10 Oct
What Say You To Decriminalizing Section 377A?
The International press seems to have picked up the fact that hundreds of Singaporeans have signed a petition to ask the Government to decriminalize homosexual sex ahead of Parliamentary debates on Oct 22.
Though anal and oral sex between consenting heterosexual adults has been decriminalized recently, the same law, popularly known as Section 377A, continues to criminalize the same sex acts between homosexual men.
Homosexual men caught in the act can expect to be charged and serve a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.
I recently spoke to a few local Christians on what their stand is on the decriminalizing homosexual sex acts, and I actually didn’t get a unified response to the subject.
While most of us agreed that it would indeed be difficult to enforce, and that Section 377A will at best remain a written law and nothing more, some actually agreed that it should be decriminalized.
That was the surprising fact.
Some bought into the equality argument — that our national pledge does indeed state that we are to “build a democratic society regardless of race, language or religion, based on justice and equality”.
For those unfamiliar with the national pledge of Singapore, it says
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Others don’t see any significance in whether the law remains “prejudicial” against homosexual sex acts or is decriminalized since it cannot be enforced.
Doesn’t anyone believe in or have principles anymore?
Just because a legislation cannot be realistically enforced doesn’t make it unnecessary nor does it mean that it is of little significance! Legislation is there not just to state the law of a society or country, but it also reflects what that particular society or country morally stands for.
As for me, I registered a strong “no” to the decriminalizing of the law. I have nothing against homosexuals per se and have a couple of friends of that inclination, but that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with or approve of their sexual preferences.
You can probably guess by now my basis for saying “no”. Yes, it’s Biblical, and no, I won’t change my vote to please anyone.
With regards to your question on my take about equality, please get real and tell me if indeed life is really fair and there’s indeed an abundance of equality to go around for everyone.
How about you, my fellow Singaporean Christian? What say you to this petition and movement? Will you cave in to being politically correct, or to friends, or stand afraid of jeers and “disowned” by the popular people of the party?
Nobody ever said being a Christian and standing up for God’s righteousness and statutes and laws would be easy. If you heard of such a message, then consider yourself having been lied to and refer to our Lord’s words in the Bible about being one who takes up his own cross to follow Him.
Shalom Aleichem.
Tags: Equality, Homosexuality, Petition, Section 377A, Singapore
Posted by Daily SG: 11 Oct 2007 « The Singapore Daily on 10.10.07 at 23:57
[...] prime minister: repeal 377A now - The Online Citizen: 377A - To prevent what harm? - Joie de Vivre: What Say You To Decriminalizing Section 377A? - I rock, you suck: [...]
Posted by The Singapore Daily on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Hi, your post has been featured at The Singapore Daily. Thank you for your support. Keep blogging!
Posted by fartboystinks on 10.10.07 at 23:57
NO - period
God made Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
On this Rock I stand my faith and absolutely give in to a single inch to immorality.
Posted by hahah on 10.10.07 at 23:57
well.. other than the fact the council of nicea censored most of the folktales going around into what became the bible.
perhaps you should find out first about adam and lilith first.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Sorry haha,
The folktale about Lilith as Adam’s wife is from Ben Sira, which is dated between the 8th and 10th centuries. Genesis is much, much older than that. If you’re going to quote these charges, you should at least find out if they’re true.
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Then you should petition for the death sentence for adulterers. And divorce shouldn’t be legally allowed. Idolatry must be made the most heinous legal crime of all. And you can’t shave. Women should shut up. The universe revolves around the earth.
You have no justification to oppose the repeal of 377a on religious grounds. Saying gay people are criminals without lobbying for the death sentence on adulterers and idolators and taking legal divorce off the books just means that you’re a hypocrite picking on the homosexual minority.
Conservative Christians should realise that religious law and the penal code should be two separate things.
And just because life seems unfair doesn’t mean we should leave things as it is. If people didn’t fight to change things for the better, black people and women would still be living in silence and servitude.
Before you voice your holier-than-thou opinion, at least give it a little thought… Things really aren’t as clear cut as you think.
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
I’m interested to know whether you really think that true Christians have to ensure that God’s laws are imposed on non-believing citizens. Do you really think that Christians who don’t think in this way are merely “caving in to being politically correct”?
Does the Bible not teach the separation of church and state?
Did Jesus not say “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre:
Why doesn’t religious grounds stand as justification? Perhaps you’d like to explain your point? If those who agree with repealing the law can cite human rights and other points of equality, why not religious viewpoints?
How would repealing this particular law lead to things being better in your opinion?
I have heard and read all these arguments before without substantiation, so perhaps you’d like to start?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
MG:
God’s laws apply to all and sundry, Christian or non-Christian. Are we imposing it on His behalf on non-believers? Do you think that by saying “no” to the petition to repeal the law constitute that?
I can’t say what the other Christians’ reasons for not saying “no” are; I am only supposing that they cave in to being politically-correct or to societal pressure.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
SingaporeDaily:
Thank you for the link and for informing me.
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
You might “suppose” that they “cave in to being politically-correct or to societal pressure.”
But of course you will “suppose” this only if you underestimate your Christian brothers and sisters.
In truth, many of them might be pro-repeal because they believe in the separation of church and state.
And if that really is the case, they might be following God’s word more closely than you are.
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Dear Sicarii
Human rights and equality applies to all, as long as you are human. Religious law can only become civil law if the entire community is of that same religion. I can’t understand why you insist on applying Christian law to gay people and not pressing them on the Muslims, Buddhists and freethinkers of Singapore. Do you not see the incongruity in your opinion? You didn’t address my question about why you’re not asking for adulterers and idolators to be put to death by the legal system. Are you not then caving in to being “politically correct” or “societal pressure”?
If you ask for this one law against homosexuality to be upheld on the grounds of religion, then you should be pushing for ALL your religious laws to be included in the penal code.
The benefits of repealing 377a are beyond the scope of your original post, and my subsequent reply. But a professor of law has very nicely summed up the reasons why it should go, at http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/10/10/377a-to-prevent-what-harm/
From a medical viewpoint, the retention of that law makes it very difficult for health education programs to reach out to the high risk community. The government cannot fund a program which targets criminals. As long as gay people stay criminals, they will remain an invisible community.
Posted by Daniel on 10.10.07 at 23:57
“It reflects what that particular society or country morally stands for” that sums it up for me.
Daniel
Posted by Free on 10.10.07 at 23:57
“Nobody ever said being a Christian and standing up for God’s righteousness and statutes and laws would be easy.”
Nope, they never did, Isaiah. Two thumbs up to you for holding fast to your convictions.
Grace and strength to you,
~Free
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
@Vampyre
I don’t think Isaiah is asking for Old Testament laws which applied only to Israel to be instated in Singapore. If he was, he would insist not that homosexuals be put in prison, but that they be executed. Your example of stoning adulterers does not apply here. Now, if you were talking about putting adulterers in prison, I think there would be some merit in that. Don’t tell me you don’t think that would cut down on the problem.
Medically speaking, homosexual behavior itself is detrimental to human health. Does the government have anti-drug programs? If so, you can also have programs designed to teach people the health risks of homosexual behavior.
Posted by ckhm on 10.10.07 at 23:57
i think homosexuality is a major sin!
i do know an army scholar major who is one that got ousted to leave the organisation. he chose a path that conflicts with his sexual orientation, thus ended his promising career.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
MG:
I didn’t assume nor suppose anything — I asked questions pertaining to the issue at hand, i.e. will fellow Christians stand against repealing Section 377A or cave in to pressure to be politically correct and therefore agree with it.
Going with your “separation of church and state” take on Christianity, I suppose we Christians should also not vote in the General Elections?
Perhaps that is taking it too far, but your basis for saying that there should be separation between church and state is that Christians have to agree with whatever policy that will impact the moral fibre of the society we live in?
So not true.
I think the world needs to make up its mind on Christians — if we stand by and do nothing, there will be people who sneer and say we don’t care; if we put up our hands and wave our flags, people will quote Bible verses saying we are doing wrong.
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
My basis for saying that there should be separation between church and state is not “that Christians have to agree with whatever policy that will impact the moral fibre of the society we live in”.
My basis is Christ’s word: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
MG:
That applies well and proper if you are talking about taxes, and other obligations we have as a citizen of any country we live in.
There is nothing in it to suggest that we do nothing or not register our views on an issue when we see the moral fiber of the society we live in being threatened.
Do you see the difference?
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
As a citizen of this country, it is your obligation to ensure that everyone is treated equally. And that means you don’t impose your religious views on others who are not of the same religion.
Posted by xtrocious on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Then why aren’t morally upright people pushing for the IRs to be banned?
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Casey, again, you have avoided my point and raised some nefarious ones to support your opinion.
My only argument is that the Bible does not provide sufficient justification for the retention of 377A. Because if it does, then other biblical laws would justify criminalising adultery and idolatry. And since i don’t see Christians proposing for laws against adultery and idolatry, i argue that they don’t have the right to oppose the removal of 377A.
Christians still cannot see that singling out homosexuality to be made a crime in the eyes of the law is theologically incongruous and reeks of hypocrisy. We’re not talking about morals here; i’m only talking about the penal code as state law.
As a medical professional, your statement that homosexual behavior is detrimental to human health is entirely laughable. The health risk of a homosexual and a heterosexual who takes drugs and sleeps around is EXACTLY THE SAME! Always remember that not all gay men take drugs and sleep around! But when we’re talking about statistics on a community level, programs and policies are needed to educate people on high risk behavior.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre,
Do you even know what nefarious means? How on earth can you say I raised “nefarious” points to support my opinion?
You can’t even keep your argument straight. You said if we criminalize homosexuality we have to stone adulterers. I said no one was arguing for the instatement of Israel-specific Old Testament laws. Personally, as adultery is harmful to the family, which is the fabric of society, I think it should be criminalized.
Are you a doctor? Medical professional could mean any number of things. Are you really and truthfully in a position to argue that homosexuals are not at a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases? A quick google search on “homosexual health risks” produces a large volume of medical research that suggests a higher risk of disease for homosexuals than heterosexuals.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
xtrocious:
I don’t know, really.
Why not you ask the morally-upright because I am not one. I am just a human being with flaws just like you with the only difference being that I chose to follow and obey God’s laws in my life in a pursuit to being like my Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
MG:
I don’t understand — how can a Christian saying “no” to decriminalizing Section 377A be seen as imposing? To impose means to “to put or set by or as if by authority”.
I certainly do not have authority to impose, so how can you call it imposing? Am I telling you to say “no” if you think otherwise? No.
Read my post again — it is a call to Christians to uphold God’s laws and commandments. There’s nothing in it to “impose” ourselves on anyone else.
Is it so difficult for you to understand that this is one Christian and a few others stating our position on the matter? Surely, if we are a democracy, expressing a difference in views to those of the majority is allowed? Unless you deem it such an insult that there are people who are expressing dissenting views?
Posted by Ed on 10.10.07 at 23:57
After reading a fair bit here and the exchange of comments… abeit a little heated up, these are my views.
1. I have nothing personal against homosexuals even with intruding and audacious experiences with them against myself. Rightfully, I oppose it due to my biblical background and teachings. However, I can advise, discourage, help or even turn a blind eye to it.
2. Many other blogs have debated on the legitimacy of homosexuals in our society. If anyone is so firm about the science of democracy, then I would begin to question “why is only natural procreation between man & woman possible”? That is telling us what is NATURE and what is not.
3. The fact remains, that the opposition towards the act does not only comes from a Christian. Many oppositions are also from other religions and even free thinkers. To say that only Christians are imposing our religious beliefs on the minority is liken to the Chinese’s saying of “borrowing your knife to kill somebody else”.
4. Having worked for law enforcement agencies and also served in UN missions previously, the morality of crimes and acts can hardly be defined adequately by law constitutions. Afterall, law is dictated by man at best, from what we can deduce. Having said that, it simply means legalizing an unnatural act doesn’t makes it natural. Hence, so what if the section is removed? With the law or without it, unnatural still remains unnatural.
5. I find it disturbing that speaking it and sharing it with our Christians comrades in “OUR OWN BLOG” is seen as imposing on others. If I were to oppose homosexual acts from the comfort of my own home, can I be charged for breach of peace when neighbours walked past my front door? Common sense tells us… otherwise.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Ed:
Pertaining to point 5, you might be interested to read this, coming to a neighborhood near us soon if indications of what happens in the West makes it way soon to us too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=486452&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
If by “authority” you mean “legitimacy”, one definitely doesn’t need “authority” to impose things on others. All you need is force.
One Christian saying “no” to decriminalizing Section 377A on the grounds of his Christian beliefs is of course imposing his religious beliefs on others. It may be just one vote, but it is a vote nonetheless. You, however, cannot even make the claim that it is only one vote, because your post is a “call to Christians” to say “no” collectively.
Ed:
Things may be unnatural, but that is not grounds for criminalization.
Also, you can think anything you want in your own head. But when it’s out here on a blog for all to see, you have to be careful about what you say.
I don’t really want to continue commenting on this thread so please excuse me if I don’t reply.
I think we can all live together. I think we can find a way. Till then, goodbye and God bless.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
I must say, I’m puzzled b MG’s response. He apparently believes that Christians should stay silent on moral issues. I don’t know how you could argue that from “render unto Caesar…” Where does the line stop? If you see a government official raping or murdering a fellow citizen do you let it slide because you shouldn’t impose your morality on them? If the government says it’s okay, do you have to accept that position?
