Homosexuality is not an illness
Charles Tan
The debate of whether outside socio-normative sexuality (be it homosexuality or bisexuality) should be accepted as “normal” has been a controversial topic for layman, religious practitioners, moralists, psychologists and scientists.
Angela Thiang Pei Yun’s letters to TODAY rebutting on Mr Alex Au's letter clearly misses the point of his argument and shows the public’s apathy and ignorance on the subject.
Numerous sources of reference available online includes The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Associations which clearly states homosexuality is not “illness, mental disorder or emotional problem”.
No substantial theory has been able to prove what affects a person’s sexual orientation. By that it means that common myths such as “strong mother and weak father families” or that “a male child being subjected to abuse is likely to grow up to become homosexual” has not been proven to be true.
Conversion therapy to heterosexuality has not been proven to work but could instead cause harm to the person’s mental health. The American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Pediatrics Association and American Medical Association have all spoken out against the use of such methods.
By 2001, The Chinese Psychiatric Association in China has removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, which debunks the popular misconception that homosexuality is a “western threat to corrupt traditional Asian values”.
On the other hand, to be a little aggressive, I would like to quote and question an extracted paragraph from Angela’s letter in which she writes “Current research indicates environmental factors such as troubled relations with the same-sex parent and child abuse as significant causal factors in same-sex attractions”
It would be fair if she could divulge where she obtains her information, because if left unchallenged, the mindset that homosexuality as a deviant form of sexuality would continue to remain in our uninformed society.
In her letter, Angela also states that prevailing social values do not accept homosexuality and hence the penal code should continue to criminalize same sex behaviour.
If some laws are created to penalize those who step out of norms, then perhaps smoking which is considered a health anomaly to smokers and those around them should be outlawed. One could argue that smoking cannot be compared to sexual orientation given they are of a different nature. Besides the stigma of being a smoker is less than that of a gay person.
Yet, we can derive similar principles behind not outlawing smoking as with regards to same sex behaviour.
Singapore which prides itself as a “tolerant” society with regards to race and religion aims to respect the rights of individuals with regards to their own respective actions; as long as they do not cause too much trouble. The same can be said of same sex behaviour which are behind closed curtains; not for public display; and hence impossible to “outrage” public accepted taste.
The penal code with regards to same sex sexual behaviour is a colonial hangover which the Britain has already removed in its own country. There is no reason why this section of the law should remain in Singapore.
The question, hence to be asked, is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong; whether it is socially acceptable. We should thus ponder:
Should we treat a segment of the population as “criminals” simply because of who they are sexually attracted to when mounting evidence points to the contrary that homosexuality or bisexuality is not a mental illness; and that no known existing therapy to convert them has been proven to work.
This question inevitably ties in to the larger socio-political framework of “Remaking Singapore”; whether we believe in ruling others over simply what the majority believes; or should our laws be based on sound principles of justice, equality and tolerance.
Sources of information:
1. American Psychological Association
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
2. The truth about ex-gay conversion therapy:
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/exgay.htm
THE TODAY LETTER:
‘Gay gene' is still a theory
... and will of majority should prevail
I refer to Mr Alex Au's letter, "Why should oral sex law disfavour gays" (Weekend Today, Jan 10-11).
In all forum discussions of homosexuality-related issues, including that of oral sex, PM Goh Chok Tong's "born that way" statement has been cited as if it were the final and authoritative word on the issue.
PM Goh also said that homosexual acts would remain a criminal offence.
PM Goh, in his National Day Rally speech last year, also disapproved unequivocally of the homosexual lifestyle.
Firstly, the causes of homosexuality are yet to be determined fully.
Current research indicates environmental factors such as troubled relations with the same-sex parent and child abuse as significant causal factors in same-sex attractions.
Believers of the "gay gene" theory have been searching for the last 30 years, but they have yet to discover that elusive gene, the existence of which Mr Au appears to want us to accept as true.
I am grateful for Mr Au's honesty in admitting that the Penal Code only criminalises behaviour and not the person.
Prevailing social values do not regard homosexuality as acceptable, so to remove a law encapsulating this value is to impose a change on society, against the will of the majority.
Law, in this sense, is being used as a social engineering tool to change thinking and beliefs — and, in this case, to legitimise a questionable and unproven proposition that homosexuality is acceptable.
While I agree that the majority will not always be right, I do not think Mr Au (or more generally, those seeking to legitimise homosexuality in Singapore) has given us sufficient reasons or credible evidence to say that the majority is wrong this time.
Angela Thiang Pei Yun
