Thoughts on 377a repeal

[Lisafuller]

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.

It’s not then, unfortunate that the state only awards legal benefits to those who are married?

[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 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?

I never said they should be denied civil unions.

But a marriage is only be between a man and a woman. Calling it a marriage is like calling an apple an orange… that doesn’t make it an orange.

[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.

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.

It seems like you view religion as an something like an individual preference, and being religious as merely being spiritual.

It is not something you choose or something this is limited to an individual. It is something that permeates all of humanity, no matter whether you believe, recognize or acknowledge it.

[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.

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.

The definition of marriage :

"the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."

Sounds like you hold an "opinion" on what should constitute a marriage and no one can take that away from you. However, the above is the accepted definition.

Coming to what rights you enjoyed because of being legally sanctioned (aka sanctioned by the state, not the church and certainly not your own belief system), let's see, off the top of my head - being able to have your wife apply for an LTVP for you when you retire. Inheritance. These are just a few I can readily think of while on the way to work.

And while it may sound like a circular reference to call it a benefit, without state sanction, your marriage would be just 2 people living together. Even if you had a church or temple stamp their approval, and similarly if you stamp on it in your own head.

[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.

The definition of marriage :

"the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."

Sounds like you hold an "opinion" on what should constitute a marriage and no one can take that away from you. However, the above is the accepted definition.

Coming to what rights you enjoyed because of being legally sanctioned (aka sanctioned by the state, not the church and certainly not your own belief system), let's see, off the top of my head - being able to have your wife apply for an LTVP for you when you retire. Inheritance. These are just a few I can readily think of while on the way to work.

And while it may sound like a circular reference to call it a benefit, without state sanction, your marriage would be just 2 people living together. Even if you had a church or temple stamp their approval, and similarly if you stamp on it in your own head.

I agree there could be some benefits in the future, but after almost 20 years of marriage, I can’t think of a single benefit or right I have received up to now.

My wife did enjoy one tax break as a result of our legal marriage in the form of maid levy concession. She had been claiming but didn’t realize it had been rejected for years.. when she contacted the IRAS, they said she had to provide proof she was married before they would allow it. Once she did that, they also retroactively applied all the previous concessions. So, that’s at least something.

The definition of marriage that you posted above is (in a historical context) extremely recent (the paint is still dripping wet) and based on the opinions that have become commonplace only in this very recent era we are living in, and the governments that have recognized SSM have played a large part in influencing the common opinion on the street to the point that it has very much become mainstream opinion and I’m the odd one out. Turn back the clock even a few decades and and my opinion was the mainstream opinion and the definition above was the odd one out.

I certainly don’t deny that times have changed, even among democrats who are today tripping over themselves to be seen as pro-LGBT. It might surprise some that President Biden signed DOMA (defense of Marriage act, that aimed to preserve the definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman). And even former President Obama did not always support gay marriage. I think he spoke from his heart in this interview in 2008, and I share much of his (former?) opinion on the matter —

https://youtu.be/F3SqqD7KlMI

[Lisafuller]

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?

I never said they should be denied civil unions.

But a marriage is only be between a man and a woman. Calling it a marriage is like calling an apple an orange… that doesn’t make it an orange.

But now, that is only because you are going by the definition of marriage that is recognized in Singapore today. Not everybody agrees with this definition, which is why, in plenty of other countries around the world, it has been revised to include same-sex couples.

[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.

It seems like you view religion as an something like an individual preference, and being religious as merely being spiritual.

It is not something you choose or something this is limited to an individual. It is something that permeates all of humanity, no matter whether you believe, recognize or acknowledge it.

The problem here is that your view on religion, as something that pervades society whether or not we choose to acknowledge it, is a religious view. It is a matter of opinion, which you have taken as a matter of fact.

[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 have Church wedding, such a thing is meaningless. Holy Matrimony transcends all of that, for me.

The definition of marriage :

"the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."

Sounds like you hold an "opinion" on what should constitute a marriage and no one can take that away from you. However, the above is the accepted definition.

Coming to what rights you enjoyed because of being legally sanctioned (aka sanctioned by the state, not the church and certainly not your own belief system), let's see, off the top of my head - being able to have your wife apply for an LTVP for you when you retire. Inheritance. These are just a few I can readily think of while on the way to work.

And while it may sound like a circular reference to call it a benefit, without state sanction, your marriage would be just 2 people living together. Even if you had a church or temple stamp their approval, and similarly if you stamp on it in your own head.

Yup, and I also think that more than just legal equality, it’s also acknowledgment and acceptance that their relationships are valid that the gay community seeks.

[Lisafuller]

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.

The definition of marriage :

"the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman)."

Sounds like you hold an "opinion" on what should constitute a marriage and no one can take that away from you. However, the above is the accepted definition.

Coming to what rights you enjoyed because of being legally sanctioned (aka sanctioned by the state, not the church and certainly not your own belief system), let's see, off the top of my head - being able to have your wife apply for an LTVP for you when you retire. Inheritance. These are just a few I can readily think of while on the way to work.

And while it may sound like a circular reference to call it a benefit, without state sanction, your marriage would be just 2 people living together. Even if you had a church or temple stamp their approval, and similarly if you stamp on it in your own head.

I agree there could be some benefits in the future, but after almost 20 years of marriage, I can’t think of a single benefit or right I have received up to now.

My wife did enjoy one tax break as a result of our legal marriage in the form of maid levy concession. She had been claiming but didn’t realize it had been rejected for years.. when she contacted the IRAS, they said she had to provide proof she was married before they would allow it. Once she did that, they also retroactively applied all the previous concessions. So, that’s at least something.

The definition of marriage that you posted above is (in a historical context) extremely recent (the paint is still dripping wet) and based on the opinions that have become commonplace only in this very recent era we are living in, and the governments that have recognized SSM have played a large part in influencing the common opinion on the street to the point that it has very much become mainstream opinion and I’m the odd one out. Turn back the clock even a few decades and and my opinion was the mainstream opinion and the definition above was the odd one out.

I certainly don’t deny that times have changed, even among democrats who are today tripping over themselves to be seen as pro-LGBT. It might surprise some that President Biden signed DOMA (defense of Marriage act, that aimed to preserve the definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman). And even former President Obama did not always support gay marriage. I think he spoke from his heart in this interview in 2008, and I share much of his (former?) opinion on the matter —

https://youtu.be/F3SqqD7KlMI

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

[malcontent]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

Anyway, I have never suggested that any benefits be denied to anyone, you simply don’t need marriage to achieve that.

[x9200]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individua ... d-families
And a number of other related to taxes:
- inheritance related
- gift taxation

How about the statutory protection the marriage gives to both partners? Maintenance for the partner and such? And inheritance again.

And then there is a bunch of benefits not that tangible. Example: something happens to your partner and you have no legal right even for the information because you are formally a complete stranger.

[malcontent]

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?

I never said they should be denied civil unions.

But a marriage is only be between a man and a woman. Calling it a marriage is like calling an apple an orange… that doesn’t make it an orange.

But now, that is only because you are going by the definition of marriage that is recognized in Singapore today. Not everybody agrees with this definition, which is why, in plenty of other countries around the world, it has been revised to include same-sex couples.

Not everyone agrees with the other definition either. I’m fact, around 85% of all countries in the world today define marriage as between a man & woman, including Singapore. It is only a small minority, 30 out of 193 countries, who have altered their definition.

This attempt to redefine marriage has only been around in recent decades, whereas traditional marriage has been the norm for countless millennia, since the very beginning — it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

[malcontent]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individua ... d-families
And a number of other related to taxes:
- inheritance related
- gift taxation

How about the statutory protection the marriage gives to both partners? Maintenance for the partner and such? And inheritance again.

And then there is a bunch of benefits not that tangible. Example: something happens to your partner and you have no legal right even for the information because you are formally a complete stranger.

Even two same sex platonic friends should be allowed such rights.

Imagine if neither one of them have any other family - - they only have each other. This is beyond marriage, it’s about who counts as a stranger and who counts as family.

[x9200]

Agree, but it is also where to draw the line and about practicalities. A formal, legalized union is a clear manifest and commitment. With friends it would be more tricky to define (to know what sort of relationship is this) and legalize certain rights.

[malcontent]

When searching for the definition of marriage online, the results you see today have been altered in very recent times. One of the first results you get in Google is Webster’s Dictionary definition. This article calls out Webster for changing their definition in 2009.

https://danielknorris.com/the-desecration-of-marriage/