Management of gays revisited, part 1

In Chapter 19 of a new book Management of Success, Singapore revisited, National University of Singapore law professor Michael Hor makes a strong argument that Section 377A of the Penal Code is unconstitutional. This is the law that makes it an offence for men to have sexual relations with each other, effectively criminalising male homosexuality.

A push was made in 2007 to get it repealed, but it was not successful. Christian conservatives led by then-Nominated Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann, who happens to be another law professor, raised a hue and cry about the dangers of homosexuality to the moral fabric of society.

The Management of Success, Singapore revisited is published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, and edited by Terence Chong of the same institute. It is a sequel to an earlier book of similar name published in 1989.

In his chapter, Michael Hor noted that despite the vocal attempts to demonise gay people and paint homosexual orientation as injurious (including by some members of the ruling party) the government did not subscribe to such reasoning. Yet the government chose to keep the law.

Page 337:

Why, according to the government, was 377A retained? What is clear is that it was not preserved for any of the conventional aims of the criminal law — that of desert, deterrence, incapacitation, or even more exotic ones such as denunication. PM Lee’s exhortation in Parliament that we should not make it any more difficult for gays to grow up than it already is dispels any notion that the government thinks there is anything wrong with 377A activity or that it causes any harm to self or society. One only needs to compare PM Lee’s statement of the government’s position with that of the key speech arguing for the retention of 377A — primarily on the basis of the usual litany of “harms” — to see how different they are. There is no doubt that PM Lee did not buy into any of them. Were it otherwise, it would have been completely incomprehensible to have announced the continued non-enforcement of the retained 377A.

The “key speech arguing for the retention of 377A” that Hor refers to was that made by Thio.

Hor then goes on to discover that the government’s decision was bi-layered. The surface justification, going by the prime minister’s words, was that it would be symbolic — a “signpost of heterosexual orthodoxy”.

Hor next asks what the motivation might be for wanting such a symbol. He examines the possibility that it could be to steer people towards heterosexual orientation, yet the government itself, from its own words, does not believe so.

Page 338:

Now the more basic question — why is such a symbol needed? Perhaps it might be argued that such a symbol will tip the balance when someone who is sexually ambivalent decides where his inclinations lie. This raises the issue of choice — another matter on which the government and the ardent supporters of 377A are not ad idem. It is clear that the government is of the view that sexual preference is primarily, if not entirely, predetermined — it is not a matter of choice. If this is what the government believes, then it cannot be that heterosexual symbols are needed to persuade people to be heterosexual.

The expression “ad idem” means “of the same mind”.

As was well-known, the anti-gay movement was religiously inspired. The government however was neither dictated nor swayed by them, Hor said. In fact, the government “roundly rejected” the movement’s essential beliefs. Still, it appears that the government did not want to annoy them any further by leaving them empty-handed. That motivation alone made the government decide to retain 377A.

But, Hor points out,

Page 340:

to give legislative effect to a norm which stems almost exclusively from Christian or Muslim beliefs does appear to be a curiously misguided decision. Take the example of the prohibition against eating pork — certainly a tenet of Islam and Judaism. No one would even suggest that we enact a law banning the consumption of pork in Singapore, even for Muslims, no matter how strongly these two religious communities feel about it.

Having laid bare the scrappy reason for retaining 377A, he next turns to the question of constitutionality. With reference to the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, Hor explains that this provision requires that,

Page 340:

law must not be “arbitrary”; there must be a “rational nexus” or “reasonable classification” between what the law targets and the purpose for which it is laid down.

Laws must be tested for “fit” and “weight”, he said. With respect to the former, the question is whether the classification of the target persons affected by the law fits the intended purpose of the law. As for “weight”, the question is whether whatever the problem the law purports to deal with is real and serious enough to justify the intervention of criminal sanction. Or is it mostly capricious?

Page 341:

How does 377A fare? It can be quickly seen that the legislative decision to retain 377A is gravely problematic on both fronts. It does not fit very well at all. . . . If, as we have seen, the legislature was acting in some manner on the antipathy of certain segments of society towards homosexual activity, then the non-inclusion of women in 377A is a very huge omission indeed — more than half our population and presumably half of all homosexual activity.  It would be akin to subjecting half all our cars to a certain speed limit rule based on the colour of the car.

If we think driving fast poses a danger to others and this is a good reason to criminalise excessive speed, then the law must apply to all cars. If it only applies to some cars based on a classification scheme that bears no relation to speed, it becomes immediately suspect. One cannot but suspect that there is another, hidden, motivation for the law. And if a motivation is hidden, one has to ask, why would the proponents want to hide it? Might it be because it cannot bear scrutiny?

Page 341:

The element of “weight” is no less shaky. Can the sole purpose of accommodation of sectarian sensibilities ever be weighty enough to justify the criminalization of private sexual conduct between consenting adults? If the answer is “yes”, then it is hard to imagine for what earthly purpose the equal protection clause was written into the Constitution for. It is not the case that the Legislature has made a judgment that 377A activity is sufficiently harmful to society to attract criminal sanctions. . . the speech of PM Lee shows a clear belief that it is not so harmful — but 377A was to remain for, apparently, the sole purpose of appeasing those who disapprove.

Page 342:

It is not difficult to see that if the desire to accommodate a disapproving segment of society is reason enough, that would result in the evisceration of equal protection. . . Equal protection is about protection against prejudice, and if the government does not buy into the substantive arguments (of those who disapprove) for criminalization, then those putative reasons become, as far as the government is concerned, prejudice.

The prime minister, in his speech defending the retention of Section 377A, said he had consulted the Attorney-General and had been advised that 377A was constitutional.

Hor, however, has compiled a set of arguments showing the opposite. He suggests a judicial challenge — “one can be excited about the opportunity presented to the courts to inaugurate an era of meaningful constitutionalism and judicial review”. I would note though that the Attorney-General in 2007 was Chao Hick Tin, who is today one of the Supreme Court’s judges of appeal.

37 Responses to “Management of gays revisited, part 1”


  1. 1 yuen 24 September 2010 at 00:36

    Two on NUS shortlist for dean of law faculty
    13 Sep 2009 … One of them comes from within the faculty – Professor Michael Hor, who specialises in criminal law and has been with NUS for more than 20 …
    http://www.asiaone.com/News/…/A1Story20090911-167310.html – Cached – Similar
    #
    No change at NUS law faculty after all
    24 Jan 2010 … THE dean of the law faculty at the National University of … he named as his possible successors: NUS law professor Michael Hor said … Prof Hor specialises in criminal law and has been with NUS for more than 20 years. …
    http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/…/A1Story20100122-193749.html – Similar

  2. 2 Robox 24 September 2010 at 00:53

    “The prime minister, in his speech defending the retention of Section 377A, said he had consulted the Attorney-General and had been advised that 377A was constitutional.”

    I recall this very vividly. And the most deplorably unprofessional part of it was that he merely said, “S 377a was not unconstitutional”.

    Period.

    There wasn’t even the feeblest attempt by him follow the statement up with a because, follwed by an argument besed on legal grounds as it should have been expected in any constitutional argument.

    We were meant to just accept his statement because he said so, and because it was on the advice of then AG who probably also hadn’t the faintest idea to counterargue the gay insistence on S 377a’s uncontitutionality.

  3. 3 Robox 24 September 2010 at 12:49

    1. “…it appears that the government did not want to annoy [the Christian fundamentalists] any further by leaving them empty-handed. That motivation alone made the government decide to retain 377A.”

    Goverments in democracies don’t only what the people want; they balance it with considerations about what is right.

    And what is right is usually compatible with notions about what is constitutional or at other times with what is in the national interest (ie. what is best for the country).

    But “what the people want” also gets confused with “what is feasible”. While what is feasible often has do with what is “finacially” feasible, it is surely not the case with LGBT rights. What then it becomes is, what is feasible means “what is politically expedient”.

    So, what happened to the PAP government’s constant boast that they will not do what is popular but only what is right in the case of gay rights?

    Did the gay rights challenge expose that claim as a lie?

    2. “Hor, however,…,suggests a judicial challenge…”

    I think we need to understand exactly what Michael Hor’s ‘suggestion’ means to the LGBT community, as if we were not in fact the first to point it out to Singapore’s so-called ‘elites’ like himself: it means that the LGBT community expends its own financial resources – in a country and jurisdiction that has made access to justice finacially draining to ordinary people in the first place which is something he hasn’t seemed to have addressed – to make that judicial challenge.

    I recall from information you had previously posted that it would cost $20 000/per day of hearing and, we all know, that the hearings are unlikely to last a mere day.

    Why should LGBTs have to spend any money to reverse any law that is discriminatory towards us?

    Did we ask for this discrimination against us that we should have to pay for it to be reversed?

    Or did we ask for a government that will not only do want the people want, but also what is right?

    3. “…the Attorney-General in 2007 was Chao Hick Tin, who is today one of the Supreme Court’s judges of appeal.”

    Ah, and that’s the real clincher here, isn’t it?

    The same AG who advised the PAP government that S 377a was not unconstitutional, and the same AG who sits in the Appeals Court and will be overseeing a court challenge that Michael Hor thinks that LGBTs should be expending our own financial resources to institute, is also going be the one whom we should look to to rule in our favour.

    And Micahel Hor would suggest thia only because ‘one can be excited about the opportunity presented to the courts’.

    No less.

  4. 4 Jeremy 24 September 2010 at 15:45

    Some of the pillars of Singapore society reminds me of characters from a small backwater town in Alabama or the Outback. They come up with rubbish like:

    ‘Gays damage the moral fabric’

    ‘We can’t have an Indian for prime minister because the Chinese majority are not ready yet’

    ‘We can’t have a minimum wage because it negatively impacts our national competitiveness’

    As a heterosexual Chinese male classified in the highest earning 10% of the population, I am deeply offended that these clowns dare to represent my views.

    Neither I, nor the vast majority of my peers of my demographic, want to be associated with these anti-gay, anti-minorities, anti-poor attitudes.

    I am embarrassed by these clowns

  5. 5 Sos 24 September 2010 at 16:57

    This horse has been flogged so many times, it’s starting to look tired.

  6. 6 yawningbread 24 September 2010 at 17:03

    SOS – which horse? If you’re referring to 377A, it cannot be tired as it continues to impact every day of a gay person’s life. Were the laws of apartheid ever tired to South Africans of non-white ethnicity?

    It is only “tired” to those who enjoy the privilege of not suffering that discrimination. Telling others to shut up because it is “tired” is saying: Let me enjoy my privileges in peace without you constantly reminding me how unfair it is.

    I think “selfish” is a more applicable word than “tired”.

    • 7 KT 24 September 2010 at 23:20

      I’m all for gay rights but 377A is nothing compared to apartheid. Have a sense of proportion, please.

      • 8 Robox 24 September 2010 at 23:46

        S 377A may not be comparable to apartheid, but the selfishness of dominant groups and their frequent attempts to silence marginalized groups are.

    • 9 patrick 26 September 2010 at 02:10

      if people like Sos find the cause tiresome, you’re certainly not going to change their minds with hostile replies like this one.

      • 10 Gimmeabreak 26 September 2010 at 08:22

        I’m tired of being told that minorities need to be nice when calling out people on their bigotry in order to change their minds.

  7. 11 M.L. King 24 September 2010 at 19:47

    I am posting this in appreciation of Alex, Stuart, and all those who strive to make a difference for us.

    ” Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness… Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.

    Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at [them] in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.

    A right delayed is a right denied…Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed

    A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus. ”

    Martin Luther King, jnr.

    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

    George Bernard Shaw

    If a poor country like India can find the wherewithall to mount a successful constitutional challenge to 377, how much easier should it be for Singaporeans opposed to discrimination?

  8. 12 nohope 25 September 2010 at 05:41

    Alex, you are brillient and should seek counselling. god bless.

  9. 13 Robox 25 September 2010 at 06:56

    Perhaps we can take this opportunity to start covering new ground on the issue of gay rights. I pick up from M.L.King’s statement above:

    “If a poor country like India can find the wherewithall to mount a successful constitutional challenge to 377, how much easier should it be for Singaporeans opposed to discrimination?”

    First, the judicial system in India has not been politicized as it has been in Singapore. Additionally, legal costs in India have not been deliberately made prohibitive. Thus, the courts can play their proper role and be actually used to seek recourse for injustices, even for the poor. (Readers may wish to recall that legal costs were deliberately jacked up by the PAP government to prevent JB Jeyaratnam from using the courts to seek redress for the injustices against him. Clearly, the PAP did have every intention to carry out illegal action against him, and then bankrupt him in the process so that he would be unable to afford to take action against the PAP government. We are all now paying the price for not having spoken out earlier regarding this matter.)

    In that sense, India’s courts have not been corrupted. (This is something I have been told. Corruption in the court system in India tends to take the form of bribing the courts to obtain a favourable verdict, and then again usually only in the lower courts. Justice is of course, perverted in that process. But the higher courts tend to come under greater scrutiny by the entire nation and cannot hope to get away with corrupt practises.)

