Some thoughts about homosexuality as a Christian (Now playing Forgiven not forgotten by The Corrs)

Introduction

    There seems to be a growing awareness of homosexuality in Singapore nowadays. I have noticed the Straits Times bringing this issue out more and more out to the open. There was a case a few years ago about an  English Professor from the NUS English Language Proficiency Unit who was robbed and murdered by his student.  After judgment was pronounced on the murderer and his accomplice, the Straits Times ran an article describing the Professor's homosexual life.  I can see that It was obviously written to reinforce the concept that homosexuals do not come to a good end, although the truth of the case was that he was murdered by one of his students and his accomplice, and that whether he was a homosexual or not has nothing to do with the case in question.

    Even more recently, the Internet group for homosexuals in Singapore, People Like Us, submitted an application to hold a forum discussing the role of Singapore gays in the vision, Singapore 21, through Alex Au, who runs a very enlightening website here.  The application was rejected by the authorities, leading to some interesting exchanges by sympathetic Singaporeans, Lim Swee Say and the police.  

    I myself have sent a letter to the Forum but it was rejected.  I guess partly due to the subject matter and partly due to my provocative points, to be described in detail in section 1 of this article.  While I have to admit that Kum Hong's letter is of a very good quality, I also think mine is good too J, since I analyzed the homosexuality issue using Paul Samuelson's revealed preference theory, thus giving a more positive analysis instead of a normative one.  You will be able to conclude how strong it is by the end of the next section J.

    More recently, I was watching the HK drama serial, Untraceable Evidence, on 25/06/00 when I notice something very amazing, it had a gay theme and a very sympathetic one at that. I was surprised because I have read earlier how TCS has very strict guidelines on the portrayal of gay themes in Singapore shows, as seen here. Upon reading those guidelines, I thought words like "should clearly not promote, justify or glamorise such lifestyles" are very vague, leading to extreme measures of self-censorship behavior for TCS producers.

    On the same Sunday when they show that particular episode, I was also reading the Sunday Times, which had an article by Susan
Long, reporting on the level of social grace among Singaporeans. That article had all the famous Singaporeans like Clarie Chiang,
Tommy Koh etc, lamenting on the lack of social grace among Singaporeans vis-à-vis Caucasians.

    Well I took the liberty to send a letter in to the Straits Times Forum, connecting the HK show with that article. I do not expect it
to be published though, given the level of homophobia in Singapore, so I send my letter to Sintercom, you can read the letter here.

Mainstream Christian perspective on homosexuality

    One thing that struck me is how do Christians view homosexuals at present? From what I had discussed with my fellow Christians here in Singapore, I think all of them condemn homosexuality claiming many reasons why.  I summarized their argument as basically dependent on 2 crucial assumptions.  Let me formally state them:

Heterosexual assumption 1: Homosexuality is a choice, i.e. no one is born a homosexual

Heterosexual assumption 2: The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality

    From these 2 assumptions, mainstream Christians' stand towards a homosexual is summarized by the following proposition:

Heterosexual Proposition 1: Homosexuals can be cured, by submitting to the grace and power of God

    The objective of this article is to examine the above 2 assumptions.  My personal stand is that Christians should be careful about the limits to the above 2 assumptions.  I feel that, at present, many Christians inevitably promote plenty of half-truths around.  Examples are as follows:

Fallacious Example 1: Aids is God's judgment on homosexuals

Fallacious Example 2: God created the private parts of man and woman to complement each other, thus, same sex relationships are unnatural.

    I will not go into details on why the 2 above examples are fallacious.  For example 1, readers are encouraged to refer to this article.  For example 2, let me just provide a simple example to illustrate how many people often misuse the word "natural" and "unnatural":

    Now, what would be the "natural" use for our eyes?  Most people would probably reply that eyes are used to see.  Suppose I now use my eyes to wink to a girl, trying to send "electricity" to her, am I using my eyes "unnaturally"?  I don't think so, right?  This example shows that, while you may say that the private parts of man and woman seem to complement each other naturally, it does not necessarily follows that any other use of them are "unnatural", unless of course you define those terms to exclude those other uses, rendering your argument a tautology.

