Tuesday, October 31, 2006

So What's Wrong With Homosexuality?

In the tradition of STR, I wrote a brief response to an pro-gay article in Malaysiakini called So What? Its Their Sexual Preference.

Dear Francis

First, let me say that I hold no grudges against homosexuals. Not only that, I fully support your timely call to treat our fellow Malaysians who are homosexuals with respect, understanding and compassion.

The authorities must be vigilant to bring swift justice upon those immoral individuals who verbally or physically abused them.

Now, I accept my homosexual friends as valuable, dignified human beings. And they understand that I do so without condoning their behavior. In my humble view, homosexuality is immoral just as heterosexual adultery is immoral.

However, if you say that publicly nowadays, you are immediately called derogatory names like homophobic,
heterosexist, bigot or hate-monger.

I don’t use emotive labels to publicly stigmatize people who I disagree with. But name-calling is often used to condemn people who disagree with the 'morality' of homosexual behavior.

This is a convenient but unhelpful way of muddying the waters. Of course, I may be wrong but at least my views are based on principles, not prejudice.

So what’s the big deal about homosexual behavior?

You seem to argue that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or morally benign because “being gay is their choice, they have the right to choose their preferences”. That’s a “freedom of choice” argument.

But let’s think about this: Can people choose whatever sexual preferences they fancy?

Apparently not. We are not morally entitled to choose preferences like pedophilia, necrophilia or extramarital affairs, for that matter.

Why not? Because it’s wrong, even if it’s done in private.

Now, it may be objected that unlike pedophilia, homosexual behavior may be consensual among adults. What’s wrong with gay lifestyle as long as “the couple truly love and accept each other”?

But again, this argument does not hold water after a moment’s reflection.

Are people allowed to commit adultery or incest “as long as they love and accept each other”?

Even a heterosexual man who falls in love with his own sister or daughter (yucks!) can’t simply marry anyone he wants. So mutual consent simply does not justify immoral behaviors.

Now, I do agree with your description of homosexual practice becoming more “normal” or publicly visible as seen in examples of gay clerics, Ang Lee movies and celebrity tabloids.

But what is “normal” (as- is) may not be “normative” (ought-to-be).

Yes, homosexuals are among us. But it doesn't follow that their behavior is a moral norm just as having Mat Rempits all around us does not mean that we ought to encourage illegal races.

There is also another sense of the word “normal”, meaning “things are functioning in the way it was meant to be”. When things work “normally”, they are fulfilling what they are designed to do.

In this sense, homosexual practice is simply “abnormal”. Sexual organs were obviously not meant to fit in bodies the way homosexuals use them, resulting in a host of adverse medical consequences.

So we should not confuse the call to accept the existence of homosexuals in a spirit of tolerance with advocacy for homosexual behavior as morally acceptable.

Now don’t get me wrong. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to making such distinctions.

Our moral objection against homosexuality per se no more fosters violence against homosexuals than our disagreement against adultery fosters violence against people who are unfaithful to their spouses.

I am not asking people to be bigoted gay-bashers, spread hate or boycott Elton John’s music just because there are moral objections against their lifestyles. This kind of thinking would make PEMADAM responsible every time a drug addict gets beat up behind Chow Kit Road.

Lastly, I share your hope for a period of social reform in our nation that makes for a more equitable, just and caring society for all citizens regardless of creed, skin color or economic status.

Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality. With homosexuality we're talking about something different – it is a particular behavior that most Malaysians find odd, unnatural, harmful and deeply unethical.

As yet, there is no confirmed biological cause for homosexuality. Even if a biological factor may contribute to homosexual tendency, it does not determine our choices. Human beings are not programmed robots whose destiny is fixed by nature.

Surely, we don’t approve of hot-blooded heterosexuals who ‘naturally’ feel biological urges to grope female pedestrians to carry out their hormone-induced inclinations just because they are supposedly ‘born that way”. Even they are not entitled with such ‘equal rights’ in society.

Why not? Perhaps not because of blind prejudice, prudery or lack of scientific understanding.

But simply because it’s unethical.

