Thoughts on 377a repeal

[sundaymorningstaple]

I can tell you the story about the Advocate Father of the Catholic Church here in Singapore (his office is at the Novena Church) when my wife & I decided to marry and neither of us are gay. He don't much like me as I knew too much about the canons of the church for his comfort or liking. He even went so far as to threaten my wife with excommunication.

[malcontent]

I can tell you the story about the Advocate Father of the Catholic Church here in Singapore (his office is at the Novena Church) when my wife & I decided to marry and neither of us are gay. He don't much like me as I knew too much about the canons of the church for his comfort or liking. He even went so far as to threaten my wife with excommunication.

Did you ask if he would sell you some indulgences? I’ll bet that would have done it!

[sundaymorningstaple]

LOL, Her parish priest told us years later that had he known all that was going to happen, by him following protocol, he would have married us in the church and notified them later and taken the heat himself. Especially considering he baptized both of our children, as well as through catechism. And especially as one of her Bro-in-laws is a redemptorist priest at the Novena as well. Never mind. Considering I'm Agnostic and have been since around 1960. I reckon it's all worked out fine anyway. For me it would have cost me plenty. Especially considering I was baptized a Lutheran which flew in the face of the Indulgence gambit.

[Lisafuller]

Being denied a legal marriage, with zero hope of ever being allowed to was a big blow, but at the time I told my SO, the only thing that matters is that we are together, and we proceeded to stay together for years not knowing if we would ever be allowed to marry. It’s what’s in the heart that matters, not what’s on some piece of paper.

So you lived in sin together?

We didn’t “live together” before marriage, if that is what you mean. She stayed in her parent’s flat with her sis and BIL, I rented a place outside.

First 2.5 years it was a common room in a 5 room HDB flat for $450/mo. Then post-Asian crisis I got a deal on a room in bungalow for $550/mo for another 2.5 years. I then had a 7 month assignment in the US, but we saw each other at least once a month through that time. When I came back, I got a studio apartment for $1,200/mo, which is where I stayed until we were suddenly and unexpectedly allowed to marry.

Good on you, definitely respectable that you are so committed to your religion, but can't you agree at the very least that as a secular state, decisions on civil rights should never be made based on religion?

[Lisafuller]

Reviving this thread to discuss something Masagos said in parliament today. The government has chosen not to enshrine the definition of marriage in the constitution, instead leaving that up to future generations. In my opinion, this suggests a quiet openness on the part of the PAP, it's clear that they are aware of the wishes of the younger generation, but have reached this decision as a middle ground between appeasing the more conservative and traditional older generations and the more open and inclusive younger generation.

[Lisafuller]

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Right, it's important not to conflate civil rights with religious ones.

[malcontent]

If you want to redefine marriage, then can two BFFs marry even though it’s a totally platonic relationship?

[Addadude]

If you want to redefine marriage, then can two BFFs marry even though it’s a totally platonic relationship?

Yep. Why not? There are many 'conventional' marriages that are effectively 'platonic' because circumstances, illness, disability or simply choice. It's the married couple's business. Not society's.

[Lisafuller]

If you want to redefine marriage, then can two BFFs marry even though it’s a totally platonic relationship?

I'd have to say yes - the only reason you are against marriage unless it is between man and woman like in the Bible is because you are choosing only to accept the biblical definition of marriage, and in doing so applying it to a secular context and expecting everyone else to do the same.

[Lisafuller]

If you want to redefine marriage, then can two BFFs marry even though it’s a totally platonic relationship?

Yep. Why not? There are many 'conventional' marriages that are effectively 'platonic' because circumstances, illness, disability or simply choice. It's the married couple's business. Not society's.

Right. Marriages are proclamations of love, and love comes in many forms.

[Lisafuller]

I can tell you the story about the Advocate Father of the Catholic Church here in Singapore (his office is at the Novena Church) when my wife & I decided to marry and neither of us are gay. He don't much like me as I knew too much about the canons of the church for his comfort or liking. He even went so far as to threaten my wife with excommunication.

Why would he do such a thing?

[Lisafuller]

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

Not sure how one would answer this, because it is a moot question. The issue is that you are forcing religious practices into a context that should be anything but. Nobody wants to desecrate your religion, the problem arises when religious people insist on having secular matters handled in religious manner.

[malcontent]

Desecrating of marriage is like in religious context and I believe all we here discuss is limited to the civil rights. But if this is more about personal believes that what is granted as the civil marriage is also sort of sacret then I still see no reason why the relationship of for example, two women is any worse than for a man and a woman.

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

Not sure how one would answer this, because it is a moot question. The issue is that you are forcing religious practices into a context that should be anything but. Nobody wants to desecrate your religion, the problem arises when religious people insist on having secular matters handled in religious manner.

So then it’s a secular free for all? Marriage means whatever you want it to mean? Who should say what secular matters should or should not be carried out? Who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should marry who… or what, or them… and what age? How are moral judgements made? Marriage between siblings? Child marriages? Polygamous marriages? Marriage to a pet? Where are the lines drawn?

[Lisafuller]

Should the state be allowed to conduct civil ceremonies for all 7 holy sacraments… without regard to the religious significance? Why not burn the holy book while we’re at it?

The fact is, rights can be achieved without desecrating marriage, so if this is only about rights, then I don’t see why the insistence on redefining marriage.

Not sure how one would answer this, because it is a moot question. The issue is that you are forcing religious practices into a context that should be anything but. Nobody wants to desecrate your religion, the problem arises when religious people insist on having secular matters handled in religious manner.

So then it’s a secular free for all? Marriage means whatever you want it to mean? Who should say what secular matters should or should not be carried out? Who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should marry who… or what, or them… and what age? How are moral judgements made? Marriage between siblings? Child marriages? Polygamous marriages? Marriage to a pet? Where are the lines drawn?

I get your point, but you must admit that the examples you've made are too far fetched. Nobody is asking to marry their alarm clock.

[PNGMK]

I went out and bought some KY and keep my ass lubed. I'm worried the gheys will randomly start raping men in the street.

(Sarcasm obviously).