Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered
I attended a forum today held at CANA - The Catholic Centre. It is the second part of a series of forums titled “A Christian Response To Same-Sex Attraction”. This session was interesting because one of the speakers invited was Alex Au, of Yawning Bread fame. He’s shorter than I expected. The other two speakers were clinical psychologist Father Paul Lian-Kok Goh, SJ and Thomas Aqbal, a senior lawyer.
When Alex presented his points, I felt that he spoke well, but a good number of points were easily refuted. I think I’ll just touch on one particularly point for this post, because he addressed Catholic teaching and, at the same time, made it clear that he has no expertise on the subject. I agree: he doesn’t, because he doesn’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, but thinks he does.
Alex referred specifically to a teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357
He says that the Church sees homosexuality as intrinsic to a person, and therefore cannot be changed or chosen. That’s not what the Church teaches, and that’s not what the specific teaching says.
Alex makes no distinction between the homosexual person and homosexual acts. He says that homosexual acts are what defines a homosexual person, and is part of who the homosexual person is. By that reasoning, heterosexual acts are what defines a heterosexual person. In that case, what is the sexual orientation of a person who has never committed any sexual acts, heterosexual or homosexual? Clearly then, a person’s identity cannot be defined by his sexual acts.
Alex also takes issue with this teaching:
Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2359
He seems to say that the practice of chastity denies a homosexual person the very inclination that makes him homosexual. He forgets (or perhaps he doesn’t know) that all Catholics are called to chastity - the single person and the married person alike. At the same time, this chastity does not deny our sexual inclinations but helps us to control it, rather than have it control us. That’s what the teaching means by inner freedom.
Alex’s reasoning leads to a disturbing conclusion - if a person’s identity is defined by his (or her) acts, then the person cannot change. That means no second chances for a person. Is it then surprising to see much unforgiveness and anger present in the people involved in the gay lobby?
This brings me to the second point of this post. In the audience today were a significant proportion of Alex’s supporters, a number of whom clearly showed the rest of the audience member what takes place when one confronts the gay lobby head-on.
I have no doubt that somewhere in the blogosphere, gays in Singapore are going to blog something like how “we thrashed their Catholic priest” in the forum and how “we left the Catholic lawyer speechless”.
What must be made clear is that the forum was not a debate. It was not a battle of who’s right and who’s wrong, despite the name of the session “What’s Wrong With Homosexual Acts?”. Rather, it was a forum for the sharing of viewpoints - from the legal aspect and from the psychological aspect. It was a meeting point of different ideas to be shared openly and honestly.
I liked what Alex said early in his talk. He spoke about the difference between reason and rationality, and how rationality is coming into a discussion with a preconceived position, and coming up with points to support one’s position. This does not lead to open-ended discussion. It also leads to a situation where one side tries to force an opinion on the other. And this is what I saw happen at the forum.
In the words of a participant today who said she pitied Father Paul Goh, “It’s like you don’t want to attack them, but they attack you and try to make you angry at them.” There was a particular lady who kept trying to pin Father Paul down into saying whether homosexuality is a disorder or not. Two or three times, she tried to make him say it, but Father Paul was wise enough not to take the bait.
When questioned about the morality of homosexuality, Father Paul, despite his own training in moral theology, chose to say, “I don’t want to enter into this debate.” I think that was very wise, because that’s not why he was asked to speak at the forum; he was asked to speak because of his background in clinical psychology, and he stuck to it.
It is good that the forum did not end up as a debate, because that’s not what the forum was about - a meeting place where people of different opinions can come together and share. In that sense, I think the forum accomplished what it set out to do - to hear firsthand how the gay “lobbyists”, as the moderator put it, say.
I think some Catholics present must have left with a sour feeling, like as though the Catholics were beaten down and did not respond to the attacks. If you were present at the forum tonight, and you felt the same way, recall that this is exactly how Jesus behaved at his Passion - he did not defend himself, and he forgave those who attacked him. Imagine if Jesus had defended himself with his legions of angels. What would have happened?
Similarly, imagine what would have happened if the Catholics tonight had brought out the big guns? What would have happened? For one thing, there would have been a lot of debate, and probably escalated into something unpleasant. We would probably have lost all further opportunity to dialogue on the matter in a civil manner.
As it turns out, tonight’s session was an eye-opener for us, and an opportunity to respond in the way Jesus responds - with love. When Jesus calls us to love, he calls us especially to love those who try to do us harm. Our Lord understands that despite our differences, we share a common humanity, and what harm we do to others, we also do to ourselves.
However, love does not mean keeping quiet and letting people step on you. Rather, love means you have to speak the truth, and to do our best to create the proper conducive environment for our listeners to hear the truth. The worst way to do this is to attack the other person, because a normal human response is to be defensive and close our minds to what is being said.
The next session on Thursday May 22 will be given by Father David Garcia, OP, who will go into the moral aspect of homosexual acts which have been brought up a number of times these past two sessions and wisely avoided responding to questions beyond their scope. Dr John Hui, a member of the Catholic Medical Guild, will also speak from his background in medicine.
Older articles
Filed under: Chastity, Homosexuality | Tagged: Alex Au, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chastity, Homosexuality, love your enemies
I like how you simply criticise Alex Au’s points as ‘easily refuted’ and that he doesn’t understand anything about Catholicism, and proceed to pick on the nitty gritty details of his argument without addressing what those ‘easily refuted’ issues are.
And yes, I agree that it isn’t a debate: the point of having a forum is to foster communication between two parties on different sides of the issue of homosexuality. We are only expected to go to the forum, state our side of the issue, and ignore the questions posed by the opposing side because we love them too much to respond to their “attacks”. And then give some ominous threat about having the “big guns” come and thrash them, to show that they won the debate only because we held back.
Lastly, bravo to Father Paul for being highly-trained in theology but refusing to answer a simple question because he ‘didn’t want to enter the debate’, presumably because he loves that lady too much.
All in all, a well-written and fluent post that manages to not address the central issue at all, while painting the opposition as childish and antagonistic without any proof, and then ending off with saying that we love them like Jesus would. Brilliant!
Hi Yee Hung,
Thanks for sharing. Yes, it occurred to me last night just as I was falling asleep that I didn’t actually state what “intrinsically disordered” meant. I shall try to explain, but I would rather leave it to the moral theologian to explain it next week, because he’s got more time and more expertise to simplify it.
It means that homosexual acts are by themselves disordered, nothing to do with the person committing them. Hence even if a heterosexual were to commit homosexual acts, it would still be disordered. This first requires the ability to see that a person’s identity is not defined by his actions.
Alex believes that homosexual acts cannot be separated from the person, which is why he frequently talks about homosexuals. The Catholic Church refuses to consider the person has a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life. Homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is not a sexual identity as human persons have only two possible sexual identities - male or female. And that is intrinsic to a person. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a condition that some people have.
The term ‘disorder’ does not refer to psychological disorders, but rather, the tendency towards an intrinsic moral evil. All non-marital sex acts are intrinsically evil, and every homosexual act is a seriously disordered kind of activity which, if freely and deliberately chosen, is a serious sin. That said, the tendency or inclination of a homosexual person itself is not a sin, just like how each person has a tendency towards moral evil - the effects of original sin.
Hence the term ‘intrinsic disorder’ speaks about the moral aspect of homosexual acts, which I’m sure our moral theologian has the expertise to explain far better than I can. If you’re interested to find out the responses to Alex’s points, come along down to next week’s forum. It’s free of charge. The address of the place is 55 Waterloo Street, #02-00.
See you there!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Catholic Writer,
By definition, a heterosexual would not commit homosexual acts. Only homosexulas and bisexuals would.
You said the Catholic Church refuses to consider a person as ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity as the creature of God and, by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
Why then do we have this series of talks?
I believe you are confusing sexual identity with gender identity.
Sexual identity can be homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexual, asexual and there are people who refuses to be pinned down.
Gender identity is male, female, or what Fr Paul mentioned as gender disordered where a person feel like a girl trapped in a boy’s body or vice versa.
Pray tell,
What is a “serious sin” and what is not a “non-serious sin”?
If homosexuality/homosexual acts threathens the stable family structure that Thoman Aqbal said was so crucial and difficult to mantain, then surely we should:
- criminalize adultery
- ban pornography
- ban prostitution
- ban divorce
- ban abortion
… and the list goes on.
Does it mean that “adultery” is a “non-serious sin” and “homosexual acts” is a “serious sin”? If not, and if they are all EQUALLY sinful, then why are homosexual acts are illegal and not the latter?
That is one of the fundamental issues we are arguing about.
On a separate note regarding the “gay lobbyists” being defensive and the Catholics holding back the “big guns”, it is simply a manifestation of logic reasoning. We already know the stand of Catholics — just open the Bible and read. And they can never say anything new or for that matter logical against what’s in the Bible if they are bound by its fixed number of words. On the other hand, the “gay lobbyists” have much more they can bring to the table that Catholics who may still be undecided on the homosexuality issue rarely get to hear. That is the main reason why we are there and being vocal about it. Repeated indoctrination of a fixed set of values within a close-knit community can have a very powerful (negative?) effect and what we need in life is balance in the form of views from both perspectives.
I look forward to the next session. Let’s hope that something new (and Catholic) can be bought to the table. If not, at least it is comforting to know that it is far more exciting to sit in the forum than to get the same information sitting at home reading the Bible.
