomat Tommy Koh, academic Kishore Mahbubani and Ho Kwon Ping, founding chairman of the Singapore Management University (SMU).

The university became the venue for the town hall after Suntec Convention Centre reportedly cancelled due to what organisers called “unforeseen circumstances”.

 

SMU, however, has stressed that it is only leasing out space to the organisers. It said it is not connected to the Ready4Repeal movement and remains “neutral on the matter”.

 

Speaking to the media after the event, Mr Johannes said: “It’s a matter of when 377A will change, not if. But when it does, we hope Singaporeans will be ready for it. We don’t want them to be unprepared or alienated by it.”

 

He said the key to achieving this is for both LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) and heterosexual communities to start public engagement now, by way of sharing personal stories with one’s environment - including political representatives, in view of changes to the penal code set to be tabled in Parliament in November.

 

“Talk to your friends, family, colleagues,” Mr Johannes urged the crowd earlier. “Talk to your MPs (Members of Parliament) - educate them, encourage them to listen.”

 

Other speakers at the event also stressed the need to voice out. “Share your stories on what it’s like to be LGBT in Singapore, and how 377A affects you,” said Mr Clement Tan of Pink Dot SG.

 

“BAD LEGISLATION”

Human rights lawyer Remy Choo was one of those who took the stage to address the legal challenges behind repealing 377A. He pointed out that the government, too, had acknowledged the law’s origins as cryptic. 

 

“It is bad legislation that even our former colonial masters couldn’t justify it in the 1960s,” he said, referring to when Britain decriminalised gay sex.

“Section 377A belongs in the dustbin of legal history,” Mr Choo went on. “The defence of marriage; the slippery slope; religious freedom - these are red herrings. What we are trying to repeal is bad colonial legislation.”

 

Former Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) president and petition signatory Constance Singam also spoke at the event. 

It’s not just about signing petitions every few years - “you have to be an activist every day of your life,” she said. “It’s about changing the value system of our society to be more welcoming, more respectful of all differences.

 

“Every time a community is discriminated against, we dehumanise them and dehumanise ourselves. Nobody is free, unless everybody is free.”

Venture capitalist Dr Finian Tan and his wife Fiona then echoed her points, as they talked about wanting to bring up children “in a society that embraces differences and appreciates diversity”.

 

This past month since the Indian court ruling, news about 377A has occupied headlines in Singapore - from disc jockey Johnson Ong filing the latest constitutional challenge to religious bodies issuing missives urging for the law to remain in place.

 

Thus far only the non-sectarian Buddhist Fellowship has taken an opposite stance - it is a lead signatory in the Ready4Repeal petition, along with advocacy groups like Action for Aids (AFA) and MARUAH.

 

At the government level, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung also waded into the issue when he declared there was “no discrimination” against the LGBT community in the areas of work, housing and education.

 

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam described Singapore as “deeply split” on the issue, but noted that laws will have to keep pace with changes in societal views - and ultimately, it is up to Singapore society to decide which direction it wants to take.

 

2

 

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by heliumduck

[heliumduck]

https://www.facebook.com/ready4repeal/videos/533652883726990/

 

the live video of what took place since BW cannot parse FB links properly

[Guest Impressed]

Buddhism is now ahead of Christianity in conscience, non discrimination and as a peaceful religion.  Buddhisim didn't dissappoint humanity in times when everyone felt hurts, depressed and troubled in a troubling world.  

[Cube3]

Some friends on Facebook who left Singapore for the US just posted pics of their good-looking other halves...and a baby! Now they are happily settled, looking forward to an interesting journey with their family! (Sigh...makes me feel so sick of this place)

[LeanMature]

15 hours ago, heliumduck said:

https://www.facebook.com/ready4repeal/videos/533652883726990/

 

the live video of what took place since BW cannot parse FB links properly

 

It is working, the video only starts at 11:50.

[Guest Not woke?]

Aren't all religions supposed to be good and conscientious? Do some spread and display hatred unknowingly? And their followers also display and spread hatred unknowingly? Or was it really conscientious disapproval as they would have us believe????

[fab]

https://mothership.sg/2018/09/president-of-buddhist-fellowship-repeal-377a/

 

[Guest Steve3580]

16 hours ago, Guest Impressed said:

Buddhism is now ahead of Christianity in conscience, non discrimination and as a peaceful religion.  Buddhisim didn't dissappoint humanity in times when everyone felt hurts, depressed and troubled in a troubling world.  

 

Only NOW?  I find that Buddhism has  been ahead of Christianity for a long time, maybe always.  

Buddhism and Christianity don't compare well because while Christianity is a theistic religion, Buddhism is more like a philosophy. 

Buddhism is not based on fantastic stories and constellations of gods in a supernatural dimension.

My idea of Buddhism is some speculations of a wise man about which is the most plausible explanation of our existence and the existence of universal justice.

Karma and reincarnation offers answers that don't insult one's intelligence, as long as one makes the leap of faith into unknown laws of nature that allow reincarnation with preservation of karma, and the existence of an endless existence in a state of nirvana.

 

[Guest secular]

5 hours ago, Guest Steve3580 said:

 

Only NOW?  I find that Buddhism has  been ahead of Christianity for a long time, maybe always.  

Buddhism and Christianity don't compare well because while Christianity is a theistic religion, Buddhism is more like a philosophy. 

Buddhism is not based on fantastic stories and constellations of gods in a supernatural dimension.

My idea of Buddhism is some speculations of a wise man about which is the most plausible explanation of our existence and the existence of universal justice.

Karma and reincarnation offers answers that don't insult one's intelligence, as long as one makes the leap of faith into unknown laws of nature that allow reincarnation with preservation of karma, and the existence of an endless existence in a state of nirvana.

 

 

Buddhism has fanatic features too. Look at Rohingha and Myanmar.

It's ok if they took this position on 377A; but then I wonder why so many Buddhist were still in the closet....

[Guest Hhhhh]

2 hours ago, Guest secular said:

 

Buddhism has fanatic features too. Look at Rohingha and Myanmar.

It's ok if they took this position on 377A; but then I wonder why so many Buddhist were still in the closet....

Really? Compared to christians in the closet, i’m sure there are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more!!!!!!

[LeanMature]

4 hours ago, Guest secular said:

 

Buddhism has fanatic features too. Look at Rohingha and Myanmar.

It's ok if they took this position on 377A; but then I wonder why so many Buddhist were still in the closet....

 

There is no official stand as yet although someone from a Buddhist organization has spoken.  It is not representational.

Closet or uncloset has nothing to do with Buddhism, as subject of gay sex was not mentioned in the Buddha teaching.  So it is the Buddhist individual discretion to remain closet or not.

[Steve Temp]

14 hours ago, Guest secular said:

 

Buddhism has fanatic features too. Look at Rohingha and Myanmar.

It's ok if they took this position on 377A; but then I wonder why so many Buddhist were still in the closet....

 

Unfortunately, the followers of the Sages of Morality always screw up the resulting religions by their self interest in promoting their religions.  This is shown so clearly in Catholicism where the professional leaders nearly immediately invented  the Sacraments, the Mass, the "infallibility" of Popes and the sin of homosexuality even when Jesus never mentioned these things in the Gospels, the only existing reference to the Sage Jesus.

 

It seems that Buddhist leaders also transformed the teachings of Gautama Buddha into sets of complicated recipes with the 3 rules of this, 5 rules of that, 10 rules of such....  etc.   

[Guest Fatty]

22 hours ago, LeanMature said:

 

There is no official stand as yet although someone from a Buddhist organization has spoken.  It is not representational.

Closet or uncloset has nothing to do with Buddhism, as subject of gay sex was not mentioned in the Buddha teaching.  So it is the Buddhist individual discretion to remain closet or not.

 

Many buddhists can accept a homosexual but not the homosexual act itself.  

The word compassion can be abused to justify anything.  Not sure if the interpretation here is valid.

If it's that straight forward, the Buddha would have made it clear.

