In the aftermath of the ordination of an Episcopal homosexual priest in US, there was a heated, ongoing Malaysiakini discussion on homosexuality. And the issue of inconsistency has been the single, most frequently used argument leveled against those who have moral objection against it. Here, I'd just like to make a few observations about what this argument could prove and what it cannot.
Firstly, it could possibly reveal that the opponent may harbor some ulterior motives (homophobia) in raising this objection selectively.
Secondly, it may show a logical lapse in applying his principles on other issues like divorce/remarriage in Malaysia, eugenics in Singapore, polygamy in Nigeria etc.
But the argument from inconsistency can do absolutely nothing to counter the moral, scientific or theological arguments offered against homosexuality. Suppose those who oppose homosexuality were to bite the bullet and say, "Yes, I'm inconsistent. But does that in any way invalidate my argument that homosexuality is morally wrong?"
It's like saying: You can't consistently join the national campaign for AIDS prevention if you don't spend time and energy to fight against other diseases like cancer, diabetes, dengue etc. also. Ultimately, this argument is fallacious and could cut both ways.
Even if a person may be wrong in the other issues, he could still get it right in his moral objection against homosexuality. For who among us is perfectly consistent in speaking up against every form of injustice around the world? Let him who is perfectly consistent cast the first stone!
Firstly, it could possibly reveal that the opponent may harbor some ulterior motives (homophobia) in raising this objection selectively.
Secondly, it may show a logical lapse in applying his principles on other issues like divorce/remarriage in Malaysia, eugenics in Singapore, polygamy in Nigeria etc.
But the argument from inconsistency can do absolutely nothing to counter the moral, scientific or theological arguments offered against homosexuality. Suppose those who oppose homosexuality were to bite the bullet and say, "Yes, I'm inconsistent. But does that in any way invalidate my argument that homosexuality is morally wrong?"
It's like saying: You can't consistently join the national campaign for AIDS prevention if you don't spend time and energy to fight against other diseases like cancer, diabetes, dengue etc. also. Ultimately, this argument is fallacious and could cut both ways.
Even if a person may be wrong in the other issues, he could still get it right in his moral objection against homosexuality. For who among us is perfectly consistent in speaking up against every form of injustice around the world? Let him who is perfectly consistent cast the first stone!
Comments