July 2003

Letters in Streats, 15 - 24 July 2003

source: Streats newspaper, 'Vocal' section
Date of each letter as shown below

 

  

 

 
Streats, 15 July 2003 
Today’s taboo is tomorrow’s norm

I refer to “Is it OK for your kids to be openly gay?” (Streats, July 11), Mr Peter Wong’s letter of response to Ms Adeline Woon’s commentary, “get this straight: Bigotry is not a family value” (Streats, July 10).

Firstly, it is obviously erroneous to view the issue of homosexuality or social attitudes towards homosexuality as “Western propaganda”. Perhaps if Mr Wong has bothered to do a little research on these topics, he would have discovered that homosexuality did not originate in “the West”. Indeed, it seems passé and simplistic to be using the terms “Eastern” and “Western” to describe anything at all.

Next, I agree that being gay is not normal (in our current context), but the crux of the matter is that norms change. What is defined as normal will change as our society changes.

Social attitudes towards house-husbands, inter-racial marriages and women in positions of power are examples of norms that have gradually changed, or are changing, in our society.

Whether individuals such as Mr Wong, like it or not, norms are things that a society, through constant (re)negotiation between its members, defines for itself. They are not based on objective, fixed rules of human existence.

Hence, the fact of the matter is that the current debate on the issue of homosexuality should is a sign of changes ahead.

If it was the opinion of the majority that homosexuality should be seen as something immoral or abnormal, we wouldn’t even be discussing the issue.

This debate will establish whether Singaporean society is able to perceive and accept homosexuality and other non-heterosexual activities as normal.

Mr Wong is entitled to his opinion, but we should be also appreciate that there could be a time when the average answer to shi question, “Would you want to see your son kissing another man in public?” will not be based on the sex of the people kissing but on the appropriateness of certain levels of public displays of affection.

Finally, my personal opinion on the issue of public displays of affection is that, regardless of one’s sexuality, one should try to be sensitive to other people’s sensitivities. For instance, one should not make other people feel uncomfortable by necking in a public place. Of course, there could come a time when this will also become acceptable through changes in the social climate.

Jillian Lim

* * * * *

  

Foreword by Yawning Bread

The letters here followed a commentary by Streats correspondent Adeline Woon Bigotry is not a family value. In the coloured boxes, are either some comments by Yawning Bread, or letters sent to Streats, but not published.

 
Streats, 18 July 2003
A norm could become taboo anew

The bold view expressed in the letter, “Today’s taboo is tomorrow’s norm” (Streats, July 15) is that time will change perceptions and bring about acceptance.

Perhaps so in many cases, and perhaps not in many others.

In Singapore itself, we have moved a long way from the anti-gambling and “yellow culture” strictures of the early 1960s. Nowadays, legal betting shops are as accessible as kopitiams.

It does not seem particularly logical to ban Playboy and other such publications when comparably titillating pictures can be downloaded from the Internet, and when women walk around in public in skimpy clothes which embarrass not the wearer but the viewer.

If toddy shops and seedy back-room “bars” were in operation today, perhaps their patrons would no longer need to enter and leave them furtively.

The trendy bars which have supplanted them have become respectable social oases. This is clear evidence that the perception of what is taboo has changed with the passage of time.

On the subject of homosexuality, however, almost every accepted religion rejects same-gender sexual relationships. Religious morality has its roots in the concept that sexual activity should be engaged in primarily for the continued propagation of the species.

It should not be difficult to accept that sexual energy or libido can be usefully channelled or sublimated into more “creative” activities, rather than its release into homosexual and/or lesbian relationships.

If it is not in dispute that we are animals, but of a higher order with the capacity to think and reason, the example of the animal kingdom shows that homosexuality and lesbianism are not the norm even though animals have been around longer.

What seems to have eluded most proponents is that, some decades back, when sexually transmitted diseases were rampant, and mostly communicable by contact with “women of easy virtue”, with cures not easily available, homosexuality was defended with the crude phrase, “Shit is better than chancre”.

This reasoning received a jolt when HIV was found to be transmitted via intimate homosexual acts.

The result is Aids, with seemingly no known cure and a lingering death.

It is still a great problem in Africa.

It is not unimaginable that greater gay activity could cause another bout of this disease.

A lot of this, however, seems to have been forgotten or conveniently overlooked on the current path towards permissiveness, and one wonders why.

Tacit official approval for same-sex associations could have social repercussions in years to come.

Who knows, today’s norm could equally turn out to be tomorrow’s taboo.

Narayana Narayana.

* * * * *

 

Comments by Yawning Bread

Mr Narayana is a retired stockbroker. He is about 75 years old. His name sounds Hindu, but I don't know whether that's his religion.

There's quite a bit of beating around the bush in this letter, but there are some statements here which cannot be left to stand because they are just plain wrong.

  • The idea that "almost every accepted religion rejects same-gender sexual relationships" is a very western idea. It's commonly seen in stuff from America, but it is not true if one takes into account Asian religions. Their scriptures have virtually nothing to say about it. Some Hindu and Buddhist monks, having absorbed Western heterosexist ideas' have been known to make similar pronouncements, but these pronouncements can be traced again to Western influence, not to the scriptures.

  • If sexual activity is to be engaged primarily for the propagation of the species, then recreational sex, (which is the chief type of sex nowadays and even in times past) is wrong too. Heterosexuals, please note.

  • AIDS is not a gay disease. In Africa where indeed AIDS is running out of control in a few countries, it is almost entirely transmitted by heterosexual sex.

Mr Narayana represents what I call "old-generation homophobia". They aren't the strident type like the fundamentalist Christians, but theirs is an objection that arises from outdated British ideas about sex and morality, coupled with an uncorrected view of AIDS.

 

 
Streats, 22 July 2003
No to homosexuality

We wish to debunk the many myths about homosexuality and lesbianism.

* Homosexual behaviour or desire is inborn, not learnt: This assertion is not scientifically proven.

Even homosexual activists in the US are abandoning this "genetic" argument because extensive research has failed to conclusively support a theory of biological causation.

The pro-homosexual group, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays admits that genetic causation remains unproven in their booklet, Why Ask Why?

Studies have found that large numbers of identical twins bear different sexual orientations. This scientific data demolishes ''any absolute claim that homosexuality is genetically determined''.

*  Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a mental disorder: Propagators of this view rely on the 1973 decision of the American Psychiatric Association, which eliminated the classification of homosexuality as a disorder in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

This was a result of pressure tactics of homosexual activists, rather than scientific data.

Mr Ronald Bayer, who supported this decision, stated: "A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves."

*  Homosexuals constitute a class akin to race or gender-based minority groups and hence deserve legal protection and ''equality''.

The law protects vulnerable groups such as ethnic minorities or women. But these groups are based on the immutable or fixed traits of race or gender.

In contrast, homosexual groups define themselves by their sexual choices or preferences.

That sexual orientation is not fixed is confirmed by many documented cases in which homosexuals have changed and become heterosexually re-oriented, regaining their natural sexual identity.

*  All who disagree with the homosexual lifestyle are intolerant 'bigots‘ and ''homophobes''.

There is a chilling tendency to erode liberty of conscience by castigating as a bigot someone who considers the homosexual lifestyle as repugnant, perverse, immoral, and undesirable.

One is not a ''homophobe'' (literally, an irrational fear of homosexuals) because one believes that homosexuality is wrong and will erode the moral fabric of society.

As citizens concerned about the social, moral and economic welfare of Singapore, we would like to share these perspectives so that we do not allow our society to be slowly eroded by the growing agenda of homosexuals in our society.

Government policymakers and the public should be aware of the nature of the homosexual agenda and the challenge this poses to our core shared values, which include safeguarding the integrity of the family unit and racial-religious harmony.

When PM Goh mentioned that the Government is openly employing homosexual individuals, we recognised this as a pragmatic recognition of realities. But this tolerance should not be read as a blanket moral approval of the homosexual lifestyle.

Many of us reserve the right to disapprove vigorously.

While laws are not static and may be changed within a democratic process, we should heed the wisdom in GK Chesterton's quip: "Don't ever take a fence down, until you know the reason why it was put up."

Dr (Mrs) Thio Su Mien [1]
This letter carries 8 other signatures

* * * * *

An inside source in Streats told Yawning Bread that after Thio Su Mien's letter was published, Streats received a deluge of mail

* * * * *

Streats, 22 July 2003
Being gay is a lifestyle choice

Although it is true that times and values are constantly changing, I can't help but disagree with some of the points that Mr Narayana Narayana brought up in his letter, "A norm could become taboo anew" (Streats, July 18).

