Hahaha. Can tell this guy is married with kids. Only couples with kids will understand the good feeling of laying down in bed without having to do anything.
>More people support gay marriage, adoption, and surrogacy than sexual relations between adults of same sex?
It's even more surprising in the 2022 Ipsos survey results, where almost half of the respondents supported some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, plus the right for them to adopt. See the slides in https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/wve78g/attitudes\_towards\_samesex\_relationships\_in/
More people support adoption and surrogacy for same sex couples than marriage. Like wtf if you're ok with them having kids shouldnt you support them having a legally recognised family and marriage?
Adultery is always wrong. Since its cheating.
But what about open marriages, where both parties are privy and are consenting? Of course most gfs won't allow but what are the logical objections besides potential HIV?
Open or poly relationships donāt work without a ton of respect and honesty and communication ā but many times couples do it because thereās something wrong with their relationship. Obviously shit blows up when that happens. If the adults are mutually consenting, there shouldnāt be any objection to poly or open relationships. (Unless your religion says itās a sin lmao š¤·āāļø)
Marriage, to most people, can be seen as creating an *exclusive* relationship between two individuals. Adultery violates that exclusivity.
Given the strong bonding involved, it also causes a great deal of hurt. Being commonplace and commonly portrayed in the media, a lot of people can understand what things are like on the wrong end of a cheating relationship.
Maybe thatās why so many people view it as always wrong. Who wants to be at the wrong end and having to deal with a cheating partner?
What reasons are there to justify such an act of selfishness and harm? The benefits of such an act is lopsided in favour of the cheater, and it is ethically indefensible for most cases, maybe with exception of cases where the exclusive relationship has already broken down.
Edit: typo
Waiting for the moralistic groups to agitate to criminalise adultery. Surely, this is more relevant to protecting straight marriages.
Not holding my breath.
Same, feeling kinda disappointed in a society that is still so close-minded and opposite of progressive in spite of the technological and business growths.
Culturally, homosexuality wasn't accepted by many in the past. The issue is that there's also such extreme censorship in Singapore that many in the older generation aren't exposed to diversity that would change their minds. I wouldn't castigate them so harshly for that.
https://imgur.com/a/MMBE7DI
What's heartening to see is that if people aren't part of a religion that's dogmatically against homosexuality and if they are exposed to the fact that LGBT individuals are just like everyone else (i.e. the younger generation), then they tend to be more accepting of LGBT rights. Just see the aforementioned table from the survey for a breakdown by age/religion.
https://imgur.com/a/MMBE7DI
It depends on your age and religious beliefs too. The younger generation not part of an Abrahamic religion are actually rather progressive.
From this graph age is a more determining factor than religion (despite what this sub likes to say about certain religions as a whole)
Young Christians and Muslim show greater support towards LGBT than even older Freethinkers
It is the goal. Even in the national day rally, PM Lee said, and I quote word for word
> We want to meet the enduring aspirations of every Singaporean, including a good start in life, regardless of background; affordable housing and childcare when you get married;
Note that affordable housing is only eligible for when you're married.
Yeah I agree. You don't really get to know someone until you start living with them. I strongly believe you should only get married to someone once you've spent at least a year living together and gone on 1 or 2 long trips overseas.
After all, you've got the rest of your lives to spend together, why shouldn't you make absolutely, completely sure that you're able to actually stand each other?
Unfortunately the practicality of the first part is kinda not great especially in SG.
good idea
but ppl apply bto cos dont hv own space in the first place
no money how rent and live tgther, and for some couples, they can only afford 1 room
sex be4 marriage is not wrong, just vv troublesome if get pregnant and hv child be4 married, and one side dont want to continue
Your last point: that's why sexual education is very important. We are in 2022. There are so many types of contraception. The fact that you even mentioned this point shows how little sexual education you have. Not entirely your fault.
Sometimes contraception can fail without your knowledge and Abortion is the last people want to do. Given a choice most people donāt want to go through this path.
And whatās with the passive aggresive tone at the end.
I think the point is that when proper precautions are taken, unwanted pregnancies leading to the "troublesome" scenario the parent comment mentions are infinitesimal and should be a negligible concern, and this should be common knowledge if we had received an adequate sex education. Even having unprotected sex under perfect conditions for having pregnancy in terms of menstrual cycles and whatnot is something like 20%, and just male condoms is like 98% effective when used correctly.
You are probably more likely to die on the road in a car accident - the aversion to premarital sex is wholly unjustified (unless you are religious or have some other kind of *moral* concerns about which is what this OP is about to begin with, then there's an entirely different conversion to be had)
The point is more towards the what if scenario that some people would rather choose to avoid by choosing to abstain from engaging in sex. It is more in the sense that āis it worth the 20 minutes of āfunā?ā. Yes itās rare, but in the unfortunate case that you get the unlucky roll, itās not something comfortable to go through and some people would rather not go through in the first place.
It is not necessarily to be taken to the extreme that some religious people chose to not engage in sex all the way till marriage, it can be in the sense you just donāt have sex as often. Besides the original commenter actually wrote the comment in a very secular manner without any religion in the context.
> Yes itās rare, but in the unfortunate case that you get the unlucky roll, itās not something comfortable to go through and some people would rather not go through in the first place.
Yep, I don't disagree, some people might not be willing to take that risk either way, which is a perfectly reasonable personal choice to make.
The yucky part, however, is that this risk tends to be weighted much more heavily than it really deserves due to misconceptions and weird traditional moralistic hangups about sex and chastity before marriage, which we really should as a society try to address. It is especially problematic when these hangups are imposed onto others who do not subscribe to the same set of values.
If unwanted pregnancy is the real concern, then it would be really really "troublesome" either way, whether it comes before or after marriage.
I very much agree with your point that people shouldnāt put āsex before marriageā as some kind of moralistic values.
Unwanted pregnancies are ātroublesomeā but some people ended up keeping it and even without the father (so this is talking for both married and not married). The issue with having it outside marriage is that there is a lack of āstabilityā and ācertaintyā which some people really dislike. I mean one example if you are married you have some kind of legal āprotectionā in the sense that the kid is not the womanās āproblemā only.
And strictly for singapore context itās very troublesome to have a kid if you are still living in a shared space (there are not many small e.g. studio-2 br unit in sg). Some shared space also have limitation on how many it can accomodate per room and i think a significant amount of places will outright reject the arrangement (rent 1 room for 1 adult and 1 kid).
"Sometimes" is way too many times than it actually happens. Abortion is also a very safe and quick procedure. Unless you're religious which tbh, is where the majority of these numbers come from. So It's nothing about contraceptive failure, but about beliefs.
Noone doubting the effectiveness of contraception, i am just implying that in the unfortunate events of pregnancy it is an uncomfortable experience to go through and some people would rather not go through that path and abstinence is one way to avoid experiencing that in the first place. Abstinence here donāt necessarily mean you donāt have sex all the way until marriage, just means you donāt engage in sex that often.
Even when you said itās safe, going through āproceduresā would always carries risks towards the woman, heck pregnancies in the first place always carries a risk towards the woman. I agree with Your point that the religious camp exaggerate the risk but it is not the kind of risk that you can shrug your shoulders on especially the later the stage of the pregnancy is. The procedure is not that cheap to begin with and can easily set you back a month of salary.
Not to mention you seem to be downplaying the mental health effect of undergoing abortion. Itās easy in theory (if pregnant just abort) but when subjected to the situation people could easily breakdown.
Just to note, i am not exactly at the āno sex before marriageā camp, i am just commenting because your comment really underestimate the topic and to top it off sounds condescending.
thanks 4 the compliment
didn't know contraceptives are 100%, and there are no unwanted pregnancies
there are some who don't even know they are pregnant until late stage, so they are idiots then
I think cohabitation is pretty important (even a holiday overseas is better than nothing) because it's better to find out sooner rather than later if your SO has living habits you can't tolerate, or vice-versa.
It should, yeah, but *where got space*.
I was lucky to be able to do this because wife and I were both studying overseas at the time, but neither of us could have tolerated staying together in our parents' houses.
Interestingly, cohabitation before marriage has consistently led to higher risk of divorce. (Significant body of sociological studies). While this sounds counter-intuitive, once you delve into the proposed reasons, they do make sense.
