TodayOnline.com: If Double Standards Can Apply to Gays, What about to HOTA? (Sept 10)

If double standards can apply to gays, what about to Hota?

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tan Yen Ling

LAST year, there was campaigning by both the pro-repeal gay community
and the anti-repeal Christian camp.

As a result of this, Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State
for Law and Home Affairs, said that Singapore will keep the ban
although the authorities would continue to not actively enforce
the provision banning gay sex between ­consensual adults.

Such an arrangement would be akin to the authorities allowing
"consensual" organ trading while the Human Organ Transplant Act
explicitly forbids it. Surely, such an arrangement would make a
mockery of the Rule of Law.

And as it now stands, men who have same-sex sexual relations are
committing a crime but are "above the law" as they will not be
prosecuted — as ­assured by the authorities.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275027print.asp

TodayOnline.com: Sexual Orientation Not a "Right" (Sept 10)

Sexual orientation not a `right':

Just because the rest of the world allows it, doesn't mean Singapore
should

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Koo Xun Zhao

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8) and would like to point out several fallacies inMr Ho Kwon
Ping's reasoning.

First, contrary to what he says, the Government has not said it would
not prosecute those who breach the law — just that it would not pursue
those who breach it.

This is a fundamental difference which does not result in what he
calls "a mockery of the Rule of Law". It can be just as easily argued
that we can avoid what Mr Ho calls our current "schizophrenic"
situation by actually enforcing the law on gay sex.

After all, it was the Rule of Law before the Government decided to be
more open to gays.

Mr Ho also compares the so-called "persecution" of gays with racial
discrimination. Sexual orientation or preferences, however, are not
"rights".

Hence the question of discrimination does not arise. Mr Ho also cites
proponents of the Rule of Law advocating the decriminalisation of gay
sex, "something which the rest of the world has longdecriminalised".

Using what the rest of the world does as the basis for establishing or
repealing a law has no grounds in law-making.

The same goes for the argument that Victorian laws be removed as there
are important laws in our books today that exist from those times that
are still relevant: For example, the law against incest.

Mr Ho claims that it is only "the most feverishly fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" and the "homophobic" who care about whether the
law against gay sex is kept. In this, he is misinformed since there
are even gays who feel that the statute should be kept.

Moreover, The Straits Times reported on Sept 20 last year that a
survey by Nanyang Technological University found that seven in 10
Singaporeans frown on homosexuality.

I urge Mr Ho to speak to non-gays who are also knowledgeable, if not
experts, in the law and who are for criminalising gay sex to get their
perpectives on the issue.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275026print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is Simply No Need for Anti-Gay Law (Sept 10)

There is simply no need for anti-gay law

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Tang Li

I REFER to Mr Ho Kwon Ping's "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law:
Let's accept gays" (Sept 8), and I would like to applaud him.

Like Mr Ho, I have to ask myself if there is any justification for
keeping a private act between consenting adults, criminal.

During last year's debate on the repealing of Section 377A, Nominated
Member of Parliament Thio Li-Ann argued passionately that repealing
the act was bad for public morality. In her address, she noted that
"Diversity is not license for perversity".

The majority of Parliament agreed with this and the result was the
retention of 377A, but with a promise from the Government that the law
would not be enforced.

Mr Ho rightly pointed out that the idea of having a law that the
Government has no intention of enforcing makes a mockery of the Rule
of Law, something which is central to the heart of Singapore's
rules-based society. The proponents of the ban on homosexual
intercourse spoke passionately about the need to defend public
morality, but they failed to provide a logically-sound reason for
their case.

At best, Professor Thio argued that private acts would have public
repercussions as in the area of public health. She pointed out that
HIV/Aids was spread most efficiently by anal sex.

What she failed to prove was how anal sex between two consenting men
was more conducive to the spread of HIV/Aids than anal sex between
heterosexuals.

The Ministry of Health's statistics on HIV found that in 2007 there
were 255 heterosexuals infected, versus 145 homosexual and bisexual
infections, something that nobody seemed to have taken note of.

Furthermore, the defenders of public morality didn't seem too troubled
by the fact that the greatest rise in HIV among women was from
loyally-married women who were infected by their husbands.

So, where is the premise for having a law against consensual
homosexualactivity? Singapore is socially-conservative, but does that
mean it is necessary to have laws — albeit non-enforced ones — that
discriminate against one group without protecting another?

Ministry of Health statistics on HIV show that anal sex between
consenting adult men is no less of a threat to public health than sex
between heterosexuals. So, why then do we need laws if there is no
threat to public health or security? Is it because the majority of
people disapprove of it? Surely, the people who disapprove of such
acts would continue to disapprove of them regardless of whether laws
against them exist or not?

There is no rational premise for laws against homosexuality, so why do
we need them? More importantly, why do we have such laws if we have no
intention of enforcing them? Is it because we know that such laws have
no benefit to society? I may not like homosexuals or homosexuality,
but I can see no reason for laws against what consenting adults do in
the privacy of their bedroom.

I salute Mr Ho for taking a stand against the current mockery of the
Rule of Law.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275025print.asp

TodayOnline.com: There Is A Reason for the Law (Sept 10)

There is a reason for the law

Homosexuality is anti-social

Wednesday • September 10, 2008

Letter from Heikel Bafana

I REFER to "Stop making a mockery of Rule of Law: Let's accept gays"
(Sept 8). I must disagree with the assertions of Mr Ho Kwon Ping.

Mr Ho calls for homosexual behaviour to be decriminalised. Whatever
perception he has gleaned from the official attitude, the views of
large segments of our society against the homosexual lifestyle are
neither ambiguous, ambivalent nor schizophrenic.

Whether due to religious belief or personal family values,
homosexuality is widely seen in Singapore society as aberrant
behaviour. I concede, of course, that this view is not shared by
members of the gay community.

Mr Ho's assertion that only "the most fervently fundamentalist
Christians or Muslims" in Singapore care about making gay sex a
criminal act is baseless, and indeed, false.

The Penal Code provision represents the manner in which the law
expresses our society's commonality of understanding as to what is to
be allowed and what is not.

Encouraging a family unit that is able to procreate and rear children
who will contribute to the future of this country is the prime
imperative of our society, and legislating against any behaviour —
including accepting widespread homosexual behaviour, which attacks the
sacrosanct nature of the family unit — is perfectly acceptable.

The Rule of Law constitutes the sum total of the social contract which
we, as citizens, agree to live by. In a multi-racial and multi-faith
society like Singapore, the Rule of Law is a delicate alchemy of
competing racial, cultural and religious demands. It cannot be subject
to change merely because of the high-pitched calls of a small segment
of our society.

I concede that in the context of the prevailing practice of the
criminal justice system here, the belief may arise that homosexual
acts are not subject to criminal prosecution. However, this belief is
not entirely accurate.

Similar non-prosecutions by the authorities are also the norm, for
example, in cases of mischief or of assault involving simple hurt.

However — and this is the critical distinction — the victim still has
the right to lodge a Magistrate's Complaint and undertake a
prosecution himself. From this perspective, why should a person who
feels aggrieved as a victim of homosexual behaviour be deprived of
such a right to prosecute an assailant?

To achieve acceptance, tolerance or respect, perhaps it is more
effective for the gay community to address in substance the issues
which lead society to frown upon homosexuality. Such engagement would
be more effective than getting tied up in knots about the law.

Mr Ho calls for an act of boldness to allow gays to "realise their
dreams". To believe that changing a piece of legislation will attain
this result is misconceived.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/275023.asp

Journal of Communication Inquiry: It's the Gays' Fault

This version was published on October 1, 2008
Journal of Communication Inquiry, Vol. 32, No. 4, 383-399 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0196859908320295

It's the Gays' Fault

News and HIV as Weapons Against Homosexuality in Singapore

Debbie Goh
Indiana University, Bloomington, dgoh@indiana.edu

As homosexuality in Singapore is illegal and suffers from social stigmatization, the local media avoided the topic until recent acknowledgment by a top-ranking official of the presence of gays in Singapore opened the floodgates for media publicity. The flourishing underground gay scene triggered the international media to name Singapore as Asia's new "pink" capital. Although it acknowledges homosexuals, the Singapore government still does not condone their activity and public declaration of Singapore as a gay haven spooked the government, who sought a subtle approach to discipline and control the public behavior of homosexuals: through discourse about homosexuality in the national newspaper. Drawing from Foucault's repressive hypothesis on sexuality, this article examines news coverage of the government's blaming of homosexuals for the rise of HIV/AIDS cases in Singapore and argues that Singapore's national daily, in framing homosexuality as promiscuous and contrary to traditional values, served as a platform for the government to reestablish control and subvert homosexuality in Singapore.

Key Words: news framing • homosexuality • control • Singapore • Foucault

San Francisco Chronicle: Beijing's homosexuals live in the shadows (Aug 22 2008)

Beijing's homosexuals live in the shadows
Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008

(08-22) 04:00 PDT Beijing -- The Beijing Olympics have not changed anything for Benjamin Han. He is still gay, still single and still compelled to hide his orientation from public view.

The 28-year-old employee of a large international public relations firm is one of an estimated 5 million to 10 million gay men in China who live, for the most part, in the shadows.

Homosexuality has only been legal for 11 years in China. Although the Chinese Psychiatric Association took it off the list of psychiatric disorders in 2001, same-sex unions are still considered immoral by the authorities.

The modernization of Beijing in preparation for the Olympics actually made things worse for gays. Several gay clubs were bulldozed during the frenzy of street-widening and high-rise building during the run-up to the games.

"It's probably more restricted in Beijing than in other cities in the country," said Han, sitting in a fashionable bar near his home in east Beijing. "In general, it is still very much a taboo topic. You don't talk about it at work, you don't talk about it with your family. You only talk about it when the other person knows something about it already and you really trust them."

The government-controlled media in China sometimes hints about the subject, but it is never openly discussed. Han said he knows several Chinese journalists through his work who have told him there have been written notices from the propaganda department telling them not to bring up the subject.

Han was born in suburban Guangzhou. He was an only child, which is standard in China, and both of his parents worked, so a nanny took him to school. He said his mother and father were not like most other Chinese parents, who make most decisions for their children.

"I was growing up on my own most of the time," he said. "It is not that they didn't care. It is that they just couldn't understand what I was up to."

He came to Beijing in 2000 to study English and American literature and culture at the Beijing Institute of Technology. He continued his studies for one year in the United Kingdom, which opened his eyes to a wider world.

"There is a degree of choice and freedom that does not exist here," Han said. "It was more or less a surprise."

But Han, who goes by a Chinese name with his family and friends in China, never told his parents that he is gay and does not plan to do so. Only a few of his friends know the truth.

His mother has been pressuring him to get married and have children, and he keeps putting her off.

"I actually tried to have a girlfriend to please my parents," he said of a two-year relationship he had with a childhood friend that ended three years ago. "It was difficult in the sense that I didn't want it to get too far."

Han tells his mother now that he doesn't want to get married because he wants to concentrate on his career.

Despite these pressures, he sees himself as lucky that his work allows him to travel, meet people and stay informed, whereas most gay men and lesbians in China live lonely, secretive lives, in which finding partners can be an ordeal.

The only gay club left in Beijing is a place called Destination, a gray concrete block near several glamorous heterosexual night spots near the west gate of Workers' Stadium in eastern Beijing's Chaoyang area. On weekend nights, it is packed with trendy young Chinese residents, corporate mavericks, Olympic tourists and expatriates. Han said many call it "Desperation."

Lesbians are not much better off. There is just one club, West Wing, that caters to them.

There is a group called Pro Men, which hooks up professionals who are gay, Han said, and gay-themed Web sites featuring local chat rooms. There is even a chat room for gay Buddhists. But, for the most part, the gay scene in Beijing is restricted to clandestine Internet affairs. No one is openly hostile, according to Han, but the community is ignored, passed off as a Western problem.

"I would like to see a more liberal media environment where people could comment on the subject and have a discussion," Han said. "You see that in places like Hong Kong and Thailand. Singapore is also closed, but they have at least opened up discussion."

There were promising signs a few years ago when several new gay clubs opened and some of the trendy night spots began holding gay- and lesbian-friendly nights. In 2005, there was an International Gay and Lesbian film festival in Beijing. But tourists can no longer expect to learn about the gay life of emperors on a tour of the Forbidden City.

"Things could change in China in the next 10 years, but I'm not looking forward to the wait," Han said. "This is a Confucian society, and these values are not going to go away."

E-mail Peter Fimrite at pfimrite@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/22/MNGB12CRTC.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 12 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Malaysiakini.com: Heinous vilification, persecutio of homosexuals (July 3)

Heinous vilification, persecution of homosexuals

Nellsen | Jul 3, 08 4:15pm

Malaysia's sodomy law is not applied equally. It has been selectively
and systematically enforced to vilify and persecute homosexuals. In
Malaysia's Penal Code Section 377, the sentence for conviction of
sodomy is flogging, plus up to twenty years in prison. Victims are
flogged with a section of bamboo that is split into several strips.
When bamboo is split, it has extremely sharp edges, which slice the
skin like knives. Flogging is quite bloody and leaves permanent
scars.

In addition to Section 337, just to prevent any homosexual from
escaping conviction, Section 337A provides for a male to receive up
to two years in prison for any act of 'gross indecency with another
male person.' This vague wording allows prosecution for any kind of
erotic interaction between two males. This law is explicitly applied
only to homosexual behavior among males, but lesbians also suffer
discrimination.

The US State Department 2006 Country Report on Malaysia concluded
that these anti-gay laws 'exist and were enforced. Religious and
cultural taboos against homosexuality were widespread'. There is much
other evidence that shows the particularly strong and heinous
vilification, discrimination and persecution that is happening to
homosexuals in Malaysia today.

In 1998, homophobia and Malaysian politics intertwined when deputy
prime minister Anwar Ibrahim made a major break with then premier Dr
Mahathir Mahathir due to his economic policies, and pressured him to
institute democratic reforms. The prime minister responded by
charging that Anwar had sex with two men.

Anwar refused to be intimidated by what he called an untrue smear,
and led protests against the dictatorial policies of the government.
Mahathir then used the existence of the sodomy law to have his major
political rival arrested.

The two men testified at the trial that Anwar had sex with them. But
both of them later recanted their stories, and admitted that they had
been pressured by government officials and police to make the
accusation of sodomy.

Mahathir obviously believed that the charge of homosexuality would be
so damning that most people in Malaysia would withdraw their support
for Anwar and his call for democratic reforms would be discredited.
While many Malaysians supported the deputy prime minister, and joined
protests on his behalf, most of them did so only because they believe
he did not really commit homosexual acts.

In response to mounting international criticism, the government
established a National Human Rights Commission. The commission
defines human rights solely as those provided for in the Malaysian
constitution, and this does not include rights for homosexuals. There
is no challenge to Malaysia's sodomy law, which criminalises all
those who engage in same-sex relationships.

Gay people have no one to speak up for them in Malaysia. Without any
public discourse on the subject of equal rights for homosexuals,
there is little opportunity for changing the attitudes of the public
or government authorities.

Therefore, since homosexuality is considered an affront to Islam, any
news relating to gay and lesbian rights, especially including calls
for ending discrimination against homosexuals, is suppressed.

Police raiding, aided and abetted by a scandal-hungry media,
continues. For example, at 7:30pm on Nov 4 last year, police raided a
gay party in Penang, and brought along reporters who took pictures of
the gay men at this party. The police claimed there was sex going on
at this party, though all of the photos that were made as soon as the
police burst into the scene showed the men all fully clothed. P

Participants said that it was a purely social gathering, and denied
there was any sex going on. Whether there was sexual behavior or not,
what is important is that this was a private gathering of consenting
adults in a closed private business.

The extensive publicity regarding government condemnation of
homosexuality has sent the message to the police and others that
persecution of homosexuals is acceptable. All my recent research
shows that conditions for homosexuals in Malaysia are quite
precarious. Things are getting worse rather than better, and there is
no evidence of any turnaround potential for the forseeable future.

The negative attitudes, discrimination and persecution being
experienced by Malaysian gay people today is a direct result of
religious attitudes and governmental policies. Defining homosexuality
as criminal 'sodomy,' imprisonment, censorship of media discussions
of the issue, and police oppression, together constitute a pattern of
government-sponsored persecution that is impossible to deny.

With this being the case, I think it is time to organise a massive
campaign to end unjust laws (Section 377) and discriminatory policies
in those nations that persecute sexual minorities.

Please spread the word, and let's begin a campaign to produce change
for homosexuals being persecuted in the Muslim world. I remain an
optimist, and having seen such dramatic change in China, as well as
in other countries, I feel that change is possible in the Islamic
world as well.

There are some Muslim nations that are not actively persecuting
homosexuals, and they can be the model for change by the homophobic
governments. But though I am ultimately optimistic I also know it
will be a long struggle.

In the meantime we owe it to the poor people who are being
discriminated against to do everything we can to help them escape
from the oppressive conditions under which they have to live.

I am proud to have made my contribution in this area, and call upon
all other rational people who oppose discrimination to do likewise.
Lives of millions depend on this. Please do your part. Repeal Section
377.

ST: Indian gays hold rare march for their rights (July 1)

July 1, 2008
Indian gays hold rare march for their rights
Coming-out pride rallies show how attitudes in nation are changing rapidly
By Ravi Velloor

NEW DELHI - AT FIRST glance, the 500 or so marchers in central New
Delhi looked like they were rallying for communal harmony.

'Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isai,' read the placards they carried, using the
Hindi word for Christian.

Below those words were another rhyming line: 'Homo-hetero bhai bhai.'

Bhai-bhai in common Hindi translates as 'brotherhood'.

The marchers were holding an unprecedented public demonstration in the
national capital on Sunday for gay rights, showing sympathy towards
those clustered as LGBT - short for lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender.

In the technology hub of Bangalore, dozens of gays came out of the
closet to hold what is commonly known as a pride rally. So, too, did
gays in Kolkata, where pride rallies have been held since 2003.

Among the marchers in New Delhi was Mr K.R. Gopalan, a retired Indian
Air Force officer whose daughter is a lesbian.

'I came here to support my daughter,' he told reporters covering the
rally. 'I support her decision on her sexuality.'

The coming-out pride rally underscores how rapidly attitudes are
changing in this country regarding practices and ideas that go against
the norm.

India has had its famous gays. The late rock star Freddie Mercury, who
fronted the British band Queen, was born in Mumbai as Farrokh Balsara.
He died of Aids in 1991 and was a homosexual. Writer Vikram Seth
recently acknowledged that he is gay.

But for the most part, homosexuals have remained in the closet,
stigmatised by society. Indeed, India's public laws are often woefully
behind the times, thanks in part to the humbug of politicians and
administrators.

Some years ago, when top character actresses Shabana Azmi and Nandita
Das starred in a movie on lesbianism called Fire, right-wing
protesters succeeded in having the film pulled from many theatres
nationwide.

In Bangalore, perhaps India's most globalised city that was once known
for its swinging night life, the administration now bans live music in
its bars. Mumbai has banned its once-ubiquitous 'dance bars'.

India's laws treat homosexuality as a crime.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, drafted in 1860, prescribes
punishment for up to 10 years for 'carnal intercourse against the
order of nature'.

Human rights groups, in a challenge at the Delhi High Court, are
asking the judges to declare that India's law does not apply to
consenting adults. The court is set to hear arguments this week.

'In India, gays and lesbians still live highly closeted lives,' said
Mr Vikram Doctor, 40, a member of the Queer Media Collective, a group
of journalists who aim for a more balanced treatment of gay and
lesbian issues.

'There is still violence. There are still many desperate suicides by
gay couples. There is still harassment. And there is still intense
pressure to marry those they do not want to be with. But today, we
have a voice. This march has taken on a momentum of its own.'

The penal code is rarely applied, but hangs as a threat and a tool for
corrupt policemen to occasionally extort money.

This time around, gay rights activists probably have a better chance
of being heard. One reason is that there is growing realisation in
India that driving homosexuals underground may be hindering the drive
to combat Aids.

Mr Ashok Row Kavi, a pioneering gay rights activist in India, noted
that homosexuality is gaining acceptance in the West after years of
struggle.

'It is going to be a bitter fight here as well because modern India is
a product of many other cultures,' said Mr Kavi, who works as a
consultant for UNAids.

velloor@sph.com.sg

The Reporter: Worldwide church raises "insurmountable' issues (June 19)

Worldwide church raises 'insurmountable' issues

Yap Kim Hao, Jun 19, 2008

Yap Kim Hao
By Yap Kim Hao
Special Contributor

It was a revealing experience for me to be in Fort Worth as a visitor at the United Methodist 2008 General Conference. I participated for the first time as an elected delegate from the Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore in the General Conference in 1964. I attended as the first Asian bishop of the affiliated autonomous Methodist Church of Malaysia and Singapore until I resigned from the term episcopacy in 1973 to serve for 12 years as the General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia, which brought together the Christian denominations within Asia—including Australia and New Zealand—for fellowship, witness and service.

What was new for me in 2008 was the issue of homosexuality. I joined in the Common Witness as a Soulforce and Reconciling Ministries Network volunteer. The Silent Witness at the plenary was a memorable and moving experience for me, and it showed the increasing maturity of the delegates of the United Methodist churches in the United States. Hopefully the delegates, especially those from the Central Conferences, may be inspired by such a witness.

Worldwide nature

What was old for me was the discussion on the worldwide nature of the United Methodist Church. I was an active participant in the '60s in the Methodist Board of Missions Asia Consultation followed by the Global Consultation in Green Lake, Wis., which brought together the other regional consultations in Africa and Latin America. It was sponsored by the Commission of the Structure of Methodism Overseas (COSMOS).

The significant outcome of that consultation was the wide support for the move toward the structure of affiliated autonomous Methodist Churches overseas. The move was implemented in the Methodist Churches throughout Latin America and of Asia, with the exception of the Philippines. Other Methodist churches in Asia, which were the result of the work of the missionary society of British Methodism, had followed its policy of setting up autonomous churches earlier.

Looking at this development from the Asian perspective, the countries in Asia that were colonies of the United Kingdom entered into the period of de-colonization. The rise of independent nation-states came about with the disintegration of the British Empire. (British Methodism had also set free the Methodist Churches in the American colonies after the War of Independence).

For political reasons, the Methodist Churches in Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia and Burma have had to cut off connections at times with the United Methodist Church in the U.S. Foreign connections were detrimental to the development of Christianity.

The forces of history brought about the autonomous Methodist Churches throughout Asia with the exception of the Philippines. We have developed new relationships with one another that went beyond our previously exclusive connections with London and New York. We recognize now that close neighbors are more meaningful than distant relations.

A Fellowship of Asian Methodist Bishops/Presidents has since evolved into the Asian Methodist Council. The council recognizes the sovereignty of each member and restricts itself to common issues of witness and service.

Regarding the current discussion of the United Methodist Church's worldwide nature, it is highly unlikely that the affiliated autonomous Methodist Churches will desire to be re-integrated into the denomination's General Conference structure. It is more likely that we will welcome the partnership with the United Methodist Church on specific issues and programs of witness and service that are mutually beneficial.

It will be a relationship of mutuality without the past dominance of American Methodism over the other former Central Conference churches, even though they may change their names to Regional Conferences.

In re-structuring the United Methodist Church, what would be acceptable to the present Philippines Central Conference as well as other affiliated autonomous churches in Asia? What is the formula for representation at General Conference? Can we develop a rationale for disproportionate representation?

Questions to consider

How do we measure the apportionment from the churches in the different Regional Conferences? What is the level of participation in the Episcopal Fund? How do we support the enlarged General Conference budget, which will require convening in different parts of the United Methodist Church around the world?

To me, it seems these are insurmountable questions that defy answers.

The reality is that we have a different world today. Methodism responded to the colonial and post-colonial period. But in this time of globalization, what does it mean to develop a worldwide nature of the church?

Those who command resources and power will continue to dominate others who have less. Is the United Methodist Church in a position to develop a more equitable connection and mutually beneficial relations? This will call for affirmation of diversities and a commitment to change from its privileged status. Is there a willingness to learn from other already established Methodist Churches and an openness to partner with one another on an equal basis in witness and service?

It seems to me that the time has passed for the Methodist Churches in Asia to come together under one governance of one General Conference, either in the projected United Methodist General Conference or the Asian region. General Conferences in each country in Asia will continue to exist and develop connections not only with the United Methodist Church but with other churches in pursuit of our common mission and service in the world.

The Rev Yap is a former bishop of the Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore.

ST Forum: To say homosexuality is immoral is a cultural view (June 18)

S’poreans guilty too, not just rights activists

I read Lydia Lim’s article ‘Let’s not turn human rights into a battle ground’ on Saturday in which she reminded us what the Attorney-General, Professor Walter Woon, said rather critically: ‘These are people who evidently believe that they and their values represent the apex of human moral development.’

I find the statement rather ironic because it seems to me that there are among us enough Singaporeans who also believe that their values represent the apex of human moral development.

One blatant example is the declaration of the family as the smallest unit of society. It is a matter of cultural view but this value seems to be treated like a truism in Singapore with its manifestations imposed upon Singaporeans who do not hold the same view. One consequence is that only family units, and not singles, are entitled to hefty government subsidies and brand-new HDB flats.

Another example is the view that homosexuality is immoral and somehow wrong. Again, this is a cultural view but its manifestations suggest that it is treated like a hard fact. Programmes on homosexual relations and lifestyles are banned from TV channels, with violators slapped with hefty fines, disregarding the sentiments of gay and gay-friendly people.

A third example is the view that a man is somehow more ’superior’ (for want of a better word) than a woman. This is a view strongly associated with Confucianism. As a result, in some public sectors, when it comes to benefits, it seems to me that men get better treatment than women.

When it comes to believing that one’s cultural values represent the ‘apex of human moral development’, my examples suggest that Singapore is not exactly innocent.

Therefore, I wonder why Prof Woon sees this flaw only in Western human-rights activists but not among his fellow Singaporeans.

Dr Wong Jock Onn

ST Forum: Ease up on the censorship, please (June 17)

Ease up on the censorship, please

KUDOS to Channel 5 for not being afraid to air the Ellen DeGeneres talk show although Singapore is still not very open to topics about homosexuality.

However, it disturbs me that whenever the show host mentions her partner's name, Portia, or whenever there is any slight mention of her sexual orientation, Channel 5 censors it and the show skids forward. It would be good if viewers get to enjoy the full show for the celebrity's talent and entertainment value, and not one based on her orientation. I do not think that easing up on censorship on such occasions is condoning homosexuals' way of life.

Would it also be possible for Channel 5 to ease up on censorship for shows that are aired after midnight due to content - for example, Whose Line Is It Anyway?

The fact that these shows are aired at such a late time already means that viewers are primed for the content. Or perhaps a 'PG/Warning: unsuitable content for the young' notice could be flashed before the show starts.

Eunice Foo (Miss)

Union of Catholic Asian News: Forum Speakers Share How to Respond to Issue of Homosexuality (June 17)

SINGAPORE Forum Speakers Share How To Respond To Issue Of Homosexuality

On 2008-6-17

SINGAPORE (UCAN) -- The De La Salle brother once dreamed he was at the Last Judgment, and Christ approached him and said, "I was gay, and you never loved me."

Brother Michael Broughton was sharing with about 90 people during the first of four forums titled A Christian Response To Same-Sex Attraction. "When we push gays to the margins of our community and isolate them, then we will have to answer to our Lord in judgment, because love does not exclude," he said.

CANA-The Catholic Centre organized the forums, held on successive Thursday evenings ending May 29, to help Catholics respond to the issue of homosexuality in society.

Brother Broughton, president of De La Salle-run St. Joseph's Institution, shared that it is with love that God wants us to approach homosexual persons, "as Christ reached out to the most wretched of his time."

The Religious suggested "the only reason why we may not want to be friends with (them) is because we're afraid people will identify us as one of them." But he added that "this insecurity ... may prevent us from ministering and reaching out to them."

He also pointed out that "to accept a person is not necessarily to condone" the person's lifestyle. "If, as Catholics, we believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it is no excuse to condemn a person or cut the person off from the family," he maintained.

singapore.gifBrother Broughton outlined three main considerations in interacting with homosexual persons. First, he said, they need someone to talk to and trust. Second, one must listen with great respect. Third, "we have to protect people from being victimized."

Catherine Tyrer, a counselor with the Singapore archdiocesan-run Family Life Society, shared on May 29 from her experience counseling homosexual persons. "Some want a listening ear, because there isn't a lot of support outside," she said.

Among challenges they face she cited struggles with interpersonal relationships, family, sexuality and social pressures.

Several speakers addressed the Church stance on homosexual acts, which, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are "intrinsically disordered" and "contrary to the natural law."

Jesuit Father Paul Goh, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology, explained on May 15 that homosexuality can be divided into covert homosexuality, in which people experience homosexual feelings but do not act on these, and overt homosexuality, in which people engage in homosexual acts.

Only overt homosexuality is a moral issue, he said.

Moral theologian Father David Garcia shared on May 22 that today's popular opinion about relating to homosexual persons can be summed up as: "If you really want to love the 'sinner,' don't call it a sin."

Pointing to the Gospel account of the woman caught in adultery, Father Garcia said Jesus did not see a conflict between showing compassion and calling adultery a sin. "Rather, compassion needs truth, and truth needs to be compassionate."

On the idea of homosexual marriage, he said that if homosexual persons are allowed to marry the person they love, "then what about romantic adulterers?"

Alex Au, founding member of People Like Us 3, a gay-equality lobby group, disagreed with the Church stance on homosexual acts. He said at the May 15 forum that historical arguments against ending slavery and giving women voting rights were very similar to present-day arguments against legalizing homosexual behavior, which is illegal in Singapore.

The Catholic Church says homosexual persons "must be treated with respect, but ... are called to chastity," he noted. "How do you separate identity from behavior? It's like saying, 'It's okay for you to be a Christian, but it's illegal to build churches and meet together.'"In his view, "the issue is not homosexuality, but homophobia."

Leslie Lung, a former transsexual, shared on May 8 that two days before his scheduled gender-reassignment surgery in 1984, a spiritual experience convinced him this was not what God intended for him.

Since then, he has worked to set up Liberty League, a ministry promoting sexual health in society.

Forum speakers included a medical doctor and a lawyer.

On the last evening, an audience member said she wanted to form a fellowship group for "those who know someone with homosexual tendencies." Several people gave their contact numbers.

ST Forum Online: Vital to distinguish between rights and claims (June 12)

June 12, 2008

I REFER to Mrs Constance Singam's letter, 'Human-rights fanatics is what S'pore needs' (June 6).

There is a need to distinguish between a human right and a claim by vested political groups.

For instance, is the right of adoption a human right?

In some countries, vested parties push for rights of adoption, including assisted reproduction for same-sex couples. This is campaigned under the banner of human rights.

Homosexual activists, keen for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, use the human rights banner to push for their cause.

However, when this is achieved, homosexual activists use the same argument to push for other 'equal rights'.

In some countries, it is compulsory to teach that homosexuality is a norm in pubic schools, recognise same-sex couples as 'married' and for orphanages to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is funded by tax payers' money under the 'equal rights' argument.

Opponents like orphanages which are against adoption by same-sex couples, for instance, are subject to legal action or even forced to close down.

The Singapore majority have demonstrated their preference for family values as a basic fabric of society.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also states that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by the State.

It is prudent of Attorney-General Walter Woon to highlight the danger of human rights being abused by a fanatic group, against the will of the Singapore society and the founders of the UDHR.

Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

ST Forum: Vital to distinguish between rights and claims (June 12)

June 12, 2008
Vital to distinguish between rights and claims
I REFER to Mrs Constance Singam's letter, 'Human-rights fanatics is
what S'pore needs' (June 6).

There is a need to distinguish between a human right and a claim by
vested political groups.

For instance, is the right of adoption a human right?

In some countries, vested parties push for rights of adoption,
including assisted reproduction for same-sex couples. This is
campaigned under the banner of human rights.

Homosexual activists, keen for the decriminalisation of homosexuality,
use the human rights banner to push for their cause.

However, when this is achieved, homosexual activists use the same
argument to push for other 'equal rights'.

In some countries, it is compulsory to teach that homosexuality is a
norm in public schools, recognise same-sex couples as 'married' and
for orphanages to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

The promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is funded by tax payers'
money under the 'equal rights' argument.

Opponents like orphanages which are against adoption by same-sex
couples, for instance, are subject to legal action or even forced to
close down.

The Singapore majority have demonstrated their preference for family
values as a basic fabric of society.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also states that the
family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is
entitled to protection by the State.

It is prudent of Attorney-General Walter Woon to highlight the danger
of human rights being abused by a fanatic group, against the will of
the Singapore society and the founders of the UDHR.

Chua Chor Ping (Ms)

Reuters: Singapore attorney warns of rights "fanatics": paper (May 30)

Singapore attorney warns of rights "fanatics": paper
Fri May 30, 2008 10:23pm EDT

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's attorney general warned that the concept of human rights must not be allowed to become a religion for fanatics to achieve political goals such as gay marriage, the Straits Times reported on Saturday.

The newspaper quoted Attorney-General Walter Woon as saying that it would be "hypocrisy" for such activists to decide what is acceptable for the rest of society.

"There is a misconception that Singapore officialdom is against human rights," the pro-government daily quoted Woon as saying at a Singapore Law Society event.

"What we are against is the assumption of some people that when they decide what are human rights, it is a decision for the rest of humanity,"

Last year the Singapore government decided to uphold a law that bans sex between men, saying the idea of advocating a homosexual lifestyle was unacceptable to large parts of its conservative society. In spite of the ban Singapore has a thriving gay scene.

Singapore's constitution guarantees free speech, but speaking in public requires a police permit as do public gatherings of more than four people -- a practice that has been criticized by human right groups.

The small but rich Southeast Asian island has been run by the same party since independence in 1965 and political opposition parties play no big role in public life with 82 out of 84 parliamentary seats held by the ruling People's Action Party.

(Reporting by Jan Dahinten; Editing by David Fox)

The Register: How Free Press breaks the citizens' network ( May 19)

How Free Press breaks the citizens' network
By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)
Published Monday 19th May 2008 16:15 GMT

In 2003 the journalist Ron Suskind captured one of the quotes of the decade when he cited an unnamed Bush administration official as saying:

"When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality, we'll act again, creating other new realities."

On the web today, "political activism" has become a virtual reality game that anyone can play, whoever you are. To succeed, a campaign need not be reality-based at all: it can generate its own fictional cause, complete with symbolic heroes and villains. Eventually the "campaigners" bump into physics, or economics, or real electors - who may have different, more urgent priorities - and the "campaign" vanishes as quickly as it appeared.

But what's interesting is the real world consequences of the virtual campaign can be the complete opposite of the campaigner's stated goals.

For example, have a look at this exchange with Ben Scott. Ben is a policy director at Free Press. The outfit describes itself as a "national, nonpartisan organisation working to reform the media". A goal is a media more responsive to citizens, and more accurate too.

So we were intrigued when it sent out a press release last week titled "Comcast and Cox Caught Blocking BitTorrent All Day, All Night". Had one of the internet's most popular applications been KO'd for millions of users? Actually, no. BitTorrent was working just fine.

So we sent a brief note to Free Press, on the basis that if it wanted a more accurate media, perhaps it shouldn't send out inaccurate press releases, hoping the media reprint the inaccuracies without question.

"Blocking implies that Bittorrent exchanges are somehow prohibited," we wrote. "In fact, Comcast's Bittorrent sessions have run faster and more smoothly as a consequence of this network management. So it's inaccurate to describe it in such indiscriminate terms."

But there was a more disturbing aspect to this careless use of the word "block". Free Press had cited a study by students at the Max Planck Institute which showed network management techniques were being used by three ISPs: Comcast, Cox and Singapore's.

Now, Singapore is not the United States. The government monitors and controls internet use, with the policy of criminalising certain kinds of behaviour. Homosexuality is illegal, for example.

So "blocking", in Singapore, means that you can't read certain things, and can't write certain things either. In 2005, the government successfully prosecuted and jailed bloggers.

Doesn't equating a repressive block on free speech with network management techniques trivialise the issue? And consequently make it harder for genuine victims of censorship to make their case? But Ben Scott couldn't see the problem. He mailed us back:

"As you'll note, we mention only Comcast and Cox and discuss the issue explicitly in the context of US government policy in the Congress and at the FCC. We do not even mention the Singapore case, so I don't think we are equating the two countries. We do not have any knowledge about Singapore telecommunications practices and could not comment publicly on them."

He also defended the use of the word "block". Comcast blocks Bittorrent in the same way as a traffic light may block your road journey; you may actually arrive at the destination quicker. It doesn't detonate an IED by your car, and force you to walk.

As we've explained before, when Bittorrent's aggressive protocol is heavily used, other applications become unusable - so the cable operator tries to keep everyone happy.

Scott defended the inaccuracy:

"I would disagree with your characterization of RST packets. This is in fact blocking by definition. It think your analogy is inapt. It would be the equivalent of traffic stops sending me back home to start driving to work all over again."

Only it doesn't.

Scott produced a few names of "experts" to back up his case. But none of these seem to grasp the distinction, either - and none have experience of building real networks, ones that don't fall over when the real people use them, doing the things people like to do. Like running Bittorrent, or making VoIP calls.

"I am not opposed to network management. I’m not opposed to throttling heavy users that are dominating congested links. I’m not opposed to congestion pricing. I’m not opposed to network tools that are used to protect security, etc. All networks use these tools. They use them today. They will use them tomorrow."

What he objected to was less than clear. But it's hard to draw up a policy when the definition of network abuse is so flexible. The press release of the day said that Comcast's actions were inexcusable, but Ben had just excused those actions in an email.
Breaking the citizen's network

But there's another more profound and disturbing aspect to a citizen's group declaring what can and can't be done with technology.

This is how I pointed it out to Scott (apologies for quoting it at length):

The internet gives citizens control over the tools of communication in quite an unprecedented way. This, obviously, threatens institutions which depend on scarcity of information for their authority. I think this is a pretty unique moment in the history of communications.

But I think I'm beginning to see the problem, and it's a classic information cascade. The "experts" tell you something you want to hear; you provide something the "experts" wouldn't otherwise have. You get "evidence of abuse". They get media prominence and social relevance. It's a dependency cycle. But is it real, or fictional?

The question you must answer is - is the network you / I / we propose one that is sustainable ? One that citizens can use as a template for the future?

In other words, would a temporary injection of RTS packets ever be permissible, or not? We'd soon find out. Joe Public goes to make a VOIP call, and then discovers that Bittorrent has grabbed all the available bandwidth and sockets. And it's completely out of his control. He can run one application or the other, but not both. We've outlawed intelligent and benign network management.

The precedent to remember is The Anarchist's Cookbook. This was lauded as the ultimate recipe book for creating disruptive stuff - like bombs. But The Anarchist's Cookbook was created at the CIA. It contained so many bogus instructions that it destroyed far more readers than intended targets. It was designed to fail.

Are you sure you're not creating a network that's designed to fail too? If the citizen's network fails - who benefits?

So far, I haven't heard a reply.

With its campaign to "Save The Internet", Free Press may achieve two goals that I fear are the opposite of what its biggest backer, George Soros, intended when he financed the outfit.

One is that it makes the job of genuine free speech activists - who work to promote cases of real repression - much harder.

The other is that it mandates a broken network as the default technical standard for citizens.

You may recall the "Stuckist Net" arguments here several years ago, when readers discussed how feasible it would be to evade lockdown technologies and create computer platforms that remained free and open. That was in the aftermath of CPRM, when it looked like Vista would be a tightly controlled system. That nightmare never came to pass, but the internet retains the ability to be a genuine "citizens' network", with even the domain name system open to alternatives.

But for the public to adopt such a system, it must offer a genuinely compelling alternative to AT&T and Comcast. It's no good advertising yourself as "citizen owned" if your offering falls over as soon as people use P2P. Similarly, selling a network with important features missing - such as VoIP - hardly makes it more attractive. You might get the odd politically-correct masochist, but Joe Public will stay away.

So in banging the drum for the virtual campaign, Free Press makes the big guys even stronger. That's an odd result for an outfit that says its goal is "to promote diverse and independent media ownership".

And a hell of a legacy to leave behind. ®

Christian Post: Christian Leaders: Homosexuality shows Singapore needs revival (May 7)

Christian Post - 07 May 08 - Christian Leaders: Homosexuality Shows Singapore Needs Revival

Responses to an ongoing survey on whether the homosexuality law in the Singapore Penal Code should be actively enforced have pointed toward a common conclusion.

Thirty-three surveys were sent out to Christian leaders from various denominations, churches, missions and ministry organisations by The Christian Post Singapore over the course of the past week.

Seven Christian leaders responded to the survey, of whom two addressed the questions directly.

The Rev. Yang Tuck Yoong, the Rev. Dominic Yeo, the Rev. Joseph Prince, Senior Pastors of the Cornerstone Community Church, Trinity Christian Centre and New Creation Church respectively, declined to comment on the subject.

Amos Ang, a campaign director in Singapore Campus Crusade for Christ, pointed out that the issue is ‘highly politicised’ and refrained from making further comment on an organisational level, although he noted that many in the campus organisation have “participated individually in polls against homosexuality in Singapore.”

Going a step further, the Orthodox Parish Priest, Father Daniel indicated that the issue was never a political one, but rather, a pastoral issue.

His responses recalled the Biblical and apostolic method of addressing the dilemma of Christians in regard to the social immorality of the places in which, for instance, the Corinthian church lived.

In any case, the priest suggested, the standards that are applied to the Church should not be the same as those applied to the unchurched and unbelieving world at large.

By implication, the method used to save the world should not be the method of politics.

The leader of the Eastern Orthodox denomination in Singapore cautioned Christians against using political means to resolve the issue that are really based on a judgmental posture of living.

“Help me to see my own sin, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages, Amen,” said Father Daniel, quoting from the Lenten Prayer of S. Ephraim the Syrian.

As to the method that should be employed, a mega-church pastor gave a clear response.

Lighthouse Evangelism’s Senior Pastor Rony Tan said Singapore society is facing more problems than just homosexuality. He remarked that the nation was also dealing with the issues of pornography, drugs, child abuse and other forms of immorality.

He concluded that what the nation needs is really a mighty revival of God’s righteousness and holiness.

Homosexuality Talks at the Catholic Centre

1. Homosexuality: A Christian Response

Date: Thursday, May 8

Time: 7.15pm

Leslie, a former transsexual will share the story of how he came to realize that homosexual acts are a dead end and how he found real happiness. Brother Michael Broughton, a religious educator, will share the “Do’s and Dont’s When Speaking To Persons With Homosexual Inclinations”.

2. What’s Wrong With Homosexual Acts? Part I: Viewpoints from Psychology and Societal Implications

Date: Thursday, May 15

Time: 7.15pm

Centre of Ignatian Spirituality and Counselling Director, Father Paul Lian-Kok Goh, SJ will share his viewpoint on what’s wrong with homosexual acts from his background in psychology respectively, while Mr Thomas Aqbal, an Advocate and Solicitor will explore the societal implications. Also invited is Mr Alex Au a.k.a. Yawning Bread, as he is known on the Internet. Mr Au is a founding member of Singapore ’s main gay equality lobby group “People Like Us 3”.

3. What’s Wrong With Homosexual Acts? Part II: Viewpoints from Medicine and Moral Implications

Date: Thursday, May 22
Time: 7.15pm

Moral theologian Father David Garcia, OP will share his viewpoint on what’s wrong with homosexual acts morally while Dr John Hui, Immediate Past Master of the Catholic Medical Guild of Singapore shares his viewpoints from his background in medicine.

4. SSA and Hope: Resources, Support Groups, and Counselling
Date: Thursday, May 29
Time: 7.15pm

Family Life Society Therapist Catherine Tyrer will explain “What Is Counselling All About?” where she will walk participants through what takes place during a counselling session with a person with same-sex attraction. Avenues for support and resources available will also be shared.

All sessions will be held at CANA – The Catholic Centre ( 55 Waterloo Street , 2nd level). Please register by email at cana@catholiccentre.com.sg. The forum is free of charge.

A Soulforce Open Letter to Members of the United Methodist Church (May 1)

A Soulforce Open Letter to Members of the United Methodist Church

On April 30, 2008, delegates to your General Conference meeting in Ft. Worth, Texas, voted to keep these words in their Book of Discipline: "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." Since 1972 United Methodists have used these words to deny lesbian and gay Methodists the rights of ordination and of marriage. As I write clergy can even use these words to deny lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christian the rights of membership in a local church.

For 36 years lesbian and gay United Methodists and their allies have worked tirelessly to replace these words with words of affirmation and acceptance. Once again a UMC General Conference has decided to keep those words in place even though they lead to intolerance, discrimination, suffering and even death. In his book "Why We Can't Wait," Martin Luther King, Jr. describes the 1963 struggle for civil rights that climaxed with legislation that ended segregation in the United States. Dr. King's book might have been titled, "Why We Didn't Wait," for he describes the "disappointments" that drove African-Americans into the streets - "disappointments" that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans know all too well.

We lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans are also disappointed in the Congress and the courts; disappointed in both political parties and their leadership; disappointed in the lack of change in the United States when European nations are granting their gay and lesbian citizens the full rights of citizenship; but especially we are disappointed in our churches for ignoring the empirical and biblical data that homosexuality is not a sickness to be cured nor a sin to be forgiven.

We, too, are tired of slow change and token changes, tired of defending ourselves against the claims of moral inferiority, tired of being victims of public laws and private humiliations, tired of intolerance and inequality, tired of suffering and dying just because we are different. The historic civil rights legislation of 1964 came just eight years after Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. It's been almost 40 years since the Stonewall protest in New York City and 36 years since the United Methodists decided that they "...do not condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice incompatible with Christian teaching."

With all the changes we can celebrate, the real problem remains the same: the antigay religious teachings and actions that support intolerance and discrimination are still powerfully in place in the United Methodist Church and in most other Protestant and Catholic Churches. These antigay, religion-based teachings and actions have become the primary source of misinformation against sexual and gender minorities.

Most antigay initiatives and antigay court decisions (local, statewide and national) flow out of those same religious teachings. They give license for gay bashers to harass and harm us and motive for God's gay children to kill ourselves. Instead of changing minds and hearts, the 36 year war of words by leaders of the United Methodist Church has seen those antigay religious teachings harden into place. When will we realize that the antigay teachings cannot be "studied" or "debated" away? It will take another civil rights revolution to end them.

In "Why We Can't Wait" Dr. King makes it clear: "The ultimate tragedy of Birmingham was not the brutality of the bad people, but the silence of the good people." It is not the Institute for Religion and Democracy who have kept these tragic words in place. We can't condemn the Confessing Movement for this current dilemma. It is the silence of the good people of the United Methodist Church that is to blame.

But there is a way to end that silence without anger, hatred or violence. Guided by Gandhi's soul force principles, the principles of relentless nonviolent resistance, Dr. King led the people of Birmingham on a journey into justice that "stirred the conscience of the nation." We don't have to wait for a consensus at the next general conference. We can stand for justice now in ways that will empower us and change minds and hearts in the process.

We call on the United Methodist Bishops who know the tragic consequences of those words to refuse to enforce them or to resign in protest. Gandhi said "It is as much our obligation not to cooperate with evil as it is to cooperate with good." Every day a Bishop remains a Bishop he or she gives tacit support to the teachings that are killing us.

We call on the United Methodist clergy who know the tragic consequences of those words to take their stand against them. Welcome us. Marry us. Ordain us. Confront and condemn your fellow clergy who dare to use those words to deny membership to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Christians. We ask you to take steps immediately to join the Reconciling Ministries Network and to make it known to your community that you are an Open and Affirming Congregation.

We call on members of the United Methodist Church to support your local congregation if it is (or is rapidly becoming) a Reconciling Congregation. But we call upon you to leave your church if your pastor continues to enforce the words that "...do not condone." At least refuse to pay your tithes and offerings until your church opens their doors to all people as Christ commands.

We call on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender United Methodists, their families and friends, to refuse to finance your own oppression by giving your tithes and offerings to a church that refuses to see you as fully human. How can we continue to support a local congregation where the pastor insists that our relationships are impure or unholy and thus refuses to marry us or insists that we are not really called by God to serve the church and thus refuses to ordain us? How can we even think of staying in a congregation that denies membership to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender persons? And as you leave, take down that sign or banner that reads "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors." Store it until the United Methodist Church earns the right to use it once again.

Whatever you do to take your stand against those words in the UMC Book of Discipline, do something. We cannot wait for the next General Conference. While those words remain in place lives are being ruined, talents are being wasted, families are being divided and whole generations are being lost to the United Methodist Church. Even worse, how many people have given up their faith in Christ because His church has become a primary source of intolerance and discrimination? Don't wait for a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, Jr. to lead us out of this wilderness. Whatever you decide to do, your simple act of conscience will make a difference.

One Sunday an African-American pastor was proclaiming those tragic words from the pulpit. "We do not condone..." "...Incompatible with Christian teaching..." "Sick and sinful..." Having heard enough, the gay organist stood up and said loudly, "There will be no more music today." With that he gathered up his music and walked out of the church. After a moment of breathtaking silence, one by one the choir followed. Just seven words and a brief walk down the aisle and a choir was empowered to do justice and a congregation was changed forever.

Rev. Dr. Mel White
President of the Board

Jeff Lutes
Executive Director

Paige Schilt
Media Director
(512) 659-1771
paige@soulforce.org

United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance (April 30)

United Methodists uphold homosexuality stance
By Robin Russell*
April 30, 2008 | FORT WORTH, Texas (UMNS)

Delegates to the 2008 General Conference on April 30 rejected changes to the United Methodist Social Principles that would have acknowledged that church members disagree on homosexuality.

Delegates instead adopted a minority report that retained language in the denomination’s 2004 Book of Discipline describing homosexual practice as “incompatible with Christian teaching.”

The adopted wording in Paragraph 161G also states that “all persons are individuals of sacred worth, created in the image of God,” and that United Methodists are to be “welcoming, forgiving and loving one another, as Christ has loved and accepted us.”

Delegates also approved a new resolution to oppose homophobia and heterosexism, saying the church opposes “all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.”
Majority and minority reports

In its majority report, the legislative committee, chaired by Frederick Brewington, New York Conference, recommended that delegates delete the incompatibility sentence and adopt the statement, “Faithful, thoughtful people who have grappled with this issue deeply disagree with one another; yet all seek a faithful witness.”

The revision also would have asked United Methodists and others “to refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to a new insight.”

Brewington told delegates the petition would be “an exciting and mature way forward,” calling it “an honest, yet humble approach to how we are to view one another.”

“Moving forward means we have come to a point of telling the truth. And we do not agree,” he said. “We can make the determination to move forward, and stop the hurt.”

In presenting the minority report, however, the Rev. Eddie Fox said that any United Methodist statement on human sexuality needs to be “clear, concise and faithful to biblical teaching.”

Leaving out the statement that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching” would be confusing, especially for members of the church outside the United States, Fox said.

“I have seen and experienced the pain and the brokenness in parts of our global movement whenever our church has failed to hold fast to this essential teaching of the Holy Scripture,” he said.

The delegates’ action prompted a coalition of gay advocacy groups immediately to stage a silent vigil outside the Fort Worth Convention Center. Members of Soulforce, Affirmation, Reconciling Ministries Network and Methodist Federation for Social Action lined the entrance as delegates returned from a dinner break.
Heated debate

Earlier in the day, the petition opposing homophobia generated some heated debate from the floor when a delegate from the Democratic Republic of Congo described homosexual practice as among the things “that come from the devil.”

“Homosexuality is a practice that is incompatible with the love of God,” he said. “We love homosexual people, but we detest what they do.”

But the Rev. Judy Stevens, New York Conference, countered: “We are all aware of the violence used against homosexual people in the world today. … It’s time to stand with people whose orientation may be different from us.”

The Rev. Debbie Fisher, from the Northern Illinois Conference, told delegates about a gay relative who was beaten to the point of being unable to function as an adult. “I ask you to think about Wesley’s three rules,” she said. “Great harm was done to this man who loved God.”

The Rev. Steve Wende of the Texas Conference said the debate was painful, but cautioned delegates against changing the Discipline’s language: “If we do this as a way of making some people happy, it won’t make anyone happy.”

Will Green of the New England Conference urged delegates to adopt the committee’s recommendation. “It allows for gay and lesbian people like myself to stay in the church in a safe way that doesn’t cause us to be sacrificed for the sake of church unity,” he said.

The Rev. Kent Millard, South Indiana Conference, said the petition reflects reality among United Methodists. “The truth is, we are divided,” he said. “Let’s just acknowledge that it doesn’t say one is right and one is wrong. It just says we disagree.”

After replacing the majority report with the minority report, delegates approved it 501-417.

In other action on sexuality issues, delegates voted to:

* Add the words “sexual orientation” to an existing resolution regarding a commitment to educational opportunity regardless of gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin or economic or social background;
* Retain language of Paragraph 341.6 in the Discipline that prohibits United Methodist ministers from conducting ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions;
* Reject a proposal to add “civil unions” to a list of basic civil liberties in Paragraph 162.H because delegates felt the language was already inclusive;
* Reject amending Paragraph 161.C to include “committed unions” in a section describing the sanctity of the marriage covenant.

*Russell is the managing editor of the United Methodist Reporter.

News media contact: Deborah White, e-mail: newsdesk@umcom.org.