The Gloves Are Off

In Alex Au's latest post on the Yawning Bread, he has decided to up the ante by doing an expose on the identity of the sender of the hate email to Thio Li-Ann as the playwright and erstwhile relief teacher Alfian Sa'at.

I will leave readers to make their own conclusion about Alfian's actions. I want to focus on Alex Au's defence of Alfian in 2 of his posts ([1] and [2]) regarding MOE's "unfair" termination of his relief teaching position. First, let me re-post an article in CNA on the issue and Alfian's comments on his blog:

SINGAPORE : The Education Ministry receives some 3,000 applications for first time registration as relief teacher each year - and some 100, or 3 per cent, of these are rejected.

Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew gave these figures in Parliament on Monday when he replied to questions brought up by Nominated MPs Eunice Olsen and Siew Kum Hong on the recruitment criteria for relief teachers.

In particular, Mr Siew asked why playwright Alfian Sa'at' was rejected in his application for relief teaching.

Rear Admiral Lui said it was inappropriate to discuss individual cases of teachers or relief teachers in the House.

However, he said applicants could be rejected because they do not have the requisite educational qualities, do not have a passion for teaching, or perhaps they have unsuitable records or disciplinary history.

He explained : "Teachers are in a unique position of authority and have great influence over the children they teach, engaging hearts and minds and shaping their attitudes and perspectives.

"Whether permanent or relief, teachers are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which befits this role and to uphold the integrity of the profession, both in a personal and professional capacity. The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." - CNA/ch

***************

1) "The values they hold are also an important consideration as they are role models for our children." Does this mean PAP ministers cannot become relief teachers also because they espouse rampant materialism via their rigorous defence of their inflated salaries?

2) Freedom of Information Act, here I come.

I had thought that MOE's termination of Alfian's relief teaching position was due to his views and support for gays. Then I thought about Otto Fong and realised that Otto is still a teacher of RI. Now we can appreciate the wisdom of MOE's decision to reject Alfian's services from the email that he had sent to Thio Li-Ann. I shudder to think about the impact that Alfian would have made on the students with his values, beliefs and actions if he had been allowed to continue teaching in our schools.

Alfian made the following concluding statement in his blog*:

I am posting the 'hate mail' here, knowing full well that there will be those who will chide me for my hot-bloodedness and impulsiveness. I apologise to those who think that my 'uncivil' four-liner has somewhat sabotaged the repeal-377A cause. But I think the exposure of this woman's pettiness, tendencies towards exaggeration, as well as her wanton abuse of the legal system, far outweighs the flak I will inevitably receive.

Alfian's actions were warmly supported by Alex Au who concluded:

When the Religious Right (and this includes Thio) are out to bludgeon me psychologically, socially and politically, they don't deserve respect or civility from me. Nor from Alfian and thousands, thousands more.


*Alfian's post referred to by Alex Au is no longer at Alfian's blog. You can still read excerpts of it at Yawning Bread for now.

The Irony of It All

Recently, the Repeal377A.com community came face-to-face with their silent majority counterpart in the form of Keep377A.com and Support377A.com. While the silent majority respected the rights of the LGBT community to their online petition efforts, this was not apparent reciprocated by the LGBT netizens as evident in the various smear postings seen on the two sites. Even the well-known, middle-of-the-ground, gay activist, Alex Au could not resist taking a swipe at the Straits Times for publishing "poor quality work" from people who opposed the repeal of section 377A.

The people at Repeal377A.com have decided to extend the deadline for the petition by 3 days from 19 Oct to 21 Oct 07 when the numbers were hovering around 6000+. If as Alex Au has articulated that this is not a number game, why the need to extend the deadline? In the latest few posts by Alex Au, instead of launching into his own diatribe, he has decided to refer readers to several blog sites (see here and here) to let them do it for him. Also, rather than admonishing the militant elements in the LGBT for vandalising the Support377A.com site, he decided to draw readers attention to one such post that signed off as "Jesus" with the comments "You christians are mad and crazy.". Finally, he topped it off with a picture of the Ku-Klux Clan to show what "extremist" Christians will do to deny LGBT their rights.

I decided to send a letter to him and till date he has yet to reply.

Good evening Alex.

