ST April 23, 2007There's a reason why I don't like politicians and this is it. They're sneaky. They're always using all sorts of little tricks and verbal sleights of hand to communicate their messages. They can't fool Mr Wang, of course, but Mr Wang knows that the masses often get fooled.
Homosexuality: Govt not moral police but it's mindful of people's concerns
By Zakir Hussain
THE Government is not the moral police on the issue of homosexuality here - but it cannot at the same time ignore the concerns of conservative citizens.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew addressed the issue in his reply to a question from Young PAP activist Loretta Chen, who had asked where censorship was headed in the next two decades.
Having related the issue of how the topless revue Crazy Horse was allowed to operate here, he turned to the question of homosexuality.
It was an issue that 'raises tempers all over the world, and even in America'.
Take for example this seemingly innocuous statement - homosexuality is an issue "that raises tempers all over the world, and even in America". The message which Lee Kuan Yew wants to subtly slip into your subconscious mind is this:
"The Singapore government is already very kind and reasonable in the way it treats homosexuals. After all, even in the United States, the land of the free, homosexuality is a highly controversial subject."And right around here, the average Singaporean will get fooled, because he doesn't stop to think just a little deeper. If he did, he would realise that the United States example does not in any way show that the Singapore government has been kind or reasonable.
Homosexuality is indeed a controversial issue in the United States. However, the US controversy is about whether gays can get married and whether gays can adopt children. It's not about whether gays can fall in love, or have consensual sex, without being arrested and thrown into jail like thieves or robbers.
So you see, Singapore is still grappling with gay rights issues at a rather basic and primitive level. Much more primitive than the United States, anyway.
Admittedly we are now moving in a more enlightened direction. Albeit rather slowly.
'If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?'This is not the real news behind the proposed legislative amendments. That is to say, the real news is not that section 377A of the Penal Code (dealing with the offence of "gross indecency" between men) is still retained.
But Mr Lee also noted that there was a strong inhibition towards it in all societies - be they Christian, Islamic, Hindu or Chinese.
Singapore, too, was confronted 'with a persisting aberration'.
'But is it an aberration?' he asked. 'It's a genetic variation.'
'So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people...don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong.
'But at the same time let's not go around like this moral police...barging into people's rooms. That's not our business.
'So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstance.'
When the Home Affairs Ministry announced proposed changes to the Penal Code on a range of offences last year, it said it would retain the ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men. The penalty remains a maximum of two years in jail.
Last year's real news was that section 377 (unnatural intercourse) would finally be repealed. This is important, because section 377 says that gays who have sex with each other can be imprisoned for life.
In other words, if two adult men willingly had intercourse with each other, the law considered this to be as serious as attempted murder.
That is how primitive Singapore is.
173 comments:
I don't know, but it is this line of argument that worries me...
"So what do we do? I think we pragmatically adjust, carry our people...don't upset them and suddenly upset their sense of propriety and right and wrong."
To put it differently, LKY is effectively saying "Well, the PAP is actually fine with homosexuality. But it's the religious conservatives who aren't, and because they form a significant (voting) majority, we'll pander to them on this."
One can help but ask...at what cost? At what cost will this "sense of propriety" of the religious conservatives be maintained? At the expense of the natural rights of a minority?
Conservatives and republicans may vote against gay marriage - not because they are against gay people - but because they believe marriage and the state should be separated, alike how church and state is separated.
Indeed, the gay issue is a hotly contested issue; but your basic rights are constitutionally protected.
As a gay Singaporean, I am constantly told that my life is... of less value: Immoral. Sick childhood. Tragic case. Mentally ill. Psychological problem. Faggot. Bapok. Broken wrist. Sissy. I can assure you that I'm none of the above, but I'm resigned to the inescapable stereotyping if I ever choose to be honest about who I am.
I'm just sick and tired of it all: of reading how churches think nothing of recommending criminalization, how people think they are authorized to validate my humanity as if it is their place to give validation, how Andy Ho from the Straits Times and other irresponsible outlets spout nonsense and perpetuate the gay-fag-pedophile-deviant-AIDs stereotype. So much hate - I wonder what I did to deserve it.
I'm gay. And if I am not welcome at home, I'll just leave when I can. Quitter seems to be such a nicer label, anyway.
Why don't the government hold a referendum to really gauge the people's opinion rather that quoting off hands some hearsay statistics?
As far as I know, Buddhism can accept homosexuality. See Thailand for example.
" ... law considered this to be as serious as attempted murder".
2 words. Regan Lee.
Roger,
Andy Ho is a self proclaimed expert on these issues, though the emphasis is on the word self proclaimed. I believe the churches and all have a right to push their point though; the problem in Singapore's case is the fact that the gay community is not given the chance to fight back, they do not have the right of rebuttal and Section 377a, the space given to those profamily and bigots in the mainstream media merely makes matters worse.
ZX,
To be honest, i do not think anyone gives two hoots about the conservatives. Remember the issue regarding the IR? The PAP will only use the conservative argument when ever it suits them.
zx - Amen. Don't see that happening to the casi... integrated resorts! Maybe they did an under the table trade off.
Roger - Agreed. Better to be a "second class" citizen in an adopted country than a third class citizen in your own country.
Which genius said that homosexuality is caused by genes? There is no such proven thing as specific gay genes fyi.
And people in the US have killed gay people, which still makes Singapore to be more civilised than the US people. "Conservative people" don't dare to kill or beat up others.
And maybe the people are not all conservative, but that many homosexuals are immoral and decadent.
I commented as "Singaporean" at this US article about hypothetical gay genes at http://www.sptimes.com/2007/03/18/Opinion/The_gay_baby.shtml
Test of conservative: If your teenage son brings a male friend home and tells you they plan to marry. What would YOU do? My educated, "open minded" friend kicked his son out and ask him not to darken the family home again. I would do same.
It is sad that parents will still choose to kick their own blood out of the family home for no other crime than to love someone of the same sex.
What do you achieve to gain by this? Are they still not your children? I am tired of how parents throw their children out and try to justify their actions by hiding behind the label of being 'conservative' or 'asian'. Isn't parental love supposed to be unconditional? Do you really want to force your children into a corner so that they have no choice but to severe contact with you because of your behaviour?
"Which genius said that homosexuality is caused by genes?"
Your good friend, Lee Kuan Yew, The one you have always ardently admired, until now I guess. Hahaha.
Waitaminit, before you start blabbering one of your long, convoluted reasons ... let me ask you: why should I believe you rather than Lee Kuan Yew?
I am heterosexual and have two sons. If one, or both, of them turn out to be gay, so be it.
I agree with Anon 8.58 that parental love should be unconditional. With so much prejudice against gays, only an insane person would "choose" to be gay if he is not really one.
Yes, hold a referendum on this section 377. but then again, would our almighty know-all pap ever hold one on anything???
I do agree that there is no conclusive proof whether or not homosexuality is caused by genes. In some cases, the cause can be entirely biological (but not necessarily genetic). In others, upbringing could be a factor. And yet in others, both could play a part.
But to quibble over whether or not homosexuality is ingrained is to miss the point entirely. EVEN IF homosexuality were a freely chosen lifestyle, there are still no grounds to ban it. The government has no right to ban consensual, harmless actions carried out by informed adults. The government has no right to impose the morality of a certain segment of society onto the rest. Public nudity laws, maybe, since the rest are "affected" in the sense that they have to see the nudity. But private actions conducted in one's own bedroom? Absolutely not.
Imagine some wacko religion comes up with a moral code that states that it is immoral for people to masturbate (some sects of Christianity and Islam already do). Should we criminalise masturbation then, just because some people think it is not right for others to do so? Should we allow the conservative people to dictate the private morality of other individuals? That's absolutely preposterous.
In Singapore, just as in many countries in the civilised world, there are parents, family members and friends of gays and lesbians who are supportive and who believe Section 377a should be repealed.
LKY does not even mention that several of them have spoken up during the recent feedback sessions on the amendments to the Penal Code. Are their opinions not as valid and as Singaporean?
I applaud "anonymous" who would support his/her two sons if they turn out to be gay. You are a true parent! Singapore needs you to speak up and be heard! Check out this website: http://safesingapore.blogspot.com/
which shows there are many Singaporeans who love and support their gay family members and friends, who do not think it is right to "kick out" their loved ones just because of their sexual orientation.
To be honest, as a parent, I would be very disturbed and traumatised if my children turn out to be gay. Does that mean I won't accept them? No, not externally anyway. Because one has to put up a show of family solidarity anyway - it's family after all. But I know there will be be a lot of emotional churning within. I just hope such a day never comes - and that I will never have to face such a situation.
Dear parent (April 24, 2007 9:51 AM),
You must also understand that your kid would probably have gone through hell trying to understand who he/she really is. If you really wish happiness onto your children, it would be better to let them walk the path they choose. If you want them to live the life you choose, it's no better than not having live at all.
Rob
Parent,
You accept your children "in order to put up a show of family solidarity"? Are you, erm, alright?
Frank,
Totally agree with you. :)
Do not be fooled by the old man. Through out his political career he has always found scape goats and passed bucks onto others in order to shore up his own image. Don't forget he is very aware of the age of the audience he is addressing. He did not really answer the question other than to try to project himself as more liberal. He doesn't dare to make a stand on the issue, yet.
Please lah. The only reason why the old man is now speaking up for gays is bcos the PAP has decided that the pink dollar is v impt. It is the same reason for his change of stand on stripshows, gambling, F1 etc
parent - Well, it's always a little disappointing that one's kid doesn't turn out the way you want him/her to be isn't it? But then again, ask yourself, if that does happen, would you be traumatised because of what society might perceive him/her to be, or perhaps what society, or more specifically, your family members might perceive YOU to be? Maybe both?
A Simple Moral Imperative
Recent New York Times editorial regarding gay marriage in the empire state.
ignore the concerns of conservative citizens?
What're their concerns? Barging into other people's rooms and telling them what to do? Or maybe even asking straight couples to ditch the condoms? Or the oh-I'm-concerned-you're-going-to-hell-because-you're-not-a-Christian concern?
I meant.. "oh-I'm-concerned-you're-going-to-hell-because-you're-not-having-proper sex concern"
Hi Mr Wang, I'm a new reader. I find your commentaries interesting and near to heart.
I'd like to know your views on globalisation in singapore and whether this will cause singaporeans to be xenophobics in long term basis.
Isn't it interesting the way homosexuality is moving along the ages?
During pre-colonial times, or in areas that has very little colonial influence, homosexuality is a pretty much accepted lifestyle in Southeast Asia. It was only when the colonial masters brought in their Western ideas then did homosexuality became "unnatural" and "sinful". And now the same source is turning it "acceptable".
Hmm... how interesting!
Does most homosexual people find that being homosexual is immoral? Why do they choose to be homosexual and not to change this aspect of their lives?
Found a website (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet1.html) that says:
"What causes homosexual desire?
If homosexual impulses are not inherited, what kinds of influences do cause strong homosexual desires? No one answer is acceptable to all researchers in the field. Important factors, however, seem to fall into four categories. As with so many other odd sexual proclivities, males appear especially susceptible:
1. Homosexual experience:
any homosexual experience in childhood, especially if it is a first sexual experience or with an adult
any homosexual contact with an adult, particularly with a relative or authority figure (in a random survey, 5% of adult homosexuals vs 0.8% of heterosexuals reported childhood sexual involvements with elementary or secondary school teachers (5).
2. Family abnormality, including the following:
a dominant, possessive, or rejecting mother
an absent, distant, or rejecting father
a parent with homosexual proclivities, particularly one who molests a child of the same sex
a sibling with homosexual tendencies, particularly one who molests a brother or sister
the lack of a religious home environment
divorce, which often leads to sexual problems for both the children and the adults
parents who model unconventional sex roles
condoning homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle– welcoming homosexuals (e.g., co-workers, friends) into the family circle
3. Unusual sexual experience, particularly in early childhood:
precocious or excessive masturbation
exposure to pornography in childhood
depersonalized sex (e.g., group sex, sex with animals)
or girls, sexual interaction with adult males
4. Cultural influences:
a visible and socially approved homosexual sub-culture that invites curiosity and encourages exploration
pro-homosexual sex education
openly homosexual authority figures, such as teachers (4% of Kinsey's and 4% of FRI's gays reported that their first homosexual experience was with a teacher)
societal and legal toleration of homosexual acts
depictions of homosexuality as normal and/or desirable behavior
Can homosexuality be changed?
Certainly. As noted above, many people have turned away from homosexuality - almost as many people call themselves "gay."
Clearly the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many heterosexuals control their desires to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, so some with homosexual desires discipline themselves to abstain from homosexual contact.
One thing seems to stand out: Associations are all-important. Anyone who wants to abstain from homosexual behavior should avoid the company of practicing homosexuals. There are organizations including "ex-gay ministries, "(18) designed to help those who wish to reform their conduct. Psychotherapy claims about a 30% cure rate, and religious commitment seems to be the most helpful factor in avoiding homosexual habits."
~[z][x]~ said...
Parent,
You accept your children "in order to put up a show of family solidarity"? Are you, erm, alright?
April 24, 2007 11:08 AM
Yes, I am. Are you all right yourself? Just because you didn't understand what I meant the first time does not give you the right to post such a rude reply back to me.
Putting up a show of family solidarity is a way of making your child think that he still has your love and support. That is important - for him. But it doesn't mean that the parent still will not be disturbed or traumatised within.
