the comment made about relating homosexuality to the animal kingdom is perhaps to illustrate the point that it's natural. much research in gender studies and psychology have done so, but there hasn't been a concrete evidence that homosexuality is entirely the work of nature or nurtured in the course of life.

i'm not always a freud follower, but on homosexuality, i choose to believe that people are born bisexual. it is through environment (nurture) and nature (genes) that our sexual identity and preference is moulded. even dr alfred kinsey himself believes that the number of homosexuals is actually much higher than stated by most research and experiments as there are a number of people that actually closets who have gotten married out of obligations and also because the population is made up of largely heterosexual people.

i wish i could illustrate more on the point of how homophobia really isn't much different from racism, but i haven't been attending my gender class regularly so i shall keep my mouth shut

so fault me for sitting on the fence.

There is an earlier comment by Anonymous Coward* that compares homosexuality in humans with the animal kingdom.

If that is the case, then why not consider coprophagia, or the consumption of feces? Would you consider this behavior normal among humans? Or would you classify coprophagia as a mental illness?

And how about cannibalism? Is that normal too? Some animals has been known to eat its young. If you see this sort of behavior in humans, would you encourage it or would you see it as extremely deviant behavior that must be clinically treated?

Currently, no research shows that coprophagia or cannibalism is a result of genetic influence, while homosexuality has been found to be linked to a person's genetic makeup, however not concluded.

At the rate of modern science advancement, we will very soon find out if homosexuality was indeed caused by genetic differences. Therefore, at this moment, a call for the halt of homophobia is very much needed as no one can say homosexuality is wrong or immoral, when no research can prove that homosexuality is a kind of mental illness.

About cannibalism, it has been classified as a mental illness. Though the classification may be controversial, but appropriate. Just imagine, if a person were to go around killing people to eat, should he/she be stopped? There have been successful cases of recovery from this "mental illness" that reportedly claim that after medication and counselling, there are no more urges for reverting back into a cannibal.

In ex-gay ministries, gay counselling organisations, many people have reported that they still carry sexual urges towards the same sex. But they either claim that they only have 1% of the urges they used to have in the past, or tried to suppress the urges they face. They still carry homosexual traits after counselling and self-motivated "changing".

I am not trying to prove anything, but that was the facts reported. I believe you can quote a million different "mental illnesses" and claim that they are "natural", but, I have to say, no one is to be blamed until the truth comes to light.

In ex-gay ministries, gay counselling organisations, many people have reported that they still carry sexual urges towards the same sex. But they either claim that they only have 1% of the urges they used to have in the past, or tried to suppress the urges they face. They still carry homosexual traits after counselling and self-motivated "changing".

In the movie A Beautiful Mind, John Nash suppresses his schizophrenic hallucinations even after treatment. He was not curable. Do we regard his uncurable schizophrenic condition as normal behavior? Of course not.

Yeah, but if you want to insist that homosexuality does not have a genetic basis, you'd have to show that all of them are "nurture" homosexuals. My feeling is that there are some who are "nature" and some who are "nurture".

Now just because we can show that some homosexuals are not genetically predisposed towards homosexuality (but for all you know they might be bi -> hetero), it doesn't prove that all of them are "nurture" homosexuals.

Also, it could be possible that homosexuality is "nurture", but once you start being one, it's irreversible. For example, if you are a heroin addict, and you never kick the habit, does it mean that you were born with an opiate addiction?

You should judge an act by its consequences, rather than your own biased notions of what should be right and what should be wrong. Elsewhere in this thread I brought up the harm criterion of morality - if you want to call something immoral, give a concrete example of its being harmful first.

Coprophagia is a time honoured method of population control. It ensures the survival of a population. Therefore under certain circumstances it's a good thing. Cannibalism is distasteful and people are probably biologically adverse to it. But when you're hungry and you got nothing else to eat, anything goes. I'd say saving your life is moral.

Sometimes I even wonder if we should be criticising homophobia at all. Perhaps homophobia is a evolutionary product that forces most people to want to hump the opposite sex so that mankind may continue. But homophobia is damaging to human life and I think it's bad.

