Seriously, it's none of anybody's business.

Yep! well said! it shouldn't be the government's business either... so legalize it!

Many things are - strictly speaking - not really the Govt's business e.g., mandatory use of seat belt laws. Yet many jurisdictions have it. Where do we draw the line?

Penal (Criminal) laws are matters of states, where the punishment could involve taking away one of your freedom (be it freedom of movement or freedom to live). Administrative laws are matters of government regulatory functions, often has its principles derived from the Penal Code, punishable mostly by fines. Civil laws are matters of contracts between privates individual, where the court could enforce your contractual obligations.

Seat Belt "law" (technically it is a only a "rule" enforced by SPF) is an administrative law. Parking fine is sometimes a administrative (HDB/LTA) and sometimes civil (private carpark). but 377A is currently criminal law.

Therefore you cannot compare 377A and Seat Belt.

What you should compare other penal code related to 377A. A quick search in wikipedia found 377A is under Chapter XVI of the Penal Code which includes Homicide, Murder, Assault, Kidnapping and Rape. In other words, the current laws say homosexuals are as bad as murderers and rapists.

To some of the theocons here, sodomizing a male is as bad as murder.

Call 9116969 for a good time...

its really none of their business. gay sex is unenforcable. whether illegal or not, people are still having gay sex anyway..

so it just makes the law in disrepute.

they are going to make oral and anal sex between hetrosexuals legal, you mean to say that before that, no hetrosexual couple were having oral sex and anal sex? GOSH.. get with the times. its only DESPITE the law, people were still having oral and anal sex that it is now MAINSTREAM, and not to mention unenforcable..

do you want to enforce it when a gay mayor, hollywood star, president, ceo comes to visit singapore?

will you enforce it when one of theose backdoor sluts on stage come into singapore?

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.

"Discrimination is allowed where there is a rational public policy reason behind it."

Discrimination just because of majority opinions (rationale or irrationale) is just high-school bullying carried onto the real world. It is like saying that kid deserved to be bullied because he is not well-liked by the rest of the school. Somehow, that seem wrong to me.

Regardless, you made interesting argument without the religious-talk. Public policy making is often a balance of majority opinions vs minorities rights.

The question is whether there is a change in public opinions on gays. A study was done recently and it shows a inversed relationship between age and approval of gays, ie, the younger they are, they are more likely to think there is nothing wrong with it.

It is because of this changing social pattern that we are having this debate. 10 years ago we wont have this debate because majority opinions remains against gays. Today, the majority opinions against gays "fact" is being challenged. (See the poll on the right hand side)

"society must defend against divisiveness"

Hmm, using that argument, we need to:

1) Ban political parties - There are supporters of PAP, SDP, WP, etc.. this creates unnecessary divisiveness in society

2)Genetically engineer all Singaporeans to look the same - There's the beauty divide, racial divide, etc

3)Dissolve the gahmen - it creates a divide between the ruled and the rulers, the elite and the peasants, etc

Anyone else can think of anymore?

Can: Throw away GCT's notion of 'the exceptional family' aka you-know-who.

The only feasible solution would be to impose one rule under one man, justified under a constitutional monarchy
-
`For meritocracy tells us that anyone can achieve, if they have the gumption, the wherewithal, the drive, the talent, the ability. In a meritocracy, success depends on your own efforts - on merit` Nov 10 2006, Straits Times

Are you kidding me? 'Disgust' as a basis of criminalising an entire community?

Wow. Here you have folks, another Hitler in the making. I am assuming if you can somehow be charismatic enough to persuade an entire country that the Jewish people are the cause of all evils, then the entire race should be eliminated because the majority would be 'disgusted' at them?

I am sure the majority of people will find bigots like you disgusting. Should you therefore be punished with life imprisonment?

Dude, is it worth taking people who take dubious poll results seriously, seriously? Don't waste your time.

thotpenny:

Like Julia Kristeva's notion of 'abjection'?

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?

—Which would allow us to steep into notions of absence and presence in critical theory.

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.

freedom of action..but no..our ministers work hard for their high pays by controlling everything..even the simplest of things like chewing gum..

aslong as you like it
i say keep on bum loving!

i like it alot

DUN LOOK DOWN ON AH THIONG OK!

come on.
humans were "designed" as:
MALE AND FEMALE

with different body characteristics

and like magnets,
the opposites are MEANT to attract.
that is the natural way of life

so...

