Asia Times Online: Singapore sex on the straight and narrow

By Alex Au

SINGAPORE - Singapore will host its first Formula One motor race in 2008, following the signing of a recent agreement in London between Formula One Management and well-known Singapore tycoon Ong Beng Seng. But is the Singaporean government true to its recent stated drive to allow for a racier, more liberal society?

For decades, it was accepted wisdom in the city-state that car racing was one of the degenerate activities that the former Lee Kuan Yew-led government had swept away, never to return. There had been an annual Grand Prix from 1962 to 1972, but closing roads and ensuring safety for the race was then not considered economically rational, and that glamorizing speed could have negative social effects.

In 2005, Lee, now Minister Mentor in his son Lee Hsien Loong's cabinet, reversed that sentiment when he said he regretted that Singapore didn't host an F1 race. He might not have spelt it out, but everyone knew that Malaysia's tourism receipts from its Sepang race were on his mind. Immediately, government officials began to take a serious interest in the idea, participating in discussions that led up to the recent signing.

So does this represent another step in Singapore's gradual liberalization? On the surface, it does: part of Lee junior's drive to make the city state a more exciting place in which to work and live is a move toward engendering in the population what he once referred to as the "X factor".

Like the earlier decision to allow for the construction of two new mega-casinos, however, the justification was primarily economic rather than a genuine social loosening. And like the casino question, it took some public musings by the Minister Mentor Lee to uncork the stifled public debate.

Now there is a third instance of the senior Lee musing aloud, which if followed up by government would represent a genuine opening of Singapore's highly repressed society. Last month, the Mentor Minister Lee told Reuters that "eventually" the law against homosexual sex would have to be repealed. "If this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world - and I think it is - then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it," Lee said.

Currently, Singapore has two laws criminalizing homosexuality. Section 377 of the Penal Code makes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" - usually interpreted to mean oral sex and anal sex - a crime punishable with up to life imprisonment. The law makes no distinction as to whether the parties are heterosexual or homosexual, or whether the act takes place in public or in private. Section 377A, meanwhile, makes undefined acts of so-called "gross indecency" between two consenting men - whether in public or in private - an offence punishable with up to two years in jail. By its wording, it targets only gay males, not females.

While the government has not actively enforced the draconian laws for over a decade, the legislation has created a climate that allows for discriminatory practices in employment and other areas. Singapore has seen a steady brain-drain of gay professionals to more welcoming foreign destinations in the West, and more recently the climate of intolerance has complicated the government's drive to attract more foreign talent.

Conservative backlash
The government proposed last November to repeal Section 377, which if done would legalize sodomy for heterosexuals. However it has also said it intends for now to leave 377A on the law books, thus keeping gay male sex of any kind a criminal offence.

This has stirred a vigorous public debate pitching progressive and conservative forces. This year, the Law Society came out in favor of repealing Section 377A as well. Leading the defense of the status quo of criminalizing homosexuality among men has been the National Council of Churches, which has recently urged the government to extend the law to criminalize lesbian sex as well.

For instance, law lecturer Yvoone Lee recently wrote a commentary piece in the government-affiliated Straits Times newspaper that provided legal reasoning for continued criminalization of homosexuality. She associated gay sexual orientation with sexual diseases and pedophilia and warned the legalization could lead to "clashes with fundamental liberties such as free speech". There was a "broader homosexual rights agenda to transform social morality", she charged.

Her university boss, vice dean Victor Ramraj, penned a rebuttal, but the newspaper requested that his piece be toned down for publication, according to sources familiar with the exchange. Nevertheless, there has been an outpouring of criticism in cyberspace of the law lecturer and her spirited defense of the continued criminalization of homosexuality.

This being Singapore, few consider it likely that the government will be moved by the public feedback. Especially as the government in its law reform explanatory notes published last November has seemingly already nailed its colors to the mast by saying, "Singapore remains, by and large, a conservative society. Many do not tolerate homosexuality, and consider such acts abhorrent and deviant. Many religious groups also do not condone homosexual acts ... Hence, we are leaving section 377A as it is."

