I See Lots of Logically Fallacious False Dilemmas and Slippery Slope Arguments(unproven hypothetical scenarios) Used By Parliament MPs in 2007 in Not Supporting Repeal of Section 377A, Also the Intention to Restrict Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship

(This is a copy of a thread topic that I made at the government-operated REACH forum)

I See Lots of Logically Fallacious False Dilemmas and Slippery Slope Arguments(unproven hypothetical scenarios) Used By Parliament MPs in 2007 in Not Supporting Repeal of Section 377A, Also the Intention to Restrict Freedom of Speech and Unfair Censorship

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?

The Reason for Sexual Desire and Why There are Straights, Gays and Bisexuals

The Reason for Sexual Desire

A person's/soul's cause of sexual desire is actually based on 3 factors: its perception of another person's physical compatibility, its inability to perceive/imagine how it feels like to physically be as that person within that body, and its intense curiosity of how it feels like to be within that body.


The Reason for Heterosexual Attraction

A straight man with lots of dominating/masculine energy and lack of submissive/feminine energy would already have the ability to imagine being physically as another man, but he would have great inability to imagine how it feels like to physically be as a submissive/feminine woman, which fuels his intense physical curiosity for the woman's body. Because he perceives the submissive/passive/feminine energy from a woman to be compatible to function with his mostly dominating/masculine energy, he finds the woman to be physically(and mentally) compatible, this is why we often hear of how a partner can 'complete' another partner in a relationship. This also the same way for a straight woman's sexual attraction to a man. Straight couples function in a relationship of very contrasting domination/masculine with submissive/feminine qualities.


The Reason for Homosexuality

A gay man who is physically attracted to another gay man would find his physical body to be immensely compatible but is unable to imagine/perceive how it feels like to be as that person in that male body, which creates the excitement and deep desire to physically explore the other person's male body.

Because gay men have some qualities of dominating/masculine and submissive/feminine energies, they would find other gay men who also have both qualities to be compatible to them. Even though gay men are already in male bodies but because their existing bodies are either too physically effeminate or too physically masculine, they desire to imagine/perceive being in male bodies that are either more masculine/muscular or less masculine(effeminate) than theirs, so this explains why masculine/muscular gay men prefer effeminate partners, and why effeminate gay men prefer masculine/masculine partners.

If a gay man lacks the ability to imagine the quality of domination/masculinity, he might become the 'bottom'(the one that is fucked) to experience the dominating quality from his partner. If he lacks the ability to imagine the quality of submission/femininity, he might become the 'top'(the one who fucks) to experience the submissive quality from his partner.

Many males who take up bodybuilding have deep curiosity of being within a more masculine/muscular body, many of such curious males often have deep physical/sexual attraction to males.

Gay men would not feel physically/sexually attracted to women nor have intense curiosity of being in their female bodies because they can already imagine/perceive how it feels like to physically be as them in their female bodies, perhaps due to their submissive/feminine qualities that they already possess or they have lots of past life experiences of being women. So gay men would not have curiosity for female bodies but they would have deep curiosity for male bodies because they still have much difficulty imagining how it feels like to be within a male body.

This example for gay men also applies to gay/lesbian women.


The Reason for Transexuality

Some male transexuals who undergo sex change do so because they feel a deep relation to being within a female body, which might be due to lots of past life experiences of being in female bodies. They do not wish to venture into a type of compatible male-to-male body relationship but wish to revert back to being within a relationship that has more of a contrasting quality of female-with-male body relationship.


The Reason for Bisexuality

Bisexuals are those who lack the ability to imagine being physically in both male and female bodies, so they are deeply curious to explore both types of bodies in a physical/sexual way.


Sex is Not Always Necessary to Imagine Being Physically as Another Person

People who perceive the world superficially or are still functioning at a low level of frequency(perspective) and vibration(clarity) are those who need to use intimate sexual practices as a way to gain such perspective of being in another person's body. People who already have a higher frequency and vibration are more mentally advanced(psychic) and do not require sexual intimacy to imagine how it feels like to physically be as someone else, they are less superficial so they can connect to others in a deeply energetic manner without needing sexual intimacy to imagine how it physically feels like to be as them.


The Reason for Child Sex Pedophilia

The reason why there are pedophiles who desire to have sex with young children is because they feel the children bodies' to be very compatible to their own bodies. Because they have much difficulty imagining being in the child bodies(perhaps due to a dysfunctional childhood), they have deep curiosity for being within such child bodies. If they are desperate enough to fulfill such feelings of intense physical compatibility and intense curiosity through sex, then they would desire to have sex with children.