We need to have better conversations about 377A.
The LGBT and the conservatives are on the opposite ends of the debate. Yet, what exactly are both ends fighting for? Is there really even a debate when on both ends everyone is just speaking their own language to their own crowd?
We cannot expect any progress if we’re just singing the same old tunes. In this piece, I hope to point out a very important similarity in both ends of the debate with the purpose of trying to bring a fresh perspective into this conversation.
Some background of 377A
Section 377A originated from the United Kingdom’s Labouchere Amendment. At the time of its enactment, the general sentiment was that of fear and disgust for homosexuals and sodomy.
“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures, or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with an other male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the Court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.”
- Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, commonly known as the Labouchere Amendment
The Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code (where we derived the classification “377” from) was meant to criminalize “carnal intercourse against the order of nature" which also includes bestiality. Section 377A was added in 1938 as another “unnatural offence”, and both 377 & 377A was incorporated into Singapore’s legislation in 1955.
“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”
- Section 377A of the Penal Code
The history is definitely more complex, and this might be an over simplification, but you get the gist. This was a law created to appeal to the sentiments of (British) leaders at that time, and what they thought to be public opinion. The law has since been repealed in various parts of the United Kingdom in the late 19th century, as long as it is consensual sex between men over the age of 21 (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland; 17 in the Republic of Ireland). India repealed section 377 in September 2018.
Section 377A has become a symbolic representation of LGBT rights.
Section 377A singles out male homosexuals (lesbians are not included), and it focuses on sexual intercourse. Although it does not include other aspects of the LGBT lifestyle, 377A has since become a representation of LGBT rights. For the LGBT community, keeping it around is a symbol of their repression. The conservatives hold the same perspective, but the repression of the LGBT community is in their opinion an important step to “preserving the family unit”.
I believe that this is where the conversations should begin, even within each community. It is important to first think about whether your fight for/against 377A meets the end goal that you are trying to achieve. It is equally important to think about what exactly is your end goal, and to be consistent and clear with it.
For the conservatives —
If this fight is about maintaining the family unit and for some, the preservation of mankind (reproduction I presume), how does keeping 377A around get you there?
- Firstly, 377A does not stop any heterosexual couples from marriage and procreation. I would argue that the circumstances of the society today already encourages singlehood and even in a marriage, a lifestyle without children (although that would be a separate conversation). If you think about it, HDB/BTO rules are around to encourage people to get married anyway and to meet this goal of yours (even if the marriage is sometimes doomed to fail; again, a separate conversation for next time).
- Secondly, it does not encourage homosexual individuals to find a partner of the opposite gender. I would imagine that even if a homosexual male is really afraid of the implications of 377A, they might find it hard to force themselves to start a family and much less carry out coitus with a female. Some would rather live alone than force themselves to do things they do not wish to do. It would be as difficult as a completely heterosexual individual forcing themselves to have coitus with someone of the same gender.
If this fight is about “negative influence to your children” and the “message for our future generations”. Again, how does 377A help?
- We have established that 377A is a law that criminalizes “gross indecency” between males. It does not consider any other aspects of the LGBT lifestyle, which your children could still be exposed to with or without 377A.
- Moreover, the internet has no national boundaries. Unless you completely isolate your child from the rest of the world in your home (i.e. homeschool, with no internet, zero form of contact with anyone outside of your home), they can still be exposed to the community, with or without 377A being around. (Also, if you choose to isolate your child, the negative implications on their development and mental health is another issue to think about.)
- Additionally, what exactly is this “negative influence” you are fighting against? What is the “message” you are trying to keep? The “negative” influence from “western societies”? Did you know that the pro-family movement “Focus on the Family”, and even section 377A itself, were from the west? Even if you have a clear “influence” that you want to keep out, really, how does keeping 377A around help?
For the LGBT community —
If your fight is about being able to live your life, how does removing 377A help? Think about this beyond having consensual coitus with your partner (because we know that the conservative community would argue that 377A is not enforced).
- Similar for single heterosexuals, housing laws only allow you to purchase your HDB/BTOs when you turn 35. If you wish to live together with a partner, you have to resort to renting or forking out a huge sum for a private property. Removing 377A does not change this.
- If this is about living your life openly, societal prejudice will always exist to hold you down. Removing 377A will not stop the stares that you receive when you hold your partner’s hands in public. Removing 377A will not make coming out feel any easier.
In general, the LGBT conversation extends beyond 377A.
The law itself is so insignificant that removing it/keeping it would not make much of a difference to status quo. For both ends of the debate, there are other ways to meet your goals, and we need to start steering our conversations that way.
