My response to MyRightToLove

I have been forwarded a heartfelt blogpost by MyRightToLove in response to Pastor Khong and I have some things to say about it in response, but I didn't want to get into the kind of usual blogosphere argument with others. I just wanna say what I have to say and leave it at that, rather than have a debate, that's just my style.

I have already made my views clear in my previous post, where I attacked Pastor Khong's ridiculous argument which didn't stand up to the simplest academic scrutiny, so there's no question on how I feel on the issue. I have read MyRightToLove's (MRTL for short from here on) post and whilst I am clearly on his side, my reaction is simply: what's the point? You can't reason with Pastor Khong and you can't reason with religious people on the issue of homosexuality. What's the point - do you think they'll listen?

Arguing with Pastor Khong can feel like banging your head against a wall. 

I think that people like MRTL who are obviously trying to win people like Pastor Khong over are only fighting a losing battle - it's like banging your head against the wall, you're not going to break the wall down that way, you're only going to hurt your head in the process. I know a lot of gay activists are going to hate me for saying this, especially those who have spent years trying to engage religious groups - but please hear me out.

Let's look at the situation in the UK (where I live), allow me to show you how we have reached a compromise in this country. Now the UK has a pretty good record on gay rights - consensual gay sex us decriminalized in 1967, same sex couples can enter into civil partnerships, we have an equal age of consent, same sex couples can marry and we have comprehensive anti-hate crime legislation that protects everyone from Christians to gays alike from hate crimes. Of course, more can be done and the situation isn't perfect - but we're working on it.

Now all this has happened without eroding the rights of religious communities in the UK - how would granting equality to homosexuals suppress the right of an individual to practice religion? In the UK, we have no shortage of Christian and Muslim preachers who are very clear that they are anti-gay - one such clear example of these two different opinions meeting is at the gay pride parade in London every year. There is always a contingent of Christian protesters (who number about 25) who are camped at the same place every year at the bottom of Lower Regent Street with anti-gay placards (check out the photos here). There are police and ushers to make sure that there will be no clashes between the gay people marching and the Christian protesters.

So there you go - both groups have the right to express themselves, there is enough space in our society for both opinions to exist. Half a million gay people and their supporters can have a parade through central London as part of their Gay Pride festivities, whilst 25 angry anti-gay Christians can be granted a space within that event to have their anti-gay message heard. The Gay Pride parade organizers do not try to ban the Christian protesters from the event no matter how homophobic their placards may be - by the same token, the Christians in London don't try to stop the gays from organizing a massive gay pride event in central London every summer. Both groups simply want to have the right to express themselves and make their points of views heard in public. Check out the video below - the Christian protesters are those with the yellow placards. Both groups have a right to be there and express themselves and they both achieved that. They'll never reach a compromise or consensus - but that's fine!

Pastor Khong seems to think that gays want to silence the Christians and deny them the right to practice their religion - that is simply not the case; rather, the responsibility lies with the government to ensure that a balance is struck to allow the freedom of speech and expression for all groups - whilst protecting anyone who becomes a target or victim of hate crime. So if a religious group wants to preach a message like, "kill all gays" - then their right to express that message infringes on the rights of gay people to lead their lives without getting killed. It is all about balancing the rights of one group against the other. In British churches, the preachers are free to tell their congregations to turn away from sin, to obey the bible, to obey Christian doctrine, to avoid pre-marital sex etc - the same way Muslim, Hindu and Jewish religious leaders are free to tell their congregations how to practice their religion. Gays don't want to silence religious people - they're merely asking for them to take the stance of "let's agree to disagree and respect the diversity of opinion in our society - there can never be complete consensus, we can never ever all agree on every single issue but that's fine as long as we respect each other as human beings." That's not a gay agenda, that's simply having very basic respect for all human beings - gay or straight, Christian or atheist, black or white, male or female, young or old.

But wait, given that we have so many different religions in the country, the law has to cater for everyone regardless of their religion. So whilst pork is forbidden for Muslims, it is perfectly acceptable for Christians. Do Muslims demand that pork is made illegal in the country as it is not permitted by their religion? No, instead, the pious Muslim avoids pork because his religion demands that of him - rather than because it is illegal according to the law of the country he lives in. So a Christian who believes in saving her virginity for marriage and wears a purity ring to show those around her how she feels about the issue, she is making this choice because of her faith and religious belief, rather than because pre-marital sex is against the law where she lives. Religious faith is an act of submitting to a higher authority that comes from your god(s), rather than your government. By that token, why should Christian preachers what the government say on the issue of section 377A and other issues pertaining to sex and sexuality? Can't they get their congregations to listen to their message regardless of what happens in this mortal world?

Is the congregation listening to the church's message? 

After all, there is supposed to be something eternal, even transcendental about religious faith - after all, the Christian concept of salvation is not based on anything to do with our mortal world. If you buy into the concept of Christian salvation and you seriously believe that you will spend eternity sitting on a cloud in heaven playing a harp after you die, then I say, it's your right to believe in whatever religious doctrine you want to. As long as the law guarantees you your right to practice religious freedom, why should what the law has to say about sex and sexuality affect your faith?

Let me give you an example. In the UK, in 2000 the age of consent for gay sex was lowered to 16 - which makes it equal to that of heterosexual sex. Of course, the religious groups were up in arms over the issue, claiming that it was sending out a wrong message to young teenagers that it was okay to experiment with gay sex. Again, the typical over the top, bullshit, "it's the end of the world" claims by the churches about lowering the age of consent for gays. My point is, if a preacher in a church tells his congregation, "don't have premarital sex, don't have gay sex and don't have sex at the age of 16" - if he is convincing, if his congregation trusts in him, if his congregation believes in him - then yes they will do as they are told. There is nothing in British laws that prevents Christian preachers from telling their congregations to stay away from the sins of lust and sex.

