What's next? Same sex marriages?
Tuesday • September 9, 2008
Letter from Anton Chan
MR HO Kwon Ping is wrong to propose the acceptance of gays into
Singapore society because accepting a gay lifestyle would have a
tremendous impact on society as a whole in terms of religious beliefs,
social well-being and families.
As a Christian, I oppose legalising a gay lifestyle in Singapore
because it's against my beliefs. As a father of three teenagers, I
care because I don't want my children to be affected by such a lifestyle.
Imagine if we allow the acceptance of such a lifestyle in Singapore.
What next? Legalise same sex marriages? Legalise adoption of children
for gays?
Where are we as a socially-conservative society heading towards?
Soon gays will claim the right for social acceptance in all areas
including education, welfare et cetera. What effect will this have on
the next generation of children and parents who wish that their
children will grow up normally and produce children in the normal
course of their being?
The only strong contention in Mr Ho's proposal is the so-called gay
leading edge in the "creative class". Doesn't our society have many
other people to develop and nurture? Why are we so eager to promote
creative class talent in Singapore? So that we can become a more
tolerant society to accept whatever lifestyle these bring? Definitely no.
I would like to borrow a similar argument by Attorney-General Walter
Woon regarding the Human Organ Transplant Act (Hota). In "None above
the law" (Sept 8), he said: "If Dr Lee (Wei Ling) disagrees with Hota,
she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But until
Parliament amends or repeals the Hota and the Oaths and Declarations
Act, they remain the law of Singapore."
If anyone disagrees with the law for gays as enacted by Parliament,
he/she is at perfect liberty to campaign to have it amended ... But
until Parliament amends or repeals the law of Singapore for gays, it
remains the law of Singapore.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274854print.asp
TodayOnline.com: What's Next? Same Sex Marriage? (Sept 9)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
SafeHaven and PPC presents - For the Bible Tells Me So (June 21)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
21 Jun 08 - SafeHaven and PPC presents - FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO
FILM SYNOPSIS
Can the love between two people ever be an abomination? Is the chasm
separating gays and lesbians and Christianity too wide to cross? Is
the Bible an excuse to hate?
Through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very
American families -- including those of former House Majority Leader
Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson -- we discover how
insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay
child. Informed by such respected voices as Bishop Desmond Tutu,
Harvard's Peter Gomes, Orthodox Rabbi Steve Greenberg and Reverend
Jimmy Creech, FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO offers healing, clarity and
understanding to anyone caught in the crosshairs of scripture and
sexual identity.
There will be a discussion moderated by Miak from The Free Community
Church, following the screening.
RSVP - This event is by invitation only.
As there are limited seats, prior registration is required.
For an invite -please email [pelangipridecentre at yahoo dot com] with
your name (in full), contact number, the name/s of your guests.
Details at a Glance
Event: Screening of "FOR THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO"
Date: Saturday, 21 June 2008 (210608)
Time: 4pm
Venue: Pelangi Pride Centre - 54 Rowell Road (in Little India)
Cost per person: $6 (cost of 2 drinks and finger food)
-----------
For directions on how to get to the new PPC:
Come into Hindoo Road from Jalan Besar. Look for tall HDB block 639 at
the end of the road. Corner terrace house with grapevines growing.
Come in from the back door.
Christian Post: Christian Leaders: Homosexuality shows Singapore needs revival (May 7)
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
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.
Sydney Morning Herald: Selective Tolerance is not Tolerance for All (Nov 19)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Selective tolerance is not tolerance at all
Michael Kirby - Michael Kirby is a judge of the High Court of Australia. This article is based on the Griffith Lecture, which he delivered in Brisbane on Friday.
19 November 2007
Freedom of religion does not have an easy relationship with revealed religions. It is difficult for many believers to tolerate the postulate of error: the possibility that another God or earthly messenger may exist, different from their own, or indeed that there may be no God.
Lina Joy was born in Malaysia into a Muslim family. At birth she was given the name Azalina binti Jailani. In 1998 she decided to convert to Christianity. She announced her intention to marry a Christian man. Under Malaysian law she would be unable to do so unless her new status as a non-Muslim was officially recognised.
Azalina applied to change the name on her identity card to a Christian name. She was successful. However, the regulations required that the identity cards of Muslims state their religion. Therefore, when Lina Joy received her new identity card, the word Islam still appeared. In effect it stood as a barrier to her marriage.
She then applied to have the word Islam removed from her identity card. Her application was rejected. She contested the policy, invoking the Malaysian constitution, which provides that: "Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation."
Upon the rejection of Lina Joy's application by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, she appealed to the Federal Court, the country's highest judicial body. She argued the requirement that she must obtain the approval of a third party to exercise her choice of religion was unconstitutional. By a majority of two to one the judges found against her. Inevitably, it was noticed that the two majority judges were Muslim. The dissenting judge was a non-Muslim.
In earlier times Christianity had a very similar approach to renouncing religion. It was most evident during the bloody wars, forced conversions and burnings of heretics that accompanied the Christian Reformation and Counter Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church of my youth in Australia did not permit Protestants to marry in its churches. This was only 50 years ago. We have overcome this sectarian divide.
It is important for those who support the universality of human rights within Islam to realise that the primary source of Islamic principles, the Koran, expressly states that "there is no compulsion in religion". The foundation of human punishment for apostasy by Muslims is essentially found in an interpretation not of the Koran but of the hadith, or recorded sayings, of the prophet Muhammad.
In Australia the case of Lina Joy has come as a surprise. We are entitled to express our concern about it. We know the one universal principle that is shared by all the world's great religions is the Golden Rule. To do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you.
One of the foremost critics of the Lina Joy decision was Dr Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore. She observed: "There is a certain agony about this case, which at its heart concerns a woman who wishes to make a change in religious profession and to marry and have a family."
When I read this critique I applauded Dr Thio's views. Imagine my disappointment to read the Hansard record of remarks by the same Dr Thio, a couple of weeks ago, as a member of the Parliament of Singapore, opposing proposals to repeal the criminal laws of Singapore directed against homosexual men.
Speaking from a standpoint as a Christian believer, Dr Thio rallied the opposition to reform. She denounced "the sexual libertine ethos of the wild, wild West". She declared "you cannot make a human wrong a human right". She warned against "slouching back to Sodom". We have all heard all this type of language from religious zealots in Australia. Fortunately, recent evidence suggests that we are growing up.
My point is that it is not good enough for Christians, or people of the Christian tradition, to be selective about tolerance and acceptance. We cannot selectively denounce Islam for its views on apostasy but then do equally nasty and cruel things to others by invoking imperfect understandings of our own religious tradition.
Universal human rights are needed to permit each and every one of us to fulfil ourselves as our unique human natures, intelligence and moral sense demand. For Lina Joy and her fiance this means the freedom to worship God as they believe, and to marry and live, in their own country. For a homosexual man in Singapore, it means freedom from the fear of harassment and humiliation by outdated criminal laws.
Lina Joy should have our support because she is a human being standing up for the integrity of her basic rights. Those rights are not, as the majority judges in Malaysia said of her case, her "whims and fancies". They are precious manifestations of deep-seated human feelings that express part of the very essence of what it is to be a human being.
Methodist Message: Importance of our Connectionalism shines through issues (Nov 07)
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Importance of our Connectionalism shines through issues
By Peter Teo
METHODIST connectionalism – that important link which is inherent in our tradition – was pushed to the forefront in the last few months by several international conferences held in Singapore and the region.
There was plenty of sharing of ideas and experiences and a time of close fellowship at each of these conferences, beginning with the Asian Christian Women’s Leadership Training and Dialogue held here from July 27 to Aug 3, which was attended by some 80 participants from the region and the United States.
The event was hosted by the General Conference-Women’s Society of Christian Service and co-sponsored by the Singapore women, the Women’s Division of the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church in the US, and the Global Women’s Leadership Centre-Korea.
The women were taught leadership skills and discussed a wide range of subjects, including societal issues and the role of Christian women in missions today.
The focus shifted to the region when the Annual Meeting of The Methodist Mission in Cambodia was held in Phnom Penh on Sept 7 and 8.
A high point of that meeting was the ordination of 10 local pastors – one as an Elder and nine as Deacons. The ordination was conducted by Bishop Dr Robert Solomon, Bishop Roy I. Sano of The United Methodist Church, and Bishop Han Chung Suk of Korea Methodist Church.
Then came the Regular Meeting of the Fellowship of Asian Methodist Bishops (FAMB) in Manila on Sept 10, followed immediately the next day by the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Asian Methodist Council (AMC), also held in the Philippines capital.
At the FAMB meeting, the challenge of providing proper care to Filipino workers abroad was discussed at length.
In a report to the FAMB, The United Methodist Church, Philippines Central Conference College of Bishops disclosed that some 3,000 Filipinos were leaving the country for jobs abroad every day.
Consequently, Filipino pastors based in South Korea, Japan, Singapore and the Middle East have been asked to provide spiritual needs to the Filipinos working in those countries.
The Philippines Bishops have also appealed to their brother bishops in the region to “help look after” the Filipinos working in their respective countries.
“The economic nuances of corporate globalisation and the war on terror are also affecting our people,” they said.
In his country report on Singapore, Bishop Dr Robert Solomon mentioned the Singapore Government’s emphasis on strengthening inter-racial and inter-religious harmony within the community in order to minimise tension should a terrorist incident occur.
Dialogue and engagement with people of other faiths were encouraged through community programmes where the various communities could meet and interact to build confidence, friendship and trust with each other.
He said: “The Methodist Church in Singapore supports the need for religious harmony. Together with the National Council of Churches of Singapore, we have been educating Christians on how they should conduct themselves and maintain their Christian values in inter-religious relations.”
One of the outcomes of the FAMB and AMC meetings was the issuance of a statement on the issue of homosexuality.
The Asian Bishops unanimously decided to send a letter to the Council of Bishops of The United Methodist Church (UMC) stating that:
“Our Asian Methodist Churches and communities have held, and continue to hold to the teachings of Scripture and our historic Christian faith on the issues of marriage and sexuality. Sexual relationships outside marriage are against the teachings of Scripture. The marital relationship is also between a man and a woman. We have also held that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings. We expect our clergy and lay to abide by these teachings and standards. We appreciate that the United Methodist Church has taken a position similar to that of the Asian Methodist churches and pray that the UMC will continue to make a clear stand. The unity of the global Methodist family will be seriously affected if any member of this family moves away from the biblical and historical position on the issues of marriage and sexuality. We therefore pray that together, we will be committed to maintain the teaching of Scripture and the historical and unanimous tradition of our global Methodist, and wider Christian, family.”
The letter was sent in the light of the UMC’s upcoming General Conference in April next year at which the homosexuality issue is expected to be raised again.
Following the FAMB and AMC meetings, about 200 leaders from all over the world converged in Sydney from Sept 15 to 20 for the World Methodist Council (WMC) Executive Committee meeting.
It was decided that the next World Methodist Conference will be held in Durban, South Africa in 2011. It is expected to be held from Aug 2 to 9.
It was also decided that the next WMC Executive Committee meeting will be held in Santiago, Chile in 2009.
The World Methodist Conference meets once in five years. The last conference was held in Seoul from July 20 to 24, 2006 amidst heightened tension on the divided Korean peninsula and the unrest in the Middle East.
Durban was a runner-up to Seoul when the location of the 2006 World Methodist Conference was selected. With more than 3 million residents, it is South Africa’s second largest city.
The Rev Dr George Freeman, General Secretary of the WMC, said that South African Methodists wanted their global counterparts to meet in Durban “so they could experience the changes that have taken place in southern Africa since apartheid ended”.
The Sydney meeting centred on strategic planning of the WMC and the proposed changes to the WMC Constitution.
Reports on subjects such as Family Life, Theological Education, Worship and Liturgy, Ecumenics and Dialogue, and Evangelism were also tabled by the various committees for discussion.
The Ecumenics and Dialogue Committee reported that the dialogue between the WMC and the Roman Catholic Church was continuing with an emphasis on “the Sacramental Nature of the Church.” The dialogue with the Salvation Army will continue with an emphasis on “Mission and Evangelism”.
A recommendation from the Division of World Evangelism that member churches of the WMC dedicate the first Sunday in Advent as a “Day of Prayer for Peace” was enthusiastically approved.
The WMC has also sent word to The Methodist Church of Lower Myanmar and The Methodist Church of Upper Myanmar reminding them of the prayers of the WMC family for their country and for the witness of their Church during the current political crisis.
Peter Teo is the Editor of Methodist Message.
Please pray for them
Sunday, October 21, 2007
From
http://enshrine377a.blogspot.com/2007/10/walk-for-jesus-action.html
Walk for Jesus Action
Jebez cried out to the God of Israel, "O that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me , and keep me from harm and so that we will be free from pain" And God granted his request. 1 Chronicles 4.10.
- Walk around St Andrew's Cathedral and pray for the soldiers of Christ
- Walk around the Singapore River, where our ancestors came to build a new land of hope for their children, and the Repeal of 377A will destroy their dreams.
- Walk around the CIVIC areas where many large corporations have policies that encourage alternative lifestyles.
- Walk around SMU and pray for our youths.
- Walk towards the Parliament House and pray for the members of Parliament.
- Start walking around the CIVIC area after church and do prayer walks.
- It is good if we synchronize at 12.30p.m. to start.
- Wear all white - the colours of saints - so that we can identify each other.
- When you see one of us, get in pairs (this is how Jesus sent his disciples out to witness and so we won't go against the laws of the lands about illegal gathering.
- When you see other pairs, greet them but keep to your group.
- When you see someone who is against you, tell them lovingly that even though you hate the sin, you love the sinner and offer them God.
- When you see someone friendly, explain why you are doing this and what damage 377A can do to our country.
- As you approach the Parliament House, keep in your pairs.
- If anyone tries to disband you, stay for a while, say a prayer and then move on peaceably.
- If the police asks for your cooperation, move into the Sanctuary of Saint Andrew's Cathedral and continue praying. The prayer of the faithful availeth much!
An Open Letter to the LGBT Community from Bishop Gene Robinson
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
October 9, 2007
Now that the Church has had some time to absorb and consider the recent meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans and its response to the Anglican Communion, I'd like to share with you what I experienced at the recent House of Bishops meeting, and where I think we are as a result.
There is NO "mind of the House" nor a "mind of the Episcopal Church." In fact, we are a House and a Church of many different minds. We are in transition from the Church we have been called to be in the past, to the Church we are called to be now and in the future. We are not
there yet.
I value highly the thoughts and needs of my brother and sister conservative bishops, who have no intention of leading their flocks out of the Episcopal Church, but come out of dioceses which, for the most part, find the Episcopal Church's actions of the last four years troublesome and alarming. I listened to them when they voiced the fears of their people that changing our views on homosexuality is a precursor to moving on to denying important tenets of our orthodox
faith, from the Trinity to the Resurrection. We worked for a statement which would reflect the diversity we recognize and value as a strength of our Episcopal communion. It was our goal to describe the Church as it currently is: NOT of one mind, but struggling to be of one heart.
My own goal – and that of many bishops – was to do NOTHING at this meeting. That is, our goal, in response to the Primates, was simply to state where we are as an Episcopal Church, not to move us forward or backward. Sometimes, "progress" is to be found in holding the ground we've already achieved, when "moving forward" is either untimely or not politically possible. And, doing nothing substantive respects the rightful reminder to us from many in the Senior House that the House of Bishops cannot speak for the whole Church, but rather must wait until all orders of ministry are gathered for its joint deliberations at General Convention.
While many of us worked hard to block B033 and voted against it at General Convention, it IS the most recent declaration of all orders of ministry gathered as a Church. The Bishops merely restated what is, as of the last General Convention.
Yes, we did identify gay and lesbian people as among the group included in those who 'present a challenge" to the Communion. That comes as a surprise to no one. It is a statement of who we are at the moment. Sad, but true.
Many bishops spoke on behalf of their lgbt members and worked hard to prevent our movement backwards. We fought hard over certain words, certain language. We sidelined some things that truly would have represented a movement backwards.
I want to tell you what I said to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the course of his comments, it seemed to me that the Archbishop was drawing a line between fidelity to our gay and lesbian members, and fidelity to the "process of common discernment, " which he had offered
as a prime function of a bishop. I heard him saying that gay and lesbian members of our Church would simply have to wait until there was a consensus in the Communion. When we were invited to respond, I said something like, "Your Grace, I have always respected you as a person and your office, and I always will. But I want you to know and hear, that to me, a gay man and faithful member of this Church, this is one of the most dehumanizing things I've heard in a long time, and I will not be party to it. It reminds me of Jesus question 'Is the Sabbath made for man, or man for the Sabbath?' Choosing a process over the lives of human beings and faithful members of this Church is simply unacceptable and unscriptural. " The next morning, the
Archbishop tried to assure us that he meant both/and rather than either/or. I tried to speak my truth to him.
On the issue of same sex unions, I argued that our statement be reflective of what is true right now in the Episcopal Church: that while same sex blessings are not officially permitted in most
dioceses, they are going on and will continue to go on as an appropriate pastoral response to our gay and lesbian members and their relationships. Earlier versions of our response contained both sides of this truth. I argued to keep both sides of that truth in the final version, providing the clarity asked for by the Primates.
Others made the argument that to state that "a majority of Bishops do not sanction such blessings" implied that a minority do in fact sanction such blessings, and many more take no actions to prevent them. All this without coming right out and saying so. That argument
won the day. I think it was a mistake.
Another issue to which I spoke was this notion of "public" versus "private" rites. I pointed out on the floor that our very theology of marriage is based on the communal nature of such a rite.
Presumably, the couple has already made commitments to one another privately, or else they would not be seeking Holy Matrimony. What happens in a wedding is that the COMMUNITY is drawn into the relationship – the vows are taken in the presence of that community
and the community pledges itself to support the couple in the keeping of their vows. It is, by its very nature, a "public" event – no matter how many or how few people are in attendance. The same goes for our solemn commitments to one another as lgbt couples.
I suspect that these efforts to keep such rites "private" is just another version of "don't ask, don't tell." If avoidance of further conflict is the goal, then I can understand it. But if speaking the truth in love is the standard by which we engage in our relationships with the Communion, then no.
Let me also state strongly that I believe that the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates MISunderstood us when they stated that they understood that the HOB in fact "declared a 'moratorium on all such public Rites.'" Neither in our discussions nor in our
statement did we agree to or declare such a moratorium on permitting such rites to take place. That may be true in many or most dioceses, but that is certainly not the case in my own diocese and many others. The General Convention has stated that such rites are indeed to be considered within the bounds of the pastoral ministry of this Church to its gay and lesbian members, and that remains the policy of The Episcopal Church.
Lastly, let me respond to the very real pain in the knowledge that the change we long for takes time. This movement forward is going to take a long time. That doesn't make it right. It certainly does not make it easy. Dr. King rightly said that "justice delayed is justice denied," but that didn't stop him from accepting and applauding incremental advances along the way.
We have every right to be impatient. We MUST keep pushing the Church to do the right thing. We must never let anyone believe that we will be satisfied with anything less than the full affirmation of us and our relationships as children of God.
BUT, I will continue to try to remain realistic in my approach. I work hard, and pray hard, to find the patience to stay at the table as long as it takes. And I hope we can refrain from attacking our ALLIES for not doing enough, soon enough. The bridges we are burning today may turn out to be the bridges we want to cross in the future. Let's not destroy them.
We need to be in this for the long haul. For us to get overly discouraged when we don't get all that we want, as fast as we want, seems counterproductive to me. We should never capitulate to less than all God wants for us, but to lose heart when we don't move fast enough, and to attack the Church we are trying to help redeem, seems counterproductive.
The two days of listening to the Archbishop of Canterbury and some members of the ACC were the two hardest days I've had since my consecration. (It was a constant and holy reminder to me of the pain all of YOU continue to experience every day at the hands of a Church which is not yet what it is called to be. Ours is a difficult and transforming task: to continue serving a church that seems to love us less than we love it!) I was comforted by the support I DID receive
from those straight bishops who spoke up for us, and especially by many of the Bishops of color, who implicitly "got" what I was trying to say and defied the majority with their support of me and of us. I was even encouraged by many conservative bishops' willingness to work together to craft a statement we, liberal and conservative alike, could all live with.
I believe with my whole heart that the Spirit is alive and well and living in our Church – even in the House of Bishops. I believe Jesus when he told his disciples, on the night before he died for us, that they were not ready to hear and understand all that he had to teach them – and that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. I believe that now is such a moment, when the Church, in its plodding and all-too-slow a way, is being guided into truth about its gay and lesbian members. It took ME 39 years to acknowledge who I was as a gay man and to affirm that I too am considered precious by God. Of course, the very next day after telling my parents, I expected them immediately to catch up to what had taken me 39 years to come to. Mercifully, it has not taken them the same 39 years to do so. The Church family is no different. It is going to take TIME.
I voted "yes" to the HOB statement. I believe it was the best we could do at this time. I am far less committed to being ideologically and unrelentingly pure, and far more interested in the "art of the possible." Am I totally pleased with our statement? Of course not. Do I wish we could have done more? Absolutely. Can I live with it? Yes, I can. For right now. Until General Convention, which is the appropriate time for us to take up these issues again as a Church,
with all orders of ministry present. I am taking to heart the old 60's slogan, "Don't whine, organize!"
I am always caught between the vision I believe God has for God's Church, and the call to stay at the table, in communion with those who disagree with me about that vision – or, as is the case for most bishops, who disagree about the appropriate "timing" for reaching that vision of full inclusion. In this painful meantime, please pray for me as I seek to serve the people of my diocese and you, the community of which I am so honored to be a part.
Your brother in Christ,
+Gene
Malaysiakini: Gov't to block planned gay church
Monday, August 13, 2007
Gov't to block planned gay church
Aug 13, 07 7:58pm
The government will block a plan by the country's first and only openly gay pastor to establish a church embracing homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals, a minister said today.
![[]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vorvNBi8Ama57Dcv-kvO6Kd2fza3Rv_-Ddd7eDaF8t9_iANeSXY4UtbF9ARLX_80F5f97As-rLhvGlsTXkxWr5eCpwRjPvhahMEUb3AMVh=s0-d)
The government would block the plan, Tourism Minister Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor told AFP, adding the country had always sought to portray itself as a "family-oriented" holiday destination.
"We have no intention of being portrayed the same way like other cities such as Bangkok or those other cities in that league," Tengku Adnan said, apparently referring to the Thai capital's sex industry.
"We are here to be seen as a multicultural country with people who are good, excellent followers of their respective religions," Tengku Adnan added.
Homosexuality falls under a Malaysian law prohibiting sodomy, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and whipping.
Underground mass
Ouyang's plan to start the church had stirred anxiety, Reverend Wong Kin Kong, the secretary general of Malaysia's National Evangelical Christian Fellowship, said last week.
This was "because Christians do not want others to assume they condone such a thing," he said.
But Ouyang remained unfazed and urged a congregation of about 80 people - including his male partner - to "reclaim faith and celebrate our sexuality" in an underground mass Sunday.
"For some of us, especially our gay brothers and sisters, we have experienced first hand that Christianity has been used to persecute minorities," Ouyang told the mass, according to press reports.
IHT: Malaysia's first openly gay pastor holds controversial church service
Sunday, August 12, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Malaysia's first openly gay Christian pastor conducted a controversial worship service Sunday, calling on mainstream churches not to discriminate against homosexuals.
Rev. Ouyang Wen Feng — an ethnic Chinese Malaysian who was ordained a minister in the United States in May — told a congregation of nearly 80 people, mainly homosexual men and women, to "reclaim our faith and celebrate our sexuality."
"For some of us, especially our gay brothers and sisters, we have experienced firsthand that Christianity has been used to persecute minorities," Ouyang said during the service in a Kuala Lumpur hotel.
Ouyang, 37, has sparked concerns among Malaysian Christian community leaders after he recently declared that he hopes to set up a church in this predominantly Muslim nation, which has large Christian, Buddhist and Hindu minorities.
A church that accepts homosexual relationships would face stiff opposition from both Muslim and Christian conservatives in Malaysia. Although homosexuality is not specifically a crime in this Southeast Asian country, it is covered under a law prohibiting sodomy, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and whipping.
"For so long, we've been quiet," Ouyang said Sunday. "We've been brought up to believe that they were right and we were wrong. But today, we're making history. We're here to tell Malaysians that we're all children of God."
Ouyang has worked at the Metropolitan Community Church in New York, which tries to serve homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. He has said he wants to return to Malaysia permanently within the next few years.
Rev. Wong Kin Kong, secretary general of Malaysia's National Evangelical Christian Fellowship, reportedly said last week that Ouyang's plans to preside over a Sunday service and start a church has stirred anxiety "because Christians do not want others to assume they condone such a thing."
Ouyang claimed he and the organizers of his Kuala Lumpur service — which is considered one of the first steps toward establishing a church — "received very nasty" phone text messages.
Worshippers at the service, including people from neighboring Singapore, hugged each other and sang hymns with lyrics such as, "With justice as our aim, a queer and righteous people united in Christ's name."
Ouyang went to the United States in 1998 and studied sociology and theology. He lives with his partner, an American.
The Star Online: Gay Pastor Sparks Uproar: Rev Oyoung Wenfeng (Aug 10)
Friday, August 10, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR: A controversy has erupted among the Christian community over what they claim is an attempt by a self-confessed gay pastor to set up a church here.
For the past week, protest e-mail and SMSes have been sent to Rev Ou Yang Wen Feng, a Malaysian pastor who serves at the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) in New York. He has been back here for about a week.
According to the MCC homepage, the church is part of an international movement of Christian churches reaching out to all, including homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals.
Ou Yang, 37, has drawn much flak from Christians for his plan to hold a Sunday service at a hotel this week.
He came out of the closet about his homosexuality last year and is said to be the first pastor in Malaysia to do so.
 |
Ou Yang states that his proposed church would serve all people, not just homosexuals. |
When contacted yesterday, Ou Yang said he was merely trying to set up a church “where everybody felt safe and welcomed”.
It is unfair to label it a gay church, he said, adding that the hate-mail had hurt him.
“This church is not limited to gays but serves all people. This will be an active church. We have so many community-centred plans, such as assisting the poor, charity work and upholding justice,” he said.
Ou Yang noted that the New York church served food to 5,000 homeless people and hoped to launch similar programmes here. He plans to return to Malaysia for good in 2010.
He credits his former wife for giving him strength to be true to himself, acknowledging that she had endured much anguish during their seven-year, childless union.
Asked if his church would solemnise same sex marriages, he replied: “Same sex marriages are illegal in Malaysia, so how can I perform them? However, I will bless the union.”
Ou Yang said that his talk in Penang last week received much opposition from “faceless parties”. However, the talk saw a full house of about 200 people instead of the initial estimate of 60.
“Many are just curious about me. They ask me many things about homosexuality and my life. They just want to know more and not to be converted by me,” he said.
The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship Malaysia secretary-general Rev Wong Kin Kong, when contacted, acknowledged the proposed worship on Sunday had sowed anxiety among Christians.
“One of the reasons for the emotional reaction is because Christians do not want others to assume they condone such a thing,” said Wong.
He added that the churches could not accept Ou Yang’s version of the church because “it is clear that the Bible prohibits a sexual relationship between people of the same sex. If a person condones same sex marriages, it is definitely violating Christian principles.”
Wong said the churches had always welcomed all kinds of people, including homosexuals.
“It is the deviant sexual behaviour we do not condone. We cannot stop him wanting to set up such a kind of church, but the evangelical churches will inform followers of our stand and advise them not to follow this teaching,” he said.
OYoung at Bianco on 8 Aug, 7pm
Saturday, August 4, 2007
FRIDAE and PELANGI PRIDE CENTRE PRESENTS
 |
欧阳文风新书 Book Launch of conducted in Mandarin and English Date: 8 August 2007 (Wednesday) Map and directions: http://www.pelangipridecentre.org/contact/contact.htm >> 网上订购欧阳文风著作 Buy Oyoung' books online >> 欧阳文风专栏 Oyoung's column on Fridae >> Interview: oyoung wenfeng: i want to bring our people home >> famed malaysian columnist, oyoung wenfeng, comes out in new book >> 欧阳文风官方网站 Oyoung's Official Website
| |
| Registration of Interest | ||
|
| |
| Note: | |
 | | Admission is free, but as the event is by invitation only, prior registration is required. 入场免费，有意出席者请预先报名登记。 |
| | You will be contacted by email and/or phone with the invitation to the event. 我们会通过电邮或电话发出邀请。 |
| | Oyoung's recent books can be purchased at the event. 活动现场将售卖欧阳文风叫好叫座的近作。 |
| | The author will be glad to autograph for readers.作者会为读者签名留念。 |
| | Participants may use Mandarin or English to communicate with the author. 读者在现场可用中英文与作者交流。 |
| | Fridae and Pelangi Pride Centre reserve the right to refuse entry to any person at our sole discretion.主办单位保留拒绝任何人士入场的权利。 |
| | Enquiries 询问: Please send an email to chinese@fridae.com. or call
|
The Advocate: Lutheran pastor calls for removal of celibacy requirement for gay clergy (Jul 27)
Friday, July 27, 2007
July 27, 2007 Lutheran pastor Wayne Miller of Aurora, Ill., who will soon become bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod, is calling for his denomination to remove a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. "That's where I think the church is going," said Miller. "That's where I think it needs to go." Miller is hoping the change could come as early as next month in Chicago, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is scheduled to conduct its churchwide assembly. Nearly a third of the denomination's 65 synods are asking for a policy change in clergy standards.
Lutheran pastor calls for removal of celibacy requirement for gay clergy
Homosexuality is a debated issue at mainline church conventions. The ELCA has adopted a compromise position, allowing gay and lesbian clergy to serve as long as they remain celibate. Heterosexual clergy, however, are not subject to the celibacy requirement if they are married, a right gay clergy don't have.
As reported by the Sun-Times, more than 1,000 voting church members are expected at the August 6–11 assembly at Navy Pier. If the rules for gay clergy aren't altered, Miller acknowledges he'll experience conflict between his personal beliefs and his vows as bishop.
"That is the dilemma of a bishop at this particular moment in history," he said. (The Advocate)
ST Online Forum: Don't let prejudice get in the way (Jul 26)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
July 26, 2007
Don't let prejudice get in the way
I REFER to the letter, 'Homosexuality: Legalising something that is not right does not make it right' by Dr Ang Su Yin (Online forum, July 19). I have a colleague who goes to church. She has a daughter who is just starting her university years in Australia. She, too, attends church.
Recently her daughter went with a group of girlfriends to a bar where 'there is really good music'. After they ordered their drinks, they realised that they were the only girls there. It was a gay bar. However they let 'their hair down' and had a jolly good time. Later she reported to her mum in
Singapore that she 'has never felt so safe in the company of so many men'.
Like Dr Ang who is a paediatrician, I too am a medical doctor. However, I am involved in the care of people at the other end of the spectrum - the older people in the community and the people dying at home. I have learnt that good 'doctoring' comes with letting go of our personal judgmental attitude and learning to see our fellow beings in our care, as no different from ourselves in mental and physical sufferings as well as in happiness.
I used to be an avid reader of science fiction and my all-time favourite is the classic called The Chrysalids by John Wyndham. The novel, in a post-apocalypse era, describes the lives of the inhabitants of a rural place called Labrador. They practise a form of fundamental Christianity.
Individuals not conforming to a strict physical norm are either killed or sterilised and banished to the Fringes, a forbidden area still rife with animal and plant mutations. I will leave it to you to read this exciting fiction and find out the conclusion. I have always wondered why this novel did not make it to the big screen.
Perhaps if Dr Ang would put her prejudice away and get to know gay people, it will help to remove the 'monstrosity of fear' that obstructs the development of compassion that is essential in the practice of 'good medicine'.
Dr Tan Chek Wee
ST Online Forum: Historical facts used to bolster argument should be used fully and accurately, not selectively (Jul 26)
July 26, 2007
Historical facts used to bolster argument should be used fully and accurately, not selectively
I REFER to Mr Dominic Chua's letter, 'S'poreans need to be more historically conscious and reflective in debate on homosexuality" (Online forum, July 21) In cautioning others to be 'more historically conscious and reflective" when it comes to trusting religious voices, one would expect the writer himself to live up to what he advocates. However, he fails in this as his own letter is lacking in historical awareness and reflection.
To support his argument that religions (especially Christianity) have been wrong on issues, the writer states that 'Global Christianity has, in the past, drawn on scriptural passages to support the practice of slavery. Churches, too, were silent on the issue and practice of apartheid".
It is true that the Church has at times been complicit in failing to challenge slavery and apartheid but this stems from a failure to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ, including the tenet that 'there is neither slave nor free", as all men are equal in God's sight.
However, when Christians do live up to the teachings of Christ, they bring liberty and blessing to society. If the writer wishes to invoke history as a basis for argument, he should at least provide a complete and accurate account of such events.
It is unfair and misleading to state that Christians have supported slavery and were silent on apartheid without mentioning the major role that Christians subsequently played in the abolition of slavery and apartheid. The historical record demonstrates that Christians like William Wilberforce
led the anti-slavery movement; in nearer times, Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu opposed apartheid, motivated by biblical teachings that oppose racism as, with the Fatherhood of God, comes the brotherhood of man.
History indeed has much to teach us and shows that religion has been, and can be, a powerful force for beneficial social reform. Like secular philosophies such as fascism and communism, religion can also be misused and bring human misery. Fair commentators would point this out.
Everyone is entitled to participate in public discourse, but where historical facts are relied on in public debate, these should be presented fully and accurately, not selectively. Otherwise, half-truths will distort and undermine public debate.
Mr Chua's call for Singaporeans to be more historically conscious, to know the facts and to fairly present the whole truth, is, as demonstrated by the deficiencies in his own article, clearly justified.
Soh Chai Lih (Miss)
ST Forum: Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church (Jul 19)
Friday, July 20, 2007
July 19, 2007
Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church
I REFER to the article, 'MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law' (ST, July 16).As the article may create misunderstanding among readers regarding the position of The Methodist Church in Singapore (MCS) concerning the issue of homosexuality, we wish to state the following.
Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao retired from active service in 1994 in the Trinity Annual Conference, a component body in the MCS. He does not speak for the MCS. The official body authorised to speak for the MCS is its General Conference.
The position of the General Conference regarding homosexuality is found in the Book of Discipline of the MCS (which contains the doctrinal statements, and administrative rules and principles of the church). Relevant sections include:
a.. We consider the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teachings. However, we do recognise that homosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. They need the ministry and guidance of the church as well as the spiritual and emotional support of a caring fellowship.
a.. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practising homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as itinerant ministers or approved to serve in the MCS.
a.. Every itinerant minister of the MCS shall accept that the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings.A fuller explanation of the church's position is found in an article endorsed by the General Conference in 2004. The article can be found at our website at http://www.methodis t.org.sg
Bishop Dr Robert Solomon
The Methodist Church in Singapore
Todayonline - Voices: Keep Section 377A (Jul 19)
Keep Section 377A
Thursday . July 19, 2007
Letter from Lim K Tham
General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Singapore
WE REFER to the article, "On Section 377A . " (July 16).
We would like to correct a point purportedly made by Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao when he said that, within the Christian faith, only a "minority which is vocal" is opposed to the decriminalisation of homosexual acts.
Far from being held by a minority, the view that Section 377A of the Penal Code should not be repealed is held by the National Council of Churches of Singapore.
This association of nearly 200 churches includes the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Assemblies of God, Evangelical Free, Church of Singapore, The Salvation Army and the Orthodox denominations as well as many independent congregations.
ST Online Forum: Flawed to use holy texts to determine what is socially acceptable today (Jul 16)
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
July 16, 2007
Flawed to use holy texts to determine what is socially acceptable today
I REFER to Mr Alex Tan Tuan Loy's letter, 'Stick to a traditional
family-based Singapore' (ST, July 11).
I am alarmed by his suggestion that Singapore should reject homosexuals
simply because of 'God's abhorrence of homosexual practices' in the Bible.
First and foremost, Singapore is a secular nation. Our laws cannot and
should not be based on the Bible, or any other holy text for that matter.
Laws should be based on whether they cause direct harm to anyone, or
infringe on the rights of others. As far as homosexual acts between
consenting adults are concerned, it is guilty of neither.
Secondly, it is also flawed to use holy texts to determine what is socially
acceptable today because they were written in a different era with different
cultures and social norms.
The Bible was written at a time when slavery was condoned, when women were
regarded as property and when polygamy was accepted. The ancient world was
also much more intolerant.
To go by Mr Tan's argument that God abhorred homosexual acts, the Bible also
states that God condoned the death penalty for those who broke the Sabbath,
adulterers, fornicators and non-believers. Does this mean these laws are
relevant to today's world?
It is important to read and understand its social and historical context
instead of blindly and unquestioningly applying its laws and norms to
today's society.
It is only normal that as a society grows and matures, its social norms and
moral standards evolve and change. This is not a bad thing. We should learn
not to be led by our irrational prejudices, but instead by our critical and
reasonable thinking, and maturely look at the situation at hand: A gay or
lesbian couple are not only not causing harm to anyone else, but also are
able to raise kids in a supporting and loving (albeit unconventional)
family. And this is undoubtedly a good thing.
Felicia Tan Ying Yi (Ms)
Methodist Message Article (July): Beyond Biology and Public Opinion
Monday, July 9, 2007
| Beyond Biology and Public Opinion |  |
A GROUP of researchers caused a stir in 1965 among scientists studying human aggression. In a review of several studies they found that 3 per cent of the male prisoners in maximum security prisons and hospitals in a British region had an extra Y chromosome in the 23rd pair, i.e. they were XYY males.
Normally humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes in their body cells; the 23rd pair determining a person's gender. Women have an XX pair while males have an XY pair.
Due to abnormalities, there are rare incidences of other combinations. For instance, an additional Y chromosome may sometimes be found in the 23rd pair. But the incidence is only 0.03 per cent. The finding that 3 per cent of male prisoners had XXY chromosomes was 100 times higher than usual. Subsequent studies seemed to support this finding when it was discovered that imprisoned males were 15 times more likely to be XYYs than unimprisoned males. This, understandably, caused great excitement among interested scientists. Was the root cause of human aggression and violence finally found?
While these studies suggested the strong possibility of genetic causes for violent behaviour, later studies minimised the significance of this link. For example, a study of thousands of male prisoners in Denmark found that XYY prisoners committed less violent crimes than the general prison population. It was also established that XYYs performed less well on standardised intelligence tests suggesting that they were "not more violent, only less clever as criminals and therefore more likely to be caught". The XYY theory, which caused such a stir in the 1960s is now generally discredited.
The lesson here is that we have to be careful about explaining human behaviour by using scientific studies. While science has unearthed some of the ways our bodies or minds function, what we don't know is still greater than what we know. After all, human behaviour and motivation are complex processes. It becomes even more implausible when science is used to make moral statements.
Take, for instance, the argument that homosexual behaviour is biologically based. Therefore, it is not an aberration, but a variant of normality. Therefore, it should become socially acceptable as an alternative lifestyle. There are two key problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, there is yet no clear evidence that homosexuals are born that way. Secondly, even if a strong biological link is made between biological makeup and behaviour, who is to say whether it is aberration or variance? In other words, who is to say it is right or wrong?
We are faced with the limits of science. Let us take the 1965 research finding concerning the genetic basis of human aggression and violence. Supposing that finding has since been consistently upheld through scientific studies, where does that leave us in terms of our response to violence? Should we accept it as normal biology, and, therefore, normal behaviour? The problem is that while science can describe what is, it cannot prescribe what should be. We have to turn elsewhere for moral guidance.
Some would suggest that we should turn to public opinion to determine the moral directions we should take. On first thought, that may sound very reasonable indeed. But then again, public opinion has a very mixed history. To rely on public opinion for moral guidance is at best a shaky adventure. The reason is that public opinion can change so easily, especially when it is shaped and manipulated by powerful media. To follow public opinion for moral guidance is to take a path, the foundations of which have more to do with that which is fashionable or pragmatic. Moral foundations must be sturdier and more reliable.
As Christians (in fact, as humans created by God), we will have to turn to God's revelation in Scripture for moral guidance. While science and public opinion are important voices to be heard, nevertheless, it is God's Word alone that can guide us in thinking about what is right or wrong. It has the final say and authority on matters of faith and practice. God's Word, as the psalmist so aptly puts it, is a light for our path (Ps. 119:105).
GOD'S Word, in fact, has a thing or two to say about the connection between biology and behaviour, and between biology and destiny. Sin has affected our world in more ways than we can imagine. In Rom. 8, we read that even creation is subjected to frustration and suffers from bondage to decay (v. 20-21). If the cosmos is thus affected, then all the more our own biology too. We read of the "sinful nature" of human beings. Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires … (v. 5). Elsewhere in Scripture this sinful nature is termed the "flesh", the "old self". This sinful nature operates in the way we function or malfunction.
We must be careful to not say that the material body is evil (for we can possibly also link our biology with our good behaviours, the same way we may find links with our sinful behaviours, the linkage here not necessarily pointing to a direct cause-effect relationship). We must, however, recognise that our biology has been affected, causing sickness and fallen inclinations and dispositions that often collude with sin.
In C. S. Lewis' words, "we are all a bent race". But when we believe in Jesus, He lives in us and, through His grace, helps us in our infirmities, and delivers us to deny our propensity to sin, even as we look forward to the resurrection where our biology will be revamped and rescued from the effects of the fall, when we shall be given new bodies. Meanwhile we must look beyond our present biology for our destiny - to Christ.
As for public opinion, wasn't it responsible for making the golden calf (Ex. 32), or crucifying the Lord (Mt. 27:11-26), or a decision that led to a shipwreck (Acts 27)? It is not a reliable way of deciding what is right or wrong.
ST Insight - Can Mum, Mum and Kids Make a Family? (July 7, 2007)
Sunday, July 8, 2007
July 7, 2007
THINKING ALOUD
Can mum, mum and kids make a family?