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Ok, so we take the Old Testament laws out of the equation. Where then is the BIBLICAL basis for justifying the criminalization of homosexuality? Good that we agree that adultery should be criminalized, but you have continuously avoided the issues of idolatry and divorce. Jesus Himself spoke out against divorce, but was silent on homosexuality. Why aren’t you asking for these things to be made illegal along with gay sex?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre:
Let us first affirm this point: Jesus Christ is God, and was there way before Creation. In Him and through Him were all things made.
John 1:1-3 (KJV):
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Therefore whatever was laid down in the Old Testament by God, the same is that laid down by Christ Jesus.
The second point we need be aware of, and which I shall let you know about, is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and all that is written in it is inspired.
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) says “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
With that in mind, read the inspired words of Paul as he writes in Romans 1:26-27 (KJV):
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Paul was inspired by God to write that.
And who is God?
Jesus Christ as we have seen in the first point above.
So did Jesus Christ say anything about homosexuality?
That’s a definite yes!
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Casey,
Christians do not have to stay silent on moral issues. But the moral stand that they take on issues such as these does not have to be dictated by Biblical morality either. It is possible for a Christian to say “God says that gay sex is wrong, but I won’t force other people to live by God’s word.”
Murder and rape are not crimes merely because the Bible says so. They are crimes also on the basis of other sources of morality. Even anti-Christian liberals will agree that rape and murder are crimes because they are immoral. The bottom line is that there are sources of morality other than the Bible, and it doesn’t mean that one who doesn’t believe in the Bible cannot say that murder or rape is morally wrong.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
MG:
I am curious — if Christians do not live a life dictated by Biblical morality, then by whose morality should we conduct our lives on?
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Your life is your own. Let it be dictated by Biblical morality.
Other people’s lives are their own. They don’t have to be dictated by Biblical morality.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Nobody is forcing it down their throats to accept Biblical morality. They can reject it all the same even if I register a “no” vote to repealing the legislation, no?
I am sorry, but I still don’t see the key points you are trying to point out.
Are you saying that we cannot exercise our rights as citizens to say “yes” or “no” to the repeal of the legislation since we base our decision on Biblical morality?
We seem to be going around in circles here.
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
I am not saying that you “cannot” vote based on Biblical morality, but rather that you “should not”.
You “should not” because voting based on Biblical morality is immoral. But it is not true that you “cannot”, because not all immoral acts must be forbidden.
Posted by MG on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Thanks for trying to understand, by the way. I think sometimes I write in an unintelligible manner.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
@MG
“Voting based on Biblical morality is immoral.” Can you explain that statement?
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
@MG
Also, where does morality come from if not from God? Apart from God how can there be right and wrong?
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Well well, all these points put forth by both MG and Vampyre seemed to be one hell of a cacophany, so in short let me summarize it
1) Vampyre argued about inconsistency. Indeed, Christians ought to be discerning. It does not help if Chrstians, and by extension, any other religious parties, are for most of the time, subjective and selective arbitors of their own rules and morality.
This was evidently pointed out by Vampyre earlier. Let me expand on a few of the aforementioned issues. Below are some excerpts from a popular online letter circulated some time ago. Apparently, it was a dig at over zealous Christians who used the Bible to justify their antipathy towards homosexuality. Here it is.
“a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? ”
Here we noticed something confounding, as Vampyre had astutely commented. If you were to justify the retention of the law based on your religion and faith, you have to explain why your religion group has not demonstrated the same degree of aversion towards issues that your religious texts and teachings have so explicitly denounced or even condemned. Is homosexuality a crime so overridingly and overwhelming opprobrious that it deserves to be singled out and tackled? Since religious text are your basis of argument, why then have you not applied what the Bible has expounded in other areas (Refer to the excerpt above)? Why are some text in the Bible considered archaic while some are cast in stone? This is where the problem lies. The rules of morality becomes discretionary. Adultery, idolatry are considered abominable sins in the Bible yet are not criminalized. Why zero in on homosexuality while not on idolatry or adultery, or even shaving ( laughing out loud) since all of these issues are equally denounced by Biblical teachings?
And Casey, associating homosexuality with greater health problems is one fallacy anti-gays are keen to capitalize on. Unfortunately, this point is self defeating. Heterosexuals are just as responsible for the transmission of STD as homosexuals. So this isnt a rarefied, exclusive problem of homosexuals. In fact, we come across so many articles relating to greater teenage abortion, extra marital affairs and prevalence of unprotected sexual intercourse between heterosexual teenagers. All these are unequivocally contributing and aggravating factors of the transmission of HIV disease. To issue an all encompassing generalisation, that gays transmit AIDS and therefore should be opposed/prosecuted/rejected, is as good as saying - Hey, look, this 23 year old heterosexual Aids carrier had unprotected sex with multiple partners (all of opposite sex) and resulted in the transmission of the disease. Shall we ban all heterosexual, or heterosexual acts? The issue clearly at stake here is one of responsibility, not of sexuality.
This is a pluralistic and diverse society. Each religion should and ought to be accorded the respect it deserves. However, there is a dangerous tendency to put one’s religion on the pedestal and batting a nelsonian eye to the fact that this society constitutes more than just one religion. Who are you to say that your religion deserves more significance/prominence or that your particular brand of beliefs deserves more weight/respect/carries more substance? If you find a particular phenomenom against you religious beliefs, this is a personal issue. But taking into consideration that this society is made up of so many religions, every religion insisting on having their right of way would indeed make us all for the poorer. How are you going to convince that your beliefs are superior? Just as you can use your bible to defend your opinions, many other religions could use their own religious text to contradict your point. Who is ” more correct” ? By what yardstick do we define “correct”? As Vampyre have mentioned, holier-than-thou is an attitude that we can all do wihout. Just as you can quote from your religion, he too can quote from his religion which incidentally contradicts all that you had stood for. Now who should we listen to? Based on what principles of fairness should we anchor our arguments to?
To Casey : I am a Christian. And I have only one thing to say. The world is your oyster. It is time to emerge from your hermit and take a good look. Beyond the trees. Beyond the bushes. At the entire forest. Take a good look. Like what I have said, Christians ought to be discerning. Sure there is a sacred cow in religion, and that is why people have seldom dared to speak up or express differing views from their religious learnings. Yet I have learnt that many a time we cannot let every minute details in life by circumscribed and dictated by the Bible. The Bible is not an instruction manual. How you adhere to its teachings would determine whether you would turn out to be an open minded, discerning christian or whether you would turn out to be an obstinately closed minded christian enclosed in the dictions of the Bible wihout understanding the greater and true meaning of God’s Words.
Just ask yourself. Is the diatribe against homosexuals truly justified or is it no more than a subterfuge for a personal distaste? Be fair.
God Bless All.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
I’d like to read your definition of an “open-minded” Christian, and how a Christian can choose how they want to “adhere to” the Bible’s teachings.
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
@Sicarii
Focusing on petty semantics does not help answer the central issue - but nevertheless I would still like to share with you a personal anecdote
It was to our utmost consternation, when we discovered that the father of our church mate, Jane ( not the real name), had commited adultery. We are a close knitted community. Jane was a particularly close friend to us, because we belonged to the same Bible studies group. Even her father was a man of incredible character. She was inconsolable, despite our encouragements. Despite this, did we conform to the text inscribed in the Bible and stone the father? Then if you claim that this particular method of punishment is archaic, tell me, how do you decide which is and which is not. Somewhere deep down inside of you would have questioned whether such medieval, gruesome form of punishment is indeed warranted in our modern era. This is what i meant by discerning. And the ability to discern is the difference between an open minded Christian and a close minded Christian. Like what i had mentioned, an “obstinately closed minded christian” is “enclosed in the dictions of the Bible wihout understanding the greater and true meaning of God’s Words.” Surely the Bible has taught us to stone perpetrators of adultery, but the Bible too has taught us how to bestow mercy and forgive.
Sicarri, you should have come to realise a couple of things. Firstly, the question you have posed is merely a red herring - the crux of the matter has yet to be addressed. One can express revulsion at the idea of homosexuality, but one cannot evoke religious teachings to justify this revulsion. If this is truly so, then the laws would have similarly condemed adultery, idolatry, even shaving ( as mentioned in the excerpt). Secondly, religious teaching might be the moral compass for one, but that does not mean it can be erroneously applied to all. Like what I have said, these society is made up of so many different religions. We believe there is only one Almighty God, but the same goes for other religion as well. Who are we to say that our proclaimation is so much more worthy and credible than those of other religious parties? Religion has become a refuge for people who are personally against the idea of homosexuality. These people have seeked to retain the law but have yet to adequately and satisfactorily explained their glaring inconsistencies, as I have mentioned. With inconsistency, all basis of their argument falls apart naturally.
We have our own religious teachings. LEt our lives be dependant on it. Other religions have their own religious teachings, let their lives be dependant on it.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Qzz:
I don’t know why you need to go through all this trouble to convince me and Casey and other Christians that we do not have a voice in this world; that we are not able to have an opinion on an issue and to register the opinion.
In the first place, my piece is directed at Christians. As you so correctly mentioned, there are so many faiths and religions amongst us that we are not to impose our beliefs on others.
I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue. Is this imposing on others? As you so rightly pointed out too, we have our own religious teachings so we live by it.
Let me put it this way: I asked a question of Christians. I did not present our view to the issue then urged others of various religions and faiths to also vote against it based on our Christian convictions, did I?
Perchance you should read my post again.
Shalom.
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Sicarii, once again you have dodged the issue completely. Nobody said you couldn’t voice your opinion. I have repeatedly set the boundaries of this debate very clearly: that there is no BIBLICAL basis for justifying the retention of a STATE LAW against homosexuals. If you insist on believing that there IS basis, then going along that line of logic you should be equally fervent about asking for laws against idolatry and divorce. Neither you nor Casey has addressed this point yet.
It’s not true that Christians don’t have a voice in this world; i am not trying to convince you of that, and i don’t think QZZ is either. You can rant and rave about homosexuals all you want. I will defend your right to tell other people that you don’t think it’s right, that you don’t think it’s natural, that you don’t agree with it. But it’s theologically unsound for Christians to use the Bible to justify a state law against gay people. My point is that it’s hypocritical to do that. You *are* imposing your beliefs on others if religion is used to define the boundaries of state law.
So do you still believe that the Bible should be used to justify the retention of 377A?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
I don’t see why I should be defending my right to see things the way they are from a Biblical point of view based on the boundaries you set.
Your point is that there is no Biblical basis for the retention of a State Law outlawing homosexual acts. My point is that by my convictions there is.
Who is right?
You are here asserting that you are, and bring up idolatry and divorce. Well, let me tell you that I don’t agree with either and that’s my stated view. If I agree that I should fervently be asking for them to be repeal, you’d say I am imposing my beliefs on others. And if I am not in this case, you say I dodge the question.
So, tell me, what is it that you aim to achieve?
For your information I don’t rant and rave against homosexuals. And neither do I wish to. God loves homosexuals as much as He loves me and you. Christ Jesus came not for the righteous but for the unrighteous.
Yet God hates the sin, and being a Christian, I support God’s hatred for the sin and stand by it.
Let’s put it this way: You are here just to ensure that even Christians agree to the repeal of this legislation because *you* seek to *impose* your moral judgment on us while calling us the ones who are imposing upon others. For surely you have some moral and ethical basis and ideals for supporting the repeal, no?
So, please, stop imposing on us for we certainly aren’t imposing on you.
Do we call you wicked and immoral because you support the repeal? Do you see in any of my points a call for you to turn away from supporting the repeal by quoting Biblical passages?
I think everyone can see and agree that the straight answer to those question above is a resounding “no”. Let not the pot call the kettle black here.
Shalom.
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Sicarii,
I wont be surprised by your systematic rejection of all the points put forth by me, Vampyre, or MG for that matter. It wouldnt seem right if you did because it would be a blatant admission (on your part) of doubts in everything that you had so firmly and fiercely stood up for during the past many years as a Christian.
Sicarii, it is not important whether my argument is directed at Christians or non Christians, because it does not matter. The issue I have brought up matters as much to the former as the latter. To be able to judge an issue objectively, one must shed his religious robes and be above the fray- by looking at them based on equality, fairness and worth. It doesnt matter if you are a Christian or not. The point is, even the fact that you are ONLY urging Christians to stand up against homosexuality, is flawed. When you urge christians to stand up against homosexuality, you are not immune to the some of the problems I have mentioned - inconsistency, subjectivity and prejudice.
Inconsistent because you as a Christian, have not urged or even commanded your fellow Christians not to shave. And this is only one form of inconsistency.
Subjective because you zoomed in on homosexuality but have yet to explain why certain texts are considered archaic while some are cast in stone. Example given in my excerpt.
Prejudice because, for all the antipathy you had displayed towards homosexuals, you have not adequately explained or justify why homosexuality is a bane of society and deserves to be rejected. And if you would think the reason ” The bible taught us so” would suffice, then you would have to go back to point one and explain the glaring inconsistency.
Prejudice, subjectivity, inconsistency, the recipe for bigotry and parochiality - forms a wretched cycle of self delusion and discrimination. That is why I brought in the point of the need for Christians to be discerning. As I have mentioned, sure there is a sacred cow in religion. The vehement rants that CERTAIN christians have directed at homosexuality serves no more than a pressure tactic - either you are with us or against us. Some Christians, like my 12 year old cousin, might dutifully and unquestioningly accept it. due to many reasons. For fear of reprisal, for fear of going against the “teachings of Bible”, for fear of antagonizing fellow Christians, for fear of being outcasted or ostracized. We must come to realize that even within the Christian comunity, there ought to be a healthy marketplace of differing views. One should not be labelled as a traitor or infidel just because he thinks homosexuality is not a sin. Like what I have mentioned previously, “Somewhere deep down inside of you …..This is what i meant by discerning”, we all know that conforming blindly would make us for the poorer. Lets be true to yourself. We did not “stone” Jane’s father just because he had commited adultery. We knew and understood that even though the Bible had subscribed such a punishment for such sins, the Bible also taugh compassion, love and forgiveness.
I was aghast too when you mentioned, “I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue.” This is gutter tactics for goodness sake. You said this sentence with such normalcy as though this sentence was fundamentally right, undisputable and unanimously, unequivocally the correct thing to do. It is to odious to evoke Gods name to coerce Christians into the anti-homosexuality stand. You are like saying -either you do it or you bear the consequence of incurring the wrath of God. This is not true! Christians who have a different view on this issue deserves a voice, an opinion, a take. Nope. They are not defiled, not anomalies, not aberrations. They are just like any other Christian, or by extension any other human being, deserving of another opinion.
And yes. Christians who do not support the retention of the law are not Christians-gone-bad. I know of many Christian friends who are not against homosexuality just as you know of many who are against it. Imposition, infringement does not just occur OUTSIDE of christianity, it occurs within it too. Christians who detest homosexuality refers to the Bible and points an accusing finger at Christians who do not. Christianity world is not an utopian world while everyone is, or ought to be united in their views. Anti-anti-homosexuality Christians have real reasons to justify their non rejection of homosexuality. We justify based on logic, evidence with a good dose of discernment. And yes, I would like to believe Sicarri you fall under the category of a discerning Christian too. You condemed adultery, but you wouldnt definitely want the perpetrator to be stoned. You shaved everyday, don’t you? You look at a particular verse, and have asked questions about it. So Sicarri, it is not going against the Bible. it is not about betraying your own faith. It is not about being unfaithful. It is about your capacity to think and evaluate.
Put your religious veils aside. And argue in a secular, logical and evidence based manner. Why do you think homosexuality should be rejected? Then we can start a good argument from here.
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
“Your point is that there is no Biblical basis for the retention of a State Law outlawing homosexual acts. My point is that by my convictions there is.”
Just for your information.
Buddhism is the most popular religion in Singapore. Christianity are by statistics a minority religion.
Your “convictions” only serves your agenda. The statute books serves all and sundry citizens in the country.
Should we let “convictions” from a minority group dictate the laws of a country? You feel this way. The same goes for some other christians. and people from other religions too. but there are people too (Christianity or not) who have pro gay or anti anti gay “convictions”. Since neither side is able to prove their point or disprove the point of each other, where then is the bone of contention? There is no religious basis for argument at all then!
I am puzzled too.
You mentioned , “Qzz:
I don’t know why you need to go through all this trouble to convince me and Casey and other Christians that we do not have a voice in this world; that we are not able to have an opinion on an issue and to register the opinion.
In the first place, my piece is directed at Christians. As you so correctly mentioned, there are so many faiths and religions amongst us that we are not to impose our beliefs on others.
I asked a question of fellow Christians if we would stand for God’s word and His righteousness with regards to this issue. Is this imposing on others? As you so rightly pointed out too, we have our own religious teachings so we live by it.
Let me put it this way: I asked a question of Christians. I did not present our view to the issue then urged others of various religions and faiths to also vote against it based on our Christian convictions, did I?
Perchance you should read my post again.
Shalom.”
I am puzzled indeed. Here you told me that your question was directed only at Christians and presumably you were not “imposing” your beliefs on other religious groups or people. Then why are you arguing about the validity of supporting the retention of the law due to biblical “convictions”? If you use your religious beliefs to justify a law, isnt this equivalent to an imposition since the law is applied to all and sundry citizen in Singapore and there is a sizeable proportion of them who do not hold the same view, and who do not believe in religious justifications? If you use your religious teachings to support the retention, everyone must then obey a law founded upon the religious dictions of a particular group of Christians ( I would not even dare say Christianity, because obviously there is schism of views regarding homosexuality among Christians. Not all Christians reject homosexuality. And not all christians who reject homosexuality justify using religion or the Bible for that matter.) Isnt this imposition?
Please clarify the discrepancy. You told me that your views were reserved for Christians and not imposing on other religious groups in the society. Then you mentioned that your convictions justify the retention of the law, in which the act itself ( justification for retention of law) is already imposing your views on the society. What do you really seek to achieve?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
QZZ:
Please read that in context.
Vampyre mentioned that I shouldn’t be using my Biblical convictions to state that my opinion is that the law should not be repealed, and that was my response to him.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
All laws advance a moral position. That is what laws are: a statement of right and wrong. The repeal of this law will make a statement on morality. People’s opinion on right and wrong is profoundly influenced by their religion. A Christian’s stance on issues of right and wrong will inevitably be influenced by the Bible. This is no different from a Buddhist or an atheist.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
QZZ:
Homosexual sex, does indeed, pose a greater risk to one’s health than heterosexual sex. Having multiple sexual partners is beside the point. However, since you seem to agree that having multiple sexual partners increases your risk for disease, and since you say that it is a matter of personal responsibility, do you also support the legalization of prostitution?
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
By the way, I find it very amusing that someone can accuse another of a “holier-than-thou attitude” and in the very next breath say something like:
“It is time to emerge from your hermit and take a good look. Beyond the trees. Beyond the bushes. At the entire forest. Take a good look.”
Priceless.
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Casey: “All laws advance a moral position.”
Buddhists believe it’s immoral to kill animals and eat their meat. So should it be made a law? What should the Christian response to such a call by Buddhists be?
Sicarii: “Vampyre mentioned that I shouldn’t be using my Biblical convictions to state that my opinion is that the law should not be repealed”
You can voice your opinion that homosexuality is wrong and against your religion, but you cannot call for it to be made criminal, especially when you’re not calling for other sins in the Bible to be made criminal. If you say that there is a biblical basis for this law to be upheld, then there is an equal basis for laws against other sins to be drafted. This has nothing to do with convictions or theology or morality, it’s about logic. If you don’t ask for the other sins to be made illegal, then your basis for retaining 377A is no longer purely biblical.
Do you honestly think that idolatry should be made illegal in Singapore? Thinking that it’s wrong is different from asking for it to be made illegal.
My only point is that the bible does not provide sufficient basis. You have already brought ‘personal conviction’ into the picture, thus supporting my point. Stop hiding behind the bible. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason.