I have been following the recent discussions on the repealing of Section 377A of the Penal Code. I have always seen you as one of the more mature and reasonable supporter of the LGBT community and, to be honest, I have enjoyed reading your postings although I do not agree with your world view.

However, your recent 2 postings are not what I expect of a person of your standing in the community. I can sense your frustrations at some of the more aggressive elements amongst those who support the retaining of section 377A but I don't think you should react to them or resort to posting a picture of the Ku-Klux Klan to label these people.

Unlike the Repeal377A.com, the Keep377A.com and Support377A.com sites have been subjected to smear postings from what I suspect are the more aggressive elements in the LGBT community. Instead of admonishing these people, you have decided to focus on the fraud element (by posting the comment from Caleb of Young Republic) and highlight the lack of credibility of the signatories. Perhaps you should pause to look at the "Jesus" signatory that wrote "You christians are mad and crazy". Perhaps it's from someone who wants to vilify the LGBT community but then perhaps the LGBT community should pause and reflect whether indeed it could have come from within.

There are a vast majority in the middle that wants to conduct this debate in an open and rationale way. By doing what you have done and influencing those who look to you for leadership and guidance, I can almost see a future where there will be greater polarisation between the 2 camps in Singapore. I don't think that this is something you, I or any of the moderate majority want to see happen in Singapore.

Let us debate this issue frankly and responsibly without malice and venom, whatever the provocation from extremist from both ends.

Alex Tan

The Desired End-State of Repealing 377A

I sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum just before the parliamentary debate on the Penal Code review but it was not published.

I refer to South Africa’s journey towards removing all forms of discriminations especially for their lesbians, gays, bi-sexual and trans-gendered (LGBT) community (ST, 19 Oct), and the recent petition attempts in Singapore to repeal section 377A of the Penal Code.

It took the South Africans ten short years from the repeal of their sodomy laws to the official sanction of the LGBT’s rights to civil union and adoption. Should the Singapore government accedes to the present repeal petitions or similar initiatives in the future, there is a need to comprehensively lay out the roadmap for the full integration of LGBT within the societal and legal frameworks. While the LGBT community has tried to assure Singaporeans that they will push for further LGBT rights only when society becomes more receptive, it did not stop the community from aggressively seeking the repeal of section 377A despite the current lack of societal receptiveness. The experience of countries like South Africa has also shown that the championing of additional rights for the LGBT community is not that far out in the time horizon. Hence it is important for these rights issues to be debated openly and critically now as part of the repeal initiative. Some of these issues include the minimum legal age for men having sex with men (MSM), the assimilation of LGBT world view into our education system and the media, the structure of possible future civil unions between members of the same sex and adoption procedures for such couples, to list a few.

While it is true that the non-criminalisation of lesbianism did not open these “flood-gates”, I half suspect it was for a lack of vocalisation by the lesbian community and solidarity considerations with their gay counterparts that these issues have yet to be championed. It will be naïve to think that the repeal of section 377A will be an end in itself purely for equality and acceptance. Let us bring to the table all the necessary implications for such repeal and avoid a “slow-boil” outcome if we are serious about according equal rights to the LGBT community in Singapore.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" - An Illogical Truism?

On 1 Oct 07, an article appeared in the Straits Times YouthInk section speaking about the hypocrisy of the principle of "love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to a homosexual. I wrote a letter in response to the article which I re-produced here. The ST forum decided not to publish this in the Forum page and choose to re-direct the letter to YouthInk for their possible use. I am not sure whether there is a general LGBT fatigue on the part of the Forum editor but I guessed the fatigue is not wide-spread given that YouthInk had decided to discuss the NTU survey as a preamble to the article as well.

I observed a familiar strain in Miss Tessa Wong's article in YouthInk (ST, 1 Oct) with that of Mr Janadas Devan's attempt to mould societal attitude towards homosexuals (ST, 7 July). While Mr Devan reminded people to "judge not, that ye be not judged" and concluded that “clever people cannot abide intolerance”, Miss Wong advised people not to “love the sinner, hate the sin” and concluded that it would be “pure hypocrisy” if one attempted to live up to this truism.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" was a truly revolutionary ideal in the ancient of days. Unfortunately, precisely because of its idealism, Miss Wong, like many others, has decided that it is not humanly possible to meet this ideal, leading to her conclusion of hypocrisy.

