A hiao gene? LGBTQuestion.

“Do we have the hiao gene?” (“Hiao” as in Hokkien for vain). 

That’s what law don and activist Thio Li Ann asked. Here it is in full and in its context.

“I take the position that there is a degree of choice. Someone said you might have a genetic predisposition but we all know we don’t act on our impulses.”

“You could have the hiao gene, right? It doesn’t mean you sleep with every man you come across. There is some degree of control, some degree of choice. And yes, the social environment will condition it.”

Mm...after reading that, I wonder, is there a pai kia gene (Hokkien for gangsta)? That is, someone who is prone to becoming violent due to his inability to control his actions. 

Well, that said, it is quite proven that some of us have anger management issues (more than others). And it could very well be in the neuro-hardwiring. 

Our ability is control it is less than others who are born with better prefrontal constitution. 

And if you take a roll call in prison, you will notice that this violent gene is largely gender-biased too.

How about the adulterous gene then? Or, the greedy gene? The love-to-eat-nonstop gene? The holiday-addict gene? The lust-at-first-sight gene? 

Aren’t we a hotwired mishmash of genetic predispositions setting us up for a world of endless behaviourial possibilities upon birth when we interact with the epigenetically triggered social environment?

I guess the debate will go on like the Titanic song because one side will argue that predisposition is not destiny, (like Thio did), and another side will come back with the argument that whether it is destiny or not, it’s really none of your business.

And the follow-up on that side is this, don’t tell us what is right or wrong when you can’t even get your house in order, and you have since the one who had crucified on the Cross, that is, two thousand years ago, to get it right, but thus far, it is still so far from ideal. 

And if you claim to be work-in-progress, it’s time you change your “spiritual subcontractor” because the high penalty you have to pay for delayed righteousness personified as claimed is long, long overdue. 

Needless to say, the push-and-pull tug of war has always been tense and taut with religion being the main agent provocateur (as seen by some). And mind you, not any religion, but only lslam and Christianity. 

And the religious barometer here is section 377A. PM Lee noted that “both sides hold strong views, and in particular, many who oppose its repeal “do so on very deeply held religious convictions.””

He added: “I should therefore say that as a matter of reality, the more gay activists push this agenda, the stronger will be the push-back from conservative forces in our society.”

Alas, you can rest assured that when (or if) section 377A is repealed, both sides are going to dig their heels even deeper into their respective dogmatic trenches to wage a war of ideals that will see no end in sight.

The Christians are already digging their foxhole in preparation for a sturdy defence (or earthly offence) with these words from pastor Derek Hong. “It’s not a crusade against the people but there’s a line that God has drawn for us, and we don’t want our nation crossing that line.”

Actually, if you think about it, our nation has already crossed many lines. Some lines get away with it because of commonsensical economic justification.

Take the casinos for example. When you can’t beat them because such commercial activities bring in the tax revenue, employment for the masses, and attraction and world acclaim, you coyly redraw the line back a little to preserve your spiritual purity and defence. 

Other lines are blurred in the sand like criminalising adultery (where you are liable to be stoned to death in another era) because of cultural changes, the enlightenment movement, and our government’s secular balancing of various conflicting interests in the name of keeping the peace for one and all. 

And so, we are left with the gay line to defend - as Derek said, “we don’t want our nation crossing that line.” 

(And I know the good pastor meant it metaphorically, but we tend to overlook unintended consequences, and one of that is how different believers draw their own lines because spiritual authority is remarkably individualistic)

Here, I can imagine the last scene of Endgame where the Avengers on one side and Thanos’ stooges on the other side are clashing into each other in a epic fight to save and redeem humanity for the last time. 

But the difference is that for endgame, everybody throws their weight on one side. For the gay line, the society is clearly fractured and divided. 

And as a Christian, I was personally caught in the crosshair of the target (by my own camp!) when I decided to traipse across the line in an earnest attempt to understand the other side. 

You see, due to my so-called liberal writings about section 377A seven months ago, some believers are of the view that I have crossed over and should be shunned, avoided. 

Well, I can’t say that I am not a little pleasantly surprised about it, because I thought my writings were supposed to open minds, not close them. 

So, that is where we as a nation stands today. We are not just a fine country, but on some religious/social issues, we are also a line country. 

And no, I am not talking about line dancing where we all get together to have fun. But it is about a line that once you cross it, you run the risk of being considered as no longer one of us. Cheerz.

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

If it is a sin and not a crime, should we decriminalise it? Is it that simple? Can we expect an agenda on both sides of the divide? Is our Christian faith defined by, hinged upon and centered at the staying power of Section 377A?

And if it is both a sin as well as a crime, shouldn’t we arrest, charge and put the offender on trial in the same way we arrest, charge and put a thief on trial? 

This is the big question for us to ponder after the Supreme Court of India decriminalised gay sex by abolishing Section 377. Chief Justice Dipak Mishra said the archaic law from the remnants of the colonial days is “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary.” 

Is it? Is it really irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary? 

Well, if you enact it, put it in the Penal Code, and then assure its potential offenders that they can freely commit in the privacy of their own bedroom the very act that the Section seeks to prohibit, can that be considered “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary”?Is it an overreach?

Alas, there is no easy solution here. It is said that every complex problem has a solution that is simple, neat and wrong. I guess this happens to be one of them. It is what one may call the "crucible of unsolvedness".

Our society is clearly divided on this. The recent decision in India’s highest Court only deepens the wedge further. 

According to our law minister Mr Shanmugam, “the majority are opposed to any change to Section 377A, they are opposed to removing it.”

But veteran ambassador Tommy Koh is not letting dead dogs lie. Whether there is a majority opposing its repeal or not, he seems to have an injection of renewed faith in our judicial system to do the right thing after our Indian counterparts have done theirs.

He wrote: “I would encourage our gay community to bring a class action to challenge the constitutionality of Section 377A”. 

Though unintentional, he had even started the hashtag #tryagain movement very much like the #metoo movement but with a much tighter cultural Gordian knot to untie.

Even the chief of government communications, Janadas Devan stood on the ambassador’s side. He wrote: “Speaking personally, I support Tommy’s position. 377A is a bad law. Sooner or later, it will go. Pray sooner rather than later.”

Mm...I really don’t know who is going to pray to repeal 377A soon, but the last time I checked, the religious communities are united in prayer against it. 

Pastor Lawrence Khong is leading the charge here. 

Chairman of LoveSingapore, a network of more than 100 Churches, he said: “I am somewhat concerned, perhaps even disappointed that a public and some would consider a government figure is making a statement like that. It does not come across as being helpful to building cohesion in society.”

Here, I wonder are there other ways to build cohesion in society?

As for our Courts, we already have a precedent on it and it went in the opposite direction of India’s Supreme Court. 

In 2014, the constitutional challenge against Section 377A was dismissed because, based on the way our Courts see or interpret it, there was no infringement of our constitution. 

In their opinion, Section 377A was neither discriminatory nor a violation of a gay’s right to life and liberty. You can say that contrary to the opinion of the CJ of India, our Courts do not find Section 377A “irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary.”

But, as I have written above, the only issue about a readily defensible and seemingly rational section 377A is that it is not openly prosecuted in public or private. This is one criminality that will not see its offenders put behind bars anytime soon. 

Shanmugam said: “People openly express themselves as gay. I mean you have got gay parade. Police even approved the licensing for it, no one gets prosecuted for declaring themselves as gay. So, really, when was the last time someone was prosecuted?”

Apparently, our little red dot is highly tolerant of the little pink dot in our own backyard. 

For PM Lee, he is taking the wait-and-see approach. In politics, he’s sure not going to adopt a moralist stand because the government has always plied the middle road when it comes to such culturally sensitive, even inflammatory, issues.

He said: “Singapore is a society which is not that liberal on these matters. Attitudes have changed, but I believe if you have a referendum on the issue today, 377A would stand. My personal view is that if I do not have a problem, this is an uneasy compromise, I am prepared to live with it until social attitudes change.”

Lesson?Mm...it actually goes back to the question I posed at the start of this post: -

Is homosexuality a sin or a crime? 

I trust that atheists in general are the least concerned about the issue. To them, it is mostly a case of live and let live. 

But I am afraid Christians in general (and the adherents of other faiths) are not going to take it lying down. To them, something bigger is at stake. It concerns the fate of humanity as a whole. It concerns what is sacred, what defines us, what cannot be compromised.

Mind you, we are supposed to be the custodians of society’s conscience, the moral gatekeepers, the watchtowers of what is right (the Catholic sexual scandals notwithstanding), and letting this one go free may just be inviting the 377A Trojan horse of licentiousness into our guarded city.

Recall that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers in high places. 

For this reason, for this sacred reason, we are call to take a stand to defend our land, every spiritual square inch of it. 

Yet, notwithstanding the above, Is homosexuality a sin or a crime?

If it is both, then Section 377A should stay and be duly enforced. But if it a sin and not a crime, shouldn’t it be decriminalised?

There is however a third alternative, which is quite unthinkable (if not abominable) for the believer. And that is, it is neither a sin nor a crime, because some are born that way. It is thus a gene thing. 

If so, it is morally wrong for Section 377A to be in the penal code in the first place. 

But I would leave the third alternative out because the science on it is still out there, notwithstanding the clear biblical stand against it. 

Yet, if we go back to the argument that homosexuality is a crime, why is our government not prosecuting the offender? 

Well, like a rock and a hard place, it is for PM Lee between a referendum and an uneasy compromise. 

According to him, a referendum taken now would mean that 377A would stand. That’s the voice of the presumed majority. And as long as the society does not have a problem with it, it is still a livable, though uneasy, compromise.  

So, this unveils our fourth unique alternative. 

Homosexuality is a sin but not a crime in a way that its offenders will be prosecuted. Yet, this does not mean we decriminalised Section 377A because, as PM Lee puts it, “Singapore is a society which is not that liberal on these matters.” 

Is it then a security blanket some of us hold tightly on to just to remind its violators that not only God is watching them, our government is also watching them but without the handcuffs?  

Alas, that essentially explains why Section 377A remains in the books, not to curb certain behaviour once deemed unlawful, but to appease a large section of society that is not that liberal on these matters.

Now, are the Christians satisfied with this current state of affair? Would Lawrence Khong consider this a cultural victory? Have we drawn the line deep enough to keep the LGBT on their side of it? Will 377A be considered the hallmark or emblem of our collective moral and religious stand?

But, in case we think the government is on our side, we must be mindful of the fact that once attitude changes, our pragmatic government would do whatever it takes to keep the majority appeased. This may mean doing away with Section 377A altogether when the society as a whole becomes liberal enough - whatever that means.

Maybe pinkdot has to occupy every seat in National Stadium before the government takes notice and goes back to the legislature’s drawing board. 

But before that happens,it is indeed an uneasy compromise and Tommy Koh’s plea to try again will need to seek another avenue instead of trying to change the Court’s mind. 

No changes in one or two foreign jurisdictions would be sufficient to make 377A unconstitutional since our Courts have already ruled on that. 

At this moment, only Parliament can make the change and the impetus for such a change would depend on the voices of the majority because in politics, every vote that tilts the electoral balance in one’s favour counts. 

In the end, 377A has effectively divided our society. It has turned our society into a tug of war with the strongest pull of resistance coming from the side with the hypothetically largest number of people. Morality in this sense has gone to the loudest voice, most times, angry ones. But sadly, the fight is not over yet. 

Pinkdot has been growing in numbers over the years and it is a matter of time before they grow in assertion, affirmation and acceptance. Once they hit critical mass, the society will only be further polarised and the we-versus-uswill only worsen. By then, we risk turning our belief into a crusade, our faith into tribalism, and our hope into a political mission.

When that happens, we Christians may profess with the sincerest of voices and acts that we love the sinner and hate the sin. However, the only thing the sinner in our eyes will see is more of the hate and less of the love.

Let me be clear: I have nothing against 377A. But I have everything against making it the center or focus of our identity in Christ. There has to be a better way to love God and our neighbours because the last time I checked, before we ourselves were saved, Jesus did not go before the Romans senate, the Sanhedrin Council or Pontius Pilate to use the law to change human behaviour and launch a countercultural revolution. 

Instead, He went with untold anguish to the Cross to connect and transform hearts. Jesus touched one life at a time not by an act of Parliament, but by an act of sacrifice – that is, himself in order to draw all men unto him. That is what love does. It does not hold on stubbornly to a thing or a scroll of the past. It holds on stubbornly and patiently to a life until that life finally let go of himself to join hands and hearts with the Savior of his soul.

For in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, the Word dwelt among us, sinners and all, none were excluded, for all have sinned and fallen short, and the Word was full of grace and truth. The Word fulfilled the law through his obedience and unfailing love, and with grace and truth, He sets us free. Grace for grace, we are indeed free. Amen. Cheerz.