Tag: Homosexuality

Random Discourse – AIDS and homosexuality

Leave a comment

The following was posted on the Facebook page of The Online Citizen almost 2 weeks ago.

The highest rate of AIDS transmission is by STRAIGHT men. Get your facts right and stop launching biased attacks against the LGBT community.
http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/progressreports/2010countries/singapore_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf

Well, I am not sure who isn’t getting his facts right. Here’s a chart taken from the report in the link above (see below).

First of all, unless someone wants to assume a 50% heterosexual vs 50% homo-bisexual distribution, there are simply more straight men than homosexual which means it is not abnormal when you have more heterosexual cases diagnosed with AIDS / HIV. Next, I don’t know what has the lesbians got to do with this since the homosexual transmissions here simply referred to MSM (not Main Stream Media, but Men who have Sex with Men). That basically meant just the males who are homosexual, bisexuals and transgender. So what attack on the whole LGBT community is this chap talking about?

Anyway, based on the figures in the report (linked by the person who post the above comment), there were 423 total cases diagnosed in 2007, and there were 255 heterosexual cases (60.28%) and 145 cases of combined homosexual-bisexual transmissions (34.27%). In 2008, out of a total of 456 cases diagnosed, there were 248 heterosexual case (54.38%) with 185 cases of homosexual and bisexual combined (40.57%). When you separate the figures, homosexual cases have gone up by 21 cases (16.15%), and bisexual cases by 19 (126.6% !!!).

Of course, one report doesn’t show much. So I take a closer look at the site and found the 2012 progress report submitted by Singapore. The figures are shown in the charts below.

There were a total of 463 cases in 2009. Among those 284 were heterosexual cases (61.33%) and 166 homosexual and bisexual cases combined (35.85%). While the number of heterosexual cases have increased much compared to the previous year, homosexual and bisexual cases are still up compared to that of 2007. In 2010, the total number of cases fell to 441 and heterosexual cases also showed a remarkable decrease from 284 to 228. Heterosexual cases now made up 51.7% of the total number of case, while the combined homosexual and bisexual cases have gone up to 204 (46.25%). While it is true that heterosexual transmissions still made up the bulk of the cases, the trend indicates a continual increase in homosexual and bisexual figures since 2007.

Some would say that the figures in Singapore alone are not enough, and I agree with that. I looked through a few more reports (e.g. those of Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Israel and the United States). Many of them are lengthly and boring to read and many does not come with easy to read charts. In some cases they are in a language I do not understand (e.g. those of France, Spain and Italy). For those which are in English, I noticed that some of these reports followed a pretty standard template. They talked about the action plan taken to reach out the high risk groups, such as female sex workers and MSM, and their reduction targets for the AIDS / HIV infections in the next few years. I would consider it rather telling that MSM comes up repeatedly in most of these reports.

Fortunately, I still managed to extract some charts. I am linking all the reports I took them from so those who are interested can read the reports on their own. The chart on the right above is taken from Switzerland’s Progress Report for 2012. It is quite startling to note that MSM (i.e. homosexual cases) have actually overtaken that of heterosexuals in terms of those diagnosed with HIV.

The below charts are taken from Japan’s Progress Report for 2012:

The following chart is taken from Germany’s Progress Report for 2012:

This was stated in the United Kingdom’s report:

In 2010 just over half of HIV-diagnosed people were infected via heterosexual sex (of whom 65% were black African and 21% were white), 44% were men who have sex with men (MSM) (of whom 87% were white). 2% were infected via injecting drug use and a further 2% from mother-to-child transmission.

I have also heard the argument that there are more homosexual or bisexual cases reported because they are more conscious about the risks and thus are more willing to go for check ups on their own. However I must also point out that in Malaysia’s report it points out otherwise. If I am not wrong (since I mostly take a glance at all of these lengthly reports), in quite a number of reports the number of MSM reached to be educated about condom use and those among them professing to use a condom are way higher than those who have gone for HIV test and obtained a report. By the way, wouldn’t it mean that even some among the homosexual community also believe that their risks are higher than the rest (just like those who made the accusation) when one argued that they are conscious about the risks?

So what is exactly the point I am trying to make here? I am not making a biased accusation against the LGBT community but rather to point out that the sweeping statement made by “Yaoming” or whoever who posted that remark on The Online Citizen’s page in Facebook has no feet to stand on. In my opinion, other than those unfortunate cases whereby a victim caught AIDS / HIV from their regular sex partner, most of these cases are either promiscuous people who got what they deserved (regardless of their sexual preferences) or irresponsible / illegal sex workers.

In other words, if there is a statement I want to make here, it would simply be a statement pointing out that promiscuous homosexual males are potentially risker than their heterosexual counterparts. Since LGBT lobbyists have constantly bombarded the public with the message their cause is one about love and not gender, I would have expected them to distant themselves from these black sheep instead of making a fuss. After all, a couple (heterosexual or otherwise) have the least to fear from AIDS / HIV when both of them had they been faithful to one another. To even come out and defend against this accusation is self defeating. It is tantamount to admitting that their message that it’s all about love is nothing more than a fairy tale. Much like arguing that one should be married to stop him from going out to “play”. Call me a homophobe for all I cared. I don’t give a shit because I have completely no issues with having a drink with friends who are lesbians, or having dinner with an old classmate (and one of my oldest friend) who is openly homosexual. I simply have an issue with people who tries to make a point by accusing others of not getting their facts right when their argument is shakier than a building on a mudslide.

I’ll leave those who are reading this post to make a conclusion on their own. The figures speaks for themselves and the progress reports are all found here.

Commentary – Rony Tan (II)

Rony Tan is in the news again. This time, he was reported to the police for comments which offends homosexuals in another sermon video.

The video, which is believed to have been uploaded to the church’s website in May last year but was removed from the homepage just one day after the apology was issued, had a new lease of life after it appeared on a blog maintained by Kenneth Tan (no relation to the pastor), a Singaporean working in Shanghai. In the video, the pastor attributed childhood abuse as a cause of homosexuality and linked homosexual people with paedophiles.

He further linked homosexuality with bestiality saying: “If you allow [homosexuality], next time people will want to get married to monkeys. And they will want rights. They’ll want to apply for HDB [a colloquial term to mean a government subsidised flat]. With a donkey or a monkey or a dog and so on. It’s very pathetic.”

Even though I don’t believed in it as a Christian, I joked with my friend that Rony Tan this year 犯太岁 (meaning: in conflict with the Chinese deity ‘Tai Sui‘) considering the kind of ‘bad luck’ he is getting. I even jokingly mentioned that he should hire the services of old ladies in Hong Kong to 打小人 (literally, ‘beat the vile character’) – a pagan ritual in which a paper effigy is beaten with wooden clogs and cursed. In fact, I even wondered if he was born in the year of the Tiger.

But jokes aside, I haven’t watch the video and I don’t intend to. After all, it is not uncommon for Christian pastors to speak out against homosexuality. From just what is quoted, it would appear to me that to accuse him of linking homosexuals with with paedophiles is a deliberate mis-interpretation of his words. The argument that the acceptance of homosexuality will open the door to the acceptance of paedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality has been a common point for many pastors, Christians and conservatives. Everyone should be aware that if Rony Tan is convicted for such an argument, everyone who has presented this argument in their rejection for more rights to homosexual, bisexual and transgendered (HBT) people will be in danger based on precedence.

While I do not know the entire context of his sermons, I will leave my comment regarding this remark at this. He could have been mean in presenting his views or even dismissive HBT people, but I do not intend to join the chorus of condemnation. Beyond that, I will question the motives behind digging out a 9-month old sermon, hot on the heels of his recent ‘coffee meet’ with the Internal Security Department [ISD]. As a Christian, I cannot help but feel there is a political agenda and objective here. Unlike what happened in AWARE which was a clear cut ‘power grab’ by Christians, this is outright persecution of what Christianity can teach as moral or immoral.

I believe the person who pirated the video from the Lighthouse Evangelist site and posted it on Vimeo also made the following commented on Fridae.com to justify his action:

“The Sedition Act prohibits speech that promotes ‘feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore’. This will be a good opportunity to test the government just what it means by ‘different classes’. Are sexual minorities considered ‘class’?”

