Pkchukiss - Reality Wine

I am very much disheartened by the reactions of the anti-homosexual bigots. I do not understand why they cannot listen to properly reasoned arguments, and instead choose to continue beating the straw man.

In fact, here’s the latest volley of rubbish.

Students are very impressionable and prone to hero-worshipping teachers that they like. By admitting that he is gay, Mr Otto Fong has issued an open invitation to students to find out about his lifestyle and perhaps some of them might want to follow in his footsteps.

Mr Fong’s sexual lifestyle is his own to live. As a teacher, as his ex-students have already testified, he has maintained a separation of his personal life and his profession. The author is very rude to question Mr Fong’s professional integrity, and his ability to keep his personal life separate from Teaching.

It is the gay lifestyle and its implications that most people are wary of.

“It is Patricia Maria De Souza’s battle cry for discrimination against another person’s lifestyle and its implications that most people are wary of.” Any person who looks carefully can see that both statements are similarly unsubstantiated.

There are gays who live their choice of lifestyle quietly but there are others who aggressively try to influence people to follow suit.

I don’t understand why this is wrong. Christians aggressively attempt to convert people to Christianity all the time.

These are the ones who, if they are teachers, may cause the most harm in schools and elsewhere.

In so, we can also conclude that Christians cannot become teachers, because they are the ones who, if they are teachers, may cause the most harm in school and elsewhere. The “harm” in this sentence isn’t clear.

Let us not be too harsh on gays but let us not be blind to the dangers they pose to society and mankind.

This sentence is the main source of my irritation. The author is actually concluding that gays are a danger to society, but we should not be harsh on them? People, if something is dangerous to society and mankind, do you keep a warm hand of tolerance? This is akin to saying that “Terrorists are a danger to society and mankind, but we should not be too harsh on them.”

Gays are NOT a danger to society and mankind - the only danger they pose is towards conservatives who cannot bear to have their sensibilities tainted by the fact that someone else likes another person of the same sex. There is, and never was evidence that homosexuality has harmed the world. I invite those who think otherwise to pursue the full list of notable homosexuals, and perhaps reply in the comments below on how each of the people on that list has harmed society and mankind.

The problem doesn’t lie with the people per se (you would have seen the reaction on the Internet is quite the opposite the official position stated in the newspapers) - in fact, there are more views that support non-discrimination against gays online, versus the extremist conservative position in the Straits Times. Given its reputation as the “nation building” broadsheet, it is a strong reflection of PAP members’ stand towards gay people.

I apologise for making analogies to Christianity to this post; however, it was necessary to explain the absurdity of this author’s argument. It is unfortunate that these bullet-ridden holes in logic manage to gain acceptance in this country as one of the tenets to discriminating gays in this society. However, I have long since understood that logic can be thrown out of the window in the presence of politics, as Ho Peng Kee has demonstrated.

That given, the debate on homosexuality will likely continue for the forseeable future with the anti-discrimination camp dragged into illogical argument after illogical argument.

Filed under: Current Affairs