I don't know how many times I must see nonsense from narth and other "pro family" institutes.
you can't turn a straight man gay.
bisexuals or borderline bisexuals can abstain (or play) according to circumstances anyway.
---
Q: Are there any societies where homosexuality is predominant?
A: Ah, this brings us to my favorite cultural sexual oddity, which occurs in Sambia, New Guinea. In the Sambia tribe, as early as age 7, young boys are expected to “suck the penis of a mature boy every night and swallow the sperm" (I'd make a joke if I wasn't terrified). Boys who refuse are forever treated as children within the context of their community, because “without regular ingestion of male seed, the Sambia believe, boys will never grow up into strong, mature men.” At the age of 15, the boys are considered mature enough to provide their own genitals for the younger boys to felicitate. Performing fellatio on a younger boy is strictly forbidden; as it is considered stealing his manhood because it results in a loss of semen from the growing boy (makes me wonder if they replace their “Got Milk?” ads with the tagline “Got cum?” No? Awww shucks). As soon as the boys marry, they cease to engage in homosexual contact, but often times, since they are so estranged from female sexuality and coitus, they ask their new brides to wear a bag over her head and fellate them on their wedding night. Interestingly, according to Loving Boys Vol. 1 (haha, cum again?), “After 10 to 15 years of exclusive homosexual activity carried on by 100 % of the Sambia population, the incidence of adult homosexual orientation is only 5 % - exactly the same as in Western society.” So...short answer, yes, long answer, no.
Source: Brongersma E: Loving Boys Vol. 1. Elmhurst. New York.: Global Academic Publishers, 1986.
Source: Crooks, Robert L. & Baur, Karla (2004) Our Sexuality 9th edition. Wadsworth Publishing Company, 276.
Hi Mr Wang,
Delightful blog! I enjoy reading your posts tremendously!
I am wondering if you have any opinions about the recent treaty signed with the Indonesians.
I am sure you know what I am driving at. Haha
Mr Wang, ur post is great! it stretches my critical thinking which i, as an average singaporean, is lacked of.
Mr Wang, if you son comes back telling you he is marring a him next time, what's your reaction?
I don't know about yours but as a paranoic mum, i am beginning to worry about my gal becoming a butch. Ok, i have to concede i belong to the conservative gang when BGR is concerned...
On that M man, i felt one must be able to admit or justify his own thinking ...there is no need to beat around the bush or gay-gay lor. In the end i cannot figure what he was trying to say .
Most of us, conservative or otherwise, believes gambling is one of those social ills often regarded as the root of many evils. Yet our Gahmen ignore our cry to go ahead to allow not only one (1) but two (2) casinos to be build here in Singapore.
I pretty sure these casinos will later cause much havoc besides pain and suffering to those families with close gambling-addicted members. So in a few years time when we do witness gambling tragedies happening to some of these families, I wonder what moral authority would our MIW possess to say that they have to take the views of the conservative into consideration in any of their policy making decisions, gay or otherwise?
anonymous April 24, 2007 5:36 PM
"Clearly the easier problem to eliminate is homosexual behavior. Just as many heterosexuals control their desires to engage in premarital or extramarital sex, so some with homosexual desires discipline themselves to abstain from homosexual contact."
Oh beautiful ... you're certainly the pantheon of logic here. So you're saying that homosexuals should take the oath of celibacy while heterosexuals can still have sex, just not premarital or extramarital... Bravo...
LOL. My reaction would be much less traumatised than if my son were arrested for having gay, and imprisoned for life.
It seems like screwing one's backside makes one more creavitve. Where is the rationale? Any research that authenticate this? What a load of bullshit! And is Singapore that despearate for talent that it will allow fagards to screw freely? Why don't they also legalize chewing gum....as some research also show that gum chewing will make one more creative as well?
Some contradiction seem to arise here. Homosexual act do not lead to procreation. That means, if all singaporeans become homosexuals, then our birth rate will be 0%. Then, that will be a disaster unless Singapore imports babies from other countries and let the homosexual couples adopt them. Then again, if you want the future singaporeans to have good genes so that they can be good future leaders, you cannot just allow homosexuals to blindly adopt children.
So, where do that leave us? Increase birthrate by encouraging normal sexual lifesytles, that is hetrosexual or go the homosexual way? Hetrosexual will push for sustainance and continuity of Singapore with increase birthrate. Homosexuality will lead to ZERO birth rate and subsequently leave Singapore with no potential talent to lead the country and to earn multi-million $$ minister salary.
LOL. You object to homosexuality on the grounds that they can't bear children?
In that case, maybe you would also like to lock up in jail all those many Singaporean couples who choose not to have children.
Anyway, sorry to say this, but your basic argument is just absurd. What are you saying - that in the 1970s, when Singapore faced a problem of overpopulation, you would have:
encouraged homosexuals to be homosexual; and
advised heterosexuals to undergo therapy and turn themselves into gays?
Please, lah. Use some common sense, can?
Exactly....please, common sense to you Mr.Wang.You are arguing out of scope. What I am saying is so clear; that is allowing homosexuality is going againts the promotion of procreation. On one hand we want to grow our birth rate, and the other hand, we are promoting something that do not bring in babies. So, that is the contradition. Any person with a proper IQ can tell that.It's jsut that this two positioning running counter to each other.
So, in the 1970s, the way to control birth rate on going up was family planning. It is absurd (it really is ) to say that all people has to be converted to be homosexual to do that. Why don't you even suggest that all males be castrated then? Stupid, right?
Any way, your counter argument is absurd. If you do not like my argument; just say so. Don't have to say that it is absurd just because you are not using your intelligence to argue (or the lack of it).
Anyway, I still respect what you say since it is a free world. However, i have lost all respect to you for being such a petty person when it comes to arguing over an opinion.
Mr Wang, why is it considered primitive when you say Singapore is still gappling with the basic issues? are you saying that if the basic issues are addressed, Singapore is no longer 'primitive' with regards to homosexuality issues?
i ask this because i feel that such issues are often subjective, and thought that even if the basic issues are supposedly addressed, it does not mean that a country is no longer primitive, or is then more modern.
To last Anonymous: the factors on procreation in the modern days is not highly influenced by whether we encourage heterosexual or homosexual activites. Money and freedom to choose not to procreate are some of the reasons that have greater influences.
Moreover, the goverment do not need to encourage homosexuality but they should jusy need to abolish any laws that say homosexuality is a crime because in reality factors that lead to homosexuality are complicated.
Both biological and social factors are often involved in shaping ones sexual identity. To punish someone just because they are born with certain extra hormones or are a victim of sexual or physical abuse does not reflect the wisdom of a country that can claim to be of the first world.
LOL. I say "primitive" because Section 377 is indeed primitive. It came into existence in the year 1872, which is about 125 years ago. In those days:
1. women were not allowed to vote;
2. the Wright brothers hadn't yet invented the world's first aeroplane;
3. Louis Pasteur had just discovered the existence of germs;
4. the law regarded wives as their husbands' chattels (physical property - like a horse or pig);
5. mentally ill people were believed to be possessed by evil spirits; and
6. gays could be imprisoned for life.
The whole world has moved on a lot, since those days. But not Singapore, at least not on Point 6.
I coudln't agree more with Frank. Many of you are missing the point, and seem to be trying to force your moral views on everyone else.
IMHO, it's not the same as gambling and the IR issue because people are not ostracised for gambling, and that is definitely a choice, though there are also arguments that genes can contribute to some extent. Also gambling is harmful to a person's loved ones and to society, but how can someone's sexual orientation cause harm? I mean apart from deviating from your private desire to have your child grow up to be a carbon copy of your self-perceived righteousness.
Anyway, to anonymous: you can't argue that there is a conflict between legalising homosexuality and raising the birthrate, because seriously, how many gay people out there would choose to procreate anyway, does legalising homosexuality make a difference? How does this compare to the number of heterosexuals who choose not to have kids for other reasons?
"allowing homosexuality is going againts the promotion of procreation."
I am telling you that that is no basis for criminalising homosexuality. If it were a basis, then heterosexual couples who choose not to have children should also be treated as criminals.
To anonymous April 25, 2007 12:03 PM
As Phua Chu Kang would say, "Use your blain, use your blain..."
Your logic damn cock-up
1) If homosexual couples adopt kids, how they pass their genes to the kids? They didn't give birth to them! This is Bio 101.
2) You think what? Tell hetero couples to give birth then they will give birth is it? Damn no face ok! If you're married, then maybe you should stop using a condom or you should tell your hubby to stop using a condom (sorry hor, donno if you guy or gal... I'm thinking guy but I could be wrong). And make sure every time you have sex, you score 100% and have baby ok or else you have to pay GST for having fun. Remember ok, cannot have sex for fun and no sneaky toying with yourself or daydreaming of sex. Every time you think of sex, you must think of babies. Got it? Must procreate.
3) Even if it's SG homosexual couple adopt so what? They're still Singaporeans and will be teaching the adopted kids whatever the hell you call Singaporean culture
4) No, people weren't castrated in the 70s, they were "incentivized" to get vasectomy or tubal ligation ... absurd right? But that was how it was.
In any case, read the bottomline that's going on here. It's all down to economics ...
There is a short term need for talent and let me tell you there is a global shortage of talent don't care you Singaporean or FT, gay or straight. If Singapore insists on having these archaic laws and marginalizing people it can ill afford to lose (i.e. gay Singaporeans) or to attract (i.e. gay and progressive thinking FT), then sure lose big time.
Hi anon (April 25, 2007 12:03 PM)
I find it queer that you would go to the extreme to promote procreation today, when you would scorn at the idea of going to the other extreme when controling birth rates in the 1970s. That is, if you think that, today, the government should argue against homosexuality in order to encourage people to have babies, then in the same line of reasoning you must accept the argument that the government should argue for homosexuality in order to curb birth rates. To me, both issues are symmetrical, unless, of course, there are external factors such as morality, in case of which we should be arguing about morality instead.
And if you don't mind, can we kindly refrain from ad hominem arguments? Thank you.
I have read most of the arguments. It seems that the "moral" word is an out of bounds word to use. Why is it so? It seems that if morality is not an issue, then homosexual lifestyles whould be endorsed a long time ago. So, the religious people tend to be blamed for this global "setback" or being "primitive".
Is being moral such a wrong thing or is it because the society that supports homosexuality knows that this is the ONLY barrier that stands in their way?
Another thing, when is homosexuality a choice? It is a psycological disorder! Some argued that if it does no wrong to the society to have homosexuals around, why not allow it? Hey...I don't want to be raped by a guy, OK! Getting beaten up is still fine but having his ##+* stuck into my %*## can be the most demeaning thing. Not only will parents be worried that their daughters get raped; they have to worried about their sons too!
Ken,
What a ridiculous argument. According to your logic, girls don't want to get raped too, so we should criminalise heterosexual sex. Your fallacy lies in the assumption that homosexuals = rapists. That's about as valid an assumption as heterosexuals = rapists.
And furthermore, even if all homosexuals were rapists, this is still completely irrelevant to a law which prevents homosexuals from having CONSENSUAL sex. There already are laws against rape.
As for your invocation of morals, please note that morals vary from person to person. Some people think that it is absolutely immoral to eat meat. Should the government ban meat-eating then, since it offends the moral senses of these people? Again, we go back to the same point - no one has a right to impose his private morality onto others. Acts should be criminalised only if they cause demonstrable harm to third parties, and in the case of private, consensual gay sex, clearly no harm is inflicted on any third party, except perhaps the overwhelming psychological trauma some ultraconservatives may suffer when they imagine someone out there having gay sex in his own bedroom.
Seriously, the arguments for continued criminalisation of gay sex are so infantile and illogical, it is a waste of time refuting them. It makes me wonder whether the PAP is similarly filled with such idiots using the same logic.
ken,
To pick up on the "moral" word you mentioned, there is no point reasoning with people who condemn the government for having no morals or conscience or whatever, and then later refuse to talk about morals when it comes to championing their own interests. Clearly, they see no harm in encouraging homosexuality because they do not think about the hurt and disgrace forced upon their family. Only their own lives and feelings count. Their families have to control their own feelings for their sake.
Let them be lah. They will only stuff more words into your mouth if you disagree with them.
Mr Wang has also evaded the question posed to him by saying he will be more traumatised if his kid is locked behind bars for homosexuality but falls short of admitting it is absolutely fine for him to have a gay kid.
ken:
Of course moral is not a bad thing! In fact, I think everyone should have their own set of moral code they adhere to. The only problem comes when different people's morals conflict. In my own set of morals, I believe homosexuality is perfectly fine, but to others, it is not. But my belief is that I should not enforce my morals upon others. If someone thinks homosexuality is wrong, I can reason with him, I can debate with him, but I cannot force him to swallow my own belief, or use a law to force him to my side. And I think this is the crux of the issue: that some people are shoving their own morals down everyone's throats.
Also, the scientific community's general consensus is that homosexuality is not a choice. Neither is it a psychological disorder. While the exact origin has yet to be found (because it's pretty much a complex phenomenon), it is believed to be a combination of biological and genetic factors. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association, a worldwide leading institude with regards to psychological matters, has removed homosexuality as a psychological disorder. There are people like whybegay who still believe it to be a psychological disorder, but my stand is that it is their liberty to do so. Likewise, I believe these people should grant back the same liberty to homosexuals. On a side note, my guiding principle on liberty is Mill's harm principle.
