And so, this weekend would be the pink dot movement in Singapore
where those supporting LGBT rights will be wearing pink. The religious groups
who support pro-creation and fear how pink dot movement would affect society
will be wearing white. Both groups believe they are doing what is right while
the other group is doing harm and made assumptions.
Should I wear any of those colours? To many, they are quick to pick a colour to wear. For me, I hesitate. Why?
1) APPLYING CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
For many Christians, they would be quick to say, "ahhh... Bible disagree
with homosexuality, it is obvious that we should wear white!" Then they
will quote the Bible:
But is it really so obvious? Have you worn white against sexual
immorality? Movies nowadays show nude scenes. Have you wore any coloured shirt
to protest against it or boycotted all Hollywood movies because of that?
Adultery is getting common too. Have you made any noise? Some people can be
greedy wanting to win a fortune by getting into gambling. Have you worn anything
to protest against it? Some Christians even gamble with greed! Are those lesser
sins in eyes of God? Is there selective reading?
The Bible while complex to understand has some very simple principles too. Everything is summed as 'love':
And what exactly is 'love'?
2) RELYING ON THE TRUTH
Have you wondered why there is pink dot
movement? One of the reasons was due to early scientific studies. One of the
early studies was done by Bailey
& Pillard (1991) which
they wrote their findings that "52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins,
22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were
homosexual". Adoptive brothers are not genetically identical. Dizygotic
cotwins have genes that are similar and monozygotic cotwins have almost identical
genes. And you can see that homosexuality increases as DNA is found to be
similar. This suggested that genes is one of the factors influencing sexual
orientation cause if one twin is homosexual and the other is, then it cancel
out environment as a likely cause especially if they were raised in different
families (in cases of orphans). The sample size for this research is small and
hence cannot really generalise but you can see the pattern.
Another much
bigger sample size research was done by Långström,
Rahman, Carlström
& Lichtenstein (2010) in Sweden on 3,826 same-sex twin pairs.
Genes were found to explain 34-39% of the differences in sexual orientation
while individual-specific environment explains 61-66%. You might then be quick
to say "see, genetics is only moderately the cause while environment is
the main cause hence they chose to be so". Is it? Did you get to choose
where you get born into? Did you get to choose your family? No. Even if environment is the main
cause, it doesn't mean you can choose freely. Dr.
Bailey warned that 'environmental' does not mean 'socially acquired' that
suggest individuals have full control. Also, 34-39% is still quite a big
number.
Another
research done by University
of California in USA recently
suggested 20% due to genetics but it is of a much smaller sample size of 37
sets of twins (so questionable on the validity to suggest the whole population
would be 20% also). There are plans however to do a much bigger research on a
bigger sample size. To say it is mostly by 'choice' and justify any
discrimination is way too premature.
I used to
debate with people on such issues over at least a decade ago standing on the
white shirt camp and I lost the argument. I recalled reading a research done on
twins raised in different families that when one was found homosexual, the
other is as well and together with other researches, they somehow suggested
there is a 'gay gene'. I could no longer recall which research nor can I find
it now. Nevertheless, I did not support it. Few years ago I also debated with a
Professor during a Summer School when the topic was being raised by him. I
argued from sociological point of view that people can be socialised to certain
sexual orientation and while I am not against LGBT people, I'm not in favour of
it being promoted or publicised in anyway as kids can be influenced and may
affect population growth (the extent of it is questionable though) etc. Still,
I'm not in favour of wearing white. I'll explain why later.
3) RELYING ON EXPERIENCE
To convince people to wear white, some
leaders may argued that it is a mess in USA now that transgender can choose to
go to gents or ladies publicly as based on their assumed sexual orientation and
gave the impression that majority agrees with it. This is false!
Update: Some church leaders wanting to convince people to wear white saying that because Americans did not make a stand hence the bathroom bill got passed. This is false again. The Bathroom bill was partly a response to North Carolina's state bill to prevent any anti-discrimination/LGBT bill from being passed in the state's cities (which was also a response to an initial ordinance passed by Charlotte City Council, a city within North Carolina). Your so-called 'making a stand' will just escalate any potential conflicts and create unnecessary conflicts. Don't believe this as what happened instead of what those misinformed church leaders said? Read this news article here. Leaders have more power to influence and need to be careful with what they say and be responsible. People look up to them. When I argued against what was said by leaders, people criticised me and believe everything said by leaders. Despite my years of education, when it comes to faith, all these are discounted. Even if I'm trained in social sciences to know the possible impact of actions, all are discounted.
