A sinner is not always a criminal

There has been much debate about repealing Section 377A. People are arguing that homosexual sex should be decrminalized. I've been giving this issue some thoughts and my christian/political position is an inconsistent, vague and contradictory one, in the sense that I think that it is unfair to criminalize someone for his behavior, but at the same time, I feel that the law should be retained as a symbolic gesture. Don't think I have the time to write it down today but well maybe shall just put them down in point form first

1) As a Christian: Love the sinner, hate the sin.

2) As a legal theorist: A sinner should not be a criminal when no harm is inflicted upon others (as counter examples: murder and stealing constitute harm to others, suggestion: read Exodus 34, John Locke and John Stuart Mill together).

3) As a pragmatist: You are not a criminal until you are caught (essentially what PM Lee is saying)

4) As a counter-pragmatist: Hence, do away with the law since it is a useless law and you are not sending moral police to catch people on their bed.

5) As a Christian again: But we shoud retain the law as a symbolic gesture

6) As an activist (to the Christian): It is not fair, and tantamount to double standards. For instance: Why not criminalize adultery, debauchery etc. as a symbolic gesture?

7) As a political theorist: If the issue is on fairness ONLY, then by the same measure of fairness, I must not only remove the law to ensure fairness for all to practice their lifestyle without the state interfering (negative freedom), but also institute laws so that they can practice their lifestyle with the same amount of support that the state provides for the heterosexual (positive freedom). Example will be equal rights for same-sex marriage.

8) As a pseudo philosopher: Equality, fairness and justice are three different concepts altogether. And point (7), according to my friend, is a logical fallacy, or a slippery slope arguement. (I'll talk about that if I have time)

9) As a Christian: While I am all out for negative freedom, I have my reservations for positive freedom for the homosexual in Singapore.

10) As a writer for Ailing's 'Season Of Life' team: I think pushing for negative freedom will - in PRINCIPAL - legitimize the space for positive freedom. And therefore - with sociological foresight and hindsight - affect the way future generations might interpret the idea of the family (well, I guess there is room to accuse me of having logical fallacy here). I think how we are trying to be Switzerland, Macau and Monaco (repectively black money, casino, and F1 [which perpetuate more black money]) all at once is already sending many wrong messages to children and families alike.

I guess at the end of the day, my main gripe is not about the fairness of it, but how society in general - christian, non-christians, homo and heteros - will interpret the criminalization or decriminalization of law, which either way cannot please everyone. My other main gripe is how the Church should respond, if we are in the business of saving some souls without being misinterpreted.