Sexual Ethics

The Culture Wars in Singapore may have just been accelerated with the repeal of s377a and with Article 156 of the constitution shifting LGBT activists' attention fully toward the public square.Here's how we think this will affect Singapore society in the months and years to come.

Over the years, you've probably heard the common refrain, "377A unfairly discriminates against homosexual men".There's just one problem though... It doesn't.

We've commonly heard the refrain, "It's a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime".Is that true, though?This opinion piece takes a look at some of the common arguments for repealing S377A to see if they hold water.

Regardless simplifies and charts the value systems behind the two approaches to sexuality education programmes.

Ever heard of, "Ever Thought of That?" We learnt a bunch and think it's worth a watch.

Our Regardless Team previously critiqued the survey on LGBT+ attitudes and Section 377A, conducted by REACH, a department of the Ministry of Communications and Information. This time, we turn our attention to the Ipsos survey.

How did one little survey on Section 377A and the LGBT community cause so much fuss among netizens? Regardless breaks it down play-by-play, from the mysterious origins and curious circulation of the survey, to the ambiguously phrased questions which supported multiple interpretations.

Like many other places, social and moral norms are increasingly contested in Singapore. One site of such contestation is Section 377A. While arguments in favor of repeal have asserted identity and self-fulfillment based on SOGI, arguments in response have focused almost exclusively on the moral and social consequences of repeal, revealing conspicuous gaps in conservative discourse.The challenge and opportunity for conservatives of all creeds is to articulate a proper anthropology and address the deep search for meaning without descending into false utopianism or ideological dogmatism.