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."
All religions have their demons and devils. Buddhists have a particularly virulent "hell."
WICCA? (A made up fairytale - emphasis on "fairy.")
Satanism? (The unfit should not breed.)
National Socialism? (Hitler and Goering were queers.)
Marxism (Anything perverted.)
It is not private if they want public recognition or get public subsidies via the tax code, socialist security, or government mandated health insurance benefits from employers.
It is not private if they want to parade through town licking each others rears.
It is not private if they want to shove it in the face of other people's children in the public schools.
Nothing private about exhibitionism.
In a secular sense, homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. It is in no way an anatomical function of the human organism, but a phantasmagoric creation from within the mentally disturbed human mind, a social psychosis, naked and on full exhibitionist display.Homosexual monogamy advocates seek ceremonious sanctification of their anatomical perversions and esoteric absolution for their guilt-ridden, impoverished egos.
Neither of those will satisfy their universal dissatisfaction with mortality or connect them to something eternal. With pantheons of fantasies as their medium of infinitization, they still have nothing in them of reality, any more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream.
Homosexual deviancy is really a pagan practice (and a self-induced social psychosis) at war with the Judaic culture over what is written in the book of Genesis (1:27, 2:18).
This is exactly what the National Socialists were at war with... so, when someone uses the term "Gaystapo," they might not realize how close to the truth they really are, especially if you consider their eugenic breeding programs.
Many will seek ceremonious sanctification and esoteric absolution in some type of marriage rite, but that still fails to give them a connection to the eternal in both a religious and temporal, procreant sense - - the union does not produce offspring.
Dissatisfaction with inevitable mortality only feeds the impoverishment of the ego further. Homosexuals really hate human life; their whole desire is rooted in the destruction of it...
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited?
The Michael Jackson Complex is fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is a social psychosis catering to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on idolatrous fetishes? Disability, welfare, Social Security, etc., etc., ad nausea...
The social psychosis generated by behavioral conditioning (Pavlov's salivating dogs) in the popular culture and the conditioned response to accept the false premises of mental illness or birth defect will be used as a political tool to systematically rob the public purse.
Then, we could have other self-inflicted mental illness and disease (aside from those we already do) subsidized by the government consolidating an ever increasing portion of the economy in the hands of the cultural Marxists.
My understanding is you will be arrested for chewing it.
I agree
I lived in Singapore for 4 years and I just moved from there last year. You won't get arrested for chewing gum in public. You will only get arrested for selling gum. You will only get a fine if you throw it on the ground.
You see you can't have a "humanistic" right. Either there is a law of God, not the Ten Commandments but a code of living ingrained into people, or its the law of the jungle. The rights you speak of don't exist.
I don’t suppose it matters that your quotes from James Madison and Patrick Henry cannot be traced to anything either man ever said or wrote. After all, it’s just a minor fraud perpetrated in the greater service of “TRUTH”.
I only quote from the best (italics mine).....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Note that Jefferson, the Deist, wrote "their Creator". During the convention that approved the declaration, an attempt was made to substitute "our Lord, Jesus Christ". IT FAILED.
Deists believed that God was evident in Creation. That the rights enumerated were obvious from man's nature.
That's where our rights come from.
It is not private if they want to parade through town licking each others rears.
It is not private if they want to shove it in the face of other people's children in the public schools.
And we disagree where ?
That's where our rights come from.
From the book of Genesis...
Libertarianism is an adolescent view of the world that makes sense only from the point of view of a dorm room or the cluttered apartment of a 45 year-old unmarried man. Hence the hang-up on sex, drugs, and your "private space." It's easy to be a libertarian when your biggest fears in life are that someone will take away your masturbation aids and your stash.
I've met a great many people who think along the same lines as you, in that they believe libertarianism is about making pot and prostitution okay. I think that this is the same as saying that conservatism is just an excuse to bash gays and oppress women - in other words, it's a straw-man.
I myself am a Christian small-l libertarian. I won't deny that there are certainly people whom claim the title of libertarian with precisely the same motives that you ascribe to me. However, in my case, as in the case of most Free Republic libertarians (or so I'd be willing to bet) the reason for these beliefs isn't to seek license for a hedonistic lifestyle, but to act in accordance with their ethical framework.
I would be willing to bet that the morals you and I hold are more similar than they are different, because (unless I am mistaken) we both base them upon the Holy Bible. However, I personally am of the belief that all acts of coercion against rational beings are immoral. As such, although I wish for others to accept the teachings of the Bible, I will not force others to accept those teachings, but try to convince them to do so as a volitional act.
It is because of my anti-coercive convictions that I take the label libertarian. I don't expect you to agree with my views, but I would ask that you not label me and others like me potheads and whore-mongers without justification.
If you were born in 79, you should be outgrowing that naive fantasy called pure libertarianism by now.
Boy are you behind the curve on Pacific Rim countries. Singapore is a happening place; a real player in the business of the eastern half of the world. Regardless of what you might think about its laws, you got no clue as to its position in the world ecomonically.
The majority of Singaporeans actually subscribe to the dharmic religions(Buddhism, Hinduism, etc). While many Singaporeans have anglicised names, they are just names of convenience.
When I was living in Singapore, a I knew a person named George Chong. I assumed he was a Christian until he told me that he was a Buddhist. When I inquired about his name, he said that many Singaporean children of his time( late '50s) who were put into English-medium schools usually had their names changed to Anglicised ones in order to "integrate" better into the systems.
This aside from the fact that many of them use Western pseudonyms to make it easier for tourists to pronounce.
Excuse me.... INCEST should NOT be illegal???? What are you insane??? That clearly HARMS another person. If you are speaking about adult relationships I suggest you express yourself more clearly as incest is generally applied to cases of Child Sexual Abuse — and surely you are not suggesting that THAT should not be a crime... or ARE you????
Ahhh... I see in this post you clarified your view a bit. Please remember this in the future when advocating against these types of laws as you are not doing yourself or libertarianism any favors by expressing it as you did in your first post. (I say this as a former Libertarian.)
You might remember the Treetops Lounge at the Holiday Inn on Scotts Road and the Tropicana.
What year was it when you were there?
Re read my response. Incest can easily be between two adults, my point was that if somehow outlawing homosexuality was so wrong, what would be the basis for saying these other acts are wrong. I didn't mention perversions with minors because they would harm someone else, but the post I responded to was condemning the acts of outlawing homosexuality based on moral religious code. If religious code can't be followed by society to outlaw homosexuality, how could the other acts be outlawed too.
My apologies to you normy, and arderkrag as well...
I got confused reading the discussion between you and arderkrag on this subject. And, yes, it was a kneejerk response on my part — I get kind of jumpy about that issue in particular — for that I apologize as well. So, I will respectfully bow out of the conversation, and hope you two will forgive my jumping in as well...
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.