Photo: A church service at City Harvest Church. Most Christians in Singapore are adament that homosexuality is a condition that is changeable. Courtesy of Liu Kam Kit / Creative Commons
Terence Lee / Deputy Editor
In this four-part series, the writer explores the idea of conversion therapy and the notion that Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered (LGBT) people can change, if they choose to do so.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
While many gay Christians may at have, at one point of time or another, tried to change their sexual orientation, others have no such desire. In fact, these people, many of whom are non-religious, may be in the majority.
Mr Ow estimates that at any one time there would be about 40-50 individuals going through therapy at Choices, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the LGBT community in Singapore.
A survey done in New York City finds that 4.9% of men identify themselves as gay or bisexual. If applied to the Singapore context, this would add up to a figure of 120,000. This figure, however, remains a rough estimate as no concrete research has been done on this topic in Singapore.
An example would be Steven (not his real name), a social worker in his late thirties, who is a self-described “gay Catholic.”
While he joined Choices in 1995, he did not go in there wanting to be changed. Rather, he was more interested in making gay friends and finding out what the ministry had to say.
Till this day, he finds nothing wrong with his homosexual behaviour, believing that the Bible was written at a certain time for a certain people.
Furthermore, he also feels that the gay debate has been blown out of proportion, as there are more pressing issues out there to talk about rather than labeling “who’s gay and who’s not.”
It would be better to talk about the misuse of sex, he says, such as how sex has become a bargaining tool in relationships. He also feels that people should also learn how to negotiate and say ‘no’ to sex.
It is more practical to focus on these things, which are more useful, than zero in on homosexuality.
He chooses to adapt a live and let live attitude — while Choices did not work for him, he sees no harm in having such therapies around.
“If somebody really wants to go through it, why not? I mean, if you’re really meant to gay, you will be gay. While such programmes may not work for me, they may work for other people,” he says.
However, he does not see conversion therapy as the best solution. He calls it the “lesser of two evils”, because it is the better than sending a gay person to a pastor for exorcism or prayer, for example.
Alternative choices to conversion therapy
Agreeing with Steven is Ms Susan Tang, chairperson of the counsel at FCC, who advocates a “gay-affirmative” stance in her church.
She suspects that those who underwent therapy and converted are not genuinely gay in the first place. Ms Tang also finds it impossible to love the homosexual but hate homosexuality.
“You are your sexuality, how can you divorce the two? It just doesn’t make sense to me,” she says.
Furthermore, she has seen many lives changed once they started accepting their sexuality. She recalls a girl who when she first visited the church, wore a baseball cap that was tilted down.
“You couldn’t see her face, and she’s always looking down and hunched over. Today she’s a different person. She stands up tall, her cap is off, she is up on the pulpit and preaching, and she runs a woman’s group — all this is only a matter of four years!”
While Ms Tang says that gays should embrace their sexuality, she does not believe in promiscuity, but “loving, monogamous” homosexual relationships.
The Catholic Church also takes a slightly different view from the mainstream Protestant churches in Singapore, although it may be difficult to recognise the nuance at first glance.
While they view homosexuality as a “disorder of nature”, the Catholic Church does not advocate conversion therapy, says Mr Andrew Kong, a trainer for Family Life Society, a counseling and care service centre affiliated with the Church.
“We prefer to advocate chastity,” he says, “but we do think it is possible for homosexuals to change.”
A check with the Catechism of the Catholic Church reveals no mention of conversion therapy. Instead, it commands that “homosexual persons are called to chastity,” to abstain from sexual acts outside the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman.
A matter of religious belief
While not a Catholic, chastity is the position Mr Lung is adopting as well. He also remains steadfast in his conviction that LGBT people can change their sexual orientation, countering criticisms that “converted” LGBTs are not truly happy.
“I am at peace with myself, as far as I’m concerned. Am I unhappy that I have to struggle? Who isn’t? We all have our own struggles, and I wish I don’t need to struggle with my sexual desires,” he says.
Nevertheless, he sees it as a normal part of his life. It is “a cross to carry,” as he would put it.
He also adds that based on his experience, many “ex-ex gays” actually come back to the Liberty League. While they may have initially “decided” to embrace their sexual identity, it is often not final.
They return either because of their religious conviction, or because they are unhappy with their lifestyle. Mr Lung believes that their basic lack of intimacy is not met.
“They have sex, but they still feel empty and disconnected,” he says.
He does concede, however, that there are gays who in loving monogamous relationships and are happy with their lifestyle. In fact, some of them are his friends.
“It is their personal decision, who is anybody to criticise? I may not approve of their lifestyle, but they are still my buddies,” he says.
Mr Lung is one of the rare few who, having embraced change, became quite successful at it. For most other LGBT people however, change is unnecessary, even repulsive.
Ironic as it is, whether a gay can change is a matter of choice. But even among the religiously fervent, you have your dissenters – those who tried but failed.
Success, it seems, is dependent on how change is defined. For mainline Protestant and Catholic churches, the holy grail of the ex-gay movement – heterosexual marriage – remains a possibility. But very few attain it.
For those who fail to transform, chastity is encouraged, and this practice seems to have a greater success rate.
Then again, there are those who fall through the cracks – they complete the programme, date a girl, but the thought of intimacy still scares them. Their gayness becomes a cross to carry, a heavy burden which some bear with for the rest of their lives.
Some, finding the price too high to pay, abandon the cross.
Is this liberation or destruction? The answer to that question, ultimately, boils down to your religious conviction.
End of Part Four. This article concludes the series.
Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Clarification |
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
fearandignorance
>>Even if environment factors have caused the brain restructure, this change is irreversible unless a brain transplant or restructuring.
>>
How does that support the argument gay is inborn?
>> Sexual differentiation in mammals is biased towards developing as a female
>>
That has been confirmed eons ago – long before the gay pride began. It does NOTHING to confirm gay is inborn. In any case, if you want to use the above argument, then what about lesbians? It throws the concept of lesbianism off, no?
Thio
>> A psychologist once said to me; the things we say about others really reflect how we feel about ourselves. True?
>>
I’d rather say that if you keep saying things about yourself, you will believe what you say. That’s how champions and losers are made. They enact what they believe about themselves.
So gays who say gay is inborn, reinforce their gayness – a very vicious cycle that entraps them to a point of no return.
abc
>>I just there’s no point explaining the science behind the etiology of sexuality to people who are
1) Completely ignorant about genetics
2) Not open to evidence that contradicts their stand
>>
Stop beating about bush. Show how genetics cause gayness. There is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field. Why claim is when there is no confirmation?
Solo Bear >> How does that support the argument gay is inborn?
It doesn’t, but it sure proves that sexual orientation is not just a choice (gays cannot make a choice to the which sex they are attracted to)
Once sexual orientation is determined by genes, during pregnancy and early childhood, it is FIXED and IRREVERSIBLE.
fearandignorance,
You keep repeating gay is not choice and it cannot be reversed.
Stop repeating that.
Prove it.
Where is the scientific evidence when there is NO CONSENSUS in the medical field?
The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatcauses
And I am a living example!
>>The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
>>
It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.
>>But according to APA,
under the question:What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
>>
Do you know that APA took a vote to consider homo not a disease?
What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.
Ha ha. Since when medical science is based on votes?
strawman argument again
everyone knows psychiatry is not an exact science
u ask for a CONSENSUS in the medical field and
I have given u that.
>>everyone knows psychiatry is not an exact science
>>
EXACTLY! So all the talk by gays that you have proof gay is inborn in nothing more than just opinion.
There is NO PROOF gay is inborn. Just opinion that it is.
So?
As for consensus, where it it? Consensus is majority opinion. A handful of studies hardly constitutes majority opinion.
So not only there is no proof, you don’t have majority opinion either.
And gays dare say science is on their side?
What pompous claim!
Josh,
Do you embrace the idea that : there is a DOME (Sky) that separate the water under it (sky) from the water above it (sky), or the sun moves around the earth?
>>The same applies to u.
You keep repeating that gay is a choice and it can be reversed
Stop repeating that
Prove it
>>
It has been done. There are cases where therapy worked and reversed gays to be heteros.
u cant prove all gays has a choice by giving examples of gays who have changed.
I am not sure if u understand elementary logic.
we can all agree that we are just being stubborn.
Solo Bear
Please dont insult the medical community by writing : “What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease. Ha ha. Since when medical science is based on votes?”
Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.
fearandignorance
>>u cant prove all gays has a choice by giving examples of gays who have changed.
>>
Whether I can prove is besides the point. The onus is on gays to prove that gay is inborn. They made that statement, the onus is on them to bring proof. Not the other way.
Kill netizen
>> Here a 3rd medical doctor is telling you:
(a) oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.
>>
All right big talker. Let’s see how you perform. Please cite source, date and details. Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer.
One is a case of early symptom of cancer, the other a total 180 degree turn away from a current opinion it is a disease. Please show correlation, doc.
>>(b) a lot of medical science is based on votes and consensus. two of the examples being when we should start treating high LDL reading, whether beta-blockers should be used in treating patients with CCF.
>>
Treatment of patients has always been an opinion, hasn’t it? How does it lend credence to the fact that APA’s voting decision to turn 180 degrees is professional, which is an opinion whether a behaviour is a disease?
>>(c) if you dont know about medical genetics, please “shut up and sit down”
>>
If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.
>>(d) Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too.
>>
Care to explain that, quack doc?
Your job is to show PROOF that gay is inborn. Cut your pseudo knowledge you possess, such that even professors and specialists don’t dare claim.
If you truly have the answer that gay is inborn, I dare challenge you put your medical profession on the line by stating in no uncertain terms, to the medical world that you have found proof that gay is inborn. Bring forth your studies to be examined.
Dare do it? If yes, just do it. If no, YOU shut up and sit down, doc.
Medical profession dont even use a layman terms like “inborn” that old concept is thrown out in 1960s. In response:
(a) You wrote: A=“What? Imagine a group of oncologists voting cancer is not a disease.” And i countered : non-A=”oncologist and gynaecologist did vote for carcinoma-in-situ is not considered cancer yet, but it is a medical condition that needs to be treated.”
You jump in with “Please tell us lay people how the above can be used as an argument to support that APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move, compared to carcinoma-in-situ, which to some is an early stage cancer. ” ie B= “APA’s vote for considering homo as not a disease – a completely radical move”
I give you counter example to rule out A. By Mathematics of Logic, there is no need to proof B, because A is already disproved.
(b) You wrote: “Treatment of patients has always been an opinion”
Philosophy of medical science has ALWAYS been: “Treatment of an INDIVIDUAL patients is an opinion, to be view under each INDIVIDUAL clinical setting, BUT treatment of a condition in general is always a consensus” MOH sg has come up with no less than 60 guildlines of treatment — which is CONSENSUS. Most (if not all) national medical body throughout the world comes out with CONSENSUS.
This also counter proof your (a) APA come out with CONSENSUS that homosexuality is NOT a disease.
(c) you wrote : ” If you know about medical genetics, don’t assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised” is rheoterics.
Your ignorance in your genetic writings tells the truth. Since YOU (solo bear, and NO other people) dont know medical genetics, please SHUT UP and SIT DOWN.
I did not assume others have no knowledge about genetics or how medicine is practised.
(d) “Genetic inheritance is not solely Mendelian, there are multifactorial inheritance, even for mendelian inheritance, there is salvage-genes too” Google that or try to look for the 1984 SBC medical genetics series as delivered by Emeritus Prof Wong HB, he is a medical geneticist cum paediatrician.
(e) My duty is not to PROOF that gay is inborn. My duty is to tell you, to SHUT UP and SIT DOWN. You are spreading pseudo-science.
Solo Bear>>>Whether I can prove is besides the point. The onus is on gays to prove that gay is inborn. They made that statement, the onus is on them to bring proof. Not the other way.
Christians are the ones who imposes their views on us gays and forced us to abandon homosexuality. All gays ask of Christians is to just leave us alone (live and let live) and do not condemn us.
Why do we have to prove something is imposed onto us when Christians cannot prove that gay is a choice and conversion therapy is safe and effective?
Beside, u are the one who first brought up gay as a sexual preference (on May 29th, 2009 8.00 pm ) in this discussion without any proof!
This thread is now closed for further comments.