My response: PM Lee simply doesn't understand how democracy works. This is perhaps Singapore never had a true multi-party democracy the way other countries in the West have. You can never ever have 100% consensus on any issue in a democracy - otherwise laws will never ever change. Rather, there will always be some people who will be pissed off when you change the law to evolve with the times - but so what? Let's look at the issue of giving women the vote in the UK: this was achieved in 1928 after many decades of the Suffragettes fighting for the law to be reformed. It was a process that took nearly 100 years but even as the law was finally changed in 1928, did every single person in the UK agree to it? No, not all agreed, there was still (in PM Lee's words) "big considerable resistance" and "very strong pushback from conservative groups against the idea". But nonetheless, the law was changed and those who opposed giving women the vote soon got used to the idea of women voting. There wasn't consensus, but that was no excuse not to change the law at that point. Societies will evolve regardless of whether you have consensus or not.
 |
| Singapore is constantly evolving, so why shouldn't her laws evolve as well? |
Likewise in the UK, we have gay marriage today. Sure there were conservative and religious groups who opposed the concept of it when it was first debated and parliament and introduced, but guess what? They just got used to it as time wore on and realized there were other far more pressing issues that effected them: issues such as healthcare, education, pensions, law & order and public transport. They became far more worried about how their local hospital was going to be funded or what the student to teacher ratio was going to be at their local primary school in the face of austerity measures: those were the bread and butter issues that affected their lives directly. Whether or not two men or two women could get married or not wasn't really of consequence to them - it neither had a negative or positive impact on their lives, so even those who felt strongly about the issue at first soon just let it go. The fact is this is an issue that will not affect the vast majority of the population who are straight - since it would not impact on their lives one way or another, why not allow gay people to get married?
So some religious groups would be upset if you allow gay marriage. My reply to that is simply, so...? So what? Big fat hairy deal. Does having a religion allow you to tell others in society how they should live or what they must do with their lives? Isn't Singapore supposed to be a secular society, where all citizens are equal before the law regardless of race, language or religion? (Has PM Lee recited the national pledge recently?) So why is he pandering to the desires of those of a certain religious persuasion and ignoring the wishes of those who are mighty pissed off with the status quo in Singapore right now? Oh yes PM Lee, there are plenty of Singaporeans who are very disappointment with the current state of affairs when it comes to the wider issue of equality, civil rights and human rights in Singapore - don't their feelings matter at all? Or are you telling me that Singapore is no longer secular, that religion trumps logic and democracy in Singapore today? Well, aren't we all equal before the eyes of the law regardless of our religion?
PM Lee said: “No, I do not think Singapore is ready ... In Singapore, there is a range of views. There are gay groups in Singapore, there are gay people in Singapore and they have a place to stay here and we let them live their own lives. And we do not harass them or discriminate against them.”
 |
| Pro-gay rights groups are told not to speak up in Singapore |
I find this utterly laughable. On one hand, PM Lee claims that Singapore is a conservative society (I don't actually disagree with that point) - yet on the other hand, he contradicts himself by claiming that gay people in Singapore are free from harassment and discrimination. You can't have it both ways PM Lee: when you have a conservative society that is anti-gay, then homophobia is rife and gay people suffer from homophobia in Singapore everyday. But if you truly have a society that does not harass or discriminate against gay people, then that is not a conservative society: that in fact describes a very liberal and progressive society which is completely okay with gay people and embrace equality. We have nasty, homophobic pastors like Lawrence Khong go out of their way to heap their hatred on the gay community and you have the cheek to claim that gay people in Singapore are not harassed or suffer discrimination?
If PM Lee means that gay people are not stoned in public or beheaded for their sexuality, then that may be true - but that is not the same as being free from harassment or discrimination in a place like Singapore which is still very homophobic. Being conservative and homophobic are the same side of the coin and that is why you need the law to protect gay people from harassment and discrimination (as it done in the West). You're a first world country with third world laws when it comes to protecting citizens from hate speech and hate crime - the state of affairs in Singapore when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities is pathetic, it is utterly disgraceful. Does PM Lee even realize that he has contradicted himself? Probably not - the story of the emperor's new clothes comes to mind: I doubt he has anyone in his inner circle who will dare to correct him when he makes a mistake like that. I would have more respect for PM Lee if he actually just stood up and said, "I really hate gay people, they disgust me and that is why we need section 377A." At least that way, he wouldn't be contradicting himself. PM Lee, you can't have your cake and eat it.
 |
| "Sir, you have just contradicted yourself..." |
PM Lee said: “But neither, I think, if you ask most Singaporeans, do we want the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community to set the tone for Singapore society. The society is basically a conservative one. It is changing, but it is changing gradually and there are different views, including views especially from the religious groups who push back ... It is completely understandable.”
PM Lee just doesn't get it. You don't have to be a woman to believe that sexism and misogyny is wrong. You can be a man and believe that any kind of discrimination on the basis of gender is wrong. You don't have to be a Muslim to believe that Islamophobia is wrong. I can be a non-Muslim and believe that any kind of discrimination on the basis of religion is wrong. Need I go on? You don't need to be gay, lesbian or bisexual to believe that homophobia is wrong, you can be a heterosexual and still believe that any kind of discrimination on the basis of sexuality is wrong. Hence gay rights is not an issue only for the gay community, in the same way women's rights is not an issue only for women: there are plenty of straight people who do believe strongly in the principle of equal rights for all regardless of sexuality.
 |
| PM Lee doesn't understand that this is not just an LGBT issue. |
PM Lee has misunderstood the topic of civil rights - LGBT issues are not merely for the LGBT community, but you have to see it in the wider context of how politics define a society. I have lived in the UK since 1997 and have had the chance to see how this works in the context of left wing vs right wing politics. Generally, the left wing parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Plaid Cymru, SNP etc) are always very pro gay rights, the right wing parties (the Tories, DUP, Ulster Unionists) tend to be silent on gay rights issues or somewhat anti-gay rights whilst the extremely right wing parties (BNP, UKIP) are downright homophobic. So within the British context (and generally in the West), gay rights are seen as a left-wing issue and the battle ground is set between left and right wing politics: it is never seen as a gay vs straight issue, as PM Lee has tried to portray it - he must open his eyes to see how this is handled in other countries.
PM Lee said: The Government’s view is that “where we are ... is not a bad place to be”, Mr Lee said. “There is space for the gay community, but they should not push the agenda too hard because if they (do), there will be a very strong pushback,” he added.
 |
| PM Lee is justifying the status quo = the need for him to do nothing. |
Oh dear, this may sound like common sense but I feel I need to say it as clearly PM Lee and some Singaporeans lack common sense: there are plenty of straight Singaporeans who feel very strongly that gay people allow equal rights and will stand up for gay rights, being a straight person doesn't automatically render you homophobic or anti-gay. And as for religious people who push back - well what about liberal and progressive people who will equally push back against the status quo which is not acceptable? There will always be somebody pushing their agenda: such is the nature of democracy, get used to it. The way PM Lee puts it, the only place he is offering the gay community is the closet - which is not good enough for many gay people. What about telling the religious community to shut the hell up and not making so much fuss over issues like the Pink Dot event? Why is he only telling the gay community not to push the agenda - how about reminding the religious fanatics that Singapore is in fact a secular country and they should not inflict their religious views on others? What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander: why are religious people given the right to make a big fuss but the liberals are told to shut up? That's plain bullshit.
If PM Lee thinks that this is good enough for the gay community, then he will have to pay the price of a gay brain drain. Talented gay Singaporeans are simply going to think, screw this, I am out of here: I'm not going to stay in a country where you are pandering to the sensitivities of those with a religion but not give a hoot about the views of those who care about equality and civil rights. In short, fuck this: you don't understand what human rights and civil rights are. Now I admire those who have the resolve to stay and try to fight the system (in a somewhat foolhardy manner if I may say), to make Singapore a better place; but in reality, it is far easier to choose the path of least resistance and simply move to another country where they have already established a whole range of gay rights enshrined in their legislation.
 |
| Is there no room for discourse on this issue? |
PM Lee said: “And this is not an issue where there is a possibility that the two sides can discuss and eventually come to a consensus. Now, these are very entrenched views and the more you discuss, the angrier people get.”
Well it is true that this is a tricky issue - but you only have to look at what has happened in other countries to realize that this is not an issue that can be resolved with a 'consensus' or agreement of sorts: rather, it is an on-going dialogue between those who want gay rights and those who oppose it. Such is the nature of a democracy - it is a messy process to engage people and PM Lee has an extremely simplistic view of the issue in imagining that it can somehow be resolved: no PM Lee, it cannot. But nonetheless, all you have to do is to look at what other countries have done and realize that it is an issue that can be dealt with in a sensible manner. PM Lee's approach is no better than an ostrich burying its head in the sand - he is defaulting to the status quo because he is just too afraid to deal with it. Or it may just seem like too much work for him to do and he simply can't be asked to do it - hence that is why he is justifying doing nothing. That may suit him just fine - but is that right for Singapore? No, it isn't.
At this point, I feel sorry for Singaporeans for having a prime minister who simply doesn't have a skill to tackle such an issue. Well, I live in the UK, my prime minister David Cameron introduced gay marriage back in 2013 (IMHO this was one of Cameron's greatest triumph as a PM) and sure, the religious groups made a lot of noise and were not happy about it - but did it affect his popularity as a prime minister? Quite the opposite. He went from a prime minister in a coalition to a prime minister with an outright majority in the house of commons in the recent 2015 elections. Don't get me wrong, it's not like all of the UK is so progressive and pro-gay, we do have our share of religious bigots and homophobic people: but Cameron had the skills of a politician to deal with this issue of expertly that it did not affect his popularity and indeed, PM Lee has a lot to learn from Cameron in the way Cameron dealt with this tricky issue in a tactful and sensitive manner.. Here's the famous clip featuring PM David Cameron campaigning for gay marriage:
So, I can go on ripping into PM Lee's flimsy argument - but at the end of the day, little is going to change in Singapore because PM Lee can offer flimsy, illogical and plain ridiculous arguments, but Singaporeans are either too ignorant or politically apathetic to challenge PM Lee and hold him to account. Thus he can spout whatever rubbish he wants and it will not be challenged - politicians from places like Europe will probably look at him in disbelief and think, "how the hell does he get away with spouting idiotic crap like that and still get elected? Are Singaporeans really that bloody stupid?" Well, leave your answers in the comment section below and let me know what you think. Many thanks for reading.
Singaporeans are either ignorant or have been brainwashed over the years to accept whatever PAP says as the correct thing. In a way they have outsourced all their thinking to the government. No wonder PAP gets away with so many ridiculous laws of late.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, what is that "lotus-looking" structure in the picture above? I have been never seen it in pictures of Singapore.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, as you know, I am a Catholic. I get more traditional as I age. However, even I have to agree that we cannot impose religious values on the secular population. If I were to vote on marriage equality in the Catholic church, then I will, at this point, vote no. However, in the secular world, who am I to tell two gay people that their relationship is less worthy of recognition than mine? As a PM, he needs to have a stronger stand one way or the other, He should not look to western countries and say, "See, not all westerners agree to gay marriage equality." He is just slid-sliding and tail-gating on the conservatives who will always be around. Stand up and be a man, Mr. Lee!
Lotus looking thingy = http://www.marinabaysands.com/museum.html
DeleteAnd on the issue of gay marriage Di, the matter is a secular matter - it is about a law for ALL people of all faiths and no faith, we're not talking about deciding what stance the Catholic church should take on the issue. You can decide for yourself what stance you wanna take on the issue - that's your choice and your prerogative, but you cross the line when you then say "because I don't like it, nobody can have it". Can you imagine something like that being applied to any other issue?
Exactement! He said Singaporeans are not ready. No, HE, is not read for gay marriage equality. I can't believe it is even an issue in the 21st century. People need stop murking the secular waters with religious values.
DeleteHi Di, Alex, specifically it is the ArtScience and Technology museum. Despite the strange exterior, it is really quite an interesting place to be. I could spend the whole day in it, one of the to see spots for Singapore in my personal opinion, other than the zoo, the aquarium and chek jawa and sungei buloh.
DeleteAs for the whole "sensitive" and "conservative" thing which LHL had raised, it has become such a broken record motherhood statement I think most rational, thinking locals have basically given up. There is quite a bit of online discussion ongoing but you will not see anything critical against his statement in the state media. Essentially, they are going all out to ensure the emperor never gets to hear that he has no clothes. The wider issue I see here is that by pandering to the "conservative" and "sensitive" nature of things, PM has essentially reassured that these ultra right wingers and religious conservatives that their concerns are being put on a higher level priority. Gay people are not interested in turning folks homosexual but I have noticed that homophobic right wingers certainly like to turn others homophobic. It is really ashamed that instead of creating public awareness, ignorance is continually perpetuated with motherhood statements like "we are conservative, we are not ready". It simply gives homophobes like Lawrence Khong and co more justification that what they are preaching is state sanctioned. With the ruling party's stranglehold on the media, it is thus no surprise that the only gay affirmative news tend to come from online and overseas media not directly under the licensing powers of the state.
Certainly it is advantageous for the PAP govt to continue keeping the citizens ignorant and brainwashed so that they have unquestioned rights to rule. Much as people like to lay blame on the govt, choaniki is right in saying that the citizens themselves had "outsourced" thinking and analysis largely to the govt. The citizens of Singapore Inc have essentially created this issue themselves. Sad to say, I had been labelled a quitter by some folks for simply deciding that I will uproot in mid 2016 rather than stay on and get dragged down by ignorant homophobes and non thinkers.
@Di you have been away from SG for too long. That lotus thingy was built at least 4 years ago.
DeleteExactly Shane. That is why I had planned to leave Singapore the moment I could because I couldn't bear the thought of spending my adult years in a nation of brainwashed PAP-worshipers.
DeleteChoaniki, last I was there was for a funeral. It was a week-long visit in 2009. I had no time to play tourist. My husband has not been back since 1995!
DeleteEvery society has its own taboo and/or "no touch zone". In Singapore, it is gay marriage. In France, it is the wearing of the hijab in universities/schools. In the whole of Europe and UK, it is questioning the holocaust. Yet, in the name of hypocrisy, the same liberalists who call for the lampooning of Muhammad as "free speech", will say you are "backward" if you are against the law that bans the hijab in France. You are also called an anti-Semite if you question the holocaust, but a free speech supporter if you mock Islam. Why the double standards of secularism?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if it is "In Rome, do as the Romans do", then why are immigrant Muslims in Europe expected to respect the host's law, yet foreigners who comment on Sg's gay law are not expected to heed their on their own advice "In Sg, do as the Singaporeans do"?
I am not talking about religion. I am talking about consistency in argument. If liberals want to be truely liberal, including the right to mock another culture, practice or religion, then they should allow themselves to be treated the same. On the other hand if they want their rights respected, they should give other cultures their right too.
Putting in a nutshell, you should not use what is acceptable in one culture to impose your values on another. Liberalists who call for gay marriage in Sg are trying to import their culture here. Imagine your distaste if immigrant North Africans impose their Islamic practices on Europe or UK.
Dear Red Hot Heartlander,
DeleteMany thanks for your comment and allow me to respond to your points.
1. I don't think you can just ring fence gay issues (we're not just talking about gay marriage - but all kinds of gay rights here) and say, "that's taboo". What does this say about the ability of your society to openly discuss the issue in a rational, sensible and mature manner? Whilst France has banned the wearing of hijab in educational establishments, it is not like they said, "we can't talk about it" - no, quite the opposite, the French are very happy to talk about it, discuss it openly, have a mature discussion about it, debate the issue and it certainly isn't a taboo subject.
As for holocaust denials, it is not taboo per se, but it is simply the weight of public opinion that makes the reaction predictable whenever someone like Jean-Marie Le Pen tries to question the details of the holocaust. He can say what he wants, it's just that even his own daughter doesn't agree with him.
France is a secular state and unfortunately, there is no shortage of antisemitism in France today and you're trying to paint a picture whereby the Jews are free of religious persecution that the Muslims face: the truth is that many Jews are leaving France for Israel - it's hardly an ideal situation of course, but that does at least mean that there is no double standard when it comes to secularism as you alleged: you are clearly a Singaporean who doesn't understand the complexities of French society (whilst I have studied, lived and worked in France long enough to know France & French society very intimately).
As for the situation in Singapore. my criticism is about the way PM Lee is handling the situation - it is not a reflection on Singaporean society per se: but more specifically, an attack on PM Lee's poor skills as a politician handling this issue. Singapore is a big city of 5.4 million people and you have a full range of opinions in Singapore: from those who are extremely liberal and progressive when it comes to civil liberties & gay rights to those who are bigoted, ignorant and downright homophobic. But then again, how is this situation different from any other big city in the world where you have a diverse range of opinions on the issue of gay rights? You are making the case that all Singaporeans are homophobic - I am telling you are making a fundamental mistake in treating 'Singapore' as a monolithic entity and not recognizing the spectrum of opinion in Singapore.
The big problem with Singapore right now, is that the religious people (like the homophobic pastor Lawrence Khong) are being assured that their sensitive feelings are important and must be respected - whilst the liberals are being told to shut the hell up and not rock the status quo; that is completely unfair and unsustainable because you're giving one group special treatment over another.
DeletePutting it in a nutshell, you've completely fallen prey to the island mentality - you're completely brainwashed by the PAP. How is Singapore different from other countries? It is not like Singapore is a little island nation on the moon or on Mars, so different from the other human societies on earth. Rather, our parents have migrated from other countries and there are over 2 million foreign born residents from all over the world in Singapore. Singapore doesn't have a unique culture - indeed, her culture is a blend of influences from all over the world. You have at least two generations of Singaporeans who were educated entirely in English (since the mid 1970s) and have become very westernized, it's not like Singaporeans speak English as a second/foreign language and have limited exposure to Western influences (you could say that about my parents but certainly not about my generation and I'm nearly 40) - so you're completely misrepresenting the attitudes of Singaporeans to try to project the image that Singaporeans are homophobic and don't want gay marriage (or any other kind of gay rights). You are lying. You are homophobic and you're trying to say that other Singaporeans are just as homophobic as you - that is a lie and is simply not true.
In any case, what the hell is Singaporean culture anyway? Who gets to decide what it is? Can you define it? My grandmother was born in Singapore and died not so long ago - she was a Hokkien speaking woman who wasn't educated, she doesn't speak Mandarin or English and her experience of Singaporean culture is hugely different from mine as someone who was brought up in Singapore in a fairly affluent family, sent to the best schools and had the money and freedom to travel widely, I grew up on a diet of Western media and read English books and magazines because that is my first language (thanks to the education system, MOE). What you do have is a wide range of cultural identities, cultural experiences and a whole spectrum of what kind of cultural values different Singaporeans have - this is a big city which is anything but homogeneous: you have rich and poor people, you have well educated and uneducated people, you have those who speak primarily English right through to those who speak little or no English, you have such a wide range of religions and cultures present in Singapore: so rather than take into account the huge diversity that you can encounter just walking down Orchard Road, you're trying to tell me that there is "one culture" that you can clearly define as "Singaporean culture" and that within that context, gays cannot ask for equal rights? Oh dear, I fear you have been totally brainwashed by the PAP - the fact is, PM Lee can spout whatever bullshit he wants about gay marriage or gay rights in Singapore: the fact is you are too brainwashed to question whether or not his points are valid or not, so you are simply accepting what he said as the truth and then bending the evidence around your stance to try to convince yourself that it is true. It is a pitiful stance to take and I feel very sorry for you: you write well, like a well educated person, but you're still clearly, completely brainwashed. Each time I meet a well educated but brainwashed Singaporean, I can only shake my head in despair. Tsk tsk. Aiyoh.
"Liberalists who call for gay marriage in Sg are trying to import their culture here. Imagine your distaste if immigrant North Africans impose their Islamic practices on Europe or UK."
DeleteNot really. There is a big difference in asking for some rights for yourself and your own community, as opposed to forcing your beliefs down someone's throat, as your latter statement suggests. In Singapore, we have Western, Chinese, Malay and Indian traditions. Are we all imposing on each other or tolerating?
Thank you Ayhtas K! I hate it when Singaporeans try to claim "oh this is our culture" or "this is what Singapore's culture should be" - when they do that, they are ignoring the fact that in a city as huge and diverse as Singapore, there isn't even consensus on what being Singaporean actually means and what can be defined as Singaporean culture and what isn't. Singapore is a global city with migrants from so many cities, we don't even have our own language and we speak a variety of languages and thus in this context of a multi-ethnic, multi-religion, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society, for one person to have the audacity to claim that being tolerant towards gays is going against Singaporean culture - that's just so goddamn bloody STUPID because they are imposing their views of what Singaporean culture is on the rest of us.
DeleteBesides, Red Dot, I don't think we can just slap an argument like "oh this is simply our Singapore culture" when what is at stake here is the basic humanity of a person. We're talking about human rights here; the right to live free from harrassment and bullying, the right to love and build their own families, the rights to be legally recognised and to buy a home etc.
DeleteYour argument would be valid if gays are forcing you to marry someone of the same sex but I'm very sure that's not what's happening. They simply want to be treated human. I'm a Red Dot Heartlander as well, and I'm straight no less, but I'd like to see acceptance as part of our culture. What gives anyone the right to dictate that denying gay people any rights is indeed part of Singaporean culture?
You want to talk culture? Oh didn't most of our ancestors come from China? Well China completely decriminalised homosexuality back in 1997. So in a way they are more progressive than Singapore which is still held up on section 377a for some reason or other.
Delete@Delia, many thanks for your comment Delia. I have a huge problem with the 'oh this is simply our Singapore culture" argument because there isn't any way to define what Singaporean culture is - like I said many times before, this is a fairly big country of 5.4 million people with a whole myriad of cultural identities - it is a multi-culture, multi-religion, multi-ethnic complex country of so many different identities and cultural values: some of which are gay-friendly and some are not. Like you said, what gives anyone the right to dictate that denying gay people any rights is indeed part of Singaporean culture? What gives Red Dot Heartlander the right to try to dictate to Delia what her cultural values should be? She has every right to decide for herself what her cultural values are - it should NEVER be dictated to her.
DeleteYou know what pisses me off? It's the way Red Dot Heartlander thinks that values or cultural identity is something that is set in stone, like the way Christians refer to a bible as if there's a reference book for what the rules are. There is only our history books to refer to when you want to start to discuss what Singapore's cultural identity is and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate how Singapore has been a far more open, liberal and progressive country that what PM Lee paints it out to be.
Thank you Delia.
Oh and Red Dot Heartlander: France is a secular country, not an anti-Islam country - all forms of conspicuous religious symbols are banned from French schools & universities: be it a Christian cross or a hijab. So both Christians and Muslims are equally covered by the same law.
DeleteSo you're ignorant about France, you're ignorant about Muslims - go on, what else are you ignorant about but feel the need to voice an opinion about? Most people would just shut the hell up on issues they know nothing about and stick to talking about issues that they actually understand. Duh. Singapore education system epic fail.
Thanks Limpeh :)
DeleteAlso, the religious are still free to practice their traditional ways of life by, oh I don't know, not having a gay marriage? So many other things are sinful but I don't see these religious people fight to outlaw seafood and synthetic fabric. Don't like it, just don't do it yourself. I thought religious people always prided themselves in being above worldly desires and practices.
Shutting down conversations about gay people won't stop them from existing. I find it odd how this isn't obvious to more people.
I like the way a comedian said, "if you don't like gay marriage, I have a suggestion: don't have one. Don't marry someone of the same gender, pick a spouse of the opposite gender. Problem solved. But don't tell other people what they can or cannot do, whom they should or should not marry or whom they can or cannot love. Just because you have a religion doesn't mean that you can go around inflicting your religious rules on others - religion is like masturbating: feel free to do it whatever way you want in private, but the moment you start flaunting it in public, that then becomes obscene. Please, put it away, I'm not interested in seeing what you get up to in private."
DeleteRed Dot: where does one get off imposing one's culture or beliefs on other members of society?
DeleteYou wrote:
Putting in a nutshell, you should not use what is acceptable in one culture to impose your values on another. Liberalists who call for gay marriage in Sg are trying to import their culture here.
Isn't that what the people like you are doing? Aren't the opposers of gay marriage imposing their values on the gay community? We cannot do that to each other in this day and age. Whatever my views are personally or religiously, I cannot impose it on the secular community. Please do not say that it is against one's culture or that it is taboo. EVERY single man and woman deserve the same rights in society. Just as I do not agree with Muslim women wearing the hijabs, I cannot impose my view on them. If they want to roll around in a bubble, let them (as long as they reveal themselves at security checks at immigration). By the same token, how do you justify telling the gay community that their relationships cannot be sealed in the eyes of the law? How come hetrosexual marriages get that privilage only?
Thank you Di.
DeleteThank you for being the voice of reason.
Red Dot Heartlander, the hijab and all other visible religious implements in public education institutions is not allowed in France. French society is secular and public schools funded by public money are not to favour any one religion. Individuals can still in attend private religious schools, openly practice their faith and don their religious garbs. While a sensitive topic, people can openly debate and discuss about religion publicly. In contrast, by sweeping all religious topics as being sensitive and hence taboo in Singapore, ignorance continue to be promulgated and religion is perceived to have a higher public standing. How is there to be progress and understanding this way?
Delete"In Rome, do as the Romans do", …. "In Sg, do as the Singaporeans do"? From this, you appear to assume that Singaporeans are a homophobic and monolithic entity. Even if homophobic > homo supportive people, does this mean that the voices of those who are minority should be shut out? Can we say that Sikhs being a minority should not be allowed to express their preferences? No. Those "foreigners" who express support or disagreement to gay issues will be subjected to the same debate and response as per any form of public discourse. Why are you simply proposing to shut off all public dialogue just because you assume that all Singaporeans are primarily homophobic?
"I am talking about consistency in argument. If liberals want to be truely liberal, including the right to mock another culture, practice or religion, then they should allow themselves to be treated the same. On the other hand if they want their rights respected, they should give other cultures their right too." Again, anything the liberals have proposed will also be subjected to public critique. Yet what critique are you talking about when you have suggested that they should not be allowed to express their opinions? That is exactly what I mean when I propose that we let the voices be heard and let the different sectors of the public domain act as their own counter balance in response. By proposing to shut down one sector, you are basically telling the other sector that they are more valid. Why should any religious voices be allowed to trump over others by using secular laws to try to impose religious will on others who do not practise the same faith?
"Putting in a nutshell, you should not use what is acceptable in one culture to impose your values on another. Liberalists who call for gay marriage in Sg are trying to import their culture here. Imagine your distaste if immigrant North Africans impose their Islamic practices on Europe or UK."
I think you just shot yourself in the head. Homosexuals have never been asking for special rights. They are only asking for equal secular rights as any other human being. Does this impose that others cannot practise their religious faith? No. In contrast, the banning of gay marriage by religious zealots is basically imposing on gay people. Homosexuals have never been interested in forcing others to have sex with someone of the same gender. In contrast, homophobics have always been interested to promote more homophobia. Instead of calling out the liberalists, why are you not similarly calling out the conservatives who are calling for a ban to gay partnerships? Why the double standards? Folks like the Charlie Hebdo team may have made comic relief of all religions (all, not just Islam!) but are they the ones who threaten violence? As far as I know, it is the religiously inflamed who have threatened and exacted violence. Similarly, it has always been homophobes and religious zealots who have rallied for secular laws to be imposed on homosexuals. Guess who should the state really guard against?
No one culture / religion / ethnic group should have the right to impose their vision of what is acceptable to them in the wider public sphere.
@reddothardliner Yes I agree with you, denying the holocaust should not be a crime, the same way being stupid should not be criminalized, otherwise our jails would be bursting at the seams (you might even find yourself in prison one day)
Delete"Putting in a nutshell, you should not use what is acceptable in one culture to impose your values on another. Liberalists who call for gay marriage in Sg are trying to import their culture here. Imagine your distaste if immigrant North Africans impose their Islamic practices on Europe or UK."
Are we really imposing our values on someone else? How would decriminalizing homosexuality affect you exactly? Are we the ones imposing our values on you, or is it the other way around? What makes you think we are importing the culture of another country? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. In fact, if you are so against importing another culture, here's something you should know, 377a was inherited from Britain. All the more we should abolish it then!
Sharia is evil. It is misogynistic, homophobic, and violent. Why would any sane society give men the right to beat their wives, or to amputate the limbs of thieves? 377a discriminates people who merely want to love each other. Who are we to tell two adults what they can or cannot do in their bedrooms, with consent of course. Its really a shame, Red Dot Hardliner, that you are drawing a moral equivalence between sharia and getting rid of 377a.
One last thing, by your logic, we should not question anything thats the norm in any society. If that were the case, black people would still be slaves, only men could vote, there would be no religious freedom, gender equality, nothing. Your notion of society seems to be one that is static, paralyzed, when in reality it is dynamic, malleable, changing with each generation, or even within a generation. Perhaps it is that very fallacious notion that is holding Singapore back.
Thank you Shane. Exactly, homosexuals have never been asking for any special rights - gay people simply want to be protected from the hatred and bigotry of religious zealots.
DeleteIn any case, Red Dot Heartlander's argument is basically, "oh things aren't perfect in the UK and France, so that gives Singapore the right to discriminate against gays." Really? Even if there are faults in other countries around the world, why should that be any justification to discriminate against any one group in Singaporean society then? His argument simply makes no sense - he is blinded by hatred and bigotry.
I think that the PM is trying to be what he regards as "politically correct" without as much as taking a stand that reflects what he really believes in about homosexuality. All in all, it is just shady and unclear rhetoric since he has already tried to chase the "pink vote" (as well as the liberal vote). If you do a vote or census on the number of Singaporeans who really are homophobic and believe in the prosecution of gays and lesbians via 377A, I won't be surprised if the percentage is way lower than made out by these politicians.
ReplyDeleteWhat irks me about Singaporeans (ref: my comment to Red Dot Heartlander above) is that they are so bloody brainwashed and they try to talk about Singapore society as if it is a cohesive, monolithic entity, as if there is something that can readily be defined as 'Singaporean culture' - whereas that couldn't be further from the truth. Oh come on, the national patriotic songs that you hold so dear to your hearts like 'Stand Up For Singapore', We Are Singapore' and Count On Me Singapore' were penned by a CANADIAN Angmoh jingle writer Hugh Harrison who had never lived in Singapore and knew nothing about Singapore - he was simply commissioned to write a song with simple English lyrics and Singaporeans never questioned, "hang on a second, why is out national culture being outsourced to a Canadian jingle writer?"
DeleteThis is why it is so hard to define what the hell Singaporean culture actually is, especially when there is such a diverse range of cultural experiences out there. I remember in my NS days and there were a group of Mandarin speaking soldiers in my unit who loved HK Cantopop and there was me and my buddy Jonathan who were unashamedly big fans of Celine Dion - who is more Singaporean? We're both drawing our musical, cultural influences from overseas: be it from Hong Kong or Canada.
Thus it pisses me off when people try to speak as if there is something called Singaporean culture that justifies this homophobia. Please lah, you can't even define it - like you don't have a culture of your own, you don't have a language of your own. And you wanna tell me there is something in there which you can use to justify your homophobia? These people are so brainwashed and delusional.
You are spot on Kelvin. I don't think PM Lee is homophobic, as his father, the late Senior Lee himself was pretty liberal in his views regarding homosexuality and it's highly likely that his son would hold the same view. He's just trying to weasel out of taking a clear stand on this matter in public.
DeleteI think most of Singaporeans wouldn't like to see gays persecuted, but at the same time they would like to pretend that they don't exist.
Not being homophobic is hardly a desirable stance - he's doing nothing to stop homophobic people like pastor Khong causing great harm to Singaporean society by stirring up so much hatred. Let's put it this way: if you witnessed someone beating up a little old lady in the street and you did nothing in the name of, "I don't know them, I don't want to get involved, it has nothing to do with me" - can you claim to have done nothing wrong? He is the PM for crying out aloud and he thinks that he doesn't have a responsibility to deal with hateful preachers like Khong? What kinda shitty PM is he? His stance is pathetic.
DeleteThere is a rather flawed logic behind most of what Singaporeans use in their reasoning, specifically in their recourse to this term, "Asian values". What do they mean by "Asian values", especially when it is not a monolithic entity, and plus, the Thais were among the most liberal countries in legalizing prostitution and homosexuality is featured as "no big deal" in their media, and sometimes even celebrated at times. Plus, even the Chinese were perfectly NON-homophobic and liberal in sexual attitudes until the advent of western colonialism and Maoism (itself a derivative of western Marxism)--all the way right up to the Tang dynasty and prior!!! Irony of ironies LOL. This flawed term has been used to defend the quelling of freedom of expression in Singapore, when ironically, many other Asian countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, have all allowed for freedom of expression and speech to varying degrees.
DeleteKevin, interesting that you brought up the Tang dynasty. Back then women were actually pretty well-educated, had a lot of political standing, wore revealing clothing and there was so much sexual liberty within the Tang dynasty courts, while culturally still being as Chinese as it could be :) Even the only woman Emperor of Chinese history hailed from that era. Yet so many still use the "Asian values" term to justify oppression of women and LGBTs.
Delete@Kevin, read my comment to LIFT above. Even Mainland China is more progressive than Singapore in completely decriminalising homosexuality. In fact there are a few famous transsexuals in China. The leading of course being 金星. She even has her own talk show, this is something that will never happen in Singapore.
DeleteChoaniki, that really can be serendipitous. China has been fiercely secular since the time of the Maoist cultural revolution when basically all religious practices were frowned upon and the laws are all state controlled. Thus, the Abrahamic faiths that have the strongest dissenters against LGBT people have basically not been allowed to impose their version of social culture openly. This is not to say that LGBT is openly accepted in Mainland China. The concept of growing up, finding a job, getting married and having children is still very much the socially acceptable pathway. Deviants do have a hard time fitting in and there are enough stories of closeted homosexuals in sham marriages and their wives who have gone public on their sob stories. I personally know of one ex work mate and client who went through the whole closeted homosexual sham marriage and breakdown and one even committed suicide in shame. Of course China having decriminalised homosexuality and a consistent policy of not allowing religious will to be imposed in secular public life does allow for more progressive actions on the "tongzhi" front. In Singapore, the leaders generally do not have as strong a political will and are far too fond of taking the easy way out like hiding behind motherhood statements like "Sg is not ready", "religion is a sensitive issue", rather than tackle the problem head on and encouraging more public dialogue to promote understanding. Ignorance has thus been allowed to fester and as you mentioned before, all thinking get outsourced to the govt. Thus you have the brainwashed and official line parroting folks like red dot heartlander spouting their rhetoric here.
DeleteSingapore's view of homosexuality is almost like South Korea's, minus the existence of 377A which prosecutes consensual sex between two men. Basically, it is a case of "don't ask, don't tell", and pretend that it does not exist. For example, if you ask the older generation of Koreans about this issue, they will say that there are no homosexuals in Korea, and even if there are, they are a result of a disease brought into Korea by "foreigners" (meaning white men).
DeleteAs for Singapore being a "secular country" and needing to look at its ways of regulating speech about religions, sexuality and race etcetera, I might want to point out that someone online at Yahoo has pointed out the predominance of "religious-themed" holidays in Singapore under the slate of public holidays. In fact, this undercuts the whole premise of it as a secular society in the way we imagine it, because religion plays a really large role despite its claims to be a secular society. Think about it, Amos Yee made a video about a dead old politician, but he was sued mainly for charges of sedition against religion and obscenity, and they got him simply on account of the former. If he had removed that picture, they would not have any extra claims on him beyond that religious claim. You even had a case of Lawrence Khong sacking a female church staff member for an "adulterous affair" and refusing to pay her her wages until she repents, and then, with the staff bringing up the case to the MOM for the sake of reclaiming her wages which she deserves to get whatever the outcome of her job. Separation of state and religion does not exist in Singapore the same way it is allegedly in Canada or the UK.
LFT, your long reply missed my main point, which is the argument you put up is inconsistent. Gay marriage is generally not accepted by S'poreans. Just like institutionalizing sharia in UK would not be accepted to you. Can't foreigners accept that we don't like them to tell us what to do? After all, you won't like it if NGO groups from the Islamic world like Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia etc back up N Africans immigrants in your country to have sharia in UK, correct? Get the point?
ReplyDeleteayhtas posted:
[quote]
Not really. There is a big difference in asking for some rights for yourself and your own community, as opposed to forcing your beliefs down someone's throat, as your latter statement suggests. In Singapore, we have Western, Chinese, Malay and Indian traditions. Are we all imposing on each other or tolerating?
[unquote]
In Brit, you have whites, blacks, East Asians, South Asians, Africans..... So what is wrong if minority groups want to have their rights recognized? Let's say the N Africans want their sharia institutionalized the way it is done in Sg. We are secular, yet we have sharia law governed by MUIS. See? It can be done! So why not UK too?
Using your argument, Brit is Islamophobic not to allow the above, the way Sg is homophobic not to allow gay marriage, no?
Can you see how many Singaporeans don't want to have foreigners telling us what to do, the way Brits don't want foreign immigrants or NGOs from other nations telling them what to do? Let's see some consistency in your argument. That's my point.
Sorry but I don't really get your point. You're trying to say, because Singapore is homophobic for not allowing gay marriage, Britain is also Islamophobic if it does not allow Sharia law, so it should, in order not to discriminate against Muslims. Please correct me if I got your point wrong.
DeleteBut the difference here is, Muslims in UK are free to pray, wear hijabs, restrict their diets, live the way they want as long as it does not impose itself on the wider community. They still have that freedom to do so even if UK is not governed by Sharia law.
Problem is, gay people aren't even allowed to live with dignity or live their lives as they wish. Legalising gay marriage allows them that freedom without imposing on us straight people in any way. Unless you're telling me having openly gay people in your life has negatively impacted you in any way?
In summary: Legalising sharia law inconveniences everyone, legalising gay marriage does not.
Muslims live as per normal without sharia law, but gays cannot live as normal without gay marriage legalised. Hope what I've written makes the distinction clear.
Dear Red Dot Heartlander,
DeleteAllow me to follow up with your points.
1. I disagree with you fundamentally that gay marriage is "generally not accepted by S'poreans" - there is a huge difference between thinking "oh I am not so sure about the issue" and "I will protest every day in front of City Hall if this goes ahead". This is not a simple YES-NO issue about whether something is acceptable or not: there are many shades of grey and a whole spectrum of opinions between the YES and the NO camp. Whilst there are some Singaporeans who are vehemently homophobic and are dead set against giving the gay community any rights at all, there are plenty in the middle who either don't have a strong opinion or don't have an opinion at all (that is the product of decades of political apathy). Indeed, the vehemently homophobic Singaporeans are (thankfully) a minority and you're trying to tell me that they are the majority - which simply isn't the truth. You are building your entire argument on a misrepresentation of the situation, you're not being truthful - thus on that basis I have to reject your argument as no more than blatant homophobia.
2. Singapore is a highly westernized country already, whether you like it or not and Singapore has changed a lot in the last 50 years. My grandparents couldn't even speak a word of Mandarin, my parents are Mandarin speakers and I speak English as a first language and Mandarin as a third language. How can you dictate to me (or other Singaporeans) what our cultural identity is or should be? It is very presumptuous of you to even try to do so - what gives you the right to tell Singaporeans what their cultural identity is or should be and what is or is not acceptable by Singaporeans? Like I said so many times - there isn't one version of a Singaporean identity or one version of Singaporean culture but a whole spectrum of experiences amongst the 5.4 million inhabitants of the country - so how can you even begin to start telling me what is or is not accepted by Singaporeans: which Singaporeans? The older generation or the younger generation? The Indians, the Malays or the Chinese or the others? The religious ones or the secular ones? The PAP supporters or the opposition supporters?
3. Singapore isn't an isolated country in the middle of nowhere who just wants to be left alone (I think only North Korea has pursued a policy of isolation) - no, whether you like it or not, Singapore has pursued a policy of wooing the rest of the world: be it through foreign trade, foreign investments or tourism; Singapore has always wanted the world to think highly of Singapore and thus if PM Lee says something stupid to the world's media, if he fails to come up with a cogent argument and demonstrates very poor understanding of the issue of civil rights and gay marriage - then tough shit, you can't turn around and say, "oh leave us alone, this is our internal affairs, we don't need the rest of the world to tell us what to do." Your government has already flung her doors wide open to the world to say, "hey, come to Singapore, we're open for business" - so what the world thinks of Singapore does matter whether you like it or not.
4. As for the Muslims in Britain, once again, you're making some pretty ludicrous assumptions about Muslims wanting Sharia law. I have plenty of Muslim friends here in London who are completely assimilated - they work alongside other Londoners, they speak English as a first language, they have the same cultural values as we do, they are not homophobic by any means and many of them are appalled by the concept of Sharia law. They are what you would term 'moderate' or 'secular' Muslims who do not have any desire to embrace a more extreme form of Sharia law as that does not reflect their identity. You're being really quite stupid and ignorant in assuming that all Muslims somehow crave to be governed under the strictest of all Sharia laws - that couldn't be further from the truth as there are so many different kinds of Muslims around the world and there is such a wide range of interpretation of how Islam should be practiced in this day and age. You are clearly extremely ignorant about Muslims and Islam - I would urge you to be more careful when talking about the topic since you are so ignorant.
Delete5. In any case, may I remind you that not all of Singapore voted for the PAP and supports PM Lee's stance. The PAP only got 60.14% of the popular vote at the last election and there are plenty of Singaporeans who are happy to give the PAP the middle finger when it comes to some of the idiotic decisions they have made over the years - by that token, you don't need people from other countries telling you that the PAP has screwed up time and time again, you have plenty of other fellow Singaporeans who are happy to tell you how fucked up the PAP is. Except of course, you're way too brainwashed to listen to the truth. Aiyoh. Alamak.
Thanks Delia for your analysis of the Sharia Law debate. I think Red Dot Heartlander is a racist at heart who doesn't know how to put together a half-decent argument. He has made some hideous assumptions about British-Muslims - he is imagining that they all want to commit jihad and wear burqas when really, the vast majority of British-Muslims are very well assimilated, speak English as a first language and do not even consider wearing a headscarf because they practice a more moderate form of modern Islam. Red Dot Heartlander is an example of another major failure of the Singaporean education system - I bet he doesn't realize what he spouted has come across as extremely offensive to British Muslims.
DeleteRed dot, once again you are using extreme examples like Sharia laws to justify your point. As Delia mentioned, gay marriage laws only apply to the gay community, not to anyone else. Unless of course you belong to the fear mongering group that suggests that having gay friendly laws would 'destroy' the fabric of society and people would run around naked and have mass orgies, and not have kids..The so-called slippery slope argument... Sigh
DeleteLFT, I have just one major point (ie your argument is inconsistent), yet you reply me about things that are almost irrelevant? OK, I will try to address your points.
Delete[quote}
I disagree with you fundamentally that gay marriage is "generally not accepted by S'poreans"
[unquote]
I live here, you live in UK. Just like you think it is ludicrous for me to assume "all Muslims" in UK want sharia (hey, when did I say that? I just gave a "what if" example!), let me tell you that you are ludicrous to tell me what is happening in my backyard, when you are thousands of km away.
[quote]
Singapore is a highly westernized country already
[unquote]
So? Funny how you bring this point up. You rightfully brought up the misnomer of "Asian Values" (as if I made it my point, when I never did) . Yeah, like "Westernization" doesn't have its own misnomers! Think about it!
[quote]
Singapore isn't an isolated country in the middle of nowhere who just wants to be left alone
[unquote]
Yes, we are not alone economically as you pointed out. So how does that justify allowing gay marriage when Sporeans generally don't want it?
[quote]
I have plenty of Muslim friends here in London who are completely assimilated - they work alongside other Londoners, they speak English as a first language, they have the same cultural values as we do, they are not homophobic by any means and many of them are appalled by the concept of Sharia law.
[unquote]
Those are the Muslims you meet. Now consider the ones you DON'T meet. Yep, the ones Brits are saying they coup up and don't assimilate. The ones the Brits are so fearful of because they don't speak English but some strange foreign language. The ones that call for right to pray in schools, workplace and anywhere. The right to have Brit laws amended to suit sharia, like polygamy. The right do anything that is Islamic in practice which the average Brit finds bizarrely unBrit. They're the ones who will call for sharia, and they're the ones average Brits are uneasy about. They exist, don't they?
So what if Islamic countries now support them? Game enough to let them a ministry that looks after Muslim affairs? Willing have tall minarets all over the place, large pray halls and mosques, burka, niqabs in schools, Quran thumping sermons and speeches at Trafalgar Square? The oil rich nations sure have lots of funds to have "Preach a sura a day" 365 days, you know. What's the average Brit take on that suggestion if it happened?
[quote]
In any case, may I remind you that not all of Singapore voted for the PAP and supports PM Lee's stance.
[unquote]
I didn't vote PAP and I don't want gay marriage. Stop conflating disagreeing to have gay marriage as pro-PAP. If you do, then you have to be consistent and accept that there are more who support PAP (that's why they won!) and hence support PAP's stance. Which defeats your own argument that you fundamentally disagree majority of Sporeans generally don't accept gay marriage!
About France. You argue that it is not anti-Islam because it also does the same to Christianity. Little do you realise that argument can be seen that France is BOTH anti-Islam and anti-Christianity! How about extrapolating your argument further to Sg context? Let's say Sg is not homophobic because S337A also applies to transgender males and not just gays. Logic?
Oh yes, you can cut out the personal attacks just because I don't agree with you.
"Those are the Muslims you meet. Now consider the ones you DON'T meet. ...What's the average Brit take on that suggestion if it happened?"
DeleteReading through all your examples I've not seen one that negatively affects the livelihood of non-Muslims. So it all boils down to the fact that you think all of that should be outlawed cos it is "unBrit" and "bizzare" and "uneasy" la?
Everyday along Oxford Street in the afternoon there would be a strange procession taking place with "un British" music and people in "unBritish" dressing marching down the street with drums. They are pretty much left alone by the average passerby. Might be because these "unBrits" leave others alone and it doesn't affect anyone else in any way?
Red Dot:
Delete1. Where I am doesn't really affect my understanding of the issue - I have been pretty amazed at how social media has affected the way we learn about our societies. I often find myself educating my parents about what is going on in Singapore when I speak to them via Skype - they are not on the internet (despite living in Singapore) and I am able to access far more information via social media than they can in actually living in Ang Mo Kio. What I am able to do is to access a whole range of opinions through the internet and see the diversity of opinions in Singapore through social media and I am not just a passive consumer of social media: earlier this year, I was ranked the 14th most read blogger in all of Singapore (funny that they should include me on that list) but if you remove the blogs which involve more than 1 contributor, that pushes me up to 8th place. If I really knew that little about Singapore, then why are so many of you Singaporeans gladly reading what I have to say about S'pore then?
2. I still stand by what I say about disagreeing with your claim that "Singaporeans generally don't want" gay marriage. I know you are wrong - there is a small minority of very vocal religious bigots who are shouting very loudly about the issue, but the vast majority of Singaporeans don't really have a clear opinion or any opinion at all on the issue as it is not a matter that affects them. It may only affect them if they are gay or if they have a close friend or family member who is gay - otherwise, they probably would not be that fussed either way on the issue. Let's say I wanna discuss a law concerning people who keep iguanas as pets and I want to introduce a whole range of legislation ensuring the welfare of iguanas kept as pets - most people would not have an opinion on the issue as they do not have iguanas as pets and thus whatever that law state would not affect them. Thus by the same token, the vast majority of Singaporeans would be as affected by any legislation on gay marriage as they would by a law on pet iguanas. You're trying to tell me that Singaporeans are homophobic - I don't agree, I think they just don't care either way on the issue.
3. As Delia has pointed out to you, Muslims in the UK have the freedom to practice their religion. They are not harassed nor are they outlawed - they are left alone to do what they want within the confines of their religion. I fail to see how this is relevant to the issue of gay marriage in Singapore - the law in Singapore outlaws gay men who have sex in private and prohibits them from having any legal rights: there are no such laws that discriminate against Muslims in the UK like that. So I have absolutely no idea why you are barking up the wrong tree - apart from the fact that you're not educated enough to form a cogent argument.
4. Not all voters who voted for the PAP agree 100% with their policies - in any case, the PAP usually gets through every single election on the strength of their economic policies and their track record when it comes to delivering a strong economy. Most voters are motivated by one or just a few key areas of policies that are very close to their hearts - in reality, it is pretty hard to find a party where you agree 100% with every single one of their policy matters. You simply pick the one that most suits your needs, desires and ideals at the ballot box - the issue of gay rights was barely mentioned discussed at the last election, the economy was the key issue that was discussed.
5. I don't see why you feel the need to put France down and how that serves your argument. You're just a racist who hates French people.
ayhtas
Delete[quote]
Red dot, once again you are using extreme examples like Sharia laws to justify your point. As Delia mentioned, gay marriage laws only apply to the gay community, not to anyone else.
[unquote]
Can't sharia only be applied to Muslims in UK? It is happening in Sg. Do you see MUIS decisions affecting non-Muslims in Singapore? Not that I am saying UK should do it. I am just giving a 'what if" example to show that if you don't like external interference, then you should not do it to others.
Consistency. That's my point.
LFT, be honest. I got the France thingie from YOU. I got it in my email when you posted a reply in this thread. I didn't realise that you took it out from the thread when I made that France point. Btw, why did you take the France point out?
DeleteYou're just being ridiculous here: I tend not censor any comments here and I certainly did not censor any of your points. You have replied to a number of comments here in the comments section and there are a total of 37 (and counting) comments here - I would much rather allow you to embarrass yourself by letting you have your say and so you can expose yourself to be ignorant, ill-informed, racist, bigoted and homophobic. Oh no, I would not censor you because you are making a much bigger fool of yourself every time you post a comment and I take wicked delight in seeing how Singaporeans like Ayhtas and Delia shoot you down each time you say something downright stupid.
DeleteClearly, nobody here is convinced that you're able to form a half-decent, half-convincing argument. But please, you amuse me, please go on making an utter fool of yourself and showing everyone here what a total idiot you are.
Oh and Delia, LOL - i know exactly what you're referring to, the Hare Krishna people who are singing and dancing through the streets of central London all the time. Yeah so what? They're un-British but we're happy to let them do as they do, they're not disturbing or upsetting anyone, I am mildly amused when I see them (though I am so used to seeing them I barely bat an eyelid these days).
DeleteRed Dot is assuming that white people are intolerant of anything foreign culturally - now that just isn't true. This makes me think that he is probably stuck in his parents' flat in somewhere like Toa Payoh and has never ever set foot in Europe before.
@Red Dot Heartlander before you shoot yourself further i suggest you stop using the Sharia Law example. In Islamic states where there is only Sharia Law you are not going to get away lightly simply because you are a non-muslim. Even during Friday prayers the non-muslims in Islamic states hide away rather than be caught by the religious police.
DeleteOn the same note, I think most Singaporeans aren't asking for civil unions or full marriage rights among LGBT. For a start they can stop criminalising their actions by repealing 377A which i think is stupid since it's a victimless crime.
Choaniki - there's something extremely flawed about Red Dot Heartlander's very flawed argument about the comparison to Sharia law to gay marriage and he's too blind (or too stupid) to see why his argument doesn't make sense. If somebody were to implement Sharia law in the city where I live, that means I no longer can do something as simple as buy beer and bacon from my local supermarket as that would be forbidden for me even if I am a non-Muslim. But if we were to have gay marriage in Singapore, would it affect him? Would he be forced to marry a spouse of the same gender? No. Would he be forced to be involved in any kind of gay marriage? No. In fact, as a straight person, it would not affect him at all in any way shape or form if gay people could get married.
DeleteAnd that is exactly what happened in the UK when gay marriage was introduced in 2013. A lot of stupid Christians made a lot of noise and complained a lot - then after a few months they realized, oh actually, it doesn't affect me at all, life still goes on as before - nothing really has changed just because same sex couples can get married now. And guess what? All these Christians who made a lot of noise stopped complaining and just got on with life when they realized that nothing has changed and that oooh society as we know it isn't going to rip apart at the seams. Nothing as changed - that's my point: allow gay people to get married and whilst it will be a big important step for equality, it will not affect the lives of straight people at all but it will improve the quality of lives for gay people.
It is only the vehemently hateful bigots like red hot heartlander who are so homophobic they cannot see that.
Alex, I am afraid to say that the ability to look at the bigger picture and to analyse situations on a more holistic plane is something that is not natural to most folks in Singapore Inc. It has always been a one man's view and one party sanctioned action for 50 years. They are too used to just one black or white point. Just got to cut them the slack for social issues which are primarily more than 50 shades of grey. We have 50 years of la mala educacion to thank.
DeleteDelia
Delete[quote]
Reading through all your examples I've not seen one that negatively affects the livelihood of non-Muslims.
[unquote]
Glad it came from you! But that is not what some native Londoners think. Google "Ismapohobia in London". Don't take my word.
Oh yes, since you believe there is no negative effects of Islam on non-Muslims, do a good deed for the poor immigrants who keep facing discrimination. Go round telling the Londoners who fear Islam and tell them there really is no negative effect on non-Muslims if Islam is practised religiously by these people. Willing to walk the talk?
[quote]
So it all boils down to the fact that you think all of that should be outlawed cos it is "unBrit" and "bizzare" and "uneasy" la?
[unquote]
Sigh. You can't see sarcasm when one comes by. I was mimicking the Islamophobes in UK.
Choaniki
[quote]
On the same note, I think most Singaporeans aren't asking for civil unions or full marriage rights among LGBT.
[unquote]
Like Delia, I am glad it came from you too! That's what I've been saying all along. Majority don't support gay marriage. So why is minority trying to impose their wish on majority?
[quote]
For a start they can stop criminalising their actions by repealing 377A which i think is stupid since it's a victimless crime.
[unquote]
Psst. Let me tell you an open secret. For years, I nvr gave a hoot about 377A. Many don't either. If it exists, life goes on. If it doesn't, life goes on too. But because gays have been very aggressive the last few years, the question that dangles in many minds is “what will they ask next?” If LGBTs had been less aggressive, maybe you could win over the fence sitters. But because you shoot down about anyone who does not agree, you put such people off. Good job, LGBTs. Anyway that is an open secret which I am sure you already know.
Di Talasi
[quote]
Aren't the opposers of gay marriage imposing their values on the gay community?
[unquote]
I think it is gays who are trying to impose their values. Marriage has always been man-woman. It has been that way for centuries, across all cultures, in different parts of the world. Yes, there are exceptions like marrying to demi-gods, animals, ghosts and even the dead. But that is considered deviant rather than norm.
Marriage is NOT a construct. It is the nature of humans to have man-woman bonding. If it is a construct, explain how does mankind always end up with man-woman bond, when so many societies and cultures, over centuries have never met?
It is this sacroscant man-woman bond in marriage that kept the human race alive, and the human race human for centuries. If it had been man-demigod, man-animal, man-whatever, the human race wouldn't be what it is today.
So who is imposing whose ideas on whom?
LFT,
DeleteI nvr said you censor my post. I said I got your email notification but cannot find it in the comment section in your site. I thought you took out YOUR OWN post. Never did I say you took mine out.
[unquote]
If somebody were to implement Sharia law in the city where I live, that means I no longer can do something as simple as buy beer and bacon from my local supermarket as that would be forbidden for me even if I am a non-Muslim.
[unquote]
For someone who claims to be so enlightened, so liberated, so out-of-box thinking, so well travelled and informed, I find the above statement baffling. Are you not boxing up sharia as one big oppressive tool that silences everyone?
I live in Sg. Sharia exists in the form of MUIS. Yet, many non-Muslims (and even Muslims) drink beer till they knock themselves out silly. Where did you get that idea you won't have your beer and ham if sharia is implemented? You seem as boxed up and un-informed as the very flat dwelling Sporean you so mock.
To all,
My point here is consistency in argument. Majority of Sporeans do not support gay marriage. So decision by Sg govt is to align to that majority thinking.
Foreigners who think they have a right to intefere would do well to put themselves in the shoes of others. How would you like if Islamic nations support immigrants in host nations to have sharia implemented? If you don't like it, what makes you think Sporeans like foreigners interfereing with our internal affairs.
Like I say, consistency in arguments, please.
@red dot hardliner, what rights exactly do these minorities want? When you mention minorities, I'm assuming muslims, because other minorities usually dont want much more than what they already have. Could you please elaborate?
DeleteAny group of people can want anything in a democratic society. It simply has to be raised through the appropriate channels and be implemented through the democratic process, a process you probably are unfamiliar with. NGO's support sharia in the uk and limpeh is unhappy. So what? In a democracy, anyone can have any idea and anyone can support it. I'm sure Limpeh is used to a range of ideas, even ones he disagree with. You, being the quintessential singaporean, only want to hear things you like. Anything you dont like should be, drum roll please, BANNED. That is one thing about SIngapore and SIngaporeans, especially the uneducated ones, that I really loathe.
You obviously have no idea what Sharia law really is. What they have in Singapore is not sharia law, though thats what they may call it. Let me also say this, I disapprove of what they have here. No group of people should have a separate law because you belong to a different religion. In other words, sharia is a discriminatory law, and like i said before, it is barbaric. That means British muslims who dont agree with sharia will be subject to sharia simply because they are muslim. That is unacceptable. Abolishing 377a is not discriminatory, it is the opposite. If you dont like it, dont fuck someone of your same gender. Thats all. For the last time, implementing sharia is not the same thing as abolishing 377a. They are morally distinct acts. Stop drawing a moral equivalence where there is none.
@reddothardliner, "I live here, you live in UK. Just like you think it is ludicrous for me to assume "all Muslims" in UK want sharia (hey, when did I say that? I just gave a "what if" example!), let me tell you that you are ludicrous to tell me what is happening in my backyard, when you are thousands of km away."
DeleteYou are as qualified to hypothesize what singaporeans views on homosexuality are as limpeh is. Distance is irrelevant. The people you hang out with may be against it, but the people I hang out with are for it. Sg is my 'backyard' too, so can I conclude that singaporeans are all for getting rid of 377a? I believe there are detailed surveys on the matter, please refer to those. I'm afraid most singaporeans are against it, unfortunately.
Anyway, about sharia,
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan/29/thinktanks.religion
I think all brits should be concerned about this. Rather old article though.
Red Dot: here are the following points for you.
Delete1. You are still wrong in insisting that the majority of Singaporeans do not support gay marriage - it is a lie you keep pushing. I have made my stance clear already, if you think that repeating a lie enough times makes it sound like the truth, then that only reflects on how delusional you are.
2. Even if there are people who are Islamophobic in the UK, the law in the UK robustly protects any Muslim person from that kind of hatred and bigotry. You can't get rid of people like that who are given to bigotry from your country, but you can make sure that there are laws to deal with such people when they do cross the line. In Singapore, there are no laws to deal with people like you who go out of your way to incite hatred towards homosexuals and there really should be because I see you as a criminal.
3. You are twisting Delia's words out of context: she said, "I think most Singaporeans aren't asking for civil unions or full marriage rights among LGBT. " That does NOT mean that the majority of Singaporeans are homophobic, hate gays and want to see them locked up or killed. What Delia said is that most Singaporeans probably don't engage in this discussion because they are not directly affected by the issue - they don't have an opinion either way. Not having an opinion about whether or not there should be gay marriage doesn't mean that it is someone saying, "no, there shouldn't be". You are very wrong in including such people who don't have an opinion amongst the people you count as "against" gay marriage - that's a fundamental flaw in your analysis and that discredits you altogether. Stop resorting to lies and misrepresenting the truth.
4. The concept of marriage has evolved so much throughout the centuries - straight people make a mockery of marriage by getting married in Vegas when they are drunk and then getting a divorce when they sober up. Britney Spears did just that and was married for just 55 hours - but that marriage was completely legal; yet a gay couple who have spent 55 years together can't get married legally? The law is unfair and needs to offer the same rights to couples regardless of gender and sexuality. The laws defining what marriage is and what kind of legal rights couples get have evolved so much over the years - you're completely wrong in claiming that it is something that has never changed. Besides, even if you do allow gay people to marry - you're not stopping straight people from marrying - it does not affect straight people who do want to go down the route of a man-woman coupling: so what's this bullshit about protecting marriage? Just look at what happened in countries where gay marriage already is legal: you're just opposing this because you have a deep hatred for gay people - because really, none of your arguments make any sense.
5. You are making an utter fool of yourself when you try to use Sharia law to justify your bigotry. You're an uneducated bigot who lies and puts words in people's mouths - you misrepresent Muslims, you misrepresent gays and most of all, you misrepresent Singaporeans. Thankfully, not all Singaporeans are as stupid and bigoted as you - just look at the comments here: you're being bashed left, right and centre by my other Singaporean readers. Ha!
@red dot. Please stop assuming that the Sharia Law being practiced here is the same as that of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. The only power they have is over marriages , divorces and inheritance. Even then , it can be easily circumvented by going for a civil union. Therefore Muslims are free to booze , eat pork and non halal food, without running afoul of the Law.
DeleteDoing these in Islamic countries will get you into serious trouble. Even if you are non Muslim, you can't practice your faith outside of the privacy of own your home. Maybe you should live in such a Country, only then would you know the plight of homosexuals who are denied their basic needs
Ivanovich,
DeleteThank you very much for the very eloborate tirade against Islam. You have proven my point to both LIFT and Delia that there are those who are terrified of Muslims in UK. So my point about how UK residents don't want a foreign ideal seeping into their native culture, just like Sporeans don't want a foreign ideal to seep into ours, is now confirmed by your post.
[quote]
Are we really imposing our values on someone else? How would decriminalizing homosexuality affect you exactly?
[inquote]
Like I said, whether S377A exists or not, life goes on. But that isn't what the topic of the main thread is. What the main topic is about gay marriage. Now that's going to change the whole essence of the meaning of marriage, which is the all important family man-woman bond. The father-mother-child bond. Now why should we deprive ourselves of this sacrosanct marriage for a minority group of gays? Why should children be deprived of a father or mother in order to have same sex marriage? Dont' act as if the majority of society have nothing to give up just to appease a small minority group.
[quote]
You are as qualified to hypothesize what singaporeans views on homosexuality are as limpeh is.
[unquote]
By the same argument, I am as qualified to comment on Brit natives and their views on foreign ideals like Islam as limpeh is. Why didn't you say that when LFT objected to my point on that?
LFT
[quote]
You are still wrong in insisting that the majority of Singaporeans do not support gay marriage - it is a lie you keep pushing.
[unquote]
And why do you think I am wrong? You have access to more Sporeans' views than I do? I live here. You live there. I immerse myself with heartland Sporeans. You do not. And you believe I am wrong and you are right? OK. Your delusional belief.
[quote]
You are twisting Delia's words out of context: she said, "I think most Singaporeans aren't asking for civil unions or full marriage rights among LGBT. " That does NOT mean that the majority of Singaporeans are homophobic
[unquote]
Now you twist my words. Never have I said majority of Sporeans are homophobic. I said that majority don't support gay marriage. Unless of course you conflate not supporting gay marriage as homophobic. Which is.... well... are you not acting out the stereotype idea people have about LGBTs? Which is as long as you don't agree with LGBT ideas, you are homophobic?
[quote]
The concept of marriage has evolved so much throughout the centuries
[unquote]
What talking you? Evolved over centuries? How so? Centuries ago, it was man-woman. Now, it still is man-woman. Yeah, big evolution there.
[quote]
- straight people make a mockery of marriage by getting married in Vegas when they are drunk and then getting a divorce when they sober up
[unquote]
That is not marriage evolving. That is marriage decaying. So let's get aid to help these dysfunctional marriages and get them back on their feet. No need to tweak the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
Tsk tsk tsk, you're fucking pathetic you know that? Ivanovich is not on your side and he's not helping you, so stop pretending that you have friends here.
Delete1. You know so little about Islam, yet you want to expose your ignorance by going on and on about Sharia law? You're such an idiot and the best part is, you're completely oblivious to the fact that you're so stupid and ignorant.
2. What has gay marriage got to do with children having a father and mother? Most gay people who do marry do not have children - these would have to come via adoption or from one of the partner's previous relationships. You're making a ridiculous link between depriving children of parents and allowing gay marriage - given that two men or two women cannot produce babies biologically, then really your argument doesn't even have a leg to stand on. You're not telling me you don't know how babies are made, do you?
In any case, even if you have children with a father and a mother - the quality of the parenting is dependent on the parents being committed to being good parents. I have blogged very honestly about how growing up with an autistic mother made my childhood very difficult as my mother was in no position to be a parent given the struggles she had with her mental health issues. There are loads of parents in traditional men-woman marriages who end up being terrible parents for one reason or another - the key thing is to focus on good parenting techniques, rather than assume that just because a child has a mother & a father that somehow, everything will turn out fine: they often do not. You're making some rather silly generalizations here.
I just don't see how having gay marriage will make the plight of children who suffer from bad parenting any better - it is completely irrelevant. You only have to look at what happened in other countries to see that the two issues are not related at all.
3. You're a liar who is lying to yourself and you're wrong on so many accounts. I don't know whom you're trying to kid - me? My readers? Or yourself? You're motivated by hatred and have no desire for the truth. Anyway, for the record, I already have long decided that you're a total fucking idiot who's motivated by bigotry and hatred - so you're going to need a Herculean effort to change my opinion about you.
4. If you do not support equality for gay people - then yes, that makes you homophobic. The same way if you do not support equality for all humans regardless of the colour of their skin, then that makes you a racist. No ifs, no buts, it's that simple.
5. The laws that governed marriage have evolved a lot over the years - years ago, women have no rights under the law and were virtually owned by their husbands; thankfully women rights have evolved so much in our more modern, enlightened times so for example, you have the women's charter in Singapore today - it was designed to protect and improve the rights of women in Singapore and it had a huge impact on the status and rights of women within the rights of marriage. This represented a huge change and development within the definition of marriage in Singaporean society and you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in Singapore who would say that protecting the rights of women is a bad thing. But in improving the rights of women, you're changing the definition of this institution of marriage - but so what? Let's change it to make it more fit for purpose in our modern times.
6. You are clearly so far detached from the real world that you are ignoring the evidence before you and choosing to see what you want to see - I don't know what kind of extremely sheltered life you lead, but it has led to you being incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Ayhtas
Delete[quote]
Please stop assuming that the Sharia Law being practiced here is the same as that of Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia.
[unquote]
Where have I for once even said that? It is readers of my comments who have always equated sharia law as something so alien, it cannot even fit into any secular society. But I have shown it can be done, as in Sg thru MUIS. And you have also noted that. Thank you!
[quote]
The only power they have is over marriages , divorces and inheritance.
[unquote]
Good. Now let's test it out. What do you think the natives of Brit will say to sharia in UK, MUIS Sg-style. Let the immigrant Muslims have sharia to have power over their marriages, divorce and inheritance. Do you think these same Brits who are so worried about minarets, turbans and hijabs will say OK to that? Or will they still object and come up with loads of tirade and excuses, claiming that any form of sharia is unacceptable to their society.
Since we are on this topic, let's move to France. See the reaction towards the hijab? And that's not even the introduction of sharia. See how France objects? To them, they don't want “outside ideas” to appease a minority, because it challenges their lifestyle, which is seclurasm. Or so they say. Likewise, what makes you think Sporeans want “outside ideas” that challenge our mainstream lifestyle?
Once again. Consistency in argument please.
LFT,
I know Ivan is not on my side. That's the best part. Because that shows that he sincerely meant to say that there is a great fear of Islam among native Londoners and he is not just trying to show me support. So I am right about London's fear of a foreign ideal seeping in, no? Is that fear justified? If it is, so is Sporeans' fear of a foreign ideal seeping in here. That's my main point all along. Consistency in argument.
[quote]
What has gay marriage got to do with children having a father and mother?
[unquote]
Plenty. A gay marriage means two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. You have deprived the children of this gay marriage either a father or mother.
[quote]
Most gay people who do marry do not have children
[unquote]
Most gay people don't even form permanent pair relartionships that last. That means those who will benefit is a very tiny group. Why should we even tweak the system for them?
As for your tell-all about your personal life and family, I have been very silent on that. I don't think you should be blogging about it because it concerns the private lives or your close family members and relatives.
[quote]
If you do not support equality for gay people - then yes, that makes you homophobic.
[unquote]
That's the so called stereotype argument heteros are accused of I have told you about. You don't support a gay idea, they make it sound you don't support equality for gays.
Hello. Gay marriage CAN NEVER BE EQUAL to hetero marriage. Period. You said it yourself. Gay marriage can never have biological children the way hetero marriages can. Gay marriage has one father or one mother missing. Two dads do not equate to one mom and two moms do not equate to one dad. Repeat. Gay marriage can never be equal. So don't ask for equality from heteros, because even if we wanted to, we can never give you.
That is my answer to the so called stereotype argument heteros are accused of, “if you don't support gay marriage, you are a homophobe”.
As for the laws of marriage evolving, yes I agree. But that is not your original point, is it? Your orignal point is that marriage itself has evolved. So what if laws evolve? It is still man-woman bond in many societies around the world. What change in essence? It is the man-made laws in US, Europe and some other place that are trying to tweak this natural man-woman marriage. That's construction of an idea, not natural evolution.
RDH:
Delete1. You are clearly ignorant about Islam, Sharia Law, gay sex, the UK and France. You clearly have not ventured very far beyond the heartlands and yet you insist on trying to build an argument on issues you know little about? Tsk tsk. Feel free to make a fool of yourself on my blog if you wish.
2. If gays can get married tomorrow in Singapore, nothing will change in your life - you will still be able to do exactly what you do: get married to someone of the opposite sex and raise a family etc. It will affect you as much as a law affecting say people with pet iguanas: unless you have a pet iguana, it wouldn't affect you. You are being downright vindictive and hateful to try to deny equal rights to gays - but here's the worst part about you: you wouldn't even have the honesty to say something like, "I hate gays". You hide behind all these lousy arguments that make no sense, when really, at heart, you simply hate gays.
3. Even if you live in somewhere like Bishan or Yishun, your everyday life is dominated by external cultural influences that originate far from the shores of Singapore: the music you listen to on the radio is from abroad, the TV programmes you enjoy are mostly made outside Singapore, the movies in your cinemas are from abroad, the fashion you see in your locals malls and shops are imported and there's so little that's genuinely, authentically 100% local Singaporean - if you want to wax lyrical about "outside" or "foreign" ideas being imposed on Singapore, oh pullease - just walk down your local street and try to spot what is truly local and what is foreign. There's virtually nothing left in Singapore that is really truly local and that includes your culture. You don't even have your own language for crying out aloud. So for you to claim that being homophobic is Singaporean is laughable - like everything else in Singapore, the attitudes of Singaporeans on the issue is dependent on foreign influences. For instance, section 377A is a import from the UK, it is a left over as a result of British colonial rule: so why not get rid of this imperialistic British rule then, since you are so keen to get rid of anything foreign? Hahahahaha.
4. If you give gay people the right to get married, then you are giving them the legal mechanism to make their relationship last. If you were to remove the right for straight people to get married, then many more straight people would choose to remain single and not try to form long lasting relationship. What is wrong with extending the right to marry to the gay people who do want to form long lasting relationship to marry? Give them the right to marry and more of them will form long lasting relationships which they can get recognition for under the eyes of the law and their relationships will be afforded the same legal status as straight relationships - it is a major step to say that all relationships are equal regardless of gender and sexuality.
5. As for my family, I will say what I want. It is my right to do so. I have had a very difficult childhood because of my mother's mental health issues and you make it sound like people with mental health issues should be hidden from society - I do not agree with you.
Delete6. You can repeat your hateful mantra all you want asshole, it still doesn't make it true. And at this point, I am so glad I live in a civilized country (the UK) where we have gay marriage and I don't have to share a country with ignorant idiots like you in Singapore. There is so much more to marriage than reproducing and having children - indeed, the quality of parenting does not depend on there being a mother and father in the relationship, but it depends on each parent trying their hardest to be the best possible parent for their children. I had a terribly miserable childhood because my mother was in no fit state to be a parent given her mental health issues - you seem convinced that all it takes is there to be a father and a mother and all will be fine: no, it really isn't that simple. I have friends who were from single-parent families or were brought up by gay parents and they had far happier childhoods than me because they experienced far more love than I ever did as a child.
7. Liberal, progressive countries in the world today have gay marriage. Backwards, uncivilized countries in the world today have homophobia - it is clear which side of that divide you would rather be. Good riddance to you asshole, I am happy to be on my side of the divide.
PS. Fuck you. Period. I repeat. FUCK YOU MOTHERFUCKER. BWAHAHAHAHA! :)
RDH why are you assuming a child wouldn't grow up normal if he/she were deprived of either a father or mother? You're assuming a mother fits a definite role, and a father another definite role when in reality there are many different types of fathers and mothers. You can have a doting father, stern/strong mother or vice versa, or one parent can be both doting and strict. What makes you think a gay couple is not capable of providing an adopted child with the same love and care a hetero couple would? Esp when the alternative may mean they grow up alone in an orphanage?
DeleteAnd so many children from single-parent families manage to grow up normal, just as many children from traditional families can also have an unhappy childhood if they have irresponsible parents. Maybe you haven't read in the news about the kind of shit biological parents can do to their own children. Dear RDH, straight couples have been ruining their own families for centuries. Surely that is a more pressing issue than gay people getting married and raising adopted kids?
Also I think you may be confusing "equal" with "identical"- nobody said a homosexual couple was exactly the same as a hetero couple.
@red dot heartlander. Firstly , apologies for getting your name wrong earlier.
Delete1)Muslims and Islam are separate entities. There is nothing wrong with criticising Islam, or fearing Islam. However Muslims are people. People should be treated like people.
Any sane person should be afraid of Islam.
Qur'an (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides..."
Here's a bit of sharia for you..
Qur'an (5:38) - "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power."
Stop claiming you know what sharia is when you clearly do not. There is nothing wrong with brits fearing people who want this implemented in their society. Singaporeans would be equally ,if not even more afraid.
2) Do some brits oppose Islam because it is foreign, or because it has certain aspects which are incompatible with modern society? You seem to want to oppose something simply because it is foreign. You must be one of those daft xenophobic Singaporeans who blame all their problems on foreigners.
3)"Now why should we deprive ourselves of this sacrosanct marriage for a minority group of gays? "
You may have changed the parameters, but my question will be the same. Tell me how exactly gays marrying will affect your ability to have children, or to even live happily as a heterosexual couple?
4)"Why should children be deprived of a father or mother in order to have same sex marriage?"
Let me get this straight, you'd much rather leave them in orphanages?
5) what I meant was both of you are equally unqualified to make such claims. We should rely on surveys or opinion polls. Please refer to the analogy I gave earlier.
6)"Do you think these same Brits who are so worried about minarets, turbans and hijabs will say OK to that?"
How on earth do you know brits oppose all that? It looks like you are judging Britain with your own reservations about those things. Britons have no problem with any of those things. You obviously know nothing about Britain. What I was saying was that brits should fear sharia because it is a threat to their free society , their rights including gay marriage. There is nothing wrong with fearing Islam.
Why do you keep saying gay marriage is a foreign ideal? Why are you so against anything foreign? If Europeans are against something done by a minority group , I'd like to think it's for more well thought out reasons other than simply being foreign.
7)"It is the man-made laws in US, Europe and some other place that are trying to tweak this natural man-woman marriage."
Oh great. A naturalistic argument. For the record, there are homosexual animals. My personal favourite: penguins.
I admire your patience in dealing with him LIFT. He's just going on and on with those old tiresome flawed arguments again and again. #IGIVEUP
DeleteRed Dot:
DeleteYou impose your values when you tell homsexuals that they are not entitled to a legal marriage. Homosexuals do not tell hetrosexuals that their marriage hold no ground, so how can they be imposing on the rest of society?
As for marriage being only between a man and a woman --- that is a personal and religious view. Keep that out of the secular. I am a practiisng Catholic, and I can keep my beliefs to myself. You should too.
If Sharia law were to be implemented to all of society, then all segments of soceity will be imposed upon. That is a sacrilege to freedom. By recognizing gay marriage, NO HETEROSEXUALS are affected. It is not a contagious disease.
This is not foreigners interferring with Singaporean affairs. This is humans arguing for the freedom of other humans.
Get it?
Thanks Delia! Well Delia, like I said, it reminds me about why I blog in the first place. If I am merely preaching to the choir of other left-wing liberals, then we're just agreeing with each other. But the whole point was to stimulate a debate, to talk about the issue with people who are anti-gay marriage and we have actually achieved it. I think it's better for someone like RDH to come here and spout his homophobic hateful rhetoric than for my piece to be completely ignored by people like him. So yes, whilst we may not get anywhere with someone as ignorant and stubborn as him, we are at least stimulating a debate which was my original goal. Look it has been days since I've first posted the article and we're still talking about it - thus I have achieved my goal that I have set out when I first composed the article.
DeleteAnd Di - darling, the rest of us get it, RDH won't. He's blinded by his hatred and bigotry.
Ivanovich,
DeleteYes, everyone heard you loud and clear. You blasted everyone here with your tirade against Islam, proving me right that there are UK natives who are soooooo afraid of Islam, they don't want to have it in UK, France etc. You don't have to repeat what has already been established – ie I am right and they are wrong.
Di Talasi,
[Homosexuals do not tell hetrosexuals that their marriage hold no ground, so how can they be imposing on the rest of society? ....If Sharia law were to be implemented to all of society, then all segments of soceity will be imposed upon. That is a sacrilege to freedom. By recognizing gay marriage, NO HETEROSEXUALS are affected.]
You claim that gay marriage does not affect hetero marriage. But it can also be claimed that sharia does not affect non-Muslims. Yet you object one but want the other. Why the inconsistency? Sharia exists in Sg and it does not affect non-Muslims. So why is there resistance in UK against sharia when it does not affect them? If you feel that sharia is against the lifestyle of Brits because it is foreign idea seeping in, so do the generally conservative Sporeans feel about foreign ideas seeping in. Consistency in application, please.
[This is not foreigners interferring with Singaporean affairs. This is humans arguing for the freedom of other humans.]
It can also be argued introducing sharia to secular nations like UK is not interfering but the freedom of other humans too. So where is your consistency in argument?
Delia,
Delete[RDH why are you assuming a child wouldn't grow up normal if he/she were deprived of either a father or mother?]
I am not assumming. This is the opinion of many family counsellors, psychologists, socioligists, pyschiatrists etc. Google it yourself.
[You're assuming a mother fits a definite role, and a father another definite role when in reality there are many different types of fathers and mothers.]
That's a feminist argument. Nothing wrong with feminism per se, but it is rather narrow. You have to admit that there are things a father cannot do which a mother can and vice-versa. Fathers are physically stronger. They lift, carry, throw children up and catch them without problems. Something you don't see many mothers able to do. Mothers can breastfeed. Something fathers can't.
Ask anyone if there is a difference between their father and mother about their parenting. Ask them what it would be like if their father and mother had their gender role reversed. Do you think they would tell you that they would have been raised much the same?
[What makes you think a gay couple is not capable of providing an adopted child with the same love and care a hetero couple would? Esp when the alternative may mean they grow up alone in an orphanage?]
What a misleading Q! You mean to say that if no gay marriage, there would be no adoption and therefore child grows up in orphanage? This is like asking what makes you think a secular society is worse off with introduction of sharia? Esp when the alternative is that this secular society will continue to live with crime infestation like rapes, murder etc?
In any case, a gay marriage deprives a child of a father or a mother. You really have to admit that there is a diff between the two. It is the feminist group that keeps harping there is no gender difference. Yeah, really? How about removing the women's charter then?
[And so many children from single-parent families manage to grow up normal, just as many children from traditional families can also have an unhappy childhood if they have irresponsible parents.]
Yes, that is correct. But single parenthood is a diff matter. It could be because of divorce or widowhood. How do you stop that? Single parenthood by choice is also irresponsible. The parent has deprived the child of one other parent.
[Maybe you haven't read in the news about the kind of shit biological parents can do to their own children.]
So? How does that justify same sex marriage? I can also argue you haven't read the news about the shit secular countries have like their high crime rates. Does that lend any credence to introduce harsh sharia laws to Brit to arrest that?
[Also I think you may be confusing "equal" with "identical"- nobody said a homosexual couple was exactly the same as a hetero couple.]
Oh gosh. Again, you can't sense sarcasm. I was mimicking feminists call for equality for women, likening it to gays' call for equality. Yeah, anything a male has, a female must have too. Including we must have toys that are gender neutral, so that girls can buy “boy's toys” like construction sets. Hey, isn't it so much easier to just buy the construction set for the girl instead of pressurizing the maketeers of the toy to redesign their package? Nooooo, to femmes, it must be IDENTICAL.
Likewise, to gays, it must be identical. Just because it is legal to penetrate female anus, it must be legal to penetrate male anus. Well, if that is unfair, I suggest make it illegal to penetrate BOTH male and female anus. The female has a right to dignity too, no? After all, how many women really like to be penetrated there?
LFT,
DeleteI really think that gays are pushing something for the benefit of just a fraction of a fraction of society. How many gays have intention to settle down with their life partner? Considering gays are a minority, and that gays who want to settle down with their partner a minority within a minority, isn't the gay community wasting a lot of resources and effort just to benefit a tiny weeny fraction of a fraction of a population?
Would it not be better and resourceful helping the gay community, by educating very aggressively that penile penetration in rectum is very high risk? Then of course we have to leave it to the individual if he still wants to go through that risk.
You posted
[If gays can get married tomorrow in Singapore, nothing will change in your life]
Let's do the consistency test again. If sharia is implemented in UK, nothing will change in you life. You know it. You lived in Singapore with the sharia. You still have both hands, you were not stoned to death because of your sexual orientation, you could have ham and bacon, you could booze. What's so bad about sharia in UK? But you did show aversion. Why? So if you are justified to be averse to sharia in UK because you are so used to secular life without sharia, why can't mainly conservative Sporeans also be averse to gay marriage because we are use to life without it? Why apply one principle to sharia but a different principle to gay marriage?
In any case, we also do have gays who are against gay marriages. You can google that one if you wish. However I would like to give this link because it is a high profile one - http://allenbwest.com/2015/03/gay-designers-dolce-and-gabbana-come-out-against-gay-marriage-and-parenting/
Gay Designers Dolce and Gabbana come out against gay marriage and parenting
RDH:
DeleteYou are wrong and you're an idiot.
You seem to be of the opinion whereby, "if I shout loud enough and repeat myself often enough, then I must be right."
It doesn't work like that in real life, and it doesn't work here.
You're a fucking idiot and I've clearly run out of patience with your homophobic hateful tirade. I have no desire to spend any more time and energy dealing with your ridiculous arguments, your lies and your hatred.
I don't know what you are trying to do here: if you have come here trying to convince me (and the others) to change our minds, then you have clearly failed to win both hearts and minds with your very poor arguments and lies.
If you have come here to convince me that I can never change your mind through my blogging - you know what, I kinda already knew that - but guess what? We also have plenty of people in the UK who are dead set against gay marriage the way you are and I am so so extremely glad that I live in a country where those people will just have to shut up and sit down and get on with their pathetic little lives whilst gay and lesbian couples up and down the UK can happily get married.
I am glad I live in the civilized world and I feel so sorry for Singaporeans who have to live in the same country as you - not just LGBT Singaporeans but people like Delia Toh, who are straight but have the unfortunate misfortune of having to live with stupid people like you RDH.
And you know what? I was tempted to censor you (I have to approve all comments here because of the high volume of spam I get), but I won't because I think it is clear for everyone to see how misinformed your hideous ugly lies are, how warped your mind is and what a hateful bigot you are. So as Delia wondered when my patience would run out with you, well it just has. I can't argue with someone as ridiculous and fucking stupid like you - I may as well be arguing with a dog, I think I might get more intelligence out of a dog.
You know LIFT, I give him credit- he at least knows what feminism is (which is usually something you cannot expect from logically-confused homophobes). Except once again he's extremely confused about the definitions of "equal" and "identical".
DeleteTo Red Dot Heartlander, I think it is wrong to assume that gay rights movement in Singapore is primarily due to foreigners trying to impose their lifestyles and laws on us, or a foreign agenda that invades Singapore. I thought it is clearly a Singaporean issue, so you can't compare it to Islamic nations asking for sharia to be implemented in host nations because it's not foreigners that are asking for change in Singapore, but Singaporeans themselves.
DeleteBut with that being said, let us assume for a moment that this gay rights movement is indeed being kickstarted by foreign influence. Even in that situation, despite it being foreign-influenced, Singaporeans should still consider whether it is good change, or bad change, and then make the decisions. Not all foreign-influenced things are bad. I believe foreigners can still influence positively, though some are bad.
In the end, you are right that majority decides, but that doesn't mean activism or debate should stop even if a majority has decided at this point, since decisions and public opinion can sway over time.
This brings me to my next point that it seems to me that you are viewing this as a majority-minority situation. But in my opinion, this is an issue of rights. By the same argument, you can argue that if Singapore chooses to be a racist country, then no one should devoid us to be racist, because the majority has chosen to be racist. That backward countries that criminalise women that got raped just works that way because majority has decided.
Red Dot:
DeleteYou are right. I had meant to say that Sharia law will affect all members of the Muslim community. However, gay marriages will only affect those members of the gay community who CHOOSE to get married. That is the difference.
Also, Sharia law favors men. It will be a step back for Muslim women in the UK to have to live under Sharia law. Finally, whilst Singapore's background goes back to when it was a Malay village (and thus it has Islamic roots), and Malaysia Is practically a dictatorial Islamic state, and countries in the Middle East are predominantly Islamic KINGDOMS OF MEN, the UK is not and never was. The UK has a good secular legal system that protects all members of society --- women, men, and children. Sharia law has no place in the UK. It is NOT an Islamic state. It has NO Islamic roots.
As for penile penetration and HIV = AIDS and all that misinformation --- I will only say this: this is not the 1980s. Read up and get educated.
My guess is you are a Muslim man living in Singapore wishing for the good old days when women were mere chattels and ought to be whipped if she as much as looks at the butcher. Fundamental Sharia law ought to fix that sort of slutty behaviour, right? Off with her head! Like I said, it's just a guess. No need to get all bothered if I am wrong. And yes, yes, I know not all Muslims think like this. I am saying that YOU do.
People like you are the reason why Limpeh and myself and thousands of well-educated individuals have left the island. Imagine having to live amongst ignorance every day. It would be very frustrating, I have tried to be reasonable and patient with you, but you are dead set on imposing your homophobic views on the posters. I hope you will one day wake up and realise how misinformed you have been. May Jesus have mercy on your soul for your condemnation of the gay community.
A response to the 3 main points of Limpeh in favour of Gay Marriage.
ReplyDelete1) Isn't Singapore supposed to be a secular society, where all citizens are equal before the law regardless of race, language or religion?
Response: Equality is not absolute. The difference in treatment do not violate the right to equality, if it satisfies the justification test (Justice v Yau Yuk Lung [2006]) The justification test is based on proportionality, whereby i) there is a legitimate aim, ii) a rational connection between the aim and the measure, iii) the measure is no more than necessary (R v Man Wai Keung [1992])
For i) the legitimate aim is to prevent HIV transmission. It is well documented that Gays are prone to extremely high HIV rates. Gay represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html). This is because anal sex is 18 times more likely to transmit HIV.
For ii) there is a rational connection between disapproving gay marriages and the prevention of HIV. Disapproving gay marriages may help to reduce the number of gays in Singapore. Gays may chose to move out of Singapore in order to get married. If the number of gays are reduced, there is less gay sex and less HIV transmission in Singapore.
iii) The measure is no more than necessary. Given that HIV transmission carries serious consequences, this justifies more serious preventive measures. Furthermore, all other rights are premised upon the right to life. Hence, the right to life would outweigh other concerns, including the right to marriage and equality etc.
The point is that there is no infringement of equality, so long as it is justified. Obviously, there are more reasons other than HIV, that are against Gay marriages. Gay marriages will come at a cost to society.
2) On one hand, PM Lee claims that Singapore is a conservative society (I don't actually disagree with that point) - yet on the other hand, he contradicts himself by claiming that gay people in Singapore are free from harassment and discrimination. You can't have it both ways PM Lee: when you have a conservative society that is anti-gay, then homophobia is rife and gay people suffer from homophobia in Singapore everyday.
Response: There may not be a contradiction. The assumption of "conservative people will harass and discriminate gays" may not be true. Conservative people are people who are averse to change and holds traditional values. But that does not follow that they will necessarily harass and discriminate gays. The argument can go both ways. It is possible that people with traditional values, tend to be more respectful of others. Thus, they are less likely to harass and discriminate others. It is possible that conservative people will only merely disapprove of homosexuals.
3) PM Lee simply doesn't understand how democracy works. This is perhaps Singapore never had a true multi-party democracy the way other countries in the West have. You can never ever have 100% consensus on any issue in a democracy - otherwise laws will never ever change.
Response: There is no need to have 100% consensus to pass a law. I do not think that Lee was wrong to say that a consensus is required. Lee did not say that it has to be a 100% one. You read in a more narrow meaning and proceeded to debunk an argument that does not belong to Lee. In Singapore, in order to pass a statute, you need the consensus of the majority of MPs. It would not be wrong to say that without the consensus of the majority of MPs, pro-gay marriage statues cannot be passed. Therefore, consensus is definitely required, though not to the extent that you thought. Furthermore, since Lee and his gang is voted into office by Singaporeans, *legally speaking*, they can represent the popular opinion and assert that the gay-marriage lacks popular support.
Steven, allow me to offer the following points in response:
Delete1. Great, so you're telling me, tough shit, the law says that not everyone is equal before the eyes of the law: we're just going to refer to some cases where we've set a precedent to be able to say, "nope, you can forget about any claim for equality or secularism in Singapore, get used to it, we make the rules". Is that the kinda country you wanna live in?
1i. You have just contradicted yourself and have shown very poor understanding of HIV transmission issues: HIV transmission happens when people have many sexual partners and they have unprotected sex: one way to combat HIV transmission is by encouraging them to settle down and be monogamous with just one partner. Note that this applies to straight and gay people alike - if you tell gay people that they have no hope of settling down in a long term relationship in a hateful, homophobic society that does not recognize their relationship, then you are reducing the chances of gay relationships becoming long-tern, stable, monogamous ones and you are in fact increasing the incidences of gay men staying single and having multiple partners. So that's where your argument falls apart. Gay men are gay because they are attracted to members of the same sex - they do not become gay because you allow same-sex marriage.
1ii) That's easy for you to say, a very well educated, highly skilled gay man like me an waltz gaily into Western country and find a job, settle down and get married here. But how many gay Singaporeans are in that position to be able to move away to a country like the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden or New Zealand? Even if you were to go out of your way and criminalize homosexuals (and start throwing them in jail) - okay, you can drive out the well educated, highly skilled and economically mobile ones who can move abroad, but there are a large number of gay Singaporeans who are not very educated, not very highly skilled and these people are stuck in Singapore whether you like them or not.
1iii) If you are really so keen on reducing HIV transmission, then you need to fund HIV prevention, education & awareness programmes. Simply telling gays that "you can't get married" is not going to make any difference - they are going to go out, have fun, have sex regardless of whether or not they can get married or not in Singapore. Are you under some kind of impression that the gays in Singapore are not having casual sex just because they can't get married? Duh. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to want to drag HIV into the argument - but really, you have shown so little understanding about the issue about HIV transmission within the gay community, you sound like some kind of little old lady in a church who has never ever met a gay person, much less learnt anything about the factors contributing to HIV transmission within the gay community. If you want to talk about it, come to me, I am a gay man and am happy to discuss the issue with you and enlighten you. Now, let me post this and we'll move onto part 2.
And now Steven King, part 2:
Delete2. I believe that it is a moral duty of everyone not to incite hatred or violence against any other group of people: even if say, a mother keeps telling her children, "gays are disgusting, immoral and unnatural" (as my own mother did), she can say, "oh I am only doing this in the confines of my house, I am not going out insulting gay people or beating up gay people, I am just disapproving of them in the privacy of my own home." Yet she is inciting hatred, intolerance and bigotry with her words. If you are telling me that there are some conservative people who will shut their mouths and not let a single other person (not even another family member), know that they disapprove of gays, then fair enough - but even in the case of my mother, she couldn't keep her mouth shut. Thankfully, I was there to challenge her and tell her she was totally wrong.
3. Interesting point you raised about how the law making process in Singapore works: but I was talking about PM Lee's defence of the status quo just because he is afraid of offending the conservative and religious groups. My point is simple: in other countries where gay marriage has been introduced, the religious and conservative groups made a lot of noise and then they eventually just shut up and forgot about it once we all got used to the fact that gays can now marry. Such is the nature of democracy - you have to piss some people off in the process of democracy and if that means telling the religious groups that they're not going to get what they want, so be it. Now in the case of Singapore, I don't think that the democratic system works the way you claim it does.
I refer you to the case of the White Paper to increase Singapore's population to 6.9 million. Most Singaporeans felt strongly that this was way too much, that Singapore was already crowded enough at 5.4 million and that raising that figure to nearly 7 million is a mad idea - guess what the PAP MPs did? They voted it through anyway in spite of the majority of Singaporeans being against the idea (with only Inderjit Singh MP abstaining - he didn't actually have the balls to vote against it, but at least he abstained). The democratic system in Singapore is broken as it is anyway, so any kind of "legally speaking" argument about how the system represents public/popular opinion leaves me very cynical having seen how dysfunctional it was when it came to the White Paper case.
PS. Good luck with the 6.9 million people you have to share your country with. I hope you like PRCs.
1. The reason HIV is so prevalent among gay people is precisely because there is a lack of recognition for same-sex relationships hence gay people are not equipped with proper knowledge on safe sex. Pretty sure I've read some research on this before. Being gay has no bearing on how promiscuous you are (a risk factor for STDs).
Delete2. JHarrassment and discrimination come in many different forms. Stigmas are prevalent around society, words like "gay"/"fag" are commonly thrown about as insults. Having listened to a few stories from the LGBT community, they have trouble coming to terms with themselves and with family. People thought I was a lesbian when I was in my teens and I was treated very differently as such. Everything from the common microagressions to outright rejection from the people you love (like family) all undermine their worth as humans as compared to us straight people.
3. The problem with allowing MPs to represent popular consensus, is that the board of MPs usually does not have the same representation as the population. Take for example, what percentage of our cabinet consists of women, as opposed to the percentage population of women in Singapore? And who represents the voices of our migrant workers and maids in cabinet? So how representative can they be of "popular opinion"?
Delia
Delete[quote]
The reason HIV is so prevalent among gay people is precisely because there is a lack of recognition for same-sex relationships hence gay people are not equipped with proper knowledge on safe sex.
[unquote]
The reason why HIV is so prevalent among gays is that the rectum is not meant for sex. The lining tears easily, whereas the walls of the vagina are much more resilient. Stop blaming lack of knowlege. Gays are much more aware of the dangers of HIV than you state. It is the unwillingness of gays to use the condom that is the cause. Compare that with hetero men who also are not willing to wear the condom, at least the walls of the vagina don't tear that easily. That's the real reason why gays have a much higher HIV rate than heteros. Accept that fact.
Oh here we go - Red Dot Heartlander, I hate to be the one who has to fill in the gaps in your sex education, but loads of straight people do anal sex too. It's not like straight men will think, ooh look there's a vagina and an anus, I wonder which one I should insert my penis into? Loads of straight men enjoy anus sex (be it by fucking a woman or having a woman insert things into his anus) and it is far less of a taboo than you actually think, particularly in this day and age when loads of people watch porn on the internet and learn about anal sex that way. Believe you me, there's a LOT of straight porn featuring anal content out there on the internet.
DeleteWhether you are gay or straight, you should always minimize your exposure to HIV and STDs by practicing safer sex, that means insisting on condom use during sex. Straight men who fuck women without a condom during casual sex risk impregnating the woman, which is a highly irresponsible thing to do if you're not actively trying for a baby - and all you can talk about is the vaginal walls not tearing as easily? Geez. What planet are you on Red Dot Heartlander? You sound like a 70 year old virgin who hasn't ever had any sex before and know virtually nothing about the process of sexual intercourse.
It is fucking hilarious. You know so little about sex and you wanna talk about sex? Fucking hell. I thought it was bad enough when you know so little about Islam and you wanna talk about Sharia law. Now people like you should learn not to embarrass yourselves by going on and on about topics you know little about, that only exposes to the world what a total fucking ignorant idiot you are.
You know, sometimes, I think that the majority of my readers are left-wing liberals like me and I'm but preaching to the choir most of the time - but thank goodness for idiots like you who come and read my blog too, that means I am truly succeeding as a blogger to be able to provoke a debate with people who do not necessarily agree with my progressive left-wing liberal views! Thank you!
LFT,
DeleteOf course I know hetero man engage in anal sex too. But the diff between hetero and homo men is that more often than not, hetero men go for vaginal sex. The hetero has a choice, doesn't he? As for a gay man, what choice does he have?
So if you add the math up, it is 100% anal sex for homo men, while it is x% for hetero men. Zero penile penetration into anus for lesbian of course. Do your math now and reason for yourself why gay men have more chance of HIV than hetero.
Oh yes, it also explains why relaatively very vew lesbians have HIV, compared to gay men, no?
A gay man does have plenty of choices when it comes to sex - he can choose to have non-penetrative sex (there are plenty of things that 2 men can do to each other for hours of sexual pleasure even without anal sex - do I need to educated you about how gay sex works?) or he can choose to do it with a condom on. There are choices and you seem to think that gay men have no choices because you don't know what two gay men get up to in bed: you are allowing your ignorance to dominate your argument, which means your argument is weak to begin with.
DeleteSo no, it is not 100% anal sex for gay men - the reason why gay men have more incidence of HIV than heterosexual men is because of a lack of education, awareness and prevention when it comes to HIV issues. I am a firm believer in sex education to empower people to make informed choices when it comes to their sexual health and even in the west, there is a gap between the quality of the information that straight people have and the ones that gay people have. The problem is a man-made one, to do with the quality of education about sexual health issues: it has far less to do with the thickness of rectal or vaginal walls.
Seriously, do you want to talk about sex when you are clearly a 70 year old virgin who has never even seen another man's penis before?
Red Dot,
DeleteI don’t usually remark on this forum. But having read your arguments, I feel I have to chip in and counter them, lest such spiteful and ill-informed arguments spread even further.
1) Thank you very much for the very eloborate tirade against Islam. You have proven my point to both LIFT and Delia that there are those who are terrified of Muslims in UK. So my point about how UK residents don't want a foreign ideal seeping into their native culture, just like Sporeans don't want a foreign ideal to seep into ours, is now confirmed by your post.
You argued that LIFT lacked consistency in treating similar issues alike because you drew parallels between the uneasiness of the encroachment of an Islamic-based law in the UK and the uneasiness of the encroachment of “gay equality” in Singapore. You argument is fallacious on 2 grounds.
Firstly, as other bloggers have mentioned - these issues are DISSIMILAR, and should NOT be treated consistently. Why? Because the curtailment of personal liberties under Sharia law affects non-Muslims in terms of, say, their liberty to eat pork, whereas the introduction of gay equality in Singapore does not affect heterosexuals a single bit. And no, bruising of your religious feelings doesn’t count, it’s too vexatious.
Secondly, no I do not see it as a foreign ideal, but rather it is a human ideal not to discriminate people based on their sexuality. And yes I am a Singaporean through and through. So I don’t know what you mean by such “foreign ideals seeping into my native culture”.
2) Like I said, whether S377A exists or not, life goes on. But that isn't what the topic of the main thread is. What the main topic is about gay marriage. Now that's going to change the whole essence of the meaning of marriage, which is the all important family man-woman bond. The father-mother-child bond. Now why should we deprive ourselves of this sacrosanct marriage for a minority group of gays? Why should children be deprived of a father or mother in order to have same sex marriage? Dont' act as if the majority of society have nothing to give up just to appease a small minority group.
I do not see how granting marriage rights to homosexuals deprive OURSELVES (hahahaha!) of this father-mother-child bond. For e.g., my bond with my parents will still remain even if gay marriage exists. It does not affect my family fabric a single bit. I really can’t fathom how gay marriage will affect your the bond between you and your parent, unless you are worried that with the legalisation of gay marriage one (or both) of your parents will divorce and get on with a gay marriage, thereby depriving yourself of this “sacrosanct marriage”. Heh. Naughty.
If you are referring to the children who are/will be raised up by same sex couples, let me ask you this - is it better in the interest of a child to be raised up in a loving homosexual couple family or a dysfunctional heterosexual couple? If you truly have the interest of the children at heart, then strive towards social changes that create conducive familial environments instead of harping on the gender of people who makes up the family unit. You have chanted the mantra “a same sex couple will destroy the sanctity of marriage/sacrosanct marriages blah blah blah” ad nauseum. You need much more convincing arguments.
3) By the same argument, I am as qualified to comment on Brit natives and their views on foreign ideals like Islam as limpeh is. Why didn't you say that when LFT objected to my point on that?
DeleteYou are of course free to comment on Brits and their views on Islam, just that others will judge how cogent your arguments are. However, from my perspective, you are either (i) not qualified to comment about UK issues because of your poor understanding of issues and your inability to think critically; or (ii) qualified to comment about UK issues, but it would be a comment that is absurd and would barely persuade anyone. I can’t decide on which.
4) And why do you think I am wrong? You have access to more Sporeans' views than I do? I live here. You live there. I immerse myself with heartland Sporeans. You do not. And you believe I am wrong and you are right? OK. Your delusional belief.
Just because you live in Singapore and you “immerse yourself with heartland Sporeans” does not entitle you to assert that most of the Singaporeans are against gay marriage. This is an extremely weak argument. As others have pointed out, being physically present and living in Singapore does not determine how well you know the country. I have been “immersing myself” with Singaporeans too and I am glad that most of them hold much more progressive ideals than you. So how? I can’t believe even after other bloggers have educated you that living in Singapore does not necessarily mean you know Singapore better than others, you are still persisting with this nonsensical “just because i’m in singapore, i know singapore better than others” argument.
5) That is not marriage evolving. That is marriage decaying. So let's get aid to help these dysfunctional marriages and get them back on their feet. No need to tweak the sanctity of the institution of marriage.
You sound very much like one of those sanctimonious religious fundamentalists around with hocus-pocus like “sanctity of the institution of marriage”. You happen to be one, don’t you? :) Please, spare the others from abiding to your fundamentalist religious tenets. Yes you are free to protect the sanctity of YOUR marriage within your confines, but don’t shove your highfalutin religious concept of marriage into the society.
LFT
Delete[A gay man does have plenty of choices when it comes to sex - he can choose to have non-penetrative sex]
It still doesn't tilt the lopsidedness why homo men have higher HIV rate that hetero men. The main point is that straight men have less anal sex than gays. You have to accept that the sexually active (gay or straight) simply resist condoms. No matter how much education you give, they just don't like to wear it. But because gays engage in anal sex at a higher rate, naturally they will add to the HIV stats at a disproportionate figure. Please do not live in denial.
To back up my case that it is nothing to do with education, but simply a choice not to wear the condom, I give you a link from Sg's very own well-known activist, Alex Au - http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-964.htm
”This being the case, gratification is of paramount importance. The orgasm, the high, is what matters. Some guys think that the rubber condom gets in the way of the "feeling" (some straight guys do too) and so they choose to bareback.”
“Bareback” refers to the practice of having sex without a condom. There you are. Not my words, but from a gay activist who knows what what he's talking about.
ghoby
[these issues are DISSIMILAR, and should NOT be treated consistently. Why? Because the curtailment of personal liberties under Sharia law affects non-Muslims in terms of, say, their liberty to eat pork, whereas the introduction of gay equality in Singapore does not affect heterosexuals a single bit.]
Hello, you all accuse me of “not knowing this and that”, but you blatantly make ignorant posts? This is not the first time I am telling you people. Sharia exists in secular Sg and yes, non-Muslims (some Muslims too!) get to eat their favourite bacon and ham, as well as drink themselves silly, knocking themselves out. What curtailment?
Yet....yet.... you all are soooooo scared to have sharia implemented!!! Now if you feel that way because you want to preserve your lifestyle, which is secularism, what is wrong if Sporeans want to preserve their lifestyle, which is conservative family and marriage structure? What? Gay marriage doesn't affect hetero marriage? But sharia doesn't affect non-Muslims either! Why the “no” for one and “yes” for the other?
Consistency, man. Consistency, please!
[is it better in the interest of a child to be raised up in a loving homosexual couple family or a dysfunctional heterosexual couple?]
It is better for a child to be raised in any loving environment than a non-loving one. I can argue the same. Is it better to live in peaceful loving society with sharia, or a violent crime infested society under secularism? Still sharia averse? Because you don't want “foreign ideas” seeping into your secular lifestyle? Once again, that's what conservative Sporeans don't want either - “foreign ideas” seeping in!
Consistency, please!
Oh yes, ghoby, you mock me for “not knowing Sg” when I live in Sg. Yet, you claim to immerse in heartlands and don't know non-Muslims are not affected by the sharia set by the govt and MUIS? Who's the boxed up one? Tells us alot about you, doesn't it?
Oh dear, the moment you brought up the HIV and gay thing, you just lost it. "Gays are prone to extremely high HIV rates". " Gays may chose to move out of Singapore in order to get married. If the number of gays are reduced, there is less gay sex and less HIV transmission in Singapore." With these two statements, it is already a major flaw in your argument. What do you mean by gays are prone to extremely high rates of HIV? 50%? 60? That is blatantly untrue. The same CDC report mentioned that 57% of those living with HIV were gay. Have you considered that the reason why it looks high is only because these people have access to treatment and hence are able to lead a near normal survival? That HIV drugs are being covered and reimbursed by American national insurance and medicaid unlike in Singapore? Have you also considered that because the HIV and gay issue had been drummed so hard that a disproportionately large number of HIV test takers are gay? More test, more detection. Besides, the CDC report also mentioned that the risk of HIV transmission is highest with unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners engaged in unprotected anal sex. How do you justify inequality against gays when there are heterosexuals who also engage in anal intercourse or homosexuals who do not practice anal sex? And if you continue to justify discrimination to gay people and force some of them out, those who cannot leave will stop having sex? I am afraid that is not the case in the real world.
Delete"Gay marriages will come at a cost to society." I have already highlighted on the misperception that gay people equals HIV. The way to further reduce HIV transmission is not by criminalising gay sex but by education and awareness. How can such educational measures work if you keep preaching and judging gay people that their sexual activities are illegal? Will that stop people from having sex or just turn them off completely because they think you are not sincere? Besides, even if gay people are allowed to form civil partnerships and get married, does this cause any further implications to heterosexuals? Will it cause heterosexuals to lose their rights to marriage? It does not.
"Furthermore, since Lee and his gang is voted into office by Singaporeans, *legally speaking*, they can represent the popular opinion and assert that the gay-marriage lacks popular support." By using this argument, you are effectively saying that the govt is not able to analyse and think beyond the surface. Heck, most Singaporeans don't want and don't support the move to push the population to 6.9M but yet, parliament still pushed the unpopular PWP through. Hmm and if you do a referendum, I am pretty confident most of us do not want our CPF to be locked up and for minimum sum to keep going up. Yet such unpopular policies still get pushed. Thus the majority do not support conundrum is lost when the policy you are trying to support will result in discrimination to another. The PAP govt had already lost their moral highgrounds in this case when there are so many examples that unpopular policies have been forced down despite ground opposition and unhappiness. Besides, I will repeat the same point I have always made.
Homosexuals are not asking for special rights, they are just requesting for equal access to the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals. Asking for these rights to union and partnership in no way reduce the privilege of marriage to heterosexuals. Homosexuals are not interested in turning other people homosexual but homophobics are certainly interested in promoting more homophobia.
@Red dot
Delete[what is wrong if Sporeans want to preserve their lifestyle, which is conservative family and marriage structure?]
Stop trying to speak on behalf of all Singaporeans . I'm a straight Singaporean and I'm personally insulted by this remark. And what is wrong with gay or other modern families trying to preserve their lifestyle WITHOUT infringing on the rights of conservatives and traditional marriage structures.??Sheesh it's always so black/white with you
[What? Gay marriage doesn't affect hetero marriage? But sharia doesn't affect non-Muslims either! Why the “no” for one and “yes” for the other?]
Because not having Sharia Law in UK, does not deprive Muslims from practicing their religion freely, (or with any other religions for that matter). And please note that the only reason Sharia law was even implemented in it's limited manner in SG, was to appease the native Malay Muslim community who were initially upset that their way of life was threatened by the influx of the other races. But I digress. The fact of the matter is, can UK implement Sharia Laws for Muslims? Yes... but the question is... is it really necessary? Muslims in UK still enjoy more rights than the gays in Singapore, where the latter are 'legally' not even permitted to have sex or marry. I would go far and say UK Muslims even have more rights than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia, where their women are barred from driving or travelling alone without a male relative.
Guys, given that we have exceed 50 comments, any new comments will not be automatically loaded until you click on the words 'Load more' (in blue) at the very bottom of the page - so please don't panic if you can't see your new comments.
ReplyDelete@Steven, do you know how legislation and all voting in Singapore works? In PAP there is a party whip and all MPs cannot vote against it regardless of what their personal or their constituents views might be. How do you think the population white paper got passed?
ReplyDeleteIn fact time and time again LHL has said that they are not a populist party so regardless of what the citizens want or do not want gets passed regardless. That is not to say that if they have the political will to do so they can abolise section 377A.
In fact if PAP really want to know what the majority of Singapore want and not just what PAP supporters want they can call for a national referendum just like Ireland did for same-sex marriage just recently. But of course they would risk offending the religious people who more often than not tend to be their main support base. 60% is quite shaky and they can't risk losing more votes at the next GE.
PM Lee says Singapore is not ready for gay marriage, which is a debatable statement. But let's say Singapore is indeed not ready, why is there nothing done to help Singapore get ready? Why is 377A still not abolished? Why is it that so little is done to progress the rights of the LGBTQA community in Singapore?
ReplyDeleteAlthough difficult to change one's opinions, people's opinions are still malleable. I think Singapore lacks public education on the LGBTQA community, which can not only recognise the community, but also to help more people understand and accept them. If one day, a Singapore Minister of Education will implement education about LGBTQA relationships in civic classes in schools, I will salute him/her.
I used to be very homophobic, perhaps due to the way I was brought up. Today, I don't care if a person is LGBTQAS (S for straight) because we are all just humans; the only exception is when I am interested in dating that person. So I am an example of someone whose views can change significantly with an open mind. It's achievable! So I hope the government can be active in progressing the rights of the LGBTQA community, rather than maintaining the status quo because they are afraid to offend the super conservative group.
It is sad that many Singaporeans are apathetic about issues that do not directly affect them. I wish we would all be offended by PM Lee's statement and the government's stance on gay rights.
Thanks Neon Gas, I love your reply. It gives me hope that there are people like you and Delia Toh still in Singapore - I guess when I read the hateful comments from people like Red Dot Heartlander, there's a part of me that just wants to say, "fuck you and that's why I am living in the UK today where we have gay marriage and I am glad I live in a civilized society - you can have Singapore, I want no part of it" but then again, like all societies, we have a spectrum of opinions in the UK too and there are people in the UK who hate the idea of gay marriage as much as Red Dot Heartlander does and I remember seeing them protest outside parliament when it was being voted on. After the vote went through, a group of us went to shake their hands in a "we win, you lose but hey we'll be nice and shake your hands" gesture - that's why the law has got to change, to put people like Red Dot Heartlander in the losing camp, not the winning side.
DeleteI notice that whenever rational arguments fail against gay marriage, people like Steven and Red Dot tend to bring up the so called HIV trump card. Ironically, HIV does not discriminate between gays and straights like you guys do. Sexual promiscuity is the real cause of concern and gay marriage as others here have mentioned, can help to encourage members of the gay community to stick to a single partner. How is that a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteThank you Ayhtas K. Totally. These people don't have the faintest clue how HIV transmission works and how crucial awareness & prevention programmes are when it comes to educating young people (gay & straight alike) about HIV.
DeleteYou know what the worst part is? Even after people like you and I prove clearly that Steven and Red Dot are talking rubbish, have not made valid points - they are too stupid and stubborn to even acknowledge it and they're covering their ears with their hands and shouting LALALALALALA I DON'T WANNA HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.... Can you see why I am so frustrated with Singapore and decided I didn't want to spend my adult years in a country with such bigotry?
Hi Red Dot Heartlander, I am an asexual Singaporean in a long distance relationship with someone in Canada. What are you going to do? My kind of relationship doesn't even produce out any babies - gasp, there's not even any chance any accidents.
ReplyDeleteIf we get married tomorrow because we want to live together in the same country, it would exactly be like two gays getting married. You don't receive an SMS notification that I am getting married. Why do you care? It is my family and my partner. And also, apparently, the normal nuclear family Singapore has isn't very effective in ensuring SG children's upbringing. I have a classmate with very rich hetereosexual parents who allowed him to study anything he wants - but lolz, he ended up abusing drugs and falling into bad company. On the other hand, I know of someone who grew up with a single parent, a Dad who had to struggled throught awkward moments like teaching her period and stuff - she is now a scholar with a GPA of 3.8 in NUS.
Hi Limpeh, just so happened to come across your post on gay marriage. It is indeed a rather interest read where you certainly captured most of the usual arguments to support gay marriage. I would just like to add a bit of my two cents here if you don't mind. Before I start I would just like to put a disclaimer that I am still a pretty young Singaporean so my views could be wrong due to a lack of complete information.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason gay marriage is not legal here and that gay activities are generally discouraged by the government is due to multiple reasons and most of the pertinent ones are hardly ever mentioned in our media.
Firstly, like you mentioned, SIngapore supposedly a secular democratic state. If we were to go in line with that argument then religion should not be used as a reason to ban gay marriage by the government. Instead as a supposed democracy, a vote should be called and all Singaporeans should as a whole decide whether gay marriage is acceptable and the populist choice should be implemented.
However, the truth is we are not a complete true democracy and neither do we practice the pledge that we say every day in school. "Regardless of race, language or religion" A while back the idea of who a Singaporean was is easy to comprehend. But now with the influx of so many foreigners from PRC and India many Singaporeans have been discriminating against them; even those foreigners who gained citizenship or PR status. So in this aspect, perhaps we are still not sure of who we really are?
Also, the Singaporean ideology has been to known to be fastidiously pragmatic. We are one who would not bother with issues that don't affect us directly aka the NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome. So I daresay a majority of the people still prefer status quo than change. With regards to the Singapore's gay policy, despite having the infamous section 377A the authorities have yet to prosecute anyone based on it. But of cause all we have is the public prosecutor's word and a past history to take comfort in. It means that gay people can still be targeted by it. So perhaps the first baby steps that should be taken would be to abolish that particular code rather than even asking for gay marriage. Also as long as that section is there can the so called harassment and discrimination be labelled as hate speech when gay lifestyle is kind of enshrined as illegal by the law? Based on an old poll (http://goo.gl/k6wdpn) I found most are lukewarm towards the so called gay lifestyle and even less so towards gay marriage. Of course the results could have been massaged or be subjected to sampling bias but that’s all I could find.
At the same time, I think Singaporeans have not given homosexuality much thought and much less decide whether it is by nature or nurture. Also, gays here are not as prevalent in terms of numbers or perhaps are still hiding in their closets. This public's lack of desire to recognize that this group of people exist makes it even harder to change sentiments about them isn't it? This was also somewhat similar to the time when voting rights did not extend to women.
Now I shall go into the real reason why the government is still not keen on allowing gay marriage. It is very much similar to the albeit comical arguments made by senators or political leaders in the America. By recognizing the legitimacy of gay marriage it means that their marriage should be given certain benefits that heterosexual couples get like the HDB issue. I suspect that it was during LYK's time that most of these social or family planning policies were created where a family is understood to be that of a heterosexual couple for the purpose of procreation. Much of the benefits given by the government is geared towards incentivizing procreation; something gays can't do. So the truth is even if gay marriage was allowed, most of our policies are not going to work. Homes in Singapore are really expensive and quite possible out of reach of many Singaporeans in terms of the resale market of HDBs.
Dear Neoplasm,
DeleteI was going to write a reply but realized that many of the points I was going to raise with you have already been covered in a previous post about why Singaporeans are, well, plain wrong on the issue.
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/section-377a-and-island-mentality.html
and more reasons why mention of 'status quo' just irks the hell outta me:
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-card-tower-mentality-what-keeps-pap.html
In short, yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah, Singaporeans are wrong and I can't be asked to wait for them to realize, oh shit we're wrong, so I left for greener pastures.
Personally, I think there are too many issues at hand and the current government is not willing to tackle and is only willing to acknowledge that such an issue exists. As always if pragmatism were to triumph in this issue I reckon only when a large majority of Singaporeans start questioning about gay rights will the government conduct any real steps to explore ways to expand current policies to fit gays in. For now with the volatile global economic situation the government is probably more content to find ways to maintain Singapore's edge and to ensure that less well-off Singaporeans are not neglected.
ReplyDeletePerhaps that is why the guardian recently labelled Singapore as a Faustian deal which is what it seems to be superficially. My personal view is that gay activities should not be criminalized and perhaps we could acknowledge civil unions of gays but currently definitely not gay marriage. However, I do believe that with time when the right policies are created I may even accept gay marriage. As per to why many people are against gays I propose this reason. It is very easy to condemn a person for doing something you know you will never do. That’s why in law they talk about degree of culpability and it is way easier to empathize with someone for doing something you might commit in those circumstances.
I guess rather than saying that all homophobes are religious we need to find out first if that is true. There could be atheists who are against gays too. To me people’s views on gay is their choice much like how they choose their religion. Unfortunately even in religion is there total freedom of choice? Singaporeans are definitely largely only exposed to the religion their parents practiced so does this mean that they are denied religious freedom? I had been pondering this issue for a large part of my secondary school years and yet found no answers. Perhaps someone could help me out here.
I shall apologize to u in advance for any grammar mistakes I made but please do think through the points I raised. It’s pretty late here and I should have been asleep hours ago so my words may well be gibberish. :P But YOLO :) Some issues are worth thinking about especially as Singapore is moving towards the clear need of defining who we are and what we stand for.