Alex Tan ([info]footsteps1970) wrote,
  • Mood: calm

The Eye of the Storm

By the end of monday, Parliament pulled the curtain, albeit temporary, on the issue of the repealing of Section 377A criminalising homosexual sex between males in private or public.  The Straits Times quoted Siew Kum Hong who said the move to retain homosexuality as a crime was a “pity” and “a lost opportunity”.  He added that “keeping Section 377A shows up Singapore as being behind the rest of the world”.

The LGBT community was naturally excited when the Penal Code was put up for review earlier after more than 23 years in 1984 even though the government had made it clear back in Nov 06 that Section 377A was not up for change.  They had lobbied hard in all quarters for the repeal of Section 377A, roping in politicians, lawyers, foreign activists and a retired bishop no less.  Their hopes were lifted when even Lee Kuan Yew spoke on several occasions to local and foreign media of his support for the law to be eventually removed.


In these early times, the LGBT community has yet to voice their views but I can foresee that the “right-wing” Christian community will be blamed for putting unequal and unfair pressures on the government against the repeal and have succeeded to “blackmail” members of Parliament who are Christians to speak on their behalf.  The previous national debate on casinos in Singapore rubbished this idea that any interest group has the clout and power to influence the government to do anything against their wishes.  In the end, the pure economics out-weighed the social evils of gambling.  The government doggedly presented their case to the public on the economic merits and assured the people of their resolve to tackle all the unintended social fallout from the casinos. 


The truth of the matter is that the government of the day must take into account the views of the majority or risk losing their mandate.  However detestable this may be to people, it is the reality of life, the law of the jungle if you would.  The internet commentaries and voices may give the impression of a general support for LGBT but this is an illusion.  It is akin to going to a bar to prove that people generally like booze.  The astute amongst the community did suggest that in order for Section 377A to be repealed, they must argue the economics of the case.  This suggestion has touched a raw nerve of some in the community who felt insulted to be treated in terms of dollars and cents.  They trumped the need to give equal civil rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation.


The non-repeal of Section 377A should not lull Christians into complacency.  In fact, Christians should critically reflect why they have been singled out for criticism by the LGBT community.  Rising above the ranting, there is one useful lesson for Christians to take home. 


And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on, sin no more." (John 8:12)


Remember Jesus’ response to the women caught in the act of adultery?  Have Christians been so zealous in telling LGBT to “sin no more” that we forgot to say “I do not condemn you”?  In our quest to respond to the more vocal sections of the LGBT community, we could have unwittingly alienate those within that are still desperately trying to find answers.  Individually and collectively as a Church, we need to do better to reach out to these confused souls and counter the massive propaganda of the world.  This means having the moral courage to speak out for the truth and reflect the reality of homosexuality.    


We are in the proverbial eye in the storm and the LGBT community will quickly find another vehicle to drive their cause and sought to find means to bring social pressures on the government and community at large towards their cause.  While we continue to be the “salt and light” of the world, we also need to relate better to the individual LGBT around us and seek to do what Paul has exhorted Christians to do:


For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.  To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.  To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

Tags: lgbt

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 5 comments

[info]shianux

September 23 2007, 04:32:23 UTC 4 years ago

Perhaps I can offer the perspective of someone who is not gay nor Christian, and yet support the repeal of s 377a.

I do not care for what gays do in their lives, as long as they do not harm others. I clearly would support and defend YOUR right, and the right of other Christians, to preach and spread the word.

If you believe that homosexuality is against God, by all means, preach away. Reach out to gays, convince them of whatever you believe in.

However, the moment Christians try to USE the LAW to compel others who are NOT Christian to live by the rules that YOUR religion sets out, this is unacceptable to me.

It is morally unjust, to use the force of law, to compel others to abide by YOUR beliefs. If you truly are Christian, and you truly believe in free will, then there is no reason why you would need the force of law to compel others to accept the teachings of your religion.

[info]footsteps1970

September 23 2007, 13:55:00 UTC 4 years ago

To shianux

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

You are right that while Christians are against abortion, divorce and prostitution, they do not demand the government of the day to enact laws to criminalise them. It will also be probably in my lifetime that we will see the ultimate repeal of section 377a in our secular nation.

To Christian, homosexuality is a morality issue. To others,it is a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately, unlike the legalising of abortion and divorce, de-criminalisation of homosexuality will have far greater ramifications.

Let me explain. Though abortion and divorce are legalised, we do not have people expounding on the virtues of these actions. The LGBT community will have you think that all they want is societal acceptance to allow them to live their lives without harming or imposing on others. This could perhaps be the wishes of many in the community. However, the experiences of other countries who have de-criminalised homosexuality will tell you that that the ultimate aim of the more aggressive LGBT is full acceptance.

Our society is heterosexual-based with a traditional interpretation of family, marriage and parenthood. Legalising homosexuality means that society needs to come to terms with this lifestyle and we will need to re-interpret the values we currently hold. Perhaps you are prepared for it since you have already had time to mature and make your own decisions.

As a parent, I am not sure I am ready to let my son be exposed to civic lessons in the school that expounds homosexuality as just an alternative lifestyle. Between my rights to exercise parental care for my son and the LGBT rights to champion the point that homosexuality is normal, who should have precedence?

It is not a straight forward decision to just repeal section 337a. As a citizen of this country, I will ask the government of the day to allow Singaporeans to deliberate the full implications of what LBGT community sees as a "necessary actions to promote greater civil rights of a growing minority" on the rest of the silent majority.

[info]shianux

September 23 2007, 14:19:40 UTC 4 years ago

Re: To shianux

My position is that while I support the repeal of s 377a, I certainly do not support homosexuals imposing their beliefs on others.

This means, I certainly do not support "gay marriage". A distinction must be drawn between the concept of marriage as a religious institution, and according equal legal rights to homosexual unions.

My point is that, Christians should not be forced by law to accept gays into their faith, just as gays should not be forced by law to choose their sexual orientation.

Similarly, my position on children is clear: it is not up to schools or the government to teach values to children. It should solely be the responsibility of the parents. If parents wish to teach their children that homosexuality is wrong, then it is fully within the parent's rights. My only objection is only towards government action that compels schools to teach children to be for or against.

I would argue further, that if there are parents who wish to avoid any contact or teaching that is somehow involved with homosexuality, there should be religious schools set up who are allowed to set their own education policy. Or that parents should be allowed to set up their own homeschooling schedules.

I believe this is common practice amongst Christian parents in the USA.

I believe that it is very important to take a position that is both logically coherent and morally just. I believe that the position that I argue for is fair to both people who do not wish to have their children taught values that they do not approve of, and to homosexuals who should be allowed to live their own lives in the way they choose.

[info]footsteps1970

September 23 2007, 14:47:30 UTC 4 years ago

Re: To shianux

Singapore is too small for a country for us to allow the setup of religious schools with their own education policy. Looking at our Malaysian neighbours experience in setting up of vernacular schools, doing what you suggest is vainly attempting to solve a problem but creating a different, more socially divisive one.

At certain levels, you and I have no disagreement that homosexuals should be allowed to live their lives in the way they choose. The disagreement is at what expense should it be to the rest of us. Your suggestion that Christians should withdraw to their own cocoon to avoid the dilemma is to deny my rights a a citizen to education.

While your conclusion is noble in theory, it is difficult to implement where the rubber hits the road. I do not have the answer and I repeat my stand that Singaporeans need to collectively deliberate this in a comprehensive manner to forge a common way forward, our views notwithstanding.

Thanks again for sharing your views. Take care.

[info]shianux

September 23 2007, 15:09:20 UTC 4 years ago

Re: To shianux

thank you for this very civil discussion. I do appreciate it.

One thing to note, you do not have to worry about your rights as a citizen if your children were educated under private religious schools. It is consistently true, in the USA and elsewhere, that private religious schools always outperform publicly funded ones.

And with funding from missions and religious charities, such schools should be affordable to people of all backgrounds.

Take care.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…