Catholic Sex Blog

Have you ever asked yourself this question: Why are humans born male and female? Why don’t we reproduce asexually, like some creatures? Why weren’t we born bisexual? Okay, hermaphrodites are, but that’s a physical defect. Hermaphrodism is an anomaly.

Normal humans are created male or female. Why? If you don’t believe that humans are created, but evolved to be male or female, then let me rephrase the question: why have humans evolved to be male and female?

I would say that there is only one answer to this question, and that is: we are not made to be alone. Humans have evolved to be male and female because evolution has shown that living in a community has higher chances of survival than living alone.

The organs that enable human beings to live as members of a community include the sexual organs, and what drives human beings to live in a community is the sexual urge.

Like all basic functions of the human body which are necessary for survival of the human race, pleasure is attached to sex. This pleasure that is linked to sex, as is linked to eating, drinking, breathing, sleeping, excreting… is what drives a person to do these things necessary for human survival.

Each member of the community contributes in some way to the survival of the community. Some bring food to the table, some cook, some produce art, some build… but one thing that all can do is that all can reproduce. This ensures that each function in the community has direct successors to continue the work that is being done in the community. This is the natural order of human life.

What happens when a human being is not able to reproduce? This is usually because of some physical defect, such as sterility through age or disease. These are not part of the natural order of human life; they are defects that occur through the deterioration of the human body. It is not that defective human’s fault that he or she is unable to reproduce. This human therefore has to contribute to the community in some other way.

What happens when a human being is able to reproduce, but refuses to? Unless this human is sacrificing his or her own reproductive capabilities for a higher purpose, we can say that this human is being selfish, that is, choosing to rely on his or her own self, rather than preserving the unity of the community. It becomes even more apparent when such humans demand the same rights as the rest of the community, while not contributing to it in the same way.

Instead of building up the community as each member ought to, this person is destroying the community by refusing to contribute his or her fertility to the betterment of the community.

We can quite easily see how any act of sexual intercourse that is not open to life stems from self-centeredness. This root of self-centeredness by itself runs contrary to the whole meaning of community living.

We find great difficulty in saying that a person who is self-centered in one area in his life, can be community-centred in other areas, since self-centeredness is a character defect that is at the root of all we do.

A person who says he is community-centred, but has a sexual life that is not open to life, is either being dishonest, or he doesn’t know himself very well, since there is a clear discrepancy between what he says and what he is doing. 

If he is dishonest, it is because he is saying one thing with his mouth, and saying a completely different thing with his body. It is like an unhappy person putting on a brave front, or a smile, and saying that he is happy.

We often don’t realise that our sexual organs and our sexual urge have a particular purpose. They are oriented towards community building, and we know that the very basic community in society is the family.

Thus when a person has sexual intercourse that is not open to life, he is saying with his body: “I want to start a family with you. I want to welcome new life and to help our community to grow.” But he is saying something completely contradictory with his mouth.

This is why contraception, masturbation, oral and anal sex, pedophilia, bestiality and homosexuality are immoral - because they not only do not contribute to building the community, they are tearing it down.

Note: My opinion of homosexuality (or same-sex attraction) is that it is a psychological disorder which can be treated. However, if you are of the opinion that homosexuality is not a disorder, then it’s basically saying that sexually active homosexuals have a character defect which is self-centeredness.

A person who has sexual intercourse is also saying with his body: “I want to be there with you and with our children as they grow up.”

The last line is added, because as humans, we mature far slower in life than other animals. It is therefore beneficial for the human being, as a creature, to remain monogamous in marriage, as this aids the bringing up and maturing of children as adults.

A parent who does not take responsibility for raising the children he bears is also doing something that harms the community, since the child is unable to replicate that parent’s role in the community.

This is why our first reaction to single motherhood due to irresponsible fathers, divorce, polygamy, adultery, and rape is often disapproval, because deep down, we know this does not contribute to the building of community, but instead tears it down.