A more recent opinion for perusal.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-cohabitation-still-linked-to-greater-odds-of-divorce
Writer leans towards ācohabitation leads greater rates of divorceā camp, mainly due to the methodology being more robust in that body of work. A good read nonetheless on the issue
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-34---religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore.pdf
Edit: the report also details the demographics of the respondents, and it seems pretty representative of Singapore at large.
"The phrasing of the question asked respondents to determine how wrong a particular behaviour (e.g. gambling) was."
The question itself is leading and will likely contribute to biased responses. The writers of the paper noted this and brushed it off saying other papers do the same thing. Why not rework the question when you already acknowledge that the question itself is leading?
"nearly 6 in 10 of those aged between 18 and 25 indicated that gay marriage was not wrong at all or not wrong most of the time, more than five times the proportion of respondents aged above 65 (9.6 per cent). This increase in liberal attitudes was also reflected amongst respondents who were more educated."
Not withstanding the swing towards more liberal attitudes between the surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018, here we have the most crucial stat. Almost 60% of the youngest demographic are not against homosexuality. The swing is only going to hasten as more young people reach voting age.
Edit: Also, as some have pointed out, morality (is it right or wrong) and criminality (should it be punished) are vastly different things. While a large part of the population may feel that it's morally wrong to have premarital sex, they are probably must less likely to feel that premarital sex should be illegal.
I might even go as far as to say that you would probably get similar results for the question "Is it wrong to lie?". That doesn't necessarily translate to people thinking that lying should be a criminal offence.
I agree, Iām studying psychological research sciences and this is exactly what my lecturers caution about all the time. So wrong and cringe to see this type of research quality from a government funded/affiliated ātop universityā.
Good analysis. Yes I spotted that point tooā¦ Table 23 on p46 very revealing about speed of change in the 18-35 group. Vastly different from the 55+ group.
Alsoā¦ I skimmed the whole document hoping they would annex the survey booklet tool used, but it wasnāt there. I wanted to look because itās pretty clear that if you prime your survey responding with questions about their religion first, and then go on to ask them ethical/moral questions, because of that reminder you are going to get more doctrinaire responses in line with their religious institutionās teachings.
The trend analysis btw 2013 and 2019 would still be valid, but the degree of conservatism could be skewed a few points by the method. Unless they *only* ask the demographic information afterwards, or separately.
Unfortunately, this is the only data we have, but we can't say the methodology is not flawed.
Religious diversity is only by faith, but if we take the Muslim or Christian faith, we know there is a range for their devotion. A small minority may be very devoted, some only identify in name, and many at different levels in between. But conclusions will be drawn based on the whole faith.
Some here already pointed out how flawed the questions are as well.
For me, the biggest flaw is that the survey samples a captive population that knows no other narrative about same-sex relationships and same-sex adoptions, than whatever negative narrative the government has allowed to flourish.
Queueing at singapore pools isnāt gambling.
It is donating to charity. āOver the past 10 years, the Tote Board Group (comprising Tote Board, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club) has contributed more than $6 billion towards nation-building.ā
https://www.singaporepools.com.sg/en/dtb/Pages/default.aspx
Yeah you are technically right. It is just the consolation that any money (almost any money) we pay to SG pools is actually meant for charity. If rws does the same I will have feel less remorse giving them money lol
Considering something in simple binary terms is a simplistic view of reality. Something can be *wrong*, but there are different *levels* of wrong.
For example, littering is wrong, but it is *less* wrong than other wrongs, like for example, assault. People can think littering is wrong, but because it is seen as a minor wrongdoing, people might litter occasionally and brush it aside.
Simply put, not all wrongs are equal. Not considering how people perceive the *severity* of a wrongdoing will give weird conclusions like yours.
Considering how people perceive severity will give a whole new dimension, which is a fascinating matter to think about.
Yes. I suppose you are talking about the answers for āsexual relations between two adults of the same sexā?
Lesbian coitus doesnāt necessarily involve sodomy, and hence doesnāt carry the same level of stigma. This might be what contributed to the lower percentage.
I like how the survey is asking about sexuality related things and the surveyor just felt like throwing in a gambling question at the end.
Prb his main purpose the entire time.
Even though there is greater acceptance of homosexuality, it's clear from the survey that the majority is still against it. 78.4% said sexual relations between adults of the same sex is wrong, 73.1% said gay marriage is wrong. Understand why the govt doesn't want to rock the boat.
And people asking for a referendum should take a look at this survey result. I don't think a referendum will work in the favour of the lgbtq+ community unfortunately.
Maybe its because if we have a referendum, activists can campaign openly and talk with the people about these issues. Right now, it's quite possible many people have no idea what these questions really mean, since there are very few appropriate positive portrayals of the LGBT community in the local mass media.
Any government survey takes place in a vacuum where many respondents probably have a misconception of the wider LGBT community. They don't see the LGBT doctors, teachers, lawyers, police officers, fire fighters, nurses, and many others living amongst them.
That's the optimistic outlook. It's also entirely possible that a referendum might result in 377A being enforced from then on because "that's what the people want".
Slippery slope tho but I admire that you trust the general Singaporean population. Look at past GEs, the huge turnout and cheers at opposition rallies and in the end how many actually voted for them?
Plus if the referendum isnāt compulsory like the GE, then it may possibly lead to brigading amongst certain groups.
Turn out at the last GE was 95.8%. So I'm not worried about turnout and brigading. It's a national referendum, so make it compulsory. To do otherwise would just defeat the purpose.
Any decision to hold a referendum would be made by the government of the day. Being the ever-cautious PAP, it would probably be "non-binding" on Parliament. They might have it separately from the elections, but if they were smarter, they do it together with the elections so they can keep framing it as a "political issue" and not some "social justice issue".
If only the PAP supports the notion, the opposition parties will simply look less progressive. But the PAP has enough of a vote share and will probably gain most of the moderate/progressive vote in such a scenario to still return to power.
If all Parties support the notion, any wins or any damage over it will be borne by all parties, so nobody wins and nobody loses more on this issue.
If the PAP opposes the notion, there wouldn't be a referendum in the first place.
So there's really nothing to lose in asking and supporting a referendum. If the PAP even entertains the idea, it's probably because we're not too far from a more colourful future.
You're doing some... creative statistics here.
"Only wrong sometimes" quite clearly should not be represented as people who think "sexual relationship between adults of the same sex is wrong".
Incidentally, social gambling recently legalized. To be fair, it was a grey area that Shan wanted to make less grey. On second thought, 377A was a grey area too.
Best not to have so many grey areas in our criminal code. Too many and why have a criminal code at allā¦
Imo gambling is abit like smoking. If you ask people whether smoking is a positive or negative thing, even the smokers themselves by and large tell you that 'its bad' but that they do it for recreation/stress relief/are hooked etc.
IMO most people think gambling is bad but not a crime, whereas alot of those against LGBT-related issues view it as a crime
Anthony Bourdain once said of our legal vices like gambling, prostitution, strip clubs & drinking at 18.
Get rich, get drunk, get laid, so we are less difficult to them.
for those who have been calling for referendum as a mean to support gay marriage ... and screams "we have more support than we need!! Why let the MINORITY religious leaders dictate what we must do?"
You wouldn't even get past the repeal of 377A.
Just saying. You don't realize that you are not the majority until you step out of the echo chamber.
Unless i'm missing something here howw come the rate of acceptance for cohab before marriage is higher than sexual relations before marriage? Do people expect to live together and not have sex?
If you add the "Almost always wrong" figure, it is almost 50%. I wasn't expecting that much conservatism.
Starting to question those numbers, where do they come from? 10 people in a retirement home?
EDIT:
Thanks /u/ch3rri_ for the source.
> 5000 random household addresses was obtained from the Department of Statistics. Three thousand respondents were
successfully interviewed from this listing. In addition to the main sample, an
additional 1000 Indians and Malays were also surveyed to provide a booster
sample
Sample size is legit, but a bit confused by the need for this Malay/Indian "booster sample".
Lol, people just failed to realize that Reddit is a bubble. And on the other end of the spectrum, so is Hardware Zone. If you consume your media from only one source and not the other, your views will naturally be skewed towards the groups in the platform.
