Gay Logic Revisited: A Conversation with Nevin

Again, our dialogue continues …

The following post is a reply to Nevin’s recent lengthy comment. His comment rehashed arguments frequently presented by gay activists.

Nevin wrote: “Your argument previously was, if i may summarize, that since the argument for repeal was based upon private consensual acts that did not cause harm, then homosexuals should likewise argue for the repeal of incest and polygamy laws for consistency. Here you are putting up a straw man by stretching the argument to an absurd conclusion. One could similarly argue that the flip side of this argument is that ALL acts which cause harm should be prohibited. This would justify making alcohol, cigarettes or fast food illegal on the basis that they can cause harm.”

I did not furnish any straw man; in fact, your allegation of a straw man is in itself a straw man. Your argument (the premises of “gay logic”) is:

A: Private consensual sexual acts that do not cause harm should be decriminalized
B: Homosexual sodomy is a private consensual sexual act that does not cause harm

Therefore, homosexual sodomy should be decriminalized.

Assuming the veracity of the premises, this is a valid form of logic called modus ponens (based upon your own premises). Therefore, incest, polygamy, and polyandry all apply according to your major and minor premises (“gay logic”).

In your “flipside” example, you are committing a classic fallacy in basic logic called “denying the antecedent.” For instance, a similar example would be, “If you give a man a gun, he may kill someone. If he has no gun, then he will not kill anyone.” Obviously, even if he has no gun, it doesn’t mean that he will not kill anyone. In contrast, modus tollens is a valid form.

If you think the consequent is absurd, perhaps you should rethink your premises (i.e. gay logic). Do you know what is reductio ad absurdum in basic logic?

Nevin wrote: “It is possible to stretch a sound position by stretching it to absurd lengths. That does not however, undermine the value of the principle. And the general principle at criminal law that a person's liberty should not be restricted unless there is harm, or what John Stuart Mills would term the 'harm principle', remains a sound foundation of criminal law.”

If a position is sound, it will not succumb to reductio ad absurdum.

Mill’s (it’s Mill, not Mills) “harm principle” cannot be divorced from his utilitarianism or the “greatest happiness principle.” Based upon Mill’s concept of harm, your minor premise is already faulty. Is it really true that homosexual sodomy doesn’t cause harm – both tangible and intangible? HIV statistics in many countries are suggestive, but we do not even require such evidence for our purpose here.

Just look at the amount of “unhappiness” and societal rifts the LGBT activists have caused to innumerable nations worldwide (e.g. UK, US etc). Arguably, the LGBT agenda and it’s push for the decriminalization of homosexual sodomy in Singapore has already caused immeasurable harm and anguish, not mentioning the erosion of our social fabric. So according to Mill’s “harm” and “greatest happiness principle,” the LGBT agenda has failed on both counts. Happiness? Yes, but only for the minority of sexual paraphiliacs.

Nevin wrote: “If one were to use the morality argument against homosexuality, one could similarly argue that there is a need to support the criminalization of heterosexual sodomy (the old 377), abortion or adultery on the basis of morality. Again, these would be untenable in a modern age.”

Controversial issues such as abortion and adultery are truly separate issues, and are based upon other premises. In fact, society has always been divided on these issues, so there is no general consensus as such. Untenable? Why not?

Nevin wrote: “When i wrote of 'social norms' being not immutable, perhaps i was imprecise in my terminology. I would rephrase this as morality being not immutable. People's conception of what is wrong or right is not necessarily fixed. This would probably come across as a completely relativist position and you bring up the issue that "if each community is right according to their moral view, then there is no way to solve conflicts between communities and nations." And herein lies the role of the law to regulate the differing viewpoints in society.”

Here is a question for you to ponder on: Upon what basis of morality should the law be based upon? Even Mill’s principle of harm is an ethical and moral principle. So is Mill’s harm principle relatively correct, or is it absolutely correct?

All in all, you have not even begun to address the problems of moral relativism which were raised in my previous post.

Nevin wrote: “Insofar as we can both agree that the law should be slow to interfere in private acts of its citizens (in your case, you emphasize the fact that the law can sometimes intervene), the question here is what is the threshold that is set whereby the law can and should intrude into the private sphere. And here i submit that the opposition stems largely from disgust or unease at other people's private acts. Or it might stem from conservatively held convictions that such an act is unnatural. But beyond this psychological unease, there is no compelling reason to criminalize it. And here one must separate criminalization from promoting homosexuality. Just as society frowns on adultery or to a lesser extent smoking, it does not seek to make smokers or adulterers criminals.”