They should still have the freedom to vote, find security and equal employment opportunity as any other citizen in our country.

But no one – heterosexual or homosexual – is entitled to unethical behavior.

Chang Wei Hao, a heterosexual sinner in the process of being rescued by Grace, is also an avid blogger at The Agora.

36 comments:

Billie said...

Great article written David, appreciate it!

So cool that u've responded to the article.

Bold reply, and well-articulated too.
Have forwarded it to my friend
who's surrounded by gay colleagues, who happen ot be really "nice" pple, which gave her a tough time figurin out how she shld rightly react to their sexual preferences.

Any gd on-line resources u know of to recommend? well, guess i need it too.

Wei Hao said...

Hi Billie,

Yes, its easy to confuse 'loving tolerance' of homosexual persons w an acceptance of homosexual behaviour as morally benign. A lot of Christians are struggling with this issue today.

The Agora hopes to provide some basic resources and skills to people in the marketplace to be winsome and informed ambassadors for Christ...

If it's helpful, please do forward this to friends and families who may be interested?

Other helpful resource
www.narth.com
www.r-l-m.com

xiaowei said...

Hi Billie
i found these links quite gd altho they are blog posts:
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/blood-caf-and-whether-homosexuality-is.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/beyond-proof-texts-sex-gods-sex-manual.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/turquoise-room-mardi-gras-shrove.html
http://thebookofshadow.blogspot.com/2006/02/homosexuality-repentance-change-and.html

Pendita said...

Posting yang sangat bagus! Have you read the book "Unwanted Harvest?"
forgot the author la. Its in my personal library. The book talks about
reaching to homosexuals... They too, need the Lord Jesus Christ! Jesus
can change them!

AndyCole said...

Found this post at the emergent group, a good one!

jemufo said...

http://www.kirklandproductions.com/ARTISTS/Dr_John_Corvino-video.html

Eric said...

I respectfully disagree with your argument as it is illogical and without rational grounds. You liken homosexuality to immoral behavior such as adultery, incest, and pedophilia but there is one key difference with homosexuality in that there is no harm no foul. Adultery is a betrayal within a committed relationship; pedophilia involves one party that is not of a consenting, mature age; and incest leads to dangerous biological ramifications. What can you say about homosexuality?

Dave Chang said...

thanks for expressing ur point of view, Eric.

Everyone has the right to be wrong, even you and I! Actually it's a fallacy tat homosexuality does not cause harm

"In 1999, the Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that, "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

http://www.narth.com/docs/dean.html

Doesn't that constitute dangerous biological ramifications?

Scott said...

Eric,

I've noticed that the standard tactic when homosexuality is compared to other (by our standards) immoral acts is to protest that we are biasedly equating hurts-no-one homosexuality with hurts-someone crimes like murder, molest or rape.

That's why I usually avoid clearly harmful types of illegal activities, ad try to compare homosexuality to pornography, bestiality and (now that you've inspired me) necrophilia.

All are sexual, all are reviled even by most LGTs... But why? Can't the same freedom-of-choice arguments usually made for LGT be made for these unique personal sexual decisions? And no one gets hurt when it's all consensual.

Hedo's invoking necrophilia was a nice touch - bestiality can possibly be argued against in that animals can never truly give 'consent', but corpses aren't even living creatures anymore! And if all the corpse's relatives are dead too, who's to complain?

And I would have to point out that homosexuality is quite arguably an unnatural instinct with the MOST SERIOUS BIOLOGICAL RAMNIFICATIONS OF ALL - total extinction of the organism!

Homosexual preference in its pure form (no 'cheating' with members of the opposite sex) would lead to the organism not passing on its genes to the next generation, including those purportedly causing in-born homosexual preference.

Take the famous 'gay penguin couples' - if the keepers had not given them an abandoned egg to hatch, they would have no offspring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

Now note that the female chick grew up to partner with another female penguin. But remember that it has NONE of their genes of the homosexual male 'parents', not being their genetic offspring. How does this ramnify on the in-born/environment influence on sexuality?

(In light of the automatic accusations of homophobia and bigotry, this is my DISCLAIMER: I am not opposed to homosexual persons. I am merely pointing out certain examples in a manner-of-fact way.)

