There is no doubt that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government is determined to support Gay Games 11 Hong Kong 2022 despite opposition from some lawmakers and people from different sectors of the community. The estimated financial gain (HK$1 billion, or US$129 million) to be derived from GGHK and the professed objective to promote diversity inclusion and showcase equality has to be weighed against the risks of inculcating in the young the disruptive ideas that homosexuality and heterosexuality should coexist peacefully and that both are equally normal and equally valid lifestyles. They are regarded as disruptive ideas because they will corrupt the minds of young people.
Two questions arise for consideration; namely, whether the HKSAR government should support GGHK, which indirectly gives official legitimatization and a public endorsement to gay lifestyles, being propagated actively and conspicuously in an international sports event held in a predominately conservative Confucian society, and, if so, whether the public endorsement can be justified on cost-and-benefit grounds. For fear of venturing too far into a broad topic that is indirectly related to our discussion, we will not examine whether gay athletes need a separate sports event to protect themselves against alleged bullying and harassment.
First of all, diversity may mean different things to different people at different times. Scratching beneath the outward label, we find the diversity propagated by supporters of GGHK may have almost nothing in common with the Confucian accommodative attitude toward cultural diversity. One of the reasons why Buddhism and Taoism can establish a firm base in China is that their diverse values have posed no destabilizing threat to Confucian family values. In fact, they have coexisted peacefully for many years. It is worth noting that Buddhism was originally a foreign religion. The Confucian procreation-based marriage system lends credence to the claim that gay marriage is incompatible with the Confucian marriage system.
It is one thing for a liberal Confucian Chinese to tolerate gay lifestyles as a private matter. It is also highly likely that he will respect court judgments that have recognized gay people’s legal rights in a gradual manner in the territory. But it is quite another for him or her to accept what gay people do as morally right and socially accommodative, or as entitling them to a public endorsement under the pretext of diversity inclusion. In short, a public endorsement of gay lifestyles will tilt Confucian and gay marriages toward a collision course. Unity in diversity is a pipe dream. Legislative Councilor Priscilla Leung Mei-fun deserves great credit for reminding us that GGHK will divide society.
According to an organizer, GGHK will create a massive positive impact on the community and help change the broader acceptance of being LGBT. Judging from the above remarks, we can no longer escape the realization that GGHK has a hidden agenda to promote a gay lifestyle and reshape our understanding of marriage and family life. In particular, we should keep a watchful eye on the potentially adverse effect of the gay games on our children.
Social cognitive theory reminds us that children in the main imitate models of the same gender as themselves, learning for themselves that this is how they should behave (Neil Ventress, “Socialisation and Consequential Abuse”, in Safeguarding and Protecting Children in the Early Years, edited by James Reid and Steven Burton (London: Routledge, 2014)). We should therefore guard against the demonstration effect exerted by the gay athletes on our children.
We should also give serious consideration to the hostile and homophobic reaction against gay families in two major liberal Western countries. A number of ethnographic studies about life in British schools paint a grim picture of routine homophobia in the children’s cultures they studied (Anna Fairtlough, “Growing Up with a Lesbian or Gay Parent: Young People’s Perspectives”, in Sexual Identities and Sexuality in Social Work, edited by Priscilla Dunk-West and T. Hafford-Letchfield (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2011)).
According to a survey, 70 percent of the American people believe that sexual relations between members of the same sex is wrong (William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth (New York: Doubleday, 1996)). These homophobic reactions in the United Kingdom and the United States have cut too deep a wound in social cohesion. Gay people’s rights have often raised a storm of controversy in congressional and presidential elections in the US. Viewed in this light, Legislative Councilor Holden Chow Ho-ding was right to warn us that GGHK would affect social stability.
It is undeniable that more Hong Kong people are sympathetic toward same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, most of the Confucian Chinese and Christians in Hong Kong do not support same-sex marriage. On behalf of his electorates, co-author of this article Junius Ho Kwan-yiu raised objection to same-sex marriage in the Legislative Council last month. Some are worried that the hosting of GGHK may provide a convenient platform for the LGBT+ community to promote same-sex marriage in Hong Kong.
Partly because of the popularity of the “gay gene theory” and partly because of the successful propaganda launched by the LGBT+ community, more and more local people have adopted a positive attitude toward same-sex marriage. Although there may be a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there does not appear to be anything close to genetic causation (William J. Bennett, ibid., p.123). A recent research paper, which was published on Aug 29, 2019, in Science, confirms that no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviors. We should make firm moral judgments in matters touching on marriage and parenting and avoid being misled by the dubious “gay gene theory”.
To conclude, the HKSAR government should not support GGHK, which would indirectly give a public endorsement to gay lifestyles, because the economic and other intangible benefits cannot outweigh the risks. The professed goal of GGHK to promote diversity inclusion is a fruitless attempt, if not a deception, to build castles in the air. Even if there are huge short-term economic benefits brought about by GGHK, the long-term destructive effect on family cohesion, child protection and social stability cannot be ignored. The supporters of GGHK have failed to disguise the disruptive fault lines running through the elusive concept of diversity inclusion. They are hardly qualified to dictate to others what constitutes the core meaning of diversity that is compatible with mainstream Confucian family values.
Junius Ho is a Legislative Council member and a solicitor.
Kacee Ting Wong is a barrister, part-time researcher of Shenzhen University Hong Kong and Macao Basic Law Research Center, and co-founder of the Hong Kong Coalition.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
