It was held at Amara hotel, on 10 May 2007, pertaining to the Christian perspective on homosexuality. The church that hosted it is FCC (Free Community Church), the only gay-affirming church in Singapore.There are 4 Speakers: (in order as presented on the panel yesterday)
1. Rev. Dr. Tan Kim Huat
(Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament and
Dean of Studies at Trinity Theological College)
2.Anthony Yeo
(Clinical Director of Counselling and Care Centre)
3. Edmund Smith
(Founder of ex-gay movement Real Life Ministry)
4. Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, PhD
(Boston University, Mass, USA)
(First Asian Bishop of The Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore, Pastoral Advisor- Free Community Church)

The Moderator:
Augustine Anthuvan
(Assistant Programme Manager, MediaCorp Radio)

————————————————————-

Someone said that the panel is not balanced, since noone is anti-gay.

I think we need to differentiate between homosexuality and the homosexual person. If you are against people (and you can't get them out of your argument), you will find your arguments framed as personal attacks. Therefore, to have a constructive discussion on homosexuality, it is better to seek panelists who are neutral towards gay persons, but divided on the issue of homosexuality. [Speakers 1 and 3 are not for homosexuality; Speakers 2 and 4 are gay-affirming.]

Is it possible to divide the person from the sexual orientation in a discussion?
Yes. But many gay people find it difficult to separate the two because sexuality is such a salient component of their sense of self. And hence the civilized verbal attacks on Edmund Smith (ex-gay pastor).

Because so much was touched on, i am going to share my thoughts in a series.

Dr. Tan Kim Huat spoke about God’s laws. He mentioned that the debate revolved around whether the homosexual sex is exploitative. The pro-gay argument said that it’s for exploitative relationships only. The counter-argument is: Apostle Paul meant all kinds of homosexual relationships. [I have no clue about this argument. All i know is that lesbian sex is explicitly left out of Moses law: both men and women were mentioned for bestiality but only men were mentioned for human same-sex encounters. Whether Moses perceived sex as penile-penetrative acts only is anyone’s guess.]

Dr. Tan also mentioned the tenor of the bible- which is the love of God and justification by faith. There also seemed to be a suggestion that sin from Adam’s fall gave rise to predispositions (i suppose he meant homosexuality, adultery and all other vices). He made this link: that those who see God’s love change (stop being gay).

He pointed out the reasons why Jews were against homosexuality.
1. Lack of Gender distinction: men giving up their superior roles to take the submissive role.
2. It is not natural, against God’s order.
3. Lack of procreational potential.

I wonder what Dr Tan thinks of the patriarchy that is slowly loosening its grips on modern day society? Androgynous attributes are in. More women are taking on leadership roles. And i wonder what he thinks of medical procedures that intervene in the natural course of diseases, preventing death that naturally would have otherwise occurred? And i wonder if birth control pills are considered the worst bane of the human race, since it successfully prevented thousands of babies being born. [Saving lots of people from starving and improving the quality of life in over-populated places in the process.]

The two story-tellers are J and KW. But there are actually three story-tellers. Edmund Smith is the unspoken third.

J is a pre-school teacher, an ex-lesbian, who looked like she is in her late-teens or early twenties. And she talked about how she was abused by her mother. This abuse sparked in her a desire for a mother-figure. She was butch and called her long tresses a  ‘miracle of God’.

I don’t know why the theory of childhood abuse as the cause of homosexuality is frequently used. It is an ancient theory from Freud on why gay men exist. Now Freud is studied in literature, not psychology- which gives you a hint about how dependable a science it is. The closest thing to abuse i can think of in my life is: getting caned with those bamboo twigs you see in mama-shops with colored hooks as handles when i misbehaved as a kid. And i donned long wavy tresses all my life. I suppose you can say i have been living God’s miracle.

I think life stories have the tendency to be woven around what people say about us- if we believe them. Thanks to the confirming bias. At some point in your life, something that resembles what they say about you would exist. And some of the  ‘symptoms ‘ that they say would appear in your life at some stage. Haven ‘t we felt blue at certain periods of our lives? That doesn’t make you depressed. Haven ‘t we experienced low self-esteem at some points? That doesn’t make you problematic. Most people experience emotions in periods, but they are temporal.

People tend to feel a need to explain things. It gives you a sense of control. What’s the best way out of feeling completely helpless about your situation? Look for something that resembles a reason and hold on to it.

Like:  ‘I don’t want to be gay; i think it’s causing me all this depression and low self-esteem. Can you tell me why i am gay and give me hope as to how i can get out? ‘

Warning: Spoilers ahead. Do not read if you don't like the plot revealed at all. If there are any major spoilers, I will put it as a footnote.

You can call this the chinese version of Brokeback Mountain. Or maybe the directors saw The Journey, and decided that torturing the audience was the way to go. Certainly, if there was an invisible criteria in film festivals and awards to honour a gay film... wait, what am I talking about? 90% of independent films at Film Festivals are gay or gay-themed. And then you get the occasional, tear-jerking documentary/film which gives you the urge to do a Mother Theresa, such as Born Into Brothels. Anyway, as I was saying, if there was an invisible criteria for gay films, it would be that the film has to boost the sales of Kleenex, or it has to make the audience stomp out of the theatre, utterly confused and frustrated. Or both.

The film follows two young men, Shane and Jonathan, from childhood to their continuing friendship in young adulthood. Jonathan, the good boy, is predictably in love with his best friend Shane, the bad boy. Indeed, every time he appears on screen, Jonathan has this sad, lost-puppy-dog look on his face, especially when he is looking at Shane, that just makes you want to either f*** him, or slap him.

Their world is disrupted by Carrie Tu, a young girl at their school. Initially, Carrie is shown to be dating Jonathan, a relationship which ended when Carrie and Jonathan try to sleep together, but he just could not bring himself to do it. Carrie realises Shane is in love with Jonathan, and pledges to keep his secret. And she turns into the most wonderful ex-girlfriend, hooking up with Shane for the most unfathomable reasons within the next 15 minutes of the show.

The rest of the show is taken up by subdued drama due to the linkages between the three hearts, unspoken love and tensions. It is extremely frustrating, accentuated by the slow pace of the movie, and the sometimes non-sequential writing. Shane spends half his time saying 'Oei, Jonathan' and exhorting him to talk and spend time with him. Jonathan spends half his time studying, or at least trying to pretend the sight of a half-naked Shane in his bedroom does nothing to him. And Carrie spends half her time creating phone drama between the three of them.¹