It is true that we do not have a clear stand on what is natural. Afterall we are not the hands of nature but the creations of nature. Therefore we cannot determine if homosexuals are indeed natural or not.

Like Adidil pointed out, people may start to push for other sexual activities after homosexuality is legalised but I beg to differ by drawing a clear line between then. I argue that as long as no harm arises from the intercourse it would generally is okay.

Now homosexuality in my opinion should not be criminalised because there is virtually no harm which arises from it. Homosexuals are human beings afterall and they can very well be outstanding individuals of great intellect as hetrosexuals. Simply saying the only difference of homosexuals & hetrosexuals would be their sexual preference then.

The harm percieved from legalising homosexual activity is the breaking of family bonds some say but hetrosexuals marriages do bring out divorces which does bring emotional damage to the children does it not?

Humans have the power to do both good and evil, bring comfort or harm, sexual orientation between homo & hetro does not make a difference. So what if homosexual marriages arise adoption of children? At least these kids have parents for teaching & a home. As long as homosexual marriages are stable & have a general well outlook, I see no harm in legalising it.

Let us remember that the Greeks practiced homosexual intercourse in their time which was very much legal.
Our laws are made based on the general ideology of our society. Now I propose instead of letting some 100+ MPs deciede this issue, for they could very much be bias & with such a small number being contaminated, to let the citizens of Singapore(18+) vote for the laws they would like on “gays”. Multiple ticks would be allowed.
Such Options would vary very much for greater insight & options.
For Example:
[ ] Legalise homosexual intercourse private & public
[ ] Legalise homosexual intercourse private but make public intercourse illegal
[ ] Ban both private & public homosexual intercourse
…& Such.

Now instead of wasting on efforts on prosecuting homosexuals, shouldn’t we concentrate our efforts to stamp out more serious social ills such as illegal/underage prostitution, drug abusers…etc?

You have a very good sense of imagination. But we live in a real world. Why don’t you start making friends with one or two gay men, or better still, gay women. Ask them what they look for in life, what is important to them when they are old, impotent and retired. The law can ban sex, but it can’t ban love.

With no laws outlawing sex between men in Muslim-dominated Indonesia and Roman Catholic-dominated Philippines, why are we not seeing gays from Asia converging on their 40,000 sunnier gay-friendly islands? Don’t “shudder to think of the effects” of all kinds of unlikely scenarios that are not going to happen to you. Just think, if one day, let’s say, the law bans sex between you and your wife, will you still love her till death and the end of the world?

Will you stop loving women if the law forbids sex between men and women? Or would you rather prefer the law decide that for you? In a time and country when consenting pre-marital, extra-marital and commercial (prostitution) sex are not illegal, are you being really honest to yourself to write “legal paternalism rules and that there is no distinction between private and public morality – therefore criminal law can legislate on all matters concerning morals”?

Would you mind quoting the names of a few local “gay rights activists” who “tend to assert their unalienable right to have sex”?