Darren Boon
“Crazy times” was what Leigh Pasqual described Dr Thio Li Ann’s appointment as visiting professor at New York University (NYU) on a Facebook note.
Dr Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) will be teaching ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’ during NYU’s Fall 09 Semester under the faculty’s Global Visiting Professor of Law programme.
Dr Thio’s biodata on the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law website lists one of her teaching subjects as ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’. She has a keen research interest in ‘Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Asia’ and ‘International Human Rights Law and The Rights of Peoples’, and has written extensively on the issues of human rights.
Ms Pasqual, a Singaporean living in New York put up the note on her Facebook page after receiving a forwarded email about Dr Thio’s appointment sent out by OUTlaw. OUTlaw is an organisation for LGBT students as well as for LGBT supporters and friends, and “actively promotes queer visibility on campus and acts as watchdog for LGBT issues arising within NYU and across the globe”.
OUTlaw issued a board statement to condemn Dr Thio’s parliamentary speeches over her support to keep 377A as “intolerant” and “reprehensible”. Her statements raise “serious questions about her fitness to teach a course on human rights”. Yet OUTlaw also notes Dr Thio’s contribution to the field of academia and to her being “a fierce defender of minority rights”.
At the same time, OUTlaw has urged the law faculty to issue a statement to condemn Dr Thio’s comments in parliament and reassert the faculty’s commitment to diversity. However, the Board hopes to engage in “respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights” instead of fighting Dr Thio’s offensive views by silencing her.
Meanwhile Ms Pasqual has through her Facebook note urged “any self-respecting NYU student” to question the appointment of Dr Thio by writing in to the Vice Deans of the faculty.
“I hope you will question this appointment of someone who openly supports the criminalisation of gay people, who professes to be an expert in the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but fails to practise what it preaches, and who uses her evangelical beliefs to colour her application of the law,” Ms Pasqual wrote.
Ms Pasqual also highlighted Dr Thio’s mother Dr Thio Su Mien’s as the “mastermind” of the failed “coup” at AWARE.
Calling Dr Thio’s appointment an oxymoron, Ms Pasqual said that one could not be a good human rights lawyer while espousing the opposite of what human rights are about.
“As I said she also professes to be an expert on CEDAW. And one of the key elements of CEDAW is to ensure that countries’ constitutions adequately reflect the rights of people, including women and gay people,” Ms Pasqual said.
A lively exchange ensued over Ms Pasqual’s Facebook note. Nick Lum was one who defended NYU’s move. He argued that Dr Thio’s appointment was made possible because institutions in the United States favour a variety of dissenting views, arguments and perspectives to allow students to have a “full flavour” and understanding of different perspectives.
Mr Lum wrote: “To be fair, Dr Thio is a rather known human rights lawyer. It is only the one point on homosexuality that she allows her religion to cloud her rationality.”
He later added that it would be better to challenge Dr Thio’s faith rather than her credentials during her lectures so that she would be “able to see the light and contradictions in her actions”.
Tris Xavier, 25, doing a law pupillage said: “Dr Thio might be the closest thing we have to a constitutional law advocate in Singapore. Her view on constitutionalism comes the closest to the US view on it.”
Mr Xavier told Ms Pasqual: “I’d advise you to alternatively not allow your view of her religion-imposing, wrong as she was, to colour your view of her teachings.”
When queried by The Online Citizen over Dr Thio’s appointment, Jason Casell, Public Affairs Officer, School of Law, said that Dr Thio had been selected for the appointment based on her published academic scholarship, and not on the basis of her parliamentary statements in her capacity as an NMP.
“We believe that she will make a valuable contribution to our Global classroom and to intellectual life of the law school when she is here this fall,” Mr Casell said.
Noting that the Law school has a long record of opposing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and for being supportive of the GLBT community, Ms Casell believes that there will be members of the faculty, staff and student body who will disagree with Dr Thio over the content of her speech.
“We expect a dynamic exchange on these issues. This is what makes institutions of higher learning so indispensable to our society — the ability to provide a forum for these kinds of exchanges,” he added.
Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he would not advise NYU to rescind the invitation to Thio to teach there. But he said that it would be legitimate to raise questions about whether she should be teaching human rights.
“Academic freedom protects you from retaliation for your extramural remarks, but it does not protect you from being prohibited from teaching in an area where you are not professionally competent, and there are doubts on whether she has the competency in human rights,” Nelson said. He said that there is in fact an “international consensus, save a few countries like Iran” that gay people should not be treated as criminals.
——
Excerpts from Inside Higher Ed:
Should someone who teaches human rights back human rights for all people?
That’s the question being raised by some students at New York University’s law school, who are upset that a visiting professor in the fall semester, slated to teach human rights law, is Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. Thio has argued repeatedly and graphically that her country should continue to criminalize gay sexual acts.
NYU OUTLaw, a group of gay and lesbian students at the law school, last week sent an e-mail message to all students drawing attention to Thio’s statements, saying that it was crucial to “raise awareness of anti-gay statements made by an NYU visiting professor” because “it is important for LGBT students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.”
Read the full article here.
From Above The Law:
Academic freedom is a beautiful thing, essential to our nation’s celebrated system of higher education. And, to borrow the words of Dick Cheney on gay marriage, “freedom means freedom for everyone” — including people whose ideas we might not like, or even find repugnant.
How far should academic freedom extend? That’s an issue being faced right now at NYU Law School. The following message went out to the law student community last week:
la nausée #345,
This is sufficient: “The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential… Non-marital intercourse, especially but not only homosexual, has no such point and therefore is unacceptable.”
A) “thrust”?
B) Tautology
C) The notion of romantic love in unions is a relatively new addition. I am sure there was some philosophical morality-twaddle about how marriage and sex, to be morally good, need only involve procreative potential.
D) “Morality” and social norms interact in an ecosystem. Neither one dictates the other. What is construed as moral/immoral in society can arise from the ground up, from individuals, from groups, via memes. That might have been the rationale behind the usage of the term “gay”. Mores shift when a critical mass is reached. Take KKK, who was laughed out of existence.
Sidelight: Some memes are more thick-skinned. (Morally) good sex for Moonies involves the couple and “father” himself. That is his portrait, looking down oh-so-approvingly. There are other weird directives like she goes on top for a certain number of days before they switch.
E) As for the indirect nod to religious beliefs; the claim is marriage has to be sanctified. (This raises the question: Should Atheists be allowed to marry?) We will almost definitely come to this point and hear this claim after 377A is dropped.
F) “Procreative potential” reeks of Ad Hoc. As Zefly pointed out, what about infertile couples?
G) I think Aristotle also said some pretty goofy things. Appeals to authority doesn’t work with me.
H) Yes, a lot of people buy into mumbo jumbo. So what? Most people, I believe, are not like H20; they care if their positions seem reasonable. Critical mass doesn’t mean the majority. The right information just has to reach the right people for the process to begin. The rest, to maintain a semblance of reasonableness conform.
The weight of scientific evidence can serve to expedite the process. At the other end of the spectrum, of course, is the religious. They will rail, kick, and punch, but eventually come round with some inane Ad Hoc rationale for their previous beliefs.
Hi Arix #276,
Thanks for revealing your agenda – promoting religious integrationalism to merge religious authorities for political domination. Religion is not and will not be Big Brother in a secular state!
Why do you think the purpose of this war of words is to seek your approval? Your approval has no legitimacy. Moreover, it is the opinion, not the population size that that determines left, centre or right, although right-wingers tend to form large fraction within any political band. The fact that you think religion is big brother in society reveals your right-winged agenda. Let me remind you again: the Christian Left-Centre-Right represents the continuum of political opinion within the Christian Community on how “Christian” the country should be. An important thing to note is Christian Political Ideologies started out along the denominational lines but denomination lines no longer matters today.
