Thoughts on 377a repeal

[Lisafuller]

They are to a point but they both play the same way now. Hard to believe either one of them as the gospel.

Fair enough, but I think fox is way more unhinged than CNN ever will be.

[Lisafuller]

There is always room for armchair discussions. However, as things stand (especially in light of the current announcements that have been made). What did you expect? To sit down once more and have a debate in a manner where LGBTQ+ allies keep doing more to varnish the egos of the openly biased? To continue cushioning even the most basic messaging. All while rights are being denied? While actual lives are being affected and folks are being marginalized.

Perhaps my comments were a tad too harsh. But we live in such times. Where folks with a certain mindset have lived their entire lives on their terms. Sure homophobes come in all ages and sizes. But they are united in unanimously choosing to actively thwart and deny others of basic rights.

So yeah, we "sympathizers" are running a bit low on patience at this point. It is precisely that frustration that may come off sounding rude. I'm also sure the lack of niceties is the least of the communities (LGBTQ+) problems right now.

So be prepared to face a bit of a shelling as folks like myself (vocally in public or on online forums such as this) see and react to this move from the government. It's not going to come gift wrapped with a thank you note.

The world is already bending over backwards to cater to “anyone who identifies as anything” to the point that it is becoming nonsensical. Those with a moral objection to anything are being labeled, cancelled and marginalized. They don’t count, because they don’t fit the narrative.

It has nothing to do with phobia or a bias, it’s not even about the individual or who they are. It’s only about what they do. There are plenty of morally objectionable things that heteros do too. You don’t need laws against that - but you also don’t need to shove it in our face, tell us to accept it or have the government recognize it and hold it up as as morally acceptable.

It is all about respecting differences — not just the differences you are sympathetic to, but even those you don’t agree with… like the devoutly religious. You can’t claim to respect people’s differences if you cherry pick which differences to respect.

You do realise why the world is "bending over backwards" right? You must take a moment to think of why this narrative exists.

In India where I come from - the caste system has ruined the lives of several millions. And these are not one off instances. This systematic oppression that has broken the hopes and aspirations of several generations!

Similarly the entire LGBTQ+ community fighting for basic, I repeat, very basic civil rights isn't meant at "shoving it in your face". It's more to do with the fact that the world owes them a break. It isn't the same as drugs or gambling or any other vice that someone might pick up. These are folks living their life, dare I say - just as openly as you would want to live yours.

So using old analogy of the India caste system once more. When the country brought in reservations (a system where the government set aside positions in both academia and government jobs) for these marginalized communities. This move has been met (even to date) with stiff opposition from the "upper caste". Their objection was always that this was unfair and that folks from lower castes didn't live up to moral/religious standards of the time.

How is it alright for any society, let alone a supposedly progressive one like Singapore, to have different goal posts for different citizens. I would argue that the world needs to continue doing all that it can. It might still not suffice. But it's a start.

My point is that it's hard to have nuanced balanced discussions at times like this. I know we must. But to sit here and wait what? Another 15 years before the needle moves again just to appease and continue massaging egos of folks who somehow see this as a threat to their lives. That's another generation who have lost opportunities!

And I highly doubt you'd see it the same way if your son or daughter or a loved one came out as gay or lesbian. Because it only then would you see how detrimental such constitutional amendments are. More importantly you might then also begin seeing how accepting and giving them their lives back isn't going to affect your life or the lives of hetero folks/religious groups etc even in the slightest.

Very interesting points, I’ve always been a little confused, but more fascinated by the caste system. I know it’s not nearly as pervasive as it used to be, but is it still a thing? As for your points, I do agree. I think it’s easy to deny other people rights when we have no vested interest in the issues themselves. The world needs more empathy and understanding.

[Lisafuller]

My point is that it's hard to have nuanced balanced discussions at times like this. I know we must. But to sit here and wait what? Another 15 years before the needle moves again just to appease and continue massaging egos of folks who somehow see this as a threat to their lives.

Yes. Such is the real, complicated world where people have different strongly held beliefs and have to find a way to live together harmoniously despite that. There are no quick fixes, I'm afraid. If you're female you will already know, achieving equal rights is a long, messy process, with setbacks and compromises along the way. But that doesn't mean we can't live a good life, especially in places like Singapore where we are protected from harm, can own property, can move about freely, can go to school and can vote. It wasn't so long ago in human history that none of those were a reality. Small moves make for lasting results.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me, just sharing my views.

Yup, it’s a delicate balance. On one hand, living a “good life” in spite of any constitutional setbacks does not mean that we should continue to accept these inequities, at the same time the presence of these inequities does not negate the fact that we have it better than a whole load of other people, and does not mean that we cannot live a good life.

[Lisafuller]

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Very well put. I think sometimes it’s difficult for us to distance ourselves from disempowering attitudes that we were brought up to hold, but any effort to understand is a step in the right direction.

[Lisafuller]

I’m all for equality, except when it infringes on others. You don’t need to redefine the legal definition of marriage to achieve equality.

The thing is, allowing everyone the right to marry whoever they like does not infringe on anybody else. Removing the need for sexual conformity in a marriage does not invalidate anybody else’s marriage, it’s simply creates a more inclusive definition of the term that allows people to love who they love, and enjoy the social and civil benefits that come with entering a civil union. Arguably, the present definition of marriage infringes on the LGBTQ communities right to marriage.

[Lisafuller]

How does someone marrying infringe on someone else's rights?

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

Completely agree, very important point.

[Lisafuller]

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

Joint singles can buy HDB, though not BTO as far as I know. It seems to be tough for anyone to buy BTO these days for that matter! I can understand the govt prioritising larger new flats for couples that can have kids. As for other practical matters, there are wills and LPAs, which everyone should actually think about as it makes things much easier.

Interesting to see that most of these “singles” are same sex…

[Lisafuller]

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

Joint singles can buy HDB, though not BTO as far as I know. It seems to be tough for anyone to buy BTO these days for that matter! I can understand the govt prioritising larger new flats for couples that can have kids. As for other practical matters, there are wills and LPAs, which everyone should actually think about as it makes things much easier.

Interesting to see that most of these “singles” are same sex…

[Lisafuller]

How does someone marrying infringe on someone else's rights?

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

For the devoutly religious, marriage is something considered sacred, even a sacrament. Followers see sacraments as outward signs of God’s grace. So when the state takes it upon itself to legally redefine what marriage is, it is seen as both an endorsement of activities deemed wrong, as well as a complete violation of something that is held deeply sacred. That is an infringement in my opinion.

BTO is probably a wish too far. Opposite gender couples simply have a biological advantage… some inequalities are inescapable, and given the low birth rate here, the value of an offspring generating couple is going to trump any others. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are eventually penalties for remaining childless!

Here I must disagree. I think it’s perfectly fine to be religious, but I’ve always held the belief that state matters should be kept separate from religion.

[malcontent]

How does someone marrying infringe on someone else's rights?

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

For the devoutly religious, marriage is something considered sacred, even a sacrament. Followers see sacraments as outward signs of God’s grace. So when the state takes it upon itself to legally redefine what marriage is, it is seen as both an endorsement of activities deemed wrong, as well as a complete violation of something that is held deeply sacred. That is an infringement in my opinion.

BTO is probably a wish too far. Opposite gender couples simply have a biological advantage… some inequalities are inescapable, and given the low birth rate here, the value of an offspring generating couple is going to trump any others. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are eventually penalties for remaining childless!

Here I must disagree. I think it’s perfectly fine to be religious, but I’ve always held the belief that state matters should be kept separate from religion.

We agree on separation of church and state; we disagree on where the line is drawn.

The state has no business defining or redefining what a marriage is. The state can legally recognize any couplings it wants: platonic, human/non-human, polygamous, <insert from your imagination>, anything goes… and grant whatever rights it deems appropriate to such couplings.

But when it comes to marriage, that is totally different - - there is a reason it’s called Holy Matrimony. In this case, the state should separate.

[smoulder]

Mal, not everyone calls it "holy matrimony". Only Christians do as far as I know (I'm catholic by the way).

Also, the whole concept of marriage is really worth nothing if it's purely left to the church. On the other hand it has everything to do with the state - legally speaking that is.

[malcontent]

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

Joint singles can buy HDB, though not BTO as far as I know. It seems to be tough for anyone to buy BTO these days for that matter! I can understand the govt prioritising larger new flats for couples that can have kids. As for other practical matters, there are wills and LPAs, which everyone should actually think about as it makes things much easier.

Interesting to see that most of these “singles” are same sex…

Were you expecting a lot of opposite sex singles?

[malcontent]

Mal, not everyone calls it "holy matrimony". Only Christians do as far as I know (I'm catholic by the way).

Also, the whole concept of marriage is really worth nothing if it's purely left to the church. On the other hand it has everything to do with the state - legally speaking that is.

To me the legal aspects have had no value. What rights or privileges have I enjoyed here in Singapore as the result of being legally married? I can’t think of anything. It was just paperwork. I also didn’t have Church wedding, such a thing is meaningless. Holy Matrimony transcends all of that, for me.

[Lisafuller]

Mal, not everyone calls it "holy matrimony". Only Christians do as far as I know (I'm catholic by the way).

Also, the whole concept of marriage is really worth nothing if it's purely left to the church. On the other hand it has everything to do with the state - legally speaking that is.

Exactly, if marriage is to be taken as a religious union, which it is not, then it should have no ties to the state whatsoever. In other words, ones legal ability to, for example, apply for a BTO should have nothing to do with whether or not, he’s married. Yet, this isn’t the case.

[Lisafuller]

Mal, not everyone calls it "holy matrimony". Only Christians do as far as I know (I'm catholic by the way).

Also, the whole concept of marriage is really worth nothing if it's purely left to the church. On the other hand it has everything to do with the state - legally speaking that is.

To me the legal aspects have had no value. What rights or privileges have I enjoyed here in Singapore as the result of being legally married? I can’t think of anything. It was just paperwork. I also didn’t even have Church wedding, such a thing is meaningless. Holy Matrimony transcends all of that, for me.

In that case I think it’s important to acknowledge the distinction between a civil union and one which you’ve identified as holy matrimony. Marriage, as we know it today, serves nothing more than an administrative purpose. It awards couples legal rights. In that case, why should anybody be denied the right to a civil marriage if it doesn’t hinge on religion?