    However, Singaporeans might also want to take note of little Nepal which seems to have overtaken India where the issue of gay rights is concerned. Indeed, at the rate that Nepal is moving on the issue, I won’t be surprised if it becomes the first country in Asia to accord legal recognition to same-sex marriage. I had previously expected that it would be either Taiwan or Hong Kong who were the sure bets.

    I now take the example of Canada where it was also legal action that mobilized the political action that saw the country become the third country in the world where LGBTs have full rights. There, it began with scores of same sex couples beginning by applying for marriage licenses knowing full well that they would be turned down, getting the rejection documented to serve as evidence in court, and then proceed with court action using as we are in Singapore the “equal protection” clause as the basis for legal action.

    Costs in Canada are not as low as they are in India, but they are definitely nowhere near as prohibitive as they are in Singapore. Not only that, LGBT communities rallied behind the couples taking legal action and donated to their legal funds. Even bars frequented by LGBTs contributed by donating a small portion of the sales of every drink towards these couples’ fights. Gay and lesbian lawyers, whose brainchild this strategy was, usually also either worked pro bono on these cases.

    Can something along these lines be initiated in Singapore? In Singapore, though the only documentary evidence we need is already in the law books; any LGBT individual can initiate proceedings.

    (BTW, I am not going back on my objections to LGBTs paying for this. I do see merit in court action, at the very least because it put pressure even further than has already happened with the SDP cases as well as M Ravi, to act inedependent of the Executive. All Singaporeans will benefit, and the bill should be footed by all Singaporeans, in my opinion, and not only LGBTs.)

    The happy conclusion in the Canadian account is that today, the Canadian government budgets some amount of money to a fund for any Canadian to access in the event that s/he needs to take legal action against the government.

    All of Canada benefits today because of what LGBTs there did.

  10. 14 KiWeTO 25 September 2010 at 07:58

    Within any Singaporean family tree, there are always plenty of members that are adversely affected by S377A. Wither the magnitude of harm to these people is comparable to apartheid in South Africa, is a determination that only these members can make, not members of the not-S377A class.
    [the silver lining is that they aren’t directly discriminated because of their skin colour; yet, if one cannot live free, what is the cost of a life of hiding?]

    Is Singapore inclusive or exclusive? S733A stands in the latter corner.

    Is it linked to the malaise that inflicts policy decisions in Singapore? It is just another example of societal regress. Defend the barricades, the conservatives decry. They forget that what they are defending, was once reformist in nature. Then again, conservatives just want tomorrow to be like yesterday, not yesteryear.

    Societies that have revised the concept of civil marriage to any 2 “reasonable persons” haven’t yet collapsed. Some are actually even drawing in talent for their tomorrows, or generating birth rates closer to statistical replenishment compared to us.

    What hope there be? The lonely lightbearers in the darkness of S377A continue to seek to light new lanterns. But when fundamentalist churches celebrate raising millions in a day in Singapore, a “reasonable person” has little resource to raise his voice above thunderous choirs. Closed minds without the ability for critical thinking. And thanks to our education system, that is a mental process that is unlikely to chance much.

    Do no harm? hmmm… S377A does plenty of harm here. Like Prohibition. Like pre-Sufferage. Like the Inquisition. Then again, should what society is be determined by those in power, or those who live it?

    E.o.M.

    E.o.M.

    • 15 KT 25 September 2010 at 11:04

      I think 377A should be abolished, but:

      1) ‘What is the cost of a life of hiding?’

      What are you hiding? Your gay sexual activities? But heteros aren’t exactly making out in the middle of Orchard Road in broad daylight. Are you hiding your gayness? If you are, don’t blame 377A. It’s the homophobes who make you do that.

      2) Would abolishing 377A change the homophobes’ view? I don’t think so. Gay marriages are now legal in some places. But that’s the effect of growing acceptance of gayness, not cause.

      3) If 377A were abolished tomorrow, how would it change gays’ actual sex life? I suspect not very much?

      4) Even if 377A doesn’t affect gays’ actual sex life materially, it’s the principle, isn’t it? Why should hetero sex be legal but not (male) gay sex? It’s the principle that bugs, big time, those who are against 377A (except me). Well, isn’t oral sex illegal too? But heteros don’t bang their head against the wall trying to make it legal. They just do it. Why? Because life is easier that way. Sometimes, principles are overrated.

      5) ‘Wither the magnitude of harm to these people is comparable to apartheid in South Africa, is a determination that only these members can make, not members of the not-S377A class.’

