In addressing the issue of the repeal of Article 377A, I have come across a thought, which I will introduce in a while, but first a preamble. Singapore is necessarily a conservative society as the numbers have to clearly show, since everyone knows that statistics don't lie. WE MUST FOLLOW THE NUMBERS, THEY WILL DEFINATELY BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VIEWS OF EVERYONE. I have come across many arguments, moral or otherwise, that seem to suffer one monumental failure, selection of facts. I.E. Just choosing some fact and not presenting anything else because they happen to be inconvienent.
While most people are more than willing to accept that homosexuality has in popular culture more or less sunk into the mainstream, they are not so willing to accept it in their lives and around them. I am tempted to say that this is tantamount to sticking their fingers into their ears and going LA LA LA LA, GAYS DESTROY FAMILIES, LALALA, THERE WILL BE FROLICKING GAY COUPLES IN THE STREETS, LALALALALALALA, THE GAHMEN ISN'T ENFORCING THE LAW LALALALA.
It is a bold assertation to say so, and I know I won't get away with it, so let me just ask a few questions.
First. Why is this law against gay men only? Logically speaking if this law was to be fair, just, equal or otherwise, it should also be against gay women to, and whatever sexual acts they can perform on each other. So isn't there a question of equality at play here?
Second. Does the removal of this law automatically mean a profusion of gay sex on the streets and gay sex everywhere? Remember that the law against anal penetrative and oral sex between men and women is only to be repealed soon in Singapore. Do we forsee thusly a profusion of wild backdoor enterings and cars rocking on Farrer Park, Faber Hill and various other secluded locations, public and private? Is it not possible then that the government forsaw this NOT happening, and decided that it was in fact in public interest to repeal this law for heterosexual couples? So why not otherwise?
Third. For all the frequent repetitions about family values, alternative lifestyles, etc. No one has exactly told me what legalising gay sex would do. Families are being destroyed by the gays, is one oft repeated refrain, I don't really see how having gay people around would lead your thriving family to break down. I think it probably has more to do with having 2 parents with jobs, children being taken care of by outsiders and insufficient or inefficient use of resources to assist such parents. These and more reasons are a much more logical and consistent reason for the breakdown of nuclear families. Second to that point, what is WRONG about alternative lifestyles? There are plenty of people straight or otherwise that are your entertainers, your hairdressers, your writers, your chefs, your teachers. And yes, they may like leather, or have a fetish for spandex, or have an inordinate adoration for pink duck patterned wall paper, or just be a regular joe who likes Starbucks, eats out once in a while, drinks alittle, and reads chinese wuxia stories. And conversely, there are plenty of straight people who lead lives that don't conform to your norm, or his norm, or your grandmother's norm, so why don't we say they can't lead their lives the way they lead it because it spoils the property values of the neighbourhood, or because tight white T-Shirts expose too much nipple, or how eating meat's bad bad news. I don't see why YOU should be imposing YOUR beliefs upon them. They don't come into you home, or spam your blogs and say, STOP BEING BORING AND EATING BORING FOOD, DRINKING BAD WINE AND READING CHEESY NOVELS, AND ALWAYS DOING IT IN THE MISSIONARY POSITION AND WEARING CLASHING COLOURS, so why should YOU/WE/THEY judge how THEY lead their lives.
And lastly. Does this law not represent a dangerous precedent? A law that will not be enforced. A law that, on the word of a government, is on the books, but will not be enforced. Does it sound scary to you because it sure sounds scary to me that some laws can be chosen to be enforced and others not. It reminds me of that Bismarckian line, about not seeing how Laws and Sausages are made.
I welcome any and all comments on this post and wish both the Keep377A and Repeal377A camps a good day.
P.S. You can't spread gayness like the flu, and people who are sitting on the fence are sitting on the fence because they are confused. Instead of telling them that other side is EVIL and you're bound to end up single, heartbroken and lonely, why not engage them in Discussion about their feelings and attempt to guide them to some sort of conclusion? Not all gay relationships end up in failure, just as not all straight relationships end in failure. And it is more a symptom of modernity that relationships end than just the simple, Oh its coz they're gay so they must break up eventually.