Being conservative does not make a case for retaining 377A
Just completed a working version of an Interactive Story with Mei Yuan. It still require some tweaking in content though.
The story is based on a the Harry Potter (and a little of Lord of the Rings) parody, but also with a heavy dash of gay theme. With the Repeal 377A saga going around, it is an ideal time to make one of your assignments run in sync with the current affairs.
I read in the papers that this issue has been one of the heavily discussed topics during the Hari Raya festive season by the muslims. As Christianity and Islam derive from a strong belief against homosexuality, I wonder how gay Christians and Muslims struggled with this on top of external factors from their families, friends and the general public.
Take a read at Aaron’s blog on this matter. He criticised the government on this matter in a humorous manner and then wrote about it again regarding conservative. Though not many Singaporeans are agreeable with repealing this piece of legislation, I am sure they are puzzled as to why have a law which they admit that they hardly enforce. More importantly, while the high brass fought to remain status quo by rattling that Singaporeans are still conservative by showing some recent NTU survey, then how come we are able to build a casino with the majority of the very conservative Singaporeans going against the idea of promoting gambling.
And I remember someone mentioning that the issue of sexual behaviour is not akin to human rights. In that case, whether to have sex between two consensual adults still depend largely on the officials. Have sex also need someone to authorize leh.
Another one commented that gay sex not normal leh, cannot have babies one. How come I distinctively remember the law legalising oral and anal sex between heterosexuals? Like that can have babies ar? So it’s normal for straight couples to have oral and anal sex but definitely not for two homosexuals. Weird government we have eh? Oh yeah, on top of that, did Singaporeans mention about being conservative? How does oral and anal sex be in line with being conservative?
Henceforth, being conservative or not cannot form a case at all. We also cannot touch on this issue with morality, because as far as I know, I don’t remember fellatio being promoted as normal intercourse during my secondary school years. All along, this issue is all about homosexuals seeking equal rights like straight people enjoy all these while. Just like how women fought for their rights in the past.
And I feel repealing this law allow for more communication and discussion and should allow families to touch on what was once considered as a taboo subject. If we maintained status quo by keeping hush hush on such sensitive topics, I wonder how family units can survive. I don’t think the numbers of homosexuals have ever rise because of such topics, but rather, the numbers are always the same. Just that some have chosen to come out of their closet.
It is a strange world here eh?
Thinking about the government’s decision, I kind of smell some monetary factors here. An integrated resort brings in money. Repealing gay sex does not.
there are many flaws in the gahmen and their laws lah. i ve been hearing so much of the 3 numbers and one letter that i shrug whenever i hear it on radio/watch it on tv/read about it in the newspaper.
im fairly neutral about this though, not for or against the repeal.
and i guess we shd all juz mind our business and lead our own lives.
anyway first time gg to ur site after so many mths. welcome me with open arms and legs please
as open i am about the whole homosexual issue. i tried to understand it from the government point of view.
filtering downwards, a open declaration of sexual activities might lead to even more outrageous behaviour of homosexuals in public. for those who’s mind and eye are opened,
“yeah, those 2 are in love.”
but for others (and i’d think it stands for a significant part of singaporeans) it might be a case of
“eww. that’s disgusting.”
especially with a society that has multi racial / religion, it might become a tacky society issue.
so i guess really its about how the public response to it. as an individual, i have no qualms about it. but does the rest of the society feels so?
The intention of repealing section 377A is to grant two consensual homosexuals their right to engage in an intimate activity that resides behind closed doors. It’s more of a matter of granting rights to another human being which are being made less privileged because of a difference in sexual preference.
It is a fallacy to perceive and believe homosexuals will engage in outrageous behaviour in public. It is described as though these people are just some horny uncontrolled animals who are seeking for nothing but hedonistic behaviour.
But I don’t deny the fact that this is the impression the general public may have on homosexuals.
Furthermore, we have seen the government removing laws that forbade heterosexuals engaging in oral and anal sex, but we do not see a rise in outrageous behaviour of heterosexuals in public, have we?
How will removing such a law elicit an increase of perceived outrageous behaviour of homosexuals in public? I don’t understand.
All in all, repealing helps eliminate the social stigma homosexuals have in this society. If we really embrace diversity, then we should try to understand them and not be too quick on stating excuses that we have to preserve moral values that are fundamental in our family, because oral and anal sex in heterosexuals are not in any way more moral and natural.
This is why I find it amusing because the government wants to protect a self proclaimed moral value, and on the other hand breaks other values, i.e. martial immunity, gambling, and consensual straight oral and anal sex.