Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong has emerged as the point man to take the
fight against homosexuality with the LBGT group. From reports in the
media, the Pastor Khong’s group has been quietly organizing themselves
and has came out with a seven page guide on how to express support for
Section 377A of the Penal Code. The LGBT has been mustering support to
have this Section of the Penal Code rescind, so far without success.
Their fight is in the open with the big show of support at Hong Lim Park
on a couple of occasions. On the other hand, supporters of Section 377A
have been rather quiet or afraid to voice out their stand. This is the
first time, after many closed door sessions, that this group is coming
in the open to challenge the views of the LBGT.
It was a solitary battle between the LGBT group and the govt with
everyone staying clear from this thorny moral issue. The growing
acceptance of the lifestyle of the LGBT both locally and internationally
has encouraged the LGBT to come out openly about their lifestyle
choice, some biological, some hereditary, as normal or natural and not
an abnormality.
Now we have a religious group coming out openly to challenge this
lifestyle choice as not normal and to protect the provisions in Section
377A that makes homosexuality a crime. There are now two big interest
groups with equally big supporter bases and international organizations
as their backers to pitch their voices for and against the other.
The Govt could breathe easier and could take the role of a neutral party
other than upholding the law. The less vocal majority could now pitch
in their supports for either groups and more fireworks can be expected
with both sides quite evenly matched at the moment. Where would this
lead to eventually would be interesting to watch as it would affect the
moral fibres and values of our society. It is not just a battle of the
conservatives against the liberals. It goes deep into the accepted
morality of the day and could change quite dramatically on what is
normal and acceptable and what is not.
Kopi level - Green
16 comments:
S377A must be retained to protect the young. Some LGBT may stray to mess around with the non LGBT young and this can be dangerous. If they confined their lifestyle to LGBTs, that is not an issue.
Removing S377A could embolden them to cross the barrier.
I want to relate my own encounter with a group of foreigners (Indian nationals) about 2 weeks ago.
I was approaching a lift inside a hawker shopping centre when I saw a group of 4 to 5 FTs waiting for the same lift to arrive.
When the lift came, I did not board the lift as I was not used to the very strong scent that they wore.
They took the lift but came down immediately in the same lift, apparently, I think they took the wrong lift. I then boarded the lift.
However, as the lift door was closing, suddenly, one of the Indian FT man turned back and shouted at me in a threatening manner:
"You didn't take the lift just now because we smelled, is it?"
I did not reply to him. Then, as the lift door was closing, he showed me a "F" sign by clenching one hand in a fist and hitting the top of the fist with the other with an opened palm.
I was taken aback the these FTs were so blatantly rude and confrontational when I was being polite and avoided being offensive.
These FTs are not adapting to our manners and bringing their own culture and unruly behaviour to our society.
There are bigots who want to impose their value systems on others, often using religion as a pretext. What is morality but principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. One man's meat is often another man's poison. The line between right and wrong is often based on societal acceptance. Therefore the fairest way to determine whether Section 377A should be repealed is to have a referendum, and let the majority carry the day, not some outspoken minority group or politicians.
The govt has made its position quite clear. They are not against the lifestyle of the LGBT. It is their normal and the govt is not going to use S377A against them.
So why are they pushing to repeal S377A? A referenedum? Waste of time. The people will vote to retain S377A with overwhelming majority.
No one bothers with what they do in private.
Now, it seems that they want to do it OPENLY by getting others and the authority to approve or condone their private habits. To hell with perverts.
How we handle these types of disputes between the 2 groups of Singaporeans is important.
I hope we can rise to the occasion and handle it democratically ... as per our National Pledge.
Otherwise, we might as well resurrect LKY and use his ham fisted knuckle duster approach to settling differences.
The law must be there to prevent them from touching or molesting innocent children.
I must say that the picture of two men making live with each other look really disgusting to me personally . Plus as the pastor said this is against nature as biologically no offspring can be produced by the union of two men.
As the acting Chairman of the kea club, we only encourage riding in the karaoke club. Period.
Acting Chairman
On
Behalf of kuda club Asia
Bro, you do know their bayoo??
These hyenas when they moved in groups always spoilt for a fight.
