You
got to hand it to Singapore's fundimentalist relgious community but
they really have a knack for finding the most trivial things to get
upset about. If that was not enough – they have the ability to make
an “all-powerful” governmen take note of their objections and to
give them the time of the day.
I
for one, have never understood how a rational government that has
been a by-word for common sense on most things could actually cave in
to the concept of “anti-gay” laws. As things stand, it is illegal
for two consenting adult men to have sex in the privacy of their
bedrooms. This law has existed on the stauate books since colonial
times and it continues to stay there despite every concieveable
argument for keeping the law being demolished by events. The only
protection a consenting gay man has is the fact that the government
has promised not to enforce a law (and that's in a country that
prides itself in having “rule of law”). How has this happened?
The “Relgious Establishment” (or those claiming to speak for it)
has kept the government under pressure from ever considering
abolishing a law that makes no sense to any rational person.
The
latest storm comes from the fact that the Health Promotion Board
(HPB) had the audacity to publish a list of FAQ's on sexuality. These
FAQ's had the audacity to suggests that homosexuals were capable of
having “normal” comitted relationships. That little comment has
got the religoius establishment up in arms. One Member of Parliament
(Lim Biow Chuan – Mountbatten Single Member Constituency) has gone
public in denouncing HPB for going against the government's policy of
promoting heterosexual relationships as the only acceptable ones.
Seriously,
are we really so devoid of things to do that we need to cause such a
storm over things like this?
OK, I admit, not everyone is comfortable with homosexuality. I don't want to poke another guy up the bum nor do I wish to be poked up the bum. That fact will remain true whether it was legal or not. I also wouldn't like any son of mine to come up and declare he was gay and bringing home a bloke.
Having
said that, this is a personal view and just because I feel a certain
way doesn't mean something should be illegal. While I may not like
any son of mine being gay (a fact I used to think of when Yooga was
hanging around), I'd rather he be happy with his chosen partner and
enjoy the necessary legal protections. His happiness and well being
must be my concern rather than what I like.
I
also look on the fact that homosexuals exists in every society and
amongst every ethnicity. London was filled with gays from “Macho”
societies like Spain and Italy. The guys from societies that did not
allow them to be gay left and moved to more accomodating places. Gays
will always be with us, whether we like them or not. In the case of
Singapore, where every human is assessed on their ability to
contribute economically, you'd imagine that efforts would be made to
ensure the gay community contributed as much as they could instead
making laws against them based on spuroius facts?
We
need common sense when it comes to policies regarding sexuality.
We've done it for nearly everything else.
Then
one has to ask the question – why does the relgious establishment
get so worked up over who people poke when there are more pressing
issues at stake.
Let's
take the issue of inequality as an example. Singapore has one of the
worst rates of inequality in the world today. We have billionaires
rushing here so that they can enjoy goods and services at third world
backwater rates.
Yes,
the Bible and other Holy text are not kind to the homosexual
community. However, Christ had far more to say about poverty and
inequality than he did about homosexuality. Christ stood for
aliviating human suffering not increasing it.
So,
if this is the case, why don't you hear any of our religious figures
speak about real issues connected to poverty and inequality? Pastor
Lawrence Kong and the Family Thio have been so busy talking to God
about the sex lives of homosexuals that they forgot about the poor
and the needy. I mean I don't speak for God but surely humanity
depends more on relieving the suffering of the poor and needy than it
is about stopping people who are inclined a certain way to behave in
the way that nature has intended them to behave.