A response to my opinion that we should not campaign to repeal 377A (the Gross Indecency aka Homosexual Sex law):


"Unlike XXX, I have come to the conclusion that arguing with you on this matter is a waste of time as well. I will therefore outline only the briefest of replies.

> Constantly bringing up and harping on 377A denigrates and frightens
> gays more than it would if you kept quiet about it and let it fade
> from the collective memory (like the song on Obscene Songs, which I'm
> quite sure =<1% of people on this mailing list knew about). We have a
> lot of immoral laws in our Penal Code, but since people don't talk
> about them they have no effective impact on the way people live their
> lives.
>
> Can you honestly tell me, if you believe the proclamation about
> non-prosecution, that you are "frightened" at being prosecuted by 377A
> for having gay sex?
>

Fuck you, Gabriel. I law which criminalises my private activity, while still on the statute book, denigrates me, whether or not it is enforced. As I said there is NO parallel with obscene songs, a point you have failed to address.

And, as many have pointed out, 377A is merely the font from which many other pieces of shit flow. I have NO legal protections at ALL in Singapore: this may strike you as surprising, but I actually want to, say, have a long-term relationship, adopt children, be honest and open about my life while being able to hold public office, not be arrested when I walk down Orchard Road and kiss my boyfried, etc, ETC ETC.

> Also, segregation marks you out by what you are whereas 377A marks you
> out by what you do.

> I cannot see how not being able to have sex is (morally) worse than
> public segregation and/or designating some people second class (or
> non-) citizens and thus inferior to the rest of the nation.

Fuck you. Do you expect me to be celibate?

And THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT YOU MORON. Since the laws are NOT enforced, the question is NOT the ability to have sex. It is the legal discrimination faced by homosexuals, which attacks their dignity as a group OF HUMAN BEINGS AND CITIZENS. This is not about sex, you fucktard.

> Well, look at Malaysia today. Non-Malays (primarily Chinese and
> Indians) are second-class citizens. Assuming that the laws weren't
> enforced, I am not sure that I would push for their repeal, since this
> would upset the Malay hinterland which might push for the existing
> laws to be enforced, which would make the non-Malays worse off.

Again, fuck you. Wild speculation about the possible long-term political effects is NOT an argument, unless you have like concrete evidence that something will actually happen. I assure the injustice of the law, which is inherent and obvious, is more important than your speculative negatives.

> Furthermore, decriminalisation in China was a quiet administrative
> procedure and not in response to a gay lobby.

NO. It was merely the government waking up to the fact that the 21st century has arrived.

You are beginning sound like Andy Ho. Well, I expected it to take longer, but there we are.

> I must also note that
> for all you might complain about Singapore, in China they are a lot
> more repressive and unaccountable to the people.

Sorry, where did I say 'China is better than Singapore'? I brought it up to show the lack of public outcry.

> Yet in China the
> government does not have unlimited political capital and must listen
> to the people sometimes, what more Singapore?

Erm, this is stupid. See above. See my point. Read English.

> For similar reasons, I would not have supported the push for gay
> marriage in the US (how come no one has talked about this yet?)

Since everyone with a brain supports either gay marriage or gay civil partnerships. EVERY major Democratic candidate supports civil partnerships.

At this point, you will argue that civil partnerships instead of gay marriage is a symbolic difference. I agree on that point, actually, BUT it has no parallel to 377A. A law is not symbolic simply because it is not enforced. In the case of 377A it is the legal fount of every single type of legal discrimination you can think of.

In conclusion: you are an idiot. The end."


This is all considering that I aim for the same end, just using different means.

Some instructive lessons:

- This is a good study in how resistance/opposition movements fail even if there is an obvious, "evil" enemy
- This is why I am very pessimistic about the feasibility of people with radically different beliefs forming cause-based alliances (eg left wingers and Muslims against the Iraq War)
- It answers the question of why people think and claim Singaporeans are not ready for democracy (and how some people think that humanity is inherently unsuitable for it)
- Gay guys are bitchy (no, this is not my only sample, but it is instructive nonetheless)
- The perils of arguing from and with emotion are revealed
- Hysteria is not limited to the homophobes