Perhaps. But this person should be wary that everything can cut both ways. Someone jokingly commented after he read this comment: ‘They’re considered a criminal class, last I checked the statutes…’ While I do not endorse this statement, I do however find it funny when I considered it in the context of Section 377A – a law against sodomy between two males. Anyway, I am not sure whether anyone charged under Section 377A will be considered a criminal.

Now that I am on the point of sodomy (and in particular male sodomy), I must point out that fellow Christians generally loses the argument against the HBT activists the moment they are rapped with a discrimination clause. Though Christians won’t go so far as the Free Community Church in their view on homosexuality, most Christians failed to stand firm and argue that Christianity does not discriminate against homosexuals. It simply has a very strong moral stand against the act of sodomy. I will not go into specifics, since one can easily obtain these so-called ‘hateful’ Bible verses on pro-HBT websites on the topic of ‘homophobia’. (A word which I consider a misnomer since homo as in homo sapiens simply means man. I am not afraid of all mankind and homosexual-phobia would have been more apt.)

To put it in an analogy, I do not discriminate against smokers, but I am certainly against (and I object to) second hand smoke being blown in my face. In a debate on smoking, am I thus discriminating if I stand and speak up for policies that limits or prohibits smoking? Similarly, we must not discriminate against Muslims when we speak up against the acts of terrorism committed by terrorists and extremists who profess to be one. (Not that I even consider the terrorist a person practising Islam to begin with!)

To condemn Christianity for their moral stand against sodomy as being discriminating against the HBT, is the equivalent of meat eaters demanding from religions with teachings against killing animals not to discriminate against them. In short, HBT activists and lobby should stop taking Christians as a convenient punch bag to further their own personal agenda. Christians in Singapore have no quarrel (and do not intend to quarrel) with HBT persons. Simply, most Christians want to say is:

We fully respect those with homosexual (or bisexual / transgendered) tendencies who manage to withstand the great trial that we not required to stand, but we will not legitimize those who do not overcome their ‘instincts’.

On top of which, after the fiasco at AWARE, some Christians here are now increasingly wary and alert to some of the tactics used by the HBT activists and lobby in the U.S. Christians like myself will not yet claim persecution of Christians for the action taken against Rony Tan, but we will make no excuse to condone sodomy.

The HBT lobby in Singapore should be reminded that if they push the Christian community too hard, they might not like it when the Christian community collectively pushes back. Note that a collective effort by conservatives in the U.S. has resulted in 31 states repealing homosexual marriage laws.

I would like to remind my fellow HBT Singaporeans of the freedoms they already enjoyed in Singapore. Do not forget that other than Thailand, Singapore is probably the most HBT-friendly and tolerant in the whole of South East Asia. Take Rony Tan to task for all I cared, but be careful when you start questioning why no Christians object to it. After all, setting a fire may produce warmth, but when out of control a fire might also consume the person who set it.

Recommended Read:
SG BOLEH: Black Sheep of Insurances – Why people hate insurance agents
Terence69: Rights Aren’t Always Right

Commentary – Fear, Bigotry and Hatred

These are excerpts from a post on pinkdot blog:

Though more LGBT individuals are slowly emerging into the mainstream, prejudice and bigotry in present societal attitudes keep many LGBT individuals from coming out of the closet. Many of them fear that in coming out, they might lose their family, friends and even their jobs. Yet, by not coming out, their lives are shrouded in secrecy.

Fear and bigotry can get in the way of love – between friends, family and other loved ones – so this is an event for everyone who believes that LGBT individuals are equally deserving of strong relationships with our family and friends.

We are aware that many people harbour much hatred towards the LGBT community.

Some times I am quite bewildered when I read these. Either I am stuck in a hole, where time has stopped or I lived in an alternate reality that is apart from the rest. I have no clue why there is this agenda behind fostering an image that there is a large element in society that is anti-HBT (Homosexual, Bisexual, Trans-gendered).

The fact remains, there are homosexual people who has emerged into the mainstream. Yet, I am unaware of any concerted effort by anyone to persecute specific people who has emerged.

Looking back at history, it is clear that majority of Singapore’s society is not really bothered by the HBT. In fact, Singapore is among one of the most tolerant societies in the region. Singaporeans are just about as bothered by HBT activities as they are with the proliferation of prostitution from the traditional red-light districts into the wholesome areas like Joo Chiat. Singaporeans are pragmatic people and as long as everything happens in a controlled manner or away from the public eye, it will be tolerated. This would be evident in complaints by the public regarding ‘cruising’ activities resulting in police raids, which is some what expected, just like the anti-vice response to the soliciting by foreign nationals in Geylang. Incidentally, I once saw a policeman grab a woman by her hair and led her away on suspicion of soliciting, where is AWARE on this? Or are foreign women in Singapore not a concern to them, being inclusive as they claimed they are?

HBT activists talks a lot about discrimination but are short on specifics. Let me point out I see a lot of hand-holding in public among foreign nationals along Serangoon Road, and there is no law against same-sex kissing. Are we to forget that Singapore’s Bugis and Changi Point used to be famous for transvestites, before they moved off to another area in the recent years? Are we all not aware that bookstores carry mainly foreign homosexual-themed literature by stocking these books along with those on women issues in sections entitled ‘Gender Studies’? Are there not pubs for both male and female homosexuals in Singapore? Is it not true that since the mid-90s even the police has stopped raiding homosexual pubs? Is it not true that the police has never burst into homes or hotel rooms and arrest anyone under Section 377A – unlike what Hitler did using his Schutzstaffeln [SS] when he tried to remove his rival Ernst Röhm? Are we to forget that the existence of sites like Fridae.com and no hate sites in response is testimony in itself to the quiet acceptance of the HBT community in Singapore? Consider what it would really have been if there is really discrimination here. If I am not mistaken, in certain Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by DEATH.

So, is there really a problem with the situation for the HBT, when for years Singapore has such activities and in most parts, most people aren’t really bothered? Simply put, the question would be, is more of such activism by the likes of pinkdot really helping or is it detrimental to social and even religious harmony? I am in the opinion that such activities drives people to take sides and actually polarise society, and as my Ah Beng friend would say in Hokkien: “kanninah?! geh gan!” [Translation: “What the fxxk?! Doing something extra and unnecessary!”]

I can’t help too, to feel that there is only one sole objective in such activism – the gagging of people who would prefer to maintain the status quo, even though these people may not necessarily give a flying damn about a homosexual’s private life and sexual preferences.

After all, among all the people I have spoken to, be it friends or colleagues, Christians and non-Christians alike, everyone believes in according to homosexual people universal suffrage, equal job opportunities and equal right to health care. None of them would turn down a homosexual person seeking employment as long as they are qualified for the job, if they was in the position to decide who to hire. Some of them has said whatever homosexuals do to themselves, it is even less than what smokers are doing to non-smokers with their second-hand smoke. Beyond that, each will have their own reservations regarding the matter of homosexual marriages, homosexual adoptions and the repealing of certain laws. So, is having a personal opinion, reservations and even objection to any of these now simply just – bigotry, hate and fear?

If that is the case, this isn’t reasoning. This isn’t even a progress towards a more civil society. This is simply about ‘fixing’ the people who objects by labelling them as something. This is dehumanising one’s detractors, by completely ignoring the other aspects of the other person’s humanity. In short, the advocates for HBT rights are doing to their opponents what they are accusing their opponents of. Now tell me why wouldn’t there be a violent, and sometimes even hate-filled response to such bigotry!

Anyway, I wanted talk about the fear. When I asked some people why they are so ‘afraid’ of homosexual people, I get some answers that I actually found amusing. Some would categorise their fear of homosexuals and trans-gendered people as similar to that as a girl’s fear of being stalked or harass by a guy. Some expressed that it would be similar to a reaction of over-friendly overtures from colleagues of the same sex – even though one knows for sure the other person has no other motives behind it. While some even mentioned that it would be like having a stranger suddenly being friendly to you. None mentioned about having a problem with friends who they know are, or later found to be homosexuals.

So, let’s face it, there is indeed fear here. But it’s an emotional fear of the unknown and nothing so much as bigotry or hatred. Of course, you can try harassing a girl beyond what she can take and see whether she starts hating you after that. Is pinkdot or homosexual advocates / cheerleaders suggesting that society should not have such an emotion, while at the same time they suggest that emotions is something that is somewhat a right that shouldn’t be denied for the HBT? That would be preposterous!

Thus, it is not a surprise that HBT activism has caused a reaction from some elements of society. In fact, I ain’t even surprised by the reaction of some towards NMP Siew Kum Hong. After all these effort in silencing objection to the HBT, so much so that it is considered hate-crime, these advocates themselves who aren’t HBT are the only legitimate targets left. Tough luck, Mr Siew.

By the way, let’s face it that this isn’t a ‘debate’ on ideologies or religion. The people generally are more concerned with matters that deals with job stability and security – i.e. the matters of feeding one’s stomach. If there’s anything that our government gahmen is concerned about in this whole HBT vs anti-HBT debate, it is how to make attracting ‘Pink Dollar’ tourism acceptable to the general public while not giving the HBT the wrong impression of state endorsement.

Recommended Reads:
BlackNews.com – True Intentions of Gay Activists Now Revealed
Gimme Some Truth! – Sniffing out the Straits Times agenda in the AWARE Saga
InsanePoly: Anatomy Of A Catfight

Daily Discourse: Christianity vs Homosexuality

5 comments

Set piece (n) – A situation, activity, or speech planned beforehand and carried out according to a prescribed pattern or formula.

From the debate on Section 377A, to FOTF, to the current squabble at AWARE, each and everytime, Christianity found itself caught in a set piece and in the defensive. Christians are vilified as homophobes, called names, portrayed as uncaring bigots, insensitive, backwards, and brainless religious fanatics by their ‘Christian-o-phobe’ opponents.

In everyone of those situations, extremist elements of the LGBT community deliberately set the stage and define the tone of the debate – i.e. Christianity vs Homosexuality. Christians and protestant churches are sadly drawn into a meaningless debate and repeatedly portrayed as the main enemy of homosexuality. But in essence, Christians have almost no need to respond to these allegations and when they feel compelled to do so, they can respond in a manner in which they do not compromise on their core beliefs and yet avoid the labeling.

Take Section 377A for example. When the Council of Churches made their stand clear about homosexuality, Christians are therefore caught in the jaws of the vice of ‘Christianity vs Homosexuality’.

Section 377A was introduced in 1938 to criminalise all other non-penetrative sexual acts between men. ‘Gross indecency’ is a broad term which, from a review of past cases in Singapore, has been applied to mutual masturbation, genital contact, or even lewd behaviour without direct physical contact.

How the matter degenerated into one of Christians vs Homosexuals is quite beyond me. It is a law that specifically criminalise male homosexual acts in public, not one that targets the entire LGBT.

Perhaps like I was for some time, this is confused with the now repealed Section 377 which also covered sodomy. However, Section 377 in particular is not a homosexual specific law, but would also target heterosexuals performing those acts – for e.g. a husband forcing his unwilling wife into sodomy or fellatio or a pervert sodomising a little boy. Granted, that other legislations may be used to covered these aspects, Church / Christians would have done better to point out that this is the core matter they want to defend, which may thus find more acceptance among even non-Christians, and leave the extremists of the LGBT to scream at the four winds. On top of which, Section 377 in particular covers also other manners of sexual acts repulsive to most human beings – necrophilia, bestiality and pedophilia.

Thus, when I looked at how the debate continue to degenerate and the deeper Christians / Church falls into the trap, it really makes me wonder that whether Christians fall into the logic trap that their morality is superior to that of non-believers and even if that maybe true – do they actually believe that non-believers are completely lacking in morality? Even those who do not believe have a certain conscience too, yes? Clearly there are certain things that even common people would find repulsive and Christianity would do a lot better pointing that out! Even when not everyone can be made a Christian, Jesus commanded us to be the salt and light of the world and isn’t doing our part to prevent a further slide into immorality doing just that?

And before any one starts screaming that I am saying that homosexuality is immoral, let me explain. Take for e.g. when Christians brought up the matter of the spread of AIDS or STD/VDs as a point in defense, they should point out the core issue here is opposition to promiscuity. And promiscuity not only among homosexuals, but also heterosexuals. At the very minimum, even when Christianity may not agree with LGBT, Christianity is still for faithfulness between partners, and the question now to those LGBT beating their chest against Christianity will be – Are you in support of a promiscuous lifestyle that even when most parts of society disagree?

Christians should really waste no more time debating why there is an issue with homosexual sex when it is sex between two consenting adults. After all, as much as homosexuals are entitled to how they want their sex life to be, Christians are entitled to their right to disagree. It is the same as how Christians would disagree with a compulsive gambler or one going to the prostitutes but we see far less conflict coming from that. So, let’s freaking just agree to disagree, forever, and move on to the next and more important issue. Is it not the same with homosexuals, when even most heterosexuals would be upset about unfaithful partners?

I am not suggesting that all LGBT is promiscuous, but clearly when they asked to be viewed normally, then I would really take a step back, not as a Christian but as any other human being, and attempt to consider all aspects of homosexuality with a heterosexual mindset. Do LGBT not agree that promiscuity is a real issue, be it for homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Do we all not put our feet down on promiscuity, which may destroy any relationship – both heterosexual and homosexual? Does society in general not frown upon people who goes around hitting on partners for nothing more than to satisfy their lust? Clearly the image of swingers going around looking for partners, is repulsive to many. When homosexual swingers hit on even straight people, does that not go forth to present homosexuality in a bad image? What fault is there for Christianity to point that out? Or is the LGBT actually suggesting to us all that promiscuity is alright, or in fact, exclusively theirs?

Next, the matter of FOTF. Again FOTF is shown to be a Christian organisation with programs against LGBT – as such, it is anti-LGBT. Yet again the specter of Christian homophobia is raised to vilify Christians. But look deeper at the matter, if it has been a organisation called FOPH (Focus of Personal Health), with programs that encourages people to focus on health and give up on smoking and fatty food, is FOPH thus anti-smokers and anti-obese people? Certainly, I find less outrage in smokers being treated worse than common criminals – outcast from pubs and public buildings, and cornered to a limited space to smoke even in open-air eateries.Why is that? If we are talking about inclusiveness, clearly we have left the smokers out.

Finally, the AWARE matter. It annoys me to no end that the Straits Stooge Times has dug up much significant details not just about the faith of the new ExCo, but has invaded their privacy by listing who their spouse are, their occupation and the number of children they have. No one considered that an invasion of privacy and even applaud the Stooge Times for it, over nothing more than the allegation that the new ExCo will be less inclusive. (Surprisingly, other than the fact she has been an ex-president of AWARE, there is very little said about a particular Dana Lim, whose name has appeared in the very first article, and now in a video exhorting people to turn up for the AWARE EOGM on May 2nd.)

But what is the issue here other that the fact that the ExCo has been Christians? The matter become a problem because Christians have repeatedly allowed the brown shirts of the LGBT to continue labeling and portraying them as anti-LGBT by default. The Stooge Times clearly did them a ‘great favor’ by digging up past letters on the Section 377 debate. To put it in an analogy, it is as if a cheerful butcher at the market has been portrayed as one taking joy in chopping parts dead animals, will in effect definitely be a sadistic murderer.

Has the public forgotten that the new ExCo hasn’t even done anything, other than their ‘hostile take over’? I would have thought that even common criminals are assumed innocent until proven guilty. But yet the new ExCo has been judged as being an exclusive club, being non-inclusive and would be thus not helpful to non-Christian and not just lesbian women too.

Woo… just how the goal posts have shifted from the earlier Christianity vs LGBT now to Christianity vs the world! I am amazed at how the tactics get dirtier day by day and sadly no one has noticed this. Then someone like Gwee Li Sui scores an own goal. Reminds me of a scene in Hamburger Hill, where the Marines were in the midst of taking the position and there comes a UH-1H gunship which machine-gunners gunned down the Marines. Thank you very much, Gwee.

There are of course some Christians (and Christians on both sides of the debate), who would not agree with some of my views here. But it is my considered opinion that it is high time Christianity avoid getting itself into such set pieces, and when they do get into it, evolves new tactics to get themselves out of the situation and come out gunning, scoring some goals of their own.

Recommended Reads:
Call it Grace: Confronting Idols
Where Bears Roam Free: Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?