And you assume that by legalising homosexuality, you would be raped by gays? Firstly, may I point out to you that, whether homosexuality is legal or not, rape is certainly not legal, so by raping you, the culprit is still committing an offense? Secondly, you seem to imply that raping is done by men - which I do not object to in general - but if you wish to outlaw homosexuality just because of that, then wouldn't it be more effective to outlaw males, since if we do that we can comletely remove rape cases?
Another thing, when is homosexuality a choice? It is a psycological disorder!
ken, apparently you have very little knowledge of psychology, because homosexuality (as well as bisexuality) have been disregarded from the the list of mental disorders in 1973. I have to also stress that this removal was an unanimous vote. So that psychological disorder part just killed whatever arguments you made, simply on the basis of ignorance.
to parent: wouldn't your child be even more upset when they find out that their family really hates them in the core but HAD to pretend to accept it for the SHOW of family solidarity? What he/she needs is the understanding that he/she cannot help it but be attracted to members of the same sex. If the family do not understand, then what is the point of SHOWING others that they do? Why cheat yourself? Is face so important than your own child's feelings?
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 4:54 PM)
To pick up on the "moral" word you mentioned, there is no point reasoning with people who condemn the government for having no morals or conscience or whatever, and then later refuse to talk about morals when it comes to championing their own interests.
I do not condemn the government for having no morals. I just think that the government has a very different set of morals as compared to mine. And since I've demonstrated myself as an exception to your sweeping statement, I believe your statement is no longer valid. For that matter, I think there are quite a handful of people who do not believe that the government is amoral, but I shall let them declare it if so.
Clearly, they see no harm in encouraging homosexuality because they do not think about the hurt and disgrace forced upon their family. Only their own lives and feelings count. Their families have to control their own feelings for their sake.
Wrong again... I do understand the difficulty of the family in accepting homosexuality within their children, but if you realise, it's not a situation as simple as harm versus no harm. If homosexuality is disallowed, then the harm falls on the homosexuals. How to settle this is a tricky situation, and I will not pretend that decriminalising homosexuality is going to solve all that. Ideally, the solution is education on homosexuality. If a person can accept homosexuality, then he/she can accept his/her children if they're homosexual. If they can't, then they cannot yet say they accept homosexuality.
Again, just as in another request to another anonymous, I'd like to hope that if you wish to engage in rational discourse, please avoid using ad hominem arguments.
Dear Ken,
The cause of homosexuality is NOT limited to psychological damage. After reading through all the comments, I'm sure you've noticed that homosexuality is formed by permutation of factors such as the culture and genes, just like how your homophobic nature is formed.
There's definitely nothing wrong to have them around. The society puts people away if they have shown capabilities of creating havoc and harm (think cold blooded murderers or serial rapists). Yet, you are suggesting that gays should be put away because they will potentially rape other straight men? Shall we then erradicate all men on earth because I fear for our daughters' safety? What offensive rubbish.
G
LOL. Ken says that homosexuality is immoral and then he says that it is a psychological disorder.
Sorry, but I find this quite funny. If homosexuality is a psychological disorder, how can it be immoral?
If a person suffers from depression or schizophrenia, would we say that he is immoral? Sorry, but I don't think it's immoral to be ill.
Finally, even assuming that homosexuality is immoral (a highly debatable propositon), you have to understand that it DOESN'T follow that homosexuality should be criminalised (much less made punishable with LIFE imprisonment).
Many different things, in the opinions of many different people, are immoral (and I would agree with some of them). For example:
- abortion
- adultery
- lying
- being unfilial
- eating dog meat
- euthanasia
- pornography
- premarital sex
- hypocrisy
- working on Sundays
- multi-level marketing
- gambling
- using your overwhelming dominance in Parliament to give yourself a 82% salary increase
- having a mistress
- hunting animals
- drinking alcohol
- making your maid work without off days
- consuming sharksfin soup
- divorce
- breaking your scholarship bond
- heterosexual sodomy
It doesn't necessarily follow that all (or any) of the above should therefore be criminalised, much less made punishable with LIFE imprisonment.
As i recall, someone once said: Religion is poison.
If i had to regale people to the 'horrific' thought that the Pope is actually a WARLORD, i'd probably be lynched and cruxified without delay.
Homosexuality, while shunned by the masses, is itself victimised in many ways by our home team. For LKY to trivalise it so lightly demonstrates his utter ignorance; pretending to know and all-knowing are two very different things.
Research by many psychologists do reveal that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. They are the authority in this area not the people who made their comments here. So, that is my reference. Well, I should clarify that it is not a crime to have a homosexual disposition given that it is a psychological disorder BUT it is a crime to be involve in the act of homosexuality. It is like a sex maniac who is obsesed with sexual fantasy. He has not commited a crime until he rapes or hurt someone. So, homosexuals commit a crime when they perform a homosexual act. Even straight people with a certain degree of psychological disorder will be charged in court when he rapes someone.
Someone said that if we are afraid of our daughters being raped, why not eradicate men? Pls, go deeper to see my argument and not pick on things on the surface. What I meant was that the risk has now increased to men! Shall I need to wirte a 10 volume essay to explain that? Get educated, man! Why expand the risk and danger when the world has already have enough of it?
i think part of the stigma against homosexuality is the AIDS argument (it's true--it's easier to contract AIDS through anal intercourse with a man OR woman)... if you take that out all you have is a morality debate which, well--apparently is going nowhere.
actually i find it strange that homosexuality is so discriminated in sg because it is such a secular state (unless if offends some Asian Value i've not been aware of).
ken, depression is a psychological disorder... the guy in the papers who tattooed his wife's breasts? mild depression (or so he claims). EVEN if there's the slightest plausibility that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.. depression is more often the cause of violent crime against oneself or others. so would you propose we criminalise depressives? force them to "get better, or else?"
i like the point you made about education. as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing... in little minds. and where in the world did you read that from, anyway?
ken:
Pls, go deeper to see my argument and not pick on things on the surface.
If you're referring to me, then I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. Perhaps I should rephrase myself better, so here goes. If someone decides to rape you, which is a crime in any case, why should he worry that homosexuality is a crime as well? If he is going to do something that everyone agrees is wrong, I doubt he will bother about doing something some people thinks is wrong.
Forgive me if I misread your words, but I think you may have sidestepped the issue. As Frank has said, your fallacy lies in the assumption that homosexuals are rapists.
Research by many psychologists do reveal that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. They are the authority in this area not the people who made their comments here.
Now obviously we have a contradiction here with the American Psychiatric Association. To be frank, I think you need to back up your statement on "many psychologists", because I doubt this is and I have never came across such cases. And I believe the APA may be a better authority than individual or a collection of psychiatrists, being a reputable organisation and all.
There is a shade of someone here. Something is quite familiar. Someone still cannot accept LKY's words.
To those that insist that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, I respectfully ask you to ask yourself what you understand a psychological disorder to be.
I do not need you to validate my humanity with your psychological orderliness. The same way we expect organized religions to behave themselves.
As a gay man, I am the authority on my sexuality. Psychologists have no authority. The same way physicians have no authority over your life.
Sexual orientation ultimately is simply a human construct, which has arguably been used to aid in the social normalization of society. The fact that it has now been understood and accepted to be not a "disorder" by scientists who study behavior is not only vindicative, but in addition a tacit acknowledgment of prior incorrect classification - making the case against continued discrimination even stronger.
Further, I do not go around preaching heterosexuality. Neither should you go around preaching heterosexuality the way you are doing so now. You may do so, but I will not agree with it.
Most of the western world which Singapore is aligned with does not agree with continued discrimination. Like it or not, Singapore is very much in line with the "western world" in terms of development and future-culture-orientation. Like it or not, I do too think you prefer to live in this western sphere or influence, rather than in a geo-sphere of influence where women cannot vote or where public stoning to death is still performed. Heck, even Mexico City and South Africa allow same-sex marriage.
Regardless, in this sphere of influence we live in, a key characteristic is intellectuality. Political systems such as democracy require individuals to buy-in to a social contract which emphasizes diversity, responsibility, understanding and tolerance.
As a fellow human being, you are not according me to the same respect I accord to you in this social contract. By supporting legal amendments that have no purpose except to continue discrimination against a specific character trait, you are not acknowledging my reciprocity in the basic social contract which we are all part of in organized society.
And an organized society based on the social contract is of utmost importance. There is only chaos and anarchy otherwise. You are not an anarchist, are you?
In other words, though you may continue to disagree with me as is your right, my right to be able to live without fear and in honesty must be equally protected under the social contract, in the same way you now enjoy life without fear and are able to live in a honest fashion.
This is of course separate from the immoral argument, which Mr Wang has so eloquently shown is without basis.
I notice parents posting comments about their fears over the sexuality of their children.
You should consider the difficulty your children go through growing up if they do turn out to be gay.
You should consider their feelings: of disbelief, of confusion, of fear of being found out.
You should consider too how society can be so cruel: telling your child they will go to hell, telling your child they are sissies, telling your child they are broken inside, telling your child to fear parental rejection, telling your child to keep it all inside and a secret.
I had no family support growing up gay. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. So here's my plea to all the parents out there.
aiyoh - a homophobe is a homophobe and one who is not is not. The twain shall never meet. That is why I find this whole post is like dating 200 years ago....
Yah lah. The arguments are so ridiculous. See this for example:
"Someone said that if we are afraid of our daughters being raped, why not eradicate men? Pls, go deeper to see my argument and not pick on things on the surface. What I meant was that the risk has now increased to men!"
Going by that logic, one might also say that the risk has now decreased for women, ROTFLOL. After all, gay men would not rape women.
The truth is there are many types of gay people now.
1. Those who are born gay.
2. Those who are conditioned by circumstances to become gay.
3. Those who chose to be gay as a life style.
I have no objections, infact I sympathise with those who fall into category (1).
For category (2) I will suggest they sought counselling.
I vehemently objected to category (3)
Mr. Wang,
I really love your example of immoral behaviour ie. using your overwhelming dominance in Parliament to give yourself a 82% salary increase.
IMHO, this is extremely immoral in spite of what MM has to say to defend the Gahmen especially when his family members are the ones benefiting from it. Does the Lee family really need so much monies?
Let me conclude all the comments made here with my following comment #65.
The penal code was made not as a practical law but more as a rule that discourages certain behaviour in society. This is the main function of the law in any society. It is not after a quota of caught criminals.
Why do the government feel that homosexuality should be discouraged?
It is because they think that homosexual sex is not logical enough to be celebrated as something normal.
Why do people think homosexual sex is not logical?
Because homosexual sex serves no logical and beneficial purpose.
Homosexuals would say that homosexual sex bridges a person with another.
But is sex a logical way to form close relationships with another person?
No. Sex is not a logical way to form close relationships with people. Otherwise everyone would be doing it with everyone and their pets. But no.
So, if sex is not logical to form close relationships, then why should it be promoted as something logical and normal in society?
This is the reason the penal code was done, to discourage something illogical from being misconstructed as something normal.
For homosexuals to think that homosexual sex is a normal way to form relationship bonds based on lust, is therefore a delusion and a serious psychological disorder.
The APA's view of homosexuality not being a psychological problem made during the hippie generation of the 1970s does not represent the whole world's view and is only waiting to be changed.
if people feel that everything American is correct in every of their views, then would they also think that the US president's view to invade iraq is also correct?
I hope people can consider carefully the logic of any association before using them to support their own views, otherwise it is similar as saying that their view should be correct just because it comes from a powerful country. This is hiding behind the US's military power and evading the issue.
For people to think that using sex to form close bonds, have been brainwashed into the idea that homosexuality is normal, just because they have friends who are homosexuals, and they think that western ideals are not necessary to be questioned. Therefore even people who think that homosexuality is normal, are also deluded and illogical in their thinking.
For people to spread the propaganda that homosexuality and casual non-procreative sex is natural, then their children would likely to grow up to become sexually degenerative people, for whichever sexual orientation, due to the brainwashing of their parents and their peers who support homosexuality. Then their children would misuse sex and become mentally illogical individuals.
There is no proven evidence of gay genes or people being born gay. Anyone who is brought up, influenced, or brainwashed to think that homosexual sex would serve a good purpose would likely to practise it and become homosexuals.
Only people who have been heavily brainwashed by propaganda, would think that the degenerative nature of homosexuality is normal. The logic of their reasoning is seriously questioned.
For people who would like to compare and point their finger at heterosexual non-procreative sex as abnormal, I would advise them to join the youth in Singapore who are already campaigning to discourage casual sex and promote abstinence. Perhaps the government would listen and include a code for heterosexuals and the society would be more moral and civilised.
I forgot to mention.
Maybe people should follow Singapore youth's campaign for abstinence among heterosexuals as an example to promote abstinence among homosexuals?
Also LKY's dialogue with the YPAP is on CNA on thursday 8:30 pm
Time and again WBG puts forth claims insubstantiated by evidence and betrays a lack of knowledge of several stuff. Section 377A was inherited during the old Victorian Era and not because the government felt that they had to stop gays going about doing their thing.
Even MM LEE KUAN YEW has said that the government cannot be moral police, yet still wbg IGNOREs the other sides argument and continue to spout his hate filled speech. He IGNOREd the rebuttals and did not address any points raised previously in Aaron, Kitana and Mr Wang's blog. Furtheremore there is no so called gay propaganda. And Scientific evidence at worst is inconclusive regarding this issue. Furthermore this so called labelling of western asian values is myopic and serves no purpose whatsoever.
