Sound Bytes and Polemics

2007-10-28T01:26:00.001+08:00

This page serves the purpose of hightlighting the source material on which Professor Thio depends heavily for her speech in support of retaining Section 377A in Parliament. Texts in bold draws the reader's attention to the points of similarlity between the two texts.

Her article 'Can we agree without being disagreeable', published in the Straits Times on October 26, 2007 is included because one line is almost directly lifted from the same source article.

Professor Thio Li Ann's Parliamentary Speech on the Retaining of Section 377A	Extracts from The Homosexual Rights Agenda: Reframing the Debate *by Alan Dobras, Earle Fox and Other Contributors* Published on The Road to Emmaus: A School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
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The 'liberal' camp wants 377A repealed.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.	Legislators, like many others, are very busy and want "sound-byte" answers to hard questions. The material in this document raises issues which must be addressed if we are to turn the cultural (i.e., spiritual) war around. They may take time to grasp, and do require thoughtful engagement.
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.	The aim of homosexual rights advocates to delete the state's sodomy statute is tied to their pursuit of legitimizing homosexual behavior commensurate to the level of heterosexuality. "Homosexuality is not a victimless crime. It is compulsive, aggressive, and causes terrible damage, not only to those who participate, but to the larger society as well. The damage is not lessened by being consentual. .... No one has a right to spread death in the community, no matter how good it feels." "Homosexuality is not a civil right, but an exploiting, victimizing crime just as much as rape and molestation."
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.	Generally, people divide "religious" arguments from "secular". In the Biblical view, there is no such division. The world of space and time (and therefore of science) is the creation of God. God wrote two books, not just one. He wrote the book of Creation first. He wrote the second book, the Bible, because we creatures trashed the first. The second book was written to point us back to being creatures, to rescue us from our attempted, but disastrous, independent autonomy back into God's original plan for Creation. One reads the book of Creation by the methods of science -- accurate observation and careful reasoning from our observations. […] That can be done, not by avoiding "religious" issues in public, but rather by framing the issues in generic terms, asking questions that everyone has to ask just because they are alive, and giving the Biblical and Christian answers to those questions in order that they may be openly compared with the secular/pagan answers to them. Properly presented, the Biblical answers will always be capable of holding the spiritual, moral, and intellectual high ground. As Elijah showed on Mount Carmel some 900 years before Christ (I Kings 18:17 ff.), the Biblical way thrives on public contest. God is quite capable of proving His own case -- if we will boldly present it, and then know how to get out of His way.
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.	Ha Ha Ha (editor's comment)
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.	There is no right to do what is wrong. It has never been shown that homosexual behavior is either approved by God or a healthy way to live. The evidence shows homosexuality, as an orientation to be compulsive and addictive, and as a behavior to be lethal. The Constitution confers no special rights to either immoral or unhealthy behaviors. In any event, no victim of violent crime should be made to feel less valuable than any other, and the judicial process is meant to assure equal protection in all cases.
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 nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don't think through issues carefully. Repetition does not cure fallacy.	Q5: Homosexuals are being discriminated against just as Blacks were in the past. A5. To equate sexual preferences with skin color is demeaning to African-Americans and people of any color, including white, who certainly do not morally equate the practice of sodomy with the color of their skin. This is not a civil rights issue, skin color has no correlation to sexual behavior. Humans are heterosexual by inherent design regardless of how some individuals wish to express their sexuality. This simple truth cannot be legislated away.
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'.	Q5: Could homosexuality be an inborn identity? A5: Not until the 1990's did homosexual activists discover the "PR" value of getting people to believe that their condition was "genetic" or "biologically determined". Several studies during the early and middle '90's were alleged to prove such. The claim was false. Not one of those studies has survived scientific peer review, and few, if any, researchers today will support that claim. Prior to the 1990's, no researchers on either side of the fence said either that homosexuality was genetic, inborn, or otherwise "hardwired", or that one could not change one's orientation. Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Masters and Johnson, all pansexual proponents, said that persons could change, and that it was their own business -- difficult, but possible. Even some homosexual groups are now admitting the "inborn" case to have failed.
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?	Accordingly, any claim that those who engage in sodomy are entitled to minority status has no more legal merit than that of persons engaged in such similarly aberrant sexual behaviors as adultery, incest, or polygamy.
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.	The purpose of laws is to protect individuals and for the general welfare of society. The aim of homosexual rights advocates to delete all of the state's sodomy statute is tied to their pursuit of legitimizing homosexual behavior commensurate to the level of heterosexuality. Since homosexual persons are defined by their behavior and not by any identifiable state of being, removal of the sodomy statute would add a level of legitimization—not to persons—but to the behaviors associated with their lifestyle There are harmful effects to individuals and society that result from these acts. We have seat belt laws to protect individuals. The risks of physical harm from deviate sexual acts are much greater than riding a car without a seat beat. Statistically a person is more likely to suffer the health consequences including death from a deviate sexual behavior, than the chances of having an injurious car accident. Ultimately, the reason anything should be illegal is because that is directly commanded by the law of God, or can be inferred from it. Since according to God, the law is for the sake of persons, not persons for the sake of the law, we can conclude that all laws of God are for our benefit and prosperity. Violating any law of God can therefore lead only to our ruin, not our welfare.
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.	A1. The claim by homosexual rights advocates for minority rights discrimination is legally frivolous and irrelevant because are defined by their behavior, not by any identifiable state of being.
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.	Homosexual behavior almost always means contact with human waste. The homosexual lifestyle thus makes no more sense than playing in the toilet. These diseases do not come from sexual inclination, attraction, or orientation, they come from sexual behavior. […] A1: Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex; 91% engage in anal sex; 82% engage in "rimming", touching the anus of one's partner with one's tongue and inserting the tongue into the anus;22% engage in "fisting", inserting one's fist into the rectum of the partner; 23% engage in "golden showers", urinating on each other; 4% engage in "scat", the eating of feces, and in "mud rolling", rolling on the floor where feces have been deposited.
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 evidence shows the homosexual lifestyle to be rightly described as "lethal". The medical consequences are so devastating that the average actively practicing homosexual person loses from 30% to 40% of his/her lifespan, typically not living beyond 50 in a culture where we average well into our 70's. An estimated "30 percent of all 20-year-old gay men will be HIV-positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are 30." Nearly 1,000,000 Americans, mostly , have been infected with HIV -- of which some 400,000 have died -- from a behavior-caused, and thus preventable, disease. Sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) commonly gotten from homosexual behavior include gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, anal cancer, amoebic "gay" bowel disease, and herpes.
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.	If the other side rejects the facts offered, it is better not to argue with them, but rather to ask for their specific information to the contrary, and for their studies supporting such information. Insisting on fact and logic soon reveals that the homosexual agenda has no case based on either, which will encourage anyone standing for truth and righteousness to press the attack.
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).	A11: To say that "we cannot legislate morality" is disingenuous, illogical, and contrary to historical fact. All law is based on someone's moral code, someone's understanding of right and wrong.
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.	Except in cases of arbitrary power struggle, morality is the only thing we legislate. Easily available evidence shows that American law is based on the Bible, i.e., the Judeo-Christian revelation of the will of God, who designs laws specifically for human benefit and prosperity. Given the evidence above, a loving person (whether God or any other legislator) would say "No" to homosexual behavior.
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.	A stable marriage between a man and a woman is, by far, the best arrangement for raising children and offers the greatest possibility for the next generation to be productive, stable and well-adjusted. Factors such as no-fault divorce and cultural influences that denigrate marriage and promote co-habitation have put a heavy strain on marital relationships, creating many dysfunctional households. The prospect of adding same-sex marriage partners—whose behavior is notoriously lascivious and promiscuous—to this mix, jeopardizes the very concept of the integral family unit.
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.	Marriage is a civil right, but homosexual coupling is not, and cannot be, a marriage. Homosexuals already have privacy in their bedrooms, just like everyone else. Had they not forced their issue into public view, right or wrong, they could have gone on as before in private.
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.	Since homosexual persons are defined by their behavior and not by any identifiable state of being, removal of the sodomy statute would add a level of legitimization—not to persons—but to the behaviors associated with their lifestyle: oral and anal sex, anilingus, multiple partners, "fisting", cross-dressing, bestiality, and other bizarre sexual expressions. Therefore, there is no conceivable merit to the people of this state in removing the sodomy statute from the legal code, but there is clear merit in its retention. Laws which reflect legitimate morality, even when not strongly enforced, have a powerful teaching function in society.
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?	"Sexual orientation" is an expansively inclusive term. According to the therapeutic manual of the American Psychiatric Association, there are at least 20 distinctive variations of "sexual orientation," and perhaps many more. The term includes pedophiles, pederasts, transsexuals, transvestites, sadists, masochists, and others. If the General Assembly adds "sexual orientation" to the non-discrimination section of the Code of Virginia, these classes of deviant behavior may be legally protected, and lawmakers will have provided instant special legal protection for any kind of sexual behavior, however aberrant or perverse. Litigation is already expanding in that direction.
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.	Hate crimes legislation is fundamentally unfair to victims. It deems some victims more important than others. It violates the fundamental constitutional principal of equal protection under the law. Hate crimes legislation can, and indeed has been used, to criminalize thought. Hate crimes legislation can, and has been used, to criminalize religious belief. The Bible is already being targeted in Canada as a "hateful" book. Hate crimes legislation as applied to "homosexual persons" is excessive on many fronts. The following information was provided by the Family Research Council (FRC), who gathered the information from FBI crime statistics." Of every 20,000 murders, 4 were declared "hate crimes" against homosexuals (0.02%) Of every 20,000 aggravated assaults, 4 are "hate crimes" against homosexuals (0.02%) Of every 20,000 robberies, 2 are "hate crimes" against homosexuals (0.01%) Of every 80,000 rapes, less than 1 is a "hate crime" against homosexuals (0.00123%) The evidence for an epidemic of crimes against homosexual persons is non-existent, a part of the "noble victim" image which has been so successfully used to soften American attitudes toward homosexual behavior. Homosexual persons already have the same legal protections as all other Americans. Physical assault, murder, etc. are already crimes.
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?	The analogy is not valid. Laws against interracial marriage served only to preserve a social system of racial segregation. This was an unworthy goal, irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage. For a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, the basic requirement for which is one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
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!	But the constitutional ship is sinking. We had better find time to plug the holes and rebuild the hull, or it will make little difference how well the course is plotted or the rudder turned from the pilot house -- the direction will be down. A healthy undergirding in these background issues (plugging the holes) will greatly enhance the possibility of restoring in America a Biblical moral and constitutional consensus (the sinking ship).
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.	Homosexual activists are asking to redefine marriage based on special rights sought by who make up less than 4 % of the population. Marriage has been defined by civil law, church law, and nature law as the union of one man and one woman. Rights do not come out of the air, or from civil government, but, as our Declaration of Independence recognizes, from our Creator. Our first obligation is to follow the Creator's purpose for our existence, the ultimate basis of all rights, without which there are neither obligations nor rights.
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.	Homosexual activists themselves have , with coercion, deceit, and strategy, forced homosexuality into the public realm precisely to force public acceptance. In some cases, they insist on the right to have sexual relations in public places. Their cry for privacy is nonsense. They want absolute moral approval.
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.	The Hebrew community was the first and only society in the ancient world, as Rabbi Dennis Prager expressed it, to put the sexual genie into the marital bottle. The Judeo-Christian community alone carried that principle into the wider world. Heterosexual monogamy was, and is, based on the most stable and objective fact in existence: the Image of God -- in which we are made, male and female -- suggesting that the family unit is to reflect and participate in that stability of God, especially for child-raising.
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.	Homosexual activists themselves verbally attack ex-homosexual persons because ex-homosexual persons prove change is possible. They want to use hate crimes to force churches to accept their chosen behavior. Hate-crime laws are a bad form of legislation, but nevertheless, if there should be anti-descrimination and hate-crime laws, they should protect ex-homosexual persons as well. However, homosexual activists fight against such equal treatment.
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 hoist 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	And so-called conservatives have been too polite, too prudish, too apathetic, or too cowardly to do so. This must change. Both sides must deal publicly with the facts of the matter, gracefully but directly, using clinical, not street, language, with a calm spirit which cares for the opposition.
ST Review: Can we disagree without being disagreeable? Oct 26, 2007 By Thio Li-ann A JUNIOR college classmate I had not heard from in over a decade e-mailed me this week. She had long wanted to 'rag' me for becoming a Nominated MP, knowing my pretentious adolescent infatuation with nihilism and libertarianism. Instead, she was glad I had spoken in Parliament in support of retaining Section 377A.
Like many others, she urged me to continue to do the right thing in the face of nasty insults and threats. Life beyond the ivory tower requires greater epidermal density.
Aside from the crass and childish, the e-mail messages I received after the 377A parliamentary debates were overwhelmingly warm and supportive.
