Sunday, July 22, 2007

Episode 418

A flurry of activities stormed the forums for the past two weeks with issues related to legalizing homosexuality and adoption of children by a gay couple. Granted that most postings in I Also Say! does not attempt to 'educate' the public about the current affairs affecting the society, I feel that there is a need for a voice, no matter how small, to set some records straight (pardon the pun) about all these talk about gays.

I was born and bred in Singapore. My parents worked extremely hard for myself and my brothers for most of their lives. I had a childhood filled with fond memories. I went through school, served my mandatory national service (i.e. the army) for two-and-a-half years, head back to camp every year for reservist training (except for the years when I was in Canada). I work in a bank and have a regular income. I groan when tax season looms but I pay my taxes regularly. I train hard for IPPT and my upcoming marathon. I provide for my retired parents and bring them for a good meal once in a while. I am in a stable relationship and both myself and my partner care for each other very much. But the only 'problem' is - I'm gay.

But then again - how do you define a 'problem'? Is it because the problem inconveniences someone? Or does the problem go against what he/she believes in? What does he/she believe in? The existence of a higher being? The rationale that all human beings are born to pro-create? Humans are innately good? Or humans are innately evil?

Therein lies the question - or rather the answer. This species is created in such a way that no matter similar we look, we are completely different with each other. Take thumb prints as an instant example - even twins have their own unique set. I am quite sure life would be less interesting if we all possess the same traits - we eat the same food, drive a Toyota, and sleep on the left side of the bed. There would be stability if everything is constant and unchanging wouldn't it? But what would happen if everyone wanted to sleep on the left side of the bed? Wouldn't chaos ensue? And what about those who can't even afford a bed?

We are created in such a way that we are meant to differ from the person next to us. The laws operate in a funny way where no matter how hard you try, you can never be the exact duplicate of another - even for clones and mirror images. So, if we all agree on this and operate along this line of thought, it would be of course, natural to assume that every single one of us has a different and unique set of beliefs and convictions. Of course, along the way, people with similar ideals would congregate together and decide that they should bind themselves as a social group - for reasons such as self-affirmation an acceptance, and I won't go further into this. The keyword here is similar, and even if a group of people with similar interests band together, that doesn't necessarily morph them into a bunch of Agent Smiths from the Matrix trilogy. But they tend, and want to, believe in a similar fashion, and they share similar goals in their social groups.

The National Geographic has an interesting article on how ants and bees work in a seamless fashion on the count that no single any nor bee is aware of the bigger picture - is today a good day for collecting food or it's too dangerous to go out? No one has the answer but through complex forms of communication, the entire group acts as a gigantic entity in decision-making. Humans have tried, but we often fail miserably because sometimes we are too smart for ourselves.

By now you'll be asking - how has an individual, a group, ants and bees got to do with the issue on gays? Quick, tell me the answer! Therein lies the first fault, albeit not the major fault, but a striking fault - impatience. Impatience to hear what others have to say, and impatience for wanting (or should I say dying) to impose your set of beliefs on others.

So if we go by the observation that no human is the exact copy of another, and that humans collectively bind themselves to form social groups, but like ants and bees are eventually separate and individual entities with vaguely the full-picture in mind, then it is also fair comment that my own set of beliefs are no more, and at the same time, no less than yours (even if you belong to a larger and more popular social group, holding everything else constant). By this time I would like to introduce to you the two of the more 'popular' social groups humankind has embraced - the Religious and the Morals. Bear in mind, that some members of the Religious group may also belong to the Morals group, and vice-versa.

These two groups are rather easy to define - the Religious base their beliefs of the set of rules placed by their respective faiths (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism etc), and the Morals commit themselves to the teachings passed on to them by their mentors, which can either be a teacher, a parent, or simply a book wrote by a sage.

So if you belong to the Religious and/or the Morals group, you hold some beliefs that I do not concur with, and vice versa. So we are in fact different. But how does that make either of us more superior?

There, my fellow readers, lies the problem with what the Religious and/or the Morals group think about homosexuals. You believe that only your set of laws is the only universally recognized and governed. You believe that there is only one god, the one you choose to believe in. You believe that beyond that, every thing else is a farce and you are happy that you have chosen the 'right' path because you belong to that particular Religious and/or Morals group. Very well, you do what pleases you. But then, you cross the border and start accusing people like me who don't follow the rules set by your god and your universe, and when I argue that you're stepping right into my compound whilst telling me how I should live my life, you tell me that 'oh, my set of rules covers your compound as well, since we're on the same soil.' (Incredulous, isn't it) You have every right to voice your grievances if damage or harm is being inflicted on you and your group. But even if that didn't happen, I will still be causing distress to you and your group if I don't follow your rules.

Examples? Plenty. 'I don't agree with homosexuality. My <insert name of holy book> says so. What will happen to my children if they are exposed to homosexuality? They will be tempted to try it out when eventually turn gay as well.'

So there's a big 'if' here - the children hasn't turned gay, but if the rules, according to your <insert name of holy book> aren't followed, your children will turn gay. So going by that line of thought, if I 'exposed' your children to Japanese culture, will they turn into Japanese? If I 'exposed' your children to blondes, will they have blue eyes as well? Also, if you're suggesting that 'turning' gay is as easy as flicking a switch, does that also mean that you can turn gay? But what's stopping you? Your strong Religious and or Moral beliefs? Or the fact that you have never even have the slightest iota of an idea to sleep with a member of the same sex?

If you feel disgusted just thinking about that, that's the reaction from your instincts and I have no problem with that. If you feel disgusted because that's going against your Religious and/or Moral beliefs, I have no problem with that too. But the difference between these two reactions is that - the latter relies on one's belief, and if we take that away and leave the person with his/her basic human instincts, and ask the person 'Would you sleep with a person of the same sex?' and get the same 'disgusted' reaction, that only means one thing - if you feel digusted about turning gay, why can't gay people feel disgusted about turning straight? Or for the sake of the argument, why can't gay people feel disgusted about people asking them to turn straight?

It is thus more laughable to compare homosexuality with bestiality, pedophiles, rapists, murderers and adulterers. If by this time, readers cannot comprehend the argument that homosexual acts are done between two consensual adults in privacy without the purpose or intent to inflict harm on a third-party, you may completely stop reading this article or let me explain myself.

There are a number of important terms here in my argument and I would encourage the readers to give me the benefit of the doubt before resorting to their own judgements. Each term, when individually defined, a:

(A) Homosexual acts: Acts performed with a person of the same gender, and it doesn't necessarily involve anal and/or vaginal penetration. If a man performs oral sex on another - that constitutes an homosexual act, but it doesn't have involve anal sex to 'complete' the homosexual act.

(B) Consensual adults in their own privacy: two persons who have reached the age of majority in their respective jurisdiction, and who both intend and agree to perform certain acts to one another.

(C) Privacy: A bedroom, hotel room - and not in the middle of Orchard Road. The understanding between private and public realms have became so misunderstood. If it is your job to barge into my room and tell me what I should or should not do with my partner, then it is also my job to barge into your room to tell you that your wife is totally dissatisfied with sex because you ejaculate within a minute. And you need to lose weight because she is suffocating.

(D) Without the purpose or intent to inflict harm on a third party: this term poses the most challenge because it raises a number of other issues. Firstly, how do you define an intent to harm? If I asked a kid to ride a bicycle without teaching him/her the necessary knowledge and techniques, will it be an intent to harm, given the fact I knew that there will be a danger if I didn't provide ample lessons and warnings? The answer is of course, an resounding yes.

What if I have asked a kid to ride the bicycle, but before I do that, I coach and impart knowledge to the kid and tell him/her of the consequences involved in riding a bicycle, and yet he/she still falls? Would I then, be accused of intent to harm? I can see some hands going down now. But not everyone, because some of you might say 'you shouldn't have given him/her the bicycle in the first place', then I would reply 'so the kid wouldn't learn how to ride a bike. That would constitute ignorance wouldn't it?' You might say, 'Yes, but ignorance is bliss.' and then I'll say 'Find me the part in your <insert name of holy book> or <insert name of moral book> that says that.' and you'll say 'but homosexuality is different from bicycles!' To that, I'll say 'homosexuality is as common as riding a bicycles' (and of course, according to some of you, common isn't as good as normal, but I'll leave the definition of what's 'normal' for now).

