you said:”There is no denying we have the free will to just pursue pure sexual desire….”

…you are agreeing with me that there are cultures and countries that are able to maintain social norm without having to keep a law such as 377a to criminalis people unjustly…

Wonder why you fail to understand “….reflect a strong social force tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm just like the pro-377A camp wanting to retain a non-enforcing 377A as a way to tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm……” correctly.

Moreover, you are switching to using “social norm” now but social norm does not equate family values.

You may want to take note that social norm and family values are both involved in the issue of 377A.

If you form the view that someone has “fall into the judeo-christian cultural influence trap” based on pure speculation, I suggest you to drop such view. It will only make you look irrational.

I am in no way speculating or being irrational. Nowhere will you find extra-marital sex called a sin in two of the world greatest cultures: the Indian and the Chinese cultures. In contrast, it is self-evident that proscribing sexual behaviours mainly comes from voices of judeo-christian origin.

You said:”Marriage is more a social and family matter in this context. The lack of gay marriage might as well reflect a strong social force tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm just like the pro-377A camp wanting to retain a non-enforcing 377A as a way to tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm?”

By saying that, you are agreeing with me that there are cultures and countries that are able to maintain social norm without having to keep a law such as 377a to criminalis people unjustly. Didn’t I just prove that “family values” shouldn’t even figure into the argument at this stage and you agree? Moreover, you are switching to using “social norm” now but social norm does not equate family values.

you said:”There is no denying we have the free will to just pursue pure sexual desire….”

You are again agreeing with me that sex and the desire for family is two different thing and so how should family values fugure into the argument to criminalise a particular sexual act that has no victim?

If you form the view that someone has “fall into the judeo-christian cultural influence trap” based on pure speculation, I suggest you to drop such view. It will only make you look irrational.

If you are referring to the “judeo-christian cultural” line of thinking, then I wonder why “that extra-marital sex must be sinful” lead to “and therefore do not exist” when sin is a well founded concept in that culture.

“For thousands of years, many countries and cultures do not criminalise gay sex yet we don’t see them gay marriage in these countries or cultures.”

Marriage is more a social and family matter in this context. The lack of gay marriage might as well reflect a strong social force tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm just like the pro-377A camp wanting to retain a non-enforcing 377A as a way to tolerating it but rejecting the act as part of the social norm?

To me, sex and desire to form family are two totally different concepts and need not conflate.

There is no denying we have the free will to just pursue pure sexual desire. But we also observe that sex enhance the passionate bonding of a couple and the passionate bonding of a couple enhance the sexual experience. While pure sexual pursue is one night event, the positive feedback loop of sex and passionate bonding lead to long term relationship call family. So it bring back to my point that we should factor in family values in considering repealing 377A.

Homosexual sex may or may not involved love or desire to ultimately form a family. To me, sex and desire to form family are two totally different concepts and need not conflate. Do not fall into the judeo-christian cultural influence trap that extra-marital sex must be sinful and therefore do not exist and therefore sexual attraction has to, and only lead to marriage and formation of family.

The actual logic is actually much simpler than that. Briefly state again: Repealing 377a does not equate legalising gay marriage. For thousands of years, many countries and cultures do not criminalise gay sex yet we don’t see them gay marriage in these countries or cultures. That said, I do not deny it is the ultimate goal of gay activists and 377a is a step towards the goal. However, that doesn’t mean family values argument has not figured into the debate earlier than it deserved. The correct argument they should put forth should be instead that sex betweem two males against the will of god.

perhaps the government shd publish some stats on how many have been convicted of this crime.

I hope the following links may interest you:

http://www.yawningbread.org/guest_2007/guw-136.htm
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2007/yax-749.htm

Regards.

While I can agree that “therefore it is not a crime” I think you failed to provide the logical reasoning of the conclusion of “therefore family values should not even figure into the argument.”

Also, I have already stated:

If the answer is NO, and you agree that such homosexual relationship involve love / passion that bond the homosexual couples, then the clear outcome is the desire to form a family, and family values is involved in the picture.

in explaining why family values is part of the picture in this 377A consideration. I hope you will consider that.

Regards.

wasn’t the same one as the one about oral?

That is why I say part of the arguments are basically the same. However, as I said clearly, the most basic argument for repealing 377a is that consensual sex between two males does not has a victim and therefore it is not a crime and therefore family values should not even figure into the argument. Those that do so are assuming that repealing 377a is the same as legalising same-sex marriage. This is untrue unfortunately.

Family values don’t even figure in here.

Are you suggesting that homosexual relationship under the scope of repealing 377A is purely physical and does not involve love / passion that bond and lead couples into forming families? If the answer is NO, and you agree that such homosexual relattionship involve love / passion that bond the homosexual couples, then the clear outcome is the desire to form a family, and family values is involved in the picture.

Regards.

I agree that part of the arguments are basically the same. However, the argument for “family values”, even if it stands (it don’t) should not even figure into the argument for keeping 377a. The most basic argument for repealing 377a is that there is no victim and it is not a crime. Family values don’t even figure in here. However, if we are to legalise gay marriage, then I agree that “family values” will has a place in the argument even though I might not agree that the argument is strong. But that is a totally different debate, in my opinion.

Yes indeed. If you have close friends who are in the GLBT community, your views and philosophy will change, dramatically.

I often look at my friends and I wonder if they can ever have a fair go at life in Singapore, not just in the economic sphere..

Cheers.

lawrence: “Perhaps Rev Yap read the bible with his eyes and mind open but Jeffrey chose read with blinkers on and his mind already close.”

totally agree. i am close minded at times. pardon me. one reasons is perhaps because i have no gay friends.. if i had a personal straight friendship with one, my views will surely be starkly different.

Matt 5:39
lawrence, i see no point in turning this comment thread into a religious one. hence this is as far as i will comment on your quoting.

let see how this issue turns out in time to come. :)

totally agree. i am close minded at times. pardon me. one reasons is perhaps because i am no gay friends.. if i had a personal straight friendship with one, my views will surely be starkly different.

Matt 5:39
lawrence i see no point in turning this comment thread into a religious one. hence this is as far as i will comment on your quoting.

let see how this issue turns out in time to come. :)

This calculation is too simplistic. Firstly, not all christians are anti-gay. Even in Singapore where the fundamentalistic christianity represent the majority, still there is substantial christians who are fair minded. Secondly, in recent surveys, pro-gay statistics stand at somewhere above 30% of the population and still growing. Whereas christians only constitutes less than 20% of the population. Thirdly, people don’t simply vote base on one issue.

Before the final decision whether to repeal 377A, Iour mathematics-major PM will probably do a probability calculation check whether the size of the Christian camp will be greater than that of the pro-gay camp.

As of the last general election, almost 3.5 out of 10 Singaporean voters voted against the already-bad-boys-image PAP. Obviously the voters cannot be further alienated, remember the issues on Christian-casinos, NKF-scandal, Mrs-peanuts, Hougang-carrots, Gomez-bully, etc.

LKY is just telling a white lie when he says that it will only be a matter of time.

Therefore whatever the facts are, probably the forgone conclusion is 377A CANNOT be repealed for the very fundamental reason – VOTES.

Yes, I can say that it doesn’t reflect the general sentiment of Christians in Singapore.

Personally, more friends of mine are moving towards “loving the sinner but condemning the sin”. That’s perfectly fine from a religious standpoint.

The only issue I have, as a moderate libertarian Christian is that while we have our religious convictions we also have to respect the free will of others and ensure that this free will is protected.

What marks a society is how it treats its minorities, and I must say that if people who want to retain Section 377A wish to lobby and protest, it will mark an improvement in the discourse of public participation and citizen advocacy in Singapore.

Anything that widens the space for interaction and dialogue should be welcomed. If we continue to sweep things or differences under the carpet, it will be more detrimental in the long run.

Cheers.