In conclusion, I would say that sex is not a private matter reserved for the bedroom. Sex is intrinsically linked to the formation of families, the basic unit of community life, the basic unit of society. Thus, for us to turn a blind eye to what couples are doing in the bedroom is to turn a blind and uncaring eye to the future of society.

At the very bottom of it, sex is not so much about what we do, but who we are. We have sex because as humans, we are made (or evolved) to live in community. Everything that has to do with sex concerns the whole community and our whole culture (anthropologically speaking).

I came across a news report of a teacher of Raffles Institution who had his 2,000-word coming-out blog post removed under pressure from the Ministry of Education. Just google his name “Otto Fong” and you’ll find lots of stuff on it. Is this an injustice that is being done to homosexuals?

We know that for some time, homosexuals have campaigned for and succeeded in obtaining the legal right to ‘marry’ in some countries. Is forbidding homosexuals to marry a injustice done to them?

In Singapore, up until recent years, homosexuals were not even allowed to commit homosexual acts, and it is still, on paper, against the law. Is this an injustice to homosexuals?

Perhaps, but I would propose that the greatest injustice done to homosexuals was not done in recent years, but in 1973. What’s the big thing that happened that year?

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder from the Sexual Deviancy section of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In other words, the APA declared that homosexuality was not a psychological disorder. This declassification is largely based on the research of Alfred Kinsey, who showed (through flawed statistics) that 10 percent of all people are homosexual, hence homosexuality wasn’t so uncommon.

This study was done in 1948 and 1953. More recent studies have been unable to duplicate the statistics that Kinsey acquired. Remember the South Korean scientist who faked his own results regarding cloning? People only realised something was wrong when his results could not be duplicated. Similarly, people are now, or have been since the 1990s, been realising that there is something wrong with Kinsey’s research, since his results could not be duplicated.

The highest percentage of homosexuals in any population in any study that has been properly conducted and verified by its scientific peers is 2.5 percent. And this is the result now, in present day. Do you think there would have been more homosexuals (or people who declare themselves homosexuals) today or back in 1948? Obviously there is something wrong with Kinsey’s data. But what?

The reason that Kinsey’s data is flawed is that he threw out more than 75 percent of samples acquired from the normal population, and kept only those that matched what he wanted. He chose to take samples largely from prisoners, and not only regular prisoners, but those who had been imprisoned for sexual crimes.

Any amateur scientist can see the one fundamental flaw in Kinsey’s research - he didn’t set out to discover the truth. He set out to match the data to fit his own ideas. Having found the data to match his own ideas, and throwing out all the rest, he presented it to the public who eagerly lapped it up without thinking to consider his research techniques. He gave the public what they wanted to hear, not the truth.

Even today, people are citing that “10 percent”. I know of homosexuals who continue to cite it, despite knowing that it is an inaccurate figure. But this 10 percent figure is what resulted in the APA removing homosexuality as a psychological disorder.

I say that this is the greatest injustice done to homosexuals because it indicates to homosexuals that the condition they have is normal. It is not, and I think all homosexuals deep down know this. No homosexual chooses to be the way he or she is.

Leslie Lung, founder of Liberty League, believes that homosexuals are essentially people whose psychological development has been interrupted. Homosexuals, I believe and he agrees, are people who have not accepted themselves as a man or a woman. But Leslie goes one step further and proposes that the best way of helping a homosexual to accept his manhood or her womanhood is to show him or her love, respect, understanding and acceptance.

He should know… for Leslie himself was formerly a sexually-broken transsexual. And a beautiful one to boot. Today, Leslie has devoted his life to working with homosexuals who desire to become whole.

In short, the greatest injustice that has been done to homosexuals, is not preventing them from the legal right ‘to marry’, it is not external pressure to keep their sexual disorder hidden… it is the continued propagation of the lie that homosexual is a valid sexual orientation, rather than sexual brokenness manifesting itself in a psychological disorder. After all, if no one classifies it as a disorder, no one will try to bring order back to it, and almost any homosexual who does want to become sexually whole, will be denied treatment.

Resources:

- more information about Kinsey’s skewed research can be found by googling “Judith Reisman” or visiting her webpage at www.drjudithreisman.com. It is currently under construction, but you can find an older version of the page here.

