I refer to the Malaysiakini article Much ado about sexuality .

There are many false views and misunderstanding on the many religious views towards sexuality. The above article illustrates this single fact very well. I can't speak much for the Hindu or Islamic theological views on sexuality, but I do know a thing or two about how Christianity, namely Roman Catholicism, views the issue. The writer’s explanation that Christianity looks at the woman as a sex object, and men as mere utility tools to keep the human race going on is simplistic and totally false.

Theological expansions are far more complex to be illustrated through such mundane and poor explanations, let alone to be covered even barely adequately in a single letter to an editor. I will therefore recommend John Paul II's Theology of the Body or even the Catechism of the Catholic Church for some deeper understanding (though, theologically speaking, even this would be barely scratching the surface of the matter).

But I can deliver the simple and basic philosohpical concept behind Christianity's views on sex - it's called the Personalistic Norm. Stated negatively, the Personalistic Norm is the view that because God made man and woman in his image, humans always have the dignity that makes it always wrong to use another human as a means to an end. Stated positively, the only alternative way of treating another individual because of this sense of dignity, is love. Christian views of sex are driven from this single concept.

It is for this simple reason that any form of sexual intercourse or activity that negates the possibility for procreation is either highly discouraged or regarded as simply wrong by Christianity throughout the ages. Because of the Personalistic Norm, the writer’s view that man uses woman to simply keep the race going, or perhaps that a woman utilises a man solely for reproduction, will always be regarded as wrong by Christianity - as both instances break the Personalistic Norm.

By extension, this is why premarital sex is not viewed favourably by the Church. In a non-marital situation, the unbreakable vows of marriage are not present ('till death do us part') - hence, the situation that another person is merely using the other through sex, because of a lack of permanent commitment, is born.

It is argued that only through a stable, long-term oriented and committed relationship (marriage) can the Personalistic Norm truly be lived - through an unbreakable bond and commitment, one can never be simply used as a means to an end (this makes more sense when you keep in mind that divorce is an impossibility in the Catholic Church. Seriously, for us, marriage truly is 'till death do us part').

And by further extension, this is why the Church's views on contraception, abortion, and yes, even homosexuality have been unflinching for the last 2,000 years. Contraception and homosexuality both are similar to the concept of a man using a woman to keep the human race going in a few ways. In all, the Personalistic Norm cannoy truly be lived. With the use of contraception, a situation where one is simply using another, through a lack of possible consequences and without a committed context, is born too.

And as controversial as this is, this applies to homosexuality too. Because homosexual unions cannot possibly result in procreation, the possibility of a full marriage in the eyes of God (between man and woman, unbreakable and blessed with children) cannot ever occur. Hence, a situation where another uses another as a means to an end, through the impossibility of the vows that keep individuals together (till death do us part, children-oriented; mind you, these are Christianity-based values), is also born. This is why contraception, permarital sex, extramarital sex, and even, anal sex are not acceptable means of sexual expression - by the very nature of its act, each breaks the Personalistic Norm in one way or another.

Now, that's a very simple way of understanding the Christian views, but even then, there is a lot more to take into account, which I shall not mention here. But I do have something to share about sodomy/rape laws in Malaysia, which have gone largely undiscussed thus far. In Malaysia, rape is defined as forced penile-vaginal penetration. This narrow view is not the case in other countries, such as Australia, UK or America. Why do I call it narrow? Because our definition of rape does not include forced penile-anal penetration - such a charge would be called 'sexual assault'.

Now, let's think carefully about what Anwar Ibrahim is being accused of. The nature of the charges appear to be that he forced himself on his former aide. In our country, we call that sodomy. In more developed countries, this is called rape. Essentially, Anwar is being accused of raping another male - even though that is not how it has been presented, this is how criminal justice systems in other parts of the world would view the matter.

And in those other countries, the notion that a 60-something year old male with back problems, raped a 23-year old, on multiple occurences, over a period of a few months would probably not see the light of the day after a little investigation. Anal sex is forced intercourse - you can never really prove that it was rape just be checking if anal intercourse occurred. No, the context would have to be considered - did the accused force himself, either physically or psychologically, on another male? If so, it's rape. If not, it's not.

But that is not how our system views it. Instead, Anwar is charged with sodomy, an act which is ambiguous in contextual information but with clear homophobic overtones. To have said Anwar sodomised his aide, it akin to saying that he raped him. But not in our country. Unfortunately, our laws and views on rape and sexual assault are out of touch with what is practiced in the rest of the world, or even with ethical concerns.

What if there was a concensual exchange between two males? In any modern country in the world, it would not be an issue at all. But over here, they can be charged with sodomising each other? In other words, raping each other? What a joke! And that's only when we talk about male homosexual unions. What of female homosexual unions? Since no sodomy occurs, is that legal?

Either way, Malaysia' views on the matter, by politicians in particular, are quite sad in a way. There are really deep ethical issues going on here, which stem around homosexuality, which are going undiscussed or unannounced, as well as largely unconsidered in the investigation of whether Anwar could be tried and found guilty for rape if this had occurred in another country.

After going on about the Personalistic Norm, what are my views on homosexuality? I'm certainly not for it, in the sense that I would never engage in such acts, but I'm also not against it, in the sense that what you do on your own time is your own business, as long as it doens't hurt anybody in the process. If this thing did occur, and it occurred repeatedly between Anwar and his aide, that just makes me think that there was some sense of consent between the two. And if so, I'd be perfectly fine with that. But our Malaysian laws would not. Go figure.