There's always a but(t)

[khaosworks]

Due to upcoming amendments to the Singapore Penal Code, there's been a small debate about the necessity for Section 377A, which prohibits homosexual acts between men. You'll understand why, as law enforcement, I can't really comment on the rightness or wrongness of this provision publicly. But here's a link to the campaign to repeal the section, if you're interested.

That being said, reading some of the letters going back and forth in the newspapers, I have to say this about a letter in today's TODAY morning paper:

You know that the remainder of the letter is going to go completely downhill to a really ugly place once you hit the paragraph that starts: "I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am."

Sure, sweetie. Sure.

Comments

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

She's probably right...

[amezri.livejournal.com]

Isn't that always how it starts? With the typical, "I'm not against so-and-so, but let me now go on and on about why I think it is bad/evil/wrong."

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks....

[susanscookietin.livejournal.com]

The fact that it is illegal doesn't stop gay from having sex. The government has long conceded that it is impossible to stop prostitution, and if they were to make prostitution illegal, it will merely go underground, making it more difficult to control diseases. I don't see how the government can legalise prostitution but not consenting sexual acts between 2 men.