The Flaws of the Pro-Gay Position (Part 3)

It’s far easier to tear something down than to rebuild it… And even having done so, no argument ever is immune from attack. In Part 3, I start rebuilding new arguments from (surprise surprise) the ruins of ‘flawed’ arguments that we’ve left in our wake.

*** *** ***

Let’s return to our previous discussion on public offense, which sprung from a closer look at J.S. Mill’s ‘harm principle’. One of the reasons we defend the right of homosexuals to engage in sex is because that sex occurs “privately” — and thus does not offend against public decency. Well, this is true, but superfluous. Heterosexual sex, if it happens in the middle of Orchard Road, would also offend against public decency… and yet, we don’t feel a need to defend heterosexual sex by hastening to add that it occurs “privately”!

So, what do we add in the defence of s. 377A by that word, “privately”? Nothing, I think, except to open a backdoor for conservatives to say, “Well, privately or not, homosexual sex offends my very being.”

How should we respond?

The Flaws of the Pro-Gay Position (Part 2)

As promised, Part 2. This might be more disjointed than Part 1 — because I’m watching Tottenham vs Arsenal at the same time. The joys of multi-tasking…

*** *** ***

As I posted in a comment, my main intention behind this series of posts is to get self-professed liberals opposed to s. 377A to think critically about their own position. This is, if anything, the only trait which distinguishes us from fundamentalist homophobes — and hence, a trait which we must steadfastly preserve.

Over time, I suppose that as we get used to the rhetorical exchanges, and as our positions harden, we increasingly use the various ‘flawed’ arguments as shorthand for what we mean (as pointed out by MG, in response to Part 1). By ‘flawed’ I do not mean that these arguments are false outright, only that they are one-dimensional. I think it is important, lest we get caught up in rhetoric, to tease out the propositions implicit in the arguments we make as liberals. The results may surprise some of us… but at least we understand what exactly is at stake.

Let’s go back to one particular ‘flawed’ argument I mentioned in Part 1:

Interlude: Lawyers’ Fees and the Affordability of Legal Services

I admit I’m surprised that TOC linked me for a post which was more of a personal reflective exercise. Now that so many people have read Part 1, I’m obliged to follow this through all the way. But it’s a taxing endeavour, so I’ll have to leave Part 2 to the weekend.

As an interlude, let me talk a little about legal costs, a topic I’ve been meaning to deal with for some time.

First up, some stuff from round the Net:

The Flaws of the Pro-Gay Position (Part 1)

As a blogger, there is an ever-present temptation to follow the latest scoop, whatever it is, in a bid to attract more ‘eyeballs’… Inherently, blogging is a populist phenomenon. In that respect, it is not so different from the mainstream media, contrary to what most writers in the local blogosphere might think. If your content is predominantly a game of thrust-and-parry with the ‘MSM’, then you really can’t stand alone, can you?

So, if anything, I shall resist the temptation to follow the herd.

*** *** ***

Let me play devil’s advocate for a while. While I am against s. 377A and the criminalization of homosexual behaviour, many of the arguments marshaled by proponents for repeal are intellectually flabby. People are not fully aware of the moral implications of what they are advocating. So allow me to run through a few of these arguments briefly, and assess their validity.

To reign supreme in every sphere (whether professional, or otherwise?)

Ah, so Mr. Otto Fong of my alma mater (I recognize the name and face, but little else) has come out about his sexual orientation on his blog, and then has rather abruptly deleted that post.

• Hear ye! Hear ye!: “A salute to Otto Fong”
• theonlinecitizen: “Gay teacher deletes his ‘coming out’ article”

It’s a pity, but hardly a surprise really. I posted yesterday about long-standing, elite school traditions, and how they effectively constrict the range of one’s life experiences (see here). Well, if I may say so, the RI tradition strikes me as in-your-face, swaggering male heterosexuality. Take a historic school tradition with the patriarchal overtones of a bygone colonial era, and add to that a bunch of testosterone-ravaged male teenagers eager to prove themselves as “sons of Singapore”, and you begin to see the picture.

Predictable then that a gay teacher will not easily fit in within such an environment, and may be ostracized, even.

Black T-Shirt Protest… Not!!!

Haha, I was going to log off already, but TOC’s report on the ‘black T-shirt’ protest against CPF annuities just caught my eye, and it’s too good to miss out on. I’ve been scouring the Net for updates on this planned protest, wondering if it did ever materialize. Turns out it did… wellll, just maybe.

So what was the turnout like? To quote TOC:

Ngiam Tong Dow: Spreading our talent across various schools?

Aiyah, I’m getting hooked on this blogging thing a little too much. I foresee that the rate of my posting will taper off very soon, however.

Anyway, this TODAY article, “Singapore in need of a talent spread?”, caught my eye. Mr. Ngiam Tong Dow, never one to shy away from controversy, has said:

“[B]right Primary 6 school-leavers should be sent to different schools, instead of congregating at a handful of top schools. “It’s very dangerous to hot-house them … I think we should spread out our talents … to support a stronger country.”

Source: TODAY, Singapore News, 8 Sep 07

Mr. Ngiam’s opinions on the public-sector “crowding out” the market for talent are relatively well-known, I think. He has in the past repeatedly urged the Government to free up talent from within the public sector, and in particular, that some government scholars should be released into the private sector, regardless of their bond obligations.

In principle, I think this is a very sensible recommendation, although I think that a minimum bond period in the civil service should still be retained for most scholarships, since that represents the best way for the public sector to capture the brightest young talents. Whether they choose to remain after their bond period is an entirely different matter.

On the other hand, Mr. Ngiam’s recommendation as regards spreading out top students across various secondary schools is a little new to me (although the idea is not new, obviously). With the greatest respect to Mr. Ngiam, though, I think I disagree with him.