Mr Janadas Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7), suggested that Singapore should, in the long run, come to accept homosexuality on the basis of statistics, genetics and helping Singapore become one of the creative cities of the world.

To cite the example of a lesbian friend who is observed to be in a stable relationship with a same-sex partner, and who are loving parents to well-adjusted children and are model citizens and then invoking demographics to suggest that homosexual behaviour is more prevalent than one thinks do not make it acceptable.

This line of argument, taken to its logical extreme, suggests that one day in the future the world should also come to tolerate and accept other alternative lifestyles involving loving relations between consenting adult siblings or parents and their children (with adopted children thrown in to avoid defective genes being transmitted) when they become demographically prevalent.

Positive examples and high statistics cannot be the factors by which we decide what are acceptable, in the same way that negative examples and low statistics do not make the same behaviour unacceptable.

Raising the possibility that homosexual behaviour may be proven in future to have a genetic basis as a reason for acceptance is gaining ground, given that even Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has articulated this line of argument recently on two occasions.

If that happens, should we believe that those with the same DNA (as in multiple births) containing the 'homosexual genes' would all necessarily turn out to be gay? Should we not then take the argument to its logical conclusion and suggest that God is to be blamed for implanting defective genes that caused the many degenerative diseases and medical conditions?

Many, Mr Janadas included, have seized on biblical passages selectively to question the Church and its beliefs. The same Lord Jesus Christ that Mr Janadas quoted in the article also said on the same occasion that he affirmed all the Laws that had been laid down in the past and one of them included God's abhorrence of homosexual practices, as stated in the Old and New Testaments.

If actively catering to talented and creative homosexuals is critical to Singapore's desire to become one of the most creative cities of the world, this Singaporean would rather pass and stick to a traditional family-based Singapore.

Alex Tan Tuan Loy

* * * * *

 
11 July 2007
Straits Times forum, print edition

Kudos to Mr Janadas Devan on his article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7).

Mr Janadas' points concerning families headed by same-sex couples are very well taken. It is indeed possible for families headed by two mothers (or two fathers, for that matter) to be exemplary and for the children to develop normally in every way.

In fact, there is no credible scientific evidence that being raised by a same-sex couple damages the children in any way. As Mr Janadas rightly points out, the real problems have to do with societal prejudices.

This fact was driven home to me during my recent sabbatical leave at Duke University. Living a few doors from me in Durham, NC, was a lesbian couple who have been together for many years and have adopted several children. At least two of the children have special needs (they are deaf and have other challenges as well) and are in effect children no one else wanted. The couple are doing a fantastic job in parenting these children and, despite their challenges, the children are thriving.

Particularly heartwarming is the neighbours' response to this non-traditional family. It was clear that the neighbours not only tolerate their presence but also cherish them, both for the individuals they are as well as for the wonderful job the couple are doing with the children. That support, in turn, is greatly appreciated by the couple and makes their parenting easier.

I look forward to the day when we can see this in Singapore. And when we do, Singapore will be the richer for it.

Dr George D. Bishop

* * * * *

 
13 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I refer to the article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' by Janadas Devan (ST, July 7). Speaking as a mother of two and one who fully appreciates the father's role in the home, I am appalled at Mr Janadas' simplistic arguments for his case that homosexuals who are 'model citizens' are qualified to raise children as a 'family' of sorts.

He assumed that homosexuality was normal and/or desirable, that two same-sex persons could raise children as well or better than a man and wife. His article read as one which berates Christians and also insults the intelligence of most Singaporeans for not being 'clever' in failing to support the homosexual lifestyle.

To use the lone example of a lesbian friend cohabiting with her lesbian lover to raise two biological children of hers (artificially inseminated), and declare that her 'family' is 'stable' because they regularly attend church, hold many university degrees, et cetera, does not lend itself to the larger picture of whether such 'homosexual families' have any positive social consequences.

All children have a right to a mother and father. Medical evidence indicates that children from same-sex homes run a greater risk of suffering from Gender Identity Disorder, other psychological problems and tendencies to form adolescent same-sex attractions.

While Mr Janadas' lesbian friends may be happy to remain as homosexuals, to raise children who may grow up as homosexuals, it would be irresponsible to ignore the psychological risks these children are exposed to.

The October 1999 issue of the American Medical Association's 'Archives of General Psychiatry' confirmed a long link between homosexual sex and suicide as well as a relationship between homosexuality and emotional and mental problems. Youths engaging in homosexuality and/or bisexuality are more prone to suffer major depression (four times more likely), nicotine dependence (five times more), and to commit suicide (six times more).

I would counsel Mr Janadas to wait till his lesbian friend's children become adults before evaluating their emotional and social adjustment.

Mr Janadas failed to offer any evidence demonstrating the positive consequences of a homosexual family environment applied across the board. He offered no statistics in suggesting that prevalent divorce rates for heterosexual marriages would pale compared to the homosexual unions of 'model citizens'. What about the break-up rate of homosexual relationships? Even if his friend's case is exceptional and the children involved grow up totally normal, one swallow does not make a summer. What about the children of other 'not-so-stable' homosexual families?

Intelligence has nothing to do with morality. If it did, then Hitler's actions would have been right. Neither does social acceptance of a family with two lesbian 'parents' mean that lesbianism is right or healthy. Indeed, widespread mainstreaming of this aspect of the homosexual agenda will promote sexual permissiveness and unsound, harmful social morality.

As a Christian, Mr Janadas' misquote of the words of Jesus, 'Judge not and ye shall not be judged', applied across all major religions, is almost unforgivable. This saying does not apply to express inhibitions in the Bible on homosexuality. That being the case, the homosexual lifestyle ought to be examined from the premise of 'why did God say that?' and not taken out of context.

If Christians are condemned by Mr Janadas as holding 'deep-seated' prejudices against homosexuals (which they do not) simply because they agree with clear Biblical injunctions that homosexuality is an 'abomination' (and not just wrong), how tolerant then, is Mr Janadas of these religious views and their holders?

Even if a 'homosexual' gene was discovered, this does not change the Christian perspective on the issue. Christian theology considers death, sicknesses, cancers, genetic mutation and even an eventual finding of a 'homosexual' gene (or genetic defect) as the results of sin and flouting of God's moral order.

I understand from the 2003 Spitzer Report from the 'Archives of Sexual Behaviour' journal, that 64 per cent of men and 43 per cent of women considered themselves heterosexual after leaving the homosexual lifestyle for five years. The necessary implication is that people 'born' homosexual can change and stay changed. The existence of former homosexuals is a fact for 'clever' people to consider, too.

Ultimately, careful consideration should be given to show why homosexual marriages and homosexual parenthood, for example, requiring state-sponsored artificial insemination, should be allowed.

Let's hear the facts and figures on this issue and, indeed, the social and medical consequences of mainstreaming the homosexual lifestyle. Stop the bashing and cheap name-calling of the majority for their views.

Mr Janadas has failed to dissuade me of my 'homophobic' views but has only demonstrated his 'hetero-phobic' views and intolerance of those holding views contrary to his. Not very clever, I think.

Claire Nazar (Mrs)

* * * * *

13 July 200
Straits Times online forum

Mr Janadas Devan made a very bold attempt in exploring the issues pertaining to same-sex parents forming a family, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7). His article serves a useful challenge to the majority view that homosexuals, if permitted to carry on their lifestyle, and/or become parents, will only bring disorder and disaster to family and society.

Of particular challenge are the questions: 'Are the children of divorced heterosexual couples better off than the children of my lesbian friends?' and 'How about the children of single mothers or of constantly bickering heterosexual couples locked in loveless marriages?'

I believe there is a need for further consideration and discussion regarding these questions.

In my 35 years of professional practice of psychological counselling and work with families, this is what I have observed.

Of all the thousands of people who sought counselling for psychological disturbance, relationship problems and effects of stress of life, I observed that all of them had parents from heterosexual marriages.

Those children who have suffered from physical, emotional/psychological and sexual abuse did not have parents from same sex relationship.

In fact, practically every case of sexual abuse involved a parent, usually the father or step-father, uncle, brother and someone known to the family. They were mostly heterosexual encounters.

Of all those who sought counselling with marital problems involving one spouse having extra-marital affairs, practically all of them involved the spouse having a heterosexual relationship.

I have had experiences with men afflicted with sexual addiction, such as pornography and those who engage in paid sex. Most of these men were married heterosexuals.

As I ponder over Janadas' questions, I am also wondering about the tendency to ascribe social and family problems to the threat of a homosexual lifestyle and relationship.

It is so easy to make proclamations that if homosexuals were to be accepted and homosexual acts decriminalised, then society and family life will inevitably deteriorate.

My observations, experiences coupled with research done do not bear this out in any way.

In fact, if my 35 years of professional experience were to be credited with any validity, I am more inclined to ask the following questions:

1. Is there an ideal form of family life?

2. Are parents from heterosexual marriages any safer for children?

3. Could it be possible that such parents are more likely to cause harm to children, leading to long-term psychological problems?

4. What evidence do we have that children of same-sex parents might not be better adjusted people?

5. How do we reckon with the fact that almost all known homosexuals have parents from heterosexual marriages?

In sharing my observations and questions, my intention is to appeal for a reasoned dialogue over this matter without prejudice, judgment or condemnation.

It serves no purpose to persecute any human being, most of all people with different sexual orientation from the majority in society.

Homosexuals are human beings deserving of dignity, respect and acceptance even if we have difficulties understanding them and/or accepting their sexual orientation and lifestyles.

Anthony Yeo
Consultant Therapist
Counselling and Care Centre

* * * * *

 
16 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I write in response to Mr Janadas Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7) and Dr George D. Bishop's letter, 'Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum' (ST, July 11). The main thrust of their letters are that lesbians and homosexuals can and are a normal family unit and can take care of children just as well as any other family unit and thus should be allowed to get married and be one.

The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children. Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society.

Now homosexuals and lesbians want to redefine 'marriage' and 'family'. Why so? There is an inherent need for them to be accepted by society that their sexual behaviour is not abnormal but just a variation of normal sexual activity.

Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.

1. two brothers;

2. two sisters

3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)

4. a man and a horse (film 'Zoo' shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)

5. why not a combination of three or more?

6. why bother have a marriage or a family?

All these questions are not too remote; because those pursuing a perverted lifestyle must have the endorsement of society to secure their very identity, and the only way to achieve this is to go down the slippery road to establish that perversion is normal like incest is normal; bestiality is normal.

It is an issue of self-autonomy. Self is god. The point made is not academic but it has already happened and will continue to happen. This may be seen in the case of the four legislators in Massachusetts who followed up 'their success at legalising homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance' including bestiality viz reducing the penalty to a fine (See First Comes Gay Marriage then comes Bestiality in Massachusetts http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html )

The four Democrat legislators 'are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts' gay lobby groups. Family lobbyists opposed to the re-definition of marriage were frequently ridiculed for their warnings that dissolving the natural basis of marriage in law would end with legalising and normalising a host of sexual perversions, including incest and bestiality. The case of the Massachusetts legislators is in point.

Following this, 'the media has quickly picked up on the trend of acceptance for any and all sorts of conditions that before the 1960's sexual revolution and the politicising of the psychiatric profession, were universally recognised as serious psychological disorders. New terminology has been established, calling those persons interested in having sexual relations with animals, 'zoophiles' or 'zoos' for short, and a campaign has been discretely under way for some time to reduce the public 'stigma' against 'zoos'.

We, in Singapore, want to conserve our marriage institution as one between a man and a woman so that the needs of our children for a father and a mother are catered for. We abhor any regression into perversity which, as history has shown, has led into the decline and fall of a society.

Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang

* * * * *

16 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I refer to Mr Alex Tan Tuan Loy's letter, 'Stick to a traditional family-based Singapore' (ST, July 11).

I am alarmed by his suggestion that Singapore should reject homosexuals simply because of 'God's abhorrence of homosexual practices' in the Bible.

First and foremost, Singapore is a secular nation. Our laws cannot and should not be based on the Bible, or any other holy text for that matter.

Laws should be based on whether they cause direct harm to anyone, or infringe on the rights of others. As far as homosexual acts between consenting adults are concerned, it is guilty of neither.

Secondly, it is also flawed to use holy texts to determine what is socially acceptable today because they were written in a different era with different cultures and social norms.

The Bible was written at a time when slavery was condoned, when women were regarded as property and when polygamy was accepted. The ancient world was also much more intolerant.

To go by Mr Tan's argument that God abhorred homosexual acts, the Bible also states that God condoned the death penalty for those who broke the Sabbath, adulterers, fornicators and non-believers. Does this mean these laws are relevant to today's world?

It is important to read and understand its social and historical context instead of blindly and unquestioningly applying its laws and norms to today's society.

It is only normal that as a society grows and matures, its social norms and moral standards evolve and change. This is not a bad thing. We should learn not to be led by our irrational prejudices, but instead by our critical and reasonable thinking, and maturely look at the situation at hand: A gay or lesbian couple are not only not causing harm to anyone else, but also are able to raise kids in a supporting and loving (albeit unconventional) family. And this is undoubtedly a good thing.

Felicia Tan Ying Yi (Ms)

* * * * *

 
18 July 2007
Straits Times online forum

I refer to Mr Janadas Devan's article, 'Can mum, mum and kids make a family?' (ST, July 7), and Dr George Bishop's letter, 'Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum' (ST, July 11). Both writers had used anecdotal examples of children having been raised by same-sex parents and, based on the high divorce rates in the US, suggested that children of same-sex couples were not worse off in any way. They argued, therefore, that the idea of same-sex couples having children, whether by adoption or otherwise, should be tolerated, indeed even legislated.

Such a line of argument is flawed. Using similar logic, one might say that since we might know of some smokers who are still alive and healthy, and there are a number of non-smokers who still develop lung cancer anyway, smoking should therefore be tolerated, even promoted.

It has long been known by human intuition and affirmed by studies, that the presence of both a nurturing mother and a nurturing father play a critical role in a child's well-being. Children are best served when raised in a home with a married mother and father. In addition, the parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage - the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives.

The fact that many marriages are 'unhappy' or 'on the rocks' does not mean that marriage in itself is a faulty institution. We need to look into the varied reasons that plague marriages today, notably so in many 'tolerant' Western countries.

Let us use an analogy. A doctor may give the best and most well tried medication to his patient to treat an illness. If the patient is not doing well despite the medication, the doctor does not immediately dump that medication and try a new one, especially so when it is one that is risky and hardly tested at all. The good doctor looks into other reasons for the patient's poor response: Has the patient been taking the medication as instructed? Has he taken to habits that are detrimental to his health? Has he been mixing the medication with other concoctions?

The same goes for marriage. The fact that many marriages are threatened today does not mean that it is losing relevance. Rather, we should as a society examine ourselves and see how it has been misused, indeed abused, in recent times. As a bastion of civil society, it has served us remarkably well, and it will continue to do so, as long as we put right our values that must necessarily complement it.

True creativity lies not in blindly aping all the values of the West, but rather in acknowledging those that help promote the public good, and integrating them with our own in a way that continues to build upon the important pillars of our country, an essential part of which is the family, founded upon the marriage between a man and a woman.