IGLHRC: Singapore: Religious Homophobia, Gay Activism & Repealing the Sodomy Law

SINGAPORE: RELIGIOUS HOMOPHOBIA, GAY ACTIVISM & REPEALING THE SODOMY LAW

Date: September 10, 2007

Asia & Pacific » Singapore » Documentation

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Singapore government cancelled Nation Party, a mammoth gathering of queer people and their allies, held every August since 2001. One report indicates the first Nation Party had 1,500 people; by 2004, there were 8,000. In response to the
cancellation, some lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists organized Indignation, designed to be a series of events that would de-emphasize the "party" aspects of gay culture and instead provide a forum for LGBT creative expression and political commentary.

In August 2007, several public Indignation events were banned on the basis that they "promoted a gay lifestyle."

On the other hand, in November 2006, the government first announced that it might repeal Article 3771 . Unlike Article 377A2 which, specifically addressed sex between men, Article 377 criminalized what was considered unnatural sex acts between heterosexuals. LGBT activists argued that removing 377 and retaining 377A amounted to discrimination. This ramped up the public debates. At the forefront of public opposition to repealing 377A was the small but vocal population of Singaporean Christian fundamentalists. They vehemently supported retaining 377A and pushed the government to also criminalize lesbianism since the law was silent on this.

Three Singaporean activists spoke to IGLHRC about their efforts to dispel myths, shift attitudes, and change the minds of government and society so that Singapore's LGBT communities can live openly and with dignity. Each interview was conducted separately but similar questions were used and the responses are presented next to each other for this
article.

Eileena Lee: I am a lesbian activist, former president of People Like US, a gay advocacy group, and one of the founders of Pelangi Pride Centre that promotes positive self esteem among LGBT people and sexual health for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS.

Alex Au: I am a gay activist, one of the organizers of Indignation Pride events, and a social commentator on my blog, Yawning Bread.

Rev. Yap Kim Hao: I am a former Methodist bishop and currently a pastoral counselor at Free Communities Churches, which is currently the only church in Singapore open to gays and lesbians and queer people.

Grace Poore: Eileena, what kinds of activities do you do at Pelangi Pride Center?

EL: We run monthly events about coming out. We expose gay people to positive information about themselves. We also have events for straight people to come to so they can understand LGBTQ issues and we put our information in libraries. We run activities for parents of gay
people. We talk about ourselves as Singaporeans who are part of a family unit.

GP: Singapore's Indignation is considered by local and international press as Singapore's Gay Pride season. In 2007, several events during the two-week Indignation were banned – including a talk by a Canadian law professor on sexual orientation in international law focusing on Asia and a photography exhibit of 80 posed shots of clothed gay couples kissing. This was your photo exhibit, Alex. Talk about the ban.

AA: I am not altogether surprised that it was disallowed. The very purpose of attempting an exhibit like this was to test the boundaries of the government because it is not something that's been done before. And the ban confirmed a pessimistic view of Singapore, not an optimistic view. Bans also raise the profile of the events. I did end up doing nine slide shows where I showed some of the images that were banned and gave talks with each show. So it was converted from a
static exhibit to a dynamic one.

GP: Were reasons given for the ban?

AA: Because it promoted a homosexual lifestyle. That's the language they used. So the censorship was not predicated on any law. It's usually because they don't want any positive portrayal of homosexuals; they are happy to allow negative portrayals. Like if there's a movie
where the homosexual person dies they will not ban it but if he or she lives happily ever after then it's considered promoting a lifestyle and they ban it. This kind of censorship is not only on gay men's work. It also affects work produced by lesbians even if the law itself does not criminalize lesbianism

GP: Eileena, you don't support Indignation. Why?

EL: I don't agree with the premise of the Indignation Campaign, which started in 2005 as a reaction to the government banning the Nation Party. Pride for me is being proud of who we are. Indignation tells people we are different from everybody else. I don't see this as empowering gay people. People need to come out but in order to come out we have to educate our own families, our own circles, and we have to educate the straight community. It's hard to educate people if we are telling them that we are different. Also, Indignation uses a negative forum to be Prideful. LGBTQ communities don't need to say we are Singaporean in an antagonistic way.

GP: Is there an advantage to taking the less antagonistic approach?

EL: Some gay people are not as out as me and for them to attend something like Indignation, it may not be safe because it is all so high profile.

GP: Alex, is the high profile of Indignation frightening off LGBT people from participating and isn't this having a negative impact on the very people you want to galvanize?

AA: My observation is that in the last 10 years in Singapore, there's been a massive coming out despite how much flak we get because, in Singapore, we are still quite safe, we are not arrested for participating in public Pride events, and most of us are accepted by our families. Some of our families speak up on our behalf. So more gay people are seeing Indignation as something positive. Also, the awareness about gays and lesbians in the general society has gone up. Six months ago, a young college person who was interviewed by the press said that if you ask college students, they all say they know at least one gay and lesbian person. In fact, Singapore Polytechnic did a survey recently of Singaporeans between the age of 15 and 29. And 50%
of people in this age group thought homosexuality was acceptable. This represents a massive change from the generation 10 years ago.

EL: How you go about organizing is crucial. When you organize things that you know are going be banned that's taking an antagonistic approach. Part of the process of Indignation is to test the waters with the government. Pelangi Pride Center has different goals. In the same week of the banned activities we organized a talk by Rev. Oyoung WenFang [the first openly gay Malaysian Chinese pastor ordained by Metropolitan Community Churches]. Over 80 people attended and the event wasn't banned. We reached out to our own communities and we publicized it in the mainstream press. The point of the publicity was about the book he wrote. A few years ago, we organized a coming out event with a local NGO (non-governmental organization) . Someone asked what is this about and we said it's about a mother's love for her child. So our approach is not to be antagonistic or on the offensive.

GP: Do you think the ban of your photo exhibit was because gay people were kissing or because public kissing between anyone, including heterosexuals is frowned on in a conservative Asian culture?

AA: But gay people jogging and having a picnic in the park were also banned events at Indignation. So this is not about Asian culture but about Bible belt homophobia from America transported to Singapore. The language used by the Media Authority for the ban was clearly cut and paste language from America. These were the same people in favor of keeping the sodomy law, who use references to Leviticus and the Christian god. So you get a sense that opposition to repealing the existing law is by church fundamentalists. Yet Christianity only makes up 15 percent of Singapore. Many high level civil servants are themselves Charismatic Christians. Very much like what's happened in the Bush administration.

GP: But Singapore is majority non-Christian. What is this majority doing about the homophobia from the fundamentalist Christians?

Rev YKH: The Buddhists are little bit divided on the Gay issue. They are not necessarily anti-Gay but because they have a different view on sexuality, they don't take a position on homosexuality. It's the fundamentalist Christians who are vocal so the debate tends to be
controlled and shaped by them. The religious climate shifted in Singapore around the 1970s. Charismatic influence from America came here and has penetrated most of the churches now. People who grew up in these charismatic movements are in the forefront of the anti-gay
movement in Singapore and they mobilized the Church of the Savior to be on a battle against gays. There's also the impact of Focus On The Family, which is from America, and uses the gay issue to win support for its mission. It emphasizes traditional family values. And they have set up an office in Singapore which is run by a former Methodist parishioner. Church of the Savior also set up a therapy program called Choices. It's an ex-gay program and a lot of gay people tried it out and left because it doesn't work for most people. Some of the gays who went through it came out and started organizing Indignation.

GP: Are there no progressive Christians in Singapore to counter the fundamentalists?

Rev YKH: Many open-minded people have just given up on churches. The more liberal are not becoming part of church leadership. They are finding more satisfaction in secular work and non-church work. When there's pastoral leadership it's gone into the charismatic movement.
And most of the church members have responded to the charismatic approach. So when there are liberal pastors who are gay supportive, they have to be closeted because their membership is not in favor of gay people.

GP: Of the 15 percent of Christians in Singapore, what portion is fundamentalist?

Rev YKH: They are in the majority, especially the younger people. The older Christians remain liberal because they have not joined the charismatic circles.

GP: Why does it appeal to the younger people?

Rev YKH: The appeal for the younger people is the music and theater, and with the uncertainties they face – the charismatic church, which is more prescriptive, gives them something they're looking for. These young people are not from poor families but from the middle class and more affluent families.

GP: It's ironic that the Singapore government has allowed Christian fundamentalism from the west to have such an influence while it has not been as open to rights of gays and lesbians, which is also often seen as the product of western influence.

AA: Singaporeans have been educated to be utilitarian. They may understand what you are saying about rights of gays and lesbians but the typical culture of people in Singapore is not to speak out. Also, ours is the kind of society that is not terribly interested in gay and lesbian history. If you look at the history of Asian societies, like that of the Javanese, and of the societies in Thailand and China, there is a recognition of homosexual relationships and the third gender. None of these societies has had a major clamp down on homosexuals or same-sex relationships. Homophobia came into this part of the world through colonizers and missionaries.

Rev YKH: By and large the majority in society are not concerned about the gay issue but the vocal minority have whipped up the anti gay sentiment. And the government is reluctant to push against public sentiment. Privately they [the government] will support MSM programs,
even financially, but they have to keep saying Singapore is a conservative society that's afraid to embrace gay people.

GP: What is your take on Article 377 and Article 377A of the Singapore Penal Code?

EL: The whole penal code argument is ridiculous. If they are going to decriminalize anal sex for straight people then why not also for gay people? Are they are only thinking that gay people commit sodomy?

GP: Isn't the problem with the use of the term, sodomy? Doesn't it convey crime? Shouldn't sodomy be used to refer to rape and sexual assault, not for consensual sex?

EL: People see anal sex between gay men as violent and non-consensual. So it's not same-sex love that people feel is wrong but anal sex. The idea of anal sex is taken as an affront. For instance, many people I have spoken to are a lot more accepting of gay women because they
believe lesbians don't perform anal sex and because there's no penis in a lesbian relationship. Hence, most straight people think that gay women don't have sex. At the same time, the image people have of all homosexuals is a villainous picture. They believe that gays are pedophiles and that gay relationships are predatory.

GP: The sodomy law in Singapore is silent on lesbianism. Where does that leave the lesbian community?

EL: Just because we are not included in the law doesn't mean we are accepted. We are invisible. It's like we don't exist. And because there are no anti-discrimination policies and no laws in place, anything can happen. There's nothing to protect us when something does happen. For
instance if a lesbian couple buys a house, one partner dies who does it go to – the other partner or the family because the family automatically inherits the property? If the will is written can the family contest it because same sex relationships are not accepted by the State? So the law may be silent on lesbians but gay women can also be discriminated against. Many lesbians are not aware of 377A…they should also get into 377A, they need to speak out against 377A.

GP: Since there already is constitutional protection for other minorities in Singapore based on ethnicity, religion, and language, what is the government's resistance to repealing 377A and protecting LGBT people also as a minority community?

AA: The discussion is much wider than 377A. It is likely the government will draw a line between gays and lesbians and other minority groups because the Constitutional protection for other groups is not because of a rejected identity, there's no issue with not conforming with heteronormativity. At the same time, homosexuality is conflated with pedophilia. That's like conflating consensual sex with rape. There's a victim in the case of assault and pedophilia, which is very different from consensual relationships between people in gay relationships.

Rev YKH: Singapore doesn't approach the gay issue as a human rights issue but a globalization issue. It's a very pragmatic approach. If we are open, people will come here. More of the artistic element will come here. Tanjong Pagar [in the business district of Singapore and considered a historic area] will become a gay district and the government will project Singapore as an international city. So purely for economic reasons, things will change. After all, this is a
puritanical society that allows gambling. So we can be open to gay culture.

AA: 377A has to do with sodomy and it is as much a heterosexual issue as it is a homosexual issue. I am confident that the law will be repealed in about 5-10 years. But my concern is that even after repealing 377A there will be continued policies that discriminate against homosexuals. I mean, Lee Kuan Yew [former prime minister and currently the Minister Mentor] says that homosexuality should be allowed as long as it doesn't infect the heartland.3 What does that
mean – get away with the absolute minimum liberalization? Also, I fear it may take so long to repeal 377A that the cost that Singapore pays in terms of bad press internationally will accrue – turning away many talents and investments.

EL: I think what will happen in the near future is that 377 of the Penal Code which is about anal sex between straight couples will be repealed, and a few years after that Singaporeans will recognize how ridiculous it is to retain 377A, which targets MSM [men having sex with men], and the government will repeal it. So instead of having a big ceremony to repeal 377A, they will try to ease our society into this so that one day, sexuality won't matter anymore. That's how the
government works here – using a slow incremental process. For instance, after what the Minister Mentor said about the gay issue, there have been press interviews with two or three members of parliament [MPs], and they have been gay affirmative.

AA: But they [the two MPs] are nailed by other MPs who say they are not doing their job because they should be reflecting the views of the people, the assumption being that people's views are conservative.

GP: What is coming out like in Singapore? Is it difficult because of the conservatism?

AA: Generally gays and lesbians don't have a very hard time telling classmates. From anecdotal information that I've heard, people with the hardest time coming out are those whose families are Christian. Their parents tend to be the most homophobic. The Confucianist understanding of family is very patriarchal, and continuing the family line is critically important. When a family has no daughters, to keep the family name going, they happily adopt sons from other families to
continue preserve the surname. So the Chinese idea of family is very different from the usual nuclear idea of family, it's a very extended family, lots of adoptions. Traditional families were polygamous as recently as two generations ago. Men had many wives. But not any more.
So to use the word conservative to us does not apply. Singaporeans are not necessarily looking at family as self-procreating.

EL: I came out to my mother 10 years ago. At the start she was as homophobic as anyone I know but she has come a long way. With availability of information it's easier for me to help her understand. I have friends over to the house. I expose her to the work I do and give her the opportunity to interact with gay men and women in my life. She now gives talks at the Pelangi Pride Centre and also for SAFE, which is Singapore's version of PFLAG.

GP: What were some of the barriers your mother had about accepting you?

EL: Her barrier was needing to know that I'd be okay – because in her mind gay relationships can't be long term. There's a big barrier in our society to accepting us because the homosexual relationship is not seen as a loving relationship but a deviant and overtly sexual relationship.