- Liberty League is a non-profit, non-religious organization dedicated towards helping homosexuals heal their sexual brokenness.

Colossians 2:6-15

You must live your whole life according to the Christ you have received - Jesus the Lord; you must be rooted in him and built on him and held firm by the faith you have been taught, and full of thanksgiving.

Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

In his body lives the fullness of divinity, and in him you too find your own fulfilment, in the one who is head of every Sovereignty and Power.

In him you have been circumcised, with circumcision not performed by the human hand, but by the complete stripping of your body of flesh. This is circumcision according to Christ. You have been buried with him, when you were baptised; and by baptism, too, you have been raised up with him through your belief in the power of God who raised him from the dead. You were dead, because you were sinners and had not been circumcised; he has brought you to life with him, he has forgiven us all our sins.

He has overridden the Law, and cancelled every record of the debt that we had to pay; he has done away with it by nailing it to the cross; and so he got rid of the Sovereignties and the Powers, and paraded them in public, behind him in his triumphal procession.
____________________

Luke 6:12-19

Jesus went out into the hills to pray; and he spent the whole night in prayer to God. When day came he summoned his disciples and picked out twelve of them; he called them “apostles”: Simon whom he called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot who became a traitor.

He then came down with them and stopped at a piece of level ground where there was a large gathering of his disciples with a great crowd of people from all parts of Judaea and from Jerusalem and from the coastal region of Tyre and Sidon who had come to hear him and to be cured of their diseases. People tormented by unclean spirits were also cured, and everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him because power came out of him that cured them all.
____________________

Imagine you have a child, and throughout his developmental years, you never said ‘no’ to him. From somewhere you read or heard that if a child hears the word ‘no’ when he makes a request from you, he will grow up with a fear of rejection. So in order to prevent that, you say ‘yes’ to every request. After twenty years of having said ‘yes’, your child asks something of you which you cannot give. Can you say ‘no’? Chances are, you can’t. And your child, whom you’ve never said ‘no’ to, is not your child, but your master; you are his slave.

What does this have to do with today’s readings? In the first reading, St. Paul tells the Colossians: Make sure that no one traps you and deprives you of your freedom by some secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world instead of on Christ.

What is the philosophy that today’s generation is taught? I think it would be Nike’s tagline “Just do it.” I wrote to an American about sexual freedom recently. Our generation is taught today that sexual freedom means being able to “just do it” without fear of constraints from previous generations or religious beliefs. Today’s generation tends to believe that if they can “just do it”, if they can say ‘yes’ to sex whenever, wherever and however they want to, only then are they sexually free.

However, a generation of people who won’t say ‘no’ to sex, quickly becomes a generation of people who can’t say ‘no’ to sex. A person who can’t say ‘no’ to sex is not sexually free. He or she is a slave to sex. This means that the philosophy that today’s generation is taught is a “secondhand, empty, rational philosophy based on the principles of this world” and it is one that traps them and deprives them of their sexual freedom.

If today’s generation (and I’m not referring just to the youth) is quickly becoming a generation of sex slaves, what then can be done for us? How can we find true freedom if the philosophy of the world only serves to make us slaves? In the gospel reading, we see Jesus and his apostles setting people free of their diseases, their demons, and all that chains them down. Today, we can find freedom from sexual slavery in the Church’s teaching of abstinence.

Abstinence is applicable not only to single persons, but persons who are married as well. The Church teaches abstinence is also healthy for married people. There are times when married people have to abstain from sex, such as when due to illness, pregnancy, travel or other reasons. What would a person who cannot say ‘no’ to sex do in cases when abstinence seems to be the only answer? If you think about it for a moment, you will understand why the media has been glorifying those answers.

Abstinence is the true test of whether one has sexual freedom or not, because abstinence shows that a person can say ‘no’ to sex, even at times when he can say ‘yes’. Freedom means having a choice and being able to make either choice. In Christ we find freedom, not just sexual freedom, but freedom in the best sense of the word.

