the rectum is for shitting, not porking.
try pitting yourselves against any biology or human anatomy textbook
you gays are sick fcuks and deserve to be institutionalized in the insane asylum.

yoohoo... ben, where are you?

time for your buttock lethal injection...

Does that Ben look 1.87m to you?
This sieteocho is really pathetic. He is so insecure over his 1.42m dwarfishness that he has to conflate my identity with individuals who are shorter.

Here's a thought: you should name your next anonymous blog, "Quentin," little sieteocho.

My pictures are available on my cycling blog.

Hey, where's 1.42m sieteocho's picture?
Oh, yes, they haven't invented cameras that can capture people that short yet!
HAHAHAHHAHAAA!

Man, this is getting too easy...

What the fuck are you doing, posting photos of my namesake all over the web?

Do you not know that there is only one fundamentalist Jesuit college educated prick who goes around righting other peoples' wrongs?

Say no to imposters, dig? This is the real thing.

haha! sieteoch has taken to pretending to voice my outrage. LOL!
This is pathetic.
You see, little 1.42m sieteocho, I will always beat you because:

1.) you are an anonymous coward hiding behind a pseudonym
2.) you possess an ego-fixation with your DELETED blog. I don't.
3.) you are a 1.42m dwarf.

And, until you actually shed your anonymity, you cannot disprove my claim that you are a 1.42m dwarf.

For someone so attached to anonymous blog (with a pseudonym no less), it can only mean one thing: you are a loser with poor social skills and no friends.

See? Little sieteocho?
I win again.

Man, this is like taking candy from a baby.
ROTFLMAO!

:-P

reposted

1) I argue that laws prohibiting homosexual sex are one of many laws which underlying rationale is the disgust of the majority and/or the perception of government of the majority's disgust.

2) They sit in a spectrum of laws of which a major rationale is the disgust of a majority / perceived majority of society that feels disgust and/or are offended by a gamut of things such as public nudity, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. (leaving aside for now the other reasons why each of these is criminalised and focusing on the common thread running through them)

3) Because the standard here is the high standard of disgust, if laws are not in place to criminalise (or at least exist to assure the majority that their concerns are being recognised) these acts that cause offence/disgust, society is likely to be divided by a split between the majority and the minority which is involved in such acts. The majority may even be driven to take the laws into their own hands, if their disgust is not assuaged.

4) This is not akin to apartheid or slavery, or genocide or a tax on a particular portion of society. Rather the laws are in place to prevent certain acts of the minority, which cause disgust/offence amongst the majority against the minority, hence leading to societal divisiveness. Discrimination is allowed where there is a rational public policy reason behind it.

5) Disgust does not necessarily recognise the public/private distinction. Just because an act is done in private does not make it not disgusting to those who know of / find out about these acts. If there is really no knowledge at all of these acts, then criminalisation is not a problem since these actors will never be caught (putting aside the point that these homosexual sex laws are not being enforced anyway).

6) The default and historical position is that these acts are criminalised - to ask for the decriminalisation requires proof that the majority is now no longer disgusted.

7) Naturally, if proof is shown that the majority now no longer disgusted, then the rationale falls away. This appears to be in the nascent stage right now, or at least a vocal minority is making its presence known. But there is official recognition that the heartlands /older generation still holds strong in their views that such acts are disgusting. This disgust is not necessarily connected to religious perspectives, but is an aspect of society. Until this aspect is corrected and the majority is enlightened, the majority remains mired in its view that homosexual sex is disgusting and should not be de-criminalised, and society must defend against divisiveness by maintaining the criminalisation of the same.

With hindsight, and with changes over time in the demography of and in the viewpoints held by society, it is easy to see where people in the past had gone wrong with slavery, racist, heck even laws banning nudity in cinema.

It was not too long ago when R(A) movies were a really really big thing because of the sudden Emancipation of Singaporeans, who can now watch nudity on the big screen rather than on some grainy videotape.

