Karen's Review

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.