The Gay Anomaly

Gays and Lesbians. They think the rest of the population is against them, doesn’t understand them, refuse to accept them, looks down on them, wants to take the moral high ground on them, preach to them, criminalize them, etc.

They argue they are what they are, they were born that way, what they do is perfectly natural and innate, they should not be penalized. In fact, they want to be treated as equals, they want an end to discrimination, they want to be able to live openly and love freely, without fear.

Have I got it right?

But I wonder if they realise if it is precisely because they were born the way they are that shows something is wrong.

Not wrong as in morally wrong, religiously wrong or legally wrong. No, wrong as in biologically wrong.

I agree it’s not their fault, but can they agree they were born biologically incorrect?

Man belongs to the species of animals that procreate through sexual reproduction. Sex is for the purpose of mating to produce offspring, to ensure survival of the species. Yes, Man may pervert the purpose of sex, use it for pleasure or entertainment rather than procreation. But that does not change the biological design and intent of Nature.

To have any member of a species born sexually oriented to their own sex instead of the opposite sex surely indicates some fault. If genes are responsible for everything from the colour of our eyes to how tall we become, then is it possible that genes are also responsible for sexual orientation? And if so, would it be fair to say that gay/lesbian orientation is a genetic anomaly of some kind, like being born albino?

No one who is born with a genetic defect claims he’s normal. They may achieve great things, like Stephen Hawking. They may even overcome great odds, like Chang and Eng. But they understand that what they were born with is not desirable and not normal at all.

Given the above, one can ask:

1. Should consensual gay sex be criminalised? I think not, because if one is really born that way, it’s not one’s fault. But can you see why it should be discouraged? The lawmakers of the 19th century may not have understood the above when they criminalised gay sex, but I think it’s reasonable for them to send a message that gay sex is not right, and the only way Parliament speaks is through its laws. Why would they want to take a chance that gay sex can become an acquired taste for heterosexuals?

2. Should gay marriage be legalized? Well, marriage as an institution came about because of social norms, specifically to legitimize offspring and to recognize a man’s sexual rights over one or more women. Marriage was created to facilitate inheritance and propagate a (legitimate) family line. It is only in modern times that one sees childless marriages and marriages of convenience.

Knowing this as a background, does gay marriage make any sense? There is no possibility of naturally born children, no family line to propagate. Recognizing the sexual rights of gays amounts to society saying gay sex is right, which doesn’t follow from the above. Knowing that gay orientation is biologically wrong in the first place, why would society agree to institutionalize it through gay marriage?

3. Freedom and acceptance. Yes, gays have rights too. But I think that, if gays understand that what they are and what they do is not right biologically, they’ll be able to find greater acceptance. Ironically, the more militant they are, the more resistance they’ll find.

Advertisements

About politicalwritings

Someone who sees beyond PAP and "opposition" in Singapore politics. To understand more please see the Top 10 link below.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Gay Anomaly

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 10 Jul 2014 | The Singapore Daily

  2. SN says:

    “But that does not change the biological design and intent of Nature.”

    What is “Nature”? What is Nature’s intention for us? How do we (you) know? Why is that intention understood in terms of our biology or biological capacity? On the terms of your argument, are heterosexual individuals who choose not to procreate somewhat lesser beings than those who choose otherwise?

  3. Thanks for putting forth your views in a polite way but I can’t resist pointing certain flaws in your propositions.
    1) You view gay sex is (biologically) wrong because their orientation is an anomaly. I can accept that. You further mention that Parliament speaks through its laws to indicate that gay sex is (biologically) wrong and implied that removing S377A might encourage heterosexuals to experiment gay sex and developed into acquired taste? This seems to imply that there are heterosexuals who wanted to try gay sex but avoided because of S377A.
    I’m not sure about others but I’m heterosexual and gay sex has never appeal to me because biologically, I’m ingrained to have sex with someone of the opposite sex and has never been sexually aroused by any male. Perhaps some heterosexuals did at one time or another get aroused but do you honestly think S377A comes to mind should they want to experiment? More likely it will be finding a willing partner is to be a key concern. We do have laws against rape, regardless if your partner is same or different sex, as long as there’s an unwilling party, don’t we?
    One may also point out that young children may experiment gay sex. Again, do we need S377A to deter that? We do have laws on statutory rape, sex with minors etc to address it, don’t we? Why retain S377A?
    Even if I am to agree with you on the basis of biological ‘wrong, is it biological ‘right’ to have oral or anal sex? Why is it laws on oral or anal sex between willing heterosexuals removed? Parliament not worried about ‘acquired taste’ of heterosexuals? What about orgy? As far as ape recalls, there’s no law on that. Mass orgy biologically ‘right’?
    If we carry on with the argument using biologically right/wrong than may ape say consensual sex with minors is acceptable as long as they reach puberty?
    Ape thinks that with or without S377A has no effects on heterosexuals but it is causing undue distress to homosexuals. To illustrate, should a heterosexual suspect he has contracted STD, what will be his worries to seek medical diagnosis and treatment if positive? Homosexuals will have the same worries and on top of that, worry of being prosecuted under S377A.

    I’ll share further thoughts on point 2 and 3 if I have the time. Thanks anyway if you do take a moment to read and think through what I wrote.

    • Thanks for your comments. I’ll respond as follows:

      1) You further mention that Parliament speaks through its laws to indicate that gay sex is (biologically) wrong and implied that removing S377A might encourage heterosexuals to experiment gay sex and developed into acquired taste? This seems to imply that there are heterosexuals who wanted to try gay sex but avoided because of S377A.

      Your point above do not logically follow from my passage. Eg I didn’t say Parliament said gay sex was biologically wrong. I only said Parliament wants to send a message that gay sex is wrong. Not having been around in the 19th century when those laws were drafted, I can’t say if they thought it was morally, religiously or biologically wrong.

      I also said Parliament does not want to take a chance with gay sex for heterosexuals. I’m not sure how that means I think there are heterosexuals who want to experiment. Notwithstanding this, I do not agree that finding a partner is an issue. There are places where gays hang around in Singapore, Google will find them for you easily.

      Whether S377A comes to mind depends on the person, doesn’t it? Those who are law abiding will obey, those who aren’t couldn’t care less. It’s no different from drugs or glue sniffing. There are those who obey, and there are those who hope they don’t get caught. Of course, that was then. Now S377A has much less force now since the pm gave an assurance he won’t actively prosecute.

      S377A has no relevance to protect children.

      2) Even if I am to agree with you on the basis of biological ‘wrong, is it biological ‘right’ to have oral or anal sex? Why is it laws on oral or anal sex between willing heterosexuals removed? Parliament not worried about ‘acquired taste’ of heterosexuals? What about orgy? As far as ape recalls, there’s no law on that. Mass orgy biologically ‘right’?

      If you recall, it was a judge who said the Govt was behind the times when it tried to prosecute a couple for oral sex. Subsequently the govt realized it was behind the times and thus amended the law to say that oral sex is ok as long as it culminates in vaginal sex.

      Again, I don’t know if Parliament considered biology back in the 19th century when it criminalised ‘unnatural’ sex, ie anything other than vaginal sex. But the politicians of today recognize that time have changed and oral sex is acceptable. So they made a clever compromise.

      If we carry on with the argument using biologically right/wrong than may ape say consensual sex with minors is acceptable as long as they reach puberty?

      Again, I don’t know if Parliament considered biology when it set 16 as the minimum age for females to protect them from statutory rape. Why not 15? Why not 18? I don’t think they did a scientific study to find the 99th percentile of age of puberty in females. I believe they just felt 16 was not mature enough to give informed consent. Anyway, your example goes beyond my logical argument, which only applies to the genetic defect that causes sexual misorientation.

      3) Ape thinks that with or without S377A has no effects on heterosexuals but it is causing undue distress to homosexuals. To illustrate, should a heterosexual suspect he has contracted STD, what will be his worries to seek medical diagnosis and treatment if positive? Homosexuals will have the same worries and on top of that, worry of being prosecuted under S377A.

      I respect your opinion but I disagree. Back when it was enforced, I’m sure 377A deterred heterosexuals from experimenting, just like the death penalty deterred drug trafficking. Nowadays it has only a moral effect, since there is no more active enforcement.

      I agree it can cause distress but these gays should understand that the govt’s stand has effectively nullified the law. It’s like the US now, where victims must press charges before someone can be prosecuted. If the gay sex partner does not file a complaint, the govt won’t prosecute even if it found out about the consensual gay sex.

      I have a nice piece on the politics of 377A. Read it here.

      • Thanks for the clarifications. I might have read too much into your post.
        I think the confusion arises somewhat when you started off with the premise that homosexual orientation is a biological anomaly. Somehow along that line you brought in biological ‘wrong’ (or I interpreted as such. Sorry, I can’t verify your actual writing since I’m responding on mobile phone and can’t see your text without exiting reply). I took it that you meant anomaly equates ‘wrong’ and therefore laws could not remove S377A on this premise. That’s why I meant your reasoning is flawed.
        I can also agree with you on the dilema faced by PM on your previous post. But then again, it seems to imply that PM tries win-win for purpose of (winning) votes. I may have wronged PM by interpreting his decision this way but that’s how I see it.
        Please excuse my ignorance if I read you wrongly but thanks. It does give me something to think about instead of the tiresome tirade along right/wrong, yes/no and black/white.

  4. secondclasscitizen says:

    You make such a good argument in this article I’m impressed and fully convinced you must be gay yourself to know so well and personally how a gay or lesbian thinks, behaves and feels towards the straight people around him/her.

  5. ase says:

    It has been observed that a very significant factor in male homosexuality is how many older brothers you have (see, amongst others: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11534970 which gives a theory explaining the physical cause of this phenomenon). You are right that the fact that we are all here discussing this right is because our species has procreated till today. So whatever tends to the overall fitness of the species would be positive. If you have too many offspring, you would end up consuming all the resources and your entire clan would die. So if there is a mechanism that helps reduce that effect, it would actually increase the fitness of your species.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s