Unlike Miss Wong, I do not have friends who are espoused homosexuals but I do have friends who have had pre-marital sex, underwent abortions and committed adultery. The friendships that I have are no less genuine or sincere just because I do not condone their actions. I am not sure which part of her friend's homosexual lifestyle has so permeated the friendship that she felt the need to renounce the sin before she can love the sinner.

The leaders of the many religious groups in Singapore have put aside their irreconcilable differences to forge understanding to engender religious harmony for the society's greater good. Despite the fruits of their labours, the doctrinal differences amongst them are insurmountable. Are these people similarly hypocritical going by Miss Wong's argument?

If Miss Wong cannot accept all the moral principles of the Christian faith, she can certainly choose to embrace another faith which agrees with her values system. Cherry picking which principles are do-able and which principles are “illogically flawed” will ultimately cause her to assume the very same character she spoke against in her article.

The Eye of the Storm

By the end of monday, Parliament pulled the curtain, albeit temporary, on the issue of the repealing of Section 377A criminalising homosexual sex between males in private or public. The Straits Times quoted Siew Kum Hong who said the move to retain homosexuality as a crime was a “pity” and “a lost opportunity”. He added that “keeping Section 377A shows up Singapore as being behind the rest of the world”.

The LGBT community was naturally excited when the Penal Code was put up for review earlier after more than 23 years in 1984 even though the government had made it clear back in Nov 06 that Section 377A was not up for change. They had lobbied hard in all quarters for the repeal of Section 377A, roping in politicians, lawyers, foreign activists and a retired bishop no less. Their hopes were lifted when even Lee Kuan Yew spoke on several occasions to local and foreign media of his support for the law to be eventually removed.

In these early times, the LGBT community has yet to voice their views but I can foresee that the “right-wing” Christian community will be blamed for putting unequal and unfair pressures on the government against the repeal and have succeeded to “blackmail” members of Parliament who are Christians to speak on their behalf. The previous national debate on casinos in Singapore rubbished this idea that any interest group has the clout and power to influence the government to do anything against their wishes. In the end, the pure economics out-weighed the social evils of gambling. The government doggedly presented their case to the public on the economic merits and assured the people of their resolve to tackle all the unintended social fallout from the casinos.

The truth of the matter is that the government of the day must take into account the views of the majority or risk losing their mandate. However detestable this may be to people, it is the reality of life, the law of the jungle if you would. The internet commentaries and voices may give the impression of a general support for LGBT but this is an illusion. It is akin to going to a bar to prove that people generally like booze. The astute amongst the community did suggest that in order for Section 377A to be repealed, they must argue the economics of the case. This suggestion has touched a raw nerve of some in the community who felt insulted to be treated in terms of dollars and cents. They trumped the need to give equal civil rights to all, regardless of sexual orientation.

The non-repeal of Section 377A should not lull Christians into complacency. In fact, Christians should critically reflect why they have been singled out for criticism by the LGBT community. Rising above the ranting, there is one useful lesson for Christians to take home.

And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on, sin no more." (John 8:12)

Remember Jesus’ response to the women caught in the act of adultery? Have Christians been so zealous in telling LGBT to “sin no more” that we forgot to say “I do not condemn you”? In our quest to respond to the more vocal sections of the LGBT community, we could have unwittingly alienate those within that are still desperately trying to find answers. Individually and collectively as a Church, we need to do better to reach out to these confused souls and counter the massive propaganda of the world. This means having the moral courage to speak out for the truth and reflect the reality of homosexuality.

We are in the proverbial eye in the storm and the LGBT community will quickly find another vehicle to drive their cause and sought to find means to bring social pressures on the government and community at large towards their cause. While we continue to be the “salt and light” of the world, we also need to relate better to the individual LGBT around us and seek to do what Paul has exhorted Christians to do:

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

Homosexuality - A Gift from God?

Recently, the LGBT community organised a panel discussion that roped in Member of Parliament (MP) Baey Yam Keng, nominated MP Siew Kum Hong and a retired pastor Yap Kim Hao to add credibility to their cause in their effort to seek support to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code which bans homosexual sex. The Straits Times reporter wrote that Yap Kim Hao is a "Methodist Church leader".

