Church leaders and authorities in Singapore are very clear what the stand on homosexuality is. I am not a Bible scholar so I am in no position to dispute their stand. I do find the punishment as taught in the Old Testament as inhuman, but it would be hypocritical of me to choose to accept only the good things God has to offer, but refuses to accept that which the secular world objects to. Granted the other religions may not even oppose or have a stand on homosexuality, and Singapore is not a theocracy to begin with, but if I don’t stand by my own religious convictions, then mayhaps I should quit believing in God as well. Cannot believe ‘jit bwa jit bwa’ [only half of it], right?

Is there unequal treatment in general? Does 377A deny homosexual people jobs, social services such as health care, and also universal suffrage in Singapore? Are they made to pay more taxes or pay more for public transports?

I doubt even the staunchest who support keeping 377A would stand for unequal treatment. I personally wouldn’t care if my colleague is lesbian or homosexual. As far as I am concerned, there is no inequality where I can see. Yes, there are narrowed-minded people who would look at and treat homosexual people differently, but is that a side effect of 377A itself, or is 377A the result of such narrow-mindedness? Let’s avoid the circular logic here.

This is in my opinion is one of the strongest argument presented for the repealing of 377A. One has a right to choose what the way to live their own lives when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle. The part on when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle was added when it was asked why then does one not have the freedom to choose to object to something that one may feel offended about?

Unfortunately, the weakest link of this argument is ‘when it does not affects your ability to live your own lifestyle’ itself. The reason being, a person who chooses to be a robber or pedophile; or has a liking for bestiality also doesn’t affect anyone’s ability to live their own lifestyle until someone is robbed, has his child raped or his dog sodomised respectively. In fact choosing to greet your neighbour every morning with the Hokkien vulgarities KNNBCCB, also does not affect your neighbour’s ability to live their own lifestyle. But it will provoke a reaction anyway.

To put it simply, I am just pointing out the fallacy of this argument and the slippery slope it is on. And let me make it clear, I not equating homosexuality with the above listed felonies in case some draws that conclusion. But I would like to ask, why stop at 377A, why not repeal 377 as well in this case? After all, none of those things stated in 377 would affect another’ss ability to live their own lifestyle as well, do they?

This is often used. The argument is that those who are against homosexuality are conservative die-hards and perhaps even reactionary and counter-progressive. Sometimes, even the religion of the person’s objecting is being talked about, as seen here.

I disagree with this completely. There will be people who have different views on what is being liberal and progressive and the disagreement on that doesn’t earn one a label of any form. And what has the person’s religious community got to do with it anyway? In my opinion, labelling your opponents or even attacking his religious beliefs would polarise both sides of the argument and push them further away from one another. And whatever happened to freedom of choice? Why is another person criticised and ridiculed for making their choices as long as they are using their best judgment from the information available to them?

Surprisingly, there is also the argument that homosexuality is not a choice. Some people are just born that way. So, the fear that there will be more homosexuals by simply decriminalising homosexuality is irrational. Homosexual acts, if not homosexuality itself, is in fact also observed in the animal kingdom. (Though, I am not entirely sure if homosexual behavior in animals is one entirely of attraction or lust, and not an act of alpha domination.)

There are documentaries on this. And despite the fact of it being one of the best arguments for repealing 377A, this argument unfortunately contradicts that of freedom of choice. If it is indeed something natural, i.e. a result – and I won’t call it a fluke – of nature, then homosexuals really don’t have a choice in the matter. In fact, it would serve as a very strong case to repeal 377A because that sets homosexual acts apart from bestiality and pedophilia and the people who oppose repealing it without this information are surely under-informed.

But still, aren’t humans creatures capable of higher thoughts and control? Otherwise, why isn’t everyone giving in to their sexual urges and hump one another anywhere on the streets? It’s certainly a matter of nature to procreate, no?