4 May 2007, 1324h

I read your piece in the Straits Times today, and would like to clarify a few points.

It is not a known medical fact that "homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections". I would like to point out that homosexual intercourse does not equate solely to sodomy (henceforth referred to as anal sex). There are other forms of sex between gay men; fellatio and mutual masturbation, just to name two. These are also practiced by straight people in general, and are pose relatively low risks for HIV-infections. Anal sex does pose a higher risk, HIV-wise, but this risk exists whether or not it occurs between a man and a woman or between a man and another man. Should the law discriminate, therefore, between consensual anal sex between men, and consensual anal sex between men and women?

In fact, such risks can be significantly decreased with the use of a condom. 377A has stood in the way of frank discussion of safe sex amongst gay men - if gay sex isn't even legal, how does the Health Promotion Board reach out to gay men? How can NGOs like Action for AIDS do their job in the gay community, if not covertly and without government support? If it is, as you suggest, that the law should faciliate social objectives, then surely it would make more sense to decriminalise 377A, so that gay men can legitimately be reached out to, in order that the higher social objective of bringing down STI rates be fulfilled.

In addition, contrary to your argument that the law "should not facilitate acts which threaten public health", smoking is not banned in Singapore, despite high external costs to non-smokers and health-risks to the smokers themselves. Neither does the law ban high-fat foods, or instant noodles, or canned foods with many preservatives, despite the fact that these have been shown to be detrimental to the health of those who consume such foods.

At this point I would like to draw your attention to the Millist view of liberty. According to J.S. Mill, "In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Even if - and this is a big even if - homosexual activity can be legitimately deemed to be morally reprehensible, or harmful to the individual who practices it, it is hard to see how, in civil society, a case could be made in favour of criminalisation, because gay men who participate in consensual homosexual activity are not harming anyone else.No one is saying that the law should conform to "fashion". But surely it would be extreme intellectual dishonesty to lump "equality" and "fashion" in the way that you have. Equality before the eyes of the law is a core fundamental value, and it serves the public good. It is not the flavour of the week, nor is it an "abstract notion", as you have said.

There are other issues in your article which are objectionable. Notably, one should point out that there is no "broader homosexual rights agenda", in which gay men seek to impose their views on the world. Quite the opposite. The gay rights movement is not monolithic, nor as insidious as you imply. Within the community itself there are numerous different voices from numerous different parts of the world. If there is a common thread, it is one of disappointment at the persistent misunderstanding of gay men.

Discrimination on basis of sexual orientation continues to be a problem today; not least because many continue to lump homosexuality in the same category as paedophilia and zoophilia. However, a brief examination of the key issues will demonstrate how such generalisations are false. Adult homosexuals can give consent; children and animals cannot.

It is interesting that you bring up the issue of adultery; evidently adultery is morally reprehensible because the person who commits it breaks an affirmed bond (religious, societal, personal). No such bond is broken when gay men engage in sex. It is also ironic that you bring up adultery and gay marriage: surely, if you think that adultery is morally reprehensible, and marriage is an institution of social importance, you would want more people to participate in it.

Perhaps you could also furnish me with the specific incidences where "active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty". I would be most eager to hear of such cases.

At any rate, I would just like to point out that numerous countries in the world - many among them first world countries which have highly developed legal systems - have decriminalised consensual homosexual acts. None of their societies have crumbled into anarchy; none of these countries have experienced widespread social disorder and conflict; many, in fact, continue to be prosperous, harmonious and progressive.

Jireh Tan

* * * * *

A two sentence reply from Yvonne Lee said that their views differed. She then provided the following links: www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1379536,00.html,  www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45538-2005Jan28.html  and www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/93.html  -- these being examples regarding issues of hate speech

* * * * *

4 May 2007, 1443h

It is impossible to have 2 different and equally valid views on certain issues, especially issues which can be confirmed by a simple appeal to empirical knowledge, or deduction from accepted axioms. For example, it is impossible to have 2 different and valid views on propositions which we like to call fact. A claim like "it is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections" is not explained away by your convenient invocation of relativism (as I am wont to believe your claim of "we have different opinions" is). It is either true or it is not. In this case. Medical fact cannot change with or without your concurrence; it is established on the scientific method, that is, hypothesis testing and rigorous explanation. It is a medical fact that anal sex carries higher risks of HIV infection; but as I have pointed out, one does not have to be gay to have anal sex, neither do all gay men indulge in anal sex. Nor do doctors agree that anal sex is "inherently unhealthy". It is in fact quite intellectually dishonest to mask personal opinion under the guise of fact.

I thank you for your substantiation on the point of free speech. But if you are, in fact, against legislation outlawing hate speech of any sort, then for consistency's sake, would you also be against legislation outlawing such speech as Muslims preaching militant jihadism, anti-Semitic death threats, or, as I have pointed out, Westboro Baptist Church-like picketing of funeral? At any rate, the right to free speech can come into conflict with other rights; this much you have admitted. If it is, as you have hinted, that there is a value system of rights, then the law must balance out the case between the rights and come to an appropriate compromise.

Perhaps at this point it is also useful to draw out the distinction between what is legal and what is moral. Religions have their various conceptions of morality, and what contravenes morality, i.e. sin; none of them should be privileged under the rule of law in a secular state. For freedom of religion to have any meaning at all, the state and the laws of the state must be impartial to all parties concerned. It is unacceptable for a person to sacrifice a virgin bride to the Amalekite God Molech, he cannot claim legal innocence by claiming that he was merely exercising his freedom of religion to do so. If certain religions preach hateful messages - and we have seen this all over the world, with messages not merely directed at gay men and women, but also other religions, other races, other beliefs and creeds - the state has a vested interest in intervening in such cases.

Legality and morality are not equal, nor should they strive to be. Something legal may not be moral (as you have said, adultery), something moral may not be legal (as I have said, incitement to violence by religious leaders, family honour killings, etc).

I hope that I have at least provided an alternative viewpoint on this issue.

* * * * *

A one sentence reply by Yvonne Lee said that she was merely providing reference links and that it should not be read as a reply on any point.

* * * * *

4 May 2007, 17:17h

In that case, pardon the presumption for assuming that "we have different opinions" was a substantive reply on any point. I still await with bated breath clarification on the various issues that I have brought up. If you have nothing else to say, please note at least this point: there are numerous men and women, gay or straight, out there, who read your article and feel distaste for some of the misleading points that you have made. There are many others who will be misled. Responsible journalism needs to be backed up by facts, not opinions masquerading as facts. It requires clear, solid, thinking that is founded on logic - empirical and deductive. This I found to be sorely lacking in your article, which, though thought-provoking, was more provoking than thoughtful.

Thanks for your time,