They walked three to four abreast and you have to sidestep or siam when you walked towards them. Playing a game of chicken to see who gave way.
I always walked straight and use my elbow to knick into their solar plexus which hurts s lot when you hit them . Ad learned in TKD class.
Most times they just clinched and bear with the pain and walked off. I always turned back and see their reaction. Most times they are sheepish and pretend nothing happened.
Walk in twos hold hands, walk alone fondle their marbles in front.
This is their habits
/// The law must be there to prevent them from touching or molesting innocent children. ///
February 20, 2014 1:09 pm
What is wrong with our existing laws right now?
Don't they provide sufficient protection?
The law to protect the children is in S377A. The LGBT want this to be repealed. This is the issue they are fighting.
This government has taken a cowardly stance, by keeping Section 377A and then saying it will not use this to prosecute. What use is a law which is not used to prosecute - it might as well be repealed. There are already laws criminalising and punishing immoral behaviour like public nudity, open sexual acts, indecent exposure, sexual harrassment etc. ... so homosexual acts practised privately between consenting adults is the same as any heterosexual acts, except here religion puts a difference. The government is pandering to the bigoted homophobic religious groups, example Lawrence Khong's, trying to have the cake and eat it too.
Imagine one fine day, a prime minister files a charge against his deputy under Section 377A, for forcing him to engage in homosexual acts - can the AGC refuse to prosecute? This law can be used for political or other nefarious purposes and becomes a mockery. The moral issue, the right or wrong, should be whether it is done publicly and is indecent, or if privately, whether consensual or non-consensual, like any other sexual acts, and religion should not enter the picture. Some may feel disgust at homosexual acts based on their personal values and upbringing, but that is the nature of this beast. Don't treat it like a crime equivalent to stealing or murder - one day you might have a gay son or lesbian daughter. Righteous laws are enacted to protect, not to harass.
/// The law to protect the children is in S377A. The LGBT want this to be repealed. This is the issue they are fighting. ///
February 20, 2014 4:28 pm
You are going to have to be a lot more specific than this.
Unless you are a typical PAPig ... forever adding new restrictive rules on top of old ones ... and always claiming that it is not a knee jerk reaction.
Actually I support the repeal of the law. It is nonsense.
To put it v bluntly, sexual inter course or coitus involves the insertion of one's reproductive organ into another's.
Now how do two men or two women of that? I really wonder.
At the end of the day, what LGBT want is the legitimacy to say that they are married.
They can love whoever they want, I don't really care. But really, sexual intercourse, the means by which a man and a woman's marriage is consummated, and form a union, can only be achieved between a man and a woman. Simple as that.
There is no point clamoring for the widespread acceptance of something that doesn't even exist.
Leave God and religion out of this. But for the sake of the children, so that they live with those who beget them as far as it is possible, so that they have both father and mother, please respect marriage and respect the family. If not it will become a Dodo.
In some first world countries, the HIVs treatment of gays taking up unnecessary medical resources that can be put to better use for helping sick children. If they chose the unhealthy lifestyle, they must bear with the unhealthy consequences and not burden the state with unnecessary expenses. Same goes for people who overeats, drug users etc. Why should the state spend money to help those people who do not want to lead a normal sensible healthy lifestyle?
The title of your post says it all... "A big moral battle in the making".
The debate has overflowed from what the original matter was, and so your title is no longer about the "offending" FAQ. But yet, it is sensible to take a step back and see what caused this debate, and thereby see that we can stop this debate which arose out of nothing.
The FAQ in question was put up by the Health Ministry. This is important. It's slant is rightly on the health aspects of homosexuality. If the Family Ministry puts up their own FAQ, I would certainly expect that they promote normal, healthy lifestyle.
But since it a FAQ in the Health ambit, it is wrong to imagine it is promoting homosexuality, it is not. What it did is to promote health for those who are unfortunate enough to be gay. And promote mental health to those who are afraid they might be gay. Should anybody say the FAQ in a Health Ministry site is wrong to do that?
I will not be surprised if people can nitpick a phrase here and there which may not be perfectly composed. If so, we can calmly propose a more accurate sentence without any hysteria. Without taking sides on whether 377A should be repealed.
Post a Comment