16
Oct
More illogical arguments from the anti-gay faction
Now, I’m really busy today, so the fact that I’m even blogging today is a telling event on its own.
KC is infuriated by a letter that was published in the forums section in the local government controlled broadsheet, The Straits Times.
I read that letter myself, and I’m really annoyed at how the editors at that newspaper are allowing such illogical ramblings to be printed. It’s the word Incompetence splashed in big bright red right in front of my eyes. Had I turned in an argument such as the letter writer’s for my assignment, I would have failed my English essays. That’s right, even in secondary school, you will get an automatic F for an essay that makes baseless allegations. The story to take home today (for all those who are still schooling), is that there is no “cause and effect” relationship between the removal of a law that discriminates against a person’s choice of lifestyle, and “the disintegration of our social fabric”
You will get brownie points with your teacher if you cut out that article today, and share it during the next English lesson. Firstly, the lady has neglected to mention how repealing a law would cause Singapore’s social fabric to disintegrate. More likely, she couldn’t draw any link, because there isn’t any in the first place. I can make a similar claim that “choosing to eat curry puffs while you walk would lead to the destruction of the country’s moral fibre”. You can see immediately that this claim is illogical at best, while teachers would ask you to stop reading “Pkchukiss - Reality Wine” because the blogger writes rubbish. I think it is really sad that this letter even managed to be printed - in fact, I’m starting to doubt some people’s capacity for logical thinking - wow, do we see a potential cause and effect relationship developing here?
On all my postings, I have invited conservatives who believe that 377A should not be repealed to post their arguments why they believe so in a logically sound comment. So far, I have yet to receive any postings, nor have I read any (on both print materials and online) that fits this criteria. The invitation remains open, though I doubt anyone will take up this offer; besides, it is so much easier to resort to fear-mongering to get your way.
on October 16th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I won’t consider myself against the repealing of S377A, but am not for it either. And I don’t buy that ‘disintegrate our social fabric’ argument either.
Anyway, IMO, S377A would target anyone performing the sexual acts in question and not homosexual people alone. In other words, the law ‘discriminates’ against ANYONE performing such an act - including a man doing so with his wife - and not in specific homosexual people alone.
So I must say I am quite puzzled about the ‘discrimination’ argument presented to fight for repealing it all along.
on October 16th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Hi xizor2000, I don’t disagree with what your argument, but I disagree with your conclusion. That law needs to be repealed. It shouldn’t be the business of the judiciary to dictate what a person can, or cannot do, if it causes no harm to anybody.
An analogy would be legislating food: say I enact a law that prohibits a man from eating Char Kway Teow; how is that not discrimination? Ladies are still free to eat Char Kway Teow. It is the same with a sex act between a man, and a man.
on October 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Understand your point completely. Thanks for being patient with me.
on October 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
[...] an exchange with xizor2000 yesterday, I outlined an example of how the 377A is absurd. The fact is, that law is also unconstitutional (see section 2 of the [...]
on October 18th, 2007 at 12:20 am
I suppose both ST & forum writer must have a hidden agenda by taking the trouble to print/write such a letter.
If only the ST editor & forum writer had clarified what is his/her religious inclination or belief, then it would have exposed their hidden religious/political agenda.