Sometimes I wonder how stupid the fundamentalist christians think we are. Just because you don't put your religious views into a letter, we don't know where you are coming from?
Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.
Today, Voices
18 October 2007
Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei
I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.
I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.
Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?
And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)
Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?
But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.
So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?
Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.
This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.
Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.
Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.
The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.
The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.
I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.
Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".
Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."
Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.
And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:
Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.
Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007
The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li
I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.
However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.
Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.
The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.
Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homophobia. Show all posts
18 October 2007
24 September 2007
Back with bad news
I just got back from a nice vacation with T. And read that S377A is still around. Am I surprised? No. Is it typical? Yes. Do I want to comment on it and on PM Lee's remarks about it? No. I have said all that I can say. Since the PAP doesn't care two hoots about anything else except their re-election possibilities (amongst other things), there will be no change until their "iron rice bowl" is threatened. That is something I believe will never happen (and they know it too). Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but then again, having a sword of Damocles on me is not something that will make me have any feelings towards the PAP or have any positive things to say about Singapore in general, so pessimism it is. And so far (since I've started this blog), the PAP has never failed to re-enforce my pessimism.
As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".
Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.
Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.
As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".
Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.
Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.
23 August 2007
Laughing Stock
IndigNation has been over for a week and I think it is time for me to get off my lazy chair and write about it.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
02 August 2007
I don't think we are homophobic
"I don't think we are homophobic" Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