Scott said...

Pictorial presentation of potential biological ramnifications of homosexuality.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/heredity-chart-evolutionary-dead-end-of-pure-homosexual-preference/

Yuki said...

To Dave Chang:
Can you give another reference besides NARTH? Dr Joseph Nicolosi's credentials are highly questionable.

As for homosexuals creating problems with procreation, how about homosexuals balancing over procreation?
http://www.overpopulation.org/

Yuki said...

I would also appreciate it Eric, if you have a valid profile. If you are out to make the 'unfamiliar' familiar and the 'unnatural' natural, then stealth is not the way.

Dave Chang said...

Hi Yuki,

Thanks for the friendly tone of conversation we've been having so far... just for the record, and this may surprise u, I'm very open to civil unions of gay couples. But marriage, imho, is by definition between a male and female.

Regarding reference and credentials, I think we need to agree on what exactly constitutes
an 'authoritative source'.

For example, why should references frm NARTH automatically ruled out of court just bcos we dun like the results of their research? Is that motivated by objectivity or prejudice?

If only scientists who support homosexuality are the ones with 'unquestionable' credentials then our conclusions are already fixed even before we conduct an open minded inquiry :)

Dave said...

Oh ya, do check out the the Medical Institute of Sexual Health:
www.medinstitute.org/

Yuki said...

Actually NARTH's medical research IS really questionable. Maybe neutral sites like this would give you a clue:

http://www.publiceye.org/equality/x-gay/X-Gay-04.html

A look down this site here would confirm www.medinstitute.org/ is still under the Christian umbrealla wing. Look at 'Homosexuality' and 'Sexuality'.

http://www.afajournal.org/2006/june/0606web.html

In heaven, whether we are male or female would not matter, IMHO. Marriage should be the Christian God's will, not our will. Who are we to define how God wants to work in other people's lives. God's ways are higher than ours.

Yuki said...

This is my believe which I learnt recently; if we are to claim we are believers of Christ and having a personal relationship with God, we should not be swayed by an EXGAY RLM pastor or a GAY MCC pastor. What becomes of our personal relationship with God when it is affixed on sexual orientation?

We all have a differences. It is not good for one party to intrude into another's space and condemn. People will always want what validates their sense of self. How about we all just throw our senses to God and let Him decide for us?

Why should we let a gay pastor or an ex gay pastor to define God for us? A pastor is a pastor is a pastor belonging to a church (not exgay community church or gay community church), IT IS a church. We are supposed to be sheparded by them to seek God, not to seek change for gays or freedom for gays.

I am sure, since we are all sinners saved by grace, He would know best what to do with us; and He would want us to draw close to Him, not condemning each other for condemning each other.

We are sons and daughters of the Gospel of Christ Jesus, not sons and daughters of the Gospel of Homosexuality. What kind of light are we showing to the world by judging and condemning each other? Did we seek for ourselves the reasons why we are so judgemental?

Yuki said...

PS - This is why I resigned myself to being Christian identitified. Christians have been nothing but problems.

My stand is simple. I stand neutral. I would do my best to redress any imbalances caused by any side of the coin in terms of LGT issues. Hopefully, we meet at the halfway point. I hope the best.

Dave Chang said...

I'm not sure why only exgay research is deemed questionable, while those that have more progay conclusions are 'neutral' hehehe..

perhaps words like 'neutral' are actually biased and value-ladden as well.

Be it as it may, it's very easier to find correlation between diseases and homosexual practice.

For example, see also:
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/737-a

If we think 'progay' research is neutral, a reality check is needed here:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/militant.html

Amen, God's ways are higher than ours, and he does indeed work where we are. Some heterosexuals will need to struggle to overcome porno, and promiscuity... some homosexuals will need to find healing, and others remain celibate... for all, the pursuit of holiness and love is the direction... May we find grace and strength for that

Dave said...

it's a myth that we human beings can be a totally disinterested, 'neutral', blank sheet objective observer. We all come to an emotive issue like this with a given set of assumptions, personal history, upbringing, education so ingrained in us that i'm not sure if we cud ever be 'neutral' hehe... we can try to do mental experiments to step out for a while and look at things from other's perspective though :)

Not being christian identified, brings with it not neutrality, but the 'bias' of nonchristian identified perhaps... But i respect your choice at this time of ur spiritual journey.

