Thoughts on 377a repeal

[PNGMK]

Mal, I tend to agree, but sadly I cannot vouch as to what is the view of the asian religions which are the predominant religion here, not christianity, considering the asian usage of consorts and eunuchs' over the centuries.

They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong.
- Dalai Lama

didn't buddha also advocate the middle path?

the.... perineum?

[sundaymorningstaple]

I've heard a lot off ouches with that misdirection.....

[Lisafuller]

That is exactly what they were trying to do and in the process, trying to find a way to avoid the activists next target being the government policies set up originally intended for traditional marriages (that could produce families & future generations). So in order to do that, they are also rewriting the Constitution to address that situation so it cannot be tested in a court. Smart move on their part.

Smart move, but also a little bit disheartening that they are still holding onto their conservative views after so many years. Not surprised though.

[Lisafuller]

I am sure my view is not popular, but I have a right to my view as much as anyone else. I am also sure I’m not alone in my view, but many who share my view prefer to stay silent.

Same sex partners who “marry” have entered into a false marriage, despite legal recognition, it is not a real marriage.

I believe one should love the sinner, but hate the sin. I have asked many who say they are Christians whether they know what the Bible says on this matter; I have yet to find a single one that does. I provide the exact Bible verse below.

Notice how the action and not the person is condemned. It’s not who you are, but what you do — an important distinction, in-line w/377a.

LEVITICUS 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

But in this case you are what you do, don’t you think it’s a little bit oppressive for them not to be treated the same as everyone else?

[Lisafuller]

Mal, I tend to agree, but sadly I cannot vouch as to what is the view of the asian religions which are the predominant religion here, not christianity, considering the asian usage of consorts and eunuchs' over the centuries.

I believe most religions, Asian or not tend to be against homosexuality. In my mind if Singapore wants to be a secular state, no religious views should be considered in the construction of public policy.

[Lisafuller]

Mal, I tend to agree, but sadly I cannot vouch as to what is the view of the asian religions which are the predominant religion here, not christianity, considering the asian usage of consorts and eunuchs' over the centuries.

They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong.
- Dalai Lama

I take a different view, I believe that because Singapore has positioned itself as a secular state, no religious views should matter. You notice that most of the people who petition against homosexuality do so from a place of wanting to preserve their religious views.

[Lisafuller]

There's also some debate that the original word used in Lev 20:13 meant a pederast (a man who preys on young men). I personally expect we will see gay marriage legalized here in time for LHY to become the 5G prime minister with his husband as spouse and first lady once Lawrence Woo has had his turn.

https://mothership.sg/2019/05/li-huanwu ... th-africa/

I hope so, personally I didn’t expect it to take this long. I always thought that Singapore would be pressured by the fact that countries that are generally considered more conservative like France and South Africa had already legalized it, and follow suit.

[Lisafuller]

Good move, law was deprecated, redundant not enforced in most cases anyway
However, Prevents gay marriages though, which is disappointing cuz it seems to encourage gay sex but not gay relationships, and ideally one would want to see those gay couples to be faithful to one another but it doesn’t seem to be encouraging of that.
Also timing for such a repeal couldn’t have come at a better time when monkeypox cases are increasing lol

The christian rednecks are the ones most perturbed by all this but cant do shit but squirm and scream internally

Good point, the new law, in essence does encourage gay sex but not marriage. Ironically, the government is always so pushy about wanting to increase the number of families here, yet they do not recognize unconventional family units.

[Lisafuller]

My thoughts are that it was retained more as a political weapon to be used against undesirably popular figures when needed…nowadays a lot less public outrage around MSM so maybe it has become redundant…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve always thought it was retained not for the sake of weaponizing it against other opponents, but rather to appease the older generation, who make up a large portion of PAP supporters.

[Lisafuller]

BBCDoc - that was certainly how it was actually used.... and there probably were some bright sparks who realized that there are some significant individuals in the PAP that an OPPO might decide to target with it should they come into power. One in particular wears a pink shirt every NDP.

Gee, can’t imagine who you’re referring to

[Lisafuller]

Good move, law was deprecated, redundant not enforced in most cases anyway
However, Prevents gay marriages though, which is disappointing cuz it seems to encourage gay sex but not gay relationships, and ideally one would want to see those gay couples to be faithful to one another but it doesn’t seem to be encouraging of that.
Also timing for such a repeal couldn’t have come at a better time when monkeypox cases are increasing lol

The christian rednecks are the ones most perturbed by all this but cant do shit but squirm and scream internally

I lean Libertarian politically, so while my personal views are my own, I don’t think the state should be meddling in this whatsoever - no more than they should be meddling in things like adultery or fornication. However, in that same vein, I don’t think the state should be overtly endorsing or legally recognizing any such things either. Even legally recognizing marriage between a man and woman is technically not necessary.

Well, to not acknowledge any sort of civil union would make for an administrative nightmare, for obvious reasons. I don’t think that legalizing gay marriage would be promoting it though, if anything I believe it would just be evening the playing field, by granting rights to people who have and will be there whether or not the laws are in place.

[Lisafuller]

I am sure my view is not popular, but I have a right to my view as much as anyone else. I am also sure I’m not alone in my view, but many who share my view prefer to stay silent.

Same sex partners who “marry” have entered into a false marriage, despite legal recognition, it is not a real marriage.

I believe one should love the sinner, but hate the sin. I have asked many who say they are Christians whether they know what the Bible says on this matter; I have yet to find a single one that does. I provide the exact Bible verse below.

Notice how the action and not the person is condemned. It’s not who you are, but what you do — an important distinction, in-line w/377a.

LEVITICUS 20:13
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

There are other interesting quotes from Leviticus 20 too:

“…If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head…

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death…

“If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people…"

I for one am rather glad that most modern societies have moved beyond this backward nonsense.

I just don’t understand why certain societies choose to take from religious texts selectively, obviously it’s better than nothing, but why follow at all?

[Lisafuller]

Isn't that whataboutery?

I was referring to the corporal and capital punishments being meted out here for certain offenses. Some consider it backward.

But to the point - I think Leviticus was spelling out the laws of that era. The New Testament transformed much of that, along the lines of… let he who has no sin cast the first stone. It’s not that wrongs were less wrong, but that mercy should be shown.

I am no more a theologist than anyone else, but I just think politics and religion have their own place and time, and should not be mixed. Unless the country is openly religious, like a Muslim state for example.

[Lisafuller]

Mal, I tend to agree, but sadly I cannot vouch as to what is the view of the asian religions which are the predominant religion here, not christianity, considering the asian usage of consorts and eunuchs' over the centuries.

They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong.
- Dalai Lama

didn't buddha also advocate the middle path?

And what would that be? It can be said that legalizing it would be to promote it, while keeping it illegal would be to forbid it.

[Lisafuller]

They want me to condone homosexuality. But I am a Buddhist and, for a Buddhist, a relationship between two men is wrong. Some sexual conduct in marriage is also wrong.
- Dalai Lama

didn't buddha also advocate the middle path?

the.... perineum?

Laughed so hard at this, you’re ridiculous PNGMK!