• About Us
    • Fact Checking Policy
    • Ownership & funding information
    • Volunteer
  • Subscribe
  • Letter submission
    • Submissions Policy
  • Contact Us
The Online Citizen Asia
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Letters
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Singapore
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
    • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Politics
    • Civil Society
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
No Result
View All Result
The Online Citizen Asia
No Result
View All Result

On repealing Section 377A – Part 1: Weaknesses in justification

by Howard Lee
05/11/2014
in Commentaries
Reading Time: 6 mins read
10
Rainbow flag and blue skies - Ludovic Bertron Wikimedia
Rainbow flag and blue skies (Image – Ludovic Bertron, Wikimedia Commons)
By Aloysius Chia
Opponents of repealing a law that criminalizes sex between men use a number of approaches in arguing for why the law should remain.
First, they say that allowing homosexuality (in laws or publicly as moral acceptance) will lead to a slippery slope where morality will degenerate, since homosexuals are more prone to such immoral acts. These will intrude into such important social institutions such as the family, and affect the livelihood of many, since the family is an important social institution that many people cherish and want to preserve.
Second, they say that accepting homosexuality will send an implicit message that such acts are accepted and thus actually promote it.
Third, they say that allowing homosexual acts will lead to undesirable consequences, such as the increase of undesirable health issues (presumably, HIV/AIDS).
It is important to clarify a few points. The argument against homosexuality (mostly involving homosexuals) is related but is not exactly the same as arguing for why the law should or should not be repealed. Arguing for the latter features a different set of related arguments that pertain to how laws and to what extent laws should be applied to society for various reasons, or why it should be there in the first place.
A person against homosexuality may necessarily want not to repeal the law, but a person who wants not to repeal the law may not necessarily be against homosexuality. The person who wants not to repeal the law may want not to do so for reasons other than that against homosexuality, though that may be a relevant reason.
This piece argues for why the person against homosexuality who do not want to repeal the law, is little different from a racist person, and in fact, share the same values on some level, even if this might not be so obvious.
This does not mean that all who are against homosexuals/-ity are racist, for some may do so out of certain held beliefs or convictions that are not grounded on reason, as well as accuse all who are against homosexuals/-ity are so. The important point here is to highlight the many similarities between those who are against repealing the law and those who are racists, since the reasons used by racists and those against repealing the law have highly similar features. The argument is that they are basically the same reasons.
Let’s analyse each in turn.
Consider the first argument. What is the basis of the claim that allowing homosexuality will lead to a degeneration of morality? In order to make this claim, a positive claim must be made which assumes that non-homosexuality is the order of the day, and that any allowance will lead to its erosion. This claim requires further claims in order to function. First, beneath this claim is the assumption that homosexuality will cause immorality. Second, this claim needs to assume that allowance necessarily leads to a slippery slope situation.
There are significant flaws in these two claims. Regarding the first claim, it is not clear that homosexuality by itself will lead to immorality. There could very well by a multitude of other factors that lead to immorality of the kind defined by those who make the normative claim that non-homosexuality is the norm. This could result from personal frailty or bad experiences that have affected the way one conducts one’s relations. Examples of personal frailty would include callousness of concern for others, lack of moral judgement, deliberate harm etc. Examples of bad experiences that could affect one’s conduct would include one’s upbringing, education, peer influence, media etc. Thus, in order for this claim to work, it has to show clearly and unequivocally that homosexuality on its own causes immorality.
The second claim, that a slippery slope may occur, makes the assumption that homosexuality (or allowing it) will certainly and definitely lead to a downward slope. Before analysing this claim there needs to be some understanding here. In claiming that there is a downward slope in morals, it is set against the normative values defined above, that non-homosexuality is the norm, that this slope is going down against.
The question within this framework then is why this downward slope must be taken as a given. How would those who cite this reason explain this downward expectation, when the removal of law that is claimed that will lead to this occurrence has not even been removed? On what basis is this expectation presaged upon? The slippery slope needs clear evidence and projection, which opponents cannot show other than reasoning from personal biased viewpoints. Both ways up and down in this framework is possible.
This argument is weak because it depends on expectations of homosexuality as causing immorality without doubt; yet, even if one supports this notion of normal, it is not clear that homosexuality causes immorality so defined. But far more fallacious is the linking of immorality with the fact of homosexuality itself. The fact of homosexuals as human beings – an existential fact – is linked to a pre-defined moral that already excludes homosexuals or homosexuality. The argument is completely circular and self-referential. It first defines the norm, which already excludes homosexuals/-lity, then argues for why the law which already excludes homosexuals should remain. The pre-defined norm leads the way, not the fact. The deliberate exclusion takes place before any conception of a human being as an entity is accepted in the case for homosexuals.
Thus, it seems that in both instances, it is the fact of being homosexual itself that is taken as the expectation of a slippery slope of morals.
Consider the second argument. Accepting homosexuality, or allowing the law to be repealed, will actually promote homosexuality as an accepted way of life. This assumption goes to the very heart of what morality means as a way of life. The problem is, even if we accept non-homosexuality as a way of life, even if we reject homosexuality as an acceptable norm, it by no means is certain that by repealing the law or accepting other people as homosexuals, is promoting homosexuality at all.
One can reject homosexuality as the norm, and accept other people as homosexuals, without promoting it. Repealing the law does not in any way mean advocating for homosexuality.
This is because the basis for rejecting the law is due to reasons that are based on fair and just grounds, such as the idea that laws should treat all equally not on some perceived trait that the individuals cannot choose, or of some characteristic that has no definite way to prove that is solely the result of a person’s agency.
But even if it is assumed by opponents of repealing the law, that it is in fact due to a person’s agency to be able to choose one’s sexual orientation, then they have to ask why need a penalizing law that needs to promote the value that non-homosexuality is the norm, since it could be enforced or changed through appropriate policies such as education? Are penal laws tools for promoting values?
In this argument, repealing the law means promoting homosexuality; by not repealing the law means retaining non-homosexuality as a norm and a form of official recognition. In other words, not repealing the law means promoting non-homosexuality as the norm.
Since retaining the law also means promoting non-homosexuality as the norm, and because it is the problem of ‘promoting’ that is at issue, it seems like those who go by this argument are contradicting themselves. They say the state should not promote homosexuality, yet they want the state to promote non-homosexuality. If they say ‘promoting’ is the issue, why are they using the same justification to say the state should not promote, when in fact they are doing the very same thing? This self-contradiction shows that the argument is based on something else, and that something else is the fact of homosexuals being homosexuals.
Far more crucial is how the fact of being a homosexual itself is justification for the law to exist. Homosexuals are equated with a lifestyle that is claimed to cause immorality of a certain kind, that could very well be caused by a variety of factors, that in turn justifies a law that cannot justify its own logic. By saying it sends an implicit message to promote is denying the fact that it is also promoting. This makes the law, under the penal code that has real penalties, a tool of values rather than the actions of offenders, and rational justification.

For just US$7.50 a month, sign up as a subscriber on The Online Citizen Asia (and enjoy ads-free experience on our site) to support our mission to transform TOC into an alternative mainstream press.
Tags: featured

Related Posts

Current Affairs

China cannot be absent: Xi Jinping, in new year message

01/01/2016
Current Affairs

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss launches Mountbatten Manifesto

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

AHPETC Chairman’s Review

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

Is the “controversial” AHPETC management fee really that controversial?

31/08/2015
Current Affairs

Workers’ Party releases video of candidates

31/08/2015
Commentaries

Is the PAP really listening, or just hearing us?

31/08/2015
Subscribe
Connect withD
Login
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Notify of
Connect withD
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
10 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Latest posts

Singapore warns slower economic growth in 2023

Less than 1 in 10 jobs created in first three quarters of 2022 went to Singaporeans?

28/01/2023
Peru Congress rejects president’s plan for early elections

Peru Congress rejects president’s plan for early elections

28/01/2023
UMNO purging members as it sacks former health minister Khairy and suspended ex-defence minister Hishammuddin

UMNO purging members as it sacks former health minister Khairy and suspended ex-defence minister Hishammuddin

28/01/2023
WHO panel in talks on COVID emergency status

WHO panel in talks on COVID emergency status

27/01/2023

Two years after Myanmar coup, UN says situation ‘catastrophic’

27/01/2023
Grab driver supposedly earned $5,227.82 in a week prior CNY, netizens voice worries over his health

Grab driver supposedly earned $5,227.82 in a week prior CNY, netizens voice worries over his health

27/01/2023
Philippines to appeal ICC resumption of drug war probe

ICC grants new inquiry into Manila’s deadly ‘war on drugs’

27/01/2023
Minister refutes claims of Malaysia consulting Singapore on housing policy due to its inefficient civil service

Minister refutes claims of Malaysia consulting Singapore on housing policy due to its inefficient civil service

27/01/2023

Trending posts

Two Indian nationals paid about S$330 and S$730 respectively for forged certificates submitted in their S-Pass application

MOM found issuing EPs meant for foreign PMETs to PRC waitress and general worker

by Correspondent
26/01/2023
36

...

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

Earning only S$400 a month, delivery-rider turned hawker threw in the towel after two years of running a rojak stall

by Yee Loon
26/01/2023
23

...

Ho Ching breaks silence over Temasek’s write down of its US$275 million investment in FTX, says it “can afford to be contrarian”

US regulator questions VCs’ due diligence work prior to investing in FTX; Ho Ching says Temasek can afford to be contrarian

by The Online Citizen
24/01/2023
28

...

Indian rupee falls 60% since signing of CECA while Singapore becomes top investor in India

by Correspondent
25/01/2023
55

...

Temasek and GIC reportedly in talks with Adani Group accused of “brazen” market manipulation and accounting fraud

Temasek and GIC reportedly in talks with Adani Group accused of “brazen” market manipulation and accounting fraud

by The Online Citizen
26/01/2023
46

...

On repealing Section 377A – Part 1: Weaknesses in justification

by Howard Lee
05/11/2014
10

...

November 2014
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Oct   Dec »
  • About Us
  • Subscribe
  • Letter submission
  • Contact Us

© 2006 - 2021 The Online Citizen

No Result
View All Result
  • Opinion
    • Editorial
    • Commentaries
    • Comments
  • Current Affairs
    • Malaysia
    • Indonesia
    • China
    • ASEAN
    • Asia
    • International
  • Finance
    • Economics
    • Labour
    • Property
    • Business
  • Community
    • Civil Society
    • Arts & Culture
    • Consumer Watch
    • NGO
  • Politics
    • Parliament
    • Transport
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Housing
  • Law & Order
    • Legislation
    • Court Cases
  • Lifestyle
    • Travel
  • Subscribers login

© 2006 - 2021 The Online Citizen

wpDiscuz