When I first read the news report, my curiosity was naturally raised on how a Singaporean pastor would make a statement saying that "this is God's purpose - the existence of the homosexual community". It was revealed several days later that Yap had retired and he was speaking in his personal capacity. Whatever his status, it must have been a coup for the LGBT community to find a retired bishop to support their cause.

Researching the internet to find out more, I found a transcript of an address he made in May 07 on this issue. The address is re-produced here and my responses in [BLUE]:

Let me at the outset indicate the rationale for my perspective on homosexuality.

I can do no better than to quote from an official statement of The United Methodist Church in the United States that considers homosexuality as incompatible with Christian teachings and I am a Methodist. Yet it is this same Church that recognizes its "limited understanding of this complex gift and encourages the medical, theological, and social science disciplines to combine in a determined effort to understand human sexuality more completely. We call the Church to take the leadership role in bringing together these disciplines to address this most complex issue."

[Yap seemed to suggest that the "incompatible" statement came before the "limited understanding statement and the paragraph suggested that even though the Methodist leaders took this stand, there were uncertainty in the position adopted. In the United Methodist Church (UMC) Book of Discipline which he quoted from, it actually spoke about human sexuality. This complex gift is not about homosexual orientation but human sexuality. Rather than uncertainty, having bringing together these disciplines to address homosexuality as one of this complex issue, the affirmation was that the church "does not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching". However the same article also stressed that "homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth... affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community... implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends.".]

My approach is therefore a multi-disciplinary one.

Firstly, I will raise some general observations about the teaching of the Bible itself.

I quote a former colleague of mine when I was teaching at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Victor Paul Furnish, a distinguished Professor of New Testament who wrote: "Homosexuality is not a prominent Biblical concern. The earliest ethical codes of the Hebrews makes no mention of homosexual behavior. There is nothing about it in the Ten Commandments. The four Gospels record no saying of Jesus on the subject. The texts that are discussed are few and far between and not even all of these are pertinent."

[This is a weak argument. Bestality, peodopilia and necrophilia are similarly not mentioned in the Ten Commandments nor did Jesus talk about these subject in the Four Gospels records. Are we to make a similar conclusion that sex with animals, children or corpses are not condemned? The reason why these and many other issues were not mentioned was simply that they weren't of practical concerns to the people in Jesus' time. Remember that the Gospels were written to tell the good news and not to be a comprehensive list of dos and don'ts. John, Jesus' disciple, ended his book by saying that "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written."]

But what do we see in many Churches in different parts of the world today?

Homosexuality has become a major issue, much more serious than doctrine or church order. It is projected to split the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury who is personally gay-affirming, has to recognize the current teaching of the Anglican Communion which is against homosexuality.

[It is sad that homosexual advocates who want the best of both worlds have invaded the churches to create chaos in the Christian world. Are these splits necessarily bad? The Protestant movement led by Martin Luther against the excesses and false doctrines of the Catholic church in 1517 and sparked the most momentous split in Christendom. On hindsight, this split helped the Catholics to re-examine their own actions and led to their own revival.]

As Christians refer to this common source of the Bible, those who are anti-gay are quick to say that the Bible says so and then close the Book. And the controversial issue of homosexuality is no longer discussed. The teaching of the Bible leads to the teaching of the Church which then becomes official, and obedience is demanded. The different perspectives arise from the differing interpretation of the words of the Bible and the teachings of the Church and its pronouncements change as we gain more knowledge and insights.

[Why must Christians who says that the Bible is against homosexual practices be labelled as "anti-gay"? Christians may be against abortion but no one label one who is against the act of abortion as one who is against the women who committed such acts. It just shows the propaganda that advocates for homosexuals go through that they cannot or will not accept Christians' opposition against the homosexual practices but not the personalities. Also, from a pastor who probably has a greater depth of theological knowledge than myself, the word "controversial" is a little strong. The issue of homosexual practices is no longer discussed in the church because the Bible is clear. Again it is not the Church that is demanding obedience but the Bible. The Bible says to love the Lord your God with all your mind (Matthew 22:37). It means that Christians need to be convinced in their mind when they choose to be obedient to God's word. Yap should give more credit to bona-fide Christians and not to assume that we are all blindly led by the Church.]

