Excerpts from Yawning Bread.
Singapore’s Penal Code is based on India’s. We too used to have a Section 377 that criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”, which like India’s applied to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but this was repealed in 2007.
However Singapore has an additional Section of the Penal Code, known as Section 377A which specifically targets gay men, criminalising “gross indecency between two males”. The government deliberately let 377A stand in 2007, even when they repealed Section 377. Explaining why, the Singapore government said they wanted to decriminalise oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples, but keep it a criminal offence between gay men. Society was still conservative (i.e. many people didn’t know a damn thing about homosexuality and wanted their prejudices enshrined in law), the government said.
In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.
Read the full article here.
According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the species is one of the main points. So on scientific grounds Section 377A should be cast in stone.
If man goes after man, women after woman, Singapore as a nation would soon die off seeing as our reporduction rate is about 1.3 per family.
Yawning bread should approach this issue from a scientific view point.
By that same token, Section 377 should be similarly ‘cast in stone’ as anal/oral sex does not directly lead to reproduction. What a narrow-minded way of looking at things..
Is survival of the species really the main concern here? If so, from an evolutionary standpoint it would probably be more ideal to have the gay men/women die off and let the heterosexual breed more. After all, there are probably more of the them around than the homosexuals…
Hahaha…simplistic mindset for those who keep using so called reproductive function to argue. Are things black and white in real life?
There are some straight folks who don’t reproduce and there are some gay folks who do. And please don’t ask the stupid question of “how?” gay folks reproduce.
So how should people be judged based on their reproductive value?
huh? survival of a species? no link to gays, in S’pore context is money. now, let me check my buscuit tin to see how many more years before i can afford to tie the knot….
^.^
DoubleSpeak (#4),
No, people shouldn’t be judged on their “reproductive value”.
Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).
As for India, it might be easy to implement that in Delhi, but not in the rural areas of India, which unsurprisingly is very very Hindu, or as Mr Au would put it, very “Hindu Fundamentalist”.
I do really think that the word “Fundamentalist” is being abused here.
And anyway,
I would like to discourage TOC from publishing articles on homosexuality by Alex Au since naturally he is going to be overtly biased towards the LGBT movement, rather than analyze it objectively.
Does Arix want to “discourage” only articles from Alex Au, or anyone who’s “biased”? If the latter, shouldn’t comments from Arix also be “discouraged” because he (or she) is obviously biased as well. Seriously though, let’s see more from Alex…at least he makes sense.
Alex Au is the modern day King Henry IV. He will never stop pushing the gay agenda until he gets what he wants. And he is using popular platforms like TOC to achieve his aims. Like Arix, I hope TOC exercise some sort of restraint when publishing articles by Alex Au. There is already a Singapore GLBT platform for gays to push their agenda. Let’s leave them to where they belong.
Here we go again, LGBTs really pushing for their agenda or pushing others to the wall. If you queers wants to enjoy what you want, do it in your own private space. Please do not use such platforms, maybe there should be some rating on contents for TOC articles. Just when you think we had enough of AWARE.
i don’t think alex au is forcing toc to publish it; his website alone is pretty influential and critical in nature.
i have qns:
1) did toc publish this without letting alex au know?
2) to stay on topic, section 377a is rly quite retarded. its legally, constitutionally and technically unsound. even as a straight man, i find it stupid to be retained.
starch (#8),
I believe that anyone who is clearly biased for or against any particular issue should not have his or her article published on TOC. In order for TOC to remain credible (and not fall prey to any of MDA’s “political website” scams ala Sintercom 1994), TOC’s main articles should be kept as balanced as possible.
Yes, each article would have its own unique perspective. But they should always strive to show the full view from both sides. Articles should do this because they are supposed to be planned before they are written.
Comments, on the other hand, are off-the-cuff (yes, even this one). So the rules that should apply to articles don’t have to apply to comments.
And you misrepresented me. I am not asking for a complete “ban” on articles by Alex Au, just those whose key topic has to do with homosexuality. Most of his articles are good, when he writes them from the point of a outside observer, and not from the point of an activist.
This particular article is not very comprehensive in covering the legislative environments of either Singapore or India, and jumps to a number of conclusions regarding both countries. For one, supporters of 377A in Singapore are not just the “Fundamentalists”; they include the “moderates” as well. For another, in such a large country as India, legal “precedents” set by the Capital may trickle down very slowly to the more conservative Hindu Rural areas. Remember, some of these areas still practice wife-burning, although that is ostensibly against the law.
hhahahaha (#11),
1) Hard to tell. I don’t really think so, though.
2) S377A is technically unsound, because it can’t be enforced without turning Singapore into a police state. Well, except for arresting gays who kiss in public as “people who display lewd behaviour”, I guess.
S377A is not constitutionally unsound, because the Constitution doesn’t mention sexual orientation as one of the factors that shouldn’t be discriminated. I don’t know about India’s Constitution though.
S377A is legally unsound, but that’s only because it should be re-numbered as 377. I would argue that Defamation Act is more legally unsound than S377A.
Anyhow, I do believe that S377A should be abolished. But probably the government is – understandably – wary about the kind of social tsunami that the abolition of S377A might engender. “Decriminalising” after all to the GLBT lobby is only the first step.
Arix,
I want to ask you a simple question:
who should be burned at the stake – clergymen or practising homosexuals?
to 13)Arix
“S377A is not constitutionally unsound, because the Constitution doesn’t mention sexual orientation as one of the factors that shouldn’t be discriminated.”
Thus in the 1850s and 60s, Abraham Lincoln was unconstitutional when he spoke against slavery, because Southern constitutions allowed it?
Sorely disappointed in another glaring fallacy. Just because sexual orientation isn’t a factor that shouldn’t be discriminated against, doesn’t mean that it -should- be discriminated against. Try reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html.
In case you hadn’t realised, the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are two different things. Thus S377A is unconstitutional because it contradicts the spirit of the constitution. So would you say that the spirit of the Constitution supports homophobia?
Section 377A from a scientific view point #1,
“According to the theory of evolution, the survival of the species is one of the main points. So on scientific grounds Section 377A should be cast in stone.”
Trying to piggyback science?
Evolution is not goal-oriented. There’s no directive, or purpose, or “main point”.
If you are more interested in evolution than 377A (I suspect otherwise), you can refer to http://www.talkorigins.org to find out more.
“If man goes after man, women after woman, Singapore as a nation would soon die off seeing as our reporduction rate is about 1.3 per family.”
Are you one of these “heterosexuals” who finds it impossible to resist becoming homosexual if 377A is lifted?
smallvice (#14),
Nobody should be burnt at the stake. That is a cruel and torturous punishment.
plopp (#15),
What fallacy? I was going by the letter of the law. And by the Letter of the Law, as you stated, there is no protection for homosexuals. I was giving a formal analysis of #11, not making any argument.
My argument was made in #8, and in the last paragraph of #13.
Before I answer your question about homophobia, I would ask you to clarify what you mean by homophobia. Whether you take the “broad” view or the “narrow view”?
gemani supports Arix. He says, “Like Arix, I hope TOC exercise some sort of restraint when publishing articles by Alex Au.” And Alix is now saying it’s OK to have articles by Alex Au as long as it’s not regarding a subject on which he disagrees (i.e. gays). Obviously they don’t want dialogue. Maybe it’s because their anti-gay agenda is as indefensible as it is immoral. I say let’s have more open discussion. People should not be given a free pass when persecuting others.
I went to an event where several speakers took turns to give their speech.
Among them was Alex.
When he finnished his talk and asked the audience to ask questions, a group of youngers attacked him verbally and sounded like anti-gayism.
I felt bad for Alex as the group seemed like well prepared to attack him verbally.
They seem to condem Alex and ignore the positive contributions of this man.
Good point, Packiology. Alex is not only a gifted intellect, he’s brave and tenacious. It’s a pity that, particularly in a country where our only resource is the ingenuity and perseverance of our people, we have laws that encourage some of our most creative minds to seek opportunities elsewhere.
TOC is right tin publishing this story. It is, above all considerations, newsworthy. That Alex Au has a vested interest is, at best, secondary.
TOC could have easily picked this story up from somewhere other than yawningbread. Not that this would have made much of a difference anyway. The story/quotes would make the same larger point.
I wish some of the contributors be upfront about their opposition to the lifting of 377A. Lets not hide behind scientific or morality reasons and face the issue squarely based on constitutionally rights and equality.
Indonesia (a largely muslim country), Thailand (a Buddhist nation), the US and Europe (christian), Taiwan (buddhist & Taoist), China and now India (predominantly Hindu) have all repealed laws like 377A. Are we aping the west or going against asian traditions if we repeal 377A?
Obviously from the above examples, we are neither. We seem merely intolerant, ignorant, and extremely backward. If that is what our govt and the ‘silent majority’ aspires to., then fine. In the meantime, the world is moving 2 steps forward and we are stubbornly taking 3 steps backward.
Repealing 377A is not harming anyone, hetereosexuals or the ‘silent majority’ directly; it could however inconveniently upset their moral balance or perspective. Too bad.
Keeping it, however, harms thousands of human beings who have done nothing wrong other than to live the lives they wish to lead
To Arix: Alex Au used the word ‘christian fundamentalist’, so I take issue with you wrongly sticking the labels to Hindus. Just because rural Hindus may be traditional, they should not be labelled fundamentalists. Gays & lesbians have existed, by and large, freely both in rural & urban India for a very long time (before the advent of Islam and Christianity) and I’m glad that once again Indian has the confidence and maturity to act on what the know in their conscience is Right.
@Arix (#6), sorry to single this sentence out, but what sort of rubbish are you sputtering here?: “Concurrently, however, heterosexuals do have the free choice between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that homosexuals don’t have (because their homosexuality limits them).”
Simply reproducing that ludicrous sentence suffices to refute it, I believe.
Secondly, it is disturbing that people like Arix, gemami and Adam wish not only to deny gays the freedom to engage in sexual activity (perhaps a defensible position), but also to deny them the freedom to participate in public discourse about an issue which they rightly regard as central to their identity and self-respect. There are conceivably reasons for prohibiting the practice of homosexual sex, but there are no reasons for prohibiting debate about that practice. In fact, the main basis on which we as a community can legitimately criminalize homosexual sex is that a majority of us support it after a free and uninhibited debate. If we clamp down on debate by silencing those we disagree with, we undermine the democratic legitimacy of the laws we’ve passed. And that kind of intolerance for dissenting views cannot be endorsed by any society.
@Arix (#13), the constitutional arguments for and against a prohibition on ‘discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ are far more complex than you suggest. “Sexual orientation” is not explicitly referred to in the text of the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Charter, or the Indian Constitution, yet courts there have struck down statutes criminalizing homosexual practices. In the same vein, gender discrimination is not expressly forbidden by the Singapore constitution, but is very probably prohibited. There are reasonable arguments based on the constitutional text for inferring that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited. For instance, sexual orientation may be read as ‘analogous’ to prohibited grounds of discrimination like race, descent or place of birth in Article 12(2). Or alternatively, one may argue that a ‘right of privacy’ is at the heart of the equal protection clause in Article 12(1) — and that right is infringed by a statute like 377A.
I must also add that TOC has never pretended to be entirely ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ (which is anyway probably a false ideal as regards such controversial issues). Certainly, TOC may seek to be neutral for strategic purposes, such as maintaining a high readership or avoiding MDA intervention. But there are no principled reasons why TOC should be obliged to avoid taking a political stance in its commentary. And any regular visitor who fails to see that TOC has all along presented articles which endorse a ‘liberal-democratic’ perspective must be a little obtuse. And it’s no accident that a ‘liberal-democratic’ perspective will usually be supportive of the GLBT movement, because that conclusion follows logically from its prior commitment to individual rights and democratic government.
Perhaps it falls to those who are liberals on all other issues save GLBT rights to ask whether they’re really being consistent.
I have lurked here long enough. Having followed his blog for a long time and recently seen Alex Au in person at a forum , where he gave a talk both serious and funny at the same time, I feel I need to speak up.
