NMP Thio Makes 2nd Police Report
-
That doesn't add up. Earlier, you wrote:Originally posted by Icemoon:I think a distinction has to be made. The order of nature for man should be different from the order of nature for animals.
The predatory behaviour of certain species of animals, where fratricide is not against the order of nature, is a sign that a distinction has already been made.
Certainly you were making no distinction then, and indeed point 1 implies that nature constitutes no grounds for 377A - why introduce the point otherwise?Originally posted by Icemoon:Homosexuality is definitely not against nature because:
1. the behaviour seems to be quite rampant in the animal kingdom.
2. there is no natural obstruction to deter homosexual acts. Like .. I suck your dick .. you feel shiok right? I poke your backside you feel shiok right? In fact, homosexual acts seem to provide faster, instant gratification compared to heterosexual acts.
If, just for argument's sake, we do make a distinction between nature for man and beast, then your point 2 is at odds with 377. -
I am confused over the definition of 'nature' myself.Originally posted by Gedanken:Certainly you were making no distinction then, and indeed point 1 implies that nature constitutes no grounds for 377A - why introduce the point otherwise?
If, just for argument's sake, we do make a distinction between nature for man and beast, then your point 2 is at odds with 377.
Why is 2 at odds with 377? -
Begs the question. I asked how the defense could prove that the victim had sound judgement, and in response you proposed the girl's wanton behaviour with multiple underage boyfriends. How does such behaviour prove sound judgement?Originally posted by Icemoon:If abberrant behaviour reflect lack of sound judgement, how is it that adults with abberrant behaviour are still deem to have sound judgement?
Note that in Crosshairs' reply, it is implicit that adults have the ability and sound judgement to give consent, is it not?
I would agree with you if you said that aberrant behaviour does not always disprove sound judgement, but it cannot possibly prove sound judgement. -
If there is no natural obstruction to the act, what prima facie case is there to demonstrate that it is against the order of nature?Originally posted by Icemoon:Why is 2 at odds with 377? -
There is none, I guess.Originally posted by Gedanken:If there is no natural obstruction to the act, what prima facie case is there to demonstrate that it is against the order of nature?
So we can conclude the order of nature has to refer to that of man and not of beast? -
Hmm .. you are right I guess, got me stuck here.Originally posted by Gedanken:Begs the question. I asked how the defense could prove that the victim had sound judgement, and in response you proposed the girl's wanton behaviour with multiple underage boyfriends. How does such behaviour prove sound judgement?
I would agree with you if you said that aberrant behaviour does not always disprove sound judgement, but it cannot possibly prove sound judgement.
Sound judgement can never be proven, it is just something implicit in you after you reach a certain age.
Well .. who said the law is fair anyway? -
I don't honestly know if we can conclude anything. At face value we might say that the laws apply to humans, but that being the case, what coverage of beastiality does the Penal Code provide? After all, without consideration of what it does to the animal, isn't it simply then reduced to an arbitrary moral judgement?Originally posted by Icemoon:There is none, I guess.
So we can conclude the order of nature has to refer to that of man and not of beast? -
H L Mencken wrote, "A court of law is a place in which Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot are treated as equals, with betting odds slightly in favour of Judas". I guess he was right.Originally posted by Icemoon:Well .. who said the law is fair anyway? -
Hell, you just about got me with the previous post - I had to follow the audit trail of our tete-a-tete to figure out why I was stuck for an answer.Originally posted by Icemoon:Hmm .. you are right I guess, got me stuck here.
Sound judgement can never be proven, it is just something implicit in you after you reach a certain age.
Sound judgement can't be proven, but what with everything we've studied about human cognitive development, we can say with a good degree of certainty that one can expect the average 16-year-old to have developed the capacity for sound judgement, and I believe we can determine the age of consent on a reasonable and logical basis. -
Hey .. the animal has the right to enjoy being shagged by humans.?Originally posted by Gedanken:I don't honestly know if we can conclude anything. At face value we might say that the laws apply to humans, but that being the case, what coverage of beastiality does the Penal Code provide? After all, without consideration of what it does to the animal, isn't it simply then reduced to an arbitrary moral judgement?
The consideration of what it does to the animal should not fall under the code prohibiting beastiality. There are other more appropriate laws to punish offenders who inflicted harm on the animal. -
Heck .. even religious authorities set an arbitrary age for the capacity for sound judgement, e.g. bat mitzvah is held at age 12 for girls.Originally posted by Gedanken:Sound judgement can't be proven, but what with everything we've studied about human cognitive development, we can say with a good degree of certainty that one can expect the average 16-year-old to have developed the capacity for sound judgement, and I believe we can determine the age of consent on a reasonable and logical basis.
-
My understanding is that 377 dates back to the 1800s and was simply taken as is when Singapore adopted its own Penal Code after independence. That being the case, given the thinking of the time, I expect that the order of nature would have been universally applied to all creatures.
Given the age of the law, while it may not have to be repealed, it certainly is high time for a review. -
Yeah, well, it really is a matter of the assumptions held at the time. Over the past 150 years or so, the age of consent has risen and seems to have settled between 16 and 18 years, depending on where you are.Originally posted by Icemoon:Heck .. even religious authorities set an arbitrary age for the capacity for sound judgement, e.g. bat mitzvah is held at age 12 for girls. -
Anyway, it's well past my bedtime. I'll pick this up again tomorrow.
-
I thank you first for the quality discussion. It feels good when ad hominem arguments are not being thrown around.Originally posted by Gedanken:Anyway, it's well past my bedtime. I'll pick this up again tomorrow. -
It's been a pleasure, icemoon. Law's not my field either, but I do join interdisciplinary groups with lawyers, and legal discussions can be fun (although I wouldn't want to do it for a living).
-
I apologise - perhaps the use of the Indian language is not appropriate. Let us hence consider the example of religious practices, which can be done behind closed doors - the example perhaps of eating bread for communion.Originally posted by Icemoon:The argument given for 377A is one that looks at the big picture and potential implications.
So my counter-challenge to you is,
1. So what if the Indian language is NOT banned?
2. So what if the eating of bread as religious act is allowed?
But I think you are blurring the issues. The crux of 377A is about acts behind closed doors. Is the Indian language mainly used behind closed doors?
To answer your counter-challenge (point 2), So what if the eating of bread as a religous act is allowed? I agree, there is no consequence, it is after all a private act and as long as you don't forcefeed say a Muslim into eating bread as a symbol of Christ-Worship, so what if the eating of bread is allowed?
Have you however considered the converse. So what if the eating of bread as a religious act is not allowed? Will that not count in a way of religious discrimination, when the private worship practices of a religion is deemed unnatural (i mean, bread was never naturally used as a symbol for the flesh of Christ), and any partakers in this activity is liable to litigation? Therefore one must answer both sides of the question when using the phrase "So What" to have a more logically defensible argument.
You also talk about the concept of the "Big Picture". I agree with you that the Big Picture is important. Consider the "big picture" of what is essentially a discriminatory act against a minority - going against their civil right of intercourse with a consenting individual. Given such a precedent, what prevents Parliament from banning other actions within the civil rights of a Singaporean as illegal? Using the same example, if the government can erode the civil rights of a gay of intercourse, why can the government not erode the civil rights of a Christian to freedom of religious worship?
Therefore considering the "Big Picture" also tells us that the need to repeal 377A is important in protecting the sancity of civil rights of Singaporeans - that there are some sacred basic rights granted to every Singaporean that cannot be superseded by another law.
I hope for interesting replies supporting/opposing the above argument. -
I can't provide u with an interesting reply.U talked about sacred basic right.First,geys shoud convince us homo is good --- no right or wrong is nonsense.If homo sex is wrong or bad,do u want that kind of right?Originally posted by lansin.party:I apologise - perhaps the use of the Indian language is not appropriate. Let us hence consider the example of religious practices, which can be done behind closed doors - the example perhaps of eating bread for communion.
To answer your counter-challenge (point 2), So what if the eating of bread as a religous act is allowed? I agree, there is no consequence, it is after all a private act and as long as you don't forcefeed say a Muslim into eating bread as a symbol of Christ-Worship, so what if the eating of bread is allowed?
Have you however considered the converse. So what if the eating of bread as a religious act is not allowed? Will that not count in a way of religious discrimination, when the private worship practices of a religion is deemed unnatural (i mean, bread was never naturally used as a symbol for the flesh of Christ), and any partakers in this activity is liable to litigation? Therefore one must answer both sides of the question when using the phrase "So What" to have a more logically defensible argument.
You also talk about the concept of the "Big Picture". I agree with you that the Big Picture is important. Consider the "big picture" of what is essentially a discriminatory act against a minority - going against their civil right of intercourse with a consenting individual. Given such a precedent, what prevents Parliament from banning other actions within the civil rights of a Singaporean as illegal? Using the same example, if the government can erode the civil rights of a gay of intercourse, why can the government not erode the civil rights of a Christian to freedom of religious worship?
Therefore considering the "Big Picture" also tells us that the need to repeal 377A is important in protecting the sancity of civil rights of Singaporeans - that there are some sacred basic rights granted to every Singaporean that cannot be superseded by another law.
I hope for interesting replies supporting/opposing the above argument. -
Give u all a chance to tell the ppl homo is good but u want to bash ppl.Do u belive in your belief?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Not ALL homosexuals are bashing you. Some are heterosexuals that have been bashing your argument, and I am one of them as well.
Can you even accept this fact? -
That's right.Originally posted by Icemoon:I suppose you can have gay friends but you frown upon their lifestyle.
It is the same with gambling isn't it?
-
i really debate this issue for my interest.But some geys or homo supporters are so fierce.Why don't thye relax?I'm not the one who set the law.
-
Firstly homosexuals have no need to prove that homosexual activity is good - laws are legislated to protect society from harm (i.e. ban bad things) rather than only allow good things to take place in society.Originally posted by PRP:I can't provide u with an interesting reply.U talked about sacred basic right.First,geys shoud convince us homo is good --- no right or wrong is nonsense.If homo sex is wrong or bad,do u want that kind of right?
Secondly, i know there has been quite a few arguments smattered all over the forums etc, but why is homosexual activity bad? Could you (or Icemoon or others) provide perhaps the three STRONGEST arguments on your stance -- so there can be a more fluent debate rather than a random spamming of points?
Lastly, aiyah pro or anti homo also equally fierce! cannot say pro homo more fierce? haha. just discussion only what!
-
You insinuate that gays in Singapore lack some sacred basic rights. Is this truly the case?Originally posted by lansin.party:Therefore considering the "Big Picture" also tells us that the need to repeal 377A is important in protecting the sancity of civil rights of Singaporeans - that there are some sacred basic rights granted to every Singaporean that cannot be superseded by another law.
Look around you. How many gays were actually denied the right to intercourse? The right to vote? The right to free speech?
In Singapore, certain laws are .. bullsheet. The right to free speech .. every Singaporean should have the sacred basic right to free speech .. but do you truly think this is so? At least certain forummers in Speaker's Corner do not think so.
So in a sense, gays are very very lucky liao. Ironically, they have a right to something forbidden in the Penal Code, and the majority of Singaporeans do not even have the right to something enshrined in the Constitution!
Neither are gays singled out like "niggers" and lynched by religious groups. -
What do you mean? Isn't bread THE symbol for the flesh of Christ, like the wine for His blood?Originally posted by lansin.party:Have you however considered the converse. So what if the eating of bread as a religious act is not allowed? Will that not count in a way of religious discrimination, when the private worship practices of a religion is deemed unnatural (i mean, bread was never naturally used as a symbol for the flesh of Christ), and any partakers in this activity is liable to litigation? Therefore one must answer both sides of the question when using the phrase "So What" to have a more logically defensible argument.
OT a little, if you ask me, many Christians are guilty of going against racial harmony laws. I suspect Christianity is the no. 1 religion in Singapore causing the MOST family problems. -
I don't think homosexual activities are bad.Originally posted by lansin.party:Secondly, i know there has been quite a few arguments smattered all over the forums etc, but why is homosexual activity bad? Could you (or Icemoon or others) provide perhaps the three STRONGEST arguments on your stance -- so there can be a more fluent debate rather than a random spamming of points?
They are just ................ sinful from a religious pov.