The following was something I posted on the “We are Against Pinkdot in Singapore” Facebook page.

On the Need for Plausible Civic Reasons for our Opposition:

I think it is important for us to articulate the civic and public reasons behind our opposition to the homosexual agenda. As citizens of a commonwealth, our justification for opposition should be based on the common good and not merely the imperatives of our individual religions or faiths, as valid as those might be in considering the good of the whole. Neither would it serve us much good to gesture vaguely at abstract concepts like “the family” without articulating exactly how does gay marriages damage the integrity of the institution. Appeals to vagaries cannot help but seem an irrational reaction against what they think is the more “enlightened” view.

As such I see three broad threads of arguments which we need to address to render our position more plausible.

(1) The most common objection is that opposition to homosexuality is “discriminatory”. However, to criminalise homosexual acts or forbid gay marriages is not “discriminatory” for as our Attorney General has argued, both straights and gays or anyone regardless of sexual orientation, would be liable to be charged under 377A. Thus “gay for pay”, that is, straight guys who perform homosexual acts, would be as liable to be charged under 377A as gays, there is no discrimination here and the law is equally applicable to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. The same logic applies to marriages, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to contract a marriage with the opposite sex, and everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, does not have the right to contract a marriage with the same sex. The law is equally applicable to all without discrimination.

I’ve developed this argument in more extensive detail here.

(2) It is not enough to say that gay marriages damage the institution of marriage without specifying exactly how. The explanation however is not far to seek. Gay marriages have no legal definition of adultery or consummation which makes monogamy impossible to legally enforce and therefore destroys the monogamous character of the marriage institution.

I’ve developed this argument here.

(3) Finally there is the perception that homosexuals constitute a distinct “minority group” which requires special consideration and protection. However, it is important for us to note that the concept of sexual orientation is a very recent idea, riddled with paradox, not more than a century old. The history is complex, but as prevalent as ancient Roman and Greek homosexuality maybe, they would find the concept of gay marriages ludicrous and as subverting its social function.

Furthermore, even the concept of sexual orientation itself is ambiguous when we consider two recent phenomena. First, there is the idea of “gay for pay” porn actors, straight man who perform and enjoy gay sex for pay, and yet still claim to be straight. Secondly, there is a category of gay porn which features straight sex for gay audiences. The most convenient thing about drawing our observation from the pornographic world is that here is a realm which is supposedly the most free and uninhibited satiation of desire, free from political correctness or social policing or convention. But yet it is precisely in such a free environment whereby the actual practice of homosexuality defies the convenient categories and definitions imposed by “respectable” society, “gay” or “straight” or otherwise.

I have developed these arguments in detail here, but be warned, this post will involve a lot more explicit and inappropriate details and is not for the faint of heart nor those with Puritan sensibilities.