A friend of mine invited me to a Facebook group, or rather the Facebook group for Repeal377A.com, to petition the Singapore government to consider repealing the (in)famous Section 377A, presently criminalizing gay sex even between consenting partners. As I was about to click the Join button, a powerful force on the inside of me swelled and set off alarm bells. My subconscious was hesitant. I had a dilemma on hand.
As a person with, at the very least, an average intellect, I'm neither ashamed nor afraid to say that I recognise the need for Singapore's society, especially the older generations, to be more open-minded. Things are changing rapidly, very rapidly, and if you don't agree with it, you'll just be left in the dust. If you don't agree with it as a nation, you'll be left in the dust as an entire nation, dragging younger generations like us who wish to see Singapore becoming a more intellectually modern place. That said, 377A is, to me, a rather rare stepping stone to voice our concern in this area. The contents are certainly controversial, but how many chances like this do liberals get to voice their stand on an open society?
On the other side, I am Christian, and I firmly believe that fornication between two men is not natural and is not God-ordained (whether it gives pleasure is another thing. But it's not right).
Just today, my junior sent me the link to Keep377A.com, the "nemi-site" of Repeal377A.com.
Once before I commented during the last Singapore General Elections that while we all weren't exactly overjoyed with the PAP, there wasn't enough strength and faith in the opposition to vote for them. So I said I would have nullified my vote. To which my cousin gently corrected me, saying that since I've been giving the choice, I should exercise it to the best of my ability, and not waste it when others don't even have the chance to make their opinion counted.
Today, I feel that I have been given a chance to vote. For or against liberty, and for or against the inevitable spread of homosexuality should this section be approved. And after all I've just wrote, I've come to a conclusion. That's right, thanks to blogging, I've made up my mind. And it is this.
No matter how rare opportunities will come by, we are a rapidly evolving society. You can try to resist it, but soon it will overwhelm you. I believe, and in fact hope for more chances like this to show my support for liberalism in this society, without having to deal with thorny issues such as the spread of homosexualism. For now, faith and rational morals will take the throne. I will put my name down in Keep377A.com.
What is your stand today?
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
14 comments:
Well, it's not really so much for or against liberty anyway. But I applaud you choice. You have the balls to make a stand while I am still sitting on the fence though I tend towards supporting keep377a.com.
I am never known as a liberal anyway.
This issue has nothing to do with the "progress" of a society, but rather what our society's moral stand is. If progress means being more liberal, I don't see how that equates progress.
I'm happy that another Christian is standing up to be counted on this issue.
Shabbat Shalom.
Thank you my two readers. Just to reiterate, I agree that this issue does not equate the progress of society. But liberals in search of freedom may make too hasty a choice and use this as a chance to call for more freedom of choice. Which, as I hopefully rationalized rightly, is an erratical judgment.
I understand that christian firmly believe that fornication between two men is not natural and is not God-ordained. I respect every religion and their believes.
But Singapore is a multi-religion country. Not all religions are against gay and lesbians.
Why not give those with other religion a choice? Religion who believes that fornication between two men is wrong should preach this believe via their religion leaders. The law shouldn't be used to enforce one's religion believe.
Similarly, Muslim are not allowed to eat pork. Should the govt ban sales of pork then? (I'll cry if that ever happens)
PS: I'm not against your religion or anything. I respect your religion's believes. But there are many other religion that aren't against gay.
DK: Ohhh nono. God forbid that ever happens. Everyone is free to make their own choices. It's just that this blog post is about how I rationalize.
Thank you for taking the stand. I'm Christian too. :)Really pray that 377a wil not be repealed.
Have signed @ Keep377A.com not long after my comment and my MSN conversation with you, Fari.
The right to 'free choice' alone is not enough to convince me to support the repeal.
Not at all Carmen. I feel it's only my responsibility as a thinking citizen of this wonderful country. :) Shalom.
Like I said to Harbinson over MSN, I hope that readers are not immediately influenced to sign Keep377A. My message here is to exercise your brains and make an intellectual choice, not to convince you that 377A should stay. That is my decision, not yours. Please make your own. :)
I dislike the fact that people who are for the repulse? repulsion? the repeal of 377A are automatically called Liberal. They should more accurately be termed to be fighting for equality. Because unfortanately that is what it is, a question of equality. Can a law in one's country's statute that criminalises an act performed by a group of people be considered equal when there is no law criminalising the same act performed by another group of people? The discrimination against a group of people cannot and should never be justified in my opinion no matter how one's religion believes. Of course the question of morality arises, If one feels strongly about the homosexual, his views can and should be expressed as such, but should these views translate into a law against someone else? And might I point out that this law is also inherently sexist, against the feminine sex as there is no clause against lesbian sex? These questions framed rhetorically begs to question the logic applied to retention of such a clause.
This is the way I see it, the existance of such a clause is inherently biased and unequal as it provides for and gives penalties against homosexuals, while the non-existance of such a law doesn't , but at the same time doesn't automatically create for the endorsement of gay lifestyles, gay people, and gay sex. It simply means that the government can't punish someone for doing it.
Might I state lastly that what are laws if they are not enforced and by saying that a law is in our books but will not be enforced harms the inherent structure of our legal system.
I apologise if this comment comes off as mildly combative, I just want to state some of the points I've noted myself.
PS. One can't spread homosexuality like one spreads the flu. You're either gay or not, and being near gay people doesn't automatically make you gay.
Leotard
Dropping by to read your piece too, very nicely worded without the usual hatred and stereotyping I read in many others.
I think the main concern for the anti-repeal camp is still very much founded on family values and morality. However, the pro-repeal are trying way too hard in turning it into a religious issue.
Jieq: lol that leotard was totally unnecessary.
I do agree that it is biased in that lesbians aren't mentioned. I regret not putting it in my post, because that's what I'd already discussed with my friend earlier. In fact if the time ever comes, I'll be fully behind a double or nothin' petition.
Like I said in our conversation though, I still believe the lifting of the law will be gleefully taken as silent consent towards homosexuality. Fact VS reality, I guess you could say. Some people aren't as intelligent to reason. And some others pretend not to be.
As an un-enforced law, it may be useless and fit for the bin from a legal perspective. However, I feel that it represents our stance as a society on this issue. Quite like, "Well this is the way we like things, but we aren't barging into your bedrooms to see if you're taking backdoor deliveries."
As for whether homosexuality is infectious, well if you're not, you're not. I agree. But it may bring to the surface those sitting on the fence, wondering whether they should live as their mind leads, or as their soul beckons. These people may have found better lives as straights, and I'm not insinuating that homosexuality is necessarily less of a pleasurable life as far as individuals' factors for consideration go, but it is I believe true that most homosexual relationships end up in cheating and hurt. Once again, silent consent is the perceived problem here, in my opinion.
Lastly thank you for taking the time and effort to rebutt (nicely). I am always thankful for discussion because it helps fill in the many gaps I undoubtedly would have left as a human being.
trouver plus d'informations Celine Dolabuy essayez ce site https://www.dolabuy.su à partir de cette source Dolabuy Goyard
Post a Comment