2 December 2012:
If gahmen can do so much for AIDS, why not for LGBTs?
Yesterday was World AIDS Day. If you have been watching TV, listening to radio or reading newspapers recently, you would notice that the government is suddenly asking people not to discriminate those who suffer from AIDS. On TV there is that ad which has Chen Hanwei recounting that his favourite character over the years was the one who was an AIDS patient. On radio, I have heard segments where activists dispel myths about AIDS. Today's newspaper featured news of Aids Walk 2012.Btw, some terminology first before any confusion ensues. AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. A related acronym would be HIV, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus. People are infected by HIV, then they develop AIDS. Therefore, a person doesn't 'suffer from HIV' but from AIDS instead.
Alright, hope that clears any confusion over the terms used. Back to what I was saying. Yes, the government has been pushing for the removal of any stigma linked to AIDS. It hopes to make people less wary of those with AIDS. It also aims to let people know that AIDS cannot be transferred through sharing drinking water and other myths.
All these remind me of the government's stance over Section 377A of our Penal Code in 2007. This section makes any man who has sex with another man a criminal. (Actually, both would be criminals.) Basically, the government maintained that society was not ready for such a change. The only 'consolation' was that the government and police would not proactively seek out offenders.
Recently, there was another appeal to the courts that this section of the Penal Code is unconstitutional. The judge pointed out that it only criminalises sex between men, so technically lesbians can have sex and are not criminals. But I digress.
The government always claims that it would change policies when society progresses and etc. However, this AIDS thing proves that sometimes it itself starts some exercise without society 'progressing'. Singapore's society is still not as accepting and open about AIDS as other societies. Therefore, the government is taking steps to change this.
Why can't the same thing be done for LGBTs? Why can't the government simply remove Section 377A. These, I believe, lies in obstruction from religion and myths.
I understand that some religions are strongly against homosexuality. They think of it as immoral or sinful. However, I do not think that religion should be allowed to intervene in this. In a society, not everyone is from that religion. Some are even atheists. Therefore, it doesn't really make sense that protests from certain religions cause this section to be retained.
Let's say there's a religion known as Chongism. It is strongly against homosexuality and feels that all LGBTs are sinners. Then there's another religion called Limism. The religion is alright with homosexuality and has no comment on it. If all the LGBTs happen to be Limists, have they sinned?
Such a question is not easy to answer. Therefore, I do not feel that religion should really sway opinion regarding such a law. Also, our society is a secular one.
Another factor which influences the retaining of this law is myths. There have been various myths that are spread everywhere about LGBTs. Some say that it is a disease that can be spread from one person to another. Others say that this is just a choice that people make, so as to stay fashionable or rebellious against the mainstream.
There was also one I've heard about how most paedophiles are gays. Not exactly true. Not all gays have sick minds and want little kids. I'm sure statistics would prove otherwise too; straight men are equally likely to deviate and become paedophiles.
I heard an LGBT respond to the myth over it being a choice. She said something like 'the discrimination, hurt and pain that we LGBTs go through is so much. Do you really think we would deliberately choose to let others hate on us?'
Sounds quite valid eh? Why would someone choose to be discriminated? Besides, no one's going 'wow he's gay and it's cool'. People are either accepting or strongly against it, calling all kinds of nasty names.
The other myth about it spreading is completely false as well. There are claims of how straight people were 'bent', right? Well, that's because that person is not a 100% straight. Try bending a steel stick. Try bending a rubber stick. That 'converted' person is rubber, never really actually straight in the first place.
There are many myths haunting LGBTs, causing people to misunderstand them. The same lies with AIDS, except this is more medical in that sense. Some include 'I would catch HIV if I kiss him / her'. Not true, unless your partner (or fling hahah) has open wounds in the buccal cavity.
The case with AIDS is almost similar to LGBTs. Both groups of people are discriminated, public generally lack understanding of both and both are not living well. (Although of course AIDS patients have it worse because they have physical torment from the disease.) Both also have various myths surrounding them.
Therefore, I would question the government's stance when it says 'society is not ready'. Society is similarly not ready to accept AIDS patients, but aren't you helping them? Of course, for AIDS there is less intervention from religion, and it is a researched illness.
I do hope something is done regarding Section 377A, especially when there's a chance now cos there are two appeals against the law on the basis that it's unconstitutional. (Even LKY thinks it's alright to be gay, really! It's somewhere in his Hard Truths book.)
And of course, I do hope as well that the AIDS situation can improve. One benefit of repealing 377A is that more LGBTs would go for AIDS tests, and hopefully more can be detected and treated. Although the papers recently stated that more LGBTs are detected than heterosexuals, I still think there's more who are afraid to go for checks, and are affected.
TTFN.
Oh and even if you don't like LGBTs, there's no reason for you to mock at them or hate on them. The world has enough of judgemental people already.
Disclaimer: 'Chongism' and 'Limism' are obviously fake names of religions, I'm just using them as examples. 'Chong' and 'Lim' are two common Chinese surnames, so don't think too much there's really no hidden message.