[Editorial] More tolerant society

A potentially divisive debate is brewing over whether the country should adopt a comprehensive anti-discrimination law. From a common sense viewpoint, it could hardly be sensible to oppose a bill prohibiting discrimination based on a number of grounds including race, gender, religion, disability, age and so on.

But the inclusion of sexual orientation as one such ground has prompted vehement objections from Christian and conservative groups to the bill that was proposed by dozens of liberal-minded lawmakers in February. The period that was required to put it on public notice before undertaking the legislation process came to an end Tuesday. As soon as an agreement is reached between the ruling and main opposition parties, the bill will be submitted to a parliamentary committee for deliberation.

Over the three-week period, a website run by the National Assembly Secretariat was swamped with postings expressing pros and cons. Most of them were against the introduction of the bill, cautioning that it would encourage homosexuality and harm traditional family values.

The office of an opposition party lawmaker, who took the initiative in proposing the measure, has been flooded with phone calls and emails pouring curses and invectives on him. It recently released a statement saying that the legislator was personally opposed to homosexuality but still believed homosexuals should not be discriminated against for their sexual inclination. But the statement did little to alleviate the criticism led by Christian churches and conservative civic groups.

The vehement response suggests the country remains far more reserved on accepting homosexuality than other developed nations, which have embraced or tilted toward endorsing even same-sex marriage. In Korea, it seems to take some more time before opponents of homosexuality, let alone gay marriage, are labeled as behind the times.

Christian churches may well be upset with the bill, which would lead to fines on pastors for preaching against homosexuality as betraying the order of creation. It is hoped, however, that our society can extend its boundaries of tolerance to espouse rights for same-sex couples. It may be an overstatement to say that legalizing homosexuality would help spread it, and damage social health and soundness.

The spirit of the proposed bill should be understood as protecting homosexuals from being unduly discriminated against for the sexual orientation they were born with. The equal integration of minority groups into society would enhance its stability and moral maturity.

Over the past years, Korean society has apparently become more sensitive toward guaranteeing rights for more vulnerable segments, expanding its arc of tolerance. This trend, reflected in the move to enact a comprehensive anti-discrimination law, is encouraging but has yet to go further to build a more civilized and tolerant society.

A recent survey of 1,000 Korean adults showed that most of them felt the need to do more to ensure equal treatment of members of multicultural families. More than 73 percent of the respondents believed immigrant spouses are treated differently depending on their ethnicity and the country they were from. But in a sign of improving attitude, about 61 percent replied they would have no problem with their son or daughter getting married to children with multicultural backgrounds.

A comprehensive anti-discrimination act would help facilitate changes in Koreans’ perception and attitude. The upcoming debate over the bill on its adoption should not be allowed to be held hostage to emotional confrontation between groups with different views on the inflammatory issue of homosexuality. It should be conducted in as much a practical manner as possible.

A series of public surveys, which are not limited to certain demographic groups, will be needed to help reach a more objective and broader-based conclusion through hearings and deliberations set to precede a final parliamentary vote. It also seems necessary to ease concerns that banning discrimination based on political opinions may make it harder to curb pro-Pyongyang activities.

It is undesirable and worrisome that opponents of homosexuality have spewed a flood of invective at the initiators of the anti-discrimination bill, even threatening to hurt or kill them. This type of excessive behavior should be eliminated if a tolerant society is to be built to guarantee happiness and rights for all citizens and a growing number of foreign residents. Opposing views can and should be expressed fully through various formal settings along the legislative road to have an equal chance of winning the public’s hearts.