We examine promotional materials produced by two organisations in Singapore, TrueLove.Is and Pink Dot, to investigate how
these two groups employ discourses of love to support their opposing views regarding the reconcilability of Christianity and same-sex desire.
TrueLove.Is is a Christian ministry that encourages LGB Christian Singaporeans to “come out, come home”, while Pink Dot is Singapore’s
largest and foremost LGBTQ movement. We identify similarities and differences in their persuasive discourse strategies regarding ideas of
love as discussed by lesbian Christian pastors. Although they position the idea of love similarly, their agendas are completely polarised.
TrueLove.Is takes the position that non-heteronormative activity is ungodly and sinful, while Pink Dot offers a reconciliation between Christianity
and same-sex desire. We employ Peterson’s (2016) approach to homophobic discourse analysis based on
Systemic Functional Linguistics and a comparative discourse analysis to investigate the ideologies that inform the two organisations’
materials about the treatment of LGBTQ Singaporeans.
Abdullah, Walid Jumblatt. 2019. Electoral secularism in Singapore: Political responses to homosexuality. Asian Studies Review 43(2): 239–255.
Bertone, Chiara & Franchi, Marina. 2014. Suffering as the path to acceptance: Parents of gay and lesbian young people negotiating Catholicism in Italy. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 10(1/2): 58–78.
Borba, Rodrigo, Hall, Kira & Hiramoto, Mie. 2020. Feminist refusal meets enmity. Gender and Language 14(1): 1–7.
Chen, Jianlin. 2013. Singapore’s culture war over section 377A: Through the lens of public choice and multilingual research. Law & Social Inquiry 38(1): 106–137.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2010. Asia as Method: Toward Deimperialization. Durham: Duke University Press.
Chong, Terence & Goh, Daniel PS.2014. Asian pentecostalism: Revivals, mega-churches, and social engagement. In Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia, Bryan S. Turner & Oscar Salemink (eds), 402–417. London: Routledge.
Chua, Lynette. 2012. Pragmatic resistance, law, and social movements in authoritarian states: The case of gay collective action in Singapore. Law & Society Review 46(4): 713–748.
Chua, Lynette. 2014. Mobilizing Gay Singapore: Rights and Resistance in an Authoritarian State. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Chua, Lynette. 2018. The Politics of Love in Myanmar: LGBT Mobilization and Human Rights as A Way of Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Colla, Elliott. 2013. In praise of insult: Slogan genres, slogan repertoires and innovation. Review of Middle East Studies 47(1): 37–48.
DiStefano, Teresa M., Croteau, James, Anderson, Mary Z., Kampa-Kokesch, Sheila & Bullard, Melissa A.2000. Experiences of being heterosexual allies to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: A qualitative exploration. Journal of College Counseling 3(2): 131–141.
Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Edenborg, Emil. 2018. Homophobia as geopolitics: ‘Traditional values’ and the negotiation of Russia’s place in the world. In Gendering Nationalism: Intersections of Nation, Gender and Sexuality, Jon Mulholland, Nicola Montagna & Erin Sanders-McDonagh (eds), 67–87. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Enguix, Begonya. 2009. Identities, sexualities and commemorations: Pride parades, public space and sexual dissidence. Anthropological Notebooks 15(2): 15–33.
Finlay, Barbara & Walther, Carol S.2003. The relation of religious affiliation, service attendance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students. Review of Religious Research 44(4): 370–393.
Gabb, Jacqui. 2001. Querying the discourses of love: An analysis of contemporary patterns of love and the stratification of intimacy within lesbian families. The European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(3): 313–328.
Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Go, Christian. 2019. Love is love is love: Politicizing affect in the linguistic landscape of the Metro Manila Pride March. (Paper presented at the 26th Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference, University of Gothenburg, Sweden)
Golebiowski, Zofia. 2006. The distribution of discoursal salience in research papers: Relational hypotaxis and parataxis. Discourse Studies 8(2): 259–278.
Grant, Ruby, Beasy, Kim & Coleman, Bianca. 2021. Homonormativity and celebrating diversity: Australian school staff involvement in gay-straight alliances. International Journal of Inclusive Education 25(8): 960–975.
Guo, Ting. 2020. Politics of love: Love as a religious and political discourse in modern China through the lens of political leaders. Critical Research on Religion 8(1): 39–52.
Itakura, Kyohei. 2015. Making Japan ‘out-and-proud’ through not-yet-consensual translation: A case study of Tokyo Rainbow Pride’s website. Queer Cats Journal of LGBTQ Studies 1(1): 3–30.
Ji, Peter, Du Bois, Steve N. & Finnessy, Patrick. 2009. An academic course that teaches heterosexual students to be allies to LGBT communities: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 21(4): 402–429.
Ji, Peter & Fujimoto Ma, Ken. 2013. Measuring heterosexual LGBT ally development: A Rasch analysis. Journal of Homosexuality 60(12): 1695–1725.
Johnston, Lynda T.2005. Queering Tourism: Paradoxical Performances at Gay Pride Parades. New York: Routledge.
Lazar, Michelle M.2017. Homonationalist discourse as a politics of pragmatic resistance in Singapore’s Pink Dot movement: Towards a southern praxis. Journal of Sociolinguistics 21(3): 420–441.
Leap, William. 2020. Language Before Stonewall: Language, Sexuality, History. Cham: Palgrave.
Meyer, Doug. 2014. Resisting hate crime discourse: Queer and intersectional challenges to neoliberal hate crime laws. Critical Criminology 22(1): 113–125.
Mikulak, Magdalena. 2019. Godly homonormativity: Christian LGBT organizing in contemporary Poland. Journal of Homosexuality 66(4): 487–509.
Miller, Shannon J. & Stack, Katie. 2014. African-American lesbian and queer women respond to Christian-based homophobia. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 10(3): 243–268.
Ministry of Community Development. 1995. Singapore: A Pro-Family Society. Singapore: Ministry of Community Development.
Ng, Yi-Sheng. 2017. Pride versus prudence: The precarious queer politics of Pink Dot. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 18(2): 238–250.
O’Grady, Gerard. 2019. SFL and critical discourse analysis. In The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds), 462–484. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, Joseph SY.2009. Regimenting languages on Korean television: Subtitles and institutional authority. Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 29(5): 547–570.
Peterson, David. 2011a. Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citizens. Journal of Homosexuality 58(6/7): 742–757.
Peterson, David. 2011b. The ‘basis for a just, free, and stable society’: Institutional homophobia and governance at the Family Research Council. Gender and Language 4(2): 257–286.
Phillips, Robert. 2008. Queering online: Transnational sexual citizenship in Singapore. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Phillips, Robert. 2014. ‘And I am also gay’: Illiberal pragmatics, neoliberal homonormativity and LGBT activism in Singapore. Anthropologica 56(1): 45–54.
Puar, Jasbir. 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham: Duke University Press.
Radics, George Baylon. 2021. Challenging antisodomy laws in Singapore and the former British colonies of ASEAN. Journal of Human Rights 20(2): 211–227.
Ream, Geoffrey L. & Savin-Williams, Ritch C.2005. Reconciling Christianity and positive non-heterosexual identity in adolescence, with implications for psychological well-being. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 2(3): 19–36.
Rowlett, Benedict & Go, Christian. 2021. “The amazingly fabulous tuktuk race”: Mobility and carnival praxis in the semiotic landscape of Phnom Penh Pride. (Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the International Language and Gender Association, Queen Mary University of London [online])
Schuck, Kelly D. & Liddle, Becky J.2001. Religious conflicts experienced by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 5(2): 63–82.
Spencer, Leland G. & Barnett, Joshua Trey. 2016. Rhetorics of incommensurability: Disarticulating queer Christianity in mainstream news coverage of the Soulforce Equality Ride. Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture 1(2): 141–158.
Tan, Chris. 2015. Pink Dot: Cultural and sexual citizenship in gay Singapore. Anthropological Quarterly 88(4): 969–996.
VanderStouwe, Chris. 2016. “Straight-ish”: Constrained agency and the linguistic constructions of sexual identities, desires, and practices among men seeking men. (Unpublished) PhD dissertation, UC Santa Barbara.
Yue, Audrey & Zubillaga-Pow, Jun. 2012. Queer Singapore: Illiberal Citizenship and Mediated Cultures. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Cited by (7)
Cited by seven other publications
Ding, Gao
2024. Queer Singaporean futures after 377a: establishing homonormativity as concrete labour. Journal of Gender Studies► pp. 1 ff.
2024. News media coverage of LGBT identities over 10 years in a 400-million-word corpus. PLOS ONE 19:4 ► pp. e0300385 ff.
Rowlett, Benedict J. L. & Christian Go
2024. “The Amazingly Fabulous Tuk tuk Race”: mobility and carnival praxis in the semiotic landscape of Phnom Penh Pride. Social Semiotics 34:3 ► pp. 430 ff.
Meyer, Seth J.
2023. Social equity and LGBTQ populations in African public administration: A macro‐ and micro‐approach. Public Administration Review 83:1 ► pp. 181 ff.
Pak, Vincent
2021. Coming out ‘softly’. Gender and Language 15:3
Pak, Vincent
2023. Lighting, signing, showing: The circulability of Pink Dot's counterpublic discourse in Singapore. Journal of Sociolinguistics 27:1 ► pp. 24 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.