My view is that the different books of the Bible are time bound, historically related, culturally conditioned and contextually based. They are related to the time and place of the recorded events. They reflect the society and the culture at the time the books of the Bible were written. The revelation of God is mediated and translated by inspired human beings who are not infallible. We have to account for the relevancy of the teaching to our contemporary context.

[I will agree that the Bible needs to be understood and interpreted with the context it was written in mind. However, there are eternal values and temporal issues. Where it is temporal, the Bible explains it. As an example, the ritual cleanliness Mosaic laws and its sacrificial systems are no longer applicable to Christian because Jesus paid the ultimate and complete price as a substitution for our sins. Hence we need not sacrifice any more animals and sprinkle any more blood because Jesus death on the cross has made the final and complete sacrifice. Because of this, we can boldly approach God without needing to go through the ritual cleanliness routine. On the issue of infallibility of the scripture writers, it is instructive to note that Jesus equated whatever that was written in the Old Testament as the literal word of God. Not once did he cast doubts on the Old Testament the way Yap has decided to allude to here.]

The various books of the Bible are the products of writers who claim to have received the revelation from God, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, put it in writing. Their different interpretations resulted in the changing official teaching of the Church and the varying perspectives of Biblical scholars and theologians. This process continues and we have today come together to share our different perspectives and though we differ, we are expected to respect our differences.

[Yap did not give an example of different interpretation of the biblical writers and I suspect there isn't a single example that he could have quoted.]

The teaching of the Church must necessarily be continuously changing. Take for instance human relationships, we have moved from the predominantly patriarchal to more equality between men and women. In reference to health we are attributing disease not to spirit possession but to bacteria and viruses. In terms of geography even the flat earth has been rounded into a spherical one. Our world-view is ever changing.

[The patriarchal argument has always been thrown at the Christians but let me just quote 2 examples that contradict this idea:

So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church. (Ephesians 5:28-29)

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Corinthians 7:4)

These 2 biblical quotations don't sound very patriarchal to me about men and women. What sinful humans decide to do should not be attributed as the fault of the Bible (ditto for the crusades, witch-hunts, inquisitions, apartheid, slavery etc).

The Bible is also not a medical or science text books but where it speaks of issues alluded to medical or science issues, there are no contradictions to the established facts and observations of the real world.]

With this as background, the Biblical view of sexual relationships is that heterosexuals who engage in same-sex acts are sinful. The Biblical writers regard all men as heterosexual and in condemning same-sex acts, they see it as men exchanging their male role to that of an inferior role of women. At that time, they were not able to distinguish between those whom we now identify as homosexual, from the heterosexual. Their view was that of heterosexuals engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

[Again, Yap decided to make a statement (italic) without substantiating it. As my previous comment, the Bible's and Jesus' treatment of women were far more enlightened during their time and even perhaps today. I know detractors will start quoting bible verses to the contrary but I will leave that to another post. Yap should also give more credit to the ancient world. Within the Jewish community, homosexuality was not an issue because God specifically spoke against it but in the Greco-Roman era, the people were far more aware and accepting of such practices. The apostle Paul himself was a Roman citizen and yet with the ability to "distinguish between those who we now identify as homosexual", he was the foremost speaker against the practice of homosexuality.]

The Biblical texts that explicitly talk about same-sex acts are few in number. The brief references are related to laws of purity, holiness, temple rituals and to the Greco-Roman culture and pagan worship. There were temple prostitutes, male prostitution and pederasty (mentoring and sex with young callboys). Jesus did not deal with same-sex relations in His teaching although he had much to say about sex, love, marriage and divorce. Homosexuality in terms of sexual orientation and long-term committed relationships as we understand them today was not discussed and not even a term used at that time.

[See my previous comments about Jesus' non-treatment of homosexuality and awareness during Jesus' time about homosexuality.]

It was much later that the term "homosexual" was used. Homosexuality as a term was introduced in 1869. It first appeared in newer translations of the Bible – Revised Standard Version in 1946 and in New International Version in 1978. Homosexuality is not originally a Biblical word.

[The Greek word used by the New Testament writers, translated by the English Bible as homosexuals, is arsenokoites (literally male-bed). A related Greek word malakos (literally soft of persons) is translated by the Bible as effeminate. LGBT argued that if the apostle Paul had wanted to refer to homosexuals, he would have used a more "common" Greek term paiderasste (lovers of boys, literally paid-lovers). The English language updates itself over time. Prior to 1869, the King James Version translated arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with mankind". Given that arsenokoites is a masculine voice, the subsequent rendering to homosexuality is natural.

But I don't think the nuances of the Greek language is the issue and besides, I am not expert or a user of Greek. LGBT who wants to be Christians want to split hair over the specific type of homosexual practices that the Bible actually condemned and insist that it did not include loving monogamous ones by scrutinising the Greek used. If we go back to one of the verses in question, it reads "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.". Why insists on performing word gymnastics on the Greek word used for homosexuals and not for the rest? I am sure we can find specific circumstances of the other 8 traits that the Bible condemns.]

Other terms like 'heterosexual,' 'bisexual,' and ‘transgendered’ presuppose an understanding of human sexuality that was possible only with modern psychology and sociological analysis. The ancient writers were operating without the faintest idea of what we have learned to call 'sexual orientation'.

[See above on malakos for effeminate or transgendered.]

Let us look more closely at some of the Biblical records related to sexuality and how they show varying perspectives.

The law of Moses allowed for man to divorce his wife on account of some "indecency" in her. (Deuteronomy 24:1); Jesus categorically forbids it and will not man "put asunder" those united in marriage. (Mark 10:1-12); Jesus was also said to have sanctioned divorce on the condition of "unchastity." (Matthew 9:9). Yet many Christians, in clear violation of a command of Jesus are divorced and for other reasons.

Divorced people are allowed baptism, church membership, communion, ordination and re-marriage but this has not always been the case for homosexuals. What makes the one so much greater a sin than the other, especially considering the fact that Jesus never even mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemned divorce? Yet we ordain divorcees. Why not homosexuals?

[I don't really follow Yap's line of argument vis-a-vis divorce. The sins of divorce and homosexuality are the same in the eyes of God. I hope Yap is not suggesting that divorced people who have been allowed baptism, communion etc are holding up their heads high and proclaiming that they are proud of being a divorcee and will choose to divorce again should they get married. Homosexuals want to be allowed baptism, communion etc still hang on to their homosexual lifestyles. Isn't there a big difference here?]

Take the issue of sex itself. It began with sex only for procreation which the early Christian theologians agree. When it serves to satisfy lust it is regarded as venial sin. Augustine in the fifth century said that we should mature as early as possible to the point when we can dispense with sexual intercourse.

However, the Old Testament regarded celibacy as abnormal and we are to be fruitful and multiply. And 1 Timothy 4:1-3 calls compulsory celibacy a heresy. Yet the Catholic Church has made celibacy mandatory for priests and nuns. Some Christian anti-gay demand celibacy of homosexuals, whether they have a vocation for celibacy or not. Some anti-gay people condone sexual orientation but condemn homosexual acts. Some gay and lesbians like heterosexuals have chosen to live a life of single blessedness.

[Actually the Bible is neutral on celibacy. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:7 wished that all men were single like him in the time of distress during his time but in the same breath, he recognised the both marriage and celibacy are God's gifts. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 just states that in the last days, amongst many things, some people will forbid marriages (Was Paul referring to the Catholics?). Interestingly, the Bible only explicitly condemned homosexual acts and not feelings unlike lust where Jesus specifically made the point that one has committed adultery if he looked at a woman in lust. This has led to one view that a person may have homosexual orientation but can still avoid sinning by not acting on them as Yap has alluded to.]

Leviticus 21 discussed how priests need to be morally, and even physically unblemished and must meet the requirements of the purity laws at that time. Today most of these purity laws are being ignored.

[See earlier comments on Mosaic ritual cleanliness laws.]

Far from being a Book full of bad news for gays and lesbians, I believe the Bible is indeed full of good news of God's love for all of creation - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and straight alike. The Bible has no clear and consistent sex ethic and only knows a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores, moral codes or church teachings are dominant in any given country, culture, or period. There is also the emphasis on grace rather than on law.

[For that matter, the Bible is full of good news for divorcees, women who underwent abortions, sinners all if they repent and accept the saving grace that Jesus freely gives. At the same time, the Bible also clearly state in no uncertain terms that "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God".]