The idea that the aim of human sexual activity is for continued propagation of the species is an archaic one. The act of sex has long since evolved into an act of intimacy that isn't solely for procreation.

If we are to apply the rule of religious morality as defined by Mr Narayana, then aren't heterosexual couples who indulge in "recreational" sex equally amoral?

Also, it may come as a surprise that homosexual behaviour does exhibit itself in many different species of animal.

Mr Narayana also views Aids as a "homosexual disease". It's erroneous to surmise that "greater gay activity could cause another bout of this disease", when it's unprotected sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual, which increases the possibility of contracting and spreading the HIV virus.

There's also a need to define the term "norm". If defined as "a standard or pattern regarded as typical", I am sure that homosexuality would never replace heterosexuality as the societal norm.

I would hazard a guess that both the homosexual community and the recent governmental response are not geared towards replacing the norms of society.

However, homosexuality should be recognised and accepted as an alternative lifestyle choice, and one which does not affect the person's ability to perform in a workplace.

Soh Yun-Huei

* * * * *

 

Yawning Bread sent this letter to Streats on 22 July 2003. It was not published.

I refer to the letter by Dr Thio Su Mien (Streats, 22 July 2003). The arguments she presented are all too familiar to gay people, because we have seen the same arguments for years from the fundamentalist Christian rightwing of America.

These arguments are also faulty for reasons which I will outline below:

She argued that homosexual desire is not inborn, or at the very least, that it is not scientifically proven to be inborn. She goes to on say that there is proof that it is not 100% due to genes.

The first mistake lies in equating "inborn" with genes. There can be other biological causes that can fix a trait immutably, e.g. the effects of the mother’s hormones and antibodies while the foetus is in the womb. These are currently under research.

Like why some people are musical geniuses and others tone deaf, there is not yet any definitive scientific explanation for sexuality. Strangely, it is our opponents who claim that we assert a scientific explanation and then like Don Quixote, go charging to demolish that imaginary assertion.

It should also be noted that while the science is still in considerable flux, the fundamentalist rightwing often ignores two things inconvenient to their extremist stance: Firstly, almost all homosexual persons report that their sexual orientation feels natural to them, just as heterosexual persons never think that they acquired heterosexuality through some decision or experience. Secondly, what scientific findings that have appeared in the last 20 years generally point to biological factors. The noise made by the extremist rightwing obscures the simple fact that there has been virtually no peer-reviewed science supporting any other causative hypothesis, such as choice, absent parenting or "bad" influences - their favourites.

The few examples of "changed" homosexuals which our opponents like to wave as proof that sexual orientation is not fixed, have almost all come via the "ex-gay" ministries of the fundamentalist churches. Independent psychologists and counselors have described their techniques as akin to brainwashing. These results demonstrate not change, but suppression of one part of their personalities.

Modern thinking in law and sociology regard sexual minorities as a class akin to ethnic or religious groups, and also see them as vulnerable due to the prejudice so widespread in many societies, prejudice which Dr Thio’s letter so amply demonstrates. It is for this reason that the law in many developed countries is moving to ensuring equal treatment for sexual minorities.

Dr Thio suggests that any class that cannot trace its provenance to fixed and immutable traits does not deserve the protection of laws.

Firstly, the question of whether sexual orientation is fixed has been discussed above, and the general consensus by knowledgeable people (including our Prime Minister) is that it is.

But more importantly we should note that religion is a matter of choice and is not at all inborn. Yet, civilised societies give legal basis to freedom of religion and take steps to protect religious groups from coercion. It’s a bit rich for those of one faith to use that freedom and protection to deny other groups theirs.

In short, gay people do not have to prove what right they have to exist. They fact is, they do exist, and judging by the hate displayed in letters such as Dr Thio’s, the case for reinforcing non-discrimination and legal protections is all the more obvious.

Dr Thio’s last point was about morality. Morality is ultimately a personal issue, and in a diverse cosmopolitan society such as Singapore, it’s a no-win situation for any government to try to enforce one form of morality on everybody else.

The bottom line is this: if you value your freedom to live your life as you please, then make sure you respect the freedom of others to do the same.

