Shout OUT!

It all started with this article, which I found totally offensive.

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13915

After reading this article, I wrote an article to counter that fellow. But my article is published after this one:

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13931

A very touching article.

------------
This is my article, which is published in today's paper:
http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13962

潘作意君在〈何須作無謂爭辯〉一文（3月16日《溝通平台》）中給同性戀套上“世紀罪惡”的稱號，在我看來是公然羞辱同志群體。

潘君之〈何〉文完全沒有解釋同性戀何以如此“罪惡”，只是理所當然地給同性戀扣上一頂“罪惡”的帽子，實在叫人憤怒！〈何〉文是反人類共同理性的。它訴諸一己宗教，否定人類理性思考的價值。即使是理性思考的結論，只要在作者看來是有違《聖經》的，他統統都不認同。

潘君還訴諸大眾排斥異己的情緒反應，旁敲側擊地指責“有人寧捨天倫之樂的家庭生活……心甘情願地離棄真理，享受‘與眾不同’的生活環境……”，暗示同性戀與眾不同所以罪惡。全文除了人身攻擊便是一味訴諸一己情緒與成見鼓吹反同性戀情緒，借眾人之勢打擊少數群體。

潘君還反問讀者：“如果這些不法之事可以經得起時間和空間考驗的話，何須靠立法將之合法化？”這樣的言論實在是令人毛骨悚然。經得起時間與空間考驗等同價值上可取嗎？人類各文明中壓抑個人的封建制度佔了幾千年時間，可謂經久不衰，這能夠證明封建制度的合理性嗎？按潘君的見識，或許言論自由，男女平權還有勞工權益等皆是不法之事或經不起時間和空間考驗了，要不然何須在憲法中闡明上述權利，還有立法保障勞工的權益？

將肛交去刑事化(*1)以及合法化同性婚姻，前者是為了讓個人享有更大的自由，拒絕國家機關干涉個人不侵害任何他者的私事，拒絕國家挾多數人之道德觀以“違反自然”之名選擇性提控任何個人；後者的意義則在於提昇非異性戀者的公民與社會地位，讓異性戀者與非異性戀者享有平權。這些，潘君懂嗎？

------------------
*1 Sin Chew edited out some parts here. The original article I sent to them was:

“将肛交（顿号）口交去刑事化，合法化同性婚姻，前者是为了让个人享有更大的自由，拒绝国家机关干涉个人不侵害任何他者的私事，拒绝国家挟多数人之道德观以“违反自然”之名选择性提控任何个人（注：蔡细历先生至今仍未因口交一事而遭提控);后者意义则在于......”
------------------
I contemplated whether I was going to write this article. Sure, I've already got the impulse, but...maybe I should just go and sleep and study physics.....

But then I thought, people rarely responded to this sort of heterosexist opinion. Maybe there are a lot of people who are saddened, or angered by this opinion, but not too many wrote back.

Maybe the impulse of wanting to write back is spontaneous, so everytime when these sort of heterosexist opinion gets published, the probability of having someone to write back is p, 0 < p < 1.

It's just like the question I asked myself when I shockingly realized I'm into erm.....guys. (see, even till now, when i say this, there's still this sort of worry that holds me back) Why me? Why me? At that time I thought there were only at most 3 Malaysians who are "like this". So....oh no....I'm doomed....

Then later, the author of a newspaper column which I had been following came out. That person is 欧阳文风。I knew he was gay from his column. It was a very 感动 moment. A "Good-God-I'm-Not-The-Only-One" moment. So it's important to come out. “走出来，成群结队，我们可以安慰自己和别人的寂寞。”

Then later, I read somewhere on the internet that it has been estimated that 5% of the human population are gay. 5% = 1/20. I have around chinese classmates that time. So I asked myself......c'mon.....where's the other gay guy!! There has got to be another one!!! Taking out me, there are still 19 people.....1/19 is not far from 1/20.....

(Oh, and a classmate came out to me. I came out to him 9 months later. :) )

As my mathematics improved, I eventually came to accept that there's only me among the 20 people. I am the 1 among 20. (of course la, this post could turn into a lengthy post on why my expectations are statistically absurd by referring to the binomial distribution, which I'm not going to do) Taking out me, there's no 1 among the 19. "Statistics cannot be used to argue backwards."

So, since the probability of having someone to write back the heterosexist article is p, and since I already had the impulse to write back, I probably should write, because, I could be the 'p', I could be the statistics. If I don't write, maybe no one would. Therefore I wrote.

-------------------------------------
Somemore I kind of hope people will continue to write in and occupy that column for a few days to increase the gay people's visibility.

One person's opinion is deviant, many people's opinion is common sense.