Decriminalising homosexual acts would be an error (review)
Point one “It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections. The law should not facilitate acts which threaten public health.”
- This point made by the writer is rather vague and does not stand as a convincing point to why homosexual acts should be criminalized. Though it may be a known fact that homosexual intercourse is unhealthy, involves higher risks and what not, we cannot neglect the fact that sexual intercourse between man and woman can be dangerous too. The risk involved, that is to contract HIV, do exist whether or not are we referring to man and woman, or man and man. Since the writer suggested that the law should discriminate against intercourse that is potential harmful, then shouldn’t the law discriminate against consensual anal sex between man and woman? My point here is that since the sexual intercourses are done behind closed doors and do involve same risks that the individuals will bear, consensual anal sex between men should not be looked as an exception one and be discriminated by law.
- Another point being brought up by the writer is that such acts that threaten public health should be strictly banned and made illegal. But isn’t smoking an act that threatens the health of the 2nd hand smokers, meaning the public too? There are many other things that put public health on risks too, such as consuming junk foods with high fat content, canned food with different types of preservatives and even instant noodles are unhealthy. Should all these be banned and made illegal too? It may be too simplistic if laws against homosexual acts are being implemented this way.
Point Two “An active homosexual agenda has engendered clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech and religious liberty. Christian pastors have been criminally prosecuted for sermons declaring that homosexuality is a sin, a view also held by Muslims and many non-religious people who consider homosexuality unnatural and morally repugnant. Attempts have been made to extend 'hate speech' laws to the Bible and Quran.”
- The writer stated that homosexual acts have caused conflicts in areas of free speech and religious liberty, but has failed to acknowledge significant events that have happened and have proved that it is the cause of homosexual acts. Certain religious may be against homosexual acts, but this does not mean that these acts should be banned in the country. Different religions have different functions and beliefs, while different people have different level of tolerance. How should we then know what is the gauge for homosexual acts to be deemed as “gross” or “indecent”? Who is to set the benchmark here? When we are against something, it means we dislike it and feel offended by it. However, if this is how we think law should work, to simply criminalize things or acts that others are against of, then it only leaves more doubt on the efficiency of the constitution. As long as the people for certain religion hold on to their beliefs, that is to not engage in any homosexual act, I do not see the point why homosexual acts should go to the extent where it should be made illegal.
Point Three “While the law embodies a moral judgment, it is not always prudent for the law to punish all immoral behaviour. However, to draw an analogy between adulterers and homosexuals is fallacious. Adulterers do not seek societal approval, but certain homosexual activists campaign to alter the public mindset and to gain legal and social endorsement of the gay lifestyle.”
- I do agree with the writer that it is not necessarily rational for the law to give penalties to all immoral acts, and few similarities between adulterers and homosexuals can be irrelevant in one way or another. However, the writer failed to see that adultery has it’s bad sides, perhaps points that are even more “morally offensive” than homosexual acts. To establish her reasoning, the writer polarized her statement by stating that homosexual activists promote the way they live their lives, while adulterers do not. This one and only reason that she gave to show that it is reasonable to have such a law against homosexuals but not adulterers is simply unacceptable. Firstly, if homosexual activists have been campaigning about their lifestyles, then why is that there are still large groups of people that are against them? Surely the widespread of ideas and behaviors of homosexuals are still being suppressed and not being accepted. Therefore, alteration of the public’s mindset becomes an unverified point. Secondly, though adulterers, according to the writer, do not seek societal approve, this does not mean adultery can be liberalized, whereas homosexual acts cannot be so. Whatsmore, adultery happens on married couples while homosexual acts are between unmarried couples. Why should then the law continue to discriminate against homosexuals? This is not just all about equality, but rather the freedom in which all individuals have, including the way they want their lives to be.
BELINDA'S COMMENT
ReplyDeletePoint three : The writer believes that to associate adulterers and homosexuals is logically unsound.
I agree with Karen’s point “few similarities between adulterers and homosexuals can be irrelevant in one way or another “. They should be treated in the same way as they are similar.
However I disagree with the Karen’s view in point 3 that “Freedom in which all individuals have, including the way they want their lives to be” similar to writer’s view Point 2 “to prevent homosexual is akin to restricting free speech“ I believe that the degree of freedom given to individuals should first be weighed with the negative impacts placed on the society as a whole.
Firstly, Adultery and homosexuality are both voluntary acts and is a sexual desire amongst both parties. Historically, both adultery and homosexuality are less accepted by society, as it has been widely considered to be a serious immoral act by many cultures. Thus they have always been the minority. Moreover it is due to the fact that adultery and homosexuality go against sexual norms.
Secondly, Adulterers have practiced self-restraint and historically it proved to have positive results on the society, shouldn’t homosexuals continue to practice self-restraint and follow the sexual norm because their practices have negative impacts in the country too. This is because, by nature homosexuality is non-reproductive and thus unable to contribute to the population.
Thus if homosexuality is legalized, it is akin to allowing homosexuals to become the majority and thus there will be increasing homosexuality which results in decrease in population growth. This will disrupt the critical mass needed for a country’s economic growth.
In conclusion the reason to refuse adultery and homosexuality is similar, and that is to establish moral values to protect the inherently procreative relationship between a man and a woman, and thereby also protect that relationship and the children who result from it. This is more necessary compared to legalizing alternative lifestyle or infidelity. Therefore, It is too simplistic to conclude that homosexuals and adultery should be taken as separate issues. Moreover, irrelevant for the writer to make a basis for allowing these acts to be deemed as whether homosexuals or adulterers make an effort to fight for their rights.
YUNNI'S REVIEW! (:
ReplyDeletei agree with karen's point 1 that "This point made by the writer is rather vague and does not stand as a convincing point to why homosexual acts should be criminalized."
Although it is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections, but if these people practice safe sex, or only have one sex partner, there would not be a "higher risk of increasing the number of STDs" or would it threaten the public health. Instead of criminalizing it, the government can seek alternative ways to prevent the spread of STDs, which is to educate the public on safe sex, which they already are doing so. Also, even if they criminalize homosexual acts, it is also almost impossible to catch these people red handed as they are doing it in private, and it may be anytime, anywhere. All these, would mean more money and effort spent on fighting these "crimes", and these money should be used for a better cause, e.g. education and healthcare.
I disagree with belinda's point that "if homosexuality is legalized, it is akin to allowing homosexuals to become the majority and thus there will be increasing homosexuality which results in decrease in population growth". Legalizing homosexuality does not directly cause a increase in homosexuals, making them "the majority", but instead, allow them to have more rights and freedom in public without being restricted. Even with criminalizing homosexuality, there is already a decline in birthrates in many countries, thus, it is clear that the fall in birthrate is not attributed by legalizing homosexuality, but is due to the social trends.