Singapore's not ready

[Drive_carcar]

I think like all normal parents, after going through a period of dismay and denial, they will eventually accept because they still love their sons / daughters. It's a parental love thing that's unconditional. But as for the sexual inclinations, I doubt many parents will be too proud to announce to the whole world. Imagine a proud father shouting down the HDB corridor:

 

"Hey! My son's a homo! And I'm so proud of it!" It's just not going to happen.

 

So by that yardstick, the society at large is really not ready. It's fine to have gays around, and it's fine to be gays, that's their own personal rights and freedom. But not too many can accept it if it's their own child.

[Elfenstar]

how do they arrived to 'majority of singaporeans cannot accept'?

 

 

The problem is that its not even a technique issue. I bolded "probably" for a reason . Which is one of the things I found quite intriguing in his response. I don't think we're paying them to guess what the majority do or do not think.

 

P.S. Sorry. I don't know who Ivan Heng is.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

Seriously, up till today...i can't imagine HOW some normal parents are taking it..when they realised their son(s) or/and daughter(s) turn out to be gay or lesbian!..hahahahahaha

 

Retribution?

 

Whats a normal parent??? Please define because every family has its own way of doing things, so who's normal?

[Elfenstar]

Come on, those victims are in their prime, not in the sunset of their lives, still need what performance enhancing. Maybe anal sex needs more adrenalin.

 

Also, the ease of forming threesomes in the quoted case is glaring.

 

Whoever said I was talking about aged people? I'm talking about people from their late-teens to early 40's. The ease of getting into a threesome, swinging etc is quite easy. You just have to stop putting you head in the sand and start going out to live. These people won't even press you if you say no, and just to be absolutely clear, we're talking about heterosexual people here.

 

Its still not as prevelant as the number of homosexuals who follow this culture, but if you want to stereotype all homosexuals, then you might as well stereotype all heterosexuals too.

 

[Seevic]

You mean we straight people don't take performance enhancing (though I think that was just crap ecstacy) drugs or have threesomes??

 

My quote post is from a "Lite & EZ" point of view. Chill.

 

Not yet to try performance enhancing or "croaching tiger hidden dragon" drugs... never had threesome b4 too... well, maybe next time. lolx.

 

 

[Elfenstar]

They are taking the neutral and safe ground. Leaving the Sec 377A for the courts to decide how to interprete it. Which is not that wrong.

 

TS has unfortunately lump this issue with that of COE, ERP and Govt salaries etc.... Legalising gay is a moral issue, which the govt has to walk the thin ice very very carefully. This being a pluralistic society, albeit gays are still in the minority, they have to be very ultra sensitive in these areas which concerns the morals of the society.

 

As for the COE, ERP, Ministers salaries issues... you can put that into your considerations when you cast your vote. Think wisely whether these issues outweight other goods the govt has or will be doing, and decide based on your very own convictions.

 

P.S. I am not pro PAP, I'm just stating the obvious. When the time come to cast my votes, if the opposition has something good to offer, I will seriously consider voting them as well.

 

Did you read my orignial post properly??? My issues were with his arguments on why the government could not repeal 377A not the actual issues of why it should or should not be repealed. Their arguments are in direct contrast to what they have done before.

 

Oh and who's morals are you talking about??? Mine?? Yours?? LKY's??? Should we follow Muslim morals then, eating pork is morally wrong to them. or perhaps some vegetarian hindu's who view eating meat as morally wrong. Maybe I should follow the morals of the group of swingning rich men and women I know of?

 

The law is not about morally right and wrong. It is ideally about justice and equality. How morally right or what justice is there in being able to force a woman to have sex if she is your wife? This is according to Sec 375(4) of the penal code.

 

Interpret by our judiciary?? Thats a bit tough consider Sec 377 of the Indian Penal Code states "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." while our 377(a) states "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

 

Btw what our dear law minister forgot to mention in his spin is that the Indian Courts said that the law needed to be amended which means it will be up to the government to amend it (not the courts) as the courts can only interpret law, and decided what acts are lawful or not.

 

Morals are in the realm of cultures, sub-cultures etc. The government should NOT dictate what is morally right or wrong unless you want a society like that of many countries in the middle east where their laws are dictated by their main religion, and freedom of their people to do what they want is limited.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

My quote post is from a "Lite & EZ" point of view. Chill.

