Goodness! This topic has been going on and on and on… and it’s still on today in online forums! I guess everyone is saying the same thing over and over again, each attempting to give a variant of the same perspective – those against the decriminalization harp on moral values nowadays (instead of religious values) and those for it insisting that there is nothing wrong with it in the first place.

Apparently, we are getting a lot of letters from doctors as well, however, with no clear support for either side of the camp.ย Interesting takes include a letter from Mr Koh Yan Sang, who feels that tolerance does not mean we tolerate what is wrong.

Making reference to a previous letter by Mr Chua Chee Hiang, he felt that:

As a married Singaporean man, I am deeply concerned by the call for equal rights for people with different sexual behaviour or perversions as this implies there is no difference between the social norm of heterosexuality and homosexuality, which deviates from the norm.

I am basically a person who believes in equal rights and as much as he is deeply concerned by Mr Chua’s call, I am, ahem, deeply concerned by his belief that rights is partial. At the same time, he did not state what kind of rights are supposed to be withheld from homosexuals. Ironically, this seems to be a bigger Pandora’s Box than the one suggested by Dr Daniel Emlyn-Jones, who wrote from the UK arguing that legislation of homosexuality will not open a Pandora’s Box.

The other concern that I have is how he defines “social norm”, but that’s quite a big topic in itself – probably more Pandora’s Boxes than the both combined aboved (hmm… the catch phrase is Pandora’s Box nowadays). The rest of the letter, well, is a lot of nitpicking and probably not worth the effort dissecting.

What is interesting, however, is a comment by a forumer going by the alias of Prokinetic. In his reply to comments for Dr Daniel’s letter to the forum, he said:

Maybe I can have some gory details. How do 2 gay men have ‘sex’ which each other? Please enlighten me. I have no clue. I have not had my eyes opened yet. Having something shoved into the anus? But is that what the anus is for??? Isn’t that a gross indecency? And how do 2 men procreate? Their bloodline would end there and then wouldn’t it? What would become of the population figures in Singapore? Would we have to import more foreign help to make up the numbers? More expatriates? (Hope they are not gay too, then we would have to import even more expatriates).

This is quite an intersting argument. What is the anus for? Isn’t it an obvious question? It’s for defecating. What else can it be for? Oh wait, he suggests that something can be shoved up the anus – and this is wrong. That’s gross indecency – which I totally agree, whole-heartedly. I do hope that he didn’t forget about Section 377, which criminalizes shoving your procreation tool into someone’s mouth. I see, so that is not gross indecency.

And I thought he has an interesting view about gay genetics:

And talking about bloodlines, how do gays come about anyway? Some have mentioned genetics and it being ‘inborn’. Really? But logic would tell you that any ‘gayness’ in the bloodline would terminate in that generation and would not be passed down to the next generation by the very fact that it is gay wouldn’t it. What a fallacy of thought! That gayness would be inherited! Is there really such a thing?

Let’s have a Genetics 101: if there is a gay gene (note that I’m not sure too), then it’d probably be a recessive trait. Now, what is a recessive trait? In human DNA, there are 2 copies of a single gene, each known as an allele, that is, simplistically speaking, responsible for a particular phenotype (layman: trait or disease). If a trait is recessive, that means both copies of the allele has to be the same before that trait is displayed. On the other hand, if the trait is dominant, that means by having 1 copy of that gene, the trait will be displayed.

If this “gay gene” is a recessive trait, that means a person may actually have a copy of the “gay gene” but still not display any gay tendencies. Now, if each of the parents of a child have a copy of the “gay gene”, then they will not display gay tendencies. However, this means that there is 25% chance that the child would have both copies of the “gay gene” and hence display gay tendencies. Of course, this child may still grow up and procreate if he or she is able to bring himself or herself to do it. ๐Ÿ™‚

Thus, the statement that any ‘gayness’ in the bloodline would terminate in that generation and would not be passed down to the next generation by the very fact that it is gay is in itself, a fallacy. I pity people who do not do their homework and start posting 1/2 truths to campaign their own motives. They are blinded by their own prejudice and shoot at random.

Wow, that was quite a mindful, wasn’t it? Believe me, I didn’t intend to move into Genetics 101 when I started this post – but it’s quite irritating when people do not post fully justified arguments. Worse are those who post 1/2 truths and claim that others are doing so.

