Why I Don’t Usually Talk About Anything Else
October 21st, 2007 | Published in glbt | 21 Comments
Other than tech and travel. Or why I don’t usually like discussing my country. Re: 377A.
I’m never comfortable whenever I’m referred to as a Singapore blogger. I’m a blogger, yes, and from Singapore: that’s as far as it goes. I’m not in the country that much. I stopped talking about Singapore some time around 2004. Because if I did, I’d just be complaining all the time. And about the same things. Frankly, like many other people here, I’ve simply become sick, tired, and desensitized on issues. Not that I no longer have an opinion — I do, many of them — but there are more interesting things to consume myself with. My biggest problem with the country? That gay issue. I decided a long time ago I was neither interested in staying and fighting, nor was I in changing the opinions of people who will ‘never get it’.
The issue recently resurfaced with plenty of debate, and unlike the last time we significantly discussed this (2004?), there was much room for online expression, as demonstrated by the respective Repeal and Keep websites, along with YouTube videos and other blogs. Initially, I was not interested in being upset about this again, but today’s discovery of two websites jolted me into realizing I can’t try not to care any longer. Because I do. I understand the section 377A technically does not include me because I am female, but there have been calls to expand the law to include women, and the same anti-gay statements made apply to me too, without exception.
I spent my night getting reacquainted with the viewpoints of the people who believe 377A should be retained, trying to follow the flow of their primary arguments. I won’t offer any insight into why I believe this law must go, as plenty before me have said as much, and said so better — this is merely all I’ve learned, and I am not making this up.
Apparently, we are HIV carriers. And heterosexuals who visit prostitutes, or have unsafe sex, are either not as culpable, or “that’s just the way men are”.
Apparently, there is no difference between sleeping with a person of the same sex, and sleeping with animals. What is it? Being gay means you cannot fathom the difference in… species?
Apparently, we all want to sleep with our sisters/brothers. Ewww.
Apparently, we all want to sleep with many people. Polygamy, adultery or infidelity does not exist at all among heterosexuals.
Apparently, there is one uniform ‘gay lifestyle’. Much like there is a uniform heterosexual script. You know, married with 2.2 kids in a 4 bedroom HDB flat and trying to send your children to independent schools. Yes, we all go to the same bars, and sleep with each other, then we play musical chairs and repeat it all over again.
Apparently, being gay is contrary to ASIAN VALUES. Actually, the law was British, and has since been removed in many countries, including many extremely Asian — and East Asian at that — ones.
Apparently, after the law is repealed, the next step is gay marriage and gay adoption. Perhaps. I do not disagree. It is certainly what I wish for myself, but not something every gay person wants. Anyway, the more interesting bit is…
Apparently, if two women or two men have children (with each other!), the child will likely be initiated into the ‘gay lifestyle’, become homosexual, or severely lacking in some way or other, or all of the above. Because, you know, a father and a mother are NECESSARY to have a ‘proper home’ and a ‘proper upbringing’. So single parents, either from divorce, separation, death, cannot give a child a proper home either. And all scientific studies that show no significant statistical inclination towards homosexuality among children reared (ha!) by homosexual parents, clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.
Apparently, by repealing the law the moral fabric of society will crumble, so will family values. Because family values are so strong today, and we must keep them at the current, optimum level.
Apparently — and this is the best bit I’ve read all night — if we, the Sodomites, have children, we will introduce the ‘gay lifestyle’ to these children we adopt or artificially inseminate, by (and I kid you not) having sex with our children! I have nothing to say except to commend fertile imaginations, obviously fed by a diet of online pornography.
Apparently, repealing the law will make many people gay. And this country’s economy will collapse. Because gayness is contagious. But then again, foreign talent’s already here to help make our babies, where we fail so abysmally; and gay people are educated, we make a lot of money, and pump it all back into the economy because the pink dollar is unlimited!!
Apparently, there is a gay agenda. I’m still waiting to hear from that camp on what this supposed homosexual agenda is. Tell me. Rationally. What this agenda is, who is behind this agenda, and what it is we want — other than for an ancient, irrelevant law to go.
Preferably without any verses from the Bible, because:
Finally, it is time to say without compunction: I am a gay Singaporean who has been gay all my life, and will continue to be — one who, at some point, mistakenly believed she could help to effect change. I am probably Person A in this piece. Sadly, it is also time to say with some conviction that I am an educated, somewhat skilled, and passionate gay Singaporean who does not see a future for herself in this country, so has to do everything she can to leave it. Since, apparently who I am deprives the country of 4.4 babies (2.2 each from my partner and I) and their respective worth in economic terms — you know, since we need babies in this country, being gay is a tremendous disservice.
I refuse to be all about the bottom-line. So I’ll simply take myself, and my future babies-to-be (and there will be plenty), somewhere else that actually deserves it. Unfortunately, there seems to be no other way. I urge you all to pause for a moment, and to think about whether any of the above statements — accusations we face daily — are true of me, or any other gay male or female you know.
But please excuse me while I return to my regular job of attacking family values. Followed by the eating of babies for breakfast, doing my cat, or maybe going to a gay bar to carry out my gay lifestyle by sleeping with 5 women in a night (I wish!!).
October 21st, 2007 at 8:55 am (#)
I hear all these in the U.S., from the rightwing and the evangelicals, as well… just replace Asian Values with Family Values or Christian Values. Seems to be quite successful rhetoric too… between 2004 and 2006 voters in ten or so states (I lost count) voted to amend their Constitutions to ban same-sex marriages, and the ban is up for vote in more states during the 2008 elections.
The interesting part is, in the last year or so, a good number of male ultra-right wing legislators, leaders and pastors, many of whom wrote proposals against gay marriage or preached the sins of homosexuality from the pulpit, were ‘exposed’ to be homosexuals. Most infamous of all is Ted Haggard, former leader of New Life Church in Colo. Springs and head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who was found to patronize male escorts and purchase meth from them. A couple months back, Larry Craig, senator of Idaho, was caught by an undercover policeman for soliciting anonymous gay sex in a men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis airport. There are many, many, more, such as death from suffocation in autoerotic activities, sexually molesting (to put it mildly) a male at a Young Republicans party… what they all have in common is a strong anti-homosexual stance (and usually anti-environment, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-immigration, anti-universal health care, etc. as well).
I’m anti-”people who call for laws that restrict our behavior but don’t comply to their own damn laws”. I’m also anti-”people who use What About the Purity of our Innocent Children as an excuse to enforce their version of the world on other people”.
Makes me wonder what is really going on in the minds of the loudest anti-homosexual voices. And they seem to spend a lot of time imagining the various sexual sins of homosexuals… to the point of obsession.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am (#)
Adri,
the law criminalising homosexual sex is Section 377 in India as well (probably because when the Indian Criminal Code was framed, Singapore fell under its jurisdiction).
Appalling though the efforts of the ‘keepers’ are, at least you in Singapore have reached a point where you can openly challenge 377 in parliament. That’s a very long away in India, and is actually a reason I do have hope for Singapore - more than for my own country, anyway.
October 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pm (#)
Hahah wonderful. Love you! Sometimes Singaporeans make me go crazy over their foolish human insights. Really if only gay is contagious, maybe I can make the girl next door fall in love with me…
October 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm (#)
[...] you think. I’m not bothering to rant, does it really matter? But my sentiments hover around this, and this. Posted in Issues by atee [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 7:43 pm (#)
Repeal it. Now.
I believe that so-called “conservative values  have been ideologically defined, the parameters of civilised and “normal  behaviour shaped by the government. The PAP has successfully jumped on the bandwagon of “Asian values  as an intellectual defence in order to prevent the proliferation and permeation of liberal ideas into Singapore (despite having close bilateral ties with European countries and the US) and to avoid appearing overly amicable towards the West so as not to antagonise neighbouring states.
Sodomy was criminalised by the British colonial powers then, but since then they have repealed it, and so has Hong Kong, another ex-colony of the British. Can the government provide an explanation why we still choose to keep it, on the basis that HK is less Asian than us? Why, they are so much closer to the Chinese heartland from which so-called “conservative  ideas first diffused!
The government has managed to sustain this ideological orthodoxy that convinces society that heterosexuality is the dominant sexual orientation. Yet it is only one dominant way of life, with others hidden from public view. Homosexuality should not be stigmatised as though it were a sin - the state is supposedly secular, so what business does it have toying with religious concepts of sin? Does this resonate across all racial lines, class divides and other strata of society? Or does the government simply assume that is what everyone thinks? The more likely explanation is that the government is attempting to lead public opinion and define it rather than consult and follow it.
Why should homosexuals be designated as second-class citizens? What gives anyone the moral and ethical legitimacy to condemn a person because of his sexual orientation?
And when is somebody going to speak out against the incredulous fact that gives the government the legal right to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home?
They say, “Get a room! . Then they follow the couple into the room and make sure that what they do is adhering to the “order of nature .
October 21st, 2007 at 8:05 pm (#)
whilst I am not gay, I am certainly not homophobic, nor do I believe that just because 377a is abolished would lead to the crumbling of our family unit as we know it. looking at the amount of youth troublemakers in current society today, all I can say is, “what family unit?!”
in fact, it is only by abolishing such an oppressive law that our society as a whole can progress. conservative people (and parents) should look elsewhere, because they are the ones causing erosion of the moral fabric of our society.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:40 pm (#)
Bravo for you!
October 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm (#)
I love it when you write about gay issues. Not least because you’re the face of the future - if we’re even gonna have one at all.
hugs Must catch you before you leave for land of incredibly sexy, yummy and all-night street food!
October 21st, 2007 at 9:10 pm (#)
I think it’s very telling that these laws often only cover sodomy. It shows that at heart all the fuss is less about logical arguments against homosexuality in general, and more about conservative gut reactions to the idea of anal sex.
Lesbianism is often imagined as less yucky so it gets off a little lighter. It’s all about emotional gut reaction and nothing to do with Asian Values, opposing promiscuity, ‘children would become confused,’ or other attempts at logical argument.
The problem with much organised religion is that it validates the ‘yuck factor’ as a basis for moral law.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:42 am (#)
Interesting point about someone from India, about S. 377 (similar in text to the Singapore 377A, though it is not limited to only men - is catch-all). The Indian provision has been challenged as well, and there are reported judgments - the Naz Foundation cases.. I do not foresee our legislature doing much, but I hope that in a year or two, the judiciary will strike it down for being blatantly unconstitutional. Is there no such hope in Singapore? Is a judicial review out of the question? (my understanding of Singaporean law is zilch, hence I ask the qs.).
The more important question is whether a repeal of the law is enough to change such antiquated attitudes and discrimination against homosexuals. I do not think so, and I pray that people everywhere (India, Singapore, the world..) get their act together and start by being sensitive to human emotions and choices!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 am (#)
I wasn’t sure I wanted to sign the repeal petition, partially because I’d thought it had gotten enough publicity and partially because I wasn’t sure it would actually do any good.
Mind you, I’m not sure that the government will actually heed the petition or whether a repeal will make any concrete changes. I just signed because I saw Keep377a had accumulated more signatures in a shorter amount of time and decided that I didn’t want to be counted among those idiots.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:53 am (#)
I’d heard about the dictatorship regime in S’pore but this is outlandhishly burlesque! While I’m not supremely acquainted with the laws of my land (India), I do know that most of my country is homophobic. Sexual orientation is predestined when a child is born and not adhering to the norm is a…disease. Indeed, a friend of mine was beaten demoniacally by his family only so they could ’straighten’ him out. And what’s worse, is that educated denizens actually condone such expression.
It would be fatuous to believe that attitudes towards gays and lesbians will change anytime soon. And when I think of all the propoganda incited by progressive nations on something as sensitive as this, I despair of progress.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 am (#)
Was told, on sunday, all the church pastors sent out an short urgent email to urge all christians in the chrch to sign it before the deadline. this was an announcement made in church for them to sign. Honestly, tapping onto religion is the best they can get to get us.
Roll eyes.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:26 am (#)
[...] by The Singapore Daily on October 22nd, 2007 Section 377a - Popagandhi: Why I Don’t Usually Talk About Anything Else - All and Sundry Singapore: HomosexualityIssues: To repeal S377A of the Penal Code or not? - The [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am (#)
The church is crumbling and it is holding onto its membership by creating an external factor to hate.
It is strange how evangelists put down other religions by labelling them “satanic”.
Lately the elderly couple next door to me was finally “convinced” by their children to convert. However they were still lamenting about the loss of their expensive rosewood dining tablets, chest and altar table just because they contained carving of dragons that their pastor insisted they must be smashed up in church!
October 24th, 2007 at 10:35 pm (#)
your post reminded me of this: 12 Reasons Same-Sex Marriage will Ruin Society
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
October 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm (#)
It’s really sad and telling that the keep website managed to garner so many signatures in so short a time.
October 26th, 2007 at 4:41 am (#)
Well donaq, if you put the entire muslim and christian population you get about 50%? With that, you add on a smattering of other conservative people groups, you do get a majority who might oppose to it. I would like to put an alternative view as well.
There is too much to consider and too much at hand for the government to consider. I am not defending them, but they are really stuck between a rock and a hard place. I do not forsee us being frontrunners in the region(SEA) for homosexual acceptance. Geo-Politically, we sit in a ring of religious hotspots. A repeal might have dire consequences. Will we be frowned upon by our muslim neighbours? Not to forget, we do have openly secret alliance with Israel as well. it’s going to be tough for our nation’s govt to openly accept. I won’t dare say that Jihad will be declared for repealing it, but still, it’s a sticky situation.
Underlying all, whether 377A is archaic or not, repealing it does sends a message. Is our nation ready for that message and the govt ready to take on that responsibilty? I don’t think so. However, I think the movement to repeal alone has shown how much we have developed over the years.
October 26th, 2007 at 12:40 pm (#)
I spotted these strange comments on both sites, especially via the keep377a.com signatories, but didn’t think to save it. It’s gone from their sites (probably for good reason), so it’s great that you’ve got the gist here and pointed out their misappropriations. ;)
October 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am (#)
[...] exercise, rather than one born of heartfelt idealism. Popagandhi, a homosexual blogger herself, has provided the much needed insight into many of these misappropriated remarks left by many signatories. She lists down all the [...]
May 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm (#)
All the accused were so ridiculous and funny at the same time. I’m not gay, but i have plenty gay friends. They are all nice, well educated, professional in their respective industry and well behave. Not forgetting, some of them are really loyal to their partner.
i can’t understand why ppl think that way. Really. What’s wrong with their mind?