 

Not yet to try performance enhancing or "croaching tiger hidden dragon" drugs... never had threesome b4 too... well, maybe next time. lolx.

 

Not into drugs and stuff like that, but threesomes with two girls are wayyy overated... unless you're the selfish sort that doesn't care about how your partner(s) feel.

 

[Drive_carcar]

I only glance at your post quickly because you have not really mentioned anything of value anyway. Of course if can make out a compelling case that there's merits in your arguments, I'll be happy to read your original post again. Otherwise there's simply no point wasting my time reading the post of somebody who is rude.

 

The law is not meant to dictate what is moral and what is not, but more of reflecting the general consensus on what is deem morally acceptable by the society at large. Certain matters in the laws are not meant to be dictated to the letter by the parliament, but left to the courts to interprete. That's just some things that can never be really tidied up - a good example is why contracts laws and law of torts are not codified? If you know anything about legal systems at all, you'll come to understand such things.

 

If you can't understand and/or accept then move on to Siberia live as a recluse. That's not my problem.

[Hishercar]

I beg to difffer from you

 

in singapore we have a multi-racial society

it is difficult to balance social freedom

a large proportion are still conservative and many religion are not exactly welcome gay with open arms

 

personally I have nothing against gay

among my gay friends that i know there are among the most creative and talented lot

so respect them as decent human beings

 

 

so the balance for the government is to:

have a law against gay but dont act on it

in short them are trying to please everybody in a diplomatic fashion

 

so in short

in this case the government has done a good job

 

 

forget about the "noise" in the background look at the bigger picture

 

dont get distracted

next election vote for PAP they are number 1

 

we are not ready for the Western type of democracy yet perhaps in another 20 - 30 years yes maybe but NOT now

 

 

in Malaysia for eg if in the early stage of their country development if they removed the bumiputra privileges, the whole country would be in chaos

today it is different, many malaysia now know that it does not benefit the country and do not benefit the majority of the bumiputras so at this point a change is inevitable

 

everything takes time so be patient

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hishercar]

hi

 

i would like to learn abit more of "contracts laws and law of torts are not codified" any other examples

 

if it is not too much of a trouble it sounded interesting thanks

 

 

[Falc]

Whoever said I was talking about aged people? I'm talking about people from their late-teens to early 40's. The ease of getting into a threesome, swinging etc is quite easy. You just have to stop putting you head in the sand and start going out to live. These people won't even press you if you say no, and just to be absolutely clear, we're talking about heterosexual people here.

 

Its still not as prevelant as the number of homosexuals who follow this culture, but if you want to stereotype all homosexuals, then you might as well stereotype all heterosexuals too.

 

Did i say u are talking about aged people? You need to stop assuming. I was questioning the need for sex performance enhancing drugs when the actors are all in healthy age. I don't know, but since you like to comment on everything, maybe you know something more about anal sex than i do.

 

I'm glad at least you see the issue of prevalence here. Stereotyping is wrong and i agree, say if 50% of a school's population profess to indulge in sex party, would a parent still choose that school for his kid if given a choice? If the parent chooses not to, is that stereotyping then?

 

 

[1fast1]

I said it before, my point got lost in the static. So I'll say it again: we should strive not to become a tyranny of the (moral) majority.

 

The argument of an alarming number of people (as evidenced by the postings here) seems to go: the majority of Singaporeans are "moral" and "conservative" and hence not accepting of homosexuality in others.

 

Should that be allowed to influence law? Heck, no!

 

Think about how ridiculous it would be if other "moral majority" viewpoints were enforced by law. From the census data on Wikipedia, more than 40% of our population consists of Buddhists. Going by logic analogous to the anti-gay justifications, let's take a hypothetical scenario where Buddhism becomes the compulsory, enforced faith of the land by law. No-one is allowed to practice any other faith - you Christians/Muslims/Hindus/atheists would be forcibly converted (made to formally repudiate your cherished faith or lack thereof) under penalty of a jail term and fine. How does that sound? Sick, right?

 

Have we gone down that road? No, because it would be absurd. We have *freedom* of religion, we are even free to choose to *reject* religion entirely. These freedoms are enshrined in law. That's the correct moral and legal stance in a pluralistic society.

 

If people can make their peace with that concept, I wonder why they have so much trouble with the gay thing. It's not like someone is asking everyone to be gay. Merely to accept that there might be others who are gay, and accord them with the right to be who they choose to be.

 

Tolerance is key, whether it pertains to religion, sexual orientation, or something else.

 

For the record, I'm straight. But I bemoan the narrow-mindedness in this country.

 

Also, a lot of posters have missed elfenstar's point about the government. This govt is not hesitant to take unpopular decisions and steps if need be - when it suits their purposes, e.g. banning chewing gum, raising GST and minister's salaries ad nauseam, etc. Were the majority in favor of those decisions? I think not. But the govt is not foolish (on the contrary, they're very smart). They know they can get away with the "big stuff" if they appear to be pandering to the unwashed masses once in a great long while. Hence, when it's a fight they don't really want to win, out they come with all the rhetoric about being sensitive to the sensibilities of the majority of Singaporeans. And you guys actually buy it. For shame.

[Hermitage]

Errmm...well, errrmmm...I dunno but I don't think this gay rights movement thing should be allowed to take place in Singapore. Gays are an alright bunch of people I guess, but PLEASE keep any displays of intimacy behind closed doors can?? It makes alot of people very uncomfortable...

[Elfenstar]

Did i say u are talking about aged people? You need to stop assuming. I was questioning the need for sex performance enhancing drugs when the actors are all in healthy age. I don't know, but since you like to comment on everything, maybe you know something more about anal sex than i do.

 

I'm glad at least you see the issue of prevalence here. Stereotyping is wrong and i agree, say if 50% of a school's population profess to indulge in sex party, would a parent still choose that school for his kid if given a choice? If the parent chooses not to, is that stereotyping then?

 

Did you not say "Come on, those victims are in their prime, not in the sunset of their lives, still need what performance enhancing." Aren't you insinuating that heterosexual people who are not in their prime don't take it for peformance enhancement? Don't worry, I'll let you know more abt anal sex as soon as I try it on someone. However I'll let you in on a secret first on why younger males do take these. Drugs. They impede male performance.

 

Using your school analogy, it would not be stereotyping because the parent has not judged all the students based on half of them. They have simply judged that the school is not capable of teaching their child the values that they believe should be taught. It would be stereotyping if they did not allow their child to mix with any of the students in the school based on that.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Jumpman075]

ha ha ha

me too

[Jumpman075]

thinking of the scene of man screwing man make me want to vomit.....

[Hishercar]

dont worry about justifying yourself

 

dont get work up

 

all of us got different opinion

 

I respect your opinion

 

and understand the angle you are coming from

 

 

[Elfenstar]

I only glance at your post quickly because you have not really mentioned anything of value anyway. Of course if can make out a compelling case that there's merits in your arguments, I'll be happy to read your original post again. Otherwise there's simply no point wasting my time reading the post of somebody who is rude.

 

The law is not meant to dictate what is moral and what is not, but more of reflecting the general consensus on what is deem morally acceptable by the society at large. Certain matters in the laws are not meant to be dictated to the letter by the parliament, but left to the courts to interprete. That's just some things that can never be really tidied up - a good example is why contracts laws and law of torts are not codified? If you know anything about legal systems at all, you'll come to understand such things.

 

If you can't understand and/or accept then move on to Siberia live as a recluse. That's not my problem.

 

Perhaps if you read what I was mentioning about rather than make sweeping statements about what my point was I wouldn't be so rude. Especially in the context that we've both had heated discussions about homosexuality in the past in which all you had were (and still are) blanks.

 

The law was never supposed to be about morality. It was always supposed to be about justice and equality/fairness. Case law is supposed to be there to ensure that there are no double standards so that if c did to d what a did to b with the same circumstances, both c and a are supposed to get the same penalty. Contract law is there to "right the wrong(s)" where there is a contractual agreement, and tort law is there to "right the wrong(s)" where there is no contractual agreement, but one party has a civil responsibility, which they failed in resulting in harm/loss to the aggrieved party(s). These have nothing to do with criminal laws (like 377A) in which a set criteria must be met and proven beyond reasonable doubt. What you're saying regarding interpretation is tantamount to "the courts have the power to interpret what is murder, rape, causing grievious hurt, etc" when they don't as criminal acts are defined in our Penal Code.

 

Perhaps you are the one that needs to move to Siberia...