In their commentary, "Section 377A: Putting children first" (Aug 3), the authors have conflated different issues in arguing for the protection of children.
First, criminalising homosexual sex does nothing to protect children. Some sexual acts are riskier regardless of whether they are practised by homosexuals or heterosexuals.
Moreover, sodomy between consenting heterosexuals was decriminalised in 2007 in Singapore. The key is then to educate people to practise safe sex regardless of sexual orientation.
Second, transgenderism is separate from homosexuality. Sexual dysphoria is a medical condition that should be diagnosed by trained professionals, and children should not be allowed to undergo sexual change until their brains are fully developed as adults. We can all agree on this while disagreeing on other issues.
Third, outside of religion, marriage is merely a legal contract that confers rights such as inheritance as well as division of assets during a divorce. Gay couples can have legal civil partnerships without threatening the status of religious marriages.
Finally, there is no doubt that in a perfect world, we would all live in happy, stable families with our biological fathers and mothers.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world. Abandoned children need stable, loving adults who can adopt them, regardless of sexual orientation.
In Singapore, single women can adopt children, and this recognises that there should be no stigma to single motherhood. Gay adoption should be considered within this framework.
As it stands, Section 377A is an archaic colonial-era law. It is not enforced and should be repealed. Other separate issues can then be discussed by a mature electorate. This is much better than demanding that one's viewpoint be set in stone in the Constitution.
Calvin Cheng Ern Lee