There is more gay-related news today in the Star. This time, it is about the Free Community Church in Singapore and how ‘free’ it actually is. Read all about it here.
Hmm ... there is so much positive news about gays in the newspaper for the past couple of days that I might as well become one.
Oh wait, I am.
If only it were so easy to change someone’s sexual orientation. At least, I think that is what the government and the conservatives believe. To them, the mere mention of the words homosexuality, gay, lesbian, condom, etc will influence the masses to indulge same-sex behaviour. Something like humans turning into wolves at the sight of the full moon.
What utter rubbish. Let's see them change straight men then.
Remember the time when 3R (a women's TV program) was not allowed to air the episode which talked about lesbianism, even though the producers were merely presenting the facts as they are?
In fact, during my final year in university, the student society that I was in was asked to facilitate a program. It didn’t strike me as strange then, but now thinking back about it, they were only twenty participants and all of them were soft and feminine-like.
Recently, I found out that it was not just my university which conducts these programs; there is another public university too. Furthermore, these courses are conducted in the open and are part of the official activities of the student's affair department of the university.
These programs are meant to ‘toughen’ up these people, to make them appear more masculine; in other words to have more society acceptable gender behaviour.
If my memory serves me correctly, last year there were letters in the Malay dailies which condemned these so-called ‘deviants’ and demanded that universities do something about them.
Of course, all those actions stem from the belief that homosexuality is something that can be changed. Not to mention the misguided perception that feminine guys are definitely gay and butch females are lesbians. Even learned psychologists are myopic, intentionally or otherwise.
The common argument goes that, even if someone is born gay, it doesn’t mean that he should indulge in homosexual acts. The usual comparison is with murderers and rapists; even if genes were the cause for such behaviour, surely no human being would condone these acts.
The logic is there, except that they fail to see one difference. Since when does being gay ever cause harm or hurt to another person? And why is homosexuality even in the same category as murder and rape?
Oh, the conservatives would say, it destroys the family institution. Which is a key basic unit of society, thus the country. A family must have a father and a mother.
I don’t really see how that argument can hold water.
What I do know is that, parents that openly display homophobic behaviour and discriminating remarks, leave their gay sons and lesbian daughters emotionally-scarred and repressed. There might even be deeper psychological damage(s) like depression, low self-esteem, substance abuse, internalised homophobia, etc.
Eventually, these will lead to distanced and strained relationships, thus breaking the family institution. As such, rejection of the truth and denial of the children’s sexual orientation are far worse perpetrators than the simple fact and existence of homosexuality.
Isn’t there a saying that go 'Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches'? In other words, empathy.
Most straight people can almost never understand what it feels like to love another of the same-sex and how natural and instinctive that feeling is. How we would feel guilty doing so is only because the people around us say that it is wrong.
Why can’t conservative straight men get into their thick skulls that humans are different and they come in all shapes, sizes, colours and sexual orientations? That being different is not a crime or sin? That homosexuality doesn’t threaten their masculinity and patriarchal society?
I think deep down, they might actually feel that away. Doesn’t it make you wonder what is so great about masculinity, manliness, butch and everything else that straight men hold dear, if those things are so easily threatened?
Certainly many of you would have also noticed that most anti-gay rhetoric come from men. Males, who are not usually known for their ability to empathise. Not because they are not capable of doing so, but more likely, ignorance and unwillingness to try.
Just as women are generally less homophobic because they actually try to emphatise and then they do, surely men can too.
There are already fag hags, so why not fag stags?
[P/S The title of this post is taken from a close friend and credit goes to her, who spouted it right after I came out to her.]