Homophobic bigots!!!
It surprises me how homophobic and illogical some of these people are. There is this guy who wrote in to Straits Times about how Minister Mentor's (what a crappy title by the way) comments about liberalising laws regarding homosexuality (he said that?) had him and his family worried.
Worried about what? That gay men would go on a rape rampage? He claimed that decriminalising homosexual behaviour would turn Singapore into an "un-wholesome" place as if Singapore is some fishing village where the people are mostly pure and innocent folks. Oh please! And oh yes, if you want to raise birth rates, don't legalise homosexuality. Because fewer babies... mismatch of "resources". Rubbish! Lesbians are probably the most proliferate females around. Err.. not entirely true either. But still the birth rate argument is lame.
And what is with "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle"?? This is over-generalisation at its worst! Senseless people like Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn should not be allowed to write into the Straits Times. They should just... blog. Quietly. Or just die.
But what was more amusing was this piece by a NUS law professor. Another reason to heave a sigh of relief that I wasn't accepted into NUS law. It's a pretty long piece, the main point of which being decriminalising homosexuality would be a slippery slope. If you tell people it's okay to be gay, everyone is gonna take the opportunity to be gay! Even if they're not pre-disposed to be gay. They will do it if they see their friends do it. Cos' it's cool and hip!
Obviously that's not going to happen! What will happen is that people who have been repressing their sexual orientation will find a little more breathing space. No that they will be free from nagging/despisal/marginalisation from people around them who are not as ready to accept their difference. Decriminalising will not transform homosexuality into something "wholesome" overnight. What it does is that homosexuality is now recognised as a behavioural trait that is perhaps deviant from the accepted societal norms but not necessarily criminal.
The author claimed that "An active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty." and that "People who oppose the homosexual agenda are branded as intolerant, bigoted, homophobes, or hateful towards homosexuals who are merely 'different'." So to the author, it is a choice between 1) legalising homosexuality or 2) continuing to give bigotic homophobes the freedom to be bigoted and homophobic and oh, openly hateful towards homosexuals. It's like saying let's not think of Jews as humans, otherwise we can't put them into gas chambers. Criminalising homosexuality serves the purpose of depriving of homosexuals of a legal platform to put across their agendas. So much for the right to freedom of speech.
Would legalising homosexuality really lead to moral degradation (empirically measured in number of childless homosexuals)? To answer that, one would have to examine the basic assumption that homosexuality is bad. What are some of the reasons people give for demonising homosexuality?
1) That God forbids so. Obviously He won't tell us why so let's just sidestep this reasoning for the moment.
2) That homosexuality is against the nature. Nature as defined by...? If it is nature as defined by God then we're back to Reason No. 1. If it is nature as in mother nature, then it is useful to note that homosexual behaviour is anything but rare in animals. But if you claim we're not animals like "them animals", then well...
3) Declining birth rates. We've been there before. Even if you put a man and a woman together, they might still not reproduce.
4) Homosexuals are promiscuous and are the major carriers of HIV and AIDs because of the way they engage in sexual behaviours. Even if it were true, it is really more of a matter of personal hygiene than anything else. Furthermore, not all homosexuals are sex fiends. And the argument is inherently unsound. It is not like when you decide to criminalise drink-driving. Drink-driving is bad because it has potentially lethal consequences and it is a threat to public safety. You cannot apply the same logic to homosexuality. You don't criminalise heroin users because they share needles (which transmit HIV) but because drug use is illegal.
Then it begs the question of whether homosexual behaviour is illegal. Why is drug use illegal? Because it has harmful social consequences. And according to our dear NUS law professor, "It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health." So homosexual behaviour is illegal.
Well, if it were that case, then having multiple sex partners and having unprotected sex should be criminalised as well, not to mention heterosexuals who prefer to, occasionally, "enter through the back door". So essentially, it is not the act itself which is bad or wrong (if you go by her argument) but how the act is being carried out, namely recklessly. So if men can screw each other in a protected manner, then the argument would fall apart.
As for the slippery slope argument, it is even more ridiculous. It is wrong to continue criminalising homosexuality just because decriminalising it would potentially open the floodgates to more tricky issues such as greater gay rights, same-sex marriage and gay adoption (of babies, not adoption of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle). You can't say it's gonna be a messy business so let's not go there.
The question here is whether homosexuals here are willing (not that they have much choice but...) to accept the deal of keeping their private life hush-hush (the tacit understanding is that the government would not raid the bedrooms of homosexuals if they don't openly demand more rights such as the abolition of Section 377A) in exchange for being "tolerated" by the majority of "wholesome" Singaporeans. And is it really so bad to accept such a deal? Hmm...
Worried about what? That gay men would go on a rape rampage? He claimed that decriminalising homosexual behaviour would turn Singapore into an "un-wholesome" place as if Singapore is some fishing village where the people are mostly pure and innocent folks. Oh please! And oh yes, if you want to raise birth rates, don't legalise homosexuality. Because fewer babies... mismatch of "resources". Rubbish! Lesbians are probably the most proliferate females around. Err.. not entirely true either. But still the birth rate argument is lame.
And what is with "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle"?? This is over-generalisation at its worst! Senseless people like Jonathan Cheng Hern Sinn should not be allowed to write into the Straits Times. They should just... blog. Quietly. Or just die.
But what was more amusing was this piece by a NUS law professor. Another reason to heave a sigh of relief that I wasn't accepted into NUS law. It's a pretty long piece, the main point of which being decriminalising homosexuality would be a slippery slope. If you tell people it's okay to be gay, everyone is gonna take the opportunity to be gay! Even if they're not pre-disposed to be gay. They will do it if they see their friends do it. Cos' it's cool and hip!
Obviously that's not going to happen! What will happen is that people who have been repressing their sexual orientation will find a little more breathing space. No that they will be free from nagging/despisal/marginalisation from people around them who are not as ready to accept their difference. Decriminalising will not transform homosexuality into something "wholesome" overnight. What it does is that homosexuality is now recognised as a behavioural trait that is perhaps deviant from the accepted societal norms but not necessarily criminal.
The author claimed that "An active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty." and that "People who oppose the homosexual agenda are branded as intolerant, bigoted, homophobes, or hateful towards homosexuals who are merely 'different'." So to the author, it is a choice between 1) legalising homosexuality or 2) continuing to give bigotic homophobes the freedom to be bigoted and homophobic and oh, openly hateful towards homosexuals. It's like saying let's not think of Jews as humans, otherwise we can't put them into gas chambers. Criminalising homosexuality serves the purpose of depriving of homosexuals of a legal platform to put across their agendas. So much for the right to freedom of speech.
Would legalising homosexuality really lead to moral degradation (empirically measured in number of childless homosexuals)? To answer that, one would have to examine the basic assumption that homosexuality is bad. What are some of the reasons people give for demonising homosexuality?
1) That God forbids so. Obviously He won't tell us why so let's just sidestep this reasoning for the moment.
2) That homosexuality is against the nature. Nature as defined by...? If it is nature as defined by God then we're back to Reason No. 1. If it is nature as in mother nature, then it is useful to note that homosexual behaviour is anything but rare in animals. But if you claim we're not animals like "them animals", then well...
3) Declining birth rates. We've been there before. Even if you put a man and a woman together, they might still not reproduce.
4) Homosexuals are promiscuous and are the major carriers of HIV and AIDs because of the way they engage in sexual behaviours. Even if it were true, it is really more of a matter of personal hygiene than anything else. Furthermore, not all homosexuals are sex fiends. And the argument is inherently unsound. It is not like when you decide to criminalise drink-driving. Drink-driving is bad because it has potentially lethal consequences and it is a threat to public safety. You cannot apply the same logic to homosexuality. You don't criminalise heroin users because they share needles (which transmit HIV) but because drug use is illegal.
Then it begs the question of whether homosexual behaviour is illegal. Why is drug use illegal? Because it has harmful social consequences. And according to our dear NUS law professor, "It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health." So homosexual behaviour is illegal.
Well, if it were that case, then having multiple sex partners and having unprotected sex should be criminalised as well, not to mention heterosexuals who prefer to, occasionally, "enter through the back door". So essentially, it is not the act itself which is bad or wrong (if you go by her argument) but how the act is being carried out, namely recklessly. So if men can screw each other in a protected manner, then the argument would fall apart.
As for the slippery slope argument, it is even more ridiculous. It is wrong to continue criminalising homosexuality just because decriminalising it would potentially open the floodgates to more tricky issues such as greater gay rights, same-sex marriage and gay adoption (of babies, not adoption of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle). You can't say it's gonna be a messy business so let's not go there.
The question here is whether homosexuals here are willing (not that they have much choice but...) to accept the deal of keeping their private life hush-hush (the tacit understanding is that the government would not raid the bedrooms of homosexuals if they don't openly demand more rights such as the abolition of Section 377A) in exchange for being "tolerated" by the majority of "wholesome" Singaporeans. And is it really so bad to accept such a deal? Hmm...
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home