Her arguments are deeply flawed and she has failed to provide a single sound reason as to why an act between two consenting adults in the privacy of the bedroom should be a criminal offence. There is not shred of evidence as to why allowing two consenting adults to do something to each other affects the rest of society.

However, I have to give her credit because despite all the flaws of her argument, she actually has people who believe her ……

“…to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.”
“…like an open mouth, an open mind must eventually close on something solid.”
What was she intending to convey? I’m baffled.

If you cannot understand this, might I suggest finding out? Otherwise you appear as a pretentious know-nothing. The first can be googled, and I trust this is within your grasp; the second means that one cannot be open minded indefinitely. To accept “a”, you must reject “not a”.

Instead of proclaiming yourself her moral and intellectual superiors without even understanding her argument, try opening your mind a bit. Not too much, I suppose.

For one, what user ‘Nicolas Du Mont MD’ is very true, she is somewhat using her title to ramble about scientific terms which further confuse and serve as mere fluff to her warped argument.

Not that I have anything against her conservative Christianity, but calling homosexuality a ‘moral repugnancy’ is just ludicrous. She should try to step our of that little confined box she has been living in and note that homosexuals are humans too and apart from their sexual orientation, they aren’t any different from heterosexuals.

Li-Ann opens with the cliche, “Debate must be based on substance not sound-bites,” after which she immediately intones a number of tendentious remarks, most of which amount to no more than, well, um…sound bites.

Not even clever ones. Consider the following:

“…to say a law is archaic is merely chronological snobbery.”
“…like an open mouth, an open mind must eventually close on something solid.”

What was she intending to convey? I’m baffled.

Similarly, she refers to the:

“…sexual libertine ethos of the wild wild West…”

We can safely assume she doesn’t literally mean the “wild West” of John Wayne films, so she must be referring to the decadent West–the U.S., for example–overrun with sodomites trying their damnedest to undermine civilization. (Not for a moment should you think it merely incidental, to invoke a form of the word “damned”!)

Yet when North America joined civilization, it was due to an influx of Europeans who considered the mainstream Church much too lax on punishing libertines! Today, the IRS continues its extraordinary largesse by exempting religious organizations from taxation, including those which appear to be primarily media corporations. And even that “liberal” residing in the White House tells us gay marriage is morally suspect, because “God is in the mix.”

So…in precisely what manner should we regard Singapore as less dissolute than the West? Because they flog people for gum-chewing?

But wait, there’s more non sequitur (on tap). Building steam, Li-Ann invokes Immanuel Kant (perhaps intending to wow the gallery with her intellectual prowess, however oddly archaic her choice of sources). “Incidentally, one does not have to be religious to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral.”

Excuse me, would-be professor of human rights, but could you cite a few 21st-century examples of commonplace practices which are NOT contrary to biological design? For Li-Ann to teach at NYU, one presumes she would travel from Singapore to the U.S. by airplane.

If God intended humans to fly, he’d have created us with wings!

Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your mouth,
Blowing down the backroads headin south.
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth,
Youre an idiot, babe.
Its a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

What is Science? A discipline for us to explain the material world or an ongoing endeavour to explain the material world? What about things that science cannot explain? What do we categorise these under?

What is Morality? What determines right from wrong? What is the origin of such determination? Human philosophy or religion or just a general expressed subconscious consensus?

What is Human Right? Is it a right confered based on morality, science or a general consensus? Should Human Rights (in all its entirety) be restricted? If no, what that is not restricted is encouraged?

I had excluded law and politics as its foundations are still based on the ‘drivers’ of humanity which is basically the 3 questions (triangular relationship) which I’d described above.

The main question now is which should you rank in priority? Science deters Morality and in turn deters Human Rights or any form of combination you may prefer.

Fact is, the chances for Morality to come first and followed by Science and then by Human Right should appear as the most logical sequence given humanity’s historical past. Again we need to go back to ask the simple questions inherently attached to the components of the triangular relationship to decide the best thing to do.

Fact remains, we need to restrict what we do not wish to encourage. I don’t believe we want our children to live in a new world order of prolific sexual disorientation and participate in that process. Criminalisation maybe a harsh word to use but do we detract in favor of political motivations similar to some countries. Bearing in mind that politics is not a core driver of humanity.

Singaporean2221 – i totally agree. And all you ‘God-fearers’ i.e. the intellectually-deficient MP were debating about, should too.