Ambiguous clauses and the problem of interpretation
Far from providing clarity, the latest statement issued by the National Arts Council (NAC) has farther mystified the supposed guidelines that are adhered to in awarding grants, by throwing out a set of ambiguous clauses that masquerade as objective markers. What on earth are “alternative lifestyles”, this perpetual staple of conservative discourse? What are these “core values” that appear to possess us? These supposed guidelines are based on definitions that are susceptible to arbitrary readings and political manipulation. The council speaks of “core values” as if they could be identified with a litmus test.
Then of course, there is the even bigger conundrum of interpreting a work to determine its compatibility to these ambiguous guidelines. How do we ascertain the target and extent of a play’s political critique? Is it something we can judge from the programme booklet? Do we judge by referring to explicit, visible signals? Would The Necessary Stage’s production Can Change, staged in January, be considered a defender of government policy or its parody? Clearly such a system puts the works of W!LD RICE, with its broad mainstream appeal and its more demonstrative methods of satire at a clear disadvantage.
The fact is that the nuances of art will always present a challenge towards ascertaining its intentions with definite certitude. But the futility of attaining objectivity does not mean that it is impossible to create a set of guidelines that is at least functional. The key to this is communal dialogue. Any proclamation on objectivity is at best specious if the plurality of opinions coming from the various stakeholders of the art world (which includes the audience) is not even engaged. To carry out such deliberations within an exclusive group behind closed doors is to claim absolute authority over thematic and artistic interpretation.
A fundamentally problematic philosophy
But of course, the bigger question is, why bother even clarifying the definitions when the very nature of the guidelines is deeply problematic? Wouldn’t it be a mere refinement of the tools of oppression and a farther elaboration of a misguided philosophy? Before we even go about reestablishing the rules of governance, it is paramount to correct the fundamental misconceptions that inform the NAC’s approach towards the arts.
First, the notion of “alternative lifestyles” needs to be relooked. The authorities invoke the term as a preacher would speak of an absolute sin. But is there anything inherent wrong with the term “alternative”? The term has been rhetorically conflated with malicious abnormality through its appropriation in the anti-gay speeches of religious fundamentalists. Even if we were to consider the alternative as a deviation from a specified norm, why should difference be condemned? Why is the term, “alternative lifestyle” used to denigrate homosexuality but not vegetarianism or alternative spirituality?
In this light, hasn’t theatre always been about the alternative? Isn’t it the necessary responsibility of art to think, to question and to challenge the normative? The very nature of theatre has been built upon the alternative. It isolates the particular and personal and accentuates its individuated identity upon the stage. It functions within a fundamentally decentered space where a displacement of the universal enables new possibilities to be negotiated and expressed. Its ultimate utilitarian value towards society is thus its capacity to imagine and stimulate progressive change.
In the report by The Strait Times on 13 May 2010, a statement by Nancy Lim, the NAC’s assistant finance manager reveals the authorities’ critical misconception of theatre and the arts, claiming that “there is a wide range of topics” in the arts and that “we don’t have to go into the grey areas”.
But aren’t these “grey areas” precisely the province of the arts? What is the critical value of an arts scene which only performs staged readings of government rhetoric? The authorities appear to envision theatre only as a form of recital, determined only to fund productions that serve as pretty vignettes of creativity to populate our aspiring Renaissance City.
Next, the concomitant problem that comes with the problem of “alternative lifestyles” is that of “core values”. In an email to the arts community, poet-playwright Alfian Sa’at has expressed that “there has been no articulation of what Singapore’s ‘core values are’” and associated the term with “glittering generality”. Indeed, how can we even speak of an “alternative” with such confidence if the centre is not even defined? (Not that there is really a necessity for it.) The “core values” are a mythical and rhetorical construct that needs to be radically deconstructed.
In the combined statement by the arts community, it is expressed that there seems to be some confusion between “core values” and “mainstream values”. Effectively, the word “core” suggests a certain fixity that needs to be governed aggressively at all costs. Its very nature is steeped in the political. On the other hand, mainstream values can shift over time. In fact, why do we even need to designate such “core values”? And even if they do serve a functional purpose, why should it be the obligation of the arts to articulate such constructed values that don’t even serve as an accurate mirror of society?
Lastly, the flagrant demand that the arts abstain from works that criticise government policy is both impossible and dangerous. This brand of apolitical theatre that the authorities valorise simply does not exist. Particularly in a city-state where the government attains an omnipresence, is it remotely possible to examine the issues of society, culture or that of everyday life without any form of critique of government policy? The council curiously appears to be undermining the very influence of the state upon its people. Theatre does not reside in its own ivory tower and cannot exist without a context. There is no detour to social or cultural critique without the implication of government policy.
More importantly, this act of depoliticising theatre is inimical to the values of democracy that our society upholds. What is to happen if we were to lose this final bastion of criticality within a society that is already unapologetically censorial? This is a point that Alfian Sa’at has reinforced in the aforementioned email:
“Government is not beyond criticism. The mandate to govern is not equivalent to immunity from critique. If the citizenry has a right to vote, then it also has the right to express its opinions on the performance of the elected during their term. Reputation is built from one’s ability to counter (or even ignore) criticism, rather than one’s ability to silence it.”
Transparency and Accountability
In Heng’s response to TOC, he revealed that the company has met with NAC on several occasions over the years. Several of these “negotiations” resulted in the NAC’s logo being removed from all publicity materials, signalling the council’s desire not to be associated with the productions. In these instances, the funding remained intact.
More recently in March, the NAC warned the company that should it persist in doing plays “which promoted an alternative lifestyle, and which were contrary to the core values of society, or were critical of the Government, [its] funds would be cut”. The company subsequently requested for a meeting with the board but was told that it would not make a difference. There was essentially no right of appeal or recourse.
The company later received assurance that the funding would not be cut for the 2010 season, given that the company was staging revivals that had received funding previously. The contrary happened within a month.
Such accounts undeniably cast doubts upon the integrity of the NAC as an institution of public character. In the first instance, while what happened is clearly a lesser evil as opposed to cutting the funding outright, it is still a form of public deceit. Is this how the NAC ensures its accountability to the public? More crucially, it also reveals that the NAC possesses a clear awareness of the contradictions inherent in its approach towards arts funding, which it evidently attempts to keep out of public view.
Furthermore, why is there so much furtiveness in the council’s management of arts funding? Why are the funds, which in effect come from the tax-paying audience, disbursed in such an arbitrary fashion? How did the council come to decide upon these elusive funding guidelines in the first place?
The Conservative Renaissance
Perhaps the most befuddling aspect of this debacle is the awkward timing of the move. Companies like W!LD RICE have engaged in various forms of political theatre since its inception and rarely have any of these works provoked any form of public backlash. There appears to be no particular production in recent memory that could serve as a plausible trigger for such a reactionary move. The oft-mentioned The Important of Being Earnest can hardly compare with the company’s earlier works in terms of raising the hairs of fundamentalist crazies and The Campaign To Confer The Public Service Star On JBJ was staged way back in 2007. Particularly, why is funding being cut for the company’s tenth anniversary season which features revivals of old works that had previously received funding during their original runs?
Can it thus be inferred that it is the NAC and the government that have become more conservative? There are telling signs that they have. Last August, we saw the appointment of Benson Puah as the council’s CEO when he was already holding on to the same appointment in The Esplanade. On 12 May 2010, it was announced in TODAY that the NAC and The Esplanade, both led by the same man, will “explore a strategic partnership” to manage both the Victoria Theatre and the Drama Centre when The Esplanade takes over the management of both venues. Poet-playwright Ng Yi-Sheng has also posted a series of commentaries on the official Singapore Arts Festival blog (http://singartsfestival.wordpress.com/) on the recent developments concerning the festival which opens this weekend. Are we moving towards an arts scene that is gradually moulded to become more centralised and controlled?
The only Renaissance that appears to be happening is that of conservatism. The tools of oppression have been quietly reinvented to operate insidiously beneath a liberalising social and cultural scene. But the blatancy of the NAC’s recent statement signals the alarming ambitions of this conservative rebirth: it no longer seeks to function beneath the veil of euphemism and disguise, but aspires legitimisation as the righteous crusader, valiantly safeguarding a mythical set of “core values” that is made to possess us from within.
____________________________
By Ho Rui An
_________________________________________
gemami 20 May 2010
Extremely glad to hear that WE are on the same (core values) hill. So what’s with the ‘alternative values’? you building your own hill on a hill.
The hill is untouched. Just that you haven’t seen the ‘alternate’ slope before, coz you steadfastly refuse to move from your side of the hill. So when people talk about the other side of the hill, you thought they are talking about another hill.
-
Now you are thinking artistically. Remember Ivan’s play titled: The Woman in A Tree on a Hill?
No. I can’t remember what I haven’t watch, can I? Like I said, I am not a very artistic person. Prefer crude computer generated special effects and THX surround sound of a cinema to plays.
Maybe you can give a summary of what exactly this story is?
Gemami,
The ‘Western’ approach will not work because the Asian mentality, shaped collectively by its culture, tradition and belief, is harder to break down.
You forgot to use inverted commas to bracket ‘Asian’. Coz it has no meaning, other than being a label invented by politicians to be used at their convenience.
p.s I noticed, like NAC, you don’t dare to define the ‘core values’ despite repeatedly using them as the ‘core’ of your arguments.
gemami,
(1) Unfortunately, I do not think that RedDotWong or sloo or Alex Au “are kidding” if they talk about “free enterprise” in the way RedDotWong talked. Therein lies the problem. Free enterprise applies to social rebels they support, not to those labeled as “conservatives”. When I read the title “Conservative Renaissance”, I hoped that the article might actually argue for the presence of some “positive conservatism” for a change. I have, of course, been dissappointed.
(2) I would argue that Peace and Harmony are the core values. Around these two core values – for any society – are built primary values, or values which are “methods” to preserve these. Upon the Primary Values are built “policy values” which are fleshed-out concepts of the primary values.
The arguments are always over these policy values, and because we have not attained perfection yet, each side of the argument has valid points. (ref. Mill, J S, On Liberty). However, both the sides of the challenger and challenged also have weak points. The challengers’ weak points are not only in what is not known, but also in what is assumed about the challenged’ position.
(5-) The problem with the LGBT movement is that it is not only seeking acceptance, but endorsement of it as well. They are not only trying to get society to accept a positive/empirical reality, but also a new normative standard. Most of those they tar as “conservatives” are willing to acknowledge the former, but want to keep the latter in scope of public debate, as it should be. (Tyranny of the Majority is not healthy, but neither is tyranny of the minority.)
In the West, the LGBT lobbies, instead of engaging in public debate, have resorted to “impartial” courts and councils to resolve the issue. So yes, LGBT lobbyists will try to assert that the APA’s decision in the 1920s to put homosexuality on the DSM was as “politically-motivated” as the decision to strike it off in 1973 because both were made through a vote. The difference was that the 1920s decision was a deliberative vote, whereas the 1973 decision, due to the circumstances the council was in, ended up as an aggregative vote. A deliberative vote is made by examining and synthesizing the data available: there is one case and I am trying to understand it. An aggregative vote is made by qualitatively comparing the data: I am seeing which case is better in a room of multiple cases. In 1973, there is a whole lot of external pressure, including death-threats, being placed on APA leaders who do not conform to the wishes of organizations like Stonewall.
There were no actual discoveries about homosexuality in those intervening years. And there couldn’t have been, because of certain events called the World Wars and the Great Depression. (Einstein came up with his theory before the Depression.)
If you want to take NAC money, you need to socialise more at PAP meetings to find out more about their core values.
Poor Lobo76,
-
It is a problem isn’t it? Not knowing what the core values of society are? Poor dear Lobo of 76.
-
Don’t blame you, because I will need to sit you down for some lessons in history, geography, sociology, religions, race & culture, traditions, taboos and a whole lot more. These are the pillars the Singapore society leans on. Since you cannot remember the story I mentioned earlier (even though I did give a snippet of what the story meant in another post), never mind, certainly you remember the argument on secularism.
-
Given that in a secular society like Singapore, you do agree that the most sensitive thing when breaking barriers is insensitivity. Sad but true, and you will also agree, that the onus is always on the ones attempting to break barrier to do the hard work.
-
Why should it be any different in this case? Better still, why should the larger society forgo their position in the secular composition of Singapore’s society to accommodate the gay minority or even any minority viewpoints? More importantly, and I have asked this many times over, why do they gays think they deserved to be a part of this secular composition?
-
You have to earn it my friend. Wanting it is not good enough. Look around you, the comments here and elsewhere, and I can tell you that the moderation here has prevented more perverted views from seeing the light of day, from both sides, and you will know that the gays have their work cut out for them.
-
Squirming and shouting and bantering is not going to do you any good.
-
I can understand the frustration and anger from the gay pov but the more you shout and squirm, the more you get the feeling of being dominated. This is only going to attract a negative response which will again do you no good.
-
Break out of it and start showing and proving to the larger society what you truly are. Let them know that you are not a threat, that you are a friend, someone who can bring colour, vibrancy and some serious contributions that will make life better for all. Work on your positives. Do not be led by the loud and gawky ones, the ‘crusaders’, as someone had called them.
-
Know that you guys haven’t proven yourselves yet, that you will not be a threat to the social fabric of society and of morality, and therefore, your struggle is going to be a long hard one.
-
Seriously, don’t blame the other side of the hill if it looks greener. Be glad that you already have space on the other side.
-
Contrary to some who may have read me otherwise, my intention was to see and hear for myself what the gay community can bring to the Singapore table so that Singaporeans can decide whether there is a place for whatever they bring.
-
I see only the expression of love toward its own.
-
Decide for yourself, has any of you offered me a little of the love you claimed to have stood for last Saturday? Can you love one who is ‘incapable of loving’? You certainly don’t, and this is why I say that there are higher forms of love which you have yet to understand and grasp hold of.
-
Enough said, I shall not antagonize you, the gay and his supporter any further, But I am still opened to good healthy discussions.
ah gemami gemami… sigh… life would be much less confusing and threatening for you if you could somehow learn to get rid of your “either…or” way of thinking… no one is suggesting that alternative values will ever replace or even threaten strong traditional values, especially in conformist Singapore… all that I am arguing is that both can and should co-exist in a healthy modern society without undermining the validity and dignity of either.
i fail to understand how the alternative values of a small minority can ever impinge on your own choice of mainstreamer/ conformist lifestyle … i do see, however, how a bullying majority can threaten the dignity and validity of a marginalized minority… for some reason, the social conservative folks (not just in Singapore) seem to need to impose their values on everyone… maybe it’s just muscle-flexing bullying to re-assure themselves that they have the right and the power to do so… maybe it’s a sort of paranoia that goes with such mindsets… those who are not “us” are always enemies… whatever the reason, the crusade against alternative lifestyles has reached such a pitch of unreasonableness that it is almost like a mental illness… and yes, the minority “enemies” have necessarily fought back, creating their own set of irrationalities … let’s call a truce and get on with living our own lives and stop telling everyone else how they should live theirs, ok?
And please, can we have a flourishing arts scene that is free of these irrationalities, censorship, and posturing? i like to be treated like an adult, u know.
toc stop reporting on straight nonsense pls
I agree with RedDotWong. This import of Culture Wars from the US has cause so much distress for all.
For ordinary Singaporeans like me,I am more concern about family ties than the so call ‘family values’ or ‘core values’. I am more interested in forging strong bonds with my family members, relatives and friends than judging people whether their “moral values” are lacking or up to standard.
All this talk about “silent majority”, “alternative lifestyles”, “moral values”, etc. is so petty and hypocritical.
If you want to do good, just go out and help the poor and homeless, volunteer at old folks home, etc.
Moralising only turn people off.
Gemami,
Look at Arix’s post. I am somewhat better able to understand his pov, because he clearly defined what he thinks the ‘core values’ to be. Whereas you, despite your longer post, are still tiptoeing at the edge.
-
Given that in a secular society like Singapore, you do agree that the most sensitive thing when breaking barriers is insensitivity. Sad but true, and you will also agree, that the onus is always on the ones attempting to break barrier to do the hard work.
First part, on insensitivity.
1. I don’t see what being secular has anything to do with it. Does it become sensible to insensitivity when a society is religious then?
2. When breaking barriers, one should be sensitive to the ‘breaking point’ of others. Having said that, regardless of how sensitive one is, some ONE will be unhappy when barriers are being broken (otherwise, there isn’t really a barrier there in the first place). That ‘someone’ will inevitably think the other guy is being insensitive. To me, that ‘someone’ are people like you.
On doing the hard work. To say that, it implies you think they are taking the ‘easy’ way out? To be honest, I tot it was much easy to be passive and do nearly nothing (which may translate to your definition of ‘hard work that is sensitive to others’)?
-
my intention was to see and hear for myself what the gay community can bring to the Singapore table so that Singaporeans can decide whether there is a place for whatever they bring.
I am confused. What exactly is this ‘Singapore table’ you are talking about? If it implies contribution to Singapore, then I don’t see how anyone living and WORKING in Singapore is not contributing? Are you saying that gays not need to pay tax?
Thank you Arix, I could not have described ‘Core Values’ any better.
-
BTW, I am still waiting for comments to my third post. The writer asked what is ‘alternative values’. I have answered it but none seems too keen to engage what is crystal clear.
Kampongboy
-
Demoralising is even worse – don’t you think?
RedDotWong,
-
You are arguing as if both sides are standing on equal footings. Truth is, and this is not my doing, we are on unequal footings. You argue as if I share the same opinion as those who have opposed you, failing to see the difference in my argument to theirs.
-
I am not the bully. If there is a need to find a bully, then it is the environment you are in. Take away the argument on ‘core values’, on morality, or on anything that people like me have argued over and you still will see the unequal footings you are on.
-
You want to stand on equal footings, but how are you going to go about it?
-
You have to recognize there has to be rules and regulation in any society, for everyone to keep to, whether they are supportive of those rules or not. You can call it whatever you like, conservatism or whatever, but the fact is these have been there since we even realized they existed.
-
You pour new wine into old skin and then what happens?
-
If one day, Singaporeans are to step forward and say that we should embrace the gay community and that it will be accorded the privileges of mainstream citizens, then the rest of us will have to accept them, whether we like it or not.
-
If one day, the government speaks on behalf of the people that we will do away with capital punishment, then we will obey whether our opinion differs or not. This is how things work..
-
You and I know what will happen if a minority group is to exert itself (read the PAP elites).
-
I will not hurt you further because I can sense and feel the pain in some of the comments we see here.
I shall leave you guys to your peace and tranquility. As for me, well, I’ll stand by me.
-
Thanks to all for engaging this full-blooded hetero.
I always thought Justice and Equality are the core values, as stated in our National Pledge.
—————
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Gemami… thank you for your unexpectedly gracious au revoir… what a surprise to find that you are a red-blooded (and presumably fully functioning)hetero… and more surprises, me too … i’m sexually secure enough to be pro-gay and thanks to the epically nasty Aware saga feel obliged to be so… for me (and all my family and most of my friends), the exaggerations, foaming-at-the-mouth vehemence, and unabashed hatred was an affront to my common sense and to MY Singapore… for me, the enemy was not the gay community but the people who vilify homosexuals (or any fellow Singaporean) as less than human.
sure, they have more fun and more sex than the rest of us… sure, they don’t get trapped in loveless marriages with once a month duty sex like many “normal” Singaporeans (happily, not me!)… sure, a few of them prance around in frocks…sure, what they do is not natural for me (but very natural for them )… sure, they are different… but how does that qualify as a threat to me or you or Singapore?
I think stinky tofu is disgusting but, guess what, I don’t eat it and I don’t demand that all restaurants serving it be closed down… i don’t prevent my wife or friends from eating it just because the smell makes me queasy… i deal with it and tolerate it without complaining… i just close my eyes and think of spicy crab … and this might be good advice for you people who don’t approve of somebody else’s lifestyle… instead of complaining and hurling insults, just think of spicy crab :)
peace and harmony? well, it’s hollow and fragile without equity and humanness… core values are great… but first let’s make sure that the core isn’t rotten from its own irrational certainties.
kampongboy,
I was talking about “core values” in philosophical terms, not in political terms. Justice and Equality are Inner-Methodical Values for Singapore (supposedly).
RedDotWong,
(1) And of course you forget about the vehemence of people like Alex Au towards others’ religious beliefs. How convenient!
(2) Is “more sex” naturally a good thing? Them being different is not a threat in itself; them promoting their difference is.
(3) No you don’t do all that. Equally, no restaurant forces you to eat “stinky” tofu or claims that you have repressed “tofu desire” because you refuse to eat tofu or criticise its taste as “stinky”. (This, incidentally, is offensive to tofu-lovers like me.) Equivalently, no tofu restaurant tries to promote the idea that you are barbaric or uncivilized for not recognizing the deliciousness or wonderful variety provided by tofu. Nobody is diagnosing you as “tofuphobic” for calling tofu “stinky”.
(4) Agree with you there. But as a philosophical question, what is humanness, really?
Arix… Certainly the Alex Au’s of this world can get overwrought when reacting to crusading religious fundamentalists…Yet if you compare his anti-religion diatribes with the demeaning, de-humanizing, degrading, downright nasty, and unnecessarily cruel rants of the anti-gay folks during the AWARE saga, it’s like comparing Oliver Twist’s “more please, sir” to a Hilter speech at a Nuremburg rally… At least Alex Au seems to be fond of ideas in sharp contrast to the anti-gay mob’s pure venom which was so apparent in the ST or other forums.
I wish you guys wouldn’t use the word “promote”. It’s a dishonest way to imply that the gay movement is just one big insidious recruitment drive to grab players from our team to theirs. You and I both know that no amount of “promotion” is going to turn somebody gay. I never had the choice to be straight. I just am. Experience and observations tell me that it’s the same for homosexuals. No choice involved. Some religious doctrines might try to tell me overwise. But sorry, reason and observation trump belief. There are of course some homosexuals who through shame and bewilderment are obliged to hide in the closet and pretend to be straight, eking out dried-out passionless lives. These poor buggers might indeed benefit from a little “promotion”. And then there are a few “cured” homosexuals who give up all hope of real passion and fulfilment in order to conform to some brutal religious belief. But their nature and desires are not changed and will, eventually, re-emerge.
Hmmmm, it seems I can conveniently respond to your points 2 and 3 in one go. Ok, let me clarify that only fermented tofu (臭豆腐 commonly translated literally as “stinky tofu”)makes me queasy. So I’m not a tofu-phobe, just a “stinky tofu”-phobe. Anyway, now that you confess your love of tofu I can understand why you asked “is more sex naturally a good thing?” Tofu in particular and all soy products in general are loaded with phytoestrogen, a notorious libido-depressor. Maybe you should go easy on the tofu and then you might be able to answer your own question with a big “YES!” In prudish, guilt-ridden, stressful Singapore where shopping and complaining about foreigners and homosexuals are considered preferable substitutes for sex, huge amounts of tofu are obviously consumed. Except by teenagers, of course. :)
So let’s retire the word “promote”, ok. Let’s just be honest and say that homosexuals are acting up because they don’t want to be criminalized and de-humanized. Sure, your religion might convince you that they are doomed to damnation. But, let god do the punishing in the next life. No mortal being has the right or duty to administer such punishment in this life. Even when he’s pretending that all he wants to do is save them from themselves. In reality, you and I know that it’s just an excuse to hate both the sin and the sinner.
Humanness? Hmmmm. Not something that easily occupies some philosphical definition. But you know it when you see it. Like in the eyes of lovers or of mothers gazing at their newborn babies or of friends who have just shared a sparkling conversation over a very good meal. You can see it in the great cities of the world, jammed with history and beauty and the joy of living and the celebration of the here-and-now. It’s not so apparent in kiasu-kiasu Singapore. But it’s still here. It’s something you can’t find when people go to war or when irrational beliefs overwhelm reason or when hatred for one group of people for being or believing something else is allowed. And oh, Mr Tofu Lover, it also includes sex for pleasure. :)
kampongboy… the voice of reason and moderation… i’m glad to share our little island with you… i hope we are its future.
RedDotWong,
(1) Yes, Alex Au is fond of ideas, usually, except when he talks about religion; then all his venom comes out, and he is unable to assess theological texts properly.
And I read through the ST and forums, and I noted that both sides were and are equally vicious to each other. The Pro-Gay/Atheist/anti-Christian side is no less venomous than the Pro-Thio camp. There were a number of posts which were actually downright religion-bashing, and Christian-bashing in particular.
(2) First of all, the promotion is not about “being gay” (science); the promotion is about “being gay is absolutely correct” (moral philosophy/ naturalistic fallacy).
Secondly, a subconscious choice is still a choice. Homosexuality may be a subconscious choice, even though it is not a conscious choice.
Thirdly, you cannot choose who you are attracted to – perhaps – but you can choose how to respond to a specific attraction.
Fundamentalist Christianity treats both the attraction and the response as the same kind of wrong. They miss out the distinction between “wrong” as a result of Original Sin and “wrong” as a result of personal sin. The attraction is a “wrong” as a result of Original Sin; that encompasses any genetic causation of it. The response is a “wrong” as a result of personal sin.
Liberal Christianity (pro-Gay Christianity) swings to the other extreme in tossing away sin altogether, both Original and Personal.
But sexual attraction is also something far more complex than an either/or/both trichotomy. Men and women have complementarity because they share a common sexuality, and all humans share the same sexuality. Hetero-attraction or homo-attraction or bi-attraction is a manifestation of various states of this sexuality, not sexualities in their own right.
More like a car as it is turning left, a car as it is turning right, and a car as it is going straight ahead; rather than three different cars.
Are you sure that all “real passion and fulfillment” is is sexual pleasure?
(3) Strangely enough, there is something called sex-addiction.
I like tofu; that doesn’t mean I eat alot of it. (It is extremely difficult to find tofu in the UK, btw.) Whether tofu is a libido-depressor really is irrelevant to the question at hand. And neither are subjective experiences, since subjective experiences may fool you. (Think of the drug-addict or alcoholic who gets a “high”.)
“prudish”, “guilt-ridden” and “stressful” are merely ad hominems to avoid having to deal with the arguments properly.
(4) Again, I was only talking about a minority of the minority of homosexuals, not every homosexual in Singapore. Yes, most want simply to be de-criminalized and not be de-humanised, but there is a select minority – like Alex Au and Alfiaan Sa’at – who want to go beyond that, and Alex Au is quite explicit in declaring his intent to demolish “exclusionary” religion. This minority is manipulating the others to promote their otehr agendas.
My religion doesn’t convince me that they are “doomed to damnation”. They are only doomed to damnation if they choose to be damned. If they have already chosen, then yes they are damned. So if Alex Au and Alfia’an Sa’at and others like them choose to regard themselves as damned by the “exclusionary” churches, then they are doomed to damnation by their own choice.
(5) Yes, I agree with all you said. But to be a little more nuanced, the “great cities of the world” are filled with lots of unhappiness and woe and whining people; at least both London and Paris are. The “joy of living” is a temporary fleeting experience that disguises the despair and listlessness. And yes, Mr Stinky-Tofu-Hater, this affects sex for pleasure too. :) [Do you know how many porn stars are co-erced into the business a month in Los Angeles?]
Art that tries to sing at the tables of the rulers alone is not art. It is just entertainment. There is a difference between true art and entertainment.