Why can't a monogamous relationship between 2 persons of the
same gender be considered as a marriage? At the end of the day,
isn't this the definition of marriage?
This may be what you want marriage to mean but that is certainly
not the current definition in many jurisdictions. Legally, marriage
is a contract that has implications relating to numerous issues
such as inheritance, property, child custody, etc. To recognize
same sex marriage will involve a very fundamental re-look at many
legal issues. It is not impossible, but there many legal obstacles
to overcome, and that's the reason even the UK is not keen to
change the current definition.
You can not have oral sex just for the sake of having it. All
other kind of sex can be criminised. Do you consider this as a
discrimination then?
You are alluding to the Chief Justice's ruling on an earlier
case. The issue is whether oral sex falls under the definition of
'intercourse against the order of nature' in section 377 of the
penal Code:
"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."
The CJ indeed ruled that oral sex is considered an unnatural act
unless it is part of foreplay, prior to usual sexual intercourse.
There has been legal debate about this ruling but it is not
directed at gay people. In fact, the case in question involved
heterosexual activity. Oral sex alone between man and woman is
illegal, based on the current understanding of the law.
Is this discrimination? Back to my argument about how you cannot
leave moral and religious questions out of this debate. The reason
why this offence of unnatural carnal intercourse appears almost
draconian (maximum punishment is life imprisonment) is because it
has come to us right out of the pages of the Bible:
Eg. " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of
them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads." Lev 20:13
At a time when society regarded the teachings of the Bible to be
the basis of social behaviour, the laws reflect such a view. What I
am saying is that our society still holds these values and does not
intend to change them.
they use gay lifestyle in a degrading manner to describe the
hedonistic lifestyle which involves only sauna, pub, gym,
bedroom.
No, that is not my understanding of the term 'gay lifestyle'.
That is reading too much into the phrase. I am a simple man. I
understand it to mean the way of life for a gay person,
period.
You take pains to argue that because gays are born, society must
allow them liberty to live as they have been designed to do, even
if the majority feels repugnant by that behaviour. Not intending
any offence, may I suggest that people with a psychopathic
personality disorder also do not choose to be psychopaths, they are
born that way. But should we therefore allow these 'natural born
killers' to behave in accordance to the way they were born?
In fact, when I entered University years ago, homosexuality was
considered to be a disease condition and listed in our textbooks of
psychological medicine. At the time, we all agreed that gays cannot
help themselves any more than you can be held responsible for being
born a psychotic. Over the years, there has been a move away from
that and it is now removed from medical texts as a psychological
disease condition but considered as an alternative lifestyle, a
subject more suitable for the sociologists than medical doctors. I
might say that the gay community was in part to blame for giving
the impression that being gay is not a medical anomaly, but a
lifestyle choice based on personal likes and dislikes.
Whilst there is much research in the area, it is not universally
accepted that gays are born. For every piece of data supporting
this argument there are criticisms and alternative explanations. It
will be interesting to see if genetic profiling work that has been
so successful in tracing racial lineages and human anthropology has
anything to offer in this regard.
Since the formation of gay groups are disallowed officially.
Gays do not have weights in the political arena.
True. When I say gay people are becoming vocal, I mean they are
given visibility. The government and most Singaporeans seem to be
prepared to have gay people in their colleges and workplace, as
long as they don't hear about them or see them as a community.
"Don't ask, don't tell, don't know."
But gay people are not willing to accept that, isn't that true?
They see that as discrimination and desire more acceptance and a
greater share of civil society than just lurking in the shadows.
Isn't that right? That desire is what I mean by being more vocal in
recent years and that is precisely what the conservatives in
society want to deny them.
Finally, thank you for engaging me in this debate. Incidentally, I
count a number of gay people among my very good friends and I am
not against the gay community at all. But I fear I might be more
accepting than many in our society.
