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. 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. 🙂

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

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: