First World Nation Still Criminalizes Sodomy
Political Leaders Understand Fraught Consequences and
Full Tyranny of LGBT Agenda
Lawmakers and Pro-Family Activists Effectively Defend
Anti-Sodomy Statute
MassResistance is the international pro-family group that
makes the difference. We are committed to fighting the perverse LGBT agenda
everywhere, not just in the United States. We have had growing successes in
Latin America as well as Canada, and we have international members committed to
working with us and stopping the spread of this agenda in their countries, too.
Sadly, many pro-family activists are unaware of the rising
LGBT onslaught in Southeast Asia, a region of the world noted for its
conservative, pro-family values and respect for the traditional family. For the
past three years, we have reported on the tyranny which forced gay marriage in
Taiwan, even though a record 70% of the population defended the natural
definition of marriage. Recently, our contacts in Taiwan have informed us that
the government is pushing LGBT themes into primary classrooms along with demands
for more privileges for homosexuals and transgenders.
The situation in Hong Kong is better. Our pro-family
partners have not been afraid to speak out against the LGBT agenda. Gay
marriage is still not recognized. Last year, the Hong Kong Gay Pride parade had
to be cancelled because of the political upheaval. Some of our activists are now
urging the Hong Kong Legislative council to recriminalize homosexual acts, in
part because of the inevitable tyranny which can follow.
The Republic of Singapore Still Criminalizes Homosexual
Acts
The fight against the LGBT Agenda also has a stunning
champion in Southeast Asia, and in a country that most overlook: The Republic
of Singapore. As another former British Colony, this little island nation has a
unique political culture. Freedom of speech is significantly regulated. Parades
are not permitted. For public assemblies, Singapore residents must apply for a
permit, and they can only hold their rallies in one location—Hong Lim Park. For
the past decade, LGBT activists have promoted their version of Gay Pride called “Pink Dot”.
More importantly, though, unlike other former colonies, the
Republic of Singapore still criminalizes homosexuality in its penal code:
Section 377a! Despite repeated legal and political attempts to repeal the law,
it has remained on the books, although the government does not actively enforce
it.
Here’s the language:
Any male person who, in public or
private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to
procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with
another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 2 years.
Gross indecency covers all forms of sexual contact between
men, not just anal sex.
Singapore Member of Parliament Gives Spirited Defense of
377A—and against the LGBT agenda as a whole
Unlike pro-family conservative lawmakers in other countries,
including the United States, Singapore’s elected officials have given strong,
effective arguments for maintaining the anti-sodomy law and resisting the
larger LGBT Agenda. Not just referring to tradition or religious sentiment,
they often outline the underlying public health and public decency concerns
that arise from decriminalizing sodomy.
A massive LGBT push took place in 2007 to remove the
statute. Stunningly, a petition emerged online urging the government to retain
the statute. Lawmakers in the Singapore parliament wisely obliged to uphold and
defend the statute.
One of the most powerful speeches delivered in the Singapore
Parliament was given in 2007 by Dr. Thio Li-Ann, who currently serves as a
constitutional law professor in the National University of Singapore. In 2007, her
spirited, researched, and effective speech outlined opposition to homosexuality
as a whole, not just in support for 377A. To this day, she has been one of the
most vocal champions for maintaining 377A and upholding natural marriage.
Dr. Thio Li-Ann of
Singapore
Click on this link to view her speech. [Video Link]
You
can read the text for the speech below (and click here):
Two camps championing two distinct criminal law
philosophies are polarised over whether to retain or repeal s377A which
criminalizes public or private acts of gross indecency between two men, such as
sodomy.
The ‘liberal’ camp wants 377A repealed. They
offer an ‘argument from consent’ –government should not police the private
sexual behaviour of consenting adults. They opine this violates their liberty
or ‘privacy’. They ask, ‘Why criminalize something which does not “harm”
anyone; if homosexuals are “born that way”, isn’t it unkind to ‘discriminate’
against their sexual practices?
These flawed arguments are marinated with
distracting fallacies which obscure what is at stake – repealing 377A is the
first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality,
the common good and undermine our liberties.
The ‘communitarian’ camp argues from ‘community
values’ – these social conservatives want 377A retained, to protect public
health, morality, decency and order. A Keep 377A online petition attracted over
15,000 signatures after a few days.
Like many, I applaud the government’s wisdom in
keeping 377A which conserves what upholds the national interest. ‘Conservative’
here is not a dirty word connoting backwardness; environmental conservation
protects our habitat; the moral ecology must be conserved to protect what is
precious and sustains a dynamic, free and good society.
The welfare of future generations depends on
basing law on sound public philosophy. We should reject the ‘argument from
consent’ as its philosophy is intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt.
Sir, the arguments to retain 377A are
overwhelmingly compelling and should be fully articulated, to enable
legislators to make informed decisions and not be bewitched by the empty
rhetoric and emotional sloganeering employed by many radical liberals, which
generate more heat than light.
The real question today is not “if” we should
repeal 377A now, or wait until people are ready to move. This assumes too much,
as though we need an adjustment period before the inevitable. The real question
is not “if” but “should” we ever repeal 377A. It is not inevitable; it is not
desirable to repeal it in any event. Not only is retaining s377A sound public
policy, it is legally and constitutionally beyond reproach. Responsible
legislators must grapple with the facts, figures and principles involved; they
cannot discount the noxious social consequences repeal will bring.
Debate must be based on substance not
sound-bites. Let me red-flag four red herrings.
First, to say a law is archaic is merely
chronological snobbery.
Second, you cannot say a law is ‘regressive’
unless you first identify your ultimate goal. If we seek to copy the sexual
libertine ethos of the wild wild West, then repealing s377A is progressive. But
that is not our final destination. The onus is on those seeking repeal to prove
this will not harm society.
Third, to say a law which criminalizes
homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a “prejudice”
or “bias” assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists.
This evades debate. The liberal argument which says sodomy is a personal
choice, private matter and ‘victimless crime’ merely asserts this. It rests
precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both
physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third
parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.
Fourth, some argue that legislators should be
‘open-minded’ and decriminalize sodomy. However, like an open mouth, an open
mind must eventually close on something solid. They urge legislators to be
‘objective’ and to leave their personal subjective beliefs at home, especially
if they hold religious views which consider homosexuality aberrant.
This demand for objectivity is intellectually
disingenuous as there is no neutral ground, no ‘Switzerland of ambivalence’
when we consider the moral issues related to 377A which require moral judgment
of what is right and wrong – not to take a stand, is to take a stand! As law
has a moral basis, we need to consider which morality to legislate. Neither the
majority or minority is always right – but there are fundamental values beyond
fashion and politics which serve the common good. Religious views are part of
our common morality. We separate ‘religion’ from ‘politics,’ but not ‘religion’
from ‘public policy’. That would be undemocratic. All citizens may propose
views in public debate, whether influenced by religious or secular convictions
or both; only the government can impose a view by law.
Incidentally, one does not have to be religious
to consider homosexuality contrary to biological design and immoral; secular
philosopher Immanuel Kant considered homosexuality “immoral acts against our
animal nature” which did not preserve the species and dishonoured humanity.
The issues surrounding s377A are about morality,
not modernity or being cosmopolitan. What will foreigners think if we retain
377A? Depends on which foreigner you ask. Many would applaud us! Such issues
divide other societies as well! The debate is not closed. A group of Canadians1
were grieved enough to issue an online apology to the world “for harm done
through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage”, urging us not to repeat
their mistakes.
Singapore is an independent state and we can
decide the 377A issue ourselves; we have no need of foreign or neo-colonial
moral imperialism in matters of fundamental morality.
There are no constitutional objections to s377A
Sir, there are no constitutional objections to
retaining 377A while de-criminalising heterosexual oral and anal sex. Three
legal points are worth making.
First, there is no constitutional right to
homosexual sodomy. It is not a facet of personal liberty under article 9. Nor
is there a human right to homosexual sodomy though some like to slip this in
under the umbrella of ‘privacy.’ Human rights are universal, like prohibitions
against genocide. Demands for ‘homosexual rights’ are the political claims of a
narrow interest group masquerading as legal entitlements. Homosexual activists
often try to infiltrate and hijack human rights initiatives to serve their political
agenda, discrediting an otherwise noble cause to protect the weak and poor. You
cannot make a human wrong a human right.
Second, while homosexuals are a numerical
minority, there is no such thing as ‘sexual minorities’ at law. Activists have
coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between
homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a
fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic
or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays.
The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual
preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan ‘sexual minority’ ad nauseum
as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don’t think
through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy.
