Sep 13, 10
Society's ignorance of homosexuality or gay people is not limited to ordinary citizens as and writers as
How could we, gay people, impose our lifestyle on anyone? We never seek to convert or recruit anyone. Homosexuality, is just like heterosexuality, it is a sexual orientation, we do not choose to be gay or straight, and we cannot change. Disturbingly, a lot of people, either based on ideological or religious zeal, condemn gay people and coerce us to change, or encourage us to lie about who we are, or deny our rights to live our lives authentically like every heterosexual. They are the ones who impose heterosexuality on us, not vice versa.
I believe homophobia, perhaps, is the last acceptable prejudice. Otherwise how could our effort to urge people to not discriminate against gay people be interpreted as imposing a gay lifestyle on others? Can you imagine anyone who urges people not to discriminate against women, or Chinese and Indians in Malaysia in our case, be understood and opposed as 'imposing' a certain lifestyle on others?
Oh asks 'Gays only talk of gay rights but what about non-gay rights to not accept gay agendas?' Because homophobia is an acceptable prejudice, I can imagine his question sounds reasonable to many people. But, can you imagine some people asking 'you guys only talk about minority rights but what about our rights not to accept your agenda and continue to be sexists or racists?'
I do not agree and believe that since we gay people (or LGBT) may disagree with some churches, or most churches in Malaysia, including the Catholic Church, that we have to create our own religion. The Church or most churches in the past refused to ordain women pastors, so women or those non-sexist men should have left the church and created a new religion? What about Christians that disagreed with most churches and the Catholic Church that supported slavery and were against the abolition of slavery vehemently in the past? Should they have had to create a new religion too?
To argue that anyone who disagrees with what the Church believes or what most churches teach, needs to leave and create a new religion is being ignorant of the history of Christianity and they wrongly believe that Christianity or Christian churches never change.
Oh is trying very hard to argue against homosexuality by not appealing to his religious beliefs in the article. His effort is applauded but his arguments are nonetheless speciously convincing. For instance, I can't agree more with him that Aids is harmful, but so are all sexually transmitted diseases. Do we condemn heterosexuality because most STD patients are heterosexuals?
He asks 'What will happen to the human race when everyone is gay or lesbian? Where will children come from?' Does he condemn the Catholic priesthood and ask 'What will happen to the human race if everyone is a priest? Where will children come from?'
We merely ask society to not discriminate against gay people, just like feminists and good men have urged the society to respect women. How could this have been twisted into making everyone a woman, or everyone gay in this case?
He asks 'If homosexuality is harmless why are the major religions like Christianity and Islam against it?' I am not an Islamic scholar, so I shall not pretend to be one or seek to answer this question on behalf of my Muslim brothers and sisters. As a Christian, I just want to point out that not every Christian church is against homosexuality, even though perhaps it is true in the context of Malaysia that most Christian churches are against homosexuality.
Thus it is wrong to say that Christianity is against homosexuality. There are a lot of Christian fundamentalists and churches in the US that deem the Islamic religion as an evil religion, but do not think Oh would agree with them and say that Christianity sees Islam as an evil religion.
Talking about the decay of traditional family values, I do not know which tradition he is talking about. Because according to many traditions, marriage was never about love, and marriage was not about an union between a man and a woman, but a man and as many women as he could afford. So, which traditional value is he upholding? Are all traditional family values good?
I am not surprised a lot of people still compare homosexuality to bestiality and paedophilia. It is simply outrageous, because they have no correlation to each other in any way. However, interestingly enough, many Americans in the past had said interracial marriage led to bestiality, and now some people use the same argument against gay marriage. Perhaps we could learn something from history.
I am appalled when I read what Oh wrote: 'No one is going to convince me that homo-sodomy is okay when science tells you that the anus is not meant for sex.' Has he forgotten that he just said in the same article that 'No one cares what couples do in their bedrooms but they have to bring it up in the public and demand acceptance.'
First, if you don't care, why bring it up later? Second, who are 'they' that bring it up in public what they do in their bedrooms? Third, who are those scientists that tell you the anus is not meant for sex and anal sex is morally wrong or clinically wrong? Fourth, there are straight couples who love anal sex, do you condemn heterosexuality because of what they do in their bedrooms or elsewhere? There are many gay couples, especially lesbians that do not have anal sex, are you ready to say without having anal sex, homosexuality is okay?
Regarding the arguments of gender roles and manhood, this is too trivial for me to refute. I better stop here lest I insult the intelligence of the readers.
However, Oh, as much as I disagree with him on other issues mentioned above, is at least right on this: 'The body of evidence worldwide provides proves the militant gay agenda has split communities and societies more than any other civic group in recent times.'
But, my question is, who should be blamed? Some societies and most churches were divided on the issue of slavery; in Malaysia, people are divided by the emergence of Pakatan Rakyat. So whose fault is it when society is divided?
Last but not least, I will never impose my religious beliefs or my interpretations of the Bible on anyone. As a Christian pastor, I merely share the most recent and not-so-recent scholarships in biblical studies with my Christian siblings and argue for homosexuality. I have never urged the government to close down any church that believes homosexuality is a sin or that people who believe so should be criminalised. So who is imposing his or her religious beliefs on whom?Henry Hock Guan Teh A health conscience daughter pestered her drug addict mom to only eat vegetables and give up heroin. Her mom scolded her "I did not impose my lifestyle on you and you don't impose your lifestyle on me". The daughter said, "I am just encouraging you to eat vegetables". Grandson came in and requested her mom whether he can take heroin and be like his grandma. The addict grandma interrupted, "Now, don't you impose your view on your son ...... he is always welcome to join me". Hmmmm .... I always wonder to what extent a sharing of thought or a discouragement or a role model from a pastor could be calculated as an "imposition"? When a person say "You cannot impose your view on others, isn't it that person is also imposing his view i.e. the view that "You cannot impose your view on others"? Likewise, when that addict grandma do not impose her view but setting a bad example and say it is OK ... isn't it indirectly encouraging such habits and therefore she should be severely admonished?