377A

When parties on both sides of a fence agree on something, it must have a large portion of truth to it. Whenever there are two extremes, the truth often lies anywhere along its vast spectrum. Towards whom it leans towards is an entirely different issue, one that is best left to the politicians and scientists to convince the public of. China and Korea, for instance, has managed to assure its population that Communism is the only option. On the other hand, the rest of the world has convinced everyone else that Communism is backward and oppressive when Capitalism is almost just as enslaving, if not more so. And in every aspect of our life, there are people who are fervent opposers and people who are fervent supporters. Your choice of fastfood over home-cooked food, your decision to pursue an academic degree instead of becoming a risk-taking entrepreneur and your decision of whom to marry are all victims of scrutiny in some activist group somewhere in the world.

So often are we bombarded with anti- and pro- genre literature that we often become numb to it. And so, in the rare instances that both extremes point towards the same thing, it would do us good to sit up and take note.

Creationism and Evolutionism, or in another form, Religion and Science, is an age-old argument that till today has found no conclusion. Yet, they both seem to agree on one thing: homosexuals are a force that goes against nature. There is something humane when we argue for equality for the blacks or the outrage against the Holocaust. Here are people put on equal footing with each other. None the more superior, all just merely different. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are condemned both by religion as well as made impossible by evolution.

I never really quite understood the argument that homosexualism is genetic. Who were the two homosexuals who had sex and spawned the first homosexual child? Sure, you may throw Gregor Mendel's study at me and claim that 2 recessive alleles could have by chance formed the gene in the child. Note then that there are also a group of people who are bi-sexual. Hence, assuming the argument does bear truth, there is no issue of complete dominance, just co-dominance. And so, even if the argument does bear truth, homosexuality is clearly not black-and-white. It occurs to an extent that is ordained by nature. It is not a distinct categorisation. Homosexuality is then ultimately still a choice.

Somehow, then, homosexuals have managed to argue their way into being treated as normal human beings. And somehow, the otherwise edgy population of the world does not consider the Hollywood fantasy that homosexuals could just look like us but in truth be aliens out to kill off the human race by promoting a lifestyle that is impossible for survival -- an entirely plausible argument, although definitely pushing it way too far.

Still, it is true that countries all over the world have started to accept them and have even begun to legalise their marriage. It is now Singapore's turn to take its stand. It is being faced with two petitions, one for and one against the repealing of Section 377A, that homosexual acts are to be outlawed. Her decision would definitely dictate the pace and the direction of development our society would subsequently adopt. Which would be more sensible for Singapore?

If Singapore kept 377A, it would lead to an archaic slavery of the minds of the Singaporeans. In this modern world, everyone is taking a very mature stand towards homosexuals. Singapore might hence be seen to be unwilling to change and be unable to adapt should it continue to keep the law. This is basically the argument for repealing 377A. Strangely, maturity seems to be defined as such: the ability to maintain a state of non-panic when faced with a new situation. Maturity then is easily achieved -- keep the emotions out, cling to logic dearly. This is a flawed definition, for devastated mothers over the loss of their child's life are definitely not immature. In contrast, the mature thing to do would be to have another baby. Clearly, then, the definition that large portions of the world use for "maturity" is misconstrued, and saying that we should take a mature approach towards homosexuals loses its intent.

Now, what would then happen if Singapore was to accept the homosexual way of life as mainstream? It would clearly provide a viable option for people to consider. People would not even consider working towards a husband-wife marriage because homosexuality is now normal. Assuredly, the number of homosexuals would rise. This would be another certain step for Singapore towards becomeing a Western society, destroying what first made Singapore so unique. What then is Singapore's unique quality? It is in its ability to embrace the traditional nature of Asia and concurrently tread the line of Western professionalism and qualification. What happens then when we start to cut away our Asian ties? We become just another country: a pathetic copy of Western civilisation.

Socially, it is also dangerous to accept homosexuals as mainstream. Simple observation reveals that girls tend to hang out with girls and guys with guys, although there is attraction across both groups. This is largely because of the knowledge that the greatest motive possible in a group of common gender is close friendship. When both genders mix, there is that possibility of something more intimate, hence the relative uneasiness. I am certain that there have been some studies that will substantiate what I am trying to put across. The idea is basically this: when girls cannot trust their own female friends to have clear-minded motives of friendship, and likewise for guys, it leads to very lonely people. Our social interactions will collapse or be forced to mutate too rapidly for our comfort. While this may mean that girls may come to trust guys more easily and vice versa, it also means that there will be greater mistrust amongst people.

I realise that such lines of argument may be developing the issue a little too far into the future. But clearly, any change will not take immediate effect, and considerations of immediate results are thus superficial and of no meaning. It would be wise to speculate the future -- with logic and maturity, of course. I will subsequently offer up alternative results of legalising homosexuals to expand the credibility of the speculations.

Another outcome would be that teenagers could just accept the fact that they are now twice as likely potential victims of sexual advances, taking a wild stab that guys ratio girls on average 1:1. Perhaps this could be a blessing, promoting closer family ties. After all, parents would now instil in their boys that not only is it inappropriate to go to a girl's home alone, it is now inappropriate to go to anyone's home alone. This means that from a young age, children will have no one to turn to except their family.

In addition, gender inequality may once and for all be solved too. When the only distinction between male and female becomes merely biological, what would result could indeed be a more equal society. Feminists would have finally achieved complete success. The world would be a better place, and any subsequent male-female divide would have to be bridged.

The obvious way to avoid such suspicion would be to brand the gays and the lesbians, a proposal that would surely be rejected before it is even submitted for approval.

And so, we are only left with one solution: continual banning of homosexual acts. After all, it would be nearly impossible to catch homosexuals in the act. No one, not even straight people, would publicise their private lives on national TV. How then would they ever be caught? The law is largely symbolic, but one that must be in place to preserve firstly the unique quality of Singapore and secondly the core unit of society that is the family. Tolerance and recognition are two different leaps for a society to take. Tolerance is a right. Recognition is not.

Homosexuals should not be legalised. But I feel that they should be allowed to exist. After all, the fact that their kind was not born to survive as a species does deserve at least a pinch of sympathy.