Lee Hsien Loong’s French bottom falls out

Demonstrators march through the streets of Paris in support of the French government's draft law to legalise marriage and adoption for same-sex couples

Barely a week after Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong cited opposition in France to gay marriage as a reason not to do anything about Singapore’s anti-gay law, he was shown up for his piss-scared views by the government of President François Hollande. The French National Assembly approved a key part of Hollande’s Reform Bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. The French showed that controversy is no excuse for inaction.

With that, the bottom fell out of Lee’s argument.

In Paris, deputies voted 249-97 last Saturday in favour. The remaining articles are being debated, but the overall bill is expected to be passed within two weeks.

In any case, Lee may not realise that despite the noise of the demonstration against gay marriage in Paris, a majority of the French public backs gay marriage. A recent poll for Atlantico.fr magazine carried out by Ifop found that 63 percent of people in France support the legalisation of same-sex marriage. 49 percent supported gay adoption.

Meanwhile in Britain, the House of Commons approved the second reading of a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. See the BBC’s report: Gay marriage: MPs back legislation. Members of Parliament voted 400 to 175 in favour.

Lee Hsien Loong said on 28 January 2013 that even in countries that do not criminalise homosexuality, “the struggles don’t end”, citing the example of a recent demonstration in Paris by those against gay marriage. (There was a subsequent demonstration in favour of it). This is not the first time that he is relying on the argument that since there are hate-spewers around, let’s not antagonise them.

“Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it,” said Lee, referring to Section 377A of the Penal Code which makes it an offence to have gay sex, even in private.

The myopic might argue that it is not entirely wrong for a government to sit on the fence while controversy rages. This is a very mistaken view that takes no account of the moral difference between the two positions. There is a huge moral difference between fanning discrimination on the one hand and affirming equal dignity and progressivity on the other.

pic_201302_10

Some anti-gay folks will seize on my use of the term “moral difference” above and reject my argument that equality and non-discrimination have greater worth than their opposites. They may argue that morality is grounded in religious injunction, specifically the injunctions emanating from their churches’ pastors pretending to speak for their god.

While there is indeed a form of morality that springs from religious teaching, when it comes to a secular state, that is not the morality to be used as yardstick.

The Delhi High Court, in the Section 377A case, put it best, saying that courts have to be guided by constitutional morality. These are the noble principles and aspirations enshrined in a constitution, among them equality and non-discrimination. Especially in a secular state, judges must be clear-eyed about what morality they should be guided by. Unfortunately, this is also a more subtle, intellectual argument, without the decibel power deployed by the alliance of anti-gay churches.

The worst part of the latter’s campaign is that by muscling into our politics as a religious group, it is going to do long-term damage to our understanding of a secular state. Koh Weijie has a good article on this.

pic_201302_09

* * * * *

The anti-gay crowd often put up arguments that are laughable. They are either logically flawed, contrary to evidence, circular or subjective. Push them hard enough, and you will find that many arguments go no further than a scriptural barricade.

A novel, if rather absurd argument against same-sex marriage recently surfaced in oral hearings before the US Supreme Court, where California’s Proposition 8 is being considered. Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that

  1. the purpose of marriage is to ensure that accidentally-conceived children are not born out of wedlock;
  2. since same-sex couples never have accidentally-conceived children, their unions cannot possibly meet this purposive prequalification for the term “marriage”;
  3. therefore marriage should be reserved to opposite-sex couples.

Los Angeles Times reported this new, mind-blowing development with much sputtering: Marriage exists — for what?

But even so, it is hard to beat the reasoning supplied in a letter to an newspaper by a girl named Jasmin. Click the duck to read it.

pic_201302_12

Okay, okay, you may point out that the letter about ducks was written by a 14-year old, and we should give her some latitude. Fair enough, but I think the more important point I should make is that the arguments used aren’t much different from those used by our leading anti-gay campaigners — who are adults.

Might they be suffering from arrested development?

* * * * *

Concerned Christians may be wondering how much damage their anti-gay campaign is doing to the reputation of their faith. Leave the crazy pastors to their echo chambers, and they’d likely go all the way to making gay-hate as much an article of faith as believing in Jesus Christ.

Fortunately, there have always been plenty more Christians who are more thinking and self-reflexive. There is a range of opinions, from those who argue that the church should be fully embracing to those who make a careful distinction between moral teaching and what the law in a secular state should be free to do.

pic_201302_11

On the latter point, a recent blogpost on CNN noted an interesting finding, which illustrates this:

Forty years after the Supreme Court protected abortion rights in Roe v. Wade, a new survey finds that white evangelicals remain the only major religious group that supports overturning the landmark ruling, even though most such groups find abortion morally wrong.

Slightly more than half (54%) of white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center study, favor completely overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to have an abortion. No other religious group, including white mainline Protestants, black Protestants and white Catholics, agreed with completely overturning the ruling.

In fact, substantial majorities of white Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be over turned, the survey found.

But support for keeping Roe v. Wade intact does not mean these religious majorities believe abortion is morally acceptable.

– Blog: Survey: Few religious groups want Roe v. Wade overturned despite belief abortion morally wrong. Link.

Large numbers of Christians are able to delink their moral views from what they think criminal law should say.

Others, like MP for Tottenham David Lammy (Labour) speaking in support of the bill in England and Wales, apply their Christian-based moral views in support for equality. Note particularly his remarks starting 1 minute 45 secs “Separate but equal is a fraud”, and from 4 minutes 15 secs.

This only shows that the pastors and others leading the current campaign over 377A do not have a monopoly of Christian interpretation. Unfortunately, they are getting so vocal, they drown out others from their faith with differing views. They’ve managed to frighten our prime minister so much, he’s running around with a flapping bottom.

49 Responses to “Lee Hsien Loong’s French bottom falls out”


  1. 1 kampong boy 7 February 2013 at 20:49

    maybe it’s time that we tell the emperor that he has no clothes

  2. 3 Anon g78F 7 February 2013 at 21:35

    just to note that ducks will never evolve beyond us, because they are one of the many species of animals well known for homosexual behavior.. Do no one ever go to sit by a pond/lake/river and observe some ducks? Do that, and you be surprise by number of male/male pairings.

    • 4 incoherent feminist (i do apologise for ambiguity) 13 February 2013 at 00:33

      And giraffes! Male giraffes mate 70% of the time with each other, because it’s hard to get the female to ovulate. (and does she not know of the sheer /number/ of Chinese emperors does she seriously think none of them looked at his servant and thought “He’s hot.”)
      Homosexual behaviour is proven to be part of the evolutionary process that controls a species’ population, and not something antagonistic to ensuring a population’s survival. (In addition to her hysterically flawed argument, ignorance and homophobic logic I would like to add the RAGE OF ALL NATURALISTS LIVING AND DEAD)

  3. 5 mike 7 February 2013 at 22:01

    Lead PM Lee , be a true leader, stop being a sheep in a flock. President Obama was elected for a second term by not running away from unpopular subjects. His wish for change on immagration reform and gay rights is what help him in being reelected. The GOP ( grand old party of pfools) or repulicans have become so out of touch wih the common man and changing social views , they are still in denial over how they lost the election.
    Be a leader PM Lee

  4. 6 Tan Wa Lau 7 February 2013 at 23:01

    Alex, my main objection to same sex marriage is not so muck on religious or moral ground. It’s more on survival of the human race. If everyone adopt this lifestyle, where is our next generation going to come from? Please don’t tell me about using of technology or adoption as there is no kid born to be adopted.

    • 7 yawningbread 8 February 2013 at 01:51

      Your argument fell down the moment you said “if everyone adopts this lifestyle”.

      • 8 Tan Wa Lau 8 February 2013 at 05:57

        Alex, if you encourage this lifestyle choice, it will impact the human race

      • 9 Kai 8 February 2013 at 09:48

        Precisely, how is it even possible for everyone to ‘”adopt” this “lifestyle”? Further, being LGBT (like being straight) is not a lifestyle that can be adopted — it is something one is born with and that forms the core of one’s identity. (If you’re sure that you’re straight, just try being gay for a while and see if it’s even possible!) The fact that the human race has evolved and survived for millions of years with homosexuality being present from time immemorial suggests that not only does the presence of LGBTs not threaten the survival of the human race, but that there is an evolutionary reason for it.

