Evaluation & Analysis of Passages with Application to Singapore’s Context

Author A's Passage

Discrimination against one’s sexuality has been a timeless sociological trend. If a man were queer, he would never dare to reveal his sexual orientation in public. He would instead choose to live in the shadow of his true identity, even going so far as to get married and start a family.

Often the legislation of a country does not recognize the rights of homosexuals because same-sex partnership is a violation of essential biological determination – that a man and a woman are required to procreate and form a child.

Same-sex marriage would also cause social disorder as a result of its violation of time-honoured traditions, since the fabric of society has long been held together by the institution of male-female marriage, followed by the reproduction of offspring from that union. Homosexual unions would require adoptive procedures, artificial insemination and sperm donor programs. All these are economically unsound and would drain the resources of the government.


Author B's Passage

Discrimination against one’s sexuality is a basic violation of human’s rights. It suggests that he right to marry or love another is controlled by the state. Two people should have the absolute freedom in deciding whoever they chose to live or start a family with.

Often the legislation of a country encroaches on the rights of individuals to form partnerships and start their own families. It can be argued that heterosexual couplings would not always mean more stable marriages as this has yet to be proven scientifically.

It can also be argued that because homosexual couples have to take great efforts to adopt a child, they would value their families a lot more than biological parents, reducing the rate of divorce, child-abuse and social dysfunction. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, and the gay community tens to be close-knit, since they have to stick together for mutual help and support. Children raised in this environment of open-need and acceptance would benefit positively.

1. EVALUATE the 2 passages.
2. COMMENT on each author’s view, adding your own (quote pertinent words or phrases where applicable)
3. RELATE to your country’s context


1. Both passages are relatively similar in their structure and presentation of ideas. The first paragraph in Author A’s passage shows the consequence of sexual discrimination which is “If a man were queer, he would never dare to reveal his sexual orientation in public…choose to live in the shadow of his true identity.” Furthermore, it showed how unacceptable unrecognized sexual preferences are. Correspondingly, paragraph one in Author B’s passage pointed out that there are no freedom rights. This is seen here, “basic violation of human rights”, “right to marry or love another is controlled by the state”.

The second paragraph in Author A’s passage showcases that the reason for homosexuality to be unrecognized is due to the ‘essential biological determination’ that only a sexual intercourse between a man and a woman is possible to form a child. Similarly, in Author B’s passage, it identifies that there was a right but this right is gradually robbed away by restrictions enforced by the country on choosing sex partners.

In the last paragraph of Author A’s passage, it showed the consequences as well as disadvantages of having homosexuality which is going against the traditions that are acceptable for a long time. The cons are cost are incurred by the country which would in turn ‘drain the resources of the government’. Likewise, in Author B’s paragraph, it states that responsibility as well as advantages of homosexuality which includes “reducing the rates of divorce…social dysfunction”, “children raised in this environment of open-ness and acceptance would benefit positively. These paragraphs depict the pros and cons of homosexuality.

Although the presentation of ideas is similarly, both passages have a subtle difference in the arguments as well as in the flow of ideas.


2. In Author A’s passage, to show the repercussions of the everlasting sec discrimination, he provided an example which could relate to the readers the severity of the consequences. This showed that the author related the consequences of sex discrimination with shame, thus avoidance. I believe this is indeed truthful as that particular person would feel rejected as there is no place for him in the modern society like Singapore. The general public looks at him differently, treating him like some abnormality. Nonetheless, an adverse impact in the form of great stress and pressure would be exerted upon him, making him run and escape from reality.

Concurrently, in Author B’s passage, there is much credibility in the claim that sexual discrimination is a ‘violation of human rights’, ‘controlled by the state’. This is because indeed the author also believes in it, as seen from here ‘people should have absolute freedom’. Furthermore, the Home Affairs Ministry in Singapore has indicated that Section 377A of the Penal Code (S377A) will be retained. This surfaced how serious sexual discrimination should be treated. S377A prohibits the commission of gross indecency by one male person with another male person. Although intimate acts like sodomy is an unhealthy act that carries higher risks of sexually transmitted infections, and hence should be disallowed for gays, it is itself highly discriminatory as many lesbians and heterosexuals also engage in sexual acts that guys perform. Therefore, even multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore violated and robbed the basic human rights of citizens.

In the second paragraph of Author A’s passage, the view that “same-sex partnership is a violation of essential biological determination – that a man and a woman are required to procreate and form a child” as a reason for the government not to ‘recognize the rights of homosexuals’ is too vague. If the Malays and Indians are not to be discriminated against in this multi-racial country, then this principle should be extended to the gay community as well. Minority rights like homosexual rights are fundamental rights which must be protected. The government ought to play an active role in returning the rights to homosexuals or others with different sexual orientation. Basic civil rights are a necessary part of an open and thriving multicultural and cosmopolitan Singapore. Perhaps, even racial harmony and sexual harmony can integrate. Probably, the reason behind the sex discrimination are that the public is stereotyping, being afraid that something is different, hence making them feel insecure. To feel safe and secure, people thus discriminate.

On the other hand, in the second paragraph of Author B’s passage, the argument that ‘rights of individuals’ are ‘encroached’ showed that he felt there was a right but was taken away by the government. This projected restrictions on choosing sex partners, regardless the issue of homosexuality and heterosexuality. However, the author seems to hint that the country restricts homosexuals as he argued, doubting the credibility of heterosexuality, shown here, “heterosexual couplings would not always mean more stable marriages” but defending homosexuals in the third paragraph, stating the advantages of homosexuality, like ‘value their families a lot more than biological parents’, ‘children raised in this environment of open-ness and acceptance would benefit positively’. However, it is not always true that homosexual couples will value their families more and ensure a better life for the children because separation or divorce is unpredictable. It is inaccurate to assume that ‘the gay community tends to be close-knit’. Are gays and homosexuals not human beings that will quarrel and fight?

Lastly, in the third paragraph of Author A’s passage, the author expressed that “same-sex marriage would also cause social disorder as a result of its violation of time-honoured traditions”. Furthermore, he emphasized the reason was “male-female marriage, followed by the reproduction of offspring from that union”. However, I felt that this reason is insufficient and should be coupled with the fact that the question should be whether it is right or wrong to continue suppressing the voices and acts of the homosexual community.

In the final analysis, it is the rights of a community who want their lifestyles decriminalized, and they never should be made criminals simply for who they are. If this intolerance is imported into multi-racial Singapore, this will result in social division. The fundamental question is not whether one finds homosexuality morally offensive, it is whether the concept and practice of non-discrimination, like sex, should be extended to all.