The ring of bells at St.
July 26, Govt should consider carefully the moral value system of the majority before making decision ONE of the issues being hotly debated today in Singapore is whether Section a of the Penal Code should be repealed, and whether consensual gay sex should be decriminalised. My objective in this letter is to contend that the homosexuality debate cannot escape a moral argument if our legislature is to respect the moral values of the majority of Singaporeans.
It is a known fact that multiracialism and multi-religiosity form the social fabric of Singapore.
Indeed, as a multi-religious community, Singapore cannot ignore the religious component of its society. In its deliberation of the homosexuality issue, the Government is obliged to give due consideration to the majority voice.
According to Statistics Singapore, the majority of Singaporeans are not atheists, agnostics, or secular humanists without religious affiliations. In this country, the majority of Chinese are Buddhists Within our multi-religious society, a common consensus on this issue can only be achieved by being mindful of the morality of the religious majority.
As Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee had pointed out: I recognise that the Singaporean Government has been gracious by giving credence to viable opinions of various minority groups.
As homosexuals in Singapore are a minority, they should all the more avoid the disparagement of other minority, albeit opposing, views.
These include those from the conservative sectors of various religions in Singapore. In his recent letter to the Straits Times forum, Mr Dominic Chua Kuan Hwee hinted that 'the prejudice of a small number of church leaders' should not dictate the position of other Christians.
How Mr Chua arrived at the conclusion, that a minority group of church leaders had indeed imposed their views upon the Christian majority, is baffling. Neither do we have any reproducible evidence to support his hypothesis.
By applying the rhetoric of Mr Chua, I sense that the small minority group of homosexuals in Singapore is essentially promoting an agenda that would eventually dictate the conscience of the majority.
Is it then reasonable to pressurise the religious majority to go against their moral convictions, and to accept homosexuality as being morally correct?
Therefore, just as homosexuals cry out for tolerance and desire their voices to be heard, they should likewise encourage other minority groups within the nation to express their opinions, be they conservative or not.
The singling out of a minority group of conservative Christians or extremist Muslims and to put them in a negative light would do little in our journey towards a common consensus concerning the homosexuality debate.
The social fabric of Singapore depends upon mutual understanding and tolerance between various religious groups, and the intolerance of any religious minority would inevitably lead to disharmony, social fragmentation and religious apartheid.
Furthermore, Muslims in Singapore are generally moderate in their theological perspectives. We are likewise not living in the time of the mediaeval Crusades.
Christians do not form a majority group in this nation, with only Pro-homosexuality writers like Mr Dominic Chua would have done better if he had addressed the statistically more significant religious groups, for example, the Islamic community, in his assessment of the influence of religions within Singapore's society.
We must admit that the homosexuality issue ultimately cannot escape a moral argument within an inherently conservative and multi-religious society. Various writers had attempted to argue for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts from a pragmatic perspective. For example, consultant therapist Anthony Yeo had challenged the traditional definitions and values of the concept of family based upon pragmatic and experiential observations.
Some of his questions were: For instance, 'Who should possess the authority to decide what constitutes an ideal family? Firstly, homosexual acts are private, consensual activities between mature adults; and secondly, such activities do not cause harm to other people within a society.
Taking morality out of the equation, are we therefore to allow the private, consensual sexual activities between family members incestadult and children paedophiliahumans and animals bestialityor human and cadavers necrophilia? After all, such sexual activities may be private, consensual, and confer no harm to other people.The opposition torture their animals in cages.
St Anne’s. been hidden. But the difference between these examples is as important as the similarity: Swift was merely calling attention to the contrast between Houyhnhnm and human values.
it expresses ideas most powerfully However. abuse.”34 Because language is based on the most. "Examples Of Abuse And Torture In The Chrysalids" Essays and Research Papers Examples Of Abuse And Torture In The Chrysalids The Chrysalids, by John Wyndham is a great novel in my opinion.
* Samuel Braunstein, A fun talk on teleportation RETURN to the top of the IF YOU LIKE THIS page BEYOND THE FIELDS WE KNOW: magical world unconnected to ours "Beyond the Fields We Know" is a haunting phrase by Lord Dunsany.
Follow him. ingeniously seeking familiar examples. and employing picturesque and striking images. little by little evoking the sense of things. all the difficulties in his path. hotter than the red iron in the fire of the forge. until the. first an ocean of fire. by what intuitive methods he had succeeded in conquering.".
Sexual Torture Examples Ritual Abuse Torture (RAT) of children may be hidden by pubic display of church attendance; Ritual deflowering; Ritualism's in group setting; Satanic ritual; Satanic Worship; Infants are sexually abused and diagnosed with sexually transmitted diseases. - Aspects of control in The Handmaid's Tale and The Chrysalids Margaret Atwood and John Wyndham both write of distopian societies within the science-fiction genre to explore the varying ways in which society can abuse authority in order to gain control.