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-34---religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore.pdf.
itās a wide pool of people, source posted by OP
Demonstrates how criminality and morality are two different things. A lot of people are going to say doing a certain thing is āwrongā, but do it themselves anyway. They probably wonāt want such activities criminalized either.
But when it comes to something they donāt do but others do, please go ahead and ban it.
Such is human hypocrisy.
I mean, Iām gay & trans and Iād still say almost always wrong if youāre talking about my personal/religious beliefs. Iām nonetheless not going to insist others should adhere to because I know too well how it feels to be on the other end. But my whole family and many friends waited for marriage, and I donāt want to prove the stereotypes right by being the first person who couldnāt wait. It would also be good to have the assurance that any partner truly loves me and isnāt just curious about what sex with a trans person would be like.
My understanding is that Abrahamic faiths believe that sex should be saved till marriage. And the population size practicing an Abrahamic faith is pretty large.
Which is fine I suppose. As long as they don't try to enshrine it on the constitution or something.
It is also a conservative view held by many Asian societies. In many Asian cultures, traditionally, virginity (especially female virginity) before marriage is valued.
Donāt need to make everything about Abrahamic faiths. Itās not like us Asians were wild sexually liberal people before the Caucasians came over and spread their cultures, religions, and values.
All these blaming of Abrahamic faith is ??? to me.
Taoist/Buddhist are the majority of our population. Now granted I don't spend all the time in temple, but my family is the only Christian branch of my extended family (the rest Buddhist/Taoist) and I'm sure all my aunties will clutch their pearls at sex outside marriage.
Just FYI this is from 2018. As the Ipsos survey shows, likely that these have changed quite significantly since then too.
Source: https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/details/ips-working-paper-no.-34-religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore
Recent Ipsos survey: https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore
The Ipsos poll is interesting because it also shows the age/generation divide. However the Ipsos survey is just for LGBT. Whatās different about this table is that it includes other social issues/topics. We will likely see this studyās results being updated in 2024, since they seem to be doing it every 5 years.
Personally I think that itās fine to contrast views on LGBT things against other social topics and issues, but given the current wave of discussions about the LGBT after 377Aās repeal announcement, I think that this data should have been shared alongside the recent Ipsos results to give a better picture of the views on LGBT topics to let viewers better understand societyās views on social topics/issues.
Thanks for this comment
The IPSOS survey does not adjust for religion, even though it is clear religious views are a huge factor in peopleās views on homosexuality. While not dismissing the increased support for homosexuality in society, the IPSOS survey might show a larger increase in support than the actual increase in support.
> Quotas on age, gender and ethnicity were employed to ensure that the sample's composition reflects the overall population distribution, based on Singapore Department of Statistics population estimates.
I know a few people who would definitely select āalways wrongā on a few moral issues just cos it ālooks wrongā, and then immediately go ahead and do those things. Gambling especially lol.
I was looking more at the gambling one when I made the above comment lol. I know one person who was openly opposed to casinos in Singapore, but she has enough points to redeem multiple Palace suite rooms on Genting Dream. I wonder how she got those points in less than a year?
One issue I have would be the design of the question. 5 options, 4 of them are varying degrees of being wrong. Itās skewed in some sense. Even the choice of the word āwrongā in the questionnaire already sets the tone for the people surveyed. I forgot what the name of the bias is called. Is it leading question? There isnāt even a neutral option where You can feel apathetic about the issue. Itās either wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong or not not wrong.
A better way to ask was āgambling is always wrongā strongly agree/ somewhat agree/ neutral/ somewhat disagree/ strongly disagree. Then somewhere down the next question you ask the reverse question āgambling is always okā or āgambling is never wrongā
Genuine question: as someone whoās studying social research, why are these options negatively skewed instead of more accurate /neutral options (eg. Unacceptable at all times, Mostly unacceptable, neither unacceptable nor acceptable, Mostly acceptable, Acceptable at all times). Is this because of governmental views on the issues, and wouldnāt that be heavily biased? (Eg comparing being gay to alcohol/gambling addictions)
Could be because of the general upbringing of many Singaporeans. They feel that itās wrong and will say itās wrong when asked. But reality is a whole different matter. Remember our national motto is ādo anything but donāt get caughtā.
i feel is because the pollster's expectation is that the reaction will be generally negative so they might think it would be better representation to show the varying levels? not sure
Who are the 2.9% of people who actually think that having an affair outside your marriage is "not wrong at all"??
No wait, while we're at it, do that many people still try to somewhat justify it by saying it's not wrong "sometimes"??? Sounds like this is the real issue that Churches should be focusing on if they want to protect the sanctity of marriages
Edit: forgot that there are people in open marriages
>Who are the 2.9% of people who actually think that having an affair outside your marriage is "not wrong at all"??
That wasn't an actual question. Their is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.
I always found the changes in the gay marriage question fascinating.
10% drop in always wrong
Doubling of "not wrong at all".
And this was just in 7(?) Years? This is the 2020 survey right.
I think we're closer to gay marriage than a lot of people think
I hope you're right but the challenge is that unlike 377A, gay marriage is tied to other benefits. The key one is housing - with the limited supply of BTOs, the message that same sex couples would compete with straight couples for BTOs would give many pause if it is perceived as hurting the latter's BTO lottery chances. The Govt could build much more BTO of course but if it was willing to do so or take other meaningful measures to control resale prices, the resale-BTO price gap won't be as bad as it is now.
Arguably, our current housing model relies in part on "singles", including gay couples, to fund the BTO windfall by having to buy in a resale market. Intended or not, their funds are used to buy the political support of existing homeowners through elevated housing prices.
Another distinction between 377A and same sex marriage is that 377A could have had a negative effect to attracting talent - gay foreigners may not want to work here if they may get arrested for having sex. No such issue for same sex marriage as even if not recognised in Singapore, a company can still choose to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples.
Edit: TLDR - MBT's BTO scheme didn't just screw young couples, he screwed same sex couples particularly hard too.
If the problem is reduced to resource (HDB) allocation then I'd be very happy since then it's a question that can be solved quite practically like all resource issues. At worst, make it so that HDB flats are restricted to families with children. A better plan would be to have a more intelligent system of flat allocation, where singles and LGBT couples can bid for smaller flats (with some small flats still set aside for low income). HDB has a lot of issues (such as the expiring leases), and the systems should be approached as a whole rather than just to solve an LGBT question.
Given our LGBT population size, any increase in demand from LGBT couples is also going to be modest.
>Another distinction between 377A and same sex marriage is that 377A could have had a negative effect to attracting talent - gay foreigners may not want to work here if they may get arrested for having sex. No such issue for same sex marriage as even if not recognised in Singapore, a company can still choose to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples.
This just isn't true though. An LGBT expat cannot bring their spouse to Singapore under a spousal visa scheme since we just don't recognize the marriage. The situation gets even more complicated for LGBT couples with children.
For this reason I think that the recognition of foreign gay marriages (in some form) is probably the next step before full gay marriage in Singapore.
>If the problem is reduced to resource (HDB) allocation then I'd be very happy since then it's a question that can be solved quite practically like all resource issues.
Heh, I'm less optimistic given how our approach to public housing issues is kick the can down the road.
> This just isn't true though. An LGBT expat cannot bring their spouse to Singapore under a spousal visa scheme since we just don't recognize the marriage. The situation gets even more complicated for LGBT couples with children.
Good point, hadn't considered the visa issue.
Well, giving the expiring leases issue, the can has been kicked down the road for about as long as the road is. We will soon come to a point where HDB allocation has to be reviewed holistically.
In just my personal view - people will just have to come to terms that we are long past the era of "earn money with your HDB flat". Public housing needs to serve a necessity (accommodation) not a desire (investment).
3 election cycles (about 12 years) would also be two more iterations of this survey (6 year periods). If the current opinion trends stay the same, you can expect in 12 years time the survey to show that the "Always Wrong" and "Never Wrong" groups for gay marriage will be about the same.
Very rough math and lots of assumptions, but yeah. A decade plus a bit seems like a realistic time frame.