Hi Gwo Yinn,
You’re probably right. I am quite inexperienced in the world of sexual and gender identity, and I want to know more. Part of the reason why I wrote this post, and put it in ping.sg, is because I wanted to attract more homosexuals to come visit my blog. I find that it is in dialogue, rather than simply reading about it, that I learn most.
Similarly, the majority of Catholics have a certain preconception of homosexuals and gay activists. I suppose one purpose of having this series of talks is to allow both sides (or more) to enter into a dialogue, to find out where we come from, and where we can go from here. For I believe that just as Catholics have misconceptions about homosexuals and gay activists, so too do gay activists have misconceptions about Catholic teaching. One prime misconception is the mistaken belief that all Catholic teaching comes from the Bible.
I hope to learn more from you and from others who come to this blog about homosexuals and where they come from, and in exchange, I hope to share more about Catholic teaching and where it comes from.
Thank you for dropping by, and stop by again.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Kim,
A serious sin (also called mortal sin) is one that is committed with full knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. A non-serious sin (also called venial sin) is when a person does not observe the standard by the moral law, or when a person disobeys the moral law in a grave matter but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
I think we should indeed criminalize adultery, ban pornography, prostitution, divorce, abortion, masturbation, contraception - all of which the Catholic Church forbids - but we don’t, not in Singapore anyway. Why? I can’t give you an answer to that, because I’m not a lawyer.
Aqbal speaks as a lawyer, not as an expert on morality. He can tell us why the Singapore government chooses to keep or repeal certain laws - and hence making something legal or illegal - but it is beyond his expertise to tell us whether something is moral or immoral. That would be within the scope of moral theologian Fr David Garcia in this coming Thursday’s session.
So when you ask a question - if adultery and homosexual acts are just as sinful, then why is one illegal and not the other, you are impling that all immoral acts must be illegal, but this is not true. For example: it is illegal to jaywalk but not necessarily sinful or immoral to do so.
So far, in the series of forums, we have not yet come to the question of whether homosexual acts are moral or not, and why. It has been raised at least a couple of times, but I think it should best be discussed in the presence of a morality expert, who can help us to see how the concept of morality comes about. That will be in this Thursday’s session, I hope.
Perhaps something new for you, Kim, is that Catholics do not argue from the Bible most of the time. Catholic teaching does not come from the Bible only, but from Catholic Tradition, that is, the handing down of the faith from the apostles. Yes, it’s true that Catholic teaching does not deviate from the Bible, but a lot of Catholic teaching is also not found in the Bible. While it’s true that Catholics cannot say anything new, it is also true that the manner in which it is presented can be totally new.
For example, one ‘new’ teaching of the Church is the “Theology of the Body” which was first taught by Pope John Paul II. In this teaching, he explains the Church’s teaching on sex and marriage, and puts it in a proper frame. It interests so many Catholics today who are saying that this is the first time they are hearing of it, but it is not a new teaching. It is simply an old teaching that is presented in a new way, a way that is relevant to the people of today.
At the same time, you are also right that “gay lobbyists” have a lot to bring to the table not just for Catholics who are undecided, and even for those who have decided. I know of several Catholics in the audience who are decided on the matter, but at the same time, believe in Jesus’ call to reach out to the outcasts of society. And indeed homosexuals are outcasts, at least in Catholic communities, and this should not be the way.
That’s why some of us want to do something about it, about the way we Catholics practise our faith. We just ask to be treated with the same respect that we show to all present. The case of the Catholic who quoted from the Bible in the first session was decidedly unfortunate, but rest assured that his (misguided) view is not representative of the majority of Catholics present.
I know of a number of Catholics in the audience that have been present for the sessions who sincerely want to reach out especially to Catholic homosexuals, to sit down and share with each other, to learn from each other, to attend Mass together and not to be afraid of what others might think. But after seeing the aggressiveness of the “gay lobbyists” at the forum, at least one is having second thoughts about it. We want to be able to sit down together and share, and even disagree, but we don’t want to shoot each other down (with big guns or otherwise) or have opinions or viewpoints forced down on us.
Because ultimately, when a brother or sister loses, we all lose. There is no point for us to win a debate and have lost a possible brother or sister. By ‘lost’, I mean having turned off a person so much that further dialogue is not possible. As I said before, these forums are not a debate to win the other side, but to dialogue and learn more from each other.
Thanks for visiting my blog, and I hope to continue this dialogue with you.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Thanks for enlightening us on the examples of non-serious and serious sins. I guess adultery/abortion should be in the same category as homosexuality regardless of morality. This highlights the double-standards with regards to Singaporean laws. But I guess a more fundamental issue is whether we should worry about this in the first place since Singapore is a non-secular country and thus its laws should be independent of religious teachings.