One of the factors behind some ppls' aversion to being compared to animals is that arrogant assumption that we are really special and apart from them, that what we know about them can never be applied to humans. We need to be careful of this.

I am not arguing against the case of homosexuality by appealing to morality, but rather looking at it as a deviant behavior that is caused by a mental illness. If you see a human being exhibiting signs of coprophagia or cannibalism, you would think that the person is sick in the mind.

If you want to use homosexuality in animals for judging homosexuality in humans, then why not add in coprophagia and cannibalism also? Going by this argument, we should be treating feces-eating and fetus-eating as normal human behavior.

Let's even coin up new terms like "shitophobia" and "cannophobia" to demonize those who oppose these behaviors. Let's set up food courts and eating outlets to cater to these marginalized people who love to indulge in these deviant fetishes like feces-eating and fetus-eating.

Actually I understand why people tend to be homophobic.

Homophobia aside, there are people that look down on the handicapped, blind, deaf, or whatever "mental illness" they have. These people, belongs to the minority.

Do we poke fun on people that have 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 limbs, 2 legs, and etc? No. Do you even think those people are even worthy of mention (not necessary make fun) of why they had 2 eyes, 1 mouth, 2 ears? No.

So I see, people tend to aim at the minority to poke fun.

In a person's mind (heterosexual), when homosexuality is mentioned, the mental thinking goes in the following order (most of the people, I believe):

1) I am a heterosexual.
2) Heterosexuals are normal.
3) Most of my friends are heterosexual.
4) Heterosexuality is prevalent.
5) Why are there homosexuals?
6) Are they sick?
7) Mentally ill?

Most people (I believe) stops at this point, not wishing to go any further, with pictures of effeminate men in mind. They normally feel disgusted.

I felt most people judge using self, prevalence, and "majority's opinion".

In a conversation between 4 straight men, the topic suddenly switches to homosexuality. One of the men, had a lesbian best friend. 3 other men began to make fun about homosexuality. The fourth guy, feeling left out, and deeply afraid of being mistaken as gay, joins in the homophobic conversation.

While the above scenario could not possibly portray a real life story, most of the time it happens that way.

What I don't understand, was that why was self, prevalence, and peer pressure the cause of homophobia?

I believe that those people carrying homophobia that tend to be more vocal, usually do not think deeper into the matter. Rather, they tried to find sources that can counter what they believe in, rather than understanding a possibly homosexual defending over his/her sexuality. They usually do not think in a homosexual's viewpoint, on how they feel towards the words fired at them.

I believe some "homophobic" people do look into this matter seriously. What I want to say is that, for people that are going against homosexuality, think through it twice, examine yourself to see if you have put yourselves in their shoes. Only then, you are qualified and more equipped in defending what you believe in.

I don't believe I can suppress homophobia if I go into debates. Debating is just like fighting a war, or possibly, an argument. Anyone would know that arguing is the lowest form of communication. You think you are right, he think he's right. No conclusion will be reached, and every word said will be rendered to the opposing side as a whole load of blabber.

Only in peaceful ways, can homosexuals like you and me suppress homophobia.

There IS a stigma attached against those who poke fun at the mentally ill and the disabled. If you genuinely believe that homosexuality is like mental illness one would have expected a more sympathetic response from you.

And you forget, that in animals, cannibalism and coprophagia (and for that matter homosexuality) are animal behaviour that takes place under special circumstances and they do not constitute "normal animal behaviour". Any act has to be judged under its own circumstances.

But the question you have left unanswered is: what's the big deal about an action that does not (unlike cannibalism, mental illness, shit eating and coprophagia) cause any harm?

On the contrary, I sincerely believe that people who are mentally ill absolutely need to be treated. I do feel a sense of sympathy towards them. However, I do recognize that they cannot be treated as "normal" people.

My intention is not to poke fun at the mentally ill. My purpose in bringing up mental illnesses like coprophagia and cannibalism is to debunk arguments that compare homosexuality to the behaviors in the animal kingdom.