Today, the R(A) craze seems silly. No one really gives a heck to what is shown on the screens. Nudity is taken for granted. (Well maybe the censors do go into overdrive when films touch on politics, or on homosexual sex.)

However, before society changed, is it really that difficult to imagine the "puritanical" reactions of people in the 80s, before R(A) movies, when a movie shows nakedness? There was a furore over a failure to cut "Nell" for public consumption, if I recall correctly.

Terrible, we say. Stupid people, fussing over nudity on screens.

Perhaps, one day, people will think that we are stupid for having banned homosexual sex, homosexual films, private homosexual acts, just because it was "disgusting" to us.

Perhaps, one day, far far away, people will think that our descendants are stupid for having banned incest, bestiality, genocide, just because it was "disgusting" to them.

But not this day. It is not yet time to de-criminalise homosexual sex. We are not ready.

In 1861, British pass a law called "Offences Against The Person Act". 377A is a legacy of that law in Singapore. In 1967, exactly 40 years ago, the legendary Wolfenden Report lay the ground to repeal the homosexual acts from the law, which subsequently led to Sexual Offences Act 1967.

Given Singapore laws are based in British roots, I would say we are not too early to abolish 377A. In fact, we are 40 years too late.

You right about DISGUST. And we are DISGUSTED. If you take a survey of your 10 gay friends, you will find that your majority different.

In anycase, there is no need to waste resources to verify a law that is insignificant to Singapore.

Maybe your objectives is to bro rape enough innocent singaporean males to become gay whores. I think a law protecting innocent little singaporean men is a good thing.

Yup. Thats right.

thotpenny reposted from here.

comments to his/her post start off here.

thotpenny (again):

After all, one could also consider millionaire public servants an abjection.

And therein the question that MOH should answer is: Is it right because it is popular?

It's like how the slaughtering of chickens in boiling water at wet markets was deemed too 'uncivilised': Out of sight; and out of mind.

Which does nothing to negate the existence of such occurrences.

Thus in MOH reaching out to the pink community, if the law must stay, then shouldn't there also be a legal assurance that gays will not be prosecuted?

But maybe ostrichs are still, preferred.

Additional comment: I wonder where did all of Singapore's pragmatism go to?

I am completely confused. I don't understand how MOH and ostriches are involved.

What is the question?

Well, you see Gays like to compare themselves to ANIMALs.... They haven't realised that they are humans yet. Evolution missed them, that is why they should be EXTERMINATED.

Like how Yvonnes like to compare themselves with God.

They don't deserve a place in this wretched space called reality.

why dont ya use your brain?

unlike the bible's ambiguity, it is fairly easy for anyone with an ounce of Brain to see what to read metaphorically.

Actually, that's awfully funny in a way.

Because the ability to process metaphors are just what differentiates the human brain from others.

Oh okay, I get it now: some human brains.

You are confused.

I am not concerned with health issues, only with giving effect to the majority view. MOH does not come into the picture.

The ostrich issue is ancillary to the MOH issue.

You're confused.

There are many facets to this law thingie.

There are systemic things to consider including MOH's concern over the rise of AIDs and how best to reach out to homosexuals.

To assert (blindly) to the sole view of 'disgust' per se, you may as well live in a religious community where there won't be things like trade and the economy to consider.

Anyone reading this kind of gay crap should be confused. Gays themselves are confused. And this long rant is exemplary of their BULLSHIT. (ie. the stuff they lick off their dicks and put in a public forum)

it's already been stated that the law isn't being enforced anyway. so what's the problem if it's repealed?

So what's the problem if it isnt repealed?

Whats is the issue here? I see no issue.

I do not understand your hang-up over MOH and its reaching out to the gay community. It is not my issue. Presumably it is yours.

Considerations of MOH do not sit within any part of my argument, which is premised on the disgust/offence of the majority. I don't see how you can argue that the majority has to consider what MOH thinks.

