Thoughts on 377a repeal

[Lisafuller]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

Anyway, I have never suggested that any benefits be denied to anyone, you simply don’t need marriage to achieve that.

You know I respect you so I hope you don’t take offense but you’re proving my point, Mal. It’s impossible for you to see how you’ve benefited from your privilege because these benefits have always been available to you.

[Lisafuller]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individua ... d-families
And a number of other related to taxes:
- inheritance related
- gift taxation

How about the statutory protection the marriage gives to both partners? Maintenance for the partner and such? And inheritance again.

And then there is a bunch of benefits not that tangible. Example: something happens to your partner and you have no legal right even for the information because you are formally a complete stranger.

The last point is especially interesting, and one that I believe is often overlooked. Formal connection is so important, because without it, you’re practically strangers in the eyes of the law, completely unrelated.

[Lisafuller]

I never said they should be denied civil unions.

But a marriage is only be between a man and a woman. Calling it a marriage is like calling an apple an orange… that doesn’t make it an orange.

But now, that is only because you are going by the definition of marriage that is recognized in Singapore today. Not everybody agrees with this definition, which is why, in plenty of other countries around the world, it has been revised to include same-sex couples.

Not everyone agrees with the other definition either. I’m fact, around 85% of all countries in the world today define marriage as between a man & woman, including Singapore. It is only a small minority, 30 out of 193 countries, who have altered their definition.

This attempt to redefine marriage has only been around in recent decades, whereas traditional marriage has been the norm for countless millennia, since the very beginning — it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

[Lisafuller]

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individua ... d-families
And a number of other related to taxes:
- inheritance related
- gift taxation

How about the statutory protection the marriage gives to both partners? Maintenance for the partner and such? And inheritance again.

And then there is a bunch of benefits not that tangible. Example: something happens to your partner and you have no legal right even for the information because you are formally a complete stranger.

Even two same sex platonic friends should be allowed such rights.

Imagine if neither one of them have any other family - - they only have each other. This is beyond marriage, it’s about who counts as a stranger and who counts as family.

Fair enough. In that case, perhaps certain legalaties such as housing should be amended such that they no longer revolve around marriage.

[Lisafuller]

Agree, but it is also where to draw the line and about practicalities. A formal, legalized union is a clear manifest and commitment. With friends it would be more tricky to define (to know what sort of relationship is this) and legalize certain rights.

Yup, but I think another problem is the fact that the ability to buy public housing (oftentimes) hinges on marriage, when in fact there are many who can’t, or don’t want to ever get married. Do these people not need homes?

[Lisafuller]

When searching for the definition of marriage online, the results you see today have been altered in very recent times. One of the first results you get in Google is Webster’s Dictionary definition. This article calls out Webster for changing their definition in 2009.

https://danielknorris.com/the-desecration-of-marriage/

Plenty of other words have been amended over time as their definitions have changed in order to reflect these societal changes. Should all of these changes, then, be rendered invalid?

[malcontent]

When searching for the definition of marriage online, the results you see today have been altered in very recent times. One of the first results you get in Google is Webster’s Dictionary definition. This article calls out Webster for changing their definition in 2009.

https://danielknorris.com/the-desecration-of-marriage/

Plenty of other words have been amended over time as their definitions have changed in order to reflect these societal changes. Should all of these changes, then, be rendered invalid?

Not all of society has changed, there are many who are offended when marriages are desecrated in this way. I applaud Daniel Norris for calling out Webster and speaking up on the issue.

Like anything, it’s important to strike a balance that is acceptable to both sides — find ways to give rights and privileges to people through other means, without trampling on what others hold sacred.

[malcontent]

Agree, but it is also where to draw the line and about practicalities. A formal, legalized union is a clear manifest and commitment. With friends it would be more tricky to define (to know what sort of relationship is this) and legalize certain rights.

Yup, but I think another problem is the fact that the ability to buy public housing (oftentimes) hinges on marriage, when in fact there are many who can’t, or don’t want to ever get married. Do these people not need homes?

The providing of low cost housing is not a must, and should probably be reserved for those who are have the highest potential to contribute to society. To be fair, couples who are infertile, empty nesters or DINKs should probably get lower priority, pay back subsidies or be forced to downgrade if they can’t conceive.

Hey, new policy ideas are badly needed to get more babies!

[malcontent]

https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individua ... d-families
And a number of other related to taxes:
- inheritance related
- gift taxation

How about the statutory protection the marriage gives to both partners? Maintenance for the partner and such? And inheritance again.

And then there is a bunch of benefits not that tangible. Example: something happens to your partner and you have no legal right even for the information because you are formally a complete stranger.

Even two same sex platonic friends should be allowed such rights.

Imagine if neither one of them have any other family - - they only have each other. This is beyond marriage, it’s about who counts as a stranger and who counts as family.

Fair enough. In that case, perhaps certain legalaties such as housing should be amended such that they no longer revolve around marriage.

I would support that whole heartedly.

[malcontent]

But now, that is only because you are going by the definition of marriage that is recognized in Singapore today. Not everybody agrees with this definition, which is why, in plenty of other countries around the world, it has been revised to include same-sex couples.

Not everyone agrees with the other definition either. I’m fact, around 85% of all countries in the world today define marriage as between a man & woman, including Singapore. It is only a small minority, 30 out of 193 countries, who have altered their definition.

