Singapore Expats

Has anybody actually taken the time to read the comments that the signatories to these two petitions have written. Especially the ones on the Keep 377A Petition?

http://www.keep377a.com/Signatures.aspx

http://www.repeal377a.com/letter/signatories/

This country is full of nutters if you ask me. I've never seen such drivel in my life.

My stance?

I say repeal the law. I personally find homosexuality for male or female abhorrent. Having said that, I am of the belief that it is not a choice per se as proclaimed by the anti-repeal mob. I do believe it's a short-circuit of the brain functions because it does go against the natural selection and propagation of the species that all animals strive for subconsciously (homo sapiens included). Therefore, while not personally enamoured of their lifestyles, I don't see the purpose of making criminal something that they don't really have any control over (unless you consider total abstinence a solution). What they do in privacy is their business.

I am, however, against same sex marriages. While I believe in decriminalizing the act, I am not for legitimizing it by the act of marriage. I also think gay couples of either gender should not be allowed to adopt children either. I don't care how much love they have to give.

What say ye?

For many reasons, it should be repealed, of course.

repeal of cos... i didn't even know such a penal code existed in the first place...

why should it be made criminal?? this is their personal lives... its not like they're not doing it now already.. and i don't see how removing it would "promote" gay sex... as long as they don do it in public, but then again, making out in public between heterosexuals is disgusting too...
i do agree that gay sex is abhorrent and abnormal, but so is oral sex and anal sex between heterosexuals... does that mean that it should be made criminal too???

whether its by choice or not, its really not for us to judge or know... again, its their personal lives...

most speak of upholding morals and family values, those of whom voted for keeping the law... what about the rise in stats of parents having to seek maintenance from children through the courts?? how about dr. throwing cleaner mum out of the house because of the wife?? look at the number of court cases amongst family members fighting over inheritance.... we want to talk about family values, sigh... there are just so many other factors and negativity and bad influences out there, not just gay sex... morals and family values are taught at home first... sorry for digression here, but couldn't help it...

as for gay marriages and adopting children... i have my reservations too... especially about the children... they might grow up thinking thats the norm...

Why was my post deleted?

If you want a discussion, then do not start deleting posts, right?

Anyway,

It is just another example of how awfully backward the mindset is in Disneyland Singapore.

Mayamomi, there is abslutely nothing abnormal about two people having sex.

The gender has nothing to do with that.

Superglide wrote:Why was my post deleted?

If you want a discussion, then do not start deleting posts, right?

Anyway,

It is just another example of how awfully backward the mindset is in Disneyland Singapore.

Mayamomi, there is abslutely nothing abnormal about two people having sex.

The gender has nothing to do with that.

Superglide.

I was basically agreeing with mayamomi right up until: 'they might grow up thinking thats the norm.'

As long as it is consensual sex between adults, who cares. Singapore look ridiculously lost in the dark ages with a law like that on its books. Those nuts that try to play the 'family values' card really do make me sick.

Superglide wrote:Why was my post deleted?


Mayamomi, there is abslutely nothing abnormal about two people having sex.

The gender has nothing to do with that.

thats not what i meant... i'm not really interested in how others are having sex...

i said oral and anal sex is abnormal because thats not the definition of sexual intercourse... i'm personally not for or against about it but thats not the point... i'm just saying that if its not made criminal, then why should gay sex... besides its bedroom business, don't see how anyone would be able or would be interested to find out.. maybe unless u're some celebrity ...

road.not.taken wrote: I was basically agreeing with mayamomi right up until: 'they might grow up thinking thats the norm.'

As long as it is consensual sex between adults, who cares. Singapore look ridiculously lost in the dark ages with a law like that on its books. Those nuts that try to play the 'family values' card really do make me sick.

u're right bout the consensual sex between adults... but when children are brought up, as i said earlier, everything is taught at home first and they learn by examples set by the adults.. imagine them seeing "daddy and mommy" are of the same sex... they might grow up thinking that they have to find a partner of the same sex too .... everyone should be entitled to find their own identity and sexuality... instead of being influenced from a young age ...

I don't see much wrong with what mayamomi said - she states quite clearly that the ludicrous petition is, ludicrous.

Her sexual ideas don't include how others have sex. Isn't that the most liberal standpoint? Good for you, mayamomi

And when she says:

i said oral and anal sex is abnormal because thats not the definition of sexual intercourse...

she is quite clearly talking academically which is the best way to approach any emotive subject.

mayamomi wrote: but when children are brought up, as i said earlier, everything is taught at home first and they learn by examples set by the adults.. imagine them seeing "daddy and mommy" are of the same sex... they might grow up thinking that they have to find a partner of the same sex too .... everyone should be entitled to find their own identity and sexuality... instead of being influenced from a young age ...

So are heterosexual couples influencing their children at a young age?

Who cares what sex the parents are, as long as they set good examples.

cutiebutie, if you look again you'll see I was referencing M's stance on same sex marriages, not the specifics of sex itself.

road.not.taken wrote: So are heterosexual couples influencing their children at a young age?

Who cares what sex the parents are, as long as they set good examples.

cutiebutie, if you look again you'll see I was referencing M's stance on same sex marriages, not the specifics of sex itself.

much as i can condone gay sex and in fact have friends who are, because like i said, other people's personal lives have nothing to do with me, however, its still abnormal, to me at least, and in fact i think, thats what it is, a FACT... btw, on general i think there is a difference between setting good examples and being abnormal, because i "feel" that the abnormal could set good examples although it might not be easy... back to the context of our topic for example...

imagine the gay couple telling their adopted kids that what "daddy and mommy" are doing is abnormal and that the kids should not follow?? wouldn't that be self-contradicting?? is that a good example?? so how would they be able to convince the kids that the other probably genuinely "good examples" (apart from sexual preferences) are good and correct?? would the kids follow??

am i making sense? or long-winded... i think i'm losing track... my mind is moving faster than my fingers...

cutiebutie wrote: Good for you, mayamomi

Thks, cutie...

Good topic, SMS.

Seems to me that many heterosexuals find it threatening to admit homosexuality as an acceptable way of life. I wonder why. Religion plays a big part in people's mindsets of course. But I think largely it's also because people don't really know how to react in the presence of gay intimacy. The first time I saw two gays fondling, I was mightily embarassed, but now I'm used to it. Many people haven't seen that first-hand and perhaps it's fear of the unknown more than anything else.

Personally I support repealing the law, as I do the law on anal sex and many other, in my view, unnecessary laws. I think the onus should be on proponents of any law to justify its necessity. If in doubt, the decision should favour simplicity. And in my view less (law) is better.

Interestingly, the gays themselves are staying out of the debate for the most past. When I ask my gay friends what they think of the whole hullaballoo, they just shrug and get on with their lives.

sundaymorningstaple wrote:I am, however, against same sex marriages. While I believe in decriminalizing the act, I am not for legitimizing it by the act of marriage. I also think gay couples of either gender should not be allowed to adopt children either. I don't care how much love they have to give.

What say ye?

I say ye be full of it!

Seriously, one must first distinguish between religious definitions of marrige and civil definitions. I don't really care what any church decides to do about gay marriage... the effect lies only within the religion.

Civil marriage is another cat altogether. There are many contractual rights and obligations governed by civil marriage. For example:

a) The ability to give medical consent to surgery and other medical processes. Why not the partner, the one closest, instead of mom or dad or bro or sis?

b) The ability to inherit. The spouse in a civil union is almost always first in line. Why should it be any different for gays who choose to commit to marriage?

c) Community property. Again, why should gays who choose to commit to civil marriage not be governed by the same community property laws as straights?

d) Taxes. Actually, why should married straights have to pay on joint income why married gays do not? Let them also be governed by the same income tax provisions.

e) Privacy - Why should not gays in a civil marriage be covered like straights when it comes to testifying against a spouse in court?

f) Insurance - why shouldn't gays in civil marriage be treated the same as straights when it comes to insuring spouses? Many companies already offer this benefit because they know current practice is discriminatory.

In short, people of the same sex who are willing to be governed by the marriage contract the same as straights should be afforded the same exact rights, responsibilities and duties.

As for adoption of children:

a) As you say, homosexuality is born not bred. So how exactly would being raised by two gays affect the child's sexual preferences? Note that the vast majority of US heterosexual men have had at least one homosexual experience.

b) Given the choice of an orphanage or foster parent home versus the nuturing and love of a committed couple I find it hard to see how there could be any other choice, even if the child did turn out gay.

mayamomi wrote:imagine the gay couple telling their adopted kids that what "daddy and mommy" are doing is abnormal and that the kids should not follow?? wouldn't that be self-contradicting??

My guess is that the gay couple would tell the kids nothing of the sort. They are 'normal' in their view, why would they tell the kids any different? What they would probably tell the kids is that mommy and daddy had the courage to follow their hearts against society's norms and biases, and encourage their kids to similarly pursue their own passions, be it choice of careers or what to wear or life partners, and ignore what others say. That is actually not a bad thing.

Strong Eagle wrote:As for adoption of children:

a) As you say, homosexuality is born not bred. So how exactly would being raised by two gays affect the child's sexual preferences? Note that the vast majority of US heterosexual men have had at least one homosexual experience.

b) Given the choice of an orphanage or foster parent home versus the nuturing and love of a committed couple I find it hard to see how there could be any other choice, even if the child did turn out gay.

Exactly right Strong Eagle,

Mayamomi, I still just don't understand this:

imagine the gay couple telling their adopted kids that what "daddy and mommy" are doing is abnormal and that the kids should not follow??

You mean Mommy & Mommy?

Parents should have discussions like that if their behavior is dangerous (think of smoking) but being in a loving committed relationship is not the same as smoking. I guess you are figuring the children of homosexual parents are more likely to be gay themselves (unlike the smoking analogy)? I don't think there is evidence of this to support this. I have never told my children that I am a heterosexual, so I am 'normal' and they should follow suit. Good parents come in many shapes and sizes and sexual preferences and teach by example more then they could ever teach by lecturing. I think you are also not allowing for the gay couple to have their own, non-adopted children, this happens all the time.