Wednesday, May 06, 2009

My problem with homosexuality

There is an obvious attempt by gay activists in Singapore to bully Christians into supporting their cause. I don't think Christians need to succumb to their smearing. However, when speaking to non-Christians, Christians should be mindful not to invoke the Bible, because it carries too many baggages. There are many secular objections that is seldom brought up in the debate, and I will attempt to cover some:

1) Homosexuality is natural

Arguing that homosexuality is unnatural is a losing proposition. Homosexuality existed throughout human history and is present in the animal kingdom. That said, there are a lot of other natural behaviour that most societies abhor, like sexual attraction to children or corpses.

Acts that are also present throughout human history as well as the animal kingdom.

Just because an attraction is natural does not mean it is acceptable. If a paedophile or necrophile fail to abstain from their natural attraction, we lock them up. Would the gay activists argue that abstinence education is useless in this case, and therefore we should include in our sexuality education the safe way for having sex with children and corpses?

The gay activists draw the big distinction with the presence of mutual consent, but the age of consent is such an arbitrary and artificial concept that varies between jurisdictions.

And how does one obtain consent from a corpse?

2) Homosexuality is not a choice, most of the time

Gay activists like to point out they are born like that. They did not choose it as a lifestyle and therefore cannot choose to become heterosexual. Like all acts of advocacy, the mantra should be kept simple, even if reality is not.

I personally buy into the point of view of controversial sexuality researcher Alfred Kinsey that we are all born bisexual. The difference is only in the degree of attraction.

So while there are some gays who cannot choose to be heterosexual, there are plenty more who can. As this muddies up their position, you will notice that gay activists dont like to talk about bisexuals.

3) Homosexuals seek to expand their community

Bearing the previous point in mind, one should remember that all advocacy groups seek to expand their membership, and the gay community is no exception. So even as they self-righteously pan Christian evangelists for imposing our beliefs on non-Christians, they too are trying to impose their sexual liberalism to a moderate world. Just take a look at how hard tries to draw audiences from diversified backgrounds, including pretending to be anti-PAP since it draws eyeballs, only to sneak in photos of naked men on the unsuspecting reader from time to time.

It is a myth that gays in Singapore are oppressed. Most Singaporeans think that the gay activists are fighting to be left alone in their own private space. But they already have that space. What they really want, is to impose their beliefs into the public space, into your living room, into the classrooms and attract as many people as possible to experiment.

What makes a mostly unenforced Section 377A so dangerous for them is that, while they are "cultivating" an uncertain quarry, the quarry may regret and file a police report, which will trigger enforcement. To be safe, gays will have to limit their cruising to only those who already self-identified as gay, and they don't like that.

To be continued.


  1. Jimmy,

    It is good that you've acknowledged that religious doctrinal objections to homosexuality do not work in a secular society.

    Having said that, your 'secular objections' do not actually show why
    homosexuality should be banned, at least from the utilitarian point of view.

  2. Hi Fox,

    I had not touched on whether 377A should be repealed.

    Previously, I believe it should be repealed, despite having reservations about homosexuality.

    Now, that I see gay activists making a concerted effort to attack Christians in Singapore, I'm not so sure any more.

    I still think it should be repealed, but only because it is a silly law that aids the gay cause.

    I want to see it replaced with a more surgical law that can actually be enforced.

    I will cover more on this in future blog posts.

  3. So, what do you want to replace 377a with?