Conservatism, embodied as the so-called “Asian values,” could be one of the major stumbling blocks in facing up to the reality of homosexuality. 

The main justification for retaining Section 377A, an archaic Victorian-era law inherited from British colonial rule, was that the majority of Singaporeans are conservative. 

In September, a survey conducted by the Nanyang Technological University revealed that 69 percent of Singaporeans held negative attitudes towards homosexuality. 

The official line of reasoning propounded by the ruling government to retain Section 377A has been to protect the interest of this majority of Singaporeans who are not ready to accept homosexuals and their lifestyle choices as part of our society. 

In this instance, the tyranny of the conservative majority has suppressed the rights of the minority group of homosexuals. 

Moral, legal, religious and medical arguments made for and against homosexuality ensued during the peak of the national debate. 

Philosophical and impassioned arguments notwithstanding, we were wary and sensed that perhaps the force of some of these arguments made by the pro- and anti-gay camps were lost on Singaporeans in general, who do not feel so strongly about this debate to begin with. 

We propose that Singaporeans should address the homosexual issue by locating it within the context of one’s own family to make it less baffling and alienating for Singaporeans who do not understand the implications of retaining Section 377A. 

The purpose of giving context to the debate is to create a thought experiment that would bring the debate closer to the heart and to where Singaporeans would be hard-pressed to face up to their prejudices and to the reality of homosexuality. 

To validate our claim that homosexuality will continue to polarise society, consider this poser: How would you react if you found out in the future that your own child or sibling is gay? 

This is a completely plausible scenario to think about, particularly so if we have a well-informed opinion of what homosexuality is. 

First, we should consider the nature of homosexuality. We do know for a fact that homosexuality is far from being proven by science to have a genetic origin. 

The question of nature versus nurture having an influence on homosexuality has escaped the rigours of science and is still an open debate. 

Second, this logically would mean that unpredictability and randomness play a vital role in who becomes gay. 

However, this is a claim that assumes every heterosexual one of us is or has been somehow susceptible to being homosexual. 

The person that we have become is a mix of pure chance and self-determination. In other words, people do not choose to be gay in all circumstances. Most of them just are. 

When we move the homosexual debate into the familial realm and bring it close to home, many so-called “conservative” Singaporeans would probably be in a moral and religious dilemma. 

They would have to judge for themselves where they would stand on this issue, because it is no longer just about the rights of strangers but loved ones that are at stake. 

Associate professor Khoo Hoon Eng, a mother of two gay sons, is an advocate of gay men being open about their sexuality. She chronicled her experience in the book, “SQ21.”

In “SQ21,” which means “Singapore Queers in the 21^st Century,” Khoo wrote, “I think it really made a difference to Ming (Khoo’s son) that I was willing to be there. 

“I think it also made an impression on other students, showing them that a parent can be so fully accepting and loving of her gay child.”

In an e-mail interview with The Observer, Khoo wrote, “I do not understand the arguments that are used by people who are against the repeal of S377A. Even after S377A is repealed, it does not mean that every male child is going to suddenly turn homosexual.”

Seen in this light, Section 377A reveals itself to be an antagonistic law that marginalises a minority group of citizens. 

Furthermore, families of homosexual individuals can recognise the implications of the law as prejudicial, especially so when the government does not and cannot state categorically the harm that sex between men would constitute. 

Dr. Leong Wai Teng, a sociology professor at the National University of Singapore, said,

“Criminalising something is about criminal harm. 

“When you look at (an act between) consenting adults, where is the harm?” 

Leong added that by imposing such sanctions, the government may be implying that gay men are less preferred in society and viewed as less than an equal. 

“If you continue to marginalise and criminalise, you are sending out signals that you don’t like them,” said Leong. “It is as good as saying they are a second- or third-class citizen.” 

Realising that your child or sibling is a potential criminal under the eyes of the law is unsettling and compounds the ridiculousness of both the legislation and the justifications that led to it being retained as criminal law. 

Singaporeans who believe that homosexuality is a choice or just a lifestyle need to re-examine those beliefs. 

“Asian values” need to include not only tolerance, but they also need to be accommodating and to have the humanity of identifying with the issues faced by homosexuals. 

To denounce homosexuality outright based on moral or religious reasons would be to put off the issue until a future date. 

While some Singaporeans would never find homosexuality acceptable, the homosexual issue should remain on the conscience of Singaporeans for the continuous process of reconciliation to run its course.