And most laughable of all, Casey: “Homosexual sex, does indeed, pose a greater risk to one’s health than heterosexual sex.”
PLEASE enlighten me on this point, because it goes against all the medical education that i’ve received. Don’t omit the specifics, i beg you. If you can quote studies, all the better. And yes, i’m a doctor.
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre,
If Buddhists want to convince the population that eating meat is wrong, what is the problem with that? I have no problems with that. If they can show me (or the majority) that eating meat is detrimental to society, then I don’t care if it becomes law, either.
As Singapore is not a theocracy, why should idolatry be made illegal? Your misunderstanding of the Bible is preventing you from making a real argument. The Bible is the main influence on a Christian’s life, but it doesn’t mean that Christians want biblical law mandated.
Even if I could convince you that homosexuality brings with it greater health risks, it wouldn’t change your mind, would it? If you honestly want to look at the opposing view I would suggest the following link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html
Posted by Casey on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Also, let’s get another point straightened out. What is your basis for arguing that homosexuality is not immoral?
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
ok Casey
you have mentioned “A Christian’s stance on issues of right and wrong will inevitably be influenced by the Bible. This is no different from a Buddhist or an atheist.”
True enough.
A christian can hold steadfast to his beliefs
So can a buddhist, or a hindu, or a muslim for that matter.
Some of these beliefs are inevitably contradictory.
Now let me pose you a question and you answer it plainly.dont beat around the bush
Question 1 ) Which religion is more correct/true than the others?
Ans a) Christianity
b) Buddhism
c) Hinduism
d) Muslim
e) None of the above
Do all christians need to reject homosexuality?
a) Yes (Please proceed to sub question “s”)
b) No
s) It follows that christians who do not reject homosexuality are wrong, regardless of any forms of justifications.
a) Yes
b) No
Below contains certain questions regarding consistency ( or the lack of it). Likewise, answer it accordingly.
Question 2 Do you shave (any form of bodily hair)
a) yes
b) No
Question 3 Would you stone your friend’s father if you found out that he had committed adultery, just AS what the Bible had illustrated?
a) yes
b) No
Question 4 Have you ever ensured no contact was made with a female during her period of menstrual uncleanliness?
a) yes
b) No
c) I dont know, i dont dare to ask because it is impolite or outrageous to do so.
Below are a few questions regarding sexual risk in homosexuality.
Question 5 Do you think homosexuals are capable of loving, faithful relationships ( as opposed to prosmiscuity)?
a) yes ( Please proceed to qn 6)
b) No
Question 6 Thereafter, do you think two faithful, loving homosexuals who reserves all intimacy for each other would be at a “higher risk” of transmitting STD?
a) yes
b) No
Question 7 Is a female genital meant to be licked by a mouth? Likewise, is a male genital meant to be put in the mouth?
a) yes
b) No
Question 8 Is the anus of a female “cleaner” than that of a male?
a) yes
b) no
Question 9 Is a breast of a woman meant to be grappled by her husband?
a) yes
b) no
Sex-related health problems are called STDs. Let us explore more of this.
Question 10 Define sexually transmitted disease
a) infectious disease that occurs from one person to another wihout bodily contact
b) STDs are infectious diseases spread from person-to-person through direct body contact or contact with infected body fluids. The term is used to describe any disease acquired primarily through sexual contact.
Question 11) Define prosmiscuity
a)having relationship with many people wihout bodily contact
b)behavior characterized by casual and indiscriminate sexual intercourse, often with many people
Is prosmiscuity limited to gay?
a) yes
b) no
Question 12) Do you think 2 gays who have loving faithful relationship, and who had only reserved intimacy for each other (having one partner at a time) during their period of courtship, would result in greater health problem?
a) yes
b) No
Question 13) Do you think question 12 is invalid because gays can have one partner at a time but they can change them periodically, such that they can have many partners over a lifetime even though it is “one at a time”?
a) yes (follow to question 14)
b) No
Question 14) Will you allow yourself to have more than one girlfriend in your life, one at a time?
a) yes
b)No
Thank you.
If your answer to question 1 is E), then you have solved the quandary yourself. I am unable to prove that my religion is superior to yours. You are unable to prove that your religion is superior to mine. Since neither side is able to prove itself or disprove the other, there is no religious basis for the retention of 377A.
Vampyre is more of an authority on health issues, but let me add my 2 cents worth. Questions 5-14 would either debunk your misconceptions or intensify it.
You told me to put aside multiple partners, and focus just on 2 gay, 2 partner model. So the issue of promiscuity is not added in the issue.
So lets say 2 loving faithful loving gays engage in oral or anal sex with and only limited to each oher during their point of courtship ( one partner one time), and then a loving faithful heterosexual couple engagein oral or anal sex ( not limited to vagina intercourse) with and only limited to each other during their point of courtship. (one partner one time). Do rmb i have precluded promiscuity from the hypothetical scenario.
Ok, then tell me, using qn 5-14 as a backdrop,
Is a woman’s anus cleaner than a man’s?
Is a penis of a heterosexual cleaner than that of a gay?
Does the mouth of woman contain some kind of anti STD solution?
Is the woman’s genitals free from disease of all sorts?
Is vaginal intercourse free from disease of all sorts?
Is anal or oral sex between man and woman safer than between man and man?
If your answer to all of the above is a resounding no, then congrats! you have repudiated your own glaring misconceptions.
and we are not even bringing in promiscuity!
Why do i say its a question of responsibility, not sexuality?
Because promiscuity is as much a heterosexual’s problem as a homosexual’s! You dare to bring out ( even the webpage you provided) promiscuity as a reason for rejecting homosexuality YET i think we all know heterosexuals are not immune to promiscuity too! Prosmiscuity is NOT an exclusive and rarefied gay problem. It is society’s problem, gay or no gay. And would you be so naive as to think a promiscuous gay is more dangerous than a promiscuous heterosexual? a promiscuous heterosexual is just as likely to perform acts of anal intercourse, cunnilingus and not limited to just vaginal penetration on multiple partners.
EVEN. AND I STRESS THE WORD EVEN. EVEN mere vaginal penetration with multiple partners carries a high risk of transmission. The type of sexual acts play a marginal role. The fact that you are engaging in careless sexual activity with so many partners concurrently at one point of time denotes greater risk of heath problems, gay or no gay. Who said a gay cant be loving and faithful? If 2 gays make love to each other only, who says sex cant be fulfilling wonderful and just as exciting and meaningful? why do people always associate gays with paedophilic, pervatic images of a lurker prowling for his unfortunate target. or man who just screw man for the lust of it. Gays are mature adults too. They are just as capable of a stable, mature and loving relationship with their partner. If 2 gays reserve their intimacy only for each other, how would there EVER be transmission of any sort? Who says heterosexuals are risk-averse? There is an overwhelming number of cases in our society depicting heterosexuals who visits brothels on a regular basis, who engages in wild, unprotected, flamboyant sex with multiple partners concurrently etc Should we reject heterosexuality then?