This post is really about 2 speparate matters - LKY and homosexuality. Problem is this man, LKY, is well known for saying one thing but doing another. He is a cunning politician so ultimately we must not forget he has his own agenda behind raising these issues.
The old man is doing it again, he is creating diversions. He moved our focus to other things. He is stalling, some critical issues are happening behind scenes.
i never knew i was abnormal, immoral, decadent, psychologically unwell and a criminal. but i never knew there were more ignorant and naive people out there contesting incoherent notions and an almost certain stance that they are right but not the others.
how one can argue about looking deeper into the issue and not taking things superficially, but not apply to that of homosexuality. since when was homosexuality about sex? you're being superficial.
"For homosexuals to think that homosexual sex is a normal way to form relationship bonds based on lust, is therefore a delusion and a serious psychological disorder."
that logic of arguement can also be used to said as, for individuals to think that homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex is a normal way to form relationship bonds based on lust, is therefore a delusion and a serious psychological disorder; possess mental disillusions and therefore is a serious mental condition.
Now that we have covered homosexuality, let's talk about LKY.
In this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
It is clear which person represents LKY and which represents the opposition people in Singapore.
What Jon Stewart said in the video represents what I think of the opposition people in Singapore. Go listen.
WBG, I think you have missed what Jon Stewart is really trying to say. You really love misrepresent people.
Rob
Sorry, typo. Just trying to say WBG really loves to misrepresent what people are saying.
Rob
I stumbled upon LKY's video at the YPAP dialogue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u25ssjfmiRg
Can any one tell me whether the anus is design for use to let our shit through or is it for a penis to be inserted into? If it is also for the later, why is the anus bleed so much when males screws males? That's homosexual to you! The anus was never designed for a dick to be inserted into ...it's jsut for shitting. But some people here also talk rabbish through it too!
To Pandemonium,
I never made the assumption that gays are rapists. I used that as an example.
Again, you refer to APA. People will always choose the authority that cites research that support their beliefs and disregard those that do not. What is wrong with the findings of other researchers? Why is their credibility questioned? Just because the have evidence that do prove the homosexuality is a true pschological disorder? I came from the acedemic and research environment, I know what is authority and what is not.
Again, I stressed that I do not claim that homosexuality as a psychological disorder is a crime. If you are sick, you are sick! But, the action is a crime. Attraction to another person of the same sex is fine...that is what some people call "idol worship". But homosexual are attracted to members of the same sex with lust and the actiont to satisfy the lust is a crime. Some one said in this blog that the sexual organ of a man is not meant for the anus. It's out biological make up. If that is the case, then that proves the homosexual act is abnormal and therefore it is a disorder.
To Ken:
The reason why APA & its findings are so widely respected is because the association is made up of a very huge group of renowned psychologists from all over the world. Even smaller assoc from individual countries are directly affiliated to APA.
Why are other researchers' work not as impt you ask? The simple reason is this. In psych, nothing is ever PROVEN right. It is supported and supported by repeated experiments and repeats of the same experimental methods with different groups of people. If the same experiment can be re-enacted over and over again, with the same findings, this result is more likely to be true.
If you have research papers that show that studies have found that homosexuality is a crime, please support this. I would love to read it.
And the above I say as a psych graduate of NUS.
Next, you said that the man's sexual organ is not meant for the anus. Means we should throw all those who enjoy anal sex into prison, since that is a crime.. And that is a psychological disorder, according to your logic.
And the government is considering to have it as ACCEPTABLE in society..
Interesting, don't you think?
correction. sorry.
I meant if you have research papers that show homosexuality is a psychological disorder not a crime.
Typo..
I been reading this for a while. I wanted to post some comments of my own, but was worried my command of the english is not strong enough to put through my thoughts. However, having said that, I just wanted to get something off my chest.
Some say that being gay is a lifestyle choice and not natural.
As a heterosexual, I cannot imagine how I will be able to choose to be gay. No matter how I pysche myself, I will never be able to fall in love with another man. Its just impossible. But thats me.
So similarly, for those male heterosexuals out there thinking that being gay is a lifestyle choice, try for one day and go stand on the streets and tell yourself "today I am going to choose to be gay, and I am going to admire men". Do report back if you think you really succeeded.
Rgds.
To anon 9.32am
No, the anus is probably not biologically designed for screwing. So what? Some heterosexuals do it too and enjoy it. Also, by your logic, as ears would bleed when pierced, they are NOT meant to be pierced.
People, please remove your pierced ear-rings, nose rings, navel rings etc.
I'm against criminalisation of homosexual acts.
I'm also against homosexuality because I feel it is scientifically unnatural.
In nature, it is about procreation and passing on of your genes. Homosexuals do not do that. Also, our bodies are designed for heterosexual sex only.
Homosexuality might have been present in ancient and present societies, and also in the animal kingdom. But IMO, that does not make it natural. It just means there are aberrations everywhere.
a) If homosexuality were a psychological disorder like depression, then it means that it can be treated, and should be treated.
b) If it were a result of genes, then natural selection would select these homosexual genes out of the gene pool over time.
c) If it were a "lifestyle choice", then I hope my children (when I eventually start a family) would not make this choice.
My own feeling? It's probably (c).
I have friends who turned homosexual after failed relationships with members of the opposite sex. Are they acknowledging their true inner selves or simply escaping from further hurt? You draw your own conclusions.
To answer the question posed to Mr Wang, I would be disappointed if my children announce that they are homosexual. I probably would not be able to accept them and their partners.
You might assume that I'm a conservative. In this aspect, yes. I'm a liberal in many ways, but I draw a line at embracing homosexuality.
Don't discriminate against the people, but don't encourage the behaviour either.
You draw very interesting postulations. Actually, I would say these are possible outcomes from your point (c)
- Your friend might be bisexual in which case it was really a matter of choice
- Your friend is actually gay but did not realise it initially thinking that having sex with members of the opposite sex would cure his urges ... or perhaps he thinks since every one else is doing it, he should try it too ... enlightenment came later when he discovered that he just couldn't do it with the ladies because he just wasn't attracted to them ...
It can be very confusing for someone who does not have much help or guidance and wants to conform for the sake of conforming.
Actually, I would even tie this postulation with point (b) since for the sake of argument, some gays get driven into hiding by marrying members of the opposite sex and bearing kids. In which case, the gene pool for gays is actually preserved in the populace. And yes, there is a sizeable population of gay men who are married because they didn't know better back in their era or they just want to conform.
For guys who go NS, be careful. With gays around, your backside can be screwed in the night by a homosexual while sleeping! Worse thing is, you may not be able to prosecute him because it is no more a crime to screw backside! Wah, life will totally change.
To anon 11:14M,
Your argument is lame. It's like why cannot I use my hand to score a goal in soccer since I can do that in basketball? Get it? If you don't get it; this tells anotherthing. Homosexuals have thier thinking impared as well!
"But, the action is a crime."
Haiyah, these people, talking round and round in circles.
Who DOESN'T know that it is a crime. The whole topic that we're discussing now is WHETHER it should be a crime.
Tired lah, arguing with these people.
Ya, you either blur like sotong or chow sabo-king. Cannot read all the earlier postings about consensual versus rape isit? Wake up your idea recruit!
Oops, directed at anon that posted on April 26, 2007 1:47 PM not Mr. Wang.
I think this thread getting a little stale. Time to start a new post Mr. Wang.
"If that is the case, then that proves the homosexual act is abnormal and therefore it is a disorder."
Even if this is true, so what. Myopia is also a disorder. Sweaty palms is also a disorder. What do you suggest - all myopic or sweaty-palmed people should be thrown in jail? Please, lah.
"Abnormal". So what. Let me tell you that Mr Wang has an abnormally high IQ, certified by Mensa. So Mr Wang is abnormal. So now you will say that Mr Wang has a disorder and should be imprisoned for life? Please, lah.
"that does not make it natural."
Ok lor, ignore the fact that homosexuality has been documented in penguins, chimpanzees, lizards, pigeons, hamsters, whales, gorillas and dunno how many other animal species. For sake of argument, let's say that homosexuality is "unnatural".
So what. Let me name you some other things that are unnatural:
plastic bags
spectacles
Panadol
Coca Cola
dental surgery
kidney dialysis
Internet
artificial fertiliser
silicon breast implants
synchronised swimming
inverted yoga pose
artificial insemination
Don't believe me? Then go and find me a penguin or a chimpanzee or a lizard that uses plastic bags; wears spectacles; eats Panadol; drinks Coca Cola; visits a dentist etc etc etc.
Unnatural --> should be criminalised? Please lah, that's absurd. Condoms are unnatural too.
Ken:
I never made the assumption that gays are rapists. I used that as an example.
I'm sorry then, that I've misunderstood you.
People will always choose the authority that cites research that support their beliefs and disregard those that do not.
That is because authority is more often right than not. You say you are from the academic and research environment, and therefore I think you'll understand this, that if there are some fields we are not experts in (or for that matter, know very little about), then we will have to turn to authority (though we have to keep in mind that authority is not infallible). I think Reene summarised it quite well that ideas are established after repeated testing. It can be wrong, but it is more likely true than not.
And since I'm not a psychiatrist (I'm a physicist, by the way), I have little choice but to have faith in the leading authority, which in this case is the APA. Nonetheless, I am all open to other ideas, so if you do have journal articles that argue the alternative, do please reference it here so that Reene and I and all others who are interested can take a look.
boon:
Unforunately, your statement
I feel it is scientifically unnatural
is quite debatable. Furthermore, I am quite confused by your proposition that just because homosexuality happens in animals doesn't make it natural. In that case, may I ask what is your definition of natural? Perhaps I'm quibbling about definitions here, but I feel that aberrations is part of Nature.
Furthermore, your argument on natural selection is quite troubling - does that mean that people with some physical or mental defects (even if minor) ought not to procreate? For that matter, if eugenics turns out to be true, should reproduction be limited to only those with a university degree?
In any case, I'm perfectly fine with your stand. In fact, most people are fighting for homosexual rights and not promoting homosexual lifestyle. Personally, I do not encourage homosexuality in everyone; I just encourage people to be who they are, homosexual or heterosexual.
mr wang: your arguments are getting more and more absurd. I think this topic must be very close to your heart, which might explain why you're reacting so emotionally.
The very first line of my post says that I'm against criminalisation of homosexual acts.
When did I say anything about throwing people into jail?
Do read and interpret the rest of my post in that context.
Mr Wang, your arguments are spot on and inciteful. I totally agree with you. Of course, because I'm an American, my comments are invalidated because of George W. Bush being the US president (according to whybegay). In fact, everything any American writes, even Nobel-prize winning scientists, can be invalidated because of George W. Bush. I just don't know why scientific journals keep accepting papers from US psychologists. I mean, US psychologists have Bush as their president and the US started a war, so the US scientists obviously don't have any knowledge to share with the world. Singapore will be far better off if they stop listening to US scientists and reading US scientific journals. Not just psychology journals. All the medical, engineering, physics journals too. Because of Bush. whybegay can start publishing a Singapore psychology journal to combat the American propaganda, and then bring Singaporean science up to Nobel quality.
Hi pandemonium: You've misunderstood my posting.
What I'm saying is, if homosexuality is a result of "homosexual genes", then those genes would be gradually selected out of the gene pool.
Why? Because homosexuals, by definition, don't engage in sex with the opposite sex, therefore they don't procreate.
I'm not saying they should or shouldn't. Nor am I supporting eugenics in any form. I feel people have a right to procreate, as long as they feel they can handle the responsibility.
To the guy who mention about NS, the solution will be to have normal guys and abnormal gays to sleep in different quarters. Buddies must be match straight to straight and gay to gay. And the bathrooms must be seperated, otherwise, a gay who cannot control his sexual urge may rape or grab the *&## of a fellow recruit! Wah! Scary man! So, the MINDEF must now invest in extra bathrooms, toilets and sleeping quarters to protect the straight recruits from the horny gay recruits!!
Mr.Wang say got high IQ because certified by Mensa. I got friend who got top score for Mensa but also enter woodbridge! Very clever, hor?
"mr wang: your arguments are getting more and more absurd."
It's called reductio ad adsurdum. This is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result. It makes use of the law of non-contradiction - a statement cannot be both true and false. In some cases it may also make use of the law of excluded middle - a statement must be either true or false.
For example, someone claimed that since homosexuality cannot lead to procreation, and therefore should be criminalised. For the sake of argument, I assume such claim to be true. I then derive an absurd or ridiculous outcome (that all heterosexual couples who choose not to have children should therefore be regarded as criminals as well) following from such claim, and then I conclude that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
In the next example, someone claimed that homosexuality is immoral, and therefore should be punishable with life imprisonment. For the sake of argument, I assume such claim to be true. I then derive an absurd or ridiculous outcome (that all the following immoral things:
- abortion
- adultery
- lying
- being unfilial
- eating dog meat
- euthanasia
- pornography
- premarital sex
- hypocrisy
- working on Sundays
- multi-level marketing
- gambling
- using your overwhelming dominance in Parliament to give yourself a 82% salary increase
- having a mistress
- hunting animals
- drinking alcohol
- making your maid work without off days
- consuming sharksfin soup
- divorce
- breaking your scholarship bond
- heterosexual sodomy
should therefore be punishable as well). Then I conclude that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
In the 3rd example, the claim is that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore should be criminalised. Once again, I assume that this claim is true, and I then derive an absurd or ridiculous outcome (that all the following unnatural things:
plastic bags
spectacles
Panadol
Coca Cola
dental surgery
kidney dialysis
Internet
artificial fertiliser
silicon breast implants
synchronised swimming
inverted yoga pose
artificial insemination
should also be criminalised). Then I conclude that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
Thus I expose the absurdity of the homophobic arguments.
wah lau aye ... just because you got one friend high iq enter woodbridge so what? you got do survey find out most people in woodbridge high or low iq or not? Anyhow hantam one example anyone also can do. More importantly, what point are you making?
What I'm saying is, if homosexuality is a result of "homosexual genes", then those genes would be gradually selected out of the gene pool.
This is an incorrect and overly-simplistic understanding of genes.
If you are interested to know, you can find out more about Mendel's famous recessive gene experiments with pea plants. Or you can google and find out about how brown-eyed parents can nevertheless produce blue-eyed children.
boon & mr wang
There is probably some truth in both your statements on natural selection and the recessive gene.
My theory is the thing that's keeping homosexuals in the gene pool is because there will always be some closet case or deeply clueless individual who, because of societal norms, continue to pass on these genes through their offsprings.
I think this has been especially prevalent say a generation ago where homosexuals had no reference point and no internet for them to research about their own sexuality. Most would go with the herd. Even in modern day society like Singapore where being openly gay can amount to career suicide for some, it's probably easier to marry and have kids than deal with the marginalisation. Or perhaps think of the sole son or daughter i.e. having to carry on the family line. Not very difficult to imagine right?
mr wang, I don't understand why you keep thinking that I said homosexual acts should be criminalised.
I repeat: "I'm against criminalisation of homosexual acts."
I think most readers here already agree that criminalisation of homosexual behaviour is wrong, and should be repealed.
So please stop harping on the criminalisation already.
I've got a very good understanding of evolutionary psychology. If homosexuals stop procreating, no genes will get passed on. Doesn't matter whether they're dominant or recessive. Or are you disputing this as well?
Anon April 26, 2007 3:49 PM: What you said about cultural pressures is entirely possible, of course.
So if Mr wang has taken your position that some homosexuals procreate in order to fit into society, thereby ensuring the transmission of "homosexual genes", I would agree with him.
I really don’t know what is the big deal about being or not being gay.
I might be repeating what has been discussed before but I don’t see this to be such a complicated issue.
You do what you want, I do what I want, we don’t harm each other, whats the big deal?
Are we saying that it is wrong just because some feel that it is immoral? Whose moral standards should we base it on?
And just for the purpose of rebutting to the person who wrote “The anus was never designed for a dick to be inserted into ...it's jsut for shitting.”, I suppose he was born with an instruction manual with explanations of various parts of his body.
If homosexuals stop procreating, no genes will get passed on. Doesn't matter whether they're dominant or recessive. Or are you disputing this as well?
No ... however if homosexuality depends on a recessive gene, then heterosexuals who procreate will simply pass it on.
Just like the birth of blue-eyed children does not depend (solely) on blue-eyed adults procreating. Brown-eyed adults can do the job quite well.
Also, who knows, homosexuality may be congenital, rather than genetic. That is, there is a random chance that x out of y human babies will be heterosexual, and (y - x) out of y human babies will be homosexual, and this depends neither on the father's genes nor the mother's genes.
Hey look if u don't like it. Why don't you go join the Workers Party and do something about it. Stop your whining. Its getting very tiresome and boring.
If u don't have the balls to join the opposition then just pack up your bags and leave for the US or the UK or France?
"Hey look if u don't like it. Why don't you go join the Workers Party and do something about it. Stop your whining. Its getting very tiresome and boring."
I must say that that line of reasoning is not only boring and tiresome, but nonsensical as well. There are many ways to skin the proverbial cat (no offence to Mr wang though). Besides, it seems that you are whining that mr wang is whining, if he is even doing that in the first place. Perhaps the repetition is too drill into the minds of the populace the issues that are prevalent in Singapore and to ensure that people do not forget. After all it is known that singaporeans IN GENERAL are SAId to have a short memory, more so when faced with $$ goodies.
Errr, Sylvia Lim from Workers' Party has already said that the party is neutral on the issue and will not seek to advance it for either side of the camp.
And if you don't like Mr Wang's blog, then stop reading. Fancy going to a person's blog and telling him to stop blogging at his own blog and go away to another country.
Ooooooh, I get it. A Papanon!
PAP, I suggest you rethink your strategy. It's not doing your image any good.
On the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle:
I never fail to be astounded by the retards who actually think that people willingly choose to become gay. Let us examine all the consequences of being a homosexual (or "leading a homosexual lifestyle", as anti-gays like to put it):
1) You get discriminated against by the people in most societies. Your reputation is sullied by the "gay" word. You may face difficulties in getting employed or getting promoted to high positions if your sexuality is known.
You have to constantly hide your sexuality and your gay relationship, like a fugitive, if you don't want to be discriminated against by the bigots in society.
2) In some repressive Islamic countries, you can get executed for homosexual behaviour; in others (like Singapore), you can get jailed.
3) It is far more difficult for you to find a life partner. Since gays are estimated to make up only 3%-5% of the population, that effectively reduces your prospects of finding someone you love (and who would love you back) by 25 times.
4) You have to summon the willpower to go against your natural heterosexual instincts (since according to this crowd, homosexuality is unnatural and people deliberately choose to become gay).
Seriously, it is absolutely silly to assert that gays choose to be homosexual. Perhaps a tiny minority of gays may do so due to reasons beyond me, but the vast majority of gays do not. Why would anyone voluntarily subject himself to a life of misery?
People who think homosexuality is chosen either 1) Do not have any friends who are gay (or at least none that have come out); or 2) Have never thought through the issues.
anon 4.43pm puts up a defense commonly used by pple who can't hold a discussion rationally.
just becos we disagree with what pap minitoots decree, there is no need for us to join oppo or migrate. this is our life, our country. why can't we voice our opinions / criticism???
apply your logic, it should be: if you don't like what you see here, simply get lost! stop your whining about this blog!
criminalising homosexuals is IMMORAL. period.
A few years ago, I was totally ignorant on this issue. If you asked me back then what I thought of gays, I would tell you that they are ‘bad, crazy, dirty”, basically ridicule them. By chance, I stumbled upon yawningbread’s blog. Like it or not, a large portion of his postings are about gay issues.
After reading through them, I start to see this whole issue in a very different light. I would never have read such ‘alternative’ views in the 147th mainstream media. My horizon has been broaden and the more I read, the more I find that the antigays views are so wrong, which means that I have been wrong all along and I gladly admit it.
It is sad that to read comments like “Hey look if u don't like it. Why don't you go join the Workers Party and do something about it. Stop your whining. Its getting very tiresome and boring.”.
These people discourages critical thinking and constructive discussions. If there were more of them, mankind would never have progressed.
On a personal level, if everybody were like them, I would definitely still have been the old myopic me.
Allowing gay activities may make GAYlang more vibrant.Can sell backside, you know! Why let only female prostitudes earn, gay can also earn extra money by selling backside. By the way, is selling backside consider prostitution? If not, then it is legal, eh?
As for career prospects, no more discrimination. That is good! But, the next time your gay boss ask you into his office with a tube of KY gel, be very afraid! You may not be able to sit down for a week. But if you have constipation, that will do you some good!
Many years ago in the US, there was a very interesting case of a Virginia court awarding custody of a child to her grandmother after the child's mother became a lesbian and commited into a long-term partnership with another woman. The grandmother had sued on the grounds that the mother was an unfit parent, and the child would be saved from being raised a homosexual. The problem is, as many noted after the ruling, isn't the grandmother herself not responsible for raising a lesbian daughter? Wouldn't awarding custody to the parent who gave rise to a homosexual be more dangerous?
All these arguments for criminalising or condemning homosexuals to ensure that the 'gay gene' dies out conveniently forgets that it was a HETEROSEXUAL act that resulted in homosexuals.
So we should criminalise heteros for giving birth to or raising homos!! What were they thinking! Off with their heads! Both the big and small ones!! That ought to solve the gay problem...
boon, u said
a) If homosexuality were a psychological disorder like depression, then it means that it can be treated, and should be treated.
- What is the treatment available at our hospitals or Woodbridge? A fren went to GP who referred him to phycologist to treat his gayness many years ago and was referred to woodbridge. The doctor at wb advised my fren not to think too much since many gays can still live a life. Don't offer the 'religion' matter because he is buddhist and now he has accepted himself and just living life. Don't even think of 'electric' treatment used before.
b) If it were a result of genes, then natural selection would select these homosexual genes out of the gene pool over time.
- Over time? Who gives the gene to the homosexual in the first place, the homosexual father or mother? How could it be? It is like saying ALL gays' parent must be a gay either the father or the mother and NO heterosexual couple can produce gay son or daughter! You don't think that it is possible that your children could be gay when you eventually start a family?
c) If it were a "lifestyle choice", then I hope my children (when I eventually start a family) would not make this choice.
- Education is the key. Let your 'children' know whats gay in their early age and how a miserable lifestyle it is with all the discriminations (see some comments above) and can be jailed for such choice. Make sure he is not 'stupid' to choose even with education if you could control him/her orientation.
My own feeling? It's probably (c).
I have friends who turned homosexual after failed relationships with members of the opposite sex. Are they acknowledging their true inner selves or simply escaping from further hurt? You draw your own conclusions.
- Ask them why are they so 'stupid' to 'choose' such lifestayle? Is it just simply for sexual pleasures or there are more than that. I bet your frens are not the stupid type.
Reene,
Homosexuality was dropped from the list of psychological disorder due to a change in definition. That does not change the psychological state of homosexuals. But gay activists have obviously taken advantage of the change in definition to lobby for what they want. And ironically, only they are justified in using current research for lobbying purposes (read for yourself the comments in previous posts on homosexuality). Others who do so are accused of bigotry.
Pandemonium,
Was I referring to you? No need to get too emotional. So, if we follow the logic of those who claim that we should not force our morals on others, then we should also not force our morals on the government.
It seems only gays have feelings and problems and the whole world revolves around them. They are the only victims.
Double standards is a subtle form of discrimination.
Anonymous (April 25, 2007 4:54 PM):
In this case you see, the situation is already skewed. The law discriminates against homosexuals, and it is their right to fight for it. In any case, I doubt I can say that the government (I should say the state) has morals... in the sense that it is supposed to represent the people, so its "morals" is a collection of its members'. I doubt I explained it very well, but my meaning is that the law discriminating to homosexuals' liberty. And how do I define "liberty"? I think John Stuart Mill's idea of liberty makes the most sense. And in that sense of the word, it is wrong for the State to interfere, it is wrong for others to force the homosexuals from their rights.
Doesn't sound clear. Early morning, I suppose.
Mr.Wang said that people are not born with an instruction manual. It's nature, lah! When we were born, we learn to use our hands to hold things, legs to walk, eyes to see, etc. It's natural. So,we learn to use our anus to shit too. So, of course it becomes unnatural when one uses his anus for sexual pleasure. Shit comes out, penis go in! I/O port, eh? WEre you born to use your ass to talk, your mouth to shit?
I didn't say anything about any instruction manual. But I do agree with you. It's nature, lah. That's why homosexuality is also observed among all sorts of animal species that obviously don't use any instruction manual -
eg whales, chimpanzees, lizards, pigeons, sea gulls, gorillas, penguins.
WEre you born to use your ass to talk, your mouth to shit?
There are those who have shit coming out of their mouth:P
1)Homosexual sex between males is criminalised. That is a fact. Arguing that it should not be criminalised at a prosecution before a court of law, is academic. The law is the law until parliament (i.e. the representatives of will of the people) changes it.
2) One of the rationales for criminalising homosexuality is that the government has the duty to enforce the will of the majority, to prevent a disjunct and disorder in society. This may extend to affairs in the private bedrooms of people if necessary. The test is the high standard of DISGUST. The prevailing view is that the majority of singapore (which some call the 'heartlands') is disgusted by the minority's behaviour of homosexual sex, whether or not it occurs in private. Just as they are disgusted by bestiality and necrophilia and incest (or a combination of the above) in private. Just as they are disgusted by public nudity and sexual acts. Until there is evidence of a change in the prevailing view of the majority, it remains a valid rationale because such acts are not allowed because they are pegged at the high level of DISGUST. If the majority were to be forced to tolerate its DISGUST of the minority's acts, and the government were not to act to enforce majority will, there would be a threat to societal cohesion between the majority and the minority, and the majority may take the law into its own hands.
thotpenny:
What you have just described, that the government follows the will of the majority (or in the case of Singapore, ought to), is what John Stuart Mill terms as the tyranny of the majority. By your analogy, if the majority decides one day to, say, pass a law that all Muslims need to pay more taxes, does that mean that the government ought to pass the law? Don't forget that the government also has the responsibility to protect minority rights.
Just because it is the majority's opinion doesn't make it right for the government to impose themselves onto the minority, so long as the minority does not harm the majority in their actions.
In any case, there is no conclusive survey recent enough to claim that majority of the Singaporeans are not supportive of homosexual rights. Or at least, I know of none, so if you do, please let me know.
Mr.Wang seems to position himself as the authority for homosexual. Support them so much! "How Lian" by saying he is member of Mensa. I also can say I am member of Mensa and got 10 PhDs. Say only, what!!Anyhow you say, you just want to say that screwing backside is OK and not a crime! So, what is so seductive and sexy about a guys anus that a gay wants to insert his penis into?? Imaging shit all over your penis when the other gay decide to have concurrent input and output!!