Today is September 11, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America. We also remember that one person that is more dangerous than all the terrorists put together is Alfred Kinsey, the grandfather of the sexual revolution which took place all over the world. The impact of his work on sexual morality has truly devastated the world, and America, much more than any terrorist will ever do.
___________________

Prayer:
Dear Lord, help us to desire true sexual freedom in the way that you offer it to us. Grant us the courage to turn our backs on the secondhand philosophy of the world that we are surrounded with, and turn our eyes to the redemption that you offer us through your cross. Amen.

Give Thanks to the Lord for: Showing us what true sexual freedom is.

While trying to fall asleep this morning, I was thinking of the word “marriage” and its definition.

Dictionary.com defines marriage as:

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Canon Law defines marriage as:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

Of course the definition of marriage in Canon Law applies only to baptized Christians, but even in the dictionary.com definition, we see that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. That’s the very definition of marriage.

To ask for a man to be married to a man or a woman to be married to a woman is to change the very definition of marriage. Or should I say, such a thing does not exist. There can be no real union between two people of the same gender, and there can be no real biological fruit from such a thing.

It’s not a marriage, so why call it a marriage? It does not fit into the definition of what a marriage is, so why call it a marriage? Call it “barriage” or something else, because “marriage” is reserved for a man and a woman.
After making a mental note to blog this down, I managed to get back to an uneasy sleep.

Have you ever thought of this question - why was Jesus a man? Why did God become a man, not a woman? It isn’t as simple as saying that if Jesus had been a woman, then people would not have listened to her. As in, it’s not for a cultural or social reason that God became a man. It’s Jesus we’re talking about, and he broke almost all the social and cultural rules of his time. Why then did God become a man? Here, we’re asking why God became specifically a male human.

To understand this, we need to understand two things. First is that God created humans male and female. He could have created us unisex, but he chose to create us male and female. Why? Because if humans are made in the image of God, then humans have to live in a communion of love. When a man looks at a woman, and a woman looks at a man, they understand very well that they are made differently, and that the parts that are different fit together in a complementary way. This is how humans were created in the beginning.

From this reason, it follows that men and women are fundamentally different, not only in terms of the way their bodies are built, but also in the roles they play in life. It is true that women can be a police officer (as opposed to policeman), a fire fighter (as opposed to fireman), and that men can be nurses and secretaries, but there is one thing that a man can do, and no woman can. That is to father a child. In the same way, only women can become pregnant; no man can do that.

So the first thing we need to understand is that God created men and women differently, to play different roles, but to live as a communion of love in God’s own Trinitarian image.

The second thing we need to understand is that God has a male role. I’m not saying that God is male, but that God plays a male role. By this I mean that God is the Initiator, while humans are the Recipient. When we look at the male-female relationship, especially in the conjugal aspect, we see that the man is always the initiator. He gives of himself and the woman receives the man’s seed. This is further strengthened by the fact that the man tends to climax first. I quote the following from Pope John Paul II:

If a husband is truly to love his wife, “it is necessary to insist that intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing [his] climax. … The man must take [the] difference between male and female reactions into account… so that climax may be reached [by] both… and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” The husband must do this “not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons.” In this case, if “we take into account the shorter and more violent curve of arousal in the man, [such] tenderness on his part in the context of marital intercourse acquires the significance of an act of virtue”.

- Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla

God always reaches out to humans. He is always the Initiator, and humans are always receiving God in themselves. Throughout the Bible, we see that God’s one desire is to marry us. God literally wants to impregnate us with his Word. In fact, there was one woman in history who was literally impregnated by God’s Word, who later became a unique fusion of God and human - Jesus. This is why Mary is the model for the Church. She represents the Church, who is the Bride of Christ, and she represents humanity, who receives the gift of God himself into us.

So the second thing we need to understand is that God wants to marry us, and that God is always the Initiator in this relationship.

Understanding these two things helps us to see why God had to become a man, not a woman, when he became human. As a God-man, Jesus was able to initiate his gift of love, his gift of self on the cross. If Jesus had been a woman, she would not have been able to initiate anything. She would have to receive something from humanity. But humanity is the one who receives, not initiates.

When we understand the reason why God had to be a man (not a woman), we understand why the Church insists that the ministers of the altar and the Eucharist have to be male, not female. In order to act in the person of Christ at the altar, the priest has to be a man. If we insist on women ordination, then we will not be able to explain why Jesus is a man; why the Church is the Bride of Christ; and why men and women are different.

In addition, if we insist on women ordination, then we will also not be able to explain the importance of having two complementary genders in marriage. Guess what follows? You know it - homosexual unions. This is clearly painted out in the path taken by the Anglican Church, something that began back in the time of Henry VIII.

As you probably know Henry VIII broke away from the Church because the pope refused to allow him to marry another woman. Henry VIII decided to change the meaning of marriage in his new church. But when we change the meaning of marriage, we also change the meaning of Christianity - why God wants to marry us. And we also change the meaning of our own humanity - why we are made male and female.

This is the reason why the Church cannot allow women ordination - because it understands that the priesthood is not merely a career or ministry - it is a role in which the ordained minister acts in the person of Christ… and Christ was not a woman. He couldn’t have been, not without changing the meaning of marriage, the meaning of humanity, and the meaning of Christianity.

This is also why the Church can never approve of homosexual unions not because of discrimination, but simply because homosexual unions deny the fundamental differences between male and female; deny the significance, sanctity, and the very meaning of marriage… and this directly leads to denying the meaning of Christianity. You will find that Christians in support of homosexual unions are not able to explain why Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride (Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 19:7-9), or even why Christ lay down his life for his Church. It is, in essence, the denial of the fatherhood of God.

That said, it must also be said that the reason the Church cannot allow women ordination has nothing to do with culture or the degradation of women. On the contrary, the Church holds women in a very high position. Pope John Paul II himself has called the feminist movement “praiseworthy”, and that it must continue. But he also stressed that it must not make the mistake of equating males with females. They have the same dignity, but they are not the same.

The Church does not degrade women. If it did, it would not place Mary as Queen of Heaven, and the role model for all disciples of Christ, and indeed the role model for all humanity. Mary is so highly esteemed because she received God into her so fully that a human person was conceived from that intimate union with God.

Each of us is also called to receive God fully in our lives, so that God may be born into the world. But as none of us can receive God so fully and completely as Mary did, since she was conceived without original sin, none of us will ever be able to physically give birth to a God-man. We can, however, still spiritually give birth to God in the world, increasing his kingdom of heaven on earth.

Some time ago, I received an email that said that the Singapore government is going to amend the Penal Code, particularly pertaining to homosexual behaviour. One of the amendments is to legislate that anal and oral sex, if done in private between a consenting adult heterosexual couple aged 16 years old and above, would no longer be criminalised.

I haven’t been in touch with the local blogosphere, but I wonder if anyone wrote headlines like “Government says OK to be cocksucker”?

In addition, People Like Us (PLU) (a gay advocacy group in Singapore) has written a document saying that the proposed reform is discriminatory and prejudicial to Singapore’s interests with the following reasons:

1. It damages family and public life by encouraging deception and dishonesty (pretending to be straight). when people try to avoid discrimination and conflict;

Speaking of deception, I wonder how many people have been influenced by gay advocacies and activists to believe that they cannot live a chaste life? After all, there are a number of testimonies from former gays who have become straight and lead chaste lives. Is the deception not created by gay advocacies in the first place - that gays cannot change their behaviour? Isn’t homosexuality a psychological illness? Haven’t psychologists and pastors treated homosexuality with success?

If gay advocacies encourage homosexuals to act out their sexual desires, do they also encourage heterosexuals with a fondness for young boys and girls to act out their sexual desires? If not, isn’t that discriminatory as well?

2. It creates pressure to emigrate, thus

(a) undermining Singapore’s desire to retain our native talent pool. Somewhere around 10 percent of each generation is GLBT and to bleed population each generation through such discriminatory policies is unwise and near-sighted;

Not true that 10 percent of each generation is GLBT. This myth is based on Alfred Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” which used biased research methods.