So we should look at this from a social perspective. Does homosexuality really create as much, if not more social problems compared to adultery? Don’t forget that adultery involves an already-established family unit (through marriage) and the mere act of homosexuality has no effect on existing family units. So why criminalize the latter and not the former when the former creates more social problems? I understand that this is not the platform to discuss this as no one is a lawyer here but these are the kinds of issues that homosexuals are most particular about because it concerns the issue of discrimination.
I always feel that unless someone has walked in the shoes of someone being discriminated against for all his or her life, he or she will not be able to understand the pain and problems associated with it. And that is the source of many homosexuals’ “aggressiveness” when this topic of discrimination is broached. So please understand where this “aggressiveness” is coming from. We cannot remain silent when we are constantly being discriminated against. In addition we need to voice out our concerns so that the undecided in the audience will not be swayed by wrong factual viewpoints/arguments.
When the country is against its citizens, there is nothing much a citizen can do. In my case, I am a quitter and I will be migrating to Australia in a month’s time so at least I am doing something about it and not just complaining (I am actually proud that I am brave enough to make this migration decision). I know Singapore will open up eventually but I cannot wait that long for I only have a lifetime unlike the country.
I look forward to the next session and we will continue to firmly assert our viewpoints across but maybe less “aggressively”. We too believe in the importance of dialogues, they just have to be balanced, that’s all.
Hi Kim,
My apologies for the late response. It’s been a really busy time. Hope you had a good weekend!
Singaporean laws, just as anywhere else, have lots of double standards. For example, in states that legalize same-sex unions, they allow two people of the same sex to get married and have the rights of marriage, but they do not allow, say, two single siblings living together under one roof to acquire the status of marriage. Why is there this double standard? No matter where we go, there will always be apparent double standards, unless we realise why such laws are there in the first place.
The duty of a government is to protect and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good. Society owes its continued survival to the family, which is founded on marriage. While it is true that not every immoral act (e.g. adultery) needs to be criminalized, the inevitable result of a legal recognition of same-sex unions would be the radical redefinition (or undefinition, as Father David Garcia puts it) of marriage.
You asked whether homosexuality creates as much, if not more, social problems compared to adultery. I say yes, but this must be put in reference to marriage.
Marriage, as is traditionally defined by the major cultures of the world as “a one-flesh communion of persons consummated and actualized in the reproductive-type acts of spouses”. It is on this understanding of marriage that society as we know it today has been built, for with marriages come families, and with families come society. When we seek to redefine (or undefine, since redefinition implies a new definition has been made) marriage, we are seeking to redefine society. In other words, society as we know it today would inevitably collapse, since society is founded on the traditional marriage.
The reason why same-sex unions are not marriages is simply because two people of the same sex cannot do what two people married to each other can do - consummate the marriage. Without consummation, there is no marriage. It is noted that genital intercourse between a man and a woman is the only bodily act intrinsically capable of generating new human life. Other forms of affection cannot generate children. Although they may be generated through acts of fornication and adultery, it is not good for children to be born this way.
Marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry, and not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women and men, than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried childbearing, and high conflict or violent marriages.
So we’ve established that marriage is good for society. Consequently, what harms marriage as an institution causes harm to society. These include acts of adultery, contraception, divorce, and homosexual acts. In other words, homosexual acts are immoral because they harm marriage. They also harm the human body’s capacity for the marital act as an act of self-giving.
While the civil rights of individuals with same-sex attraction should be affirmed and recognised by the state, there is no reason why same-sex unions should receive special benefits from the state, because such unions do not contribute to the common good, as does marriage. In other words, not only do same-sex unions not contribute to the common good of society, they also do harm to it by redefining marriage, for marriage loses its references to its essential characteristics - the true union of the spouses, and the procreation and education of children. Such a fundamental redefinition of marriage would be gravely detrimental to the common good. (I personally liken it to trans-fat - it does no good to persons, and causes harm.)
I may not be able to feel the pain of a person who has same-sex attraction, and I feel sad that my fellow men and women have to deal with such anger and unfairness in life. But at the same time, I must say to my fellow men and women with same-sex attraction that it is not right to take out this anger on society, and try to reshape it according to one’s personal sexual preferences. We can try to change society, but this will inevitably end up causing more problems for the rest of the majority of society that do not suffer from same-sex attraction. Too often, it is these emotional feelings that cloud a person’s judgement and reasoning, both in those that support the homosexual lifestyle and those who are against it.
I would like to continue this dialogue with you, and I’m looking forward to your response.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
By asking for equal rights, it is definitely not taking our anger out on society. Your statement (or how you can think this way) proves my point exactly about someone who can never understand the pain of being discriminated against.