One could consider millions of considerations and millions of viewpoints. Do I have to deal with all tangential considerations of every single ministry, and every single citizen, and presumably yours too? E.g. : How about apples? How about oranges? How about the feelings of the whales in the ocean?

If you are responding to my argument, then confine it to within the 4 walls of my argument and/or tie it down to issues relevant to my argument. Otherwise start your own argument -- you appear merely to be saying: "yes yes you have your argued point, but how about X ?" The arguments about disgust and X do not meet.

I believe that the authorities have said that they will not pro-actively enforce the law (I stand to be corrected), which is different from repealing the law. At any rate, the arguments for and against repeal viz non-enforcement are trite - go read straits times or something. I shall not repeat them here.

Besides and by the way, what's religion got to do with my argument? I do not understand why you keep making references to the bible and a religious community. Another one of your hang-ups?

I think he might be black—black is the colour you get when you mix up all the colours of the spectrum (hidden pun intended).

Even though as we all know, that's most probably wrong because the pictures in the churches all seem otherwise.

Well, Christians can't even get Jesus right and they expect us to believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible?

Historians don't even agree on the notion of 'history' and...

...Never mind. Time to go for coffee.

That's wrong! I'm gay and I don't have problems with the bible.

In fact I don't have problems with anything that has a crack I can shove my dick into!!!

Bwah hwah hwah....

I don't care about dead ends, only rear ends. Bwah hwah hwah....

sieteocho is afraid of -ben. LOL!
chicken!
pokaw!
pokaw!

Posted by sieteocho on 12 October, 2005:

Hi, this is the real sieteocho

I'm sick and tired of you and if I find out who you are I will chop your balls off.

Hello sieteocho,

I told you who I am. I'm waiting.
I have been waiting.
Still waiting.
Is that what your manhood amounts to?
Posting on tomorrow?
Oh, wait, you are terrified of me because you are only 1.42m "short."

ROTFLMAO!
-ben

the one who brought up the MOH issue is a different Anonymous Coward. Don't know what he's trying to say either.

"I believe that the authorities have said that they will not pro-actively enforce the law (I stand to be corrected), which is different from repealing the law."

yes it is different. your entire argument against repealing the law is based on disgust. as the law isn't being actively enforced anyway, how does it effectively reflects society's disgust (if it's even there anymore)? what kind of message does it send to have a law in the statutes that's not being enforced?

someone already made an argument for the repealing of the law somewhere below and i quote:
"Selective enforcement of the penal code sets a bad precedent. It means that we, as citizens of Singapore, cannot trust the gahmen to enforce the laws of the land. If such a time comes when it becomes expedient for the gahmen not to enforce laws which might implicate some of their own, can we trust them not to do so?"

Hey you dumb gay Anonymous asses. Dont you know I own your little hottie asses. You like it too don't you. What fun would there be if it was legal. Depravity feeds on breaking away from natural habits. Muahahahahahahahaha....

I say shag those gay little animals. Lots of stray cats in Singapore. What's stopping you?

Eeeks....!! Heteros are into bestiality!!!!

1. Your assumption that the majority still holds the view that homosexual sex is offensive / disgusting is at best questionable. It is more accurate to say most people don't care so long they don't see it or involved in it.

2. Prostitution is legal. There is nothing to "close one eye" . What is not legal is to operate one without license. License are "generally" (aka. 100%) not granted in HDB however.

3. Your argument that removing 377A would encourage minority to become homosexual is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

4. Your statement that "majority to strongly-held views are not being taken into account is a false statement. Those who had strongly-held views are Christians or less then 16% of the population. Even among Christian, there are many who don't really hold such strong views (I am for one, despite what my Pastor say).

