Not so Current Affairs: Homosexuality

I was having one of my thinking sessions again and I remembered a suggestion from a friend of mine. He thought that I should post the letter I sent to TODAY back in September 2008.

It was about Section 377A of the Penal Code and homosexuality in Singapore.

On 8 September, there was article in the newspaper that was against the particular legislation. As seen here.

The following day, 9 September, two letters in Commentary were published. One against and one supporting the idea/article. Found here.

The letter that was for the legislation caught my eye. It reeked of religious beliefs (which is a crock of shit) and taking personal offense. None of the arguments presented was even a tad bit convincing. For your convenience, here it is:

MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs, social well-being and families.

As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore because it’s against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I care because I don’t want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle. Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore. What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children for gays? Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?

Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on the next generation of children and parents who wish that their children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal course of their being?

The only strong contention in Mr Ho’s proposal is the so-called gay leading edge in the “creative class”. Doesn’t our society have many other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.

I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In “None above the law” (Sept 8), he said: “If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota, she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations Act, they remain the law of Singapore.”

If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament, he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it remains the law of Singapore.

I thought about it and decided to have a go at writing a letter to TODAY. I doubted it would be published but it sure was fun to think & write about it. My letter looked like this:

Mr Chan is trying to mislead people with a piece of logical fallacy. He is attempting to establish a false dichotomy. The abolishing of the anti-gay law does not necessarily follow that the government will encourage homosexual behavior. His worries that the abolishment will lead to legalising gay marriages and adoption of children by gay couples is unfounded.

As such, I think that government should remain neutral on this issue unless there are genuine reasons to criminalize gays.

Religious beliefs should not have any say about state laws. We should not distort/establish the laws of our nation to adhere to the beliefs of Bronze Age mythology. If there is genuine reason against gays then let's hear them. But religious beliefs should not and should never be one of them.

Suppose that there is hypothetical religion where its followers must be homosexual and must have anal intercourse every Sunday because of a particular religious dogma that they adhere to. Should the government allow such activities on the account that they are religious beliefs or ban the religion because of genuine reasons against homosexuality. By the same token, other religious beliefs should not be the basis for disagreement, be it for or against the laws of the state.

If there isn't any reason apart from religious beliefs or personal reasons to take offense, then I believe it would be quite reasonable for the government to remain neutral on this issue. It should neither deliberately oppose nor encourage such behaviors.

So what are the genuine arguments? There should not be laws against harmless personal activities that are out public sight.

Too "offensive" for TODAY, I guess. Bleh.

They did publish 4 letters the next day with regards to this discussion. 3 for the legislation and 1 against. See them here and here. Looks like bias to me... Some pretty revolting comments. I couldn't give a damn to write another reply (they don't seem to be listening).

Anyways, I posted about this on the RichardDawkins.net forum back then. You can take a look at the responses here.

What do you think?