I apologise - perhaps the use of the Indian language is not
appropriate. Let us hence consider the example of religious
practices, which can be done behind closed doors - the example
perhaps of eating bread for communion.
To answer your counter-challenge (point 2), So what if the eating
of bread as a religous act is allowed? I agree, there is no
consequence, it is after all a private act and as long as you don't
forcefeed say a Muslim into eating bread as a symbol of
Christ-Worship, so what if the eating of bread is allowed?
Have you however considered the converse. So what if the eating of
bread as a religious act is not allowed? Will that not count in a
way of religious discrimination, when the private worship practices
of a religion is deemed unnatural (i mean, bread was never
naturally used as a symbol for the flesh of Christ), and any
partakers in this activity is liable to litigation? Therefore one
must answer both sides of the question when using the phrase "So
What" to have a more logically defensible argument.
You also talk about the concept of the "Big Picture". I agree with
you that the Big Picture is important. Consider the "big picture"
of what is essentially a discriminatory act against a minority -
going against their civil right of intercourse with a consenting
individual. Given such a precedent, what prevents Parliament from
banning other actions within the civil rights of a Singaporean as
illegal? Using the same example, if the government can erode the
civil rights of a gay of intercourse, why can the government not
erode the civil rights of a Christian to freedom of religious
worship?
Therefore considering the "Big Picture" also tells us that the need
to repeal 377A is important in protecting the sancity of civil
rights of Singaporeans - that there are some sacred basic rights
granted to every Singaporean that cannot be superseded by another
law.
I hope for interesting replies supporting/opposing the above
argument.