GP: What's the LGBT movement doing in Singapore to change the social climate?

AA: There are those working on the HIV health front who I believe are building good bridges with the health ministry to persuade them that there are rising rates of HIV and AIDs in Singapore and they should stop the homophobia and repeal the sodomy laws and engage with gay people. There are people like me who write blogs and raise our opinions freely so that those who are monitoring the blogs see that people proposing the repeal of the sodomy law are outnumbering the anti-repeal people.

EL: Right now people think the gay issue is a separate issue. It is not. We are a part of the family unit. Those against us constantly keep invoking the phantom conservative majority. What gay people need to do is more grassroots lobbying and reach out to the heartlanders. And we all have to come out to people we love and they are the people who will lobby for us because their voices will be heard better and their voices will be louder.

Rev YKH: We are trying to mobilize the liberal Christians. On September 29, NGOs and churches together are holding an AIDS awareness program. The government is sending a key person. To avoid AIDS being associated with gays, we are looking at how AIDS affects women and children. We are also encouraging prominent gay people to come out so they can be role models. We are trying to encourage the Free Communities Church to have a public discussion about the issue. And we are asking gay people to project the positive aspects of gay life not
only the sorrows.

GP: You're a non-gay Christian pastor, and you support LGBT people. How do you respond to your fellow Christian critics?

Rev YKH: It's reinterpretation of the biblical teachings. Charismatics know from an intellectual standpoint that there are many different interpretations of the teachings [of Christ], Roman and Greek interpretations for example. Yet, they have to keep saying that there is only one interpretation, the literal one. They also like to say, hate the sin and love the sinner, yet they hate people who support gays. They feel anyone who supports gays people is trying to promote
the gay lifestyle, and they believe that gays can convert heterosexual people to become gay. That's their fear. And I say, why would heterosexuals convert to homosexuality? As for the non-Charismatics who oppose gays, I say, once upon a time, marrying a divorced person was an abomination to the Church. The Church has changed its position on this. So why not on the gay issue?

GP: What contributed to you not being homophobic?

YKH: It was a natural transition for me because I have always been interested in marginalized people and influenced by liberal missionaries. So when the gay issue came out five years ago, I was invited to be part of the movement.

NOTES
============ ========= ==

1- Article 377 of the Singapore Penal Act, 1871, states, "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine."

2- Article 377A of the Singapore Penal Act, states: "Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years."

3- In response to a caller on a CNN radio show on December 11, 1998, former prime minister and current Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew said: "Well, it's not a matter which I can decide or any government can decide. It's a question of what a society considers acceptable. And as
you know, Singaporeans are by and large a very conservative, orthodox society, a very, I would say, completely different from, say, the United States and I don't think an aggressive gay rights movement would help. But what we are doing as a government is to leave people to live their own lives so long as they don't impinge on other people. I mean, we don't harass anybody." In April 2007, Lee said in a Reuter's report: "If in fact it is true, and I have asked doctors
this, that you are genetically born a homosexual -- because that's the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes -- you can't help it. So why should we criminalize it? …Let's not go around like moral police ... barging into people's [bed] rooms. That's not our business… So you have to take a practical, pragmatic approach to what I see is an inevitable force of time and circumstances. " A month later, Lee said, "Eventually the law against homosexual sex would have to be repealed."

ST Online Forum: We cannot follow overseas trends on gay issues blindly (Sep 6)

We cannot follow overseas trends on gay issues blindly

I refer to Dr Yap Kim Hao's letter 'We cannot afford to wait for conservative views to change before dropping laws against gays' in The Straits Times Online Forum (Sept 4).

Dr Yap makes some sweeping assumptions that warrant closer examination and reflection.

It is unfortunate that MM Lee continues to be cited as 'the definitive truth' where the gay issue is concerned.

While I agree that he has done much for the progress of our nation, it does not follow automatically that everything he postulates must always be right for Singapore.

As a nation of intelligent individuals, our responsibility must be to carefully evaluate every assertion, no matter what the source.

This avoids blindly following any, and every, novel trend.

Does it also follow that because others have done so, we must do the same?

China, Hong Kong and Taiwan may be the 'economic dragons' of the last and this century, but recent incidents of commercial and industrial malpractice point to problems in moral rectitude in the race for material growth.

Surely Singapore has not got to where we are through following all and sundry just because of what worked for them.

Singapore has long learnt from the actions of others, then chosen its own pathway.

Dr Yap claims that the 'conservative sector' of our society is a minority. The last ST Online poll on the 'gay issue' proves this belief to be wrong and the assertion misleading.

The statement that acceptance of gay is 'necessary and shows respect for the laws of the country' escapes all my attempts at rationalisation.

Finally, Dr Yap trots out the well-worn but obligatory 'gays are born not made' argument. The jury is still out on this.

The pluralistic Singapore we all aspire towards should be built upon mutual respect for all 'regardless of race, language or religion'.

I do not recall 'sexual orientation' being included.

If we are to have leaders of public opinion, let us choose wisely. If we are to be good followers, let us do so with intelligent and inquisitive attitudes.

Chia Boon Beng

ST Online Forum: We cannot afford to wait for conservative views to change before dropping laws against gays (Sep 4)

We cannot afford to wait for conservative views to change before dropping laws against gays

I refer to your report, 'S'pore must stay connected globally to grow'. (Aug 31)

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew cited the homosexual issue again and re-affirmed his positive views on the issue after what we can always expect was very careful study and analysis.

His need to balance the interests of different groups in our pluralistc society is appreciated.

The interesting fact that emerges in his interview with the International Herald Tribune is that China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have 'allowed and accepted gays'.

He is convinced that it is a matter of time before Singapore follows suit.

But the question is how much time.

The headline of this article states that Singapore must stay connected globally to grow.

Growth is essential, but can we afford to wait, or grow slowly?

We have a conservative sector of our population, but they should not hold back the growth of our nation. They should not impede the progress of the country in becoming a world-class society.

Allowing and accepting gays is necessary and shows respect for the laws of the country.

To have a law and not enforce it can only mean that it is redundant and must be removed from the statute books as soon as possible. The rationale of keeping the law to satisfy the conservative minority brings the legal system into disrepute.

It is simply not right to label a minority of the population criminals because they were born homosexual. What makes the consensual same-sex sexual act a criminal offence?

All the allegations about irresponsible sexual acts apply to consensual opposite-sex acts as well.

We can ill-afford to wait and watch the world progress ahead of us. We need to stay ahead of our competitors in attracting foreign talent and foreign investment.

MM Lee has warned us of our nation's vulnerablities. We have been able to overcome one crisis to another thus far.

Let us stay connected and continue to grow. We cannot retain a fishing-village mentality in the 21st century.

Let us work together in harmony irrespective of race, creed, gender and sexual orientation to make pluralistic Singapore a continued success.

Dr Yap Kim Hao

ST Forum: Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church (Jul 19)

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.

