Keep or Repeal 377A Petition?

[ksl]

Not only are your thoughts refreshing JP, but also right on time.

The discussion here needed it badly.

roadnottaken, cromagnon fits ksl very well, excellent.

cromagnon fits ksl very well, excellent

Then that's so amazing, considering I've not looked at it Must be like winning the lotto.....anyway you are probably right, you guys must have the experience in the field, i certainly don't, but i have been asked more than I care to remember, so that must say something for my looks, I wonder if it's the village people profile and the large muscles.

Interesting debate though i must admit.....and to all those leaning on the other side of the fence, no offence meant..... Paranoia yes I will agree with that 100%, I have my reasons....for being paranoid, but it has nothing whatsoever, to do with homosexuals, in fact, I am very closely related to one.

And it could also be true, that homo sapiens may have tendencies, which have evolved through time, hence the word homo before sapians

Although social acceptance takes a very long time, fundamentally its wrong, there are only XY & XX chromosomes, what's in between is a deviant in my book, sorry guys and gals, although life is full of mistakes, we have to except, they exsist, like all the other pervs in society!

I have been to many homosexual parties, through friends, and can honestly say, I have quite enjoyed myself, although I have also experienced very bad homosexual behaviour too, on Malta, when I was with a female, obviously when one is in the hen house, one is going to get pecked....It all ended unpleasantly, when one kept asking the woman if i was well hung...I found it quite amusing in the begining, although one does tend to get pissed off, when the embarrassment doesn't stop and they don't get the message....celebrity or not, a no is a no, just like a head butt is a head butt! I certainly respect females, when i get a no, and if i came out with some lurid remark, I would probably get a slap too. So it is a behaviour problem that I'm paranoid about, I guess.

But hey being out numbered by a house of homosexuals, that want to discuss penis length and bitches all night can also show a bit of respect, for the females right......It would annoy me too, if they were F'n and blinding, they don't specifically have to be homosexuals...

To be honest I don't mind them, and most certainly not afraid of them, if they over step the limit, they soon get the message, today is all about social behaviour and morals, homosexuality is old hat and it doesn't worry me at all, paranoia is my survival instinct that keeps me safe, and

It is based on practical experience..rather than verbal diarrhea of the uninitiated to survival, those that have yet to succumb to the violent side of a 6ft 4 inch homosexual psychopath in a 2ft X 6ft cell, who rapes his cell mate,,,for fun, should realise, that on both sides of the fence, there are psychos to be dealt with, the strongest do survive and the weakest crap themselves...one day it maybe your turn to make a stand.

Yes I'm paranoid, you guys, are quite right! I'm without doubt, you two could have entertained this big mother,,,,and probably enjoy the act too, much more than myself! Lets call it love give him a choice between life or death....and how do you think he reacts after 18 years inside, and two days before his release date.

Now even the biggest homo that is being released into society, must evaluate his chances of freedom and health, can only come back with a remark, that i am making him paranoid. One thing is for sure, his behaviour changed against me. 3 weeks of freedom and 3 life sentences for his next crimes, was maybe a blessing, the product of institutional society is also contributing to support the homosexual act I'm sure!

Homosexuality is pervers if the other one is not that way inclined and rejects it, and I don't believe you guys can prove any different. You really make me laugh!

[Bafana]

Hold a referendum.

[Wind In My Hair]

Hold a referendum.

You know, this time I think our government actually did. Unlike most other issues where they more or less make up their minds based on economic or political fundamentals regardless of what the majority view is even though they give people a chance to air their views, I think that this time they really made a decision only after hearing out as many people as they could and essentially tried to keep everyone happy without imposing any external moral judgment pushing the issue one way or the other. I for one find it truly refreshing.

ps: JP, the yawningbread link was very informative and well-written. Thanks for posting it.

[zhoumulian]

In all of my 60 years I've never heard of mixed marriages and children from those unions as being abnormal and/or abhorrent nor against nature or God. Strange, yes. Don't fit in, yes. Discriminated against, yes. Abnormal or abhorrent, nah. Please be so kind as to point me to some statutes stating same.

I will definitely do some research to find your requested materials, but until then...I can't believe in all of your 60 years, you've never heard of anti-miscegenation laws, which outlawed marriages between whites and blacks, cohabitation between them and even sex. for more info check out http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family ... erson.html

Also, please show me in the bible or in nature where homosexuality is condoned. Nature usually casts out aberrations from the flock/herd so that they are picked off by predators to weed out the aberrations from the blood lines. And I doubt you can show me a passage in the bible supporting your stance.

of course I cannot point to anything in the Bible that states homosexuality is ok, but since you said Bible or nature here's the following: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html

as far as the Bible is concerned, or any religion, why is homoexualty always the biggest issue raised, as if somehow it is a bigger sin (if that's what you believe) than any other. The Bible also says all sins are equal in God's eyes. The Bible also speaks of love and compassion. The Bible also speaks of not casting the first stone. I'm not saying you're doing any of this. This is directed more towards some so-called Christians who chose to only pick and choose those parts that are pertintent to them.

And I still say marriage (without the religious connotations it's not a marriage - it's just a contract) was meant for Adam & Eve and not John & Joe or Linda & Lucy. Marriage was meant to be a union that was to provide the nucleus for a family of offspring from their loins. Granted that has been somewhat diluted today given the me-me-me generation of self gratification and not having children at all. That's another topic altogether though.[/quote]

that analysis, begs the question of whether couples should be checked to make sure they're fertile before marraige is allowed. if the only purpose of marriage is to provide a nucleus then there should be a lot less marriages in the world. does this mean that people who are over child-bearing years should not be allowed to be married? what about heterosexuals who have no desire to have children? To argue that homosexuals who want to marry should be denied the religious aspect of marriage denies those people who believe in God, and call themselves Christians an important part of their religious life.

[cutiebutie]

Aren't we getting just a bit off topic -why are discussing mixed marriages and their offspring now?

I'm also not sure what ksl is digging into, talking about rape and a jail cell. jpatlokal and his pedophile and love lives of 8-year olds.

Isn't it perfect, though? It is just this kind of off-base tangential deviance ( ) that allows our government to uphold ludicrous laws.


Repealing the law would simply de-criminalise something that is not criminal, unless so defined by a statute of law.

Whew, I think I'll leave it at that.

[ksl]

When a pedophile tells you that he loves your 8 year old daughter are you going to encourage him? It is, after all, to him love.

But not to her, and there's the catch. Pedophiles have victims, homosexuals don't. Pedophiles hurt others, homosexuals don't.

Anyway, there's a ridiculous amount of tosh being tossed around in here, so here's Homosexuality 101 from Alex "Yawning Bread" Au:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1998/yax-117.htm

And drop the ridiculous "lifestyle choice" sh*t. I'm straight as an arrow, but have enough gay/lesbian friends to have seen the kind of bullshit and/or outright physical violence that they have to put up with to assure you that nobody would voluntarily "choose" to become gay.

I found the links very informative but questionable, No1 for example>...I can honestly say, i have seen some very attractive, men, although I have never been sexually attracted to them, I have felt more envious of their good looking features, and body structure and I'm sure their are millions of heterosexual men, with the same thoughts. Although I maybe be a vain buggar....but not homosexual...

Secondly, I have had group sex, involving females, with no sexual contact at all with men, and I have never even felt the inclination, stimulation or attraction, to take part with a person of the same sex......

So I do believe that even though i find some men attractive, I'm still straight as a ruler.....Sorry to thwart all the stupid ideas of gays and bisexuals....that are stuck in the dream state, that all men and women need to let loose and come out of the closet.....I feel quite repulsed by male sex, and turned on by bisexual women, so what does that make me, a deviant right! I've known that all my life

I can live with that! Women are the creations of god and the devil, and i love em all,unfortunately, because of the turmoil they cause, so I'm not gay, just masochistic of the suffering they caused in the early days of my life, today I'm a new man Well done JP, very informative reading on both links!

PS What should the age of consent be for homosexuals then? Personally I think laws should be scrapped, so that we can all return to normal life!

[ksl]

Aren't we getting just a bit off topic -why are discussing mixed marriages and their offspring now?

