Popagandhi

Best sound bite from the 377A debate: of course it had to be from the Nominated MP and noted legal expert, Thio Li-Ann. Unless you’ve been living under a rock all this time, her anti-gay views are famous (and famously loud). I’m not outraged because I already knew what to expect.

Anal-penetrative sex is inherently damaging to the body and a misuse of organs, like shoving a straw up your nose to drink. The anus is designed to expel waste; when something is forcibly inserted into it, the muscles contract and cause tearing; fecal waste, viruses carried by sperm and blood thus congregate, with adverse health implications like �gay bowel syndrome�, anal cancer. �Acts of gross indecency� under 377A also covers unhygienic practices like �rimming� where the mouth comes into contact with the anus. Consent to harmful acts is no defence � otherwise, our strong anti-drug laws must fall as it cannot co-exist with letting in recreational drugs as a matter of personal lifestyle choice [..] Opposite-sex sodomy is harmful, but medical studies indicate that same-sex sodomy carries a higher price tag for society because of higher promiscuity and frequency levels.

Update
In my haste to post, I forgot the following gem:

Second, while homosexuals are a numerical minority, there is no such thing as �sexual minorities� at law. Activists have coined this term to draw a beguiling but fallacious association between homosexuals and legally recognized minorities like racial groups. Race is a fixed trait. It remains controversial whether homosexual orientation is genetic or environmental, perhaps both. There are no ex-Blacks but there are ex-gays. The analogy between race and sexual orientation or preferred sexual preferences, is false. Activists repeat the slogan �sexual minority� ad nausem as a deceptive political ploy to get sympathy from people who don�t think through issues carefully [...] While we cherish racial and religious diversity, sexual diversity is a different kettle of fish. Diversity is not license for perversity. This radical liberal argument is pernicious, a leftist philosophy based on radical individualism and radical egalitarianism. It is unworkable because every viable moral theory has limits to consent.

Actually, there aren’t really any ex-gays either. It depends on who you ask. If the only people you ask are from Focus on the Family, NARTH, Exodus, or other such abominable organizations, one’s perspective of the ex-gay lie might be overwhelmingly optimistic. The ex-gay ministry is precisely that — a ministry. What role does this Christian baggage have in a secular nation such as ours? It’s so easy to label anybody who disagrees with you as liberal, leftist, and radical egalitarian — the truth is, it’s not a gay thing. It doesn’t take a gay person to feel disappointed by what this country witnessed yesterday. There are heterosexual, Christian, right-leaning people who are disappointed too — people who are disappointed that the name of our great religion has often been used to justify all the wrongs of the world.

Watch clips from the debate; read about it. I rest my case; I don’t want to care anymore.

Elsewhere
Hiding Behind Rhetoric Pleinelune’s point by point rebuttal
On 377A Nonsense in the Reasonable Hall of the Sensible Nation Some interesting thoughts
Ex-Gay Harm from an ex-gay survivor, since we’re on that topic
The Molly Awards
Parliamentary Classic: 377A (Part 1)
If Ned Were in Parliament