Sunday, July 25, 2004

*On Gay Rights*

I give up. It has come to a point whereby I cannot see any conceivable reason to deny homosexual EQUAL rights. I mean, by the pan-dimensional deities, why should any rational society deny them the right to work without bias in the military (Singaporean context here people) or within the Civil Service. Why should anyone's sexual orientation bar him or her from the same economic, social or judicial rights of the majority? Especially when one considers that not a single shred of proof can be shown of societal/3rd party harm.

After all, they is no evidence or study that shows that at work or studies, homosexuals are any better or worse in terms of performance than heterosexuals. So as such, how would it be fair to discriminate against them? Time, I say, to pass anti-discrimination laws. After all, just insert the word, 'of sexual orientation' into Article 12 of our Constitution and we're basically done (okay fine, we need to change the penal code and the woman's charter and a couple more things besides but the idea still stands)

This is perfect example of a perato optimal move. You give rights to a substantial minority without infringing on that of the majority. How much more optimal could that be?!!!! Short of an argument that relies of sematics (like marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman) or an appeal to deities (God/s has/have decreed that homosexuality is bad) that seems to be no other rational explaination.

I mean, let's take the first, that marriage is defined thus and thus it is so (In the Beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God). What's the assumptions made in this assertion? One, that marriage is about children. Which, as we know, is no longer true in our Asian society, much less the Western ones. Once financial independence is reached, children are an act of love, not economic necessity and many people don't want children, whether by choice or accident. Are we then going to force an annulment on them? Throw them into jail why don't we? Or perhaps as a precautionary measure, we should be writing into the ROM contract that in order to marry, one must sign on the dotted line that they will have sex to get kids?

So now that we accept that marriage is not about children but more about a contract (sorry, I'm using it in a pseudo-legal fashion here) between two loving consenting adults, why deny marriage to homosexuals?

So, on to the second bit. That you argue that homosexuality is 'bad' because it is 'unnatural' (so are organ transplants and blood donations...oops...right, the Jehova's Witness think they are). This is a tough argument. I mean, this goes beyond rationality and into ideology. And the better arguments go that people think in this fashion, so don't rock the boat. I think on some level, this belief is ground in the idea that homosexuals will probably do less damage in campaigning for rights that the religious extremist will campaigning against it. But I say, that's what the army is for!!!!! Give me my M203 and I'll show those religious freaks to whatever afterlife they believe in and they can go chat with their deity!!! More seriously though, the duty of the government is not to simply give in to the will of the majority (Two words: Heil Hitler...totalatarianism, that's what the tyranny of the majority means) but to ensure minority rights within a concept of majority rule.

After all, the onus is on the opposition to prove that it is right and fair NOT to grant them equal rights instead of the other way round.


Post a Comment

<< Home