TodayOnline.com: Sexual Orientation Not a "Right" (Sept 10)

Sexual orientation not a `right':

Just because the rest of the world allows it, doesn't mean Singapore
should

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Koo Xun Zhao

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8) and would like to point out several fallacies inMr Ho Kwon
Ping's reasoning.

First, contrary to what he says, the Government has not said it would
not prosecute those who breach the law — just that it would not pursue
those who breach it.

This is a fundamental difference which does not result in what he
calls "a mockery of the Rule of Law". It can be just as easily argued
that we can avoid what Mr Ho calls our current "schizophrenic"
situation by actually enforcing the law on gay sex.

After all, it was the Rule of Law before the Government decided to be
more open to gays.

Mr Ho also compares the so-called "persecution" of gays with racial
discrimination. Sexual orientation or preferences, however, are not
"rights".

Hence the question of discrimination does not arise. Mr Ho also cites
proponents of the Rule of Law advocating the decriminalisation of gay
sex, "something which the rest of the world has longdecriminalised".

Using what the rest of the world does as the basis for establishing or
repealing a law has no grounds in law-making.

The same goes for the argument that Victorian laws be removed as there
are important laws in our books today that exist from those times that
are still relevant: For example, the law against incest.

Mr Ho claims that it is only "the most feverishly fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" and the "homophobic" who care about whether the
law against gay sex is kept. In this, he is misinformed since there
are even gays who feel that the statute should be kept.

Moreover, The Straits Times reported on Sept 20 last year that a
survey by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in 10
Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

I urge Mr Ho to speak to non-gays who are also knowledgeable, if not
experts, in the law and who are for criminalising gay sex to get their
perpectives on the issue.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275026print.asp