not every law is about "majority rules"
I think the problem is that when we are part of the majority (I'm assuming you are chinese middle class singaporean?), it's easy not to empathise with minorities
I think comparing 377A to theft is comparing apples to kaya toast.
is your issue with homosexuals displaying affection in public?how is that different from me and my girlfriend making out in public.
Homosexuals are going to display affection in public,same as heterosexual couples. 377A is not going to stop them.
If you are afraid of the differences that homosexuals display compared to conservative asians (you mentioned openly displaying affection, sounds very european actually...), then the issue is not to try to force them down with the law, but with discussion to come to a point of understanding where social and cultural norms are in Singapore.
If homosexuals were exactly the same in terms of outward appearance, dressing, etiquette, etc, except for the fact that they had sex with others of the same sex, would you raise an issue?
I don't think that we are in the position to judge what God deems as right or wrong (apart from the 12 commandments perhaps where it's literally "set in stone")
Neither can we decide whether procreation is the ultimate role of the human race
I think each of us can make our own decisions on what we consider normal (I don't find indians sticking rods into themselves during thaipusam normal...), but it is a dangerous position when we start enforcing our beliefs on others (which is exactly a recipe for all sorts of strife, including racial and religious strife)
Hi Matt,
You certainly raised some very good points to people to ponder.
Yes, it is hard for a member of the majority to empathise with the miniorities. But then again, homosexuality is about your belief, it is about right or wrong, which is something you cannot empathise about. And of course, even if the homosexuals are outwardly similar to us sans the sexual orientation part, I'll still think that it is an issue because it contradicts my beliefs, and perhaps that of the silent majorities.
What I've stated, of my opinions of gays and gay weddings, are entirely my own belief, and I've never sought to impose this on others. You can't impose your belief on others, that's my belief. But the thing is, the society is shaped by the majority, and most of the time, that's how policies are shaped in a society.
Section 377A, if you just look at it superficially, makes no sense at all. How can you say that it is illegal to have gay sex and at the same time close an eye to it?
However, if you do look deeper, it is there for a bigger reason; this is to actually make a statement that the majority think that it is wrong to be homosexuals, and hence it shall not be legitimised, even though such practice do exist. By granting gay sex legal status, we are in fact saying that it is normal, when most of us bound by our moral and religious value, have strongly feel that this is wrong.
Worse to come would be the media glamourising homosexuality. You are right about the gays being more media savvy and all, and certainly some of the celebrities are gays. Now, what makes you think that the gays will not make full use of this opportunity to promote their lifestyle?
As for NDP being choreographed by gays, is it true? Any of the choreographers actually stand up and say that they are gay? Even if they are, most of them are not gonna tell. Why? That's because it is a taboo, they know that they are social outcast, and that's because the majority will not accept their lifestyle. And the precise existence of section 377A.
As for anal sex, well yes, I believe that this is wrong regardless of your sexual orientation.
They did not choose to be born, they cannot choose their features,family etc. Rather they are conceived out of their parents' passion or like what you have coined "the penis salutes to the women, and the vaginal fluids flow for the men."