Friday, October 26, 2007

 
Interesting person of the year: Richard Dawkins.

Satan's little helper. He believes that religion is nonsense when in fact without it, I doubt he would be alive to say much anyway.

Religion is kind of like be accountable to someone who sees everything and judges you from there. If you think you can live a life without religion and still be nice and fine and dandy. YOU can, just do not cry when someone else with a different set of rules decides to hurt you.

I believe Dawkins has had a bad experience with religion or chose science over reason. If you choose to believe that we are an accident abeit a cosmic one, thats worse than believing we were created by a Supreme Being with a purpose in this world.

Imagine a child being told he was an accident. How would he feel? Now magnify that 7 billion times the pain and confusion. Thats why we are the way we are. Confused on why we are here, what is our purpose on a macro level and personal level.

There are those who have progressed without God and found this purpose. There those who chose to follow interesting people and get high on poisions and forget about finding any purpose.

I rather believe I have a purpose in this world and its given by a benevolent Supreme Being than some cosmic accident. Big accidents dun mean big results, they just mean big clean up.

 
Section 377A

What is it exactly? Its a section in the Singapore Penal Code making homosexual intercourse between males illegal while not saying anything about females.

On the surface, its an outdated piece of colonial legacy. A unfair piece of legislature aimed at male homosexuals. A ridiculous and unenforceable law.

First, a brief background on where it came from. It came from the British who saw much wanton sex in their colonies such as bestiality and homosexual pedophillia. That formed Section 377, weird acts of intercourse. This means in our efforts to change an outdated law due to modernisation and what not is really taking us back to pre-colonial days.

Second, the unfortunate fact of the matter in sexual urges is that males are more susceptible to them than females.This was probably why it only points at male homosexuals.
I find it surprising that we do not have laws against homosexual sex regardless of gender but the context is 19th Century India and Singapore. Repealing S377A due to this technicality would actually be slightly less logical than expanding the law to make it gender neutral.

Thirdly, its ridiculous and unenforceable due to privacy issues rather than anything else. This makes it more like intellectual property violations where it is unenforceable but th law is still upheld. As for ridiculous, I think its not so. There were those among my friends who said its making Singapore a laughing stock. Then the world must be laughing at much of Asia. We have not chosen to follow the West in activities which will destroy this country such as welfare and increased democracy. Though all three (democracy, welfare, homosexual sex) will not be as destructive in the short run, if allowed to progress unchecked will hurt out country as it has the Western nations.

The act of repealing Section 377A is meaningless and a mere formality. It does not change what is happening now in people's bedrooms. That is also the most ideal case for Singaporeans. Unfortunately, life isnt so simple. Humans are greedy, gay activists will see the opportunity to demand (not ask) for more homosexual-friendly legislature, thus starting the avalanche of problems which we never should need to deal with.

A mere small stone rolling down a mountain can cause an avalanche so are we ready for it? Are we really modern enough to deal with the consequences of repealing Section 377A? I am in no position to say but judging from the problems faced by 'modern' nations which have gay-friendly legislature, i doubt any country will ever be.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

 
My Flooble chat tagboard is dead!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]