Don't get me wrong. I am not "homophobic" in a sense that I would discriminate them in society. For instance, if a homosexual politician is able to demonstrate better competence at governing than his heterosexual political rival, I would vote for him in an instant. As long as his homosexual orientation does not impair his ability to perform his job, I see no reason to discriminate against him.

Yeah, but if you're not going to vote against them, or deny them a job, just what is it about the way you're going to treat them, that's "abnormal"?

As a Christian, I would regard homosexuality as a sin. And I will preach homosexuality as a sin according to the Bible. And at the same time, I recognize that there are many other sins besides homosexuality. In today's society, it seems that many Christians are giving too much undue emphasis to homosexuality, while ignoring many other sins.

The Bible state that "neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. " (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Is the church made up of people who are sinless? Of course not. Every one of us are sinners. Should we welcome adulterers, homosexuals, thieves and drunkards into the church? Of course we should. Should we pretend to ignore their sins? No, we should not.

Yeah, but you were just saying that your objections are not of the moral sort, so how can homosexuality be a sin?

Anyway I don't think the emphasis Christians give to homosexuality is undue. If you get turned into a pillar of salt just by looking at Sodom and Gomorrah, I'd think that it's a pretty severe thing. Then again you want to impose an extremely harsh punishment on homosexuality, because in reality, it's very hard to justify punishing people just because they are homosexuals.

I believe you are mistaken about I am saying. Even though I view homosexuality as a mental illness, it does not mean that homosexual urges are not sinful. For example, a schizophrenic may experience delusions of wanting to kill people. His homicidal urges are sinful according to the Bible.

Anyway I don't think the emphasis Christians give to homosexuality is undue.

What is the greatest commandment in the Bible? It is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37) And what is the greatest sin? The greatest sin is to break the greatest commandment. Can every one of us honestly say that not a single day goes by when we do not commit the greatest sin?

That is why the Bible says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) We can only approach God on the basis of His grace, not our good works.

If you get turned into a pillar of salt just by looking at Sodom and Gomorrah, I'd think that it's a pretty severe thing.

So are you saying that if me, as a gay Christian, failed to change out of my "homosexual urges", even if I am committed Christian all my life, am bound for hell?

Come on man. Stop quoting from Leviticus the verse that says a man should not spill his seeds on another man. If everyone were to follow everything commanded in Leviticus, eating chickens and ducks and seafood are sinful.

Another thing to note that the verse only mentioned "men", and not women. It's very debative. It's not even clear if "men" is refering to the human race or male as a gender. Does it mean "lesbianism" (I totally hate this word) are not sinful if it meant the latter?

You still eat those food right (seafood, etc)? So, take the Bible as a whole. Stop quoting from places you feel it's correct, and ignore others that you feel irrelevant in present times.

Jesus didn't even speak about homosexuality during his earthly ministry. He came to forgive sins, not command his disciples to "change" homosexuals straight.

Alright, let's see the Bible verses I am talking about.

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

As mentioned earlier, people, even Christians, eat seafood. The things commanded in Leviticus, Jesus had already took them up the cross.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

All of this refers to idolatrous religious practices that were common in the time of Paul.

Paul often expressed himself in a way that is difficult to translate. Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians, divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on. Paul is often difficult and confusing to understand.

I Corinthians 6:9: "The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

The Greek words translated "effeminate" and "homosexual" do not mean effeminate or homosexual!

I Timothy 1:9-10: "Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."

The English word "homosexual" is a composite word made from a Greek term (homo, "the same") and a Latin term (sexualis , "sex"). The term "homosexual" is of modern origin and was not used until about 100 years ago. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual." No Bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any Bible translation.

The word translated as "homosexual" or "sexual pervert" or some other similar term is Greek arsenokoites, which was formed from two words meaning "male" and "bed". This word is not found anywhere else in the Bible and has not been found anywhere in the contemporary Greek of Paul's time. We do not know what it means. The word is obscure and uncertain. It probably refers to male prostitutes with female customers, which was a common practice in the Roman world, as revealed in the excavations at Pompeii and other sites.

**Many references have been made to the following website: http://truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html, and I only highlighted the more important points.**

To end off, I'll leave this verse with you.

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." (Jesus in John 8:32)

pssst... thayer's is no longer the definitive reference since ages ago. try the BDAG, if u know what i'm talking about ;)

Ah so Sodom and Gomorrah were destoryed for?

It is also interesting to note that you insist the word homosexual is wrongfully translated. The scholars who did the translations must have a hidden agenda when they translated a word they don't know to "homosexual". Is it reasonable to argue that whoever did the translations knew enough from the context and the background to translate the word into homosexual?

Or what about Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their lust for riches, sex, and perhaps fame.

Note that nothing about homosexuality is mentioned in that story.

I find arguments that claim God destroyed these two cities using homosexuality as one of the reasons, very shallow. The Bible must be able to prove it, but it did not.

Therefore should people always take in what their ministers preach? I think not. What's most important is that you ponder about what was taught, rather than just following your ministers straight.

Have you ever read the story? The angels were in the city and the Sodomites demanded Lot to hand them them over so they can have their ways with him. Lot offered his two daughters instead.

"And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally." - Genesis 19:5, emphasis added.

If that is not what you call homosexuality, I don't know what is. It's funny that you "selectively" believe parts of the Bible and twist the rest fit your belief. Yet you tell me to think for myself. Ironic.

It's good that you are a supposedly Christian because it means you believe in the final judgement. You can choose to interprete the Bible however you want, let's just wait and see who is right in the end.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Think deeper, if they are really homosexuals, why would Lot offer them his daughters?

I'm sure Lot isn't that stupid to offer his daughters when these men only had desires over a man.

In fact, I don't even think in actual Greek that translates "carnally".

Don't try to twist it again. They said bring out the man so that we can know them. "Know" has been used as an euphemism for sexual acts, as in "Someone knew his wife". The word carnally is added to avoid confusion between screwing and getting to know a person. It's obvious they don't want to know the angels, they just want to screw them.

Now the men of Sodom clearly wanted to screw the angels. Lot tried to placate their lust by offering them his daughters though they refused and insisted on screwing the angels.

19:9 "...now we will deal worse with you than them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door."

In short, they are saying "We don't want your daughters, but we want those good looking men in your house."

Think deeper, if they are really not homosexuals, why don't they just take Lot's virgin daughters?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

If I ever meet this guy on the streets, I would quote him "Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded," and scolds him retarded.

It takes someone with a bigger head to think properly I presume?

That's so totally relavant to the biblical discussion.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Yeah, but I thought we were talking about homosexuality here?

He's Seth. I'm Vader. =D

I can't believe I chose a better photo for you. Well, since you like to say so much, I'm sure you will want to be famous.

Hope I still see you alive on January?

But he looks like a reasonable guy!

Can't be him.

I don't think you'd be murdered by homosexuals.

I've met a few of them and they seem like quite peaceful people.

Their motto is "make love not war". Bwah hwah hwah....

You know what? On the other hand there was once this Christian extremist that went inside a gay bar in USA and shot people. Many were dead. This caused a sensation in US and gay activists protested against such acts. He did not confess he was wrong and only said he was "doing the will of God".

Another story was about this american gay teenager that was abused to death by a group of homophobics. They tricked him that they are gay, drove him in his car and took him to somewhere cold and deserted. He was stripped barenaked and left to freeze in the cold weather. Bruises are said to be found on his body. This too kicked up a big anti-gayhate sensation in the US.

Proves anything? You decide.

Yeah, I've heard of Matthew Sheppard before.

But this doesn't show that homosexuals are violent, only homophobes. Sometimes I wonder if the fear of homosexuals is connected to the fear of rape.

We should actually start discussing whether homophobia is a natural phenomenon that can be "cured".

By the way I think you really should have taken my primary picture from Friendster instead, it's more appropriate in this case.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

I wonder if he posted that himself?

A simpler way is to just decide for yourself what's right or wrong depending upon the harm principle. That way you don't have to argue all day over some antiquated 2000 year old text until the cows come home.

I have been a Christian before, and the reason I left was that I am saddened by the way people look at homosexuals.

"Sodomites", was a common name heard about us.

The "Adam and Steve" joke. Generally heterosexuals in the church are not aware on how potentially hurting the joke is.

I believe that many Christians would prefer to hold on to what you believe the Bible teach. Many Christians too, are very willing to hear sermons from your ministers and pastors, but, please give some time to this website.

http://truluck.com/

I believe may fervent Christians would reject this site on the first look, but, trust me, trust God, this website may open up your horizons a little.

It's ok if you do not wish to accept. I hold no offense against that.

God bless you.

Actually I'm impressed that this topic took off so far to generate so much comments and debate. This means that people actually cared about this matter, which was a good sign.

Seth - there are a number of flaws in your argument. Firstly, your homophobia is rooted in purely emotions, instilled in you by a heterosexist society. I am not seeing any logical arguments to why homosexuality is "wrong". And what exactly, can be considered "wrong"? Perspectives are different. To fundamentalist muslims, letting a woman work is a deadly sin (in some interpretations of the Quran). Who in Singapore would subscribe to such beliefs? To a Hindu, and some Chinese, eating beef is wrong. Does that mean Christians and Muslims should stop eating beef just because someone else thinks it is "wrong"?

Your point about paedophiles - they may be born that way, or they might not be. But I don't quite care, because either way, they are hurting children. You cannot compare this to consensual adult sex, straight or gay. Homosexual people do not hurt anyone by existing: but violent people (maybe born that way), and paedophiles do. That is the fundamental difference that people forget.

To me, the whole debate is only about one thing: basic civil rights. For your information, almost every human rights organisation in this world has gay rights somewhere on their agenda if the area they work in already does not have them. Amnesty International has released several reports on this, calling for equal rights, along with their calls for releasing political prisoners and empowering women. The UN also supports gay rights. Giving us equal rights does not infringe, in any way, on the rights of heterosexual people. So what's your problem?

I believe that homosexuality is acceptable but inferior to heterosexual relationships.

sieteocho, I'd like to ask you this question: which would you rather have, a loving lesbian couple with their two children on whom they lavish love and care, or the heterosexual family where the father has been raping his own daughter since she was six, and the mother turns a blind eye? Please do not make such sweeping statements. [both situations quoted here are real-life stories]

heterosexual paedophiles abound too

Fair enough. I change that comment to: "I believe that homosexuality is acceptable but everything else being equal, it is inferior to heterosexual relationships."

Happy now?

Like you mentioned what is wrong is often perceived differently by different individuals.

Now, let's go through this. Why is hurting children wrong? Or for that matter, why is hurting anybody wrong? Why should we follow the golden rule? Is it because we are taught so? Then where did the original value come from?

The very concept of right and wrong is innate.

Homosexuality is wrong to be as murder is wrong to me. Both are innate feelings. You are free to practice otherwise but that doesn't stop people from thinking that you are wrong. And as I have said, I don't mind anyone continuing in their ways because certain differences were never be reconciled. I am perfectly fine with that. Eventually we will know who is right and who is wrong.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Ooh, the irony is that for someone who proclaims to believe in absolutes, you are actually advocating relativism.

If the very concept of right and wrong is innate, then surely that means that right and wrong cannot be distilled down to objective absolutes, but rather are subjective values that can never be reconciled between different individuals and cultures.

By your logic, that also means that paedophiles and murderers are also perfectly justified in doing what they do, as long as they innately believe that what they do is moral, no?

- Wannabe Lawyer

Yes, morals are subjective values. However logic dictates that only one set of morals is right.

By my logic, paedophiles and murderers can try to self-justify their acts with their own twisted sense of morals yet be wrong when compared to the set of right morals.

A standard exists but it is neither yours nor mine.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

The irony is that cock think's he's making sense... duh... which part of Logic 101 does he not get... oh wait, he probably never took that class... woowee...

- Wannabe Lawyer

You know I have been trying hard to keep the discussion civil and well mannered but you just have to barge in with your random snipes.

"that cock"? How old are you exactly? I mean mentally, not biologically.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

I have a proposal. Since you think that I am illogical regardless of whatever I say and that I am a "cock", just ignore whatever I have to say from now on and let me talk to those that are interested k?