Every person’s view of what is moral and what is immoral is subjective. It must be guided by something eg. religion, parents’ teaching, societal values, etc. And the guidelines are different in each case. One person’s/society’s morality is not the same as another’s. So as a country, it should protect everyone’s view of morality and give them equal right, just like it protects the rights of every religious person. Father Garcia will not be able to convincingly give the exact same speech in a mosque full of worshippers on Friday, for example.
If you say a country doesn’t reward people who go against the institution of marriage eg. only people who get married and have kids enjoy the subsidies, it makes sense. But there is a difference between not rewarding and punishing. We are being punished by being made criminals. Do you understand? A lot of women wants to remain single nowadays for whatever reason and eventually they get past the age when they can reproduce. Does the govenment then step in to punish them because they do not fit in the picture/purpose of marriage? All the government can do is to give incentive to lure/coax/encourage people to get married and have kids. They cannot punish someone who chooses not to do that.
Homosexuals are citizens too and they pay taxes and are most likely to take care of their parents as they (unlike their siblings) don’t get married and thus have the time and money to tend to their ailing parents. This is getting especially important in an aging society like Singapore and many other developed countries. To turn around and criminalize these good citizens is just beyond me. Tell me what you feel if the country crminalizes you for being Christian, or for that matter, heterosexual?
That is why I am not going to put up with this anymore. I have tolerated this discrimination for far too long. I am migrating to Australia next month for good and I will forever be away from this mess. Singapore is small and cannot afford to let anything destabilize its building foundations — that is the only reason why I can kind of understand why some of Singapore’s laws are more extreme than other countries’. But if you cannot change the environment you are in, then you simply change to a new (and better) one.
That is what I will be doing exactly. I am proud to be a quitter for the country gives me no good reason to stay. People might think that I am irresponsible, selfish and put my needs and happiness above the countries’.
Well yes, I am.
Kim
Hi Kim,
Discrimination is something that many Christians face also on a daily basis. I have to tell you that as a Christian, I am also being discriminated against in various ways in my daily life, simply because I choose to be a Christian. The choices that I make set me apart from the world, but we accept that there are people who do not understand because they are not in our shoes. So yes, I do understand what it means to be discriminated against. Perhaps not for my sexuality, but definitely for my faith in Christ. Incidentally, in countries where same-sex unions have been legalized, it is Christians that have become legally and publicly discriminated against. Is this not a double standard held by homosexual activists? Why is it not okay for them to be discriminated against, but it is okay for Christians to be discriminated against?
Incidentally, it is not true that Singapore laws protect the rights of every religious person. Some religions, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are banned in Singapore. Their right to behave according to how their faith dictates is not protected. Why? Because if the right is given for such persons to conduct their behaviour according to their faith, society will be harmed by it. The same it is for homosexual persons. If the right is given for homosexual persons to conduct themselves according to their belief, society will be harmed by it.
In Singapore, our prime minister has already said that Section 377A of the Penal Code will not be enforced. While the law is still in effect because such behaviour is harmful to society, the government does not go and hunt down persons who engage in such harmful behaviour. That should be good enough for homosexual persons, no? The reason the law is retained is because the government wants to send the message that such behaviour is still not approved in Singapore. To repeal the law would be sending the message that the government approves of such behaviour. That is not what our government is saying. It is saying that such behaviour will be tolerated, not approved. Therefore, there is no enforcement of the law, unless someone is actually harmed because of it and then it becomes a public matter.
While it is true that Father David’s talk may not have the same effect on a mosque full of worshippers on Friday, that’s because that’s not the time or place to hold such a talk. However, if the Muslims hold a similar forum and invite Father David to talk there about homosexuality, the effect might be similar, because there people have come to learn about morality and homosexuality through reason.
Assume that your statement that every person’s view of what is moral and what is immoral is subjective is right, and I hold the opposite view, that there is an absolute truth in what is right and wrong in morality. If your statement is right, that makes my statement true as well. But if my statement is true, yours cannot be truth. We come into a logical inconsistency here. Hence, one statement must be false because both cannot be true. Assume that my statement is true. Yours can still be false without affecting the truth of my statement. Hence, there must be an absolute truth in what is right and what is wrong.
There are some people who are simply not suitable for marriage. An example would be the intellectually handicapped. Another example would be those who are unable to have intercourse, because they cannot consummate their marriage. These people cannot ask the government to give them the right to get married, simply because they don’t have what it takes to get married. In the same way, homosexual persons cannot get married to persons of the same sex simply because that isn’t a marriage.
Marriage is: “a one-flesh communion of persons consummated and actualized in the reproductive-type acts of spouses” (secular definition).
