Where Critical Spectator Errs re: Homosexuality in Singapore

Critical Spectator is a Polish expat who lives in Singapore. He loves the country, he often praised the country's unique state-capitalist environment.

He also had some interesting views on Section 377a of the nation's penal code. This statute criminalizes

Why Singapore is Correct on LGBT Rights

This may be my most controversial article yet (at least to some) – but precisely because it may be considered controversial is why I believe it is important to publish it. So, let's begin with a both baffling and bold statement:

LGBT supporters and their opponents are both right.

No. One side must be wrong, because one side has clearly declared that homosexuality is wrong and aberrant, and therefore the behaviors must be curbed and criminalized as much as possible.

Yet, let's allow Critical Spectator to make his case:

Impossible? Well, let me explain.

Let's Get Physical

Little over 100 years ago, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity, explaining gravity and, consequently, the behavior of large objects. About a decade later Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg gave the world their interpretation of quantum mechanics, which serves to describe the physical behavior of subatomic particles.

Unfortunately, while both are immensely valuable they lack a common link – in other words, what works for large objects doesn't seem to work at a single subatomic particle level – and vice versa.

This paradox keeps springing to mind whenever I'm observing disputes that extend from the interests of an individual to the interests of the society – clashing with them violently – with people on both sides of the front exchanging arguments, completely missing the simple fact that they are speaking from entirely different perspectives.

Indeed, people may get away with disgusting acts in private, but such behaviors cannot become appropriate or mainstream.

And, interestingly, it may mean that much like the physical theories, they are both correct, while being in conflict with each other.

One such war is being fought over LGBT rights.

That phrase "LGBT rights" is a misuse of the notion of right. A right must be universal, not particular, and not promoting one group at the expense of others. What homosexual and transgender activists want is privilege, not equality. They want promotion, not rights.

Individual Fights the Society

The differences in opinion boil down to a clash of an individualist against a communitarian view. The former – arguably more visible these days – suggests that individual freedom is of paramount importance and that people should have the liberty to do what they want even if it meets disapproval of the majority. Communitarianism preaches superiority of the common interest over individual rights.

Individual freedom cannot be the paramount value in any culture. It's simply not possible. The individual does not come into being via freedom alone. There is a culture, a political hegemony which exists before the individual. This tenet is a fundamental concern in real conservatism, and Conservatives across the country need to get back to adhering to it.

Both of these views – much like the physical theories – can coexist but will clash if they stray outside of the area they make sense in.

On an individual level there is nothing wrong with anybody choosing to live with and loving any other person regardless of their gender (and as long as the relationship is consensual). There is really no reason to deny two consenting adults the ability to live (and sleep) with each other.

Actually, there is plenty wrong with such destructive behaviors. It's a misuse of organs, it spread venereal disease, and it deprives children of the mother and father that they need to grow up. At this point, Critical Spectator starts to get the whole argument wrong.

However, while that works for individuals it does not necessarily work for the society at large.

Individuals make up society, but not exclusively. As stated above, there is a moral fabric, a cultural framework which must be respected in order for individuals to exist, survive, and thrive.

The value of a relationship to an individual is defined by the person's subjective interests and feelings. The value of relationships to the society is defined by their functional roles.

Since gay marriage does not serve a reproductive purpose it is therefore not equal to a heterosexual relationship (for the society), even though on an individual level they are both the same – i.e. are expressions of mutual love between two people.

There is no such thing as "Gay marriage." We need to stop allowing modern-day commentators to normalize this crisis of misusing language.

Conversely, forcing the communitarian expectation of a heterosexual relationship on a homosexual person is pointless for the society and harmful for the individual. It is therefore preferable that individuals retain their liberty in choosing whom to spend their lives with.

There is really no such thing as a "homosexual." People are not born gay. There is no gay gene, and homosexuality as a facet of one's behavior or personality is not permanent. It's simply not true. Once again, Critical Spectator is critically off on this point. Notice how much the discussion has continued to veer to the left when it comes to homosexuality and transgenderism. Commentators and pundits insist on treating the behavior as a static identity, when it is not.

Some people may argue that homosexual couples can have children via surrogacy or adoption but that's just trying to find a detour to reach a predetermined ideological goal, while ignoring broader implications, consequences of which we don't know yet – and this uncertainty warrants prudent behavior.

It's good that Critical Spectator throws some shade at this proposal. Homosexuals should not be parents. They cannot be parents, in fact, since they cannot reproduce.

Asia doesn't have a habit of taking all Western ideas wholesale, evaluating each of them for its usefulness instead or observing how they play out elsewhere before making a decision.

The normalization of homosexuality has wreaked untold havoc in Western Countries. The political tyranny, the cultural depravity, the moral vacuity which have ensued because of the destruction of natural relations cannot be ignored.

The first issue is the true long term impact on the children – and not only by the parents but also the society, as social stigma can impede good upbringing, even if both parents are perfect in their roles. Prevailing social norms have to be accounted for when enacting laws that address issues of a small minority. And while there is little scientific evidence of directly adverse effects, the samples used in research supporting same-sex parenting are neither randomized nor big enough – and possibly impacted by ideological bias.

More pundits need to point out how homosexual coupling hurts children. Destruction of marriage hurts children, and the corrupt proposal hurts communities as a whole.

Secondly, setting any legal precedents in one case often acts as a gateway for promotion of other ideological goals, which are even more questionable. One of them visible in the West today is an attempt at normalization of transsexualism and the queer theory, supporting the idea of gender fluidity.

Dr. Thio Li-Ann explained quite succinctly that decriminalizing sodomy was the first step in a much larger, more militant agenda. She outlined how reducing sexual differences to "Partner A and Partner B" in marriage would lead to genderless constructs throughout societies, as well as the imposition of this rank dishonesty onto every facet of the culture.

This has severely adverse effects in both formal and informal ways, with courts ruling that children as young as 3 or 4 years old can undergo gender transitioning, with parents finding it fashionable to have or raise a transgender child – including celebrities like Charlize Theron, who is transitioning her 7 year old son into a daughter. Or with informal initiatives which grow in popularity, like the "Drag Queen Story Hour", featuring men dressed up as women reading stories to children in schools and libraries around America and in a few cities abroad already as well.

Gender transitioning is child abuse through and through. One should call it what it really is: sexual mutilation of minors. Furthermore, countries should criminalize this practice for adults, too. Why should anyone–or everyone–participate in this lie that a man can become a woman, or vice versa? It's an abusive corruption of language and a vile imposition on the rest of the community. It's deceptive at its core, as well, and complicates medical as well as other cultural spaces.

Here's the summary from their website:

"Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real."

In other words, we're no longer talking about what two people do in their bedroom but what millions of children are being taught in schools at an especially important and fragile time in their approaching adolescence.

The normalization of homosexuality was never about the bedroom. Homosexual militants wanted to decriminalize their perverse conduct precisely so that they could live "out and proud" openly, then take steps to demand that everyone else accept them. This whole movement was never about consenting adults avoiding incarceration. This movement was about preying on minors and adults to practice their sexual perversion and proclivities with abandon and without limit.

I don't think it falls under "love is love" slogans. Especially as at least two of the men have turned out to be past sex-offenders. This is tantamount to a bait and switch scheme, and certainly does not inspire trust about the entire community – nor about the consequences of supporting LGBTQ causes only to be duped into letting both terrible people and terrible ideas dictate the new standards.

Those sex offenders were discovered by MassResistance at the Houston Drag Queen Story Hour programs three years ago. And MassResistance has found out that there

Is this the promised progress? Color me skeptical.

There is no possibility of tolerance when it comes to widespread sexual perversion. What people do in the privacy of their homes has public consequences. The government does indeed police and regulate behavior in the bedroom. The culture sets standards regarding what behaviors should be promoted, permitted, and prohibited within and without the bedroom.

Critical Spectator strikes me many ways as a neoliberal globalist. He supports individual freedom, yes, but within the constraints of the local culture's values and traditions. This neoliberal sentiment also means that individual freedom no matter what has some value. However, he wants to reconcile this globalist tendency with the more conservative leanings of his adopted country. That is a tension which cannot last long.

And has now frayed, since the Singapore government has declared that they will repeal Section 377a of the penal code.

Responsibility & Tolerance in Governance

I've often praised Singapore for its common sense and today is no different – even though it may sound counter-intuitive in this case. Section 377A, which (technically) criminalizes sexual relations between men is a remnant of colonial legislation, most of which was repealed in 2007. It is not applied in practice and the government has long declared it would not be enforced.

On the face of it, it would appear it is common sense to just get rid of it. But sometimes the most reasonable thing is to defend the status quo.

First of all, Section 377A serves as a political tool, appealing to largely conservative sentiments of the Singaporean society. Secondly – and crucially – it focuses attention of the pro-LGBT activists, who cannot progress beyond this obstacle with any other ideas.

The law has served as a stop-gap to prevent the spread of further LGBT perversion. Repeal the anti-sodomy statute, then the activists will clamor for the entitlement to get married, to throw parades in their honor, and then demand the "right" to adopt children.

As long as it exists, all protests will be revolving around its repeal. If it falls, one day, then it is safe to assume that Pink Dot will not dissolve – much like it never happened with activism in the West – but, instead, is going to turn to promoting other ideas, opening Pandora's box for the government.

Indeed, this is the case. With the repeal of 377a, activists across the island nation have voiced their deep displeasure. They want more, and they want it now. In fact, some see it as an insult that the government has taken the token steps to repeal a statute which they were not enforcing in the first place.

Singaporean authorities face an unenviable task of balancing the interests of the country (both its society and well-being of its citizens, as well as its global brand as a modern, supremely developed city-state) with the need to retain support from individuals across various age groups and beliefs.

I find it very frustrating that government policy must be discussed in terms of "balance." There is right and wrong, there is good and evil, there is wise and unwise, and as much as possible governments must insist on doing what is right, even if it is not popular in the short term, whether with the citizens of the country or the world at large.

At the same time the dead law exposes hypocrisy of the advocates of its repeal, proving that the government's reluctance to remove it is not unfounded.

Activists don't care about the real conditions in which gay couples live in Singapore today – free from any persecution and arguably being the safest and most prosperous in the entire region.

Homosexuals have been able to do quite a lot in Singapore, without fear or recrimination or retribution. The truth is that they condemn themselves for abusing their bodies and living in accordance with a lie. A number of Singaporean bloggers and commentators acknowledge that homosexual "communities" are fraught with abuse, negativity, and outright hatred. So much for "Love is Love."

These facts are irrelevant because political and ideological agendas are too valuable, leveraging this meaningless section as a symbol to rally support behind.

The law is not meaningless, in that curtail the normalization of sexual perversion is good for individuals as society as a whole.

Ultimately, the whole 377A drama has little to do with love or ending discrimination – even if many people who join in may idealistically believe it does. It's about exerting ideological influence on the country and political one on the government that leads it. But the authorities cannot yield, in no small part because the pressure on them would only intensify to give protesters even more later.

And yet the government has given in, and more pressure will follow.

There's always some cause in bad need of support, after all.

As a result, the best thing to do is not to enforce the law and yet leave it there to prevent more ambitious pursuits of even more dubious aims. All of that while waiting to see where these ideas lead in the Western countries, respecting the will of the majority while leaving the door open for a safe and comfortable life to the minorities.

The homosexual activists will never leave well-enough alone. They can't, since they are not well themselves, harming their bodies and struggling with issues

And that's easily the most balanced, considerate and tolerant approach you'll witness anywhere in the world.

Final Reflection

The analysis provided by Critical Spectator is thorough, for certain. He could not have predicated that the Singapore government would repeal 377a. I do find troubling his equivocation that both the government and the activists are right about 377a. This is his globalist neoliberalism standing out: "Everyone is right, and everyone has their own truth" is the jist of this misplaced mindset. No, one side is right and one side is wrong, and in politics the powers that best should strive for choosing the right side of the fight as much as possible.

The Singapore government has chosen poorly in their decision to repeal 377a. They most likely fear the potential commercial backlash from Western countries, which are intent on normalizing the destruction of the family. Rather than respecting its own borders, language, and culture, the Singapore government wants to wander further into the globalist, secularist experiment, one which treats identity politics and globalist grandstanding as more important than the long-seated traditions of the different peoples within the island nation.

One has to wonder how much longer Singapore will survive, now that the country is turning away from its singular identity as a conservative enclave in the midst of an ever-increasing globalist neoliberalism.