Christian pastors are free to tell their congregations to stay away from sexual sins.

After all, alcohol has always been widely available and completely legal in the UK - if a preacher tells his congregation, "don't abuse alcohol, don't get drunk, don't become an alcoholic", again, the onus is on the preacher to make his congregation believe and obey him. If nobody in his church listens to the preacher and in desperation, the preacher to then run to the government and complain, "you must make alcohol illegal for everyone in this country!" Hello? Excuse me? Do you see what is wrong here?

Religious preachers have a very difficult job. Try selling the concept of god, the bible, salvation and an after life to a non-believer. It is not the easiest concept to sell, given the lack of concrete evidence. If I wanted to sell you an iPhone, I could give you a live demonstration and show you how fun and useful some of my favourite apps are. You could hold the iPhone in your hands, play with it, make calls with it, surf the net on it. But to try to sell the concept of a religion is a lot harder - yet many Christian leaders in the UK have always taken it for granted that the UK should be a Christian country. Why even the queen is the church of England, there are churches everywhere in this country, over 70% people in this country still describe themselves as Christians - so why has church attendance fallen to an all time low?

This 700 year old church is now a cafe and bookstore!

The Tearfund Survey in 2007 found that only 7% of the population in the UK considered themselves as practising Christians. Ten per cent attend church weekly and two-thirds had not gone to church in the past year. Currently, regular church attendance in the United Kingdom stands at 6% of the population with the average age of the attendee being 51. This shows a decline in church attendance since 1980 when regular attendance stood at 11% with an average age of 37. It is predicted that by 2020, attendance will be around 4% with an average age of 56. Now I put two explanations to you. Church attendance in the UK has totally collapsed because:

1. The church has failed to sell the concept of their religion to the younger generation and connect with them.
2. The government is to be blamed for allowing everything from sex, drugs and rock & roll.

Why are churches being converted to cafes today? 

It is pretty obvious that the church has totally failed in trying to engage the younger generation in so many ways - but rather than taking responsibility for their own failures, they are blaming anyone and everyone: from the government to the gays instead of taking responsibility for the fact that their evangelistic efforts have failed with the younger generation. Hence when I look at Pastor Khong's anti-gay rhetoric on the issue of section 377A, I wonder: what else are you going to blame Pastor Khong, for your own failures? Today you pick on the gays, who are you going to pick on tomorrow? What you need, really, is a new marketing strategy to improve your appeal as a religion, rather than blame everyone else for your current unpopularity. You have no right to play the victim card Pastor Khong.

At the end of the day, I propose a much easier solution: let's all agree to disagree. We don't all need to see eye to eye on the issue, as long as we have a healthy respect for the other person's right to hold his/her opinion. This is a rather British approach to the matter and one that has by and large worked for the UK for the simple reason: we are a democracy. We don't require that every single person in the country agrees to something before it becomes law. We are looking forward to making gay marriage legal in 2013 and here's a quick multiple choice for you.

Q: For gay marriage to become legal in the UK, what needs to happen?

1. It will need to come before a vote in the House of Commons after a series of debates, whereby it will be determined by the votes of the democratically elected MPs - it is voted through by a majority (ie. more than 50%) then it will be legislated into law.

2. Every single person in the country has to agree to it and even if one person disagrees, then it cannot happen.

What do you think the right answer is? It is obvious. We don't need 100% consensus - so even when this whole process is completed later on this year, there will be many, many people (no doubt including many Christian preachers) who will be furious that the law was passed and gay people can now get married. But guess what? That's fine, that's how democracy works - you cannot please everyone, so you have to simply default to what the majority wants, leaving the minority disappointed and angry - even if they number 49%. Tough, even at 51% vs 49% - it's a close call of course, but it is still a majority by the rules of democracy.

The world doesn't revolve around Pastor Khong.

As for Pastor Khong, I say, he is just one man. Leave him be, you cannot change his mind. Even if you do change his mind, what are you going to do - try to make everyone in Singapore gay-friendly? Heck, even in the most progressive countries like Holland, Belgium, Sweden and Iceland, there will always be homophobic people. Gays have a lot to learn from the way black people fought for equal rights in America. Their emancipation was won on the basis and fundamental belief that every American should be equal before the eyes of the law regardless of skin colour. Black people didn't try to please white people and win them over by being nice and polite - hell no. That's not how it works. There will always be racist people in America who don't believe in equality for all - the way to fight this equality battle is to make sure you have the support of the majority and make them believe that all humans are equal regardless of their sexual orientation, that marriage should be about love, not genitals.

This fight for equality is not a gay vs straight issue - rather, it is a clear fight between those of us (gay and straight alike) who believe in equality and the bigots who believe that gays don't deserve the same rights as gays, that gays are somehow second class citizens who should be grateful they are not persecuted. As for MRTL, I feel for you man, it must be tough being a gay man in Singapore. I suggest that you spend your time and energy with friends who will love you, cherish you and support you - leave people like Pastor Khong alone, you have little to gain by trying to engage him. He has the right to voice his opinion too and we need to respect that. Just remember, your voice is as valid as his, so feel free to speak up and make yourself heard.

Can't we all just get along?