Those who entreat the government to repeal S377a have reasoned their case based upon two premises: 1) private homosexual intercourse is performed between consensual adults and, 2) it causes no harm to society.
For example, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, in his recent parliamentary speech, argued that, “Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others, but the Government seems to accept that 377A does not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not and it cannot."
Following such a rationale, it is perplexing why the gay movement in Singapore does not lobby for the decriminalization of adult incest and polygamy. It can similarly be argued that adult incestuous relationships and adult polygamous marriages are likewise based upon consensus. Furthermore, such relationships do not cause harm to others.
Some might retort that genetic defects are more likely in incestuous sexual unions, thus causing harm to the children of such relations. However, following the principles of the same-sex family model, incestuous couples may choose not to be biological parents. They can practise effective medical or surgical contraception, and may even decide to adopt children. Furthermore, if religious or moral considerations are to be abandoned, abortion is definitely a viable option for such incestuous couples.
To push the analogy further, consensual incestuous or polygamous unions can indeed be homosexual or heterosexual in nature. If we are to accept the premises offered to us by those who lobby for the repeal of S377a, why should there be any limitations as to the possible permutations to such relationships?
In conclusion, may I ask gay activists in Singapore the following question, “Consistent with your rationale for the repeal of S377a, is it not correct for us to say that, you would have no objections to the decriminalization of incest and polygamy in this nation?”
Therefore, in order to be consistent with their reasoning and not to be perceived as being hypocritical, those asking for the repeal of S377a should openly state their positions on such moral issues. If they insist that the law must not interfere with personal sexual choices and activities, then the logical conclusion from such premises would be the repeal of laws criminalizing incest and polygamy.