Let’s have a conversation.
Those of you who are against the repeal of s 377a, set out your reasons why so in the comments.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
- 1: Favourite Posts
- America
- Anime
- Apple
- Art
- Australia
- Blogs
- Business
- Culture
- Economics
- Entertainment
- Europe
- Food
- Girls
- Humour
- Law
- Legal Practice Notes
- Malaysia
- Media
- Morons
- Movies
- Music
- One-eyed Tuesdays
- People
- Personal
- Philosophy
- Politics
- Professional Ethics
- Religious Fundamentalism
- Singapore
- Technology
- TV
-
Archives
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
9 Comments
1. Singapore is a democratic country
2. Democracy means majority rule!
3. The number of people opposing repeal outnumbers those for
4. Or better yet, straight people outnumber gay people
5. Obviously in a democracy, there are no minority rights. Majority rules what.
6. Some say this is like endorsing totalitarian democracy or the French Revolution. In the end, majoritarianism only serves the minority or something.
7. But what French Revolution? LKY say we got Asian values lah! What talking you.
8. Besides, who doesn’t like guillotines and barricades? Purging troublemakers is so fun!
9. Besides, every country needs a good population cleansing now and then? The world is being overpopulated!
10. But of course, more the less to keep Section 377A, because afterwards after all the purgings we will still need to reproduce. So we can’t have no gay people, man.
11. They’ll spread the disease of infertility, and stuff.
I believe I’ve made the best case possible. I believe you will find yourself hard-pressed to find an argument arguing against repeal that will use fewer logical fallacies than mine.
*this is more the reason to keep
Gah, I’ve ruined it.
The number of people opposing repeal outnumbers those for
Ah, but that has yet to be determined given the fact that the questions in the survey used to determine that fact was flawed. Namely, the qn asked was whether a person approved of homosexuality or something to that effect. There are people who possibly disprove of homosexuality for whatever reason but at the same time disprove of Section 377A.
But having said that, one common argument in those for Section 377A would be:
1) Because God wills it!
who says the majority favour anything? When has there been a referendum in this country?
A democracy would revert to a referendum not a poll of 100 people! What a fucking laugh! Whatever your views regarding anything, either you favour democracy or you dont. Wake up for fucks sake!
tcooper: you wake up. I don’t know if you’re autistic or anything, but you would do well to read my post again.
I know I’m not being too on-obvious seeing as Ned Stark has gotten it. (Hint: it starts with an “s”.)
*un-obvious (sigh)
And since when has there been a referendum on anything anyway? I am sure, after telling you this, that you get my point.
This is so fun. Can I pretend?
Here goes my my half-baked version of Devlin/Natural Law/Harmful
A. Save the Moral Fabric
i) Society exists because we share certain political and moral values. We might disagree about the specifics, but there is a range of “shared values” and “morality” which we respect in each society. If this shared morality is violated, society is in danger. Those are the very bonds that hold society together.
ii) You might disagree that Homosexuality is Sinful etc, but I urge you to set your personal or private judgment for the sake of society. Homosexuality is intolerable to the public. It arouses feelings of “indignation and disgust”. Its very presence is “offence”. To allow it free reign is an attack on Public Morality which might cause the disintegration of society.
B. What is unnatural should be against the law.
a. Woe my friends. The tide has turned against what is natural in this order of nature and what is of human goodness has started to depart from us. I refer to this attempt at decriminalization of homosexuality. Clearly homosexuality is perverted, unnatural and immoral is clear for all those with eyes to see (here I admit I slip up, because I am trying really hard to see how it is “unnatural”) - look at the Bible, the fact that creation merely requires man and woman - and not homosexuals. And our Christian scientists and biologists who have so well often maintained and yes, so clearly shown that it is a curable disesase (so help them lord).
b. (After I argue that homosexuality is unnatural). You savants. You will know that the law is universal and should have validity everywhere. All Human Law must be judged according to the standards of the Natural law and by those standards, today we fall short. An unjust law is clearly no law at all, and likewise to allow an unnatural act as I have so clearly shown above is a disgrace (ahem - see how i falter? anyhow.)
C. Harm harm harm - its all about Harm
a. Yo, out there you liberals, listen up. Homosexuals are disease ridden folks whose very nefarious ways are the reason for the existence of so many wanton diseases. For example, HIV.
b. Look here, we can argue about all the stats you like. Of course. But of course, you cannot help but admit (poor correlation, poor reasoning, and hence we won’t even think) that we are right because we have it all splashed out in the Papers on the ST.
c. From a healthcare perspective, the less sodomites the better. Sodomy causes (describe in grave detail).
d. From the protection of the vulnerable perspective, do you not know, my dear liberal friend, that homosexuality are pedophiles or many of them are. Yes there is a grave concern my friend. You liberals do not care for your young children, but we my liberal friend, care for my child.
*Please: ALL THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE ALL, IMHO, CRAZY
“*Please: ALL THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS ARE ALL, IMHO, CRAZY”
You ruin it by doing that. Jonathan Swift never made no disclaimer statement, yo. Plus then you don’t get to rile up autistic people like tcooper.
Woe my friend, it is no longer the time of Swift when one might speak freely of eating babies. It is the time of slow…
Post a Comment