I shall now “promote homosexuality”, part 2

In this Part 2, I shall now “promote homosexuality” to kids with this animated cartoon on Youtube titled “Is homosexuality a choice?” Of course, there’s only one answer, if one relies on facts. (Thanks to Kelvin Wong for the Youtube link).

The expression “promoting homosexuality” in Singapore bureaucratese is used to mean saying or doing anything that negates the attempts by the Singapore government and its Fundamentalist Christian allies to characterise homosexuality as a moral threat to society and to demonise gay people. Any attempt (e.g. this video) to explain that gay people, gay relationships and gay sex are pretty ordinary is thus an act that “promotes homosexuality”, as here:

7 Responses to “I shall now “promote homosexuality”, part 2”

  1. 1 skeptic 21 June 2010 at 15:08

    Whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic is a red herring argument.

    The key issue is the freedom to choose (as long as nobody else gets hurt).

    You don’t see people debating whether preferring coke to pepsi is due to nature or nurture because the real issue is the person’s freedom to choose.

    One can also argue that Christianity is unnatural, since you don’t see animals kneel down infront of a cross and mumble to themselves. 🙂

    • 2 Raphael Wong 22 June 2010 at 17:19


      (1) Yes, indeed.

      (2) Not quite. The issue is on Legal Freedom (what the law should proscribe) and on moral freedom (what a person should do). The Right argues that Legal Freedom should be proscribed according to moral freedom (which I disagree mostly), and the Left implies that Legal Freedom equals moral freedom (which I also disagree with mostly). “Freedom to Choose” means that you need to be held accountable for your actions, and that the consequences of your actions can be held up for debate and examination; people who propose the “gay gene” theory are trying to avoid this second part.

      SO the two issues are: the Mandate of Law (which the Right & Fundies reject) and the responsibility to accept critque (which Alex and the Left reject).

      (3) What is “unnatural” for us depends on our human nature (in the wider sense), not on what is “natural” for animals.

  2. 3 Supersasha 22 June 2010 at 08:55

    When people choose to not listen or cannot be reasoned with, you can show them GOD telling them that they are bigots for ocstracising Gays, and they still wouldn’t believe you.
    I agree we should do our part in educating the public.
    Post the video on your facebook.
    Let as many people see this video.
    Let them make up their own minds.
    Slowly but progressively chip away their prejudice.

    • 4 Raphael Wong 22 June 2010 at 17:33


      this video promotes an ideological standpoint; it does not “educate” at all. All this video serves to do is alienate conservatives more and strengthen the defensive fortress for liberals. It does not bring both closer to dialogue.

      Yes, I love the “expert” list provided at one part of the video, and I saw the entire “expert” list on the APA’s website. This, incidentally, is argumentum ad Bacculum (Argument from Force) using the Appeal to Authority. For each entry in the list, it is not hard to see the vested interests at play; it is to be noted that the decision could simply have been endorsed for the sake of comfort, as opposed to educated learning.

      The same-thing about Ex-Gay ministries. How about people who truly claim to be ex-gay themselves? Do they fit the “sly apologists” that come out of the factory in the video?

      And of course: Correlation does not imply causation.

      All I see in the video is the LGBT activists’ prejudice against Christianity, and particularly Evangelical Christianity.

  3. 5 skeptic 22 June 2010 at 21:16

    “What is “unnatural” for us depends on our human nature (in the wider sense), not on what is “natural” for animals.”

    Since there is no external reference frame (i.e. animal kingdom), it seems quite circular.

  4. 6 anon1 23 June 2010 at 01:07

    “3) What is “unnatural” for us depends on our human nature (in the wider sense), not on what is “natural” for animals.”

    Yes, is RW suggesting that humans are not a part of the animal kingdom? I’m guessing he’s studying philosophy, not biology. The only reason this argument about nature ever came up is because certain people claimed that man was unique in engaging in homosexuality (that argument still comes up), and that it never occurred among animals. That’s been shown to be totally untrue, so now they reverse position and say it’s not in man’s nature and we’re not animals. Homophobes are a funny lot really. They go to such twisted lengths to try and justify what is just plain prejudice.

    ” each entry in the list, it is not hard to see the vested interests at play”

    – er, yes it is. What vested interests? All the professional psych organisations in the world are making it up? To what end? Alternatively, some religious groups (and RW, apparently) do have a vested interest in trying to discredit the overwhelming evidence against their interpretation of the issue, as otherwise it might lead them to have to challenge what they’ve been told by some religious authority that they should believe.

    The reference to professional bodies in the video not an “appeal to authority”, it’s a reference to the massive body of research carried out by professionals. An appeal to authority would be “because it says so in the Bible” – which is possibly what RW is trying desperately to avoid saying, but what he actually believes, judging by all the reversed logic.

  5. 7 yawningbread 24 June 2010 at 21:18

    This thread closed.

Comments are currently closed.

%d bloggers like this: