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the order of nature”, which like India’s applied to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but this was repealed in 2007.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 The government deliberately let 377A stand in 2007, even when they repealed Section 377.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.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
#389 & #390,
sllim, you are welcome.
In the article titled: “Thio Li-Ann at center of controversy in New York University” someone [#52] posed this question to Arix: “Look Arix, how old are you exactly, 15?” and Arix responded [#73]: “I am 21, incidentally.”
One way of judging Arix’s intellect is through analyzing his assertions or arguments. At 21 yrs a person can still be highly mentally mature, but such a person would be an exception rather than the norm.
I do not agree with Arix’s accusation of smallvice585 of resorting to ad hominem. I have read most if not all of smallvice585’s posts and I have not detected any ad hominem in them. I would like Arix to pinpoint smallvice585’s message[s] that Arix perceived as ad hominem, and we can assist by reevaluating whether Arix is correct.
Yes, I am an atheist peppered with a small dose of agnosticism.
And, yes, Arix did make known his gender in #136.
#392
Arix, tks for the feedback.
rwkc on July 13th, 2009 3.32 pm:
#1 & #2: I suggest nothing. This is the deduction made by the TIME writer, using HIV/AIDS as the underlying reason why there is a need to decriminalize some aspects of 377. I picked it up to show that even with societies that are supposedly more liberal than Singapore, the perception that HIV/AIDS is linked to gays is just as rampant, if not more rampant than our more conservative society.
And to think that so many have hailed such a breakthrough when in actual fact, it is for health reasons that the New Delhi court had allowed for this decriminalization – not because of the perceived equal rights for gays.
Your lengthy text is nothing but an essential point of argument anyone would make to state their position. It now depends on the Indian Supreme Court to determine if such an argument has any merit to have the entire 377 decriminalized – very much like Singapore and the raging debate we are seeing here and elsewhere.
The Indian Supreme Court agreeing with certain aspects of this argument cannot be taken to mean full acceptance of the argument, and if it had suggested any upholding of equality, it must mean those aspects of equality that benefits the governance of the people, and the people as a whole.
In this sense, for the greater good of the Indian population, equality is therefore the right, in general, of every citizen before the law,. It’s the same with Singapore.
403) gemami on July 13th, 2009 4.44 pm
The problem with that ‘theory’ (regardless of if it is yours or TIME’s writer) is that India’s Court and govt seemed to be separate entities (not like Singapore’s).
If it was a health reason, isn’t it more likely that the Decision to decriminalized 377 would have come from the govt, rather than the Court?
Seth (#397),
I have at least explained that 5 times already. I do not wish to be explaining that for the sixth time!
rwkc (#402),
3) Very simple. Every single of Smallvice’s posts where he calls me either a Christian Fundamentalist or a Christian Fanatic or a Christian heretic (as if he understands what that means), is an ad hominem, because it totally misrepresents my actual position, and paints me in a monolithic colour.
I talked with Andrew, and he agreed that Smallvice was throwing personal attacks on me. If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.
@gemami (#399, #403)
You’re both right and wrong here.
The essence of the Delhi High Court’s decision (here, if you’re interested) was rights-based, rather than invoking utilitarian calculations of what’s in the common good, such as whether s. 377 is for or against public health, for example. The Court ‘read down’ 377 only because it considered the government’s argument that 377 protected public health to be an unpersuasive reason for restricting homosexuals’ rights; it did not really deal with the obverse question of how the abolition of 377 might protect public health, by e.g. allowing for better solutions against HIV/AIDS.
But I find your statement that the Court’s decision is “nothing for gays to celebrate over” puzzling. Sure, it acknowledges the HIV/AIDS problem, but I’m sure the GLBT community were already fully conscious of that. Their issue was that the government was not helping, but actively impeding, efforts to resolve that problem. And here the discrimination-based argument dovetails with the public health one: GLBT’s health issues are not being adequately addressed because 377/377A licenses discrimination against them. And if the Court’s decision allows the HIV/AIDS problem to be dealt with more effectively, why isn’t that cause for celebration?
And it bears noting also that Alex Au himself (and also Action for AIDS Singapore) has highlighted the HIV/AIDS problem as a reason for repealing 377A.
@Arix (#406), just to split hairs, personal attacks do not strictly speaking equate to ad hominem arguments.
From Wikipedia:
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source’s argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#In_logic
#403 gemami
“And to think that so many have hailed such a breakthrough when in actual fact, it is for health reasons that the New Delhi court had allowed for this decriminalization – not because of the perceived equal rights for gays.”
Have you read the written judgement of the New Delhi court? The reason for decriminalizing is clearly stated in the excerpt I gave in #400 and it was all about equality before the law.
Your post #399 consists basically of three paragraphs.
You did not use parenthesis [inverted commas, for example] for the first sentence so anyone reading your post cannot be sure whether you were quoting Time verbatim or merely paraphrasing from Time.
But since you closed off the first sentence with “(TIME July 20)”, it can be assumed that what you said subsequently [second and third para] has nothing to do with Time. However, you were still referring to 377A when it was 377 that was before the New Delhi court. You were following Time unwittingly but erroneously.
Please produce an extract from the written judgement of the New Delhi court that says that it is for health reasons that it repealed part of section 377. Otherwise, please refrain from imputing a reason for the repeal which from the facts of the case appears irrelevant or non-existent.
la nausée #408,
Would this qualify as an ad hominem or just the run-of-the-mill non sequitor?
Arix: “If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”
#406
“If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”
Arix, let’s analyze this argument of yours.
In my #401 I say: “I have read most if not all of smallvice585’s posts and I have not detected any ad hominem in them. I would like Arix to pinpoint smallvice585’s message[s] that Arix perceived as ad hominem, and we can assist by reevaluating whether Arix is correct.”
Arix, please read these sentences carefully; have I said that I have read all of the messages posted by smallvice585? The obvious answer is a resounding NO, right?
Could I have missed those posts that were tinted with ad hominem? The answer must be Yes, right?
So, how could you say “If you can’t see the personal attacks, it is because you are overly pro-gay.”?
If I didn’t see the personal attacks. It could mean that I didn’t come across them. But even if I did see them I might have interpreted them as non ad hominem, from my subjective viewpoint, right?
Thus the conclusion that I am overly pro-gay is a non-sequitur, would you agree?
Arix, please extract smallvice585’s messages [and post ref no] wherein smallvice585 calls you “a Christian Fundamentalist” or “a Christian Fanatic” or “a Christian heretic”.
You claim you talked with Andrew and he agreed that that “Smallvice was throwing personal attacks on you”.
Let us have the evidence, Arix – show us the messages.
rwkc (#412),
4) You said you read most, and indeed most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems.
5) Yes, you could have missed them. But there is more than 1 reason why you could have missed them.
6-7) I know that I am the only one who is actually arguing a case against homosexuality here. Apart from buda, who occasionally intervenes in the debate to support my general points, there really isn’t any other person supporting me. (I don’t count people like interested as supporters.)
Unfortunately, the words “bigot” and “Fundamentalist” are used so often in a LGBT Rights debate that people sort of forget that these are terms of personal attack as well. Therefore, I stand by my comment. I would not rule it out that your pro-gay position makes you filter out any personal attacks made on a person of the so-called “anti-gay” position (which is a slight, but tolerable, misnomer) as something “normal” and “acceptable”.
8) Evidence?
#248: “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.”
That is one.
#113 (TLA course thread): “Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”
that is another.
There is 2 for starters. And I have made exact quotes, not paraphrased.
9) The messages are in SMS. Andrew posted his reply in #268 (still trying to be friendly) and emailed me that he had a talk with smallvice (who is one of TOC’s sub-editors).
la nausee (#409),
Thanks for clarifying the meaning of “Ad Hominem”.
Why don’t you check the India Thread #113 and explain why that isn’t a Ad Hominem? For one, it is not even related to any arguments about the topic of the thread – homosexuality.
@Arix (#413), I presume you’re referring to the comment which beings:
Dear Christians and Muslims,
Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread: …
Some of smallvice585′s comments are “not the model of calm deliberation”, as WKS would say. And to the extent that his aggressive tone may chase you off these threads, we’d be left the poorer, because it’s mainly your contributions which have been the focal point of most of the debate.
However, I would also urge you to show some fortitude dealing with offensive remarks, or alternatively, ‘avert your eyes’ (a reasonable step in these circumstances). In any robust debate, it’s inevitable that people will get offended, but that shouldn’t dictate the parameters of our conversation. Some of what you’ve said in this thread is offensive to some GLBTs and to some atheists, for example. But as I said, the onus is on the audience to grow thicker skin, not for the speaker to hold his/her tongue.
Lastly, might one not characterize smallvice585′s comment (extracted above) as precisely the sort of ‘disclaimer’ you wished to append to Alex Au’s article? :P
la nausee (#398),
1) Apology accepted. I like talking with you; you are sensible, unlike a certain smallvice.
2) You can catch me for clumsy terminology again. “physiological identity” as used in context really refers to “the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”.
4) In #362, I type “Conservatism/Conformism” to indicate that in my writing context, Conservatism is equalized with Conformism. To use your examples:-
(1) Voltaire is an Individualist; Montesqieu is Conservative.
(2) Bentham and Mill are Individualists; Locke, if memory serves me right, is a Conservative. (He is the one who talked about “State of Nature”, right? Or was that Hobbes?)
(3) Hobbes, Burke and the Church are Conservative. (I do not argue that the Church is Individualist.)
Lastly – Free-market is Individualist and Nationalism is (always) Conservative.
My characterization is a Conservative(Conformist)/Individualist Divide, because I do not like the vagueness of the Liberal/Conservative Divide.
5) I must have been really tired (probably I was). I am hitting myself over poor terminology for the third time in this post. “ideological trends” is used to refer to “how one thinks in relation to something else”. This is at least influenced by genetic factors partially. I am not getting material out of a history textbook. I just lack brief terms.
6) You could accuse me of contorting the terms, but as it is my theoretical context, I am free to define the terms in any way I choose. Of course, I submit that I did not define them particularly well. “Individualism” is simply used to refer to “staying as oneself”.
Or to be more scientifically accurate, using 16PF:-
Conformist/Conservative = High G, Low H
Individualist = Low G, High H
Gender Roles are socially-determined, so “tendency toward” or “tendency away” are just figures of expression.
To be clearer, Gender Roles consist of many parts. Each of these parts are influenced by other aspects of the “Genetic Personality”, not all covered by 16PF.
Say, for instance (not for fact), one part of the personality codes for preferring chocolate ice-cream over vanilla ice-cream. The person is a guy, and gender roles say that the guy should like vanilla ice-cream. According to the logic, this guy has a tendency towards an opposite-sex gender-role (i.e. liking chocolate ice-cream).
If this guy is a Conformist, then he will adapt to like vanilla ice-cream. If this guy is an Individualist, then he will think of himself as a girl. This is independent of whether he chooses to favour the free market or endorse absolute monarchy. This is a personality trait, not a political ideology.
405) Arix on July 13th, 2009 5.33 pm
Seth (#397),
I have at least explained that 5 times already. I do not wish to be explaining that for the sixth time!
Really? I have not yet seen you addressing rebuttals to #341.
Why the bias? Let the normal right-handed, heterosexual majority discriminate against deviants like homosexuals and left-handers alike.
@Arix (#415):
On the issue of “physiological identity”, thanks for clarifying that you meant ““the way our bodies work in relation to our evolved reproductive function”. I do not deny that our bodies, or individual body parts, have specific evolved ‘functions’ which go towards ensuring the human species’ survival.
I do deny that such functions have any inherent relation to our psychological identity and self-understanding. Traits like skin colour, height, reproductive organs, hair curliness, hand preference etc. are meaningless and inert, unless interpreted by our conscious self. And each trait may or may not play a role in our psychological identity (hair curliness is irrelevant for most people), and is liable to be interpreted in different ways (some regard skin colour as irrelevant, others not so). As such, I fundamentally disagree with your ‘Bridge’/'Fence’ analysis, because it suggests a connection between our psyche and our evolved reproductive functions is necessary for any complete self-understanding.
Next, on the Individualist/Conformist divide. Any theory is to some extent a simplification of reality, because it’s only through models and representations that reality makes sense to us. Nevertheless, we must be wary of over-simplification. I think you’re verging on over-simplification:
(1) Even along the Individualist/Conformist axis alone, there is a continuum of ‘Individualists’ and ‘Conformists’. Voltaire was more ‘Individualist’ than Locke, who was more ‘Individualist’ than Hobbes.
(2) More importantly, a single person or class of persons is usually scattered across the whole continuum, rather than fixed on a single point. The Enlightenment philosophers were also in one sense ‘Conformist’, because they were conforming to the intellectual spirit of their age, as well as to the fashionable beliefs of their social class (both nobility and bourgeois). Free market can be ‘Conformist’ too, as seen by how the U.S. Republicans support the tyranny of Big Business, which largely dictates power relations in American society today. Nationalism can be ‘Individualist’, when you’re talking about a separationist ethnic/religious minority within a State.
On to personality traits. I’m not sure how this fits in with the rest of your thesis, or with your recommendation of reparative theory. After all, you also say that these personality traits are hardwired in our genes, so we can’t change those, can we? Unless you mean some form of reverse psychology: e.g., somehow persuade the ‘opposite sex’-tending Individualist to think that it’s cool to stick to traditional gender roles…
Also, you’ve only referred to 2 personality traits. Throw in other traits which interact with gender roles in different ways, and you get an extremely complex portrait of the human psyche that will frustrate any attempt to ‘tweak’ people through counselling and therapy. To borrow from 16PF: if you’re high in ‘Dominance’, you may tend towards the ‘Masculine’ gender role; if you’re high in ‘Warmth’ (easygoing) or ‘Sensitivity’, you may tend towards the ‘Feminine’ gender role; if you’re low in ‘Vigilance’, you may be more suggestible to what people in your immediate environment tell you are proper gender roles; and so on.
Seth (#417),
It is pointless talking to a satire wall, but I shall try anyway.
Handedness is only biological; homosexuality is both biological and psychological.
Wow, who made you the absolute authority on such matters?
la nausee (#418),
Thanks for your swift reply.
1) okay.
2) Ah, now I see that you have misinterpreted the Bridge/Fence aspect. The Bridge/Fence is emotional/psychological, not structural. It is a semantic disjunct between interpretation and reality.
In other words, the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level. It is a rationalization, that then becomes conditioned when it is repeated several times.
The relation is not inherent, but extrinsic.
To analogize, take a software program:-
function f(){
if(s==m) do_m1
}
now changes to
function f(){
if (s==f) do_m1
}
the condition changes, but the task remains the same. (i.e. the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.)
(to be con-d)
Hi la nausée #417,
Why are you giving Arix’s pseudo-science legitimacy by engaging it?
Arix is a follower of American Mystic Ken Wilber’s Theory of Everything (ToE).
I am sure you have engaged Arix’s understanding of ToE on the discussion of integralism.
Hi la nausée ,
Thanks for the link. I stand corrected, insofar as suggesting that it was for health reasons that 377 was decriminalized by the Delhi Court.
I admit I have not been able to read all the 205 pages of the written judgement but glancing through it, it gives the impression that the link between HIV/AIDS and gay is one factor that had prevented the decriminalization of 377.
However, taking this outside of the judgement settings, it cannot be helped that the general perception (or misperception, as the gays would have it) is that there is a link between the two. This is why the issue was painstakingly deliberated upon during the judgement.
Once again, thanks for the lesson. It is arguments like yours that wins the debate. This is something I hope we can all learn from, instead of useless jibes and meaningless self-centered opinions.
Hi Arix,
There is no need for you to provide any evidence to the attacks your are being subjected to by smallvice. Those of us who have been in TOC long enough knows very well that smallvice is one very anti-Christian fanatic.
Having said that, it can also be a good thing, only if one cultivate the skill to read only those comments from him that make any sense. Other than that, ignoring them would be the best and wisest option.
It is important to be civil in any debate because we cannot just jump to the conclusion that we have hit upon the truth in any matter. The relationship between thought and statements on the one hand and the thing and object on the other is frought with difficulties because belief and statement a lot of times don’t correspond to the actual state of affairs. And, also what sometimes we think is the truth is actually just a ‘construct’ which comes about through social processes which are shaped through power struggles within a community. And when we cling on tightly to these ‘half-truths’ and we combine it with our ego/pride thats where we tend to lash-out at people who hold the opposing views.
Handedness is only biological; homosexuality is both biological and psychological.
The ludicrous basis that homosexuals must be discriminated against because it’s both biological and psychological notwithstanding, are left-handers born with only with left hands? If so then it is clearly a pure biological condition. However, nearly all left-handers are born with a set of healthy right and left hands, but yet we observe a significant minority of people using their left hands dominantly, and yet a even smaller number of people who are able to use both hands dominantly.
This is analogous to sexuality, whereby the majority are heterosexual, and we have a significant minority who are homosexual and bisexual.
Till this date it remains murky to why some people are left-handers, and why some people are homosexuals. To be so sure that one condition is purely biological while the other is both biological and psychological takes a certain kind of arrogance. What facts are there to back these claims?
And even if so, why should it matter what is psychological or biological? Religion is purely psychological. Shall we postulate ways to cure the religious now?
It’s a rich tinge of hypocrisy when Arix, a left-handed minority himself, discriminates against homosexuals, and tries to come out with ways to cure something he has none the slightest idea about. Shall we, the right-handed majority, come up with ways to cure you of your left-handedness?
Arix,
Should I be expecting a response to 371,372?
the government needs you people! you guys are fighters… whichever side you’re on. and i would love to see this played out in the parliament.. it’s so much more interesting and engaging.
all you get now on television is some MP fast asleep while the other’s talking.
Arix
Whether it is psychological or biological….it still does not justify discrimination. Adult/ human has free will. We are allow to make choices. If I chose to be single all my life, if I chose to be gay, If I chose to be straight, it is my life….It has nothing to do with you, state and God. PERIOD. No amt of verbal intercourse will swing otherwise. Can I ask u to chose this girl to marry and not that one because I think God says so? Of course if u are ‘silly’ enough, u will do it. But let me tell u this, life is too short. Why short change urself over sthing u cannot prove (Existence of God). And whatever it is, u only live once. And u r too young to limit ur life this way.
@Arix (#420),
You say: “the brain “interprets” the person to be of the opposite sex; a form of cognitive dissonance, but at the sub-conscious level.”
The implicit assumption here is that there is some ‘pre-interpretive’ (sub-conscious) understanding of what the person’s sex is, which conflicts with the brain’s interpretation and thus produces the “cognitive dissonance”. My contention is that a person’s sex has no inherent meaning at all, so that a male who believes himself to be female would not necessarily have any form of inner psychological conflict. The conflict usually arises because his interpretation clashes with social norms around him.
Also, I think your programming analogy is wrong, isn’t it? Shouldn’t the second function be:
function f(){
if (s==m) do_f1
}
In any case, the mechanistic causal link you seek to draw between sexual identity and sexual attraction is dubious (you say that because of the reversed sexual identity, “the target of attraction changes, but the mechanics of implementing the attraction does not.”) If there is anything like a causal link, it seems to flow the other way, i.e. a person is first attracted/repelled on a sexual level to one or the other sex (or both), and after several iterations, this feeds back into his or her sexual identity.
The even better account is that sexual identity and sexual attraction have no necessary connection at all, i.e. each develop separately, and a person has to try to reconcile them (especially at society’s behest). This seems to capture reality far more accurately than your model: gays and lesbians often report a time growing up when they struggle with, e.g. feeling entirely male (with predominantly male traits such as competitiveness, physicality, self-motivation, emphasis on logic, less attention to grooming, etc.) and yet being attracted to other males (contrary to expected gender roles). This indicates that sexual attraction is a free-standing component of the human psyche, and that the linkage between sex and sexual attraction is made by society.
#406 & #412 Arix
“Every single of Smallvice’s posts where he calls me either a Christian Fundamentalist or a Christian Fanatic or a Christian heretic (as if he understands what that means), is an ad hominem, because it totally misrepresents my actual position, and paints me in a monolithic colour” [#406].
I have tried scouring the messages posted by smallvice in this thread for evidence of ad hominem against you and the only piece of evidence, provided we can all agree it is indeed ad hominem, is the line you quoted “We are dealing with a person infected with Christian Fanaticism on this thread.” [#248]. I cannot deny that the person referred to is you but I am skeptical as to whether saying someone is infected with fanaticism amounts to an ad hominem or can be considered derogatory. I would like to hear the views of the others.
In none of the other posts initiated by smallvice in this thread have I found anything that can be termed as ad hominem. If I am correct, smallvice initiated 35 messages [taking #421 as his last] of which 10 were addressed to you directly. And all the ones addressed to you were couched in very civil language.
Thus your assertion “…most of smallvice’s posts are personal attacks/ ad hominems” {#412] is completely baseless and I would challenge you to read through all the posts initiated by smallvice and come up with something of substance to support your assertion, for all of us to see. Otherwise, you were just asserting a falsehood.
In post #113 under the TLA thread, smallvice said:
“Dear Christians and Muslims,
Please beware of blindly pledging your support for Arix. As a religious heretic, he wrote the following in #305 of “the India decrimanalising Gay Sex” thread:
(1) I believe that all religions – including Christianity – should aim back towards First Religion;
(2) I believe that the role of the Pope and Curia in the Roman Catholic Church should be re-evaluated and re-examined;
(5) I believe that there should be talks of integrating the Koran into the Bible;
(7) I believe that The Church and other religious groups need to be open to re-examination of their own social-administrative structures.
Please pause and think for a while – Who are your real enemies? Atheists defending minority rights? Or heretics denigrating religious structures and beliefs?”
Again, it is debatable whether smallvice was guilty of ad hominem when he referred to you as a religious heretic for making known your beliefs as expounded in (1), (2), (5) and (7) above which, coming as it were from someone who professed to be a Catholic, can be construed as heretical.
In posts #244 and #366 you accused smallvice of being a Militant Atheist. In #115 you accused sllim and smallvice of being sophists. Would you say you were not guilty of ad hominem yourself?
You have also accused smallvice of “poisoning the well.” Can you recall the many occasions when you were poisoning the well yourself?
I don’t know why Singapore does not want to decriminalise gay sex. There is actually no legal, rational reason for this to be criminal and yet our government still keeps it in the penal code.
I remember how the “conservative” fraction kept going on about how decriminalising 377A would be an assault on our moral values and one clown (PAP Grassroots activist) even went as far as to say that it could increase the number of homosexuals in the community if we made it legal. ERm, not sure how they figured that one out?
The PM chose to a brilliant cop-out of keeping it criminal but not enforcing the law. Can anyone tell me why we are having a law that we won’t enforce?
Seriously, isn’t it time we just got rid of laws that made utterly no sense?
I am at lost what to say.In one sense,it is unfair to encroach on consenting adults privacy.In other,sense it’s moraly and religiously would bring a lot of heat on this subject…..friends,it’s best now we consolidate our strength and focus on how to build a credible opposition..rather than to squabble about subject which might have no end.We need both conservaties and liberalist focus on how to win the election
I’m not sure why religion is brought into this issue which invloves our penal code. Our constitution is secular, so any law being enacted should only deal with secular issues. Different religions say different things, and if the law were to take into consideration every single religious law in the land, then we will have very little to live for.
Tang Li, I know why the govt doesn’t want to decriminalise gay sex. Not long ago, gambling was a crime. But now, with the IRs which the govt started, gambling is legal, because our govt will generate income for itself from it. Singapore law is simple: so long as it profits the govt or the govt is involved in some way, it is legal. If our next PM is gay, or if SG has somehow managed to become the gay capital of the East and there’s a huge tourist influx because of that (and hence revenue for the govt), then gay sex may become legal.
Skipper, I think you have a point here. Our government always looks after it’s own economic interest first and it’s policies will somehow or other be about bringing it the revenue.
So I guess the gay community will soon have something to celebrate. Casinos will bring in the need for more people who provide sexual services to high rollers…..and there will be plenty of those who like sex on the side…including the gay variety….