Sex. Ed.

In an ideal world, everyone is at peace with one another. There is no war, no hunger, no discrimination. All parents love and educate their children to be better people. People respect the quirks of others. People are understanding. People are tolerant.

But we do not live in an ideal world. In fact, the world is broken. Worse, all of us are broken inside, but we refuse to see it. We build layers upon layers of walls to protect ourselves from the unknown, from all that is different. We fear what we do not know, but instead of educating ourselves, we usually choose the easier path: blind hatred.

Recently there are talks about the banning of Seksualiti Merdeka, a local annual sexuality rights festival. Thanks to social media, everyone who has access to the internet can chirp--or rather, tweet--their opinions regarding the matter. Heck, it's even trending on Twitter (#SeksualitiMerdeka). Sadly, like what is expected when it comes to LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered) issues, if you show your support, you are abandoning the moral values of your religion and your country. If you fight against it, you are a bigot. People on the fence are generally quiet, for they fear being labeled as one or the other.

Why must it always be one or the other?

People don't wake up one day and decide to be gay. If only things were that simple. Sigmund Freud stated that all normal people have a certain measure of latent or unconscious homosexuality; however, sexual preference inverses during the development (early) stages of life (Oedipus Complex)¹. It is therefore difficult to fully blame genetics or to fully blame childhood development (environmental factor) for one's sexual preference. Also note that psychiatrists and psychologists use homosexuality and bisexuality as an inversion of sexual preference, as opposed to perversion, which connotes a pathology.

In essence, people do not choose to be homosexual or bisexual, just as they cannot choose their gender or the family they're born into. They simply are. Homosexuality is not a disease; people do not contract it by interacting with homosexual individuals.

So, the big question here: is being a homosexual a sin?

Is it a sin for a person to have naturally red hair, or green eyes? Is it a sin for a person to be genetically predisposed to obesity and heart diseases? Is it a sin for a person to have perfect teeth and unearthly beauty?

Again, is being a homosexual a sin, if a person naturally prefers the same sex (or both)?

Before you answer that, think about these situations:

1. Certain individuals with schizophrenic personality disorders have homicidal tendencies. They can't help themselves from having urges to kill. Are they called murderers if they start killing animals? No. They are murderers once they start killing humans. Even then, defense lawyers can claim that due to their psychosis, these individuals cannot be called murderers.

 2. More often than the first example, certain otherwise normal individuals have urges to steal things, big or small. While for most of us, the thought is fleeting, some people cannot help themselves from having urges to steal. These urges do not make them thieves. Once they act on the impulses, however, that's a different story.

No, I'm not saying that having homosexual tendencies without acting on them makes a person straight. I'm saying that it might not be a sin to be. How is it fair to prosecute and discriminate people for being who they are, for something they never asked for in the first place?

Is the act of homosexuality sinful? All major religions and laws are clear about it. So are extramarital sex, adultery, and abortion without a life-threatening situation. Heck, in Islam, smoking is haram, absolutely not allowed, absolutely sinful, but we see imams smoking in front of their children.

Speaking of smoking, let's discuss it. I think I've talked about this in my much earlier post, but I'm allowed to do a public service announcement, right? The chemicals in a cigarette are harmful. In a worldwide study done in 2000, 91% lung cancer deaths in men and 71% in women were attributed to smoking². 15% of lung cancer deaths occur in non-smokers, attributed to passive smoking. This means that if one person in a household smokes in front of the family, that person risks exposing his/her family to carcinogens (cancer-inducing agents). Smoking is detrimental to health in many ways. Unfortunately, parents smoke in front of their children, and children grow up accepting smoking as a norm. Heck, when Mama told Faiz to quit smoking, he replied that he'd stop smoking only if Papa did.

You see, smoking is harmful not only to the smoker, but to people around them. However, since smoking has for a long time been intergrated in our lives, we simply accept smoking even though the act is sinful. Someone's initial opinion on his colleague or friend or prospective date may somewhat change if he finds out that the person smokes, but he knows that the fact doesn't change who the person is. In time he accepts that his friend smokes so long as they respect each other.

But think about this: we see people selling cigarettes to children below 18. We see children in school uniforms smoking in front of their schools. But do you see anyone picketing at Putrajaya or in front of the Parliament building or even petition for an audience with the king to stop this?

We are a nation where people frown upon the mention of sex education. To the adults, teaching about safe sex is equivalent to encouraging teenagers to have sex. We tsk and shake our heads when we read articles about newborns abandoned in trashcans, in drains, in public toilets. We tsk and shake our heads when we read about teenage pregnancy. We tsk and shake our heads, blissfully unaware that our ignorance is the cause of all these horrors. With sex education, children will be equipped with the knowledge to protect themselves from transmittable diseases, from unwanted pregnancy, from being raped by their fathers or uncles. Children will know which channels to go to should anything bad happens to them.

If we cannot handle sex education which is getting more and more important judging from what we come across in the news nowadays, how can we handle acceptance and tolerance toward homosexuality? If parents are convinced that homosexuals are all evil, that they will infect their children with their immorality, then children will grow up blind homophobes. What happens when they find out that a friend they grew up with is gay? I've witnessed years of friendship dissolving because of this blind hatred toward all things gay. I've witnessed parents disowning their children because they're gay.

Like usual, I'm looking at this from all possible perspectives. Homosexual act is a sin, just as theft, murder and adultery. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are religions of the Almighty. We have been taught to accept and follow all the rules to the latter. For over 2000 years such systems have worked and preserved our civilization. If a pious follower accepts homosexuality, what happens then? Is adultery also permissible? Is abortion all right just because the parents are not ready to have a child? Is it all right to perform a prayer while drunk?

These religions are not like Buddhism, where we can pick and choose paths that suit us. We have to accept everything that is taught, because if we learn deeper, we will see the wisdom in each lesson, in each rule. Take one out, and we might as well have anarchy.

I can't say about others, but Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. Is it humane to beat someone to death just because he's gay? As I said, a person doesn't choose to be gay. Is it justifiable to cause bodily harm to someone for simply being? I've had a patient who had severe head injury because he was beaten by men living near his apartment simply because he was gay. He didn't hurt others, he didn't hit on anyone in his building. He lived with a Caucasian boyfriend, and when that boyfriend was out, people stormed into his apartment and beat him up. How is this justifiable?

But is it also justifiable to flaunt your homosexuality in front of the general public, when we are well known for our Eastern sensibilities? A heterosexual couple kissing in public will turn heads. A homosexual couple kissing in public will not cause a ripple, but a tsunami of adverse reactions. I'm not saying the LGBT community should stay in the shadows. I'm not saying that I'm against a person's right to pursue happiness, but what if one person's happiness comes at a cost of a hundred people's discomfort? Why can't people be sensitive toward others and respect their sensibilities?

People who flaunt what they have usually have something to prove. There is a certain desperation, that they discard thoughts toward others. Think about this. Think hard.

Now let's talk about Seksualiti Merdeka. On their web page, they claim that they are against discrimination toward the LGBT community, that they want to educate the public. This is noble, and I commend their effort. Any kind of discrimination is worthy to be frowned upon. However, this year's gathering has been banned because the organizers did not get a permit. Of course, people can say getting a permit is almost impossible in the first place, but if you believe what you're doing is right, then fight for it. Fight to make such a gathering legal, since your aim is noble. What's happening now is that people are still going ahead with the gathering, legal or not, and from what I gather on Twitter, the original organizer has nothing to do with this. How is this promoting peace and understanding? Reread my last paragraph and think again.

Remember, everyone has a right to be happy, but what happens when that happiness comes at a high price? Also, because of blind hatred and bigotry, people with homosexual tendencies are always in hiding, are always at war with themselves, because they believe homosexuality is a sin, and for that they are sinful, and for that they cannot accept themselves, they cannot obtain peace and happiness within. How high a price is the public willing to pay for their bigotry?

In an ideal world, you can overhear this conversation:

Doctor: Do you smoke?
Patient: Once in a while.
Doctor: How long and how much?
Patient: Since I started working. Whenever I have a meeting with clients only.
Doctor: You should stop smoking if you don't want to come back with lung cancer. What about alcohol?
Patient: Nope.
Doctor: Married?
Patient: Nope.
Doctor: Straight or gay?
Patient: Gay.
Doctor: I don't think God approves, but it's between you and Him. Sexually active?
Patient: Yup.
Doctor: At least one of us is getting some. Safe sex?
Patient: Yup.
Doctor: Good. Any allergies?
Patient: I had these rashes when I ate an antibiotic last time I had a flu, but I don't know what kind of medication.
Doctor: Drug allergy of unknown type. All right, I'll get the consent form for the surgery, and I'll explain the procedure to you.
Patient: Thanks, doc.

In an ideal world, sexual preference doesn't define a person. He doesn't get discriminated for it, but he doesn't have to flaunt it by joining a parade or anything. It's an accepted part of life, just like cigarette smoking.

We do not live in an ideal world. Far from it. The world is filled with bigots and with insensitive, inconsiderate people. The world is filled with people who refuse to meet halfway, to educate themselves, to understand and to tolerate others for who they are. The world is filled with ignorant idiots.

But this is the only world we have. God has gifted us with the faculty of our minds and the ability to learn, to understand, to accept. We can destroy the world with our ignorance, or we can strive to make our world an ideal one.

Peace be with you.

Always.

 

________________________________________________________

¹Sigmund Freud; International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1923

²Peto, R et al; Mortality from smoking in developed countries 1950–2000: Indirect estimates from National Vital Statistics, Oxford University Press, 2006

Comments

[Breanna]

No one can ever call you a coward, dude!

I wrote a post somewhat similar I think, a while back, on my personal blog. It's encouraging to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

[John Ling]

Very good write-up, Fadz. I especially like this bit:

Like usual, I'm looking at this from all possible perspectives. Homosexual act is a sin, just as theft, murder and adultery. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are religions of the Almighty. We have been taught to accept and follow all the rules to the latter. For over 2000 years such systems have worked and preserved our civilization. If a pious follower accepts homosexuality, what happens then? Is adultery also permissible? Is abortion all right just because the parents are not ready to have a child? Is it all right to perform a prayer while drunk?

These religions are not like Buddhism, where we can pick and choose paths that suit us. We have to accept everything that is taught, because if we learn deeper, we will see the wisdom in each lesson, in each rule. Take one out, and we might as well have anarchy.

In the same vein, though, what do you think of slavery in reference to religious practice in the past 2000 years?

I ask this because the Torah, Bible and Koran treat slavery as a divinely sanctioned practice, and they go to great lengths to detail the relationship between slaves and masters. It's a natural order; a natural hierarchy. Slaves may be freed, but only on the consent of masters.

Yet, in recent times, we have abolished slavery completely, consent or not.

What are your thoughts?

[John Ling]

By the way, I came across this article recently: http://www.ansible.co.uk/sfx/sfx107.html

What are your thoughts about the declared differences between 'genre' and 'literary'?

[Fadzlishah Johanabas]

To be honest, John, since physical slavery has never been a part of my life, I've never given it any thought. And since I don't really know Quran well, I cannot quote its verses. Wikipedia it is cheating.

What I know about slavery in Islam is that only non-Muslim PoW and the children of slaves can be kept as slaves. The part where slaves can be made into concubines is surely interesting, but I think throughout Quran, fair and humane treatment of slaves is mentioned. Slaves can also be freed by their owners as an act of benevolance.

I think all these verses point to how well we should treat others, even those we own. It's sad how grown children treat their elderly parents, sometimes no different than slaves; sometimes even worse than that.

Personally, though, since slavery has been phased out in most parts of the world, and I've never been exposed to the act, I wouldn't know how to reply to your question. Even if there will be another religious war outbrake, and I actively take part as a soldier (and somehow survive it), I will take in slaves if it means saving their lives, because, once they are mine, I have the absolute right to free them.

During the time of Prophet Muhammad, non-Muslim PoW were either taken as slaves or killed. Because of this, people who abhored killing had the option of preserving life.

[John Ling]

Yes, those are fair points.

It's certainly true that slavery was once an accepted practice within Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It was practised uninterrupted for 2000 years.

But in recent times, slavery has been abolished completely, in secular contradiction to what the Holy Books have to say on the matter.

Is it possible, do you think, that religious views about homosexuality may similarly be erroneous?

[Fadzlishah Johanabas]

Soz. Went out for breakfast with the family. Now, on to the second part: my thoughts on the differences between genre and literary.

For years literary writers have looked down on genre writers, and they still do. Just how like people who wear luxury watches like Tag, Rolex, Omega and Panerai will scoff at people who wear Swatch. The expensive watches, though will last for generations, are freaking expensive and not accessible to the general population. Swatch will last for years, and is a good brand, and most important: it's affordable (accessible). Then you have imitation watches that are dirt cheap and will last you a month or two at most.

The same applies to writing. Though a lot of literary fictions become classics, not many people can digest them. Genre fiction is accessible to more people than literary fiction will ever do. Now, with self-pubbed ebooks, you pay 99 cents per book, and if you don't like it, you just don't buy from the same author. 99 cents is not that much to lose.

What's important here is not how other writers look at your works, but how you look at them. In the article, Margaret Atwood didn't seem to be proud to be affiliated with Science Fiction, because back then, Science Fiction was considered the lowest tier of fiction. Now people actively look for Science Fiction. If you're not proud of your own work, if you don't love it, then how can you expect others to do the same?

The things I post on my blog, not everyone will love them. People are sure to look at me differently, but that's the risk I took and understood when I wrote the posts. And as a writer, I will never be a literary writer, as I don't read literary fiction. I used to favor bombastic words and purple prose, but I've learned from my mistakes and the language I use in my fiction is simpler, easy to understand and follow, more accessible. I'm happy where I am as a writer, and what matters is how I love my stories, and should a reader or two love them, I appreciate it with all my heart. If other writers gloss over me (like what's happening now) or look down on me, it doesn't matter, so long as my stories are good enough to be traditionally published, and that people get to read them.

[John Ling]

That's true, Fadz.

The difference between low art and high art, as I've been told, comes down to critical approval. For example, if a particular novel featuring telepathy is written for mainstream sensibilities, it's called 'fantasy'. But if it's written for the upper crust, it's called 'magical realism'.

[Fadzlishah Johanabas]

I do not know about other holy books, but in Quran, slavery is not a commandment. There are guidelines on what to do should a person have slaves. There's nothing about encouraging people to actively procure and trade slaves. When slavery was abolished in early 20th century, no one went against the holy books. That's what I think. Of course, I might be wrong here.

On the other hand, all the books are clear on homosexuality. Even the tale of Lut's people sends a clear message. Yet, I used to wonder as a child--and I still do now--the fairness of condemning good people to eternal hell just because they're not from a certain religion. Jews think all other people will go to hell, Christians think that infidels will go to hell, Muslims think that kafirs (non-Muslims) will go to hell. I believe in Afterlife. I know you will pay for all the crimes you've done in real life, and get rewarded for all the good. Will people like Mother Theresa be condemned to Muslim hell? Or each religion has its own Heaven and Hell?

Then I came to the conclusion that God is fair. God is not vindictive; far from it. Despite all the sadness I've witnessed throughout my years as a doctor, I've seen miracles, I've seen God's mercy, and I've seen how strong people can be despite all their hardships. God is fair.

I read LGBT stories. Sadly, most of them are angry ones; battles on self-acceptance, battles on public acceptance, anger on a lot of things. Not many stories focus on the beauty of relationships. I love writers like Brent Hartinger and David Levithan because they talk about relationships and not about being gay or bisexual. Have you read David Levithan's "How They Met, and other stories"? It's an amazing collection of short stories.

I want to believe that everyone deserves to be happy. If two consensual adults of the same sex choose to find happiness together, and respect that not everyone shares their values, why should it be difficult?

When it comes to gay marriages, though, the sanctity of well established religions has to be respected for the greater good. Just like buying insurance. There are strict rules, and if you already have illnesses like cancer, cyanotic heart disease, end-stage renal failure, you'll have an almost impossible time to look for health insurances because insurance companies have to protect their own interest as well. They'll definitely lose money and fold should they be lenient. There are things you just cannot change in order to maintain the integrity of the greater good.

If you understand the risks you're taking, and are willing to take the risks, then live your best without insurance. Maybe you'll have a peaceful, happy ending, I can't tell the future. That's between an individual and God.

I'll say this again: God is fair. I refuse to believe that a kind, generous and benevolent man who contributes to the society will rot forever in hell simply because he's gay. We are only humans; we do not have the ken to understand God, and if there are those who claim they do, they're idiots.

[John Ling]

Do you think that religious laws should take precedence over secular laws?

For example, within some hadith, Prophet Muhammad prescribes death as the only punishment for homosexuals.

Is it something that should be practised? Or, again, are such views just wrong?

[Fadzlishah Johanabas]

That, my friend, I really do not know. It's best to be left for those who have deeper knowledge of religions and laws.

Religions exist as guidelines for us to lead moral, peaceful lives. God also gave us brilliant minds to think and adapt. If animals can learn and adapt from collective memories, why can't we?

I really want world peace, and I don't mean it in an afterthought, Miss Universe interview kind of way. But before that, I have to find my inner peace. We all do.

[John Ling]

Thank you for your thoughts and comments, Fadz. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me.

[Fadzlishah Johanabas]

Anytime, John. I'm not sure if you can call it explanation, though. They're just my personal thoughts, and I'm among the least pious people. That's why I'm wary when it comes to citing and quoting Quran. It's not my place to do so.

[John Ling]

No worries, Fadz. I appreciate you giving gay people a fairer go than most other Malaysians I have encountered, and that means a lot.