The medical sciences today acknowledge homosexuality as a sexual orientation, not a medical, psychological or psychiatric condition that can be changed therapeutically.

It is on record that the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1994, two decades later, the APA categorically said, "... homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity. It is the way a portion of the population expresses human love and sexuality".

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and other major groups of medical, educational, and counseling professionals have concluded that there exists, as yet, no scientific basis for the contention that so-called reparative, reorientation, or conversion therapies can successfully change a person’s orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The prevailing view among therapists is that gay and lesbian patients should be helped to improve their self-esteem and to overcome the continuing stigmatization of homosexuality in many societies. However reparative therapies are being endorsed by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which represents a minority of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other practitioners, and by some religions.

[In a lawsuit trigger-happy society where individual rights triumphs over all and where churches are brow-beaten to accept homosexuals, it is not surprising that APA has acquiesced to the militant pressures of the LGBT community.]

Recently MM Lee Kuan Yew was widely quoted on this issue: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it," he said in remarks published by The Straits Times.

"So why should we criminalize it?" Lee asked.

"But there is such a strong inhibition, in all societies -- Christianity, Islam, even the Hindu (and) Chinese societies. And we are now confronted with a persisting aberration. But is it an aberration? It's a genetic variation."

Homosexuality is not an aberration, tendency, or inclination. It is a genetic or biological variation. It is an orientation.

We must admit that we do not know for certain the causes of homosexuality. This concluding statement in an article of causes best summarizes the situation:

"Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

[MM Lee has made several statements in support for the de-criminalisation of homosexual acts, the latest in a recent interview with IHT without even being prompted. How do I read this? Being the 110% pragmatic man that he is, the man always have a hard-nosed reason for his words and actions. The latest interview where he commented that Singapore will need to go the same way as China and Hong Kong did to recognise gays and lesbians showed that, in all probability, hard-nosed economics played a part. Siew Kum Hong also suggested that the LGBT community in Singapore may need to pitch the economic arguments which drew mixed reactions from the community.
Pure genetics arguments are flawed because you will always almost able to find twins who will end up with different sexual orientations. If it is nurture and not nature, then people have a choice and make his/her own decision.]

Given this medical perspective on homosexuality how do I minister to GLBT people? Within the larger framework of my understanding of the love of God for all of God’s people and my reading of Christian ethics relating to justice and concern for the marginalized and minorities, I can only affirm and accept the GLBT community and render my service to them in whatever way that is helpful.

From my perspective, homosexuality is within the purpose of God in creation. There is a continuum of sexual relationships from heterosexualilty to homosexuality. God has made it possible for each individual to be unique and different and I affirm the diversity in God’s creation. Homosexuality is a given and not a choice.

[Yap makes this baffling logical leap from the previous discussion on the genetic basis of homosexuality and admitting that he did not know the causes of homosexuality to starting the next segment that assumed that there was a medical basis to the behaviour and ended with the statement that homosexuality is a given and not a choice.]

In my experience of pastoral care to the gay community, I feel their pain and agony when they first became aware of their attraction to people of the same sex. Their experience is that it is not a phase that will go away. In the solitariness of their closets they struggle and pray. Most gay people know from painful personal experience that their homosexual inclination is definitely not a deliberate choice. Who would in their right mind choose to be gay when they know they will be relegated to a despised minority. On the contrary, they choose to wear masks and pretend to be straight. Yet opponents of gay rights choose to disregard these personal experiences and continue to portray homosexuality as a sinful choice that should be criminalised.

We are aware that the gay community has the responsibility to change the perception that the gay lifestyle is hedonistic and promiscuous. The straights have the problem of pursuing a hedonistic and promiscuous lifestyle as well. The distinctive difference rests on having sexual intercourse with the same or opposite sex.

As I come alongside them, I sense their silent pain, I see their falling tears, I hear their aching hearts. Today I feel their rising hope for they are receiving affirmation, recovering dignity and restoring pride to be gay.

