I used to consider yawningbread a respectable political activist site but today, this piece has completely changed my view entirely. It has opened my eyes to see deeper beneath the surface of things.
Did it occur to the author of yawningbread that his very piece showed the very narrow-mindedness that Christians are accused of? Is he even aware that that the moment he starts attacking people’s religious beliefs, he is the one who is slamming shut the door to detente and dialogue? But I know, it is already a pre-conceived notion that there can be no dialogue on this matter with the Christian community or even individual Christians because of their religious stand. Where did the view that Christians have not given more serious thoughts on the matter beyond those their beliefs come from? A few losers professing to be Christians who keeps babbling Bible verses and can’t keep their cool when they can’t hold their own ground in a discussion?
I have always asked myself if atheists or non Christians had put up keep377a.com and equivalents, would it have garnered as much negative reaction? Time and again, when one stands for keeping 377A, the very first thing that is attacked, would be the person’s religious beliefs. They are labeled with terms like * put your ‘favorite’ religion here * loonies, homophobes, conservatives (or ultra-conservatives), narrow-minded, backwards, not up to the times, reactive, counter-progressive, uneducated, under-informed, discriminating, self-righteous moralist and perhaps even ignorant or unreasonable! Are those who stand for keeping 377A expected to stand back and not make a decision on what a future they want to have for their children? Is the future the pro-repeal community offers the only one everyone else can choose? Did I not hear that there should be freedom of choice? Or is anyone who chooses because of his religious conviction not free to do so now?
Talking about children and the future… it amazes (or amuses me) that some even resort to arguments – or curses – like “Wait until you have kids like them then you know!” Duh!
When I looked back on how I come to my decision to sign on keep377a, I realised that even when discussing this among my own Christian friends, none of us had ever started Bible-thumping to convince one another on ‘just how right’ our stand is. It has never occurred to any of us that our beliefs is all we will ever need for our decisions. After all, even God said in the Bible, “Let us reason together.” And in fact, I suspect some of us might find it hard to reconcile Old Testament views on homosexuality against the teachings of love by Jesus Christ Himself.
Anyway, we also have non-Christian friends we share our opinions with. Among most of the friends I have spoken with, they are other fence-sitters or supporters of keeping 377A. Anyway, are we all loonies when we stand for keeping 377A because of some of the following concerns?
- Will repealing of 377A be the last of it? What’s next? Same sex marriage and adoption? Who will give society the assurance that this will be last that society will have to give? You might ask what is there to fear from that, but before that, what assurance is there for them not to fear?
- Will repealing of 377A see an increase in a form of ‘prostitution’ that caters to this need? (I know it’s mere conjecture to bring up this point and it might not necessarily happen, but if – big if – it does happen, who will bear responsibility for the problem? Even before that, who can assure those who are for keeping 377A that it won’t happen?)
- Related to pt. 2, not everyone who have male-male sexual relations are homosexuals. There are also bi-sexuals involved. And there are also those who are into perverted forms of sexual pleasures. Was this taken into consideration? Unless this is addressed, no one can fault those who felt repulsed by this to stand for keeping 377A, right? After all, aren’t laws in place just to prevent bad eggs from running rampant? (And I am in no way suggesting homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts!!)
- Most Singaporeans do not really care what goes on behind close doors. But the complete repeal of 377A would mean repealing also the part that criminalises the act in public. How can anyone be expected to stand for that when they wouldn’t even stand for public acts of sexual intercourse in public by heterosexuals? In fact, while I suspect there are sections on the Penal Code that addresses points 2 and 3, the pro-repeal community has failed dismally to provide that information to the anti-repeal community to assuage their concerns.
- Some people choose to keep the status quo are concerned that they do not have complete picture of the matter to make a decision. They are concerned that if they have made a decision now, that decision may not be revocable in the future if their decision is later proven to be made on incomplete or erroneous information. You might want to tell these people to sit on the fence instead but they choose not to do so for fear their non-participation may create the same result as with deciding for the wrong side. After all, we have to be responsible for the future we leave for our future generations.
All I have to say is, if yawningbread is a representation of the pro-repeal group, then I am utterly disappointed on how they are reacting to their detractors both as a Christian, and as a citizen of this country who would like to see an alternate political future for this country other than that of the Tale-PAP.
2 comments