Saint Andrew, founding member of NCCS.

Unsurprisingly, churches in Singapore have come out on the side of keeping Section 377A of the Penal Code. That law is in line with their religious beliefs and values after all.

In a statement recently, the National Council of Churches in Singapore (NCCS) voiced their opposition to the petition to repeal Section 377A. The statement said that the Council, which represents about 200 churches, believes that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to individuals, families, and society as a whole.

The council reiterated that it agrees with the ruling of Singapore’s apex court in 2014 that Section 377A is indeed constitutional. The council then draws from the bible, saying that the holy book “clearly and categorically prohibits homosexual behaviour because it is a perversion of the way in which God had ordered human sexual relationships.”

The statement then goes on to say that repealing 377A would normalise and promote that lifestyle, calling it a ‘slippery slope’ which would then lead to undesirable social and moral consequences.

Echoing that sentiment, the Alliance of the Pentecostal-Charismatic Churches of Singapore also voiced their support in a statement for 377A to remain. The Alliance representing about 50 churches said that “Singapore is a nation that remains unique in its strong preservation of family values – including its view on marriage as a union between a man and a woman.”

Chairman of the Alliance Reverend Dominic Yeo said, “When viewed in relation to Sections 375 through 377C, Section 377A serves a broader purpose of setting a moral position with regard to sexual activities and relationships, and in turn strengthen the social fabric of society.”

He went on to say that repealing Section 377A on the basis of being outdated will inevitable also call into action the legitimacy and morality of every other sections in the Penal Code as well.

But seems the main argument in support of retaining Section 377A in the Penal Code revolves around the so-called sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. The law itself specifically criminalises sex between two men (not women) and doesn’t speak of marriage at all. Clearly, the law is discriminatory.

Decriminalising homosexual acts between men merely affords them the same rights as two women or an unmarried male-female couple to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes without the state calling it a crime.

Yes, you could argue that repealing 377A will eventually lead to legalising gay marriage and that is a cause of concern for churches and other religious institutes, but isn’t the law of the state supposed to be free of religion anyway? Why do we continue to allow the state to police the private lives of its citizens when they aren’t harming anyone with their behaviour?

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Anthony Yeo, the lion content to be only a little mouse

“I am going to learn so I can come back to help people’.” Yeo Toon Joo pays tribute to his brother.

本月中起调整部分公交服务 网友深感不满抨击“没顾及人民”

在本月16日开始,公共巴士服务将出现调整,700和700A公交路线将停止服务,171公交路线的服务范围也缩减,从义顺公交站启程,绕过武吉班让地铁站;而972公交服务路线也改道,转而服务武吉知马/杜尼安路(Dunearn Road)、纽顿地铁站以及史各士路(Scotts Road)。 新加坡SMRT集团于周一(8日3日)作出以上公布时,遭到不少市民和通勤者的批评,认为有关更动未免过于突然,令人措手不及。 针对民众的反应,陆路交通管理局昨日(8月4日)在脸书上帖文解释,有关的公交服务调整,是基于相关路线的巴士乘客人数急剧下降,以及需要审慎使用公帑。 “对我们来说是个艰难的决定,因为我们正面对艰难的困境,既要平衡公交服务的可行性,更要合理性使用公帑。” 据当局指出,自第二阶段的滨海市区线(Downtown Line,简称DTL)在2015年12月开放后,与该地铁路线平行的公交服务载客量就大幅度减少。 在DTL第二阶段开放后的首年,171公交路线的载客量就下降了三成,而700公交路线的载客量更下降超过一半。 陆交局透露,当局每年都拨款以维持171路线和700路线的公交服务,700路线的每年公交服务补贴就高达500万元。 “若这是该区唯一的公共交通,我们可以表示有关的公共支出是合理的。但是,鉴于DTL已经成为替代方案,我们需要审视开支,因此必须对地方上的服务进行调整。” 当局也指出,自2016年以来就一直和基层顾问进行磋商,以探索能够满足居民需求,并更加善用公帑的方法。2017年2月推介的973公交服务路线就是有关磋商的成果。…

Two men brought to court by AVA for 49 counts of charges

SINGAPORE – The Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) madia released on Wednesday…

AHPETC to directly manage TC, rebuts Gov’t allegations in letter to residents

The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), run by the Workers’ Party, “will…