THE raging debate on whether or not to repeal current anti-gay laws got me itching to write.
The issue of gay rights was recently rekindled by MM in a recent interview when he was quoted as saying: "We must take cognisance of the contemporary world that has become more accommodating...Homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives."
Then that MP-of-the-moment Baey got his foot in, through ST. And the issue found itself stoking yet another controversy.
This was part of the ST's story:
"Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng said if it comes to a vote in Parliament, he would say 'yes' to doing away with the law which makes it illegal for men to have sex with other men.
He was joined by Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong who had previously made public his opposition to Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex.
Both were members of a forum panel yesterday that included gay activist Alex Au, founder of gay media company Fridae Stuart Koe, and Methodist church leader Reverend Yap Kim Hao.
They were discussing the legislation with about 100 participants. When the Home Affairs Ministry proposed changes to the Penal Code last year, it said it would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.
One participant, academic Russell Heng, 56, asked Mr Baey for his position if Parliament took a vote on this issue. He said he would vote to repeal the law, a response which drew loud applause."
Well, if anyone needs to know, I am not homophobic or anti-gay or anything. Yes, as a God-fearing, religious person, I don't condone homosexuality.
But really, I don't give two hoots if they want to have sex till they are blue in the face.
So, yes, to me the law is archaic. It's redundant. Outmoded. Antiquated.
They are doing it whether or not you have the law. And who's to give a damn if they are doing it in private? Oral sex and anal sex between consenting heterosexuals used to be illegal, but has that stopped anyone from doing it? And has anyone been censured over these acts?
These two were made legal last year when the Penal Code was amended, explained as such: "We sought to modernise it to be in line with social mores and emerging societal trends," according to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
But gay sex? Cannot.
MHA says it's because Singapore remains largely a conservative society.
"Many do not tolerate homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent and deviant. Many religious groups also do not condone homosexual acts," it said.
Sigh.. and large-scale casinos are ok for this very same conservative society.
Confused or conflicted?
BUT, and this is a big BUT. (no pun intended)
I have reservations about making this one huge debate. Gay rights I mean.
I don't care if they are having sex. Heck, I don't even care if they want to repeal the annoying section in that age-old Penal Code.
But don't make this one big issue lah.
After this, what next?
What will be the repercussions? More 'gay rights' demand I'm sure. Legalise their marriage? Let them adopt kids?
It grates me that all this debate smacks of the gays among us, asking for special treatment. You're not special ok?
I'm also concerned about the wrong signals this debate may be sending.
To those who think it is hip and cool to behave and declare oneself gay. Never mind that you're not. Or that you're just outlandish in behavior, or effeminate or just plain dandy. But confused.
Will they turn gay? This is not as ridiculous as it sounds.
1 comment:
Why are we making such a big fuss out of this, one may ask. Friends in the department of political science might sneer and say that this is merely another smokescreen for the government to test how far society has gone in Singapore (and I am using 'gone' in a positive way to mean 'forward'; and not 'gone' as in 'si liao, gone liao').
Let's take a quick look at how many 'barometer readings' had been thrown forth by the powers that be to gauge the 'pressure and temperature' of our society today - the tudong episode, Jemaah Islamiah, old folks, less-abled (as opposed to the overused 'disabled') people, foreign workers/talents, the arts, youth, integrated resorts, oral and anal sex - you name it, you would probably get it.
I am not surprised that Bureau Chief cannot be bothered about the entire issue (other than the fact that it HAS become an issue) because to be honest, whether or not we repeal laws which may be deemed discriminatory towards homosexuals, the stock price of my company will not move much. The man in the street probably takes the same stance too - if by allowing homosexuals to govern Singapore it is going to mean that he has less food to eat, I am sure we will see large demonstrations telling the government to screw themselves and let the straight people run the country. But the fact of the matter is that any person of merit would be able to run Singapore, be they gays, lesbians, man, woman, majority or minority. Thus I don't see why the man in the street will be too bothered about it.
Let's put it this way, if the man in the street has a son whom he suspects is gay or has gay tendencies, is he going to tell him "You turn gay, I call police!!" ? I would like to think that he either accepts this phenomenon with grace or try to reason with his son about the religious and social implications of adopting an alternative lifestyle.
Thus, all this hoo-hah about repealing laws that are deemed discriminatory against homosexuals will affect only 2 groups of people - the homosexuals themselves and the religious leaders. Cabinet probably would be happy to have this battle fought between these 2 groups, and my money goes to the religious leaders to hammer the homosexuals (no sexual connotations intended). Why? Simply because condoning homosexuality will not create 30,000 jobs like an integrated resort would do. At most, it may create about 500 new jobs. And the religious leaders would be able to better explain to the masses why such laws are needed in the first place.
Where do we go from here? If the homosexuals amongst us REALLY feel as though they are being maltreated, I would like to suggest they form a self-help group. If in the next census we could determine how many amongst us are actually homosexuals, a minister-in-charge of homosexual affairs could even be elected. But seriously, one should not be overly concerned about repealing such laws. They are archaic, they encourage holier-than-thou thinking, they do nothing but prevent those who were born homosexuals from leading their own private lives.
Wait, hang on, are homosexuals a matter of nature or nurture?...now, that's a topic for another day.
Post a Comment