THE highest court in Singapore has upheld Section 377A of the Penal Code, the law that criminalises sex between men, rejecting arguments that the provision contravenes the Constitution.The three-judge Court of Appeal ruled that Section 377A did not violate the Constitution. The judgment added: "(The appellants') remedy lies, if at all, in the legislative sphere." The case came after a gay couple, and a man charged with having oral sex with another man in a public toilet, applied to the courts to void S377A, arguing it was discriminatory. In November last year, Mr Gary Lim, 44, and Mr Kenneth Chee, 37, who have been partners for more than 16 years, challenged S377A, arguing, for one thing, that it was discriminatory since it only targeted men and not women. It therefore breached the couple’s constitutional right to equality.There has been much debate in the Singapore Parliament and public sphere with regard to Section 377A. The two articles provided reflect the debate regarding this issue.Do you think that Section 377A of the Penal Code should be repealed?In about 1000 words, develop an essay that applies persuasive argumentative writing strategies to defend your position on this issue. Other than citing sources to provide supporting arguments for your position, you MUST anticipate objections and provide counterarguments to write the paper. Relevant information for you to evaluate and synthesise would be: Definition of Section 377A of the Penal Code Issues (moral, ethical, social and etc.) surrounding Section 377A of the Penal Code Arguments for upholding Section 377A of the Penal Code Arguments against upholding Section 377A of the Penal Code