This is getting tiresome.
lbandit wrote a blog post in rebuttal to some of my earlier postings so I’ll address some of it. (This will be my final post on this subject since I have already stopped wasting my time commenting in any blogs with this topic anyway and there’s no point for me to rave on and on like a broken record. After all, several of my friends told me, you can’t have everyone be aware of what you are aware of.)
I just need to point out several things (I’ll make it quick since I would really prefer to be able to arrive for on time for lunch with a friend):
- “The idea that religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms is fallacious.”
I never said “religious beliefs should be privileged and exempted from criticisms”. If you have problem with my stand, fine, you are free to object. But who are you to attack the basis I come to my conclusion? It is almost as good as, if you surname is WTF, and I said “All you WTF loonies are incapable of reason.”
Perhaps you would stand for that.
- Bereft of any religious beliefs, why should homosexuals be denied the right of marriage?”
Because even when bereft of any religious beliefs, one needs no further prompting to understand that the duty of population replacement is on heterosexuals. And Singapore already have a low population growth itself. Would that be a good reason enough to justify the argument that such a lifestyle is not against the well being of this country, and by extension same sex marriages and adoption as well? The babies are not going to fall out of the sky from a bird.
Go ahead and argue for all these “freedoms” but I would prefer you also take up the responsibility of procreation and also, with the decline of population, the tax burden which everyone else would have to take up as well.
Call me selfish, but before that, please make yourself the most selfless person on this planet.
- “You might not have explicitly said that homosexuals are bad eggs or perverts, but you’ve most certainly made the association (and by inference, made the suggestion) in that one paragraph.”
Blast! Damned if I do. Damned if I don’t.
I can’t really imagine if I didn’t say that, would it have been better. The next time I’ll just not make any disclaimers and let you jokers assail me before I make them. It might just save me the trouble of doing so anyway. After all, it doesn’t seem to matter that I already said so and I am still accused of it.
But suddenly, Sigmund Freud’s ‘Moral Projection’ theory, comes to mind. I wonder, whether the people who never believe disclaimers do so because they never meant what they say on their disclaimers?
- “If you believe that 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution, then by the same line of argument, you should propose for the criminalization of all heterosexual sex to help curb prostitution.”.
I hear this preposterous argument (and variations of it) so often I can only shake my head and laugh. After all, I didn’t say 377A should be kept in place to curb prostitution. I am simply saying 377A should be kept to prevent the introduction of new forms of prostitution. Maybe I should write this in Chinese:
刑事法第377A章因该留下来防止新类型的卖淫出现，但它本身并不是用来对付卖淫活动。
If you don’t understand Chinese, sorry lah.
- “The same laws that allow the court to charge heterosexual sex in public will allow the court to charge homosexual sex in public. There is no need to keep 377A which criminalize consenting homosexual sex in private.”
I have no doubt there are laws charging heterosexuals for gross indecency in public. Will you be so kind to show to us those sections which will ensure that, so I can be assured no loophole in the wording will allow some people to get away with it? Thank you.
Yaaaay!! I am done. Now let me go and do my 10 minutes shit + shower so I’ll be in time for the lunch!
Thank you very much for your response and in specific, pt 3 since I’ll take special note the next time you make a disclaimer in view of Freud’s ‘Moral Projection’ theory. I’ll view all of your disclaimers in the same light no matter how much you deny the my perception of what it really is.
Like I said earlier, this will be my final post on this matter. So I ain’t gonna to bother with more of a reply than this. After all, it is a immutable fact the gover-min has stood for keeping 377A no matter how much noise you are going to make about my argument. After all taking my arguments apart wouldn’t change the gover-min’s stand anyway.
1. So.. if someone says “The bible says homosexuality is immoral therefore my conclusion is that homosexuals are immoral.” Do let me know how anyone can refute that conclusion without refuting the reasoning. Refuting the premise and logical processes (not just the conclusion) are parts and parcel of any debate.
2. Not legalizing homosexual marriage will cause homosexuals to procreate? More importantly, legalizing homosexual marriage will turn heterosexuals into homosexuals? Will it stop heterosexuals from procreating?
3. It is not your disclaimer that causes me to believe that you’re making an association between homosexuals and perverts. It is because that i find your disclaimer to be not truthful enough that i talk about your disclaimer.
4 and 5. 377A is a law that stops consensual male to male sex only. You’re looking at the wrong law to prevent new forms of prostitution from appearing. You might want to be looking into the Miscellaneous Offences Act instead.