By Janadas Devan
I HAVE a good friend who is a lesbian. She believes she was born one, not having experienced any heterosexual inclinations since she became sexually conscious in puberty.My friend has a partner. They are not legally married, since the state they live in in the United States does not recognise gay marriages. But their partnership was solemnised in a Quaker ceremony, witnessed by family and friends, including myself. To all intents and purposes, theirs is a stable marriage.
It is also a fruitful marriage, for my friend has two children, both biologically hers. She conceived them by means of artificial insemination, the sperms having been donated by suitably screened men.
Apart from the fact that there is no father in the picture, my friend's family is normal and exemplary in every way.The two children are healthy, cheerful, intelligent and well-behaved. They have two loving parents. My friend and her partner are highly educated, with five university degrees between them.
They own the home they live in, they pay their taxes, they save for their children's education, they are charitable, they never fail to vote, they attend church every Sunday. They are model citizens.
Of course, there are any number of other model citizens - in the US and Singapore, in China, India, Indonesia and elsewhere - who would think my friend's family is anything but normal. Homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, they would say. Artificial insemination is all well and good for heterosexual couples - but not for homosexual ones. A family must consist of a husband, a wife and children - not same-sex parents with children. I find all these assertions incomprehensible.
If homosexuality is against the laws of God and Nature, how come there are so many homosexuals? What sort of iron-clad laws can these be if they can allow for so many exceptions to the rule?
The demographics on sexual orientation is hazy, but it is evident that a fair number in any population is either homosexual or bisexual. Alfred Kinsey's famous studies of sexuality in the 1950s claimed that as much as 10 per cent of American males were homosexual. Most experts today believe this was an over-estimation.
Recent studies suggest 3 to 6 per cent of adult American males, and somewhat fewer adult females, are homosexual. Surveys in other countries reveal similar or somewhat lower proportions. It is possible such surveys underestimate the number of homosexuals, since homosexuals are often reluctant to admit to their sexual orientation.
Whatever the correct figure, it is impossible to believe God (or Nature) is of the view that Socrates and Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman and Ludwig Wittgenstein, W.H. Auden and E.M. Forster, are all somehow deformed versions of humanity simply because they were gay.
'Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
'It is astonishing the number of people who profess to be religious who manage to forget this most momentous of statements in Christ's Sermon on the Mount. (There are similarly powerful statements in all the major religions.)
As for the belief that there is an ideal family unit - father, mother, children - and that any straying from this model is somehow dangerous, it is worth remembering that the nuclear family as we know it was not always considered the norm.
Till recently, the norm in many cultures was the extended family. Some cultures are matrilineal, with the line of descent and inheritance being determined by the mother, not the father.
No single model of the family has dominated throughout history. The traditional nuclear family just happens to be a structure that contemporary society finds stable and workable - and it too is changing, as women become more educated and have careers. And even among today's supposedly ideal nuclear families, how many live up to their billing?
One in two heterosexual marriages in the US ends in divorce. Are the children of divorced heterosexual couples better off than the children of my lesbian friends?
How about the children of single mothers or of constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked in loveless marriages?
No matter how happy and well-adjusted the children of lesbian couples may be, they are always, by virtue of their parentage, morally suspect in comparison to the products of broken heterosexual marriages?
The only problems the children of my lesbian friends would face derive, not from the circumstances of their birth, but from the nature of the wider society in which they may find themselves. Fortunately for them, they are growing up for now in a university town, a liberal and tolerant milieu. If they were growing up in Utah, say, it would be a different story. 'You've two mothers and no father? You're a freak.'
One can imagine the taunts they might face in school if they were growing up in Utah or Alabama instead of Massachusetts or California.
What about Singapore?
It is probably closer to Utah than to California in this matter. Despite none other than Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew saying 'homosexuals are mostly born that way, and no public purpose is served by interfering in their private lives', there is considerable social resistance to accepting gays as equals.
Male homosexual acts remain, officially, crimes under Section 377A of the Penal Code. The Singapore Government has in effect adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy where homosexuality is concerned. And as for gay marriage, Mr Lee himself, despite his progressive views on homosexuality, has said: 'We cannot go that far. We are a more conservative society.
'What are homosexuals in Singapore to do?
They really have no alternative but to accept the somewhat larger scope the Singapore Government has now afforded them and work to change society. That is not going to be easy, given the deep-seated views - the prejudices, actually - of the majority.
The fact that the Government - usually never shy of forcing through a policy, no matter what the public resistance to it might be, if it believes the policy is correct - finds it necessary to give way to public sentiment in not officially decriminalising male homosexual acts, indicates the depth of the prejudice against gays.
On the hopeful side, two factors would favour homosexuals in the long run: One, the growing evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis. And two, the growing cosmopolitanism of Singapore.
What will those who hold that homosexuality is against the laws of God say when it is definitively established that homosexuality has a genetic basis? That God deliberately made a mistake with the DNA of gays - and wishes us to persecute them for his mistake?
And what will they say when they discover homophobia renders Singapore a less attractive place to the talented and creative, both local and foreign? There is a reason why some of the most creative cities in the world - San Francisco, Boston and London - are also among the most accepting of gays.
Clever people cannot abide intolerance.
janadas@sph. com.sg
14 July 2007 @ Pelangi Pride Centre - A gay perspective on being Christian
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Isn't being gay and Christian incompatible?
Why are Christians so hung up about homosexuality?
What are the Church teachings on being gay?
What are the central church teachings?
Is it possible to be gay and Christian at the same time?
Why am I gay?
Seeing our sexuality as a gift, not a curse.
We have heard the many Christian perspectives on being gay, now it's time to hear a gay perspective on being Christian.
Come join Miak & Jamie at Pelangi Pride Centre -whether you are gay or straight, Christian or
non-Christian - for a honest sharing from a few gay Christians.
Date - 14th July 2007
Time - 4pm
Venue - Pelangi Pride Centre @ Bianco
Cost per person: $6 (cost of 2 soft drinks and finger food)
To sign up, please email pelangipridecentre at yahoo dot com with your name, contact number, the name/s of your guests.
How to get to Pelangi Pride Centre @ Bianco - 21 Tanjong Pagar Road #04-01.
Map -
http://www.pelangip
Posts