      Apartheid affected every facet of South African life, from housing to work, education, medical care, transport, inter-racial marriage, political freedom, etc. In comparison, 377A is more about principle than actual daily life, as I said in point 2 and 3. It’s simply not of the same magnitude as Apartheid. To say that it is belittles the South African blacks’ suffering under the regime. How many people died because of Apartheid? How many gays has 377A killed?

      5) Since I’m not gay, who am I to say that Singapore gays aren’t suffering as much as Apartheid victims?

      If not for the international pressure against South Africa, chances are Apartheid would still be around. Surely, non-South Africans’ opinion counted for something. Likewise, if gays want more rights in Singapore, they need heteros to be on their side.

      I’m not saying 377A is totally insignificant. It stands in the way of legalizing gay marriages, and gay couples having children. These are important things which can’t be hidden behind bedroom doors like sex. And 377A has been used to prosecute gays, though rarely, despite a government statement to the contrary. But please don’t compare gays to those who suffered under Apartheid.

      • 16 Sun Koh 25 September 2010 at 21:08

        5) Since I’m not gay, who am I to say that Singapore gays aren’t suffering as much as Apartheid victims?

        i’m not sure how to quantify the inequalities under Apatheid and 377A, but consider this – marriage and all the rights that come with it is an everyday thing that straight people get to enjoy for the rest of their lives without them being very conscious of it, like the right to adequate food. It is not what it’s made out to be – an ideal that the LGBT community would like to achieve. It is what heterosexual people get to enjoy while we look on from the sidelines with our partners everyday. It affects almost every facet of the everyday life of committed LGBTs for the rest of our lives. It dooms the prospects of LGBTs dreaming of marrying the one they love. The difference is that this is mostly invisible to you.

  11. 17 inspiration 25 September 2010 at 14:47

    I dont think the govt is wrong to keep the law on activities against the order of nature. it is good for the overall society. Counselling can also help those who are lost.

    • 18 Cydia 26 September 2010 at 14:01

      I am for counseling, but would you pay for it since you suggested? Or would you spend it on church parties (assuming you are Christian, tell me if I am wrong)

      Walk the talk, please.

  12. 19 Vampyre 25 September 2010 at 19:39

    OMG Alex! What we’re discussing has actually happened! M Ravi has filed an application challenging the constitutionality of 377A in defense of Tan Eng Hong!

    This should be interesting to watch…

    http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100924-0000220/Lawyer-challenges-gay-sex-law

    • 20 Robox 25 September 2010 at 22:38

      Hi Vampyre, thanks for the info. It is indeed thrilling to hear about this. There is no necessity now for legals costs.

    • 21 patrick 25 September 2010 at 23:00

      how can any sane or reasonably intelligent human being think this would go anywhere? m ravi is an incompetent lawyer whose penchant for grandstanding and inability to work the court is renowned. he can’t win this, and he’s only giving the judiciary a chance to publicly reaffirm the gay sex law. this man has no tactical acumen. it’s laughable that some people here think he’s helping the cause.

  13. 22 Robox 26 September 2010 at 03:22

    I would like to remind your readers of K Shamugam’s reaction last year after the Delhi ruling, afirst also because the PAP government had never previously commented on gay rights successes anywhere before this. I immortalize his words here:

    http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/2533-singapore-not-swayed-by-india-gay-sex-ruling-minister

    [Quote]

    {K Shamugam] said however that Singapore’s courts were free to interpret the law as the Indian court had done.

    “We won’t change the law, but how that is interpreted is up to the courts,” the Straits Times quoted the minister as saying.

    “It is not our position to tell the courts what to do.”

    [Endquote]

  14. 23 inspiration 26 September 2010 at 15:20

    Cydia, I think each one of us should take personal responsibility and not others to pay for our medical expenses. You may want to approach the Church who may be able to help you to commit act against the nature. God bless.

  15. 24 inspiration 26 September 2010 at 15:25

    should read ” not to commit act against the order of nature”

    • 25 tk 27 September 2010 at 15:30

      no, i think your original wording should stand.

      eg
      paedophile catholic priests
      pastor eddie long
      pastor ted haggard
      george rekers
      lee palmer
      william bendert
      etc
      etc
      etc
      dare i say, ad infinitum?

      are these examples of the Church encouraging “the order of nature”, whatever that even means?

      or are they shining examples of liars and hypocrites who bugger innocent young boys and girls, embezzle charitable donations, and demonise homosexuals and drug addicts while paying rentboys and snorting meth.

      get your head out of your a$$.

