Singapore's not ready

[Elfenstar]

That's exactly the correct view. Sec 377A may remain, just that they are not enforcing it. There's nothing more need to be done.

 

Truth is as you have mentioned, it's one thing to accept people who are gay, as long as it's not their own sons who are gay. This is the acid test on the level of acceptance, and whether Singapore is so-call "ready" - for whatever that is.

 

I think we have already come a long way, even though to be fair there's still quite a lot of discrimination against people who are gays. Look at it this way, I think none of us who are straight will be too amused if somebody accuses us of being gay. So being gay does bring with it certain amount of prejudices, something which I don't see as going away anytime soon.

 

If its not being enforced why have it then?

 

[Elfenstar]

No. As your elected government, that is precisely what the people have given them the authority to do.

 

Hogwash! we gave them the power to run the country for on our behalf for our betterment. They are supposed to create and amend laws to allow for justice and equality for all. Nobody gave them the power to lord over us with someone's concept of morality which we may or may not agree with.

[Tkseah]

i believe that majority of singaporeans are not ready.. me not ready also..

[Elfenstar]

On a lighter note, aren't gays just as entitled to the misery of marriage as the rest of us? :lol:

 

With regard to the other points, the studies that have been performed so far on LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender) couples who adopt children show that the children are no worse off than those adopted by straight couples. The American Psychological Association and Child Welfare League of America believe LGBT parents are as qualified as heterosexuals. (source: Wikipedia). So, we don't have to worry about such children turning out well-adjusted and happy.

 

{Re} For every such study, you can find another one or more concluding the contrary, or at least casting doubt on any conclusion.

 

I'm sorry, I have never seen any scientific evidence contrary to what turboflat4 said in this issue (only stupid people saying stupid things). In fact there are an increasing number of these studies that say they may be better. Have a look at my links about this in the AWARE thread.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

i believe that majority of singaporeans are not ready.. me not ready also..

 

You believe, I believe, my dead grandfather believes... maybe instead of our minister guessing, they should work for their pay and they could start by getting polls done on contentions issues rather than on uninformed hearsay.

 

Even then it does not matter. We are being discriminatory towards are minority group when we do not have the right to.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Elfenstar

[Elfenstar]

Yeah, agreed! I guess we're the simple minded kind of people.

 

Don't have anything against them as people but like I mentioned before, any public show of intimacy on their part makes me feel very uncomfortable and should not be allowed to transpire at all I mean, if you give 'em too much of this Freedom of Expression and all that sort of rot, sooner or later it's gonna be like San Fran with their Mardi Gras parade and what not ! I shudder at the thought...

 

The question you should really be asking yourself is why you're uncomfortable. Seriously. You should.

 

It doesnt appeal to me, but it does not make it uncomfortable. This is because I am extremely confident of my sexuality. Are you?

 

[Tkseah]

there is no pleasing everyone.. would you rather they spend $1mil to do a nation-wide survey and come back with the same answer that we are not ready? then we will blast them for wasting money..

[Elfenstar]

The biggest problem with legalising porn is that many women find it very demeaning and would oppose to it. Thus making it a potical timebomb potentially, because about half of the voters are women. And there are also self-righteous "enlightened" men who also find it demeaning to women as well.

 

I definitely agree with you our govt is still on the paternistic side of the scale. But sometimes the blame lies on the citizens because that's the mentality of the majority who voted in this govt.

 

People like to blame the govt for many ills. Every little thing also demand accountability this, that, whose heads should roll with this or that c--k-ups. You know that kind of mentality where people blame the govt for not doing a good job during the Geyland Serai Rojak food poisoning case? Demand that Home Affairs Minister to resign for the escape of Mas Selamat? Its the same kind of mentality that will blame the govt for every ills that may surface should porn be legalised, or secion 377A be abolished.

 

So they complain and complain, but come election time, they are afraid that their vote gets traced back to them if they voted for somebody else other than the ruling party, so they "guai-guai" voted for the same paternistic govt, and the complain cycle continues.

 

Bottom line is, so long as the majority mentality remains as what I have describe, we are just not ready.

 

Well maybe they should make prostitution illegal then. Isn't that more demeaning???

 

What choice do we have with our government? Who should be accountable for mistakes if not them (moreso when you take their pay into consideration)? Is there anyone else better we can vote for?

 

[Elfenstar]

there is no pleasing everyone.. would you rather they spend $1mil to do a nation-wide survey and come back with the same answer that we are not ready? then we will blast them for wasting money..

 

How do you know that the answer will be the same? Did you do an objective study into this issue?

 

[Apvman]

Our society is just not ready for this. Lets look it this way:

 

1) Most of us would not object to the act of homsexual as long as our child does not do it or takes the path of homosexual.

 

2) Most of us would not even object as long as they do intimate moments e.g. kissing or MAKING LOVE!! in secured places or at home and away from sights of your young child.

 

3) We would not object as long as they do not affect us in our way of life.

 

But try to imagine this:

 

1) What happen if your child got influence by the "homo" thing? Just imagine if the law permits that and everywhere u go, u see man hug man and girl hug girl (FYI, not talking abt friendly hugs. More of passionate hugs), man kiss man or girl kiss girl, man frenchkiss man or girl gloping girl in public?

 

2) What happen if your son tells u one fine day "dad, my new boyfriend - another man 45 yrs old and we are going to marry!!" Can you accept that?

 

Before you start telling me that "YES WE ARE READY", think about what I have just said.

 

Talking is VERY EASY just like ABC. Accepting is not easy especially if you see someone close to you doing that. IT IS ANOTHER THING! For me, I would not want my child to take that path. Nature does give us a dick or pussy to reproduce and not to abuse it!!

Edited July 7, 2009 by Apvman

[Hermitage]

The question you should really be asking yourself is why you're uncomfortable. Seriously. You should.

 

It doesnt appeal to me, but it does not make it uncomfortable. This is because I am extremely confident of my sexuality. Are you?

 

Actually, think I may be too confident. So much so that I find it (i.e. public displays of intimacy between...*ahem*...men) an affront to my sensibilities. Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I'm a very traditional kinda guy.

 

From a different standpoint, I have many friends who are gay/bi, but they are very restrained and keep such acts right where they should be kept...that is behind closed doors . Also about your kid turning out gay thing? I honestly wouldn't mind, it's just the way he/she was born, they cannot help the way they feel. As long as they don't get all affectionate with one another in public can already!

 

[Drive_carcar]

Ok... this time I have you post side by side as I reply.

 

You are very right in the our courts have pretty much "divorced" itself from the bondage of case laws and precedents of other countries. Even precedents from lower courts in our country is not always binding.

 

There are goods and bads to this approach. Good in that there will always be cases where common sense is required rather than strict adherance of precendents in order for justice to be done. Bads in that there is no consistency, and legal practictioners may have a hard time advicing their clients on the probable outcome of the case. So the our govt's approach (which I feel does make sense) is that administering justice is the ultimate goal of the legal system, and if in the process certain things are left a little vague, it's just a price that have to be paid.

 

Sec 377A is a long entrenched part of our Penal Code. It's just there but so far not enforced nor called upon. But why keep it there?

 

I think people who studied jurisprudence have written long essays on such issues on the concept of morality of the soceity and the laws. Which feeds which? It is a kind of chicken and egg arguement that will have no end.

 

I say they feed off each other. At this point, just judging from some of the inputs in this thread, we are still not quite ready for this section to be removed. It reflects the general consensus of what's acceptable and whats not, and what is acceptable and what's not acceptable may also be coded into laws.

 

Can we citizens bring about changes in law? In theory yes. In practice I feel it's an exercise in futility. I would very much like Women's Cater to be removed, and replaced with Family Carter. And I think some MP's or even Ministers also voiced their opinion on this. Yet this archaic law still remain firmly entrenched.

 

In a perfect world, there would be no inconsistencies in the legal system, everything would be clear and unambigious. But then in a perfect world, why would there be a need for laws anyway?

[Tkseah]

How do you know that the answer will be the same? Did you do an objective study into this issue?

 

from the postings here u can already gauge the proportion of those who are ready...

[Tkseah]

agree, it is more pertinent to look into the Women's Charter than this Gay issue..

[Chinaski]

Hogwash! we gave them the power to run the country for on our behalf for our betterment. They are supposed to create and amend laws to allow for justice and equality for all. Nobody gave them the power to lord over us with someone's concept of morality which we may or may not agree with.

 

No. The reality is that in the absence of a credible opposition, the Singapore voters did give the Government such powers.

 

The role of any elected government is to maintain a balance in the law that it 'perceives' best serves the publc interest under the current circumstances. This was the rationale behind the repeal of English Law Act.

 

That is also the role of law. Your perception of law being about justice and equality is a western ideal, which no western democracy has ever been able to achieve.

 

In my view there has been a steady liberalisation of Government policies over the last 15 years. The judiciary has followed suit. I believe the incremental development of law is in Singapore's best interests.

 

The deletion of 377A from the Penal Code is inevitable. It just won't happen now. So currently the policy not to actively enforce it is as good as it gets.

 

Alternatively, if your views are so strong it might be worth posting on the ST Forum. It's been the catalyst for some statutory changes in the past.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Chinaski

[Elfenstar]

from the postings here u can already gauge the proportion of those who are ready...

 

Is MCF a good sample???

I'm also in this girly forum where I advise them on the media, advertising, and entertainment industry and their sub-industries, and a majority of them are quite alright with homosexuality. Since your "data" was obtained from MCF only, why are our views a better representation of our population's views and not theirs?

 

[Elfenstar]

Actually, think I may be too confident. So much so that I find it (i.e. public displays of intimacy between...*ahem*...men) an affront to my sensibilities. Perhaps it's my upbringing, but I'm a very traditional kinda guy.

 

From a different standpoint, I have many friends who are gay/bi, but they are very restrained and keep such acts right where they should be kept...that is behind closed doors . Also about your kid turning out gay thing? I honestly wouldn't mind, it's just the way he/she was born, they cannot help the way they feel. As long as they don't get all affectionate with one another in public can already!

 

Are you sure? Nah just horsing around with you on this now.

 

Well I don't mind public displays of affection, but a lot of people do (I'm talking boy-girl here). At least you're in the middle.

 

[Drive_carcar]

agree, it is more pertinent to look into the Women's Charter than this Gay issue..

Yep, I would very much like to see the Women's Carter replaced by Family Carter someday.

 

I think TS has mentioned, this thread is not so much started to argue about moralities of being gay. Rather it is to point out the inconsistencies and ambiguity of legal system here. A fact that I think none can deny.

 

But realistically, as long as legal systems are enacted and administered by mankind there will always be areas which fall short of perfection. Even in the most perfect laws, adjudicating the laws, in figuring out who has flouted the laws and who is innocent, always demand a certain degree of weighing the evidence and value judgements as to what is relevant and what is not, who is telling the truth, and who is less than truth. And when imperfect men make such judgements, you can be sure that it will never be 100% correct all the time.

 

However that doesn't mean we should remain status quo. Just that we have to accept that there will always be a certain amount of messiness in the laws, and that when the time come to consider how to interprete sec 377A, it's for the judges to decide. The parliament sort of surrender this duty - at least for now in the absence of widespread acceptance of homosexuals.