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.
Related posts:
- The Silent Majority Speak Up And it’s about time too! As an apparent and deliberate...
- Offend a Homosexual and Get Five Years In Jail It’s happening… and perhaps even coming to your country soon!...
- Penalties Created for Those Who Criticize Homosexuality Outside Church Walls It’ll soon be the exception rather than the norm when...
- Rejoice, Rejoice! I’m overjoyed reading this piece of news. No doubt there...
- Don’t Be a Religious Christian Have I gone mad? Has resentment and anger gotten the...
67 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Hi, your post has been featured at The Singapore Daily. Thank you for your support. Keep blogging!
NO - period
God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
On this Rock I stand my faith and absolutely give in to a single inch to immorality.
well.. other than the fact the council of nicea censored most of the folktales going around into what became the bible.
perhaps you should find out first about adam and lilith first.
Sorry haha,
The folktale about Lilith as Adam’s wife is from Ben Sira, which is dated between the 8th and 10th centuries. Genesis is much, much older than that. If you’re going to quote these charges, you should at least find out if they’re true.
Then you should petition for the death sentence for adulterers. And divorce shouldn’t be legally allowed. Idolatry must be made the most heinous legal crime of all. And you can’t shave. Women should shut up. The universe revolves around the earth.
You have no justification to oppose the repeal of 377a on religious grounds. Saying gay people are criminals without lobbying for the death sentence on adulterers and idolators and taking legal divorce off the books just means that you’re a hypocrite picking on the homosexual minority.
Conservative Christians should realise that religious law and the penal code should be two separate things.
And just because life seems unfair doesn’t mean we should leave things as it is. If people didn’t fight to change things for the better, black people and women would still be living in silence and servitude.
Before you voice your holier-than-thou opinion, at least give it a little thought… Things really aren’t as clear cut as you think.
I’m interested to know whether you really think that true Christians have to ensure that God’s laws are imposed on non-believing citizens. Do you really think that Christians who don’t think in this way are merely “caving in to being politically correct”?
Does the Bible not teach the separation of church and state?
Did Jesus not say “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”?
Vampyre:
Why doesn’t religious grounds stand as justification? Perhaps you’d like to explain your point? If those who agree with repealing the law can cite human rights and other points of equality, why not religious viewpoints?
How would repealing this particular law lead to things being better in your opinion?
I have heard and read all these arguments before without substantiation, so perhaps you’d like to start?
MG:
God’s laws apply to all and sundry, Christian or non-Christian. Are we imposing it on His behalf on non-believers? Do you think that by saying “no” to the petition to repeal the law constitute that?
I can’t say what the other Christians’ reasons for not saying “no” are; I am only supposing that they cave in to being politically-correct or to societal pressure.
SingaporeDaily:
Thank you for the link and for informing me.
You might “suppose” that they “cave in to being politically-correct or to societal pressure.”
But of course you will “suppose” this only if you underestimate your Christian brothers and sisters.
In truth, many of them might be pro-repeal because they believe in the separation of church and state.
And if that really is the case, they might be following God’s word more closely than you are.
Dear Sicarii
Human rights and equality applies to all, as long as you are human. Religious law can only become civil law if the entire community is of that same religion. I can’t understand why you insist on applying Christian law to gay people and not pressing them on the Muslims, Buddhists and freethinkers of Singapore. Do you not see the incongruity in your opinion? You didn’t address my question about why you’re not asking for adulterers and idolators to be put to death by the legal system. Are you not then caving in to being “politically correct” or “societal pressure”?
If you ask for this one law against homosexuality to be upheld on the grounds of religion, then you should be pushing for ALL your religious laws to be included in the penal code.
The benefits of repealing 377a are beyond the scope of your original post, and my subsequent reply. But a professor of law has very nicely summed up the reasons why it should go, at http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/
From a medical viewpoint, the retention of that law makes it very difficult for health education programs to reach out to the high risk community. The government cannot fund a program which targets criminals. As long as gay people stay criminals, they will remain an invisible community.
“It reflects what that particular society or country morally stands for” that sums it up for me.
Daniel
“Nobody ever said being a Christian and standing up for God’s righteousness and statutes and laws would be easy.”
Nope, they never did, Isaiah. Two thumbs up to you for holding fast to your convictions.
Grace and strength to you,
~Free
@Vampyre
I don’t think Isaiah is asking for Old Testament laws which applied only to Israel to be instated in Singapore. If he was, he would insist not that homosexuals be put in prison, but that they be executed. Your example of stoning adulterers does not apply here. Now, if you were talking about putting adulterers in prison, I think there would be some merit in that. Don’t tell me you don’t think that would cut down on the problem.
Medically speaking, homosexual behavior itself is detrimental to human health. Does the government have anti-drug programs? If so, you can also have programs designed to teach people the health risks of homosexual behavior.
i think homosexuality is a major sin!
i do know an army scholar major who is one that got ousted to leave the organisation. he chose a path that conflicts with his sexual orientation, thus ended his promising career.
MG:
I didn’t assume nor suppose anything — I asked questions pertaining to the issue at hand, i.e. will fellow Christians stand against repealing Section 377A or cave in to pressure to be politically correct and therefore agree with it.
Going with your “separation of church and state” take on Christianity, I suppose we Christians should also not vote in the General Elections?
Perhaps that is taking it too far, but your basis for saying that there should be separation between church and state is that Christians have to agree with whatever policy that will impact the moral fibre of the society we live in?
So not true.
I think the world needs to make up its mind on Christians — if we stand by and do nothing, there will be people who sneer and say we don’t care; if we put up our hands and wave our flags, people will quote Bible verses saying we are doing wrong.
My basis for saying that there should be separation between church and state is not “that Christians have to agree with whatever policy that will impact the moral fibre of the society we live in”.
My basis is Christ’s word: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”.
MG:
That applies well and proper if you are talking about taxes, and other obligations we have as a citizen of any country we live in.
There is nothing in it to suggest that we do nothing or not register our views on an issue when we see the moral fiber of the society we live in being threatened.
Do you see the difference?
As a citizen of this country, it is your obligation to ensure that everyone is treated equally. And that means you don’t impose your religious views on others who are not of the same religion.
Then why aren’t morally upright people pushing for the IRs to be banned?
Casey, again, you have avoided my point and raised some nefarious ones to support your opinion.
My only argument is that the Bible does not provide sufficient justification for the retention of 377A. Because if it does, then other biblical laws would justify criminalising adultery and idolatry. And since i don’t see Christians proposing for laws against adultery and idolatry, i argue that they don’t have the right to oppose the removal of 377A.
Christians still cannot see that singling out homosexuality to be made a crime in the eyes of the law is theologically incongruous and reeks of hypocrisy. We’re not talking about morals here; i’m only talking about the penal code as state law.
As a medical professional, your statement that homosexual behavior is detrimental to human health is entirely laughable. The health risk of a homosexual and a heterosexual who takes drugs and sleeps around is EXACTLY THE SAME! Always remember that not all gay men take drugs and sleep around! But when we’re talking about statistics on a community level, programs and policies are needed to educate people on high risk behavior.
Vampyre,
Do you even know what nefarious means? How on earth can you say I raised “nefarious” points to support my opinion?
You can’t even keep your argument straight. You said if we criminalize homosexuality we have to stone adulterers. I said no one was arguing for the instatement of Israel-specific Old Testament laws. Personally, as adultery is harmful to the family, which is the fabric of society, I think it should be criminalized.
Are you a doctor? Medical professional could mean any number of things. Are you really and truthfully in a position to argue that homosexuals are not at a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases? A quick google search on “homosexual health risks” produces a large volume of medical research that suggests a higher risk of disease for homosexuals than heterosexuals.
xtrocious:
I don’t know, really.
Why not you ask the morally-upright because I am not one. I am just a human being with flaws just like you with the only difference being that I chose to follow and obey God’s laws in my life in a pursuit to being like my Lord Jesus Christ.
MG:
I don’t understand — how can a Christian saying “no” to decriminalizing Section 377A be seen as imposing? To impose means to “to put or set by or as if by authority”.
I certainly do not have authority to impose, so how can you call it imposing? Am I telling you to say “no” if you think otherwise? No.
Read my post again — it is a call to Christians to uphold God’s laws and commandments. There’s nothing in it to “impose” ourselves on anyone else.
Is it so difficult for you to understand that this is one Christian and a few others stating our position on the matter? Surely, if we are a democracy, expressing a difference in views to those of the majority is allowed? Unless you deem it such an insult that there are people who are expressing dissenting views?
After reading a fair bit here and the exchange of comments… abeit a little heated up, these are my views.
1. I have nothing personal against homosexuals even with intruding and audacious experiences with them against myself. Rightfully, I oppose it due to my biblical background and teachings. However, I can advise, discourage, help or even turn a blind eye to it.
2. Many other blogs have debated on the legitimacy of homosexuals in our society. If anyone is so firm about the science of democracy, then I would begin to question “why is only natural procreation between man & woman possible”? That is telling us what is NATURE and what is not.
3. The fact remains, that the opposition towards the act does not only comes from a Christian. Many oppositions are also from other religions and even free thinkers. To say that only Christians are imposing our religious beliefs on the minority is liken to the Chinese’s saying of “borrowing your knife to kill somebody else”.
4. Having worked for law enforcement agencies and also served in UN missions previously, the morality of crimes and acts can hardly be defined adequately by law constitutions. Afterall, law is dictated by man at best, from what we can deduce. Having said that, it simply means legalizing an unnatural act doesn’t makes it natural. Hence, so what if the section is removed? With the law or without it, unnatural still remains unnatural.
5. I find it disturbing that speaking it and sharing it with our Christians comrades in “OUR OWN BLOG” is seen as imposing on others. If I were to oppose homosexual acts from the comfort of my own home, can I be charged for breach of peace when neighbours walked past my front door? Common sense tells us… otherwise.
Ed:
Pertaining to point 5, you might be interested to read this, coming to a neighborhood near us soon if indications of what happens in the West makes it way soon to us too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486452&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
If by “authority” you mean “legitimacy”, one definitely doesn’t need “authority” to impose things on others. All you need is force.
One Christian saying “no” to decriminalizing Section 377A on the grounds of his Christian beliefs is of course imposing his religious beliefs on others. It may be just one vote, but it is a vote nonetheless. You, however, cannot even make the claim that it is only one vote, because your post is a “call to Christians” to say “no” collectively.
Ed:
Things may be unnatural, but that is not grounds for criminalization.
Also, you can think anything you want in your own head. But when it’s out here on a blog for all to see, you have to be careful about what you say.
I don’t really want to continue commenting on this thread so please excuse me if I don’t reply.
I think we can all live together. I think we can find a way. Till then, goodbye and God bless.
I must say, I’m puzzled b MG’s response. He apparently believes that Christians should stay silent on moral issues. I don’t know how you could argue that from “render unto Caesar…” Where does the line stop? If you see a government official raping or murdering a fellow citizen do you let it slide because you shouldn’t impose your morality on them? If the government says it’s okay, do you have to accept that position?
Ok, so we take the Old Testament laws out of the equation. Where then is the BIBLICAL basis for justifying the criminalization of homosexuality? Good that we agree that adultery should be criminalized, but you have continuously avoided the issues of idolatry and divorce. Jesus Himself spoke out against divorce, but was silent on homosexuality. Why aren’t you asking for these things to be made illegal along with gay sex?
Vampyre:
Let us first affirm this point: Jesus Christ is God, and was there way before Creation. In Him and through Him were all things made.
John 1:1-3 (KJV):
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Therefore whatever was laid down in the Old Testament by God, the same is that laid down by Christ Jesus.
The second point we need be aware of, and which I shall let you know about, is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and all that is written in it is inspired.
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
With that in mind, read the inspired words of Paul as he writes in Romans 1:26-27 (KJV):
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Paul was inspired by God to write that.
And who is God?
Jesus Christ as we have seen in the first point above.
So did Jesus Christ say anything about homosexuality?
That’s a definite yes!
Casey,
Christians do not have to stay silent on moral issues. But the moral stand that they take on issues such as these does not have to be dictated by Biblical morality either. It is possible for a Christian to say “God says that gay sex is wrong, but I won’t force other people to live by God’s word.”
Murder and rape are not crimes merely because the Bible says so. They are crimes also on the basis of other sources of morality. Even anti-Christian liberals will agree that rape and murder are crimes because they are immoral. The bottom line is that there are sources of morality other than the Bible, and it doesn’t mean that one who doesn’t believe in the Bible cannot say that murder or rape is morally wrong.
MG:
I am curious — if Christians do not live a life dictated by Biblical morality, then by whose morality should we conduct our lives on?
Your life is your own. Let it be dictated by Biblical morality.
Other people’s lives are their own. They don’t have to be dictated by Biblical morality.
Nobody is forcing it down their throats to accept Biblical morality. They can reject it all the same even if I register a “no” vote to repealing the legislation, no?
I am sorry, but I still don’t see the key points you are trying to point out.
Are you saying that we cannot exercise our rights as citizens to say “yes” or “no” to the repeal of the legislation since we base our decision on Biblical morality?
We seem to be going around in circles here.
I am not saying that you “cannot” vote based on Biblical morality, but rather that you “should not”.
You “should not” because voting based on Biblical morality is immoral. But it is not true that you “cannot”, because not all immoral acts must be forbidden.
Thanks for trying to understand, by the way. I think sometimes I write in an unintelligible manner.
@MG
“Voting based on Biblical morality is immoral.” Can you explain that statement?
@MG
Also, where does morality come from if not from God? Apart from God how can there be right and wrong?
Well well, all these points put forth by both MG and Vampyre seemed to be one hell of a cacophany, so in short let me summarize it
1) Vampyre argued about inconsistency. Indeed, Christians ought to be discerning. It does not help if Chrstians, and by extension, any other religious parties, are for most of the time, subjective and selective arbitors of their own rules and morality.
This was evidently pointed out by Vampyre earlier. Let me expand on a few of the aforementioned issues. Below are some excerpts from a popular online letter circulated some time ago. Apparently, it was a dig at over zealous Christians who used the Bible to justify their antipathy towards homosexuality. Here it is.
“a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? ”
Here we noticed something confounding, as Vampyre had astutely commented. If you were to justify the retention of the law based on your religion and faith, you have to explain why your religion group has not demonstrated the same degree of aversion towards issues that your religious texts and teachings have so explicitly denounced or even condemned. Is homosexuality a crime so overridingly and overwhelming opprobrious that it deserves to be singled out and tackled? Since religious text are your basis of argument, why then have you not applied what the Bible has expounded in other areas (Refer to the excerpt above)? Why are some text in the Bible considered archaic while some are cast in stone? This is where the problem lies. The rules of morality becomes discretionary. Adultery, idolatry are considered abominable sins in the Bible yet are not criminalized. Why zero in on homosexuality while not on idolatry or adultery, or even shaving ( laughing out loud) since all of these issues are equally denounced by Biblical teachings?
And Casey, associating homosexuality with greater health problems is one fallacy anti-gays are keen to capitalize on. Unfortunately, this point is self defeating. Heterosexuals are just as responsible for the transmission of STD as homosexuals. So this isnt a rarefied, exclusive problem of homosexuals. In fact, we come across so many articles relating to greater teenage abortion, extra marital affairs and prevalence of unprotected sexual intercourse between heterosexual teenagers. All these are unequivocally contributing and aggravating factors of the transmission of HIV disease. To issue an all encompassing generalisation, that gays transmit AIDS and therefore should be opposed/prosecuted/rejected, is as good as saying - Hey, look, this 23 year old heterosexual Aids carrier had unprotected sex with multiple partners (all of opposite sex) and resulted in the transmission of the disease. Shall we ban all heterosexual, or heterosexual acts? The issue clearly at stake here is one of responsibility, not of sexuality.
This is a pluralistic and diverse society. Each religion should and ought to be accorded the respect it deserves. However, there is a dangerous tendency to put one’s religion on the pedestal and batting a nelsonian eye to the fact that this society constitutes more than just one religion. Who are you to say that your religion deserves more significance/prominence or that your particular brand of beliefs deserves more weight/respect/carries more substance? If you find a particular phenomenom against you religious beliefs, this is a personal issue. But taking into consideration that this society is made up of so many religions, every religion insisting on having their right of way would indeed make us all for the poorer. How are you going to convince that your beliefs are superior? Just as you can use your bible to defend your opinions, many other religions could use their own religious text to contradict your point. Who is ” more correct” ? By what yardstick do we define “correct”? As Vampyre have mentioned, holier-than-thou is an attitude that we can all do wihout. Just as you can quote from your religion, he too can quote from his religion which incidentally contradicts all that you had stood for. Now who should we listen to? Based on what principles of fairness should we anchor our arguments to?
To Casey : I am a Christian. And I have only one thing to say. The world is your oyster. 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. Like what I have said, Christians ought to be discerning. Sure there is a sacred cow in religion, and that is why people have seldom dared to speak up or express differing views from their religious learnings. Yet I have learnt that many a time we cannot let every minute details in life by circumscribed and dictated by the Bible. The Bible is not an instruction manual. How you adhere to its teachings would determine whether you would turn out to be an open minded, discerning christian or whether you would turn out to be an obstinately closed minded christian enclosed in the dictions of the Bible wihout understanding the greater and true meaning of God’s Words.
Just ask yourself. Is the diatribe against homosexuals truly justified or is it no more than a subterfuge for a personal distaste? Be fair.
God Bless All.
I’d like to read your definition of an “open-minded” Christian, and how a Christian can choose how they want to “adhere to” the Bible’s teachings.
@Sicarii
Focusing on petty semantics does not help answer the central issue - but nevertheless I would still like to share with you a personal anecdote
It was to our utmost consternation, when we discovered that the father of our church mate, Jane ( not the real name), had commited adultery. We are a close knitted community. Jane was a particularly close friend to us, because we belonged to the same Bible studies group. Even her father was a man of incredible character. She was inconsolable, despite our encouragements. Despite this, did we conform to the text inscribed in the Bible and stone the father? Then if you claim that this particular method of punishment is archaic, tell me, how do you decide which is and which is not. Somewhere deep down inside of you would have questioned whether such medieval, gruesome form of punishment is indeed warranted in our modern era. This is what i meant by discerning. And the ability to discern is the difference between an open minded Christian and a close minded Christian. Like what i had mentioned, an “obstinately closed minded christian” is “enclosed in the dictions of the Bible wihout understanding the greater and true meaning of God’s Words.” Surely the Bible has taught us to stone perpetrators of adultery, but the Bible too has taught us how to bestow mercy and forgive.
Sicarri, you should have come to realise a couple of things. Firstly, the question you have posed is merely a red herring - the crux of the matter has yet to be addressed. One can express revulsion at the idea of homosexuality, but one cannot evoke religious teachings to justify this revulsion. If this is truly so, then the laws would have similarly condemed adultery, idolatry, even shaving ( as mentioned in the excerpt). Secondly, religious teaching might be the moral compass for one, but that does not mean it can be erroneously applied to all. Like what I have said, these society is made up of so many different religions. We believe there is only one Almighty God, but the same goes for other religion as well. Who are we to say that our proclaimation is so much more worthy and credible than those of other religious parties? Religion has become a refuge for people who are personally against the idea of homosexuality. These people have seeked to retain the law but have yet to adequately and satisfactorily explained their glaring inconsistencies, as I have mentioned. With inconsistency, all basis of their argument falls apart naturally.
We have our own religious teachings. LEt our lives be dependant on it. Other religions have their own religious teachings, let their lives be dependant on it.
Qzz:
I don’t know why you need to go through all this trouble to convince me and Casey and other Christians that we do not have a voice in this world; that we are not able to have an opinion on an issue and to register the opinion.
In the first place, my piece is directed at Christians. As you so correctly mentioned, there are so many faiths and religions amongst us that we are not to impose our beliefs on others.
I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue. Is this imposing on others? As you so rightly pointed out too, we have our own religious teachings so we live by it.
Let me put it this way: I asked a question of Christians. I did not present our view to the issue then urged others of various religions and faiths to also vote against it based on our Christian convictions, did I?
Perchance you should read my post again.
Shalom.
Sicarii, once again you have dodged the issue completely. Nobody said you couldn’t voice your opinion. I have repeatedly set the boundaries of this debate very clearly: that there is no BIBLICAL basis for justifying the retention of a STATE LAW against homosexuals. If you insist on believing that there IS basis, then going along that line of logic you should be equally fervent about asking for laws against idolatry and divorce. Neither you nor Casey has addressed this point yet.
It’s not true that Christians don’t have a voice in this world; i am not trying to convince you of that, and i don’t think QZZ is either. You can rant and rave about homosexuals all you want. I will defend your right to tell other people that you don’t think it’s right, that you don’t think it’s natural, that you don’t agree with it. But it’s theologically unsound for Christians to use the Bible to justify a state law against gay people. My point is that it’s hypocritical to do that. You *are* imposing your beliefs on others if religion is used to define the boundaries of state law.
So do you still believe that the Bible should be used to justify the retention of 377A?
I don’t see why I should be defending my right to see things the way they are from a Biblical point of view based on the boundaries you set.
Your point is that there is no Biblical basis for the retention of a State Law outlawing homosexual acts. My point is that by my convictions there is.
Who is right?
You are here asserting that you are, and bring up idolatry and divorce. Well, let me tell you that I don’t agree with either and that’s my stated view. If I agree that I should fervently be asking for them to be repeal, you’d say I am imposing my beliefs on others. And if I am not in this case, you say I dodge the question.
So, tell me, what is it that you aim to achieve?
For your information I don’t rant and rave against homosexuals. And neither do I wish to. God loves homosexuals as much as He loves me and you. Christ Jesus came not for the righteous but for the unrighteous.
Yet God hates the sin, and being a Christian, I support God’s hatred for the sin and stand by it.
Let’s put it this way: You are here just to ensure that even Christians agree to the repeal of this legislation because *you* seek to *impose* your moral judgment on us while calling us the ones who are imposing upon others. For surely you have some moral and ethical basis and ideals for supporting the repeal, no?
So, please, stop imposing on us for we certainly aren’t imposing on you.
Do we call you wicked and immoral because you support the repeal? Do you see in any of my points a call for you to turn away from supporting the repeal by quoting Biblical passages?
I think everyone can see and agree that the straight answer to those question above is a resounding “no”. Let not the pot call the kettle black here.
Shalom.
Sicarii,
I wont be surprised by your systematic rejection of all the points put forth by me, Vampyre, or MG for that matter. It wouldnt seem right if you did because it would be a blatant admission (on your part) of doubts in everything that you had so firmly and fiercely stood up for during the past many years as a Christian.
Sicarii, it is not important whether my argument is directed at Christians or non Christians, because it does not matter. The issue I have brought up matters as much to the former as the latter. To be able to judge an issue objectively, one must shed his religious robes and be above the fray- by looking at them based on equality, fairness and worth. It doesnt matter if you are a Christian or not. The point is, even the fact that you are ONLY urging Christians to stand up against homosexuality, is flawed. When you urge christians to stand up against homosexuality, you are not immune to the some of the problems I have mentioned - inconsistency, subjectivity and prejudice.
Inconsistent because you as a Christian, have not urged or even commanded your fellow Christians not to shave. And this is only one form of inconsistency.
Subjective because you zoomed in on homosexuality but have yet to explain why certain texts are considered archaic while some are cast in stone. Example given in my excerpt.
Prejudice because, for all the antipathy you had displayed towards homosexuals, you have not adequately explained or justify why homosexuality is a bane of society and deserves to be rejected. And if you would think the reason ” The bible taught us so” would suffice, then you would have to go back to point one and explain the glaring inconsistency.
Prejudice, subjectivity, inconsistency, the recipe for bigotry and parochiality - forms a wretched cycle of self delusion and discrimination. That is why I brought in the point of the need for Christians to be discerning. As I have mentioned, sure there is a sacred cow in religion. The vehement rants that CERTAIN christians have directed at homosexuality serves no more than a pressure tactic - either you are with us or against us. Some Christians, like my 12 year old cousin, might dutifully and unquestioningly accept it. due to many reasons. For fear of reprisal, for fear of going against the “teachings of Bible”, for fear of antagonizing fellow Christians, for fear of being outcasted or ostracized. We must come to realize that even within the Christian comunity, there ought to be a healthy marketplace of differing views. One should not be labelled as a traitor or infidel just because he thinks homosexuality is not a sin. Like what I have mentioned previously, “Somewhere deep down inside of you …..This is what i meant by discerning”, we all know that conforming blindly would make us for the poorer. Lets be true to yourself. We did not “stone” Jane’s father just because he had commited adultery. We knew and understood that even though the Bible had subscribed such a punishment for such sins, the Bible also taugh compassion, love and forgiveness.
I was aghast too when you mentioned, “I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue.” This is gutter tactics for goodness sake. You said this sentence with such normalcy as though this sentence was fundamentally right, undisputable and unanimously, unequivocally the correct thing to do. It is to odious to evoke Gods name to coerce Christians into the anti-homosexuality stand. You are like saying -either you do it or you bear the consequence of incurring the wrath of God. This is not true! Christians who have a different view on this issue deserves a voice, an opinion, a take. Nope. They are not defiled, not anomalies, not aberrations. They are just like any other Christian, or by extension any other human being, deserving of another opinion.
And yes. Christians who do not support the retention of the law are not Christians-gone-bad. I know of many Christian friends who are not against homosexuality just as you know of many who are against it. Imposition, infringement does not just occur OUTSIDE of christianity, it occurs within it too. Christians who detest homosexuality refers to the Bible and points an accusing finger at Christians who do not. Christianity world is not an utopian world while everyone is, or ought to be united in their views. Anti-anti-homosexuality Christians have real reasons to justify their non rejection of homosexuality. We justify based on logic, evidence with a good dose of discernment. And yes, I would like to believe Sicarri you fall under the category of a discerning Christian too. You condemed adultery, but you wouldnt definitely want the perpetrator to be stoned. You shaved everyday, don’t you? You look at a particular verse, and have asked questions about it. So Sicarri, it is not going against the Bible. it is not about betraying your own faith. It is not about being unfaithful. It is about your capacity to think and evaluate.
Put your religious veils aside. And argue in a secular, logical and evidence based manner. Why do you think homosexuality should be rejected? Then we can start a good argument from here.
“Your point is that there is no Biblical basis for the retention of a State Law outlawing homosexual acts. My point is that by my convictions there is.”
Just for your information.
Buddhism is the most popular religion in Singapore. Christianity are by statistics a minority religion.
Your “convictions” only serves your agenda. The statute books serves all and sundry citizens in the country.
Should we let “convictions” from a minority group dictate the laws of a country? You feel this way. The same goes for some other christians. and people from other religions too. but there are people too (Christianity or not) who have pro gay or anti anti gay “convictions”. Since neither side is able to prove their point or disprove the point of each other, where then is the bone of contention? There is no religious basis for argument at all then!
I am puzzled too.
You mentioned , “Qzz:
I don’t know why you need to go through all this trouble to convince me and Casey and other Christians that we do not have a voice in this world; that we are not able to have an opinion on an issue and to register the opinion.
In the first place, my piece is directed at Christians. As you so correctly mentioned, there are so many faiths and religions amongst us that we are not to impose our beliefs on others.
I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue. Is this imposing on others? As you so rightly pointed out too, we have our own religious teachings so we live by it.
Let me put it this way: I asked a question of Christians. I did not present our view to the issue then urged others of various religions and faiths to also vote against it based on our Christian convictions, did I?
Perchance you should read my post again.
Shalom.”
I am puzzled indeed. Here you told me that your question was directed only at Christians and presumably you were not “imposing” your beliefs on other religious groups or people. Then why are you arguing about the validity of supporting the retention of the law due to biblical “convictions”? If you use your religious beliefs to justify a law, isnt this equivalent to an imposition since the law is applied to all and sundry citizen in Singapore and there is a sizeable proportion of them who do not hold the same view, and who do not believe in religious justifications? If you use your religious teachings to support the retention, everyone must then obey a law founded upon the religious dictions of a particular group of Christians ( I would not even dare say Christianity, because obviously there is schism of views regarding homosexuality among Christians. Not all Christians reject homosexuality. And not all christians who reject homosexuality justify using religion or the Bible for that matter.) Isnt this imposition?
Please clarify the discrepancy. You told me that your views were reserved for Christians and not imposing on other religious groups in the society. Then you mentioned that your convictions justify the retention of the law, in which the act itself ( justification for retention of law) is already imposing your views on the society. What do you really seek to achieve?
QZZ:
Please read that in context.
Vampyre mentioned that I shouldn’t be using my Biblical convictions to state that my opinion is that the law should not be repealed, and that was my response to him.
All laws advance a moral position. That is what laws are: a statement of right and wrong. The repeal of this law will make a statement on morality. People’s opinion on right and wrong is profoundly influenced by their religion. 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.
QZZ:
Homosexual sex, does indeed, pose a greater risk to one’s health than heterosexual sex. Having multiple sexual partners is beside the point. However, since you seem to agree that having multiple sexual partners increases your risk for disease, and since you say that it is a matter of personal responsibility, do you also support the legalization of prostitution?
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.