For people who have no idea, Section 337A is the Singapore law
that criminalizes sex between men. A lot of people on the internet are unhappy
about the guide from the church but I have to say I don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Now I’m not saying Section 337A is a good law, but there
have been a movement to repel Section 377A of the Singapore's Penal Code. Quite
a number of organization has joined together to try and repel Section 377A
under a number of reason like freedom, and if some organizations can organize themselves
to move against the law; why can’t churches organize themselves to support the
law?
As they say, what's good for the goose is good for the
gander and last I heard the Vatican, the ultimate power in Christianity, is
still firmly against homosexual relations between men. Is it that surprising a network of churches
would be against homosexual relations between men and organizing themselves to support Section 337A? I don't find it surprising at all.
As for those of you who say
a church should not comment on a civil law under the name of religion, I find
that reasoning to be stupid. We have organizations who are campaigning against the law in
the name of freedom, but at the same time we are saying campaigning for the law in the
name of religion is wrong? That’s require verbal agility I don’t possess.
Best way to settle this; put Section 337A on a national ballot and let Singaporeans choose whether to have this law on the books. Let the people of Singapore decide the issue.
5 comments:
Quite clearly, verbal agility isn't the only thing you don't possess...
///express support for Section 377A ///
/// For people who have no idea, Section 337A ///
/// Now I’m not saying Section 337A is a good law, but there have been a movement to repel Section 377A of the Singapore's Penal Code. ///
/// organizing themselves to support Section 337A? ///
Make up your mind - are you referring to 337A or 377A?
How do you repel Section 377A?
By using mosquito repellent?
Yes, Lawrence Khong is repulsive.
"Lawrence Khong is repulsive"
This is why the movement to repel Section 337A is having so little traction. Name-calling is not going to help the cause, it will only hurt it. To repel 337A, you need to engage the opposition and yes, that means Lawrence Khong.
Lawrence Khong is heading a movement to support a law that's already on the books; you can argue he has the wrong view but you cannot argue what he is doing is unlawful and repulsive. That just makes you look petty!
Engage the opposition, engage the general Singapore public in the heartlands, put your views to them; it's the only way the law is going to go.
Look here - the first poster was correct - you don't possess basic vocabulary, let alone verbal agility.
You repeal a law; you don't repel it. That pun on repulsive and repellent is to let you know that you got your "repel" wrong.
And you can't even get 377 and 337 right.
You repel me.
So instead of arguing on the facts, strategy, and tactics needed to get rid of the law, you decide to argue on grammar mistakes. Seriously, do you really think that (and name-calling) is going to help?
Post a Comment