3. There are many differences between the Jaywalking example you cite vs not enforcing the penal code.

a) 377A is a Penal Code, Jaywalking is an administrative law. One is a criminal act, the other is not.

b) You don't get caught for jaywalking is not the same as "closing one eye" on 377A as the government said they would. If a traffic police see you jaywalk, you WILL get caught according to the rules. What the government said about 377A is that it will not be enforced at all, ie, even if a police see the 377A in action (hmm), he will just walk away.

c) Following up on (b), 377A would be the ONLY Penal Code that the government will not enforce. It is like saying "it okay to kill or rape someone, so long you do it in your own house". (Remember, 377A is part of the same charter as murder, rape)

Anyway, because your assumption that majority believes that homosexual act is disgusting is not proven, none of your arguments really matters.

On the issue of demography, we could argue till the cows come home, each state our own position, and not be able to step away with an empirical victory. There is no empirical proof of the views of the majority (save for the views held by our representatives in parliament?).

At any rate, our positions are irrelevant. It is the policy makers, the powers that be, and what they perceive to be the majority, that matters.

I would assert that the current position as perceived by the policymakers is consistent with what I argue, although I admit the language used is milder - that the majority is not yet ready for homosexual sex to be decriminalised. That to me, begs the question of why, and I argue that disgust is the reason.

It is illegal to live off the earnings of a prostitute. It is also illegal (in the sense that regulations are breached and there are criminal sanctions) to run a brothel without a license. There are also criminal sanctions to jaywalking. I take the point that the level of punishment differs, but how does it make a difference to whether the issue of whether the majority is disgusted

I am not a Christian. I have anecdotal evidence of people around me, non-Christians and all, who share an innate offence/disgust at homosexual acts, but which naturally is suppressed at social events and/or is forgotten about when out of sight. These people tend to include the older generation, for example the old uncles and aunties. But aren't the views of the less-progressive elderly relevant too?

But wouldn't one be more likely to go ahead and do something if it were no longer criminalised? Wouldn't you jaywalk with impunity/drink and drive, if there were no laws? Isn't there an inherent fear if something is a criminal act that is not actively enforced, that you might be the one strung up as an example, or that might just be a traffic police hiding around the corner?

Doesn't that fear drive homosexual acts into the private confines of the bedroom and keep it there, which is what most people want anyway? Is it really such an illogical slippery slope that de-criminalisation would lead to a greater amount of homosexual sex and its airing in public?

"There is no empirical proof of the views of the majority"

Precisely why your whole argument don't make sense. Until you proof that the "majority is disgusted by homosexual sex", the rest of your arguments don't follow.

"I would assert that the current position as perceived by the policymakers is consistent with what I argue, although I admit the language used is milder - that the majority is not yet ready for homosexual sex to be decriminalised. "

Once again, you made an assertion as tho it is a fact. Please state your empirical proof.

"There are also criminal sanctions to jaywalking."

No, there is no criminal sanction to jaywalking. Please state where in the penal code that say Jaywalking is criminal. (note: not all illegal acts are criminal acts)

"I am not a Christian. I have anecdotal evidence of people around me, non-Christians and all, who share an innate offence/disgust at homosexual acts, but which naturally is suppressed at social events and/or is forgotten about when out of sight."

Likewise, I am a Christian and I have anecdotal evidence of people around me, Christians who think it is silly that our gay friend is a criminal merely by his/her sexual orientation. Anecdotal proof nothing.

"But wouldn't one be more likely to go ahead and do something if it were no longer criminalised? Wouldn't you jaywalk with impunity/drink and drive, if there were no laws? Isn't there an inherent fear if something is a criminal act that is not actively enforced, that you might be the one strung up as an example, or that might just be a traffic police hiding around the corner?"

There is no law against not taking care of your parents. There is also no laws being polite in public. There are plenty of things we don't need laws for guidance. Your argument we need laws to prohibit non-desirable actions don't hold water; it is a child mentality that we need to get out of.

"Doesn't that fear drive homosexual acts into the private confines of the bedroom and keep it there, which is what most people want anyway? Is it really such an illogical slippery slope that de-criminalisation would lead to a greater amount of homosexual sex and its airing in public?"

If you are concerns about homosexual sex getting out of the bedroom, there are already other provision called "indecent acts", for homosexual and/or non-homosexual sex in public alike. Your argument IS an illogical slippery slope.

Sigh. Anonymous Coward* on 14 May, 2007 - 8:08pm -- You're asking for it, aren't you?

PROOF
I have no empirical proof. No one has. But if you want to get into the nitty gritty rather than a discussion on ideas...

I have a status quo and a historical position behind me.

And I have MM Lee saying something to the effect that :
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/272239/1/.html
"... Singapore had to respect the views of the people in the heartlands. "

And Wong Kan Seng saying back in 1993 that
"Singaporeans … do not agree … that pornography is an acceptable manifestation of free expression or that homosexual relationships are just a matter of lifestyle choice. Most of us will agree that the right to marry is confined to those of the opposite gender."

As late as in 2006, when the Penal Code was being revised, anal and oral sex between heterosexuals was to be de-criminalised, but not homosexual sex. An explanatory note stated
"Singapore remains, by and large, a conservative society. Many do not tolerate homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent and deviant. Many religious groups also do not condone homosexual acts... We should not be hasty to act in this area."

Isn't it obvious what the party line is?

Have things changed? Does the majority think any different? Doesn't the burden fall on you to prove that things have changed, since you seek to decriminalise something which already is passed into law?

Is "Abhorrent and Deviant", that different from offence/disgust?

Anecdotal evidence? Or evidence that will practically have a decisive impact on policy and the status of the law? You tell me.

ASSERTION
How do I make an assertion as if it is a fact, and not like an assertion, beyond saying "I assert" ? How do I make an assertion as if it is not a fact? Perhaps "I assert, as a non-fact, XYZ"? Enlighten me please.

JAYWALKING
Road Traffic Act
Ticketing of prescribed offences
132. —(1) Where it appears to a police officer or an employee of the Authority authorised in that behalf that any person has committed or is guilty of any prescribed offence to which this section applies, he may serve a prescribed notice on such person, offering such person the opportunity of the discharge of any liability to the conviction of that offence by the payment of a fixed penalty prescribed for that offence under this section.

FIRST SCHEDULE
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 132 OF ACT
20. Failing to cross at a prevpedestriannext crossing in contravention of rule 3 (1) of the Road Traffic (Pedestrian Crossings) Rules

ROAD TRAFFIC (PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS) RULES
Pedestrians to use crossings.
3. —(1) Except as provided in paragraph (5), any pedestrian who is within 50 metres of either side of a pedestrian crossing, or within such shorter distance, as indicated by traffic signs shall make use of the pedestrian crossing for the purpose of crossing the road.

Question (hint : read above sections carefully) - is it civil liability or criminal liability under the Road Traffic Act? Criminal liability does not arise merely from the Penal Code.

MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS
Peruse the provisions of MAINTENANCE OF PARENTS ACT (CHAPTER 167B) -- An Act to make provision for the maintenance of parents by their children and for matters connected therewith. In particular read sections 3, 5 and 10, and tell me if there is a legal obligation, enforceable through the courts, to maintain one's parents.

Yes I guess we don't need laws to prohibit non-desirable actions, from littering, to spitting, to bank robbery - it is a "child mentality that we need to get out of".

When I checked I could not find another provision called "indecent acts". Last I heard the Penal Code does not encourage or prohibit "indecent acts". Or do you mean Section 377A? The one that prohibits outrages of decency? The one that you argue should be decriminalised? Or the unnatural offences provision, the one that can still be applied to prohibit homosexual sex? Hmm. So do you want to retain these sections after all?

"Sigh. Anonymous Coward* on 14 May, 2007 - 8:08pm -- You're asking for it, aren't you?"

Now now now. You are acting like a child and getting personal. No need to get work up just because you cannot win an argument. I thought you could be an interesting debater but looks like you are just one of those emo ones. Oh well.

"I have no empirical proof. No one has. But if you want to get into the nitty gritty rather than a discussion on ideas..."

Discussion of ideas are good but pointless if the basis of the assumption is wrong. Your assumption that majority is disgust has no proof as you admit it. Therefore, your arguments dont hold.

"And I have MM Lee saying something to the effect that :..."

You have selected memories apparently. The latest statement from MM Lee is this: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it?"

That is the latest, not 1993, not 2006 but Apr 2007. It is the same statement that got all the conservatives Christians all worked out.

"JAYWALKING - Road Traffic Act"

It is an administrative law, not criminal law. If you jaywalk, you will be fine. You will not be prosecuted like a criminal. (Hint: Penal = Criminal)

"When I checked I could not find another provision called "indecent acts". Last I heard the Penal Code does not encourage or prohibit "indecent acts". Or do you mean Section 377A? The one that prohibits outrages of decency?"

Look up Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

I stand to be corrected on my comments on the parents. My point remains the same: we dont need laws for every little things in life. We have too many laws that is useless. We need less of them, not more of it. Perhaps it is time for you (and all of us) to grow up.

Check the link. Both statements come the same speech of MM Lee in April 2007. He maintains the status quo and the historical position, but concedes that Singapore may in the future be forced to change with the times. Read the whole excerpt, not just parts cited by others. You obviously didn't.

Focus on the issue of what the position of the majority is. The current party line which perceives the position of the majority is obvious. It has not changed from that in the past, although it may change in future.

You don't know what administrative law is, or of the distinction between criminal law and administrative law. Administrative law is the branch of law which is concerned with the judicial review of public or quasi-public bodies. Go read up please.

Remind me again why, according to you, society should rely only on this broadbrush provision of the Miscellaneous Offences Act :
Riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in, or in the immediate vicinity of, certain places
20. Any person who is found guilty of any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any public road or in any public place or place of public amusement or resort, or in the immediate vicinity of, or in, any court, public office, police station or place of worship, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month and, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.
and not Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code which target very specific types of acts, to prevent those acts?

My point was simply that if there are laws in place criminalising certain acts, then these acts will be done discreetly and out of the consciousness of the public. For example, one cannot advertise in the papers with an invitation for a homosexual orgy to be held in the private confines of one's home. It's not a public place / private place divide per se that is in issue.

"Check the link...Read the whole excerpt, not just parts cited by others. You obviously didn't."

As i said, you have selected memories, reading the portion you want to hear and ignore the others.

Incidentally, "respect the views of the heartlanders" does not say anything because neither you or me can assert what is the view of the heartlanders at this moment, as we already agreed.

"Focus on the issue of what the position of the majority is. The current party line which perceives the position of the majority is obvious. It has not changed from that in the past, although it may change in future."

Once again, you make a statement as tho it is fact. What makes you think it has not changed?

In case you going to throw back the question why I think it has change, my answer is, I don't know and I don't really care. Repealing 377A has nothing to do with that opinion but because it is an unfair discrimination law that makes no sense, esp. it is not going to be enforce anyway.

Therefore, if you want to argue we keeping the law because of "majority views", the burden of proof is on you to show that the majority views has not change.

"You don't know what administrative law is, or of the distinction between criminal law and administrative law. Administrative law is the branch of law which is concerned with the judicial review of public or quasi-public bodies. Go read up please. "

Great. I am glad you learn something. Not all things illegal (ie, against the law) are criminal. But 377A, being a panel code IS criminal. You are saying all your homosexual friends (assuming if you have any) are made criminal. Sure, you don't throw them into jail (not since the 80s) but you still label them.

"My point was simply that if there are laws in place criminalising certain acts, then these acts will be done discreetly and out of the consciousness of the public. For example, one cannot advertise in the papers with an invitation for a homosexual orgy to be held in the private confines of one's home. It's not a public place / private place divide per se that is in issue."

Sure, it will be done discreetly but it does not make it non-criminal. It is criminal and the fact it is criminal won't stop homosexual being homosexual. It is even sillier if we have penal code that we don't even enforce.

As I said, if you are concerned about homosexuals acts in public, Miscellaneous Offences Act applies to both heterosexuals and homosexuals and it works! Don't believe? Try having hetrosexual sex in your void deck in broad day light. It is as fair as it can get yet protect the public order and decent.

At the end of the day, imaging you wake up one day in a world where the majority of the population is homosexual. All your friends and family tells you it is wrong to like the opposite sex and maybe with God help, and family support, therapy you can perhaps like your people of your own sex?

Imaging that, and then tell me being whether hetrosexual is a lifestyle, a choice, or genetic matters to you then. It really doesn't. If you are hetrosexual, you are. Disapproval from friends, from family, from church or even from the laws is not going to stop you being one. And that is how we are treating our fellow Singaporeans who are unfortunately who couldn't help being homosexual, just like you couldn't help being hetrosexual.

But alas, that imaging won't work on you because you already made up your mind.

it should read "mature sterilised siblings"

What if one likes sex with animals, or with corpses, , or likes polygamy, or consensual incest with mature unsiblings, or simply likes to be nude in public? Will you embrace such people, even if they do these things in private?

Are the decency laws that criminalise the above acts that different from the laws demarcating homosexual sex as being unacceptable to society at large?

Are public decency laws any more acceptable than private decency laws? Is there a magic recipe that makes the visual sight of public things more abhorrent than non-public acts, so that we should criminalise one but not the other?

Aren't decency laws, whether private or public, all premised on the choice of the majority and/or policy makers' perception of the majority portion of society?

Here, of course, I assume that some or all of the above decency laws are not being objected to. You are entitled to take the view that all of the above acts are good and acceptable and free game for all, if you wish.

I fully take your point about how the non-enforcement of the subject laws makes them look otiose and silly. (Although, I am not sure if we are confusing the position that such laws will not be "pro-actively" enforced, with the position that they will not be enforced at all - I do not have figures, the last reported case for 377A was I believe sometime in 2005)
There are certain areas when the subject laws could still have a role, such as in males being coerced in private to perform oral sex on other males, or where there is no penetration (which I believe is legally defined with the male and female organs in mind). A lacuna may result if the laws were to be repealed wholesale. Perhaps then the solution here is not just to hastily remove S377 and S377A, but also at the same time amend current rape and outrage of modesty laws to cover the situations above.

thotpenny:

The problem lies with how the legislation on sexual offences are drafted.

Criminalisation should be directed against coercion and publicness of the acts. The gender and sexual orientation should be irrelevant.

Since you're so afraid of men forcing other men to have sex, take a look at s 38 of the Victorian Crimes Act.

Any act in which any person penetrates another person without their consent or knowing that there is no consent, or forces one person to penetrate another without either's consent, would be guilty of rape.

Thus this formulation neatly sidesteps all of your objections. Firstly it punishes any person who forces another to do anything they do not wish to do, whether straight or gay. Secondly there is no anomalous situation where only men can rape women, but other combinations are not covered.

I hope your realise that all of your objections are due to archaic drafting of this ancient legislation. s 377 and 377A are not needed to punish any sort of coercive behaviours if the law is properly drafted.

- The Janitor

"What if one likes sex with animals, or with corpses, , or likes polygamy, or consensual incest with mature unsiblings, or simply likes to be nude in public? Will you embrace such people, even if they do these things in private?"

This is a red herring, another common logical fallacy. We are talking about homosexual sex, not bestiality or others.

But since you ask me, in principle, if it is a victimless crime in a mutual consensual (assuming the person involved are of appropriate age to make consensus) situation, I dont see why it is anyone else business. Your rights ends where the other person rights start.

"Here, of course, I assume that some or all of the above decency laws are not being objected to. You are entitled to take the view that all of the above acts are good and acceptable and free game for all, if you wish."

There you go. You assumed wrongly again. Not everything thinks like you. At least I don't.

You miss the point completely. Of course the issue is homosexual sex and not the rest of the examples. But I am illustrating the fact that there is a spectrum of "decency" laws, built upon disgust, within which I argue homosexual sex sits. There is no basis for picking and choosing between the spectrum of such laws, if one is arguing for equality and the elimination of discrimination against a minority etc.

I note your qualifiers. What does "in principle" mean? So how would you feel if your children were involved with such practices? Do you not see why it's any of your business at all? Would you feel offended if you saw such practices being performed in front of you at a private party? Would you feel offended and disgusted if a private video of such acts were being shown on the television?

I don't know what you mean when you say "your rights end where the other person's rights start". So what happens when the rights collide? Do I have the right not to be offended and disgusted? What happens when a smoker enters an enclosed space with a non-smoker? Whose rights take precedence? Or do their rights follow the law? What happens when a farter enters an enclosed space?

So do you object to all of the laws? Do you object to some of the laws? What does your vague answer, that you don't think like me, mean? Do you object to none of the laws?

The rights argument, to begin with, does not sit within the framework of my argument. I am not particularly interested in it and didn't think it through.

I was merely trolling in response. ;)

"I note your qualifiers. What does "in principle" mean?"

Incidentally, I have qualifiers because you throw a batch of "disgusting act" asking me what I think. Each has varying answer a debate on its on right. Therefore, i choose answer in general, on a principle basis without going into deep into each one. As I said, the stuff you threw at me are just red herring. We aren't discussing sex with corpse (it is still part of 377) nor bestiality.

This thread is strictly on 377A on homosexual acts. All others acts are really irrelevant, be it jaywalking, smoking, sex with corpse.

Your original argument is interesting: if the majority views is homosexual acts are disgusting, then government should keep 377A. I concede to you on this point: If you can proof that majority views indeed finds homosexual acts disgusting, then we probably should keep 377A, at least in some form, perhaps rewording it such that it isn't a silly unenforced panel code.

Sadly, you failed to prove any proof of the "majority views", beyond making wild assumptions and unsubstantiated assertion. Sader, your subsequent arguments are filled with common logic fallacy that it is no longer interesting even as an intellectual exercise.

"So how would you feel if your children were involved with such practices? Do you not see why it's any of your business at all?"

Once again, it is red herring. What my children do is really do is their business. And please don't scoop to the level of using "protecting the children" because that is just an emotion argument.

Anyway, since you care so much about my children, I had the similar discussion with my wife not so long ago. If our kids grow up to be non-hetrosexual, then so be it. They are no less our children, and we won't love them any less regardless. So thank you very much but leave my children out of your argument.

"Would you feel offended if you saw such practices being performed in front of you at a private party? Would you feel offended and disgusted if a private video of such acts were being shown on the television?"

Thats why we have "Miscellaneous Offences Act". No one is asking to abolish that.

"I don't know what you mean when you say "your rights end where the other person's rights start".

"Your rights end where others begin" is actually the most fundamental principle of Libertarianism in Political Philosophy. But given your arguments so far, you are more of a Conservatism. Your lack of understanding in this area is understandable.

"So what happens when the rights collide?"

It wouldn't. Your rights end where mine begins. The moment you impose your ideology on me, you already violated Libertarianism.

"Do I have the right not to be offended and disgusted?"

Yes you do. Notice I never argued you should not be disgusted by homosexual acts, did I?

"What happens when a smoker enters an enclosed space with a non-smoker? Whose rights take precedence"

A Libertarian smoker would stop smoking in an enclosed place that he don't owns where there are non-smokers; A Libertarian non-smoker would walk out of the enclosed place that he don't owns where there are smokers.

"Or do their rights follow the law?"

You never grow up do you? Why do you keep having to go back to constructing laws to guide basic social interactions?

"You never grow up do you? Why do you keep having to go back to constructing laws to guide basic social interactions?"

Tsk.

Your last word is "Tsk"? Wow...

we should make it an criminal act for any religious group of trying to influence gov policy instead..