By not making a stand on gay sex, I think it's a signal for the followers to also not comment on it.

[LeanMature]

31 minutes ago, Guest Fatty said:

 

Many buddhists can accept a homosexual but not the homosexual act itself.  

The word compassion can be abused to justify anything.  Not sure if the interpretation here is valid.

If it's that straight forward, the Buddha would have made it clear.

By not making a stand on gay sex, I think it's a signal for the followers to also not comment on it.

 

So are the Christians.  Hate the sin but not the sinner.  The difference is, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin, or homosexuality is a sin.

Since it wasn't taught in the Dharma, when a Buddhist accept or not accept homosexual and/or homosexual act, retain or repeal 377A, he does so on a personal individual basis and decision.   

[Guest overrated]

As to my knowledge the Christian bible (new testimony) does not refer to homosexuality too. It is just the Old Testimony (the Jewish bible).

 

We can put up a discussion forum here to discuss religious matters and facets of religions speaking about homosexuality.

 

But my main point is still that the whole issue should not be discussed under a religious angle at all.

 

It is a matter of human rights and a secular topic.

 

I dislike if people here are trying to play out one religion against another.

 

We can discuss as well the big disadvantages of Buddhism as we can discuss with all other religions. this does only lead into a dead end road. Therefore, better we just cease to discuss from a religious angle on this topic.

[Guest Anti Statues]

Why repeal S377A , when Kumar says its not hard being gay in Singapore mah,  the reporter asked Kumar like he is representative of the general  Gay population.

 

Kumar says convincingly with confidence its not hard being Gay lah,

 

 

 

I think what he is saying is go drag publicly, then general public will pubilcly know you are Kumar's version of being Gay.

 

 

Go Drag lah.

 

 

[Guest Fatty]

10 hours ago, LeanMature said:

 

So are the Christians.  Hate the sin but not the sinner.  The difference is, in Buddhism, there is no such thing as sin, or homosexuality is a sin.

Since it wasn't taught in the Dharma, when a Buddhist accept or not accept homosexual and/or homosexual act, retain or repeal 377A, he does so on a personal individual basis and decision.   

 

I think should not try to draw parallel between religion using a single template.  They would not fit in the template.

So while Buddhism does not state explicitly that gay are bad or homosexuality is a sin, it does specify what constitute a misconduct.

Misusing the male organ in this case is considered a misconduct.

But the Buddhist ultimate objective is to reach Enlightenment.  Going around poking their nose into other people's lives is not something they do. 

Hui Neng, in the Platform Sutra, 六祖大师在《坛经》上说 says "若真修道人不见时间过".

So I hope the LGBT people don't go and rally support from the Buddhist. 

What the Buddhist try to avoid is the schism in the Buddhist Society.  If any group start making a stand to support LGBT, then it will start a division.

It's quite unfortunate that BF went ahead to support.  You can see that there are arguments starting on their FB post.

I believe this is what the Buddha tries to avoid, so as to prolong the existence of the Dharma in this world so that more sentient beings would benefit from the Dharma and gain enlightenment.

The repeal group also demonstrated their insincerity in asking that religious view not be impose on secular Singapore. I think it has lost a bit of credibility

I think we should all widen our options.  It does not have to be just repeal or don't repeal.

I believe there are some genuine concerns about protecting religious freedom.  From online to anecdotal accounts from people living overseas, I think there is no smoke without fire.

So let's allay their fears by sitting down and discuss.

I believe Singaporeans are reasonable people. I think that way, not only they will be stop the repeal, they might just support it.

 

[Steve Temp]

18 hours ago, Guest overrated said:

As to my knowledge the Christian bible (new testimony) does not refer to homosexuality too. It is just the Old Testimony (the Jewish bible).

 

We can put up a discussion forum here to discuss religious matters and facets of religions speaking about homosexuality.

 

But my main point is still that the whole issue should not be discussed under a religious angle at all.

 

It is a matter of human rights and a secular topic.

 

I dislike if people here are trying to play out one religion against another.

