The International press seems to have picked up the fact that hundreds of Singaporeans have signed a petition to ask the Government to decriminalize homosexual sex ahead of Parliamentary debates on Oct 22.
Though anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults has been decriminalized recently, the same law, popularly known as Section 377A, continues to criminalize the same sex acts between homosexual men.
Homosexual men caught in the act can expect to be charged and serve a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.
I recently spoke to a few local Christians on what their stand is on the decriminalizing homosexual sex acts, and I actually didn’t get a unified response to the subject.
While most of us agreed that it would indeed be difficult to enforce, and that Section 377A will at best remain a written law and nothing more, some actually agreed that it should be decriminalized.
That was the surprising fact.
Some bought into the equality argument — that our national pledge does indeed state that we are to “build a democratic society regardless of race, language or religion, based on justice and equality”.
For those unfamiliar with the national pledge of Singapore, it says
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Others don’t see any significance in whether the law remains “prejudicial” against homosexual sex acts or is decriminalized since it cannot be enforced.
Doesn’t anyone believe in or have principles anymore?
Just because a legislation cannot be realistically enforced doesn’t make it unnecessary nor does it mean that it is of little significance! Legislation is there not just to state the law of a society or country, but it also reflects what that particular society or country morally stands for.
As for me, I registered a strong “no” to the decriminalizing of the law. I have nothing against homosexuals per se and have a couple of friends of that inclination, but that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with or approve of their sexual preferences.
You can probably guess by now my basis for saying “no”. Yes, it’s Biblical, and no, I won’t change my vote to please anyone.
With regards to your question on my take about equality, please get real and tell me if indeed life is really fair and there’s indeed an abundance of equality to go around for everyone.
How about you, my fellow Singaporean Christian? What say you to this petition and movement? Will you cave in to being politically correct, or to friends, or stand afraid of jeers and “disowned” by the popular people of the party?
Nobody ever said being a Christian and standing up for God’s righteousness and statutes and laws would be easy. If you heard of such a message, then consider yourself having been lied to and refer to our Lord’s words in the Bible about being one who takes up his own cross to follow Him.
Shalom Aleichem.
Tags: Equality, Homosexuality, Petition, Section 377A, Singapore
-
By the way, I find it very amusing that someone can accuse another of a “holier-than-thou attitude” and in the very next breath say something like:
“It is time to emerge from your hermit and take a good look. Beyond the trees. Beyond the bushes. At the entire forest. Take a good look.”Priceless.
-
Casey: “All laws advance a moral position.”
Buddhists believe it’s immoral to kill animals and eat their meat. So should it be made a law? What should the Christian response to such a call by Buddhists be?
Sicarii: “Vampyre mentioned that I shouldn’t be using my Biblical convictions to state that my opinion is that the law should not be repealed”
You can voice your opinion that homosexuality is wrong and against your religion, but you cannot call for it to be made criminal, especially when you’re not calling for other sins in the Bible to be made criminal. If you say that there is a biblical basis for this law to be upheld, then there is an equal basis for laws against other sins to be drafted. This has nothing to do with convictions or theology or morality, it’s about logic. If you don’t ask for the other sins to be made illegal, then your basis for retaining 377A is no longer purely biblical.
Do you honestly think that idolatry should be made illegal in Singapore? Thinking that it’s wrong is different from asking for it to be made illegal.
My only point is that the bible does not provide sufficient basis. You have already brought ‘personal conviction’ into the picture, thus supporting my point. Stop hiding behind the bible. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason.
And most laughable of all, Casey: “Homosexual sex, does indeed, pose a greater risk to one’s health than heterosexual sex.”
PLEASE enlighten me on this point, because it goes against all the medical education that i’ve received. Don’t omit the specifics, i beg you. If you can quote studies, all the better. And yes, i’m a doctor.
-
Vampyre,
If Buddhists want to convince the population that eating meat is wrong, what is the problem with that? I have no problems with that. If they can show me (or the majority) that eating meat is detrimental to society, then I don’t care if it becomes law, either.
As Singapore is not a theocracy, why should idolatry be made illegal? Your misunderstanding of the Bible is preventing you from making a real argument. The Bible is the main influence on a Christian’s life, but it doesn’t mean that Christians want biblical law mandated.
Even if I could convince you that homosexuality brings with it greater health risks, it wouldn’t change your mind, would it? If you honestly want to look at the opposing view I would suggest the following link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html -
Also, let’s get another point straightened out. What is your basis for arguing that homosexuality is not immoral?
-
ok Casey
you have mentioned “A Christian’s stance on issues of right and wrong will inevitably be influenced by the Bible. This is no different from a Buddhist or an atheist.”
True enough.
A christian can hold steadfast to his beliefs
So can a buddhist, or a hindu, or a muslim for that matter.
Some of these beliefs are inevitably contradictory.
Now let me pose you a question and you answer it plainly.dont beat around the bush
Question 1 ) Which religion is more correct/true than the others?
Ans a) Christianity
b) Buddhism
c) Hinduism
d) Muslim
e) None of the aboveDo all christians need to reject homosexuality?
a) Yes (Please proceed to sub question “s”)
b) Nos) It follows that christians who do not reject homosexuality are wrong, regardless of any forms of justifications.
a) Yes
b) NoBelow contains certain questions regarding consistency ( or the lack of it). Likewise, answer it accordingly.
Question 2 Do you shave (any form of bodily hair)
a) yes
b) No
Question 3 Would you stone your friend’s father if you found out that he had committed adultery, just AS what the Bible had illustrated?
a) yes
b) NoQuestion 4 Have you ever ensured no contact was made with a female during her period of menstrual uncleanliness?
a) yes
b) No
c) I dont know, i dont dare to ask because it is impolite or outrageous to do so.Below are a few questions regarding sexual risk in homosexuality.
Question 5 Do you think homosexuals are capable of loving, faithful relationships ( as opposed to prosmiscuity)?
a) yes ( Please proceed to qn 6)
b) No
Question 6 Thereafter, do you think two faithful, loving homosexuals who reserves all intimacy for each other would be at a “higher risk” of transmitting STD?
a) yes
b) No
Question 7 Is a female genital meant to be licked by a mouth? Likewise, is a male genital meant to be put in the mouth?
a) yes
b) No
Question 8 Is the anus of a female “cleaner” than that of a male?
a) yes
b) no
Question 9 Is a breast of a woman meant to be grappled by her husband?
a) yes
b) noSex-related health problems are called STDs. Let us explore more of this.
Question 10 Define sexually transmitted disease
a) infectious disease that occurs from one person to another wihout bodily contact
b) STDs are infectious diseases spread from person-to-person through direct body contact or contact with infected body fluids. The term is used to describe any disease acquired primarily through sexual contact.
Question 11) Define prosmiscuity
a)having relationship with many people wihout bodily contact
b)behavior characterized by casual and indiscriminate sexual intercourse, often with many people
Is prosmiscuity limited to gay?
a) yes
b) noQuestion 12) Do you think 2 gays who have loving faithful relationship, and who had only reserved intimacy for each other (having one partner at a time) during their period of courtship, would result in greater health problem?
a) yes
b) NoQuestion 13) Do you think question 12 is invalid because gays can have one partner at a time but they can change them periodically, such that they can have many partners over a lifetime even though it is “one at a time”?
a) yes (follow to question 14)
b) NoQuestion 14) Will you allow yourself to have more than one girlfriend in your life, one at a time?
a) yes
b)NoThank you.
If your answer to question 1 is E), then you have solved the quandary yourself. I am unable to prove that my religion is superior to yours. You are unable to prove that your religion is superior to mine. Since neither side is able to prove itself or disprove the other, there is no religious basis for the retention of 377A.
Vampyre is more of an authority on health issues, but let me add my 2 cents worth. Questions 5-14 would either debunk your misconceptions or intensify it.
You told me to put aside multiple partners, and focus just on 2 gay, 2 partner model. So the issue of promiscuity is not added in the issue.
So lets say 2 loving faithful loving gays engage in oral or anal sex with and only limited to each oher during their point of courtship ( one partner one time), and then a loving faithful heterosexual couple engagein oral or anal sex ( not limited to vagina intercourse) with and only limited to each other during their point of courtship. (one partner one time). Do rmb i have precluded promiscuity from the hypothetical scenario.
Ok, then tell me, using qn 5-14 as a backdrop,
Is a woman’s anus cleaner than a man’s?
Is a penis of a heterosexual cleaner than that of a gay?
Does the mouth of woman contain some kind of anti STD solution?
Is the woman’s genitals free from disease of all sorts?
Is vaginal intercourse free from disease of all sorts?
Is anal or oral sex between man and woman safer than between man and man?If your answer to all of the above is a resounding no, then congrats! you have repudiated your own glaring misconceptions.
and we are not even bringing in promiscuity!
Why do i say its a question of responsibility, not sexuality?
Because promiscuity is as much a heterosexual’s problem as a homosexual’s! You dare to bring out ( even the webpage you provided) promiscuity as a reason for rejecting homosexuality YET i think we all know heterosexuals are not immune to promiscuity too! Prosmiscuity is NOT an exclusive and rarefied gay problem. It is society’s problem, gay or no gay. And would you be so naive as to think a promiscuous gay is more dangerous than a promiscuous heterosexual? a promiscuous heterosexual is just as likely to perform acts of anal intercourse, cunnilingus and not limited to just vaginal penetration on multiple partners.
EVEN. AND I STRESS THE WORD EVEN. EVEN mere vaginal penetration with multiple partners carries a high risk of transmission. The type of sexual acts play a marginal role. The fact that you are engaging in careless sexual activity with so many partners concurrently at one point of time denotes greater risk of heath problems, gay or no gay. Who said a gay cant be loving and faithful? If 2 gays make love to each other only, who says sex cant be fulfilling wonderful and just as exciting and meaningful? why do people always associate gays with paedophilic, pervatic images of a lurker prowling for his unfortunate target. or man who just screw man for the lust of it. Gays are mature adults too. They are just as capable of a stable, mature and loving relationship with their partner. If 2 gays reserve their intimacy only for each other, how would there EVER be transmission of any sort? Who says heterosexuals are risk-averse? There is an overwhelming number of cases in our society depicting heterosexuals who visits brothels on a regular basis, who engages in wild, unprotected, flamboyant sex with multiple partners concurrently etc Should we reject heterosexuality then?
This would most probably be my last entry. I would like to seek a personal closure for this particular thread because all this haggling do us no justice. once again read through and ask yourself. Is there truly a valid religious basis for the retention of the law? Is it just a convenient tool that a group of people use to justify their personal, biased abhorence towards homosexuality? Why are there people, christians especially, who didnt like homosexuals or find them discomforting, yet support the repel of 377A? Is it because they know a state law in a secular country deserves proper logical reasoning and evidence based analysis? and last but not least, don’t doge the issue again. Enlighten us about the inconsistency. We would really like to know. I am a Christian as i have mentioned earlier. and i would honestly admit that it is shameful if people evoke the word of God and Bible to justify their antipathy towards gays. Because i know there are SO SO MANY, TOO MANY PERHAPS, text in the Bible which we had not, or could not follow for obvious reasons. And then we try so hard to come to terms with ourselves and try so hard to explain the discrepancies. the question again, WHY ARE SOME BIBLICAL TEXT CONSIDERED ARCHAIC WHILE OTHERS, CAST IN STONE? i am not saying the Bible DOES NOT teach that homosexuality is a sin. I am just saying, like what vampyre had mentioned, if you were to use it as a biblical basis for a state law, then you also have to explain why so many other text (shaving, smiting, stoning for adultery etc) are left out of the equation? We must practice what the Bible preaches. And I think the Bible mentioned fairly clearly to me that i should stone an adulterer. and I think im off to stone Jane’s father( in case you had missed my previous post, Jane( not a real name) was my church friend. Her father had commited adultery). I hope the police would understand and forgive me because the Bible taught me so ( had stated explicitly) and i think God will love me even more.
God Bless all.
-
Thank you Casey, you have just proven my point. As Singapore is not a theocracy, why should homosexuality be made illegal? The Bible is the main influence on a Christian’s life, but it doesn’t mean that Christians must have biblical law mandated. Bear in mind this is what Sicarii’s original posting claimed - that the basis for his opposition to the repeal was biblical (”You can probably guess by now my basis for saying “no”. Yes, it’s Biblical, and no, I won’t change my vote to please anyone.”). And this was the sole point that i replied in response to.
Homosexuality cannot be made illegal just because the bible says so. Because then, Buddhists wouldn’t have to prove that eating meat is detrimental. The law against eating meat will be passed simply because Buddhist texts say it’s wrong.
Your argument is that homosexuality should be made illegal because it’s bad for people. But that was never my argument. I never said it is right, or ok to be gay; i never sought to prove that homosexuality is not immoral. I only said it’s not ok for Christians to cite the Bible as a reason for opposing the repeal.
Christians can say that they believe that homosexuality is wrong simply because the Bible says so. But when they try to convert that belief into a state law then something has gone very wrong.
Opposing the repeal on the basis of harm (that homosexuality is bad for society, bad for families and bad for individuals) is completely different from arguing based on religion. I personally don’t agree that being gay is inherently harmful. But to debate these issues requires a platform larger than this comments thread, that’s why i’ve repeatedly declined being drawn into a discussion of these points. QZZ makes many very good points in his last post, please do give them some objective thought.
My goal in commenting here was not to discredit Christianity, or your beliefs, in any way. If you’ve noticed i’ve never written anything against Christian teaching, and i’ve refrained from making personal comments as far as possible. I apologise if our exchange has become rather heated. I only hoped to challenge you to think critically about your call to oppose the repeal based on the Bible. I don’t think by doing so you’re doing the Bible enough justice. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason. I believe that God gave us those faculties so we might employ them well in solving the problems we face in this world. And to Sicarii, i applaude your ability to see past the ongoing vitriolic debate and continue loving your gay friends without conditions. I think that is the most Christ-like response modern day Christians can display.
-
Vampyre:
You said “Do you honestly think that idolatry should be made illegal in Singapore? Thinking that it’s wrong is different from asking for it to be made illegal.”
You know what? I don’t see a law for it nor against it, so why kick up a fuss when there’s nothing on it. Or is this just another way for you to stir a storm in a teacup just as you are doing here?
You also said “My only point is that the bible does not provide sufficient basis. You have already brought ‘personal conviction’ into the picture, thus supporting my point. Stop hiding behind the bible. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason.”
The Bible does not provide sufficient basis for what? For calling homosexuality a sin? Now I don’t know if you have read the Bible and even if you did, whether you understand what is in it.
For a Christian, Biblical teachings and the person are non-separable. Just as a Muslim goes by the teachings of the Qu’ran and other faiths and religions by their holy books.
You make me laugh when you say we hide behind the Bible and that it is not justification enough. Why not try encouraging a Muslim to start eating non-Halal food? Logically speaking, a piece of non-Halal beef is as beneficial as a piece of Halal beef, ceteris paribus, doctor?
The Muslim will tell you that his Islamic teachings tell him not to consume non-halal beef. Will you also call him illogical, or hiding behind his Qu’ran?
You finally said “PLEASE enlighten me on this point, because it goes against all the medical education that i’ve received. Don’t omit the specifics, i beg you. If you can quote studies, all the better. And yes, i’m a doctor.”
PLEASE, if you cannot accept our views as Christians who live our lives on Biblical teachings, why should we take the fact that you are a doctor to be any indication that you know all there is to know about the risks of homosexuality? Or are you a super human who claims to know all?
And if you are a doctor then you should know that scientific and medical studies often cancel one another out. For each view that is for an issue, there will be those that refute it.
So, doctor, is coffee good or bad for me?
-
QZZ
I will not add to the homosexuality debate here.. its too confusing.. but I do want to address something..
You claim to be Christian, and an open-minded one at that. However you are so open-minded that I wonder if you are really Christian at all.
IMO at most perhaps you are a follower of Judaism since you judge everything by how YOU construe OT law
I hope you will truly come to know Jesus.. not the Jesus you imagine him to be.. not the Jesus you construe him to be.. but the true Jesus of the bible..
And if you do think you already know the true Jesus of the bible… then you should immerse yourself in the Word more and familiarize and study scripture more. If you think the bible is irrelevant, bear in mind that Jesus IS the Word, go read John 1
-
QZZ:
It’s amazing that you call us hypocrites when you acknowledge that there’s a schism in the church when it comes to issues like these. In your last post you mentioned that there are Christians who agree with the repeal and those who don’t. I suppose you are one of those who agree with the repeal.
So, tell me, are you also setting out nice questionnaires like the one you put up above for those who still oppose the repeal? By doing so, what are you setting out to do?
To convince fellow Christians that we should logically support homosexuality when God says otherwise? I don’t want to judge, but that doesn’t seem Christian-like.
I don’t know why you ask those questions on the laws, really. You seem to be pointing to the fact that you know the answers to those questions better than we do. In which case, pray tell us the answers, or were you waiting for an answer from us since you know not why?
-
Heh i think we posted at the same time, so don’t miss what i posted after QZZ’s last comment (time stamped 23:18).
I should have completed my sentence: “The Bible does not provide sufficient basis for” making homosexuality ILLEGAL. I never claimed it wasn’t a sin. You have already agreed with me that Christian law shouldn’t become state law. So homosexuality shouldn’t be illegal just because the Bible says it’s a sin.
Christians hide behind the Bible when they use it to disguise an agenda fueled more by personal distaste than biblical proof.
I really can’t make my line of logic any clearer… You can’t include religion at all in a discussion about secular law!
-
Sicarii,
I am exasperated. but before I really seek closure, I have to clarify certain issues.
I am not against Christians who are OPPOSED to homosexuality per se. In fact, I see people who reject/do not reject all in the same light - as human being with the right of choice, whether the choice to like or hate is based on religion or otherwise. This doesnt matter. I am just slightly perturbed with Christians who invoke the Bible as the justification for the retention of 377A. I have never disputed the fact that the Bible has indeed called for us(by us i mean Christians) to reject homosexuality, yet I merely questioned the validity of using this to support the retainment of a statute law - something so all encompassing and high up - and not the validity of personal beliefs whatsoever. Even if as a pious devout Christian we ARE compelled to reject homosexuality, let us do so wihout having to use it as a justification for a state law. You must seperate your religious beliefs from the state. Yes sure enough muslim go by their teaching. they eat halal food. they pray at fixed hours. the buddhist prays at temples. christians live by the bible. and so on.and so forth.
And the status quo shall remain. No need for any religion to have the right of way in justifying any particular statute law. I am not saying Christians cant have the right of belief ( it would be shooting myself in the face wouldnt it). You can believe in the sinful nature of homosexuality using biblical basis to support and to strengthen your beliefs. But you cant trespass the divider that seperates the State - a secular State consisting of so many religion which you yourself have acknowledged that neither is able to prove its own or disprove others. I mean. there are also muslims who are against gays. muslims who are not against gays. so its not really christianity versus the rest of religion. its people vs people. people with different opinions vs people with different opinions. and when you know that the human population - the very quintescence of diversity - embodies and epitomises a variety of diverse race, culture and religion, you would realise how irrelevant a religious basis is. Bottom line - The law applies to all and sundry in Singapore. We cannot let the chantings of a particular group lead our legal landscape. Like what Vampyre has rightly pointed out, lets say Buddhist thinks that eating meat is sinful and used their religious text as a justification for a law that bans all meat. How about the 60% ( according to statistics Buddhism constitutes about 40 % of the religion in Singapore) of the remaining population? Made to submit to a law they have no part in? Made to submit to a law founded upon a religious basis not part of theirs?I hope you get my gist. What me and Vampyre has been trying to do was to explain to you the seperability of Church and State. as you have said
“For a Christian, Biblical teachings and the person are non-separable. Just as a Muslim goes by the teachings of the Qu’ran and other faiths and religions by their holy books.