In his book, Kinsey made the statement that “ten percent of males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55″. However, he also stated that only four percent of the males used in his study “are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives, after the onset of adolescence”.

Do you see the difference between the two statements?

While Kinsey was making the claim that 10 percent of males delve into homosexual behaviour for at least three years of their lives, he actually reported that only four percent of those men surveyed claimed to remain exclusively homosexual for the rest of their lives. Yet, for years, homosexual advocates have quoted Kinsey as the ultimate authority proclaiming that 10 percent of the population is indeed homosexual. People will believe what they want to believe.

The truth is that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual, as shown by these more findings concluded using more sophisticated research methods:

- An article in The Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1999), “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy” found that less than five percent of men and women have had any homosexual contact in their lifetime. Not only does it make this claim but also goes on to explain that “no more than three percent of men and considerably fewer women claim to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.” These findings came from a review of more than 30 surveys in America, Europe and Scandinavia.

- The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 2.3 percent of “sexually active men aged 20 to 39 have had any same-sex gender sexual activity during the last 10 years”, and only 1.1 percent of these men said that they have been exclusively homosexual within this time frame. (”Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States”, Family Planning Perspectives 25, no.2 (March/April 1993) 52-56

- Milton Diamond from the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii makes the statement that, using the largest figures available, the findings are still only “five to six percent for males and two to three percent for females”. It’s important to understand that this study represented all individuals who have ever engaged in any kind of same-sex behaviour. (”Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour 22, no.4, (1993) 303.

What’s amazing is that even some individuals who identify themselves as gay agree that the 10 percent myth is untrue. This matters because gay activists are knowingly promoting a lie. They are declaring to the world that homosexuality is “normal” and should be accepted as such. They’re hoping that the more people begin to think homosexuality is normal, the more their identity will be accepted by the majority of people.

But if you think about it, this reasoning is lame. For instance, 10-15 percent of Singaporeans suffer from alcoholism, but we don’t accept this behaviour as normal or healthy. Even if 95 percent of the population is addicted to alcohol, we still would not think of it as normal - or acceptable.

We go on with PLU’s reasons:

(b) splitting families when we say at the same time that stable and supportive families should be the bedrock of our society;

3. It undercuts Singapore’s attraction for potential incoming talent, so critical for our future;

Not so applicable now that we know that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual. Still, I have to admit that gays are extremely talented. Life is fair. Will come back to 2(b) later.

4. It restricts the ability of the government to respond to the threat of HIV, when government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one. Failure to deal with HIV in the gay community puts the larger community at risk.

Ah ha! There’s something fishy about this reason, don’t you think? Isn’t PLU admitting that HIV is prevalent in the gay community?

One of the myths that many of us believe is that AIDS is as much a risk for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. However, there are two points to note here.

1. Homosexual male relationships are rarely monogamous and those involved are more at risk for life-threatening illnesses.

Many studies have found out that the average male homosexual is far more promiscuous than the average heterosexual. The following are findings in one of the most extensive studies conducted by researches A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg:

- 73 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
- 58 percent of gay men had over 250 partners
- 41 percent of gay men had over 500 partners and
- 26 percent of gay men had over 1,000 partners

Source: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1978), 308, Table 7.

Another study (”The Homosexual Lifestyle and Sexual Practices”, The Berean League (June 1991)) reveals that two homosexual researches found that 73 percent of adult male homosexuals had sex with boys age 19 or younger. Any heterosexual guy who has slept with that many women would be considered a sex addict. Yet, this seems to be the norm among homosexuals.

While there are some who would promote the myth that homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones as pure fact, there are also those from the gay community who admit it to be a false statement. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent conservative gay author, says that gay couples adhere to a very different moral standard than straight couples do. He says their moral standard is one in which “a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets” exists. (McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Prentice-Hall 1984).

The same source mentions two researchers who professed themselves to be a gay couple came to the conclusion that gay relationships between men rarely survive if they are not open to outside sexual contacts.

So much for stable and supportive families… How do you support infidelity?

2. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1/715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1/165. (Tom W. Smith, “Adult Sexual Behaviour and the Risk of AIDS”, Family Planning Perspectives 23, no.3 (May/June 1991), 104.)

It is an undeniable fact that the potential for an individual to become infected is much more pronounced for homosexual men.

“Hard as it may be to understand, some gay men have unsafe sex because they want to get HIV - or at least skate close to the edge. Danger can be erotic, even the threat of contracting a deadly disease,” reported a Newsweek article. The article also quoted a University of Florida student saying, “If someone has AIDS or HIV, that kind of lionizes them. It’s heroic, like fighting the battle… When you get with someone who has HIV, it’s like being with someone greater than you are.” (Mark Peyser, “Deadly Dance”, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1997, 76)

Here is the most important thing among my initial thoughts:

Studies have indicated that the body’s natural immune system is broken down by repeated exposure to semen during anal intercourse. Also, the tearing and rupturing which can take place during such intercourse exposes the individual to infection by manifold serious and fatal diseases. Of these, AIDS is the most well-known and the most dangerous.

Source: Larry Burtoft, Ph.D, Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality (Focus on the Family 1994) 32-33

PLU calls for the amendment not to apply only to heterosexual couples, but to all people. I feel that there should not be an amendment in the first place. Anal sex is wrong, whether it be for homosexuals or heterosexuals, because of this abovementioned reason.

There is great physical danger in circulating the myth that homosexuals are not at a greater risk for contracting AIDS than homosexuals. People’s lives are at stake! Of course, there are other risks for those who are involved in homosexuality: isolation, heartache, confusion, disillusionment, abandonment, etc. When you’re living outside of God’s will for your life - whether by experimenting or willfully embracing any other sin - you will feel the effects one way or another. And probably the biggest result of living a sinful life is not having peace with God.

Now other than this last paragraph, there has been no mention of God at all, so don’t any atheists come and write that “It’s because of bullshit like this that’s why I’m an atheist”, as someone did before…

Most of the information in this post has come from an excellent booklet “Straight Answers - Exposing the Myths and Facts about Homosexuality”. I found this at the Anglican St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Singapore.

More information about homosexuality and living a chaste Catholic life can be found here.

Now as a final section to this post, you might be wondering: What can I do to help someone struggling with homosexuality?

The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of homosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love. Here are some steps to remember:

1. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.

2. Don’t condemn. People have not “chosen” to “have homosexual feelings” the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience - and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the homosexual struggle is rejection.

3. Don’t start citing all the problems with homosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don’t go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “alternative” may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.

4. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of homosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.

5. Share specific avenues of help like Courage that has helped thousands of people in the midst of their struggle with homosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.

6. Show love, concern and gentleness as you point the way to healing.

Now if only I knew all these things eight years ago, then my four friendships with homosexuals might have turned out better…

Back to the amendment, Singaporeans must know that once the law is passed in favour of the gay agenda, there’ll be no turning back the gradual undermining and destruction of the biblical family values, as well as the freedom to preach godly sexuality standards, as is now happening in parts of Britain, Australia and the U.S.

As a lay Christian, you can do your part by sending feedback to the government at www.reach.gov.sg. Scroll down to “Something to SAY?” You’ll know it by the big green question mark. Click on “Email Us today”.

The subject line should always mention: Penal Code Amendment

All you need to do is write something like: “With respect to the coming Parliamentary debate on the above subject, I would like to state that I’m against passing laws to allow same sex marriages or homosexual practices.”

A parent could send in something like: “I have three young children and I’m against any legislation that allows for same-sex marriages.”

Other possible statements:

“I don’t hate homosexuals, but I don’t believe their lifestyle is good for the future of our country.”

“I believe that real family is made from Dad and Mum, not Dad & Dad, or Mum & Mum.”

“Please don’t allow our country to be influenced by people who are confused about their own gender. Please don’t legalize same-sex marriages.”

We Catholics are always saying things like “The Church should…” This time, the onus falls on our shoulders to be that Church to do something about the morals of this country. Play your part in imbuing the country with Christian values today!