(Untitled)

[ataraxistence]

For a detailed dissection of Jonathan Cheng's letter, refer to renovak's post. She's already run the tolerance/intolerance argument; I'm not going to rehash it. What I want to point out here is the other letter in the forum. This is the silver lining in the cloud.

JUSTIFY WHY GAY ACTS SHOULD REMAIN CRIMINAL

Comments

[renovak]

Amen, sister.

[ataraxistence]

*laughs* Hallelujah, hallelujah, no? After reading your post I went to the newspaper. There will always be the the fundamentalists. But I'd like to hope that some day they will be the ones in the minority. I'd like to hope that logical people will see the flaws in the argument against homosexuality.

I always feel that straight people should stand up and speak out in defense of homosexuals. A little solidarity is needed.

[renovak]

Scary thing is that the guy isn't a fundie...

[ataraxistence]

Fundie?

[renovak]

One of those mental ones.

[ataraxistence]

Prejudice is not insanity but it is a clear indication of a narrow and petty mind.

[nemesis]

'course, the number of us who are totally straight is quite at question.

Mou, but- people like him seem to be looking for scapegoats more than anything else, really. It's quite silly.

[ataraxistence]

*laughs* I'm pretty sure I'm quite, quite straight. My point is that we should involve straight people in the debate - and show that not all straight people are homophobes.

*snorts* Silly doesn't even begin to cut it, in my opinion. The debater in me is vastly offended.

[nemesis]

Mou... most can't be bothered to speak up or are too lazy. I know at least that's true for me. That and even if some do speak up they're at risk of persecution from people who know them. That... saa, that would be troublesome.

Whilst there may be some fairly good arguments against homosexuality, I'm afraid his letter isn't an example of that.

...Maybe it was a parody?

[ataraxistence]

*sighs* Well, movements only start moving when the non-persecuted start defending those who are. That's the historical trend, at least.

What're the good arguments? I'm sure I can get around them. There used to be good arguments for anti-Semitism and racism as well.

[nemesis]

S~a~d~l~y. Or rather it's just a bit annoying, ne~? History, history. How many of those movements went down in flames?

I forgot but I'll point you to them someday if I remember. There are good arguments for everything, but you don't have to agree with them. No man is ever fully a rationalist.

[ataraxistence]

It's the 'If you don't study you probably won't pass but if you do study you might fail anyway' argument. I know a lot of movements have failed. What I'm saying is that movements need critical mass and momentum, and I just wish more straight people would speak up and defend the gay community.

Yeah, please do. xD I like rationality.

*hugs you* How've you been? I read your post on your classmates. Don't worry, there'll always be the irritating people. Don't let them get to you, yeah?

[nemesis]

Do something about it...? Write letters to the press! Well. Though that's always running a risk and I wouldn't chance it, personally. Still, it's a step- but maybe a bit premature if it's to be taking right now.

Rationality is good, but to be fully rational is to be torn between one 7-11 and another. ♥ Well, metaphorically speaking.

They ceased to be amusing a week ago. ♥ But~! I don't mind.

[xue_lee]

Good arguments for not legalising homosexuality? My GP group had 1 more or less valid argument for not legalising homosexuality within the local context. It had something to do with the fact that local laws should reflect the local values and beliefs; since a large majority of Singaporeans don't approve of homosexuality, it should stay criminalised.

But you do realise it's so easy to get around that argument.

[ataraxistence]

That argument can be defeated from the first premise - do laws reflect or do laws shape the local beliefs and values?

Yeah. xD

[xue_lee]

Yea. It's the whole society vs. laws debate when it comes to social and moral values. Which party has the larger influence? I mean, ultimately both laws and society have an effect on each other.