The far right wants to establish a Christian Theocratic State. However, the dominant ideology within the Christian Right is Christian Nationalism. The goal of Christian nationalists is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. The Christian Right rejects LGBT rights. As George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, wrote in his book “The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action”:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
Hi Arix #276,
[Continuation from previous post]
Next, we have the Christian Centre-Right whose dominating political ideology is Christian Democracy. An example of a ruling party that practises this ideology is the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Although Christian Democracy originated from the Catholic Church in the 19th century, there are non-Catholic Christians who subscribe to it, such as Lutheranist Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany). As a proponent of Catholic Social Teachings, Christian Democrats support traditional moral values although they have mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support.
Now, we come to the Christian Centre-Left which is dominated by Christian Socialism. Christian Socialism is influenced by the protestant Social Gospel Movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Christian Socialists apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Its left-leaning tendency reflects how Christian Socialists tend to exhibit anti-establishment thoughts within the Christian Hierachy. Interestingly, the modern civil rights movement shares certain ideals with Christian Socialism. However, Christian Socialists’ve mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a Christian Socialist.
Finally, we come to the Christian Left. There is no dominating Christian political ideology within the Christian Left while Christian Leftists support a variety of secular political ideologies that embrace the social justice ideal. The Christian Left sometimes differs from other Christian political groups on issues not due to substance but priority (e.g. criticising concentrations of wealth is more important than suppressing LGBT rights). However, some members of the Christian Left affirm that some homosexual practices are compatible with the Christian life and believe common biblical arguments used to condemn homosexuality are misinterpreted. Such views hold that the prohibition was actually against a specific type of homosexual sex act, pederasty or the sodomizing of young boys by older men. Thus, it is irrelevant when considering modern same-sex relationship.
As you can see here, a Christian Moderate / Progressive is hardly moderate in the Secular Political sense.
310) Zefly (aka Joshua Chiang) on July 16th, 2009 4.25 pm
“What I don’t understand is this – there are enough examples to show that the gay community is not a monolithic bunch of hedonistic sex-and-drugs-starved people.”: Zefly.
Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay? Do you not see that there are other non-religious, non-gays who are just as unaccepting of the gay lifestyles than the religious ones? There is a heightened confrontation against those who pose religious views, and this is understandable when we talk about Western societies where Christianity is the main religion, but we not talking about such a society, we are talking about a society like Singapore, where Christianity makes up nothing more than 10% of the population. Why then target your fight against the Christians as though they are the rulers of the land who hold the power to grant the gay his freedom to exercise his right to choose?
You guys are crucifying Thio as if the captivity of the gay is her doing and her fault. How unstable such thinking can be? Here in TOC, your views may get lots of support, but what Thio did for the non-gay community during the AWARE saga, was to bring awareness to the gay syllabus being taught in school. Now, without going into another round of debate, the general consensus among the larger population, Christians or others, is that they are grateful to her for bringing about such an awareness which otherwise would have gone unnoticed.
You ask me whether the softer approach will work. I tell you honestly, I do not know. But what I know is this, that the confrontational approach will bring about more heartaches, headaches and physical aches, as we have already come to learn from those societies that have taken such a route before us. Surely, you are not saying we must approach this issue in the same manner as them.
“I am under the impression that your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight but you still have a problem with homosexuality. If this is indeed the case, can you explain why?”: Sllim.
In the name of equality, everyone has the right to fight for his belief. I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for his belief, but I will have a problem if the approach taken is one that insults my being, my loved ones, the things that are dear and near to me, especially my faith in my unexplainable God. Insulting my God is akin to insulting my father, my mother, my spouse and my family.
You have said it quite clearly enough that your notion of God is that “He hates fags”. I won’t bring myself to blame you for harbouring such notion, suffice to enlighten you that God loves everyone, man, women and those caught up in their own identity. Those who have given you this notion that ‘God hates fags’, are not true disciples of the loving God. There are countless other aspects of God which even a few lifetimes will not bring you the enlightenment you need to fully understand and grasp His Almighty Being.
You ask what softer-approach will work on those not amenable to reason. Simple. The same approach that got 377 repealed, except for that portion in 377A.
Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good – as history has proven – and as being lived out in societies that are much more liberal and secular as ours.
