Or at least that's what the Singapore Government says to people like me that are contributing equally to society and economy.
Except for the law abiding part, and the pro-creation part... Now I don't think I'm very law abiding, am I?
I don't steal, fight, kill, cheat, harassed others or has violated any clause in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Chapter 167A) unlike some people whom had most probably done so without being prosecuted.
I'm gay.
According to the proposed amendments to the penal code after the first parliamentary reading on 17 September 2007 (published by the Ministry of Home Affairs), proposed changes to the law governing restriction of "gross indecency" between gays (Section 377A) has not only gone unamended, but "suffered double insult" as the law sits in between proposed laws against necrophilia and bestiality.
Whatever huge sinful act had we done to be held up as criminals, and be damned even till death?
I'm not quite getting it here. A citizen that contributes to the wealth and economy of Singapore, and is part of aminority group seemingly far larger than 2% of the population, constituting about 89,600 of the population (based on 2% estimate), yet all of them had been categorised as citizens with unconfessed criminal offences. The numbers quoted above is an extremely conservative estimate, unlike published estimates on demographics of sexual orientation that indicates more than 8% of a population may have attractions towards the same sex.
Religion is an issue that is inescapable, since the government and conservative religious organisations had been voicing opposition to the penal code's amendment, based on arguments that the proposed amendment are conflicting with their beliefs. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam and Sikhism forms a large group of people voicing out against homosexuality, but not all views are united. Views on this matter are further divided in Hinduism, since some believe that a variation in gender types and sexual orientation are considered to be "holy". Part of ancient Hinduism belief is that gender-variants will be the "pure of heart and tongue" -SQ21, Shelia Rajamanikam, page 178, line 15. However, such beliefs are not popular in the Singapore Hinduism culture.
Taking into account statistics of religious demographics in Singapore published in 2000, 14.6% of the population are Christians, 14.9% are Muslims, 4% are Hindu, and 0.39% are Sikhs. That forms 33.89% of the population that are supposedly against homosexuality, not taking into account that views on the matter are divided within these religious groups, affirming or opposing.
33.89% is too troublesome to type. Let's round up it shall we? 33.9%? No... We can round up it further. Let's say 34% are the "conservative majority".
Buddhism and Taoism were however, much more vague in matters dealing with homosexuality. Practitioners in different places believe in different spiritual regulations for or against homosexuality. However, unlike Christianity or Islam's deep motivation for evangelism and ex-gay ministries, as "commanded" in Biblical texts, Buddhism draws the line well between applying such spiritual regulations to practitioners of Buddhism only, and not applying them to the unbelievers. In the case of unbelievers, Buddhism emphasises on the need to embrace people that are different, promoting human rights over Buddhist scriptures. Taoism, on the other hand believes in the Yin and Yang energies, for in this case a gay couple would be a yang on yang, opposing the foundations of Taoism. Yet, Taoism scriptures do not explicitly forbid homosexuality.
Buddhism forms 42.5% of the population, and Taoism 8.5%. In total, 51% of the population are somewhat gay-tolerant (noting that 8.5% of the number is a grey area in the case of Taoism). I said only somewhat gay-tolerant. Personal opinions cannot be calculated, and therefore, similiar to the opposing religions of homosexuality, one belonging to this group may also be an opposition to homosexuality due to difference in beliefs or personal views.
But comparing 34% of the opposing voices (with divided views) to 51% of supporting voices (again with divided views), don't you think it's laughable that the opposing don't even form half of the population, while Buddhism alone had far exceeded the number of believers in the opposing voices? What makes anyone think Christianity is more tolerant than Buddhism with explicit mention of homosexuality as a sin in the Bible?
That is why I believe that categorising the opposing voices as a significant minority is more than appropriate.
Don't you find that 2%, or 89,600 people do form a significant minority too? So, why are our voices being ignored, out-shined by another significant minority, and gain no recognition at all?
The government has always quoted "Asian values" and a "conservative majority" as the primary reason why Section 377A of the penal code is here to stay. What are those "Asian values"? I always hear about them, but have there been any elaborate written documentation of "Asian values" like how the law does, further approved for ISO-certification or something? What are those values?
The values are divided, I would say. Who determines what is a morally right conduct? Loving someone of the same sex wrong? Expressing love through sex wrong? What is right, and what is wrong?
Conservative majority? What conservative majority? 34% of a conservative significant minority it is.
One may argue that personal opinions on the matter can always differ, but if a certain portion of the claim can be proved using statistics, that the "anti-gay majority" is indeed just a significant minority, how much variation will we be expecting that some individuals have opinions that are similiar or contrary to their religious values?
If my friends and I, age ranging from 18 to 25, can already see the big picture in this matter, I don't see how the entire government chose to look elsewhere for answers.
If you noticed, I didn't even add the non-religious group of the population (which forms 14.6% of the population). 14.6% of divided views, ungoverned by any religious beliefs. What tells the government that most of these people are conservative too, when they believe in nothing?
If gays can procreate and produce geniuses that will be future millionaires, I think the government will not hesitate to decriminalise homosexuality. So much for equal human rights for everyone.
Except for the law abiding part, and the pro-creation part... Now I don't think I'm very law abiding, am I?
I don't steal, fight, kill, cheat, harassed others or has violated any clause in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Chapter 167A) unlike some people whom had most probably done so without being prosecuted.
I'm gay.
According to the proposed amendments to the penal code after the first parliamentary reading on 17 September 2007 (published by the Ministry of Home Affairs), proposed changes to the law governing restriction of "gross indecency" between gays (Section 377A) has not only gone unamended, but "suffered double insult" as the law sits in between proposed laws against necrophilia and bestiality.
Whatever huge sinful act had we done to be held up as criminals, and be damned even till death?
I'm not quite getting it here. A citizen that contributes to the wealth and economy of Singapore, and is part of aminority group seemingly far larger than 2% of the population, constituting about 89,600 of the population (based on 2% estimate), yet all of them had been categorised as citizens with unconfessed criminal offences. The numbers quoted above is an extremely conservative estimate, unlike published estimates on demographics of sexual orientation that indicates more than 8% of a population may have attractions towards the same sex.
Religion is an issue that is inescapable, since the government and conservative religious organisations had been voicing opposition to the penal code's amendment, based on arguments that the proposed amendment are conflicting with their beliefs. Christianity, Catholicism, Islam and Sikhism forms a large group of people voicing out against homosexuality, but not all views are united. Views on this matter are further divided in Hinduism, since some believe that a variation in gender types and sexual orientation are considered to be "holy". Part of ancient Hinduism belief is that gender-variants will be the "pure of heart and tongue" -SQ21, Shelia Rajamanikam, page 178, line 15. However, such beliefs are not popular in the Singapore Hinduism culture.
Taking into account statistics of religious demographics in Singapore published in 2000, 14.6% of the population are Christians, 14.9% are Muslims, 4% are Hindu, and 0.39% are Sikhs. That forms 33.89% of the population that are supposedly against homosexuality, not taking into account that views on the matter are divided within these religious groups, affirming or opposing.
33.89% is too troublesome to type. Let's round up it shall we? 33.9%? No... We can round up it further. Let's say 34% are the "conservative majority".
Buddhism and Taoism were however, much more vague in matters dealing with homosexuality. Practitioners in different places believe in different spiritual regulations for or against homosexuality. However, unlike Christianity or Islam's deep motivation for evangelism and ex-gay ministries, as "commanded" in Biblical texts, Buddhism draws the line well between applying such spiritual regulations to practitioners of Buddhism only, and not applying them to the unbelievers. In the case of unbelievers, Buddhism emphasises on the need to embrace people that are different, promoting human rights over Buddhist scriptures. Taoism, on the other hand believes in the Yin and Yang energies, for in this case a gay couple would be a yang on yang, opposing the foundations of Taoism. Yet, Taoism scriptures do not explicitly forbid homosexuality.
Buddhism forms 42.5% of the population, and Taoism 8.5%. In total, 51% of the population are somewhat gay-tolerant (noting that 8.5% of the number is a grey area in the case of Taoism). I said only somewhat gay-tolerant. Personal opinions cannot be calculated, and therefore, similiar to the opposing religions of homosexuality, one belonging to this group may also be an opposition to homosexuality due to difference in beliefs or personal views.
But comparing 34% of the opposing voices (with divided views) to 51% of supporting voices (again with divided views), don't you think it's laughable that the opposing don't even form half of the population, while Buddhism alone had far exceeded the number of believers in the opposing voices? What makes anyone think Christianity is more tolerant than Buddhism with explicit mention of homosexuality as a sin in the Bible?
That is why I believe that categorising the opposing voices as a significant minority is more than appropriate.
Don't you find that 2%, or 89,600 people do form a significant minority too? So, why are our voices being ignored, out-shined by another significant minority, and gain no recognition at all?
The government has always quoted "Asian values" and a "conservative majority" as the primary reason why Section 377A of the penal code is here to stay. What are those "Asian values"? I always hear about them, but have there been any elaborate written documentation of "Asian values" like how the law does, further approved for ISO-certification or something? What are those values?
The values are divided, I would say. Who determines what is a morally right conduct? Loving someone of the same sex wrong? Expressing love through sex wrong? What is right, and what is wrong?
Conservative majority? What conservative majority? 34% of a conservative significant minority it is.
One may argue that personal opinions on the matter can always differ, but if a certain portion of the claim can be proved using statistics, that the "anti-gay majority" is indeed just a significant minority, how much variation will we be expecting that some individuals have opinions that are similiar or contrary to their religious values?
If my friends and I, age ranging from 18 to 25, can already see the big picture in this matter, I don't see how the entire government chose to look elsewhere for answers.
If you noticed, I didn't even add the non-religious group of the population (which forms 14.6% of the population). 14.6% of divided views, ungoverned by any religious beliefs. What tells the government that most of these people are conservative too, when they believe in nothing?
If gays can procreate and produce geniuses that will be future millionaires, I think the government will not hesitate to decriminalise homosexuality. So much for equal human rights for everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment