Homozila.
Do Homosexuals Destroy Cities?
On the issue of homosexuality in Singapore, many have aired their views. Differences are expected because we live in a socially diversified ecosystem. Differences are also to be respected, albeit with arguments. Be assertive but not aggressive.
Last week, 2 persons wrote to The Straits Times against the decriminalization of gay sex law, Section 377A - Johanthan Cheng Hern Sinn's letter, "MM's comments have me and family worried." on May 1 and Yvonne C.L Lee's article, "Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error." on May 4. I am upset over the former but am very concern about the latter. Yvonne is an Assistant Professor at the National University of Singapore. With all the hullabaloos against decriminalising s377A, I wonder how much the pro-s377A community knows about homosexuals who live among them. Hopefully, not from hearsay.
To understand us, first let me define [homophobia]. I pick the key words that explain the term across 4 online dictionaries and string them to form a concise definition:
Do Homosexuals Destroy Cities?
On the issue of homosexuality in Singapore, many have aired their views. Differences are expected because we live in a socially diversified ecosystem. Differences are also to be respected, albeit with arguments. Be assertive but not aggressive.
Last week, 2 persons wrote to The Straits Times against the decriminalization of gay sex law, Section 377A - Johanthan Cheng Hern Sinn's letter, "MM's comments have me and family worried." on May 1 and Yvonne C.L Lee's article, "Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error." on May 4. I am upset over the former but am very concern about the latter. Yvonne is an Assistant Professor at the National University of Singapore. With all the hullabaloos against decriminalising s377A, I wonder how much the pro-s377A community knows about homosexuals who live among them. Hopefully, not from hearsay.
To understand us, first let me define [homophobia]. I pick the key words that explain the term across 4 online dictionaries and string them to form a concise definition:
An irrational fear of, aversion to, prejudice or
discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.
Any form of phobia has a specific object or situation which causes the fear. So excuse us. What makes homosexuals or homosexuality so scary from heterosexuals or heterosexuality? Friends and colleagues enjoy my company; family and relatives call me a responisble son. Some pro-s377A may argue that for Pete's sake, these people are nice to me because they didn't know I am gay. They could be right but I can attest for everyone who knows me that they will never forsake me in the name of homophobia. That is, however, not the point that I am making. In the same context that leopards never change their spots, I am still the Mr Nice regardless of my sexual orientation and so do other gay men. Sadly, the cold fact remains that our positive sides are overshadowed once the pro-s377A know we are homosexuals. We are judged by what they didn't see.
I can understand the concern of the pro-s377A community on the extension of homosexual rights to other aspects of our lifestyle should gay sex be legalised. However, I strongly disagree that it will pose a threat to our society morals and public health. To those who see homosexuals as thorns in the flesh, let us know what are your problems with us and we will see if we agree with you.
The recent media frenzy has defocused the pro-s377A, homosexuals and gay-friendly citizen from the essence of s377A. Le'ts recap the stand of the Law Society of Singapore on this issue:
"The majority of the Council considered that the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified. This does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recogniseable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence."
Reinforcing on the Council's assertion that criminal laws protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct, who are we protecting consensual homosexual sex from? Our sons, brothers, boyfriends, fiances, husbands, fathers or grandfathers?
Whether gay gene exists or not, people do not become homosexuals overnight. As we all know, the development of homosexual inclination is the by-product of several complicated factors over a period of time. Homosexuals are already homosexuals. This may sound duh to you but it is the bigger picture that the pro-s377A miss. With or without s377A, homosexuals will continue to have sex with one another in their rooms. Liberalising gay sex will never infect the heterosexual heartland: we have no interest in breaking up families or brainwash straight people to be gay. If there is already a homosexual(s) living in your family, we can't infect them further. Even when gay sex is legalised, it does not mean rice bowls will be broken. Homosexuals are already working in many private and civil servcies, and the straight workers still have their jobs. To say that alternative media and entertainment will be mainstreamed into the society after decriminalisation of s377A is akin to living in a stone age. If homosexuals in Singapore have to look up to MDA on approving what are approriate for our consumption, we would already be the frogs in the well and manipulated by the conservatives and fundamentalists. To complicate the issue, the pro-s377A still think that they are justified in claiming sex between men carries a higher risk of HIV infection than sex between men and women in Singapore. Tell me that I misinterpreted these data from the Ministry of Health from 1985 to 2006. If MSM (men who have sex with men) are percieved to be lethal carriers of HIV virus, victimising homosexuals under s377A creates a bottleneck in the combat against AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases. When homosexuals stay in the dark, safe sex education will only see a shimmer at the end of its tunnel.
When we preach that Singapore is a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society, we must also advocate harmony among the various diversified communities in our country. All the crossfire in the debate over social consequences of decentralising gay sex will only turn the deaf ears of the pro-377A to our outcrys - homosexuals are not godzillas that destory cities.
I can understand the concern of the pro-s377A community on the extension of homosexual rights to other aspects of our lifestyle should gay sex be legalised. However, I strongly disagree that it will pose a threat to our society morals and public health. To those who see homosexuals as thorns in the flesh, let us know what are your problems with us and we will see if we agree with you.
The recent media frenzy has defocused the pro-s377A, homosexuals and gay-friendly citizen from the essence of s377A. Le'ts recap the stand of the Law Society of Singapore on this issue:
"The majority of the Council considered that the retention of s.377A in its present form cannot be justified. This does not entail any view that homosexuality is morally acceptable, but follows instead from the separation of law and morals and the philosophy that the criminal law’s proper function is to protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct. Private consensual homosexual conduct between adults does not cause harm recogniseable by the criminal law. Thus, regardless of one’s personal view of the morality or otherwise of such conduct, it should not be made a criminal offence."
Reinforcing on the Council's assertion that criminal laws protect others from harm by punishing harmful conduct, who are we protecting consensual homosexual sex from? Our sons, brothers, boyfriends, fiances, husbands, fathers or grandfathers?
Whether gay gene exists or not, people do not become homosexuals overnight. As we all know, the development of homosexual inclination is the by-product of several complicated factors over a period of time. Homosexuals are already homosexuals. This may sound duh to you but it is the bigger picture that the pro-s377A miss. With or without s377A, homosexuals will continue to have sex with one another in their rooms. Liberalising gay sex will never infect the heterosexual heartland: we have no interest in breaking up families or brainwash straight people to be gay. If there is already a homosexual(s) living in your family, we can't infect them further. Even when gay sex is legalised, it does not mean rice bowls will be broken. Homosexuals are already working in many private and civil servcies, and the straight workers still have their jobs. To say that alternative media and entertainment will be mainstreamed into the society after decriminalisation of s377A is akin to living in a stone age. If homosexuals in Singapore have to look up to MDA on approving what are approriate for our consumption, we would already be the frogs in the well and manipulated by the conservatives and fundamentalists. To complicate the issue, the pro-s377A still think that they are justified in claiming sex between men carries a higher risk of HIV infection than sex between men and women in Singapore. Tell me that I misinterpreted these data from the Ministry of Health from 1985 to 2006. If MSM (men who have sex with men) are percieved to be lethal carriers of HIV virus, victimising homosexuals under s377A creates a bottleneck in the combat against AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases. When homosexuals stay in the dark, safe sex education will only see a shimmer at the end of its tunnel.
When we preach that Singapore is a multiracial, multicultural and multireligious society, we must also advocate harmony among the various diversified communities in our country. All the crossfire in the debate over social consequences of decentralising gay sex will only turn the deaf ears of the pro-377A to our outcrys - homosexuals are not godzillas that destory cities.
1 comment:
Hi Moto. Thanks for linking my blog to your article. Would it be OK if i linked Bananation to my blog?
Post a Comment