Yup and that too. I think more advocacy that are Pinkdot like will hopefully change people's mind on it.
Of course when the repeal of 377A comes and Singapore doesn't combust into flames, hopefully people will also change their minds
Living with a partner before marriage is less wrong that sexual relations before marriage? Then what you expect them to do every night, wash toilet together?
Interesting to see data that validates more relaxed social attitudes towards hot button issues.
Now, is this a useful indicator? Probably not because social science research indicates that saying no to something, doesn't mean actually not doing it. Believe what people do, not what they say.
LKY was very against gambling, and Singapore Pools was created only to steer people away from illegal gambling, the same way you'd regulate drugs and alcohol and so on. In his own words:
>If we do not allow an Integrated Resort with a casino, Singaporeans will still become victims frequenting casinos elsewhere.
It really is only ever about control, not because they want to allow it. And now, LGBT and 377A, it's the same thing as well. They're not allowing it, they're using it to get better control over regulation, because similarly, people are going to have such relations anyway, and now they have tighter control over domains like marriage.
Lesbian couple just need a sperm donor and a turkey baster.
Gay couple need a surrogate to carry the fetus and an egg donor (need not be the surrogateās). Process is similar to artificial insemination, fertilization is done in vitro (in a test tube) and then the fertilized embryo is implanted in the surrogate.
Obviously only one of the parents would be biological. Which is why gay couples who have children tend to have at least two.
Interestingly, lesbians do sometimes take the approach of having one half supply the egg and the other carry the baby. What this can do is provide legal parental rights to both lesbians (depending on courts) as birth mother (not blood related) is automatically related to the baby and the egg donor mother is related biologically and can then be shoehorned into legality via the courts.
Basically for guys, they have to find a surrogate. Lots of $$$$ and difficult.
For girls itās easier, donated sperm / insemination
some same sex couple (F) can have co-parenting arrangement with a gay couple (M). Basically 1 dad 1 mum, and their same sex partners š«£
Are these even considered moral issues or just personal emotional issues?
Why ppls think sex = I must marry the person? Marriage is sharing your life with someone you wanna spend the rest of your life with (hopefully). If sex is the only thing that bonds you then your relationship is just that shallow and you'd just divorce sooner or later. Between married couples, there will almost always be hardships, betrayal, and even occasionally loneliness. But being able to still be together after all that is what defines a strong relationship.
E.g - you leave your spouse cuz you find out he/shes been cheating on you (sexually or romantically or both). Thats the usual knee jerk reaction. But did you consider sitting down together (and even better, with the person he/she cheated you on) and talking about why he/she cheated on you? Is there anyway you can rectify this by improving /working on life habits? This is even more important if you have kids - a moral responsibility.
I think people always forget that Singapore's approach to anything is described as 'pragmatic'. It leaves little to no theoretical considerations when it comes to policy making.
Why when you're married then can have BTO benefits? Because there will be more than 1 persons living in a HDB house. And not just 1 person living in a flat. Given that Singapore has limited land and everywhere is getting en bloc, its quite obvious that we have to sacrifice little thailand and orto to make space for more housing.
Also, it is more practical to have more people living in one house rather than encouraging singles to move out and live alone. Thats why up till now Singapore encourages nuclear family households, by having this per capita quota where annual household income/no. of people living in a household. If you are below a certain quota, you can get the financial aid or grants, etc.
Counter argument may include "gay couples can adopt what". Well, sg made it illegal to allow same sex couples to adopt a child. [And adoption process is expensive and take a very long time (i.e. years) to process even for married couples.] It will take majority or at least 2/3 of the majority's stance to change our definition of marriage but it would mean that policies on BTO or policies generally built around female-male sex marriage to be challenged. It's too much work and it would be better off left untouched and tackle more important problems.
But who would dictate which problem is more important?
I feel like if we have come to the point of campaigning such issues such as repeal 377A, our country is progressing. because other countries are still busy tackling economic crisis and incompetent govts (sri lanka.., china..., malaysia...) they barely have time to touch on such sensitive topics.
>Why when you're married then can have BTO benefits? Because there will be more than 1 persons living in a HDB house. And not just 1 person living in a flat. Given that Singapore has limited land and everywhere is getting en bloc, its quite obvious that we have to sacrifice little thailand and orto to make space for more housing.
I'm not sure how this is an argument against same sex marriage, because whether they're 28 and in a relationship or single and 35, they're still going to be taking up space in housing. Is having 2 LGBT individuals living in their own smaller BTOs really space saving compared to letting a same sex couple purchase a bigger BTO flat? I can assure you that most LGBT individuals who have the means, especially if they are still in the closet, will not be living in the same house as their nuclear family. Even without marriage on the table, these individuals will still take up housing space.
TIL: Vasectomy cost under a grand. While most are able to have children, not all are suited to be good parents. We all think we can be a better person but due to imperfections, the end result often differs. Especially when there is more than 1 variable in a relationship. Further stressed by more variables in the likes of children. Sex or no sex, gay or straight, strip all of that we are just deviants. The heart desires what it desires. Whoās to judge. Just stick to the golden rule. Donāt make your problem other peoples problem.
More people support gay marriage, adoption, and surrogacy than sexual relations between adults of same sex?
You think people who get married have sex?? You must not be married š
dude why you call out yourself like that... seek help for dead bedrooms, that's not normal.
Can confirm I still have sex once a year for procreation reasons
Ahhh. You must be a stag! (Who also become horny once a year to have sex)
When u married with kids and don't have a helper, u try. See u got the energy and mental bandwidth anot?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This spoke to my soul
If there is 30 secs of silence, it's time for me to shout "Girls! Wat r u doing!" with the inevitable reply of "Nothing!"
Hahaha. Can tell this guy is married with kids. Only couples with kids will understand the good feeling of laying down in bed without having to do anything.
I will settle for with nothing to think about for tomorrow.
Sigh.. the sad but honest truth. Word.
>that's not normal. Unless neither party wants it, in which case all's good
Haha bro donāt worry. Iām good in that department. Was just making a joke about married people š
>More people support gay marriage, adoption, and surrogacy than sexual relations between adults of same sex? It's even more surprising in the 2022 Ipsos survey results, where almost half of the respondents supported some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, plus the right for them to adopt. See the slides in https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/wve78g/attitudes\_towards\_samesex\_relationships\_in/
There are gay couples in lifelong celibate relationships, usually for religious reasons. Some people may support that but not gay sex.
More people support adoption and surrogacy for same sex couples than marriage. Like wtf if you're ok with them having kids shouldnt you support them having a legally recognised family and marriage?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cause people dont wanted to be cheated on .. maybe thats why put strongly disargee on the paper .. but that doesnt mean people dont cheat.
Yeah and the fear of finding out your kidsā father isnāt you or knowing your husband has a 2nd family would be the worst outcome of cheating
this one is multi verse cheating liao
not if you cheat with someone of the same sex taps head
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Adultery is always wrong. Since its cheating. But what about open marriages, where both parties are privy and are consenting? Of course most gfs won't allow but what are the logical objections besides potential HIV?
Open or poly relationships donāt work without a ton of respect and honesty and communication ā but many times couples do it because thereās something wrong with their relationship. Obviously shit blows up when that happens. If the adults are mutually consenting, there shouldnāt be any objection to poly or open relationships. (Unless your religion says itās a sin lmao š¤·āāļø)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Abortion lor. Unless you catholic or anti-abortionist... den too bad, need to take care.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He could wear condom.. but girls might poke holes.. Maybe do anal. But that would be shitshow as well... Damn.. life is hard.
Be gay. Problem solved.
All due respect to all gay men. Girls prettier.
Or people are just lying when taking the survey.
Probably because āhonoring vowsā is a universal value as opposed to āyucks, buttseksā.
Marriage, to most people, can be seen as creating an *exclusive* relationship between two individuals. Adultery violates that exclusivity. Given the strong bonding involved, it also causes a great deal of hurt. Being commonplace and commonly portrayed in the media, a lot of people can understand what things are like on the wrong end of a cheating relationship. Maybe thatās why so many people view it as always wrong. Who wants to be at the wrong end and having to deal with a cheating partner? What reasons are there to justify such an act of selfishness and harm? The benefits of such an act is lopsided in favour of the cheater, and it is ethically indefensible for most cases, maybe with exception of cases where the exclusive relationship has already broken down. Edit: typo
*Sammyboy has entered the chat*
Waiting for the moralistic groups to agitate to criminalise adultery. Surely, this is more relevant to protecting straight marriages. Not holding my breath.
People in power will never let it happen. >Harem for elites, monogamy for peasants
"You guys are having monogamy?"
"You guys are having sex?"
Adultery has always been more common than what people might've prob expected tbh.
Same as how over 70% consider gambling always/almost always wrong. They don't consider 4D/toto/mahjong/CNY blackjack gambling when they do it.
I am just surprised that it is not higher. Adultery is at its base, a breaking of a promise.
Having other partners is not neccesarily adultery.
everyone knows gambling is wrong. and then singapore pools always got more 'donations' every year.
wait, can someone explain why is gambling wrong?
I never knew I was such a liberal compared to the population at large.
Tbf if you're on reddit chances are your perspective is already liberal compared to the majority in Singapore.
Not really a bad thing I suppose. A bit self explanatory but liberals tend to be a lot more sympathetic and open to change than conservatives.
Same, feeling kinda disappointed in a society that is still so close-minded and opposite of progressive in spite of the technological and business growths.
Culturally, homosexuality wasn't accepted by many in the past. The issue is that there's also such extreme censorship in Singapore that many in the older generation aren't exposed to diversity that would change their minds. I wouldn't castigate them so harshly for that. https://imgur.com/a/MMBE7DI What's heartening to see is that if people aren't part of a religion that's dogmatically against homosexuality and if they are exposed to the fact that LGBT individuals are just like everyone else (i.e. the younger generation), then they tend to be more accepting of LGBT rights. Just see the aforementioned table from the survey for a breakdown by age/religion.
https://imgur.com/a/MMBE7DI It depends on your age and religious beliefs too. The younger generation not part of an Abrahamic religion are actually rather progressive.
From this graph age is a more determining factor than religion (despite what this sub likes to say about certain religions as a whole) Young Christians and Muslim show greater support towards LGBT than even older Freethinkers
The sub only talks about certain religions because they're the ones consistently in the news for attacking the LGBT community. Context is relevant.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sometimes I feel like the system is design to rush people into marriage for BTO
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hahaha our data is only after new marriages Itās like customer acquisition driven, who cares about retention š¤·š»āāļø
LUL exactly. We wont care unless there is an epidemic of people divorcing.
It is the goal. Even in the national day rally, PM Lee said, and I quote word for word > We want to meet the enduring aspirations of every Singaporean, including a good start in life, regardless of background; affordable housing and childcare when you get married; Note that affordable housing is only eligible for when you're married.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I agree. You don't really get to know someone until you start living with them. I strongly believe you should only get married to someone once you've spent at least a year living together and gone on 1 or 2 long trips overseas. After all, you've got the rest of your lives to spend together, why shouldn't you make absolutely, completely sure that you're able to actually stand each other? Unfortunately the practicality of the first part is kinda not great especially in SG.
good idea but ppl apply bto cos dont hv own space in the first place no money how rent and live tgther, and for some couples, they can only afford 1 room sex be4 marriage is not wrong, just vv troublesome if get pregnant and hv child be4 married, and one side dont want to continue
>they can only afford 1 room Jo would love that idea š¤£š¤£š¤£
Your last point: that's why sexual education is very important. We are in 2022. There are so many types of contraception. The fact that you even mentioned this point shows how little sexual education you have. Not entirely your fault.
Sometimes contraception can fail without your knowledge and Abortion is the last people want to do. Given a choice most people donāt want to go through this path. And whatās with the passive aggresive tone at the end.
I think the point is that when proper precautions are taken, unwanted pregnancies leading to the "troublesome" scenario the parent comment mentions are infinitesimal and should be a negligible concern, and this should be common knowledge if we had received an adequate sex education. Even having unprotected sex under perfect conditions for having pregnancy in terms of menstrual cycles and whatnot is something like 20%, and just male condoms is like 98% effective when used correctly. You are probably more likely to die on the road in a car accident - the aversion to premarital sex is wholly unjustified (unless you are religious or have some other kind of *moral* concerns about which is what this OP is about to begin with, then there's an entirely different conversion to be had)
The point is more towards the what if scenario that some people would rather choose to avoid by choosing to abstain from engaging in sex. It is more in the sense that āis it worth the 20 minutes of āfunā?ā. Yes itās rare, but in the unfortunate case that you get the unlucky roll, itās not something comfortable to go through and some people would rather not go through in the first place. It is not necessarily to be taken to the extreme that some religious people chose to not engage in sex all the way till marriage, it can be in the sense you just donāt have sex as often. Besides the original commenter actually wrote the comment in a very secular manner without any religion in the context.
> Yes itās rare, but in the unfortunate case that you get the unlucky roll, itās not something comfortable to go through and some people would rather not go through in the first place. Yep, I don't disagree, some people might not be willing to take that risk either way, which is a perfectly reasonable personal choice to make. The yucky part, however, is that this risk tends to be weighted much more heavily than it really deserves due to misconceptions and weird traditional moralistic hangups about sex and chastity before marriage, which we really should as a society try to address. It is especially problematic when these hangups are imposed onto others who do not subscribe to the same set of values. If unwanted pregnancy is the real concern, then it would be really really "troublesome" either way, whether it comes before or after marriage.
I very much agree with your point that people shouldnāt put āsex before marriageā as some kind of moralistic values. Unwanted pregnancies are ātroublesomeā but some people ended up keeping it and even without the father (so this is talking for both married and not married). The issue with having it outside marriage is that there is a lack of āstabilityā and ācertaintyā which some people really dislike. I mean one example if you are married you have some kind of legal āprotectionā in the sense that the kid is not the womanās āproblemā only. And strictly for singapore context itās very troublesome to have a kid if you are still living in a shared space (there are not many small e.g. studio-2 br unit in sg). Some shared space also have limitation on how many it can accomodate per room and i think a significant amount of places will outright reject the arrangement (rent 1 room for 1 adult and 1 kid).
"Sometimes" is way too many times than it actually happens. Abortion is also a very safe and quick procedure. Unless you're religious which tbh, is where the majority of these numbers come from. So It's nothing about contraceptive failure, but about beliefs.
Noone doubting the effectiveness of contraception, i am just implying that in the unfortunate events of pregnancy it is an uncomfortable experience to go through and some people would rather not go through that path and abstinence is one way to avoid experiencing that in the first place. Abstinence here donāt necessarily mean you donāt have sex all the way until marriage, just means you donāt engage in sex that often. Even when you said itās safe, going through āproceduresā would always carries risks towards the woman, heck pregnancies in the first place always carries a risk towards the woman. I agree with Your point that the religious camp exaggerate the risk but it is not the kind of risk that you can shrug your shoulders on especially the later the stage of the pregnancy is. The procedure is not that cheap to begin with and can easily set you back a month of salary. Not to mention you seem to be downplaying the mental health effect of undergoing abortion. Itās easy in theory (if pregnant just abort) but when subjected to the situation people could easily breakdown. Just to note, i am not exactly at the āno sex before marriageā camp, i am just commenting because your comment really underestimate the topic and to top it off sounds condescending.
thanks 4 the compliment didn't know contraceptives are 100%, and there are no unwanted pregnancies there are some who don't even know they are pregnant until late stage, so they are idiots then
Highest rate of contraceptives are 99%. Unwanted pregnancies are because of lack of contraceptive, lack of education.
Should have another row for living with spouse after 10 years of waiting /s
I think cohabitation is pretty important (even a holiday overseas is better than nothing) because it's better to find out sooner rather than later if your SO has living habits you can't tolerate, or vice-versa.
It should, yeah, but *where got space*. I was lucky to be able to do this because wife and I were both studying overseas at the time, but neither of us could have tolerated staying together in our parents' houses.
Interestingly, cohabitation before marriage has consistently led to higher risk of divorce. (Significant body of sociological studies). While this sounds counter-intuitive, once you delve into the proposed reasons, they do make sense.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A more recent opinion for perusal. https://ifstudies.org/blog/is-cohabitation-still-linked-to-greater-odds-of-divorce Writer leans towards ācohabitation leads greater rates of divorceā camp, mainly due to the methodology being more robust in that body of work. A good read nonetheless on the issue
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-34---religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore.pdf Edit: the report also details the demographics of the respondents, and it seems pretty representative of Singapore at large.
"The phrasing of the question asked respondents to determine how wrong a particular behaviour (e.g. gambling) was." The question itself is leading and will likely contribute to biased responses. The writers of the paper noted this and brushed it off saying other papers do the same thing. Why not rework the question when you already acknowledge that the question itself is leading? "nearly 6 in 10 of those aged between 18 and 25 indicated that gay marriage was not wrong at all or not wrong most of the time, more than five times the proportion of respondents aged above 65 (9.6 per cent). This increase in liberal attitudes was also reflected amongst respondents who were more educated." Not withstanding the swing towards more liberal attitudes between the surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018, here we have the most crucial stat. Almost 60% of the youngest demographic are not against homosexuality. The swing is only going to hasten as more young people reach voting age. Edit: Also, as some have pointed out, morality (is it right or wrong) and criminality (should it be punished) are vastly different things. While a large part of the population may feel that it's morally wrong to have premarital sex, they are probably must less likely to feel that premarital sex should be illegal. I might even go as far as to say that you would probably get similar results for the question "Is it wrong to lie?". That doesn't necessarily translate to people thinking that lying should be a criminal offence.
I agree, Iām studying psychological research sciences and this is exactly what my lecturers caution about all the time. So wrong and cringe to see this type of research quality from a government funded/affiliated ātop universityā.
Good analysis. Yes I spotted that point tooā¦ Table 23 on p46 very revealing about speed of change in the 18-35 group. Vastly different from the 55+ group. Alsoā¦ I skimmed the whole document hoping they would annex the survey booklet tool used, but it wasnāt there. I wanted to look because itās pretty clear that if you prime your survey responding with questions about their religion first, and then go on to ask them ethical/moral questions, because of that reminder you are going to get more doctrinaire responses in line with their religious institutionās teachings. The trend analysis btw 2013 and 2019 would still be valid, but the degree of conservatism could be skewed a few points by the method. Unless they *only* ask the demographic information afterwards, or separately.
Unfortunately, this is the only data we have, but we can't say the methodology is not flawed. Religious diversity is only by faith, but if we take the Muslim or Christian faith, we know there is a range for their devotion. A small minority may be very devoted, some only identify in name, and many at different levels in between. But conclusions will be drawn based on the whole faith. Some here already pointed out how flawed the questions are as well. For me, the biggest flaw is that the survey samples a captive population that knows no other narrative about same-sex relationships and same-sex adoptions, than whatever negative narrative the government has allowed to flourish.
Gambling? 55% always wrong? (3.2% not wrong at all) Then why Singapore pools always long queue? Lol!
Queueing at singapore pools isnāt gambling. It is donating to charity. āOver the past 10 years, the Tote Board Group (comprising Tote Board, Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club) has contributed more than $6 billion towards nation-building.ā https://www.singaporepools.com.sg/en/dtb/Pages/default.aspx
Toto is just a tax on ppl who cannot do math.
Lol that is like saying if RWS donates to charity it is not gambling? Or if you donate some of your winnings away you are not gambling?
Yeah you are technically right. It is just the consolation that any money (almost any money) we pay to SG pools is actually meant for charity. If rws does the same I will have feel less remorse giving them money lol
Lol! Will remember to declare it on IR8A!
only my sin is righteous
Considering something in simple binary terms is a simplistic view of reality. Something can be *wrong*, but there are different *levels* of wrong. For example, littering is wrong, but it is *less* wrong than other wrongs, like for example, assault. People can think littering is wrong, but because it is seen as a minor wrongdoing, people might litter occasionally and brush it aside. Simply put, not all wrongs are equal. Not considering how people perceive the *severity* of a wrongdoing will give weird conclusions like yours. Considering how people perceive severity will give a whole new dimension, which is a fascinating matter to think about.
The numbers may be skewed by our Muslim friends, whose religion takes a very dim view on gambling.
Donāt they also take an even dimmer view on sodomy though?
Yes. I suppose you are talking about the answers for āsexual relations between two adults of the same sexā? Lesbian coitus doesnāt necessarily involve sodomy, and hence doesnāt carry the same level of stigma. This might be what contributed to the lower percentage.
Lol! Scissoring gets a pass but buying 6969 is a hell no!
I like how the survey is asking about sexuality related things and the surveyor just felt like throwing in a gambling question at the end. Prb his main purpose the entire time.
Even though there is greater acceptance of homosexuality, it's clear from the survey that the majority is still against it. 78.4% said sexual relations between adults of the same sex is wrong, 73.1% said gay marriage is wrong. Understand why the govt doesn't want to rock the boat.
And people asking for a referendum should take a look at this survey result. I don't think a referendum will work in the favour of the lgbtq+ community unfortunately.
Maybe its because if we have a referendum, activists can campaign openly and talk with the people about these issues. Right now, it's quite possible many people have no idea what these questions really mean, since there are very few appropriate positive portrayals of the LGBT community in the local mass media. Any government survey takes place in a vacuum where many respondents probably have a misconception of the wider LGBT community. They don't see the LGBT doctors, teachers, lawyers, police officers, fire fighters, nurses, and many others living amongst them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's the optimistic outlook. It's also entirely possible that a referendum might result in 377A being enforced from then on because "that's what the people want".
Slippery slope tho but I admire that you trust the general Singaporean population. Look at past GEs, the huge turnout and cheers at opposition rallies and in the end how many actually voted for them? Plus if the referendum isnāt compulsory like the GE, then it may possibly lead to brigading amongst certain groups.
Turn out at the last GE was 95.8%. So I'm not worried about turnout and brigading. It's a national referendum, so make it compulsory. To do otherwise would just defeat the purpose. Any decision to hold a referendum would be made by the government of the day. Being the ever-cautious PAP, it would probably be "non-binding" on Parliament. They might have it separately from the elections, but if they were smarter, they do it together with the elections so they can keep framing it as a "political issue" and not some "social justice issue". If only the PAP supports the notion, the opposition parties will simply look less progressive. But the PAP has enough of a vote share and will probably gain most of the moderate/progressive vote in such a scenario to still return to power. If all Parties support the notion, any wins or any damage over it will be borne by all parties, so nobody wins and nobody loses more on this issue. If the PAP opposes the notion, there wouldn't be a referendum in the first place. So there's really nothing to lose in asking and supporting a referendum. If the PAP even entertains the idea, it's probably because we're not too far from a more colourful future.
You're doing some... creative statistics here. "Only wrong sometimes" quite clearly should not be represented as people who think "sexual relationship between adults of the same sex is wrong".
Gambling would like a word.
the majority is also against gambling and adultery. how come the govt is willing to rock the boat in the former and has no law against the latter
Gambling is found to be always wrong on such a high scale. Yet it is still legal
Incidentally, social gambling recently legalized. To be fair, it was a grey area that Shan wanted to make less grey. On second thought, 377A was a grey area too. Best not to have so many grey areas in our criminal code. Too many and why have a criminal code at allā¦
Imo gambling is abit like smoking. If you ask people whether smoking is a positive or negative thing, even the smokers themselves by and large tell you that 'its bad' but that they do it for recreation/stress relief/are hooked etc. IMO most people think gambling is bad but not a crime, whereas alot of those against LGBT-related issues view it as a crime
Anthony Bourdain once said of our legal vices like gambling, prostitution, strip clubs & drinking at 18. Get rich, get drunk, get laid, so we are less difficult to them.
Lol, look at the TOTO queues.
Okay maybe a referendum is a bad idea, wouldnāt work out well.
Gay marriage: More popular than gambling!
for those who have been calling for referendum as a mean to support gay marriage ... and screams "we have more support than we need!! Why let the MINORITY religious leaders dictate what we must do?" You wouldn't even get past the repeal of 377A. Just saying. You don't realize that you are not the majority until you step out of the echo chamber.
Recreational drug use not even on the list
Unless i'm missing something here howw come the rate of acceptance for cohab before marriage is higher than sexual relations before marriage? Do people expect to live together and not have sex?
Wait wtf 30% still think sex before marriage is always wrong?? This is a huge number.
If you add the "Almost always wrong" figure, it is almost 50%. I wasn't expecting that much conservatism. Starting to question those numbers, where do they come from? 10 people in a retirement home? EDIT: Thanks /u/ch3rri_ for the source. > 5000 random household addresses was obtained from the Department of Statistics. Three thousand respondents were successfully interviewed from this listing. In addition to the main sample, an additional 1000 Indians and Malays were also surveyed to provide a booster sample Sample size is legit, but a bit confused by the need for this Malay/Indian "booster sample".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Lol, people just failed to realize that Reddit is a bubble. And on the other end of the spectrum, so is Hardware Zone. If you consume your media from only one source and not the other, your views will naturally be skewed towards the groups in the platform.
Some religious factions also bar sex before marriage, itās not just the old boomers.
https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/ips-working-paper-34---religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore.pdf. itās a wide pool of people, source posted by OP
Not surprising to me. Singapore has always been pretty conservative when it comes to relationships.
Demonstrates how criminality and morality are two different things. A lot of people are going to say doing a certain thing is āwrongā, but do it themselves anyway. They probably wonāt want such activities criminalized either. But when it comes to something they donāt do but others do, please go ahead and ban it. Such is human hypocrisy.
I mean, Iām gay & trans and Iād still say almost always wrong if youāre talking about my personal/religious beliefs. Iām nonetheless not going to insist others should adhere to because I know too well how it feels to be on the other end. But my whole family and many friends waited for marriage, and I donāt want to prove the stereotypes right by being the first person who couldnāt wait. It would also be good to have the assurance that any partner truly loves me and isnāt just curious about what sex with a trans person would be like.
My understanding is that Abrahamic faiths believe that sex should be saved till marriage. And the population size practicing an Abrahamic faith is pretty large. Which is fine I suppose. As long as they don't try to enshrine it on the constitution or something.
It is also a conservative view held by many Asian societies. In many Asian cultures, traditionally, virginity (especially female virginity) before marriage is valued. Donāt need to make everything about Abrahamic faiths. Itās not like us Asians were wild sexually liberal people before the Caucasians came over and spread their cultures, religions, and values.
All these blaming of Abrahamic faith is ??? to me. Taoist/Buddhist are the majority of our population. Now granted I don't spend all the time in temple, but my family is the only Christian branch of my extended family (the rest Buddhist/Taoist) and I'm sure all my aunties will clutch their pearls at sex outside marriage.
Because majority are boomers who didnt have the privacy to bang before their marriages. Conveniently puts them on a moral high horse over others
Just FYI this is from 2018. As the Ipsos survey shows, likely that these have changed quite significantly since then too. Source: https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/ips/news/details/ips-working-paper-no.-34-religion-morality-and-conservatism-in-singapore Recent Ipsos survey: https://www.ipsos.com/en-sg/attitudes-towards-same-sex-relationships-shift-towards-greater-inclusivity-singapore
The Ipsos poll is interesting because it also shows the age/generation divide. However the Ipsos survey is just for LGBT. Whatās different about this table is that it includes other social issues/topics. We will likely see this studyās results being updated in 2024, since they seem to be doing it every 5 years. Personally I think that itās fine to contrast views on LGBT things against other social topics and issues, but given the current wave of discussions about the LGBT after 377Aās repeal announcement, I think that this data should have been shared alongside the recent Ipsos results to give a better picture of the views on LGBT topics to let viewers better understand societyās views on social topics/issues. Thanks for this comment
The IPSOS survey does not adjust for religion, even though it is clear religious views are a huge factor in peopleās views on homosexuality. While not dismissing the increased support for homosexuality in society, the IPSOS survey might show a larger increase in support than the actual increase in support. > Quotas on age, gender and ethnicity were employed to ensure that the sample's composition reflects the overall population distribution, based on Singapore Department of Statistics population estimates.
Interesting. Hard to say which way it will skew. Perhaps they donāt because it doesnāt make too much a difference.
Interesting to see the divorce statistics, especially since the ātraditional family structureā has been mentioned so often these few days
I feel like this info could have been presented much better visually...
"Sexual relation with someone other than marriage partner" coule either mean adultry or swinging. Can separate these two stats and see the results?
I know a few people who would definitely select āalways wrongā on a few moral issues just cos it ālooks wrongā, and then immediately go ahead and do those things. Gambling especially lol.
Tbf, you can believe that itās wrong and still do it. I suspect the sex before marriage number is probably highly skewed by this effect.
I was looking more at the gambling one when I made the above comment lol. I know one person who was openly opposed to casinos in Singapore, but she has enough points to redeem multiple Palace suite rooms on Genting Dream. I wonder how she got those points in less than a year?
I like girls to dress sexily in public doesnāt mean I like my girl to dress sexily in public.
One issue I have would be the design of the question. 5 options, 4 of them are varying degrees of being wrong. Itās skewed in some sense. Even the choice of the word āwrongā in the questionnaire already sets the tone for the people surveyed. I forgot what the name of the bias is called. Is it leading question? There isnāt even a neutral option where You can feel apathetic about the issue. Itās either wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong or not not wrong. A better way to ask was āgambling is always wrongā strongly agree/ somewhat agree/ neutral/ somewhat disagree/ strongly disagree. Then somewhere down the next question you ask the reverse question āgambling is always okā or āgambling is never wrongā
Only 63.4% of people find adultery to be always wrong?!!
The other 36.6% will not self incriminate š
maybe they were considering open relationships / polygamy.
Lol at having two casinos while most polled gambling is always wrong. I guess that is an interesting perspective when $$ is involved.
There should be a sixth column called "None of my fcking business"
Genuine question: as someone whoās studying social research, why are these options negatively skewed instead of more accurate /neutral options (eg. Unacceptable at all times, Mostly unacceptable, neither unacceptable nor acceptable, Mostly acceptable, Acceptable at all times). Is this because of governmental views on the issues, and wouldnāt that be heavily biased? (Eg comparing being gay to alcohol/gambling addictions)
Could be because of the general upbringing of many Singaporeans. They feel that itās wrong and will say itās wrong when asked. But reality is a whole different matter. Remember our national motto is ādo anything but donāt get caughtā.
i feel is because the pollster's expectation is that the reaction will be generally negative so they might think it would be better representation to show the varying levels? not sure
Isnāt that a form of biased reporting then?
Who are the 2.9% of people who actually think that having an affair outside your marriage is "not wrong at all"?? No wait, while we're at it, do that many people still try to somewhat justify it by saying it's not wrong "sometimes"??? Sounds like this is the real issue that Churches should be focusing on if they want to protect the sanctity of marriages Edit: forgot that there are people in open marriages
It's a very loaded question. For me personally, polyamory is fine *if* both parties are okay with it and agreed beforehand but *not* otherwise.
>Who are the 2.9% of people who actually think that having an affair outside your marriage is "not wrong at all"?? That wasn't an actual question. Their is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.
I always found the changes in the gay marriage question fascinating. 10% drop in always wrong Doubling of "not wrong at all". And this was just in 7(?) Years? This is the 2020 survey right. I think we're closer to gay marriage than a lot of people think
I hope you're right but the challenge is that unlike 377A, gay marriage is tied to other benefits. The key one is housing - with the limited supply of BTOs, the message that same sex couples would compete with straight couples for BTOs would give many pause if it is perceived as hurting the latter's BTO lottery chances. The Govt could build much more BTO of course but if it was willing to do so or take other meaningful measures to control resale prices, the resale-BTO price gap won't be as bad as it is now. Arguably, our current housing model relies in part on "singles", including gay couples, to fund the BTO windfall by having to buy in a resale market. Intended or not, their funds are used to buy the political support of existing homeowners through elevated housing prices. Another distinction between 377A and same sex marriage is that 377A could have had a negative effect to attracting talent - gay foreigners may not want to work here if they may get arrested for having sex. No such issue for same sex marriage as even if not recognised in Singapore, a company can still choose to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples. Edit: TLDR - MBT's BTO scheme didn't just screw young couples, he screwed same sex couples particularly hard too.
If the problem is reduced to resource (HDB) allocation then I'd be very happy since then it's a question that can be solved quite practically like all resource issues. At worst, make it so that HDB flats are restricted to families with children. A better plan would be to have a more intelligent system of flat allocation, where singles and LGBT couples can bid for smaller flats (with some small flats still set aside for low income). HDB has a lot of issues (such as the expiring leases), and the systems should be approached as a whole rather than just to solve an LGBT question. Given our LGBT population size, any increase in demand from LGBT couples is also going to be modest. >Another distinction between 377A and same sex marriage is that 377A could have had a negative effect to attracting talent - gay foreigners may not want to work here if they may get arrested for having sex. No such issue for same sex marriage as even if not recognised in Singapore, a company can still choose to extend marriage benefits to same sex couples. This just isn't true though. An LGBT expat cannot bring their spouse to Singapore under a spousal visa scheme since we just don't recognize the marriage. The situation gets even more complicated for LGBT couples with children. For this reason I think that the recognition of foreign gay marriages (in some form) is probably the next step before full gay marriage in Singapore.
>If the problem is reduced to resource (HDB) allocation then I'd be very happy since then it's a question that can be solved quite practically like all resource issues. Heh, I'm less optimistic given how our approach to public housing issues is kick the can down the road. > This just isn't true though. An LGBT expat cannot bring their spouse to Singapore under a spousal visa scheme since we just don't recognize the marriage. The situation gets even more complicated for LGBT couples with children. Good point, hadn't considered the visa issue.
Well, giving the expiring leases issue, the can has been kicked down the road for about as long as the road is. We will soon come to a point where HDB allocation has to be reviewed holistically. In just my personal view - people will just have to come to terms that we are long past the era of "earn money with your HDB flat". Public housing needs to serve a necessity (accommodation) not a desire (investment).
My bet is within 3 election cycles.
3 election cycles (about 12 years) would also be two more iterations of this survey (6 year periods). If the current opinion trends stay the same, you can expect in 12 years time the survey to show that the "Always Wrong" and "Never Wrong" groups for gay marriage will be about the same. Very rough math and lots of assumptions, but yeah. A decade plus a bit seems like a realistic time frame.
What about gambling before/after marriage?
Sinkies saying no to NTR
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Give it more time and the numbers will fall
>Give it more time And continued advocacy efforts.
Yup and that too. I think more advocacy that are Pinkdot like will hopefully change people's mind on it. Of course when the repeal of 377A comes and Singapore doesn't combust into flames, hopefully people will also change their minds
Living with a partner before marriage is less wrong that sexual relations before marriage? Then what you expect them to do every night, wash toilet together?
The people who vote always wrong are ruthless š
What is the source of this data?
https://reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/wvb7xh/_/ileorad/?context=1
Well, progress has been made I guess. We just gotta keep working at it
Interesting to see data that validates more relaxed social attitudes towards hot button issues. Now, is this a useful indicator? Probably not because social science research indicates that saying no to something, doesn't mean actually not doing it. Believe what people do, not what they say.
TLDR; majority of Singaporeans are old fashioned/old mindset
No sex before marriage? I knew Singaporeans were a bunch of prudes but I guess this confirms it lol.
More people against gambling than gay marriage. Yet gambling is legal (through state approved channels).
LKY was very against gambling, and Singapore Pools was created only to steer people away from illegal gambling, the same way you'd regulate drugs and alcohol and so on. In his own words: >If we do not allow an Integrated Resort with a casino, Singaporeans will still become victims frequenting casinos elsewhere. It really is only ever about control, not because they want to allow it. And now, LGBT and 377A, it's the same thing as well. They're not allowing it, they're using it to get better control over regulation, because similarly, people are going to have such relations anyway, and now they have tighter control over domains like marriage.
can someone explain to me how surrogacy/artificial reproductive techniques even work for a same sex couple?
Egg/sperm donor + ownself supply other half of the equation + carrier (lesbians typically carry the baby themselves, gays get outside help) + ivf.
Lesbian couple just need a sperm donor and a turkey baster. Gay couple need a surrogate to carry the fetus and an egg donor (need not be the surrogateās). Process is similar to artificial insemination, fertilization is done in vitro (in a test tube) and then the fertilized embryo is implanted in the surrogate. Obviously only one of the parents would be biological. Which is why gay couples who have children tend to have at least two.
Interestingly, lesbians do sometimes take the approach of having one half supply the egg and the other carry the baby. What this can do is provide legal parental rights to both lesbians (depending on courts) as birth mother (not blood related) is automatically related to the baby and the egg donor mother is related biologically and can then be shoehorned into legality via the courts.
Basically for guys, they have to find a surrogate. Lots of $$$$ and difficult. For girls itās easier, donated sperm / insemination some same sex couple (F) can have co-parenting arrangement with a gay couple (M). Basically 1 dad 1 mum, and their same sex partners š«£
The change is slow, but nonetheless still present. Which is heartening.
Are these even considered moral issues or just personal emotional issues? Why ppls think sex = I must marry the person? Marriage is sharing your life with someone you wanna spend the rest of your life with (hopefully). If sex is the only thing that bonds you then your relationship is just that shallow and you'd just divorce sooner or later. Between married couples, there will almost always be hardships, betrayal, and even occasionally loneliness. But being able to still be together after all that is what defines a strong relationship. E.g - you leave your spouse cuz you find out he/shes been cheating on you (sexually or romantically or both). Thats the usual knee jerk reaction. But did you consider sitting down together (and even better, with the person he/she cheated you on) and talking about why he/she cheated on you? Is there anyway you can rectify this by improving /working on life habits? This is even more important if you have kids - a moral responsibility.
Thot passee and stale topic? Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
I think people always forget that Singapore's approach to anything is described as 'pragmatic'. It leaves little to no theoretical considerations when it comes to policy making. Why when you're married then can have BTO benefits? Because there will be more than 1 persons living in a HDB house. And not just 1 person living in a flat. Given that Singapore has limited land and everywhere is getting en bloc, its quite obvious that we have to sacrifice little thailand and orto to make space for more housing. Also, it is more practical to have more people living in one house rather than encouraging singles to move out and live alone. Thats why up till now Singapore encourages nuclear family households, by having this per capita quota where annual household income/no. of people living in a household. If you are below a certain quota, you can get the financial aid or grants, etc. Counter argument may include "gay couples can adopt what". Well, sg made it illegal to allow same sex couples to adopt a child. [And adoption process is expensive and take a very long time (i.e. years) to process even for married couples.] It will take majority or at least 2/3 of the majority's stance to change our definition of marriage but it would mean that policies on BTO or policies generally built around female-male sex marriage to be challenged. It's too much work and it would be better off left untouched and tackle more important problems. But who would dictate which problem is more important? I feel like if we have come to the point of campaigning such issues such as repeal 377A, our country is progressing. because other countries are still busy tackling economic crisis and incompetent govts (sri lanka.., china..., malaysia...) they barely have time to touch on such sensitive topics.
>Why when you're married then can have BTO benefits? Because there will be more than 1 persons living in a HDB house. And not just 1 person living in a flat. Given that Singapore has limited land and everywhere is getting en bloc, its quite obvious that we have to sacrifice little thailand and orto to make space for more housing. I'm not sure how this is an argument against same sex marriage, because whether they're 28 and in a relationship or single and 35, they're still going to be taking up space in housing. Is having 2 LGBT individuals living in their own smaller BTOs really space saving compared to letting a same sex couple purchase a bigger BTO flat? I can assure you that most LGBT individuals who have the means, especially if they are still in the closet, will not be living in the same house as their nuclear family. Even without marriage on the table, these individuals will still take up housing space.
TIL: Vasectomy cost under a grand. While most are able to have children, not all are suited to be good parents. We all think we can be a better person but due to imperfections, the end result often differs. Especially when there is more than 1 variable in a relationship. Further stressed by more variables in the likes of children. Sex or no sex, gay or straight, strip all of that we are just deviants. The heart desires what it desires. Whoās to judge. Just stick to the golden rule. Donāt make your problem other peoples problem.