This would most probably be my last entry. I would like to seek a personal closure for this particular thread because all this haggling do us no justice. once again read through and ask yourself. Is there truly a valid religious basis for the retention of the law? Is it just a convenient tool that a group of people use to justify their personal, biased abhorence towards homosexuality? Why are there people, christians especially, who didnt like homosexuals or find them discomforting, yet support the repel of 377A? Is it because they know a state law in a secular country deserves proper logical reasoning and evidence based analysis? and last but not least, don’t doge the issue again. Enlighten us about the inconsistency. We would really like to know. I am a Christian as i have mentioned earlier. and i would honestly admit that it is shameful if people evoke the word of God and Bible to justify their antipathy towards gays. Because i know there are SO SO MANY, TOO MANY PERHAPS, text in the Bible which we had not, or could not follow for obvious reasons. And then we try so hard to come to terms with ourselves and try so hard to explain the discrepancies. the question again, WHY ARE SOME BIBLICAL TEXT CONSIDERED ARCHAIC WHILE OTHERS, CAST IN STONE? i am not saying the Bible DOES NOT teach that homosexuality is a sin. I am just saying, like what vampyre had mentioned, if you were to use it as a biblical basis for a state law, then you also have to explain why so many other text (shaving, smiting, stoning for adultery etc) are left out of the equation? We must practice what the Bible preaches. And I think the Bible mentioned fairly clearly to me that i should stone an adulterer. and I think im off to stone Jane’s father( in case you had missed my previous post, Jane( not a real name) was my church friend. Her father had commited adultery). I hope the police would understand and forgive me because the Bible taught me so ( had stated explicitly) and i think God will love me even more.
God Bless all.
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Thank you Casey, you have just proven my point. As Singapore is not a theocracy, why should homosexuality be made illegal? The Bible is the main influence on a Christian’s life, but it doesn’t mean that Christians must have biblical law mandated. Bear in mind this is what Sicarii’s original posting claimed - that the basis for his opposition to the repeal was biblical (”You can probably guess by now my basis for saying “no”. Yes, it’s Biblical, and no, I won’t change my vote to please anyone.”). And this was the sole point that i replied in response to.
Homosexuality cannot be made illegal just because the bible says so. Because then, Buddhists wouldn’t have to prove that eating meat is detrimental. The law against eating meat will be passed simply because Buddhist texts say it’s wrong.
Your argument is that homosexuality should be made illegal because it’s bad for people. But that was never my argument. I never said it is right, or ok to be gay; i never sought to prove that homosexuality is not immoral. I only said it’s not ok for Christians to cite the Bible as a reason for opposing the repeal.
Christians can say that they believe that homosexuality is wrong simply because the Bible says so. But when they try to convert that belief into a state law then something has gone very wrong.
Opposing the repeal on the basis of harm (that homosexuality is bad for society, bad for families and bad for individuals) is completely different from arguing based on religion. I personally don’t agree that being gay is inherently harmful. But to debate these issues requires a platform larger than this comments thread, that’s why i’ve repeatedly declined being drawn into a discussion of these points. QZZ makes many very good points in his last post, please do give them some objective thought.
My goal in commenting here was not to discredit Christianity, or your beliefs, in any way. If you’ve noticed i’ve never written anything against Christian teaching, and i’ve refrained from making personal comments as far as possible. I apologise if our exchange has become rather heated. I only hoped to challenge you to think critically about your call to oppose the repeal based on the Bible. I don’t think by doing so you’re doing the Bible enough justice. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason. I believe that God gave us those faculties so we might employ them well in solving the problems we face in this world. And to Sicarii, i applaude your ability to see past the ongoing vitriolic debate and continue loving your gay friends without conditions. I think that is the most Christ-like response modern day Christians can display.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre:
You said “Do you honestly think that idolatry should be made illegal in Singapore? Thinking that it’s wrong is different from asking for it to be made illegal.”
You know what? I don’t see a law for it nor against it, so why kick up a fuss when there’s nothing on it. Or is this just another way for you to stir a storm in a teacup just as you are doing here?
You also said “My only point is that the bible does not provide sufficient basis. You have already brought ‘personal conviction’ into the picture, thus supporting my point. Stop hiding behind the bible. Religion is not an excuse to dispense with logic and reason.”
The Bible does not provide sufficient basis for what? For calling homosexuality a sin? Now I don’t know if you have read the Bible and even if you did, whether you understand what is in it.
For a Christian, Biblical teachings and the person are non-separable. Just as a Muslim goes by the teachings of the Qu’ran and other faiths and religions by their holy books.
You make me laugh when you say we hide behind the Bible and that it is not justification enough. Why not try encouraging a Muslim to start eating non-Halal food? Logically speaking, a piece of non-Halal beef is as beneficial as a piece of Halal beef, ceteris paribus, doctor?
The Muslim will tell you that his Islamic teachings tell him not to consume non-halal beef. Will you also call him illogical, or hiding behind his Qu’ran?
You finally said “PLEASE enlighten me on this point, because it goes against all the medical education that i’ve received. Don’t omit the specifics, i beg you. If you can quote studies, all the better. And yes, i’m a doctor.”
PLEASE, if you cannot accept our views as Christians who live our lives on Biblical teachings, why should we take the fact that you are a doctor to be any indication that you know all there is to know about the risks of homosexuality? Or are you a super human who claims to know all?
And if you are a doctor then you should know that scientific and medical studies often cancel one another out. For each view that is for an issue, there will be those that refute it.
So, doctor, is coffee good or bad for me?
Posted by Marn Chi on 10.10.07 at 23:57
QZZ
I will not add to the homosexuality debate here.. its too confusing.. but I do want to address something..
You claim to be Christian, and an open-minded one at that. However you are so open-minded that I wonder if you are really Christian at all.
IMO at most perhaps you are a follower of Judaism since you judge everything by how YOU construe OT law
I hope you will truly come to know Jesus.. not the Jesus you imagine him to be.. not the Jesus you construe him to be.. but the true Jesus of the bible..
And if you do think you already know the true Jesus of the bible… then you should immerse yourself in the Word more and familiarize and study scripture more. If you think the bible is irrelevant, bear in mind that Jesus IS the Word, go read John 1
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
QZZ:
It’s amazing that you call us hypocrites when you acknowledge that there’s a schism in the church when it comes to issues like these. In your last post you mentioned that there are Christians who agree with the repeal and those who don’t. I suppose you are one of those who agree with the repeal.
So, tell me, are you also setting out nice questionnaires like the one you put up above for those who still oppose the repeal? By doing so, what are you setting out to do?
