| Yawning
Bread. May 2007
The battle of St James - 7th set of letters in the Straits Times source: The Straits Times online forum, 22 and 24 May 2007
|
|
|
22 May 2007Straits Times Online Forum 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. [1] 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 * * * * *
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'. [2] 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 * * * * *
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). [3] 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 * * * * *
Aids: Stop the spread of misinformation I am very concerned over the spread of misinformation by learned professionals through the forum pages. A common argument against homosexuality is that it leads to the spread of Aids. Therefore, criminalising homosexual sex will prevent the spread of Aids. Even learned people like Prof Yvonne Lee and Dr Alan Chin argue this way. To the uninformed, this is quite a persuasive argument. How do we show that Prof Lee and Dr Chin are wrong? Here are some statistics on HIV/Aids in Africa from the United Nations that should show how illogical, unsound and misinformed this argument is:
If we were to apply Prof Lee and Dr Chin's reasoning, then the governments there should criminalise heterosexual sex, criminalise childbirth and breastfeeding by HIV-positive women, since these are major ways in which the Aids virus is spread among adults and from mother to child in the continent. Wong Suan Yin
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
