Focus on the Family Seminar

November 2003

By Miak

Note: The views expressed here are Miak's (the author) personal views.

I had originally written a rather incendiary article about how the forum "Homosexuality: Myths and Truths" organised by Focus on the Family on 24 Nov 2003 at Wesley Methodist Church was a good showcase of logical fallacies. But I am glad I felt constrained not to take it further.

Something caught my attention in an email from someone who attended a similar forum at the Catholic Archdiocesan Education Centre. She asked Dr Melvin Wong, one of the speakers, if he would entertain the idea that a gay person could be happy and balanced. I was told that Dr. Wong claimed to have homosexual friends but also implied that he doubted their claims of true happiness. At that point, a member of the audience rebutted the questioner and said that a happy gay person is like a happy smoker, he/she thinks that it's OK but in reality, doesn't know the damage that he/she's inflicting.

But then isn't that the view that some gay people have of ex-gays? That their happiness is a delusion too? Where does it end if we keep taking positions where we negate another's account of his/her own happiness?

As Clarence pointed out at the end of the Q&A session, in Singapore, we shouldn't take an antagonistic stance. We don't want the polarization that characterizes the relationship between the Christian right and gay Christians in the US to be duplicated here. At Safehaven, we strive to be honest in finding ways to agree to disagree in Christ. Even if the fundamentalist church won't accord to us a similar honesty, we will still take this respectful approach because it is the way of Christ.

The Focus on the Family forums were held supposedly to “ deal honestly and compassionately with homosexuality from various perspectives”, but I came away very disappointed that the forum did not keep to its promise. I thought naively that the “various perspectives” presented would include one that was gay-affirmative, but I realized that the various perspectives meant one perspective presented from the different angles by different professionals:

• Dr Melvin Wong, a California licensed Clinical Psychologist in Family, Forensic & Neuropsychology who presented “Homosexuality: Myths and Truths”;
• Dr Darrel Reid, a Political Historian and President of Focus on the Family Canada who presented “Deconstructing Marriage & Family: Canada's Present, Singapore's Future?”; and
• Dr Thio Li-Ann, Associate Professor of Law from the National University of Singapore who presented “Homosexuality: Law & Policy in Singapore”.

I attended the forum to listen to the other side of the story. As a person I have always felt that I need to expose myself to the multiple sides of any issue. This too has been the view of Safehaven. I was disappointed however that while people like us are asked to conscientiously examine the view points on both sides, I saw people who only choose to see what they wanted to see, and hear what they wanted to hear, and with one swift stroke, borrowing the North American rhetoric painted us as enemies to be combated and defeated.

How many in the audience had done a detailed Bible study on homosexuality, and how many of them just accepted what was presented without critically thinking through the issues? I can accept and I will respect the opinion of someone who has examined both sides of the argument, given them some thought and came to their own conclusions, even if they end up seeing things differently from me. But sadly this was not the case that night with the presentations or the audience that night.

I was the first to speak up during the Q&A session. I critiqued Dr. Wong's analysis of the twin studies; in particular that he failed to inform the audience of the difference in rates of homosexuality in identical versus non-identical twins. Dr Wong's response was interesting. He stated that while the concordance rate is greater in identical twins than in non-identical twins, this could be due to environmental factors like upbringing because identical twins were probably brought up in similar ways while non-identical twins aren't. He then went on to say that there is clinical evidence that supports the idea that sexual orientation is nurtured.

I can accept the possibility that environmental factors could play a part in the twin studies, but that would also mean that Dr Wong has to accept that genetic factors, could also be a possibility. If he claims inconclusiveness of the research supporting genetic factors, then how could he be so sure that it was not due to biological factors but to environmental factors, or even both?

Clarence followed up quoting several other subsequent studies that replicated the results of the twin studies. One of these studies took into consideration these environmental factors Dr. Wong spoke about. Dr Wong replied that he was not aware of these studies. I honestly find it strange that one who claims to be expert enough to run a series of seminars in Singapore on this issue is not familiar with research done in one's own field of expertise. Does this not sound like a case of accepting only what supports one's opinion, and rejecting those that do not?

Dr Darrel Reid's presentation seemed to veer even further off course. His premise was that liberalization, same-sex marriages and divorce, have led to the degradation of family unit in Canada and if Singaporeans were not careful, that same scenario could be Singapore's future.

Honestly, I don't understand what same-sex marriage has to do with the degradation of the family unit, or how it affects the sanctity of heterosexual marriages. For instance Singapore law permits Muslim men to be polygamous. Has that affected the sanctity of other heterosexual marriages? Has that led to the degradation of the family unit in monogamous marriages? I am not sure Singaporean Muslims will appreciate the implications of Dr Reid's views if carried to their logical conclusion.

Many of Dr Reid's points had little to do with homosexuality. He lumped homosexuality with liberalism, immorality, secularization, cohabitation, erosion of parental authority and divorce as threats to family values but never established the link between homosexuality with them.

Homosexuality has little to do with divorce, except perhaps in the case where a homosexual man or woman got married and realized that they could not continue on in the marriage with integrity. In a situation where a marriage ends in divorce because an ex-gay who underwent conversion therapy felt that he or she cannot carry on in the marriage because the conversion therapy was not entirely successful, would the cause of the divorce be homosexuality or the ex-gay programme since it was the programme that encouraged him or her to “change”, leading to the marriage in the first place?

In response to Dr. Reid, I did not so much ask a question as made a statement about his presentation. And this is the point where I was tripping over my own words because his presentation was a personal affront to me and my family. Essentially Dr. Reid's presentation just swept aside my role as a member of the family unit. I have a family too, I have loving parents - on what grounds am I accused of tearing the family structure asunder? I have heterosexually married friends with children whose families I care for – on what grounds am I accused of destroying their families?

Does it mean that only a unit with husband and wife and “x” number of kids constitutes a family? Are we saying that divorcees, single parents and homosexuals cannot have happy and fulfilling families?

Dr Thio Li-Ann's presentation was that the gay community has an organized agenda. She implied that our newspapers were populated by biased liberals, who through unfair reporting paint the conservative Christians as homophobic fundamentalists, while lauding the pro-gay camp as progressive. She argued that progressiveness is not relative to time, and something that's old and archaic does not necessary mean that it is backward. True; but old and archaic does not also automatically “good.” The point was superfluous at best.

She was quick to lump homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, and incest , and she did it several times. Homosexuality has no unique link to bestiality, pedophilia and incest. And for goodness sakes the pornography on bestiality that I know about (from all the spam – “XXX girl with farm animals” ad nauseum - I get) is heterosexual porn. She may as well have said that carrots, bananas, apples and oranges are in the same section in the supermarket, so carrots must be fruits.

Her presentation attempted to build up a straw man and then tried to burn it down. Fortunately or unfortunately, due to lack of time, she was unable to present many of her points – some that were flashed that caught my eye were some references to what homosexual men do in bed, and there were some graphic references to “fisting”. Does she even realise that the sexual practices she flashed on the screen are practiced by heterosexuals too? The use of the fear and shock tactic to garner support was quite unbecoming of an academic of her standing.

Instead of reason, she relied heavily on emotion – something I found strange coming from a law professor. She was biased, and while she found it unfair being labeled a homophobic fundamentalist bigot, I found it difficult not to see her as one. She definitely did not need the assistance of “biased liberal reporters” to perpetuate this image of her. There was scarce reasoning behind her crusade. To be honest, I wonder what drives her and her mother, Dr Thio Su-Mien, to champion against homosexuality so fervently. The level of emotionalism involved at times came across to me at least, as deeply personal.

During the Q&A, Eric, who was also at the forum, questioned Dr Thio Li-Ann's tactic of “tit for tat” asking whether as Christians we are right to retaliate with a slap if someone gives us a slap on our cheek. He also challenged the panel's wisdom of condemning homosexuality and same-sex marriages instead of focusing on promoting heterosexual marriages and fidelity.

However the saddest point of the forum wasn't any of the presentations. It was when Dr Thio Su-Mien responded to my point that not all Christians - including non-homosexual Christians - agree that homosexuality is a sin. She answered that we should examine who then is a true Christian. In just one sentence, she excommunicated many Christian denominations including the Metropolitan Community Church, the US Episcopal Church, the South African Anglican Church, segments of the Presbyterian church and the Uniting Church from the body of Christ. At what point did we suddenly feel we had the monopoly on truth?

I do not hope to change anyone's mindsets with this article, but I hope that it engages people to think, do in depth research and get to know more gay people before they come to any conclusion that seeks to caricature and slander gay or any other people generally. Many of us have done a lot of conscientious study of the Scriptures and scientific studies including entering into discussions with those who disagreed with us before arriving at our point of view. I hope that those who disagree with us can do the same. I respect people's rights to their point of view, but only if they've done their homework and not just when they are blindly following some emotional and insufficiently substantiated rhetoric.