Others
Fallout of the Aware saga: A letter to concerned parents
I had given my views, mainly as a non-partisan, liberal Singaporean during the recent Aware controversy. Some parents had written or called to voice their concern about one issue that had stood out – the use in schools of an Aware program on sexuality, which allegedly promoted homosexuality. The following letter tries to address this concern.
There must be many of you out there, less interested in the polemics and theatrics of the recent Aware debacle than in the one issue that suddenly surfaced and grabbed your attention as parents: the issue of homosexuality.
You are clearly not against homosexuals (many of you in fact claim to have homosexuals among your friends) but you are, understandably, against any program in the schools that encourages your sons and daughters to become gays and lesbians. This was exactly the charge brought against the Aware Comprehensive Sex Education (CSE) program by the Christian group that had seized control of the organization precisely to fight what they perceived as a great evil. They quoted from the program materials to prove their charge, condemning the insidious call to young people to regard homosexuality and its associated practices (including anal sex—ugh!) as ‘neutral’. As parents of young impressionable teens, you must have been aghast.
I would like to begin by commending this concern of yours which is not only natural and understandable but highly laudable at a time when so many parents are just too busy or too indifferent to play an active role in guiding their children’s behaviour, and simply leave everything to the schools. And I would like to add that if there is a good outcome in the Aware fiasco, it must be your new awareness and readiness to seek corrective action.
With reference to the CSE program (which I have not seen), I can say this with confidence: it is probably a well-researched, useful course of instruction providing young people with information on a whole range of sex-related issues (with the homosexuality bits cited by the Christian group actually forming only a small percentage of the total course). Its usefulness is reflected in its adoption by school principals and teachers who, by the standards of their profession, can be trusted to have good judgment and a strong moral sense. Moreover, during the considerable time that it was run, there had been no public complaints, including from the Christian activists, which the Ministry of Education would surely have immediately investigated. Lastly, the Aware leadership, although steadfastly maintaining the position it has taken in the program, has at the same time promised to look into parents’ complaints, reservations and suggestions for improvement. So on the issue of the suitability of the CSE materials for your children, I would say you can rest assured.
Beyond the specific issue of the program, I would like to address your overall concern about influences in general, such as the all powerful entertainment media and the Internet, which may affect your children’s sexual orientation, since, more than any sex-related issue in Singapore, that of homosexuality is currently in the forefront of public consciousness.
Any address of such a complex and sensitive subject must surely begin with proper, factual knowledge of it. For only through knowledge, can we understand the truths about our human nature, and only through understanding, can we take into account the needs, instincts, capabilities, etc of this human nature, in the formulation of values that will fit in with those of our society as a whole. This fact-derived, value-based framework will allow us to make decisions that are informed, reasoned and principled, leaving no place for prejudices, emotional outbursts and a rush to judgment that are only too common whenever controversial subjects crop up.
Within such a framework then, are some observations in response to your concern regarding homosexuality:
Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. This is probably the single most important fact to keep in mind. The research work of scientists such as behavioral psychologists, evolutionary biologists, genetics biologists and neuroscientists has shown that there is probably a genetic component for sexual orientation, but how nature interplays with nurture to affect the individual’s development is not fully understood. Indeed, as parents, you are first-hand witnesses of the mysterious workings of both forces. Your children, despite a common family background, often behave differently from each other, and turn out differently, pointing to the power of nature; at the same time, their personality and behaviour can be guided and shaped by you, pointing to the power of nurture. Hence this knowledge and understanding should make you cast off whatever strong feelings, (including the ugh reaction), which you may have against homosexuality, since it is no more than the natural product of a combination of complex forces, as are personality, character, intelligence, musical talent, etc.
You say: Even if we accept this fact about homosexuality are we not justified, as parents, in fearing that it will tend towards promiscuity, with all that implies of dangers such as sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids?
It is worth reminding ourselves that sexual promiscuity among liberated young people today is not confined to any one group; consider, for instance, the alarming incidence of teen pregnancies and abortions. Hence if sexual licentiousness is to be treated as a social or moral problem, it cannot be dealt with as one exclusive to homosexuals. Any study that concludes that homosexuals are more immoral than others must be a very questionable one indeed. So here’s one more misconception to throw away.
- You say again: What about the social stigma that is attached to homosexual behaviour, and shouldn’t we as parents protect our children from it?
It is indeed a fact that even in western countries noted for their liberalism, such as the United States, there remains strong social antagonism against homosexuals; gay men and women continue to fight noisily for their rights. In the more conservative Asian societies, there are any number of anecdotes about gays having to remain in the closet, hiding the truth from their parents, employers and friends, even contemplating suicide. Hence you are right about the stigma and the attendant social injustices which naturally you don’t want your children to suffer.
But the truth is that things are changing—and fast. In a rapidly evolving world environment, driven by technological advancement dominated by youthful energy and the unabashed pursuit of the good life, every society has to adapt to the realities of the times. In Singapore, a traditionally conservative government is now prepared to employ gays even in the top positions in the administration, thereby acknowledging their valuable contribution to a society that because of its lack of natural resources, has no choice but to develop all its human resources.
In the foreseeable future, as more homosexuals come out into the open, the last vestiges of the old stigma against homosexuality will disappear altogether. We have witnessed how, one by one, the other moral stigmas of divorce, cohabitation, the loss of virginity, and going back even further, marriage outside one’s race, have all become a thing of the past. These changes seem to be part of a universal, spontaneous process of social evolution seen in all societies. They are neither good nor bad. They are simply part of the real world we are in.
Since as parents you are helpless to prevent the trend, you might as well accept it, and see how best to cope with it. If you suddenly find out, overtly or covertly, that your son or daughter is gay, you might as well, in order to avoid the no-win situation of confrontation and rejection, adopt a sensible approach.
- What is the sensible way to deal with the issue of homosexuality as parents? I believe we all already know the answer, having graduated from that school of hard knocks known as parenting. Chief among the lessons learnt is that our children, as they grow up, have minds and wills of their own, especially in the matter of sexual orientation which defines their very identity. Whatever our reservations, we should respect this independence; indeed, we have no choice.
The worst possible parental reaction is obviously the ‘I-forbid-you-because-it’s-against-God’s-will’ or the ‘We-are-conservative-Asians-and-don’t-do-this-sort-of-thing’ stance. It will only confirm our children’s belief that we don’t understand them and don’t have their interest at heart. The best possible response is a two-stage one: first, letting our children know exactly how we feel and what our anxieties, wishes, hopes, etc for them are (it is amazing how people in general value honesty and decry insincerity and hypocrisy) and second, letting them know that regardless of what they become or do in their lives, they can always be assured of our love and support (it is amazing how such parental reassurances remain as comforting memories throughout life).
I know of a mother who couldn’t bring herself to talk to her son who was showing all the signs of homosexuality, so she wrote down all her thoughts and feelings, covering the entire human gamut of fear, anger, frustration, despair, hope and love in a 20-page letter which she left in his room. The young man later told me that as he read the letter his initial embarrassment gave way to great relief. Today she is open about his sexuality, and proud of his success in the corporate sector.
Communication, listening, understanding, unconditional love—these have become the clichés of all inspirational and exhortatory literature on human relationships. But they also happen to be the most reliable tools in the parenting kit, to be continually refined to adapt to the ever challenging issues facing all parents today.
I would like to end with a true anecdote that has moved me deeply. It concerns a gay friend of mine. For years, out of love for his very traditional and conservative widowed mother, he hid his homosexuality, even letting her try to matchmake him with eligible young women. The pretence and outward show of cheerful spirits was most stressful. When she died, he left the country, utterly miserable, still needing psychiatric help. Years later, in middle age, he met and fell in love with someone who became his partner. For the first time in his life, he was happy. Sometimes, talking to me about his life, he would indulge in pensive ‘what if’ reflections: What if he had not assumed all along that his mother would object to his homosexuality? What if he had actually broached the subject to her? What if she had actually given him her blessing?
For she had said once, touching his hand lovingly while he was attending to her on the sick-bed, that all she wanted was to see him happy.
Catherine Lim
May 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Throughout the entire AWARE “Saga” the giant elephant in the room was homosexuality. Liberals afraid of the losing proposition of defending it refused to touch it with a ten foot pole. Conservatives happily filled the void to propagate their hate and fears. I’m happy the Exco led by Josie was voted out. But its a bittersweet victory; homosexuality (even the “neutral” version of it) has become a dirtier word.
Meanwhile the hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil dogma continues to prevent kids from participating in an honest conversation about sex. With more kids engaging in unsafe sex practices and teen pregnancies on the rise, one wonders how long we can ignore discussing the issue. Your letter has been the best and most adult response on the entire issue (not to mention the most moving). I hope that many parents do read it. Thank you for injecting some civility back into the conversation.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
“Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. This is probably the single most important fact to keep in mind.”
Well, that’s true from your point of view, Ms Lim.
But just one request – please do not speak on behalf of God, because the Bible is clear on his stand against the act of homosexuality.
What is a fact to you, is not a fact to Bible-believers. We can all accept or reject different opinions, but do let people decide the facts for themselves.
Ian
May 6th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
The CSE course is instructed, when the teacher is not around. It is just between the students and the CSE instructor. I am not sure how much the school principal knows.
Further, MOE has announced that “the process of selecting and monitoring vendors can be further improved” and that “some suggested responses in the [AWARE CSE] instructor guide are explicit and inappropriate, and convey messages which could promote homosexuality or suggest approval of pre-marital sex.”
May 6th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Dear Ms Lim
Firstly, thank you for your eloquent, reasoned and moving piece on the Aware saga. I much enjoyed the clarity and grace with which you have presented your opinions.
If I may now turn to address the comment left by Mr Ian Tan above;
You, dear sir, exhorts Ms Lim not to speak on behalf of God. And I ask in, in turn, why then do you do the same thing for all Christians?
No doubt you are steadfast in your view that homosexuality is wrong, being a staunch, practicing “Bible-believer”. I pray mightily then, that you do not commit the very grave sin of including cockles in your dietary habit.
Because, since, you very clearly believe that whatever that was written an eon ago obviously still categorically stands in this day and age, and the only acceptable attitude is one of blind, unquestioning obedience. Therefore, I say to you sir, do not eat any manner of shellfish, lest you sin, sin, sin.
I have every faith that you, being a loyal and obedient servant of His, shall now go forth and do everything in your power to make sure none of your fellow believers shall ever neglect to mention “mai hum” when salivating in line for their favourite laksa or char kuay teow.
Of course, you could always just order mee siam. Just take care not to get any gravy on your cotton-polyester blend clothing because apparently, to “…wear material woven of two kinds of material.” (Leviticus 19:19)is also, gasp, an abomination.
You can find more at http://www.google.com, but I am sure you already know all that, you sterling example of a good child of the Lord you.
b.h.wolf
May 6th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
for ian:
From THE WEST WING “The Midterms”
BARTLET Forgive me, Dr. Jacobs. Are you an M.D.?
JENNA JACOBS Ph.D.
BARTLET A Ph.D.?
JENNA JACOBS Yes, sir.
BARTLET In Psychology?
JENNA JACOBS No sir.
BARTLET Theology?
JENNA JACOBS No.
BARTLET Social work?
JENNA JACOBS I have a Ph.D. in English Literature.
BARTLET I’m asking, ’cause on your show, people call in for advice and you go by the name of Dr. Jacobs on your show. And I didn’t know if maybe your listeners were confused by that, and assumed you had advanced training in Psychology, Theology, or health care.
JENNA JACOBS I don’t believe they are confused, no sir.
BARTLET Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
JENNA JACOBS I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET Yes, it does. Leviticus.
JENNA JACOBS 18:22
BARTLET Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?
While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, LeoO McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here’s one that’s really important, ’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side?
Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
==
May 6th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Hi b.h. wolf,
With regards to your query, the answer lies in that Leviticus is part of the Old Testament, and is written for Israelites before Christ came to earth.
In Acts 15, the New Testament, the Pharisees claimed that non-Jews had to follow laws of the Old Testament (like the one you’re referring to), and hence be circumcised if they were to worship the same God as the Jews.
The apostle Peter said: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them (non-Jews) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The “yoke” that the Jews could not bear were the heavy laws of the Old Testament that had been superceded by the coming of Jesus who made the ultimate sacrifice for sin. We are not saved by our acts, but our acceptance of Christ as our saviour by faith alone. This does not mean that we can disregard all laws and do whatever we want, but many Jewish practices and rituals described in the Old Testament were no longer relevant for believers from about 2000 years ago.
No rationale Christian claims he is wholly perfect, without sin, because we continue our struggle with sin just like everyone else. I dare not even dare claim to be a staunch Christian but I try my best in God’s eyes. And we believe the grace of God helps us overcome sin ultimately.
So I do like my shellfish, only with char kuay teow though.
Cheers,
Ian
May 6th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Ian,
interesting rebuttal to Mr Wolf. So, since you right pointed out “many Jewish practices and rituals described in the Old Testament were no longer relevant for believers from about 2000 years ago”, then how do we decide which ones are relevant? Who decides? Paul in his letters? Who was it for? Christians or Gentiles? But wasn’t Paul also the one who asked Peter not to impose Jewish laws on the Gentiles? The Christian population in Singapore is around 20%. Which makes 80% of the rest Gentiles.
You are right to say to let people decide for themselves. So I hope you are not one of those parents to sign the petition to MOE because you have no right to deny my future child the information he could have learnt from the CSE and decide for himself simply because you do not want your kids to here anything about homosexuality, except that it’s bad.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Dear Ian,
Your last comment is good. We cannot pick and choose which parts of the law we want to keep and which we want to disregard (i.e. homosexuality bad, see hum OK, letting maid work on Sunday OK etc).
We are all guilty under the law. That is why we need a Saviour.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Cat,
I really do not understand why must the topic of homosexuality be approached from a moralistic/religious viewpoint.
Can it not be approached from a social viewpoint? Below is an article about homosexuality from a social viewpoint – no religion involved. Note the comments that follow. Somehow, supporters of gay lifestyle cannot shake off the religion dogma.
So who’s obsessed with religion? Gays themselves or non-gays?
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2008/02/section-377a-and-gay-relations-social.html
May 6th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Thank you Catherine for airing your views; you have hit the nail on the head on most aspects of this issue. Like Thomas, I agree that ‘homosexuality’ has unfortunately become a dirtier word regardless of the outcome of this saga. Your article provides a very immediate and personal compass with which parents can align their world view in a fast-changing yet ironically conservative society like Singapore’s.
The only gripe I have is the fourth paragraph: would it seem injudicious to comment on the CSE without first having seen it yourself? With all due respect, teachers and principals are not infallible in their moral judgement, and it is difficult to sound convincing with words like “probably” and “can be trusted” when thorough research has not been done. I believe your essay will be so much more rigorous and exemplary without this unsubstantiated reference to the CSE.
Otherwise, may I laud you for the clarity and practicality with which you have handled this very sensitive topic, without sounding either too puritanical or too radical. Thank you once again!
May 6th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
” With reference to the CSE program (which I have not seen), I can say this with confidence: it is probably a well-researched, useful course of instruction providing young people with information on a whole range of sex-related issues (with the homosexuality bits cited by the Christian group actually forming only a small percentage of the total course). Its usefulness is reflected in its adoption by school principals and teachers who, by the standards of their profession, can be trusted to have good judgment and a strong moral sense.”
How can you be objective when you haven’t even seen the CSE material??!!
May 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Hi JoshC,
Gentiles refers to anyone who is non-Jewish. So Christian or not, if you are not a Jew, you are a Gentile.
To help clarify things, no matter who you are, Jew, Chinese, Indian etc, the Bible teaches us that only Jesus saves.
Also, the inevitable question will arise from some folks – is homosexuality mentioned only in the Old Testament so it can be disregarded by believers like the shellfish issue?
The New Testament reaffirms God’s stand on homosexuality in several books. Eg. 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=1&version=31 )
If you’d like to know my thoughts on the whole AWARE saga and homosexuality, you might like to read a blog post I did recently.
http://iantan.org/?p=1209
I’m not here to insist we’re right and you’re wrong. But I spend my time here to openly share my opinion on Ms. Lim’s writings, and since the question arose from other commentators, our beliefs as Bible-believers – which you are free to reject or accept, or just remain neutral on.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Dear Catherine,
Thank you for your letter. I am a concerned Christian parent and I would like to share my thoughts on your letter.
There are many different worldviews. And every worldview has facts and figures and anecdotal evidence to back them up. As much as you have categorically stated various examples to back your worldview, suffice to say there are as many other facts, figures and anecdotal evidence to contradict yours. As a researcher myself, I see examples day in and day out of how scientists choose to acknowledge or ignore evidences to support or disprove hypotheses. Some facts like gravity, I dare say, are set in stone. Using Science to explain health, social behaviour, genetics is not so black and white. It would do both sides good to acknowledge that there are mountains of evidences one way or another about homosexuality.
Having said that, I agree with you that everyone must eventually make their own choices in life. In order to make these choices, however, it is my responsibility as a parent to guide my children to make these choices in the manner I deem best. Any committed and responsible parent will experience the agony we face each day from small things to bigger things – do we allow our children to snack on potato chips or watch TV all day, do we encourage them to read (I enjoy your books!) or allow them to indulge in computer games. When friends encourage them to lie to their parents and teachers, do we tell them to honour such friendships or honour their parents? Do we sacrifice our careers to spend more time influencing them or do we allow teachers / maids / friends to be their source of information and influence their day to day decisions and worldviews.
I would just like to say that parenting is a challenging task. Life is complicated and I wish I had all the answers for the many questions my chilren ask me each day.
The way I see it, the rest of society like yourself and others, understand that children are impressionable. Which is why, like myself, you too want to have a say in making an impression on my children on how they should view homosexuality.
To those who seem to think that we parents are burying our head in the sand or foolishly obstinate about the issue of homosexuality, kindly understand and respect that it is not as straightforward as one might like it to be. Sometimes, the easiest way is to paint it black and white for our children, which I believe some parents do because their children find it hard to fathom grey. I personally prefer to expose my children to different worldviews while convicting them of the Christian worldview. But it is my judgment when and how, depending on the maturity of my child, and how age-appropriate to expose them to different worldviews.
If we parents seem to be overprotective of our children, forgive us. If we as Christian parents appear to be raising another generation of anti-homosexuality adults, understand that we do it not with the intention of offending homosexuals personally. But because we truly believe in a worldview different from yours. And whether you believe it or not, we are not ignorant people.
Ultimately, as you pointed out in your friend’s example, our children grow up and make their own decisions. I know from experience that no parent can perfectly make our children happy, but for the mother on her deathbed, honour that she did the best for her child and do not condemn her for having a different worldview from you.
With respect, LH
May 7th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Ian Tan May 7th, 2009 at 12:00 am
“Hi JoshC,
Gentiles refers to anyone who is non-Jewish. So Christian or not, if you are not a Jew, you are a Gentile.”
What a non-answer if I’ve ever seen one. Go back and read JoshC’s comment again in case you didn’t get the gist of what he said – which I find hard to believe for a lucid writer like you.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Hi Catherine,
Beautifully written. And I am both moved and touched. It’s the best you’ve ever written that I’ve read so far.
When I was in school, my best friend (a very good looking guy, who was among the smartest in my school) one day asked to speak to me after school. We met up, together with his friend, at a coffeeshop and the first thing he asked me was: “What does the Catholic Church say about homosexuality?”
I was taken aback as such a topic never came up in all our conversations before this. He wasn’t a Catholic but was thinking of becoming one and had been attending church because of my encouragement. I was a Catholic then.
I thought about it for a while and the only thing that came to my mind was the teaching that love is the greatest commandment. So, I told him, “If you love someone, no matter who he or she is, love is the greatest commandment. That’s what the church itself and the Bible says. And love does not discriminate.”
He asked me if the church would accept him into it if they knew he was homosexual. I said I didn’t know. But I also told him that whether the church accepted him or not, he still had to be true and honest with himself – for love begins with oneself.
I could see that he was struggling internally with the knowledge that he was gay – even though he never said or admitted it to me.
Years later, when I met him again, (ironically, also at a coffeeshop), he was with the same guy who was with us at the first meeting at the coffeeshop. It was easy to tell that they were together as a couple. They looked happy – after all these years. I was surprised, actually.
I guess you’re right, Catherine. The concerns are real – and so are the misperceptions – but homosexuality will be accepted one day. In this, I have no doubt.
I only wish that the journey to that day was less arduous and painful for those who are on it.
I also wish that the rest of us would be more compassionate and understanding.
For at the end of the day, if we are Christians or believe in the Christian faith, we must also remember that the greatest commandment is love.
And who’s to say that a man cannot love another man?
Or a woman, another woman?
Thanks for a beautiful story at the end of your letter, Catherine. It warms my heart….
Regards, Andrew Loh
May 7th, 2009 at 2:24 am
The Bible which I believe in clearly talks about homosexuality as a sin. I can respect the life choices of other people. But I would like my kids raised based on my belief. When they grow older, they can decide what they want to do with their own life.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:34 am
Dr. Lim,
Thanks for this letter. I just hope that parents who read it understand that love is greater than condemnation. Our time on earth is so short, yet we busy ourselves with making our lives and lives of others hell most of the time.
Christian parents, if you truly care, please stop harping on sin as though it is the only thing that matters. Our sins are between us and God and meanwhile, please stop condemning people who are not born like you for not living the way you want us to.
May 7th, 2009 at 3:37 am
dear miss lim, i have read your books back in school. and i know u as singapore most famous author.. and i have always respected you!:) but now i am your fan! you are a hero!! thk you for being open minded,and honest. io respect that. God bless, irene
May 7th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Meng Wee,
By the time your children grow up and make their own choices, it may already be too late, they may already be dead or have STDs. Gay teenagers are more 3 to 4 times more likely to commit suicide and, let’s say your children are straight, premarital sex is on the raise. Why not let your children be informed and make smart choices?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:59 am
To LH
“The way I see it, the rest of society like yourself and others, understand that children are impressionable. Which is why, like myself, you too want to have a say in making an impression on my children on how they should view homosexuality.”
You miss the point of the article. People don’t become gay, they just are.
And I hope when you state you want to have a say in how your children view homosexuality, that you do not intend to teach them that it is bad.
Besides cautioning them, you are also teaching them to discriminate against others who are. And if they happen to turn out gay, you are teaching them to hate themselves.
I am gay by the way. I learned this of myself only when I was around 19. When I look back I realise there were signs as far back to childhood.
I was never exposed to any gay stuff, no internet, never talked about it with friends, no CSE from AWARE, no gay friends (& I still don’t). And I also never saw any gay films, TV shows with homosexual couples, same sex affections etc.
By the way, I am not from a dysfunctional family (not perfect but no abusive parents, divorced etc) and I am only in pain because society deems homosexuals as perverted and sinful and we should hide ourselves so as not to affront or disgust anybody.
If you see me on the streets, I look and behave like everybody else.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Thanks for posting this Miss Lim. A wonderful piece.
Solo Bear > Get over it with your posts. The irony that bear is often used as a term for big sized gays. I guess you must be one at heart.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Dear SG,
Thank you for sharing, I do not doubt that your experience is genuine.
Nonetheless, as this letter is written to parents on how to educate their children, I ask that you respect that I have to educate my children based on what I think is best for them. I will not teach my children based on changing trends of the world, or what most of their friends do, or what some people experience. Just as you yourself, if you should have children someday, would probably pass on your worldview to them, regardless of what me or society feels about homosexuality.
What I do commit to do is to help them understand that there are many different people who live different lifestyles who believe in different values. At the end of the day, my children have to make their own decisions and live their own lives. Whether or not the own the Christian faith for themselve in the future, is up to them. We may have to come to terms with what they decide for themselves, but however they decide to live their lives, most Christian parents I believe, will love and support their children unreservedly.
LH
May 7th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I disagree with your statement: 1. “Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality” because you said that …”there is probably a genetic component for sexual orientation.” Since you used the word “probably”, it is a unproven theory, therefore it is not wise for you to come to that conclusion that it is NOT.
I believe that there is still absolute morality in spite of how man justified himself in certain acts. Divorce, cohabitation ….is bad, social evolution theory has not made society a better place, we have to think deeper into the consequences of the fairytale thinking that when things are neither good or bad anymore, it shows that we have improved in our humanity.
The discrimination against homosexual in terms of their right as a human being is wrong,we should respect every human beings in every manner we need to respect a criminal or a poor. But that does not justify that certain acts are acceptable and that we have no choice.
I believe that we should create a society that accepts and respects homosexuals in their rights as human beings, but also creating a environment in which homosexuals could redeemed their God given sexuality in accordance to their God given gender body. Homosexuals needs to be understood, loved, and guided so that a normal sexual orientation could be achieved rather than to be condemned. As Jesus said, which one of you is without sin?
But on the other hand if the bible clearly states that God is against homosexuality, it is un-respectful of you to say that “Homosexuality is NOT…an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God”.
Rather I believed, as said, the issue lies with: when something is wrong, how do we communicate and work in a manner that creates love and repentance. Being a homosexual in Singapore lives in pain and rejection, and that should not be the way. But giving in to certain questionable moral acts is something that needs to be dealt with, in love, gentleness and honestly.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
It’s refreshing for once to see rather calm responses on a rather touchy issue. I suppose an erudite writer is more likely to draw rationale responses than a forum with no OB markers.
Whatever happens, I’m glad that this has become an issue Singaporeans are now openly discussing instead of sweeping it under the rug.
Everyone has the right to be heard, Christians and gays included.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“B. H. Wolf May 6th, 2009 at 10:16 pm”
Peter at the Jerusalem council had spoken for the new non-Jewish believers aka Christians whom the Jewish believers of Christ wanted them to follow the Law of Moses:
Acts 15: 19-21 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
It stated very clearly about the stand in the Bible in New Testament.
Ms Catherine, I do not agree with you on this issue.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:02 am
To all bible calling anti gay writers,
I have been a christian all my life. And I kn that we sin day in day out. A thought of adultery is as gd as commiting it. This is how strict sin has been regard. And now that we are in the New T. where Christ has died and washed away all our sins incldg past, present and future….what is so wrong abt sin? I am not saying comitting criminal offences against the law. But sin that is not criminal like divorce, lie, adultary…even homosexuality 9which u regard as sin and yes still illegal in SG but will not be enforeced so assume that as non-criminal).
Simple logic once again. If all u kn tht u will never be gd enough to save urself and need christ to die for u. And Christ did, and all ur sins incldg the future ones has been forgiven. What is ‘wrong’ with doing sthing that will not hurt anyone unless u hv no faith and think that ur sin will not be forgiven. And Christ’s death on the cross is not enough to save you from the judgement day.
Basically, how u live ur life is just betw u and ur belief/God/values…etc. No one should be discriminated upon/ looked down upon/ hated unless it harms another human being.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:16 am
(Dr Lim, I’m so sorry to hijack your comment space to ask LH a question.)
LH, do you keep a blog? If you do, can you hyperlink it? If not, I’d strongly encourage you keep one. I do enjoy your voice of reason and passion.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Dear Ian
Since you do indeed eat shellfish from time to time, do you do so only because it is ok? That Jesus gave you permission to do so? Or is it your preference?
I prefer not to have cockles with my char kuay teow. Am I pleasing the Lord with my choices each time, even though it is merely my preference and has nothing to do with Biblical laws, outdated or no?
Is your belief in the wrongness of homosexuality your own? Or are you following whatever the Bible says about the issue?
Have you examined and tried to understand the matter yourself, or are you deferring to God’s word and taking it at face value?
This here is the crux of the matter, and also why, I believe, the Aware saga drew such a dramatic response.
More than most other religions, Christians tend to think that only their beliefs are correct, and that everyone else is subject to the same teachings. They further take it upon themsleves to judge non-Christians according to their holy text.
How dare they? What gives them the right to judge another? Who gives them the authority to say what goes? Especially in something like sexual identity that has nothing to do with anyone else whatsoever?
And it would be acceptable if Christianity truly preaches love and acceptance, and not a bankrupt version of it. I say bankrupt for how is it truly love if it is needy and with more conditions than in an insurance policy?
So please, kindly keep Christianity to Christians, and leave the rest of the world to live their lives the way they want to.
Thio Su Mein and Josie Lau, et al failed to do so, and got smacked down for it. And rightly so.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Hi JC I truly agree with you that our sins (past, present, future) are forgiven and sins may not be related as a crime tho’ it still could be (eg: murder).
On the other hand, the issue of “what’s wrong with doing something that will not hurt anyone”; I do not believe that in sin there is a possibility that no one could not be hurt; or else it will not be sin.
Sin is sin because it hurts,it may not hurt the person beside you, but it may hurt the community indirectly. Most importantly, it hurts the person who is committing it, although he or she may not “feel” it.
If how we live our life is just between us and God, there would need not be so much arguments, but unfortunately life on earth is not so.
As Apostle Paul says, do we sin more so that grace might increase? No. If Jesus died for us, we should all the more grow in grace. And as said, which one of us is without sin? Therefore let love, forgiveness, and truth rule in us, let us not look down on fellow sinners, for all of us are learning to grow in grace.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Please leave region out of this discussion. You guys can debate till no end and each will persist to belief what you choose to believe.
The fact is that Homosexuality is NOT a social norm. How does one woman who looks and behave like a man; or a man who looks and behave like a woman, seem normal?
It is a sickness, a disease of the mind. I know many gays; they are promiscuous and will openly sought sex from even non-gays. This is sick and disgusting.
I’m glad that the MOE has put a stop to all this nonsense and so should you Catherine. It’s hard enough parenting and we do not need this to be even more difficult.
And before you go around accusing parents of over blowing this, not showing enough care or time… don’t unless you’re a parent.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Dear WeC
No one here is saying that homosexuality is a social norm. If it were, then we would probably be having discussions about whether to decriminalise straight sex!
Although to you, dressing and behaving out of your sex is abnormal, but have you ever considered that for a transvestite or a transsexual, doing what they do is completely and perfectly normal because that is who they are?
Can you get a cat to follow you at your every beck and call any more than you can get a dog to act aloof and leave you the heck alone when you step through the door?
The point here is, you cannot deny something its nature. Attempting to do so is what is abnormal.
I am sorry if your experiences with gay people so far has caused you to be uncomfortable. However, have you ever examined why you are not okay with other people having sex like rabbits – that is to say quietly and frequently? Why do you feel the need to label them promiscious, sick and disgusting? Why do you judge what you do not understand? In fact, why even judge at all?
And as for a gay man trying to get into the pants of someone who is not gay, well who amongst us has never desired someone we probably shouldn’t? More importantly, was any party forced upon. Was anyone violated or harmed?
You raise a pertinent point though, that parenting is hard. Every person who brings up a child will be confronted with the ultimate moment when impatient wings are in a hurry to beat and fly.
Part of the wonder of raising a human being, I think, is discovering exactly who she or he is and isn’t. And should we discover something that runs counter to our personal beliefs, then, as Ms Lim pointed out, the only choice is to adopt a sensible approach.
Homosexuality is not the problem. It is simply a trait. How is it handled, however, is the important issue. Perhaps all these “promiscious gays” are acting out deep hurts and feelings of isolation, rejection and fear because they are made to feel like freaks? Or could it be that, oh my, sex IS fun? And with no fear of babies too!
To all parents then, I urge you, bring up your child the best way you know how, but also remember that there is a person inside, waiting to be discovered. Providing a solid, loving, accepting and non-judgemental authority figure in their lives is probably the best thing you can do for them.
And in the process, perhaps you can learn how to be more loving and accepting of your own human flaws and fallacies too.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Dear Jer Lim
“Sin is sin because it hurts,it may not hurt the person beside you, but it may hurt the community indirectly. Most importantly, it hurts the person who is committing it, although he or she may not “feel†it.”
I am, as Gordon Ramsay would say, gobsmacked by your argument here.
If there is no harm done to any party, with no one claiming any hurt, how then can it still be considered anything bad?
Even more, are you claiming that we are not allowed to decide for ourselves what is good and not good for us? And even if we do not suffer any consequences to an action, but it makes us feel good, then we should not do it?
So we are not allowed to think, but only unquestioningly obey? Even if the rules don’t make any sense? What kind of a life is that?
May 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am
“Tommy May 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am”
That is exactly what Mdm Thio and gang did not do. Rather, they took over by force.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Thank you for this piece Catherine.
From a person you met and shared your lunch table at the Bali Literature Festival in Ubud last year.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
what has religion got to do with it, its a secular state, I don’t care about the issue anymore, because singapore will have to be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming.
as noted in america, the culture wars are lost, bush is gone, all the old hate mongers are dying.
in other countries, we’ve got democratically arrested prime ministers and MPs that are gay now, are you going to arrest them when they arrive in singapore?
for those who think that gays can be “utterly conquered” are sorely wrong, maybe you should try de-gaying the animal kingdom first. afterall, animals also have no rights..
http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-Diversity-Stonewall/dp/031225377X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241670192&sr=8-1
May 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Thanks Catherine! I wished you had this in mandrin! =)
May 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Dear B H Wolf I am sorry that I caused a misunderstanding that I promote a kind of “obedient” to rules, a lifestyle that forbids reflections and questioning.
In fact I am against this sort of rules or regulations approach to life cos as human beings,we are rational beings. We should and need to exercise our rights and freedom in all aspect of our lives, rather than to follow certain religious rules or sayings blindly or to obey in fear. These approach to life is inhumane.
And the reason for saying sin is sin cos it hurts, is that when something is recognized as a sin, it has to be able to cause hurt or else it will not be a sin. On the other hand, love covers a multitude of sins.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Most balanced letter I seen written to date
Compassion and understanding are probably the best tools to deal with this thorny issue than outright rejection or even hatred…
If only it was that simple…we would live in a perfect world
May 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
For those Christians who are opposed to homosexuality I would like to pose this question: What will you think and do if YOUR own son/daughter is gay?
I, like Catherine, know someone who is gay and no amount of his mother’s anguish could turn him into a full MAN. Today, he seeks his peace and sexuality living in the U.S.
I have seen how painful it was for the parents to finally admit that thier son is gay.
So what are you going to do about it? Chastise him? Judge him? Your son, who was borne by the both of you?
Give them a break. For me, as long as the program doesnt ENCOURAGE our kids to BE Gay/Lesbians, there is value to point out to them that these humans, just like them, are amongst us.
Live and let live. Peace.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
In Luke 17 in the New Testament, Jesus said that one of the big “signs” that will happen shortly before His return to earth as Judge will be a repeat of the “days of Lot” (see Genesis 19 for details). So gays are actually helping to fulfill this same worldwide “sign” (and making the Bible even more believable!) and thus hurrying up the return of the Judge! They are accomplishing what all of the Bible-thumpers couldn’t accomplish! Gays couldn’t have accomplished this by just coming out of closets into bedrooms. Instead, they invented new architecture – you know, closets opening on to Main Streets where little kids would be able to watch naked men having sex with each other at festivals in places like San Francisco (where their underground saint – San Andreas – may soon get a big jolt out of what’s going on over his head!). Thanks, gays, for figuring out how to bring back our resurrected Saviour even quicker!
May 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Interesting discussions.
Many here quote the bible to justify their stance that homosexuality is wrong.
Question: What makes the bible right?
Is the bible the word of ‘God’? Is there a God in the first place? If everything the bible says is true, why are there so many contradictions?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
Could it be, could it be, that the bible is a written by man, solely by man and there is no God?
May 7th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Just to be cleared here, I do not think this discussion is a religious one to begin with. The only reason why i state in a christian structure is to explain the fallancy of logic in many Christian thinking.
I personally do not think there is anything wrong to express yourself as long as you do not hurt anyone, and u r comfortable with who u r. Basically u r who u r. The society does not have the right to change the basic nature of human. It is the basic right. not more right. And certainly, a person with the christian conviction does not have the right or morality to demand that others must follow based on their belief.
Well the idea that one’s sin (although does not hurt anyone) will hurt the community sound tempting. I still do not get it. Just like i do not understand why Same sex marriage will destroy a heterosexual marriage.
I’d rather quote from Barney (on the show How I met your Mother). Same sex marriage should be forbidden. Because if all the gays who are trend setter starts getting married. Then, all the girls will want to get married and object ONS. And yes, by that logic, i think Same Sex Marriage will destroy the institution of Marriage.
Basically, if u still do not get it. All these discussion on how bad homo are borne out of fear, unknown, ignorance, personal distaste, discrimination, no sense of fairness, self-righteousness, idiots and many more u can think of.
Live and let live Bro.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dear Catherine,
thank you for another sensible voice in this belief-charged debate.
To all – if you fear the unknown, is it one’s responsibility to deal with the fear, or be permanently afraid of it?
And if you happen to know anyone who is gay, is homophobia still a valid line of thought, since you actually know?
Or is it easier to just continue to be afraid of the bogeyman in the closet?
E.o.M.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Perhaps some people might want to listen to homosexuality from a buddhist perspective; Homosexuality and Buddhism Sunday, October 15, 2006 12:00 PM Ajahn Brahm is having a non-violent crusade against gender discrimination http://www.bswa.org/audio/mp3/Brahmavamso_2006_10_14.mp3
and the speaker is here tonight, giving a talk at the Buddhist Lodge http://www.buddhistfellowship.org/
May 7th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Dr Lim, a very impressive article there.
With reference to the CSE programme, i believe it is subjective as to whether it was advocating homosexuality , or not. When asked to take a neutral stand on ‘anal sex’, one can perceive this sentence as to 1) accept anal sex or 2) dont discriminate against it. For those who perceive it as number 1, they are probably those who was agaisnt the CSE programme.
I am 23 this year, and i discovered my homosexual orientation when i was 12. Rather young i suppose? I’m a female by the way.
Growing up, my family never understood me. They lived in denial and often forced me into wearing dresses and to keep my hair long. It had been a source of argument for years, because my mom often blamed my eldest sister for not helping to cultivate me, etc.
When my eldest sister first found out i had a girlfriend (when i was around 18), she was hysterical and it was a mental trauma to me. Day in day out, she tried to counsel me as if i was a deviant, and she sent me emails showing her researches saying that homosexuality can be cured by psychology treatment, and it made me feel very ashamed and odd.
Periodically, fights would burst out between me and my mom because i refused to keep my hair long, or dress like a normal girl. My parents are uneducated and i dont now if they know what homosexuality is, or that they only think that im ‘tomboyish’.
Many times i contemplated suicide because i felt that i will never be accepted as who i am, and that if my parents know the truth it will be a great blow to them. I am just unable to step out of this closet to my family.
Why cant we love like everyone else? As many respondents have commented, that the greatest commandment is Love. I am not a Christian, but i do not oppose christians’ belief that homosexuality is a sin, because, to each his own belief. But then again, what about Love being the greatest commandment? How do you weigh the importance of one verse above that of another?
Our parents gave us our lives. They brought us up, but who are they, who is anyone, to dictate how our lives should be? Isnt this the same as telling your child ‘ i want you to be a doctor in future. And no i dont want u to become a pianist as much as you’d love to.”
I am grateful to Mr Andrew Low, who said :
“I only wish that the journey to that day was less arduous and painful for those who are on it.
I also wish that the rest of us would be more compassionate and understanding. “
To people out there who do not understand the nature of homosexuality, they do not understand how difficult this road is. To be living in fear of rejection, to stay in the closet. To fear hurting your loved ones, to fear discrimination. To fear inequality in work life. To fear for our own future with our partners. Because we cannot, cannot draw out plans such as getting married, buy a house and happily ever after. No this is not the picture for us homosexuals in this society. For us, it is, pray, hope and believe. And i thank Mr Low for his empathy towards homosexuals.
Homophobic people and anti-homosexual individuals might have never stopped to think about this: To us, this is in our nature and no matter how unnatural we are taught/told/advised that this is, it is still natural to us.
Please pause to think about this: flip it all around; telling us that we are queer and odd, is just like someone telling you that it is odd and wrong for you (a man) to be with a woman, and vice versa. Because to you, THAT is nature, but to us, THIS is nature.
I hope that a civilised society like singapore, can soon come to the acceptance of homosexuals and our contributions to the society. We’re only human.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Dear Ms Lim,
I think one of the good things that have emerged from the suspension of external vendors is that abstinence-only, religion-based groups are included in this ruling. From my experience as a student, schools may not always vet these facilitators properly (I have had some unpleasant experiences in a government-founded, secular school) or may not be too concerned about those programmes.
I thank you also for noting that youths are not stupid. By this age most people have already identified with their appropriate sexuality along the spectrum; CSE or abstinence-only, that’s not going to change.
For those who claim homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity, should the United Church of Christ be declared anathema? Are not some of the AWARE old guard, such as Ms Constance Singam, Christian? Where should one draw the line between “Christian” and “not Christian enough (for my taste)”?
Leviticus is superseded by the New Testament; and Pauline Christianity, I find, is inherently much more judgemental than the Christianity of, say, Jesus Christ. Those who accept that Leviticus is outmoded (and hence eat cockles and wear mixed-thread clothing) but cling to Paul should stop their daughters from cutting their hair and prevent their wives from speaking in church – and while they are at that, lobby against having female CEOs, since a man may not submit to a woman’s authority. Don’t you keep telling us that your religious beliefs aren’t a buffet?
May 7th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I just finished the book, “Homophobia, A History”, by Byrne Fone. It appears that the traditional reading of Genesis 19:5 “that we may know them,” has been used as a basis for God’s condemnation of Sodom, and by inference, homosexuality. Guess what? The greek word “to know” is YADHA, a word that appears some 900 times in the Old Testament, and almost it means “to become acquainted with.” Although YADHA does, on a handful if occasions, imply sexual knowledge, on every one of these occasions it refers to heterosexual sex. Only in the Sodom passage – and in a parallel story in Judges 19-20 – has it been construed to refer to a homosexual act. So what was the actual sin of Sodom? It’s pride, arrogance, and idolatry, according to Lamentations 4:6. And we thought we knew everything.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
This CSE discussion is about what is being taught to students who are teenagers.
I think its best that only parents share their views on this as they are the ones who will be impacted and their views are the most important.
If you are gay, its your right to your lifestyle but its not right for you to tell parents how they should raise their children or how parents want CSE to be taught to them.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Catherine,
You can read the CSE manual at this link:
http://tinyurl.com/cxsrwc
May 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
And you can read my critique of the CSE manual at http://www.vtaide.com/blessing/AWARE-cse.htm
May 7th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
To Observer,
Why do you think only parents have the right to comment? I think we are fit to comment on this issue as it does not affect parents/children alone. The effects of such education (or lack of) will be filtered throughout the strata of society.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
This CSE discussion has been going on between parents and the rest of society with much reference to what our “impressionable young minds” have been, and should be, exposed to. I don’t claim to represent the entire teenage population but I do think I speak for a significant proportion of it when I remind the adults so intent on protecting us from the “evils” of the world, that we are individuals capable of rational evaluation, and would appreciate being credited with this ability.
Teenagers are frequently exposed to many issues, including homosexuality, in the course of our daily lives – this is something that it is nearly impossible for parents to prevent. Controversial topics are everywhere, from the movies that we watch to the actors who act in them, to politicians’ speeches that parents would never dream of censoring for our tender young eyes. Opinions are fired in all directions; if we hadn’t developed the capacity to ponder them and come to our own conclusions, our sanity would not have lasted through our teens.
So what’s all the fuss about a word that might appear for a few seconds on a slide that your kid’ll probably be too busy sleeping to look at, anyway? It’s probably the tamest context in which they’ve ever seen it used.
So you might as well accept that your children are going to make their own choices in life, and there is very little that you can do to control the information that they derive from the many available sources. If you don’t want your children to grow up homosexual, the most effective way to achieve that would probably be to show them the basic respect of saying so and explaining why, and letting them come to their own conclusions, instead of trying to blind them to opinions that others may hold. I for one am glad that my parents trust me enough not to try to puppet-master me.
For the record, I am neither homosexual nor do I believe that homosexuality is a bad thing. Like AWARE, and although I have not been through the CSE, I am completely “neutral” toward it. Wow, I have an opinion even though it’s never been drummed into me.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Ms Lim,thank you for your very clear thoughts ..I am a single parent and I know that if my child tells me he is gay ,has a partner he cares for and who cares for him and my child happy,I will accept it.Being happy,does not come easy to anyone,and in a happy relationship is a bonus… a male-female relationship may not necessarily be happier than that shared by 2 persons of the same gender.Each human being has a choice…our duty as a parent is to raise our child,not dictate his/her path in life in the ways we want..we guide as best we can,each of us is not perfect ,never perfect.. the choice is the child’s..he learns to live with his choice.good or bad,he is on a learning curve …till the last days of his life.I am lucky my mum raised me with lots of love and trust that she let me make my choice of my course in the uni, my husband..and I never regretted my choices..though they did not turn out to be a bed of roses…why would I wish to cause my child whom I love very much to be unhappy?
May 7th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Dear Val, your approach to the matter is an enlightened one. It moved me and I congratulate you for it. Parents too often project their own fears, insecurities and prejudices onto their children. It is the quintessential generational curse.
To those who cite the “because the Bible says it’s a sin” premise, I submit to you the counter-argument put forth by no less a personage than President Bartlet himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y
May 7th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Dear Dr Lim,
It was a pleasure to read your post, a voice of calm and reflection amongst all the online noise.
Nevertheless, you would have been more persuasive had you undertaken to address the following:
The basis of your assertion that “homosexuality is NOT abnormal†as fact. Generalisations that scientific studies show that to be so will not be taken at face value by discerning readers. As alluded to by LH, scientific evidence is not so black and white, particularly pertaining to the social sciences. Science also has not escaped politicization. Many of the petitioners on the online petition are thinking professionals, some of whom are from the medical / scientific fraternity and if you are addressing these parents, you will do well to be able to robustly support your assertion. But you did not even quote any science to support your assertion. You concluded that homosexuality is a complex interplay of nature and nurture. How that leads to the conclusion that it is “not abnormal as a fact†escapes my logic even if your language flows nicely. Many criminal activities I can think of can be attributed to an interplay of nature and nurture. To declare as fact what has not been shown to be a fact discredits your argument.
The acknowledgement that your argument flow from a primary premise of moral relativism. Because none of your arguments make any sense to someone who is of the opinion that there is such a thing as absolute moral rights or wrongs based on some perceived higher authority, regardless of popular opinion. So you must first convince your reader why relativism is superior to absolutism. Now that’s a pretty difficult feat because you must convince your reader that he/she mustn’t believe that anything is ever absolutely right or wrong but he/she must believe that you are absolutely right in telling him/her that. I presume of course that you believe you are absolutely right in your beliefs, otherwise intellectual honesty should compel you to re-examine your beliefs.
It is an interesting observation that English philosopher CS Lewis made that moral relativists are usually quite quick to abandon their positions when they are themselves “wrongedâ€. They will appeal to some universal truths on which to base their case. The recent AWARE saga comes to mind. The old EXCO’s case (now the new-old) against the new (now the old-new) EXCO was that of stealth and secrecy. Now, homosexuality is NOT wrong but stealth and secrecy is absolutely wrong. Not declaring your election strategy to your rival candidates is an absolutely universally recognizable wrong. However, stealth and secrecy is sometimes right, such as not declaring the contents of the CSE Trainer Manual openly. In fact, to blow the whistle on such a secret document which contains potentially seditious material to be taught to impressionable teenagers was absolutely wrong — it was a breach of confidence. The inclusiveness and tolerance of moral relativists does not extend to absolutists, but absolutely extends to some relativists depending on the circumstances.
You asked some questions on behalf of parents. May I suggest humbly to you that while considerations pertaining to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and social stigma are important, they may in fact be secondary to some parents. Personal morality and right values pertaining to sex is the primary issue at stake, and your arguments have failed in this respect.
I have gained 2 things from this AWARE saga. 1. I had never been very convinced of the allegations made by some of the insidious tactics of increasingly active gay lobby groups. Now I need no further convincing. 2. My children (and yes, they are 12 years old) have been educated. On the contradictions and fallacies of moral relativism. They saw it at play so clearly.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:15 am
AWARE should focus on helping women in trouble. Why are they spending time doing sexuality programs instead? (yes I know it was sponsored by free community church, so what’s the church’s motive in partnering a women’s organization? why did AWARE accept the sponsorship to develop the CSE which obviously has nothing to do with its original purpose?)
May 8th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Dear Dr Lim,
The letter to parents that you have posted is thoroughly enjoyable reading, but the replies that follow offer even more pleasure! I should add, regrettably as a reminder, that those who come into a blog site such as this should, as callers to anybody’s residence are obliged, show some courtesy and respect to the host. We are guests here, and as such, you, Dr Lim, and the other visitors deserve to be accorded some graciousness, the one thing that you have found missing in what has become known as the AWARE saga.
Unfortunately, when people start to speak from a religious standpoint, graciousness can sometimes be left outside, just as lepers were once kept from entering the temples of God. I, therefore, risk generating replies that may be devoid of civility, and for that, Dr Lim, please accept my apologies.
To Ian Tan,
You have exhorted Dr Lim to “please do not speak on behalf of God” and go on to say that “the Bible is clear on his stand on homosexuality”. Since the bible is written by men, why is it that only select individuals can “speak on behalf of God”? It is also interesting that you prefer “Bible-believers” when Christians will suffice. With this emphasis on a publication that is so rarely circulated in its original language and, therefore, susceptible to interpretations, I wonder which, in your mind, is of more consequence: bible-fearing or god-fearing? Should homosexuality be considered a practice against this printed word (so contradictory in parts) or the father in heaven? If it is the former, is it possible homosexuality has fallen victim to the prejudice of those who penned the bible?
In your subsequent entry, you reiterated what the apostle Peter said: “…God accepted them (non-Jews)…He made no distinction between us and them…” Is it, therefore, imaginable that the god who does not divide draws no distinction between another them: homosexuals and non-homosexuals?
Mr Tan, you also stated that you “dare not even dare claim to be a staunch Christian”, but if you’re not loyal in always supporting the beliefs of the “Bible-believers”, why have you lead us to think that you’re speaking ardently for them by drawing us to passages in the bible?
And if, according to you, “…many Jewish traditions and rituals described in the Old testament were no longer relevant for believers from about 2000 years ago”, why not prejudices too? Or am I being naive?
To Tommy,
Your quote, making you a “Bible-believer” as well, offered no support that “It is stated very clearly the stand in the bible in New Testament”. What is this “it” you’re referring to that seems to point to nothing in particular. Could it be “food polluted by idols”? Or “sexual immorality” (no mention of homosexuality)? Or “meat from strangled animals or from blood”?
To Ruth
Another “Bible-believer”, you have gone the Armageddon route by pointing to the “big signs”, specifically “a repeat of the days of Lot”. By your very own thumping of gays, and, thus, alluding to the infamous tale in Genesis 19, it would not be unreasonable to assume that you have grasped that Lot had offered his two daughters, who had “not known manâ€, to the mop outside his door so that they might “know” the girls rather than the two angels he had sheltered. You are aware that, despite being freed from the Lord’s wrath (because their grand uncle Abraham had pleaded on their behalf), the daughters, now without a mother for she had “become a pillar of salt”, decided, when no longer in danger, to intoxicate their dad with wine so that they (yes, both!) can “lie with him” to “preserve offspring through our father”.
Forgive my ignorance, would “a repeat of the days of Lot” then be a time when fathers will offer their daughters to strangers (“do ye to them as is good in your eyeâ€), and daughters commit incest because “there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth”? Surely gays are not capable of such atrocities! Surely parents should be more concerned with such biblical tales than the “neutral†content of the CSE!
Thank you, Dr Lim, for the use of your space for such lively exchanges.
Sincerely,
XLF
May 8th, 2009 at 4:06 am
Dear Aaron
I choose to believe my faith, and live the way I think it is right to live, according to my own faith.
On the other hand, I respect the life choices of others, and I don’t judge others who choose their own sets of belief.
Therefore, in my world, things are absolute, as taught to me by the bible that I believe in. In my world, black is black, and white is white. Sometime there are things that are grey. But homosexuality, the way I will teach my kid from young, is going to be black in my book, because that is very clear based on my faith.
I know of people who either tell me they are gay, or I think they are but they are not telling me. I will let my kids know that there are such persons in life. I will pray to the God that I believe in, for my kids to accept, love and respect such persons. I will also pray to the God that I believe in for blessing and protection, that my kids (and young people that I know) will not have gay inclination as they grow.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Dear Catherine Lim, As a lesbian person, I thank you for your lucid and honest letter. You highlighted many issues that I find it difficult for myself to express. Thank you once again.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I find it interesting tht the christians here whom always seem to insist their truth are absolute always have the facts wrong or wld I say assume/ or never question or verify. I guess this has always been the mentality. So no point arguing.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Before I was a parent, and even when I was a parent of a toddler, I spoke freely about what I would do with my child. I would not make the mistakes of my parents or other parents I see around me. I would remember what I went through as a child / teenager and I would definitely want my child to be the best person they were born to be. I voiced my opinions loudly and with conviction, and I looked critically at other parents who did not appear to be as sure as I was.
I have 3 children now and my firstborn is now in P1. In my short 7 years of full-time parenting, I now know why older parents often held their tongues when I espoused principles of freedom, discipline and values.
Because as I said before, and I now say again, parenting is complex. It is easy to sprout principles, ideals and visions. But in the day to day practise of bringing up a child (and children who are all different in their own unique ways), you will find that your one-sized, easy answers just don’t work out the way you think it would.
Coupled with the fact that parents are all flawed beings ourselves, in a vastly diverse society (which is why life is so interesting), what do you tell a child who looks to you for guidance, direction and discipline (they crave it even when they resist it)?
I’ve read countless parenting books (secular and faith-based), on nurturing your child’s physical needs, mental needs, emotional needs, developmental needs, and yes, sexual development as well. I’ve tried and tested various parenting techniques. Though my children are not yet teenagers, I’ve read into the chapters that deal with the teenage years too. The good news is, they’re all great books. The bad news is, they very often contradict each other.
Through all the reading, I tell you this. There is nothing like the real experience of bringing up your own children of your own genetic makeup, bearing the marks of you and your partners strengths and weaknesses. No book, no parent, no human authority can give you the manual to bring up your own unique children.
My P1 daughter in a girls public school came home telling me with disgust that her classmate kissed another classmate on the lips. What would you say as a parent? First you have to know what you want to tell her, then you you have to consider how old she is, how much she understand, how capable she is of receiving your comments. I have to counsel her on what to make of it, yet counsel her to not offend her friends by making any thoughtless, hurtful remarks. At some point, all of us as parents have to draw a line. What would you say to her?
Many of you have stories of how you struggled with your family and came out of the closet. I’m listening and I will bear these in mind when my children are teenagers. My question to you is: even if you craved the acceptance, do you doubt that your parents love you enough to object to something they thought was wrong and unnatural? Because I imagine any parent objects because they care. Now some parents may care more about what other people think, but I think most parents who spent their lives sacrificing and providing and caring and teaching for you, will object out of love. Even if they sometimes don’t know how to show it in the way you would like it to.
Bottom line is we all have stories to tell. Our lives become meaningful and unique because of these stories.
I grew up as a non-believer and I resisted Christianity very strongly. If I were to share with you how I came to know a real and personal God who beyond all cognitive arguments and understanding, loves me, will you believe me? If you tell you I found a God who provides me with an incomplete but satisfying answer to my questions in life, will you believe me? If I tell you, there’s joy in knowing that the flaws and misdeeds in my life are written off, will you believe me?
If I tell you that of all the parenting instructions and techniques, I’ve discovered that a faith-based values system is the best foundation for a child, will you believe me? If I tell you that I cannot determine the future of my child, but will kneel down and pray for my children everyday, will it make a difference? If I tell you I need to pray for wisdom to teach my children each day, and strength to master my weaknesses to be the best model they have, will you believe me?
In my heart of hearts, I know that no matter how hard I try, my children may not turn out the way I want them to, may not appreciate and respect me for trying, may even resent me for my mistakes. Does not mean I should stop trying? I sign the petition to MOE because this is what it means for me to try to do the best for my children.
I’ve just nursed my 3 children through a week of stomach flu. I wake up at 4:30 to rock the crying baby, at 5:30 to bring the toddler to the toilet for diarrhoea, at 6:30 to bring the eldest to school. And the day has only just begun. This is the story for parents.
So forgive us if we get angry or personal with the comments on this discussion thread and appear to throw our weight around, it’s because our responsiblities are heavy. We are being held accountable. And it is not an easy task.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
In all the melee I think it was very alarming that the instructor manual was made available to the public. It was not meant for general reading, and certainly the students are not supposed to see it. It contains a lot of information which is background material for the instructors to help them teach the course better, but is not meant for students to see. I think the person who made it public should be called to task.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
While I am a supporter of what the CSE programme tried to achieve with regard to attitudes concerning homosexuality, I think the language used in the instructor manual was indeed unfortunate. I am specifically uncomfortable about the reference to anal sex being healthy. “Neutral” is not the same as “healthy”. When you describe something as being healthy, you are implicitly encouraging its adoption. I hope this was just a case of semantics.
May 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“do you doubt that your parents love you enough to object to something they thought was wrong and unnatural?” – LH This is exactly the argument put forth by parents in the old days when they decided their children’s marriage based on status and hierachy regardless of love. In fact its a sin worthy of death by drowning if you married someone against your parents’ wishes.
Many parents like LH strived to do what they think is the best for their children. They want their children to grow up having the best education, finding the perfect mate, getting married, having children. Because if they were to do otherwise – remain single (or worse divorce) became gay, drop out of school, it reflect on the failure on their part. But did they ever consider the feelings and happiness of their children? Just bcos they have sacrificed so much they expect their children to turn up the way they want them to be.
A gay friend of mine went to a top school and JC, studied medicine (against his interest in the humanities) and is now very successful (career wise) in life. He tried dating a girl (another fellow doctor) when he was in his early 30s bcos getting married would be the natural thing to do to make his Catholic parents very proud. But he struggled very hard to be happy whenever he went dating. He finally realised that he had done enough for his parents and now he should be living his own life, afterall, he will be the one to face his spouse for the rest of his life after his parents passed on, not them. He is now happily attached to another fellow Catholic doctor whom his mother adores as her own son.
None of us wants to be gay if given a choice. We all tried very hard in our younger days to conform, to behave straight, to feign interest in the opposite sex. But deep down inside we know what we truly wanted. You may not believe it, I knew I was gay as young as 6! Just that I did not understand that feeling then. To deny that feeling just to conform to society is unnatural to us at best and a hypocrite at worst.
I have a boyfriend and living with my mother. He got invited to my all my immediate family’s outings, gatherings, reunion dinners and similarly I was included in his. My nephews and nieces grew up knowing I have a boyfriend not a girlfriend. They have turned up straight and “normal”. My 3yrs old grand-niece addresses both my BF and me “granduncle” in front of my parents and siblings. To some of you we maybe a dysfunctional and perverted family, but to me that is love. I fear not for the day my grandniece to grow up a well balanced, non-judgemental and loving young lady, but what I fear most is if she ever gets hijacked one day by the self righteous anti gay group who will teach her to hate her granduncle who had once so adored her.
“So forgive us if we get angry or personal with the comments on this discussion thread and appear to throw our weight around, it’s because our responsiblities are heavy. We are being held accountable. And it is not an easy task.” – LH So similarly forgive us if we feel so angry and bitter when the self righteous and moralistic parents and bible waving Christians misunderstood and maligned us for their absolutist belief, for insisting on teaching their children that our love for another man is immoral & sinful that deserved to be castigated.
May 8th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Dear Choong,
I’m glad that you and your partner were accepted by your family and had an easier time than others.
I have a few thoughts on what you shared above:
Most parents are not as naive and ignorant as you may think. We have no illusions that our efforts to nurture our children may not turn out the way we expect.
Nontheless, as distasteful as you made it sound, yes, we do have expectations. But if you think about it, we all have expectations with people we’ve invested time, effort, and love in. Just like your relationship with your partner, and your grandneice, you will be hurt if one had an affair or the other turned her back on you because of your sexuality.
So yes, as parents, we have expectations but the question is, what do we do when our children do not become what we aspired them to be? Again, no easy answers. If you were a parent yourself, you will know that it is a struggle. Some manage it better, others don’t. And that’s how life is. Our choices and our parent’s choices and the choices that all of us make in our lives have consequences. Sometimes just for ourselves, sometimes for others. It’s pointless to tell other people not to hurt from our choices. It’s more important to consider the consequences BEFORE we make the choices, and then take ownership of it. I will not want to estrange my children if they choose a lifestyle I do not agree with. It wil be hard, I will need time to come to terms with it, but I will always choose love over hate.
As a Christian, I can tell you unequivocally that yes, our values about sexuality, creation, procreation etc clash. However, if we have given you the impression that your choice is more detestable than my everyday sins, forgive us. Your choice of lifestyle is no more sinful than any one of us lusting after someone with our eyes, being deceitful, harbouring envy, jealousy, coveting after another’s possession. As Jesus once protected a prostitue from being stoned by those who wanted to condemn her, none did after Jesus said “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” But after that, he did say to her to go and sin no longer.
So our values clash. And I am sorry if that offends you as much as if my children were to be taught that homosexuality is neutral offends me. We all have to draw a line somewhere. And within our sphere of influence, we will assert to draw that line.
But I take your point that I do not want your grandneice to ostracise you in anyway. Neither will I want my children to despise or detest anyone of you who live a different lifestyle.
Christians struggle with imperfections. And the inability to sometimes who love to those whom we personally find hard to ifentify with. Afterall, we are sinners. The difference is we choose to submit our imperfections and daily struggles to an authority higher than ours.
Again respectfully, LH
May 8th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Leslie,
I do not know Observers reasons for saying that the CSE should be commented only by parents but I would agree with him.
The program affects students who are the responsibility of the parents.
How can someone who does not have responsibility for someone make decisions on how that someone is being taught?
Perhaps you want to explain why someone who is not a parent has a right to decide?
May 9th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Dear Parent,
In which case, I most humbly beg you to also address the issue of whether or not us students should even have an opinion on this? Alas that we have not been asked. I am most grateful for the fact that most teenagers, if pressed, will voice philosophies of tolerance and acceptance. Does that shock you? It should. You speak for a group whose worldview you do not understand; you speak to quash this view; you speak for control of and not co-operative learning with the generation about to inherent this mess of a world.
May 9th, 2009 at 12:39 am
To LH,
The most lucid, honest and respectful commentary I’ve read so far. Thank you.
best wishes
NG
May 9th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Dear LH,
Thank you for your post, which is both tactful and thoughtful. It is a perfect example of how we can disagree without being disagreeable.
It is your right as a parent to instruct your children as you see fit. And it is certainly the right of the Christian community to, as you put it, assert to draw the line within its sphere of influence. The problem with your position, as I see it, is not where you draw that line, but rather how much of society you believe your sphere of influence encompasses.
Leave it to the churches to preach that homosexuality is a sin, as is their right to do. Leave it to your conversations with your child to reinforce that belief, as is your right as a parent. But in a secular environment such as our schools, I think “neutral” is most appropriate.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Dear Observer and Parent,
Your insistence that only parents participate in the CSE discussion is akin to Dr Lim being told that “journalists, novelists, short-story writers or theatre groups†should not “set the political agenda from outside the political arenaâ€. You probably believe that actress Joanna Lumley should not be the public face of the UK campaign to provide Gurkha veterans the right to settle in Britain since, as an actress, she has never served in the British Army and, therefore, has no right to speak on the soldiers’ behalf. You, too, probably believe that unless one can cook, one has no business writing restaurant reviews or even tell the chef his dishes are not palatable.
Parent, you asked for an explanation to “why someone who is not a parent has a right to decide.†Before that question can be answered (in view of the discussion on the CSE), we have to first examine the purpose of education. Why, in other words, do you send your children to school? Among many primary reasons, education aims “to develop the capacities latent in human nature and to coordinate their expression for the enrichment and progress of society, by equipping children with spiritual, moral and material knowledgeâ€. It also “encourages the free investigation of all reality and trains the mind to recognize truth, irrespective of its originâ€.
If education of an individual can impact society, why must criticism of educational programmes be exclusive to parents? Are unmarried individuals—sexual orientation aside—not members of society, and, thus, not allowed to participate in discourses on institutions of learning? Because they have not had child-bearing and rearing experiences, are they, therefore, seen as deficient of the facilities to make accurate judgment or sound suggestions that will benefit the educational experience as a whole?
If education should promote the search for what’s true and what’s real, why are we sheltering those seeking to be educated on matters that pertain to truths and realities from truths and realities? Is human sexuality not part of the real and the true?
If only parents are allowed to “share their views†on the CSE, must those who write school textbooks be married and have kids? Indeed, must teachers be parents?
Sincerely,
XLF
May 9th, 2009 at 1:39 am
It seems most are focused on the controversial homosexuality issue. But I see it apart from this.
The CSE is simply sexual education for young females. It’s a platform to teach young girls to respect and protect themselves sexually. In that light, there’s no need to mention homosexuality.
By doing it the way it did, the program runs the suspicion of trying to sanitise this controversial issue through a seemingly innocuous platform. It’s like a veiled attempt to promote homosexuality acceptance.
Obviously, the issue’s still controversial. Yet, it’s portrayed as nothing noteworthy. What’s more, that’s in an unrelated setting, when the focus should actually be something else much less contentious.
I find that discomforting.
May 9th, 2009 at 1:53 am
Dear Joel,
I think there is room for discussion here on spheres of influence.
1) If I am not mistaken, a petition is an acceptable instrument of secular society. Now the reasons of the petition are manifold. I concur that many may be out of reasons of faith, but some may simply be ’secular’ atheists even. A petition is merely a way of signalling to society that some people feel strongly about part of the content of CSE education. I am a stakeholder both as a citizen and a parent, and since the petition did not refer to any faith-based position, it is in my mind perfectly secular. Ultimately, it depends on the policy makers to hear the different voices and decide what this secular society demands.
2) Secular society as I understand it means that every voice in society can and should be heard. It is inclusive to the extent that everyone has a say in the influence of society’s development and public policy making. These public policy decisions are not guided by religious affiliations whatsoever.
Hence, I have a fundamental problem with the LBGT movements who say that they are a part of secular society and should be heard, but faith-based people should just voice their thoughts in their own institutions.
First, it seems as if people who are faith-based are not as much of a citizen as they are (bearing in mind that 80% of Singaporeans profess that they belong to a religion).
Secondly, it is my opinion that LGBT / atheists behave very much like us who are theists. We believe in a God and submit to a higher authority and live by it. LGBT believe in the sanctity of free love even amongst same sex people, and espouse this view to the point of wanting it to be taught in schools. Atheists believe there is no God, and often make decisions based on what they think is right for themselves.
Ultimately, we as people have beliefs one way or another. Secular society differs from a faith-based society in that the state acknowledges the existence of many beliefs and does not make public policy decisions based on any one belief. I like to think that the secular society is inclusive, not exclusive.
3) About the AWARE saga, I will admit that I am not so sure it was the Christian’s sphere of influence. Then again, I am not sure that it is the LGBT’s sphere of influence either. I do believe AWARE is a secular organisation and the law and the majority prevail, so the results of the AGM / EGM should be upheld.
For your consideration, LH
May 9th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Looking at my last comment, I conveniently made a distinction between LGBT and faith-based people. This is not accurate as LGBT may also have religioius beliefs. I apologise for not being thoughtful.
But my point still stands. Secular society is inclusive of all voices regardless of their motivations, which is what makes it secular.
May 9th, 2009 at 5:40 am
LH
I totally agree with you on the need to draw the line. That is why I need to speak out on how I want my kids to be taught in school.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
To anon:
I refer to your comment that “The CSE is simply sexual education for young females. It’s a platform to teach young girls to respect and protect themselves sexually. In that light, there’s no need to mention homosexuality.”
I agree that the CSE is a platform to teach young girls to respect and protect themselves sexually. Doesn’t that, then, encompass respect for their sexual orientation as well? How is it possible for a young lesbian girl to respect herself sexually if she thinks of homosexuality as a dirty thing? Therefore I think that homosexuality is relevant in any sexuality education.
May 9th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Student Voice, I meant “respect” in the context of abstinence or refraining from casual sex. “Protect” is obvious.
For acceptance, it doesn’t have a relevant place here. There’s no relation to STD, unwanted pregnancy and so on. Imagine not having it, it won’t have any material impact on the focus and contents of the course. The girls will still learn what’s all there.
It’s simply strange to have this unrelated and contentious acceptance issue bobbed up in there.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
To XLF and Beka,
When I mention that parents should have the final say, I am referring to controversial areas which should be decided by the parent based on their values.
There are alot of different areas in education that can be decided by MOE and even non-parents. This includes teh syllabus and even CCA.
Students can contribute in areas how how the academic subjects canbe taught.
However, please do not start trying to tie homosexual discussion with areas of academic syllabus and CCA. This is areas that should be decided on my each family based on what their beliefs are. Only when the majority of parents feel that CSE should include homosexual discussion (of it being neutral or non-negative light) then it should be added. That’s why I keep saying that this is and should be decided by parents not students, gays or non-parents. You will never understand it till you become a parent.
May 9th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Anon, while those are the meanings that you may have intended when you said that respect and protection were important, the other meanings are still very much relevant, and very important, to girls going through the CSE. Threats come in many forms, and it doesn’t make sense to simply dismiss some of them while you acknowledge the others. Girls need to be respected by their peers and themselves, and they need to be protected against discrimination. If they happen to be in the very small minority with regards to their sexual orientation, the very real possibility of being ostracised by others, and having identity crises, needs to be addressed. These are not immaterial concerns, and so the issue is all the more necessary for its being contentious.
May 10th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Dear LH,
I am glad we both agree that, as you put it, secular society should be inclusive, not exclusive. A healthy and mature society is one that accommodates the voices of a plurality of interest groups, even when those voices end up sounding more like a cacophony than a melody. When that occurs, as it invariably does in any heterogenous society whose members possess a sense of ownership, one of two outcomes eventuates. Either one voice attempts to dominate entirely, intending to drown out competing and contradictory voices, or, a compromise is reached and all voices achieve a harmony of parts.
Although my intention in this discussion is not to descend into polemics, we cannot engage in a substantive and fruitful dialogue unless we examine what I believe is the intrinsic inclination towards moral and social hegemony found in traditional Christian ideology. This is the crux of the matter. As someone who was raised a staunch Christian, spent ten years in various youth leadership positions in church and seriously contemplated entering the seminary, I am rather sure I am equipped to engage you on this topic.
You admit, and I agree, that secular space should accommodate all reasonable voices, the religious and non-religious. But what happens when one of those voices participating in an inclusive dialogue is fundamentally an exclusionary one? Traditional Christian ideology is precisely that voice. It demands a universal submission to an absolute code of theology and morality under the threat of eternal damnation and, has at its core, the proselytization of non-believers for the perceived sake of their salvation. It is a voice that embraces an uncompromising moral stance and negates the validity or legitimacy of any view contrary to its own. The Christian’s absolute truth is necessarily the only version of the truth that matters – to the Christian and at the expense of everyone else.
I realize I have painted a what many would consider an unflattering picture of Christianity. Again, that is not my intention. It is not the Christian that I have a problem with, but the elements within Christian dogma that impose the burden of guilt and shame when an individual’s private conscience reacts negatively to its regimented code of morality. But conscience be damned for the sake of the soul’s eternal salvation!
When such a voice which, at its core, is exclusionary in nature, is raised in an inclusive, secular space, what can the possible outcome be? The secularists who are willing to compromise because they do believe in an absolute truth, find themselves against an unyielding wall of religious absolutism. When that occurs, those initially willing to compromise find their backs against a wall, feel that their values are under threat, and begin to adopt an unyielding stance as well. It becomes a zero-sum game.
It is fitting and proper to assert your view in secular society. But when that view is a fundamentally exclusionary one, then you make a disingenuous claim to the right to participate in an inclusive space.
May 10th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Dear Joel,
I wrote out a reply to you, but I’m afraid it’s rather lengthy.
I would like to ask Dr Catherine Lim if it is in her interest for us to engage in discussion on her blog.
If she prefers not, perhaps she could email us privately with each other’’s email addresses, so we could take this offline.
Linda
May 10th, 2009 at 2:26 am
On second thoughts, whether we address our concerns with Christian ideology offline, I do have this to say.
As a Christian, I have no problems telling you that my morals are absolute and I am trying to convince you of it. But very often, those of you who criticise us, claim to be completely open and hold the moral high ground of being liberal – yet you yourselves are certainly very keen to convince us that we are mistaken and we must back down.
With all due respect Joel, if you claim secular society is inclusive, you cannot challenge my view of exclusivity. The moment you challnge my right to speak in secular society, you are establishing that you have a moral authority higher than mine to speak. Which defeats your entire thesis of being inclusive.
It is the same as those who emphatically say that everything is relative, there are no absolutes.
Doesn’t this emphatic statement sound absolute to me?
Bottom line, we all assert our beliefs.
May 10th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Student Voice, I understand your concern. But CSE isn’t the place to address homosexuality acceptance. The focus is on no sex, or safe sex. My primary objection is just that: it’s not relevant. But still, it’s fine to talk about it in other settings.
Aside from that, it’s also a controversial issue. It should be taken up where people can debate and deliberate. CSE is more an advisory type of program. Advices are given and consequences told, all with clinical objectivity.
It isn’t fair to put across a controversial stand in such an ambience. If you imagine, the other side can also portray their view the same manner in a similar program, prescribing treatment. Will people cry foul?
It’s basic sensitivity to leave out controversial topics in such a clinical program. It gives the wrong impression. Whether positive, negative or neutral, these are opinions – it’s still controversial and inconclusive. What’s more, it’s not relevant in the first place.
May 10th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Jesus is often thought of as the sheperd – leading the lost sheep.
I wonder – if Jesus saw a male sheep humping another male sheep (which has happened in the real world – what would be his reaction?)
Kill it? Forgive it? Mend it? Leave and let leave?
May 10th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
One thing we should be clear about: the following statement has absolutely NO “scientific” basis:
“Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. “
Question: if homosexuality is not an abnormality, then what is? Is schizophrenia an abnormality? On what basis do you make this distinction?
You go on to say:
This is probably the single most important fact to keep in mind. The research work of scientists such as behavioral psychologists, evolutionary biologists, genetics biologists and neuroscientists has shown that there is probably a genetic component for sexual orientation,
Are you saying that “abnormalities” cannot be genetic in origin? Surely not.
What about those who engage in sex with animals? Is that an abnormality? By the way, the standard response to this question from homosexuals and their apologists is to rise up in wrath and ask how I dare to compare homosexuals with bestialists. This is rather funny, because the standard arguments for homosexuals being “normal” apply exactly and with equal [non-]justification to bestialists. For example, we are constantly urged to overcome our initial instinctive reaction to homosexuality ["ugh!"] and to look upon them non-judgementally. Well, why don’t you overcome your initial revulsion at the idea of bestiality ["ugh!"] and try to view them with understanding?
The commonsense reaction to both homosexuals and bestialists is that they derive pleasure from something that is degrading and humiliating; that they are, in fact, sick. Once we accept this we can move on.
I am certainly not a Christian and I don’t advocate persecuting homosexuals. I just want everyone to acknowledge the obvious fact that these individuals are severely disturbed, and to draw the obvious conclusions [eg, that they should never be allowed to find employment in any job that brings them into contact with children, any more than bestialists or untreated psychotics should be].
One rather alarming aspect of the way that homosexuals in Singapore have reacted to the AWARE story is through threats of violence. There is a long history of this sort of thing, eg a well-known extremely incompetent local “poet” was nearly prosecuted for this not so long ago. Well, that is what one expects from mentally disturbed individuals, is it not?
I draw your attention also to the recent case of an NUS undergrad arrested for molesting boys. His defence is perfectly reasonable: he is mentally disturbed. Draw your own conclusions…….
May 10th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
MyNameisLegion – The only conclusion I could draw is your line of thinking and argument is so warped & flawed and hence indicate abnormality. Your comment is so full of vitriol and hatred I wonder who is the one who is violent & mentally disturbed.
1.Who are you to discredit research and scientific papers published in peer reviewed medical journals? If you are not a Christian what authority have you to speak for God?
2.In bestiality the animals were not given a choice or consent seeked, just like in pedophilia. Have you never heard of heterosexual men molesting young girls and attribute it to stress too? So all heterosexuals are abnormal?
3.I agree resorting to violence and threat is wrong, the Muslim Talebans do it, the straight homophobes do it, so according to your line of logic all Muslims and straights are mentally disturbed individuals?
4.Genetic diversity or genetic abnormality? Left handedness/albinism/black skin/green eyes, are these genetic abnormality or diversity? In any case, isn’t it more reasons for us to accept and respect our differences just because we are born the way we are?
May 11th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“Who are you to discredit research and scientific papers published in peer reviewed medical journals?”
Are you [or CL] serious? Do you really think that a scientific journal would publish a statement like, “Homosexuality is normal”? Please. The question as to whether homosexuality is normal is obviously not something that can be settled “scientifically”, any more than you will find scientific journals reporting that “murder is wrong”. The only question is whether CL is ignorant enough to believe such nonsense or whether she is deliberately trying to sound “scientific” by talking vaguely about “research” supporting her prejudices.
If you are not a Christian what authority have you to speak for God?
I don’t speak for God — I’m an atheist. This issue has nothing to do with religion; it’s all about whether we are able to use common sense to face the reality about homosexuality, viz, that it’s a serious abnormality. Like other abnormalities it does not necessarily have to be condemned morally [though I don't see why we homophobes should not have the right to express our "natural" feelings of disgust and contempt]. I don’t think that there’s anything immoral about being a schizophrenic. Just don’t let them near my kids. Same for homosexuals. If they are capable of doing and enjoying the kinds of activities which we know they enjoy doing, then they are capable of anything.
If you look at Alex Au’s blog without getting too nauseated, you will find a not-too-subtle apologia for the “right” of homosexual men to seduce boys. He [or should I say "he"?] argues that this is less serious than men having sex with underaged girls. It’s a very enlightening document, one which I urge everyone to read if they want to understand the real objectives of the homosexual lobby in Singapore.
May 11th, 2009 at 11:09 am
http://jsquaredtm.blogspot.com/2009/04/aware-saga.html
Please cite your sources to your “scientific research”. According to narth.com, what you’ve just said isn’t really accurate.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
to LEGION
“I urge everyone to read if they want to understand the real objectives of the homosexual lobby in Singapore.” You are letting one person represent the whole of LGBT community? No offense here, but do you also mean all muslims are terrorists like Mas Selamat? same category, no?
What makes you think all LGBT engage in “the kinds of activities which ‘you’ know they enjoy doing”?
your start off point is already biased; you already think it IS an illness, which is why you cannot take into the consideration of the remote possibility (or maybe fact), that journals do actually come to a conclusion which you do not want to admit/know/hear.
Homophobes, i.e , you, have the right to feel disgusted or sorts, but you dont have to be so adamant about it. Just like how you shouldnt discriminate against races, disabled, blacks, whites, etc etc.
You are a parent, and you are teaching your children how to hate? As much as you feel the CSE programme is advocating homosexuality, you can at home in your own privacy, tell them it is wrong, nobody wants their child to take this path if they have a choice. We don’t want to be like this, if we had a choice. But morally, morally, you shouldnt be saying homosexuals are sick.
You think there’s nothing immoral but the words you use are rather immoral. Nothing immoral but dont let ‘them’ near your kids. suppose a day when u find out one of your close friends are homosexuals, it looks rather likely to me that you will severe all ties with him/her so that he/she does not come clsoe to you/your children to engage in ‘activities which you KNOW they enjoy doing. Is that it? Because that is rather sad.
Homosexuals, most of us, behave jsut like any other human even you, would. The only difference between you and us, is our sexual orientation. You wouldnt want to teach your child the wrong thing. You wouldnt want your child’s vision and perspective to be myopic like yours, would you?
May 11th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
To Joshua Tan
And what makes you think narth.com is right? They are not a secular organisation as claimed, but is religiously motivated/backed (just like FOTF is).
As all the good Christians here had stated, they believe that they do not have the monopoly to the truth/truths. What makes you think this organisation is more right than the American Psychological Association?
“The American Psychological Association Committee on Lesbian, Gay, & Bisexual Concerns states that therapy to change sexual orientation is rejected by most medical and mental health associations that have taken a position on the topic, on the grounds that it is often damaging to people’s well-being”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_&_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
May 11th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
To MyNameisLegion,
Your assertion about Alex Au, mind pointing out which article, which paragraph/section?
Much appreciated.
May 11th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Linda (LH),
When two parties sharing the same space disagree, there is one of three possible ways both parties can move forward.
The First Scenario would entail one party dominating the other entirely. The subjugated party, willingly or not, exists under the hegemony of the dominant one.
The Second Scenario would involve compromise, wherein both parties agree to relinquish certain claims in order to find common ground. Both parties then continue to co-exist (relatively) equitably.
The Third Scenario would require one party to leave that space altogether.
I hope we see eye-to-eye so far.
Scenario Three is obviously impossible, since we cannot relocate the entire fundamentalist Christian population or the entire secularist one. Which leaves Scenarios One and Two.
By your admission that you “have no problems telling you that my morals are absolute and I am trying to convince you of it,” you effectively rule out Scenario Two (of compromise) as well. Which leaves Scenario One – dominance and intentional hegemony.
Now, is dialogue not impossible with someone who refuses to compromise an absolute belief?
I am not challenging your claim, per se, to speak in an inclusive society. What I am challenging is the absolutist quality and nature of your proposition. Anyone with absolutist beliefs does not seek to be a co-equal voice in society, but the only voice that matters. This is your self-admitted proposition – one that would only eviscerate the inclusiveness of secular society. So, sure, speak all you want. But understand that the absolutist essence of what you say is fundamentally at-odds with the nature of the non-absolutist, heterogenous space in which you speak.
Therefore, yes, your statement that I am challenging your exclusive view in the arena of an inclusive society, is correct. I challenge this because even the idea of inclusiveness has its limits. I challenge this as you would no doubt challenge the introduction of “Reincarnation 101″ to the Christian “Alpha Course”. While the course is inclusively ecumenical, it too is not without limits to elements fundamentally at-odds with Christian doctrine. So, if we wish to be pedantic about it, there is no such thing as absolute inclusiveness. An inclusive space must necessarily exclude strains of exclusivity that would ultimately distort its fundamental nature. It is a paradoxical existential necessity.
The operative word in this discussion is “compromise”. Am I here to persuade a disagreeing party of the merits of my view? Of course. But not at absolute costs. I am willing to give and take. Would I wish that no reference to religious teachings that homosexuality is an aberration be made in a secular CSE programme? Yes. But I am willing to allow it if you would also allow the view that some people believe that homosexuality is neutral to be taught alongside it. Would I support a (what I believe to be quixotic) abstinence-only programme? Certainly not. But I would be willing to support a programme that instructs students on the merits of safe-sex alongside the merits of abstinence. I will not get what I want entirely, and neither would you. But we compromise and coexist – equitably.
You may not believe me, but once upon a time, I used to make the exact same arguments that you’re making now – even as passionately as you are making them. But like Plato’s Socratic cavemen, I turned around. My worldview has changed but I don’t think I am any less moral, or loving, than I used to be.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Dear Joel,
You may be surprised but I think we are on the same page here.
I am sorry to have misled you with my statement about my belief in absolute morality and trying to convince you of it. In no way do I mean that I do not intend to live side by side with your beliefs! Not at all! My moral beliefs are absolute to myself, all I wanted to point out is that the general accusation of trying to impose my views on others really goes both ways. I fully agree with the 3 scenarios and I intend to live by Scenario 2.
I hope you can see that in this matter, we are in agreement.
As much as I have objected to the CSE program’s teaching on homosexuality, allow me to articulate more on why I object to the current CSE program.
To me, the CSE program is handicapped if it cannot recognise that the categorising into positive, neutral and negative is in fact a a exercise in value judgment. Many secularists continue to claim that neutral is non-value judgment.
If we cannot see eye to eye on this, or at least honour that one party feels it is a value judgment, then we really cannot continue with the discussion.
I would much prefer to do away with the categorisation. It is simplistic and misleads students who have not the ability to think critically.
For most part of the CSE program, I have no problems with it. But the fallout of the AWARE saga shows that we must expose our students with a much more deeper understanding of the various views on homosexuality.
Firstly, I would like my children to be taught that scientific evidence is divided on homosexuality. I have no problems if they are shown research that led researchers to believe that there is a gay gene, but I also want students to be shown criticisms of such research and research that shows otherwise. A simple google search of “gay gene” will throw up research papers (secular and faith-based) arguments of both.
If nothing else, it will teach our students that research and scientific evidence deserve more critical appraisals than mere acceptance.
Secondly, I would like students to already be familiar with the concept of worldviews and how hisory and faith interact with society to form the diversity of worldviews we have today. I would like a panel of speakers to be made available for them to ask questions, so that as many views as possible can be made available to them. The choice of speakers may be tricky but the general principle should be that debate is generated in a constructive and condusive manner.
Thirdly, I would like parents to be informed, and have the option of sitting in these sessions. I don’t want parents to be allowed to interject the session, but I do want to be able to debrief my children based on what went on in the discussion. And I do want parents’ feedback to the school to be taken seriously. I think it is reasonable for us to have a say in this, just as it is reasonable for the school / MOE to make the final decision on it.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
To continue with the other aspect of our discussion which is on the Christian faith…
I am convinced that you are one of those who have thought deeply into the Christian faith. (It is hard to grasp just how much on a blog discussion thread. People claim many things, but I find that very often, point to point arguments lead nowhere because we are talking at tangents.) I hope you will also believe me that I have done my fair share of reading and thinking, though I must admit I am nowhere as articulate as you.
I also agree with you that you are no less moral or loving as when you were a Christian. I do not dare presume that just because I claim to have an absolute stand on moral issues mean that I can live out this morality any better than a non-believer.
What I see from our discussion so far is that we have had our own journey in grappling with the intellectual aspect of Christianity, the communtiy aspect of Christianty (fellowship in church), and how Christianity practically fits into society. I don’t doubt the sophistication of your views, and applaud you for your honesty, and freely admit I am sad to say many Christians can but choose not to inform themselves more.
Where we part ways most glaringly would be the spiritual aspects of the faith. To me, the Bible is ultimately a love story. One of the created spurning the Creator’s love, and God wooing men back with love without sacrificing His holiness and righteoueness.
Though we can intellectually criticise the teachings of the Bible, the truth is a very large proportion of the Bible is about relationship in both Old and New Testament. Jesus preached many teachings, but through study, one would see taht the teachings originate from love and devotion between God and men, not out of fear or obligation.
The 2 greatest commandments : Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbour as yourself, is not intellectual or meant to impose or oppress. The Christian’s failings are to sometimes neglect the second comandment at the expense of proving to others the first.
The conviction that a Christian has cannot be out of the superiority of intellectual argument. And God did not design it that way. The conviction a Christian has stems from a deep awareness of sin that has separated us from a righteous Creator, an agreement that all creation has fallen short of the glory of God, a deep thankfulness that our Creator still loves us and sacrifices for us, and ultimately a RELATIONSHIP that fills us in a way that cannot be described.
And this last point is probably the endpoint – why you left the church and I continue to stay.
I have searched long and hard and debated intellectually many worldviews, but at the point of becoming a Buddhist, I became a Christian. Because no matter how much I detest the hypocrisy of some believers (myself included), how the faith can only explain about 80% of my questions of the world, how I stubbornly didn’t want to believe for the wrong reasons (because I was falling in love with a Christian man), I reached a point where God spoke to me in a real and personal way no other can convince me of otherwise.
God filled the hole in my heart with a joy, peace and satisfaction that no intellectual argument or human person can provide.
Even after becoming a believer, I continued and still continue to challenge my faith. Sometimes the voices from books and society seem overwhelming, but I believe Christianity still gives a convincing enough argument for God and ultimately I know my Heavenly Father loves me because everyday I taste and see that the Lord is good. It is like knowing that my parents love me, my husband loves me, my children love me. Even if one day they disappear and I cannot give you irrefutable evidence that I have a loving family, I know it in my heart.
I also see overwhelming evidence of God’s love working in other people’s lives. More importantly, I see the value in struggling with my sins, and being transformed day by day.
I am so sorry if I offended anyone by sharing the above, but trust me when I say that I am truly a better person (easier for you to live with) than when I was not a believer.
The Christian message was never meant to prove itself through strength of itellectual and philosophical arguments. Nonetheless, Jesus does promise “Seek and ye shall find”. If you truly seek the truth with all your HEART, SOUL and MIND, you may be surprised with what you find.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
LH, thanks so much for your sharings. It is people like you who gives me hope that God is faithful and will preserve his people in these end days.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:45 am
I thought this is supposed to be secular site!
May 13th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
21 Century,
same sentiments here.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Good god, isn’t this becoming exactly like what happened to AWARE?
May 13th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Hi Catherine,
your comment:
“Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc.”
This view is not consistent with Christian teaching.
May 14th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Actually, I find the arguments based on love between caring parents and filial child too romanticised and hyped. It’s good for an emotive teary story, but I don’t think life is so 2d with only one plot.
There can be other possibilities in reality. Estranged, but living happily. Uneasy and distant reconciliation. Tired and helpless acceptance from parents. Stubbornly individualistic and unfeeling child. Happy-go-lucky come-what-may abandon.
And are LGBTs always some lonesome and sad misfits? I don’t think so. Probably, most just live happily the way they are. Some with a stable partner. Some seeking pleasures within like-minded comrades.
Maybe only a few vocals feel the need to be seen and heard. But as a small community, people naturally rally to their stoking, especially with the outbursts by – what-do-you-know – the other vocal minority.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:21 am
“Some seeking pleasures within like-minded comrades.”
“within” should’ve been “among”.
Genuine mistake. Any perceived pun wasn’t intended. ;P
May 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Daniel – there are also many views not consistent with Christian teachings, but yet practised by the most staunch Christians – working on Sundays to quote one benign example. Evolution is also not consistent with Christian teaching, banned it from the school sylabus?
May 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Since this is getting a tad religious, may I direct any of you who may be interested in how Buddhism view homosexuality to the following site:
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-tragedy.html
May 14th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Or for a more profound and philosophical take on human sexuality from a Buddhist viewpoint:
http://www.ksridhammananda.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=44
(sorry gotta balance the imbalance of religious imput/view points abit here)
May 14th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I have been following the Aware Saga quite closely and realised that there were mainly 2 issues. A pro-gay and anti-gay issue.
Firstly, there was no agenda in Aware that suggest they were promoting gay. They have the agenda that Aware should encompass all women issue, yes, that includes lesbianism. Which we can’t deny that lesbians or gays do exists in our society. We should not be discriminating anyone regardless of race or gender.
Secondly, Josie and her committee, had infiltrate Aware with an unknown agenda. Outwardly claiming that they want to clean up the wrong that Constant Singam and her exco had done. Josie and her team had clear views that they were against homosexuality and their agenda was to remove that from society, denying them respect and acceptance. Her team instilled fear among parents by instigating that the CSE package promotes homosexuality. However, if one thinks carefully, the instructor’s manuel was taken out of context and only displayed the part that showed about anal sex, virginity and pre-marital sex. No one was seated in the lessons to verify that such lessons was brought across in an extensive manner that promoted gays. Don’t these people know that hetrosexuals also do practice anal sex? Therefore our government had repealed the law to allow that to be practised among hetrosexual couples? As to the topic of virginity, how many of our teens have been involved in sexual intercourse by the age of 16. They are living in denial that our youths are ignorant and are easily moulded into certain lifestyle just because homosexuality was being mentioned. I think that is a vicious move by Josie and her team. Such issues could be simply resolved by highlighting to MOE if they were that concern instead of infiltrating an organisation an stage a takeover with the support of the church. I am sure if COOS senoir pastor had not retracted his statement, more COOS members would have attended the EGM to support Josie.
Is Josie and her excos all that inclusive, even before they run aware, they have already a preconceived idea that being gay is against God’s nature. There was a use of the gay issue to sidetrack their real intentions of taking over Aware. All we can see now is that Aware is only about promoting gay lifestyle and blinded the “public” to all the other contributions of Aware to women.
I am thankful that my eyes were opened to see the selfishness in Christianity that is not all encompassing and all loving towards everyone. I used to attend a charismatic church that is similar to COOS and was baptised in water and in the spirit too. But I am thankful that I am no longer blind to the socalled love that is being preached in church but open to understand and practice the love and compassion in Buddhism.
Buddha teaches compassion to all sentient beings. That includes human beings, regardless of race or gender,animals (including mosquitoes) , hungry ghosts etc. Such is true compassion. All have the right to practice be they Homosexuals or Hetrosexuals. All have equal opportunities to nirvana.
The other issue brought up was pro-gay camp hijacks family values. What is this family values ? Does that mean to get married and bear children? Does it not encompass other values which includes strong family ties, taking care of aged parents and respecting them? How often do we not see hetrosexual couples after they get married, their wives would hate their mother-in-laws and forbid their husbands and children from visiting their grandparents? Do we not see that sons and daughters (Hetrosexuals) not looking after their parents and dump them in old folks homes or worst some cheat their parents of their money before dumping them. On the other hand, gays take care and love their parents and siblings and take care of their parents till they pass away. Isn’t that kind of family values that we look for? Does it only mean that getting married and have children will make one happy? If that is so, divorce rate would not be escalating. If 2 guys or 2 women are happy living with each other and they love each other, does it really matter anymore? They can still uphold family values by showing filial piety.
I think if we choose to blind ourselves to certain issues, we will not be able to see what is beyond. If we choose to open our minds to see, our perspectives will be broaden. To me, even if my child is gay or lesbian, I will still love him or her, as long as they lead a happy life. A life that is of their choice and not by my judgement. Instilling the right family value of filial piety and responsibilty rather than the myopic view of getting married and bearing children.
May 19th, 2009 at 12:28 am
If one can turn gay so easily, one should question the so-called strong belief and fate of one particular group of religion.
What happens when the child turns gay?
Is it the fault of the parents who have religiously instill in them that gay is wrong? And even if they have done so and fail, I wanna LOL at them.
Or the child? Is it his/her fault that he/she prefer someone from the same sex?
I heard of gay animal, I wonder who instilled in them their natural instinct. Must be they are exposed to the 5 minutes long of CSE programme. That must have explained it!
If that is the case, I am in full support for the disband of all sex related documents/notion. The thought of sex shall be wiped off from the face of this earth!
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:02 am
I continue to be amused by the explanations from pro-gay groups.
Even after the government has stated clearly their position, they still don’t get it.
Even after the government has slammed AWARE for what they have done and even stated that until AWARE gains the trust of parents again, their program will not be consider, they still don’t get it.
These militant pro-gay supporters continue to battle it out on the net and yet fail to confront the government when it’s the government that is the strongest critic of their actions. They continue to write in forums and try their confusion strategy.
This Dana Lam is so lame to continue to harp on the fact that there were no complaints for the last 2 years when they launch their stealth underhanded plan to push a pro-gay agenda as a means to justify that they are right. Look at the bottom line. The government has slammed AWARE CSE, they have further stated that they were unaware of the instructors manual which was not shown to them nor was the government told that they told of the position they will take on homosexuality and anal sex — even when the limits of the program must be centered around the family as a basic unit framework.
This shows that Dana Lam continues to deny that the CSE is wrong even after all the admonishment by the government that it wrong. This goes to show that she and the whole AWARE will continue to push their pro-gay agenda — perhaps in another sneaky way which the majority and government will not notice. She is not even remorseful about what they have done nor acknowledged their folly. Instead try to mitigate the fiasco using meaningless words like “regrettable†and “they understandâ€.
When there is not acknowledgement of guilt, there is no change. This means AWARE will not regain the trust of parents. What a silly action to waste a chance to come clean and rebuilt. AWARE will be a pariah NGO and all straight thinking person will abandon it and become a base of all pro-gay groups. It should change its name to some Pro-Gay name instead — like IAMGAY.
May 25th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
There is this British program “The Big Debate -Religion in School” on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5HBfmhGSzU
The program touches on topics of religion, abortion, homosexuality and how it should be taught to students. I hope parents, students and whoever interested will take time to view the vid.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:39 am
The Scapegoat
A look at the Bible reveals the origins of the term “scapegoat.” In accordance with religious rites, a goat designated as the scapegoat, was symbolically laden with the burden of the sins.
Leviticus 16:11 “And Aaron shall bring the bull of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make atonement for himself and for his house, and shall kill the bull as the sin offering which is for himself.â€
Leviticus 16: 14. “He shall take some of the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it with his finger on the mercy seat on the east; and before the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.â€
Leviticus 16: 15 “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering, which is for the people, bring its blood inside the veil, do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and before the mercy seat. 16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins.â€
The ritual described above is barbaric. It was an expression by people with the barbaric and scapegoat mentality.
John 3: 16 “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.â€
Influenced by the above ritual, the crucifixion of Jesus was given a scapegoat interpretation! Our belief is the reflection of our mentality. The scapegoat interpretation attracts many people who have the scapegoat mentality of always finding a scapegoat for their wrongdoings and sins. The clause, “whoever believes in Himâ€, is a condition. Love is unconditional. If there is a condition, it is not love. It is an exchange, trading and business transaction. It is an insult to the teaching of Jesus Christ by turning love into a trade. Now, you know why some pastors are millionaires.
Did God give His only begotten Son?
Mark 16:19 “So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.â€
God did not give His only begotten Son. Jesus went back and “sat down at the right hand of God.†If something is given and taken back, it is not giving. If I have a son who can come back and sit at my right hand after he dies, I will happily send him to fight in the wars and die a hundred times.
True sacrifice does not mean sacrificing a scapegoat or getting someone to die for you on the cross. This is the reason why Protestants and Catholics are having religious conflict. They cannot unite if they pray to Satan in the name of God. If they want harmony and peace, they must be guided by universal values because God guides them through the universal values.
Universal values are accepted by people of different religions because they are divine.
Religious values are not accepted by people of different religions because they are not divine.
The Thirty Year War (1618-1648) was a series of wars in central Europe stemmed from conflict between Protestants and Catholics.Four million people were killed and another 20 million were made homeless. Each group claimed it was fighting for God.
The lesson learnt from this war is we should separate religion from politics. Our daily life should be guided by universal values like care and compassion. Love for power should be replaced by power of love to care for our community and country.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Christian Group Encroaching Secular Schools
http://www.bb.org.sg/cos/o.x?c=/wbn/pagetree&func=view&rid=31818
The Boys’ Brigade is a Christian organisation. They should not be allowed in Non-Christian schools. This is another proof that a Christian group is encroaching into secular space. The Ministry of Education should not allow it to happen. This shows the Ministry is biased in favour of Christianity allowing them to promote Christian values and proselytizing in schools!
June 9th, 2010 at 8:39 am
“Homosexuality is NOT an abnormality, an illness, an aberration, an evil, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc. This is probably the single most important fact to keep in mind.” Yes it is true, homosexuality is not abnormality, as long you are a good human and being true to yourself inside.
August 16th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Could you please translate your site into German as I’m not that comfortable reading it in English? I’m getting tired of using Google Translate all the time, there is a cool WP plugin called like global translator which will render all your posts automatically- this would make reading articleson your awesome blog even more cosy. Cheers dude, Online Education Guide!