Shouldn’t homosexuals have rights, too?

Homosexual persons are entitled to human rights in the same way that heterosexual persons are.

Equality of persons does not mean equality of acts.1 When homosexual activists lobby for equality of homosexual persons and heterosexual persons, they are, in fact, arguing that homosexual conduct should not be treated any less favourably than heterosexual conduct. However, this cannot be, as it disregards the differences between homosexual and heterosexual conduct and relationships, and the consequences of homosexual conduct on society at large (see Qn.9, 25 & 26).

The right to exercise freedom of will does not mean an absence of consequences resulting from one’s choice of actions. It is important to exercise conventional wisdom when discussing the philosophy of rights: What is permissible is not always beneficial.2 This can be seen in the adverse consequences of sexual activity – whether homosexual or heterosexual – outside of the protective boundaries of marriage as intended and ordained by God.

According human rights does not mean providing every legal right. According equal legal rights to homosexual persons appears at first glance to place them on equal footing as heterosexual persons. However, it actually serves to privilege homosexual persons as a protected class because they would enjoy the special rights to marry persons of the same sex and thereby receive the same legal benefits as a heterosexual married couple, and to be recognized as a family unit with the right to adopt children despite both parents being of the same sex.

In order to create public perception that they represent a significant minority whose interests should legitimately be allowed to alter social norms and the law, homosexual activists would frequently cite a figure of up to 10% of the population identifying as homosexual.3, 4 To the contrary, less than 3% identify themselves as LGBT:

  • The National Health Interview Survey, which is the U.S. government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviours, found that 1.6% of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian and 0.7% consider themselves bisexual.5
  • 2.4% of adults in London identify themselves as Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual, with the figure falling to 1.5% in the rest of the UK.6
  • 1.2% of Australian adults identified as homosexual.7

Despite being a very small minority, homosexual activists and their sympathisers have met with great success and gained vast global recognition for their movement in the past decade alone, largely due to their comprehensive and united strategies.


1. Family.Foundation.Future, The LGBT Agenda (January 2013)
2. 1 Corinthians 6:12
3. Metropolitan Man Initiative, Sex between Men in Your City (International Planned Parenthood Federation, August 2011, p9)
4. Gallup Politics, LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota (State of the States, 15 February 2013)
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey 2013 (National Health Statistics Report No. 77, 15 July 2014)
6. Office for National Statistics, Integrated Household Survey: Experimental Statistics (Statistical Bulletin, April 2011 – March 2012)
7. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Sex in Australia: Australian Study of Health and Relationships (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, April 2003, Vol. 27(2))

What could happen if Section 377A is repealed?

Based on developments in countries that have legalised homosexual conduct, we can expect that following such legalisation, homosexuality will become a norm over time, and all other expressions of sexuality and sexual preference will eventually become permissible.

Interference with basic freedoms1

  • Religious groups/individuals who consider homosexual acts morally wrong can be charged in court for “hate speech”, merely by stating their belief that children need a mother and a father.2
  • It would become impossible to oppose homosexuality and homosexual acts being taught in school.3
  • Parents lose their parental rights to educate their children against the homosexual lifestyle.4
  • People cannot refuse to enter into contracts with pro-homosexual persons or organizations, even if it is against their conscience (e.g., a hotel can be sued for not hosting a same-sex wedding5).
  • Foster and childcare entities may be denied the right to operate if they refuse to endorse the homosexual lifestyle.
  • Legalization of same-sex unions, and eventually, of homosexual parenthood, might require government subsidy of IVF treatments from taxpayer’s money.
  • Anti-discrimination laws will affect policies (e.g., gay couples have equal right to housing subsidies).

Harm to children

  • With no norms or restrictions on sexual behaviour, paedophilia (sexual acts with children) is justifiable; children are defenceless against sexual exploitation.6
  • Adolescents are given premature suggestions that add to confusion about their sexual identity.7
  • Youth are exposed to the dangers of the homosexual lifestyle (Qn.9, 26).

Even if homosexuality is deemed wrong, it could nonetheless become legal. One argument for legalizing vice in Singapore is that it exists nonetheless and legalizing it enables some governmental control rather than having it “go underground”. It takes a courageous people to continue to make laws and act on moral convictions of what is right v. wrong and good v. bad for society, instead of rationalizing destructive behaviour on account of practical economics or popular politics.


1. Glenn T. Stanton and Bill Maier, Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting (Illinois InterVarsity Press, 2004)
3. La Shawn Barber, Normalizing Homosexuality in the Public Schools (7 November 2012)
5. Katie Zezima, Couple Sues a Vermont Inn for Rejecting Gay Wedding (The New York Times, 19 July 2011)
6. Mike Haley, 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality(Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2004)
7. Joe Dallas, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the “Gay Christian” Movement (Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1996)