How not to argue against homosexuality

Let's conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman

I WRITE in response to Mr Janadas Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7) and Dr George D. Bishop's letter, 'Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum' (ST, July 11).

The main thrust of their letters are that lesbians and homosexuals can and are a normal family unit and can take care of children just as well as any other family unit and thus should be allowed to get married and be one.

The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children. Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society.

Now homosexuals and lesbians want to redefine 'marriage' and 'family'. Why so? There is an inherent need for them to be accepted by society that their sexual behaviour is not abnormal but just a variation of normal sexual activity.

Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.

1. two brothers;
2. two sisters
3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)
4. a man and a horse (film 'Zoo' shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)
5. why not a combination of three or more?
6. why bother have a marriage or a family?

All these questions are not too remote; because those pursuing a perverted lifestyle must have the endorsement of society to secure their very identity, and the only way to achieve this is to go down the slippery road to establish that perversion is normal like incest is normal; bestiality is normal.

It is an issue of self-autonomy. Self is god. The point made is not academic but it has already happened and will continue to happen. This may be seen in the case of the four legislators in Massachusetts who followed up 'their success at legalising homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance' including bestiality viz reducing the penalty to a fine (See First Comes Gay Marriage then comes Bestiality in Massachusetts http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html )

The four Democrat legislators 'are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts' gay lobby groups. Family lobbyists opposed to the re-definition of marriage were frequently ridiculed for their warnings that dissolving the natural basis of marriage in law would end with legalising and normalising a host of sexual perversions, including incest and bestiality. The case of the Massachusetts legislators is in point.

Following this, 'the media has quickly picked up on the trend of acceptance for any and all sorts of conditions that before the 1960's sexual revolution and the politicising of the psychiatric profession, were universally recognised as serious psychological disorders. New terminology has been established, calling those persons interested in having sexual relations with animals, 'zoophiles' or 'zoos' for short, and a campaign has been discretely under way for some time to reduce the public 'stigma' against 'zoos'.

We, in Singapore, want to conserve our marriage institution as one between a man and a woman so that the needs of our children for a father and a mother are catered for. We abhor any regression into perversity which, as history has shown, has led into the decline and fall of a society.

Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's dissect this piece of rubbish step by step.

"The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children."

A completely baseless assumption. So who defined that a family consist of a married father and mother with children? How about unmarried father and mother with children? Or single parents with children? Or aunts and uncles caring for their nephews and nieces?

"Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. "

Cite me a research study that shows your claim. Otherwise it will be another one of your baseless assumptions.

"Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society."

Using the appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. PM Lee is not an expert in the field of determining if the family unit is the core of a society. To argue in this manner is similar to saying "My dad said so, therefore it is true."

Next, the rest of the argument gets even more ludicrous.

"Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.
1. two brothers;

2. two sisters

3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)

4. a man and a horse (film 'Zoo' shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)

5. why not a combination of three or more?

6. why bother have a marriage or a family? "

Total bullshit of an argument. Besides appealing to fear and the slippery slope, it's all empty. It has failed to show any evidence or reason why homosexual marriages should not be legalised. The analogies given are useless, like comparing apples with oranges. Angalogies seldom make good arguments. Let's take apart the rest of the bullshit.

Why marriage between sibilings is illegal?

I really can't think of a proper reason for criminalising same-sex marriages between siblings other than the it is not in-line with "social-norms", "disgusting" and "perverted", all weak arguments. Keeping in line with social-norms is seldom a bright thing to do. You just need to think of slavery and the discrimination of women in the past.

As for a marriage between brothers and sisters, there is a possible victim. A child borne to siblings are at greater risk of having genetically recessive diseases. Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang, if he is a medical doctor, ought to know it better than me.

Why beastiality is illegal?

Animals are unable to give consent. Homosexuals can. Otherwise it's mainly a "we think it is disgusting and perverted" issue.

Why bother have a marriage or a family?

For the marriage part of the question, it is mainly once again a "social norm". Not a particularly good reason. Perhaps it started out in the past to protect women. Nowadays it's more like a trap for men. Families can still exist without marriage. For the family part of the question, it's a no brainer you twit of a doctor. All animals seek to procreate. Haven't you done basic biology? Never heard of evolution?

Why do we have laws in the first place?

It is to protect individuals, society and the interests of the powerful ;). So have we proven that homosexuals choose to be the way they are? Have we proven that homosexual families are detrimental to children brought up in such an environment? The answer to both questions is no. Show me a study that proves otherwise. If homosexuals did not choose to be the way they are, one cannot argue that homosexuals pose a threat to society by delibretely hampering the continuation of the human species. Even if it were to be shown that having same sex parents for children is detrimental to them in anyway, why single out the homosexuals? How about the drug addicts, abusive families and the poor who can't afford to feed their children? I do know that two wrongs do not make a right. But i can't help to point out the prejudice and bigotry some people have shown towards homosexuals.