Friends and strangers thanked me for articulating reasoned views and highlighting the radical nature of the homosexual social agenda. One person thought the local press implicitly supported the gay movement in apparently assuming homosexuality is inborn or that gay 'rights' were somehow being violated.
Why, in the interests of objectivity, had the 'ex-gay' phenomenon not been investigated?
Others chuckled at my observation that those who smear their opponents as intolerant bigots demonstrate their own intolerant bigotry.
Together with other elected MPs, I had apparently given voice to many in the 'silent majority'.
The spirited debate over 377A flows from a policy shift the Prime Minister announced in his 2004 Harvard Club speech, that the Government would pull back from 'being all things to all citizens' and be 'increasingly guided' by community consensus 'on questions of public morality and decency'.
What if consensus is fractured? Even Western societies remain polarised over issues like whether to endorse homosexuality as an 'alternative lifestyle'.
There are no neutral perspectives on morally controversial issues, which evoke strong emotions. This is no excuse for jettisoning critical thought, in the interests of our broader shared commitment to democracy and informed public debate.
To say the law should ignore moral questions is to impose a 'hidden' morality by default. Hedonism, a recipe for societal suicide, is the philosophy underlying the argument that law should not interfere with private consensual sexual behaviour. As philosophy affects law, and law affects popular mindsets, we need wisdom to know what the law should encourage or hinder.
The public debate over 377A demonstrates a new brand of Singapore politics beyond the dominant government, Lilliputian opposition and apathetic citizenry model. We witnessed a galvanisation of citizens on both sides of the fence, through letters to the press and MPs, meet-the-people sessions, cyber discussions, online hissy fits and petitions. PM Lee Hsien Loong observed that 'both sides' had mobilized 'very well organised campaigns' to promote their causes. This is one way of providing feedback integral to a responsive and representative Government.
Ultimately, the Government has to make a decision. Unlike lawyers who speak of resolving issues, politicians deploy the language of 'accommodation' and 'balance' to facilitate some sort of rapprochement. It is a useful device for politicians to paint a picture of two extreme views, and occupy the middle ground.
While acknowledging 'space' for homosexuals to live quiet lives, PM Lee firmly stated that homosexuality was not to be mainstreamed, and that heterosexuals should set the tone of society. If homosexual activists 'push this agenda', that would elicit 'push-back' from the morally conservative majority. In other words, don't aggressively push the bedroom into the public square.
Where do we go from here, with some citizens locked into intransigent stances over controversial public issues?
I hope Singapore will not end up with an uncivil civil society by allowing public debate to degenerate into fruitless name-calling and distorting issues by speaking misleading half-truths. A central goal of debate must be to lend clarity to the issue, as where PM Lee stated that Singapore law recognises only racial and religious minorities. Thus, the politicised term 'sexual minorities' is legally vacuous.
Furthermore, specific issues should be debated, rather than making emotional and vague appeals to 'fairness', 'equality', 'inclusivity' and 'tolerance'. The concrete issue is: What should we exclude or include? What should we not tolerate? 'Tolerance' must not become the refuge of a person without convictions. Terms like 'dignity' and 'tolerance' are empty apart from a theory of human nature, human good and community. To go beyond sound-bites to substance, we must not gloss over the real issue.
Democratic pluralism welcomes every view in public discussion, but does not commit the intellectual fallacy of saying every view is right. The goal is to ascertain the right view for the circumstances.	Hate-crime laws attempt to regulate feelings and attitudes to subversively gain an end unattainable in open discussion. They are often used to shut down the very public discussion of homosexual behavior necessary to rational public policy, and thus they violate the proper inclusiveness and pluralism necessary to a democratic republic. Honest inclusiveness does not say that every view is right, but rather that every view is allowed into the debate (as in a legislature) to find out in open public discussion whether it is the right one for the circumstances.
We should debate with civility and learn to disagree without being disagreeable. This is a facet of character, which no government-imposed law or 'OB marker' can elicit. To approach morally controversial debate with maturity, the solution is not more government, but self-government. The civic virtue of self-control, rather than a culture of anger which celebrates expressions of hate and vulgarity, should be embraced. Indeed, arguments which merely seek to vilify opponents are suspect.
John Milton noted: 'Let Truth and Falsehood grapple: Who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?'
