A Buddhist Perspective:
Why Homosexuality Is OK?
With the recent controversy raised by a religious teacher of Islam and a Christian pastor in their effort to protest against Pink Dot (an event organised by the homosexual community to support the Freedom to Love for all regardless of sexual orientation), it is timely for me to repeat the post below which shows Buddhism's acceptance of homosexuality. This reflects not only the pluralistic nature of Singapore's society, but also the pluralistic nature of religious views on homosexuality.
Venerable Dhammika
Spiritual Advisor to the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore
Occasionally someone, usually a young man but sometimes a
young women or an older man or women, will approach me and after a few minutes
of hesitation or beating around the bush, ask me what the Buddhist position on
homosexuality is. When they do I tell them that intentional actions (kamma)
modify consciousness and that our kamma conditions our future. Positive
intentional acts have positive effects (vipaka) and negative intentional
acts have a negative effect. Sexual acts motivated by the usual intentions,
feelings and emotions which exist between two people who love each other, would
have a positive effect and would not infringe the third Precept, whether they
be homosexual or heterosexual. I underline this point by saying that Buddhist
ethics about sex are primarily concerned with the motives behind our sexual
behavior, rather than the gender of our partner. This being so, if two people
of the same gender express their love for each other physically there is no
good reason why the kamma this creates should be any different from when two
people of the opposite gender do the same.
With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect,
Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana)
behind them and the effect they have. A
sexual act motivated by love, mutuality and the desire to give and share would
be judged positive no matter what the gender of the two persons involved.
Therefore, homosexuality as such is not considered immoral in Buddhism or
against the third Precept…
Venerable Ajahn Brahmavamso
Spiritual Patron of the Buddhist Fellowship
in Singapore
Abbot of Bodhinyana Monastery
the Spiritual Director of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia.
First of all, on the topic of homosexuality and queerness, I
would like to raise a point that people should never address these questions
from a position of fear and many times that we are afraid to confront this
issue deeply, is simply because of fear.
The first thing I would like to
say from the Buddhist perspective is that, whenever we have a hard decision to
make or hard choice to make, we must look at our minds to see if we have, what
the Buddha calls, “perversions of thought”; that we should not make our
decisions or actions out of fear, out of desire, out of ill-will and stupidity.
And particularly attitudes to homosexuals, whether its your friends or children
or other people in society, should not be thought of from the position of fear.
Having confronted homosexuality
just by being in a Western country, this subject has to come up, which monks
and nuns and everyone has to confront. Because there are some people who will
become your disciples and even want to become monks or nuns and join the
Sangha, some of them are homosexuals, or some of your disciples’ children are
homosexuals.
Very often, they ask the
question, “Is homosexuality breaking the 5 precepts?” Particularly, this
concerns the 3rd precept, which concerns sexual misconduct. However, the
studies of Buddhist meaning of the term sexual misconduct certainly does not
include homosexual activities. And its fascinating that the Buddha was certainly
aware about homosexuality in his time. There were many cases mentioned in old
scriptures, especially the Vinaya (the code of ethics for monks and nuns) of
homosexual acts and those who were that way inclined and he certainly never
included it under the 5 precepts.
When we talk about the 3rd
precept, of sexual misconduct, it literally concerns adultery or illicit sex,
especially between a man or a woman who were not married and that concern
sexual relations that were considered inappropriate at that time, but it
certainly does not include homosexual and lesbian activities.
So when we look at the ethical
issues of homosexuality, we cannot use the 5 precepts as they don’t apply. The
fact that it was not mentioned was an indication that the Buddha did not think
that it was that bad after all an activity to be included in the 5 precepts.
And so we have to logically treat homosexual and lesbian relationships to the
same category as heterosexual relationship. In other words, the law of karma,
the understanding of goodness and that which brings forth happiness in future
lives and happiness in this life… which mean we have to look at homosexuality
in the same light as heterosexuality, in other words if its a loving, caring,
non-exploitative relationship, with consenting adults at appropriate age, there
seems to be nothing morally wrong with it.
And indeed there are nothing in
the sutras, or the Vinaya of the Buddhist Theravada tradition that there is
anything wrong with it, nor in the commentaries.