I'm also not sure what ksl is digging into, talking about rape and a jail cell. jpatlokal and his pedophile and love lives of 8-year olds.

Isn't it perfect, though? It is just this kind of off-base tangential deviance ( ) that allows our government to uphold ludicrous laws.


Repealing the law would simply de-criminalise something that is not criminal, unless so defined by a statute of law.

Whew, I think I'll leave it at that.

I guess the thread should be about statute of laws, then, because everything was normal, until these laws were passed, the links and comments are all relevant to the facts until statistical evidence can prove otherwise, and again, statistics are debatable too and don't prove very much but allow us to get closer to the truth!

[zhoumulian]

Aren't we getting just a bit off topic -why are discussing mixed marriages and their offspring now?

I'm also not sure what ksl is digging into, talking about rape and a jail cell. jpatlokal and his pedophile and love lives of 8-year olds.

Isn't it perfect, though? It is just this kind of off-base tangential deviance ( ) that allows our government to uphold ludicrous laws.


Repealing the law would simply de-criminalise something that is not criminal, unless so defined by a statute of law.

Whew, I think I'll leave it at that.

i'm not sure its tangential as the policy reasons behind why the law was initially passed has a lot to do with whether people think the act is criminal or not. i brought up mixed marriage because there is a parallel between these laws and the current debate.

as to your final point, that;s just a tautological. if the statute defines it as criminal then according to your logic it's criminal. that the whole core of the argument. why has it been declared a crime in the first place?

[mayamomi]

i think u're missing the point or swaying away it... "mixed marriages" i suppose would mean mixed-sex marriage as opposed to same-sex marriage... instead of mixed marriages as in interracial ...

and about nature... i was thinking as in "mothernature"... and that article from national geographic, doesn't prove that nature condone homosexuals, it just happens! a point to note would be infanticide, as stated in the article, which is pratised by lions and many other animals... whats condoned or not by "nature", i don't think anyone or any article would be able to prove... thats just my view anyway...

about marriage which was "meant" to be a union to provide a nucleus...it seems to me that it would/ should be within one's limits as opposed to marrying when knowing its biologically/ physically "impossible" to produce... , so if one is infertile or menopausal, its not their fault for they tried, and for some infertility problems, there are ways to resolve them, like artificial insemination... over child-bearing years? like how old may i ask? without considering menopause ...

heteros who have no desire to marry.. where does this sentence fit in? we're talking about marriage, if they don't wish to do so, then of cos there'd be no marriage, period. the sentence was "marriage was meant to be ... NOT "everyone should get married"...

[zhoumulian]

i don't think i'm swaying anything. i'm referring to interracial marriages and bring it up because many of the same arguments used to oppoise gay sex/marriage/adoption are the same ones that were used to ban interracial marriages. i was simply drawing a parallel.

as far as nature is concerned, i think you're right, there is nothing that will show that one act/behavior is condoned, but it does prove that it's not as aberrant as some would like to believe.

i'm definitely not saying that everyone should get married, and my previous line should have read, people who don't want to have children (it's been corrected ). however, if the argument against gay marriage is that marriage is for child-bearing purposes, then it does follow that even people who want to get married shouldn't if they are unable to fulfill that purpose, regardless of how hard they have tried. are they not simply entering into a contract? should they too just be given the title of civil union?

[Superglide]

When a pedophile tells you that he loves your 8 year old daughter are you going to encourage him? It is, after all, to him love.

But not to her, and there's the catch. Pedophiles have victims, homosexuals don't. Pedophiles hurt others, homosexuals don't.

Anyway, there's a ridiculous amount of tosh being tossed around in here, so here's Homosexuality 101 from Alex "Yawning Bread" Au:

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1998/yax-117.htm

And drop the ridiculous "lifestyle choice" sh*t. I'm straight as an arrow, but have enough gay/lesbian friends to have seen the kind of bullshit and/or outright physical violence that they have to put up with to assure you that nobody would voluntarily "choose" to become gay.

