A comment a Catholic reader made about my previous article on AWARE set me thinking about the whole load of nonsense that is going on and how people are being drawn into taking sides.
The greatest mistake that people embroiled in this saga is to align themselves (or see other people who comment on the issue) as being EITHER PRO-GAY or ANTI-GAY. This is a very convenient way to organize our thoughts… however, is VERY DANGEROUS and WRONG.
Pro-gay and Anti-gay can be seen as two polar ends of a single measure. A lot of people (like myself) would fall somewhere in between pro and anti… while few extremists would take sides on the extreme ends.
Indeed, another way to view it would be that both pro-gay and anti-gay beliefs can exist at the same time in the same person. Again, this is subject to the extent of belief and a convenient label of EITHER you are ‘pro-gay’ OR you are ‘anti-gay’ does not do justice. For example, I can rate myself on a scale of 3 out of 5 as being pro-gay, since I am liberal and respect other people’s choice of sexual orientation. At the same time, I can also rate myself on a scale of 3 out of 5 as being anti-gay, since I accept the scientific view that homosexuality is not genetically linked and I hope my children will grow up to have heterosexual relationships as, looking at the state of affairs now, I think homosexuals face a lot of discrimination in the world and I will not want my children to be subject to that.
I think the point of contention of many people now is not about PRO or ANTI GAY. It is that, AWARE is a secular organization. As such it should not be used to support values based on religious beliefs. Further, Singapore is a secular, multi-racial, multi-religion country which should not allow the hijack of a secular organization by religiously-affiliated individuals trying to impose their values on the nation.
Just because the OLD AWARE is NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE PRO-GAY, as the Christian fundamentalists from COOS have conveniently, unjustifably labelled them as so… by using a few examples to support the claims (out of the so many activities AWARE held). On the contrary, the COOS people have established themselves as, CLEARLY ANTI-GAY based on what they have said so far in the media, despite their claims that they are not anti.
Very interestingly, this is also a very classical psychological trait. People are essentially self-serving, self-affirming. One would attribute good things that happened to his or her own credit, while anything bad that happens would be others’ fault. Similarly, people would seldom use negatively-connotated terms on themselves (i.e. anti-gay)… choosing rather to put the negative focus on others as being pro-gay (to me it is not negative but to the COOS people I suppose pro-gay is negative, given their value system).
No related posts.
“it should not be used to support values based on religious beliefs”
Please be more explicit. What values are you referring to? Don’t christians have common values with the rest of the population?
Aren’t christians allowed to contribute to the public square as individuals, just like others?
Do you not work with christians? Do they impose their values on you? Haven’t they shown that they are capable of maintaining a secular platform for all in secular work?
“Just because the OLD AWARE is NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE PRO-GAY”
Similarly, just because christians are not for homosexuality does not mean that they are anti-gay.
We choose what we wish to see, don’t we.
>>>>“it should not be used to support values based on religious beliefs”
>>”Don’t christians have common values with the rest of the population?”
Obviously there are both similarities and differences in values between and within different religions and cultures. If values are as universal as you claim, then probably there wouldn’t be any conflicts in this world.
For a multi-racial, multi-religion society it takes some compromises between groups to function properly. And that would mean not imposing a singular value system on everyone else.
Is placing homosexual acts to be a sinful act, a value in Christian beliefs? Note, I am not claiming being homosexual is a sin, but the act itself.
Agree? Most churches seemed to agree with my presentation of this fact.
On the other hand, in Buddhism it is not the object of one’s sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved. In other words, homosexual act itself is not wrong.
And this is an example of differing value systems between religions and cultures. So it is right to impose the values of a religion on a secular organization?
Hence, the most practical way is to leave out all values, leaving only those that are generally agreed upon by the society, e.g. murders, adultery, etc. And present the “sensitive” topics purely on a secular, and scientific manner.
As such, the scientific stand on homosexual behaviors are that they are not an aberrant or deviant set of behaviors. They are normal behaviors of a homosexual.
This neither encourage a so-called homosexual lifestyle, nor encourage a person to become a homosexual.
As for the alleged homosexual lifestyle. Well, it doesn’t exist. Being homosexual to not automatically mean that you will practice the promiscuous gay lifestyle as portrayed by the anti-gay activists.
Homosexuals are no different from normal heterosexuals. Some are faithful, others promiscuous. The only difference lies in their attractions to persons of their same gender. The attractions to those of similar gender is not necessarily an indication of their promiscuous nature, nor the lack of moral values.
Is there any basis to assume that a homosexual is naturally less moral or for the fact, less religious than any other person? They are just like everyone else! Neither more perfect, nor less. So why should we discriminate them, and stigmatize their nature instincts?
>> Aren’t christians allowed to contribute to the public square as individuals, just like others?
Certainty. I have no objection with that! But I have plenty of objections in their method of taking control over a organization which they have no obvious feeling for. And obviously I am going to have objection to them imposing their values on a secular organization.
As many other have already stated. No one have any objection about any Christian starting their own civic group to advocate their values. Or for them to engage in open dialog with AWARE about their concerns.
But many draw a line at the underhanded move to silent a civic organization that they disagree upon. THIS is the crux of the entire issue. Homosexuality is just a smokescreen.
The motive of the new AWARE exco is further suspected because of their actions. And this leads to speculation and negative impression of the exco.
Them being Christian got nothing to do with it. It is about what they have done, and are trying to do, that pissed me off.
I have no problem with Christians contributing to the public square! In fact, I think there is many good the Christian groups have done for the society in general.
Do not take the opposition against the new exco as a discrimination against Christianity in general.
It is the same as arguing that we are discriminating against gay, just because we jailed a robber who happens to be a gay.
>> Similarly, just because christians are not for homosexuality does not mean that they are anti-gay.
True. And I agree with you on this point. But actively attempting to hijack reach-out to homosexual can be considered anti-gay.
It is important to reach out to homosexual kids in particular to tell them that it is not wrong being a homosexual. They are just different, but the virtue of being different is not a sin. This is important because we do not wish these child to grow up hating themselves, and often degenerate into the alleged gay lifestyle.
Is it considered anti-gay to intentionally hinder aids to gays? To actively advocate the denial of their existence and problems?
To actively condemn AWARE’s programmes to engage the homosexual community while advocate that AWARE should just focus on woman.
It is like I want to help this beggar, and you are telling me there is better things to do than help a beggar.
Certainly you can voice your opinions, but in the end, I should be the one to decide whether if I wish help him or otherwise.
You should not drag me away from the beggar, and every single beggar I meet thereafter. Because by doing that, you are actively advocating discrimination against beggar. That no one should help beggars.
Is this anti-beggar or not?
Or is it that the term “anti” can only be applied if you actively seek to harm the beggar, rather than harming the beggar indirectly?
It is a fine line between dis-approval, and active discrimination.
Your scientific stand does not stand. It’s an opinion. Yes there are many papers and much research, but none conclusive. You can’t just insist that certain things are “facts”.
Whether people are anti-gay or pro-gay or anywhere in between, is not determined by what they claim themselves to be.
The AWARE new guard obviously have to go around telling people that they are not anti-gay, because, to say so, they will be inviting further criticism and condemnation. But open your eyes wide and look at their actions – are they truly NOT anti-gay? Actions speak louder than words… accused murderers would also claim that they are innocent but evidence and facts prove that they are.
Not Christians in general, dear – Christian fundamentalists.
Christian fundies will be the majority sect in the future if nothing is done to curb their enthusiasm.
Read your Bible. It is clearly stated that homosexuality is a sin. Just because some “Christians” disagree doesn’t change what is presented in the Bible. Would you believe me if I worshipped the Buddha and called myself a Jew?
Yes, Christians ARE anti-gay. They believe gays are a deviant to Christian society, those who go against what God made them to be.
isnt embracing christianity itself taking a side? my guess is you’ll always have to deal with this issue. it wont change Unless to get worse?)
so, what i see you saying, in a way, is i dont want my kids to be gay because i discriminate against them. wow, sounds like you arent being like christ, didnt he love everyone equally? i hope you dont have kids, and if you do, remember you cant choose things for them. seriously, i hope you dont have kids
I don’t discriminate against gays. I have gay friends and I respect their choice, whether they do have a choice or whether they have grown up feeling the way they do.
It’s just that as a future parent, I would not want my children to be subject to discrimination (like what we see in the society today), so I hope they will not choose homosexuality, if they have the choice.
It’s the same thing as, I don’t want my children to be despised by others, so I hope they will grow up to be righteous and upright people and not choose a life of crime or sin… though they make the ultimate choice themselves.
No parent want their children to be discriminated against. If your children happen to be gay, being accepted and loved by their loved ones, i.e. you, is the first and most important step to overcoming society’s prejudices. Because society is not ‘out there’ – it is ourselves.
John Doe, I think YOU should not have kids. I as a father of 3 – with both boys and girls – wish that my kids are brought you the “normal” way that S’pore and most part of the work value as normal.
But when they are older, say 18 or 21, they choose what their beliefs be – be it sexual orientation or religious or political.
At young age of early teens – and telling them some society in most countries class as “liberal” – I think most parents (not you, John Doe – you obviously has no young kids) will prefer not to. Talk to most gay parents and you will know. They prefer their kids to be straight, but they let their choose in the end.
Get it? John Doe?
To_Joe_Doe: so you advocate letting kids who know they are different suffer in silence till they are 21? That they go thru’ ridicule, harassment and sometimes being ostracized because their peers are taught that homosexuality is abnormal? I went thru that growing up. I did not choose to be gay. I knew I liked boys at age 10. But I had to bear with taunts, judgments and insults while in school, and the fear of my parents’ wrath and rejection at home. Schools should have been a safe-haven for answers and acceptance. The continued silence will not breed respect. It will continue the ignorance and intolerance for human diversity. Acknowledgment of the existence of homosexuals does not make one gay. But the lack of knowledge will breed intolerance and small-mindedness. No one taught me to be gay. I am just because I am.
Sexual orientation is discovered, not chosen. Just like skin or eye colour is discovered, not chosen. A caucasian discovers he has blue eyes when he looks into the mirror. He didn’t choose to have blue eyes.
Similarly, a person discovers his sexual orientation by observing his own sexual responses.
If he is consistently sexually aroused by members of the opposite sex, he identifies himself as a heterosexual. If he is consistently attracted to the same sex, and experiences little or no attraction to the other sex, he identifies as homosexual.
This is why we say sexual orientation is innate. It is not consciously chosen and it cannot be changed at will, just like the colour of our eyes.
I share the blog owner’s sentiments. If I have a choice, I hope my children will all be heterosexual, because it’s really tough for a gay person to live in a largely homophobic environment.
One way we can reduce the burden of gay people is by PROMOTING greater understanding, tolerance, sensitivity, mutual respect and acceptance.
One way we can increase a gay person’s suffering and increase tension amongst different groups is by PROMOTING hatred, marginalization and misunderstanding, like what some Christian fundamentalists are doing.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Morris, those are really harsh words you used on Christian. Guess you are promoting hatred yourself and this hatred come within you. So be what you mean by ‘promoting greater understanding, tolerance, sensitivity, mutual respect and acceptance’ and not use harsh words which will make you lost respect from others.
Though plenty of objections in their method of taking control over organization, we need to evaluated the act of the team, not so much of who they are but why are they doing it, especially their concern over the programme that can cause harm to our children in not just about value but also their decision. MOE had investigated and suspended their programme, and I think that’s good new, don’t you? OR are you still doubt MOE’s decision and support the new president of Aware Dana Lam’s respond of disappointment on MOE’s decision..
Most people commenting here miss a very important point. Most pro-homosexual people vilify Christians for their apparent condemnation of homosexuals. Have you ever stopped to consider, why? To quote just one of many Bible verses: ” Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination..” – Leviticus 18:22 or paraphrases, Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. The Christian belief is that homosexuality is a sin, let no one claiming to be Christian claim that it is a “minority” or “fundamentalist” view. Christians believe in God, God tells us homosexuality is wrong, God tells us to obey. Is it wrong to live by our beliefs? Just because you don’t believe in any faith, doesn’t make those who do evil. Why do some Muslims commit acts of terrorism? Of course, Christians have not gone to the extent of murdering gays and lesbians. All God-fearing Christians know the Christian faith is about love, love that extends to everyone, including sinners. But that doesn’t mean Christians should go around condoning homosexuality and acting pro-gay. On the one hand, you guys accuse Christians of condemning gays, on the other hand, you condemn Christians for acting out their faith.
And another thing. There is NO definite scientific evidence to say homosexuality is genetic. There are always two sides to the coin. From an online source:
In 1993, Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claimed to have found a genetic link to homosexuality. Yet in 1999, the results of an intensive study by the University of Western Ontario found that Hamer was in error. The fact is that after all the attempts to show a genetic cause for homosexuality, no such genetic cause has been found. A British psychologist has had enormous success in providing “reorientation” therapy to homosexuals who want to change. This is not a surgery or a medical treatment, but it is effective. How could it be effective if the cause of homosexuality is physical? Well, it couldn’t be. Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic predisposition.