Thotpenny, you said that the test is the high standard of disgust. That, in my opinion, is possibly one of the worst yardsticks in which laws of society should be based upon.
Disgust is a knee-jerk reaction based on what a person feels societal norms should be like. There is hardly any logical thought or rational behind a person’s feelings of disgust as it is stemmed from ignorance, and/or fear.
In the 60’s, people in America were disgusted that public schools had to allow African-Americans to study side by side with whites. In the past, people were disgusted of the thought of inter-racial couplings. And yet, these same thoughts do not exist today, except in tiny pockets. Why? Because there were progressives who went against what people thought was ‘disgusting’ and fought against it.
The fact that one may be disgusted against the decrimalization of homosexuality does not make such archaic laws right.
-
Furthermore, according to the survey (link below), more people in the younger generations are finding homosexuality to be acceptable. So, really – what majority?
http://www.newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=510
wang.on, you win loh. You based on what authority say gay shit all over penis based on what? You do before is it? Say only what!
Heheh. That's a new one. To justify the criminalisation of homosexuality, first they say:
"unnatural"
(but they have no answer to the occurence of homosexuality among penguins, chimps, whales, lizards etc)
then they say:
"does not help the aging population"
(but then suddenly they realise that many heterosexual couples also do not wish to have children)
then they say:
"psychological disorder"
(but they agree that illness does not mean a person should be locked up)
then they say:
"immoral"
(but they suddenly realise that numerous immoral things are not criminalised anyway)
then they say:
"I scared of getting raped"
(but then they realise that women could say the same of heterosexual men and this is no excuse for criminalising heterosexuality)
then they say:
"abnormal"
(but they admit that a wide variety of conditions such as myopia, sweaty palms and high IQ are all abnormal, and does not justify any criminalisation)
then they say:
"it's a choice"
(as if heterosexual people did not also have a "choice" to stop having sex for the rest of their lives)
.... and now, finally, after grappling at all those many flimsy straws, they say:
......
"disgust"!
And now I shall point out to them that if a man and a woman have sex in broad daylight on Orchard Road, then they shall be punished with just a fine or at most a few days jail for being a public nuisance ...
BUT if two adult men have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, disturbing no one and causing no one any disgust, they nevertheless commit a crime punishable with life imprisonment.
Ahhh, and then what will they say next? What new words will they come up with, to explain their own bigotry?
"[insert new excuse here]"
Great summary, Mr Wang. :)
Ultimately the issue is 2 prong;
1) Is homosexuality immoral? (which i believe is NOT)
and
2) Is the Law constructed to be a reflection of society's moral code? (Which i believe is NOT too)
whether the Law allows homosexuality or not, in no way reflects the moral status of the act.
About 1)
Some(especially that by Whybegay) Anti-homosexuality arguement can be summed up simply as:
Homosexuality and sex between homesexuals is unnatural
Unnatural acts are immoral.
Immoral acts should be forbidded by the law.
therefore Sex between homesexuals should be forbided by the law.
But the notion of unnatural is not defined?
this might seem silly, but if you examine deep enough you will realise that unnatural jus means something that is man-made and cannot exist without man's intervention.
In that case, wearing clothes is unnatural. Sleeping on beds is unnatural.
But obviously these are not immoral acts.
Unless you can give me a new defination for unnatural. Your stance is invalid and definately not justified.
and By the way Just because the majority is doing it doesnt justify any action as being moral.
Of course, i fully respect that everyone is entitled to their views..
But just because the law says it is not allowed doesnt mean ur kids wun be homosexual if they are. So it is really irrelvant.
Bear in mind that the law is punishing people for falling in love. Is the gender of the person u fall in love really important? and so important that it is Punishible by law?
You don't see ppl getting jailed for extra-matrial affairs.. why should u jail ppl for having consensual sex?
auTo Mr Wang,
please don't use the example of animal homosexuality to justify homosexuality among humans any longer, because animals also do many things out of instincts such as fighting and killing not for food and eating their babies. So if you continue to compare animals with mroe evolved humans, then you are saying that humans are as primitive as animals and youare insulting the human race including yourself.
To lin~
For me, the definition of what constitutes as natural is based on logical factors.
Just think of the logic of homosexual sex and list them if you can.
Animals are wild and that wildness of their instincts constitutes the natural instincts of animals.
For highly evolved humans, the definition of natural would be gaugeg with the evolution state of humans based on their level of mental abilities such as logic and reasoning.
Therefore the majority of humans in a highly evolved society are logical and reasonable, they would gauge what is natural to them to what is logical and reasonable/civilised.
Again the question asks, what is logical and reasonable about homosexual sex? Is it to fulfill pleasure, thrill, or just something like drugs or alcohol to distract a person from his "worldly displeasures" and temporarily escape to a delusion?
The government and its people function based on the crucial factors of logic and reasoning to ensure their survival. Even policies are made based on these factors.
Therefore, if anyone cannot explain the logic and reasoning to naturalise homosexuality in Singapore, the penal code will not be changed. If people want change, they need to provide reasonable reasons for change and not just say that Singapore should allow homosexuality "just because other countries in the world are doing it", "so we must follow suit".
On a grammatical note, there is no such word as "forbidded" but "forbade" as the correct word usage.
My definition of love is not lust, but is based on the Bible's definition of loving oneself as one loves his neighbour. This means that to love someone is to put oneself in another person's position so as to perceive another person as one perceives himself. Love is not lust.
If people say that homosexuality should be legalised and is not a psychological disorder, then they are ignoring the illogic and ill-reasoning for the reason homosexuals perform homosexual sex, which is based on escapism and pleasure seeking.
Many heterosexuals are also misusing sex but I think most people would agree with me that homosexuals are more promiscuous are misusing sex to an extreme level. Therefore I think the penal code is there to prevent spreading of HIV because of this main reason.
If people want to advocate the normalising of homosexuality, please go and clean up the mess in their own house first, meaning the gay parties and gay spas, and the endless gay sex requests on the irc chatrooms such as #sgboy and #gam.
Until people can resolve the misuse of sex, homosexuality would always be linked with promiscuous sex and HIV.
If people just want to ignore all these problems in homosexuality and advocate homosexuality, they are only doing society a major disservice by being indifferent to these problems.
The main reason why many homosexuals are so emotionally fragile is because they contimually use sex as a form of escapism from their difficulties in life and lack the courage to face their resolution.
If people such as friends of homosexuals would to advocate homosexuality, they would also promote homosexuality as a form of legalised escapism, then more people would use homosexual sex to ignore their emotional insecurities. The more people would misuse sex and become more mentally unstable.
Before people wish to advocate anything, it is wise to know what they are actually advocating for, otherwise such ignorance would lead to the downfall of a society.
Whybegay is very smart.
Humans go to war and kill each other. Interestingly, we are the only species that kill ourselves in such large numbers. Wow. We are so much better than animals. Oh, and we destroy the earth as well. Yay! Go humans.
Whybegay is so smart. He believes that he is the authority on all logic and reason.
Whybegay is also a virgin.
Whybegay also believes that he understands how homosexuals feel.
Homosexuality is indeed an escape from emotional insecurities.
He doesn't explain why other countries do not criminalise it. He just says that we will be ignorant to follow suit.
Whybegay does not refute the allegations as to how criminalising homosexuality discriminates against homosexuals. Even if we take the stand that homosexuality is indeed a psychological disorder, he believes that we should not change the Penal Code. I suppose he accepts that homosexuals are must be more culpable than the mentally incapacitated or imbalanced. Funny how the Penal Code draws a distinction that he does not.
Nevertheless. Whybegay also believes that people who misuse sex become mentally unstable. I suppose this means that every one who uses a condom during sex (sex not to procreate), and has pre-marital sex, in addition to being homosexual, is probably mentally unstable. I suppose this probably means that Whybegay must thus be one of the last few bastions of moral stability left in the world.
*waves pom poms!*
Whybegay! You are my hero! You must go talk to our Minister Mentor, and enlighten him as to why homosexuality should stay criminalised till the end of time! And tell him that homosexuality is not genetic! He doesn't know that!
Yay! I love Whybegay! In that innocent biblical way of course.
"Humans go to war and kill each other. Interestingly, we are the only species that kill ourselves in such large numbers. Wow. We are so much better than animals. Oh, and we destroy the earth as well. Yay! Go humans."
You have mistakenly linked an example of power misuse of governments to the current level of human logic and reasoning.
Why don't I assist you with your logic and group the people who misuse their power such as murderers, sex offenders and homosexuals together as one group who disrespect and misuse people's bodies? And then group them together with the animals who also do such things?
So you are saying that homosexuals are like animals, that they are primitive, uncivilised, misbehaving, emotional, instinctual, unreasonable and kill each other by knowingly spreading sex diseases without concern for the lives of others?
You have unknowingly raised more good reason why the primitive animalistic factors of homosexuality should not be legalised in society.
Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Dr. C. George Boeree explains and summarises the uncertainty clearly here and concludes:
If we take both the genetic-hormonal explanation and the family-learning explanation into account, we may have the beginnings of an understanding of homosexuality (and heterosexuality): A boy or girl who leans towards homosexuality biologically, and who has a family situation that encourages that leaning, is more likely to grow up gay or lesbian or bisexual. One who has neither the biological tendency nor the family situation is more likely to grow up straight.
There is one thing I can say about homosexuality with great confidence: Being homosexual in no way makes you less of a human being, less worthy of respect, less deserving of dignity. Homosexuals have contributed enormously to humanity, from the great artists Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo to present day entertainers like Lily Tomlin, Elton John, Freddy Mercury, and Ellen Degeneres, and a million more in between! Those who looked down on gays and lesbians are only revealing their own ignorance.
It would seem some smug self-appointed guardians of the moral high ground here disagree violently with the above sentiments, which calls to mind this parody:
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?
JERRY FALWELL:
Because the chicken was gay! Isn't it obvious? Can't you people see the plain truth in front of your face? The chicken was going to the "other side." That's what they call it - the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And, if you eat that chicken, you will become gay too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like "the other side."
Isn't it but the slipperiest of slopes from "disgust" with a person's private sexual inclination, to distaste for his religious beliefs, to hatred for the colour of his skin? All the horrors of repression that history has amply demonstrated over and over again then follow. Whatever happened to the doctrine of live and let live?
And why the prurient interest in the anus, might I ask? I understand oral sex is still a criminal activity in S'pore, is it not, Mr W? Hands up all you disgustingly guilty heteros who have either fantasised or indulged in this nauseating homo behaviour! Using the logic of some posters, your laughing gear should be strictly used for gobbling char kway teow and NOT SLURPING ANYTHING ELSE, thank you very much.
Why is our ancient Janus-faced god frantically back-pedalling on dearly-cherished dogma yet again? A moment of sudden liberalism or revelation? Hardly. It's either discard the hypocritical Victorian prudery that he's been perfectly content to enforce till now or become an also-ran in the world's great-city stakes in the 21st century. That is, it's the economy, stupid.
Oh yes, I forgot, silly me. He sees it as his duty to the 50% who cannot emigrate.
WBG:
You are mistaken.
I leave it to you to say whether homosexuality is natural or not natural.
If you say it is natural, then I ask you to explain why it is found among penguins, lizards, whales, chimpanzees, sea gulls etc.
If you say it is unnatural, then I ask you why it should be criminalised anyway, since all these things:
plastic bags
spectacles
Panadol
Coca Cola
dental surgery
kidney dialysis
Internet
artificial fertiliser
silicon breast implants
synchronised swimming
inverted yoga pose
artificial insemination
are unnatural but not criminalised.
Basically, anything that is man-made is unnatural. So "unnaturalness" in itself is not a good reason for making anything a crime.
Mr Wang,
I think you are mistaken about the different meanings of nature and natural and their correct usage in different situations.
Wild animals are found in the wild therefore it is in their nature for them to be primal and uncivilised in their daily actions according to their environment.
However, humans live in a civilised environment therefore it is not natural for them to behave like wild animals.
The nature of something refers to its characteristics and properties. The nature of wild animals and humans is to behave as their environment sees fit.
What is natural is to react appropriately to one's environment. It is natural for humans living in civilisation to be civilised.
Therefore homosexuality which is based on uncivilised acts of misuse, is not natural in a civilised society.
it is only natural for humans to use man-made objects to assist them in their daily routine. However, things that are not necessary are therefore not naturally needed and not logical to be put into use.
There are many meanings for the words nature and natural.
For animals, what is nature to them is a wild and dangerous environment. It is in animals' nature to be wild and primitive.
For humans, what is nature to us is a civilised(reasonable) environment. It is in human nature to be civlised and reasonable.
Plastic bags are not natural but it is only natural and logical to use them to throw rubbish.
You have to use the many meanings of the words nature and natural in their correct context.
Mr Wang,
You dodge the point that buggery is already criminalised. That is fact. It should be parliament who changes the law, if society has now changed.
"BUT if two adult men have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom, disturbing no one and causing no one any disgust, they nevertheless commit a crime punishable with life imprisonment."
This is dishonest sleight of hand (as Mr Wang is fond of accusing others of doing). Is Mr Wang the authority in saying behalf of everyone that buggery disturbs NO ONE and causes NO ONE any disgust. Or merely stating his own view? In which case please add "I THINK / I OPINE". What are your views on bestiliality/necrophilia/incest/polygamy in private?
At any rate, is your position that you do not agree with homosexual sex being criminalised at all, or is it the extent of punishment that you have an issue with? You appear to concede that it is the latter, when you compare it to a couple having sex in orchard. Then it is merely a "problem" of pegging the punishment too high. The level of punishment is a matter of pulbic policy, which is the position that parliament took (at that point in time when setting the law) to reflect its perception of the public oppobrium against buggery. Just like against drugs. Just like against polygamy / corruption whatever.
Pandemonium,
Tyranny of the majority is not an excuse. It is fact, and how society as a whole maintains cohesion. This is not a new tax on a group of people because we hate them. It is a control to prevent minorities from deviating from the majority in ways that cause disgust in the majority.
If you want to change current law, you are the one with the burden of showin evidence that there is now no longer disgust amongst the majority.
Lisiepeasie,
Disgust may be a carpet-bombing knee-jerk tool rather than a precision bomb. But when a government is trying to protect the beliefs of the majority, that is something steeped in emotion rather than logic. It is the difficult job of parliament to say - oh you people are now no longer disgusted, i repeal these laws. Sometimes they will, as in the situation with oral sex. How about anal sex? Incest / Polygamy? These are emotional issues of public policy that parliament has to tread very carefully.
Yes, retrospectively, anti-black laws in the US are odious, just as apartheid laws are seen to be today. If you see it as the other side of the coin of the disgust argument, a sufficient majority of society felt disgust against those laws and changed them. The people will speak, undoubtedly, if disgust is concerned.
Perhaps soon there will be disgust that we as a majority trample on the rights of the minority. Or soon parliament will perceive from whatever evidence that the majority is no longer disgusted (as in oral sex). That would be the time for Parliament to repeal buggery laws.
The fact of the matter is, the so-called civilised environment is not considered to be natural! Thats why u have all them nature parks and reserves. The definition of nature precludes anything man made. Since human environment is man made it cannot be said to be natural.
Knowing LKY and PAP, this talk about decriminalising gays can only mean either one or both scenarios:
1) The pink dollar is in vogue again. Barely two years since Nation.05 party got banned in dramatic fashion another U-turn got made again. Perhaps LKY wants more mobile, high achieving gays to settle on the island and help make up the magical number of 6.5 million population. Perhaps he foresaw pink dollars complementing gambling dollars nicely.
2) One of LKY's spawn is gay himself and the latter probably didn't bother to hide in the closet. That got the Great Senile One worried about loss of face for the Familee should word spread. What better way to pre-empt the situation? Just like the other time when CL2(?) standards/ requirements were lowered, and just about the same time, a certain Lee Spawn got admitted into a certain educational institution just as the new rules kicked in. Oh yes, coincidence indeed.
I can further simplify the above: #1 is money. #2 is face. LKY doesn't want to lose either one.
You don't need to be gay/straight to figure this out - all you need to do is to be honest with yourself and be discerning enough.
"You dodge the point that buggery is already criminalised."
Nonsense. Not only did I say it is criminalised; AND I also stated the exact provision in the Penal Code which criminalises it; AND I stated the punishment for this offence; AND I even pointed out the year in which it was criminalised (1872, about 125 years ago).
Why on earth do you say that I dodge the point that "buggery" is criminalised?
"It should be parliament who changes the law, if society has now changed."
Well, OF COURSE it has to be Parliament that changes the law. Who ELSE can change the law? Yes, I think that Parliament SHOULD change the law. What ARE you trying to say? I dare not accuse you of dodging any point, because I can't see that you're making ANY point at all. What IS your point?
"Is Mr Wang the authority in saying behalf of everyone that buggery disturbs NO ONE and causes NO ONE any disgust."
Yes, of course. The point is very simple. If Thotpenny has sex in the privacy of his/her bedroom, then NO ONE will know and therefore NO ONE will be disgusted, regardless of whether THOTPENNY has sex with a man or a woman or whatever sex position Thotpenny likes best or whatever sex toy or technique.
Now, if Thotpenny has sex in PUBLIC, then that is altogether a different matter, and yes, I think Thotpenny should arrested REGARDLESS of whether Thotpenny is a man OR a woman and is making love to a man OR a woman.
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:43a98fc76be22110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcIOID:3d78edd180f22110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1177711140000
Are homosexuals truly born gay?
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew said in a dialogue with 400 Young PAP members on Saturday that, 'if in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual - because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes - you can't help it. So why should we criminalise it?'
Are homosexuals born gay? Why the importance to prove this issue? The reason is simple: If society is convinced that some people are indeed born gay, then there would be a need for the Government to not criminalise this behaviour, and, by extension, even protect homosexuals as a designated minority class.
In the United States, this debate is far from over. While a publication by research journal Science, claiming that we were 'on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeable, a normal variant of human nature', generated much media interest in the early 1990s, scientific attempts to prove homosexual genes have yet to really bear fruit.
A study conducted in 1991 which attempted to show that homosexuality occurs more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins actually provided support for environmental factors versus genetics.
If homosexuality were indeed in the genetic code, then both of the twins should be homosexual 100 per cent of the time, yet this was not the case.
The LeVay brain study of 1991, which tried to find differences in the hypothalamuses (a very small part of the brain) of homosexual and heterosexual men found no evidence that there is any genetic cause for homosexuality.
Other prominent researchers concluded that there was a lack of evidence to support a biological theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where 'temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges'.
With respect to possibly decriminalising homosexual behaviour in the upcoming Penal Code review, I urge the Government to refrain from proceeding hastily in view of inconclusive findings on 'homosexual genes'.
Agnes Chai Shiang Jen (Ms)
Yes I saw that letter in the ST. I thought it was rather stupid.
My response would still be the same. Maybe homosexuality is genetic. Maybe it is not. Maybe it is a combination of differen factors. We do not have a conclusive answer.
In that sense, homosexuality is like left-handedness, or high IQ, or introversion. We do not know the exact causes of any of these conditions.
But whatever the real answer is, it wouldn't justify criminalising homosexuality, any more than it would justify criminalising left-handedness, or high IQ, or introversion.
Gay activist Yawning Bread himself, by the way, is inclined to the view that homosexuality probably is not caused by genes alone. He says so on his own website.
"However, humans live in a civilised environment therefore it is not natural for them to behave like wild animals."
Boy, you're nuts.
Now you say that humans should not behave like wild animals.
But heterosexual intercourse happens much more frequently than homosexual intercouse among animals.
According to your own logic, human beings should stop having hetero sex, because human beings should not behave like wild animals.
You're nuts. Go away.
"At any rate, is your position that you do not agree with homosexual sex being criminalised at all, or is it the extent of punishment that you have an issue with?"
Both.
You appear to concede that it is the latter, when you compare it to a couple having sex in orchard.
No. If the couple has sex in public and disturbs the public, I think the law should deal with them.
If the couple has sex in private and does not disturb the public, I think the law should leave them alone.
This applies for heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, bisexual couples, whatever-sort-of-couples, as long as they are adults and consenting.
Then it is merely a "problem" of pegging the punishment too high.
See above.
Also, note that even outright rape is not punishable with life imprisonment (the max punishment is 20 years plus caning)
In that case, I can't see why unnatural intercourse between two consenting adults (whether man-man or man-woman - s 377 covers both) should be punishable with life. Can you?
The level of punishment is a matter of pulbic policy, which is the position that parliament took (at that point in time when setting the law)
Try to get this right. Section 377 was passed in 1872. There was no "Parliament". There wasn't even a country called "Singapore".
The law was drafted by some white man by the name of Stephen Macaulay, to be applied by the colonial masters on the colonised people in Malaya & India.
Stephen is the same guy who created the law (still existing in the Penal Code today) that says that a man can NEVER be guilty of raping a woman, as long as he is her husband.
Tell me - do you agree with that?
By the way, gay activist Yawning Bread has ALSO been campaigning against this law. Not that it will ever have anything to do with him personally, or gays in general.
Does that suggest something to you? That he might fight his battles as a matter of principle?
While you go around proposing to criminalise anything on the basis that it "disgusts" you. Are you going to criminalise vomiting, puking, diarrhoea, leprosy next? Or is your next target dirty old men with young girlfriends?
By the way, in case I didn't make my point clearly enough, Stephen Macaulay, who drafted the anti-gay law, was basically a major dud in drafting the sex offences in general.
These are some other effects of Macaulay's stupid legal drafting:
- if a man forcibly penetrates a little girl's vagina, he can be caned, but if he forcibly penetrates a little girl's anus, he cannot be caned (caning is for rape, and anal penetration by force is not rape)
- if a man forcibly penetrates a little girl's vagina, he can be caned, but if he forcibly penetrates a little boy's anus, he cannot be caned (caning is for rape, and men & boys cannot be raped, only girls and women can be raped)
- if a man forcibly penetrates a little boy's anus, he can be imprisoned for life, but if he forcibly penetrates a little girl, he can only be imprisoned up to 20 years (unnatural intercourse is punishable with life, whereas rape is punishable with only up to 20 years).
These are some of the absurd results stemming from Macaulay's adsurd thinking. This man Macaulay - the one on whom you place your trust, to guude you on how to think about homosexuality and the law.
I'm new and this was interesting. So far most of the people are arguing that homosexuality is wrong, and they're arguing about the homosexual act. I'd like to know where they draw the line on what a homosexual act is. Is it 2 men penetrating each other? Is it 2 men living together in a celibate relationship? Is it multiple men living together in a celibate relationship?
Maybe it might be more clear if I ask whether the people who protest protest to the love between 2 men or to the actual homosexual act.
so according to you..
homosexual sex is illogical.
illogical acts should be criminalised..
therefore homosexual sex should be criminalise..
obviously i can question why logic has anything to do with if the act is a crime or not..
since humans are adapt to commit illogical acts which are not crimes.. (as pointed by the others)
but let me take another approach..
let us jus ASSUME that i accept your arguement, that illogical acts are crimes..
In that case, monogamy should be a crime (by your arguement)
because Monogamy is highly illogical..
You talk abt survival.. passing down of genes etc.. which homosexual intercouse cannot achieve therefore is illogical..
then if so.. Monogamy should also be crimes.. and polygamy should not..
since there is a higher chance of u passing down your genes if u are polygamous.. it is a logical application of your premises for being against homosexual acts, is it not?
and by the way, more HIV is spread among heterosexuals in singapore in case u are interested.. so linking HIV to homosexuals in today's setting is obsolete jus like punishing homosexuality.
Please stop branding people like that.. it is illogical...
sorry.. jus to be clear... my previous post was a reply to whybeguy..
For the benefit of non-gays, not all gays practise anal penetration. Some gays have never been penetrated before as they may find it either disgusting or prefer not to engage in it. It's just a matter of preference.
So it is incorrect to equal homosexual sex with anal penetration. It's just a myth to say that the only thing that is of interest to gays is a man's asshole!!!
Mr Wang said,
"Now you say that humans should not behave like wild animals.
But heterosexual intercourse happens much more frequently than homosexual intercouse among animals.
According to your own logic, human beings should stop having hetero sex, because human beings should not behave like wild animals."
You are mistaken about my points once again and have taken them out of context.
I said that humans should not share the same uncivilised/unreasonable behaviour that wild animals exhibit because humans have higher mental functions.
Animals are spurned on by their desire instincts to have casual homosexual or heterosexual sex.
Humans should not follow animals and allow their feelings to dictate what they do without referring to logic and reasoning.
This is why casual sex or anything else that is based on human desires alone among heterosexuals or homosexuals is discouraged.
lin~ said,
"so according to you..
homosexual sex is illogical.
illogical acts should be criminalised.."
Homosexual sex is illogical btu I never said that all illogical acts should be criminalised.
Just to be clear roger 9:49pm 28th apr and I are separate persons. I penned the second comment in this thread and the one on April 25, 2007 7:26 PM.
I am interested to hear what opponents to decriminalization have to say regarding my comment on the social contract in comment April 25, 2007 7:26 PM, above.
The morality argument is essentially still without basis. Frankly all the opposing arguments I've seen here are just ridiculous and reek of "logic supremacy" (for example: my logic trumps your logic because I say so, my logic can lead to this result - but let's ignore it for my argument's sake, etc)
Using a rights argument (the social contract, state of nature, theory of justice perspective;) further illustrates this injustice in terms of violation of rights.
In addition, regardless if factually homosexual orientation is due to genes or not (nature), or due to upbringing or not (nurture), or due to a combination of nature and nurture, or otherwise, I believe that there is still no choice involved, from the protagonist's perspective.
Unassailable logic in your last 2 posts, Mr W - Game, Set, and Match. The argument for cruel and unusual punishment based on centuries-old bigotry was never on. If and when these primitive statutes are repealed, it will be yet another small step on S'pore's needlessly painful road away from Spanish Inquisition authoritarian views. A David Marshall moment, one might say.
Woebegone, er, Whybegay and your merry band of flog'em-hang'em zealots: you're in a hole, do stop digging. Your elderly guardian angel has already woken up to his quandry and attempted to extricate his party using a dodgy scientific argument, so you're about to be left high and dry.
Will your quick and dirty runs to Balestier Road for that guilty tau sar pow fix be marred by hordes of lustful eyes checking out your buns and deciding to put the hum in your hum shiyn pang? - Heh, only in your imagination.
Do try to live up to what you claim to be in your posts - civilised.
thotpenny:
Hmm... it's early morning, and I hope I'm not too muddle-headed to write incoherently. I still reiterate that it is the responsibility of the government to protect the interest of the minority. Of course, in history, many societies failed to do so, e.g. Rwanda genocide, and the consequences are dire. Unless there is a direct threat or harm to other people, such as the minority threatening to kill the majority, there should not be any discrimination, in the name of liberty and equality. If your view of a society is that it does not have to defend the minority, then it's pointless for us to discuss any further on this issue.
"I said that humans should not share the same uncivilised/unreasonable behaviour that wild animals exhibit because humans have higher mental functions."
Basically you are now injecting two new adjectives into the story - "uncivilised" and "unreasonable".
I've already dealt with a bunch of other adjectives. For example, see my previous comment, where I wrote:
Heheh. That's a new one. To justify the criminalisation of homosexuality, first they say:
"unnatural"
(but they have no answer to the occurence of homosexuality among penguins, chimps, whales, lizards etc)
then they say:
"does not help the aging population"
(but then suddenly they realise that many heterosexual couples also do not wish to have children)
then they say:
"psychological disorder"
(but they agree that illness does not mean a person should be locked up)
then they say:
"immoral"
(but they suddenly realise that numerous immoral things are not criminalised anyway)
then they say:
"I scared of getting raped"
(but then they realise that women could say the same of heterosexual men and this is no excuse for criminalising heterosexuality)
then they say:
"abnormal"
(but they admit that a wide variety of conditions such as myopia, sweaty palms and high IQ are all abnormal, and does not justify any criminalisation)
then they say:
"it's a choice"
(as if heterosexual people did not also have a "choice" to stop having sex for the rest of their lives)
.... and now, finally, after grappling at all those many flimsy straws, they say:
......
"disgust"!
So now you find your new, flimsy straws, and you give up on your previous adjectives, and you say - "uncivilised" and "unreasonable".
And you haven't explained why homosexuality is anymore uncivilised than heterosexuality;
and you haven't explained why homosexuality is anymore unreasonable than heterosexuality;
and you haven't explained why either form of sexuality is so unreasonable or so uncivilised that it should be punishable with life imprisonment.
You're boring lah, WBG.
Next time, before you look into your dictionary for new adjectives, try thinking about WHY first.
"Mr Wang Says So said...
Heheh. That's a new one. To justify the criminalisation of homosexuality, first they say:"
Mr Wang,
I stand by my view that you dodged the point on the criminalisation of buggery. Yes, you do cite the section and when it originated etc, but you frame the issue as one where the majority has to justify the criminalisation of buggery, when because buggery is ALREADY criminalised, therefore the burden is actually on the people (e.g. you) who now argue that it should be decriminalised. It is not even a level playing field per se, because there is already a default position. Show evidence that the majority no longer thinks that buggery is disgusting.
At any rate, i was pointing out that this discussion on the justifications of buggery etc is academic. The law is the law, whatever people's opinions, until parliament does something about it. Arguments about how it is unfair, discriminatory etc will hold no water in court.
"Yes, of course. The point is very simple. If Thotpenny has sex in the privacy of his/her bedroom, then NO ONE will know and therefore NO ONE will be disgusted, regardless of whether THOTPENNY has sex with a man or a woman or whatever sex position Thotpenny likes best or whatever sex toy or technique."
MW's argument here is that since acts are done in private they cause no disgust, so let's allow it. How about drug users who shoot up in private? How about gamblers? Is it that simple in real life? Can I get buggers prosecuted if I can hear these two guys have sex through the walls of my bedroom? What if I can see them buggering through their window? What if I catch them on a security camera because they were doing it on a staircase landing "in private"? What if a bugger announces in public the joys of his buggery adventures the night before? Do these not cause disgust? As an aside, I do feel disgust at the thought of buggery, whether or not I see it or know when or where it happens. At least there is the cold comfort of knowing that if the buggers were caught doing it, or there is sufficient evidence to prove the same, just like drug users who shoot up in their own homes, the law will take action. (Also, assuming for now, as MW says, NO ONE would ever know what goes on in the bedroom, then having buggery criminalised is not a problem at all, since the police will never be able to prosecute for a crime that is undiscoverable!?)
The rationale for the couple who has sex in public being prosecuted is the same as that for the buggers who have sex in private - others' disgust. You take the position that whatever sex is okay as long as it is done in private. Fine, that's your argued position. Parliament and the majority disagree with you. They treat public sex in the same way as private homosexual sex - to be criminalised because it is disgusting. It disturbs the public to know these things go on in the private bedrooms, and the law must reflect the same.
"Try to get this right. Section 377 was passed in 1872. There was no "Parliament". There wasn't even a country called "Singapore"
Section 377 was originally drafted as some ordinance in 1872 which was brought in as the law of Singapore (or perhaps via some old English law against buggery being brought in through the Second Charter - Shrug, I can't be bothered to do the historical research).
After independence, when presumably there was a clean slate from all the previous laws, Parliament chose to re-enact and retain said sections of the Penal Code as the law. Despite the various rounds of amendments to the Penal Code, and even after the recent round of discussions about changing the Penal Code, the various sections criminalising homosexual sex have remained untouched. Officials have come out to explain why Singapore is not ready for change. Parliament has chosen to retain the status quo. Isn't it a public policy choice by the current parliament, even though it was originally drafted by some white man in 1872?
Do not muddy the issue by pointing at ludicrity of some of the other sections of the Penal Code. I too can point at the huge majority of the sections of the penal code that got it right, but I will not. The issue here is homosexual sex.
Yes, I do agree with the law, until it is changed. It IS the law, and must be applied regardless of criticism. Disagreeing with it is academic. You can complain till the cows come home but it is still the law. I'm not going to be able to get it changed, only Parliament can change the law. MW should know that the legal system in Singapore is positivistic.
Let me use this example :
On certain days, neighbours find black plastic bags containing dead animals with suspicious white fluids coming out of their orifices, outside the house of MW. MW is sometimes seen to dump these black plastic bags there, but is never actually seen to perform any sexual acts on the animals.
Do these acts done in private cause disgust to the public? Should MW be prosecuted for his disgusting albeit private acts?
pandemomium,
genocidal murder of a minority is very different from criminalising a certain deviant act so as to prevent the minority from doing it.
Think Jehovah's witnesses, Moonies, fetish cultists, nudists.
geriatric_eunuch said...
"Woebegone, er, Whybegay and your merry band of flog'em-hang'em zealots: you're in a hole, do stop digging. Your elderly guardian angel has already woken up to his quandry and attempted to extricate his party using a dodgy scientific argument, so you're about to be left high and dry."
Hi, the problem with the likes of whybegay is that they aren't here to make sense. They are here to counter for the sake of countering, their aim being to obfuscate and to save the faces of certain individuals or party.
"neighbours find black plastic bags containing dead animals with suspicious white fluids coming out of their orifices,"...
What?? Fine, upstanding S'poreans rummaging through garbage bags? What for? Alumnium cans to supplement their $290 monthly income? Or perhaps they have a fetish for looking at yellow matter custard oozing from a dead dog's eye?
My dear ha'penny, don't you realise it's an extreme health hazard to dispose of carcasses in that manner and that this serious offence probably carries a life sentence with six-of-the-best? It's almost as criminal as being gay, I warrant.
And by the way, has anyone ever mentioned that you're losing your rag and really ought to see a doctor as a matter of urgency?
geriatric_eunuch,
Please see that it was an extreme hypothetical example to illustrate the principle of what I was talking about.
Your point, other than to insult, being?
"the burden is actually on the people (e.g. you) who now argue that it should be decriminalised.
Oh sure. Basically the reasons for not criminalising homosexuality are the same as the reasons for not criminalising heterosexuality.
Errr, what reasons do you have for wanting to criminalise heterosexuality?
Think Jehovah's witnesses, Moonies, fetish cultists, nudists.
Jehovah's Witnesses, by the way, are legal in most countries other than S'pore. And the only reason why they are illegal in Singapore is because of NS.
In other words, if Singapore didn't have NS, JWs would be perfectly ok in Singapore.
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-is-religion.html
" Can I get buggers prosecuted if I can hear these two guys have sex through the walls of my bedroom? What if I can see them buggering through their window? What if I catch them on a security camera because they were doing it on a staircase landing "in private"? What if a bugger announces in public the joys of his buggery adventures the night before? Do these not cause disgust?"
Oh I think that rationally speaking, the law should deal with them in exactly the same way as it would deal with the following situations:
you hearing a man and a woman having sex through the walls of your bedroom; you seeing a man and a woman having sex through their window; you catching a man and a woman having sex on a security camera because they were doing it on a staircase landing "in private"; and any heterosexual announcing in public the joys of his heterosexual adventures the night before.
Yes, I do agree with the law, until it is changed.
Luckily, you're not an MP then. Their purpose is to change laws and make laws.
If you were an MP, no work would ever get done. For you agree with everything, just because it already exists.
"So it is incorrect to equal homosexual sex with anal penetration. It's just a myth to say that the only thing that is of interest to gays is a man's asshole!!!" Some fagard said this.
Do you have evidence??? Research?
what "geriatric_eunuch" commented on Thotpenny comments is really nonsence. Can't you see what a hypothetical example is? Mr.Wang has given even more absurd example and yet not many people say anything, what!
Of course homosexual sex isn't just about anal intercourse.
Heterosexual sex isn't just about vaginal pentration either. There's kissing, fondling, fellatio, cunnilingus, mutual masturbation, oh, and anal intercourse too.
anonymous April 30, 2007 10:27 AM
Ya, MW has given some stretch examples. Just that he didn't get personal like thotpenny did in case you didn't notice.
anonymous April 30, 2007 10:24 AM
I don't know what you're driving at but I'll humour you. I know of gay people who don't engage in anal sex. I also know of hetero couples who stop having "natural sex" too. Next question please ...
" Errr, what reasons do you have for wanting to criminalise heterosexuality? "
I am not disgusted by heterosexual sex in private. Neither does the majority. However I and the majority are disgusted by homosexual sex, whether it happens in private or in public.
"Oh I think that rationally speaking, the law should deal with them in exactly the same way as it would deal with the following situations:"
See my above comment on how one is perceived by the majority to be disgusting but not the other, comparing both acts done in private. MW is entitled to his own rational view of course, but he has to convince the incumbent majority.
As an aside, since when are choice, preference and prejudice governed by rational thought? Must disgust be rational?
Another illustration here :
A finds lizards disgusting and abominable, even though they are actually helpful because they eat other pests. A (as the head of household) enacts a rule in her house that lizards shall be driven away, partially also because A wants to keep Children B C D E safe from lizards, which A finds to be "dirty" and "poisonous" even if there is no scientific evidence that lizards are poisonous. Children B, C and D also find lizards disgusting and/or acquiesce to the rule. Child E likes lizards and disobeys. But Child E is the minority / powerless, and if A finds Child E with his pet lizard, A will definitely still drive away the lizard because it is disgusting to A (and by default B, C and D). Too bad for Child E, complaining about the illogic of the rule, it is the rule of the household. Disagreement with A's rule is futile, UNTIL such time if and when A is enlightened that lizards are not poisonous and not disgusting, and therefore decides to change the rule.
sad for child A. he and his pet lizard have to leave the house and go elsewhere.
but in 20 years when child A become Nobel laureate in microbiology and discovers cure for cancer in lizard cells, household who caused him to leave will have no benefits from this research.
coz household myopic. too bad.
Stupid family.
The parent should go and find out whether lizards are really harmful or dirty or not. If the lizards are not, E should be permitted to keep them.
B, C and D should be properly educated so that they appreciate lizards as an interesting & useful member of the ecosystem.
If B, C and D are still frightened and cannot be educated, then obviously what should be done is that E should keep his lizards somewhere away from B,C and D, eg in a designated corner of the garden.
B, C and D should all be allowed to pursue their own interests too. For example, if B likes playing the violin, he should be allowed to pursue this interest even though A, C, D and E may find the sound of his violin-playing very disturbing and a greater nuisance than any lizard.
Special rules can be laid down, for example, B can be asked to stop playing his violin after 10 pm, or when his siblings want to study.
This is the way that families can live together harmoniously and happily. Education, harmony, mutual respect and understanding are important.
But then, aiyah, what to do? If the family is stupid, then the family is stupid. If Thotpenny is a member of the family, then it will definitely be a stupid family.
But then maybe it is just his upbringing.
Thotpenny shouldn't have kids. Really.
What I can see is that Thotpenny doesn't CARE about his family members. He doesn't CARE about their wellbeing. He doesn't CARE about their collective happiness or their individual happiness.
All he cares about is that things which disgust him must not be in his house. If his children were born ugly or had chickenpox or a bad case of pimples, he'd throw them out.
As I see it, there's no point carrying on this discussion.
This Thotpenny person wrote, "As an aside, since when are choice, preference and prejudice governed by rational thought? Must disgust be rational?"
Basically, Thotpenny is openly saying that he is prejudiced and irrational, and no matter what you say, he won't change his mind.
What else is there to discuss?
I can now understand why Kitana said what he said (as cited by Mr Wang in his emigration post). About why he wants to emigrate because Singaporeans are just so close-minded.
As for that WBG, he stopped making sense a long time ago.
i so totally get thotpenny's illustration.
thotpenny = A = PAP = Unenlightened
i look forward to the day when our society is more enlightened.
LOL
Well, then. That's that. I'm closing this comment thread because I think it's gone on long enough and everyone has had a chance to say what they they want to say.
Post a Comment