StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In Singapore, where technically homosexuality is still considered as a crime, but homosexuals are not being prosecuted in the court, many people keep using social backlash as an argument against decriminalising homosexuality.

In many debate tournament, many people who are supposed to oppose gay marriages would argue using the same line of logic, and from time to time, bring up prop 8 as an example where the government must respect the views of the majority.

So, I have to ask, what sort of argument should I used against people who argued that social backlash is enough for us to deny homosexuals of marriage rights or continue to criminalise homosexuality?

If you are interested, this argument is also being used by our Minster Mentor.

We should do the moral option because other people might not like it? Is that seriously what they are arguing by social backlash?

Samuel wrote:We should do the moral option because other people might not like it? Is that seriously what they are arguing by social backlash?

It's "we shouldn't do th moral option because too many won't like it." Arguments brought forward have often make use of examples in regards to how civil liberty and the abolition of slavery was only passed because a majority of people supported this view, through the election of Johnson, Kennedy and Lincoln.

That it is necessarily to adopt a wait and see attitude towards decriminalising homosexuality down here and legalising gay marriages in the US.

Arguments brought forward have often make use of examples in regards to how civil liberty and the abolition of slavery was only passed because a majority of people supported this view, through the election of Johnson, Kennedy and Lincoln.

In the case of the United States Civil Rights movement there was an insane amount of opposition and the start was famously done by the US Supreme Court. In fact throughout the 60s and 70s the courts advanced civil liberties a massive amount in the face of repeated opposition.

The problem is that they are forgeting that people can and should be lead because they can have their minds changed by what is considered normal. Which is the sort of thing you'd expect authoritarians to understand- someone has to make the first step and why not the government?

Ideally, laws should be in place to protect the minority from the majority too. If the majority had all their way in "direct" democracy, then the majority would have all their way and there would be nothing to stop them from doing all sorts of things to the minorities - because the majority says so! Like, say, criminalizing the minority's existence or putting them in cotton farms.