I read with interest the article entitled “Re-scoping s. 377A: A Juxtaposition of Views” (Juris Illuminae, January 2007) in which Muhammad Aidil sought to argue for the continued criminalization of homosexual acts. His arguments left me unconvinced.

Aidil’s first argument was that legalising homosexual activities in Singapore, where a large part of the population subscribes to faiths that outlaw homosexual activities, would be “worrying”. This raises the pertinent issue of the extent to which we should allow religious values to influence legislation, especially in a multi-religious state like ours. If we outlaw homosexual acts on religious grounds, should we not also ban contraception, since some Catholics are opposed to it?

Aidil also argued that legalising homosexuality would have negative effects, given our location in a Muslim-dominated region. If this were indeed the case, should not anal sex between consenting heterosexual couples remain criminalized as well, since anal sex is also frowned upon by most Muslims? Surely, if we are to retain the law against homosexual acts, we must do so on some stronger foundation than religion.

Aidil correctly pointed out that one of the functions of the criminal law was to protect the rights of individuals. In the context of homosexuality, however, this argument cannot stand. It simply begs the question of whom we aim to protect, and from what. Do we want to protect straight men, from getting raped by gay men? Even if this were the case, the solution lies not in criminalizing homosexual acts, but in extending the provisions on rape and male sexual assault.

It was also pointed out that gay rights activists assert their right to have sex because it is done privately and is consensual. Aidil then argued that using the same reasoning of privacy and consent, gay rights activists would go to the extreme and begin advocating incest, bestiality and necrophilia. This connection is a very far-fetched one to make. It is also difficult to see how, as Aidil argued, bestiality or necrophilia can be ‘consensual’ in any true sense of the word.

It is plain, then, that these arguments against decriminalizing homosexual acts wither down to little more than an intuitive disgust for homosexual activity. Should our law-making be governed by this intuitive disgust? I hope not.

Mohan Gopalan is a first year law student.