If we were really "designed" as just man and woman, with different body characteristics, why are there intersexed people around?

If humans are supposed to be as natural as how magnets react, why are there still a large community of gay and lesbian people fighting for the right to love, worldwide?

If all men and women are supposed to fall for the opposite gender, why didn't I feel the same since I was born?

As a male, I posit that seeing two naked women is hotter than seeing one naked woman. I also posit that seeing two bisexuals doing it is hotter than just seeing two naked women. Therefore, ergo, henceforth, etcetera, since a lesbian act can make men hot and horny, lesbians are natural.

Since lesbians are homosexuals, this makes all homosexual acts natural.

You lose and you fail at life.

Sex is just sex. What's more is there to it? Gender preference should not be an issue, and should never have been one in the first place.

As a male, I posit that seeing two naked women is hotter than seeing one naked woman. I also posit that seeing two bisexuals doing it is hotter than just seeing two naked women. Therefore, ergo, henceforth, etcetera, since a lesbian act can make men hot and horny, lesbians are natural.

Since lesbians are homosexuals, this makes all homosexual acts natural.

Best Quote. Ever. :D

And what people do in their bedroom is really not anybody's bloody business.

Wat to do.... we are rule by a bunch of sick guys in the gov thinking they are all capable of implimenting restriction to peoples daily lifestyle. Why the hell people still vote for them lah...??!! Right now we have to endure their sick justice for the coming 4 years before the next election haha.

Sry, back to topic hee hee. People changes with time so u people who can't accept it better jus suck with it... cuz no matter wat u say gays are gays and well... even if they have a wife and children.

Well it is ppl's business when gays think it's socially acceptable to publicly display their gayness and hit on straight guys in clubs. Their radars dun always work... trust. me.

Then just tell the guy you're straight, maybe have a laugh about it, 'cos chances are he's more embarassed than you, and walk off if you must. What's the problem?

Who will show indignation then?

please be informed that it's socially acceptable to publicly display your straightness and avoid being hit on by gay guys in clubs. Their radars don't work if they receive the wrong signals ... trust. me.

i wonder how much these people are paid to stick their tongues up gays assholes. taste already nevermind, salivas all over the shop.lol.

but i sympathee gays lah.hope they find a way out.

No Gay or les!!! that's Nonsense and rubbish! in the very early age, mankind was created for a male and a female for love and reproduction. and now days ppls create all this kind of Disgusting acts...

Gay should be send to Iraq. Why so many gays in Singapore ? It really corrupt the society !
Gay have organ of males and action and behaviour of female. Really Sissy !

Gayness is not a new thing. It has been around since the dawn of time in human society and nature. Gays and lesbians in Singapore have been around for a long time too. And after so long, we are claiming the rights that are ours. We ask for no more than what straight people are entitled to.

Gay sex is unnatural and is outlawed by nearly every religion throughout the world. It is unnatural because there is no chance of procreation, which is the reason why we have sex. Enjoyment is secondary.

I cannot answer for other forum subscribers, but gay bars make me feel uneasy.

Hey, do not drag othe religion into this. Most Eastern religions do not condemn gay.
By the way if you are not gay, how will you end up in a gay bar anyway?

it should be made clear that not all people who engage in sex with people who possess the same genitalia regard themselves as gay...

also, gay people are not and should not be defined solely on the basis of sexual activities... gay people can easily be defined as people who fall in love with/ have a relationship with/ start a family with/ settle down with/ etc people of the same sex...

the focus on sex acts alone in the definition of gays reduces gays just one dimension. and besides, as I have mentioned above, there are those people who engage in sex acts with persons of the same sex and do not identify themselves as gay... gay sex is a misnomer...

It's none of our business, it's a shame to even be aware of it.

The law against sodomy isn't actually there to stop people from having gay sex, it's there to show Singapore's (or, rather, the government's) stand towards homosexuality. Which is obviously not a very pleasant one. Honestly, what does the government gain from keeping the law? What do the homophobes who want to keep it illegal gain? The law is impossible to enforce anyway, so it's rather ridiculous to continue criminalising it.

I seriously think Gay sex is extremely atrocious.

Consensual and in private and remained private, so be it. Why criminalize it?

I'm Anonymous Coward and homos are plain disgusting, period.

I think its disgusting but I dun wanna know.

Gay having sex is a serious matter. It should be stopped. This act is shameful and sinful. If men needs men why should God create women. Think about it. So stop what you are doing now.