‘Baby = Monopoly of Heterosexual Couples?’
| Author | Chiu Andy Man Chung |
| Published date | 01 June 2000 |
| Date | 01 June 2000 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/135822910000400205 |
International Journal
of
Discrimination
and
the
Law,
2000,
Vol.
4, pp. 173-199
1358-2291/20()()
$10
©
2000
A B Academic Publishers. Printed
in
Great Britain
'BABY = MONOPOLY OF HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES?'
Same-sex erotic-political destabilization of the conception of
'parenthood'
in
the context of Hong Kong artificial
reproduction law
CHIU
ANDY
MAN
CHUNG
School
of
Law, City University
of
Hong Kong
ABSTRACT
The paper first illustrates the contradictory results generated by two surveys -con-
ducted respectively by the colonial Government in
1996
and the author/principal
investigator in 1998. The author then argues that the requirement that applicants
must
be
married couples
is
not well-supported and should
be
replaced by the cri-
terion
of
'functional parenthood'. The author also argues
in
the paper that such a
relaxation would also destablize the mythological dichotomy
of
'homo vs.
Chinese', which is predicated on
(I)
the misunderstanding that Tongzhi/Queer
could not have any child(ren) and (2) the Han-Chinese traditional emphasis on
reproduction.
INTRODUCTION:
A STUDY ON
DISCRIMINATION
ON
THE
GROUND
OF
SEXUAL
ORIENTATION
- A
CONSULTATION
PAPER
(1996) VS. A
POLL
SURVEY ON
SAME
SEX
MARRIAGE
AND
ARTIFICIAL
REPRODUCTION
(1999)
The technology
of
artificial reproduction was introduced into Hong
Kong in 1978. With this advanced technology, human reproduction is
no longer the exclusive concern
of
the two parties (woman/wife/
mother and man/husband/father) involved:
By challenging expectations about continuity between genetic, gesta-
tional and social parenting, new reproductive technologies offer the
potential for alternative orderings
of
family relationships beyond the
'traditional' heterosexual marital union.
3
In other words, the invention
of
artificial reproduction has problemat-
ized the traditionally monopolised reproduction privilege enjoyed by
the heterosexual one woman-one man couple, and same-sex partners
could have their offspring produced by the technology. However, this
destabilization brought by the advanced technology and the rights
of
174
lesbians/gays to get access to artificial reproduction were not accom-
modated or articulated by either the law or the population in Hong
Kong.
In
1996, the Government conducted a survey on sexual orienta-
tion and published the Equal Opportunities: A study on Discrimina-
tion on the ground
of
Sexual Orientation -A Consultation Paper.
1 ,535 people were interviewed on the telephone. When asked
whether they would accept the right
of
homosexuals to use artificial
reproduction to form their own families, the answer
of
the majority
was
'no':
Table 1 Source: A study
on
Discrimination on the ground
of
Sexual
Orientation -A Consultation Paper
A lesbian makes use
of
reproductive
technology
A gay makes use
of
reproductive
technology
Mean Scores
of
Level
of
Acceptance
3.7
2.8
*Based on a rating scale
of
0 to 10,
'0'
denotes 'totally unacceptable' and
'10'
denotes 'Totally acceptable'2
The legal prohibition
of
not allowing lesbian and gays to use
reproductive technology therefore seemed to have a strong support
from the population:
According to the study published in the Consultation Paper, the gen-
eral public level
of
acceptance
of
homosexuality/bisexuality is
3.4,
which is very low. This means that the public do
not
generally accept
homosexuality/bisexuality as a
norm
and as morally correct.
Then
how
can a government safeguard by law a moral standard not generally
accepted by the public?3
However, the attitude
of
the population has changed since then. In
1998, the author conducted a small-scale poll survey and successfully
interviewed 187 people. Nearly 50%
of
the interviewees agree that
the ban should be lifted.
The results
of
both surveys show that there is a divergence in
popular opinion and it brings a series
of
questions: Should law
address the multiplicities
of
opinions and allow both different forms
of
families (say, same-sex partners and straight couples) to share the
access to artificial reproduction? Would lesbians and gays be good
parents?4 Does the qualification
of
being good parents have any rela-
tionship with sexual orientation?
In
this paper, the author first exam-
ines the law
of
artificial reproduction in Hong Kong, and argue that
the law in Hong Kong has delimited the usage
of
reproductive tech-
nology to heterosexual married couples. The author then suggests that
To continue reading
Request your trial