Wrong. The “opposition” had raised a very serious concern: the legislation of morality. The fundamental question in this debate is, “Should morality be legislated?” If so, what constitutes this “morality?”

Nevin wrote: “And from this relativistic starting point, this does not mean the law cannot proscribe anything. Here, John Rawls' conception of an "overlapping consensus" model can be applied. At risk of oversimplifying the model, the basic idea is that even among people with differences, there is an overlapping area of consensus. Murder would be an example of something which falls within this overlapping consensus and thus provide whereas 377A might not.”

In the area of homosexual sodomy, we have arrived at an “overlapping consensus” – using Rawls' concept of justice – and that is the retention of S377a as described by PM Lee. This retention is what the people of Singapore are happy with, while at the same time we are not actively prosecuting private consensual sodomy.

Just a note: I do not (necessarily) agree with Rawls or Mill on these areas. I am simply using your own position as a basis for discussion here.

Nevin wrote: “You also add that "we must ultimately seek that which is right (i.e. the truth, or the universal moral law, or the natural law, or that which is right in itself). Murder cannot be both right and wrong.". Taking a more relativist position, i would not agree that there is always a correct or right position. And for the example of when murder can be both right and wrong, i would refer you to the case of Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation). [2000] 4 All England Reports 985. I'm sure a google search will quickly acquaint you with the facts of the case, but to quickly summarise, this involved a pair of conjoined twins, and it was necessary to separate the twins so that the stronger twin "Jodie" would survive. Separation would however, kill the weaker twin. A case where murder could be both right and wrong.”

Nevin, you are obviously confused with the term “murder.” For example, does murder include the killing of another human during self-defense? Is murder therapeutic surgery with death as a probable consequence? Murder is loosely defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being, and it is always wrong. So it is here where we part ways. Moral relativism is seriously flawed.

Nevin wrote: “The one point i do agree with you is the “is-ought” fallacy. As you say it so eloquently: "Just because something is the practice does not mean it ought to be. It is the case that people are cruel at times; they hate and kill. This in no way means that ought to be the case." But cruelty need not be physical. There is also the insidious blade of discrimination, of bias and of intolerance. Just because we criminalize people on the basis of their sexuality in no way means that ought to be the case.”

Just because the LGBT agenda aggressively demands the decriminalization of homosexual sodomy all over the world does not mean that ought to be the case. The ultimate instrument of societal cruelty, bias, and intolerance is the cruel, biased and intolerant LGBT agenda that seeks to destroy society’s moral and social fabric. It begins with the insidious demand for the decriminalization of immoral and perverse acts within a nation. As a gullible society capitulates to such demands, the LGBT agenda will continue to march forward in its rape of the nation’s conservative family values, education system, and freedom of speech. It will irrevocably institute the definitive instrument of cruelty, bias, and intolerance: hate crime laws and the obliteration of free speech against sodomy and homosexuality.

We do not want any part of your agenda in this nation, Nevin.

An Informal Reply to Nevin: Are Social Norms Always Right?

I thought it might be interesting to post a reply to Nevin’s latest comment to my last post.

nevin wrote, “You have misread my comment.”

No I did not.

nevin wrote, “Polygamy is illegal under the woman's charter and only legal under the Administration of the Muslim Law Act (for muslim men). This point was already stated in my original comment and is not a mistake of law. My facts are correct.”

No, your facts are incorrect according to the context of my post. My post concluded, “If they insist that the law must not interfere with personal sexual choices and activities, then the logical conclusion from such premises would be the repeal of laws criminalizing incest and polygamy.” So, in order for you gays to be consistent with your “gay logic” - logic is not used as a complimentary term here - you should not ONLY lobby for the repeal of s377a, but also for all other laws in Singapore that criminalize incest and polygamy for ALL Singaporeans.

nevin wrote, “I am not, contrary to your misrepresentation, arguing for polygamy.”

I never said that ... contrary to your misrepresentation. What I did say was, “In order for you gays to be consistent with your “gay logic” - logic is not used as a complimentary term here - you should not ONLY lobby for the repeal of s377a, but also for all other laws in Singapore that criminalize incest and polygamy for ALL Singaporeans.” I also said in my previous comment, “Delightfully, “gay logic” should allow Singaporeans to practice incest and polygamy based upon premises 1 and 2.” If you did not read my post carefully, do it now.

nevin wrote, “Although your point that polygamy was once commonplace but is now not acceptable is an implicit concession that social norms are not immutable.”

Once again, this is faulty reasoning on your part. What I wrote was, “Finally, polygamous marriages were common all over Asia. Monogamy marriages is a western concept, introduced in Singapore after 1965 and in China by the communist in l953.”

Is this another one of your red herrings? Social norms did change, and it is different in different cultures. Some tribes in Asia and Africa practiced headhunting. I’m glad that changed. Some cultures practiced incest. I’m glad that changed. But what has “social norms [being not] immutable” got to do with your “gay logic?” Again, in order for you gays to be consistent with your “gay logic” - logic is not used as a complimentary term here - you should not ONLY lobby for the repeal of s377a, but also for all other laws in Singapore that criminalize incest and polygamy for ALL Singaporeans.

Furthermore, what has “social norms” to do with what is right and wrong i.e. morality and ethics?

If you argue that “morals are mores,” that is, moral commands are considered community demands, this view would imply a cultural relativity of morality.

As I had written elsewhere before, this view of morality commits the “is-ought” fallacy (Hume). Just because something is the practice does not mean it ought to be. It is the case that people are cruel at times; they hate and kill. This in no way means that ought to be the case. Likewise, even if the entire community in a certain village has a preference for same-sex rectal intercourse, this does not mean that ought to be the case.

Secondly, if each community is right according to their moral view, then there is no way to solve conflicts between communities and nations. Whatever each one believes is right – even if it means the annihilation of each other – is right.

Thirdly, we must ultimately seek that which is right (i.e. the truth, or the universal moral law, or the natural law, or that which is right in itself). Murder cannot be both right and wrong. A tribe might consider the hunting of humans as fun, and the right thing to do. That is the moral “right” in that tribe. Singapore thinks that hunting humans for their heads is murder, which is wrong. If you claim that one group’s moral stand is right, and the other wrong, what moral standards are you subjecting yourself to?

nevin wrote, “Lastly, the comment about "gay logic" is itself illogical. Logic either makes sense or it does not, and the central issue here is that the state should be slow to intervene in private, consensual acts.”

I’m glad you realize this. The central issue here is that the state should be SLOW to intervene in private, consensual acts. But this does not mean that the state should NOT intervene in private, consensual acts.

So you do agree with me that the state SHOULD intervene in private, consensual acts like same-sex sodomy? Oh yes, the state should do it slowly e.g. moral police creeping up slowly behind you, and subsequently bringing you slowly up to the criminal court, and speaking to you slowly in court, and of course, bringing you slowly to jail. Is that slow enough for you?

The central issue here is that the state should be slow to intervene in private, consensual acts, but the state should nevertheless intervene in private, consensual acts like incest, homosexual sodomy and polygamy.

Finally, the term “gay logic” is not illogical. It is an oxymoron. This is because gay arguments are illogical. I’m glad you get that.

According to Homosexuals, we should also decriminalize incest and polygamy

Those who entreat the government to repeal S377a have reasoned their case based upon two premises: 1) private homosexual intercourse is performed between consensual adults and, 2) it causes no harm to society.

For example, Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, in his recent parliamentary speech, argued that, “Private, consensual sexual acts between adult males does not impact on the safety and security of society. Furthermore, it is accepted that the criminal law addresses activities that harm others, but the Government seems to accept that 377A does not cause harm. So how can 377A possibly be linked to a legitimate purpose of the Penal Code? The answer is that it does not and it cannot."

Following such a rationale, it is perplexing why the gay movement in Singapore does not lobby for the decriminalization of adult incest and polygamy. It can similarly be argued that adult incestuous relationships and adult polygamous marriages are likewise based upon consensus. Furthermore, such relationships do not cause harm to others.

Some might retort that genetic defects are more likely in incestuous sexual unions, thus causing harm to the children of such relations. However, following the principles of the same-sex family model, incestuous couples may choose not to be biological parents. They can practise effective medical or surgical contraception, and may even decide to adopt children. Furthermore, if religious or moral considerations are to be abandoned, abortion is definitely a viable option for such incestuous couples.

To push the analogy further, consensual incestuous or polygamous unions can indeed be homosexual or heterosexual in nature. If we are to accept the premises offered to us by those who lobby for the repeal of S377a, why should there be any limitations as to the possible permutations to such relationships?

In conclusion, may I ask gay activists in Singapore the following question, “Consistent with your rationale for the repeal of S377a, is it not correct for us to say that, you would have no objections to the decriminalization of incest and polygamy in this nation?”

Therefore, in order to be consistent with their reasoning and not to be perceived as being hypocritical, those asking for the repeal of S377a should openly state their positions on such moral issues. If they insist that the law must not interfere with personal sexual choices and activities, then the logical conclusion from such premises would be the repeal of laws criminalizing incest and polygamy.

Singaporean Heartlanders and Their Attitude Towards Homosexuality

I first noticed this article on 4th Nov 2007 when someone in church mentioned it to me. Although I am drowning in my own assignments and deadlines, I felt there is a need to at least furnish a very brief rebuttal to Andy Ho's misleading and skewed article. As usual, Straits Times will not publish this letter, but here it is for those who are curious. Essentially, Andy Ho was attempting to push for his thesis that "heartlanders" in Singapore are accommodating towards homosexuals within their own families. I find this conclusion spurious and contrived at best.

Singaporean Heartlanders and their attitude towards Homosexuality

In “It's not a big deal for most Singaporeans,” (Straits Times Nov 3, 2007), Andy Ho suggested that “perhaps the practical way in which many heartlanders deal with homosexuality in the family” is a “don't ask, don't tell; don't reject but don't promote approach.” While it is true that the majority of heartlanders would not promote homosexuality within the family, it is quite dubious that they will not reject the notion of their own children having homosexual relations.

There must be a distinction made between the heartlanders’ acceptance of homosexuals within society and the acceptance of their own children’s homosexual relations within the home. Most Singaporeans would adopt a “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuals. But is it true that heartlanders in Singapore are not concerned with the possibility of their children leading a homosexual lifestyle? Further research ought to be done before jumping to such a conclusion.

The Straits Times article, “7 in 10 Frown on Homosexuality, NTU Survey Finds,” states that “68.6 per cent of respondents generally held negative attitudes” towards homosexuality. Such a survey should have included the heartlanders.

In his recent parliamentary speech (Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM, Straits Times, Oct 24, 2007), PM Lee’s observation corroborates with the NTU survey. He said, “Singapore is basically a conservative society. The family is the basic building block of this society. It has been so and by policy, we have reinforced this, and we want to keep it so. ... And I think the vast majority of Singaporeans want to keep it this way, want to keep our society like this, and so does the Government.”

Even as far back as 2003, SM Goh Chok Tong had stated in his interview with Times magazine that, “The heartlanders are still conservative.”

Andy Ho also attributed the “don't ask, don't tell; don't reject but don't promote approach” to “non-cosmopolitan Chinese” that are “suffused with Taoist and Buddhist values.” I will, however, be surprised if my Taoist, Buddhist, or Confucianist friends would adopt this “don’t reject” approach to homosexuality within their own families.

The Taoist tradition stresses the relationship between yin and yang energies. These are two contrasting forces which maintain harmony through balance. Taoists believe that the balance of these two energies is best obtained through heterosexual relations. Homosexual relations are therefore usually discouraged.

The Confucian moral code, on the other hand, promotes an individual's responsibility to society. Confucians are often encouraged to get married and have children. This is perceived as their responsibility to their ancestors and their country.

Although I have yet to encounter a consensus on homosexuality from the Buddhist community, the Dalai Lama had stated his position in no uncertain terms. In an interview with the Vancouver Sun in 2004, the Dalai Lama was questioned about homosexuality to which he replied, "For a Buddhist, the same sex, that is sexual misconduct." In other words, homosexual acts are considered to be sexual misconduct according to Buddhism's five precepts. The Dalai Lama further elaborated that, "[homosexuals] use the mouth and the anus, this is sexual misconduct in Buddhism."

Therefore, with the absence of statistical evidence or relevant research in this area, it is premature to ascribe a specific view concerning homosexuality to the Singaporean heartlanders. One thing is for sure: colonialism alone cannot be blamed for the negative attitude towards homosexual relations.