This is going to be a short commentary since I was just back not too long ago, and things seemed to be heating up again after the last furore on whether 377A is going to be repealled.

One common argument against Section 377A is that it is morally wrong. Well, I have nothing against that but I would like to look retrospectively at what had been repeal previously, that might have a hint, just a hint, of similar indecency – Section 377 (a similar view can be found here).

The Singapore Penal Code, Chapter XVI (Offences Affecting the Human Body), Section 377 (Cap. 224) states that:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

And also, Section 377A (Outrages on decency) states that:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Let us just take another step back to look at definitions (from dictionary.com) just to make sure that we are talking abd thinking along the same line:

gross /groʊs/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[grohs] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, plural gross for 11, gross·es for 12, 13; verb
–adjective 1. without deductions; total, as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc., before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (opposed to net): gross earnings; gross sales.
2. unqualified; complete; rank: a gross scoundrel.
3. flagrant and extreme: gross injustice.
4. indelicate, indecent, obscene, or vulgar: gross remarks.
5. lacking in refinement, good manners, education, etc.; unrefined.
6. large, big, or bulky.
7. extremely or excessively fat.
8. thick; dense; heavy: gross vegetation.
9. of or concerning only the broadest or most general considerations, aspects, etc.
10. Slang. extremely objectionable, offensive, or disgusting: He wore an outfit that was absolutely gross.

And also:

in·de·cen·cy /ɪnˈdisənsi/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dee-suhn-see] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -cies for 4. 1. the quality or condition of being indecent.
2. impropriety or immodesty.
3. obscenity or indelicacy.
4. an indecent act, remark, etc.  

Ok, now that the formalities are done, let’s get on to the point in case. When people start arguing on moral grounds, a great deal of credibility from the heterosexual’s point of view (assuming that all who are against the repeal are heterosexuals) when they are arguing against Section 377A and not Section 377. This is because, by gross indecency, I can’t see how Section 377 defines something that is less gross than Section 377A. Section 377 talks about carnal intercourse against the order of nature, and that means penetrating your male organ into the anus, mouth, nose, ear, or any part of the women that the male person can possibly stick into. I am not sure if this sounds natural to you, but it definitely falls into the description of “gross” to me. Perhaps it’s subjective, then against, all arguments against/for Section 377(A) has been subjective.

Now, for all the self-righteous people who thinks that a male person sticking his male organ into anywhere else on another male person is gross and against the order of nature, then do you think the same between a male person and female person is alright and in the order of nature? My argument is simple. If you think Section 377A is “immoral”, then Section 377 isn’t too far away from it.

I guess people should stop arguing against the repeal based on moral grounds and religious grounds (which will almost always be rejected because not all religions view in the same perspective anyway). If they want to, I feel that they should really argue it based on personal grounds, as in, I do not like the idea of 2 men having anal intercourse and yes, I am openly against homosexuals and their activities; and in fact, I think they are freaks and they all ought to be shot, hung and caned – or caned, hung and shot, in any order.

I think sometimes, people should stop hiding behind moral or religious grounds. But on a more serious note, I do understand the worry of parents on how this can affect the upbringing of their kids, and now we move on to Genetics 101. I don’t really want to talk about genetics because I have to admit that findings of a gay gene is not very substantial, but what I want to bring across is, homosexuality is not a disease – it is not something you can spread by being near someone who is gay. There are no bugs that are know to spread homosexuality like dengue and, I am adding this part because I am aware of parental worries, with correct parental guidance, children can be taught about homosexuality in a non-threatening, non-evasive manner.

Just look at the topics of birds and bees now. In the past, people kept mum about it and the younger ones tried it and probably got into a lot of trouble with unplanned pregnancy. With better sex education now, people are more responsible (I hope) for their own actions and they know what they are getting into. Instead of evading it, I think parents should take the responsibility (and not always the school teachers) of letting their children know that there are straight (heterosexual) people and that there are, ahem, not-too-straight (homosexual) people; and that people do not really have a choice to be hetero- or homo-sexual.

It’s just like one person may like strawberry ice-cream and another might like chocolate ice-cream because he thinks that pink is sissy strawberry is too sweet for him. You see, it’s all part of growing up. All children have their own ways of choosing things in their own unique manners – and if your child really turned out to be a homosexual, then at lease he or she will not feel repressed or depressed because he or she feels that she’s a freak. It’s not nice to have this kind of feeling.

Of course, I am not tackling the issue head on. I am giving a retrospective of the grounds for the appeal of the repeal of Section 377A. If people want to retain 377A on the grounds of it being against the order of nature, then perhaps we should all be righteous and reinstate Section 377.

And oh, as a postscript, I just realised that be repealling Section 377, any carnal intercourse with animals is legal? Did anyone happen to catch that?



Reader's Comments

Leave a Comment

%d bloggers like this: