What's in 377A?
-
Something like thatOriginally posted by kramnave:Like the Anwar one ?
I think so lah. -
I am not sure how people from my "generation" will react to this.. I am not into how a country should or not run but how certain human rights are being address in our country we call home.
-
just let it be lah..it takes time..anyway the gays are having a nice time in Singapore mah..juz check out the gay bars man...not like there is a gayhunt going on in sg.
-
Nop. Since the issue was address by Parliament recently, I think the general public should help voice their opinions so as to help the Govt decide whether to abolish it or not.
P.S Children running around with AK?? That might be your point of view of a future but its certainly not mine. It post a direct threat to humanity existence if denying a child a AK 47 is a violation of rights. The rights i am talking about are basic humans that entitle them to freedom within their own personal life and not over others. You must be thoroughly mistaken if you thought of it has this way. -
First of all, apologies for reprising 377 instead of 377A, my mistake
Thanks, "kramnave", for reprising the correct portion. And "hisoka" is correct, 377A has nothing to do with health or hygiene.
I think what "mitell" expressed here has a valid point indeed. If you notice the chapters on rape (375 and 376), it does not cover man-rape but only rape by a man against a woman.
I suddenly remembered this because many years ago, I seem to have read somewhere that a man was raped by four men but they got off with a lighter sentence than what rape could have penalised them. I think they could have been charged under 377A only, which could explain the light sentence.
I feel that when gays in Singapore lobby for the repeal of 377A, they might have to bear this in mind and arrive at an alternative.
Below is Chp 375 and 376 for everyone's information.
RegardsRape
375. A man is said to commit rape who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the 5 following descriptions:
(a) against her will;
(b) without her consent;
(c) with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her in fear of death or hurt;
(d) with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married or to whom she would consent;
(e) with or without her consent, when she is under 14 years of age.
Explanation.
Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
Exception.
Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 13 years of age, is not rape.
Punishment for rape.
376. —(1) Subject to subsection (2), whoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years, and shall also be liable to fine or to caning.
23/84.
(2) Whoever, in order to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence of rape against any woman —
(a) voluntarily causes hurt to her or to any other person; or
(b) puts her in fear of death or hurt to herself or any other person,
and whoever commits rape by having sexual intercourse with a woman under 14 years of age without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 8 years and not more than 20 years and shall also be punished with caning with not less than 12 strokes. -
- replicate post -
-
hmmz, but thats even a worse reason to keep the section. the law should be changed to outlaw rape on men instead of using 377a which would be a lighter sentence.Originally posted by Melvin Tan:First of all, apologies for reprising 377 instead of 377A, my mistake Thanks, "kramnave", for reprising the correct portion. And "hisoka" is correct, 377A has nothing to do with health or hygiene.
I think what "mitell" expressed here has a valid point indeed. If you notice the chapters on rape (375 and 376), it does not cover man-rape but only rape by a man against a woman.
I suddenly remembered this because many years ago, I seem to have read somewhere that a man was raped by four men but they got off with a lighter sentence than what rape could have penalised them. I think they could have been charged under 377A only, which could explain the light sentence.
I feel that when gays in Singapore lobby for the repeal of 377A, they might have to bear this in mind and arrive at an alternative.
Below is Chp 375 and 376 for everyone's information.
Regards
on a side note, singapore has really invasive and personally rather dumb laws esp in the sexual arena. look at this one where an@l penetration is not allowed or oral sex being illegal....... i've said it b4, i don't see how something done in private and has no effect on others should be illegal
-
Watched V for Vendetta just now on HBO.
Oppression of homosexuals AND the general public who let the goverment tell them how to live.....to the extreme.
We need a "V".
Just less violent...so swordplay...and lose the mask. -
Hi hisoka,Originally posted by hisoka:hmmz, but thats even a worse reason to keep the section. the law should be changed to outlaw rape on men instead of using 377a which would be a lighter sentence.
on a side note, singapore has really invasive and personally rather dumb laws esp in the sexual arena. look at this one where an@l penetration is not allowed or oral sex being illegal....... i've said it b4, i don't see how something done in private and has no effect on others should be illegal
I believe that 377a was retained as its ingrained in our culture. Yes the law might be "unjust" but it reflects our culture. Gays have alot of freedom here already. You just have to look into our gay culture here. No doubt there is a law that acts against them, when you go into gay bars and have gay friends, the law tells you otherwise. What our law serves to tell is that gays should not hug and kiss each other in front of our "ah sohs" when they are waiting for their children/grandchildren outside PAP kintergardens.I know the youths think otherwise but that is such of our society. We have to give it time to "evolve", especially when our "parents" are still around. Gays still have the "freedom" in society today. -
I watched V for Vendetta numerous time and found it really good all the same.
But then again, our society dont need someone like him. Even though this particular issue is not properly address, we still live in quite a nice society.
But with regards to the issue pointed out by kramnave, I agree that such behaviour will be deem inappropriate for minors and the older generations. It is against what was taught to them and therefore they judge it as wrong.
But why so? Just because of some of these practices is deem inappropriate as it go against certain teachings? It is natural that a man should go with a girl but who are they to dictate they should not otherwise? Its up to personal preference actually and no one exactly has the power to stop you from pursue your own personal stuff.
Since its kept in shades of grey and not proactively enforce on them, then why is it still doing there??The longer the Govt give the public this false sense of "SECURITY", they will become more used to it. If they were to just abolish, no doubt they will be debates here and there, blah blah blah, but eventually the matter will just breeze over. -
The lack of acceptance toward homosexuals is often just an expression of
dislike to minority groups, to anyone who is different or to any opinion that is
dissimilar. This feature is characteristic for primitive mentality, regardless whether the person who expresses this feature is an illiterate or is graduated from university. However, the development of personality and ability to understand and accept othersdo not proceed automatically, but are developed through the processes of learning and upbringing (Boczkowski, 2003, p.25).
There are also people with unconscious or unsolved inner problems who
express their aggression and hostility towards outside world by condemnatory
attitude to all minority groups. As well the lack of self confidence is often
recompensed by acts of ridicule and condemning people who are different in their opinions, skin color, origins etc. (Boczkowski, 2003, p.25).
It should also be kept in mind that attitudes towards gays and lesbians are
strictly connected with beliefs about what causes them to be homosexual. People who believe that homosexuality is something one chooses to be, display much more negative attitudes towards gays and lesbians than people who believe that it is something they cannot change (LeVay, 1996, p.2).
Results of research made by J. Piskur and D. Degelman confirmed above
mentioned statements. They took 105 college students and divided them into three groups. The first one read the summary of research that stressed biological origins for sexual orientation. The second group was asked to read a summary that did not support such origins. The third group did not read any summary. Afterwards, all the students filled out the questionnaires which tested their attitudes towards homosexuals. Piskur and Degelman found that the students, who had read the summary that emphasized a biological basis for sexual orientation, expressed significantly more positive attitudes towards gays and lesbians than students from the two other groups. This experiment suggests that beliefs of causation of homosexuality do influence attitudes towards homosexual people (LeVay, 1996, p.4). -
I like the second paragraph.
-
irreverent, deleted
-
not sure how you see it but as far as i know 377a is only against the private act. nothign about not kissing in public and such. If they wanted to say gays are frowned upon, then put that in. abolishing the private act as illegal is only giving privacy back to the pple and not allowing the rest of the stuff.Originally posted by kramnave:Hi hisoka,
I believe that 377a was retained as its ingrained in our culture. Yes the law might be "unjust" but it reflects our culture. Gays have alot of freedom here already. You just have to look into our gay culture here. No doubt there is a law that acts against them, when you go into gay bars and have gay friends, the law tells you otherwise. What our law serves to tell is that gays should not hug and kiss each other in front of our "ah sohs" when they are waiting for their children/grandchildren outside PAP kintergardens.I know the youths think otherwise but that is such of our society. We have to give it time to "evolve", especially when our "parents" are still around. Gays still have the "freedom" in society today. -
these are really eye opening .. guess even nature do gay things .. is time we have to catch up and educate the those that are still ignorant ...Originally posted by Clandestine:This thread is only 2 pages long and you couldn't even be bothered to read the rest of the posts to see that the answer you were looking for is already here.
-
But i think that is the message they want to send. Seriously, nobody is going to go into anybody's house to check if gays are having sex.Originally posted by hisoka:not sure how you see it but as far as i know 377a is only against the private act. nothign about not kissing in public and such. If they wanted to say gays are frowned upon, then put that in. abolishing the private act as illegal is only giving privacy back to the pple and not allowing the rest of the stuff. -
Let come up with a law that states no man,woman or child should be allowed to pick their nose.Originally posted by kramnave:But i think that is the message they want to send. Seriously, nobody is going to go into anybody's house to check if gays are having sex.
The law will be set in place...similiar to 337a, and of course it won't be enforced lar....just put the law there.....incase....
-------------------------------
There are so many other social problems with serious impact in our lives..
Outlaw gambling....say that every auntie in singapore who plays mahjong has the "risk" of going to jail...but of course we don't enforce it lar....just put the law there.....incase....
-------------------------------
Lets also ban all fried foods....
There you have a true health risk.
Just put the law there....incase -
You can send a petition in for that if you want and can collect the necessary signatures. Sometimes a law is unjust but thats the way society goes.Originally posted by Clandestine:Let come up with a law that states no man,woman or child should be allowed to pick their nose.
The law will be set in place...similiar to 337a, and of course it won't be enforced lar....just put the law there.....incase....
-------------------------------
There are so many other social problems with serious impact in our lives..
Outlaw gambling....say that every auntie in singapore who plays mahjong has the "risk" of going to jail...but of course we don't enforce it lar....just put the law there.....incase....
-------------------------------
Lets also ban all fried foods....
There you have a true health risk.
Just put the law there....incase -
actually its very dangerous to have laws hanging over your head that are not supposed to be enforced. because they can be enforced. and theres no gurantee it won't, and somehow i don't have complete faith in what politicians say + that guy may not always be around.Originally posted by kramnave:But i think that is the message they want to send. Seriously, nobody is going to go into anybody's house to check if gays are having sex.
it is better to get rid of it, otherwise its like an axe hanging over the head jsut that the axe is tied to the celling.
you can send massages in other ways. a law thats not enforced isn't exactly the way and besides its some how a mockery of a law that something illegal is not to be enforced. -
NMP Siew said either pull the trigger or put down the gun.He problably knows the govt won't pull the trigger as it has already say so.
PM said there are good reasons for the conservative want to keep the law.This should be the verdict on the homo debate.Of course,he didn't want to say homo is wrong in order not to offend the geys. -
There have been debates on homo in this forums and other forums.In my opinion,the geys lose the debates.It is not because they are in the minority but because they can't put a convincing case to support their stand.I believe all their arguments are soundly refuted.Of course,the will carry on for reasons they know themselves.
The NMP who spoke strongly against repealing the law recieved verbal abuses.This is an evidence that some geys lose the debate and resort to such kind of ugly tactics.Is this kind of ppl able to engage in meaningful debates? -
Originally posted by PRP:
You may remove the qualities that you state in your signature....you possess none of them.
There have been debates on homo in this forums and other forums.[b]In my opinion,the geys lose the debates.It is not because they are in the minority but because they can't put a convincing case to support their stand.I believe all their arguments are soundly refuted.Of course,the will carry on for reasons they know themselves.
The NMP who spoke strongly against repealing the law recieved verbal abuses.This is an evidence that some geys lose the debate and resort to such kind of ugly tactics.Is this kind of ppl able to engage in meaningful debates?[/b]
This is an evidence that some geys lose the debate and resort to such kind of ugly tactics.Is this kind of ppl able to engage in meaningful debates?
Do not make the mistake of generalising when insulting
Don't insult in areas where your ignorance supercedes your intellect.
I'm citing "cause & effect" as my reason behind this particular post-reply
-
no you dontOriginally posted by Mitell:Basically the panel code got nothing against the gays here in Singapore and is require on retaining it. To let it be in place to serve as a protection to non-hono man or even a gay from being man sexual harassments, man molests, man rape and also man outrage of decency (377A) viewing in the public.
It not only able to protect the non homo-man and it also can be serve as a protection on gay from getting rape by another man that he donÂ’t have any consent of.
So, the conclusion is, round one I winÂ…mauhahahahahahahahaha! Sorry lah, when I forget to take my medication given form the mental hospital I always laugh this wayÂ…muahahahahahaha!!!
it only goes to show you are homophobic. that you are scared. afraid.
hmm...maybe you had some nasty experience with some random guy making a move on you before? maybe that's why you fear being raped of sexually harrassed by other men now.
*snort* -
fortunately nope for me but unfortunately yes for others
, just do a yahoo search and you will see a lot of info out there. -
Originally posted by PRP:
Please look beyond this forum. The movement to repeal Section 377A has far more irrefutable evidence, logic and contributes to irreductionist discourse far more than the one-liners and fundamentalism-driven reasoning for retention.
There have been debates on homo in this forums and other forums.[b]In my opinion,the geys lose the debates.It is not because they are in the minority but because they can't put a convincing case to support their stand.I believe all their arguments are soundly refuted.Of course,the will carry on for reasons they know themselves.
The NMP who spoke strongly against repealing the law recieved verbal abuses.This is an evidence that some geys lose the debate and resort to such kind of ugly tactics.Is this kind of ppl able to engage in meaningful debates?[/b]
What is said in SGF doesn't count, what counts is that those with the power to repeal are persuaded in the long run. Debate is never a one-time event. It is a long-term engagement of persuasion and reasoning.