Between two persons of the same-sex, there is:
1. No “one-flesh” communion of persons.
2. No consummation.
3. No reproductive-type acts of spouses.
Therefore, no marriage. So you see, people who ask for the right to same-sex unions are not asking for the rights to be married. They are asking for:
1. To change the definition of marriage, and by virtue of that, to change society.
2. For society to accept and approve of their lifestyle, regardless of the harm it does to the society.
When it comes to marriage, everyone has the same right - the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Homosexual persons are not being discriminated against because they have the same right as everybody else. All Singapore citizens have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. All Singapore citizens are forbidden to marry a married person or someone of the same sex. There is no discrimination here.
If homosexual persons continue to demand that the government give them the right to get married, at least two things are necessary:
1. They must change the definition of marriage, like how some countries have done.
2. They must demonstrate how homosexual unions contribute to the good of society. In addition, the good must outweigh the bad.
So you see, it is not a question of giving rights to persons. It’s really about changing the definition of marriage.
The second point, however, is trickier, because as Father David explained, the popular view of whether something is immoral or not is that it must pass three tests:
1. It must have more benefits than harm.
2. There must be consent.
3. There must be a good intention.
But that would make matters like suicide, assisted suicide, consensual killing moral, which they are not. And traditionally immoral sexual acts like prostitution tend to pass this test. If we’re talking about legal matters, such a test might be sufficient, but when you’re talking about morality, we need look at the objective of the kind of behaviour we choose to engage in. The only sexual acts that are moral are marital acts, because as Father David explained, marital acts have the objective of strengthening the marital covenant.
So in conclusion:
1. Homosexual persons are not being discriminated against because they have a homosexual inclination.
2. A person will be criminalized for homosexual behaviour, whether he is a homosexual person or a heterosexual person.
3. Homosexual persons have the same rights as every other Singapore citizen.
4. Homosexual persons are forbidden to marry a married person or a person of the same sex, just like every other Singapore citizen.
5. It is not about the right to marry, but about changing the definition of marriage.
6. Marriage contributes to the good of society through the rearing and education of offspring. It is require for families and is the basic building block of society.
7. Same-sex unions contribute no good to society, and instead does harm to it, therefore not allowed here.
I am sorry that you will be leaving Singapore and bringing your talents to other countries. I don’t know much about the law in Australia, but I do know that you might be discriminated for being something other than a homosexual person there… for example being a minority. If this happens, what will you do? Leave Australia? Ultimately, if you’re a Singaporean, there’s only one country in the world where you will always be welcomed to stay… provided you live according to the laws.
I hope you find peace in Australia, and I wish you all the best.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
There are too many things to object to in your post and I will just talk about the very glaring ones.
You said “Why is it not okay for them to be discriminated against, but it is okay for Christians to be discriminated against?”
Yes, you might be discriminated against but never made a criminal.
The government said that it will not actively enforce Section 377A of the Penal Code. But as long as the law is not repealed, the government can one day enforce it if it chooses to. The government’s promise that it will not actively enforce the law is not legally binding. The Penal Code is. Again, you can’t compare your plight to my plight. You are not a criminal. I am.
Society won’t be harmed by 2 monogamous homosexuals who are in love having a relationship. You can say society will be harmed because there will be no marriage and kids. But aren’t they supposed to remain celibate if they are homosexuals according to Christian teachings? How is that pro-marriage and pro-having kids? Please do not say that with Christian teachings over time, homosexuals can become heterosexuals — it just doesn’t work for the vast majority of homosexuals. Please do not repeat all that about the rightness of opposite sex leading on to kids and hence homosexual sex is wrong. I get your viewpoint, I just don’t buy it unless you can concretely and convincingly tell me how 2 monogamous homosexuals in love who would otherwise remain celibate and not have kids if they are not in a relationship (because they are not attracted to females to have sex with them) would harm the society.
Yes, undefining marriage would be one of the solution. But a compromise is not to name it marriage but same-sex union (it is just a game of semantics anyway). You can name it anything as long as these gay couples have equal rights enjoyed by marriage couples. Did Spain, a fiercely Catholic country fall apart because of the legalisation of gay marriages? Did Canada suddenly see a surge in depravity and sex crimes? There are also many developed and peaceful countries in Asia that do not criminalize homosexual acts. There is news for you. Singapore will eventually follow suit (ie. decriminalization) — there is no doubt about it. I just think that it is not fast enough. During that time when globalisation takes over, Singapore cannot continue to remain backward. What could the Christians do then other than to accept it? It will happen for sure.
I object to different faiths uniting together to go against a particular thing that both faiths are against. You will disagree to this. To me, as long as Islam and Christianity cannot be completely reconciled (ie. absolutely no conflicts in teachings), they can never be united in any regard. This is just my view. I know your stand on this already so please do not response to this particular thing in your reply.
Yes, when we are talking about morality it is complex. That is why laws come in to take the load off the issue and make it totally objective. Laws cannot be used to govern morality. That is why adultery is not criminalized. Do you or do you not see this point?
In your conclusion, you mentioned:
1. Homosexual persons are not being discriminated
against because they have a homosexual inclination.
(Again this is assuming that all homosexuals should stay celibate to avoid being discriminated against — something not practical to expect at all. Please do not respond to this — I already know your stance on it. We can never come to an agreement so let’s just agree to disagree)
2. A person will be criminalized for homosexual behaviour, whether he is a homosexual person or a heterosexual person.
(Again you are segragating behaviour and sexual orientation — this point has been argued time and again. Please do not respond to this, let’s just agree to disagree
3. Homosexual persons have the same rights as every other Singapore citizen.
(Negative. They cannot have adult consensual sex in private without being made a criminal)
4. Homosexual persons are forbidden to marry a married person or a person of the same sex, just like every other Singapore citizen.
(This is a paraphrase of your point 3. Also, why would a homosexual want to marry a married person? This cannot be used to support anything)
5. It is not about the right to marry, but about changing the definition of marriage.
(Then don’t call it marriage, call it something else. Semantics doesn’t matter as long as equal rights are given)
6. Marriage contributes to the good of society through the rearing and education of offspring. It is require for families and is the basic building block of society.
(But we cannot punish people who chooses to not marry)
7. Same-sex unions contribute no good to society, and instead does harm to it, therefore not allowed here.
(Please tell me how 2 monogamous homosexuals in love who would otherwise remain celibate and not have kids if they are not in a relationship (because they are not attracted to females to have sex with them) would harm the society)
I am sorry but I have never felt discriminated against because of my race during my stay in Australia (especially Sydney) — I have lived there during my studies and visited the country many many times. I have never felt discrimination as strong as what I felt in my home country.
Your last statement says it best so far: “Ultimately, if you’re a Singaporean, there’s only one country in the world where you will always be welcomed to stay… provided you live according to the laws”.
I refuse to live according to Singaporean laws and so I will leave permanently. That is that.
I sense that this dialogue is getting exhausting as obviously we come from different backgrounds and cannot view things the same way with regards to this topic. I will retire this blog after this post unless something new can be brought to the discussion. In other words, let’s just agree to disagree.
It has been great having the dialogue with you.
Goodbye for now,
Kim
Hi Kim,
You are not a criminal for being a homosexual person. You become a criminal only when you engage in homosexual behaviour. Note the difference. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual persons (and indeed all persons) are called to chastity, and the experience of Courage (a Catholic support group for homosexual persons) shows that many homosexual persons can indeed live a life of chastity.
Incidentally, I do have a problem with pornography and under Singapore law, I am also a criminal when I view pornography. But you don’t see me moving to America just because I want to indulge in my pornography habit. Rather, I try to live chastely (but don’t always succeed).
You asked how society is harmed by the approval and acceptance of same-sex unions.
Legally, marriage would lose its reference to its essential characteristics - the true union of spouses and the procreation and education of children. Such a fundamental redefinition of marriage would be gravely detrimental to the common good.
Societally, it would affect the whole of society, particularly the young and their perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. It obscures certain basic moral values, causing a devaluation of the institution of marriage. We can easily recognise that society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.
Since married couples contribute to the succession of generations by family life, and in this way contribute to the common good of the community, civil law has traditionally granted them institutional recognition. Same-sex couples, however, do not need specific attention from a legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
In short, same-sex unions harm society because they harm marriage. Same-sex unions are contrary towards marriage and its essential characteristics. I don’t need to repeat what these are since you already know them.
Homosexual persons, by remaining celibate, show that
1. They respect the institution of marriage, and support it for the good that it brings to society.
2. They are in control of their sexual urges and disordered inclinations.
Such homosexual persons are deserving of our respect and can certainly be models for the young, especially those who also suffer from same-sex attraction.
You are right that homosexual persons recovering their natural heterosexual orientation does not work for the majority of homosexual persons. But the Catholic Church does not consider it necessary for a homosexual person to change his or her sexual preference. It only calls homosexual persons to chastity.
As I’ve said before, homosexual persons already have the same rights as heterosexual persons in Singapore. They have the right to marry a person of opposite sex, and they do not have the right to marry a married person or a person of the opposite sex. There is no discrimination of rights for any person. However, if you’re talking about discriminating a certain behaviour, then yes, there is discrimination of behaviour that is harmful to society.
In Singapore, our prime minister mentioned another harm that legalizing homosexual behaviour can do to our Singapore society. Firstly, gay activists will push for exactly the same rights as a straight man or woman, including same-sex unions. He stressed that when this happens, the majority of Singaporeans will “strenuously oppose” these moves, and many who are not anti-gay will be against this agenda. Legalizing this issue at this time will polarize Singaporeans into two factions (for and against) and this will divide our society. Therefore, keeping the status quo on Section 377A is best for Singapore at this time of its history.
