When some get confused about the freedom of choice...

The local papers recently carry some debates about the issue of homosexuality as a result of MM Lee's suggestion to relax the law. As I read these debates, as well as MM's rationale, I see both camp's (for and against) arguments as being sound and logical from each of their points of views. While we are not at the stage where everyone has to choose sides, I hold a view that there are in fact very fundamental reasons why homosexuality is not to be encouraged... again, this is just my personal opinion, not about discrimination here.

I believe the key contention is in the misunderstanding of the law of choice. Proponents often make justification for their cause based on freedom of choice, and as long as the choice that one makes is not against the law, the choice made is personal and legitmate. So as long as 2 consenting adults of the same sex choose to marry each other, this choice harms no one and breaks no law and hence should be virtuous and not to be condemned. Under the influence of western ideology, such individuality ideals have over the centuries diffused into many nations through education, travel, trade, and media. In modern societies especially democratic ones, individuals regard freedom of choice as an entitlement and have upheld and defended it at all cost. If this is indeed the case, the argument for homosexuality threads dangerously on a single freedom of choice ideal, and the moment freedom of choice is exposed, homosexuality argument will then be invalid.

The westernized conception of 'choice' is narrow and individualized. Its construction begins with individual consciousness, going through a process of individual decision-making, and end with a decision. Anything that happens henceforth belongs to the 'consequence' construct. Which means 'choice' and 'consequence' are distinct and treated differently. In so doing, 'choice' alone is irresponsible because as long as a 'choice' is seen as legitimate, it need not consider 'consequence'. That is not to suggest that the emerging argument for homosexuality is irresponsible, in fact it has taken into consideration that the 'choice' for homosexuality harms no one and breaks no law, so responsibility is not oblivion. But the question is, are these the only considerations and responsibilities individuals carry?

The fact that we are born human (or living things for the sake of argument) carries with us the untold law of choice. This law of choice rejects the notion of individual freedom of choice, and it is this natural law of choice that provides the last line of defense against the ultimate extinction of humankind. This defense cannot hold by itself, it is through human that it becomes defensible. It is the duty of every human being to uphold this defensive wall against threat, just like what animals would when faced with extinction. Basing arguments on individual freedom of choice is therefore myopic and self-serving, because the law of choice tells us that whatever choice we make, we cannot shake away our duty to continue human existence.

While we sometimes make choices because we think we are psychologically different from others, and we see that difference as being unique and unchangeable, but no matter how different one is, the last line of defense reminds us that we are the same species afterall. Can proponents accept a world that is completely homosexual? If not, what is it that make it reason enough to have just 'some' homosexuality? Because it is just 'some' so therefore it is acceptable? Is this not a self-centered stance? In fact I would ask the same series of questions to people whom are against marriage and procreation. Can you accept a world that bears no babies? If not, what is it that make it reason enough for you to not procreate? Just because babies guarantee you sleepless nights? Self-centered stance again? Ok ok so the noble argument is that we don't want to bring life to this world only to end them up in broken families and suffer in society, but is it not our own doing that broken families and societal problems exist in the first place? So we break families and stirr up the society at will, then try to be noble in not wanting others to suffer? Any lamer excuse than that?

Supposing it is completely acceptable for a world devoid of new offsprings from this point on, where do you think those that pass will reincarnate? Become animals, insects, or just wander our neighbourhood as spirits? So some suggest that psychological makeup is to be blamed for homosexual tendencies and is unchangeable, are we then suggesting that a person with a psychological tendency to kill can kill at will or be permanently locked up? If it is due to genetic makeup, I am curious to know how homosexual genes got passed on through homosexuals in the first place!

I am sorry if my writing is offensive to some, it is not my intent to discriminate. But non-discrimation does not mean I am oblivious to the natural law of choice.