    The aim of this article is not trying to justify homosexuality.  Being a God fearing Christian, I have no problems saying that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, i.e that heterosexual assumption 2 is correct.  However, I will show later how Christians are often inconsistent in dealing with homosexuality as a sin vis-à-vis other sins.  The objective of this article is as follows:

Objective 1: Any Christian argument against homosexuality is ultimately a matter of faith in the word of God.

    Thus, I believe, at this point of time, that we do not have a logical basis in condemning homosexuality, it is a faith issue that is similar to our argument for Christianity.  Once we acknowledge this, we should be careful not to let our inherent bias against homosexuals affect our viewpoints of homosexuals.

    In formulating my own viewpoints towards homosexuals, I try, as far as possible, to remove all inherent bias from my thinking.  I understand that society programmed me to be disgusted by homosexuals and I now hope to reformat my brain with logical thinking.  

    This article will show that neither assumption 1 and 2 are justifiable logically.  The only way for mainstream Christians to be consistent in their stand against homosexuality is to elevate the 2 assumptions as axioms.  This means that we cannot question these 2 assumptions, they are a statement of faith.  This is not necessary disastrous for Christians since the argument for Christianity is also an argument of faith, not logic.  But it does mean that we have to be more careful when we condemn homosexuality.  We should then be aware that there is a chance that we may be wrong.

Examining Assumption 1: Homosexuals is a choice

    Anyone can see that Christians must hold this assumption for them to be consistent.  If we are willing to concede that some people are born with a predisposition towards homosexuality, like being left-handed, we will not be able to prove unambiguously that God condemns homosexuality.  

    Once we remove our inherent bias against homosexuality, we can now logically examine this assumption.  I realize that this assumption is clearly weak.  To show this, let me first state a lemma which proof should be obvious:

Lemma 1: The external cost of being a homosexual is more than a heterosexual

    I should not have to prove the above lemma since everyone should know that given a choice, the decision to be a homosexual entails greater external cost since society would clearly frown at you.  I have spoken to one homosexual who expresses the common viewpoint that he longs to tell his friends and family (the term is 'coming out of the closet') but he is worried about losing them if he does.  I think all of us who are heterosexual can clearly identify with that fear.

    The basic axiom in economics states that people are rational, they always act to maximize their utility.  Once we accept the this definition as well as lemma 1, we can see that our above assumption, that homosexuality is a free choice, cannot be true.  How can a person ever choose to be a homosexual, given that lemma 1 is true, wouldn't he be irrational?

Solution to the puzzle

    I have examined various ways in which Christians may try to salvage the above proposition but I realize that we cannot do so without conceding that a person may have an internal disposition towards homosexuality.  Once we are willing to concede that, it becomes easier to solve the dilemma.  Let me state it more formally in the following proposition which is of course impossible to prove:

Homosexual Proposition 1: There is an internal disposition in homosexuals that made them homosexuals.  More concisely, homosexuals are born homosexuals.

    This proposition automatically implies the following corollary:

Homosexual Corollary 1: There is an internal cost in a homosexual for him/her to switch to a heterosexual.

    The strength of this internal cost might vary depending on different homosexuals.  Together, this corollary and lemma 1, which is always true for all people, implies the following important theorem, that finally convinced me that heterosexual assumption 1, that homosexuals have a choice is weak at best:

Homosexual Theorem 1: Homosexuals exist in society because the internal cost of a switch to them, is much greater than the external cost of society's disapproval.  

    Now, how do we then explain the empirical evidence that there are homosexuals who have converted to heterosexuals?  We Christians are fond of pointing out certain testimonies of people who found God's grace sufficient for them to renounce homosexuality.  I believe that the above theorem provides us with the answer, stated in the following corollary:

Homosexual Corollary 2: Those homosexuals who manage to convert to heterosexuality are able to do so because the internal cost of a switch is lower than the external cost.

    These important results sums up my stand on whether homosexuals have a choice or not.  I believe, if they really have a choice, the word 'choice' meaning that there is no internal disposition towards homosexuality, all of them would choose to be heterosexual.  Who would be so foolish to still choose to be a homosexual given how much society frowns on them?  

    If they still choose to be a homosexual, despite the higher external cost, it must be because there is something internal in them that makes it even more costly for them to be a heterosexual.  

    International trade students should recognize that I am using Paul Samuelson's revealed preference argument of gains from trade.  Recall that, the gains from trade argument using revealed preference, states that, the cost of the autarky goods bundle is less than the free-trade bundle.  Thus, if the country still chooses the free-trade bundle, trade is revealed preferred to a state of autarky.

    Applying it to the homosexual case, when homosexuals 'choose' to be a homosexual even though it is much cheaper (No pun intended), under current social norms, to be a heterosexual, you could interpret it in 2 ways:  Either homosexuality is revealed preferred to heterosexuality, as with the free trade argument, or that they did not really have the choice.  Upon seeing the anguish that many homosexuals have as a result of this decision, I really wonder whether is it really because of free choice.  After all, I don't ever remembered any stage of my life where I 'choose' to be turned on by women.  If not, it must be because there is an internal cost in them that makes it even more costly for them to renounce their homosexuality.

    To recap this long and rambling argument, let me restate them again more precisely.

Premise 1:    All of us are rational, where 'rational' is defined as choosing the option that has lowest cost.

Premise 2:    Society frowns on homosexuality, i.e. there is an external cost of being a homosexual, while there is no external cost being a heterosexual.

    If you accept the 2 premises, you cannot conclude, without contradiction, that homosexuality is a choice.

    Thus, homosexuals have turn the tables towards us: "Why did God make them struggle with this internal cost while people like us are lucky enough not to face the same cost?  Isn't God being unfair?"  I thought about it and I realize that the only consistent answer for us is to argue that God's ways are higher than our ways, thus we are moving into justifying our argument by faith.  We have elevated this assumption to an axiom, that is unquestionable.

    By doing so, we should gracefully concede to the homosexuals that we have lost the logical argument.  There is thus no logical basis for us to argue that homosexuality is a choice.  That may sound like bad news but I have already stated elsewhere that the argument for Christianity is also an argument that is ultimately based on faith.  If we have no problem with that, there is no shame in conceding that this present argument is also a faith one.  While we may state that the Bible disapprove of homosexuals, we should not add anything more to it.  It is up to God to justify his stand and not anyone of us.

    Thus, I hope we heterosexuals will recognize that it is far from clear that homosexuals do have a choice.  I will leave it up to God to explain himself.  In the meantime, I will call homosexuality a sin, strictly because the Bible states it but I will still love the homosexual and do all I can to protect him/her from discrimination by heterosexuals.  I think that is God's will for me.

Examining Heterosexual Proposition 2: The Bible condemns homosexuality

(To be written later, some of the points are given below)

    I guess the first task all of us do as Christians is to refer to verses that says things like "Neither idolotars, homosexuals...will inherit the Kingdom of God" and other verses to justify their point. Deep in our mind, we seem sure that homosexuals can be cured and thus if only they will submit to God's grace, they will have hope.

    To be fair, I think the above viewpoint is a very safe one. However, I set my mind into thinking, "Why are we so sure that we have the truth?" I remembered that there was also a verse from Paul restricting women from speaking in church, saying that it is a disgrace. There seems to be a vast difference at this present time, which to me should be so but i would like to point out an inconsistency. 

    For Christians to truly understand what I am trying to say, let's travel back in time to the era of Paul the Apostle. Then, proclaiming that women should not speak in church or that women should cover up themselves at all times seem also to be a very safe viewpoint. Female Christians who dared to speak against that point of view
then might be laughed at, condemned at, and told to be submissive to the Bible. (One might also recall the Galileo incident: He told the Catholic Church that the Earth was not in the center of the universe and that it rotates around the Sun many years back. He was warned by the Church to shut up because it went against the tradition then. Of course, we know better now.)

    Now let us bring ourselves back into this time era. At this present time, anyone of us who are too zealous in promoting that theme on the restrictions of women is likely to find him or herself being
labeled as "old-fashioned". At this present era, we now allow women pastors to speak in church or even wear the modern revealing clothes of the 1990s. I am aware that there are churches at present that try very hard to "encourage" their female members not to wear too revealing clothes to church. However, there is a significant difference in attitudes here: these efforts are usually encouraging and more or less accepting towards these female members, in contrast to what might happen if a homosexual wants to join a church, which I suspected the church incumbents would be more condemning and unsympathetic.

    If I ask myself why did Paul restrict women then while we are allowed to lift those restrictions at this time, I would probably reply that, actually Paul was not trying to restrict women from speaking but he just want women to respect the traditions during his time to avoid any controversies. Just like when Paul extolled slaves to obey their masters, it is not because he endorsed slavery but because he is trying to urge them to display Christlike attitudes, knowing that the time will come when slavery will be abolished.

    I wish to state, at this point, that I do not see any reason why women should not be allowed to do what men can do in church or in society as a whole. My point is simply this: "If we can grant the above point about the role of women in church then and now, by saying that times have change, why are we not as willing to also grant homosexuals the same acceptance?" 

    At his point, Christians, even myself, might react immediately saying, "But homosexuality is different!" I can empathize with people who say things like that but I would like all of us to pause and reflect for a moment, could our reaction be due to the disgusting feelings we have about homosexual acts? That we believe that it is a God-given state that man and woman are suppose to be together and any attempt to do otherwise is a distortion? In my thinking of this issue, I feel that our church today inherited a lot of thoughts from the Catholic Church, especially in the area dealing with the matters of sex. The Catholic Church viewed sex with a rather, how I should put it, disapproving attitude. Thus, they insisted that their priests must be celibate. A very interesting and scholarly thesis was written about this here. 

    I am not saying that homosexuals should be accepted at this point. I just have this nagging feeling that the reason why Christians are so unequivocal or clear in relegating homosexuals as wrong "because the Bible says so" and allowing women to speak in church "even when the Bible forbids it", is because of the different consequences and paradigms involved. I feel at this point that I must be aware that I am not necessarily objective when I use verses in the Bible to condemn homosexuality (I purposely substitute "we" for "I" because I am open to any comments and corrections from other Christians reading this article). 

    Furthermore, I think that we owned homosexuals an apology. We are clearly too quick to judge them. How I feel I would respond if I have a friend who is a homosexual approaching me and asking me whether he can be accepted as a Christian is this:

1) I will first tell him about the various verses in the Bible that says homosexuality is condemmed by God and that it is a sin. Thus to me, homosexuality is wrong but that is just because the Bible says so.

2) I will confess to my homosexual friend that it could jolly well be true that times have changed and that I have misinterpreted the Bible.

3) At the judgement day, God would judge him and if God were to accept him as a homosexual, then I would rejoice with him. In the meantime, on earth, I will not try to change him because I admit that I do not have a very strong case to do so. If he wants to attend church and pray to God, I certainly will not demand that he try to change his sexual orientation simply because I do not have all the answers.

    This approach is the only attitude that I find consistent with my present thinking. The reason why I do not want to state homosexuality is a sin without any qualification is because I feel, as one whose sexual orientation is towards females, I do not feel qualified or objective enough to make a statement about this issue. It is like an American white telling me that there is no racial discrimination in America or myself, as a Chinese trying to tell a Malay that there is no racial discrimination in Singapore. I feel that, since homosexuals are a minority group while we are the majority group, we should be more careful in making statments like homosexuality is wrong. Of course, if a homosexual himself tells me that he thinks it is wrong and want to change, I will assist him in doing so. 

Comments/rebukes/criticisms are very welcome from anyone reading this.  You can write them here.