It is too early to say what will happen in a country that legalizes homosexual unions. The effects of legalizing homosexual unions will not be seen until decades later. This is what our prime minister said in his speech - whether or not Singapore eventually accepts same-sex unions in the future depends largely on the effects that we see in other countries. He mentions that we will stay a step behind the front line and see what happens first, because the cost to (Singapore) society can be quite high. He pointed out how Singapore was right not to accept the hippie culture which pervaded the world a few decades earlier.
To undefine marriage would be to traumatize a society, perhaps for generations to come. Singapore is not ready to face such a change yet. We are a young nation, compared to other countries that have legalized it. It’s not just semantics, because same-sex unions is not the same as marriage. In no way is same-sex union the same as marriage, and that is the root of the problem.
Gay activists see same-sex unions as the same thing as marriage, that is why they demand equal rights. But same-sex unions contain none of the essential characteristics of marriage, and does not do any good to society the way marriage does. Rather, same-sex unions harm marriage by changing its meaning. To dismiss it as a game of semantics is to overlook the main issue completely.
I see what you’re saying about why adultery is not criminalized. Laws (not the natural moral law) are created for the smooth functioning of society. At present, adultery is not seen as causing society much harm (although I disagree), but homosexual behaviour does cause society harm, as I explained above.
I should state at this point of time that it is perfectly alright for you to disagree with me, because that’s what dialogue is about. I might also say that the two of us, though we do not agree on the issue of homosexuality, can very well work towards a common goal, say, raising funds to help the people in Myanmar. I don’t think you will find any problem with that, and if you don’t, you should not find any problem with two different religious faiths working towards a common goal either.
Response to conclusion:
I want to respond even though you asked me not to, because I feel as though you are suppressing my views. I don’t think you know my response to an issue before I say it because you have demonstrated misunderstanding of the Catholic Church’s position a number of times in the past. I feel the need to clarify matters for you, and for other readers following this discussion.
1. The Church encourages homosexual persons to stay chaste (different from staying celibate). Celibacy merely requires a person to abstain from sexual intercourse. Chastity is a higher calling, and only possible with the grace of God.
Exactly what is chastity? It is a virtue that is traditionally classified as a form of temperance or moderation with regard to sexual pleasure. It is about controlling our disordered passions. I repeat that all persons (including married persons), not only homosexual persons, are called to chastity. The term “chastity” comes from the fact that reason chastises concupiscence, which, like a child, needs curbing.
The reason why you and many people feel that chastity is not practical is because we tend to try to live a chaste life on our own willpower. This is not possible. The gift of chastity will only come through prayer. Another reason why we think chastity is not practical could be because we don’t want to control ourselves.
The Church is fair indeed and does not discriminate against homosexual persons. And in case you haven’t heard it from anyone else before, let me say that heterosexual persons also face a great challenge to living a life of chastity. It is not easy, but very possible when we cooperate with God.
2. Okay. We agree to disagree here.
3. Positive. Homosexuals can have adult consensual sex in private with a member of the opposite sex without being made a criminal, just like every other Singapore citizen.
4. It’s not just a paraphrase. It shows that homosexual persons are not discriminated against by being forbidden to do something that other Singapore citizens can do.
5. Marriage and same-sex unions are not the same thing. Rather, they are contrary to each other because marriage is about the one-flesh communion of persons consummated and actualized in the reproductive-type acts of spouses”. The essential characteristics of marriage are complementarity and the rearing and education of offspring, both of which are absent in same-sex unions. This is why same-sex unions cannot have the same legal rights as marriages, because they fail to do the same good for society as marriages.
I have given you the definition of marriage in the above paragraph in quotation marks. How about you give me the definition of same-sex unions and we can see if they really mean the same thing or not?
6. No, we do not punish people who choose not to marry because not everyone is suitable for marriage. Such people can contribute to the good of society in other ways. At the same time, such persons also do not receive the rights of married persons.
7. As explained above.
It is essential that we come from different backgrounds if we are to dialogue. After all, that’s what dialogue is about - bringing two or more people from different backgrounds to share their viewpoints and experiences. I’m not out to change your mind or to convert you to Catholicism, and I do hope you’re not trying to convince me to support the gay culture. I am sure that neither of us will leave this dialogue with a radically different position than what we came into it with, but I do hope that through our dialogue, we will get to see different viewpoints and add them to our experiences. It is very likely, rather, that we will both leave this dialogue stronger in our different position, since we are being forced to think and reflect on our own stand. At the very least, we can make a new friend that we can dialogue on other matters in future.
I am thoroughly enjoying this dialogue, and hope it will continue even after you move to Australia. I like Australia. I’ve been there three times, and will be going for World Youth Day in Sydney this July. Will you be there then? I am looking forward to seeing the pope in real life.
God bless,
Catholic Writer