Recent discussions on the future of 377A have touched on the underlying goal of the local rainbow community - recognition and equality of gay marriage.
And while the response of the government was cautious and calibrated at appeasing the conservative majority, emphasizing that any change to 377A (i.e. its repeal) would not alter the definition of marriage as, fundamentally, a union between man and woman.
That said, there's little doubt that local LGBT activists will want to challenge this view next.
So, should Singapore allow gay marriage and treat it as equal to heterosexual unions?
After all, if "love is love" and two consenting adults are living together, creating a little family of their own, why should they be denied equal treatment?
This is a view typically taken in the West, which is rooted in the prevalent ideals of individual liberty above all else. In essence, then, marriage is not really (or no longer) treated as building block of society but rather a personal decision that all adults should equally be able to take regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's about what individuals want over how society should function.
This is also why it is so difficult for people holding these views to accept any opinion critical of their beliefs (which, by the way, does not have to be rooted in religion).
There is a purely biological argument to be made for that homosexual marriage simply cannot be equal to heterosexual relationship - as it does not serve procreation.
Of course defenders of "equality" will now wheel out the traditional arguments of either adoption or surrogacy, and that gay adults aren't necessarily ill-equipped to be good, caring parents.
That is true but only to a degree and it does not come without downsides, some of which remain rooted in human biology.
In fact, these biological factors not only point to inherent inequality between homo and heterosexual relationships - but within homosexual marriage category itself, as lesbian and gay couples have a fundamentally different link to their children.
Within lesbian couples the child can at least be born and raised by its biological mother, whereas within male gay relationships it has to rely on a surrogate, which the infant is later detached from - what, in itself, is not without harm (some of it purely biological, like reliance on mother's smell, proximity, care and feeding, particularly during early years of development).
Adoption, on the other hand, can cause extraneous social problems, as an orphan is not only suffering a burden of losing parents or being abandoned, but later ends up placed into an adult relationship that is a part of a social minority. That is a lot to cope with, even with the best intentions.
And all of these are complicated workarounds that appear to ignore the well-being of children in pursuit of a fantasy of "equality" that can never really be materialized, because some things simply cannot be the same.
No matter how you may want to put it, sexual drive towards the same gender remains a biological aberration that is logically against the underlying genetic purpose of sexuality - which is to mate and have offspring sharing genes of its parents, being raised in a heterosexual household. You don't have to be a religious person to recognize these simple facts.
And while there is no reason it should disqualify people of the same gender, sharing a mutual desire towards each other, from living together or even being recognized as partners, it is also clear that these relationships cannot be deemed equal to heterosexual marriage if you take the broad picture view (i.e. if marriage is defined on the basis of more than just individual decisions made by two adults).
You can either be politically or biologically correct. And it is up to the society to decide which is more important