Todayonline - Voices: Rev doesn't speak for church (Jul 19)

Rev doesn't speak for church

Dr Yap's views are only official if he gets green light from Church body

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Letter from Daniel Koh Kah Soon

I refer to the article, "On Section 377A ..." (July 16) by Nazry Bahrawi. The article quotes the opinions of Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop, on the controversial issue of retaining Section 377A of the Penal Code.

In the report, it should have been noted that Rev Dr Yap has not claimed to speak on behalf of the Methodist Church of Singapore. The report also does not state clearly if Rev Dr Yap's opinion was a personal one.

Because of this, the public may form the mistaken impression (as some have already done) that Rev Dr Yap was expressing the official views of the Methodist Church.

As a Methodist I wish to inform the public that no one is allowed to speak on behalf of the Methodist Church.

They can only do so if they are authorised by the General Conference of the Methodist Church of Singapore.

Dr Yap has every right to express his personal opinion.

However, unless Rev Dr Yap has received permission from the Methodist Church, the public should note that his opinions do not represent those of the Church.

ST Forum: Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church (Jul 19)

It's a shame that Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for the Methodist Church. He certainly speaks more sense than alot of Methodists I know.

July 19, 2007

STINews: Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church

I REFER to the article, 'MP Baey all for repealing anti-gay law' (ST, July16).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 inthe Book of Discipline of the MCS (which contains the doctrinal statements, and administrative rules and principles of the church).Relevant sections include:

We consider the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible withChristian teachings. However, we do recognise that homosexual persons areindividuals of sacred worth. They need the ministry and guidance of the church as well as the spiritual and emotional support of a caring fellowship.

Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practising homosexuals are not to be accepted ascandidates, ordained as itinerant ministers or approved to serve in the MCS.

Every itinerant minister of the MCS shall accept that the practice ofhomosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings.A fuller explanation of the church's position is found in an articleendorsed by the General Conference in 2004. The article can be found atour website at http://www.methodist.org.sg

Bishop Dr Robert Solomon

The Methodist Church in Singapore

Clarification from Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao

This is further clarification in response to the letter: "Rev Dr Yap doesn't speak for Methodist Church" by Bishop Dr Robert Solomon. (ST Forum July 19)

I agree with his comment that I "do not speak for MCS (Methodist Church in Singapore.)" Within our Methodist tradition, neither former bishops like me nor serving bishops like him speak for the Methodist Church.

The news report by Jeremy Au Yong (ST, July 16) is completely correct in quoting my remarks: "Contrary to the majority of the Christian views...I personally would call for it (Penal Code Section 377A) to be repealed on the basis that this is God's purpose..."

On this occasion and on others I have consistently stated that I do not represent the official views of the Church. As always I will make the same kind of preamble that my comments are purely personal and strictly private. I disclaim any other impressions given or received.

In the Methodist tradition , there is only one official view and that which is approved by the General Conference of the Methodist Church. The General Conference here is composed of forty-two elected members, half of which are laypersons and the other half clergy people and presided by the Bishop who does not have a vote. The Conference meets once every four years to legislate changes including election of a bishop to serve for the next four year period.

On the issue of homosexuality, the United Methodist Church in the United States which is the mother church meets in its own General Conference. The vote taken by about 1,000 elected delegates in 2004 was around 60% against and close to 40% for matters favouring homosexuality.

Official views are that of the voting majority and there is always room for the minority view. Everyone has the freedom to have his or her own private and personal view. They have the liberty to agree or disagree with the interpretation of the Bible and the teaching of the Church which are subject to review and change every four years by the General Conference.

TODAY: Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely: MPs (16 Jul)

On Section 377A ...

Forum on gay law well-attended, but change unlikely: MPs

Monday . July 16, 2007

Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp. com.sg

THE room was packed, the panellists were passionate and the questions came fast and furious.

This was the mood yesterday as over 200 people gathered to discuss a hot issue - should homosexuality remain outlawed here?

Leading the discussion, organised by local theatre company W!ld Rice at the National Library, were an eclectic mix of five individuals: MP (Tanjong Pagar GRC) Baey Yam Keng; Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong; gay activist Alex Au; CEO of gay community website Fridae.com, Dr Stuart Koe; and Reverend Dr Yap Kim Hao, a former Methodist bishop who serves on the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) council.

Although Section 377A, which criminalises homosexual acts, may come up for debate in Parliament as part of the Penal Code changes, for two panellists at least, the prospect that it would be repealed any time soon seems highly unlikely.

Said Mr Baey: "Personally, I think the whip should be lifted for a very open debate and open expression of opinion by the MPs. And if that was so, I would vote for a repeal of the act. From my understanding of my parliamentary colleagues, my guess is that I will be in the minority.

"However, Mr Siew told the audience - most of whom indicated during the forum that they wanted Section 377A repealed - that the battle was not to convince the naysayers, but those who are undecided about whether homosexuality should be decriminalised.

The NMP said change would only be possible "once you get that mass, enough people in the middle, to agree with you", but added: "I don't think we're at that point."

Mr Siew cited a heartland survey published in May by Today, in which 62.3 per cent of 300 respondents disagreed that homosexuality should be legal. "That shows that a clear majority are saying that homosexuality of people is not acceptable to them."

But even if more people were to support decriminalisation, that may not be enough.

Said Mr Baey: "From what I understand about how the Government works, I don't think the Government will be making a decision based on a survey ... The Government will want to make its own stand and position on issues like this, and for this it requires a mindset shift."

And to change mindsets, "you've got to frame it in a lingo that will convince the Government", Mr Siew suggested."

And what's that lingo? I think we all know. It's all about growth, jobs, money. If you can make a convincing case that 377A is somehow affecting that, I think you've got a really good chance."

He acknowledged that changing the laws on homosexuality would put Malay/Muslim MPs in a difficult position with their community.

But it is not just the Muslims who feel strongly about the issue.

Reverend Dr Yap said that within the Christian faith in Singapore there was a "minority which is vocal" which strongly opposes any move to repeal the Act.

Mr Au, however, argued that the debate on Section 377A was not one of religion, but civil rights.

In response, Mr Siew pointed out: "Pitching your arguments in terms of civil rights ... will not take it very far."

His suggestion of linking the decriminalisation of homosexual acts to economic benefits drew a range of responses from the audience - as well as other panellists, including Mr Koe, who said he would feel insulted if the decision were to depend on dollars and cents.

Whatever their stand, almost everyone present agreed that such a forum would not have been possible five years ago - a sign that Singapore is now a lot more open to different points of view.

AP - Former Bishop Calls for Greater Respect for Homosexuals in Singapore

Former Bishop Calls for Greater Respect for Homosexuals in Singapore
By The Associated Press

SINGAPORE (AP) - A former Methodist bishop has called for greater understanding and respect for gays in Singapore, where recent public debate has questioned whether homosexuality should be decriminalized.

"We know that the differences will exist, we only ... plead for mutual respect and not for ondemnation, " Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, who in 1968 became the first Asian bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia, said at a Thursday night dialogue on homosexuality and the church.

The dialogue, believed to be the first between the mainstream Christian church and the gay community in Singapore, was organized by the gay social outreach arm of the nondenominational Free Community Church. It was attended by more than 350 people, including representatives from major Christian denominations and members of the general public.

The dialogue follows rare public debate about homosexuality in Singapore. Earlier this month, the city-state's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, questioned the country's longtime ban on gay sex, saying the government should not act as moral police. His comments set off debates in newspapers and online forums.

Yap, who is now the Free Community Church's pastoral adviser, has said he believes he has been called by God to minister to gays, and is aware his views conflict with the conservative mainstream church in Singapore.

"Even though we disagree, we need to respect the humanity," Yap told The Associated Press.

Participants in the forum also discussed interpretations of Biblical references to homosexuality, and how the church can pastor homosexuals. Panelists stressed that the church and policymakers in Singapore must realize there are real people behind the issue.

"At the end of the day, we need to know that there is a human face to all this and then we learn to adapt our strategy differently, " said Tan Kim Huat, dean of studies at Singapore's Trinity Theological College.

But some audience members remained skeptical or indifferent to the calls for greater tolerance. One man took the microphone to compare homosexuality to bestiality.

Still, Yap was pleased that so many from the mainstream church had attended the dialogue.

"They came in some significant numbers to hear an alternative point of view. We have heard them condemning, but this is the first time they're coming to hear the other partisan view," he said.

Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice.

Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.

Penal Code amendments proposed last year would decriminalize oral and anal sex for adult heterosexuals, but retain the ban on gay sex. That decision was applauded by the National Council of Churches in Singapore. The amendments are scheduled to be debated in Parliament later this year.

The issue returned to the spotlight earlier this month when Lee questioned the gay ban, prompting a flurry of responses by lawmakers and the public.

"Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalizing laws regarding homosexuality have got my family and me very concerned," citizen Jonathan Cheng wrote to the Straits Times Forum pages. "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle. What else can you expect when you do not have children to live for or be in a loving and committed relationship? "

Most of Singapore's 4.5 million people are Buddhist, followed by Christians. The nation's other main religion, Islam, also forbids homosexuality.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care

10 May 2007

Public Dialogue on Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care
organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church
By Yap Kim Hao

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

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

My approach is therefore a multi-disciplinary one.

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

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

But what do we see in many Churches in different parts of the world today? Homosexuality has become a major issue, much more serious than doctrine or church order. It is projected to split the Episcopal Church in the United States as well as the world-wide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury who is personally gay-affirming, has to recognize the current teaching of the Anglican Communion which is against homosexuality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP: Singapore Methodist cleric calls for tolerance

A former Methodist bishop has called for greater understanding and respect for gays in Singapore, where recent public debate has questioned whether homosexuality should be decriminalized.

"We know that the differences will exist, we only . . . plead for mutual respect and not for condemnation," the Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, who in 1968 became the first Asian bishop of The Methodist Church in Singapore and Malaysia, said at a Thursday night dialogue on homosexuality and the church.

The dialogue, believed to be the first between the mainstream Christian church and the gay community in Singapore, was organized by the gay social outreach arm of the nondenominational Free Community Church. It was attended by more than 350 people, including representatives from major Christian denominations and members of the general public.

The dialogue follows rare public debate about homosexuality in Singapore. Last month, the city-state's founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, questioned the country's longtime ban on gay sex, saying the government should not act as moral police. His comments set off debates in newspapers and online forums.

Yap, who is now the Free Community Church's pastoral adviser, has said he believes he has been called by God to minister to gays, and is aware his views conflict with the conservative mainstream church in Singapore.

"Even though we disagree, we need to respect the humanity," Yap told The Associated Press.

Participants in the forum also discussed interpretations of Biblical references to homosexuality, and how the church can pastor homosexuals. Panelists stressed that the church and policymakers in Singapore must realize there are real people behind the issue.

"At the end of the day, we need to know that there is a human face to all this and then we learn to adapt our strategy differently," said Tan Kim Huat, dean of studies at Singapore's Trinity Theological College.

But some audience members remained skeptical or indifferent to the calls for greater tolerance. One man took the microphone to compare homosexuality to bestiality.

Still, Yap was pleased that so many from the mainstream church had attended the dialogue.

"They came in some significant numbers to hear an alternative point of view. We have heard them condemning, but this is the first time they're coming to hear the other partisan view," he said.

Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice.

Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.

Penal Code amendments proposed last year would decriminalize oral and anal sex for adult heterosexuals, but retain the ban on gay sex. That decision was applauded by the National Council of Churches in Singapore. The amendments are scheduled to be debated in Parliament later this year.

The issue returned to the spotlight last month when Lee questioned the gay ban, prompting a flurry of responses by lawmakers and the public.

"Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's recent comments about liberalizing laws regarding homosexuality have got my family and me very concerned," citizen Jonathan Cheng wrote to the Straits Times Forum pages. "Homosexuals lead a promiscuous and hedonistic lifestyle. What else can you expect when you do not have children to live for or be in a loving and committed relationship?"

Most of Singapore's 4.5 million people are Buddhist, followed by Christians. The nation's other main religion, Islam, also forbids homosexuality. (Derrick Ho, AP)

TimeOut Singapore: Report (May 10)

On 10 May, about 250 people crowded into a ballroom at the Amara Hotel. They weren’t waiting for a celebrity appearance or even donuts; they were there for a forum titled ‘Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality and Pastoral Care’.

On the drawing board since before Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s comments about decriminalising homosexuality, the talk was organised by Safehaven, a ministry of the Free Community Church. ‘I wanted to put theologians together to present the “for” and “against” perspectives in one setting,’ says Alphonsus Lee, one of the organisers. But as moderator Augustine Anthuvan of MediaCorp Radio reiterated several times, the event was not intended to be a debate, but rather an opportunity to open a dialogue.

Dr Tan Kim Huat, a professor of the New Testament at Trinity Theological College, addressed the varied interpretations of Biblical passages on the issue. Anthony Yeo, consultant therapist for the Counselling and Care Centre, discussed the social and religious challenges he’s seen his patients face, concluding that gays and bisexuals ‘don’t need persecution from the Church; they have enough struggles of their own’.

The panelist who got the most [fb02] ack from the largely partisan audience was Edmund Smith, pastor of Real Love Ministry in Malaysia. Mr Smith describes himself as an ‘ex-gay’. Several times throughout the night, he emphasised that although he gave up the ‘gay lifestyle’ and considers homosexuality a sin, neither he nor his ministry is anti-gay. Nevertheless, many of the audience’s questions were aimed his way, which led him to comment: ‘I was gay from age 13 to 24 and I was never gay-bashed. But I’ve been bashed the most as an ex-gay – by the pro-gays.’

On the other end of the popularity spectrum was Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao, who earned applause when he pointed out: ‘Jesus Christ forbids divorce, but many Christians have divorced. What makes one so much a greater sin that the other? Especially when Jesus Christ never mentioned homosexuality but explicitly condemns divorce?’ He also got the most laughs, after arguing against the idea that one makes a conscious decision to become homosexual. ‘Who in their right mind would choose to be gay, when they’d be relegated to a small, despised minority?’

As Mr Anthusan predicted, attendees on both sides of the issue probably left with more questions than answers. But there were at least two conclusions reached by the panelists that night: [fb01] rst, that it is important not to lose sight of the fact that this discussion is about people more than issues; secondly, that dialogue is an end in itself, and a positive one at that. In fact, organiser Lee is already considering holding another discussion. More info at www.oursafehaven.com.

by Billie Cohen

ST Forum: Rev Yap's Response

I refer to the report "Homosexuality: Govt not moral police but it's mindful of people's concerns." (ST, April 23). This pragmatic understanding of homosexuality of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is certainly appreciated.

MM Lee has accepted the opinion of the doctors he consulted that due to "the nature of the genetic random transmission of genes" homosexuals are born that way. According to his view homosexuality is a "genetic variation." This is in line with the vast majority of doctors, psychologists, psychiatarists, and social workers who agree that homosexuality is a sexual orientation which makes therapeutic change impossible. They have declared this officially in their professional associations at different times since 1973! Therefore people should no longer regard homosexuality as an abnormality, sickness, disorder or unnatural.

Recognizing the concerns of conservative citizens and their inhibitions towards homosexuality the government has adopted a pragmatic approach and "would not be 'proactive' in enforcing this (existing) law against consensual homosexual acts that take place in private." Therefore the homosexual act should not be seen by the people as a criminal offence except only when done in public.

On the question of morality, an act by homosexual or hetersosexual is immoral when it is harmful, hurtful, destructive and exploitative. The question of morality does not come into play when the sexual act is consensual, in a mutually committed relationship and in privacy.

Time and circumstances change and the teaching of the religious communities need to change their conservative view of homosexuality as well in order to serve as a credible moral force in the age of globalization.

Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao

My Journey to Affirming the Gay Community - Rev Dr Yap Kim Hao

You have responded to the invitation of RedQuEEn! to this discussion on the specific topic of same-sex attraction. I have been challenged by the organisers (Su-Lin, Charmaine, Eileena) to give my private and personal perspective as a Christian. Given the fact that the majority of the Christian community is homophobic, I am heartened that there is an increasing number of Christians who are being enlightened and the day will soon dawn when the majority of Christians will be gay-affirming. This is a rising tide and it will flow on. Never before did I even dream that I will be called upon to speak in the Substation to an eager audience on this issue. God works in a mysterious way, with wonders to perform.

We want to be focused and respond to the objectives of this meeting. I have read through the questions that some of you have sent in. The process is for me first of all to share my views and then we will learn from one another through the more important session of Question & Answer. It is necessary for me to indicate to you where I come from or how I got this perspective which has yet to be accepted by the majority of the Christian community.

Like many people I am a creature of the history and culture into which I was born and nurtured. As individuals we respond in different ways and our attitudes and views vary. In my time and location the gay issue was not discussed openly. There was misinformation resulting in misunderstanding. Like most people I was silently homophobic then.

When I began my ministry in the mid-fifties, I was asked by a leading architect who must have been struggling with his sexual orientation about the views of the church. I had never studied the subject and just looked up the few isolated passages of the Bible and quickly concluded that the Bible is against homosexuality. In the minds of the Christian community until today it is not contestable for the literal words of the Bible tell me so. Homosexuality being a sin then becomes the only conclusion and is still believed by a majority of the Christian community.

Later, I met a gay person from a very rich family who wanted me to help his mother whom he had come out to, to understand the gay issue. He is a doctor trained in London. That was my first contact with a gay person and he later introduced me to his gay and lesbian friends here. He must have sensed that I could be sympathetic and took the risk. As a matter of fact I was very naïve about homosexuality. I even asked why he did not seek the best of psychiatric help to correct his condition. It was only later that I understood why he laughed at me and realised how ignorant I was about the subject. Soon I began my journey to affirming the gay community.

Sexual Orientation
I read that Sigmund Freud long ago attested that it is as difficult to change the orientation of a homosexual as it would be a heterosexual. He has been proven right. The condition comes, as does being heterosexual, by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and very early societal development. It is both nature and nurture. It is not a disease to be caught.

Freud was before his time on this issue. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of personality disorders as did two years later the American Psychological Association, indicating the naturalness of a homosexual orientation. In 1997, it passed a resolution declaring therapists in these groups who engaged in such conversion therapies to be following unethical and unhealthy practices.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counselling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers and National Education Association in the United States developed and endorsed the following statement in 1999:

"The most important fact about 'reparative therapy' and also sometimes known as 'conversion therapy,' is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. [Our organizations], together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a 'cure’. ...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

Dr Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University announced a study indicating that "reparative" therapy has a failure rate on the order of 99.98 per cent. Indeed, the largest "reparative" therapy organisation, a ministry called Exodus International initiated and supports Choices here in Singapore. It was started by two formerly homosexual men who several years later ended up leaving the ministry, denouncing it, and living as a homosexual couple themselves.

With such official statements from reputable organisations, how can I as a simple layman not agree with these respectable scholars, teachers, social workers and doctors.

Religious Attitudes
Continuing my journey of discovery I find that the church like an ostrich has its head in the sand. Gays and lesbians are compelled to stay hidden in their closets when there is so much homophobia within the church and in the community. I kept quiet too but I saw that the movement was beginning to form in the West and I had expected it would take a long time to surface here in Asia, and especially in Singapore with its sanitised and conservative climate. But I was wrong and had little faith.

With women and blacks engaged in their liberation struggle it was a matter of time when the gay liberation would surface. My sympathies have always been for people who are victimised, the poor, and the handicapped. This was enhanced when I became a member of the handicapped community due to the physical assault I received from the hands of a group of drunken Japanese military police in 1945. I was just an innocent victim.

Then I went to the United States for my college education and I had to work my way to earn money beginning as a garbage collector in college, dishwasher, gardener and houseboy in a dormitory. Added on is the fact that I was with a handful of foreigners in a community of real heartlanders in the middle of the United States in the State of Kansas. It was the beginning of the Civil Rights struggle and I made friends with the African- Amercians and sensed in a personal way what racial discrimination is all about. The professors in my college and seminary had a strong social passion and supported the civil rights struggle.

For me it was a natural transition to the gay issue when it emerged here. It was just a concern for another marginalised and oppressed group of people. It was this sense of justice and fair-play which I was able to develop in my own intellectual and religious development that propelled me in my journey. My understanding of God is that God is the creator and we are loved by God. God created each one of us and we are formed by God. God affirms my identity including my sexual identity.

In trying to understand the question of same-sex attraction I can only naturally look at my own life and examine my sexual life. Did I at any time choose between heterosexuality and homosexuality? No, it just came naturally and it was not a matter of choice. Of course, I don’t experience how gays and lesbians become aware of same-sex attractions. I can only surmise that it came naturally to you too. I did not choose heterosexuality and you did not choose homosexuality.

The more I meet with gays and lesbians and the more I study the issue of homosexuality, the more I can affirm with conviction that homosexuality is not a sin. It is not a choice. I am convinced that the more heterosexuals meet gay people, the more they will realise that homosexuals are just as normal or abnormal as they are. The only difference is in their attraction – same-sex or opposite-sex.

Religions & Homosexuality
In my study I find that none of the major Chinese religions condemn homosexuality as a sin. The ancient Chinese believe man has the duty to produce children and maintain the family line. Sex outside of marriage and even with male lovers is viewed as a private matter. The purpose of sex is the procreation of children. It is also believed that sex strengthens male vitality by absorption of the female Yin essence which is the vaginal fluid. Same-sex acts do not diminish male vitality. This understanding prevails in Japan also.

Buddhism is traditionally neutral in its attitude towards homosexuality. It is not mentioned in any of Buddha’s discourses. Buddhist countries have few social and legal prohibitions against homosexuality. Thailand is relatively free from homophobia. Buddhism does not see homosexuality as wrong and heterosexuality as right. Both are sexual activity using the body and are strong expressions of lust which increase wrong desires. Buddhism does not condemn homosexuality as wrong and sinful. It does not condone it either, simply because it, like other forms of sex, delays the deliverance from samsara or re-incarnation.

Hinduism's stance of homosexuality is unclear for there is conflict in Hindu scriptures over this issue. None of the sacred Hindu text, such as the Vedas, contain condemnation of homosexuality. However, the Vedas does mention human beings as being classified into three different categories: male, female and a third sex. “Third sex” is the group most homosexuals identify themselves with. It is likely that homosexuality is not viewed as correct but tolerated. The Indian Kama Sutra written in the third century contains passages describing oral sex performed by men on men with tips to maximise pleasure. Prior to British colonisation of India, oral sex was not the only homosexual activity, many engaged in a form of pederasty which was openly practiced by Muslims and Sikhs in the north while being overlooked in the south by Hindus.

Ancient Greece and Rome accepted sexuality as a natural part of life, but it was more refined in Greek culture. Marriage was monogamous but sex was not confined within the marriage bond. Homosexuality was accepted because human nature is bisexual. Sexual polygamy existed within marital monogamy. The male-dominated society also had double standards. Brides were expected to be virgins but not bridegrooms. Wives did not have a public life and were confined to household duties. Men, on the other hand engaged in sex freely with slaves and prostitutes. Adultery was not proscribed except with another man’s wife who was regarded as a piece of property. Fidelity was required of wives. Along these lines, the philosophers discussed adult male relationships with boys and male youths known as pederasty. At best, adult males saw pederasty as being primarily a mentoring relationship.

When the Bible condemns the “homosexuality” of the Greco-Roman society, it was condemning all forms of ancient pederasty, not modern homosexuality. We would be violating the historical context of these texts if we failed to account with the truth that homosexuality in our historical context is different from that which occurred in the Greco-Roman world. Homosexuality today may be a sin in the eyes of some, but you cannot prove it by referring to biblical texts that are condemning pederasty and not homosexuality.

Terminology of Homosexuality
Homosexuality in terms of personal orientation as a life-long pattern was first used by Swiss doctor K M Benkert in 1869. Homosexuality refers to a sexual orientation characterised by aesthetic attraction, romantic love and sexual desire exclusively or almost exclusively for members of the same sex.

According to the most recent edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth edition), "homosexual" as an adjective was first used in 1892 and as a noun in 1902, and "homophobia" was first used in 1969 and "homophobe" first used in 1975. The translation of any Bible word as “homosexual” is a mistake.

Homosexuality & Abrahamic Religions
Religion has played a significant role in forming a culture’s views towards homosexuality. There is cultural construction of the view of homosexuality. It is claimed to be religiously revealed in their sacred writings. Historically the negative perceptions have been limited to the Abrahamic religions. Other religious groups have commonly regarded homosexuality as sacred or neutral. In the wake of colonialism and Imperialism undertaken by countries of the Abrahamic faiths, some non-Abrahamic religious groups have adopted new attitudes which condemn homosexuality.

The world's three major Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism have historically been the primary sources condemning homosexuality in the world.

Orthodox Jews believe that homosexual intercourse by men and women was sinful, since it is forbidden by the Torah. An interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 shows that homosexual intercourse between men is considered on the same level as idolatry; requiring death, and for women it is based on Leviticus 18:2-3, where the Israelites are commanded not to follow the ways of the Egyptians or Canaanites. Today some major denominations within these religions have accepted homosexuality, arguing that the Jewish law was originally intended to distinguish between Judaism and pagan faiths, and is thus no longer relevant.

Conservative Jews recognise equality of congregation members regardless of sexual orientation, favour decriminalisation of homosexual acts, prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, and supports equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Reform Judaism argues that homosexuality is a natural attraction, and that the prohibition in the Torah was addressing pagan religious rituals, specifically Egyptian and Canaanite fertility cults and temple prostitution. They accept gay and lesbian rabbis and support civil same-sex marriages.

In Islam, homosexuality is considered as sinful. Muslims believe that people are not homosexual by nature and they become homosexual because of their environment. There are five passages in the Koran which relate to gay and lesbian behaviour.

Biblical Interpretation
Those of you who are Christian claim that the churches teaching same-sex attraction is based on the Bible. So they lift up and quote certain chapters and verses from the Bible associated with this issue and regard them as divine truth revealed by God. The Bible is a difficult book written by inspired men and women of faith believing that it was revealed to them. At one time they even claim that it was dictated by God and they just recorded it. Soon it was realised that it was not dictation but interpretation of what they believed to be God’s revelation.

The early religious community had to determine whose writing should be included in the Bible and the Church in Council finally came in to sort out these religious documents and officially gave its approval to form what we now have as the Holy Bible.

The Church leaders continued to give their interpretation of what was interpreted in the first place by the writers of the different books of the Bible. Then as good Protestants we could not accept that and called for individual interpretations of the Bible. The Bible which was denied by the Roman Catholic Church was then made available to individual Christians for their reading, study and interpretation.

The interpretations of the Bible from the outset reflected also the historical and cultural situations which prevailed then and continue to do so in the work of those who study the Bible today. Our first task is to try to understand what is meant when it was written and how it relates to us in our contemporary setting.

When I first studied for the Christian ministry I was assigned a book to read which was influential in my understanding about the Bible and Biblical interpretation. The title of the book is The Bible Speaks to our Generation. I must add the Bible continues to speak to each succeeding generation and we need to re-examine our interpretation in every generation.

In Biblical times and in Jewish history we find that it was a patriarchal society in which men ruled. Men are the head of the household. Women are seen to be subordinate and therefore submissive to men. In fact, the wife of the man is his property and it was the religious duty of the women to be producing babies, taking care of the family, and satisfying the sexual needs of men. You will find a number of Biblical passages describing this role of women. Can you subscribe to this restrictive feminine role today?

This famous quotation from Greek writer Demosthenes makes it clear: "This is what it means to be married: to have sons one can introduce to the family and the neighbours, and to have daughters of one's own to give to husbands. For we have courtesans for pleasure, concubines to attend to our daily bodily needs, and wives to bear children legitimately and to be faithful wards of our homes."

Furthermore, the passages of same-sex acts must be seen in the light of the Jewish opposition to pagan religions. The Greek and Roman culture influenced those who wrote the New Testament and coloured their reactions to pagan temple prostitution and sexual acts.

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 6:9. The two Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai have been translated differently at different times in different versions of the Bible in English. The King James Version in 1611 regarded them to mean those who are effeminate and abusers of themselves with mankind, which was close to the Greek meaning.

The original Revised Standard Version (the New Testament first appeared in 1946) was the first translation ever to use the word "homosexual.” It translated the two words to mean homosexuals or sexual perverts. Then in 1978 the New International Version translated them as male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. It was the New Revised Version in 1989 which renders them as male prostitutes and sodomites. It must be noted that the word homosexual was not used in the earlier period. It was in 1180 that the word sodomy was first used. There is no such word as "sodomite" in the original languages (Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes the sin of Sodom as pride, gluttony, not caring for the poor and needy).

Roman culture which expected people to engage in sex with both men and women. The majority of people, then as now, had a heterosexual orientation. Thus, to participate in same-sex behaviour, and to meet society's expectations, they would have had to disregard their sexual orientation. They would have gone beyond their own nature. "The resulting activity was "unseemly" and an "error" only because the men were heterosexual by orientation. Again, it was their attempt to violate their own nature, that is, their attempt to alter the orientation God created them with, that Paul was addressing... The bottom line is, God created each of us with a sexual orientation. To attempt to change it is, in effect, telling God that He created us wrong. The creation (us) does not have the right to "re-create" itself."

The situation to the ancient Romans is similar to the situation that homosexuals find themselves in today: society expects them to be heterosexual, and to engage in sexual activity with persons of the opposite gender -- even to marry. And so, many gays and lesbians go against their nature and try to pretend to be heterosexual.

The NGPA also notes that Paul referred to this as an "error”: a mistake, not a sin.

Seow Choon Leong of Princeton Theological Seminary: "I used to believe that divorce is wrong under any circumstance, simply because that is what the scriptures teach. I could -- and still can -- quote chapter and verse from the Bible (Matthew 5:31), particularly the words of Jesus. I have since learned from friends and loved ones what horrible traps bad marriages can be. People suffer enormously; some people even kill themselves because of bad marriages that they cannot otherwise escape. Some people suffer physical abuse in such marriages. Some are even killed. Unlike the friends of Job, I am not willing to uphold dogma at all costs, certainly not when I know that people are suffering and dying. I have gone back to reread the scriptures and I have heard the gospel anew.

“I also used to believe that homosexual acts are always wrong. Listening to gay and lesbian students and friends, however, I have had to rethink my position and reread the scriptures. Seeing how gay and lesbian people suffer discrimination, face the rejection of family and friends, risk losing their jobs, and live in fear of being humiliated and bashed, I cannot see how anyone would prefer to live that way. I do not understand it all, but I am persuaded that it is not a matter of choice. Seeing how some gay and lesbian couples relate to one another in loving partnerships, observing how much joy they find in one another, and seeing that some of them are better parents than most of us will ever be, I have reconsidered my views. I was wrong.

“From the testimony of homosexual persons and from various reports, I have learned that there is an extraordinarily high rate of suicide among homosexual persons. People are dying every day because of society's attitudes -- indeed, because of the church's stance. Many people hate themselves because of what society and the church say about them. I know of many homosexual persons in the ministry who have been very effective for the cause of Jesus Christ, but they suffer tremendous guilt because they have to keep their secret from the church they love dearly.... They are hurt by the church. I cannot believe that we are called to perpetuate such pain and suffering in the world.... For me there is nothing less than the gospel at stake."

Concluding Remarks
All the religious, historical, social and cultural factors must be taken into account into reading and interpreting specifically the few Biblical texts regarded to be related to the issue of same-sex attraction. Just to quote the words of the Bible without looking at the context and the traditions related to them is just not enough and irresponsible.

Then we have to examine our contemporary understanding of ourselves and our community. We are sexual beings with our urges, drives, desires and attractions.

As a heterosexual, I just accept my condition and I don’t question it. I was made that way in being attracted to the opposite sex. Since the majority of God’s people are heterosexual this powerful majority became regarded as normal. They view those who are different from them as abnormal or deviant. Those whom God has endowed with same-sex attractions are forced to question themselves. Is this normal? Is this acceptable to God? You know that you cannot change your sexual orientation and we as heterosexuals know too well that we have no desire to become homosexual. We have to relate to our different sexualities as given by God and we cannot fully comprehend the purposes of God in ordering different sexual conditions.

Especially within the Jewish/ Christian/ Muslim religious and cultural traditions we have changing attitudes towards sex. It is made more difficult when we view the spirit or soul as spiritual, and matter and body as material, and we place a higher value on things of the spirit and tend to despise the material body. We tend to believe that God is only spiritual, dwelling in the heavenly realm and totally unrelated to the material and earthly plane. Consequently we regard sex as evil and celebrate the virtue of celibacy and the denial of all things sexual. Who dares to say anything about Jesus’ being? He comes through as divine and therefore assumed to be sexless. Such is not the case of our friend Paul the Apostle who recognised the flaming power of sex though he did not give room to express it himself.

The Early Church Fathers viewed sexuality as a result of the Fall of Adam. The highest virtue for the Christian is that of martyrdom followed by virginity and celibacy. The lowest rung is the state of marriage. Sex is seen as a danger to Christian piety. Sexual abstinence in marriage is better than that of procreating children. The least good is that of enjoying sex. St. Augustine was troubled about sexual lusts and linked all sexual union with original sin. Later St Aquinas judged sexual acts in this manner: “They must be done for the right purpose (procreation), with the right person (one’s lawfully wedded spouse), and in the right way (heterosexual genital intercourse).”

Now there is general recognition that sex is not only for procreation. In Biblical times we have injunctions about semen, masturbation and attitudes about menstruation relating to procreation. This was modified by the Catholic Church with regard to family planning and population control. The Protestant churches generally have no problems with the use of condoms to prevent conception and with the issue of abortion.

Today there is also increasing acceptance of sex as described by James Nelson: God’s primary purpose in creating us as sexual beings is not that of procreation, but rather to give us the desire and capacity to love and to bond with others in intimacy. Thus, theology has given new attention to the insight that sexuality is crucial to God’s design that creatures do not dwell in isolation and loneliness but in communion and community.

God’s fundamental purpose in creating us as sexual beings was not that we might make babies, but that we might make love. I believe as sexual beings we are concerned with love, intimacy, mutuality, sexuality. Sexual intercourse is exploitative when it is not mutually satisfying or an expression of intimacy and love for one another.

John Boswell in his historical studies revealed that the Early Church did not generally oppose homosexual behaviour as such. The opposition that arose during the third to sixth centuries was due to the demise of urban culture, government regulation on personal morality and church pressures toward asceticism. Hostility appeared only in the late twelfth century.

Marriage was not celebrated by Christian wedding services in church worship until perhaps the ninth century. It was considered as a civil order and not a religious rite or church ceremony before that.

Today, I regard mutuality, intimacy, life-long committed relationships, and sexual pleasure as important values for marital relationships for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.

What I have done in this presentation is to share with you the background of my perspective on same-sex attraction. We may not have the time to go into greater detail the different interpretations of the particular passages of the Bible which you have so much trouble with. I have outlined the way in which we should approach them. Maybe RedQuEEn! can structure some study sessions to further clarify them and help you to come to the realisation that same-sex attraction is not a sin but an orientation, holy and acceptable in the sight of God.