So if some of the readers are going to equate homosexuality with bestiality, pedophiles, rapists, murderers and adulterers, let's see how they would fare. And as much as I would support the notion that we're comparing apples to oranges, I will need to prove to you why we aren't comparing apples with apples. Bear in mind that, if, according to your intended comparison, if you're comparing apples to apples, the terms for comparison must be identical, and that all conditions for comparisons must be met in order to satisfy the conviction that homosexuality are as sinful as bestiality, pedophiles, rapists, murders and adultery. For example, if you provide me four characteristics of Fruit A to compare against Fruit B, you must convince me that all four characteristics of Fruit A can be applied to Fruit B as well. Otherwise there is simply no grounds for comparison.

And here we go:

(1) Bestiality: Not consensus (no, the argument that you understand animal-speak holds no water), and intention to harm may be questionable since there is no consent.

(2) Pedophiles: Not between adults. Enough said.

(3) Rapists: Not consensus, and may not even happen between two adults.

(4) Murderers: Intent to harm is present.

(5) Adulterers: Intent to harm is also present (to the innocent partner) even if it may be argued as an indirect intent to harm.

But wouldn't homosexuality be an indirect intent to harm as well? Let us suppose that your family has no idea about your homosexuality. Would they be hurt if they knew that you are gay? Wouldn't that constitute harm, albeit indirect? Wouldn't that constitute homosexual acts as harmful acts?

The answer, at least according to my opinion, is no. What if our families understood more about homosexuality? What if we told them that we didn't choose to be this way but this is how just we are, no matter how much we tried convincing ourselves otherwise in times of despair? What if people stopped referring to homosexuals as promiscuous, cross-dressing ah-quas (transvestites) who turned out the way they are because their parents didn't bring them up properly? What if we educate (and not dictate) what homosexuality is really about, at least from someone who believes that it's not a disease? But then again, what if someone declares this as 'propaganda'? This is exactly the response I've got after trying to convince a forummer that education and knowledge as the key. This forummer had conveniently compared me to a murderer, since he/she has watched the movie 'Blood Diamond', and in it the kids were 'educated' to believe that killing is good. And when I've asked him/her to fully justify himself/herself, the forummer disappeared.

During my secondary school days we has to read 'To Kill A Mockingbird' by Harper Lee as one of our literature texts. For the uninitiated, the novel was based on the racial prejudice against blacks when they were seem no more than second-grade humans. And there was the classic line - 'you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb into his skin and walk around in it'. That itself speaks pretty much not only about homosexuals, but the basic respect we have for each other as a human being.

For those who have spoken up strongly against homosexuality, let me tell you this - you might have a religious, moral or personal agenda, and you are entitled to your views about people like me. But when we stand up to defend ourselves, you cry foul and then label us as 'heterophobics'. If I'm against heterosexuals, and if according to the estimate that between 4-6% of humans are homosexual, I would have declared my hate approximately for 5.7 billion people, including my parents, my siblings and my friends. Not very wise, isn't it.

You can continue to use your tirades against us but the fact is that homosexuality will never go away (and has never gone away in the first place). Your reasons of preserving the family unit, social cohesiveness/fabric often seem to me that they are perhaps, only covers for a greater deep-rooted hatred and ignorance to people who are different from yourselves. What would your ultimate aim be? To make homosexuals realize that they are 'wrong' and somehow they will be converted into heterosexuals? Would we be any better off that we were before? Would there be less rapes, murders and social problems? If we, in fact, were to listen to you and marry someone of the opposite sex, but later fall back to our old ways, who do we blame? Us because we have allowed ourselves to, or you, because you have tried to convince us of something that we really weren't? Are you responsible enough to take responsibility of my sexuality? If not, who are you to tell me what I am, what I should do and whom I should sleep with? Just because your holy book said so? What if I didn't believe in your religion? Would you force me to believe it, just like people used to believe that the earth is flat, women are commodities and the mother is responsible for determining the sex of her baby? Where do you stop? Where does this bigotry draw a line?