271) la nausée on July 16th, 2009 12.20 am
“If you go the full distance with the subjectivist/relativist perspective … why should Culture/Religion X, which believes that all persons below a certain height should be killed…”
If you really go the ‘distance’, then there are plenty of strawmans for me to put up. For example, culture depends largely on the surroundings. if the surrounding is made up of tall grass of x height, and people who are lost in the grass will suffer a fate worse than death, than a culture might emerge that people who are below x height will be killed, to save them the suffering.
Going the ‘distance’ is not a very good method of knocking down arguments. For the opponent can easily go a further ‘distance’.
“You ask me whether the softer approach will work. I tell you honestly, I do not know.”
… I would have assumed before you start criticizing, you would at least have thought of alternatives. What made you think it hadn’t been thought of before? AND, what made you so sure that it is not being practiced by a larger(?) bunch of GLBT just going about their lives and changing people’s opinions of them by virtue of just being ‘normal’?
“Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay?”
Yes. But this is a contest of ideas. Unfortunately in the contest of ideas, the group that can at least articulate their stand, and with the capabilities to fudge the topic AND make it sound like a reasonable argument are the Christian fanatics.
They’re not being singled out for their beliefs, but for their ability to influence and lobby.
“You guys are crucifying Thio as if the captivity of the gay is her doing and her fault. How unstable such thinking can be? ”
Neither are we a monolithic bunch – I do not necessarily agree with everything that had been said of her. And on that note, didn’t you just do the same with Alex Au as if he is the sole spokesperson for the GLBT? And so far, the example you quoted was his use of the phrase ‘Singapore shown to be a fool’ – which is an issue of semantics. There is a whole world of difference between that phrase, and ‘Singaporeans are fools’ which is the reason you took offense.
“Thio did for the non-gay community during the AWARE saga, was to bring awareness to the gay syllabus being taught in school. ”
By the mere virtue that you called it a ‘gay syllabus’ indicates you bought into the notion that there was a ‘gay agenda’ to begin with. You may wanna ask instead where did the insinuation that there was an agenda come from?
“But what I know is this, that the confrontational approach will bring about more heartaches, headaches and physical aches”
And a conclliatory approach any less?
“Those who have given you this notion that ‘God hates fags’, are not true disciples of the loving God. ”
Then for God’s sake, go out and do something about it. Think of ways to convince the mass of people whom you said are put off by the confrontational approach.
Enough of the Devil’s Advocate. We get your point. Time to be an Angel.
353) gemami on July 17th, 2009 8.22 am
“Does it not also seem to you that the non-gay community is not a bunch of monolithic religious fanatics too, that stand in the way of the gay? ”
Isn’t the ‘opposing’ group ANTI-gay (not non-gay)? I mean, I am non-gay, but still pro-human (including gay) rights….
And though you weren’t asking me, it does seem that the anti-gays do give an impression that they are a more homogeneous group than others.
HI Gemami,
You wrote: Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good – as history has proven – and as being lived out in societies that are much more liberal and secular as ours.
You just thrown out a red-herring. Our Parliament consists of 9 Catholics, 25 Christians (Non-Catholic) and 12 Muslims. I single out the Abrahamic Religions because their followers are well-known to be anti-gay. In total, there are 93 MPs (Elected, Nominated and Non-Constituency) in Parliament. In another words, the anti-gay fraction represents 49.5% of Parliament.
HI Gemami,
You wrote: Religion is but only one of the stumbling blocks in your way. It is a small stumbling block in secular Singapore. This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority. The unfathomable component of religion will do you no good…
You are wrong. Our Parliament consists of 9 Catholics, 25 Christians (Non-Catholic) and 12 Muslims. I single out the Abrahamic Religions because their followers are well-known to be anti-gay. In total, there are 93 MPs (Elected, Nominated and Non-Constituency) in Parliament. In another words, the anti-gay fraction represents 49.5% of Parliament.
I really question whether Arix is bigoted or misguided. I think he is concealing information in an attempt to gain the moral upper ground. For the sake of discussion, I will expand the following points on the Christian Left-Centre-Right Continuum.
An important thing to note is Christian Political Ideologies started out along the denominational lines but denomination lines no longer matters today.