Deal?

Then again that doesn't really matter because I have decided to generally ignore you from now on. But hey, feel free to do the same.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Chinese Society More Tolerant of Homosexuality

The Chinese Psychiatric Association decided that being gay is no longer a disease in the third edition of its new diagnostic guidelines published on April 20th this year.

This landmark event - and the subsequent attention given to homosexuality in all kinds of media in which experts discussed the decision as progress that brings China in line with most western nations, which do not consider being gay an illness - has helped Chinese to rethink the specific social phenomenon of homosexuality.

"Just several years ago, I thought homosexuals were something far away. Now, they are coming out, and they are around us," said Wang Li, a magazine editor. "Today, I am not shocked on hearing that one of our acquaintances is a homosexual."

Research shows that same-sex love has existed in almost every culture – even in animals – dating back to the very beginnings of history. However, it is still not an easy job for mainstream Chinese society to understand.

Historically, the social prohibitions in China that have surrounded homosexuality have been repressive and almost universal. Though there are no laws against homosexuality in China, Chinese gay life has existed solely underground for years in a conservative country that now faces an historic reversal of long-standing social policy. Since it was a traditional obligation in China to bring offspring to the family, homosexuality was considered a threat not only to families but also to the society.

"Homosexuality used to be called a perversion," recalled one source who asked to remain anonymous.

Being a minority sexual group, Chinese homosexuals have had to remain isolated for fear of being punished. They have had to hide their emotions; meanwhile having to behave like others. For many, that has proved a psychological barrier. However, the past ten years have seen changes, and the psychiatric association’s decision removes a final official barrier to tolerance for gays and lesbians in China.

The change reflects an about-face in China: In 1994, the Chinese Psychiatric Association published a handbook stating its strong opposition to the World Health Organization’s call for accepting homosexuality. But in 1997 the Chinese government eliminated the criminal category of "hooliganism." Thus China followed a similar path to that of the United States: The American Psychiatric Association "depathologized" homosexuality in 1973; however, it wasn’t until 1986 that the APA removed all reservations about sexual orientation.

Prof. Liu Dalin, a well-known sociologist from Shanghai University, said: "The general public’s understanding towards homosexuality can be divided into three stages: in the first stage homosexuals are sinful; in the second stage homosexuals are sick; in the third stage, homosexuals are normal. Now China is in somewhere between stage one and stage two."

According to an Internet survey in 2000, the tolerance level of Chinese people towards homosexuality has already improved a lot. The following are the figures:

Among the 10,792 surveyed, 48.15 percent (5196) were in favor, 30.9 percent (3247) were against, 14.46 percent (1560) were undecided, and 7.26 percent (783) were indifferent.

Chinese society has become more tolerant.

"Homosexuality is as common in China as in other countries," an official at the American Embassy to Beijing said in 1996.

Back in the early 1990s, Prof. Liu Dalin conducted a sexual survey in 28 cities of 15 provinces in which the results turned out to be alarming to many in society: Among 20,000 selected interviewees, 0.5 percent of married urban residents, 2.3 percent of married rural residents, and 7.5 percent of college students were homosexuals.

The explosion of new wealth created by the liberalized economic policies of the last 20 years have given ordinary city-dwelling Chinese a measure of personal freedom without precedent in their history.

According to one study, Chinese homosexuals have already reached something between 360,000 and 480,000, the majority male.

So far, there are no open areas for Chinese "tongzhi," the slang for homosexual in China, but some bars and nightclubs have irregular parties. Most Chinese homosexuals have to have their social life on the streets, such as crossroads, washing rooms, parks, gardens and public shower centers.

"While life was becoming easier for gay Chinese, the gay community in China would likely remain unorganized," according to an article in the New York Times.

Though it is difficult for the outsiders to tell whether one is a homosexual or not, it is easy for homosexuals themselves, according to several interviews with homosexuals conducted by the author.

"Only a look is OK."

Now there is a national gay hotline as well as several social groups, including a lesbian organization called Beijing Sisters, according to some sources.

Also helping gays in China is the spread of the Internet. It is estimated that there are hundreds of web sites for gay Chinese.