Science has become so politicized that the issue
of whether gays are ‘born that way’ depends on which scientist you ask. You
cannot base sound public philosophy on poor politicized pseudo ‘science’.
Homosexuality is a gender identity disorder;
there are numerous examples of former homosexuals successfully dealing with
this. Just this year, two high profile US activists left the homosexual
lifestyle, the publisher of Venus, a lesbian magazine, and an editor of Young
Gay America. Their stories are available on the net. An article by an ex-gay in
the New Statesmen this July identified the roots of his emotional hurts, like a
distant father, overbearing mother and sexual abuse by a family friend; after
working through his pain, his unwanted same-sex attractions left. While
difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those
wanting to fulfill their heterosexual potential. There is hope.
Singapore law only recognizes racial and
religious minorities. Special protection is reserved for the poor and
disadvantaged; the average homosexual person in Singapore is both well
educated, with higher income – that’s why upscale condo developers target them!
Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, just the rights we all have.
‘Sexual minorities’ and ‘sexual orientation’ are
vague terms – covering anything from homosexuality, bestiality, incest,
paedophilia – do all these minority sexual practices merit protection?
Third, 377A does not breach the article 12
guarantee of equality. While all human persons are of equal worth, not all
human behaviour is equally worthy. We separate the actor from the act. In
criminalizing acts, we consider the wrongfulness of the act, the harm caused
and how it affects the good of society.
Parliament has the power to classify; this
involves a choice, like distinguishing murder and manslaughter. Classifications
which satisfy the constitutional test of validity are called “differentiation”;
only invalid classifications are called “discrimination.” Criminalising
same-sex sodomy but not opposite-sex sodomy is valid “differentiation.” S377A
does not target any specific actor; it would cover a heterosexual male
experimenting with male sodomy.
Valid classifications must have a clear basis
and be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. In serving public health and
public morality, 377A passes constitutional muster with flying colours.
Public Health Argument
Sir, public health and safety is a legitimate
purpose served by the 377A ban on homosexual anal and oral sex. Both these
practices are efficient methods of transmitting sexual diseases and AIDs / HIV
which are public health problems. These are not victimless crimes as the whole
community has to foot the costs of these diseases.
Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to
the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink.
The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into
it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by
sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like ‘gay
bowel syndrome’, anal cancer. ‘Acts of gross indecency’ under 377A also covers
unhygienic practices like “rimming” where the mouth comes into contact with the
anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence – otherwise, our strong anti-drug
laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a
matter of personal lifestyle choice.
Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical
studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society
because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels. The New York Times reported
that even informed homosexuals return to unsafe practices like bare-backing and
bug-chasing after a health crisis wanes. A British Study showed that the
legalization of homosexual sodomy correlated with an upsurge of STDs among
gays. Common sense tells us that with more acceptance, any form of consensual sexual
behaviour increases. Sodomy laws have some deterrent effect.
It is rational for the state to target the most
acute aspect of a problem. The legal issue is not whether the state should be
concerned with heterosexual sodomy but whether it is reasonable to believe
same-sex sodomy poses a distinct problem. Medical literature indicates that
gays have disproportionately higher STDs rates, which puts them in a different
category from the general public, warranting different treatment.
The onus rests on opponents of 377A to negate
every conceivable basis for treating homosexual and heterosexual sodomy
differently. They cannot, because classifications do not need to be perfect and
can be under-inclusive; valid classifications only need to “go some way” to
serve the legislative goal, which 377A clearly does.
Public Morality
Sir, the power to legislate morality is not
limited to preventing demonstrable harm. The Penal Code now criminalizes the
wounding of both religious and racial feelings (s498).
S377A serves public morality; the argument from
community reminds us we share a way of life which gives legal expression to the
moral repugnancy of homosexuality. Heterosexual sodomy unlike homosexual sodomy
does not undermine the understanding of heterosexuality as the preferred social
norm. To those who say that 377A penalizes only gays not lesbians, note there
have been calls to criminalize lesbianism too.
Public sexual morality must buttress strong
families based on faithful union between man and wife, the best model for
raising children. The state should not promote promiscuity nor condone sexual
exploitation. New section 376D criminalizes the organisation of child sex
tours. Bravo.
The ‘argument from consent’ says the state
should keep out of the bedroom, to safeguard ‘sexual autonomy’. While we
cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle
of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument
is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical
egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits
to consent.