[Though I may not knowingly know any LGBT people, I can definitely relate to the pain and agony Yap is talking about. Everyone of us must our individual and sometime unique struggles and pains. Some of us knows that some of the things we do are not right and yet for some inexplicable reasons, we continue to do them. Understanding the pain and the struggle does not logically mean that we should legitimise the act.
Why would anyone choose to be gay if they knew they will be despised? I honestly don't know. Just as I don't know why people decide to do drugs knowing that it will cause harm to their bodies or why people still want to continue to commit adultery knowing that it will destroy the family. Actually, on second thought, I know the answer to the latter questions. The Bible says we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Without turning to God, we will all seek to satisfy our sinful nature.]

They are hearing and believing what Victor Paul Furnish said: "It accords with the most fundamental witness of Scripture that one's sexuality is to be received as a good gift of God. Moreover, this gift is to be expressed in ways that manifest the grace of God -for there is not variance in the reality of God's love, which graces and claims us, whatever the particularities of our own time and place. As for sexual relationships, God's love can find clear expression only where the partners are fully committed and faithful to one another."

Homosexuality is therefore a gift from God to be accepted. It is not a result of human sin or the fallen nature because of Adam. We all have, by the grace of God, to live out the purposes of God, straight or gay, for we are all created by God.

[Finally from Yap's lack of certainty about the cause of homosexuality to stating that it is a clear-cut medical/genetic condition, we have come to Yap's final unsubstantiated conclusion that homosexuality is a gift from God. It sounds almost as dogmatic as Christians saying that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible said so.

What's my position on the call for repeal? Actually, after saying so much, I think that it will be an eventuality because Singapore is a secular nation and in the same way that the nation do not criminalise divorce or abortion-on-demand, there is no rationale for Christians to demand that homosexuality remained a crime in Singapore.

My concerns are based more on the aftermath of the repeal. As distant as it may sound and as much as the LGBT community assured that these are not in the current agenda, the experiences of US, UK and Sweden have shown the eventuality of them happening.

I will only suggest that since the Singapore government always takes a systematic and comprehensive approach to issues, we should take the repeal with all the other implications as a complete package for deliberation. This will allow Singaporeans to deliberate the full implications of what LBGT community sees as a "necessary actions to promote greater civil rights of a growing minority" on the rest of the silent majority.]

Rev. Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.
Transcript of Dr. Yap Kim Hao's address at the Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church, Singapore on 10 May 07. Dr Yap Kim Hao is former bishop of the Methodist Church of Singapore and currently serves as pastoral advisor to the free Community Church of Singapore.

Read his earlier longer but similar essay here.

My 1st Published Letter to the ST Forum

11 Jul 07 - The Straits Times Forum

MR JANADAS Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7), suggested that Singapore should, in the long run, come to accept homosexuality on the basis of statistics, genetics and helping Singapore become one of the creative cities of the world.
To cite the example of a lesbian friend who is observed to be in a stable relationship with a same-sex partner, and who are loving parents to well-adjusted children and are model citizens and then invoking demographics to suggest that homosexual behaviour is more prevalent than one thinks do not make it acceptable.
This line of argument, taken to its logical extreme, suggests that one day in the future the world should also come to tolerate and accept other alternative lifestyles involving loving relations between consenting adult siblings or parents and their children (with adopted children thrown in to avoid defective genes being transmitted) when they become demographically prevalent.
Positive examples and high statistics cannot be the factors by which we decide what are acceptable, in the same way that negative examples and low statistics do not make the same behaviour unacceptable.
Raising the possibility that homosexual behaviour may be proven in future to have a genetic basis as a reason for acceptance is gaining ground, given that even Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has articulated this line of argument recently on two occasions.
If that happens, should we believe that those with the same DNA (as in multiple births) containing the 'homosexual genes' would all necessarily turn out to be gay? Should we not then take the argument to its logical conclusion and suggest that God is to be blamed for implanting defective genes that caused the many degenerative diseases and medical conditions?
Many, Mr Janadas included, have seized on biblical passages selectively to question the Church and its beliefs. The same Lord Jesus Christ that Mr Janadas quoted in the article also said on the same occasion that he affirmed all the Laws that had been laid down in the past and one of them included God's abhorrence of homosexual practices, as stated in the Old and New Testaments.
If actively catering to talented and creative homosexuals is critical to Singapore's desire to become one of the most creative cities of the world, this Singaporean would rather pass and stick to a traditional family-based Singapore.