Thoughts on 377a repeal

[malcontent]

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.

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

[Addadude]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

[malcontent]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Reinterpreting religion to justify something immoral is nothing new. But it is not religion that is corrupted, it is humans who reinterpret religion (like you said, the religious leaders). This is exactly why Luther started the Protestant movement.

But if you say that secular is superior to religious - the question remains, who makes the moral judgement of what is right or wrong - or should it be based on popular opinion?

[Lisafuller]

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.

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

So you believe that singapore, and all states for that matter, should be governed by religion?

[Lisafuller]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Excellent point, most of these child marriages and polygamy that mal considers a desecration of marriage are actually propagated by religious teachings and beliefs.

[Lisafuller]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Reinterpreting religion to justify something immoral is nothing new. But it is not religion that is corrupted, it is humans who reinterpret religion (like you said, the religious leaders). This is exactly why Luther started the Protestant movement.

But if you say that secular is superior to religious - the question remains, who makes the moral judgement of what is right or wrong - or should it be based on popular opinion?

There was no re-interpretation, the reason why you can't see it this way is because you only recognize one religion, which is your own. That's fine, and perhaps is the way it should be since Christians are not to recognize any other God (and by extension give credit to other teachings), but I think it's pretty hard to deny the truth of what Addadude mentioned. Child marriages and polygamy are practices that are overwhelmingly seen in religious communities, and close to nowhere else.

[malcontent]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Excellent point, most of these child marriages and polygamy that mal considers a desecration of marriage are actually propagated by religious teachings and beliefs.

Where did I say I consider child marriages and polygamy a desecration of marriage?

[malcontent]

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Reinterpreting religion to justify something immoral is nothing new. But it is not religion that is corrupted, it is humans who reinterpret religion (like you said, the religious leaders). This is exactly why Luther started the Protestant movement.

But if you say that secular is superior to religious - the question remains, who makes the moral judgement of what is right or wrong - or should it be based on popular opinion?

There was no re-interpretation, the reason why you can't see it this way is because you only recognize one religion, which is your own. That's fine, and perhaps is the way it should be since Christians are not to recognize any other God (and by extension give credit to other teachings), but I think it's pretty hard to deny the truth of what Addadude mentioned. Child marriages and polygamy are practices that are overwhelmingly seen in religious communities, and close to nowhere else.

It is not just a reinterpretation from a religious or biblical standpoint, it is also a reinterpretation from a long-standing tradition and cultural standpoint.

[malcontent]

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.

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

So you believe that singapore, and all states for that matter, should be governed by religion?

I don’t believe that. But I question the moral authority of a secular state that endorses something considered morally objectionable by most religions, traditions, cultures, globally.

[bro75]

The state can be guided by religion and culture but should not totally be subservient to it in promulgating rules.

The first objective of the state is to maintain order. With that the state protects life, liberty, and property through criminal and civil rules.

After that the state tries to help people reach their other aspirations without compromising the life, liberty and property of other persons. The state provides free education, provides a good business environment, encourages the arts, encourages healthier living and generally making people happier.
Human rights is also part of the next step in people's aspirations. The removal of inequality based on race, gender, and religious beliefs is part of this. The US started by abolishing slavery then allowing women to vote, then the civil rights act and other actions.

In Singapore, we saw this further removal of inequality in the repeal of 377A. Maybe in the future, LGBTQ civil unions will be recognized in Singapore. Allowing LGBTQ unions does not violate the state primary objectives of protecting life, liberty and property.

[jalanjalan]

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.

Their approach has been perfectly clear, and they've explained it many times. If the views of society change over time, so too can laws such as this. They just don't want it sprung on society via the courts. At this point in time, MPs are representing their constituents and airing their concerns, and coming up with a compromise which I think was quite wise.
I don't personally find it helpful to try to frame it as a generational conflict. That just breeds more prejudice and stereotypes (just watched a youtube about young couples who seem to think they invented inter-ethnic marriages )

[mozarella99]

Far fetched? Maybe the last one. But…

Worldwide, more than 650 million women alive today were married as children. Every year, at least 12 million girls are married before they reach the age of 18. This is 28 girls every minute. One in every five girls is married, or in union, before reaching age 18.

2% (156 million) of the global population practices polygamy.

The question remains, when this is left in secular hands, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who should make the moral judgement? Popular opinion?

