Thoughts on 377a repeal

[malcontent]

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.

It has become extremely popular for hetero couples to stay together but remain unmarried, even in the very long-term. If granting rights and level playing fields are so important, why are they not worried about it?

[malcontent]

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.

Calling it a marriage, and legally recognizing it as a marriage sends a strong message to the public. It creates the perception that such a union is a real, bonafide marriage. It also has the effect of normalizing it, thus encouraging those who are undecided to take the leap. It will also condition the minds of impressionable youth; schools are trying to teach this stuff as early as 3rd grade, which really amounts to grooming and is especially shameful in my opinion.

While that is what many in the media and activist communities are tripping over themselves to make happen, they miss an important point — if such a thing were to become the norm, humanity would face certain extinction.

[rajagainstthemachine]

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.

1. Taking a moderate approach towards life
2. Also, repeal of homosexuality laws is so 1980s if you want to compare say sg with hk. Should have happened ages ago here

[Lisafuller]

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.

It has become extremely popular for hetero couples to stay together but remain unmarried, even in the very long-term. If granting rights and level playing fields are so important, why are they not worried about it?

I think simple things like division of assets would become much more complicated if not clearly defined by the contract of marriage. More than that though, I believe the institution of marriage is sacred not only in many religions, but cultures. If we are to disregard religion, which is what I hope will be the case, we cannot disregard culture. Interesting proposition though.

[Lisafuller]

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.

Calling it a marriage, and legally recognizing it as a marriage sends a strong message to the public. It creates the perception that such a union is a real, bonafide marriage. It also has the effect of normalizing it, thus encouraging those who are undecided to take the leap. It will also condition the minds of impressionable youth; schools are trying to teach this stuff as early as 3rd grade, which really amounts to grooming and is especially shameful in my opinion.

While that is what many in the media and activist communities are tripping over themselves to make happen, they miss an important point — if such a thing were to become the norm, humanity would face certain extinction.

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution. And as for your point about teaching children about the LGBTQ community, I remain undecided on my view. On one hand, I believe it is a much more mature, nuanced topic than what young children are able to handle, but on the other hand I believe it is important we teach our children about respecting others even when they are different because education begets acceptance. Even if it is not acceptance that is the ultimate goal, we should always promote respect.

[Lisafuller]

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.

1. Taking a moderate approach towards life
2. Also, repeal of homosexuality laws is so 1980s if you want to compare say sg with hk. Should have happened ages ago here

In that case, I think we are on the same page, completely agree.

[malcontent]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

To me it is always wrong to discriminate or deny civil rights based who a person is, but not necessarily when it comes to what a person does.

For certain paraphilia, it could also be argued — it is who they are, they were born that way. But we all know that doesn’t always justify what they do.

I think the last word in your post said it best, people just want a solution, they don’t want to bothered with things like morality, biology or religion. So many other countries have done it, so it must be right.

I think someone famous in Singapore once said, just because it’s popular, doesn’t make it right. Personally, I find this to be one of Singapore’s finest traits. Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

[rajagainstthemachine]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

Why not? Just curious to hear your thoughts
Please dont give me the “its a gateway drug” story
Malaysia is considering it, Thailand is already allowing it, Access is only a stones throw away

[malcontent]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

Why not? Just curious to hear your thoughts
Please dont give me the “its a gateway drug” story
Malaysia is considering it, Thailand is already allowing it, Access is only a stones throw away

Pot was everywhere in the small little hick town where I grew up… there were so many potheads who just smoked it all day long. Those that did this lost all of their ambition in life, they just didn’t care about anything and became perpetual losers, just surviving to party the next day. And this is not observed from a distance — these are people I know really well, been to their home, know their whole family, etc. Really, sad to see.

[Lisafuller]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

To me it is always wrong to discriminate or deny civil rights based who a person is, but not necessarily when it comes to what a person does.

For certain paraphilia, it could also be argued — it is who they are, they were born that way. But we all know that doesn’t always justify what they do.

I think the last word in your post said it best, people just want a solution, they don’t want to bothered with things like morality, biology or religion. So many other countries have done it, so it must be right.

I think someone famous in Singapore once said, just because it’s popular, doesn’t make it right. Personally, I find this to be one of Singapore’s finest traits. Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

I think we’re on very different pages, with no real way to say who’s right and who’s wrong. No need for that either, since we’re both just different. I just think that while you make a good point about not judging one based on who he is but rather what he does, I believe in this situation a person is who he is based on what he does - it’s impossible to expect them to hold back on their sexual desires or to be OK with being denied the right to a civil union when they are heterosexual counterparts have had this privilege for as long as societies have existed. As for drugs, I do agree. Drug abuse ruins millions of families every single year and even though pot has a number of medicinal benefits and does tend to relax people, I can see why it’s a gateway drug and would become a huge problem overtime.

[Lisafuller]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

Why not? Just curious to hear your thoughts
Please dont give me the “its a gateway drug” story
Malaysia is considering it, Thailand is already allowing it, Access is only a stones throw away

Personally I have nothing against pot, I do have a problem with other drugs but marijuana in general seems to do a lot more good than it does harm. For singapore though, I just believe that if we’ve gone so long drug-free, why allow it?

[malcontent]

I do get what you mean, but I don’t think that continuing to deny them civil rights that have been legal in other equally conservative countries for years now is a solution.

To me it is always wrong to discriminate or deny civil rights based who a person is, but not necessarily when it comes to what a person does.

For certain paraphilia, it could also be argued — it is who they are, they were born that way. But we all know that doesn’t always justify what they do.

I think the last word in your post said it best, people just want a solution, they don’t want to bothered with things like morality, biology or religion. So many other countries have done it, so it must be right.

I think someone famous in Singapore once said, just because it’s popular, doesn’t make it right. Personally, I find this to be one of Singapore’s finest traits. Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

I think we’re on very different pages, with no real way to say who’s right and who’s wrong. No need for that either, since we’re both just different. I just think that while you make a good point about not judging one based on who he is but rather what he does, I believe in this situation a person is who he is based on what he does - it’s impossible to expect them to hold back on their sexual desires or to be OK with being denied the right to a civil union when they are heterosexual counterparts have had this privilege for as long as societies have existed. As for drugs, I do agree. Drug abuse ruins millions of families every single year and even though pot has a number of medicinal benefits and does tend to relax people, I can see why it’s a gateway drug and would become a huge problem overtime.

I don’t expect everyone or even most people to agree with my view. However, I do feel that people who agree with me tend to rarely admit it (probably out of fear of being labeled or cancelled). That tends to reinforce the narrative that everyone agrees with it — and something is wrong with you if you don’t.

And don’t get me wrong, nothing against anyone here — it’s never about the person. The problem is with governments imposing their own morality on the public, and in the process trampling on an underrepresented minority who believe such activities are wrong. People have the right to their own beliefs without the government or anyone else shoving it in their face and forcing them to accept it. There are ways to resolve civil rights issues without SSM or forcing people to accept what they believe is wrong.

You could argue that 377a was also imposing a moral view on the public, and I would not disagree. I don’t think it’s the government’s place to do that either. At least we all probably agree on that much!

[malcontent]

Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

Why not? Just curious to hear your thoughts
Please dont give me the “its a gateway drug” story
Malaysia is considering it, Thailand is already allowing it, Access is only a stones throw away

Personally I have nothing against pot, I do have a problem with other drugs but marijuana in general seems to do a lot more good than it does harm. For singapore though, I just believe that if we’ve gone so long drug-free, why allow it?

An argument could be made that potheads are no worse than drunkards and alcoholics. Similar to alcohol, pot is not very addictive for most people. However, like alcohol, it affects different people different ways. And believe me, I’ve seen that first-hand.

Still, it’s not something I’d want my kids exposed to if it can be avoided. I have even asked them, let’s say you’re at a party and people start passing around a joint… what would you do when it gets passed to you?

[Lisafuller]

To me it is always wrong to discriminate or deny civil rights based who a person is, but not necessarily when it comes to what a person does.

For certain paraphilia, it could also be argued — it is who they are, they were born that way. But we all know that doesn’t always justify what they do.

I think the last word in your post said it best, people just want a solution, they don’t want to bothered with things like morality, biology or religion. So many other countries have done it, so it must be right.

I think someone famous in Singapore once said, just because it’s popular, doesn’t make it right. Personally, I find this to be one of Singapore’s finest traits. Lately, legalizing pot has become the popular thing to do. I hope that never happens here.

I think we’re on very different pages, with no real way to say who’s right and who’s wrong. No need for that either, since we’re both just different. I just think that while you make a good point about not judging one based on who he is but rather what he does, I believe in this situation a person is who he is based on what he does - it’s impossible to expect them to hold back on their sexual desires or to be OK with being denied the right to a civil union when they are heterosexual counterparts have had this privilege for as long as societies have existed. As for drugs, I do agree. Drug abuse ruins millions of families every single year and even though pot has a number of medicinal benefits and does tend to relax people, I can see why it’s a gateway drug and would become a huge problem overtime.

I don’t expect everyone or even most people to agree with my view. However, I do feel that people who agree with me tend to rarely admit it (probably out of fear of being labeled or cancelled). That tends to reinforce the narrative that everyone agrees with it — and something is wrong with you if you don’t.

And don’t get me wrong, nothing against anyone here — it’s never about the person. The problem is with governments imposing their own morality on the public, and in the process trampling on an underrepresented minority who believe such activities are wrong. People have the right to their own beliefs without the government or anyone else shoving it in their face and forcing them to accept it. There are ways to resolve civil rights issues without SSM or forcing people to accept what they believe is wrong.

You could argue that 377a was also imposing a moral view on the public, and I would not disagree. I don’t think it’s the government’s place to do that either. At least we all probably agree on that much!

Whether or not we feel the same way, I can always appreciate and respect when someone sticks to their views. You’re not wrong, and I do think that most of the older generation shares the same view. They are not wrong either, this was how they were raised so naturally they think this way. As to your last point, I completely agree, 377A was the government imposing a moral view on the public, which should not be their place and should never have been. That we do agree on.

[Lisafuller]

Why not? Just curious to hear your thoughts
Please dont give me the “its a gateway drug” story
Malaysia is considering it, Thailand is already allowing it, Access is only a stones throw away

Personally I have nothing against pot, I do have a problem with other drugs but marijuana in general seems to do a lot more good than it does harm. For singapore though, I just believe that if we’ve gone so long drug-free, why allow it?

An argument could be made that potheads are no worse than drunkards and alcoholics. Similar to alcohol, pot is not very addictive for most people. However, like alcohol, it affects different people different ways. And believe me, I’ve seen that first-hand.

Still, it’s not something I’d want my kids exposed to if it can be avoided. I have even asked them, let’s say you’re at a party and people start passing around a joint… what would you do when it gets passed to you?

And what did they say? I do have this worry, since my daughter is going off to college in the US next year. It would be naive of me to think that she won’t, at some point, come across pot. Personally, I know her well enough to know that the curiosity will be too much for her to not at least try it once. I do hope and believe that she has the self-control not to let it become a problem though.