it’s not all about ‘sex’, it’s about acceptance.. the right to hold the hand of your loved one proudly on Orchard road without being pointed at or gossip (not that i care!!!)..

i figured – by not acknowledging that lesbians exist, they think we dont!
for example, “Brokeback Mountain” made it to the cinemas, but they refuse to show romantic comedies like “Grey Matters”, and the show “Imagine Me & You” was rated R21 when the only scence in the movie shows Lina Heady and Piper Priabo kissing fully clothed! “Saving Face” was already rated R21 and still got cut too!

now, it’s not only homophobic, they are also sexist!

You still don’t get what we’re trying to say. As “I Must Be Stupid” said, you’re going round in circles.

There is no proof of a “conservative majority” which determines the “prevailing morality”, as you put it.

And since your argument is based on this “conservative majority” determining “prevailing morality”, your argument is baseless because you cannot offer any substantiation that there is actually a “conservative majority”.

This is still a circular argument. It means that whatever laws are passed, no matter how unjust, is valid because it is “based on the prevalent morality”.

You have to first explain why the majority deems homosexuality is immoral in the first place!!

“there is no easy answer to this, society at the end of the day dictates what should be enforced”

Of course if society at large deems homosexuality immoral and makes it a crime, what can the minority do? But this discussion should not be about who has the power to do what. Going by your logic, it seems that it was justified in the past to enslave the blacks in america. How about the repression of women thoughout most of history?

Suppose if society finds that its ok to stone adulterers to death, would you find it acceptable? While they certainly have the power to do so, is it morally acceptable to you that people are stoned to death? What if the chinese population in singapore,which makes up the majority, decides to enslave the rest of the minority races and find such an act moral?

If it’s not a good idea to base our morals on the opinions of society, what should we base our morals on?

Logic and reason would make a good start.

I don’t take your analogy because this is not an issue of tolerance, and in any case, to tolerate ‘immorality’ is to condone it. A child is bound by filial piety to listen to his parents, and a parent is bound by love to tolerate his child’s immorality. There is no such love-relationship between larger society and gay people. Gay people do not need the approval or tolerance of society at large to have sex, nor should they- it is a human right that harms no one.

Non-enforcement of 377A doesn’t say that 70% of society “tolerates” gay sex- it simply shows that we’re all deeply convicted of how stupid and discriminatory it is. It is the mother knowing that her daughter appears immoral by wearing skimpy clothing but not saying anything because she is deeply convicted by how stupidly prudish and sexist society is. Then again, it’s just an analogy, gay people know better than to dress badly in public.

Next, what morals do we enforce and how do we choose them? there is no easy answer to this, society at the end of the day dictates what should be enforced. An example is adultery although it causes harm it is not deemed to be criminal offences, whereas other immoral acts like theft are criminalized. Again the caveat is that the government is representative of society. Therefore thru legislation the society what should be legislated against.

i take the point made by Joel that this legislation is old, i would like to highlight however significant portions of our legislation are as old or if not older then s377A. My point is that just bcoz the legislation is not recent does not automatically mean that it is not representative of our society’s views. Hence my simple point if that it the law is to be changed the advocates must have evidence to show that there has been acceptance of the change by the community.

Lastly before i leave and prepare for my tutorial tomorrow!!! i must highlight to Joel that i feel there is a difference from just tolerating to condoning an act. An analogy (its just an analogy) can be seen in a family setting, a parent may not like his child to act in an immoral manner but may tolerate it. It would be quite incredulous to ask a parent not only to tolerate it but also to condone it!! as the poll cited by Joel stated, that the majority does not like homosexual behavior, but nevertheless may be able to tolerate it (this is assumed as no one has been charged for s377A in some time). Hence i think it would be not advisable to condone an act that the majority still is sensitive too.

This “one point in time” was in the 1930s, as history will tell us. Section 377A was added to the Straits Settlements Penal Code in 1938, and later absorbed into the Singapore Penal Code in 1955. I will wager that if it had ~not~ been written into the Straits Settlements Penal Code in the first place, there would be no such statute in place today. The problem today is not whether or not we need the law. Rather, it is that we would rather not get rid of it. The fact that it still exists today is because of an ambiguity surrounding the issue- people don’t know if keeping it in our laws is a moral issue or not.

The Straits Times report that came out today quite unequivocally pronounced that some 70% of Singaporeans “frown upon homosexuality”, and the two main factors for these results were found to be religion and wanting to follow social norms. This may then answer the call for statistical proof of a conservative majority, but still doesn’t provide justification for keeping the law in place.

If people really do find homosexual acts “disgusting” and “plain wrong”, then the call should change immediately from “don’t repeal 377A” to “let’s enforce it!”. Yet, the law is not enforced and is kept in a stasis. It is an interesting situation-a law exists that is paralysed, and therefore cannot set out to protect the “ideals and values” of the society that champions it. We keep it as a mere ghost of a law, something to appease those who don’t know what to make of homosexuality. Is it a moral issue? Or is it an ethical issue?

Those who find it a moral violation are probably fuelled by religion and ignorance- what they perceive as a bunch of people out to overturn the family unit. That’s because the loudest sects that have made their voices heard in public are religious groups who use the love-handles of family to paint a picture of gay catastrophe. Gay people are out to turn other people gay and dim the appeal of procreation, because they can’t procreate! This is why it was found that married people with children who responded to the survey tended towards a negative view on homosexuals. Why, then, are these people seemingly content about the non-enforcement of 377A? We, as a society, could send these sodomisers to jail- for life!

It is because, inherently, they know it is a great injustice. They know deep down inside that the non-repeal issue is an ethical issue- that by enforcing the law, we are persecuting people like you and me who just happen to fall on the wrong side of religion and centuries of majority-norms. They know this because by the time we are old enough to start thinking about these issues, we would’ve met at least 1 or 2 gay people who are completely normal individuals with normal aspirations and normal jobs and normal values.

They know that the law is discriminatory, but HEY, since it’s not being enforced, well it’s not an issue. It satisfies everyone- it satisfies their vague and misty morals and it also helps them avoid the guilt trip. Of course 70% of Singaporeans frown on homosexuality- it is something we, as a society, don’t know enough about to throw a vote of confidence, and so we take the Singaporean approach in joining the time-tested side. But keeping that law there without enforcing it contradicts everything the government has to say about our laws being there to reflect social values and ideals.

In any case, by calling this a moral issue, we are calling it an issue of right and wrong. The law is now telling us that it is right for two men to be sentenced to up to life in prison, because they had sex- and, if what Mizra says is true, then it is right because a majority of Singaporeans tend to think so. The government, on the other hand, seems to be telling us that it is wrong to prosecute two men for having sex because it is discriminatory and generally unnecessary. So, when you add one to one, you find that society believes in upholding a law that it does not want to enforce. Amidst all this stupidity, on the other hand, both parties are telling gay people all over Singapore that they are considered disgusting, immoral and wrong, and that society does not accept them.

I wish this were so with adulterers and divorcees and fornicators- where is the non-enforcable law in place for society to tell them that they are frowned upon?

mizra has already pointed that out to me. Point taken. Thanks.

By way of pedantry, I have to point out that “amoral” means “neither moral or immoral” rather than “immoral”. I think you meant the latter.

I had anticipated your response and I regret that I didn’t have time to present the counter arguments in advance.

You’re confounding ethics with law. The law embodies ethical principles but not necessarily dictated by it. Nor should it because the same set of laws has to apply equally to everyone while ethical principles vary greatly in accordance with personal philosophy. When differing principles conflict (i.e. morality of homosexuality), how shall we resolve it? Your argument proposes that we pick the prevailing ones (i.e. homosexuality is immoral). This leads to a tyranny of the majority where minority interests are crushed.

It raises yet another question. What if a particular majority is religious and derive their moral principles from scripture? Would that not be an imposition of
religious values on the non-believing minority? Would that not also violate the separation of religion and state? On the homosexuality issue, many LGBT activists have already noted that much of the opposition comes from the Christian right and I have no reason to doubt them.

Even when moral principles don’t conflict, you still have the inconsistent position of selectively choosing the subset to enforce. I Must Be Stupid has made a good case on this. So by what criteria did you derive the subset from? Clearly not morality.

” i concluded that prevailing morality does not accept homosexuality, because that law is in its present state.”

Aren’t you going round in circles? First you say that homosexuality should be illegal because the “prevailing morality” does not accept it. Then you said that because homosexuality is illegal, it means that the “prevailing morality” doesnot accept it.

And since you have admitted it that not all immoral acts are punishable by law, shouldn’t we apply some consistency when criminalising “immoral acts”?

Why pick on the homosexuals?

I suppose laws should primarily passed to protect members of the society from harm. The act of being homosexual doesn’t cause any harm to anyone does it?

I totally agree with your point that haveing a referendum on every issue to find stats on for and against on issues would be highly impractical.Anyways sometimes its not the numbers that matter but rather the voices behind those numbers.

Having said so, i honestly believe in the power of open debate.When i say open debate i mean i would to see more views being presented in the newspapers and media, meaning i would like to see the people’s voices in the media.The media acts as a medium in which the government/institutions can communicate to the masses and the masses back.Now if the media is highly regulated, censored, controlled by the government, the government would actually be listening to their own voice!
Gold 90.5 ONLY LISTEN TO THE GOOD STUFF(Selective listening)

So when they say that Singapore is conservative because of asian values and what not and receive no negative response/feedback, they would actually be deluded enough into thinking that that is actually the voice of the people agreeing.

Whether or not is Singapore is ready for equal gay right should be debated in the media.If the media only acts as a mouthpiece of the government then we will never know what SINGAPURA really thinks of issues such as this.

“Destroy the press before the press destroys you”-major rule of politics.

First just a detail, amoral means morally neutral, i think what u r referring to is immoral. i concluded that prevailing morality does not accept homosexuality, because that law is in its present state. The main basis for law being law is that it most be accepted by the society. Hence since s377 is in our penal code, its only logical to assume that is has to be accepted by society.
Next it must be noted that although morality is inextricably linked to law, not all morals are enforced. As u rightly pointed out adultery and many other moral violations are not punished. However at the risk of sounding repetitive society decides what which morals it would want to enforce. Hence with s377A in place it shows that our society at least at one point in time when the law was passed decided upon criminalizing this moral violation.

LifesLikeThat,

when the state charges a person for an offence the state bears the burden of proof, as the state is attempting to take away the rights of that particular individual. This mean that the state is altering the rights and changing the position of the accused, that is why the burden of proof is on the state.

At present homosexuals do not have a right to perform homosexual rights, hence if these rights are to be altered, the people advocating for it must logically bear the burden of proof. Analogously the state who wants to alter the rights of an individual in a criminal case bears the burden of proof. In simple terms, if the rights of an individual is to be altered the onus must be on the party initiating the change. Hence this position is not inconsistent with the maxim of innocent until proven guilty.

The real issue i feel here is that we may feel that the views of parliament are not representative of society. This is an issue which goes to the core of our politics. Hence the issue is not ab homosexuality per se, the issue is that possibly due to a lack of opposition we do not feel that the voice of the society is heard.

For example, if you see a child drowning in the botanic gardens pond, you are under no legal obligation to rescue him. The law does not penalise you for not saving a person in trouble, odious that maybe to morality.

However if u do attempt to save the person, and u make a botch of it, you can be sued.

So much for morality eh?

You said: “That being said the law should remain in its present state until advocates of s377 being repealed can discharge the burden of proof..”

I think you have got it backwards. It should be the other way around!

If those who advocate the present set of laws be retained, it should be on THEM to show proof of or substantiate their position!

You don’t go around accusing others of something and then say, “Well, it is up to you to prove to me that I am wrong.”

The burden of proof is always on the accuser – not the accused. At least that’s what I believe.

Innocent until proven guilty. No?