To some surprise, in April Lee Kuan Yew uttered his dissenting opinion, saying "They tell me and anyway it is probably half-true that homosexuals are creative writers, dancers, etcetera ... and if we want creative people, then we got to put up with their idiosyncrasies." However, "I am not in charge of government policy. I am just a Minister Mentor," he added, qualifying his remarks.

The gay question serves as an important litmus test for the government's avowed wish to open up Singapore and create a more cosmopolitan, vibrant and tolerant society.

Soon after Richard Florida's highly acclaimed book, The Rise of the Creative Class was released, Singaporean ministers frequently referred to the book for pointers to move the country in the direction of the author's so-called "innovative knowledge economy". However, at the same time, they coyly refused to acknowledge that central to Florida's arguments was his use of the "gay index" as a vicarious measure for how societies embraced mavericks and creative rebels.

So far, the tiny steps that the government has taken to liberalize society have not borne any lasting fruit. Despite much fanfare, the opening of a Singapore branch of the Parisian nude revue, Crazy Horse, lasted barely 13 months. It closed in January due to poor business. However, the management complained bitterly that the government imposed onerous restrictions on its marketing - for example, it was not allowed to advertise in mainstream channels.

Ironically, as recently as three months before its closure, none other than Lee Kuan Yew touted Crazy Horse as a token of Singapore's determination to break past social taboos. In 2003, the poster-child for liberalization was counter-top dancing. Previously it had been illegal for bar patrons and hired performers to dance atop tables and bar counters. Then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong decided to loosen the rules after many pleas from bar owners, but he also used the gesture as a totem of his government's push to liberalize Singapore.

In actuality, allowing counter-top dancing was more form - and rhetoric - than substance. That is, the loosening was confined to entertainment, but it was the only example of social liberalization at the government's disposal. However, it was recently reported by the Straits Times that currently no bars in the downtown area now feature counter-top dancing on a regular basis. To the government's chagrin, the fad has passed.

Compared to the question of homosexuality, permitting a tightly-cordoned nude revue and counter-top dancing – no nudity included in the case of the latter – were low-hanging fruits. For the same reason, they were never convincing demonstrations of true government-backed social liberalization.

Whether the government can grasp the nettle of the anti-gay law, which even the authoritarian Lee Kuan Yew apparently now thinks should be abolished, serves as a true barometer of the junior Lee's liberalizing convictions.

Alex Au is an independent social and political commentator, freelance writer and blogger based in Singapore. He often speaks at public forums on politics, culture and gay issues.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved.

ST Forum: Why is male homosexuality a crime but not lesbianism?

ST Forum

May 15, 2007

Why is male homosexuality a crime but not lesbianism?

IN RESPONSE to Assistant Professor Yvonne Lee's reply to my letter, 'Professor's view on gay's prejudiced' (Online forum May 8), I would like to follow up in the interest of clarity and fair comment on the points raised.

First, Prof Lee feels that I have questioned her professional qualifications and engaged in a personal attack in asking questions about her essay. I intended no such attack and apologise unreservedly for any offence.

Second, it seems that Prof Lee's article has generated a substantial amount of debate, both reasoned and otherwise. I view this as a welcome effect as I firmly believe that only though public discussion will Singapore become a better civil society on such an important topic as equality under the law.

Therefore, contrary to Prof Lee's assertion, I am delighted to see the muddle scrum of public debate - informed or not, for or against - as it usually produces a consensus that current society can live with until the next evolution in local values dictates further review.

Finally, returning to the substance of Prof Lee's essay, the writer continues to be vague in answering the questions raised in my original letter asking for evidence supporting her generalised statements on the linkage between homosexuality and public health concerns; the existence of a broader slippery slope homosexual agenda in Singapore; and how 'free speech' as construed within Singapore's legal history would be curtailed by decriminalising homosexuality in Singapore.