Too bad his comment isn’t in the mainstream forum, else someone would have picked it up.

Until just now, I was still quite perplexed on why people are so paranoid about decriminalizing Section 377A. So after some thinking and asking my trusty labmates for their views, I realised that I missed something – the fact that gay men may now openly walk holding hands and kissing in public. So, this is a real problem, isn’t it? There were so much biased arguments (on why Section 377A shouldn’t be decriminalized) that this actually slipped my mind. Moreover, girls holding hands is so common that I forgot that it (guy holding hands) is not readily accepted by our society as yet.

So, people are really worried that guys would walk in broad daylights holding hands and kissing and pushing their luck to say that there is nothing wrong since Section 377A has been decriminalized. Apparently, if they were to do this now, they may be charged for being a public nuisance (which is milder). However, there is a chance that they may argue against the case if Section 377A were to be decriminalized – just like a heterosexual couple will probably not be charged if they kiss in public.

I was quite blinded by my argument that I will not be interested about what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors that I failed to consider the repercussions. Will the day come that gay men roam the streets holding hands and kissing and hugging and claim that it’s their rights? I’m really not sure but I do know that unless they are out of the closet and does not mind stares and finger pointings, they’d probably keep it under wraps and behind closed doors.

Reader's Comments

  1. Lab Rat | July 28th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    Here’s two hypothetical questions – what would be more ‘socially acceptable’:

    1) Two females in bikinis holding hands at the beach
    2) Two males in swimming trunks holding hands at the beach

    And, would your answer change if someone then tells you that in the first case, the two were lesbians?

    (Further question: how would you be able to tell their sexual orientation, anyway?)

  2. Simply Jean | July 28th, 2007 at 9:00 pm

    @Lab Rat: Hehe… can I be biased here? ๐Ÿ˜› Since I don’t represent what is ‘socially acceptable’, I’ll just state what I think is acceptable to me:

    1) Acceptable
    2) Conditional acceptance

    And if someone were to tell me that (1) were lesbians, my answers would still stand… don’t quite know why though.

    (Further answer: actually I won’t be able to tell their orientation…)

  3. Lab Rat | July 28th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    Sure, everyone’s entitled to their views, and we’ve all got to respect that, no matter what they are. ๐Ÿ™‚

    So now the question would be, why would publicly showing affection be acceptable for lesbians and not gays?

    I’ll offer one explanation: is it because our current (male-dominated) society still regards females as sex objects, so if a guy sees two females, holding hands or otherwise, it means twice the eye-candy? And hence, okay to put gay rights above gender equity in this case?

  4. Simply Jean | July 28th, 2007 at 11:43 pm

    @Lab Rat: Hehe… thanks for respecting my views. ๐Ÿ™‚ Since we are on this, and just out of curiosity, how would you react to people’s view which are based on 1/2 truths?

    As for lesbians and gays holding hands, I guess it may be socially acceptable for girls to be cliquish, e.g. for 2 girls to go to the toilets together (which was probably inculcated since primary school). But for a guy to ask if his other guy friends would like to go to the toilet together would be a little odd, though I have straight guy friends doing that too.

    Moreover, the act of holding hands is a sign of (emotional) dependency and since this is a male-dominated society, it may be weird to see 2 guys emotionally dependent on each other.

    Eye-candy? Hmm… I’m not sure…

  5. Lab Rat | July 29th, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Half-truths? Heh, sounds like what I deal with everyday. It’ll be pretty much the same reaction unless it’s pseudoscience…at which point I’ll bring out the big heavy cluestick. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Guys can be as emotional as anyone else too; take a look at sports players on the field after a game. Anyway, it seems like the debate about 377A isn’t really so much about homosexual behaviour as a whole, but rather, on public displays of affection and sexuality, isn’t it? Otherwise, folks will be picking on lesbians as much as on gays…but we see virtually nothing about fears on girls making passes on other girls.

    As for eye-candy, well, I’ll just mention the Singapore Motor Show as a symptom for this – somehow, photo galleries on this (on clubsnap, say) have lots of photos, but remarkably few photos are on cars. ๐Ÿ™‚

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: