Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[cheyannew]

I'm weighing in for myself, my girlfriend, my gay exboss, his husband, and the good... dozen or more gays/bisexuals that I personally know.

My husband is straight but would also speak up, were he on these forums. It's MUCH more than 1% of these forums, not even counting those of us who're speaking for those we personally know who aren't on here.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

By being denied access to the institution of union, homosexuals pay a cost not only in the denial of access to legal/economic/property/etc. rights, but also in the form of denial of social recognition. In short, their feelings are not considered on the same standards as that of "mainstream" heterosexuals, effectively making them second-class citizens not only under the law, but also in the eyes of society. Therefore, the issue of their feelings is not simply an issue of emotions, but also have ramifications for their status and emotional well-being.

Then we are coming to the issue of jurisprudence, or the philosophy of law, since we are touching on the issue of social recognition in the eyes of the legal system. Unfortunately, I am no expert in this branch of philosophy and was therefore soundly hammered by a legal scholar quite recently in a round of debates on how the law should be applied to such issues.

Speaking purely from a Singaporean context, to what extent can we say that the law should not reflect "public morality", ie, the beliefs and feelings of the majority? This question has important ramifications because it gives legal basis, believe it or not, for why Section 377A should remain in our Penal Code.

Interestingly, the legal scholar I debated pointed out that she has no problem with repealing Section 377A, not because she disagrees with its intent, but simply because she feels it's a messy contrivance that cannot be enforced and is, in fact, a messy double-standard because it cannot be applied to lesbians.

She does point out, however, that there are plenty of other provisions in the Penal Code that can still be applied with respect to such sexual behaviours and unions, for example, the Public Obscenity Act. The key question here being how "obscenity" is defined. And there's no obvious answer to this question, because any answer we can come up with is necessarily based on a moral standard, be it secularly or religiously derived. It is up to the judge presiding over such a case to decide, based on the moral standards of the time.

Now, we have a situation here in Singapore where the vast majority of people are dead-set against the very idea of legalising homosexuality, let alone accepting same-sex unions. To say that their "morality" is wrong serves no purpose other than inciting more counter-productive hatred. Like it or not, we have a society that has decided, by a sweeping majority opinion, that it will not accept homosexual behaviour.

And no reasonable judge can simply disregard such opinions when passing a verdict. Because if he does so, he would be committing an injustice in the eyes of the public. That is one of the weaknesses of democracy that is well-known since the time of Plato. The rule of majority vote can, without checks and balances, descend into the rule of the mob.

But, then, who watches those who watch over the mob?

[synaesthetic]

It's our responsibility as citizens to make sure they don't overstep their bounds. Without sensible citizens, a sensible government is impossible.

Obscenity should never be governed by law. This is entirely too subjective to be given such status. What one person considers obscene another might consider tame. A white supremacist would consider a black man and a white woman as a couple to be obscene, while an ordinary person would think nothing of it.

Obscenity laws infringe upon freedom of expression because they judge expression based on its content (and in America, expression, even unpopular expression, should be protected by the First Amendment).

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Now, we have a situation here in Singapore where the vast majority of people are dead-set against the very idea of legalising homosexuality, let alone accepting same-sex unions. To say that their "morality" is wrong serves no purpose other than inciting more counter-productive hatred. Like it or not, we have a society that has decided, by a sweeping majority opinion, that it will not accept homosexual behaviour.

Well, this is what intrigues me. Has there actually been a credible study that proves that it is indeed the vast majority of Singaporeans who are dead-set against the idea of legalising homosexuality? I've always had the impression that the most stridently opposed to this are a certain sect of Sith Christians, with the true silent majority of Singaporeans in actuality being apathetic (as usual). I actually want to see some credible studies pointing one way or another on this.

But in any case, it's late here for you and me. I'm a young twerp and so this is usual for me, but what are you doing up so late, old man?

[TinyRedLeaf]

I am on the perpetual afternoon shift. I just got home not long ago. I sleep when others are heading to work, shop when the stores are mercifully free of crowds, and also have very little social life left thanks to my odd hours.

Yes, there was a study conducted by NTU (which I have unfortunately lost the link to), and the results were released at the height of the Section377A debate back in 2007. As much as 70 per cent of all Singaporeans were against repealing the law that criminalises sex between two men.

So, what then? Are we to disregard such massive majority opinion and say that they are all deluded fools, bearing in mind that they represent a cross-section of our society, both the religious and the non-religious? Which side is the law supposed to take, in this case? Do we serve justice for the few, or for the majority?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Obscenity should never be governed by law. This is entirely too subjective to be given such status. What one person considers obscene another might consider tame. A white supremacist would consider a black man and a white woman as a couple to be obscene, while an ordinary person would think nothing of it.

Obscenity laws infringe upon freedom of expression because they judge expression based on its content (and in America, expression, even unpopular expression, should be protected by the First Amendment).

With all due respect, those are the views of an American, and they do not necessarily apply to a Singaporean context. For the same reason why we cannot tell some people not to eat animals live, you cannot dictate to us how we should order and conduct our society. That's a sad but brutal fact.

[Shinoto]

Originally Posted by Nogitsune

Ah, I'm sure there are a few bisexuals and homosexuals here. And if not... well, there's at least one asexual around. xD

I wasn't really asking for the direct number Kinda just pointing out how people love to argue over this, similar to racism or poverty.

It's not like it's a bad thing, quite the opposite. It's quite tiring though

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Obscenity should never be governed by law. This is entirely too subjective to be given such status. What one person considers obscene another might consider tame. A white supremacist would consider a black man and a white woman as a couple to be obscene, while an ordinary person would think nothing of it.

Sorry, I would not like to see naked people walking everywhere. At least for the sake of children (I know, "omg, she brings the problem of the kids again")

Seems that most people would not want that either (no study, just didn't see any big movement that would imply that so many people would want that, at least here)

Anyway, beside that, on a general comment, I think it's good that some things are forbidden by laws.

[synaesthetic]

In a case such as that the law should strive to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

In a case such as that the law should strive to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

That's democracy for you.

That's how Election works. Not every people vote for the same person. But because we can never please everyone, the majority wins, period.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

With all due respect, those are the views of an American, and they do not necessarily apply to a Singaporean context. For the same reason why we cannot tell some people not to eat animals live, you cannot dictate to us how we should order and conduct our society. That's a sad but brutal fact.

I am not dictating to you how you should order and conduct your society, but I do find your objection to free expression to be quite surprising. A society without free expression is not a society whose citizens are free.

The freedom to express oneself without fear of government intervention is, in my opinion, the cornerstone upon which all other freedoms are built. After all, if you're not free to think for and express yourself, you aren't truly free at all.

Originally Posted by Narona

Sorry, I would not like to see naked people walking everywhere. At least for the sake of children (I know, "omg, she brings the problem of the kids again")

Seems that most people would not want that either (no study, just didn't see any big movement that would imply that so many people would that, at least here)

I think it's good that some things are forbidden by laws.

That is a strawman argument and totally not what I'm talking about. I don't mean people walking around naked.

I mean speech or expression (media) that is considered "obscene," leading to the possibility of a creative work being legally banned due to its content. Expression should be free and protected, whether or not it comes from a developer that produces violent video games, a Grammy-winning musician, a neo-Nazi white supremacist or a yuri manga artist.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

That is a strawman argument and totally not what I'm talking about.

You said Obscenity ^^, I know you didn't talk about what I pointed, but I said it to recall that the topic includes that too, and could be discussed.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I am not dictating to you how you should order and conduct your society, but I do find your objection to free expression to be quite surprising. A society without free expression is not a society whose citizens are free.

The freedom to express oneself without fear of government intervention is, in my opinion, the cornerstone upon which all other freedoms are built. After all, if you're not free to think for and express yourself, you aren't truly free at all.

Me? Objecting to free expression? After my spiel about staunchly defending the right of others to say what they want even if I hate what they say?

If anything, I highly encourage it, and I am fully prepared for the consequences. But, at the same time, I would fail my duty as a citizen if I were to disregard the opinions of my fellow countrymen. This is how Singapore, how much of Asia, conducts politics. We aim for consensus rather than polarising confrontation.

Because extreme social polarisation is something that Singapore specifically cannot afford, unlike in a continental country like the United States, where dissenters can simply set up a new town in the middle of nowhere to practise their way of life. For Singapore, such polarisation could quite literally mean the complete destruction of the state.

Under such circumstances, I cannot help but temper my idealism with pragmatism. Change can come, but not by confrontation. It is up to homosexuals to prove their worth as productive citizens, in order to gradually change the prevailing social view.

[synaesthetic]

Sorry, it looked to me like you were arguing that free expression is an American thing and not a universal human right (which it should be).

And yes I am well aware of the Asian trait of avoiding confrontation. I don't understand it--I'm a very confrontational, argumentative person myself and despise passive-aggression--but I acknowledge it.

Originally Posted by Narona

You said Obscenity ^^, I know you didn't talk about what I pointed, but I said it to recall that the topic includes that too, and could be discussed.

Oh come on, don't be so pedantic. ^^; When it comes to creative works, it's just too easy for "obscenity laws" to result in a book-burning scenario. Those bureaucrats don't need any more power than they already have.

[npcomplete]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Speaking purely from a Singaporean context, to what extent can we say that the law should not reflect "public morality", ie, the beliefs and feelings of the majority? This question has important ramifications because it gives legal basis, believe it or not, for why Section 377A should remain in our Penal Code.

well, outside of the Singaporean context and in the US I would say "none". And I would say that some time after a few more generations, the entire US would eventually recognize gay marriage, given that some states already do, despite the majority not advocating it (and given that I don't see the government removing itself from the institution of marriage as I mentioned in my previous post about the intent of the founding fathers and role of government).

"civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, and that the opinions of men are not the concern of civil government."

Of course it can be radically different everywhere else in the world. I can't imagine most of middle east even legalizing homosexuality itself (although Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Cyprus already did; Iraq is unfortunate in that despite decriminalizing it, anti-gay violence/killings increased dramatically from the religious uproar after the US invasion)

In fact, Jefferson received a lot of heat from most people, especially his home state of Virginia, being labeled a heretic, an infidel, an anarchist (to a certain degree he admitted so), etc. with him saying that he belonged to "A sect unto myself".

Even to this day, most of the religious right familiar with his works (although most are not) still label him so, especially now since it was revealed that he wrote his own bible, calling the apostle Paul, "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus". His bible went unpublished partly because he didn't believe in spreading and promoting religious or personal views since he believed religion was a private affair, and partly because he knew the kind of furor it would cause.

I mention the influence of religion again, because at the time and still currently very much so in the US for those who are against same-sex marriage, their religion provides the basis of most's morality, and thus their rationale for their opinion on this matter.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

And yes I am well aware of the Asian trait of avoiding confrontation. I don't understand it--I'm a very confrontational, argumentative person myself and despise passive-aggression--but I acknowledge it.

You don't understand because you live in a world where confronting parties have the luxury of walking away if they agree to disagree.

In populous Asia, where people of multiple faiths and ethnicity live cheek-by-jowl in tightly packed apartment buildings, we don't have such room for dissenting opinion. We have to learn how to be neighbourly, to preserve the peace, to preserve the harmony.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Under such circumstances, I cannot help but temper my idealism with pragmatism. Change can come, but not by confrontation. It is up to homosexuals to prove their worth as productive citizens, in order to gradually change the prevailing social view.

However, that can be rather hard if they have to fear discrimination upon outing themselves.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Yes, there was a study conducted by NTU (which I have unfortunately lost the link to), and the results were released at the height of the Section377A debate back in 2007. As much as 70 per cent of all Singaporeans were against repealing the law that criminalises sex between two men.

Well I found one study, and it does not seem to be as detailed as I expected. Considering that the main driving force for the negative attitude towards homosexuals is the religious beliefs, we can expect, the actual percentage of people, the die-hard let them suffer group, to only have a ratio around %30 not %70.

So, what then? Are we to disregard such massive majority opinion and say that they are all deluded fools, bearing in mind that they represent a cross-section of our society, both the religious and the non-religious? Which side is the law supposed to take, in this case? Do we serve justice for the few, or for the majority?

If the intensity of the views differ from one group to another, then that means there is room for understanding for some. This stays valid as long as some known religious groups do not try to oppress the rest through threat or other means.

With all due respect, those are the views of an American, and they do not necessarily apply to a Singaporean context. For the same reason why we cannot tell some people not to eat animals live, you cannot dictate to us how we should order and conduct our society. That's a sad but brutal fact.

Assuming you are trying to assign similar importance levels to dogs and humans. Interesting aspect, I have to say....

Originally Posted by npcomplete

I can't imagine most of middle east even legalizing homosexuality itself (although Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Cyprus already did; Iraq is unfortunate in that despite decriminalizing it, anti-gay violence/killings increased dramatically from the religious uproar after the US invasion)

You know I don't think it is a good idea to give Middle East as an example, where in some countries the younger the wife (e.g., Saudi Arabia, 12 or less) the higher the value...

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Oh come on, don't be so pedantic. ^^; When it comes to creative works, it's just too easy for "obscenity laws" to result in a book-burning scenario. Those bureaucrats don't need any more power than they already have.

But if I wasn't I would lose my "let's neg rep Narona" supporters :x

That's not really the topic of this thread, so I'll not write a lot about it. Let's say I have my own view on it, and how I dislike how some medias treat the image of women or children (mainly, but sometimes also men). No need to reply, or at least, not here, I already fear that the mods will yell when they'll enter the thread tonight XD

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

You don't understand because you live in a world where confronting parties have the luxury of walking away if they agree to disagree.

In populous Asia, where people of multiple faiths and ethnicity live cheek-by-jowl in tightly packed apartment buildings, we don't have such room for dissenting opinion. We have to learn how to be neighbourly, to preserve the peace, to preserve the harmony.

That's... a lot more pragmatic than I expected. Thanks. It makes a lot more sense now.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Assuming you are trying to assign similar importance levels to dogs and humans. Interesting aspect, I have to say....

Actually, if that was the case, the argument would become null and void, because I believe most people are of the opinion that if something like what humans do to animals was done to humans, we would be morally obliged to invade the country responsible, since it would be nazi Germany all over again.
Also, I would ask you to point out a morally relevant difference between a dog and a human, but that's not the thread for this, so... I'll just say that comparing a dog's worth to that of a human is not necessairly degrading for the human.