The far right wants to establish a Christian Theocratic State. However, the dominant ideology within the Christian Right is Christian Nationalism. The goal of Christian nationalists is the restoration of the imagined Christian nation. The Christian Right rejects LGBT rights.
George Grant, former executive director of Coral Ridge Ministries, described Christian Nationalism in his book “The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action”:
“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish.”
Next, we have the Christian Centre-Right whose dominating political ideology is Christian Democracy. An example of a ruling party that practises this ideology is the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Although Christian Democracy originated from the Catholic Church in the 19th century, there are non-Catholic Christians who subscribe to it, such as Lutheranist Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany). As a proponent of Catholic Social Teachings, Christian Democrats support traditional moral values although they have mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support.
Now, we come to the Christian Centre-Left which is dominated by Christian Socialism. Christian Socialism is influenced by the protestant Social Gospel Movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Christian Socialists apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, weak labour unions, poor schools, and the danger of war. Its left-leaning tendency reflects how Christian Socialists tend to exhibit anti-establishment thoughts within the Christian Hierachy. Interestingly, the modern civil rights movement shares certain ideals with Christian Socialism. However, Christian Socialists’ve mixed position on abortion and LGBT rights – from outright rejection to full support. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a Christian Socialist.
Finally, we come to the Christian Left. There is no dominating Christian political ideology within the Christian Left while Christian Leftists support a variety of secular political ideologies that embrace the social justice ideal. The Christian Left sometimes differs from other Christian political groups on issues not due to substance but priority (e.g. criticising concentrations of wealth is more important than suppressing LGBT rights). However, some members of the Christian Left affirm that some homosexual practices are compatible with the Christian life and believe common biblical arguments used to condemn homosexuality are misinterpreted. Such views hold that the prohibition was actually against a specific type of homosexual sex act, pederasty or the sodomizing of young boys by older men. Thus, it is irrelevant when considering modern same-sex relationship.
As you can see here, a Christian Moderate / Progressive is hardly moderate in the Secular Political sense.
Arix discharged a lot of hot air in #278.
Arix is really dense. Arix wrote: I am categorically against that type of discrimination i.e. points 1-to-3 of the Homosexual Civil Rights Movement Agenda. Incidentally, Point 3 refers to anti-discrimination public policy and law, which criminalises the act of pronouncing homosexuality as immoral. Arix also refused to reject Theistic Evolution as a scientific theory. Silly boy!
Arix referred to Amnesty International for the description of “the jailing of Jehovah’s Witnesses as the Jailing of Prisoners of Conscience”, I would like refer Arix to this URL where it shows Amnesty International supporting LGBT rights.. Religious freedom is not an open license to discriminate. Go learn from Amnesty International…
Arix wrote: I respect that as long as there is no discovered and proven method of removing this need, they should either be permitted to do whatever they need to do, or be persuaded to voluntarily restrain themselves.
Last I check, the Church resents Atheists persuading Christians to voluntarily give up their religion. I also resent the Church sending its members to persuade me to give up sex voluntarily. The Church has no business to intrude or advise how I lead my life. There is no proven need for religion (evidenced by the existence of atheists and agnostics) as well. According to Arix’s logic, Atheists/Agnostics should have free access to convince Christians to abandon their faith and the Church should not resent.
Arix wrote: I believe that the State should not interfere in Citizens’ private affairs. Does that mean citizens have business to interfere other citizens private affairs? He just want to discriminate and be not told to discriminate. I also think the right to be a Christian is similar to the “right” to have cancer. Christianity is a lifestyle choice and it is a choice not made at the subconcious level. I would love to arrange counselling for Arix to repress his need to be “Christian”.
Good point <lobo76. The target for conversion should be the non-gays then because you will not get anywhere with the anti-gays.
LGBT_Observer: you are equating one’s religious belief to be a direct opposition to anti-gay sentiments. This is flawed. I am Christian but I also belief the gays have their place in society.
Your examination of the various Christian compositions does nothing but suggest that these are powerful groups that acts against the non-discrimination of gays. How can this be true when these compositions, put together, makes up less than 10% of the entire population. So again, your reasoning is flawed and is only applicable to some of the Western societies where Christianity is the main religious influence, like I have said so earlier.
Zefly, You are right. The time to play Devil’s Advocate is over, and if you have not noticed the change in tone in my latest postings, then allow me to state clearly that I am rather pissed by the constant bickering against issues that will get the gay groups no where near what they so desire.
I am pissed, because even my gay friends around me are pissed. Here are people picking a fight that will do the gay groups no favour. These gay friends around me are eagerly yearning for these smart ones to go try and convert those who are non-gays and who are not anti-gays.
“….changing people’s opinions of them by virtue of just being ‘normal’?” Zefly.
Ha! Ha! Even you are having trouble describing the gay.
“ Unfortunately in the contest of ideas, the group that can at least articulate their stand, and with the capabilities to fudge the topic AND make it sound like a reasonable argument are the Christian fanatics”: Zefly.
It is unfortunate indeed that the losers are the ones who always make claims of unfairness. By the soft tissues in your head, go do what these so-called Christian fanatics do, in terms of articulation. Apart from one or two vocal ones, have you seen or heard any other Christians offering their opinions in an hotbed environment? Sometimes, the silent articulation works better. But in your case, and in the case of the gay groups, they ought to sit up and take your advice ”…not to single out their belief but to cultivate the ability to influence and lobby”.
“Neither are we a monolithic bunch”: Zefly.
This is amusing. You know what? It would be better for the gays if they are monolithic. That way, there will be less ‘unacceptable’ issues to consider. Remember my call to get its house in order?
“… didn’t you just do the same with Alex Au as if he is the sole spokesperson for the GLBT?”: Zefly.
OK, valid observation.
“By the mere virtue that you called it a ‘gay syllabus’ indicates you bought into the notion that there was a ‘gay agenda’ to begin with. You may wanna ask instead where did the insinuation that there was an agenda come from?”: Zefly.
It is a gay agenda, in stealth, never mind where it came from.
“And a conclliatory approach any less?” :Zefly.
You believe?
Gemani,
Being pissed is not an action. Eagerly yearning is not an action. If you feel that taking on a softer approach is a better way, by all means go ahead. Go out there and convert those who are non-gay and not anti-gay. What’s stopping you or your friends?
Hope is nothing without action.
“Remember my call to get its house in order?”
Yes, do it please.
Get the monogamist gay people to ‘police’ the hedonistic gay people – tell them to stop their promiscuity and their drug-use because this negative stereotype is what sticks in people’s mind.
Get them to also tell those more effeminate ones to rein in their effeminacy because that’s another rope that the majority finds disdainful.
Get them to tell the butches to stop being so.. butchy.
Essentially put on a more pleasing front – don’t give the discriminators any rope to hang them with.
Also, persuade all of them agree to come to a compromise with the other camp – Agree that in return for removal of section 377a, never to bring up the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption.
Good luck with that.
Zefly:
You make it sound so easy, and that’s what it is all about isn’t it? So come one, come all! Enough of this bickering along lines that do no one any good. You guys have your work cut out for you and you need to go out there more than I.
;)
“Enough of this bickering along lines that do no one any good.’
then why respond? ;)
@Zefly (#350-351), you said: “I can’t see how the an act of sex between a married couple who do it out of pure mutual gratification and as an expression of emotional bonding – but taking measures to prevent the fulfilment of the procreative potential- is any more morally good than that of those between a committed homosexual couple!
…
And by the same token, sex between INFERTILE people should be considered morally wrong since there is no procreative potential to speak of!
The argument does go the whole hog, although it draws a distinction between biological and mechanical barriers. i.e. If a married couple is infertile and has sex, the limiting biological condition does not prevent them from realizing the unitive two-part good of marriage (affection + children). However, if they deliberately set up mechanical barriers to procreation (contraceptives, coitus interruptus), then their sex is as morally worthless as masturbation, homosexual sex, etc., since it’s sex that involves only affection. Since the sexual activity cannot realize the moral good it seeks to achieve, all that one is doing is treating one’s body as an instrument, and therefore dehumanizing onself (interestingly, even Kant condemned masturbation on similar grounds).
Would you say that a person willing to bite the bullet and condemn the use of contraceptives, as well as masturbation and adultery, would be justified in condemning homosexual sex as well? Of course, he or she might believe at the same time that such immoral acts ought not to be criminalized, but purely on pragmatic grounds. So theoretically, if such acts somehow became a real threat to society, the State could legitimately criminalize masturbation, adultery, etc.
@lobo76 (#354), you said: “If you really go the ‘distance’, then there are plenty of strawmans for me to put up. For example, culture depends largely on the surroundings. if the surrounding is made up of tall grass of x height, and people who are lost in the grass will suffer a fate worse than death, than a culture might emerge that people who are below x height will be killed, to save them the suffering.”
Again, that’s a useless rebuttal, because all you’re saying is that objective moral standards will generate different conclusions under different factual circumstances. The bolded phrase gives this away: your controlling moral principle is that of minimizing suffering, which justifies the killing (something like euthanasia) in the society described. In short, Suffering A (getting killed) is outweighed by Suffering B (being lost in the grass) in this case; but in another case where Suffering B does not exist, then inflicting Suffering A would be wrong.
This shows that even when you’re citing examples from other cultures which ‘prove’ relativism, you cannot divorce your narration of that cultural practice from some implicit moral judgment. So why not make those moral judgments explicit, rather than cloaking oneself in false neutrality?
369) la nausée
Masturbation should be criminalized because it’s an awful waste of sperm.
370) la nausée on July 17th, 2009 1.08 pm
“So why not make those moral judgments explicit, rather than cloaking oneself in false neutrality?”
First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. Do not do this, or do not do that. etc Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.
Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?
Which may lead to a third point. What is the definition of ‘objective’ here? Are there limit/constraints involved? For example, are we talking about morality in the 21st century only? Are we limiting it to ‘civilized’ societies as we know it? i.e tribes in some ulu area excluded.
In short, to answer your question… ‘false neutrality’ may be the only logical possible position for a objective person to take. People are certainly free to make explicit their ownmoral judgements, but should not expect everyoneto follow them.
And man-man sex is not a waste of sperm?
no, cos the protein is good for anal complexion… For God’s sake, Gemami, have a sense of humor please!
“Masturbation should be criminalized because it’s an awful waste of sperm.”
haha…. you are right. Just imagine 5 millions “potential-to-be” innocent children died of that. We male are just born to be murderer , haha.
….b…b…but…I was being humurous wat …..
wahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
lobo76 (#372), you said:
“First, I just want to point out that the ‘morals’ being spouted so far are superficial. … Even your example of “people below height x should be killed being classified as immoral is superficial. NO underlying reason were ever given. At least no valid ones.
How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?
Disagreements surrounding these moral standards do occur, but they are generally disagreements over how the standards ought to be applied in specific cases, not over the standards themselves.
Which brings me to the second point. What is ‘valid’ reasons? That differs from person to person, from place to place, from time to time. Reasons also allude to having an goal/target/objective. But these also differ. So how can an objective moral possibly exist?
In everyday discourse, people readily recognize what qualifies as a valid moral reason. “I punched her because she had blonde hair” is not obviously a valid reason. Neither is “I stole a pair of shoes from the store ‘cos I was feeling bored”. Conversely, “I drove at 120km/h ‘cos I had to rush my very sick daughter to the hospital” counts as a valid reason.
The fact is, we can argue about relativism and subjectivism until we’re blue in the face… and then we’ll each happily go on with our lives, passing moral judgments of our own, even elsewhere on TOC itself, over MAS’ financial losses, the profligacy of civil servants, the poor calibre of the new NMPs, and the thousands of issues and people which concern our lives. A relativist stance is at best an indulgence for our free time, just like other philosophical oddities like the ‘brain-in-a-vat’ and the ‘free will’ problem.
People are certainly free to make explicit their own moral judgements, but should not expect everyone to follow them.
Nor am I insisting that we should. However, moral discourse involves a certain common vocabulary which all of us can engage in, making discussion possible. It explains why we can disagree meaningfully at all, rather than every one speaking his or her own peculiar language, “You shouldn’t take other people’s things, only those which are irregularly-shaped”; “Taking people’s things is okay if you take a maximum of two per day.” Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity.
Gemami #355,
A) Your response mis-addresses my point. “I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for his belief” doesn’t answer the question of whether your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight.
Perhaps my wording was unclear.
“right in the equal-rights fight” is not equivalent to “right in fighting for equal rights”
Simply put: do you think equal rights should be afforded to gays? Why?
B) Does pointing out that the anti-gay movement is driven in part by religious convictions insult your being, your loved ones, the things that are dear and near to you…?
C) “God hates fags” is not my notion of God. It is Fred Phelps’, a rather infamous christian bigot. I was quoting him. One thing that can be said for Freddy is he doesn’t pretend to be politically-correct, or reasonable, or that his convictions need anything other than the inerrant word of God.
D) Oh, the famous inscrutability of God(s). It’s just seems all too convenient that God(s) is plenty explicit when used to reinforce a position but infinitely inscrutable when used to defend one. Would you accept this rationale from adherents of other Gods should their beliefs come in conflict with your own?
E) Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t 377 repealed largely because it was just too disingenuous to be held up anymore? If that’s the case, is that the “approach” you would suggest the gays take? Hang in there until people realize 377A is ridiculous?
F) And if 377A is repealed and the fight moves on to same-sex marriage, would your advice be the same?
G) “This is why the gays have to reassess their approach and work with the other ‘neutral’ majority.”
If finger-pointing at Religion is without grounds, then yes I agree, it is counter-productive to lay the blame at the feet of shadows.
But what if religion is a vocal stumbling block? (Small doesn’t mean less vocal or less influential.) Would you then agree that gays should take them on, and call them out?
378) la nausée on July 17th, 2009 7.22 pm
#How about (1) the sanctity of human life; and (2) the fact that a person’s height is not generally a valid basis for discrimination in deciding who should live or die?#
The point is, if one is arguing for an absolute morality (moral absolutism in philosophical terms), the above 2 questions are irrelevant. To quote wikipedia (I believe it is)
“Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).” This is the same point I was trying to make in an earlier post (which for some reason or other TOC feels is in need of moderation and has not put up yet)
#Disagreement is possible, rather than nonsensical, because we all begin from the same rough starting-point, with a working set of abstract moral standards. Relativism denies this, and thus leads us into absurdity#
Relativism does not deny disagreement over different moral positions. Although there are no absolute, concrete rights or wrongs in relativism, intrinsic ethical judgements do exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook. That being so, disagreement is possible in relativism. On the other hand if moral absolutism dictates that certain actions are right or wrong e.g. “The statement “wearing black shoes is wrong” regardless of the context of the act, what room is there left for disagreement?
@LadyMadonna (#380):
To adopt the Wikipedia article’s terms, I am arguing in favour of moral objectivism/realism, not moral absolutism. To quote from a helpful distinction it makes:
* “Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.”
* “Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.”
I think moral absolutism (e.g., the Kantian categorical imperative) is untenable; there is never one moral principle which wins out in all contexts. We often need to balance several moral principles (e.g., in the context of 377A, the right to privacy vs. the value of family and child-raising). But the ‘several moral principles’ are objective, in the sense of being valid regardless of social custom. This is the subtext of the ‘repeal 377A’ movement, isn’t it? Morality cannot be held hostage by custom.
Genuine disagreement implies something to disagree over. For example, “I disagree with your giving priority to the value of embryonic life over the mother’s right to autonomous choice over her own body.” Disagreement implies that we are using the same moral building-blocks, albeit in different ways. In short, moral objectivism. Relativism, on the other hand, would simply insist that the concepts and values of one culture/religion/person cannot be compared to those of another culture/religion/person. If so, any ‘disagreement’ would be empty, a case of me liking vanilla and you liking peppermint and you trying to ‘demonstrate’ that I’m ‘wrong’. There’d be no room for any moral discourse — and yet, moral discourse takes place all the time around us.
This thread is now closed for further comments.