To the questions above, I would appreciate Prof Tan explaining why only male and not female homosexuality should be a crime under Singapore law; if homosexuality is against Singapore's public interest why criminalise sexual expression and not the person; and how can homosexuals in Singapore follow her advice to live their lives peacefully when Section 377A (whether enforced or not) is explicit in making their private activity a crime.

Brian Selby

ST Forum: Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV (May 15, 2007)

ST Forum

May 15, 2007

Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV

I REFER to Mr Siew Meng Ee's letter, 'Doctor using selective material to justify own conclusion' which was written in response to my letter, 'Homosexuality: disease or immutable trait?'. I thank him for his views that he has expressed.

Let me clarify what I have written. It is true that not all people who contract Aids are homosexuals and not all homosexuals have Aids.

Let's look at the statistics from the US' Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC) - in the year 2005, there were 45,669 cases of newly-diagnosed Aids cases of which 18,938 were from male-to-male sexual contact.

This means that 41.5 per cent of cases of Aids were transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact.

The estimated number of cases diagnosed through 2005 (this means the number of people at the end of 2005 having HIV) is 988,376.

The estimated number of this same group of people having Aids through male-to-male sexual contact is 454,106. This means that of the 988,376 diagnosed cases of Aids in the US, 45.94 per cent of these cases were contracted through male-to-male sexual contact.

The number of homosexuals in the US has been estimated to be 2.8 per cent ('the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey which found that 2.8 per cent of the male, and 1.4 per cent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).

This amounts to nearly four million openly gay men and two million women who are identified as lesbian.

This means that 2.8 per cent of the population in the US accounts for 41.5 per cent of the new cases and of the number of HIV cases in the States, 2.8 per cent of the population accounts for the 45.94 per cent of the people having Aids. When relative risk is calculated, this means that a person who engages in male-to-male sexual contact has a 2,400 per cent higher chance of getting Aids.

If we look at the Singapore figures for 2005, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 31 per cent of the new cases of HIV infection, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 22 per cent of the number of people diagnosed with HIV.

I believe the figures speak for itself, that practising homosexuals have a far higher risk of HIV with its numerous complications and increased mortality.

There are two main reasons for this.

1) The rectum is physiologically unsuitable for anal intercourse. Its fragility leads to increased risks of trauma during anal intercourse, accounting for the increased risks of infection, both bacterial and viral including HIV.

2) Homosexuals are sexually more promiscuous.

A 1978 study found that 75 per cent of homosexual white males claimed to have 100 male sex partners, 15 per cent 100-249 male sex partners, 17 per cent 250-499 male sex partners, 15 per cent 500-999 male sex partners and 28 per cent more than 1,000 male sex partners (Alan P. Bell et al, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men & Women pg 308 Table 7. New York 1978).

In a local publication, People Like Us: Sexual Minorities In Singapore, gay activist Alex Au Wai Pang wrote frankly about homosexual sexual values being different from that of heterosexual males. Both of Mr Au's articles in the book talk frankly about how many homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts.

With regard to whether homosexuals can change their sexual orientation, this is an issue that arouses the emotions of all concerned. As gay activists see it, if someone can change his or her sexual orientation, then homosexuality can be considered a lifestyle choice and thus does not qualify to be considered as a protected class under the law.

As why Dr Robert Spitzer's study was quoted, some background information as how this study came about is useful. Dr Spitzer is one of the most renowned psychiatrists in the US, who is called the father of DSM.

In fact, he was one of the key psychiatrists in deciding that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM. However, in the early 2000s, during an APA meeting, Dr Spitzer met some picketers who claimed that they had changed their sexual orientation.

Intrigued, he decided to do a study as, at that time, his view was that homosexuals could not change their behaviour.

He genuinely wanted to know if some homosexual men and women could change from homosexual to heterosexual, and that he wanted science to guide him. Certainly, with more than 275 publications to his credit, this esteemed scientist at Columbia University was more than able to conduct such a study.

With the limitations that are inherent to all such studies, Dr Spitzer employed the best rigours available for such research protocols.

His sample size was larger than those in previous studies. He was very detailed in his assessment and carefully considered the affective components of the homosexual experience.

Any bias in interview coding was virtually eliminated by near-perfect interrater scores. He limited his pool of applicants to those reporting at least five years of sustained change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.

His structured interview clearly described how the participants were evaluated. His entire set of data is available for scrutiny by other researchers.

If his study methods are considered flawed, then all the original research material used by APA to justify the original change in classification is also flawed using the same argument.

Dr Spitzer's conclusions are simply this: Based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are also able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.

His study was not designed to give the percentage of homosexuals that have changed. Dr Spitzer felt the percentage was low as it was difficult to find subjects willing to be interviewed.

One of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger. Dr Hershberger, a distinguished scholar and statistician, elected to respond in a Commentary to the Spitzer research (Hershberger' s article was published in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior as the Spitzer study was) by conducting a Guttman scalability analysis. This is a scalogram to determine whether or not reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.

Dr Hershberger' s conclusion: 'The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behaviour, homosexual self-identification , and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Dr Spitzer's study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.

'Now it is up to those sceptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so.'

The Schidlo and Schroeder study, funded by the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association, was originally titled 'Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage.'

The title was later changed to 'Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?' because they found that some people reported benefits to reorientation therapy including a change of sexual orientation. Biasness will be an issue as the aim of the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association is to prove that homosexuals are normal and healthy and reparative therapy is harmful.

There are thousands of testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their orientation. Even in Singapore there are testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their sexual orientation.

The point is that even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait and we should not deny anyone the right to change.

Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang

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.

ST Insight: Society ready to move forward on gay sex debate?

May 11, 2007
Society ready to move forward on gay sex debate?

By Lynn Lee

RECENT remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew about homosexuality, and whether Singapore might have to change its stance on its criminalisation at some point, have resurfaced a debate among conservatives and others here.

Those at one end of the spectrum argue that the ban on homosexual sex is outdated and archaic. Those at the other end see any easing of laws as a move down a slippery slope.

Mr Lee said at a Young PAP event that while the authorities are not the moral police on the issue, they could not ignore the concerns of conservative citizens.

What was needed was a practical and pragmatic approach.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency just days later, he was asked about those comments and whether homosexual sex should be decriminalised eventually.

He replied: 'Eventually I cannot put a finger on it.

'But I would say if this is the way the world is going and Singapore is part of that interconnected world, and I think it is, then I see no option for Singapore but to be part of it.'

The remarks came several months after the Home Affairs Ministry, in looking at changes to the Penal Code, said it would retain a ban on acts of 'gross indecency' between men.

The ministry said homosexuality was not widely accepted here, but added that it would not be 'proactive' in enforcing this law against consensual acts that take place in private.

A website run by Washington-based gay activist Bob Summersgill, which tracks sodomy laws worldwide, lists Singapore among a clutch of Asian and African countries which deem sodomy to be illegal. This is unlike most developed countries which have done away with such laws.

Adding fuel to the recent debate, was a commentary in The Straits Times last week by National University of Singapore law academic Yvonne Lee, who argued that decriminalising homosexual sex would be an error, with far-reaching legal and social implications.

Insight contacted five MPs, all lawyers, for their take on the issue, on the question of decriminalisation, and how the debate can move forward.

There were, not surprisingly, divided views. But they took heart from the fact that such issues are being aired.

Said Hong Kah GRC MP Alvin Yeo: 'What is helpful is that debate actually takes place, rather than the silent harbouring of prejudice; and that it takes place in an objective environment which is tolerant of different viewpoints.

'That itself is the mark of civil society.'

It would also take time for the wider Singapore society to change its stance on the question of decriminalisation, said Sembawang GRC MP Ellen Lee.

'You move at the pace of the most conservative members of society. We do not have a homogenous society and we are a multiracial, multi-religious society. We have to respect their concerns and anxieties. I do not think Singapore will lose out in any way in this respect just because the world is moving faster than Singapore.'

lynnlee@sph. com.sg