Venerable Ajahn Sujato
Abbot of Santi Forest
Monastery, Australia
Marriage equality is one of the
key social and legal issues of our time. I’d like to offer a Buddhist
perspective.
As with so many ethical and
social questions, especially those that involve sexuality, we find that
religion wants to be at the core of things. The conservative Christian churches
are leading the opposition to marriage equality. We can’t generalise on the basis
of religion, though. Many Christians believe that Christ’s message of
compassion and love, and the fact that he never made any statement on
homosexuality, provide a basis for support of marriage equality.
In Australia there was an
interesting exchange between the highly conservative Catholic leader Cardinal
George Pell and the group Australian Marriage Equality. The AME asked to meet
Cardinal Pell, and he consented to do so as long as the AME agreed that not all
opposition to same-sex marriage was a result of homophobia or discrimination.
The AME agreed, and came out with the following statement:
‘Just as we acknowledge that it
is possible to oppose marriage equality without hating homosexuals, so we ask
those who differ with us on this important issue to acknowledge that it is
possible to support marriage equality without seeking to undermine, marriage,
family, or religion.’
That’s a great starting point,
and an all-too-rare example of dialogue as it should be.
But what of Buddhism? As with any
issue, you’ll find a variety of positions; and as with any issue – and I
apologise if this sounds cynical – most of those positions have little to do
with anything the Buddha himself said or did.
In some cases we find Buddhist
leaders who state the ethical case plainly. Ajahn Brahm has been very forward
in supporting the gay community for many years, both in Australia and overseas.
Master Hsin Yun, the leader of the international Fo Guang Shan order, said:
‘People often ask me what I think
about homosexuality. They wonder, is it right, is it wrong? The answer is, it
is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that people do. If people are
not harming each other, their private lives are their own business; we should
be tolerant of them and not reject them.’
 |
| Venerable Master Hsing Yun |
On the other hand, the Dalai Lama
has repeatedly maintained that homosexual acts are a violation against the
precepts. At the same time, he insists on compassion and full human rights for
all. His stance is solely concerned with what is appropriate behaviour for a
Buddhist practitioner, not what should be made law.
His argument is that the sexual
organs are designed for procreation and should be used solely for that purpose.
So any form of sex that is not for procreation is out.
This is, to my mind, an extreme
and unrealistic position. The Dalai Lama says it is based on certain medieval
Indian scholars (Vasubandhu, Asanga – but I have never seen the passages
myself). It certainly has no basis in the Suttas. On the contrary, the Suttas
freely acknowledge that sex is for pleasure, and they never make a problem out
of that. Buddhism is not a fertility religion, so why we should insist that sex
be for procreation is beyond me.
The precept as found in the early
Buddhist texts mentions nothing about whether sex is for procreation or not.
What it talks about, solely, is whether the sexual relation involves the
betrayal of a social contract. Here’s the text. It’s a stock passage, found for
example in Majjhima Nikaya 41, and Anguttara Nikaya 10.176 and 10.211:
‘One is a person who misconducts
himself in sexual pleasures. One has intercourse with a woman who is protected
by mother, father, mother and father, brother, sister, family, clan, law (or
custom, ‘dhamma’), or one who has a husband, who is punishable, or even with one
garlanded for betrothal.’
‘Kāmesu micchācārī hoti, yā tā māturakkhitā piturakkhitā
mātāpiturakkhitā bhāturakkhitā bhaginirakkhitā ñātirakkhitā gottarakkhitā
dhammarakkhitā sasāmikā saparidaṇḍā antamaso mālāguḷaparikkhittāpi, tathārūpāsu
cārittaṃ āpajjitā hoti.’
Most of these are
straightforward. They refer to women who are not ‘independent’ women in our
modern sense, but who live under the authority of others. Typically, of course,
this would have been young girls living at home, then in a family with a husband.
There are significant variations, though, so arrangements were flexible.
It’s noteworthy that, while the
Hindu texts say that a woman must always be under the authority of a man, here
we find that living under the authority of a mother is next to father, and a
sister is next to brother, with no implication that one of the other is
preferable.
In some cases, it seems, women
lived under the protection of the wider family. The one ‘guarded by dhamma’ is
probably adopted, orphaned, or in some other way taken care of. The one who is
‘punishable’ is ambiguous: does it mean that the woman is to be punished (as a
criminal)? Or does it mean that having intercourse with her is punishable? The
text doesn’t make it clear. The woman ‘garlanded for betrothal’ refers to a
woman who is, in our modern sense, ‘engaged’ but not yet married.
Obviously, the passage as stated
above only refers to the man as agent. That doesn’t mean that women can’t break
this precept! Like so many of the Buddhist texts, it is phrased from a male
point of view (andocentric), and would apply equally to both genders. The
assumption of the passage is that it is women who are under protection. This
reflects the social reality of the Buddha’s time; it doesn’t endorse this
situation, nor does it say that women can’t or shouldn’t live independently. It
just says that if a woman (and presumably a man) is living in a committed
relationship then one should not betray that.
This much is clear: the precept
against sexual misconduct has nothing to do with homosexuality (or any other
form of sexual activity as such.) It is concerned with breaking the bonds of
trust with those that we love, and nothing else. While the specifics of the
social relations in the Buddha’s time are different than today, it is not
problematic to work out how to apply this in our own context, at least in most
cases.
So if the precept does not
concern homosexuality, what did
the Buddha say on the topic? We are very lucky in Buddhism to have thousands of
discourses, with the Buddha making observations or criticisms regarding many
kinds of ethical issues. Rape, paedophilia, adultery: these and many other
problems are clearly mentioned in the early texts, and the Buddha made it clear
that he didn’t approve of them. In the case of homosexuality,
however, we have nothing in the Suttas. In all the thousands of discourses, not
a single one regarded homosexuality as a significant issue.
There is one passage in the
Cakkavattisihanada Sutta, which is sometimes cited by those who are trying to
prove that the Buddha was anti-gay. The text discusses various examples of
moral decay in society. One of the practices it mentions is, in the Pali, micchā-dhamma. This is about the
most generic term for wrong doing that it’s possible to make in Pali. You could
translate it as ‘wrong teachings’, ‘bad practices’, ‘misguided actions’, and so
on. The commentary, compiled nearly 1000 years later in Sri Lanka, however,
says it means, ‘Lustful desire of men for men, and women for women.’ (Micchādhammoti purisānaṃ purisesu itthīnañca itthīsu
chandarāgo.) Since this
has no basis in the text, it stands as a record of the attitude of a medieval
commentator. There’s no evidence, so far as I am aware, that this attitude was
representative of ancient Theravadin or Sri Lankan culture in general.
The Suttas essentially ignore any
issues around homosexuality. Now, arguments from absence are always difficult.
But the presence of thousands of discourses detailing lists of many kinds of
ethical violations, strongly suggests that the Buddha tried to be reasonably
comprehensive in addressing ethical concerns, and homosexuality was not one of
them.
The picture in the Vinaya is a
little different. The Vinaya is a legal code for monastics, and since it
regulates the conduct of a celibate order, it deals with all kinds of possible
sexual behaviours. It does so with a degree of frankness and candour that so
shocked the early European translators that they simply omitted large chunks of
text, or, with a quaint regard for the delicate sensibilities of young readers,
translated them into Latin.
Homosexual acts, like just about
any other imaginable sexual act, are depicted many times in the Vinaya, both
among monks and nuns. In each case, the Buddha is shown as responding in his
usual direct and common sense manner. Obviously, homosexual behaviour, like any
sexual behaviour, is inappropriate among the celibate monastic community, so
the Buddha prohibits it. However, this is done in a straight, matter-of-fact
tone, and there is never a suggestion that there is anything wrong with gay sex
per se.
In several cases the penalty is
actually less in the case of homosexual behaviour. For example, for a monk to
erotically touch another man is a less serious offence than the same act with a
woman. Sex between women, likewise, is treated less seriously than between a
woman and a man. There is one passage where the Buddha’s chief disciple,
Venerable Sariputta, is said to have had two novices as students. But they had
sex with each other. The Buddha laid down a rule that one should not take two
novices as students at the same time! (This rule, like many others, was later
relaxed.)
However, it would be a mistake to
read this as implying that the Buddha regarded same-sex sexuality as somehow
more permissible in the Sangha. The Vinaya, as a legal code, frequently makes
judgements for various technical reasons, and there is no strong correlation
between the moral weight of an act and the severity with which it is treated in
the Vinaya. For example, building an overly-large hut is a serious offence,
while bashing someone within an inch of their life is a minor offence.
So we shouldn’t read too much
into the relative leniency of how some homosexual acts are treated in the
Vinaya. The main point is simply that homosexuality is treated in pretty much
the same way as any other expression of sexuality.
In these accounts there is
nothing that really corresponds with our modern notion of sexual orientation.
For the most part, same-sex acts are just that, acts. There’s no idea of a person who solely or primarily is attracted to people
of the same sex.
The texts do speak of a certain
kind of person, called a paṇḍaka. These are typically male, but
there were females too (itthīpaṇḍikā). A paṇḍaka is
forbidden to ordain, and is regularly associated with unbridled sexuality. It
is, however, unclear exactly what paṇḍaka means. The descriptions of the paṇḍaka are few, and not always
consistent, but there seems to have been some physical attribute involved, as
well as a set of cultural behaviours. Perhaps they were some form of eunuchs
who performed sexual services. In any case, the paṇḍaka is clearly
not a homosexual in the modern sense of the word. They may be connected with
the modern classes of Hijras and the like, who are considered a ‘third sex’ in
India, including transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and eunuchs.
To sum up, early Buddhism is well
aware of homosexual acts, and never treats them as an ethical problem.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is not found.
This is completely in line with
the Buddha’s take on ethics. The Buddha did not ethically judge persons, he judged deeds. People are simply people,
who do various kinds of things, some good, some bad. If a person does a deed
that causes harm, this is what the Buddha considered ‘unskilful’. If the deed
causes no harm, it is not unskilful.
The basic problem in sexual
ethics, addressed in the third precept, is betrayal. ‘Sexual misconduct’ is
sexual behaviour that causes harm by breaking the trust that a loved one has
placed in us. The Buddha was compassionate, and he never laid down ethical
rules that caused harm or distress. Making a moral proscription against
homosexuality marginalises and harms people who have done no wrong, and it is
against the basic principles of Buddhist ethics.
It’s so important to keep this
essential ethical question in mind. In discussions on homosexuality, as with
just about any other controversial ethical issue, there is a pervasive tendency
to confuse the issue. Why do we find it so difficult to look at an ethical
question rationally? It is true, there are some issues that are complex and the
details can be difficult to work out. But this is not one of them.
Countless times we are told, for
example, that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’. Surely a moment’s reflection should
show us this is not true, because there’s plenty of homosexuality in the animal
world. And anyway, how is gay sex more unnatural than, say, typing on a
keyboard, or wrapping food in plastic? But this is all beside the point. Being
‘unnatural’ is not an ethical issue. The issue is whether it causes harm, not
whether it is natural or not. That is no more an ethical issue than is the
choice, say, to eat organic or non-organic vegetables.
Homosexuality is also regularly
linked with sexual ‘decadence’ in general. Homosexuals are said to be
paedophiles, or promiscuous, or to cause diseases such as AIDS. Allowing
homosexual relations is to licence all manner of debaucheries. This objection,
too, is not valid: gays behave in all sorts of ways, just as do straight
people.
Blaming gays for AIDS is one of
the most cruel arguments possible. We feel compelled to look for examples that
show the absurdity of these views. What of babies born with AIDS? What of those
who get AIDS via blood transfusion? Incidence of malaria is much greater among
poor people – are we to blame them, too? And why is incidence of AIDS among
lesbians so very low – is lesbianism kammically preferable?
But we shouldn’t have to look for
such examples. Like the arguments mentioned above, the whole thing is missing
the point. Take the ‘worst case’ scenario, the cliché of the promiscuous,
irresponsible, drug-taking, careless gay man. We might not think his behaviour
is praiseworthy or wise, but does it deserve a slow, lingering, and painful
death? Are we really comfortable to righteously proclaim the justice of
destroying a human life, because we think that the way they have sought pleasure is irresponsible?
This whole argument is inhuman and unworthy.
If there are behaviours that gay
people do that increase transmission of HIV, for example, then we can try to
change those behaviours, just as we would try to help any people who were
inadvertently causing harm. What the marriage equality movement wants is to
enable people of various sexual orientations to live in an accepted,
recognised, and legal framework which supports the development of loving,
committed relationships. Banning gay marriage is the very best way to ensure
gays remain marginalised.
Another red herring, in my view,
is the ‘born this way’ argument, which is often used by those who support
marriage equality. Homosexuality, so the argument goes, is not a choice, some
people are just like that and can’t change. While this is an important, if
contested, fact, it misses the ethical issue. What if some gay people don’t
feel like they were ‘born this way’? What if they feel like they have made a
conscious choice? Whether this is the case or not, or whether there are in fact
hidden biological factors involved, so what? Having sex with someone of the
same gender is not a harmful deed, nor is marrying someone of the same gender.
Whether it’s by biological determinism or free will, nothing harmful is done,
so there’s no ethical problem.
Perhaps the single most
fallacious argument against gay marriage is simply that it upsets the customs
of society. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, therefore it
will damage society to do it any other way.
This argument, favoured by
conservatives, once again completely misses the point. The damage is already
here. Violence, trauma, and abuse is a part of the living reality of millions
of perfectly good people all over the world, simply because they have, or want
to have, sex with persons of their own gender. Part of society is broken, and
it needs fixing.
This is the same argument that
was used to oppose abolishing slavery, votes for women, property rights for
all, and so on. In each case, those in the position of privilege strive to keep
others from getting the same rights. And since the cost of inequality is borne
by the ‘others’, it does not exist for the privileged.
When we introduce compassion into
the equation, however, we recognise that society has always been imperfect.
Just because something was done in the past does not make it right. Perhaps it
was the case that in certain times and places our marriage customs made more
sense than they do now. But that’s not the point. The point is, what is the
right thing to do now? To continue to exclude, marginalise, and discriminate?
Or to broaden our moral horizons, to fully accept and include all people?
If homosexuality as such is not a
problem, what then of same-sex marriages? In this area we find that the Buddha
had even less to say. In fact, there is no such thing as a Buddhist marriage.
Buddhists have simply adopted the marriage customs of the culture they find
themselves in. The most basic model, therefore, was the customs of ancient
India. These have been the basis for Buddhist family customs, adapted in each
society that Buddhism has gone to.
In ancient India, there were
several forms of marriage. As with all things Indian, there is no insistence on
one true, correct way of doing things. Some Hindu texts list a whole range of
marriage possibilities, which are correlated with the levels of Indian
cosmology. The highest form of marriage is the ‘Brahma wedding’, where the
bride and groom, each pure in lineage and caste, is united in the most perfect
of ceremonies. If the marriage is lacking in some perfections of detail, it is
reckoned as pertaining to the lower classes of deities. The lowest of the
auspicious weddings is the gandharva
wedding, where the bride and groom simply elope. Then there are the various
inauspicious unions, those of the yakkhas
or rakkhasas, where, for
example, the woman is abducted by force.
Along with this diversity in
wedding style, there were different marital arrangements. Monogamy seems to have
been common, and of course these were often arranged marriages – but ancient
Buddhist texts also record a strong struggle by women for autonomy in the
marriage choices. Polygamy is also common, and was the norm for kings.
Polyandry is less common, but is central to the most famous of all Hindu texts,
the Mahabharata. Apparently polyandry is common in Tibet.
I’m not trying to uphold the
Indian marriage system as superior to that in the West. It has its own problems
with inter-caste marriages, arranged marriages, domestic violence, and so on.
I’m merely making the point that there has traditionally been an adaptive
diversity of living arrangements that were considered to be valid forms of
marriage, and that this can be seen in some ways as a precedent for the modern
idea of same-sex marriages.
So there has always been a
flexibility and diversity in marriage customs in the Indian sphere that stands
in clear contrast with the ‘one and only’ correct form of marriage that is, in
the main, endorsed by the contemporary monotheistic religions. Same-sex
marriages were not, so far as I’m aware, historically acknowledged within the
Indian cultural sphere. Nor am I aware of any laws against them, such as we
find in the modern day. Given the wide variations in marriage customs,
including many forms of marriage that would not be considered valid in modern
times, it would seem that the typical Indian approach was that of tolerance and
inclusion. Accordingly, when the British law that made gay sex a crime was
repealed in India in 2009, some Hindu authorities applauded the move, saying
homosexuality was part of the divine order.
Unfortunately, this tolerant
attitude is not always the case today. One sometimes finds Hindutva polemics
against homosexuality. Such discourse, sadly enough, often rails against the
supposed debauched influence of ‘Western’ morals, oblivious to the fact that
anti-gay attitudes were themselves imported into India by the monotheistic
religions. This ambiguity has been expressed by the highest authorities in
India. Goolam Vahanvati, then solicitor-general and current attorney-general,
stated to the UN Human Rights Council:
‘Around the early 19th Century,
you probably know that in England they frowned on homosexuality, and therefore
there are historical reports that various people came to India to take
advantage of its more liberal atmosphere with regard to different kinds of
sexual conduct.
‘As a result, in 1860 when we got
the Indian Penal Code, which was drafted by Lord Macaulay, they inserted
Section 377 which brought in the concept of “sexual offences against the order
of nature”.
‘Now in India we didn’t have this
concept of something being “against the order of nature”. It was essentially a
Western concept, which has remained over the years. Now homosexuality as such
is not defined in the IPC, and it will be a matter of great argument whether it
is “against the order of nature”.’
A similar situation prevails in
other Buddhist countries, too. In Japan, China, and elsewhere, the early
generations of Christian missionaries were shocked at the casual acceptance of
homosexual behaviour among the Buddhists. They immediately set about trying to
persuade the world that their own version of sexual propriety was the right one
for everyone.
Sadly enough, modern generations
of Buddhists and Hindus are now doing this work for them, oblivious to their
own more accepting and compassionate past. When a Thai monk like Thattajiwo,
one of the leaders of Dhammakaya, rails against the ‘sexual perverts’, who have
called down the kammic justice of AIDS (‘the executioner of the sex-mad’) upon
them, oblivious of the pit of sin they have fallen into, and the even greater
sufferings that await them in future disease-ridden hells of torment, he is
merely parroting the frothing excesses of Christian and Islamic
fundamentalists. (Phra Thattajiwo Bhikku. Waksiin Porng-kan Rook Eet (A Vaccine
to Protect Against AIDS). Pathumthani: Thammakay Foundation.) Such apocalyptic
and condemnatory ‘ethics’ have no basis in the Buddha’s teaching.
So in today’s climate, what are
we to do? For the Buddha, homosexuality was clearly not an issue. Nor was
making laws proscribing valid forms of marriage. What was an issue, on the
other hand, was compassion. The very essence of compassion is to reach out to
those who are suffering, those who are marginalised. and persecuted. People
whose sexual orientation varies from the majority suffer discrimination,
bullying at school, violence, and emotional trauma. As Buddhists we should
recognise a clear moral imperative to help wherever we can.
One might object that since the
Buddha made no statement on the legalities of gay marriage, we should do the
same. But the problem is a little more subtle than that. We are living in a
culture where, based on certain religious and cultural ideas, certain ways of
living one’s life have been made illegal. This is an artefact of the
conditioned and always arbitrary course of history, not a timeless feature of
the human landscape. In Australia, for example, there was no clear Federal law
that prohibited same-sex marriage until 2004.
Supporting marriage equality is
not to introduce something new, but simply to abolish laws that discriminate.
The injustice is already in place. The harm is being done. The change is merely
to remove the harmful influence of discriminatory laws, which should never have
been there in the first place.
People are people, regardless of
their gender, colour, nationality, or sexual orientation. The Buddha taught
‘for one who feels’. That’s the only requirement for Buddhist practice: one who
feels. In the past our society decreed that marriage should not be between
people of a different race, or a different colour, or a different religion, or
a different nationality. Over time, we decided that these rules were harmful,
and we abolished them.
Catastrophes were predicted: they
didn’t come true.
What has happened, rather, is
that we have become a little more open minded, and a little more aware of the
suffering of others. The test of our generation is whether we can continue this
move towards a more accepting and loving way of living, or whether we are to
regress to a meaner, hard-hearted place.
My society, my culture, the one
that I’m proud of and want to belong to, is this one. The society that is kind,
questioning, accepting. Let us take up the best aspects of our own cultures,
whether they be Buddhist or modern cultures, and discard all that is unjust,
discriminatory, and harmful. Let us give our full support for marriage
equality, for if we do not we are betraying the best part of our humanity.
Below is a letter which Dominic Chua has send, a few days ago, to the Archbishop of the Catholic
Church in Singapore, regarding the latter's recent pronouncements about gay
people. 