 

We can discuss as well the big disadvantages of Buddhism as we can discuss with all other religions. this does only lead into a dead end road. Therefore, better we just cease to discuss from a religious angle on this topic.

 

It is not us who want to bring religion into the discussion,

It is the religions who want to concern themselves with homosexuality.

What has sexual orientation to do with religion?

Religion in its purest form is simply the speculation about the supernatural.

What we should or should not do is the domain of morality.

and morality is handled by the secular laws.

 

When we discuss homosexuality we have the right to talk about its supporters and detractors.

It turns out that the biggest detractors of homosexuality are the religions.

This is not  our choice nor our fault.

[Steve Temp]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:31 PM, -Ignored- said:

This person is mad to make such generalisation!

 

My thanks to whoever posted  this nice video.  Isn't it natural that people who are attractive should show as much of their attraction as possible?  And what can inspire this video but plenty of chuckles and laughter? All very healthy reactions!

.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Steve Temp

[lovehandle]

1 hour ago, Steve Temp said:

 

My thanks to whoever posted  this nice video.  Isn't it natural that people who are attractive should show as much of their attraction as possible?  And what can inspire this video but plenty of chuckles and laughter? All very healthy reactions!

.

my point is what is written on the fb, he s trying to ask Sg not to abolish it:

"

When 377A was abolished, 
See what happened to Taiwan now !!!

We need to forward the below message to as many people as we can including our country leaders regardless of race or religion. It is an experience of one Asian country that legalised gay marriage. .no turning back....no reverting...chaotic society

Without 377A, this (this means what is flashing in the video) will happen to our home land and our society in Singapore in the future 

From a friend’s ex school mate abt what's happening in Taiwan:

“I live in Taiwan now and we are among the first to pass laws in support of gay right. Not sure where the marriage right progress now (as it will demand revision on civil law governing marriage) but that has made negative impact.

The school registration form no longer keeps address of mom and dad, but reads spouse 1, spouse 2. Schools and public facilities are required to put up gender friendly restrooms, (but what is wrong w this?) ie guys share the same bathroom w girls. And primary school kids are taught to be aware of their sexual inclinations and respect impulses and how to have safe sex early on. 
It is against the law not to teach accordingly and teachers will get sued..."

 

Concerned Singaporean 
Stanley 
10/9/18"

 

[LeanMature]

13 hours ago, Guest Fatty said:

 

I think should not try to draw parallel between religion using a single template.  They would not fit in the template.

So while Buddhism does not state explicitly that gay are bad or homosexuality is a sin, it does specify what constitute a misconduct.

Misusing the male organ in this case is considered a misconduct.

But the Buddhist ultimate objective is to reach Enlightenment.  Going around poking their nose into other people's lives is not something they do. 

Hui Neng, in the Platform Sutra, 六祖大师在《坛经》上说 says "若真修道人不见时间过".

So I hope the LGBT people don't go and rally support from the Buddhist. 

What the Buddhist try to avoid is the schism in the Buddhist Society.  If any group start making a stand to support LGBT, then it will start a division.

It's quite unfortunate that BF went ahead to support.  You can see that there are arguments starting on their FB post.

I believe this is what the Buddha tries to avoid, so as to prolong the existence of the Dharma in this world so that more sentient beings would benefit from the Dharma and gain enlightenment.

The repeal group also demonstrated their insincerity in asking that religious view not be impose on secular Singapore. I think it has lost a bit of credibility

I think we should all widen our options.  It does not have to be just repeal or don't repeal.

I believe there are some genuine concerns about protecting religious freedom.  From online to anecdotal accounts from people living overseas, I think there is no smoke without fire.

So let's allay their fears by sitting down and discuss.

I believe Singaporeans are reasonable people. I think that way, not only they will be stop the repeal, they might just support it.

 

 

Things will be less emotional without religion involvement.  Like oil and water, religion and politics doesn't and shouldn't mixed in secular Singapore. By speaking up and throwing the bible in the face of majority who are non-christains, it is actually tantamount to violating the right to religion freedom. 

 

So I don't agree with you when you said "The repeal group also demonstrated their insincerity in asking that religious view not be impose on secular Singapore."

 

[Guest Fatty]

1 hour ago, LeanMature said:

 

Things will be less emotional without religion involvement.  Like oil and water, religion and politics doesn't and shouldn't mixed in secular Singapore. By speaking up and throwing the bible in the face of majority who are non-christains, it is actually tantamount to violating the right to religion freedom. 

 

So I don't agree with you when you said "The repeal group also demonstrated their insincerity in asking that religious view not be impose on secular Singapore."

 

 

A religious person is a Citizen in Singapore.  They moral values are shaped by their conscience and their religion.

It is inseparable.  If you ask them to put aside their religious believes, then you are denying them their right to speak.

Impt thing is discussion.  Everybody has the right to say their piece.  Ultimately everybody (through referendum) or the government decides.

Emotions are not a religious monopoly.  Everybody has it.  In fact, LGBT people are pretty emotional too.

So I don't agree with when you said :Things will be less emotional without religion involvement".

There are 2 fallacies: One is religious people are more emotional.  Two is that the country to deny religious people's involvement.

I maintain that the repeal group was insincere because they have put BF president religious belief on their website and yet say no religious views on this issue. 

Having Prof Tommy Koh and Mr Lim Phang Hong on their website is a contradiction.  This will be fully exploited later when they push their case further.

And having said that, NO. I don't agree that people should go around throwing their religious books at others.  They are wrong.  But denying their rights is also wrong.

[Guest Fatty]

9 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

Yes, moral values can be intertwined with religion.  But it is WRONG to say the two are inseparable.  Take traditional Chinese moral values for example.  So much is centred around Confucianism (which does not deal with any deities) such that there is a joke saying every traditional Chinese book always contains some statements on Confucian ethics.   Therefore religion and moral values are not exactly the same.  It is the choice of the people whether they want to weave moral values with religion or not.

 

 

I don’t see any contradiction nor do I foresee how they will be exploited.  Look at what Lim Phang Hong said:

“The Buddha's teachings of empathy and compassion for all living beings encourage us to develop understanding and care for all communities regardless of their race, religion, language or sexual orientation.  In this same spirit of care, empathy and compassion, I support the repealing of any law which criminalises, discriminates or marginalises particular groups.  We seek to reconcile marginalised communities with society in a way that promotes respet and harmony across different communities in Singapore and the world.”

 

As we can see there is nothing religious about this statement.  It is just Buddhist philosophy – an emphasis on

empathy and compassion - which are universal values not monopolised by any religion.  So what’s so religious about that?  On the other hand, it is the Abrahamic religions that rely on their religious books to bash us.  And it is quite hypocritical of Christians who quote the Bible as grounds for being against homosexuality because they ignore the very same book when it comes to “not supposed to eat pork or shellfish, not supposed to wear clothing of different material, not supposed to work on the weekly Sabbath, not supposed to commit adultery” etc. etc.  In other words, they choose to close their eyes when they infringe on the Bible and yet use it to hit gays.  Where is the fairness?  If they are serious about religious rights, they should push for criminalization of fornication and adultery instead.

 

 

So how have we denied the religious communities their right?  Repealing 377A does not mean denying religious people their right to worship their gods and goddesses or hold religious rituals and festivals.  Religion is about the relationship between human beings and the deities.  Repealing 377A means heterosexuals will continue to enjoy their heterosexual relationships, showing affection like holding hands or kissing in public.  There is no change.  As what Steve has said:

 

Don't forget that there are also gays who are Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc.  They still go to their respective congregations for worship.  Or are you saying that gays are not fit to enter a church, mosque or temple for worship?

 

I think you misunderstood my argument.

When a religious person participates in a discussion.  Can you tell me whether he is making a view from his religious self or his secular self ?

People are in a religion could be because they are born into it or they personally share those values in the religion.

Regardless, once they are in a religion, their views are equally valid to be used in a public discussion, and should not be censored from a public discussion.

 

 

As for ready 4 repeal insincerity, you have to quote the whole para by Mr Lim Phang Hong.  You will notice that his views stems from a religious doc.  Need I say more ?

Please do not  say it's a philosophy, making it sound more secular.  It is a buddhist scripture, regardless how you read it. 

You argue that this is a universal value.  But still stems from a religious teaching.

If it's another religious view which you don't accept ? 

You can either accept all religious views or reject all, to be consistent.  In this case, the repeal group should NOT have use Mr Lim as a signatory.

LIM PHANG HONG

President of Buddhist Fellowship, Singapore.

The Buddha’s teachings of empathy and compassion for all living beings encourage us to develop understanding and care for all communities regardless of their race, religion, language or sexual orientation.

In this same spirit of care, empathy and compassion, I support the repealing of any law which criminalises, discriminates or marginalises particular groups. We seek to reconcile marginalised communities with society, in a way that promotes respect and harmony across different communities in Singapore and the world.

‘With a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings’- Metta Sutta.

 

When I say denying the religious people their rights, I'm referring to this: That they must not take their religious to a secular discussion because there is no way for them to separate their religious/secular self.  But imposing this condition, you are effectively banning their participation.

 

 

 

[LeanMature]

14 minutes ago, Guest Fatty said:

 

I think you misunderstood my argument.

When a religious person participates in a discussion.  Can you tell me whether he is making a view from his religious self or his secular self ?

People are in a religion could be because they are born into it or they personally share those values in the religion.

Regardless, once they are in a religion, their views are equally valid to be used in a public discussion, and should not be censored from a public discussion.

 

 

As for ready 4 repeal insincerity, you have to quote the whole para by Mr Lim Phang Hong.  You will notice that his views stems from a religious doc.  Need I say more ?

Please do not  say it's a philosophy, making it sound more secular.  It is a buddhist scripture, regardless how you read it. 

You argue that this is a universal value.  But still stems from a religious teaching.

If it's another religious view which you don't accept ? 

You can either accept all religious views or reject all, to be consistent.  In this case, the repeal group should NOT have use Mr Lim as a signatory.

LIM PHANG HONG

President of Buddhist Fellowship, Singapore.

The Buddha’s teachings of empathy and compassion for all living beings encourage us to develop understanding and care for all communities regardless of their race, religion, language or sexual orientation.

In this same spirit of care, empathy and compassion, I support the repealing of any law which criminalises, discriminates or marginalises particular groups. We seek to reconcile marginalised communities with society, in a way that promotes respect and harmony across different communities in Singapore and the world.

‘With a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings’- Metta Sutta.

 

When I say denying the religious people their rights, I'm referring to this: That they must not take their religious to a secular discussion because there is no way for them to separate their religious/secular self.  But imposing this condition, you are effectively banning their participation.

 

 

 

 

How do you define a person as religious?  And in what capacity is he participating in the discussion ?

It really don't bother me if a person pray 7 times a day or read the bible everyday or even go around preaching his gospel. That's his rights and religious freedom.  I only define a person as religious once he imposed his belief, in this case, that homosexuality is deviant and sinful, on non-believers and people of other faiths.

At the end of the day, the pertinent question is, do these people have the right of speech and freedom to decide on the fate or fault of our sexual orientation that is difference from theirs ?

 

[Guest Fatty]

13 minutes ago, LeanMature said:

 

How do you define a person as religious?  And in what capacity is he participating in the discussion ?

It really don't bother me if a person pray 7 times a day or read the bible everyday or even go around preaching his gospel. That's his rights and religious freedom.  I only define a person as religious once he imposed his belief, in this case, that homosexuality is deviant and sinful, on non-believers and people of other faiths.

At the end of the day, the pertinent question is, do these people have the right of speech and freedom to decide on the fate or fault of our sexual orientation that is difference from theirs ?

 

 

Agree that they should not impose but I also agree that they should be allowed to participate in public discussion even though their views are shaped by their religion

[Guest Fatty]

23 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

Easy.  When a person quotes religious sayings, he is making a view from his religious self.  If he quotes universal values like love and compassion, he is making a view from his secular self.  If a Muslim says must pray 5 times a day or cannot eat pork, he is making a view from his religious self.  If he says drinking water is permissible, he is making a view from his secular self.  Is that so difficult to understand? 

Of course people with religion should not be censored from a public discussion but make sure their words are fair and justified e.g. just because certain tribes believe in human sacrifice in their religion does not mean we should stop ourselves from criticising them for promoting their idea of keeping their ancient rituals on "moral" or "religious" grounds.  So on what grounds should we retain 377A?

 

 

What grounds do you have to say that Ready4Repeal in insincere?  Kindly enlighten me.  Of course Buddhism is more "secular" than the Abahamic religions.  Can't you differentiate between Buddhist religion and Buddhist philosophy?  As I've said before, universal values that come from the mouth of a religious leader does not mean it has to be religious and nothing else.  Confucianism preaches kindness and filial piety.  So can you say both values are religious values only - just because both are also preached in the various holy books?  Now if I see a drowning child, I go all out to save him.  Is that a religious value?

 

 

If you say that religious people must not take their religions to a secular discussion, then why are religious bodies like The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS), Muslim organisation Jamiyah Singapore and The Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (Pergas) speaking out loudly on the media against repealing, making themselves heard by the govt?  Shouldn't they just keep it to their own churches & mosques?

 

 

As we have said before, homosexuality has nothing to do with religion.  It is part of human nature and a reality which certain religious bodies try to deny out of fear, ignorance and misinformation.  377A is unjust and it is no use pretending that gays exist as sub-humans or that homosexuality will somehow disappear.  It is as old as mankind itself.

 

Sorry, I cannot convince you.  Have a good day.

 

[Guest Fatty]

16 minutes ago, Nightingale said:

 

It depends on which aspect I am not convinced.  It's not true that they have not been heard.  Didn't you hear the religious NMP proclaim that gay sex is like a straw shoved up the nose?  Because they were heard, 377A was retained.  Ever since then till now (a decade already), they have made themselves heard very loudly on every Pink Dot event.  So it's not true that they have not been allowed to be heard.  What we are saying is:  their same old religious rants (destroying family structure, promoting moral decadence etc.) ring hollow in the face of logic and justice.  The govt gives them a lot of face by letting themselves heard and let these stubborn ignorant folks cling onto an archaic law which more & more nations are repealing.  The govt is also aware that it's not a question of IF but WHEN.

 

I don't know.  I thought I've explain already.  But I didn't manage to get it across.  So I have to leave it at that.

Anyway, I just want to "say something", that's all. If cannot see eye to eye, it's ok.

Have a doubly good day !

[Guest Blank]

Naive people then believe pap will approve repeal 377a. All gays will suffer. No marriage, no bto, no poking of backside. You get discriminated at public jobs. So much for equality. 

[heliumduck]

https://www.facebook.com/ready4repeal/videos/501186586958572/

 

[Guest Lol]

theindependent.sg/feminist-mentor-thio-su-mien-compares-gay-sex-to-pedophilia-and-bestiality-in-open-letter-to-education-minister/

 

A fossil has come back to life.

[Vometra]

Thio Li-ann is being disingenious ... every time there was some declaration in support of LGBT rights in the UN, it was opposed by the Islamic countries and a few African christian-majority states. Now she wants to argue that “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_at_the_United_Nations

[Guest Clapclap for thio]

Sexual orientation is a political claim only because the anti-gay lobbies, by their cumbersome politicking, foisted upon gays a politicised negotiation of that right, and now painted it so to reduce its legitimacy.

 

It is but another red herring to distract from their religious anti-gay agenda.

[Steve Temp]

There is a theory that the creators of religions combine natural (or inborn, genetic, whatever) moral principles with their invented religious stories to give them validity, to make followers believe that since there are obvious moral directives in the religion, the rest must be believed too. And soon these religious followers start arguing that morality is not in our sinful nature but it only comes from their God. 

I know that this theory is somewhat cynical, which does not contradict it, but I only carefully mention it instead of making a statement to avoid offending anyone and avoid being found in violation of Singapore's rules of respect towards religion.

Furthermore, this theory can justify that we follow (not just believe) the moral principles in a religion without having to concern ourselves with its religious stories, for a happier, more fulfilling life.

.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Steve Temp

[Vometra]

1 hour ago, Steve Temp said:

There is a theory that the creators of religions combine natural (or inborn, genetic, whatever) moral principles with their invented religious stories to give them validity, to make followers believe that since there are obvious moral directives in the religion, the rest must be believed too. And soon these religious followers start arguing that morality is not in our sinful nature but it only comes from their God. 

I know that this theory is somewhat cynical, which does not contradict it, but I only carefully mention it instead of making a statement to avoid offending anyone and avoid being found in violation of Singapore's rules of respect towards religion.

Furthermore, this theory can justify that we follow (not just believe) the moral principles in a religion without having to concern ourselves with its religious stories, for a happier, more fulfilling life.

.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by Vometra

[Guest ghyui]

Hi Vometra , since you are well read like Upshot and together with rest of us. 

 

Do Check out Douglas Murray, David Wood , English videos of Jajabor the nomad , Jajabor the revolution on youtube. Bill Maher also. 

[Guest humanist]

2 hours ago, Steve Temp said:

There is a theory that the creators of religions combine natural (or inborn, genetic, whatever) moral principles with their invented religious stories to give them validity, to make followers believe that since there are obvious moral directives in the religion, the rest must be believed too. And soon these religious followers start arguing that morality is not in our sinful nature but it only comes from their God. 

I know that this theory is somewhat cynical, which does not contradict it, but I only carefully mention it instead of making a statement to avoid offending anyone and avoid being found in violation of Singapore's rules of respect towards religion.

Furthermore, this theory can justify that we follow (not just believe) the moral principles in a religion without having to concern ourselves with its religious stories, for a happier, more fulfilling life.

.

 

Actually for those of us who comes from the middle kingdom, we have been thought since young to recite, 

this

 

人之初，性本善。

ren zhi chu, xing ben shan.

 

meaning a human's early original born innate self is pure, good , kind, friendly, holy, pure.

 

versus the predominantly western judeo christian concept of humans are born sinners , no if or buts. That we carried the sins of Adam, right from the beginning.

 

Then from there, a whole cornucopia of religious teaching of that religion have to come up with verses to support and push up this premise .

 

This is the big fundamental difference.

 

But from natural observation babies are born innocent, pure, good , kind , friendly, holy , pure......

 

you cannot deny this....

[Guest LOGIC]

On 10/4/2018 at 12:09 AM, Guest Fatty said:

 

A religious person is a Citizen in Singapore.  They moral values are shaped by their conscience and their religion.

It is inseparable.  If you ask them to put aside their religious believes, then you are denying them their right to speak.

Impt thing is discussion.  Everybody has the right to say their piece.  Ultimately everybody (through referendum) or the government decides.

Emotions are not a religious monopoly.  Everybody has it.  In fact, LGBT people are pretty emotional too.

So I don't agree with when you said :Things will be less emotional without religion involvement".

There are 2 fallacies: One is religious people are more emotional.  Two is that the country to deny religious people's involvement.

I maintain that the repeal group was insincere because they have put BF president religious belief on their website and yet say no religious views on this issue. 

Having Prof Tommy Koh and Mr Lim Phang Hong on their website is a contradiction.  This will be fully exploited later when they push their case further.

And having said that, NO. I don't agree that people should go around throwing their religious books at others.  They are wrong.  But denying their rights is also wrong.

 

how does gay getting married oppressing people??????????/ tell me?!??!!?!!! where is the relation???? there's also people that does not believe in any religion, so is having a religion oppressing atheist or free thinkers???? not all religions share same principle too, so if a christian is eating meat, a would vegetarian be oppressed? by your logic nobody should be eating meat then. no pork for you fatty guest *roll eyes*