Resource For Promoting Holistic & Healthy Family Living
This may be my most controversial article yet (at least to some) – but precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is important to publish it. So, let’s begin with a both baffling and bold statement: LGBT supporters and their opponents are both right. Impossible? Well, let me explain. Let’s …
My argument here is that section 377A of the Penal Code prohibiting sex between men is a law of contemporary relevance and substantive importance. It goes beyond mere symbolism or placating religious views. The policy that section 377A will not be proactively enforced departs from the prior policy of pro- actively raiding gay groups. It falls within the executive’s discretion to determine what resources to commit to enforcing various offences.
Further, it should be clear that S377A does not criminalise human beings, but human behaviour. Some might fault this reasoning, while others consider it reductionist to assume “we are what we do”. While all human beings have intrinsic worth, not all human conduct is equally worthy.
What is missing from the opinion article by Professor Tommy Koh are two basic issues which go beyond whether to keep or repeal Section 377A, and which will determine the direction Singapore takes today and in the decades ahead (Section 377A: Science, religion and the law; Sept 25).
The first is the value of the family as the cornerstone of society.
Assuming Section 377A is repealed, there will very likely be a clarion call for same-sex marriages to be legalised, followed by such unions to adopt children and the demand for all other civil liberties.
A repeal of section 377A will not merely remove the offence. It is much more significant than that. Because of the concept of negative liberty, the removal of section 377A puts homosexual lifestyle on par with heterosexual lifestyle. It is to accord both lifestyles a sense of parity.
In other words, the repeal of this piece of legislation can gradually result in significant changes in the ‘constitutive morality’ of our society (Devlin).
Supporters of Section 377A point to developments in other countries that follow upon the repeal of similar laws. Some of these developments were in fact facilitated by what the repeal of such laws entailed. Repeal involves rejection of the principle on which Section 377A is based and the adoption of a contrary principle.
Those who oppose Section 377A may do so for various reasons, but they cannot logically claim to be moral sceptics - who believe there is no such thing as moral truth or justice - as that would defeat their claim that it is unjust to treat homosexual acts in this manner. If there were no moral truth, it would not be unjust to criminalise homosexual acts.
The Government maintains a position that all religious communities are free to give voice to their conscience in matters that have moral impact. People of religious faith have equal right to be included in rather than dismissed from the public forum of debate. Some homosexual advocates argue that religious citizens should refrain from advocating that the State laws should criminalise conduct that they consider immoral. This line of argument actually contradicts the definition of secularism. For what they are really saying is “You shouldn’t make laws based on your morality, but on mine instead.”
First, there is no established human right to “sexual orientation” at international law — it is a contested proposition. There is no United Nations (UN) treaty which expressly underwrites discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation”, itself an ambiguous term.
Attempts to read “sexual orientation” into “sex” (a biological term) in interpreting treaties such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Right are controversial and not universally accepted. While certain UN bodies/officials prefer an expansive reading of “sex” as encompassing “sexual orientation”, their opinions are not legally binding.
Marriage & Family 
You must be logged in to post a comment.