Posted on 07/20/2007 3:22:06 AM PDT by monomaniac
SINGAPORE, July 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Unable to find a "gay bar" or display nudity in an upcoming performance of Shakespeare's "King Lear", British actor Ian McKellen has now called upon Singapore's government to overturn laws against homosexuality.
McKellen, 68, is known to millions around the world for his roles as "Gandalf" the wizard in the "Lord of the Rings" and for his role as the evil villain and mastermind "Magneto" in the "X-Men" Trilogy and has used his star-power to promote homosexual issues.
"Coming to Singapore where unfortunately you've still got those dreadful laws that we British left behind... it's about time Singapore grew up, I think, and realized that gay people are here to stay," McKellen said in an interview with Class 95 radio station, a member of the state-run MediaCorp.
Singapore's Penal Code Section 377A prohibits homosexual acts and solicitations as "gross indecency with another male person" with prison time of nearly two years. The law dates back to the city-state's colonial 19th century administration by the British Empire and is supported by the Singapore's largely conservative population.
McKellen is performing with the Royal Shakespeare Company touring productions of William Shakespeare's "King Lear" and Anton Chekhov's "The Seagull." The Company's world tour starts Thursday in Singapore at the Esplanade, South-East Asia's most modern performing arts centre. McKellen agreed to forbear on his planned nude scene where Lear is sent into exile, in order that minors under 18 in the tiny city-state could attend the performances.
"Call it censorship, call it advice, it gets in the way a little bit. I think it's a little bit silly," McKellen was quoted as saying at a tour briefing.
"As a gay man invited here with the full cognizance of the government, how can they not notice that my right to have sex are inhibited by the country?" McKellen complained in an interview with Reuters. McKellen told the press agency that he only cared to discuss acting and homosexuality saying, "I am just public on those two issues."
Perhaps that's because they invited you to their country to act, not schtup.
Nice how you assumed that I assumed he's not a Christian. I just gave him a reminder that God and His laws are not to be trifled with. That's all.
So it’s the libertarian position that homosexuals have a “right” to housing, and thus it’s the government’s place to force a Christian landlord to rent to a homosexual couple?
This is what happens when homosexual conduct is normed. The fabricated right to commit sodomy is held to override established rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, and property rights.
As someone else said chewing gum is not illegal in Singapore. It's illegal to sell chewing gum in Singapore. You can bring chewing gum into the country, but only a few packs for personal use. You can chew gum anywhere you want in Singapore, but you better swallow it or discard it in a trashcan because they have stiff fines for littering if you throw it on the ground.
No. You can deny business to anyone, just not on certain bases(sp?) prtected by the bill of rights. You can’t deny someone business because they are a liberal for the same reason. Now, if they are abusive, disruptive, violate the lease, then yeh, kick them out. You do have a right to not be discriminated against.
You must be using the version of the Bill of Rights Harry Blackmun used, because for the life of me I can’t find any of the points you made in the actual Bill of Rights.
Are you telling me that James Madison made it a federal crime for a Christian landlord to refuse to rent to a homo couple, and that that’s been our law since 1789?
Singapore's citizens are Buddhist 42.5%, Muslim 14.9%, Taoist 8.5%, Hindu 4%, Catholic 4.8%, other Christian 9.8%, other 0.7%, none 14.8% I'd be willing to bet that relatively few of them have a humanist and secular moral philosophy.
So they are supposed to reject their own citiens' moral philosophy, and adopt that of FReeper Arderkrag... why?
stay strong singapore.
Disneyland with Sharia law.
Why can sodomy only be understood to be evil by religious people? What constitutes evil? In the realm of moral evil, evil is that which is unreasonable or irrational, the gravity of the evil being determined by the amount of harm done.
Certainly the act of sodomy is unnatural. Anyone can see that. And it's a gross perversion of one of our greatest powers as human beings, the ability to co-create new life with God. As such, sodomy represents a grave evil. The act harms those who engage in it, diminishing them physically and spiritually, thus also harming those around them.
Many people do not hold that view.
Truth is not synonymous with democracy. Truth is what is.
And if it doesn’t interfere with anyone’s rights,...
Let's clarify the term "rights." A "right" is something which belongs to a person because of his nature as a person. An "unalienable right" must be eternal, by definition. So the source of all rights must also be eternal. And that source is God. And God does not give anyone an absolute right to do evil. God allows evil, but he cannot uphold a right to do evil.
...the fact that we view it as evil should not be a factor.
We criminalize that which we believe to be evil, or at least harmful to society in some way. Why else would we criminalize anything?
That is the nature of freedom - I don’t get to impose my religious or moral beliefs on anyone, and the same goes for them.
All human laws are based on human beliefs -moral beliefs. Certainly, imposing beliefs that are specific to a particular religion would represent a violation of conscience, and should be generally avoided. But sodomy doesn't represent such a belief.
Who does he think he is, Quentin Crisp?
You are asserting that without defending it, which I suppose is par for the course here are FR, though some of us get bored with mere assertion and counter-assertion. In any case, let me observe that your ideal of government apparently differs from that of the voting citizens of Singapore.
"And a humanist point of view is that as long as you aren't interfering with or harming another person, you should be able to do what you want."
Governments being trans-generation institutions, I'd add concern for future generations. That would involve detailed consideration of the factors needed for their social, cultural, and physical flourishing.
” Their laws may fit right into my concept of justice and morality. So their concept of God doesn’t fit mine, I’m a tolerant person as long as I’m treated fairly and justly.”
I’m certain that their concept of ‘freedom of speech’ fits you just nicely too, TalibanBob.
The wife who is facing yet another eviction because her husband is hooked and spends all their money on drugs.
The kid whose daddy smacks him around when he is in a drug-induced rage.
The employer who gets gyped on productivity because of the drug-induced inability to concentrate.
The guy whose drug-addled neighbor drove his car over the petunias.
The dog who starved to death because his drug-addled owner forgot to feed him.
I could go on, but you get the picture. Please don't bother posting to me about how "there are already laws against all these things" (blah, blah, blah). It is true that we have laws against those things, but we have laws against drugs because they cause MORE of those things.
Poland has to put up with this same crap from outsiders.
“You must be using the version of the Bill of Rights Harry Blackmun used, because for the life of me I can’t find any of the points you made in the actual Bill of Rights.”
The BoR ENUMERATES rights, they don’t grant them!
The constitution and BoR exist to LIMIT the power of government...
You sure you’re at the right website?
“I could go on, but you get the picture. Please don’t bother posting to me about how “there are already laws against all these things” (blah, blah, blah). It is true that we have laws against those things, but we have laws against drugs because they cause MORE of those things.”
How about putting on your smartypants thinking cap and give a similar rundown of the societal harms that the War on Drugs has caused?
How’s this for a start.
Erosion of the Bill of Rights and our liberty.
Erosion of property rights.
Paramilitary police force.
Corrupt justice system.
Well armed criminal organizations.
Overcrowding of jail systems by people whose crime was to get high - not rape rob or steal.
Negative impact on individual liberty.
Reinforces the Liberal idea that humans are inherently irresponsible and need the government to grow to protect them from themself.
How’s that for a start? A little worse than running over the petunias.
BTW all the things you described are also caused by legal alcohol - but only the ones I listed are caused by the so called War on Drugs.
I'm not saying this in order to tweak you, but I really want to know: if (1) Brother Ian is not publicly announcing his sex contacts and (2) there's no government surveillance of his bedroom and (3) his partner doesn't bring charges, isn't it reasonable to presume that they won't throw him in jail?
In other words, what's being proscribed here is not, as a practical matter, private sex behavior, but rather, some sort of public display, e.g. solicitation at a bar?
I'm honestly trying to envision how the enforcement works, and it appears to me that there's only enforcement for activity that gives public offense.
Seems that societies continue either through replacement-or-better birthrate, or by immigration. If you don't welcome babies, you will certainly be obliged to welcome immigrants.
Or simply be invaded. That's a common fate.
As for Singapore: they, like Japan, need to regain an effective reproductive birthrate or join, eventually, the League of Extinct Nations.
how’d you do that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.