Alex is remarkably consistent in his politics. He takes the progressive liberal point of view whether he is talking about freedom of speech, democracy in myanmar, foreign workers etc, etc, or gay rights. He speaks for liberty and equality for all oppressed groups, and for a more caring government. If you notice, he shows same disgust for oppressors, whether government, religious authorities or uncaring employers of foreign workers. You may not agree with him, but you can hardly accuse him of inconsistency.
How come, we have people here who say his political articles are good and acceptable for inclusion in TOC and his gay articles are not worth reading? His gay articles are also politics, and argued from exactly the same POV as he argues, for say, freedom of speech or workers rights.
The problem, quite obviously, is not Alex. The problem are these TOC readers who can’t see past their own prejudices, who want liberty and human rights for themselves (so if Alex argues for that, he is good) but not liberty and human rights for gays (and if Alex argues for that, he is bad).
Give me a break.
Hi boogie #27,
You said: The problem, quite obviously, is not Alex. The problem are these TOC readers who can’t see past their own prejudices, who want liberty and human rights for themselves (so if Alex argues for that, he is good) but not liberty and human rights for gays (and if Alex argues for that, he is bad).
Great points there. I hope Arix can learn from his mistakes and repent from his religious convictions. If religion is the root of Arix’s evil, what do we need to do to save Arix from future transgression? Traditional wisdom dictates we should uproot the cause (斩草除根).
that’s why TOC is right to publish the article by Alex, so that hypocrites and fakes like Arix, who pretend to be objective when he is not, are exposed for all to see…
If you don’t agree you debate with facts and reasons. If you cannot handle the truth, then stay away instead of trying to discourage others from publishing it.
People who voicibly discourage gay related articles digust me. I’ve got news for you. We have the same goddamn right to respect as you sorry excuses for straights have. I don’t sit around berating about the amount of irrelevant heterosexual content I see around me because I have the sensibility to respect and look beyond context for common grounds,or censor them in private if it comes to that.
The difference about intolerant views is that they put down and demand censorship to things they don’t want to hear; WHICH is fine if you keep it to yourself. Just don’t read it, Do GROW up.
I applaud TOC’s bringing across a broad spectrum of topics to my attention and in a way, affirming that LGBTs do have a place in society, and from there, we can once again build common grounds beyond sexuality and towards greater humanity.
I don’t really care to convince the last homophobe in Singapore for change, the government should have the decency to do deliver justice and equality for all. The mockery is on them, you simply cannot stop the tides of truth tearing down prejudice build on lies, lies that isolate others for being who they are.
Hi Arix #12
You are trying to turn TOC into Straits Times by promoting the Straits Times’ flavour of balance and objectivity. Balance is achieved by having different media groups projecting competing views, not by having single media group accomodating all views. On the other hand, the measures of objectivity itself are subjective.
You believe that anyone who is clearly biased for or against any particular issue should not have his or her article published on TOC. By whose benchmark do you decide if a person is biased? Given that every person has his own unique benchmark, would this not mean there would be at least one person in all of Singapore who would find another person’s opinion bias.
Each article would have its own unique perspective and therefore be as such. However, it is the responsibility of beholders with opposing views to pen their own opinions. You are free to post your own views in the commentary thread here and Yawning Bread in whatever format you desire. No one is stopping you to pen an anti-gay article or a hate speech.
You have a wonderful trick there – revise your view, follow by accusing people of mis-representing you. We are not 3-year old kids. You also said Alex Au’s articles are not good when he is writing as an activist. By the same measure, your view as an anti-gay activist should therefore be condemned as bad, isn’t it? Btw is De Souza your surname? Haha..
There is a difference between decriminalising and amoralising homosexual behavior. This legal revision by the Indian Supreme Court only makes homosexual behaviour non-criminal. It does not change cultural attitude immediately but this marks the first step to change cultural attitude for the better.
People who support the dignity of homosexuals should therefore work harder in amoralising homosexual behaviour in order to trigger a fundamental change in societal attitude towards homosexuals. It took 2000 years to convince the Church to abandon certain practises and values prescribed by the Bible. As people who support the dignity of homosexuals, we have to work harder to reform the Church. The same can be said on all religions that prescribes anti-gay stand.
many attack or are simply ignore or do not consider the contributions of Alex. I get a feeling these are religious fanatics. even those very young people like in their early twenties or still in JC or Uni. I have witnessed how they bombard him.
Can singaporean religious fanatics respect the preferences of others?
I don’t see a problem with an activist like Alex sharing his views on his own blog, and even for TOC to abridge his pieces for wider readership. At least I am clear about where he is coming from, and am fully aware of his biases/prejudices/ allegiances/arguments, which are equally clear.
Better to be up front, state your case and where you stand – a real identity helps. In my mind, Alex’s online persona is simply an extension of his real world beliefs. That is comforting to me. Ultimately, his views are his business, as are yours. For reasons stated, as a citizen interested in social issues affecting Singapore, I’m more comfortable with Alex’s approach rather than that of his critics. This is not to berate his critics, but simply to say that we need to build a discourse of argument and counter-argument. If one cant frame a strong counter-argument, then perhaps it is because the prevailing one is superior?
I don’t want to make the writer look totally irresponsible. He may have contributions in other areas, but this article is not one of them.
We cannot have an argument that says that if a certain country adopts a certain legal stand on homosexuality, we are made to look stupid by adopting otherwise.
So, to say : ‘In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.’,
I say : ‘Maybe it’s time you make some plans to stay in India instead’.
The writer should avoid giving the impression of using a well-meaning media, like TOC to further push the homosexual agenda.
There are many stupid laws we have. Even one-man gathering is considered an ilegal gathering. I do not know where our legal system ranked in the world by now. Could it be another 154th in ranking, hovers between North Korea & Myanmar?
kf wrote:
So, to say : ‘In other words, the Singapore government did exactly what the judges in Delhi said was constitutionally wrong – criminal law held captive by popular misconception.’,
I say : ‘Maybe it’s time you make some plans to stay in India instead’.
What an lame argument! So if anyone has a problem with Singapore’s censorship laws, ISA, election laws, labour laws, etc, etc, all of you should shut up, and never compare Singapore with any other country. Go and live in countries X Y Z instead!
kf wrote:
The writer should avoid giving the impression of using a well-meaning media, like TOC to further push the homosexual agenda.
As someone else wrote somewhere (I’m sorry I can’t attribute to him/her by name) the only agenda the gays have is legal equality. What;’s wrong with that?Also, as repeatedly pointed out in other forums, the use of the term “homosexual agenda” indicates that one is adopting the language and POV of the Christian anti-gay campaigners. As Pritam said above, be transparent about where you’re coming from.
Kf #34,
Don’t worry about making AA look “totally” or even partially “irresponsible”. You didn’t. Not at all. He backed up his case which, incidentally, you didn’t.
“We cannot have an argument….”
Why not?
Would you have a similar response if the contentious law in question was not regarding homosexuality? That the writer, any writer, should simply up and go?
What is the nature of this “gay agenda” that you seem so dead set against? And why?
After thousands of years of hatred, discrimination, bigotry, sencelessness which originated from certain ‘ancient teachings’, its a wonder that there are still people who want to continue that evil process in the 21st century. It all boils down to ignorance (lack of wisdom), an attachment to (wrong) views, and a egoistic clinging to wrong teachings, and these factors are major fetters in the individual man’s journey in life, if he aspires to that ‘coveted superman’ role that he can play in society for which he needs to have compassion, wisdom and a non-attachment/clinging to views.
sloo (#23),
1) What legitimacy does Constitutional Rights have if not backed by moral authority? We might as well have seigniorage rights then.
2) The US and Western Europe are officially non-religious, minus Spain perhaps. Eastern Europe is strongly Conservative Catholic (i.e. the LDS type). Thailand, well … perhaps it is under Thaksin’s businessman sensibilities. Indonesia … well, it is a more disparate community than India; we need to be careful before we jump to conclusions. Anyway, the Dutch have always been more liberal than the British or French or Spanish.
3) While I would agree with you that Singapore is “intolerant” and sometimes moves “two steps forward and three steps back”, jumping to a conclusion based on a single law is a hasty generalization.
4-5) In practical terms, both keeping and repealing the law have no effects at all. As I said in my previous post, it is a technically unenforceable lame-duck law.
And before you (and others) try to misrepresent me again, I am in favour of repealing S377A.
I get why you wish to repeal 377A, and I agree that since it’s perfunctory it should definitely be repealed. That’s not the main quarrel, don’t distract.
However, myself and various others disagree fundamentally that homosexual discrimination is even valid in the first place.
Which clarifies #15, because you interpreted the
- nonenshrinement of sexual orientation alongside race and religion for nondiscrimination -
into
- permitting discriminating against or for certain types of sexual orientations-
when in fact like it might actually be possible to just accept sexual orientation as another non-discriminable quality. Discriminating by gender for professions like motherhood and sperm donation might actually be valid, but which job can’t you do if you’re gay not straight?
Oracle of Delphi (#24),
You think Secularism/Atheism is such a modern invention?
la nausee (#25),
1) God question: what nonsense? As far as I see it, it is a logical observation from facts alone. So please explain why you think it is “utter rubbish”.
2) That is a huge conclusion to draw about both me and genami. Neither of us advocated for Alex Au to close down his blog or anything. In fact, my first post on this thread was directed at TOC, not at Mr Au.
I support free public discourse, but there must be sufficient grounds before we translate discourse into policy debate.
What evidence do you have that “a majority of us” will support the de-criminalisation of homosexuality?
Plus, the debate is not totally “free and uninhibited” if any side enters it with the conclusion in mind. It is wrong for any religious person, fundamentalist or moderate, to forcefully constrain the debate to a pre-determined conclusion that “homosexuals are unnatural”. It is equally wrong for any LGBT person or supporter to forcefully constrain the debate to a predetermined conclusion that “homosexuality is natural”. We need to clear both sides of their agendas before the debate can truly be “free and uninhibited”.
I do really wish it were so.
plopp (#40),
1) I just wished to clarify, so that Smallvice doesn’t start to muddle things up here in this thread.
2) I really dislike the term “homosexual discrimination” because it covers both the “narrow” and “broad” spectrums. Unless you are Smallvice, can you please clarify whether you are using the “broad” definition or the “narrow” definition?
3) I didn’t interpret anything. I was merely analyzing #11 text. If I had interpreted anything, I would make it clear.
4) Please don’t count Motherhood as a profession; it sort-of trivializes the whole process. But back on-topic, I strongly disagree with occupational discrimination, and even on MOE’s ban on teachers coming out in class. For “narrow” things like occupations, there shouldn’t be wilful discrimination.
La nausee (#26),
TOC is free to take its stand. However, its stand should be informed. I like TOC because it carries articles that have good-quality content, as opposed to rantings you find in other forums and some blogs. Content that argues for a point, but considers the opposite perspective too, and offers a reasoned argument.
As it stands, this article meets neither of these criteria. It is based fundamentally on a Band-Wagon Fallacy: Because India and a whole lot of other countries have decriminalised homosexuality, Singapore must do the same too. Hardly a sound argument.
boogie (#27),
1-2) Where did you get the idea of Alex being accused of “inconsistency”?
3) Nobody said that his “gay articles are not worth reading”. Perhaps I ought to have been a little clearer. My full POV is this:-
If TOC wants to publish Alex Au’s gay articles direct from his blog, it can do so, but it ought to state clearly Alex Au’s pro-gay bias and that he is the leader of PLU, and carry the disclaimer that “the editors of TOC are not in any way related to his opinon”.
if TOC wants to publish Alex’s gay articles as contributions, then they should be regarded in the same light as the other articles on this site. Liberal-Democratic Bias is fine, but it must be properly- backed up with evidence and at least partial consideration of the opposing viewpoint. And not just based on recurring Band-Wagon and Poisoning-the-Well Fallacies, like this one was.
Alex Au’s articles on homosexuality are worth reading when they espouse proper arguments supporting his and his organization’s case. They are not worth reading when they are simply “decriminalisation timeline” pieces that employ the Band-Wagon Fallacy.
Please, I am not anti-Alex-Au or anything. Don’t misrepresent me (no matter what red herrings Smallvice attempts to throw in this thread).
Scientifically, and from a physiological perspective, the lining of the anus is very delicate and is susceptible to tears and trauma resulting from anal sex. To make matters worse, the lack of bodily lubricants in the anus must have made anal sex a terrible torment. Finally, but not the least, can you even begin to fathom why one would stick his sexual organ into where another’s faeces is discharged???
to #43 Arix:
Care to clarify what the difference between ‘broad’ and ‘narrow’ discrimination is?
Also, by terming motherhood as a profession I did not mean to demean, but to actually raise its worth, because too many people underrate the difficulty it has. And could you explain your last sentence “For “narrow” things like occupations, there shouldn’t be wilful discrimination.”?
regarding #44:
The fact is that Singapore often claims the support of its supposed ‘conservative majority’ for laws like 377A, and /especially/ 377A. Sunday Times (5th Jul) has an article about this. However, it might be rather logical that most people both in and out of India might deem India as MORE conservative than Singapore, and so if a more conservative country can repeal a lousy law because both its intents and effects are unconstitutional, then…why can’t a less conservative country do the same? Unless you’d go the whole hog and say that Singapore IS in fact more conservative than India, which I don’t think you’ll find many to agree with you.
To take the liberty of paraphrasing AA’s article I would rather think that he believes the Indian judge is praiseworthy for recognising an unconstitutional, unfair, and discriminatory law when he saw one, and not some lemminglike preaching of Singapore to follow their lead Just Because.
@James Tan (#46), well, there are reasons why gays do, and continue to, engage in anal sex — because it’s pleasurable to them. That fact alone clearly disproves your speculative claim that anal sex is “a terrible torment”. Just because you and I find the practice repulsive doesn’t mean that others will agree. Moreover, it’s not a good argument in the sphere of public policy to simply appeal to our innate disgust, however dressed up in pseudo ‘scientific’ or ‘physiological’ ‘facts’ as it may be.
Outrage (#30),
Please cool down. I said nothing about discouraging gay articles per se, just gay articles by Alex Au.
I seriously have doubts on any “tides of truth” that exist, when the Pink Lobby is busy trying to silence their critics in developed countries. I find it really peculiar that any perception that says religious people per se are trying to make sure “LGBTs have no place in society” ever exists in the first place. I believe that this is due to the aggressive media advocacy by the Pink Lobby that distorted the truth of the situation in order to promote the homosexual agenda.
The real stance by the moderate camp is that “LGBTs have a rightful place in society as people, but we believe that homosexuality as a condition should not afflict them, and can be overcome”. No doubt perhaps that some of the misunderstanding arises from the connotations attached to the word “sin”.
But the necessary reforms on the concept of “sin” are not going to happen unless the Pink Lobby stops waving its banners in front of the moderates’ faces and alienate more moderates into joining the Fundamentalists. Accusing all religious people of being bigots without first dissembling the subtle details of their stances is frankly being both irresponsible and unfair, not to mention strategically dumb.
#36, #37, sllim and boogie,
You missed the entire point of my comments.
You can put forward an argument and it can be convincing, and you can use another country’s development as reference, but the content of argument cannot be based on such a country is doing this, therefore there is a problem for us not to follow. This type of argument is the “A does it, and I didn’t do it, therefore I am wrong type”.
I am not even claiming that we did right for everything in Singapore. In fact, I have just as many disagreements as others out there.
It is important you get familiar with what and why arguments make sense and what and why they don’t.
I am not dead set against any agenda, but it’s not hard to detect the writer is creating the impression in pushing for one. I am not saying he cannot take sides on an issue, but the language points to a “I am right, and you are downright wrong” type of conclusion (just start by examining even the title and you’ll know what I mean), which will not allow all parties to move forward.
You can still disagree with other parties, but there are better ways of presenting the case – a measured one.