Tuesday, 23 July 2013

Would you choose to be gay?

I can just imagine the ribbing I am going to get from some of my guy friends, asking this on NRSC.

I must admit that I have very few homosexual friends. In fact, I have at most one gay friend (even then only highly suspect, not confirmed) whom I meet once in a blue moon. The others I can count with one hand, and really only qualify as acquaintances. Call me "boring". Whatever...

Discomfort with my faith
As a Christian (albeit lukewarm at times), homosexuality has been something I struggled with, even though I am not gay.

It disturbs me that someone could be 'created to sin', because I believe homosexuality is not a choice. Straight folks could sail through life doing all the things that 'please God'. Theoretically where this is concerned, as long as you go to church (and believe), don't have sex before marriage, and marry a Christian, all is well.

The problem is that homosexuals have a darn hard time doing that (pun unintended but noticed nonetheless). They apparently have no way to lead a lifestyle 'pleasing to God'. There are certain camps which believe that a monogamous homosexual marriage is no worse in the eyes of God than a heterosexual one, and on the flip side there are camps who believe that the only right option for Christian gays is total celibacy.

Honestly, I wouldn't know. Both sides seem to quote tons of scripture, and despite my having prayed before, I will have you know that talking to God can be like banging one's head against a brick wall sometimes. The major difference is that one gets an immediate reply from the brick wall. I still believe that I may get to see Him in the afterlife, and my question wouldn't be the titular one, but instead: Why did You create some people gay?

Nature or nurture?
Again, there are two camps. Some believe that being gay is a choice, while others believe that it's nature - pointing to the fact that many species of animals engage in gay sex as well. I have personally witnessed one of my male hamsters raping his brother, and was disgusted enough (yeah, I'm homophobic in a way) to separate them after that. Of course, not having provided a female mate for him (because our prior overindulgence had led to a population explosion and we had 30), I couldn't really blame him for trying to relieve himself in the nearest victim. This may not be a good example, but I am dead sure I would prefer the company of my hands to the company of another guy, should I desire this sort of relief.

The euphemistic label "Alternative lifestyle" doesn't quite do the situation justice. It implies choice. Cheap shots at publicity such as these also don't do justice to the situation and the LBGT community. From a typical Christian perspective (which for all we know, is quite different from whatever the Man-Up-There thinks), if you choose to be gay, then you are a bigger sinner. "Bigger" sinner not because you are more well-endowed, of course, but because to many people, willfully butt-f**king a guy is one of the biggest sexual sins in the book. Never mind adultery, never mind prostitution, never mind child sexual abuse (apparently usually boys are the victims...) in the Catholic Church.
Now personally, I AM uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage.
Although I reconciled my discomfort with that by marrying a wonderful lady instead.
Why should this be so? Is it because people are...?

Idolising the anus?
Someone on my Facebook shared this link, then used it to make the point for Section 377A to remain. If you have soldiered this far, I guess this law requires little further explanation. No surprises that it came from an evangelical Christian. The debate was long and tortuous, with the poster on one hand citing reasons ranging from "the weak must be protected from the strong", to "body parts must be used for the correct purpose". Never mind that existing laws on assault offer more than adequate protection, unless the assailant is a drunken diplomat.

Before I proceed, I must profess that as a Christian, I largely agree with the idea of Evangelism. I may not be a "good" Christian, but since I believe that I have to accept Jesus Christ etc etc or else, naturally I think that the message should be spread so that people get a shot at an entrance ticket to heaven.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that imposing one's beliefs on another is the way to conduct effective evangelism. In fact, it's likely to be a complete turn off.

Even though I haven't read the Bible for some time, I know that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. In the eyes of God, I am as sinful as the horniest gay man on earth. And so are you, because we are apparently all sinners. If you are Christian, you can't deny that. If you aren't, then that's some Christian perspective for you.

I usually can't read this trashy, titillating tabloid without committing some form of sin. Which is a tiny part of why I don't. Something for virile Christians to think about...

Strangely, we do not have laws against most other forms of sexual debauchery. Prostitution is tolerated (maybe not strictly 'legal'?) in designated areas of Singapore, with areas in Geylang set aside for it and the trade is regulated by having 'legal' prostitutes go for health checks every so often. Straight swingers and other less sociable one-on-one 'adulterers' can operate with complete impunity from the law. In fact, the law only mandates that the girl is at least 16 - unless the guy pays the girl - which bumps the minimum age to 18.

Does a gay man poking another gay man affect the family unit more? Or does an adulterous parent affect the family unit more? I'm assuming that the gay man is not married to a woman and has kids.

With the unholy fixation on "anal sanctity" amongst certain circles, I can only conclude that a weird form of anal worship is taking place. If I ever were to go back to church on a regular basis, the anuses of the world would be the furthest thing from my mind. Unless I've had one of these the night before. That might give me something to worry about for a while...

True story... But even so, I'm not going to put the anus on a pedestal...

And on to my Golden Question for my LGBT readers:

If you could choose, would you choose to be gay (or etc)? Why? Why not? It's not about whether you are proud of who you are today. It's more about which you would choose, assuming you were asexual and had to 'choose' a path.

Stay tuned for my next post, covering conversion therapy. For that, I need your inputs, and thus it's open season for all - from gay rights activists to rabid evangelicals. Fire away!

- S

P.S. I know not all Christians are against S377A, or condemn homosexuality specifically. But I have personally witnessed a very vocal segment doing so, without offering acceptable explanations as to why religious values should dictate secular law, in light of the other inconsistencies with those religious values and existing legislature.

I have also been touched by this story. Do read this, and contribute to the discussion, before I follow up with my next post.


  1. I really do not know how to answer.
    First, I am tempted to say YES I would probably want to be part of the majority. To be straight.

    But I think I do not want to, and have always tried not to, be a common person.

    So even if I am straight, I may not want to get married (seeing the divorce rates), I most probably do not want to have kids (do you know how expensive they are ?) , etc.

    Yes, in the initial years, I have frequently wished I were straight. Then I wouldn't have so much problems to deal with - how to tell friends, how to tell parents, etc....

    Now, I don't care about these much more.

  2. Thank you for sharing the story from huffpost.

  3. We were born this way.. You can't make us straight anymore you make yourself gay.. But then again sexuality is a spectrum. There are bisexuals too.