 

 

Streats, 24 July 2003
Don't condemn gays, understand them

I refer to the letter, "No to homosexuality" (Streats, July 22), by Dr Thio Su Mien and which carried eight other signatures.

I'm not gay and I say this only to refute Dr Thio's argument that efforts to seek rights for gays may be ''pressure tactics of homosexual activists, rather than scientific data''.

I might add that with this comment, Dr Thio is dismissive of all the efforts that gays have made, after overcoming many hindrances, to exercise their right to move and live comfortably in society as individuals.

I also question the implied comment that gayness needs to be supported by "scientific data" before it can be accepted. Is it necessary to justify something that is part of a person's human nature by "scientific data"? My concern about any piece of "anti-homosexual" work is that it may have originated from heterosexuals -- who cannot have any idea or feeling of what it is like to be gay.

This sort of condemnation is very different from condemning a sin such as lying or cheating. We are all exposed to the temptation of lying or cheating and we know, at a personal level, that such traits are sinful.

It is very different when straight people condemn gayness -- that does not come from a personal standing at all.

Of course, there is a glaring and obvious difference between being gay and the other sins: Being gay does not hurt anyone.

As such, I do not agree with Dr Thio's distinction that being gay is not based on the immutable or fixed traits of race or gender but is defined by sexual choices and preferences.

My own view is that it seems as if straight people imagine that they have the choice whether or not gays should be accepted in our society.

There is no such choice. Gays will be found among our doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, actors, architects and accountants, whether we like it or not. This is because they are people and they will succeed in the spheres of our society by virtue of their inherent human qualities.

I think this view is supported by PM Goh's recent comments in Time magazine.

Even if you are not gay, there is every possibility that your son, daughter, best friend or colleague could be gay.

The "fences" which Dr Thio extols should remain firmly in place would only serve to alienate people around you.

As Harper Lee put it in To Kill A Mockingbird: "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."

Leona Yuen Li

* * * * *

Streats, 24 July 2003
Hate the sin, love the sinner

I am a Christian and, like many others, I read with concern the recent debate about the acceptance of the gay lifestyle in Singapore.

I realise that many people shun gays or condemn their lifestyles not because they think that being gay is wrong, but because they think it is weird or not normal. These people can be rightly labelled as homophobes, which is an irrational fear or disdain for homosexuals.

So, are Christians a group of intolerant homophobes?

I believe that homosexuality is a sin, not just because research hasn't managed to prove that homosexuality is in-born (as one letter to Streats on July 22 asserted), but also because the Bible says so, and that is what I believe in.

I have chosen to speak out on this, not because I'm intolerant of or look down on gays, but because it goes against my fundamental values and beliefs, which are based on the Bible.

I do not think that gays are weird but I believe that they have not realised that homosexuality is wrong and that they can choose to stop living that lifestyle.

I hope that those who are outside the Christian community can understand and accept that this is what we believe.

But while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, I do not think that we should campaign against homosexuals, because I believe that God hates the sin but loves the sinner.

Otherwise, we would have to single out adulterers, those who commit pre-marital sex and even those who think sinful thoughts, since that is the high standard of morality that has been laid down in the Bible.

Instead, I think that Christians should (and I believe would) continue to do what they have done - care for, reach out to and love those around us, including the homosexuals, without condoning their lifestyle.

The reason Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's comments about gays has created such a stir amongst many Christians is simply that we do not agree with his view that they are born that way and therefore cannot help being gay.

We believe that everyone is given choices, to choose to do wrong or right.

We fear that this explicit view about the moral 'rightness' of being gay would pervade our society and morally degrade it. We are also very concerned that the impressionable young will start to consider the possibility of their sexual choices of being gay or bisexual, when it is wrong and where there are none.

Yvonne Cheong Wee Wee

* * * * *

 

Two other persons from SiGNeL sent letters to Streats on 22 July 2003, in response to Thio Su Mien's letter. They were not published.

Our Prime Minister, Mr. Goh made a very humane and magnanimous statement accepting that [a] homosexual is born different [but] is like you and me at the end of the day. He is pragmatic in recognizing their capabilities and talent and [in looking] beyond his sexual orientation. [He is also] sympathetic to his/her personal suffering as a homosexual, to possible blackmail, and all sorts of accusations as seen in your forum.

It's understandable that [the] homosexual is unacceptable to some people but to be prejudiced and [to] make general accusations of all sorts is uncalled for.

It's ridiculous to make accusations that homosexuality would corrupt our national morality. Does it mean that the places like HongKong, San Francisco and many other developed countries which accept homosexual legally are morally corrupted? Are Singaporeans more morally correct than them? I totally disagree. A morally upright human does not need to fear the unknown and do not need to discriminate [against] others to be one.

If you are born a heterosexual, you are a heterosexual. Isn't utterly stupid to choose homosexuality knowing the disadvantages you will suffer? Are these people really that sick to choose a lifestyle which is subjected to all sorts of prejudices? Well, the mind experts in US think otherwise. Yet there are people here accusing the integrity of the APA association for rejecting homosexuality as a sickness.

Some even accuse the gays for having an agenda in these debates. Was Mr. Goh forced to say those words because of [the] gay agenda? Isn't that ridiculous? Mr. Goh has said a humane and morally correct statement. Many gays are very glad for that and feel validated [that] Mr. Goh, the Prime Minister of Singapore [has said that they are] normal human beings born differently. The very good validation for a human being who suffer in silence in this country.

Daniel

* * * * *

I refer to the letter by Dr Thio Su Mien (Streats, 22 July 2003).

I quote: "Homosexual behaviour or desire is inborn, not learnt: This assertion is not scientifically proven. Studies have found that large numbers of identical twins bear different sexual orientations. This scientific data demolishes "any absolute claim that homosexuality is genetically determined."

The bias here is the conclusion arrived. I believe that she cites the study by Bailey and Pillard 1991, which found that if one identical twin was gay, 52% of the time, his twin brother was also gay. A larger study by Bailey et al, 2000, of 14,000 twins also found that if one identical twin was gay, 38% of the time, his identical brother was also gay.

Her view is probably that if gayness was purely genetic, the concordance rate should be 100%. Her conclusion is therefore that if its not purely genetic, then other environmental factors (biological and nurture) are solely responsible.

The following are the concordance rates (identical twins/fraternal twins) of some medical conditions:

Tuberculosis 56% / 22%
Down Syndrome 89% / 7%
Cleft lip 40% / 4%
Diabetes (type I) 30% / 6%
Coranary heart disease 46% / 12%
Schizophrenia 46% / 14%
Epilepsy 57% / 11%
Alzheimer's 78% / 39%
Gilles de la Tourette's Syndrome 77% / 23%

One can safely say that no one chooses to suffer from any of aforementioned conditions, yet there is no 100% concordance. the other factors involved can be a mix of nurture, hormones , biology or just divine will. In otherwords. genetics is not the sole factor for someone being gay, one can be wired to be gay in the womb, yet regardless of how a person turns out gay, should we as a society demean their existence and encourage the criminalisation of what is essentially private conduct between consensual adults?

Christopher Low Kin Siong

 

 

Streats, 24 July 2003
Bigotry is not the majority view

Your report on the churches' backlash against the debate on homosexuality in Singapore, "Christians to respond on gay issue" (Streats, July 23), disturbed me.

It confirms my view that fundamentalist religious bigotry (from all sides) is a real threat to Singapore becoming a more humane and tolerant society.

It is interesting that so many anti-gay letters in these pages have abused homosexuals in the most vulgar way, and yet accepted that it is pragmatic for the Government to hire them.

So is it OK to rant venomously about the most intimate details of others' lives when you are feeling self-righteous, but when the objects of this hatred can help make you wealthier, they are to be tolerated?

How shallow. How disgusting.

But I am glad that plenty of contributions to the public debate have shown that the kind of bigotry displayed by some is not the majority view in Singapore.

Sunil Amrith   

 

 

I don't have the Streats article "Christians to respond on gay issue" archived here, but it is similar to story which appeared in the Straits Times on 23 July 2003, headlined "Gay backlash". I have archived this story as "Anti-gay campaign by 20 Christians".

And I will repeat here what I've said in a few other places: Most of the anti-gay letters are by Christians (if the letter writer doesn't explicitly say so, you can infer from the reasoning that he uses), but Christians only make up 14.6% of Singapore's population, based on the Census of 2000.

 

 

 

Footnotes

  1. Dr Thio Su Mien was formerly the Dean of the Law Faculty, National University of Singapore. She now has her own practice, specialising in banking, finance and corporate work.
    Return to where you left off

 

Addenda

None