This is going to be a short commentary since I was just back not too long ago, and things seemed to be heating up again after the last furore on whether 377A is going to be repealled.

One common argument against Section 377A is that it is morally wrong. Well, I have nothing against that but I would like to look retrospectively at what had been repeal previously, that might have a hint, just a hint, of similar indecency – Section 377 (a similar view can be found here).

The Singapore Penal Code, Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body), Section 377 (Cap. 224) states that:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

And also, Section 377A (Outrages on decency) states that:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Let us just take another step back to look at definitions (from dictionary.com) just to make sure that we are talking abd thinking along the same line:

gross /groʊs/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[grohs] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, plural gross for 11, gross·es for 12, 13; verb
–adjective 1. without deductions; total, as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc., before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (opposed to net): gross earnings; gross sales.
2. unqualified; complete; rank: a gross scoundrel.
3. flagrant and extreme: gross injustice.
4. indelicate, indecent, obscene, or vulgar: gross remarks.
5. lacking in refinement, good manners, education, etc.; unrefined.
6. large, big, or bulky.
7. extremely or excessively fat.
8. thick; dense; heavy: gross vegetation.
9. of or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects, etc.
10. Slang. extremely objectionable, offensive, or disgusting: He wore an outfit that was absolutely gross.

And also:

in·de·cen·cy /ɪnˈdisənsi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dee-suhn-see] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies for 4. 1. the quality or condition of being indecent.
2. impropriety or immodesty.
3. obscenity or indelicacy.
4. an indecent act, remark, etc.  

Ok, now that the formalities are done, let’s get on to the point in case. When people start arguing on moral grounds, a great deal of credibility from the heterosexual’s point of view (assuming that all who are against the repeal are heterosexuals) when they are arguing against Section 377A and not Section 377. This is because, by gross indecency, I can’t see how Section 377 defines something that is less gross than Section 377A. Section 377 talks about carnal intercourse against the order of nature, and that means penetrating your male organ into the anus, mouth, nose, ear, or any part of the women that the male person can possibly stick into. I am not sure if this sounds natural to you, but it definitely falls into the description of “gross” to me. Perhaps it’s subjective, then against, all arguments against/for Section 377(A) has been subjective.

Now, for all the self-righteous people who thinks that a male person sticking his male organ into anywhere else on another male person is gross and against the order of nature, then do you think the same between a male person and female person is alright and in the order of nature? My argument is simple. If you think Section 377A is “immoral”, then Section 377 isn’t too far away from it.

I guess people should stop arguing against the repeal based on moral grounds and religious grounds (which will almost always be rejected because not all religions view in the same perspective anyway). If they want to, I feel that they should really argue it based on personal grounds, as in, I do not like the idea of 2 men having anal intercourse and yes, I am openly against homosexuals and their activities; and in fact, I think they are freaks and they all ought to be shot, hung and caned – or caned, hung and shot, in any order.

I think sometimes, people should stop hiding behind moral or religious grounds. But on a more serious note, I do understand the worry of parents on how this can affect the upbringing of their kids, and now we move on to Genetics 101. I don’t really want to talk about genetics because I have to admit that findings of a gay gene is not very substantial, but what I want to bring across is, homosexuality is not a disease – it is not something you can spread by being near someone who is gay. There are no bugs that are know to spread homosexuality like dengue and, I am adding this part because I am aware of parental worries, with correct parental guidance, children can be taught about homosexuality in a non-threatening, non-evasive manner.

Just look at the topics of birds and bees now. In the past, people kept mum about it and the younger ones tried it and probably got into a lot of trouble with unplanned pregnancy. With better sex education now, people are more responsible (I hope) for their own actions and they know what they are getting into. Instead of evading it, I think parents should take the responsibility (and not always the school teachers) of letting their children know that there are straight (heterosexual) people and that there are, ahem, not-too-straight (homosexual) people; and that people do not really have a choice to be hetero- or homo-sexual.

It’s just like one person may like strawberry ice-cream and another might like chocolate ice-cream because he thinks that pink is sissy strawberry is too sweet for him. You see, it’s all part of growing up. All children have their own ways of choosing things in their own unique manners – and if your child really turned out to be a homosexual, then at lease he or she will not feel repressed or depressed because he or she feels that she’s a freak. It’s not nice to have this kind of feeling.

Of course, I am not tackling the issue head on. I am giving a retrospective of the grounds for the appeal of the repeal of Section 377A. If people want to retain 377A on the grounds of it being against the order of nature, then perhaps we should all be righteous and reinstate Section 377.

And oh, as a postscript, I just realised that be repealling Section 377, any carnal intercourse with animals is legal? Did anyone happen to catch that?



