Responding to all arguments against homosexuality

Yesterday, at Pink Dot 2014, I saw no activists, no one pushing for the decline of religious influences, no one ‘actively promoting’ their ‘lifestyle’: what I saw was people - walking breathing feeling people – celebrating their right to love.

Stripped of all differences, they are fundamentally humans capable of love, who are looking for love. I cannot convince myself to go against that.

At the moment I realized that they aren’t homosexuals, male, female lesbian gay transexual bisexual confused spongeform – does it matter, really? I fall in love with someone’s intelligence, what they do, what they say – not their gender. If Justin were female, I would love him romantically in the same capacity.

Convince me that I am wrong, I want to be challenged. I want to know that the stance i ultimately take, whatever it is, is a fruition of careful deliberation and not merely the most convenient for my conscience. In a masochistic inversion of confirmation bias, i prowl anti-homosexuality pages, i.e. Lawrence Khong’s FB page, for worthy arguments against homosexuality. So far, my hunt has been pretty fruitless: mostly meme form rhetorical appeals:

Screen Shot 2014-06-29 at 9.28.52 AM Screen Shot 2014-06-29 at 9.29.01 AM At best (?), linking official statistics as intimidation against gay sex. Even then, there is little follow through to elaborate on how exactly these statistics justify robbing homosexuals of their rights. There is also a dearth of response to actual challenges to these largely quick n’ easy scare tactics.

I have had Christians, when challenged, lament on the aggression of those who disagree with them. If forced to a corner, they might also use the escape smog of “Sigh, I guess this is something we can never convince you to agree with.”

THEN TRY. We are aggressive not because we want to disagree, but because we want you to EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULDN’T. I crave, from the anti-homosexual camp, worthy arguments that can prove to me that you’re not merely hammering insistently on a non-existent nail. Because if so, you have been depriving people from their right to love all these years for naught.

I’ve felt that this is due for a long time. I believe in the genuine love between people of the same gender, and that it is no less – and deserves no less – than any other kind of love.

Here are the most favored arguments against homosexuals, none of which i feel can withstand punctures by logic and common sense.

1. Homosexuals are not discriminated, merely not allowed to ‘actively promote’ their lifestyle.

This is the argument i most dislike, because it is based on contradictory, hypocritical play on words. When hard pressed on why they aren’t practicing acceptance as they preach, i often hear Christians defend themselves with “I also have friends who are gays and lesbians. I don’t hate or discriminate them. But I disagree with their lifestyle, that’s all.” That’s not all. There is a difference between not sharing your friend’s taste in k-pop, and campaigning for iTunes to stop the sales of k-pop. Guess what, all you’re doing is saturating illegal downloads.

This becomes more pertinent when such movements extend beyond individuals. When effected by church bodies, these sentiments, although merely ‘disagreements’, impacts civil laws. And they know it. Under the guise of ‘merely disagreeing’, anti-homosexual communities are able to paralyze many constitutional rights of homosexuals. Now the issue is no longer confined to abstract acceptance or discrimination, but real rights that affect the lives of people. They are discriminated, legally, in the very bare definition of the word.

2. Legalizing homosexuality is a slippery slope down to pedophile, bestiality, and other sexual deviances.

This arguments exhausts me with its blatant ignorance. It is offensive on so many levels. Let me deconstruct and contrast each term for you.

Homosexuality: two consensual beings, fully capable of high order decision-making, in love emotionally and sexually, no one harmed in process.

Pedophilia: a mental disorder, medically diagnosable, fully sexual desire, causes distress to person experiencing sexual desire, involves harm to children, does not involve consenting adults.

Bestiality: similarly a mental disorder, causes distress, harm to non-consenting animals.

This slope they are talking about does not exist. It is not a slope, not a spectrum, not the roller-coaster thrill ride cockscrew track so happily painted to monger fear. Friends, this is not a ‘descent into moral darkness’ that imagery has traumatized us into picturing. These are issues in different ballparks altogether. Please don’t get taken in by baseless comparisons and techniques designed to scare.

3. Homosexuality is not natural / a result of sexual abuse.

Personally, i believe that homosexuality can be innate. Admittedly though, i have no clear evidence to lay these claims on, so i won’t even try. That one isn’t born homosexual, though, does not make it any less genuine. And, by extension, does not justify any form of discrimination.

I’ve had people eagerly presenting me with statistics that homosexuality is often a result of childhood sexual abuse, even if the victim is unaware of it. Homosexuality is also too often dismissed as social influence and therefore a ‘passing phase’. That some cases of homosexuality may be borne of abuse or external influence is undeniable. Still, it is too convenient to claim that every homosexual has experienced abuse, but have forgotten due to trauma. EVEN IF (although i strongly object to this claim), the majority do fall into this category, how do you account for the cases of inborn homosexuality – no matter how small such a population is?

Innate or not, induced or influenced, the fact remains that right now, they are as capable of romantic love as anyone else. What makes their current love for another human being, even if gender-preference has been externally shifted, any less worthy of full support and acceptance? Do you find their love unnatural? Even if so, how can we discount the authenticity of their present feelings?

4. Children need a traditional family structure consisting of a male and female.

Children, most essentially, need good parents who love them. Are homosexuals incapable of good parenting or loving their child?

Another oft used point is that these kids will face societal discrimination because of their alternative family structure, resulting in psychological problems, etc. This is such an opaque way of viewing the situation i cannot help laughing. Can we please go back to why there is social discrimination? Because of the persistent stigma against homosexuality. What anti-homosexuals are arguing is: we cannot let you do this because it will result in bad consequence that we create.

What exactly is so important about having anatomically traditional male and female figures for a family? This is what i want explained to me. Are we great believers of the oriental balance of Yin and Yang? Will having an effeminate but heterosexual father mar the traditionally ideal structure of my household? Seriously. Explain to me.

5. AIDS/HIV statistics dumping

Another popular move is to unload a statistics of AIDS/HIV, highlighting how homosexual rates of diseases far surpass the heterosexual population. I dislike the reliance on statistics to impress, without analytical decoding of the statistics’ meaning. But in this case, i do confess that it is a relevant problem because anal sex does undeniably put one at greater risk of HIV transmission.

BUT THEN AGAIN. I emphasize on transmission. Contrary to popular imagination, having anal sex does not automatically bestow one with HIV/AIDS. Although anal sex has a greater infection rate, transmission largely anchors on how much one is sleeping around. The societal and possibly familial pressure faced harasses gays from forming a committed relationship. It is when their main route to love is blocked that they may seek the back door (sorry).

Rounding back to the child/discrimination issue, society’s stance towards gay relationships defines the paths taken by gays to seek love – physical or otherwise. This in turn affects the HIV/AIDs rate amongst them. If it is truly the spread of HIV/AIDs and general health of the population that you are concerned with, then let them take the main path.

Rather than shunting gay men to the dark alleys behind Play, where they fail desperately to satisfy what society has deprived them of, but try week after week anyway — can we acknowledge the fact that gay sex happens, whether you want it to or not. Face the truth and help them reduce the rates of HIV/AIDs.

In light of the debate, this article is extremely informative: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60821-6/abstract

6. They are turning a “moral wrong into a civil right”.

Quote, unquote.

Firstly, let’s not pretend we understand – or even have - a universal morality. Especially on the topic of homosexuality, what is morally right or wrong becomes increasingly defined by culture and religion. Because i understand the extremely subjective nature of my moral values, i try to keep them at the most basic level.

Here i’m going to coin a term: inductive morality. Instead of determining my stance on a topical issue before attempting to justify existing moral beliefs (what i call deductive reasoning), i start with the fundamentals. The essence of being moral, to me, is love — love for all without harming another.

Homosexual relationships are based on love. No one is harmed in the process. It does not violate my morality.

Homosexuality as a ‘moral wrong’ is defined by one religion of the world’s many. No, it is based on subjective interpretation from an individual’s extraction of a religious text belonging to one religion of the world’s many. That, friends, is too damn many levels of ambiguity for me to place any kind of trust in their claims of what is morally right or wrong.

I understand that for Christians, it is commendable to face your doubts and then eradicate them through prayer and faith. But there comes a point where the validation of your status as a good Christian is compromising on your ability to discern faithfulness and dogged but unsubstantiated beliefs.

Your beliefs should not surpass your relationship with God and what he teaches you about truth and love. Jesus is someone who loves, and who believes in the freedom to love. Am I wrong to say that? If He were around, i personally imagine He’d find it ‘morally wrong’ to be robbing someone of their rights just for the pure act of loving another person.

_____

I’m open to all new arguments. Feel free.

63 thoughts on “Responding to all arguments against homosexuality

  1. Your last two paragraph shows that you don’t really have a good idea about Christianity. Love and acceptance is two different things. Jesus loves all of us but it does not mean he will allow all types of relationships. To say that Jesus believes in the freedom to love is just contradicting what the bilble says.

    There’s no point in me pushing arguments against homosexuality because what I believe stems from the bible, and if you do not believe what it says, then how am I supposed to convince you of its truth? Being a homosexual does not make you any lesser of a human than me; we are all sinners and need God’s grace. That’s what the gospel is essentially about. Christians oppose homosexuality and sometimes they say it out because they care about you and don’t want to see you fallen in sin. So please try not to view us as bigoted and homophobic, our intentions are not to discriminate against you, but to point you to Christ, just as we would do it to any other non-Christians.

    • Can you point me towards an instance where Jesus himself explicitly condemns homosexuality? I don’t mean the Pauline letters or the Mosaic Law, I mean Jesus himself, from the gospels. Go on.

      • John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jesus is God, and is the word of God. The Pauline letters and the Old Testament are the word of God and this are the words to us from God and Jesus.

      • I’m Christian, and at the same time I’m highly aware that it isn’t good or right to force Christian ethics on a non-believing populace. I believe there is a difference between having text-based religious convictions and representing them in the public sphere with civility, and an unwanted militant aggression towards others who aren’t persuaded.

        1) I think to invoke the logic that there is a permeability to justify same-sex relations within the Bible requires a denial of the apostleship of Paul and (I believe) an unwarranted rejection of up to 14 New Testament texts, and the full content of Christian doctrines (salvation, sin, gospel, church organization and life…) and ethics that were already present in the 1st century. To set aside the bulk of specific Christian teaching (because of Romans 2, and 1 Corinthians…?) is iffy already. :/

        2) Plenty of sins that we have no problem agreeing are sins such as rape, drug abuse were not specifically named by Christ. By the same reasoning, are they also permissible because Christ “did not” condemn them?

        3) May I offer what Jesus taught (in response to a question about lawful divorce), and about the order by design?

        Matthew 19: 3 “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

        4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

        5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

        6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

        Jesus goes back to the design and intention of God at creation to represent the complementary oneness of the divinely incepted pairing between male and female, when asked about dissolving unsatisfactory marriages. So Jesus responded saying that God is personally involved in such unions, and has a model in mind, and marriages are permanent, between a man who leaves his parents to form a new family unit.

        In one instance, He has affirmed heterosexual marriage, shown divorce to be ungodly and subsequent human permutations to be deviations from God’s first model.

        4) The gospels show Jesus not harshly condemning sinners, He noted that “they are condemned already”, but He came to bid them to forsake their wrongdoing, and turn to Him in faith and live (John 3 and 8). I think many of us who call ourselves disciples and followers fall so far short of His gentleness and kindness towards those that have not like belief.

        But to say that there was no direct commentary on marriage and gender from Jesus, and to invoke skepticism on key Pauline epistles seems to be selective reading, and slicing and dicing the full counsel of the received scriptures, passing over what Jesus may have called “hard teachings” that many could not receive.

        WRT original post, I definitely need more time to do close reading before giving a thoughtful and kind reply, because it deserves one.
        Goodnight/morning!

      • Hello Song, this is boyfriend.

        Torally get what youre trying to say. You’re not condemning the homosex, you’re just saying that the bible is quite clear on the issue. That’s fair, perhaps as someone who hasn’t read the bible as thoroughly I am not fit to argue that. I won’t.

        So lets agree that maybe the bible is definitive about it and shift focus to this instead: do we really want people who are basing their civil stance upon values held by a two thousand year old book having an impact on today’s society? So many of the laws and norms two millenia ago are simply inapplicable today.

        More importantly this: is God, the god that went from vengeful murder spree to all-loving and benevolent over the course of the entire bible really that incapable of changing his opinions? I for one certainly believe that the altruistic goal of freeing a portion of our population from the psychological bullying they currently experience is something rhat he could get behind, regardless of sin. It was after all jesus who spoke out against the condemnation and mistreatment of sinners like adulterers in spite of their sins, so it stands to reason that homosexuals should be treated the same way.

        This all assuming, of course, that homosexuality is wrong in the first place. But that argument isn’t relevant here.

    • I think the writer of this piece has proven to be more “Christian” than you’ll ever be. And guess what? Love and acceptance pretty much come hand in hand. Unlike many Christians, you don’t see homosexuals and homosexual supporters going to dinner with their homophobic friends and then mouthing off ignorant bullshit or burning bibles on their doorstep.

      By the way you dug yourself a great big hole in your second paragraph. By saying that homosexuals are sinners and that they’ve “fallen in sin”, you are being bigoted and homophobic. And yes you are being discriminatory.

      I think a lot of homosexual prejudice comes from people not walking in their shoes and not empathising. How about for once, YOU try imagining a life where YOU can’t help who YOU fall in love with, where you have to hide your true self out of fear, where a government deems your coupling illegal and where you’ll never be able to have a family unless you give everything up and move. Basically a life made of cardboard where you can’t breathe.

      I can’t speak for Jesus since you know, he’s a pretty busy dude and it’s probably not very smart to put your entire life in the hands of a book that could possibly be man made, but I do believe that the very LEAST he would have done (if he were alive today) would be to empathize before deciding if he agreed or disagreed.

      • Well I understand your anger. And admittedly many Christians are very aggressive. However, one thing that you need to understand is that by saying “fallen in sin” he is being no more bigoted or discriminatory to homosexuals than to anyone else. Because by definition all man, including Christians themselves are sinners and have fallen in sin.. And Christians are equally quick to point out sins in behavior to each other as they are to others. That’s what cell meetings and prayer groups are for. So what u see being extended is no more or no less than the brand of love and care they apply to themselves. Unfortunately, it is an extremely different brand of concern from what non-Christian culture practises, which generally goes by a “if you accept me then you don’t object and let me be.” Few Christians are capable of making the distinction or adjustment and end up presenting themselves in a very offensive manner.

        Of course, there are many Christians who are simply close-minded and too rooted in tradition to engage in any sensible dialogue..

        Again, what is sorely lacking is an open channel of communication and understanding from two extremely different world views and ideologies. Even the premise from which each camp derives is different, which is why it’s so hard to find common ground or language for discussion.

      • Well, neither do you see Christians writing children books telling them that homosexual behavior is wrong.
        Sure, you cannot help who you fall in love with – that requires no imagination since it is not a situation only homosexuals experience. And I highly doubt that most homosexuals ‘have to hide [their] true self out of fear’, with the high turnout at PINKDOT.

    • To me pure love includes acceptance. Yes Christianity in biblical terms may oppose acts of sin, but i’d imagine Jesus loves and accepts all sinners, even if He wishes for their repentance. Jesus did not make sinners feel like sinners, did not make them feel bad for what they did. He was clear on His own principles and beliefs, but viewed them as individuals separate from their sins. He did accept them. To say: I accept you but only the parts I can accept doesn’t seem to be wholesome love to me.

      Secondly, i understand that you mean no malice, but you contradict yourself: “there’s no point in me pushing arguments… if you do not believe what it says, then how am I supposed to convince you of its truth?” Even you have pointed out yourself that non-Christians may not understand your Christian beliefs. Can you then imagine how indignant they’d be, to be condemned, refused, and have their rights discounted by something they CANNOT and should not be forced to agree with/understand?

      IF you want Christian beliefs, i.e. traditional family unit, anti-homosexuality, to prevail in the secular, civil society, then you NEED to justify it with arguments. Do you see that right now, you are pushing for anti-homosexual sentiments based on the values of a select group, and when asked to justify the lobbying of this view, you simply brush it off with “you won’t understand anyway.”

      This is as good as going to court, saying your defendant is innocent, and not providing any evidence to enlighten the court. Even if your defendant were innocent, there is no way anyone would buy into it without proof that can be perceived and understood by everyone.

      Of course i do not view all Christians as bigoted and homophobic, most of my closest friends are Christians and they are the most loving, accepting people I know. But i WILL take a stand when rights are taken from any human being unreasonably and without proper justification.

      Thanks for your response.

  2. Whoa! That’s a long post haha. There’s so much going in there, I’m not even sure where to start. How about we begin with a compliment? It’s always nice to see people putting such thought into this matter (I love reading posts like these). I can definitely see that this issue means a lot to you and you’ve expressed your thoughts very articulately. Now, I’m probably not as articulate or well thought out as you are, but perhaps my humble opinion may interest you ☺

    Let me first try to distinguish between love for people of the same gender and same-sex relations. At first glance, this might seem like a rhetorical distinction but bear with me for a while. There exists a humanistic love that transcends gender. It is this love that allows me to love my friends, my family and so forth. It is from this love that true charity springs, the love of someone simply because he/she is a fellow human being. Within this love of course, there can be gradations. For example, I love my family and close friends more than strangers because it’s just easier to. However, it’s important to note that this is a result of human limits. This love, expressed in its fullness, extends to all – even to our enemies. This analogy gives us some idea of God’s love for each and everyone of us, from the most pious of saints to serial murderers on death row. It is also this same love for everyone that must condemn discrimination against others that deny their shared humanity. Everyone is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14), and no one can deny someone else their innate worth and dignity. In this sense, I completely agree with you that genuine love between people of the same gender deserves no less than love between people of opposite genders. When we’re speaking of the love described above, there is no difference and I, as a Christian, have no qualms about this.

    However, the love that same-sex relations seek to claim is “romantic love”. Perhaps more specifically, they seek to claim the “right to have sex”. Same-sex attraction is also an erotic attraction for the other partner; this is one of the distinguishing features between romantic love from the humanistic love I’ve described above. I’m not sure what you make of this so I would love to hear back from you here. But I only ask, can it really be honestly denied that the homosexual movement today will not be satisfied with chaste relationships between people of the same gender? Now, erotic attraction is good. I’m not a prude and wholeheartedly confess that I feel it too, towards my girlfriend. The point is, what’s this erotic attraction for? Why do we feel what we feel? Evolutionary scientists might tell us that we’ve evolved this sense of attraction as an incentive to procreate, thereby ensuring the survival of our species. Even from this point of view, we see same-sex sexual relations are truly “unnatural” in the sense that they are closed off to life.

    Faith, as enlightened by divine revelation, completes our naturalistic observation. Our sexual desires are a gift from God, which must be used responsibly. In His Divine plan, He has revealed that this great gift is to be used to “Be fruitful and multiply”. (Gen 1:28) It is for this reason that we are created “man” and “woman”, not by the clumsy accident of evolution but by the design of the Infinite Creator. With this view, we see that sex is not simply something that is biological or material but must also be something spiritual. It’s also with this view that we condemn the crime of rape as not simply a violation of property but as an attack on a person. Our bodies are inseparable from our identities and the sexual act cannot be divorced from its spiritual dimension. Homosexual relations abuse this gift of sex by not being in line with the objective reality of our bodies. Can it really be denied that men and women are anatomically complementary? From this complementary nature springs the wonderful gift of life, homosexual sexual relations will never be able to beget a child – they are objectively and scientifically closed off to life. It is for this reason that I am against homosexual relations, but I’m also against pre-marital sex and masturbation. To bring our discussion back to love, let’s try to see what it really means to “genuinely love”. Is love not self-giving? Does love seek the best for the loved one or succumb to selfish desires? Indeed, “love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.” (1 Cor 13:4-7) What then, does a person with a genuine love do for his/her loved one? Do we lead them into a life that lies about the objective reality of sex and our nature as God’s creations or do we affirm within them the love of God?

    Now, I realize that not everyone in Singapore is Christian. Certainly, even within the Christian community, you may find a variety of views regarding this matter. However, that cannot deny the objective reality of our design and the meaning of sex. In this vein, I’m actively opposed to homosexual relations in the secular spheres of politics and social movements because neither our laws nor our social mores should contradict this objective reality. To do so would simply be self-delusional. Laws that normalize homosexual relations under the threat of punitive action are therefore also unjust and I actively campaign so that this injustice may never be inflicted in Singapore.

    To end my comment, I certainly welcome a further discussion regarding the nature of homosexual relations. However, I also acknowledge and confess that I’m not an authoritative source on homosexuality and the Christian position on it. I encourage you to actively seek more resources on the matter in your quest for truth. You may discover a few things that might change your perceptions on this matter – for example, that scientists have been searching fruitlessly for a biological reason for homosexuality for quite some time now. In addition, scientific opinion is beginning to shift away from a “born this way” or genetic basis for same-sex attraction. I’ve attached a few links below that might interest you.

    Above all, I pray that your search for truth may be fruitful and that it will lead you to the font of all truth and wisdom. The peace of the Risen Christ be with you, always.

    Links:
    1) http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/06/what-if-born-this-way-is-wrong.html
    2) http://www.hli.org/2013/05/homosexuality-and-the-theology-of-the-body-part-i/
    3) http://www.hli.org/2013/05/homosexuality-and-the-theology-of-the-body-part-ii/
    4) http://vimeo.com/93079367

    • To perpetuosomnium,

      The OP did not bring up the “it’s unnatural” argument, i think because the argument has its roots in our differing beliefs of the purpose of sex.

      You ask if the homosexual movement today can be satisfied with chaste relationships? Let me in return ask you if heterosexuals can be satisfied with the same? Conversely, ask yourself if you would be ok with open displays of affection from a same-sex couple who has sworn abstinence?

      You then go on to very quickly drawing a linear causal relationship between male-female anatomy and the true purpose for sex. This i find problematic. Taking in the whole spectrum of human sexual behavior, procreation is more likely a byproduct of sex than it’s true, sole purpose. Consider the fact that humans have sex throughout the female menstrual cycle, when she is only fertile for 3 out of 28 days. The argument for your ‘objective reality’ would be much stronger if humans were fertile all the time, or if we had sex only when the female is fertile (which is a behavior we see very commonly in the animal kingdom).

      You also draw a tenuous link between “created as man and woman” and “be fruitful and multiply”. Have you considered that there may be multiple purposes for creation? Purposes not to be seen as exclusive but inclusive? Have you spoken to and learned from a gay person how he experiences his sexuality, or how a gay Christian experiences her spirituality in relation to her sexuality and life in whole? The Parable of the Talents comes to mind.

      Scientists may have been unable to pinpoint a biological reason for homosexuality, but they have not found any environmental explanation for it either. What science is in agreement with is that it is immutable. How’s that for an objective reality?

      What is very hurtful in the things conservative Christians say about this topic is that they so easily and quickly dismiss the pain and suffering that gay people experience by denying their identity and sexuality, as if staying chaste should be something that comes “naturally”. If they were serious about being compassionate, Christians need to learn to manage this before coming to the table with their opinions. You talk about theology and theory, but gay people are talking about their lives.

      I actually believe that the purposes of God are unfathomable to our human minds. And what Jesus said just before he left His disciples speaks greatly to me. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

      I hope you will consider carefully before you again speak of your “objective reality”.

      • I don’t see how the menstrual cycle argument validates your assumption that procreation is a by-product of having sex. I would like some articles backing this statement up.

      • Firstly, I would like to say that addressing someone’s sexuality does not mean we are minimalising their struggle. We are merely expressing our views. It may not be sugar coated to bring fuzzy feelings of acceptance but that does not mean we do not feel for them. Just because a few individuals express aggression in this area does not mean we are the same.

        Furthermore, you speak of theology and theory as though it were simply theology and theory, but for us it is our life. Call me dogmatic or bigotic, but this is my view and I will defend it. Of course, the issue now is regarding discrimination of homosexuals and I fully condemn such behavior, but this does not mean I agree with your view. A saying attributed to the French Enlightenment skeptic, Voltaire goes like this ,”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This pretty much sums up the view that most Christians have (or ought to have).

        Moreover, I would kindly suggest that you refrain from quoting parables outside of context. The Parable of Talents specifically addresses God’s gifts to us and the issue of laziness or under-utilisation of our abilities. It says nothing about the case at hand so refrain from misquoting.

        As I end off, I would like to say that just as we seek to understand homosexuals and their point of view, even if poorly done so, please show us some level of patience and understanding. Most of us are trying our best. Likewise, please do not discriminate or minimalise our views as well. Just because you do not agree does not give you an occasion to ridicule or twist our words. And please do not misquote the Bible until you have understood its context and actual meaning because this may lead to the wrong impression (and yes I’m referring to your last paragraph which is the quote from Jesus).

      • To Anon at July 1, 1.09am,

        Thank you for acknowledging our struggle condemning discrimination. But the author of the post i was replying was justifying retaining discriminating legislation based on the weak argument of an ‘objective reality’, which i took issue with specifically. Would you also argue to perpetuate or condemn such discrimination?

        You are right that the Parable of the Talents speaks about God’s gifts to us. This is my fault as i did not elaborate. I actually have come to believe that my sexuality is God’s gift to me. I can say, “Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid my talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.” Or i can accept this gift and live an abundant life, and bear good fruit. The latter is my own living spiritual experience. Of course we will disagree on what is a gift and what is not. It’s all a matter of perspective. Many conservative Christians have a very difficult time coming to terms with the fact that they do not have monopoly over the ‘right’ understanding of scripture. To clarify, i am not saying i am entirely right; i just understand differently. :)

        I don’t know if you are perpetuosomnium, to whom i was replying, but your request for patience and understanding is perfectly justified and appreciated. If i did come across terse or brusque, i do apologise. But i don’t believe that i resorted to ridicule or word-twisting. Unfortunately i do not agree that most Christians are “trying their best” as you say; many are just playing the petulant older brother at the prodigal son’s homecoming. (suggestion: try reading the parables from a gay person’s perspective)

        Did i misquote Jesus in my last paragraph? :) It would probably take an entire essay to discuss this verse, but i simply take it to mean that there is much that has not been revealed to us in our limited capacities, certainly to the disciples during Jesus’ time. To discern the revelations of the Holy Spirit is my continuous spiritual journey, as i am sure it is yours. Question is, are you open minded enough to consider more possibilities than just what is being taught to you from traditional sources?

        Shalom

    • Is God against premarital sex and masturbation? I was under the impression that our Understanding of marriage as it is practiced these days is linked to a more recent Victorian convention and is not quite similar to the past

      Great that you don’t masturbate or have sex but I think be careful of confusing Man’s moral values with God’s values.

      • The Bible specifically mentions that sexual immorality should be cast aside as a Christian. When committing acts of masturbation or premarital sex, more often than not this arises from a sense of lust, which is categorized as sexual immorality. So yes, God is against masturbation and premarital sex as the motivation behind it is immoral.

        On the contrary, I would like you to propose an occasion where masturbation and premarital sex is not lust-driven. If that were possible, then your case has some value in it.

    • Like Prodigal Son, i take issue with the term ‘objective reality’. Even if i were to agree with you and your reading of the bible that homosexuality violates a natural biological purpose, how can i justify the opposition to a secular sector? Is there a reason why the church has ceased to rally against divorce and masturbation? There is. Because much as they wish for a Christian utopia where the state sanctions all of the church’s beliefs, the truth is that church separates itself from state, and state from religion.

      As you have mentioned, not everyone is Christian, and even Christians have differing interpretations of the bible. There is, as such, no ‘objective reality’ as purported, if taking all views into account. Yes, to take a completely Puritan moral view of sex, it may be purely an act for procreation. But the truth, in reality, is that sex means so much more than that:

      Sex is not purely lust-driven, although obviously an important factor in it. Sex implicates emotions and alters relationships between two people significantly. Even if spoken from your ‘evolutionary, sex-for-procreation’ perspective, this argument stands. If sex were solely for reproduction, then there would be no need for marriage, the committed union between a couple, no need for courtship or trust and everything that accompanies romance, along with lust.

      Your argument against homosexual sex may be convincing from a theoretical point of view, but it cannot account for the present reality, present norms and real, human relationships. Furthermore, it is theoretically convincing only if the Christian belief system is held by all – which it isn’t. I fully respect any Christian who stands firm in their reading of the bible, they are definitely entitled to their own beliefs about homosexuality. However strong their conviction is, though, i don’t think it is their prerogative to legally condemn homosexuals – or resist against normalizing their presence in mainstream society. What one believes in is their personal business – legalizing homosexuality will not affect their lifestyle, their beliefs, or their actions.

  3. I disagree with the point you raised on the slippery slope. You mentioned that the other two forms, bestiality and pedophilia are classified as mental illness thus one of the reasons why they are different. Until very recently homosexuality was likewise classified and in recent times, campaign groups have been urging for the declassification of pedophilia and bestiality on the basis that those preferences are variations rather than illness, a familiar tone struck by the gay lobby.
    Look no further than certain countries in Europe where bestiality has not only been decriminalized but endorsed, with animal brothels popping up. Given that human beings can keep animals as pets (against their will) or kill them for food, there is little to question bestiality other than a moral opinion. The slippery slope thus presents a very clear and present danger.

    • Whoa whoa whoa
      Firstly, please do note the difference between homosexuality and the other 2, that homosexuality involves consenting people while the other 2 are considered rape as 1 party is unwilling.
      Secondly, you talked about pets being kept against their will, but they are taken care of and given a good life, unless we go into pet abuse, which is a whole different issue, like a man raping a woman versus a man hitting a woman. Both wrong but hitting does not equal to rape. Pets cannot be compared to having sex with animals, as those animals suffer from pain and trauma.
      Thirdly, you talked about killing animals for food? Really? Do we torture the animal for our pleasure and let it live and suffer from trauma? No. We kill it and we eat it.
      And if you want to say i didn’t talk about pedophilia, i actually did in my first point, that children do not give informed consent as they have hardly any idea what is going on.

      This is just my reply towards your comment. My view on this point about a slippery slope is that the legalization of gay marriage has no connection to the legalization of pedophilia and bestiality. Homosexuality is based on mutual desires ,sexually and emotionally just like heterosexuality, while the other 2 are not even closely related

      • actually, legally, pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality are all classifed as sexual preferences, according to international psychiatry. Because homosexual marriages are now becoming legal in a lot of places, the other groups who support pedophilia and bestiality are all asking for the same rights for their sexual preference. and legally, the courts will find it hard saying no, now that a precedence has been created.

    • DSM-5, criteria for paraphilia (including pedophilic disorder and zoophilia):

      feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval;
      or
      have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal
      consent.

      last sentence clearly demarcates homosexuality from other two cases.

  4. There will always be people who will take the stand of being against something. But it’s really nice to know there are people who can be rationale and see things in your kind of perspective… Thank you for posting this.

  5. To all the Christian taunters here, well I’ll accept your criticism if you are following every single rules in the Bible – like not wearing clothes made from two or more fabrics. Talk about selective reading, shall we?

    Also, it’s important to note that the world doesn’t revolve around (neither should it) Christianity and how its believers want the society to be like.

  6. While it’s nice to see people stand for a cause they believe in.. let’s not generalize the entire population of people with christian beliefs to be narrow-minded homophobic-bigots. I for one have been raised to have Christian beliefs and have never been taught to discrimate against any one but to treat people with due respect regardless of any gender/non-gender societal classifications.
    Should we not be focusing on educating the general public on acceptance, patience, empathy and tolerance for one another instead of the futile arrowheading of any religion/culture.

    • I’m definitely not generalizing, neither am i arrow-heading any religion. Any negative views against Christianity in the comments section is not representative of my views.

      I have extracted the most common arguments against homosexuality presented to me. If there were mentions of religion in my post, it is because Christian beliefs were taken as the basis of these arguments.

  7. I felt that every person have the right to stand for their beliefs, be it LGBT or religious groups. It’s almost impossible to convince and convert anyone on their principles or ideology. The public or religious groups should not condemn the LGBT community. Likewise, the LGBT community should not flame these religious groups either. Tolerance is perhaps the key.

  8. 1. Even Christians do not agree with each other on the subject of homosexuality. Many Christian scholars and pastors study the bible with historical context and the biblical authors’ intentions in mind and find no quarrel with homosexuality. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a Nobel Peace Prize winner has said he will not enter a homophobic heaven: “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place. I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this. I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level.”

    So yeah, there are Christians who are anti-homosexuality and there are those who accept homosexuality. It’s like comparing an S&M leather-clad magician pastor and a Nobel peace prize winning archbishop.

    2. The bible. Oh, where do I start? As a Christian, I read the bible and I don’t see traditional marriage as defined as a relationship solely between a man and a women. Between a man and many women and concubines, and yes, even between soldiers who rape women. How about slavery? How about, in the beginning, there was incest. Shouldn’t Christians be busy following all the rules laid down in Leviticus and say, stop eating pork, wearing clothes of mixed fabric and getting inked? How about stoning? How about divorce? How about women not teaching or having authority over men? It goes on and on…

    The bible is useful as a guide but it is certainly not a fixed set of rules, for how can it be, when it is full of contradictions?

    3. The bible is super clear on helping the poor. So many phrases and exhortations but this important issue is something that so many Christians ignore. If only more people would get vocal and actually do something to address poverty, the suffering of children around the world, our dying earth etc rather than keep wanting to interfere with what adults do with their own lives.

    4. My understanding of Christianity is love the sinner, hate your own sin. Jesus was so clear on not judging others, because how can a sinner judge another sinner. Yo, kettle, you black! says the pot. Even Pope Francis, just this month said Christians (including magician-pastors and archbishops), should really listen to Jesus’ good advice on not usurping the role of God by judging others (just because we have the bible doesn’t mean we become God and judge others ok? Such ego!). So, a Christian (or as scolded by the bible, a hypocrite) who can’t see the log in his own eye whilst he judges and criticises others for the specks in their eyes “will end up a victim of his own lack of mercy. This is what happens to a brother who judges” preached Pope Francis.

    5. For Christians who keep condemning homosexuality, I say to you, every time a gay teenager or adult suicides, your hands are red.

    May love continue to prevail.

    Ms Tan, bravo and much admiration for your post. =)

  9. What about incest? Would be interested in what you feel about it, since it can technically also fall under “two consensual beings, fully capable of high order decision-making, in love emotionally and sexually, no one harmed in process.”

    • You do realize that incest happens a lot. It’s sexual relations between close relatives. In some societies it’s accepted too. You’ll find it in the bible too.

      You need to view these words more neutrally, by seeing what they mean and their historical precedent, before putting moral value on them.

      • OP here. I have yet to express my opinion on this, just wondering what the author’s personal opinion about this was. Also, I’d like to question the definition of only having two consensual adults. Why not more?

  10. I think there is no point to argue with people who believe in Adam n Eve r the first 2 human. Yeah right they believe in talking snake and incest. Seriously. How one believes in such thing as talking snake and more than that, incest relationship between 2 persons can create the world population. LIKE REALLLLLLLYYYYYY! You dont come and lecture to us about what is natural and what is not natural. Such hypocrite! I am sorry but there is no word to describe it correctly.
    You have ur belief, ur faith in whatever u want, talking snake, incest sex whatever. You claim it s ur religion. It s your religious freedom. How about I am making homosexuality become a religion, we have no god but we belive in kindness n love between 2 consent adults? Who are you to violate my religion? U claim my religion is ridiculous, then how about urs? The very least we dont have sex with our family member and chat with reptiles the get psychoed to eat an apple. Duh!

  11. Thank you Qing for the piece of her views about the pink movement. Honestly I only have on thing to say.

    ~~Walk the walk and talk the talk, dun just talk and talk~~
    Please clean you backyard before you go about pointing at how others should or should not do with their life. And the bull about being religious and all. Regardless of religion or race or nationality, I have seen many pink members in. Seen them in church, school, ministry, temples, what not. They r who they r for what they choose. Everyone has their own skeleton and I am sure they r still humans and capable or doing their work the way they r. They r not hurting anyone or causing harm to society. Rather than focus on everyone else, why not focus on yourself and be a better person and accepting for who they r.

    Labeling people as sinner or having their life in sin is labeling, similar to bullying. Do I have to explain to you what is bullying?? Before you preach, make sure your backyard is clean n neat the way it is. No skeleton in the closet of anyone in your family and be transparent about it. Then you earn your right to peach. Nobody is God and neither does anyone has the right to peach in his name. We only share our knowledge, experiences and skills. Even teacher learn from their students from time to time. Instead of coming down and try very hard to fight this argument, we should learn to live now. All this are seen on nation-wide in Singapore, the youth and young do not understand and learn from some adults that it is not right and thus we should “make they learn”. People will start to “bully” and what not without understanding why slowly in future.

    Watch this on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-PvBo75PDo
    It give a rough description of how it might be for what comes in my mind about future bullying events from parents from “anti-pink”, explanation from the youth r “There is no why, it is just how it was done”.

  12. I came across this blog entry randomly and really enjoyed reading it. Thank you for distilling the issues in a rational, structured manner and for your open-minded attitude towards such a controversial subject which is, obviously, close to everyone’s hearts, whether gay or straight, religious or secular. – Nelson

  13. The key difference between the 2 groups is this. One thinks it is morally wrong to practise homosexuality. The other thinks it is not morally wrong. There are many types of sin that is practised everywhere such as pre-marital sex or drug addiction etc. What is different here is that now homosexuality is slowly being taught as being ok, not being morally wrong. Anyone that says it is morally wrong is likely to be labelled a bigot, insensitive, homophobic, and judgemental. It is almost as if there is no more room for those who think it is morally wrong to have stand up for what they believe in. They are not discriminating, just stating their belief. Most of the arguments stem from this – that they think that they are born gay, and hence they have rights. There are various scientific studies disputing this. I think there is a mix of both biological, and afterbirth influences. Christopher Yuan authored “A Gay Son’s Journey to God”. In his FAQ, he offers his perspective and uses alcoholism as an analogy … “From NY Times: Genetic factors appear to play a significant role in alcoholism and may account for about half of the total risk for alcoholism. The role that genetics plays in alcoholism is complex, however, and it is likely that many different genes are involved… There are many inherent impulses that I did not choose (selfishness, jealousy, pride). Sin may have biological influences. But that does not justify their moral permissiveness.” For Christians, we are simply stating our beliefs, and hope that one day Singapore will not go this way like in this article. We also do have friends who are homosexual, but we respect them and interact with them like any other friends, we don’t bully or discriminate them. We simply have different beliefs, and are able to rationally exchange views. This article here talks about how there may not be any freedom here. It is already happening in America, and Europe. UK may be the next. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9686306/Primary-school-teachers-could-face-sack-for-refusing-to-promote-gay-marriage.html?fb

    • “Simply stating our beliefs” is a great leap from hoping that “Singapore will not go this way”. As i’ve said, Christians are definitely entitled to their own beliefs regarding homosexuality, and any other moral sin. They may even convince their non-Christian homosexual friends of it.

      However, religious beliefs should remain separate from the secular state. How can you justify criminalizing an act on the basis of a belief that one is not necessitated to subscribe to? Unless religion is made compulsory by law to be practiced by all citizens, i see no reason why homosexuality should fall under religious sanction.

      In reference to your link, it is definitely regretful that such a case exists. Everyone is entitled to their rights, and that event swings towards the other extreme of bigotry and oppression. But in posting this link, have you considered the many, MANY cases of homosexual oppression, bullying, and discrimination that takes place? For every exceptional case you have just showed me, there are probably a hundred of those AGAINST homosexuals.

      This is not directed at you or at specific religions, but at certain anti-homosexual groups i’ve seen, especially online. There is much criticism of homosexuals playing the ‘victim card’, which i frankly find very offensive. Just because one is not at the receiving brunt of victimization, or have for some reason chosen not to perceive it, you have no right at all to finger-point at another for pretending to be victims.

      I have witnessed, online, with my own eyes, very brutal cases of homosexual bashing. Comments like “your parents must wish they didn’t have you”, “i hope you die, fag”, etc etc. Yes, just because we don’t actively expose ourselves to these occurrences, THEY HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

      Reading these comments were enough reason for me to solidify my stance to return homosexuals the dignity they deserve, purely for being human.

  14. Nobody says one can’t love anybody. But for marriage, it should be heterosexual. It is natural and by instinct and with a purpose of procreation.This is the basic concept.
    Majority of the people who include atheists think that homosexuality is wrong.The majority’s view can be wrong but for this I believe they are right. It is up to the pro-homo people to convince us homosexuality is right. They can’t do it.No right or wrong is their answer. It is an evasion. But their logic, heterosexual is also not right or wrong. But is there anyone say heterosexual is wrong?

    • Over the course of human history, the majority has also once considered slavery, racism, sexism, among many other shitty beliefs, to be right. It’s pretty safe to say that the majority has been wrong A LOT.

      To be perfectly honest, the concept of marriage in itself is in no way “natural” or “by instinct”. Many creatures are polygamous and do not commit to a single partner for a lifetime. Neither is marriage about procreation because many people procreate without being married. Marriage is inherently a social construct, created by man and comes along with things like tax benefits, the ability to adopt children, spousal insurance, etc etc which homosexual couples are not given access to.

      The thing is, no one is saying: HOMOSEXUALITY IS RIGHT- THEREFORE WE MUST ALL BE HOMOSEXUALS. Homosexuality is right for you, if you happen to love people of your gender, as is hetrosexuality if you happen to love someone of another gender. We are fighting for equal rights and the ability for every individual to freely choose who is “right” or “wrong” for them.

      • I like you wrote rationally. But i don’t agree with your views. I will rebut your arguments later.

      • I have responded to your comment in a reply to “rynn” below.

        Just to rebut one of your arguments. I shall use the question on whether smoking is right as an analogy. Can you say smoking is wrong for people who dislike smoking but it is right for those who like smoking?

    • “Nobody says one can’t love anybody. But for marriage, it should be heterosexual.”
      By saying that marriage, a lawful recognition of love, should not be between same-gender, it is by extension saying that they cannot love each other romantically.

      “It is natural and by instinct and with a purpose of procreation.This is the basic concept.”
      What is ‘natural’ and ‘by instinct’ to another may differ from your conception of it. This is exactly what homosexuals hope to receive, not your total acceptance of their homosexuality but your ability to see from their point of view. Purpose of sex discussed above. Basically, sex in the current reality carries with it a myriad of meaning – emotional and relational. It cannot be viewed in Puritan terms as purely for procreation. If it were, there should be as strong a fight put up against divorce, masturbation, and condom use.

      “Majority of the people who include atheists think that homosexuality is wrong.”
      This is an extremely generalized statement. How would you know the majority’s view, and the private opinion of the silent? This view of yours is likely garnered from your social group, which is likely to reflect your own beliefs. In fact, a research done of the local population shows an ambivalent majority, with two extreme minorities pro- and anti-homosexuality respectively.

      “It is up to the pro-homo people to convince us homosexuality is right.”
      Perhaps, but it is also up to you to convince society that homosexuality is wrong. Please show me solid enough proof that justifies discriminatory attitudes towards homosexuals.

      “They can’t do it. No right or wrong is their answer. It is an evasion.” Again, i’m unsure of your sources. Homosexuals have clearly rallied for their rights, from events to public debates. I’m not sure why you think they are evading the issue. Besides, if you have set doggedly in your anti-homosexual views, it is likely that you a) avoid arguments for homosexuality, or b) refuse to accept or acknowledge them. These, i’m guessing, may be why you perceive a dearth of convincing debate in favor of homosexual rights. “It is an evasion” is very apt in this case, except the evading party is you.

      “But their logic, heterosexual is also not right or wrong. But is there anyone say heterosexual is wrong?”
      I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but heterosexuality is the mainstream norm. No one says that heterosexuality is wrong. By the same vein, i hope that a common courtesy can be extended to homosexuals – that no one calls them out for being “wrong”.

      Anon, not everything is a dichotomous right or wrong. Please recognize that the world is a complex one. It is nuanced with differing people, each with differing ideas of religion, of love. The diversity of beliefs is what makes us human.

      • I’m not entirely sure what you mean here, but heterosexuality is the mainstream norm. No one says that heterosexuality is wrong. By the same vein, i hope that a common courtesy can be extended to homosexuals – that no one calls them out for being “wrong”. — quote

        Heterosexuality is right.So how can anyone say it is wrong?

        Homosexuality was considered morally wrong in the past.Since when has it become right?What made it wrong in the past but become right today?I am sorry to say there are still many people believe it is wrong today. You shouldn’t angry with me when I state my belief.

  15. Christianity is responsible for more deaths in the history of the world than homosexuality is. WAAAAAAY more….
    Morally speaking, I consider religion a greater evil than homosexuality.
    That is all.

  16. You have asked for a worthy argument from Christians as to way homosexuality should not be condone and I shall now give you one. The question is whether you will accept it or not. I’m not sure if your Christian friends could not give up a satisfactory argument because a) they respect your views as a non-Christian and some Christian values that you would not have agreed with contribute strongly to their position b) you have decided not to accept it even before they have spoken. I hope I will give you a clearer idea of what Christians and anti-LGBT supporters mean in this comment. I would like to establish the difference between homosexuality and homosexual behaviour. Homosexuality is a disposition to be inclined towards homosexual behaviour. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just like man may be born with a greater tendency to violence and other sins. This does not excuse the person’s caving in to sinful desires though. If a man is born to greater susceptibility to anger and rage, does that make it morally good and right to give in to the desires? As Christians, we accept that some of us have a greater tendency to homosexuality but we do not condone that it should be acted out. (Before you cry out that homosexuality is innate and cannot be helped, please hold on and read further. I will go on to address that.)

    1. Homosexuals are not discriminated, merely not allowed to ‘actively promote’ their lifestyle.

    Firstly, when we say that we do not condemn nor discriminate homosexuals, we mean that we acknowledge that they, as humans Christian or not, are susceptible to sin – lie, cheat, steal, rape, murder, indulge in homosexual behaviour. We, ourselves, are sinners and thus, we accept that it is a human flaw. But as far as possible, we should not sin if we can help it. Personally, I am not one of those Christians who campaigned that homosexuals should not be allowed to actively promote their lifestyle. I believe that God granted us free will for a reason. But I also believe that their actions to prevent homosexual behaviour stems from good intentions. Afterall, it does not benefit Christians if homosexuals are not allowed to indulge in homosexual behaviour. We do not condone homosexual behaviour because God created us to be of complementary natures to suit the emotional and physical needs of each other. God intended for this natural marriage to be the means by which man populated and filled the Earth, for procreation was what God had in mind.

    I can accept a homosexual and still hate his actions. For instance, I can accept that a person has a higher tendency to lie but it does not mean I have to condone his lies and encourage them. In fact, I think that this acceptance means trying to help the sinner from lying or indulging in homosexual behaviour rather than embracing his lies and actions. In fact, this acceptance also means a realisation that they have been given a heavier cross to bear and it is indeed much more difficult for them than it is for those who never struggled with homosexual tendencies. If my son has a tendency to steal, would I accept that it is a part of him and not try to change him?

    I understand some Christians have been very harsh and offensive towards homosexuals but I hope you understand that this does not represent us all and there are those of us who strongly wish to give support (in the right way, of course)

    2. Legalizing homosexuality is a slippery slope down to pedophile, bestiality, and other sexual deviance.

    Alright, I personally do not agree with this because it is pretty obvious homosexuality is of an entirely different nature. But at the same time, certain similarities are apparent. All of their behaviour are perversions of the human sex.

    3. Homosexuals are not natural.

    Homosexual feelings are real and I don’t doubt that. But homosexuality is not natural. God did not make man homosexual, but man weighed down by the sinfulness of the human condition can be shaped by his/her environment to gain a disposition towards homosexuality. The question comes in whether you express that disposition or not. Research has shown that no particular ‘gay’ gene exists. There have been theories tossed around but none have come up with any definitive conclusions. This article was written by international team of scientists studying homosexuality in carnal genetics. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167)

    Why are LGBT supporters always using the archaic argument that homosexuality is genetic when it has been proven otherwise both by science and theology? Year after year, from back in 1945 to 2014, LGBT supporters have used the same unconvincing argument that homosexual behaviour cannot be helped. That is not true. We do have a choice. It is not in our genes and love is a deliberate choice. (I will go on to elaborate on homosexual love.)

    Even if it were genetic and natural (for men to be play out homosexuality), it makes little sense because if their parents had homosexual tendencies and decided to follow it straight through, homosexual babies wouldn’t even exist to campaign their actions today. That’s why gays and lesbians cannot produce babies. It’s because their actions are fruitless, both symbolically and really. Bisexuals probably can but then we would see a dwindling of homosexuals as opposed to the rise of homosexuals that we see today.

    4. Children need a traditional family structure consisting of a male and female.

    Having LGBT parents does raise certain social problems that may or may not be attributed to the nature of the parents’ relationship. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it destroys the family unit but I would just ask, if gays and lesbians were meant to have a meaningful and fruitful relationship, why can’t they produce children? There are certain laws about our nature we cannot change. You may argue that certain heterosexual couples are barren too. But it is obvious that while it is utterly impossible for lesbians or gays to have children naturally, it is entirely possible for heterosexual couples to produce children.

    5. AIDS/HIV

    I would agree with you on this count. Homosexual behaviour most certainly does not result in AIDS/HIV etc.

    6. They are turning a “moral wrong into a civil right”.

    Look, I’m not going to pretend we have a universal morality. Because truth that is indeed truth is not the least affected by us believing in it or not. It is not a pretence.

    The human definition of morality does indeed change according to environment. For instance, in China famines have been an ongoing problem for thousands of years and thus, killing of dogs for food is considered acceptable. Today the human idea of decent behaviour is obvious to everyone. Yet different civilisations and different ages had different standards of morality. But the thing is the difference in moralities never amounted to a total difference. In fact, from the little bits and pieces of readings I’ve taken up, the moral teachings of ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans are similar to ours. There exist a sense of moral law, which must not be confused with instinct. Even with little two year olds, they feel a sense of injustice (that is not taught to them) when they see a child be rewarded for something another child would have been reprimanded for, even when it is of completely no benefit or disadvantage to the child viewing it. Likewise, as adults, we are always lamenting about our government and trying to seek a perfectly just country (utopia). But where did we get this idea of justice (right and wrong) when we have nothing to compare it to since utopia does not exist in our world? When you hear a cry for help from a man in peril, you’re likely to be struck with two desires. One, the desire to give help, which arises from the herd instinct. Two, the desire to flee (instinct for self-preservation). But in between these two desires, there is a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help and whether you choose to subscribe to it or not, you are, in a way, responsible for his survival. (Principles of responsibility – knowledge and power but I shall not make it lengthier than it need be). It judges between the two instincts and decides which should be encouraged. If instincts be the keys, moral law is the tune we should play. We can perceive moral law from the urge to do right and the feelings of responsibility and discomfort when one does wrong. It cannot be observed, only actions can. In the same way, God cannot be perceived while the universe can.

    Christian morality/moral absolutism is hard. It does not care how difficult or how painful or how dangerous or how impossible it is to do something but it demands of us to do the right thing and as far as possible, I believe we should try. It must be painfully difficult to overcome homosexuality and that’s precisely why we need God in our lives to help us through.

    The different standards of morality is why we have the Bible to inform and nudge us towards right behaviour, something that is both lasting and universal if you believe in everlasting life. I cannot imagine someone adapting his standards of morality (“Oh you mean we’re not allowed to kill dogs?”) when he initially reaches heaven. Do you believe that there exists a truth in this world and one that is only perceivable from an elevated point of view (God’s)? If so, we are unlikely to be able to see the entire picture and this is where faith comes in. Faith isn’t just believing in the parts of the Bible you agree with. It means a surrender, a giving up, a death of self-will and sin in favour of a command that is infinitely greater and more wise than oneself. Christianity/the Bible is His statement to us about certain unalterable facts about His nature and by extension, ours. We must not alter it to suit our own purposes. It is clear that homosexuality is condemned.

    Now that I’ve addressed your arguments against arguments against homosexuality, let me go on.

    A) Freedom to love
    No doubt, freedom to love is certainly great, noble and wonderful. But we must not let the illusion of it blind us completely. I do not doubt that the intention of homosexuality is love. Sins cannot be overlooked just because the intention is love. One thing I find rampant today is that people enjoy taking a single idea fit for a 5 year old out of the Bible and use a simple idea to justify everything. The real world isn’t simple so why should we used a simplified version of a truth that is taken out of context to approach it? People sometimes murder for love too. By the way, all-accepting and non-judgmental love does not mean supporting wrongdoers in their mistake but accepting that they, too, are human and are susceptible to sin and enlightening them. The problem I have with LGBT campaigns is that they create the perception that homosexuality is normal and innate. We won’t go to a doctor if we think that we are healthy. In the same way, homosexuals will not seek help if they persist in their belief that they are normal. Love is undeniably good and pure but I personally do not believe all love is good forever. Men are all born good but men can be corrupted. In the same way, love is innately good but it can be tainted.

    Satan was initially an angel but he fell. I don’t know if you believe in Satan but the Biblical accounts are not simply children’s stories. They are real recognition that evil exists. The strongest evil exists in subtlety, it permeates our world under guises we cannot tell unless we turn to our moral law or for the uniformity of things, the Bible.

    Homosexual love, in the same way, is a perversion of something that is good. The biggest problem with homosexuality is that it is not outwardly ‘bad’. We don’t see homosexuality stabbing people in the thighs or selling children to pimps. Masturbation, for instance, is not outwardly bad either since no one gets harmed in the process and the man or woman still gets to satisfy his or her sexual desire. Alright, granted, it may be for the sake of lust but then, would you agree that lust, then, is just a love of sensuality? Next, the very idea of love confuses me time and time again. In Singapore, homosexuals are allowed to love but they aren’t allowed to engage in the act of love (sex). What they are championing for is the right to have sex (Section 377A: Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.) And if they are seeking the right of have sex, their purpose is then lust. I won’t go into marriage because Oxford English Dictionary states marriage is a marital union between a husband and a wife. Homosexuals cannot fulfill this criteria. Oh, but that’s not it, because they’re also seeking social approval for their actions. What they want is not recognition as opposed to what they claim. They have plenty of that as far as I can see. Many people definitely know of their existence. If that is so, I cannot see how they are suffering, considering they want Christians to approve of something they (Christians) believe is wrong just so that they can flounce around in the happy delight that their sins are not sins and are right.

    The last point I want to add is the difference between ‘in love’ and simply ‘love’. Being ‘in love’ is a feeling. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. Love is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriage) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. In that case, real love is a choice which means, contrary to our modern day beliefs that love is some sort of twiddly spell that enchants us to a lifelong passion beyond our will, we have a say in choosing we want to love.

    B) Responding to your arguments for homosexuality
    Why are LGBT supporters always using the modern-day concept of love and the idea that homosexuality is genetic (despite the fact that theology and science have both proven otherwise) to support homosexuality?

    “There are some things in life we don’t have a lot of choice over.We can’t choose the colour of our skin. We can’t choose the family we are born into. We can’t choose to be tall or short, right or left-handed, just as how we can’t choose to be born male or female, gay or straight.” Pink Dot 2014 Ambassador Speech

    Year after year, from back in 1945 to 2014, LGBT supporters are always using the same (honestly, quite sickening) argument that homosexual behaviour cannot be helped. We have a choice. It is not in our genes and love is a deliberate choice. The disposition cannot be helped but this does not excuse the person’s caving in to sinful desires. That aside, they are always relegating the responsibility of being homosexual to feelings of love (which is widely believed that is beyond their control) and to their genes. The only reason I can think of is that as human beings, we have a certain curious idea (moral law) that we ought to behave a certain way and cannot get rid of it. We make excuses when we fail to be decent because we believe in decency so much, we cannot bear to face the consequences that we are breaking it so we attempt to shift responsibility. You may call it a result of social conventions that have existed for the longest time. But even in Sodom, where Lot was surrounded in a city of homosexuals, he felt that it was wrong for men to lie with other men.

    C) It must be tough and excruciating. More than I will ever know. But we have a loving God, who promises us strength to meet a new day, and strength to struggle against our sins. We must trust that He will help us resist and stand our ground against this or any sin.

    I hope this gives you a clearer idea of why Christians are against homosexuality.

    • Hi, thanks for your response.

      There are many good points you’ve raised against Christians’ stance against homosexuality, i’ll take them into consideration.

      Ultimately, although i do have a better understanding of where your opposition arises, i still find is hard to justify implementing it for the whole of society.

      Will get back to you. Thanks again.

      • Hello,

        I believe the decision to implement it for the whole of society lies not so much within the religious morality of homosexual behaviour but rather its meaning and consequences – the societal and thus economical impact it would result in an Asian nation struggling with falling birth rates. Let’s begin with defining marriage. Marriage is a virtually universal human institution. In all the wildly rich and various cultures flung throughout the ecosphere, in society after society, whether tribal or complex, human beings have created systems of publicly approved sexual union between men and women that entail defined responsibilities of mothers and fathers. Marriage is inherently normative. Marriage is not simply an artifact of law; neither is it a mere delivery mechanism for a set of legal benefits that might as well be shared more broadly. The laws of marriage do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries and sustain the public meanings of marriage.

        1. Birth rates
        I cannot say that legalising homosexual behaviour or gay marriage will definitely cause birth rates to fall further but quite ostensibly, this legalisation does go against the aim of increasing birth rates considering the barrenness of a gay or lesbian relationship in terms of the meaning it conveys. The results (greater tax burden on younger generations, greater need for foreign talents, etc) that arise from falling birth rates are pretty much axiomatic.

        One argument for the legalising of same-sex marriage states that excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. The assumption here is that sexual orientation/homosexuality is fixed and constant across a person’s lifetime. The disposition or inclination is definitely there but it cannot last without the homosexual person’s deliberate and forceful will to follow these tendencies. This means that subject to the environment, homosexual persons may change their sexual orientation just as heterosexual persons may change the person they fall in love with. That said, if the law does permit same-sex marriage, it expresses encouragement to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike to begin a barren relationship that may prove to be, in the long run, injurious to the society. On the other hand, if it does disapproves of same-sex marriage, there is likely to be a chance for homosexual persons to revert and work towards a heterosexual relationship that will bear fruit. I do not believe that we can make men good by law but law here serves as a message that reminds us we, collectively as a nation, have to serve a purpose that is greater than ourselves. It does not favour self-will over the good of many.

        It is arguable that by that logic, barren people and couples who decide not to have children should be excluded from the realm of marriage. There is a slight difference in the case of barren people for they do not have a choice. On the other hand, it is inane for law enforcers to filter out couples who decide not to have children. Even if their ways are just as selfish as homosexual people who decide to follow out their inclination, the meaning of a heterosexual marriage is intrinsically different from a homosexual marriage. Whether it really is or not, every marriage between a man and a woman is a representation of the life-giving qualities associated with child-birth and happiness. Heterosexual marriage, unlike the homosexual, connotes societal and cultural normality in an Asian country that still holds on to conservative values that has been established, developed and refined over centuries. The longevity of a societal norm is no justification for its rightness. But it has to be recognised that we are a society living together and connected by familial ties to the older generally more conservative generation. Whether or not gay marriage would create a greater division and dissonance remains to be seen. In an ideal society, it is unthinkable that we allow the ‘ancient prejudices’ and ‘long-held conventions’ to determine the present. In Singapore, until there is tangible fruition from gay marriage, I doubt mass social pressure and a multitude of LGBT campaigns would suffice as justification to legalise homosexual behaviour. For homosexual marriage and behaviour, their relationship doesn’t abide the law of nature, in the same way incest does. It changes the meaning of marriage and proper sexual behaviour (anal sex, fingering, etc). The Singapore law, being secular, does not encourage it, not for religious reasons but for pragmatic ones with a strong basis in cultural history. For legalising homosexual behaviour would mean having to legalise incestuous behaviour. In incest, the child may be born with defects and higher risk to disease. It is debatable whether that is preferable or not to a complete non-existence that is produced in homosexuality behaviour or marriage. On a larger scale, a greater number of sick people or a lack of human resource. Both are economically damaging.

        2. Freedom (to homosexual love, to choose one’s own lifestyle…)
        When pro-homos argue that it’s simply ridiculous for Christians/Muslims/anti-homos to prevent others from living out their desired lifestyles, they fail to recognise that we are not living in a secluded island which means no one’s freedom increases without another person’s freedom diminishing. For instance, if it is permitted to adorn and paint all landmarks and public areas of Singapore (Sticker Lady), people who do not enjoy her art would lose their freedom to enjoy their clean and pristine public spaces. By calling for homosexual marriage to be legalised, this undermines the value of heterosexual marriage. By assigning equal value to heterosexual and homosexual marriage, it explicitly means that the child-bearing qualities of the former relationship is completely negligible or unimportant. This indirectly suggests that life itself is not valuable or esteemed.

        Traditional marriage is a bedrock institution of our communities, state, nation and society. It is not discriminatory. It is foundational. Protecting its historic definition for the sake of our society is both wise and courageous, not discriminatory. Homosexual people have a personal right to live as they choose but they are just not granted social or legal approval because they don’t have a right to redefine marriage or sexual behaviour for all of society.

        Our world is already as sexually corrupted as it is. Here’s how: The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. There are many men who get together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us? The law here is to put a stand against sexual corruption. It is apparent that our sexual corruption has gotten out of hand. That is why the law does not permit strip tease acts, Playboy magazine, homosexual behaviour and so on.

        Regarding homosexual behaviour, it’s precisely because it’s difficult to justify implementing it for the whole society that the law against homosexual behaviour is not actively enforced. To a certain extent, homosexual people are still granted the liberty to engage in homosexual activity privately, if they please. But the law here stands as a deterrent to homosexual behaviour or as an encouragement to homosexual behaviour (since we all have sexual instincts that need to be satisfied).

        3. Economic sense
        If we want to be calculative, heterosexual couples are given HDB grants, etc in marriage so they can quickly begin a family, therefore achieving Singapore’s aim of increasing birth rates. But if homosexual couples are given the same privilege, what good would the nation or society stand to benefit from it? (I’m so sorry but to quote a very overused line from TFIOS). The world (including our government) is not a wish-granting factory. Everything is worth a price. Not every heterosexual couple will have children but heterosexual marriage is a process towards child bearing. But assuming every heterosexual and homosexual marriage is sealed (no one gets a divorce/has affairs), there is completely no chance of a homosexual couple having children and providing human resource for the country unlike heterosexual couples.

        4. Family
        Changing the definition of marriage won’t change the natural family. But it will forever change the importance of marriage as a civilizing and stabilizing force in our culture. Despite thousands of peer-reviewed social science studies that demonstrate that children raised in a home with a married mom and dad do better physically, emotionally, and psychologically, many are ready to subject children to a vast untested social experiment that will have lifelong and often irreversible consequences. I do not really consider those documentaries of gay men raising a child sufficient evidence for social experiment. The ripple effects are already being felt in religious liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of association, education policy, and business law. There is nothing wrong with not conforming to a conventional society standard of family (father, mother, child/children)

        On a larger scale, if one of the primary cause for humanity be procreation, campaigns to promote LGBT, if successful, will bring about regression and not progress. Legalising same-sex marriage diminishes the value of a procreative relationship (one that is for a larger purpose as opposed to merely following one’s feelings of love). Since same-sex relationships, which are intrinsically infertile and can never result in natural procreation, would be treated as identical under the law to heterosexual relationships which are the sole type that can ever result in natural procreation, The idea conveyed would be that there is nothing valuable about the continuity of the human race. The law stands to protect what we believe in – the idea that heterosexual relationships, as a life-generative force, should be valued. Because, by extension, it would mean that life itself is valuable.

        These are just my opinions regarding this issue. I didn’t really have time to embellish this. Personally, I feel that the strong desire to legalise same-sex marriage has more to do with the social approval homosexual people are seeking rather than the tangible benefits the state provides.

  17. Thanks for providing a scientific evidence against homosexuality. It means some of those pro-homo people do not use truthful reason to justify homosexuality.

  18. By nature, sex is heterosexual. The natural purpose of sex is to reproduce. These are facts.

    Heterosexuality is right (in fact, instinct). Homosexuality is an aberration. When one is attracted to a person of the same sex, it can be due to mistake because sex is heterosexual by nature. A boy is attracted to another boy who looks more feminine and a girl who is attracted by another who is more tomboy. Are these homosexuality or are these heterosexuality by mistake?

    There are bisexuals. It means these people can have homosex and heterosex. But they are actually heterosexual. For homosexuals, I believe almost all of them choose homosex instead of heterosex due to certain reasons. Those are so called life style choices. So homosexuals are still heterosexual by nature.

    By nature, sex is for reproducing and so it is heterosexual. Many people engage in sex not for reproducing. Those are not according to the natural purpose of sex. Those can produce problems. That’s why homosexuality is wrong.

    One can engage in heterosex, homosex or masturbation. Homosex is the right choice. The others are second or wrong choice. Why doesn’t one follow his/her instinct to marry a person of the opposite sex and then produce babies?

    Homosexuality is wrong because it goes against the natural instinct and purpose of sex and there would be consequences. If one wants to choose the wrong way, please do so privately and don’t argue it is right. It isn’t right and is an inferior choice. When one promotes homosexuality, some people might be confused and influenced by it. Homosexuality is wrong and there is no reason to promote it. Heterosexual people should promote heterosexuality because it is right and good. They should influence the masses.

    • Heterosexuality is your “natural instinct”. Good for you.

      But what right do you have speaking on behalf of everyone else? Your comment is made entirely of offensive presumptions. I hope the number of people you have hurt with your comments – including homosexuals who have lived their lives in shame, hoping to be straight – will haunt your conscience.

      • You may disagree with my arguments but need not be so emotional. My conscience is 100% clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s