Repeal 377A and Thio Li-Ann, on why the 2 sides can't agree and freedom

*Dr Thio Li-Ann speech can be read here together with commentaries.

A lot can be, and indeed has been said on the debate. To find out more, and you should, goggle is your friend (Try 377A, or Thio Li-Ann). I have wanted to comment on this issue, but was too busy, and frankly, not smart enough to add anything new. But now that the sound and fiery has died down a little, and with the advantage of hindsight, I'll attempt to share what I picked up on this

1."You cannot make a human wrong a human right."
The prime minister was right. What he was right about that prompted this unique occurrence (me agreeing with him that is) was this: "Neither side is going to convince the other."

Why?

Because both sides (over generalising from this point on, I admit), holds a different fundamental assumption.

One side don't think that homosexuality is wrong.
One side believes fundamentally that homosexuality is wrong.

There is no way, literally, to convince either side to the other position. How can both side even relate to the other side, or see where they are coming from, when their core assumption is so different? On one side, a group of people don't really see why a act is harmful enough to have a law against it, while another side sees the act as wrong and if I may, 'evil'.

There is no way to prove that homosexuality is wrong, nor is there to prove that it's not wrong. Because you can't prove a right or wrong! You judge a right or wrong! And both side are using a different system! Both side can bring out tons of arguments and counter-arguments and still fail to come to any agreeable conclusion, because all their conclusion are based on this core unchangeable assumption.

2."Repealing section 377A is the first step of a radical, political agenda which will subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties."

Extending logically the assumption that homosexuality is wrong and the notion "that which is evil has no rights", we can have a sense of where the anti-repeal people are coming from. The idea is that, an idea or action that is 'evil', 'wrong', or 'harmful' deserves no rights, no freedom, no protection. An example is terrorism, I suppose the terrorist has some reasons for doing what they do, but their message would never be aired, because their action are considered to be evil, and wrong. (And no, homosexuality is not like terrorism)

So the way I see it, the aim of the anti-repeal movement is to maintain the right to call homosexuality wrong. After all they understand that the law will not be actively, not to mention almost impossible to, enforce.(Although Dr Thio, does (chillingly) said that the current pro-active policy does not mean 377A will never be enforced. In my view, enforcement of it will be too much like a witch hunt.)

3."While difficult, change is possible and a compassionate society would help those wanting to fulfills their heterosexual potential. There is hope."

And they do not see their stand as limiting the freedom of homosexuals. No, seriously. Dr Thio said that the gays are allowed "to live quiet lives". She is understanding freedom negatively, as freedom from constrains, gays can carry on with their life (admittedly as criminals) under our current system. But she is ignoring the positive side of freedom, which is the extent to which individuals have access to the means to fulfilled their needs and wishes. And surely, one has the rights not to be labeled a criminal to love, or the rights to be proud of who we are, or to speak in ones own defense?

4."some countries have criminalised not sodomy, but opposition to sodomy, making it a "hate crime" to criticise homosexuality. This violates freedom of speech and religion; will sacred texts that declare homosexuality morally deviant, like the Bible and Quran, be criminalised? Social unrest beckons. Such assaults on constitutional liberties cannot be tolerated."

In fact Dr Thio seems particularly concerned that the rights of certain religions be compromise if 377A is repealed. This makes me very uneasy. First of all, there is this notion that if someone does something for 'religious' reason, it's right. But then, we all know the problem with that don't we? And second, we respect religious belief, anyhow people are going to think what they are going to think. But we still holds religious people responsible for their actions, even if God is on their side.