Radical individualism would demand
decriminalising consensual adult incest; but the Penal Code is not based on
consent as s376F reflects. The state has always retained an interest in
regulating conduct in the bedroom – the issue is which type?
Radical egalitarianism applied to sexual
morality says the state should not morally distinguish between types of
consensual sex. It exudes a false neutrality but actually sneaks in a
substantive philosophy: Hedonism which breeds narcissism. This extols satisfying
desire without restraint as a matter of autonomy. But some desires are
undesirable, harming self and society.
The argument from consent ultimately celebrates
sexual libertine values, the fruit of which is sexual licentiousness, a culture
of lust, which takes, rather than love, which gives. This social decline will
provoke more headlines like a 2004 Her World article called: “Gay guy
confesses: I slept with 100 men…one of them could be your hubby.” What about
the broken-hearts involved?
If you argue from consent, how can you condemn
any form of sexual self-expression, no matter how selfish or hurtful? But, no
man is an island. Ideas, embodied in laws, have consequences. Don’t send the
wrong message.
The issues raised in the Petition fall apart on
rigorous analysis.
Rule of Law vs. Rule of Good Law
Sir, government policy is not to pro-actively
enforce 377A. Some argue that just keeping this law on the books will erode the
rule of law. I disagree. It is not turning a blind eye on the existence of
homosexuals here; it is refusing to celebrate homosexuality while allowing gays
to live quiet lives. This is prudent, as it is difficult to enforce ‘bedroom’
offences; such intrusive powers should be judiciously used anyway.
We have other hard-to-police laws which embody
communal standards of public decency, such as laws against nudity visible to
the public eye, even if you are at home. Law is a Moral teacher and makes a
moral statement; 6 years ago, Singapore symbolically blocked access to 100 porn
sites, as a ‘statement of our values.’ We value our values, while remaining
realistic.
A non pro-active policy does not mean 377A will
never be enforced – who knows what another season may require? Policies can
change.
Sir, citizens are not just concerned with the
rule of law but with the rule of good law. Laws which violate core moral values
will alienate many and bring the system into disrepute. Indeed, many citizens
see keeping 377A as evidence the government is defending the right moral
values, which lends legitimacy.
Criminalising Moral Wrongs – which?
Sir, it is true that not all moral wrongs, such
as adultery, are criminalized; yet they retain their stigma. But adulterors
know they done wrong and do not lobby for toleration of adultery as a sexual
orientation right.
Homosexual Agenda and Social Consequences
Conversely, homosexual activists lobby hard for
a radical sexual revolution, waging a liberal fundamentalist crusade against
traditional morality. They adopt a ‘step by step’ approach to hide how radical
the agenda is. Liberals never ask: what happens next if you repeal 377A.
Responsible legislators must see the Big Picture.
Pro-gay academics identify 5 main steps in this
agenda in their study of foreign jurisdictions.
Step 1: repeal laws criminalizing homosexual
sex. They consider this “pivotal” to advancing the homosexual agenda. Why?
Without this, they cannot advance in the public sphere or push for government
funding and support for special programmes, such as the New York Gay High
School. Governments don’t promote criminal activities. You need to change the
criminal law before changing civil law.
But decriminalizing sodomy is only the tip of
the iceberg which is 1/8 of an ice mass – we must see what lies beneath the
water to avoid a Titanic fate.
Step 2 is to equalize the age of consent for
heterosexual and homosexual sex; in some countries, this is as low as 13. Do we
want to expose Sec 1 boys to adult sexual predators? To be sexually creative?
Step 3 is to prohibit discrimination based on
‘sexual orientation’. But would this not include all sexual behaviour? “Sex
before 8 or else it’s too late” is the motto of the North American Man Boy Love
Association. Should we judge pedophilia or be relativist and promote “anything
goes” sexual experimentation?
Sir, to protect homosexuals, some countries have
criminalized not sodomy but opposition to sodomy, making it a ‘hate crime’ to
criticize homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will
sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and
Koran, be criminalized? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional
liberties cannot be tolerated.
Steps 4 and 5 relate to legalizing same-sex
marriage or partnerships, child adoption rights. This subverts both marriage
and family, which are institutions homosexuals seek to redefine beyond
recognition. Will MOE then commission a book copying the US “Heather has 2
mummies” called “Ah Beng has 2 daddies?” What if parents disagree with their
kids studying homosexual propaganda?
Is legalizing same-sex marriage progressive? It
is if you want a genderless planet where “husband” and “wife” are considered
discriminatory terms, to be replaced by “spouse”.
We want to be able to say, Majullah Singapura,
not Mundur Singapura!
Repealing 377A will further batter the
institution of ‘marriage’ which we must bolster! This is because the arguments
raised to challenge a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy,
equally apply to challenge legal distinctions between lawful heterosexual
marriage between man and wife and unlawful homosexual unions.
To reinforce the moral foundations of a
pro-family policy that permits only heterosexuals to marry, it is permissible
to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual sodomy. To say that 377A
discriminates is effectively to say that marriage laws discriminate and are
unconstitutional.
Legalising sodomy would set a bad example; by
signaling approval, it may change both attitude and conduct; coupled with
sexual hedonism, it makes a mockery of strong family values. 377A helps to
protect against this harm.
Academic supporters of the homosexual agenda
like my colleague Michael Hor argued online that even if 377A was not enforced,
discriminatory policies against homosexuals could be built on the logic of its
existence. But taking his logic, repealing 377A would mean the government would
be less able to resist claims for homosexual marriage or for promoting
homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle in schools, as this would be
‘discriminatory’. These foreign developments warn us that the advance of the
homosexual agenda here is not remote.
To slouch back to Sodom is to return to the Bad
Old Days in ancient Greece or even China where sex was utterly wild and
unrestrained, and homosexuality was considered superior to man-women relations.
Women’s groups should note that where homosexuality was celebrated, women were
relegated to low social roles; when homosexuality was idealized in Greece,
women were objects not partners, who ran homes and bore babies. Back then,
whether a man had sex with another man, woman or child was a matter of indifference,
like one’s eating preferences. The only relevant category was penetrator and
penetrated; sex was not seen as interactive intimacy, but a doing of something
to someone. How degrading.
It was only when marriage was invented by the
Jewish Torah that the genie of sexual impulses was forced into the marital
bottle, so that sex no longer dominated society – this discipline provided the
social base for the development of western civilization.
Homosexuals as fellow citizens have the right to
expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist
we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about
their sexual behaviour. We should not be subject to the tyranny of the
undemocratic minority who want to violate our consciences, trample on our
cherished moral virtues and threaten our collective welfare by imposing
homosexual dogma on right-thinking people. Keep 377A.
Democracy and Debate
Sir, we Singaporeans will continue to debate and
disagree over controversial moral issues as they arise. We should make
substantive arguments and not think with our feelings; the media should present
both sides fairly, without bias.
However, I have noted a disturbing phenomenon
over the 377A debate– the argument by insult. Instead of reasoning, some have
resorted to name-calling to intimidate and silence their opponents. People with
principled moral objections to the homosexual agenda are tarred and feathered
‘homophobes’, ‘bigots’, to shut them up. This strategy is unoriginally imported
from foreign gay activists, which stifles creative thinking and intellectual
enquiry.
When you shout, full of sound and fury, and call
your opponents nasty names, this terminates public debate. No one wants to be
called a bigot. But think about it – if I oppose incest, am I an incestophobe?
If I oppose alcoholism, am I a winophobe? If having an opinion means you are
bigoted, then we are all bigots! What is your phobia?
Where certain liberals accuse their opponents of
being intolerant, they demonstrate their own intolerance towards their
opponents! They are hoisted on their own petard, guilty of everything they
accuse their detractors of!
One of my colleagues, a young professor,
suffered these vicious tactics when the Straits Times published an article this
May where Yvonne Lee argued against repealing 377A. This well-researched,
cogent article so incensed homosexual activists that they flooded her with a
torrent of abusive, lewd emails and wrote to her head of department calling for
her to be removed from her job. This appeared to be a co-ordinated campaign.
We academics are used to disagreement, but why
write to her employer and threaten her livelihood? Why vilify someone and seek
to assassinate their personal and professional reputation? I hope the House
joins me in deploring these malicious attacks which also assault academic
freedom. She is owed an apology. I would be ashamed to belong to any academic
institution that cravenly bowed down to such disgraceful bully-boy tactics.
This August, I had my own experience with this
sort of hysterical attack. I received an email from someone I never met, full
of vile and obscene invective which I shall not repeat, accusing me of
hatemongering. It cursed me and expressed the wish to defile my grave on the
day 377A was repealed.
I believe in free debate but this oversteps the
line. I was distressed, disgusted, upset enough to file a police report. Does a
normal person go up to a stranger to express such irrational hatred?
Smear tactics indicate the poor quality of
debate and also, of character. Let us have rational debate, not diatribe, free
from abusive rhetoric and tantrum-throwing. As Singapore approaches her
Jubilee, My hope for the post-65 generation is that we will not become an
uncivil civil society borne from an immature culture of vulgarity which
celebrates the base, not the noble.
I speak, at the risk of being burned at the
stake by militant activists. But if we don’t stand for something, we will fall
for anything. I was raised to believe in speaking out for what is right, good
and true, no matter the cost. It is important in life not only to have a Brain,
but a Spine.
One of my favourite speeches by PM Lee, which I
force my students to read, is his Harvard Club speech 2 years ago where he
urged citizens not to be “passive bystanders” in their own fate but to debate
issues with reason and conviction. I took this to heart. To forge good policy,
we need to do our homework and engage in honest debate on the issues. Let us
also speak with civility, which cannot be legislated, but draws deep from our
character and upbringing. Before government can govern man, man must be able to
govern himself.
Sir, let speaking in the public square with
reason, passion, honesty, civility, even grace, be the mark of a Citizen of
Singapore.
Now this is a speech! Wouldn’t it have been great if elected
officials in Massachusetts or in the other 39 states had made similar profound
arguments for retaining natural marriage and stopping the homosexual agenda in
this country! Wouldn’t it have been great if the constitutional lawyers
defending the statutes against gay marriage in the several states had relied on
these arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Now let’s take a closer look at the extensive remarks in
this speech. Notice that in Dr. Li-Ann does not settle for stating “We must
oppose sodomy because it violates religious sentiment.” Notice also that she
did not settle for weak platitudes like “I just believe that sex should be for
marriage, and between one man and one woman.” In fact, she cites secular as
well as sacred sources for pushing back against repeal of 377a.
Dr. Li-Ann provides a stunning series of facts, research and
historical reasoning for opposition to homosexuality and retention of the
country’s anti-sodomy law. She even calls out the much larger LGBT agenda,
which will not only undermine public order but attack the individual liberties
of all Singaporeans. It was a surprise even to our organization that
homosexuality had not only been rampant in Ancient Greece, but even in Medieval
China!
Unlike American pro-family activists, she did not shy away
from discussing the physical and biological degradations of homosexual acts.
Notice again how she describes them:
Anal-penetrative sex is inherently
damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose
to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly
inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses
carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications
like ‘gay bowel syndrome’, anal cancer.
Homosexual acts
are disgusting, degrading, and dangerous, and Dr. Li-Ann did not mince words.
Since when have pro-family advocates made similar arguments here in the United
States?
In her speech, Dr. Li-Ann enumerates the many arguments that
pro-LGBT activists make in favor of repeal, then demolishes them. She points
out all the hollow talking points about equality, fairness, “live and let
live”, and the most notorious talking point: “Why does anyone care what two
consenting adults do in private?”
Consider her expert response:
Third, to say a law which criminalizes
homosexual acts because many find it offensive is merely imposing a “prejudice”
or “bias” assumes with justification that no reasonable contrary view exists.
This evades debate. The liberal argument which says sodomy is a personal
choice, private matter and ‘victimless crime’ merely asserts this. It rests
precariously on an idiosyncratic notion of “harm” – but “harm” can be both
physical and intangible; victims include both the immediate parties and third
parties. What is done in ‘private’ can have public repercussions.
Notice also how she deliberately slams all the main arguments
in favor of repeal, calling them weak, ineffective, even evasive. This kind of
approach, pulling no punches and stating the biological facts and historical
truth about homosexuality vs. healthy, wise sexual practices, cannot be
underestimated.
Again, if American lawyers had relied on such similar
arguments in making their case against the striking down of anti-sodomy laws
(Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) or laws banning gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges,
2015), perhaps the United States and other countries would not be in the mess they
face today.
In our next post, we will talk about the level
of abuse and hatred from LGBT activists against pro-family forces in Singapore.
We will also share with you the legal and judicial successes which have
occurred to ensure that Section 377a stays on the books (despite numerous legal
challenges) and that the LGBT agenda does not wreak havoc on the island nation,
as it has in other countries
