Keep377a.com (IV)

2 comments

This is getting tiresome.

lbandit wrote a blog post in rebuttal to some of my earlier postings so I’ll address some of it. (This will be my final post on this subject since I have already stopped wasting my time commenting in any blogs with this topic anyway and there’s no point for me to rave on and on like a broken record. After all, several of my friends told me, you can’t have everyone be aware of what you are aware of.)

I just need to point out several things (I’ll make it quick since I would really prefer to be able to arrive for on time for lunch with a friend):

  1. “The idea that religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms is fallacious.”

    I never said “religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms”. If you have problem with my stand, fine, you are free to object. But who are you to attack the basis I come to my conclusion? It is almost as good as, if you surname is WTF, and I said “All you WTF loonies are incapable of reason.”

    Perhaps you would stand for that.

  2. Bereft of any religious beliefs, why should homosexuals be denied the right of marriage?”

    Because even when bereft of any religious beliefs, one needs no further prompting to understand that the duty of population replacement is on heterosexuals. And Singapore already have a low population growth itself. Would that be a good reason enough to justify the argument that such a lifestyle is not against the well being of this country, and by extension same sex marriages and adoption as well? The babies are not going to fall out of the sky from a bird.

    Go ahead and argue for all these “freedoms” but I would prefer you also take up the responsibility of procreation and also, with the decline of population, the tax burden which everyone else would have to take up as well.

    Call me selfish, but before that, please make yourself the most selfless person on this planet.

  3. “You might not have explicitly said that homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts, but you’ve most certainly made the association (and by inference, made the suggestion) in that one paragraph.”

    Blast! Damned if I do. Damned if I don’t.

    I can’t really imagine if I didn’t say that, would it have been better. The next time I’ll just not make any disclaimers and let you jokers assail me before I make them. It might just save me the trouble of doing so anyway. After all, it doesn’t seem to matter that I already said so and I am still accused of it.

    But suddenly, Sigmund Freud’s ‘Moral Projection’ theory, comes to mind. I wonder, whether the people who never believe disclaimers do so because they never meant what they say on their disclaimers?

  4. “If you believe that 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution, then by the same line of argument, you should propose for the criminalization of all heterosexual sex to help curb prostitution.”.

    I hear this preposterous argument (and variations of it) so often I can only shake my head and laugh. After all, I didn’t say 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution. I am simply saying 377A should be kept to prevent the introduction of new forms of prostitution. Maybe I should write this in Chinese:

    刑事法第377A章因该留下来防止新类型的卖淫出现，但它本身并不是用来对付卖淫活动。

    If you don’t understand Chinese, sorry lah.

  5. “The same laws that allow the court to charge heterosexual sex in public will allow the court to charge homosexual sex in public. There is no need to keep 377A which criminalize consenting homosexual sex in private.”

    I have no doubt there are laws charging heterosexuals for gross indecency in public. Will you be so kind to show to us those sections which will ensure that, so I can be assured no loophole in the wording will allow some people to get away with it? Thank you.

Yaaaay!! I am done. Now let me go and do my 10 minutes shit + shower so I’ll be in time for the lunch!

“嫦娥一号” 顺利升空

Leave a comment

自从 1959年 1月 二日 前苏联 “月球一号” (Luna 1) 探测器掠月而过至 1976年 8月 18日 前苏联 “月球24号” (Luna 24) 最后一次登月，全世界迄今共进行了 123 次月球探测活动。但直到今天，地球的卫星上的任何资源都尚未在人类生活中得到直接应用。

沉寂了 31年 后，在 2007年 10月24日傍晚 18:05，中国自主研制的第一个月球探测器 – “嫦娥一号”卫星计划 – 在西昌卫星发射中心由长征三号甲火箭托举顺利升空。

月球，将来将会有中国人的身影啦！

Keep377a.com (III)

2 comments


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?

  1. 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?

  2. 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?)

  3. 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!!)

  4. 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.

  5. 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.


keep377a.com (II)

2 comments


It appears that the petition at keep377a.com has now closed as of 0110hrs, 22nd Oct 2007. I however, did not see the same statement at this time on repeal377a.com though it did say ask that for interested parties to sign the open letter online, the dateline has been extended to 21st October, 2007.

There are a total of 15,743 signatures on keep377a vs 8,097 signatures on repeal377a. The ratio is 1.94:1. The results are pretty clear that even for now, Singapore society has stood for Section 377a. (Some might cry foul and say that keep377a has cheated by mobilising their supporters in the Christian community, but it appeared to me that repeal377a has gotten more publicity than keep377a itself anyhow.)

Anyway, while I do question the effectiveness of online petitions (and in fact any petitions in Singapore), I suspect this was really done just to prove that the MHA’s view is correct and it will not even change the decision of the gover-min at all on this matter.

After all, it would now appear that even the usually ‘liberal and ‘progressive’ Internet community has weighed the facts, and made their decisions.


keep377a.com


The push by repeal377a.com has evoked a counter-response in the form of keep377a.com. Two other bloggers I follow, Sicarii, Farinelli and Endoh have each given their takes on the matter. Their stand gave me the impetus to make a decision I have put off for a long time, and my choice in this matter is in no way affected by their decisions.