    • 26 Nonchristian 28 September 2010 at 12:11

      For your God’s sake. You should shut up because you are committing an evil and sinful act towards gays.

      You should be counseled by the experts at Institute of mental health or Ministry of health and not by those ‘sinful churches’ which promotes homophobic thoughts.

      My gay friends had seek help with the experts and were advised to accept themselves and live a normal gay life as there is no ‘cure’ since it’s not a illness.

      Go ask the experts and not the church.

      For goodness sake.

  16. 27 Alan Wong 26 September 2010 at 20:23

    Our laws in Singapore can be very awkward indeed. Why have a law 377A when our PM says there is no intention of prosecuting anyone for it ?

    On the other hand why do we have a law where anti-smoking is strictly enforced in air-condition places to protect the public against second hand smoke but then why the exception for the air-conditioned smoking areas of the casinos ? How do you feel if you are caught and fined smoking while other smokers are given the green light by our government to smoke as much (or cause as much harm) as they like in our casinos

    By the way I just happen to know that the starting pay of groupiers in our world class casinos is S$1500 to S$2100 per month depending on their entry qualifications and experience. For this kind of pay, aren’t the lifes of our casino employees dirt cheap considering that they are exposed to the worst health hazard in their working lifes ?

    Do we or do they deserve no better protection by our government ?

  17. 28 Arif 28 September 2010 at 21:53

    There is no cure for a psychopath either, but it does not mean society should therefore permit such a person to give in to his tendencies and inclinations.

    • 29 Nonchristian 28 September 2010 at 23:00

      Arif, your attitude and prejudice are your tendencies and inclination to discriminate and should not be accepted.

      Gays who seek help were told to accept themselves by doctors.

      Who are you to say its a tendency or inclination to be a gay?

  18. 30 Robox 28 September 2010 at 22:05

    Arif, psychopathy is a mental illness; homosexuality is not.

    Indeed, I am also have no compunction in saying that fascism – the ideological bent of the most rabid homophobes – is a mental ilness much like psychopathy.

    • 31 KT 28 September 2010 at 22:14

      How do you know that homosexuality is not an illness? Just because some animals are homosexual or homosexuality is genetic doesn’t necessarily mean that homosexuality is not an illness. The gay animals may be ill, and homosexuality may be a genetic illness.

      • 32 Nonchristian 28 September 2010 at 22:55

        KT so you are sick with illness then.

        Go ask the Ministry of Health or the doctors at the Institute of mental health.

      • 33 Robox 28 September 2010 at 23:14

        I know because I can function normally – if we take heterosxuality to be ‘normal’ – in all other capacities.

        I have observed this in all other LGBT’s as well and bona fide mental health professionals will attest to that.

        But if you are so damned adamant that homosexuality is an illness, then what the heck are you doing here religiously reading articles written by a mentally ill individual, taking what he seriously enough as to respond and making comments on it?

      • 34 KT 29 September 2010 at 00:05

        Calm down, Robox. You made a statement; I questioned it. I didn’t say I’m damn adamant homosexuality is an illness, and I am not. And I certainly didn’t mention any mental illness. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with mentally ill people. Some of them are extremely artistic, intellectual, talented, etc. May I suggest that you reconsider your prejudice against the mentally ill?

        I question why some heteros think homosexuality is an illness. Likewise, I question why homos think homosexuality is not an illness. (Am I allowed to do that on this blog?) Saying that the doctors say so is not a good explanation to me. Doctors may be wrong, just as the Christian church may be wrong. What is the scientific basis for saying homosexuality is not an illness? What is an ‘illness’ anyway? So long as you can function normally, you are not ill? I don’t think that’s how the medical profession define illness, mental or otherwise.

  19. 35 Robox 29 September 2010 at 00:31

    Talk about misdirecting responsibility!

    You calm down! Suggesting even remotely that homosexuality is a mental illness constitutes mental abuse.

    If this were my own blog, I would say “No, you are not allowed to do that here”. This is a free speech venue, and not meant for criminal acts.

  20. 36 KT 29 September 2010 at 01:00

    Your reaction is no different from the conservatives who proclaim that homosexuality is an illness, without providing any scientific evidence. All emotion; no intellect.

    So the debate between gays (as represented by Robox) and anti-gays boils down to: yes it is; no it isn’t; yes it is . . . .

  21. 37 Robox 29 September 2010 at 03:45

    I am not interested in debating with any goddamed person – least of all you – about whther I am mentally ill or not because of my same sex attractions.

    Do you understand?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: