ST Forum: Irresponsible to suggest treatment based on one study (May 22, 2007)

ST Forum

May 22, 2007
Irresponsible to suggest treatment based on one study

I AM writing in response to Dr Alan Chin's letter, 'Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV'.

He went to great lengths to provide statistical data that male-to-male sexual activities have resulted in a disproportionately high incidence of HIV transmission.

Considering this with his other key point that homosexuality is not an immutable trait and that we should not deny anyone the right to change, Dr Chin seems to suggest that gay men should exercise the right to change their sexual orientation in view of the health risks they face.

With discrimination faced by gay people in many societies, it is interesting that not more gay men have exercised the right to change their orientation by evidence that most self-identified gay men remain gay.

One wonders who in their right mind would choose to suffer societal rejection if there was a way out. If reparative therapy to change one's sexual orientation is so pervasively successful as Dr Chin claims (he has not provided any statistical evidence though), why is it not adopted by most medical practioners as a treatment for homosexuality?

It is irresponsible for a medical doctor to suggest a treatment based on one study. Dr Chin has conveniently ignored the comments made by the author of the study, Dr Robert Spitzer himself, in response to misuse of his study results as published in the Wall Street Journal May 21, 2001 (verbatim).

'In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four.

'I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.

'I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did.

'The issue here is not about the right to change one's sexual orientation. Since when has that right been denied?

As a medical doctor communicating his views in a public forum, Dr Chin should have presented a more robust analysis of a scientific study done by someone else, especially when there already exists a wide spectrum of professional opinions on the study in question.

Peter Goh Kok Yong

ST Online Forum: Is homosexuality wrong? Three factors to consider (May 22, 2007)

ST Online Forum

May 22, 2007
Is homosexuality wrong?: Three factors to consider

I REFER to the article, 'Is there a place for God in public morals debate' (ST, May 18), by Ms Chua Mui Hoong.

First, let me explain that there is not a single official statement of the church that says that 'homosexuality is a sin'. That would be like saying 'kleptomania is a crime'.

Kleptomania is a condition that inclines those who suffer from it to steal; just like homosexuality is a condition that inclines people to commit homosexual acts (sinful in the eyes of the church). Stealing is a crime, not kleptomania.

The Church believes that homosexual acts, not homosexuality nor homosexuals, are wrong. Neither does the church say that homosexual acts are necessarily sins, only sinful.

In the same vein, an act of theft of kleptomania may be 'excused' on the basis of the special condition of the person, although the act of theft has indeed being committed.

The law (and church) speaks about the wrongness of the act (sinfulness) ; the court (conscience) about the guilt of the person (sin). In other words, we must distinguish between the three matters at stake, the condition of the person, the free acts of the person and the culpability the person deserves.

This said, I cannot agree more with the point the author puts across: 'Public reason is accessible to all regardless of religious faith.'Reason and religion should complement each other. Reason helps when religion gets unreasonable; religion helps when reason loses sight of truth.

We must use reason to talk and discuss about religious and social matters because what is reasonable is reasonable to all. Law (and God's commandments) , human acts (sins or virtues) and responsibility (guilt or lack of it) are important social (and religious) matters.

Psychology should study the psychological condition, civil law (or God's or church's law) should establish the 'wrongness' (sinfulness or lack of it) of the act, and the court (or conscience) should establish the guilt and punishment the person deserves.

To discuss it, we only need to know where to put the brackets.

David Garcia

ST Forum: Criminalisation of gay acts: need for equality before the law (May 22, 2007)

ST Forum

May 22, 2007
Criminalisation of gay acts: Need for equality before the law

I REFER to Ms Yvonne Lee's letter, 'Gay debate continues: Writer responds', (Online forum, May 17).

Ms Lee has quoted from the affidavit for a court case of one medical doctor, John R. Diggs, Jr, MD, that homosexual acts are inherently unhealthy.

A closer examination of the affidavit whose source is supplied by Ms Lee herself shows that Dr Diggs observed: 'People who engage in homosexuality have the same basic sexual equipment as people who do not.

'This meant that heterosexuals have the same sexual organs and some can also engage in what is regarded as 'homosexual acts' as well.

Unsafe sex by heterosexuals and homosexuals can result in the same medical and health risks like those listed by Ms Lee - promiscuity, multiple sexual partners, assault and battery and anal intercourse.

Homosexuals do not have the monopoly of such risks. In reality heterosexuals carry higher risks and spread sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/Aids to their sexual partners and unborn children.

In the discussion on natural drives, Dr Diggs wrote: 'We discourage heterosexual promiscuity, cigarette smoking, and intoxication of various sorts, even though there may be a natural inclination to do these things. Some claim a natural inclination, as adults, to sexually exploit children. This society discourages to the point of making it criminal.

'Dr Diggs is right that we should discourage heterosexuals from expressing such inclinations. At the same time I agree with him that we should do the same with homosexuals.

But homosexual orientation is not an inclination or a tendency that we must curb. It is just as natural an orientation as the heterosexual to engage in heterosexual and for some homosexual acts as well.

Sexuality is common and the health risks of sexual acts are the same. The distinctive difference is that of same-sex and opposite-sex acts.

Why do we criminalise one and not the other? This is where there is a need for equality before the law and justice needs to be seen to be served.

Dr Yap Kim Hao

SAFEHAVEN, a Ministry of Free Community Church presents Rev Dr Mel White (24 May 2007)

"Thank God I am Queer - A Gay Christian's Journey"

24 May 2007, Thursday, 7.30pm
Free Community Church
100A Eu Tong Sen St, #04-02 Yangtze Building

Introducing Mel White

The Rev. Dr. Mel White is a former ghostwriter for fellow evangelicals, including Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, and Jerry Falwell. Inspired by the nonviolence movements of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., White founded SOULFORCE, a nonviolent movement based on their principles to address the suffering of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
In 1997, he was awarded the ACLU's National Civil Liberties Award for his efforts to apply the "soul force" principles of Gandhi and King to the struggle for justice for sexual minorities.
He is the author of over 16 books, including Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, published in 1994, and Religion Gone Bad: The Hidden Dangers of the Christian Right, published in 2006.

Well, in a nutshell, Mel White is a BIG DEAL. Not only is he a celebrated writer and pastor, he's also a powerful advocate for being Christian and gay. And he speaks from a position of authority, having been the Dean of the largest gay-lesbian church in America, the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, Texas and Minster of Justice of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. At a personal level, Mel White struggled with his sexuality for 30 years before he finally accepted his sexual orientation as a "gift from God".

If there was one Safehaven talk that you MUST ATTEND, make no mistake, it's THIS ONE. Come and listen to how one man struggled to overcome the teachings of the Church that homosexuality is a sin, to be able to say today, "Thank God I'm Queer!" So make your way down to FCC this coming Thursday, 24 May, 7.30pm, and meet face-to-face the man himself.

Alphonsus Lee
Chairperson, SAFEHAVEN

Safehaven is an informal fellowship for gay and lesbian Christians. We believe that God is able and desires to bless gay and lesbians Christians without having to deny their sexuality. Safehaven is interdenominational and welcomes Protestant and Catholic members who are interested to integrate faith and sexuality in their lives as Christians.

Today Voices: Law highlights social fabric anchored on family culture

May 21, 2007

Today Voices: Law highlights social fabric anchored on family culture

Letter from LAI YEW CHAN

HOMOSEXUALITY is a lifestyle — not a mere idiosyncrasy — that carries overarching implications in our social and family spheres and even for our long-term demographic structure. The extent to which society embraces it determines the degree of its penetration in the recesses of society.

Therefore, economic benefits aside, the one overriding issue in this “pink dollar debate” is the kind of legacy we wish to leave for the next generation. If we still wish to see our social fabric anchored in the nucleus family, the gay lifestyle should remain a subculture and not be a part of mainstream
society. So long as it remains a subculture, we are conveying to our young the message that society still values the family culture.

Although Section 377A of the Penal Code is said to be more honoured in principle than in observance, it should remain enshrined in legislation. Its abolition will mean that even the lawmakers, the elected representatives of the people, are according public space for such acts.

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

May 21, 2007

Today Voices: Why an anti-gay law?

Section 377A not key reason why gays stay or leave S’pore

Letter from JOHN TAN

I REFER to the report “What price, the pink dollar?” (May 19) by Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang.

There is no doubt that Section 377A of the Penal Code, a law criminalising homosexual activity between men, should be tossed out of Singapore’s law books. We should not have to compare ourselves with other countries, but it may be good to know that Indonesia, China, Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam, the Philippines and many of our other Asian neighbours have no such law discriminating against gay men.

I would think that some of these countries have societies that would be as, if not more, conservative than Singapore is.

As to whether we would be able to retain Jeremy and his scholarly partner, I doubt the “law” has any real impact on their decision. New York, London and Hong Kong may be “more open” to gays, but there is still a sizeable chunk of the mainstream population who will not tolerate any public display of affection between two men.

My point is, while the outdated law may still be around, it is not a real push factor that’s chasing the gay men out of Singapore. Neither is it stopping gay men, who can contribute greatly to the economy, from coming to Singapore. Maybe some gay activists might refuse to step in or stay in Singapore as a matter of principle, but a majority of gay men, like straight people, take into consideration a low crime rate, clean living environment, a vibrant economy, language, and many other factors as the reasons for a stay-or-leave decision.