14 October 2013:
Brief notes relating to the gay-sex law challenge lawsuit.
Context: I went to Yahoo! Singapore to read a news report about this case. Then I read the comments following it. What a bad move that was. It is filled with homophobic bigots. But first:1. It is wrong of two men to be having oral sex in a public toilet. This I cannot and will not deny. There has to be a differentiation between the public and private sphere.
2. The couple are arguing to repeal S377A. It forbids men to have sex with men. It has nothing to do with public sex. That is their point.
3. Many homophobes argue using slippery slopes. If S377A is repealed, there will be more gays, more gays will flock to Singapore, Singapore's fertility rate will drop, ... DOOMSDAY FOR SINGAPORE.
4. This slippery slope is also founded upon ignorance and bigotry. They think that gays and lesbians choose to be that way and can 'infect' others.
5. A lot of homophobes have very bad logic. Besides slippery slopes, they also have so many logical fallacies I really couldn't bear to read. It really is painful when you can see why their logic falls apart.
6. While some gays and lesbians lead deviant lives (promiscuous etc.), not all are like that. I cringe when people use generalisations to taint the whole LGBT community.
7. Repeatedly appealing about this case does do a disfavour to the plantiffs. As a report mentioned before, civil rights in Singapore cannot be enforced through a hardline stance. There has to be gradual influence and acceptance.
8. For this, Pink Dot can be a better platform, instead of going to the courts.
9. I find it extremely reprehensible when a promiscuous heterosexual male (multiple sex partners; unprotected sex) labels a gay couple as 'digusting', when they have been together for a few years and have only one sex partner.
10. Currently, I don't think Singapore is ready for gay marriage. Our country is secular, but one religion has quite a massive influence on politics and laws so nope.
11. However, S377A should be repealed. Not so that 'gays can have sex anywhere they want', but to remove the discrimination towards gays. (Notice how technically lesbians are allowed to have sex?)
12. In place, there should still be a law to ensure no one has sex in public and gets away with it.
13. I realise the irrational human mind is extremely creative at thinking of doomsday scenarios, negative consequences, logical fallacies etc.
14. A portion of the irrationality, I blame religion. Theist religion.
15. Not all that support LGBTs are LGBTs themselves. Some are enlightened so that they realise too that discrimination against LGBTs are wrong, or are simply not blinded by theist religion.
16. M Ravi seems to be all over the place. Freedom fighter much?
17. I shall see what will happen in this lawsuit. (But seriously, that's a lot of money to waste.)
18. The G claims that they cannot repeal S377A because the public mindset is still conservative. Being conservative is one thing but being blinded by logical fallacies is another.
19. Taiwan allows same-sex marriage. One was performed Buddhist style last year. So far, I don't hear of any 'gay invasion' or 'gay takeover' of the country.
20. Someone actually argued that it's okay for other countries but not for Singapore because we're small (in physical size). The amount of logic here is just -234896892.
TTFN.