As a Follow Up...

Firstly, I realize your tone is a little towards the aggressive side. No need to be so protective of your moral values. Let’s take perspectives from a more neutral, evidence related standpoint.

I did not say Gays form a race. I said that it is LIKE having another race in Singapore. I don’t contradict myself by saying that homosexuality is a form of behavior and a form of sexuality. By giving an example, I was trying to show that Singapore has a possibility of advancing towards having an even more diverse culture, and that people from all around the world can see Singapore as a place where they will not be discriminated to such negative extents.

I take my definitions from dictionaries, and thus, the proper definition for “cosmopolitan” is: Free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world. Is it not possible, for Singapore, with four different races, to accept homosexuals into the country? Then again, are you trying to tell me that, despite the government’s efforts to turn Singapore into a truly cosmopolitan country, it is actually trying to turn Singapore into what you would define as a ‘lame joke’?

To say that America’s communities are splitting up due to the gay liberalism and gay rights is a perspective. Who are we to decide what is right or wrong? You are implying that splitting up is necessarily a bad thing. However we fail to see that the splitting up of one thing is the bonding together of another. According to research by social statisticians, the states in USA which allow gay marriages such as New York, or Massachusetts, have shown a drop in the heterosexual divorce rates, where states such as Utah, or Texas, have, on the other hand, shown an increase of divorce rates.

Please define moving backwards. I assume you are speaking about moral values, because in my opinion, USA is moving forward in most aspects, except for the environmental one, which I believe we are not discussing here today. I still believe that as a person, we do not define what is right and what is wrong. The same scientist that tell us the same ‘damaging evidence’, tell us that the statistics could be wrong because the people interviewed might not have been truthful as they may have hidden vital statistics such as the number of sexual partners they had.

Thus it is not a prejudicial statement that I have made, but on the other hand you should also not generalize that Singaporeans do not have multiple sex partners. I was merely mentioning the risk involved when you have sex. The danger will always be there if we do not use proper protection, whether or not it is the first time you have had sex or have had it the umpteenth time.

The code 337A does not allow gays to have sex openly. The Singapore law does not even allow heterosexuals to have sex openly. Code 337A would mean that if two gays were having sex in a room, and a policeman could come arrest them. Repealing of code 337A would have absolutely nothing to do with gays having sex openly.

Also, if you were to throw names of straight people around, I would equally be obliged to throw an equal amount of names of gay people who have made it big. People like Oscar Wilde, Elton John, even the great 20^th century composer Tchaikovsky was believed to be gay. I directly quoted MM Lee with regards to gays. Are you telling me that MM Lee was generalizing, or are you telling me what MM Lee said was a joke?

Are you denying the fact that there are talented gay people around? Can they not exist? We must also understand that the people whom you mentioned that were talented people with families could have been gay. The pressure of society at that period was to get married and settle down and have children. Do you have sufficient evidence of their sexuality to prove that they were straight men? How then can having a family prove that they are not gay?

MM Lee’s point of view was to create a cosmopolitan Singapore and in that sense, accept gays because of their talent and recognize their contributions to the economy.

We cannot say that have gays in the community leads to the division of the society. Will foreign investors turn tail and run away from the cosmopolitan country? They of course will weight the benefits of investing in a cosmopolitan country. Do countries laugh at Netherlands because they allowed gay marriages? We cannot look at the big picture and neglect the small piece of puzzle, because every puzzle is an integral part of the picture. Taking the puzzle as the example again, would not the puzzle open up new opportunities?

Are we ‘tearing down’ Singapore when we accept 337A or can we grow exponentially as a country. Singapore, being a country with no national resource, can only depend on their people. Won’t it be a gigantic waste if we chase these resources away?