The people who knows me for a long time (since my 20s) know I have never been supportive of homosexuality and my views used to border on homophobia. Numerous arguments later and after losing a few friends, I have since discarded those views and seek more rationalised ones. The drive by repeal377a.com has now made it necessary for me to review those views and make a stand on the future I want to have.

It is my considered opinion that not everyone is beset by erroneous views and bigotry to stand for keeping 377A. The decision I came to stand for keeping Section 377A is solely mine and it is not written to sway the decision of those who are undecided, nor to convince those who wants the abolition of Section 377A to change sides. The fact I went for keeping 377a.com is simply because I rejected the arguments presented by the pro-repeal faction so far. The following are 5 main points (in no order of importance) I have used to made my decision, and I have completely discarded the so-called ‘homophobic views’ on homosexuality any open-minded individual would have, and have not considered some of the more common ones presented by the so-called ‘conservative and silent’ majority – including the ones on keep377a.com.

  1. Religion.

    Church leaders and authorities in Singapore are very clear what the stand on homosexuality is. I am not a Bible scholar so I am in no position to dispute their stand. I do find the punishment as taught in the Old Testament as inhuman, but it would be hypocritical of me to choose to accept only the good things God has to offer, but refuses to accept that which the secular world objects to. Granted the other religions may not even oppose or have a stand on homosexuality, and Singapore is not a theocracy to begin with, but if I don’t stand by my own religious convictions, then mayhaps I should quit believing in God as well. Cannot believe ‘jit bwa jit bwa’ [only half of it], right?

  2. Equality

    Is there unequal treatment in general? Does 377A deny homosexual people jobs, social services such as health care, and also universal suffrage in Singapore? Are they made to pay more taxes or pay more for public transports?

    I doubt even the staunchest who support keeping 377A would stand for unequal treatment. I personally wouldn’t care if my colleague is lesbian or homosexual. As far as I am concerned, there is no inequality where I can see. Yes, there are narrowed-minded people who would look at and treat homosexual people differently, but is that a side effect of 377A itself, or is 377A the result of such narrow-mindedness? Let’s avoid the circular logic here.

  3. Freedom of Choice

    This is in my opinion is one of the strongest argument presented for the repealing of 377A. One has a right to choose what the way to live their own lives when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle. The part on when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle was added when it was asked why then does one not have the freedom to choose to object to something that one may feel offended about?

    Unfortunately, the weakest link of this argument is ‘when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle’ itself. The reason being, a person who chooses to be a robber or pedophile; or has a liking for bestiality also doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to live their own lifestyle until someone is robbed, has his child raped or his dog sodomised respectively. In fact choosing to greet your neighbour every morning with the Hokkien vulgarities KNNBCCB, also does not affect your neighbour’s ability to live their own lifestyle. But it will provoke a reaction anyway.

    To put it simply, I am just pointing out the fallacy of this argument and the slippery slope it is on. And let me make it clear, I not equating homosexuality with the above listed felonies in case some draws that conclusion. But I would like to ask, why stop at 377A, why not repeal 377 as well in this case? After all, none of those things stated in 377 would affect another’ss ability to live their own lifestyle as well, do they?

  4. Liberal and Progressive

    This is often used. The argument is that those who are against homosexuality are conservative die-hards and perhaps even reactionary and counter-progressive. Sometimes, even the religion of the person’s objecting is being talked about, as seen here.

    I disagree with this completely. There will be people who have different views on what is being liberal and progressive and the disagreement on that doesn’t earn one a label of any form. And what has the person’s religious community got to do with it anyway? In my opinion, labelling your opponents or even attacking his religious beliefs would polarise both sides of the argument and push them further away from one another. And whatever happened to freedom of choice? Why is another person criticised and ridiculed for making their choices as long as they are using their best judgment from the information available to them?

  5. Nature

    Surprisingly, there is also the argument that homosexuality is not a choice. Some people are just born that way. So, the fear that there will be more homosexuals by simply decriminalising homosexuality is irrational. Homosexual acts, if not homosexuality itself, is in fact also observed in the animal kingdom. (Though, I am not entirely sure if homosexual behavior in animals is one entirely of attraction or lust, and not an act of alpha domination.)

    There are documentaries on this. And despite the fact of it being one of the best arguments for repealing 377A, this argument unfortunately contradicts that of freedom of choice. If it is indeed something natural, i.e. a result – and I won’t call it a fluke – of nature, then homosexuals really don’t have a choice in the matter. In fact, it would serve as a very strong case to repeal 377A because that sets homosexual acts apart from bestiality and pedophilia and the people who oppose repealing it without this information are surely under-informed.

    But still, aren’t humans creatures capable of higher thoughts and control? Otherwise, why isn’t everyone giving in to their sexual urges and hump one another anywhere on the streets? It’s certainly a matter of nature to procreate, no?

It is my sincere wish that everyone make their own informed decision on this matter. The views above are my reasons for keeping 377A. If anyone is unhappy with my decision, you are entitled to your opinion. I just do not need to hear about them.

Thank you.

Addendum

I do get sick listening to the usual non-discrimination, no one should limit choices arguments over and over again. Above which, unless you are a homosexual yourself, it is my considered opinion you are nothing more than just an empty vessel making a lot of noise. What have you gotta lose and sacrifice to fight for the repeal? So, I reject what you have to say entirely.


1 … 112 113 114 115 116 … 186