These statistics are in fact an excellent argument for a secular approach to marriage. Look at those places where child marriages take place - in every case it is a country where religious leaders have decided such marriages are a good thing. Same thing applies to polygamy. In fact, if history is anything to go by, the last people who should have any authority about marriages - or pretty much anything - are religious leaders.

Hear hear!

I remember watching a Christopher Hitchens debate on whether "religion is still a force for good in the world". And the man made several excellent points along the same lines. The historical track record most religions have is abysmal at best. Especially when you look at the things they did in ths name of religion from today's modern context.

So to expect those same dated morals and ideologies (like what constitutes a marriage) to apply to a whole new generation is ludicrous.

It's ironic that folks fighting to defend marriage. Are all doing so from an institutional position (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc). They themselves are being given the guide rails by their bishops/imams/priests etc. As always - it's one thing for them to follow it. But to impose it on wider society. Sigh... nuts.

But to Lisa's point of reigniting this thread:

I'm personally glad Masagos and the PAP are reading the tea leaves correctly. And glad that Pritam lifted the whip. Let folks know about what their MPs stand for!

[malcontent]

Hear hear!

I remember watching a Christopher Hitchens debate on whether "religion is still a force for good in the world". And the man made several excellent points along the same lines. The historical track record most religions have is abysmal at best. Especially when you look at the things they did in ths name of religion from today's modern context.

So to expect those same dated morals and ideologies (like what constitutes a marriage) to apply to a whole new generation is ludicrous.

It's ironic that folks fighting to defend marriage. Are all doing so from an institutional position (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc). They themselves are being given the guide rails by their bishops/imams/priests etc. As always - it's one thing for them to follow it. But to impose it on wider society. Sigh... nuts.

But to Lisa's point of reigniting this thread:

I'm personally glad Masagos and the PAP are reading the tea leaves correctly. And glad that Pritam lifted the whip. Let folks know about what their MPs stand for!

Moz, before you get too excited and do something you shouldn’t, there is a significant difference in what Add said — he is correctly blaming the religious leaders, not religion itself. What you are saying is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Religion is not bad. People are bad. My religion takes it a step further, identifying the pope as the antichrist (might sound radical, but there is sound rationale behind it). For those looking at religion as outsider, you only see the <1% of what religion is all about from headline grabbing stories and people spinning their own narratives. Only those who have been deeply involved know the other >99%.

[JR8]

Religion is not bad. People are bad. My religion takes it a step further, identifying the pope as the antichrist (might sound radical, but there is sound rationale behind it). For those looking at religion as outsider, you only see the <1% of what religion is all about from headline grabbing stories and people spinning their own narratives. Only those who have been deeply involved know the other >99%.

Heavens. You only have to read that comment to understand why atheists consider 'religionists' to be reliably nutty. Frankly from all I know of religion as an outsider, 'the hell' I'm ever going to procede to ever seeing an insiders view.

I mean I'll give you an example. When I grew up in England in the 70s, my childhood 'best friend', of catholic parents, was sent off to a high-catholic school Ampleforth. There the staff were practising monks.

Meanwhile my religously perhaps ambivalent parents sent me to a school where religion was not a focus. I went on to find my rung in the tribe of cohorts, find my place and aim higher. My mate 200 miles away wrote me mournful letters describing co-pupils (aged 14-15) at this uber-Catholic school wearing (then) £300 Gucci loafers - such was their piety. I used to laugh at that, it was so absurd, though back then Gucci loafers were seen as showy but on balance classy, rather than as now new-money naff. [Gucci really has gone down-market for those with a shorter perspective.]

And then how some of the 'Brothers', ie teachers, had a 'special fondness' for some of the pupils. Then the unspoken and probably publicly unknown bit of what went on beyond closed doors. This was (the whispers suggested) paedophilia within the establishment when people were too afraid to call it out. It was unheard of then. Then how this historic 'Catholic Eton' got put by the government into Special Measures for mis-deeds. Meanwhile my childhood friend dropped out, became a serious junkie and became a touring musician playing on hit albums with a heavy-scene guitar headline band - [intentionally anonymous]. I wrote him a last post-card when posted to Tokyo, having just climbed Mt Fuji. He was just signed to a lable and going on tour with a record deal. Both doing well on our trajectories. I never heard from him again and to this day don't know if he's alive. 30 years later I doubt it.

The church without question completely messed him up. That WAS gods work. It's because of early experiences of what religion inflicted on initially gentle souls like him that I'm consequently detested all religion. They're man-made manipulations and manifestly selfish, self-serving and evil.