Singapore Expats Forum

Keep or Repeal 377A Petition?

A moderated forum for serious discussions only.
User avatar
carteki
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2008
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby carteki » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 6:54 pm

Wind In My Hair wrote:
leona123 wrote:All of us are entitled to our OWN opinions. Denying a person the rights to marry whom they choose based on your own opinions IS shoving your opinion down their throats.

Just curious what you think - if opinions are split within a society, then whose opinions should inform the law? The majority, those with God's backing, or those who agree with you? Whose opinion counts more?


Question - which god? There are a number that are worshipped in this country?
The point of a democracy is that it is the majority who rule - with some safeguards - and when that majority changes then the laws can be changed or even if society changes. It is not without its flaws, but its probably the best system we have.

User avatar
carteki
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2008
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby carteki » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 7:26 pm

Wind In My Hair wrote:
bafana wrote:Hold a referendum.

You know, this time I think our government actually did.


I'm not sure - if I remember correctly there was LOTS press, but no actual public vote - Oct 2007.

Wind In My Hair wrote:Herein lies Singapore's dilemma. The law says it's criminal, but the enforcer of the law, the government, has clearly said it will not enforce it. So it is illegal, yet it is 'not illegal' which makes it legal and not criminal for all intents and purposes. The law is left in place merely to placate those who can't bear to see it removed and at this point is a social rather than legal object.


And can also be used as a whipping stick when it suits as there is no reason why they can't selectively enforce it. That is the problem with laws like this one.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 7:31 pm

carteki wrote:The point of a democracy is that it is the majority who rule - with some safeguards - and when that majority changes then the laws can be changed or even if society changes. It is not without its flaws, but its probably the best system we have.

Exactly. I just wanted to know how Leona would have it.

carteki wrote:Question - which god? There are a number that are worshipped in this country?

The god dragged into the 377A debate was usually the Christian one. I'm not sure what the other gods say but so far I have not heard of any mainstream religion supporting homosexuality.

SE,

Interestingly, people can read all sorts of pronouncements into the bible. I personally don't think God has a view either way about homosexuality, but brought her up because that was a key argument used in the 377A debate.

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8333
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children
Contact:

Postby nakatago » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 8:49 pm

Wind In My Hair wrote:Interestingly, people can read all sorts of pronouncements into the bible.


you can find a bible verse to support practicality anything. context, context, context...

leona123
Regular
Regular
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

Postby leona123 » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:02 pm

To SMS,
Those citizens who don't like it are always free to immigrate elsewhere or those foreigner wishing to come here need to accept that or stay home.

Oh yeah, why didn't I or the homosexuals think about that? After all, isn't leaving behind your family, friends and jobs and moving to a new country is a VERY EASY THING TO do? ESPECIALLY since the reason for moving is simply because it is people's opinion that you shouldn't marry whom you want to marry although you are both of the legal age and consent to marry.

And yeah, citizens should accept laws of their country and not stand up for theirs' or others' rights. Martin Luther King should have just migrated.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35114
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:21 pm

leona123 wrote:And yeah, citizens should accept laws of their country and not stand up for theirs' or others' rights. Martin Luther King should have just migrated.


I wish that he'd done so. Because he didn't, I was mobilized and sent from Ft. Wolters, Texas to Memphis the day after he was shot on that day in April, 68 3 months after I returned from the NAM. I don't like carrying arms against fellow Americans regardless of their beliefs.

WIMH, I might have been the only one to catch your sly reply. :wink:
Welcome back. I've missed your input muchly!

leona123
Regular
Regular
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

Postby leona123 » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:37 pm

Just curious what you think - if opinions are split within a society, then whose opinions should inform the law?

You are oversimplifying the issue. Depends on the issue and if decision made harms society or benefits society or government and a whole load of other factors. Are you trying to suggest that government should form a law based on the majority's opinion ALL THE TIME not taking into consideration other factors?

Since we are talking about homosexuality, I'm going to give my OPINION in relation to that. I would prefer to keep it in Singapore context since I am, after all, a Singaporean and also because different countries have different dynamics and it will not be possible to discuss all the different scenarios in this space...
As for Singapore, I THINK that the government should allow same sex marriage (ssm). Not now, but when there ARE enough SIGNIFICANT minorities who are NOT against ssm. Singapore society is evolving. Sex-changed marriage is allowed here. Won't be long before they allow homosexual marriage too. My opinion :).

The majority, those with God's backing, or those who agree with you?

Begging the question. You are starting out with premises not yet proven in the first place. As to date, there is no proof that there is god. And Singapore IS A SECULAR country. Singapore DOES NOT MAKE rules based on God or anyone's arguments based on God only.


I'm also curious. I would like to turn the question to you. In a dominantly pro-ssm country, whose opinions do you think should inform the law? The majority pro-ssm people or the minority who feel that their unproven god and religion should dictate the law?

leona123
Regular
Regular
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

Postby leona123 » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:44 pm

SMS,

I wish that he'd done so. Because he didn't, I was mobilized and sent from Ft. Wolters, Texas to Memphis the day after he was shot on that day in April, 68 3 months after I returned from the NAM. I don't like carrying arms against fellow Americans regardless of their beliefs.

I'm really sorry. I really don't get the point you are trying to drive at. Care to elaborate?

leona123
Regular
Regular
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

Postby leona123 » Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:00 pm

WIMH,

Interestingly, people can read all sorts of pronouncements into the bible. I personally don't think God has a view either way about homosexuality, but brought her up because that was a key argument used in the 377A debate.

Please provide articles to support your position that bible was the key argument used in the 377A debate.

Please see the following link by National Library Board provided by Mad Scientist in another post...
http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_163 ... 01-31.html. The website provides other reasons given by anti-homos but it does not bring up bible/quran/vedas as an argument at all.

