I took a look into the arguments used by parliament MPs in 2007 in their non-support of repealing Section 377A of the Penal Code, and found lots of misconstructed and logically fallacious slippery slope arguments.
I am extremely well-trained in formal debate and I find these false dilemmas and slippery slope arguments very faulty and disturbing.
[The Logically Misconstructed Arguments]
Some MPs have assumed that repealing Section 377A is equated to people accepting homosexual lifestyles. But I cannot see the logic in this line of thought.
Here are the lists of Parliment videos on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5AB3D0B89F8206C7
Saying that just because people don't accept something then the only option should be criminalisation? This is not logical.
In formal debate, this line of faulty reasoning is known as False Dilemma
FALSE DILEMMA
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma
"Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices."
Many people do not accept prostitution, yet it is not criminalised. Many people do not accept smoking, yet it is not criminalised. Many people do not accept gambling, yet it is not criminalised.
There are lots of logically misconstructed arguments that put one's non-acceptance of something into the same category as criminalisation.
If people don't accept certain behaviours, they can simply don't practice it themselves, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should criminalise it. Going by this logic, if people find certain religion unacceptable, they should make a law to criminalise the followers of such religion? I see no logic in this line of thought.
[The Slippery Slope Arguments]
Many MPs who opposed the repeal of Section 377A say that if it is repealed, then gay-rights activists would definitely push for same-sex marriages and adoptions. However, there is no evidence that this will happen.
In formal debate, this line of argument is known as Slippery Slope.
SLIPPERY SLOPE
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/163-slippery-slope
"Definition: When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”
Even if Section 377A is repealed, it doesn't necessarily mean that gay marriages and adoptions will be allowed by law. The gay rights activists can request all they want for such things but Parliament and the people do not necessarily have to give in to their requests.
Why should Parliament and the people be afraid of such requests when they have the power and support not to grant such requests? This is not logical.
[What do I think is the agendas of the LGBTs in Singapore?]
Homosexuals can already get married overseas, they don't need to request to enact laws and wait forever for them to get married in Singapore. If they want to adopt children and can afford it, it would be much easier and affordable for them if they migrate overseas and do it there.
I feel that the request of gay-rights activists to ammend Section 377A is simply to lessen the bullying and hatred they receive so that they can have a neutral common space to live their lives in peace and harmony.
[Restriction on Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship]
If the argument of not repealing Section 377A is simply to prevent gay-rights activists from not hypothetically requesting such gay marriages and adoptions in future, is this not an intention to restrict on their freedom of speech to talk to parliament and the government? Is this not unfair censorship?
No comments:
Post a Comment