Yes we should have a personal relationship with God, but it's not a private faith, like lone ranger.... we need others to walk with us as a community too. Our faith is too parochial if isolated
from others. Love presupposes the other...

it means creating space for others to correct us when we have our moral blind spots... and also, the grace and courage to help others when we see them falling off the cliff... of course doing so with love, not superiority complex like the pharisees...

perhaps such opening ourselves to be vulnerable to others correction and also being given the privilege to help others' journey of sanctification is a more fulfilling model of spirituality?

having said tat, i absolutely agree tat we are all sinners saved by grace, only god know best, and no man/pastor can take his place.

Yuki said...

I said:

"This is my believe which I learnt recently; if we are to claim we are believers of Christ and having a personal relationship with God, we should not be swayed by an EXGAY RLM pastor or a GAY MCC pastor. What becomes of our personal relationship with God when it is affixed on sexual orientation?"

Dave, you said:

"I'm not sure why only exgay research is deemed questionable, while those that have more progay conclusions are 'neutral' hehehe.."

I wonder if you had misread my comment. Personally, I do not find ANY comment from ANY EX-gay or PRO-gay sources a comfort for my reading.

For example:

http://www.psa91.com/dayofpentecost.htm

Notice statements like these:

***In year 2007, I believe that God is calling Gay Christians to humble themselves, to ask God for forgiveness on behalf of the Christian Community for their pride, arrogance, and prejudice against the Gay Community. Although, we are not the guilty party, the biblical witness and the Testimony of the Gospel of the Agape Love of God has been impacted. At the end, the Gay community sees the church as a whole, and we included as part of those who have banished and persecuted them.***

*forgiveness on behalf of the Christian Community for their pride, arrogance, and prejudice against the Gay Community.*

*Although we are not a guilty party*

I really do not get the accusations.

I really do not get why no one is 'guilty' here.

I really do not get labels.

I must express this, I am annoyed. There are already too much labels for gays already, like progay lar, exgay lar, gay christian lar... why we do not just stick to gay or not gay. If you are gay, fine. If you are not gay, fine. We are still humans. Why the overfixation on the word GAAAAAAAYYYYY. We are only human and life still have to go on.

Another thing that really irks me is why ex-gays and pro-gays love to come out and impose their thoughts on everyone. Ex-gays think they are so holy and pro-gays think they are so blessed. Can we stop this?

I do not find peace and love in existence in neither side. LOVE is supposed to be UNCONFITIONAL. NO more EX or PRO please. DO you see me call myself an EX-Christian? Or Pro-Christian? Or how about EX-EX-transsexual? Maybe Ex-Pro-Ex-transsexual? How does that sound.

Dividing and dividing people into little boxes are just so shallow. Sorry for expressing my frustration, but these two militant groups are just too much.

Dave said...

Yuki, u wrote multiple comments so it's helpful to note tat the portion of my comment quoted makes more sense as a response to ur earlier comment on: "Actually NARTH's medical research IS really questionable. Maybe neutral sites like this would give you a clue"

Hehehe... tat put things in context. I am sick and tired of militancy on both sides of the divide, and therefore, highly appreciative of the dialogue we have been having in this blog so far. We need to see beyond sexual orientation to the humanity behind the persons...yes indeed.

But I dun think labels are by definition wrong or oppressive. Even if we dun focus on words like 'gay' (some extremists wud prefer 'sad'), some other words/labels wud be conjured up for the sake of communication. i'm more troubled by abusive labels like fags and heterosexists, being used too liberally to mean different things in diff minds.

Yuki said...

Dear Dave, NARTH's sciences IS really questionable. I already did my research on this organization and its leader Dr Joseph Nicolosi.

I know I am very 'cheong hei', but what I said is always consistent.

**Actually NARTH's medical research IS really questionable. Maybe neutral sites like this would give you a clue**

**Personally, I do not find ANY comment from ANY EX-gay or PRO-gay sources a comfort for my reading.**

The one of the sites you presented 'http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/militant.html'is by NARTH.

As for sexual diseases, a good read into it itself would find it discriminating between gay men and lesbian women. The problem with it is when research is done to justify, instead of research for scientific benefits.

For example, you mentioned:

*Be it as it may, it's very easier to find correlation between diseases and homosexual practice.*

But do you realise the link to the research are about homosexual men and not homosexual women? And all the diseases mentioned are also applicable to heterosexuals? That is what condoms are for!

I am but an amateur researcher in this area of homosexuality; I may sound a bit 'pro-homo', that is because to maintain the balance of discussion, I have to be on the defensive for the LGTs; they are the ones always under prejudicial attack and having lies spread about them.

But I am still an independent party, choosing not to lean on any sides, but only researching and maintaining balance, education and humanity towards LGTs.

The same way I did my research on Metropolitan Community Church and decided not to be affiliated with them.

The same way I did my research on Real Love Ministry and found their level of misinformation and junk science incompetent, and counter voice their claims with the the correct information.

The same way I read the Elim Sactuary commentary, found it to be a ill representation LGTs, even went on to call Dr Tan anti-gay, even though he was on neutral ground; I did not post the commentary beside the video I posted in the end.

No groups or parties, I repeat no parties or groups should advertise themselves as 'having the only truth' or 'the bull change is possible' (RLM) or 'claiming everyone should be free to do whatever' or 'you are either with us or against us' (MCC).

MCC and RLM had forsaken the reality theory. Yes, I would admit with this sentence that I am scrutinizing them, because I know people get emotionally and psychologically hurt by them.

I shudder to think how many confused straights or insecure homosexuals will be continuously rattled by these groups.

On a lighter note, I dislike labels because most of the labels coming out these days are either politically, religiously or culturely motivated. As I said before, there are no ex or pro. A study on its history would uncover this.

Anyway, I am only but a guest here, but I am also thankful for the dialogue. Allow me to put one more comment. I am not too for or too against anyone. I am only here for those who are the collaterals.

We need to protect these people, who some of them are just teenagers, and some are untrained minds, to be further brain screwed to the point they become self imprisoned zombies.

Dave said...

Yukie, thanks for the balanced approach to things To claim NARTH's sciences IS questionable, you need to support that assertion with argument, not merely repeat those assertions hehe... They may be lousy in some areas, but the stats abt medical consequences of homosexual behaviour are repeated even in non-Narth sources. Check it out like the one i provided from 'neutral' sources hehe...

Here is a RE-POST:
http://www.ajtmh.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/737-a

How is showing medical consequences of a sexual behaviour not be counted "for scientific benefits"? hehe...

It's like if i show u stats that relates eating junk food with hypertension among males... ie 90% of males who take junk food regularly are more likely to suffer hyper tension. Then, you point out that the stats didn't include female junk food eaters... fair enuff, but how does that fact that the stats didn't include female junk eaters negate the fact that male junk food eaters are more likely to suffer medical consequences? :) It doesnt put that research in questionable light, simply means that it could have been expanded.

Also, pointing out that hypertension could also be caused by 'other behaviours' like eating fast food like McDonald's is interesting... but again, it doesn't dispute the fact surrounding eating junk food and hypertension, does it? But pointing out that eating junk food has *increased* risk to hypertension (compared to fastfood) is a valuable research and scientific benefit, doesnt it? :)

but thanks a lot for the humble admission that you are after all just an amateur researcher in this area of homosexuality; so we need to be open minded to the possibility that Narth is not so stupid after all hehee...

Let's be balanced in all things... neither mindlessly pro gay or mindlessly ex gay. If a research is questioned, there must be reasons given else it's just assertions without support.

Cheers!

Yuki said...

I said,

"And all the diseases mentioned are also applicable to heterosexuals? That is what condoms are for!"

Wah! You really give me a lot work to do!

I would point out once more that all the diseases mentioned are non discriminative towards any sexual orientation. To pinpoint orientation as the cause of sexual diseases are a bit far off indeed.

And as a woman, albeit transfemale, it gives me great pleasure to introduce you this site woman's health site:

http://www.epigee.org/guide/stds.html.

I would take a while to copy paste every single STD site there is, so do read this up front.

All sexual diseases that seemingly is projected to involve only MSM, actually applies to females as well.

But let us just SAY homosexual men are at at a higher risk case, it would still depend a lot on the kinds of sexual games people play.

To be blunt, a girl performing oral sex to a man may still infect her with gonorrhea, a common disease some sections of Christianity say is a gay disease, with reference to Gomorrah.

In the end... there are still condoms!

Yuki said...

And about NARTH:

http://www.usareligiousnews.com/newsArticle.php?ID=1202

http://www.counterbias.com/478.html

http://www.publiceye.org/equality/x-gay/X-Gay-04.html

Everything about NARTH is political, nothing else. In fact, because of the high failure rates of change, in desperation they went from independent 'reparative therapy' to religious 'transformational ministry'; they even J-Ved with JONAH, a jewish exgay therapy group by placing on of their founders in their office: Arthur A. Goldberg, J.D.

http://www.narth.com/menus/officers.html.

In fact, because they do not have even real poster boy to show 'gays can change', they have to find Michael Glatze, whose 'change' ala Edmund style has nothing to do with NARTH itself.

http://www.narth.com/docs/2007confsched_rev.pdf

NARTH had always been a homosexual change centre and never been religously connected to any organizations up to a few years ago.

Hope this is enough information for you. Cheers.

Yuki said...

Another thing about NARTH, just use the logic of the human mind. They are the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Of course they themselves would be highly esteemed to present their own junk science and non peer revieved 'research'. Without it, NARTH would be out of commission.

jemufo said...

like Yuki pointed out, hetero sex exposes people to the same STDs that gay sex does. in any case, the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it has these consequences, is a silly one. by your logic, lesbian sex is the way to go, because lesbian sex puts people at least risk of STDs. hetero sex is more risky than sex between two women.

(not that I have any problems with lesbian sex. :p)

Dave Chang said...

Jemufo,

I believe u have missed the point here. The silly argument was actually advanced by PRO-gay lifestyle folks that since it hurts nobody, then it's morally acceptable. But, from both NARTH and *Non-Narth* research, they do have medical consequences.

(yuki has only been content with adhominems against one organisation, without dealing substantially with their findings, nor interacting with others who also have similar findings)

Even you wud admit that lesbian sex has risk of STDs (albeit less risk)... so by the *criteria* of progay folks, this behavior should be morally objectionable :)

Center for disease control said...

Yuki, by your standards, does that mean we should also discount research done by organisations which are supportive of gay lifestyle? Since they are biased too, rite? :)

We can't have our cake and eat it as well.

Granted that some 'games' are more risky than others, would you classify the risky games as morally objectionable? Remember we are actually answering the original objection by Eric that a behaviour is only immoral if it causes harm.

I personally believe some things can be immoral even if they don't harm others, but for discussion sake, I wanna adopt his criteria, and apply it in this case.

Ok, since ur allergic to Narth, I won't defend them cause I dun need to hehe... how about "Centers for disease control and prevention"?

"In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM"

Click on the link above for more details

Dave

Yuki said...

"Yuki, by your standards, does that mean we should also discount research done by organisations which are supportive of gay lifestyle? Since they are biased too, rite? :)"

Yes, I am supportive of 'gay lifestyle' because I also went to join the 'gay lifestyle' that day when I went to One Utama Newway and sing some karaoke songs there with some lesbian friends.

I also am very supportive of the 'gay lifestyle' because we all went to church that day. After that we had a nice lunch and fellowship before going home.

They know I am having some problems, so some gays sms me regularly to make sure I am okay, and crack some nice jokes on the phone for me.

Yeah, the 'gay lifestyle' is beautiful and sincere indeed, especially in the world where most lifestyles are about money. :)

One more thing, they all wear condoms, and they are still till today, free from STI's. So 'harm' itself is already subjective. The harm is not in sexual orientation, but whether safe sex is practised or not.

"We can't have our cake and eat it as well.

Granted that some 'games' are more risky than others, would you classify the risky games as morally objectionable? Remember we are actually answering the original objection by Eric that a behaviour is only immoral if it causes harm."

Maybe you are unfamiliar with the word from the Malaysian Aid Council on HIV/AIDS programme. Under them there are various affiliations that go around educating people about the spread of deadly STIs.

Maybe I could bring you to Pertubuhan Wanita Dan Kesihatan one day and show you one of their shelters which houses abandoned and HIV/AIDS stricken women, all who got ill because of their irresponsible husbands.

Perhaps you could just refer to the recent statistics of HIV/AIDS infections in Malaysia?

"I personally believe some things can be immoral even if they don't harm others, but for discussion sake, I wanna adopt his criteria, and apply it in this case.

Ok, since ur allergic to Narth, I won't defend them cause I dun need to hehe... how about "Centers for disease control and prevention"?"

I am not allergic to NARTH, they are allergic by themselves till the point they cannot even defend themselves. Have you researched on them? Almost all the medical bodies in the US condemn NARTH for their misleading assertions about reparative therapy. Or are you really going to let your own personal opinions get in the way?

I am however having sinus infections everytime they go about their 'stuff' that resembles volcanic ashes. Because of them, people like you justify your beliefs as to small group of recently-Christian affiliated group that holds junk sciences, but still refuse to listen to the HUGE medical professional consensus about homosexuality.

Anyway, as you want to site below, perhaps you should have site one part of it you left out:

"In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM"

... especially those who are members of minority races/ethnicities"

A community worker that day requested me to find 20 MSM people for a survey to be conducted at University Malaya. Yet not one agreed to go on my side. I wonder why.

Maybe you have yet to understand what the term 'minority' means. It means they are pushed deep into their closets that there are only few ways of reaching out to them, to educate them. Likewise in the case of Christianity, it is 'misinformation' that breeds the ignorance to these people.

It is not about sexual behaviour. A sexual pattern that exists in homosexuals are equivalent to heterosexuals. Sexual action however can be construed as 'safe' or 'unsafe'. Ignorance to this fact breeds STI infections, not homosexuality.

If the argument still lingers on, on my original assertion, why do gonorhea (sounding Gomorrah) AFFECT WOMEN?

You see, to you, you go 'Oh... gays, anal sex... it sounds so gross, so DIRTY.... therefore it must be immoral, but you still till now totally discount the fact that heterosexuals commit anal sex too.

I plead for you to look carefully at the heterosexual anal sex before going to condemn gays. Like Jemufo said, does it mean it is more okay for lesbians to be lesbians?

Ignorance and discrimination kills, not sexual orientation.

Most of my friends who died of HIV/AIDS are heterosexuals. Are you going to accuse them being affiliated to 'homosexual behaviour'? God forbid.

That HARMS people.

Yuki said...

And Jemufo, this factsheet is for you... you girls are the shining light to the community just by existing to show that homosexuality has nothing to do with STI's. Your presence itself shows these both are two separate issues. Perhaps only we would understand. But still practise safe sex though, girl!

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

"To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). However, case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV and the well-documented risk of female-to-male transmission [1] indicate that vaginal secretions and menstrual blood are potentially infectious and that mucous membrane (for example, oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection.

Health care providers need to remember that sexual identity does not necessarily predict behavior and THAT SOME WOMEN WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS WSW OR LESBIAN MAY BE AT RISK FOR HIV INFECTION THROUGH UNPROTECTED SEX WITH MEN."

So my lesbians sisters, stay faithful to your partners. And do not attempt to be an ex-gay and sleep with men... kidding. If you really are ex-lesbian, perfectly heterosexual and engaged to your husbang, just remember to still wear a condom. Get your husband to go with you for a regular health checkup, especially one HIV/AIDS checkup before marrying each other.

Be fair and be square heterosexuals and ex-homosexuals!

Yuki said...

Dave, I have urged you again and again not to use the inexistent word 'pro-gay'. I repeat again, asking homosexuals to be treated as equal human beings is not being 'pro-gay'.

If you 'love' homosexuals, would you assert your heterosexual superiority as having the opportunities like marriage and employment, and deny homosexuals the same benefits? Are you not even MORE pro-straight? Who holds the major bias then?

And I also asked you again not to use the word 'lifestyle', but I guess your mind is already controlled by the doctrines of the church that call homosexuals inexistent, that it is just wounded heterosexuality. And no one is going to change your mind, And you would still talk to your church members, straight friends and 'ex-gays' about homosexuals to be further 'edified' by the information they give you.

If you want to know a girl, you go and talk to a girl. If you are questioning about girls, you do not go to your football team members, guy pals and 'ex-girls'. If you do so, you will never know what a girl is. And as it is obvious here, you will never know a true homosexual. And still would choose to continuously talk about them, without them.

And about NARTH, look, if you are so confident with their junk science and anti-gay 'love' so be it. If you wish to cite their twisted as 'true sciences' it is your problem if you associate yourself with them.

Heck, so many members of NARTH already left because they wish to disassociate themselves, they would sure need new supporters like you. Go ahead, be my guest. I am sure you would not regret parroting their rubbish for the sake of defending the 'oh homosexuals is ya know, so darn immoral' argument; because that is the ONLY so-called medical body with only 1,000 members in the US to cite anti-gay rethorics, the rest of the current major medical consensus held by 477,000 members from several major medical and health professional bodies in the US are already rejected by you. Go ahead and support the narrow, since it makes you happy.

Guess I am already numb to shallow people that is not looking beyond their 180 degree eyesight. By the way, FYI no heterosexual gene was ever concretely discovered too. Can I argue your existence and why heterosexuals always divorce at a rate twice the amount of homosexuals then? Or should you deserve employment? Or worse, since there is no scientific basis for heterosexuality, should you 'change' then? There is always 'hope' for heterosexuals ya know, if you are STRAIGHT BUT NOT HAPPY?

Take care, my pro-straight lifestyle friend. : )

Dave said...

Hi Yuki

I thot u may like to see this article from REAL scientists at the Economist :)

"Every war has its propagandists and the money was for a decent cause. So a little forgiveness may be in order. But the second charge, concerning prevention, is harder to excuse. It has been known for years that HIV is hard to pass on during normal heterosexual intercourse. Only one copulation in 500-1,000 with an infected individual will do so. The risk comes with certain behaviour (anal intercourse, which risks tearing the lining of the gut; and injecting drugs using dirty needles), certain professions (prostitutes of both sexes) and certain ways of life (multiple, simultaneous lovers, rather than serial polygamy). Aiming propaganda at heterosexual teenagers is (outside the special case of Africa) a waste of money. It is, however, often an easier course than tackling drugs, whores and buggery, which many politicians would prefer to pretend have no place in their countries."

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11487365

Friend of PTF said...

this is a worrying trend indeed
its not just in malaysia but worldwide figures seem to indicate that the rate of infection for hiv among MSM (men who have sex with men) has been on the uptrend in developed and developing countries DESPITE a fall in the rate of hiv infection in general.

this can be attributed to
1. a false sense of security from advances in medication that can slow the advance of HIV... people simply have forgotten that there is still NO cure

2. high risk behaviour including "chem sex" "by MSM esp amongst the younger age group who are blissfully ignorant of the terrrible scourge that AIDS was in the 80's.

PT offers anoynomous HIV screening every tuesday evening and saturday afternoon.

http://www.ptfmalaysia.org/hiv- screening.htm

Anorak said...

Dear David, I think 'homophobic' is no more emotive than, say, 'immoral'.

David said...

Hello Anorak,

Yes these words do evoke strong emotions just as words like 'corrupt', 'unfair' etc that many Msians often use to describe certain politicians. But they are not merely emotive words since they do depict reality. We may see things differently but the article tries to give reasons for moral objection against homosexuality so it's not based on irrational fear. Whether it's immoral or not depends on how we evaluate those reasons. A fairer and brighter Msia for all!