Then they also brought out that because of
legalising it being liberal, Europe is in a mess that toilets can be found in
public that everyone can see you peeing openly even for ladies! Is that true?
Below are two photos of some of such toilets I found from google:
They are not so open that you will be
exposed as was suggested. It was exaggerated that such toilet is in the centre
of a mall and it is common! That is nonsense. I have lived in UK for a year,
travelled to Iceland, France, Netherlands, Germany and Italy and I did not see
it common at all! And all these toilets seem to be gents only. The more common
toilets are such paid toilets that I found from google:
They warned against legalising such
movement as it will end up many people being influenced and people would openly
perform certain acts with everything in a mess. Having been living in UK for a
year, I did not see what they claimed. I did not see a mess. While there are
such cases, they are not far above what happens in Singapore and definitely not
above what happen at Changi Village at midnight despite we have laws against
it! It is totally fear-mongering without basis.
4) RELYING ON REASONING
It seems like quite a few Christians
suggest that they have a choice. I argued above that even if it is environment
as a cause, it does not mean you have control or a choice. Ask yourself if you
are straight why do you get attracted to the opposite sex? You would say
"because she is so pretty" or "he is so handsome". And why
are you only attracted to beautiful things? You just cannot explain. You have
no control over what is biological which may also be shaped by environment
(e.g. virus do mutate based on environmental changes).
Have you considered what benefit is there
in being a homosexual? They get ostracised. Who in the right mind would want to
be ostracised? And people still think it is mostly a choice so they label them
as 'sinners' being guilty because they chose to as the 'judges' would claim.
They face hardship and as Christians,
shouldn't we show love and hence empathy to them (this is also why straight
people supported pink dot movement due to society ostracising them too much)?
While we cannot agree to their movement because of religious beliefs, do we
have to wear white and go head on? Some argued that this is not head on but to
create awareness to the Government that majority do not agree. You think
Government stupid or what? Government
has already made clear that they are not going to repeal Section 377A of the
penal code to legalise such movement. Yet, they will also not enforce it to
criminalise such movement. Government is aware of the thoughts of
majority (NUS Institute of Policy Studies did a survey study where majority of over 70% still do not accept so why need you to even wear white to create awareness to the government?) and if any change in legislation will have to go through parliamentary
debates. If you want to raise objection, you could do it then if such bill is
being developed! Why create conflict unnecessary, making so much noises?
What good is it to society when two camps
fight one another under the same excuse of 'just creating awareness'? It only
leads to polarisation that attitude towards you by the other camp will be even
more negative thinking that you are not understanding and unwelcoming then they
will turn even more aggressive and more will join them when they find you
unreasonable. Then your camp will see it as a real threat and increasingly so
and start to convince more people to wear white. Then everything just escalate
all because of self-fulfilling prophecy and unwise decision made.
CONCLUSION
Instead of wearing white, you can still
make your stand like what I did with my Professor that I acknowledged that
genetics is a cause and that it is not fully a choice. But to promote it may
cause other problems too. When you reason, there is a higher chance to convince
people and when you show that you understand the hardship they go through, they
are also more open to what you have to say. If you just wear white, who knows
what you were thinking when wearing that? They will just find you unreasonable;
harden their hearts further and what good have you done that created the image
that Christianity is unloving? Don't believe such initiative is being seen as bigotry? Just read the comments found here.
Be like Christ who in front of the crowd
that tried to stone the adulteress chose not to condemn her but kindly
corrected her with love and not activism. And note that this is Singapore, a
home belonging to all. It does not belong to Christians alone so don't use the
Christian values to push down to everyone's throat forcing them to accept your
values and beliefs. You can speak up but to go into activism is a bit too much
I feel.
Still want to wear white or pink leading
to polarisation and social unrest with the excuse of 'creating awareness'? I
see no good reason and want no part of these.
An update: I saw this video by 3:16 church in Facebook which I want to promote as a far wiser movement. It recognises the struggle that LGBT group have to endure instead of assuming it is a mere choice of lifestyle. It is also far more welcoming showing that the cell group cares for such person that love of God could be seen. Imagine all Christians share such video in Facebook instead of merely wearing white, which is more effective and more aligned to Christian principle of love? This video has the message of love yet made its stand. Wearing white made your stand but does not carry with it a message of love. Instead, it suggests bigotry and intolerance. Have a look at the video at the church's main page here. This church even have a special service tomorrow at 4 pm featuring testimonies from those struggling. For more info, look at their Facebook page here.