Aside from truth, free speech serves a commitment to rational democratic debate over matters affecting our common good. Civil and civilised debate sustains the possibility that we may be able to persuade fellow citizens that our views are sound. You cannot converse with a shouting person.
	Material from the 'Homosexual Rights Agenda' that Prof Thio did not use
	Homosexuality is not a "stand-alone" issue, it has descended upon us out of a very specific context. The failure of Christian leadership to address these broader cultural and apologetics issues is a primary reason why we are looking at the end of Western (i.e., Judeo-Christian) civilization, including the attempted trashing of the only kind of constitution which can sustain freedom -- one mandating a government under God with the fundamental separation of powers.
	The creation therefore reveals His nature and is subject to His sovereignty. So appeal to empirical evidence is part and parcel of the Biblical case for or against any issue. The empirical evidence shows how God makes His world work.
	Christians, therefore, should be investigating and presenting the empirical and logical evidence regarding the homosexual issues, not limiting their arguments to Scripture and Tradition. To be victors in the culture war, Christians must learn to handle empirical and logical evidence, the realms of science and of philosophy. If Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, Christians ought to be holding the intellectual, as well as the spiritual and moral, high ground. It all belongs to God.
	The secular/pagan picture is inherently lame, leaving out essentials for life. However, for the sake of communication, circumstances may dictates different manners of presentation. The presenter can choose his approach for the audience at hand, whether to emphasize those items which are more "secular-friendly", or to present the whole picture.
	The clash of two worldviews. Rationality in public discussion on homosexuality requires clarity on the "worldview" and "religion" issues, a subject beclouded by erroneous notions of conflict between religion and civil government. Secularism is recognized by both the Humanist Manifesto and the Supreme Court as a "religion", i.e., a comprehensive worldview from which persons obtain their values. The deeper issue being engaged in the "homosexuality" discussion is the contest between the Judeo-Christian and the secular/pagan worldviews -- the two primary choices with which we are all faced.
	Who is the Ultimate Decider? -- God or civil government? The practical political choice we face is, as an 1850's Speaker of the House said, "We will be ruled by the Bible or by the bayonet."
	The Church is society's conscience, the State is society's referee. Reason and righteousness are fundamental aspects of both Biblical religion and of the American democratic republic.
	How do we know what we know? Even though we use the same language, persons arguing across worldview lines are arguing from radically different presuppositions and standards about two fundamentals: truth and righteousness. Using the same language to mean conflicting things creates confusion. So, we must adhere to reasonable standards (of fact and logic) for public discussion and debate -- precisely that for which the American Constitution was written, to produce truthful and righteous legislation.
	Homosexuality is only one segment of "pansexuality" -- the much larger so-called "sex-revolution", which in turn is the natural sexual pattern for secularism and paganism. Pansexuality has been promoted by Alfred Kinsey, the Kinsey Institute, Planned Parenthood, and several other sexuality-oriented organizations. The "pansexual" position holds that all forms of sexual engagement are morally equivalent, that one cannot distinguish morally between different forms of sexual behavior (with the exception of coercion, manipulation, or deceit, which are generally, but not always, deemed wrong).
	Homosexual advocates are riding point for the much larger pansexual group favoring total sexual license -- from cradle to grave, no matter the kind of behavior. Advocates of all other sexually deviant practices are already using the astonishingly successful homosexual strategy to support their own cases. They are accomplishing their goals largely through commandeering the public school system.
	All secular and pagan societies tend toward pansexualism -- precisely because they have no objective standard for morality by which any behavior, sexual, political, or otherwise, can be either mandated or forbidden. But even in non-Biblical societies where sexual diversions are permitted, in practical fact, heterosexual marriage will always be the general norm. They would not survive generationally otherwise.
	We must identify the true morality. If there is no "true", i.e., objective (it is there whether we like it or not), morality, then there is no morality at all, there are no obligations of any kind for any person. Government has no obligation to respect citizens, and citizens have no obligation to obey government. Government therefore reduces to coercive force ungoverned by either truth or righteousness, and citizenship is reduced to an opportunistic take-what-you-can-get-away-with.
	Life without objective morality (no obligation to either truth or righteousness) is simply power struggle -- the devil take the hindmost. Neither homosexual nor heterosexual persons have any obligation to respect each other -- and therefore no legal protection or safety. The protection of all persons—secular, pagan, Biblical, heterosexual or homosexual—thus requires a principle of obligation.
	A free people under a free government cannot survive the loss of objective moral standards. When morality goes relative, it goes all the way. So there are no moral barriers to sexual coercion, manipulation, or deceit. The murder of Matthew Shepherd (or anyone else) was, then, not "wrong", just another meaningless event in a chaotic cosmos.
	Without the law of God, civil law has no legitimizing principle. As our founding fathers understood, apart from the law of God, civil law searches in vain for a legitimizing principle. There are many noble and morally upright people who are secular or pagan, but their worldview cannot explain the objective source of their own moral standards for judging ultimate truth or righteousness. (We sometimes live above our own belief systems.)
	A1. Persons defending homosexuality have a vested interest in saying that the ancients had no knowledge of contemporary "faithful" homosexuality in order to make the present practice appear something "new", implying that "science" has given us new and positive information. There is no such new scientific information (it is uniformly negative), homosexual behavior is not now and never has been remotely "faithful", and the ancient people did indeed understand that there are "orientations" in the sense of compulsive behaviors.
	Romans 1:18 ff. pictures how we fall from the freedom we have as creatures of God into the bondage (compulsion, addiction) of those who worship the creature rather than the Creator. Many ancient authors commented on the compulsive nature of homosexuality.
	Opposing homosexual behavior is not the same as demeaning homosexual persons. "What we do" is different from "who we are". We are required to judge behavior, whereas only God can judge persons. Loving the sinner mandates speaking the hard truth. Sentimental love is no love at all, it is "enabling" and betrayal.
	Traditional Christians are seldom hostile to homosexual persons. But it is easy in heated discussion over behavior to appear hostile to persons rather than to behavior.
	Much of the hostility has been engendered by the brazen, in-your-face attack, physical intimidation (e.g., against the medical professions), by sexually obnoxious "gay rights" parades, and by refusal to discuss the behavioral evidence by homosexual activists from the 1970's right up to the present. And hostility is often wrongly attributed because homosexual persons tend to identify "what they do" with "who they are". It thus becomes impossible to criticize their behavior without it seeming to them to be an attack on their personhood. Becoming free of a behavioral addiction requires that one separate "what I do" from "who I am".
	However, one evil does not excuse another, and Christians are required by the highest Authority, to be willing to lay down their lives even for their enemies. So it is proper to call Christians to account where they fail. As pastors teach their people to reach out to with the truthful love and compassion appropriate to Christian salvation, there will be many more same-sex attracted persons seeking help from the Church.
	Whatever else homosexuality might be, it is at least a behavior. We are forbidden to judge persons (which God alone can do), but we are required to judge behavior (every law, divine or civil, is a commandment to judge behavior,our own first, and, when appropriate, that of others). So, whenever questions are raised about the legitimacy of homosexuality, one must first clarify the behaviors "common to the homosexual lifestyle" -- as noted by the Lawrence decision on sodomy. (See behaviors listed below in Q & A.)
	Persons engaged in homosexual behavior are demanding the legitimizing of their behavior, not protection for their personhood. Homosexuality, which is neither a personal identity nor a legitimate behavior, is best described as a compulsive, lethal addiction. They already have the same legal protection against abuse as other citizens.
	Homosexual advocates seek to sell the public a "pig in a poke" (Scottish for 'bag'). They wish to gain rights for homosexual behavior with (deliberately) no public discussion of the behavior. They seek to focus attention on a specious "identity" supposedly based on genetics or biology. No study alleging such has survived scientific peer review.
	If the behavior for which approval is being asked is kept the primary focus of the homosexuality discussion, and if we avoid all other rabbit trails until this area is clarified, the discussion will lead to true and righteous laws. But not otherwise. When supporters of homosexuality learn that every time they get up to defend homosexuality, they will have to defend homosexual behavior, there will be far fewer of them getting up. And the public will catch on that they have been lied to and manipulated.
	Psychologically, the evidence shows homosexuality to be compulsive and addictive. When warned that continuing their behavior will result in a high death rate, homosexually active persons typically respond that such a request is an attack on their identity and personhood, not on their behavior. "Homosexuality is who I am, not what I do!!" The continued justification and practice of self-destructive behavior, even when warned, is evidence of a compulsive and addictive pattern. The American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations have systematically misinformed the American public, and especially themselves, with dishonest science and cowardly response to homosexual pressure. That is not compassion, that is betrayal.
	The social consequences of the homosexual agenda include the deconstruction of marriage and of sexual morality, and the criminalization of honest discussion through "hate-crime" laws. 0God, not the State, created marriage and the family when He created the human race in His image, male and female. Legally, the State can only recognize, not create, marriage. Anti-discrimination based on "sexual orientation" opens the pansexual door, permitting pedophilia, pederasty, adultery, bestiality, polygamy, and others. Pederasty and pedophilia are largely subsets of homosexuality. Supporters of the whole range of pansexuality are already bringing cases to court, based on the recent Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws in Texas.
	The prodigious promiscuity in disease-causing behavior, coupled with denial of lethal dangers, provides incontestable evidence that homosexual orientation is a compulsive and addictive condition -- with practitioners looking for self-justification in a pseudo-identity.
	Love seeks the welfare of the beloved, not emotional bondage. Love speaks the hard truth even when it causes pain, and will not allow a person caught in bondage to define the diagnosis. A loving and compassionate person would say "no". Love not based on objective truth is no love at all. It is betrayal. A loving response does not condemn persons, but gives a candid assessment of behavior. A loving person condemns the sin precisely so that the sinner will not be condemned, neither by God nor by the behavior itself. Tough love just says "no".
	Honest public policy would conjoin truth, righteousness, and compassion. It would call an addiction an addiction, and then assist those seeking help. Honest public policy would insist on candid discussion of health issues (i.e., honest science) with appropriate public health measures. It would stop the common subversion of public health policy which betrays those very persons in need of honest discussion, those trapped in homosexual addiction, and would bring an immediate end to promotion of homosexuality in government schools or by way of special "rights".
	We do not normally in public talk explicitly about heterosexual behavior, why should we talk about homosexual behavior in public? Is not that being rude and putting them in an embarrassing position? A8: Homosexual advocates are asking for us to legally enforce approval of their behavior, but have systematically prevented a candid, public discussion of precisely what that behavior is. Examining their stated request is morally mandatory, not rude or impolite. The public is being asked to buy a pig in a poke because homosexual advocates know that if the pig were exposed, the buyer would quickly put his wallet away. No sale. The buyer in this case is the American public. Reasonable discussion of any "sale" requires open knowledge of the terms of the sale.
	In all of recorded history, marriage has been linked to a man and a woman coming together in mutual love for the purpose of sharing in the establishment of the basic family unit, which is the bedrock of any civilized society. Since those who identify themselves as homosexual seek legitimization of their behavior, they have initiated a vigorous campaign to claim a right for same-sex couples to legally marry, which is the most sacred of public institutions and the ultimate prize in their quest for society's acceptance of homosexual behavior.
	Legal marriage between same-sex partners would inevitably lead to broad adoption rights of children and/or the increased use of artificial means of reproduction. This would mean that children are deliberately being placed into the confusing and unnatural situation where he/she has either two "mothers" or two "fathers". Children would be raised to accept sodomy -- in all its bizarre sexual expressions -- to be healthy and normal. Questions and Answers
	According to one researcher, those who appeared to have a steady relationship had lifespans averaging two years shorter, not longer, than those who cruised. This may be because homosexual behavior is inherently, in and of itself, disease-producing. And with a consistent partner, one would engage in the lethal behavior more often. The last door seems to have slammed shut on the homosexual agenda.
	No. Because each job applicant's sexual orientation is not identifiable, it is only declared. No one is born homosexual—it is a declared and lascivious behavior which society has no conceivable interest in legitimizing. To comply with the law, employers would have to investigate the private lives of potential employees, and even then a prospective employer would have no positive assurance of a potential employee's so-called "sexual orientation", and thereby run the risk of potential litigation. There are more than 20 sexual orientations included in the APA DSM manual, of which many are illegal. Additionally, requiring places of worship and para-church organizations to hire practicing would violate the First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom and conscience.
	With sexual orientation legislation, the state forces its own citizens to either violate their deeply held religious beliefs or suffer prosecution for violating the law, rendering our cherished First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion irrelevant. This has happened to persons having a room or apartment to rent whose religious beliefs prohibited renting to a homosexual or other unmarried couple. In the early 1990's, a Madison, Wisconsin, woman was fined and told to attend an "attitude remediation" class for refusing to rent a room in her own apartment to a lesbian. This abuse happens regularly in Canada.

Reverse Redacting Thio Li Ann

New Dictionary Entry

Sound Bytes and Polemics