377A - Phantom Menace 5

Well, we have finally criminalised marital rape. This is a good thing for society. There is a consensus on that. I believe the majority found it was long overdue. 

But trust me, this doesn’t please everyone. I believe some section of society are not satisfied with that revision. 

Let me give you a flavour of their logic in today’s article written by Rei Kuroshi entitled “How should society deal with divisive law?”: -

“In Islamic law, a husband cannot rape his Wife as long as the marriage continues. Even if she is angry or not in the mood, he has the right to it. In any event, a husband can have sex with his wife without her consent and that will not be rape.” 

That was a statement made in 2000 by a prominent member of the Indian-Muslim community.

Now if you go further back in 1995, the Singapore National Front was quoted in ST as saying, “unlike British women, Asian wives may not sue for marital rape as they “accepted the fact of male superiority”” 

It goes on to say that “an Asian wife’s duty is to accede to the husband’s request and always remain faithful and obedient wife.”

So, there you have it, whether from a religious point of view or secular/political point of view, the lesson here is that you can never please everyone - that’s a sure sign of failure, abject failure. 

Repealing Section 375(4) - granting immunity to men who rape their wives - is easier now because mindset, culture and beliefs have changed. 

Things are different now. Our younger generation are waking up to what is good for humanity, the values and all, and what is bad for humanity. 

Their education (or maturity as they come of age) comes from many sources and they all contribute to opening their minds, hearts and souls to what is right and wrong divorced from such dictatorial teachings/materials like legalism, dogmatism, moralism and other self-serving political ideologies. 

And this brings me to 377A (What again!?)

Yes, I written about it in my many previous posts. But this morning’s article by SMU Professor Tan Seow Hon is worth a second or third look at it. 

She seems to be taking the Catholic’s stand on it by concluding with this: -

“As such, it would be unrealistic and imprudent to address the question of repeal of Section 377A alone without attending to the question of whether one is prepared for further developments.”

What further developments is she talking about?

Well, Prof Tan presented this overarching question: -

“Does repeal mean that individuals have the right to decide for themselves what forms of sexual activity to engage in, as long as they are consensual and cause no harm to others? If so, arguably, the government cannot in principle criminalise adult consensual incest.”

Ouch...I know...somehow throwing in that “consensus incest” bends the moral curve ball even further, seemingly beyond an easy catch for many. 

Now, her leanings are made even clearer with this forewarning: -

“If repeal proceeds on the further basis that homosexual acts are not wrong, more might follow upon repeal. For if such acts are morally acceptable, should not society then allow such lifestyles to be promoted?”

The next question would strike an alarming chord in all parents’ hearts. 

“If so, school curricula might have to change to normalise homosexual lifestyles. In many countries, alternative family structures and other rights of homosexual couples have been recognised.”

Further, Prof Tan went on with this: (if repeal) and it is wrong to discriminate against gay couples, then refusing them certain services may invite lawsuits on ground of discrimination. 

And, if one is forced to offer such services (meant for heterosexual couples only because of one’s religious and/or moral beliefs), is it an indirect endorsement of their homosexual lifestyle? 

Admittedly, that’s a lot to think about...

In a nutshell, I have to admit that those are legitimate questions but it is also questions that scare people a lot (and scare a lot of people).

Imagine that, repeal one fang-less (or signposting) section and one has to embrace for the possibility of a moral black hole made up of decriminalising consensual incest (and whatnot? - peadophilia and bestiality?), allowing the promotion of homosexual lifestyle, and being obligated to serve them which is against one’s belief and moral values. 

Too fertile an imagination or an inevitable future reality? 

More relevantly, is it happening anyway with or without repealing 377A because the gays are not only coming out of the closet, but they are aggressively pushing for the same rights as heterosexual couples like equality, respect and marriages?

They are in fact already doing some of that with or without 377A staring down at them from a high legal and moral perch. 

Alas, at this rate of division that we are going, that is, holding on to 377A like Linus’ security blanket and the gays fighting tooth-and-nail to be accepted as the norm in society, I don’t think we will ever come to an amicable solution or “healthy compromise” anytime soon or ever. 

I can imagine a conversation between a believer and a gay, and 377A would be the dividing line.

“Are you for repeal?” asks the gay. 

“Sorry no, but let me tell you why. In the Bible...” goes on the believer. 

And we may lose the plot with that opening line in this current climate. 

Personally, I think times have changed like I wrote earlier before. Our children and their children are going to see through what kind of religion their parents and their parents’ parents are subscribing to. 

Unfortunately, for some, it is going to be a religion that is mostly based on the Old Testament mindset, that is, predominantly legalistic, law-based, strict, uncompromising and “no means no”. 

They will also see how it is practised over their parents’ lifetime, that is, along the lines of “do what I say and not so much what I do”. 

Their parents will tell them that even if they fall, they are only human. But in their eyes, the homosexuals are condemned regardless - so says the Bible. 

And if god forbid that their children should one day come to them to admit that they are gays, then, that is it. 

In a “no-means-no” mindset, I have heard one devout parent telling me straight in the face that he would disown his son.

Let me just say that I am a believer and the only reason I am still a believer is because of Calvary. That to me is the mindset I hope to emulate. I am still work in progress but at least, I am working with the right progress in my view. 

My stand on 377A is this: It’s the government’s problem, not my faith’s. The law minister has already said it, only Parliament can change it or stays it. 

So, it’s Parliament’s problem. We elected them to do their job, trusting that they will do their job, and so let Caesar do his job. On my part, I will render to God what belongs to Him. 

Unlike Calvary, hanging 377A up for all to see as a glaring signpost to warn certain sinning section of the society to stay on their side of the moral line is not my focus, not my preoccupation, not my fight. 

It may lead to a floodgate or not if repealed, but I believe we fight floodgates not by plugging the holes or leaks, but rising another floodgate higher than the one we are fighting against to overwhelm it.

That’s what grace does, that is, unfailing grace that saves even a wretched soul like me. 

And because darkness can never overshadow light, hate can never overcome love, I see another path that may take longer, ask more from me, and bring me low and humble me. At this urgent moment, that may just be the only path that works if ever it was truly and enduringly practised from the time these words were first uttered: “It is finished”. Cheerz.