[/i]

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35114
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:16 am

leona123 wrote:SMS,

I wish that he'd done so. Because he didn't, I was mobilized and sent from Ft. Wolters, Texas to Memphis the day after he was shot on that day in April, 68 3 months after I returned from the NAM. I don't like carrying arms against fellow Americans regardless of their beliefs.

I'm really sorry. I really don't get the point you are trying to drive at. Care to elaborate?


Why bother? You cannot see the forest for the trees anyway. But I'll give you credit where credit's due. You make a good case of tilting at windmills. It's ain't gonna change here and you already know that. :roll:

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:54 am

sundaymorningstaple wrote:WIMH, I might have been the only one to catch your sly reply. :wink:
Welcome back. I've missed your input muchly!

SMS, you are the only reason I even survive this forum :kiss:
I too have missed our interactions muchly!

carteki wrote:I'm not sure - if I remember correctly there was LOTS press, but no actual public vote - Oct 2007.

No official vote, true. Just grassroots feeling out the ground and reporting back.

leona123 wrote:Please provide articles to support your position that bible was the key argument used in the 377A debate.

From the article you quoted: "In the second reading in Parliament to amend the Penal Code on 22 October 2007, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee laid down the justifications for the retention of the clause, saying that Singapore is generally still a conservative society and the majority of the people still find homosexual behaviour unacceptable."

How do you think "the majority of people" formed their views? If you'd read the papers or watched TV at that time you would remember how often religious beliefs were cited. Samples courtesy of Google:

[url=http://www.reach.gov.sg/tabid/101/tid/220/mode/3/Default.aspx?ssFormAction=[[ssBlogThread_VIEW]]&pgno=2]Puritanism and Intolerance[/url]
A Tragedy Unfolding
377A and Public Morality
The Re-Writing of Pluralism

By the way, I wish the law had been repealed too. But I don't think the country should be run according to my views only.

User avatar
ksl
Governor
Governor
Posts: 6005
Joined: Mon, 19 Jul 2004
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Postby ksl » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 2:13 pm

Superglide wrote:ksl,

Implying homosexuality is the result of being a victim of sexual abuse is probably the stupidest thing I have heard of homofobics like yourself.

In fact I would be more worried for your children with such a father, then worry about a child being brought up by two gay parents.


My remarks are just passed on straight from several victims of abuse, who blame the reason on being sucked into it as children, it happened when they were 6 and 7 years old, consciously brain washing the kids that it was normal. Let me tell you another thing, personally i couldn't give a crap, providing I don't get homosexuals, attempting to touch me up, I'm not offended until they become persistent, once the closest doors are open, they take it for granted they can abuse any non homosexual in any toilet, its a seedy abnormal behaviour of these perverts that cannot control their impulses and believe since coming out of the closet they can get away with it has normal.

What people do in private is their problem no one elses, but i am dead against homosexuals being accepted in society as normal because they are far from it and if we take a vote on it around the world, I'm pretty damn sure you will find that you they are in a minority. You use the word homofobic, just like any coloured person uses the word racist to suit their own ends, I'm a long way off homophobia, Though i have a short fuse, for persistent harassment and i have seen the abnormal behaviour long ago

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9314
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 2:56 pm

Ksl, what you wrote just applies to anybody. I bet there are more straight guys as per fraction of the whole population who want and do molest other ppl. How is it possible that I have no such, not a single bad experience with homosexuals for my entire life and I am not that young afterall? Could be that I am too ugly but something tells me it is not that reason.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11059
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 3:11 pm

ksl wrote:
Superglide wrote:ksl,

Implying homosexuality is the result of being a victim of sexual abuse is probably the stupidest thing I have heard of homofobics like yourself.

In fact I would be more worried for your children with such a father, then worry about a child being brought up by two gay parents.


My remarks are just passed on straight from several victims of abuse, who blame the reason on being sucked into it as children, it happened when they were 6 and 7 years old, consciously brain washing the kids that it was normal. Let me tell you another thing, personally i couldn't give a crap, providing I don't get homosexuals, attempting to touch me up, I'm not offended until they become persistent, once the closest doors are open, they take it for granted they can abuse any non homosexual in any toilet, its a seedy abnormal behaviour of these perverts that cannot control their impulses and believe since coming out of the closet they can get away with it has normal.

What people do in private is their problem no one elses, but i am dead against homosexuals being accepted in society as normal because they are far from it and if we take a vote on it around the world, I'm pretty damn sure you will find that you they are in a minority. You use the word homofobic, just like any coloured person uses the word racist to suit their own ends, I'm a long way off homophobia, Though i have a short fuse, for persistent harassment and i have seen the abnormal behaviour long ago


ksl, I assume that you realize you posted your homophobic rant in response to a post that was posted Oct 23, 2007?

You really need to look at your judgments about homosexuals because, for the vast majority of individuals, they are way off base.

leona123
Regular
Regular
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu, 14 Oct 2010

Postby leona123 » Wed, 20 Oct 2010 7:54 pm

To sms,
Why bother? You cannot see the forest for the trees anyway.

Simply stating a proverb without explaining the reason for stating the proverb adds no value to your case. And it does come across to me like you prefer to focus on the person and his/her character rather than the content of the claim.

You make a good case of tilting at windmills. It's ain't gonna change here and you already know that. :roll:

I'm sorry, but do you actually read or just skim? Didn't I already state earlier that, in my opinion, Singapore society is evolving and it has accepted marriage of a sex-changed person and it won't be long before ssm is allowed? So, what do you mean by "you already know that".
And if I were you, I won't be smug yet. Only time will tell.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Strictly Speaking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests