Dr Thio Li-ann is a law professor with the National University of Singapore

I write to clarify some statements reportedly made by a local group which are incorrect as a matter of law (“Repealing Section 377A will ensure a ‘secular common space’, says local human rights group Maruah”; Sept 24).

First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.

Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.

At best, “sexual orientation” is a political claim, not an international legal right.

Invoking “human rights” language is a strategy to evade debate over the substantive issues underlying the 377A debate.

In other countries, sexual orientation rights claims have clashed with other human rights, like religious freedom, free speech and parental rights to determine the kind of (sex) education their children receive.

Second, to invoke “rightful equal status” begs the question. What should rightfully be equated with what?

An issue cannot be resolved just by declaring something is equal/unequal.

The criteria for whether X is equal to Y must come from an independent philosophy which supplies the basis for drawing distinctions.

Are durians equal to mangosteens? Yes, if your criteria is “fruits” and no, if the criteria is “colour”.

There are no uncontroversial philosophies regarding questions of public sexual morality. Read more via Today