I found the links very informative but questionable, No1 for example>...I can honestly say, i have seen some very attractive, men, although I have never been sexually attracted to them, I have felt more envious of their good looking features, and body structure and I'm sure their are millions of heterosexual men, with the same thoughts. Although I maybe be a vain buggar....but not homosexual...

Secondly, I have had group sex, involving females, with no sexual contact at all with men, and I have never even felt the inclination, stimulation or attraction, to take part with a person of the same sex......

So I do believe that even though i find some men attractive, I'm still straight as a ruler.....Sorry to thwart all the stupid ideas of gays and bisexuals....that are stuck in the dream state, that all men and women need to let loose and come out of the closet.....I feel quite repulsed by male sex, and turned on by bisexual women, so what does that make me, a deviant right! I've known that all my life

I can live with that! Women are the creations of god and the devil, and i love em all,unfortunately, because of the turmoil they cause, so I'm not gay, just masochistic of the suffering they caused in the early days of my life, today I'm a new man Well done JP, very informative reading on both links!

PS What should the age of consent be for homosexuals then? Personally I think laws should be scrapped, so that we can all return to normal life!

A song comes to mind when reading all your posts.

"Its just me, myself and I".

[cutiebutie]

Aren't we getting just a bit off topic -why are discussing mixed marriages and their offspring now?

I'm also not sure what ksl is digging into, talking about rape and a jail cell. jpatlokal and his pedophile and love lives of 8-year olds.

Isn't it perfect, though? It is just this kind of off-base tangential deviance ( ) that allows our government to uphold ludicrous laws.


Repealing the law would simply de-criminalise something that is not criminal, unless so defined by a statute of law.

Whew, I think I'll leave it at that.

i'm not sure its tangential as the policy reasons behind why the law was initially passed has a lot to do with whether people think the act is criminal or not. i brought up mixed marriage because there is a parallel between these laws and the current debate.

as to your final point, that;s just a tautological. if the statute defines it as criminal then according to your logic it's criminal. that the whole core of the argument. why has it been declared a crime in the first place?

You misread my post - or maybe I didn't express myself correctly, though it definitely not a tautology.
If the law sees it as criminal then it is - legally. This does not, however, make it wrong morally, ethically or any other -lly. (In my opinion)

I see very little in common between homosexuality being legal and mixed marriages - possibly you'll have to educate me on this. What laws are there for mixed marriages and how do they relate to the 'current debate'?

(Damn, I didn't want to continue this discussion)

[mayamomi]

i think aberration cannot be quantified, it either is or is not... so i can't understand what is meant by "as aberrant as some would like to believe"...

who want to get married shouldn't if they are unable to fulfill that purpose, regardless of how hard they have tried.

marry first, then try...

[Wind In My Hair]

If the law sees it as criminal then it is - legally. This does not, however, make it wrong morally, ethically or any other -lly. (In my opinion)

Herein lies Singapore's dilemma. The law says it's criminal, but the enforcer of the law, the government, has clearly said it will not enforce it. So it is illegal, yet it is 'not illegal' which makes it legal and not criminal for all intents and purposes. The law is left in place merely to placate those who can't bear to see it removed and at this point is a social rather than legal object.

who want to get married shouldn't if they are unable to fulfill that purpose, regardless of how hard they have tried.

marry first, then try...

Good one!

[sundaymorningstaple]

The reason your mixed marriage comparison doesn't wash is very simple. Unlike being gay which I stated very clearly in my initial posts is an aberration at birth. That you can debate but I am inclined to think that way for lack of evidence otherwise (plus as I believe as was pointed out, gays will always tell you they have 'always' been gay but may have not acted upon it due to societal pressures). They are that way. I am in total agreement there.

However, the mixed marriage is a "CHOICE" of two peoples own free will. I is doubtful that they have spent their whole lives knowing that they HAD to marry someone of a particular race. (which as you should certainly know, there is only one race anyway). You bringing it into this discussion is just blowing smoke thinking that the premise is the same.

It is only the same if we accept that gays are "normal". While I don't have anything against gays per se, I just accept their shortcomings as I know it's not their fault. This thread wasn't about whether gays are normal or not. It was about the abolishment of a law that is both archaic and stupid especially considering they don't plan on enforcing it anyway.