To convince fellow Christians that we should logically support homosexuality when God says otherwise? I don’t want to judge, but that doesn’t seem Christian-like.
I don’t know why you ask those questions on the laws, really. You seem to be pointing to the fact that you know the answers to those questions better than we do. In which case, pray tell us the answers, or were you waiting for an answer from us since you know not why?
Posted by Vampyre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Heh i think we posted at the same time, so don’t miss what i posted after QZZ’s last comment (time stamped 23:18).
I should have completed my sentence: “The Bible does not provide sufficient basis for” making homosexuality ILLEGAL. I never claimed it wasn’t a sin. You have already agreed with me that Christian law shouldn’t become state law. So homosexuality shouldn’t be illegal just because the Bible says it’s a sin.
Christians hide behind the Bible when they use it to disguise an agenda fueled more by personal distaste than biblical proof.
I really can’t make my line of logic any clearer… You can’t include religion at all in a discussion about secular law!
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Sicarii,
I am exasperated. but before I really seek closure, I have to clarify certain issues.
I am not against Christians who are OPPOSED to homosexuality per se. In fact, I see people who reject/do not reject all in the same light - as human being with the right of choice, whether the choice to like or hate is based on religion or otherwise. This doesnt matter. I am just slightly perturbed with Christians who invoke the Bible as the justification for the retention of 377A. I have never disputed the fact that the Bible has indeed called for us(by us i mean Christians) to reject homosexuality, yet I merely questioned the validity of using this to support the retainment of a statute law - something so all encompassing and high up - and not the validity of personal beliefs whatsoever. Even if as a pious devout Christian we ARE compelled to reject homosexuality, let us do so wihout having to use it as a justification for a state law. You must seperate your religious beliefs from the state. Yes sure enough muslim go by their teaching. they eat halal food. they pray at fixed hours. the buddhist prays at temples. christians live by the bible. and so on.and so forth.
And the status quo shall remain. No need for any religion to have the right of way in justifying any particular statute law. I am not saying Christians cant have the right of belief ( it would be shooting myself in the face wouldnt it). You can believe in the sinful nature of homosexuality using biblical basis to support and to strengthen your beliefs. But you cant trespass the divider that seperates the State - a secular State consisting of so many religion which you yourself have acknowledged that neither is able to prove its own or disprove others. I mean. there are also muslims who are against gays. muslims who are not against gays. so its not really christianity versus the rest of religion. its people vs people. people with different opinions vs people with different opinions. and when you know that the human population - the very quintescence of diversity - embodies and epitomises a variety of diverse race, culture and religion, you would realise how irrelevant a religious basis is. Bottom line - The law applies to all and sundry in Singapore. We cannot let the chantings of a particular group lead our legal landscape. Like what Vampyre has rightly pointed out, lets say Buddhist thinks that eating meat is sinful and used their religious text as a justification for a law that bans all meat. How about the 60% ( according to statistics Buddhism constitutes about 40 % of the religion in Singapore) of the remaining population? Made to submit to a law they have no part in? Made to submit to a law founded upon a religious basis not part of theirs?
I hope you get my gist. What me and Vampyre has been trying to do was to explain to you the seperability of Church and State. as you have said
“For a Christian, Biblical teachings and the person are non-separable. Just as a Muslim goes by the teachings of the Qu’ran and other faiths and religions by their holy books.
You make me laugh when you say we hide behind the Bible and that it is not justification enough. Why not try encouraging a Muslim to start eating non-Halal food? Logically speaking, a piece of non-Halal beef is as beneficial as a piece of Halal beef, ceteris paribus, doctor?
The Muslim will tell you that his Islamic teachings tell him not to consume non-halal beef. Will you also call him illogical, or hiding behind his Qu’ran?”
he goes by his qu’ran. We go by our bible. He eats his halal food, no one should and will stop him. You continue to believe in the bible and reject homosexuality, perfectly fine. We are not telling you to stop doing all this ( because it would be ridiculous. we wouldnt want to intefere). But if you choose to use religion to retain a state law, the alarm bells of many sound. because instinctively they become defensive, because the scenario when the law is retained due to religious basis might well be remotely possible and if this is so, it would mean infringing on their rights to other religion and religious teachings, which might or might not contradict homosexuality. But it aint matter. When there are so many religion, and one religion, for no rhyme or reason, gets the most say, weight or significance on our statute books, it is hardly justifiable. because we go back to point one.
We are unable to prove that Christianity is better than other religion.Neither are they able to prove that their religion isbetter than us. Since neither side is able to prove itself or disprove the other, there is no religious basis at all.
Vampyre has been pretty gracious in his latest post. I would urge you to calm down and not view us as some sort of insidious disparaging assailants bent on destroying your beliefs or you rights to believe. I am sure you know perfectly well there is no such intentions. Defend, but not for the sake of defending, lar. Is it so difficult to see the need for seperation between personal religiosity and State laws?
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Vampyre:
I just saw your latest comment after posting mine. Good thing you pointed it out.
I never specifically said what I believed in should be made State Law either. I am just saying that I am opposed to its repeal based on my Biblical understanding. The law will still stand or get repealed no matter what I say here, really, because it is not open for a referendum but a parliamentary vote.
You do agree that I have the right to exercise my rights as a citizen to express my opinion, whether it is based on Biblical teachings or not.
Thank you for the lively debate, and I wish you well.
Shalom.
Posted by QZZ on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Don’t miss my last post ( preceding Sicarri’s latest post).
All i can say is
All’s Well That Ends Well.
I have enjoyed as much as i have learnt.
Take care.
God Bless
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
QZZ:
I read your post.
No doubt both sides have flared up a little because we are humans after all, passionately defending what is close to our hearts on an issue we strongly believe in in our own different ways.
Suffice to say that this was an interesting debate. Both of you made your points as did Casey and I.
I wish you well.
God bless, and Shalom Aleichem.
Posted by The Silent Majority Speak Up | Joie de Vivre on 10.10.07 at 23:57
[...] No doubt there will be detractors wondering if the group has the right to call itself “the Majority” or to claim to truly represent the “majority” views of Singaporeans. In fact, I can almost already read the disparaging comments that might be left on their web site by those who support the repeal as I myself have experienced. [...]
Posted by Gavinder on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Singapore is meant to be a secular society, the Bible, the Koran should not be the basis for our laws. Also if God had not meant for people to become gays then why would he create them?
Being Gay is not a lifestyle choice, it’s part of a person’s nature, why on earth would anyone choose to be gay in the face of such prejudice? Also by criminalizing it, you are telling the person that he is by nature, a criminal.
Posted by Sicarii on 10.10.07 at 23:57
Gavinder,
There is no scientific evidence to date that homosexuality is part of a person’s nature, by which I take it to mean that you think that some are born homosexuals.
Shalom.