You make me laugh when you say we hide behind the Bible and that it is not justification enough. Why not try encouraging a Muslim to start eating non-Halal food? Logically speaking, a piece of non-Halal beef is as beneficial as a piece of Halal beef, ceteris paribus, doctor?
The Muslim will tell you that his Islamic teachings tell him not to consume non-halal beef. Will you also call him illogical, or hiding behind his Qu’ran?”
he goes by his qu’ran. We go by our bible. He eats his halal food, no one should and will stop him. You continue to believe in the bible and reject homosexuality, perfectly fine. We are not telling you to stop doing all this ( because it would be ridiculous. we wouldnt want to intefere). But if you choose to use religion to retain a state law, the alarm bells of many sound. because instinctively they become defensive, because the scenario when the law is retained due to religious basis might well be remotely possible and if this is so, it would mean infringing on their rights to other religion and religious teachings, which might or might not contradict homosexuality. But it aint matter. When there are so many religion, and one religion, for no rhyme or reason, gets the most say, weight or significance on our statute books, it is hardly justifiable. because we go back to point one.
We are unable to prove that Christianity is better than other religion.Neither are they able to prove that their religion isbetter than us. Since neither side is able to prove itself or disprove the other, there is no religious basis at all.
Vampyre has been pretty gracious in his latest post. I would urge you to calm down and not view us as some sort of insidious disparaging assailants bent on destroying your beliefs or you rights to believe. I am sure you know perfectly well there is no such intentions. Defend, but not for the sake of defending, lar. Is it so difficult to see the need for seperation between personal religiosity and State laws?
-
Vampyre:
I just saw your latest comment after posting mine. Good thing you pointed it out.
I never specifically said what I believed in should be made State Law either. I am just saying that I am opposed to its repeal based on my Biblical understanding. The law will still stand or get repealed no matter what I say here, really, because it is not open for a referendum but a parliamentary vote.
You do agree that I have the right to exercise my rights as a citizen to express my opinion, whether it is based on Biblical teachings or not.
Thank you for the lively debate, and I wish you well.
Shalom.
-
Don’t miss my last post ( preceding Sicarri’s latest post).
All i can say is
All’s Well That Ends Well.
I have enjoyed as much as i have learnt.
Take care.
God Bless
-
QZZ:
I read your post.
No doubt both sides have flared up a little because we are humans after all, passionately defending what is close to our hearts on an issue we strongly believe in in our own different ways.
Suffice to say that this was an interesting debate. Both of you made your points as did Casey and I.
I wish you well.
God bless, and Shalom Aleichem.
-
[...] No doubt there will be detractors wondering if the group has the right to call itself “the Majority” or to claim to truly represent the “majority” views of Singaporeans. In fact, I can almost already read the disparaging comments that might be left on their web site by those who support the repeal as I myself have experienced. [...]
-
Singapore is meant to be a secular society, the Bible, the Koran should not be the basis for our laws. Also if God had not meant for people to become gays then why would he create them?
Being Gay is not a lifestyle choice, it’s part of a person’s nature, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay in the face of such prejudice? Also by criminalizing it, you are telling the person that he is by nature, a criminal.
-
Gavinder,
There is no scientific evidence to date that homosexuality is part of a person’s nature, by which I take it to mean that you think that some are born homosexuals.
Shalom.
‹ Previous · 1 · 2
67 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://wordnverse.com/2007/10/10/what-say-you-to-decriminalizing-section-377a/trackback/