      • 10 walkie talkie 8 February 2013 at 11:05

        Wa Lau eh, you must as well said that Singapore should outlaw or ban people from becoming Roman Catholic Priests, because according to your unreasonable reasoning, if everyone adopts a Roman Catholic Priest’s lifestyle, then where is our next generation going to come from?

      • 11 kampong boy 8 February 2013 at 23:58

        yes, and we should outlaw buddhist monks too, cause they don’t marry. and if everybody becomes a monk, human will be extinct in one generation.

    • 12 Duh 8 February 2013 at 02:48

      Another way to phrase it – Tan Wa Lau, why don’t you try being gay for a couple of months to get a feel what it is like to be one since it is a lifestyle choice? I mean, go try dating someone of the same sex, kiss, hold hands, hug etc etc etc… Why? Isn’t it a lifestyle choice, as you have claimed it to be? You don’t want to or simply can’t? Now, think about how gay people feel.

      Really, do some perspective taking and get down from your high horse.

    • 13 Anon kVcS 8 February 2013 at 09:17

      typical comment that is so flawed. homosexuality is not a contagious disease, there has always been gays sincr the beginnin of times, before marriages even existed. if u dont approve of gays for whatever religious beliefs fine, but dont prevent otherw from having equal rights. u dont see vegans trying to enforce the banning of meat right?

    • 14 The 8 February 2013 at 09:40

      If everyone don’t get married.

      If everyone decide to focus on their career and opt not to have children.

      If everyone goes on the pill, or condom, or whatever.

      Having everyone on this earth do the same thing is an impossibility. A more likely occurrence, just once will do – if the earth stop spinning.

    • 15 ape@kinjioleaf 8 February 2013 at 09:40

      Tan, you seemed to have an impression that legalising same sex marriage will promote same sex marriage because ‘Hey! I have a wider pool of people to choose whom I want to marry! ‘

      I don’t know about you. I’m a heterosexual male and no way can I imagine myself sexually attracted to another male or even marry one.

      But what I see is why are we discriminating homosexuals and denying them of marriage, subsidised public housing, adoption or even declaring their love? Yet, there are cases where heterosexuals who are irresponsible and ignorant about marriage and parenthood, abuse their children, scheming for subsidised housing and making a mockery of love?

      • 16 Duh 8 February 2013 at 13:42

        You forgot the biggest irony there is – it is us, the straight people, who are having gay children. Gay people, until recently, wasn’t responsible for their birth (e.g., surrogate pregnancy). We, the straight people, are. And here, some of us straight people, blaming them for this ‘choice’ – hypocrisy at its peak.

        Tan Wa Lau, what say you?

    • 17 leewsdaniel 8 February 2013 at 09:48

      I am of the view that people do not choose to adopt a straight ./ gay lifestyle; many are born to orientate that way. I am straight, and being straight is normal to me. I do not choose to be straight. I just am.

    • 19 Anon b6sG 8 February 2013 at 19:57

      I can smell the troll from 10 miles away.

      • 20 Cemellyn 13 February 2013 at 18:54

        Most definitely a troll comment. Homosexuality not withstanding, I came across some reports that indicated that humanity’s growth at the current rate is not sustainable by Earth’s resources.

  5. 21 Jeff Dickey 7 February 2013 at 23:20

    “Separate but equal” IS a fraud. More fraudulent still is the idea that equal opportunity given to those of unequal backgrounds is “justice”. Don’t expect that idea to gain any traction in Parliament or the State media any decade soon, however.

  6. 22 elishbulgodley 7 February 2013 at 23:57

    What a lazy argument:
    “Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it,”

    I somehow doubt that argument gets in the way every time the state decides to social engineer its populace into yet another behaviour altering public campaign.

    • 23 Edwin Dai 8 February 2013 at 10:45

      Indeed, going by that kind of logic, no law should ever be repealed simply because it has always been there. Quality arguments from our Head of State, as always.

    • 24 ricardo 9 February 2013 at 05:17

      The ISA has always been there. There’s always been people who abuse the ISA for personal & politcal ends.

      There’s always been people who preach Hate and Intolerance for those who don’t share their beliefs / sexual orientation / skin colour / origin ..

      There’s always been people who, by their indifference and inaction, promote the cause of the Hate mongers and power abusers.

      There’s always been incompetents in Govt.

      I think we just leave these things in place.

      .. a message from the Ministries of Love & Truth.

  7. 25 Jack 8 February 2013 at 05:49

    We can’t really blame PM Lee H L,Singapore voters have been indoctrinated by PAP for years about their righteous Asian Values,and that the decadent western lifestyle is undesirable,how to change the perception of the voters over night?now that MM Lee has finally discovered that many Gays have indeed TALENT,this guy is paying for the sins of his old man who gave him his seat anyway.

    • 26 Modern Man 8 February 2013 at 16:04

      Yes. The CEO of Apple Tim Cook is gay. As is one of the co-founders of Facebook, Chris Hughes. I’m sure they ain’t gonna be spending any vacation dollars in lovely little Sg anytime soon.

      Singapore’s increasingly visible (and well-deserved) international reputation as a homophobic country is not going to do it any good in the 21st century. Economically or otherwise. The world has moved on.

      • 27 Mike S 12 February 2013 at 18:50

        Actually, Singapore’s international reputation (at least with me — and I don’t think I’m that far outside the mainstream) isn’t one of uncomplicated homophobia, per se. We see 377a, but we also see the protections for gay civil servants, and some of us lucky enough to be seen as desirable potential immigrants see the nod and the wink from the powers that be that — well, we’d prefer you have separate bedrooms, but we’ll recognise your civil partnership for granting of an LTVP, just please create jobs and pay taxes. That doesn’t say homophobic, so much as hypocritical and a little bit spineless. “Of course *we* don’t have a problem with you, but, let’s not frighten the horses, eh?”

        Singapore has already developed so much economically — and even in terms of gay rights, the Pink Dot movement and Yawning Bread among others, represent valid reasons to hope the Singaporean polity will one day develop a more grown-up attitude towards its citizens romantic affiliation. Fingers crossed it takes years rather than decades.

  8. 28 Cy 8 February 2013 at 10:14

    PM Lee is a politician and merely being pragmatic – adopting a seemingly pro-gay stance will lose him more votes from the Christian Right, homophobes & conservatives than he gains from gays, liberals & progressives. The pragmatic thing for him to do would be the current “cowardly” stance of doing nothing. Expecting moral leadership is idealistic but not realistic. Sad but true.

    Changes in social mores tend to advance one funeral at a time – too slow for the victimised groups, but one can only keep fighting the good fight, keep pointing out the illogicacies, keep changing public opinion, until the day when it is pragmatic for politicians to support the legal changes you seek.

    • 29 Anon 9e91 8 February 2013 at 15:37

      Hi Cy,
      Section 377A makes the law anti-gay. In this present age, laws should be about equality for everyone in society regardless of their differences in any way.

      Repealing Section 377A does not make the PM pro gay. In fact it makes him pro equality.

      People should take note that when a society and its laws are all about pro-equality, everyone’s rights are covered.

    • 31 kala 8 February 2013 at 17:20

      I doubt so the christian rights have better choice than PAP. PAP policies have been most conduicive for christian growth. Moreover, christian rights, as a whole, in general, is the most financially endowed such that voting anything other than PAP only increased their chance of being taxed more for some fairer social welfare program which benefits the poor.

  9. 32 henry 8 February 2013 at 12:46

    It is the typical approach that he and many others in position of power uses.

    “it is an international practice”
    “even in countries such as….. ”
    “the experience in other cities….”

    But, when it comes to defending their turf,

    “we are different from the west…”
    “our situation is unique”
    “we are not the same…”

    And yes, there is a lack of convincing leadership. Taking an easy route to respond to issues by borrowing responses from others, especially on issues that require courage,research and conviction in beliefs.

    Notice that there has been no further responses about the ISA after Malaysia amended theirs ? They borrowed the scenario that if Malaysia did not need it, there was no reason that Singapore would need it too. Yet, to date there has been zero statements on it.

    These are symptoms of head in the hole and evidence of inward thinking, and looks like there will be many more examples of being caught with his bottom out.

  10. 33 cydonian 8 February 2013 at 15:23

    Alright, not to duck the issue, but I’m reasonably certain that the alleged 14-year-old letter-writer is displaying some of that famed wry British wit here.

    Second, as my dear wife puts it, if you really want more babies brought up in Singapore in loving environments, you cant do much worse than allowing same-sex couples to marry and adopt. Two loving parents, a caring environment, good neighbourhoods. We’ve had tons and tons of data/ research showing kids growing up in same-sex families are as well-adjusted as anywhere else, except broken single-parent families with an abusive/ alchoholic parent. All that needs to happen is to get people out of the way of historical progress, or at least, show some cajones in doing what’s right.

    Point I’m making is, it’s easy to argue that it is in Singapore’s national interest to let same-sex marriages happen. This is even before we talk about Richard Florida’s Gay Index (http://www.creativeclass.com/_v3/creative_class/2009/04/09/i-do-you-do/) and its apparent impact on the Creative Class and all that. (Or have they stopped talking about getting the populace to be more creative and entrepreneural and all that now?)

    • 34 yawningbread 9 February 2013 at 00:23

      You wrote: “Or have they stopped talking about getting the populace to be more creative and entrepreneural and all that now?”

      Being part of that “let’s have more critical thinking” campaign, I think they’ve given up on it when they realised that when people started thinking and getting creative, they applied those skills to criticising and designing funny caricatures of the PAP :)

  11. 35 Tan Wa Lau 9 February 2013 at 08:16

    I have read all the comments. While I do not object same sex marriage on religious ground, if we as society accepts this type of norm openly, there is a segment of the population that can get influenced and the segment will grow over time that may threaten the human survival. Studies have shown the power of influence once it is consider legitimate and norm in society.

    My Christian friend told me that if we step back to accept this, what about the small segment of the population that fancy animals in union ? That we are going down the slippery road.

    • 36 Artemov 9 February 2013 at 10:11

      Oh for God’ sake, stop your low skill trolling already. It’s so obvious.

    • 37 Kai 9 February 2013 at 10:40

      I think the readers of this blog should not waste their precious time responding to @Tan Wau Lau anymore, because he/she is clearly either completely beyond help or simply a troll.

    • 38 The 9 February 2013 at 10:45

      Then tell the Christians to stop believing in that fairy tale they love to quote from.

    • 39 ape@kinjioleaf 9 February 2013 at 16:01

      I can see your point. The argument goes like this. If we can accept same sex union on basis that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, than should we on same basis accept marriage between human and beast if it come to pass that it is also natural? I don’t have an answer to that. However, I do know that it was once perfectly natural to think that women has no right to vote nor make decisions, some races were more superior to another, left handers were creations of the devil, inter racial marriages can only happen to social pariahs.
      On the part about influence, I wonder how many right handers have been influenced to be left handers?

    • 40 wa lao kao kao 11 February 2013 at 10:41

      Tell your Christian friends: society has over decades come to realize its mistake for not giving women, non-black, and other subgroups their right of vote, and correcting the mistake. But never has the society feared with that logic, ‘what if animals also demand their votes if we start going this path?’ ;-)

  12. 41 Tan Wa Lau 9 February 2013 at 14:29

    Kai, we are here to engage. Just that you have a different viewpoint does not make u right. God bless u

  13. 42 Kai 9 February 2013 at 15:23

    Alex,

    You say it so well in this article, with so much relevant information put together so cogently. I find that virtually everything I’ve been ruminating on about these issues has been given form and put into words by you here and in the previous post (“The prime minister needs to meet real people at concerts”). Here, I just want to draw your readers’ and your attention to a recent article which happens to relate to the last third of your post about how concerned Christians in Singapore may be reacting to this anti-gay campaign stirred up by a few of their pastors:

    http://vivitelaeti.blogspot.sg/2013/02/should-christian-morality-be-imposed-on.html

    (“Should Christian Morality be Imposed on the Laws of the Secular State?”)

    (*Starhub customers who might be presently having technical difficulty in accessing blogspot.sg posts can simply google the article directly.)

    I feel that this article deserves to be widely shared because its writer is not only eloquent but spot on in presenting a sane, rational perspective of an ardent, practicing Christian who is deeply religious and a Singaporean no less, and who is “able to delink their moral views from what they think criminal law should say.” In his words, he writes that “My prayer for Singapore is that it will stay secular and it will be strong enough to repel the loud voice of the Christian minority.” I am not a Christian, but from his impassioned voice and apparent deep involvement with the Christian community, I daresay his writing is a reflection of the state of mind of many other local Christians who share his views. When we hear the loud, insane anti-gay rhetoric and catch phrases propagated by a few pastors, we sometimes forget that they may not even represent the majority of Christians. This is an article I hope those Christians in the anti-gay camp will read, for it comes from one of their own brothers in Christ.

    President Obama, the first US President to openly support gay marriage, has also become the first American President to not only mention LGBT rights, but make it a pillar of his inspiring second inaugural address, linking gay rights to women’s rights and civil rights in the same breadth (“… through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall”). Before the historic vote that approves gay marriage in the UK this week, Prime Minister David Cameron has famously said, ”Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us. Society is stronger when we make vows to each other and we support each other. I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.” Indeed, family values are conservative values, and when we extend the meaning of such an important social survival unit as the family to greater classes of people including LGBTs, we make the core of our families in Singapore stronger.

    We are now in these prescient times of human awakening when we can see before our eyes that the whole world is moving toward greater LGBT equality and greater human rights, including quintessentially Asian nations (such as China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand).

    I share the sentiment expressed by @mike’s comment above, in beseeching our own Singaporean leaders to act in leading our nation to move in the same direction as the whole world is moving, and to be on the right side of history. And this is not even something that requires foresight, for the right time is upon us NOW.

  14. 43 Tan Wa Lau 10 February 2013 at 14:26

    Kai, if you can be calm and rational and read my post again, first I did not say I support criminalizes same sex act between two consenting men. Second, I did not object same sex marriage on religious ground.

    I just advocate low key practice plus object same sex marriage on human survival ground

    • 44 Mike S 12 February 2013 at 19:08

      Tan Wa Lau,

      As you can, I expect, imagine the comparison of gay marriage to marrying animals — or “slippery slope” arguments in the same vein — deeply insults gay people such as myself, due to the assumptions in makes about the nature and validity of whom I love and how I express that love. I don’t need to go through why those comparisons are so inherently offensive; I’m sure you can figure it out on your own.

      But, let me suspend my emotions for a moment and offer a quick rebuttal. The key is in your sentence above “two consenting men” (this argument applies to two women as well, but let me continue to engage on your terms). Animals, being non-sentient, by definition cannot consent to any sexual act, or be construed legally or morally as being in any kind of relationship with a human other than owner/possession. Thus, “marriage to a ” is impossible, as consent of both parties is a definitional precondition. (Incidentally, this is also the most basic logical rebuttal to the equally odious homosexuality is bestiality argument — since animals cannot consent, any such act represents abuse; humans can consent, thus changing fundamentally the moral calculus.)

      By contrast, human beings can consent to being in a loving, healthy and constructive relationship with another. Such stable relationships are important for the health of society, and as such represent both a private good for the couple, and a public good. Based on current research, somewhere in the vicinity of 3% of the population will be romantically attracted to their own gender. It is good policy, as well as the morally decent thing to do, to allow that population to form life-long, recognized relationships, based on honesty.

      Since there is nothing wrong or disordered with my love for my husband, I fail to see why I should keep it any lower-key than you do your relationship with your wife.

  15. 45 X 12 February 2013 at 14:37

    Tan,

    I understand your point of view that gay people may result in the end of the human race. But there are many ways gay people can procreate too.

    Close friends who are not romantically interested in each other can reproduce with artificial insemination and parent the baby together, maybe even with their partners. Same-sex couples can use donor sperm or surrogacy. Medical science is advancing, and we may one day see techniques to take the DNA of the same-sex couple to create a baby with their genes.

    There is also the issue of bisexuality of various degrees. Some people who are interested in both genders may choose to identify as gay, because there is a lack of understanding opposite gender partners that can accept their bisexuality. Greater acceptance of different sexualities will allow these people to follow their hearts and choose partners of either gender.

    Our thoughts that we think unique to us are actually very common, with so many thinkers in the world. I feel that if you research further on your beliefs, you may come to a different conclusion than what you have now, given the wealth of information out there.

    • 46 Limpeh 12 February 2013 at 19:10

      Tan Wa Lau, you’re totally missing the point here. Good grief. The low birth rate in Singapore has got to do entirely with the following reasons:
      1. The country is small and very crowded already, living space is being reduced as the population soars towards 6.9m.
      2. The cost of bringing up a child in Singapore is very expensive and many couples simply cannot afford to have more children.
      3. Couples are getting married later in life because of a conscious decision to focus on their careers first, after having spent so much effort studying so hard, many wives want to have a successful career as well before putting everything on pause for motherhood. In any case, it is necessary to have two pay cheques in the household if you need to raise a child in Singapore.

      All these changes happened even as S377A remained part of Singapore law and we don’t have equality in Singapore – the conclusion is that birth rates will fall as a function of the evolution of human society and whether you give gay people the right to get married or not, birth rates will fall in developed countries.

      The logical conclusion is that there is simply no correlation between falling birth rates and gay marriage – the correct correlation is that between falling birth rates and changing economic circumstances.

      You haven’t provided a shred of empirical evidence apart from your hateful Christian bigotry against gay people. Please do not attempt to use your homophobia to try to weave any kind of argument about sociology and human geography when you clearly have not even passed O level geography – good grief. You clearly don’t know how to explain cause & effect and justify any kind of correlation – just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean that we should respect any crazy crap you throw up in the name of your religion.

  16. 47 Jack 13 February 2013 at 07:42

    Breaking from Newsmax.com

    Whether it’s Taxes or Immigration, Obama Makes Gay Rights the Issue

    A Pentagon announcement Monday that it will open military commissaries and child-care facilities this year to the same-sex partners of service members propels a wave of gay-rights issues sweeping onto the national agenda.

    Even as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was announcing the changes in military benefits, the U.S. Senate was debating a renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which for the first time would extend federal protection to homosexual partners suffering domestic abuse. A vote is expected today.

    The White House is pressing Congress to grant same-sex couples immigration benefits, and the U.S. Supreme Court is getting ready to hear a challenge to a 1996 federal law that defines marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman.

    “Things are changing,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “It’s slow, but it’s happening here. As states legalize same-sex marriage, I think this is having a remedial effect all around the nation.”

  17. 48 GoonDoo 17 February 2013 at 13:14

    Christ came to liberate the disenfranchised & marginalized in Jewish society – widows, orphans, lepers, ‘sinners’ – the persecuted & voiceless in society. He ate with tax collectors.

    The Pharisees on the other hand were meticulous in observing strict codes of morality & rituals based on their literal interpretation of scripture, & their constant need to appear holier than the other.

    Are the modern day right wing ‘christians’ no different from the Pharisees?

    Aren’t gay people, people living with HIV/AIDS, single mothers etc the modern marginalized of Singapore society?

  18. 49 reservist_cpl 18 February 2013 at 12:41

    I wonder why the girls chose ducks. Any significance?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




For an update of the case against me, please see AGC versus me, the 2013 round.

Copyright

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 726 other followers

%d bloggers like this: