TODAY‘s interview with DPM Wong Kan Seng KannaSai published on May 14 appears to be the final chapter in the AWARE Saga, and personally I wondered why the interview wasn’t done any earlier. Some of us have mused that had that been so, the results of the AWARE EGM may have been different.

The Conservatives have certainly lost the AWARE battle and perhaps even the battle for Internet opinion. In fact, had Internet opinion been the yardstick, it would appear that the Conservatives were ‘completely routed’ by the HBT (Homosexual, Bisexual and Transgendered) activists militants, and their cheerleaders. On the other hand, recent events indicates otherwise. It seems like the Conservatives may have actually ‘won’ this round instead as the government gahmen appeared to have put its feet down somewhat, as seen from the DPM’s answers in his interview with TODAY.

Following that, MOE (Ministry of Education), which has already suspended CSE, will now no longer allow its use in school. It has also dropped AWARE as a trusted external vendor for sex education as it ‘takes a serious view of the Sexuality Education Programme and is standing by the attitudes of mainstream values and emphasis on conventional family values’. To the ‘HBT militancy’, this is perhaps a return to the Dark Ages. It is almost as if Singapore schools will soon begin teaching our kids that ‘homosexuals should be stoned to death, or that having premarital sex will cause blindness’.

This matter has to some extent caused a rift among Singaporeans. And thanks to the selective and seditious articles by a particular Senior Senile Writer and Deputy Editor of the Stooge Times, this has turned into an exclusive HBT vs Christians fight, mirroring what goes on in America and providing oxygen and oil to an anti-Christian fire while causing some religious-disharmony in Singapore. As a result of their actions, Singapore will probably not hear the last from the ‘HBT militancy’ and it is certain many Christians will not relent from their belief that homosexuality is a sin as to do so is the equivalent of renouncing a part of their Scriptures.

So, we are at an impasse as both groups will not back down from their respective stand, and Singapore society will definitely be drawn again and again into this conflict. Personally, I have heard some of arguments of those who support HBT activism, and in spite of that I remained non-supportive of it. I’ll state my stand and some of the things I am going to say next will probably offend a lot of pro-HBT people.

First of all, from my perspective, the gahmen has taken an acceptable approach in their dealing with the homosexuals in our midst. As a result of this approach, homosexuals do already enjoy a lot of liberty in Singapore and they can do much without hindrance from either society or the authorities. Some of which I have written in an earlier post. My stand on this is, there is no reason to take away what is already there, and if there is any real social / official discrimination in this country it is best to address the department or ministry specifically since it is not a social issue that affects all Singaporeans. For e.g. if the HBT people have any issues with the 302 medical status in the SAF (Singapore Armed Forces), they should open a dialogue with the Ministry of Defense. In fact, some homosexuals have already done this. On Wikipedia there is an article about the HBT history in Singapore and in it was an incident in the 1990s whereby a lawyer wrote to the Chief of Police and gotten an apology for rude treatment during a police raid on a homosexual bar. In fact, since then all discriminative raids on homosexual night spots have ceased.

There was an acquaintance with homosexual relative(s?) who had confronted me previously on my stand on homosexuality, citing that the relative’s sexual orientation is not a crime and there should be no reason for my support for not repealing Section 377A. In her point of view, there is also no reason for objection to a ‘monogamous homosexual relationship’. I doubt this acquaintance know the difference between a homosexual relationship and an exclusive non-sexual relationship with another member of the same sex. A brother-in-Christ pointed out to me that the latter is called being best buddies while a monogamous relationship would mean being in a sexual relationship with a single partner.

If one asked me what is my problem of a monogamous homosexual relationship, I can only say Christianity objects to homosexual sex. This usually draws a wave of denunciation, as many argued that people shouldn’t be condemned for their ‘sexual preferences’. In fact, I tried to deflect that by pointing out that Christianity hasn’t in particular single outs homosexual sex for condemnation, but rather promiscuity. Even that drew opposition, since I had made it sound like all homosexuals are promiscuous, or that homosexual promiscuity is worse than heterosexual promiscuity. (On thinking back, I should perhaps have simply said accepting one’s ‘sexual preferences’ is a slippery slope since bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia can be considered ‘sexual preferences’ too. After all I’ll get whacked no matter what I say anyway. So much for tolerance.)

With regard to the matter that not all homosexuals are promiscuous, I do not contest that assertion. Yet I have to point out that my personal experience, and that of a few friends have made us doubtful. A friend and I have been hit on by homosexuals on a double decker bus before – one 3 separate occasions – while another almost for some odd reasons always attract the attention of homosexuals with their ‘gay-dar’ up. No prizes for guessing why there remain some ‘narrow-mindedness’ within society. It would be better for the ‘HBT militancy’ to do something about the misfits causing this image problem instead of fighting for things that cannot be achieved, or calling those who oppose religious hypocrites or sanctimonious bastards.

As for the accusation of double standards pertaining to homosexual promiscuity, that has some merit because Christians seem to have long given up the fight against public sexual immorality. However, the lack of protest from Christians against those who had one-night stands, or those who openly encourage whore-mongering and sex trade license, doesn’t mean Christians find them more acceptable. In short, failure in duty to object to one does not lessen the duty to object to the other.

Anyway, in spite of our personal convictions to our faith, most Christians like myself have always been tolerant of homosexuals. Most Christians simply stop short of endorsing homosexuality and that’s as tolerant as we will be, and no further. Pastors may preach against homosexuality but at the very least those were kept within the 4 walls of their churches. If for this Christians are called bigots, conservatives, fundamentalists and all sorts of names while Christians are up against a specific homosexual agenda which seeks legitimacy and approval of homosexual promiscuity, then so be it. Christians have long since come to accept things we cannot change. But be assured, if anyone seeks to interfere with what the Church can preach within its walls, or to decide for Christians which part of God’s message they can only deliver, then the Christians will certainly react.

So, Christians will not stop in helping homosexuals who wants it, or to have family focused programs meant to inculcate a traditional view on what marriage and a core family unit should be like. Christians will continue to provided programs, such as the Choices Ministry by Church of Our Savior, to help homosexuals back to a normal life. Singapore is not a theocracy and no one in their right mind will insist that all homosexuals go under any of these Christian programs. If there are homosexuals who doesn’t want to change, that is really fine by me, but don’t attempt to shout the Christians down and deny other homosexuals an avenue to change. For a homosexual who already made up his mind not to change to force or decide that all homosexuals ‘can’t be changed’ and thus Christianity should not do anything is nothing more than pure evil.

Thus, it is my considered opinion that when ‘HBT militants’ continue to pressure society into endorsing them, then they must be prepared to face reprisals from some quarters of society. If they are all for a more civil society and yet resort to intimidating the opposition into silence by labeling them, or even resort to death threats, that will only serve to polarise and divide our nation. All of this may result in some reaction from society but don’t bet on it that it will always be positive to the HBT community. Blame no one if some liberties already available now to the HBT is taken away as a result of ‘HBT militants’ pushing matters too far.

For example, if the ‘taking back’ of AWARE is a victory for the homosexual community against the Christian conservatives, then consider what this push has really gained them now that AWARE is no longer a trusted vendor of the MOE. That is of course not mentioning just how even more Christians are now alerted to the tactics used by ‘HBT militants’ and learning how to counter them, while the gahmen grows increasingly wary.

Recommended Reads:
The Path Less Trodden – The Jalan Kayu Trail Blog
The Online Citizen: Change You Can Believe In Part (I)