This attempt to redefine marriage has only been around in recent decades, whereas traditional marriage has been the norm for countless millennia, since the very beginning — it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Legal rights can easily be awarded without desecrating marriage.

But nobody is desecrating marriage, there is no intent to tarnish the definition, rather people just hope to expand it to reflect the reality of relationships today: one that no longer exists exclusively between man and woman.

Nobody is desecrating marriage… in your view. There might not be an intention to tarnish, but that is exactly what is happening. Relationships today haven’t changed, only some people’s perceptions of them have. Back in the day, marrying a 12 year old was fine. Today, it’s not... perceptions change.

But this has been going on since the time of Sodom, and we know how that turned out. There’s no guarantee that this blip in time won’t totally reverse in time to come. If you look at history, over the centuries things like this tend to go to one extreme and then back to the other extreme.

[malcontent]

I believe it’s difficult to recognize your privilege when you have always been privileged. In the Singaporean context, being in a same sex relationship means the inability to get married, the inability to purchase housing together, and the inability to take advantage of immigration schemes like the family ties scheme. These are all things that are a given for heterosexual people, but we wouldn’t think twice about it, because we have always had these privileges

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

Anyway, I have never suggested that any benefits be denied to anyone, you simply don’t need marriage to achieve that.

You know I respect you so I hope you don’t take offense but you’re proving my point, Mal. It’s impossible for you to see how you’ve benefited from your privilege because these benefits have always been available to you.

On progressive indoctrination day, I might have missed the lesson on privilege and guilt.

So let me get this straight, to “be privileged” it doesn’t mean that I actually benefit or realize any privileges… it is merely the idea that I could that makes it a reality? Let me ask, do I have to “identify as privileged” for this to work?

[Lisafuller]

When searching for the definition of marriage online, the results you see today have been altered in very recent times. One of the first results you get in Google is Webster’s Dictionary definition. This article calls out Webster for changing their definition in 2009.

https://danielknorris.com/the-desecration-of-marriage/

Plenty of other words have been amended over time as their definitions have changed in order to reflect these societal changes. Should all of these changes, then, be rendered invalid?

Not all of society has changed, there are many who are offended when marriages are desecrated in this way. I applaud Daniel Norris for calling out Webster and speaking up on the issue.

Like anything, it’s important to strike a balance that is acceptable to both sides — find ways to give rights and privileges to people through other means, without trampling on what others hold sacred.

I believe it’s not the governments responsibility to protect the feelings of the religious, when there’s a much bigger civil rights issue at hand.

[Lisafuller]

How have I been privileged? In almost 20 years of legal marriage, I can’t think of a single privilege I have ever received. Is there some kind of bonanza of privileges I’ve been missing out on? I’ve been in a committed relationship with my SO for over 30 years and saw no difference pre vs post legal marriage. I considered myself married before I was legally married, it was just some nuisance paperwork to legalize it.

Anyway, I have never suggested that any benefits be denied to anyone, you simply don’t need marriage to achieve that.

You know I respect you so I hope you don’t take offense but you’re proving my point, Mal. It’s impossible for you to see how you’ve benefited from your privilege because these benefits have always been available to you.

On progressive indoctrination day, I might have missed the lesson on privilege and guilt.

So let me get this straight, to “be privileged” it doesn’t mean that I actually benefit or realize any privileges… it is merely the idea that I could that makes it a reality? Let me ask, do I have to “identify as privileged” for this to work?

LOL! No Mal, my point is just that you can never remove yourself from your privilege, so it is easy to see why you don’t view yourself as privileged.

[Lisafuller]

Agree, but it is also where to draw the line and about practicalities. A formal, legalized union is a clear manifest and commitment. With friends it would be more tricky to define (to know what sort of relationship is this) and legalize certain rights.

Yup, but I think another problem is the fact that the ability to buy public housing (oftentimes) hinges on marriage, when in fact there are many who can’t, or don’t want to ever get married. Do these people not need homes?

The providing of low cost housing is not a must, and should probably be reserved for those who are have the highest potential to contribute to society. To be fair, couples who are infertile, empty nesters or DINKs should probably get lower priority, pay back subsidies or be forced to downgrade if they can’t conceive.

Hey, new policy ideas are badly needed to get more babies!

What! A persons right to housing should never be tied to their potential to contribute to society, human rights should be independent of all else.

How can we define this potential? It’s subjective and entirely arbitrary.

[malcontent]

On progressive indoctrination day, I might have missed the lesson on privilege and guilt.

So let me get this straight, to “be privileged” it doesn’t mean that I actually benefit or realize any privileges… it is merely the idea that I could that makes it a reality? Let me ask, do I have to “identify as privileged” for this to work?

LOL! No Mal, my point is just that you can never remove yourself from your privilege, so it is easy to see why you don’t view yourself as privileged.

I think I’ve got a pretty good idea of what it feels like to be denied the privilege to a legal marriage… the > 10 year gap from the start of our committed relationship to our legal marriage was not by choice. I don’t want to get into all the details on this forum, but suffice it to say we were not allowed to, because I wasn’t the right race.

How do you think that made me feel? You probably think it must have been horrible. Maybe for some people it would have been, but for me it was completely immaterial. I was committed to her, under God, and that is all that mattered. Even if we were denied up to this day, we’d still be together. Of that there is no doubt.