Reader's Comments

  1. Miccheng | October 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Animal sex is a no-no… yucks…

  2. Simply Jean | October 22nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    @miccheng: haha… but that falls under Section 377, which was repealed… =P

  3. xizor2000 | October 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    Jean, this is found on the MHA site:

    ” Section 377 will be repealed and re-scoped by the introduction of new sections to clearly define unnatural sexual acts that will be criminalised, i.e. bestiality and necrophilia. As part of the re-scoping, the phrase “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” will also be removed. “

    b>bestiality and necrophilia refers to sex with animals and corpses.

    Also on the MHA site: Section 377 (Sexual penetration of a corpse): Imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years.

  4. Simply Jean | October 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    @xizor2000: phew! there’s still hope for mankind anyway =) oh ya.. time to update the polls =P

  5. James Chia | October 23rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    “that means penetrating your male organ into the anus, mouth, nose, ear, or any part of the women that the male person can possibly stick into.”

    into nose? into ears?!? Geez!!

  6. xtrocious | October 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am

    Or taken to an extreme…

    A woman can strap on a dildo and then penetrate her male partner in the ass and it’s perfectly legal…

    Anyway, I find it quite funny that nobody noticed this about the recent amendments to S377…

    Since it amounts to gross indecency for a guy to stick his penis into another guy’s ass or mouth, but it’s okay to do so to a woman, does it not mean that she is less equal under the eyes of the law?!

  7. Edroos | October 24th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    I so agree with you on the part where we should leave out religious views on these issue as most religions never see eye to eys on most issues.

    Well I am as baffled as anyone else. There is this supposedly grey area where we are supposed to live and let live. Whatever that means.

  8. khirsah | October 25th, 2007 at 4:48 pm

    “And oh, as a postscript, I just realised that be repealling Section 377, any carnal intercourse with animals is legal? Did anyone happen to catch that?”

    The gahmen don’t want to be misunderstood to be endorsing homosexuality by repealing S377A. Don’t gahmen worry that by repealing 377,they might be misunderstood to be endorsing carnal intercourse with animals? Great observation, SimplyJean!

  9. khirsah | October 25th, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    Oops… I went to look at the Draft Penal Code Amendment Bill and found that they have inserted Section 377B that deals with intercourse with an animal.

  10. Fiona | October 30th, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Eww… All the intercourse with animals, or homosexual intercourse (not forgetting necrophilia and phil-whatever-lia (intercourse with children)) is just gross to me. -_-‘
    That’s just moi though. ;\
    I wonder why people are actually homo. ‘Cos of their mentality I think.

  11. Richards | October 31st, 2007 at 1:17 am

    I am totally against repealing and totally (totally) agree that Section 377A must be enforced. These perverts are pushing their luck too far. [Section 377A states that homosexual acts between men is a punishable crime. If apprehended and charged in a court of law, the guilty can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment.]

    Though it is a punishable crime, the Government took pity on these perverts and not prosecute them. But they (the perverts) took it that the Government supports or condones the act and thus makes them brazen enough to want to repeal the Act. So, my suggestion is for the Government to act and act fast.

    We really don’t need the pink dollar and the Government don’t need their votes, as they make up the minority.

    Imagine if the Act was repealed or abolished….

    1) We will see more appeals from offenders of other punishable crimes
    2) We will see more petitions to repeal other Acts as well
    3) Male toilet cubicles will be full of these perverts doing their business there
    4) More perverts will be standing in the middle of all urinals peeping into unsuspecting males answering their nature’s call
    5) More perverts will use the swimming pool toilets to exhibit themselves (hoping to attract someone like them) or peeping at unsuspected male bathers
    6) We will see more Gay massage parlours sprouting everywhere and have them (the pervetrs) doing their business along dark alley ways, corners or even staircases (as is the case now).
    7) We will have more males pretending to be teachers or tutors/counsellors to youths (especially boys) and molesting them
    Soon, most parents will not send their children to Singapore for studies or work, for fear of being molested.
    9) How can we build our population size to 6.5 million when we have 2 same sex parent who cannot procreate.
    10) We will have more gays entering into Singapore from abroad and all hell will break loose.

    WE WILL BE OPENING A PANDORA’S BOX. IT WILL BE HELL BREAKING LOSE. IT WILL BE MAYHEM.

    So, I want to see 2 things done.

    First, Section 377A being enforced and punish anyone flouting the law. Please be firm. Secondly, these perverts should learn to shut up and put their mouth where it shoud be (fellatio on another male) or else be pushed even further.

    Please heed PM Lee’s words.

    Don’t pollute, tainte or contaminate our society

  12. Bell_bottoms | October 31st, 2007 at 9:58 pm

    If you monitor the developments in the USA, you would know the repeal of 377A does not just give the gays the freedom to do what they want in the bedroom. The crux is the legality to advance the homosexual lifestyle in the public sphere of society. It was also brought out in the Parliamentary debate.. I think by De Cruz…

  13. Chapter Seven: An Orwellian Society « Exigent Literature | November 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 am

    […] And also, Section 377A (Outrages on decency) states that: Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years. http://blog.simplyjean.com/2007/10/22/section-377a-vs-section-377-and-having-carnal-intercourse-with… […]

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: