Regarding this whole LGBT issue, it seems both parties have different fundamentals of what is right and wrong. The words 'right' and 'wrong' are used to represent something, just like 'lol' refers to laughing out loud, on their own accord they hold no intrinsic meaning. Is it an utilitarian view of collective pleasure versus pain, divine command, or a simple act of democratic consensus? Unless both camps can come to a basic agreement on such basic fundamentals, I'm afraid nothing constructive will arise out of this debacle.
Take the word 'Wakaka' for example. If Tribe A uses it to refer to a four-legged animal, and Tribe B uses it to refer to a three-legged animal. Who's right when both tribes argue about seeing one of these animals in the jungle? The answer is that none of them are right or wrong because the problem is not one concerning meaning but rather linguistics. I would agree that both camps have given their ideas of why LGBT is right and wrong respectively, but little effort has been made to dive into the nuts and bolts and truly agree on what it really means for something to be right and something to be wrong. The trouble with a linguistic battle versus a meaning-based discussion is that the best-sounding argument, and not necessarily the best argument, wins. Nothing constructive ever arises and instead you end up with social discord.
Where do we go from here? The anti-LGBT community are fighting to protect the traditional man-woman institution of a family while the pro-LGBT are defending their individual right to love. I believe such a discourse is premature given that we have not properly established agreed-upon principles of right and wrong. Both camps ought to take a step back and settle the basics before moving forward.
I will be more specific. 'Right' and 'Wrong' can stand for three broad themes - the first being collective pleasure versus pain, i.e utilitarianism. Is LGBT activism causing more harm than good?
The second is divine command. Does God say that gay activism is right or wrong?
Lastly, we have democratic consensus. Do the majority of the people support gay activism?
My question to both sides is, which are you choosing? If both of you have been choosing different themes, then this is no different from Tribes A and B arguing over whether they spotted a Wakaka or not. In my opinion, divine command and utilitarianism are not the best representation of right and wrong. Firstly, divine command is only applicable to the select community who subscribe to that religion. It cannot be an all-encompassing rule for non-subscribers. What reason is there to believe that the Christian's worldview or Muslim's worldview should hold dominance? That is rather selfish and arrogant. Therefore, the religious sector should not be repeatedly writing about how God does not approve of LGBT activism, LGBT sexual intercourse, and so on. Such statements only hold meaning at the subscriber level but not the entire set of subscribers and non-subscribers. In other words, the statement 'God prohibits gay activism' only holds meaning at the subscriber level, but once you go above that level, it becomes utterly meaningless. Secondly, a utilitarian approach would not be optimal for such a dispute because unlike murder and smoking, of which harms versus benefits can be easily quantified and measured, the issue of LGBT is deeply social. How do you quantify damages to the straight community if the Pink Dot were to be held at Hong Lim Park? By the same token, how do you quantify benefits to the LGBT community if the event is held? Lastly, if you are unable to quantify both harm and benefits, how do you decide, on utilitarian terms, which is better for society, and as a result, what is the 'right' or 'wrong' action?
The last indicator, though I must emphasize not being necessarily the best, is democratic consensus. LGBT activism ought to go as far as the majority of Singaporeans allow it to. This is because democratic consensus directly measures the amount of unhappiness versus happiness that is produced by any outcome. If I am at a dinner with 10 Muslims, and eating pork offends all of them, I will not eat. If I am eating at a dinner with 9 atheists and 1 Muslim, and choosing not to eat pork will make the Muslim happy with no effect whatsoever on the 9 atheists, I will not eat pork. If choosing not to eat pork offends 9 atheists and only pleases 1 Muslim, and given that I want to eat pork anyway, I will carry on and eat pork. Note, however, that controls must be placed to safeguard the dignity of an individual. Therefore such a philosophy of 'democratic consensus' will certainly not apply to murdering someone without basis just because everyone else wants him to be murdered. I wish to emphasize again, democratic consensus is not the perfect indicator of right and wrong, but it is the best we've got.
As it stands, the LGBT community is a minority in society. This does not, however, mean that a democratic process would be disadvantageous to the LGBT community. Plenty of straight people would readily vote for the LGBT's right to love. It is by the same token that minority races in Singapore are allowed to practice their religion and have public holidays for their religious events just like the majority.
In conclusion, what I recommend to the leading representatives of the anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT community is to firstly establish the fundamental principles of what is right and wrong and to agree on the same definitions. As I have explained, I believe that democratic consensus ought to be the principle we use for this situation (though in other non-LGBT related cases, other principles are better if used). If both parties choose to agree on democratic consensus, then a top-notch, non-biased research company should be employed to conduct a nation-wide study on Singaporean's perceptions toward LGBT activism. The research findings should be presented to the government who will attempt to form a policy that best represents this data while at the same time remaining congruent with our long-term socioeconomic needs and structure. The final draft of the policy will be presented to leading representatives of the pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT community in a closed-room discussion. Both camps will be allowed to present their own research data to dispute the findings but the final decision will rest with the government. Some people may be against the idea of the government having the final say. I wish there would be a better way, as well, but given that the government alone holds all information that concerns our social and economic infrastructure, they are the best persons to make the decision. So if you don't support their decision, you can vote them out, but that's a different topic. Once this is settled, new laws and policies will be created. These, I would say, are the best representation of what the people of Singapore want. It may not necessarily be a pro-LGBT or an anti-LGBT measure, it could be a compromise between both sides. It will not please everyone, but it will certainly please the most people possible.
Lastly, I believe that the current trend of taking the issue to the newspapers to confront and condemn does not profit anyone. Unless someone can come up with a better method of resolving this issue than the one I have laid out above, then the above-mentioned method should be carried out without any interference or discord sown through social media because all it does is to promote hatred and intolerance for each other. Pain that serves no purpose should not be dealt. Thank You.
A Thinker
TRS Contributor