Thoughts on 377a repeal

[smoulder]

How does someone marrying infringe on someone else's rights?

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

[jalanjalan]

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

Joint singles can buy HDB, though not BTO as far as I know. It seems to be tough for anyone to buy BTO these days for that matter! I can understand the govt prioritising larger new flats for couples that can have kids. As for other practical matters, there are wills and LPAs, which everyone should actually think about as it makes things much easier.

[malcontent]

How does someone marrying infringe on someone else's rights?

In the Singapore context, there's a lot riding on being able to start a family - being able to buy a BTO for instance. You simply have more choices as a family. So there is a very practical need behind why LGBT groups would want to be able to marry.

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!

[smoulder]

Well, some gay people marrying other gay people has nothing to do with a religious person who thinks that marriages are only for straight people. There's no infringement of their rights to practice their religion there.

On the other hand, demanding that the government takes away rights from gay people because some straight (hyper) religious folks are offended.... Is actually infringing on someone's rights - gay people's rights.

As for the argument about not being able to reproduce - there are solutions for that too. Adoption being one. Surrogacy along with sperm or egg donation is another. At the moment only straight people can start families here - looking at the TFR, that's not exactly working well, is it....

[malcontent]

Sure, anyone can do whatever they want provided it isn’t illegal, despite whatever moral objections anyone has. Just like fornication and adultery, it’s not illegal — you have the right to do whatever you want, even if others view it as moral wrong.

The problem is when it becomes enshrined into law as a genuine marriage, sanctioned by the state and held up as a desirable and moral activity. And it’s not just a religious issue, there is no denying the science — human beings are by nature always best raised by their natural mother and father. This is common sense, but many studies have proven it.

Even adopted kids do better when they have a father figure and a mother figure in their lives, but if such a family situation is not possible, I believe being raised by a loving family that consists of a non-straight couple has been proven to be better than without any family at all. So I will give you that. But to intentionally bring new life into the world through artificial means for non-straight? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Regarding the TFR issue… I do not think it is going to open the floodgates by letting non-straight couples adopt or have children through artificial means. I doubt you’d even see a 0.1 uptick in TFR. The numbers just aren’t there… and the % of these couples who desire a family is less common than straight (who have already cut way back).

[smoulder]

The problem is when it becomes enshrined into law as a genuine marriage, sanctioned by the state and held up as a desirable and moral activity

Are you actually worried that straight people will become gay because they allow same sex marriage? Are you saying that homosexuality is a result of immorality?

[malcontent]

The problem is when it becomes enshrined into law as a genuine marriage, sanctioned by the state and held up as a desirable and moral activity

Are you actually worried that straight people will become gay because they allow same sex marriage? Are you saying that homosexuality is a result of immorality?

If the state sanctions it, more will believe that there is nothing wrong with such activities, and that such a marriage is a real and genuine marriage. As people start to get conditioned like this from a young age, it will plant the seed in some minds that this is an alternative they can choose. The idea that everyone is strictly gay or straight is a misnomer. Some think they are gay when young but end up straight. Many are on the fence and genuinely don’t know. Some really are gay, but still choose to go straight eventually. There are many shades of gray, it’s not cut and dry. So, am I worried straight will turn gay? I think that is highly unlikely. But could it wrongly
influence some? Sure it could. I don’t think homosexuality is the result of immorality, but I believe the act is is immoral and should not be embraced as moral.

[smoulder]

OK you actually believe straight people can become homosexual. Nothing more to say.

[malcontent]

OK you actually believe straight people can become homosexual. Nothing more to say.

I actually know a young person who at this very moment is straight but said they are undecided and considering to become a homosexual.

That is what they said, and I cannot believe they are alone. So it is not a simple, you are or you aren’t… at least not for everyone.

[jwoods1864]

I think you need to relax and let people marry persons whom they love and in time you might even find some happiness with it. Try to move beyond religion if at all possible too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[malcontent]

I think you need to relax and let people marry persons whom they love and in time you might even find some happiness with it. Try to move beyond religion if at all possible too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You should change the word “marry” to “be with” — because it will never be a marriage no matter how badly you want it to be.

This is beyond religion. Deep down everyone knows you can’t consummate a marriage with incompatible genitalia.

If the state decides to give “unions outside of marriage” the same rights as married couples, that’s fine… but the state should not be recognizing false marriages as real marriages.

[mozarella99]

You've got to applaud the folks trying to reason and talk sense to Malcontent. This chap was the one who coolly stated a bit earlier (while sitting atop his moral high ground) - that he loves the sinners but hates the sin.

This really is the problem with lack of reform with religion. It breeds folks like Malcontent who then go on random crusades imposing "god's" view of the world on everyone. Sooner or later Singapore will probably realize that the cancer that needs to be culled is religion itself.

Until then - protect yourself from the news and from exposing yourself to "the gays" mate. Beware, if you get too close and if the gahmen legalizes things further - like COVID- you may catch the gays.

I'm joking of course - however as with my first post on this thread. It's just disappointing to see that even in 2022 we have folks like this dolling blurting out rubbish. And yet expecting a nuanced and real discussion! Nuts.

[jwoods1864]

I would actually prefer you had these views and weren't religious at all lol.

For example. "I believe in no sex before marriage" ( non religious person). A bit odd but fair enough if that's how you see it.

The same statement where the belief stems from an ancient book loses credibility. Sorry for insulting those who are religious but sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jalanjalan]

Sooner or later Singapore will probably realize that the cancer that needs to be culled is religion itself.

Um, no. You won't win many hearts and minds with that attitude. And I'm agnostic.

[malcontent]

You've got to applaud the folks trying to reason and talk sense to Malcontent. This chap was the one who coolly stated a bit earlier (while sitting atop his moral high ground) - that he loves the sinners but hates the sin.

This really is the problem with lack of reform with religion. It breeds folks like Malcontent who then go on random crusades imposing "god's" view of the world on everyone. Sooner or later Singapore will probably realize that the cancer that needs to be culled is religion itself.

Until then - protect yourself from the news and from exposing yourself to "the gays" mate. Beware, if you get too close and if the gahmen legalizes things further - like COVID- you may catch the gays.

I'm joking of course - however as with my first post on this thread. It's just disappointing to see that even in 2022 we have folks like this dolling blurting out rubbish. And yet expecting a nuanced and real discussion! Nuts.

I already suggested why you might be disappointed… confirmation bias is when you only seek opinions that match your own beliefs. To have a real discussion you need an open mind and the ability to respect differences of opinion.

I have not claimed the moral high ground, I have only stated what my views are and why. I don’t expect you or anyone else to agree with me. But I have the right to my views just as much as anyone else.

I’m not sure if I fully grasp your entire rant above which was honestly kind of bizarre. At one point you had me exposing myself, which is illegal here. Then you suggested catching gays… if the police catch them, what will they do with them? And then you said religions are a cancer? That sounds serious.