The Times article noted that, as in the West, gay men and women flock to the big cities from smaller towns and villages for a deeper sense of belonging and community.

While many gay Chinese still consider their sexual orientation an affliction or malady like so many around the world, the younger generation are brave.

A senior student of Beijing Language and Culture University openly declared to his dormitory mates "I am gay. Why should I hide? I am no different from others."

But there is still a long way to go for Chinese gays and lesbians.

(Edited and translated by Zheng Guihong for china.org.cn according to reports on chinanews.com.cn October 31, 2001)

Source: http://www.china.org.cn/english/2001/Oct/21394.htm

I think this argument about point 1 point 2 and all the "name calling" is getting stupid. It really drives us no where.

I'll like to say that being gay isn't a personal choice. Anyone can say that "men going after men" or "women going after women" is perverted. If they choose to view it that way, it's totally fine with me.

Before I even know I'm gay, I was about 12 years old (I think) when I heard about Canada legalising gay marriages. I was terribly shocked. As I thought I am a heterosexual, I thought the legalisation of gay marriages was so wrong. The feeling is like, huh? Men marry men? Isn't it supposed to be men and women? Are they perverted or what?

I found out I'm gay while I'm secondary 2.

I believe that my story I said above could bring us into some facts.

1) Everyone is born to think they are heterosexual.
2) No young person (gay or not) will be able to accept same sex marriages in the early stages of life before puberty. They are taught (and have personally witnessed) that men and women should be together.
3) Similiarly, depending on upbringing, a person may sway more to become more homophobic, while that still lies in a minority.

I believe human rights apply to everyone. It apply to us, as gays, that we should be accepted. It applys to homophobics too, as it was their right to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

I really don't see the need for debates anymore, whether or not gays should be accepted. It's like, 2 person in an argument will never reach a conclusion.

Still, speaking as a voice in the gay community, I believe that patience and tolerance is the key. People may not accept us, but we should accept them. People can't tolerate us to have same sex relationships, while it doesn't really concern or affect their lives, we tolerate their discrimination. Still, we have to make ourselves visible, letting people know that there are still homosexuals, "forgotten" and discriminated.

Only through peaceful means, I can see Singapore moving towards being a more tolerant country over queer issues. It's going to take a very long time.

Wow, what a lively debate. Hur hur.

I believe in tolerance towards homosexuals, I wouldn't judge them on the basis of their being gay. But I also think there is a distinction between dyed in the wool gays and those people looking for exotic experiences. While you can't do much about the former, I don't think that the latter behaviour should be encouraged. For every gay person who can't help it, there are ppl like David Bowie who went on record saying that he really wanted to be gay but it turned out not to be the case. And there are ppl who turn gay because they don't have access to the opposite sex, that would be acceptable too.

I don't agree with ppl like shianux who say that it's self evident that homosexuality is completely acceptable. It's not self evident at all which is why ppl have to keep on fighting for gay rights. A lot of ancient societies condoned homosexuality and I don't believe we can't either.

And if you're going to accept homosexuality, you shouldn't accept all behaviours of homosexuality either, ie promiscuity is still wrong, unprotected sex is still wrong, gay people hitting on me is still wrong. In fact because I think that promiscuity among gay people is wrong, I would legalise gay marriages for that reason. I believe that homosexuality is acceptable but inferior to heterosexual relationships.

promiscuity is still wrong, unprotected sex is still wrong

I don't actually believe promiscuity or unprotected sex is 'wrong' in a moral sense. Rather, I believe that such risky behaviour imposes costs on others who do not have access to the information that the risk-takers do.

For example, someone who fucks around might very well have an STD, but these people very often do not get themselves tested, and do not reveal the extent of their risky behaviour to their sexual partners. It is this element of promiscuity which I believe to be wrong, as it harms other people, not just themselves.

Otherwise, if they wish to screw up their own lives and only their own, I couldn't care less.

That said, promiscuity is not something that's gay-specific. There are people on all sides of the sexual orientation who engage in such risky behaviour.

I would legalise gay marriages for that reason

Same reason why I would legalise gay marriage as well. Giving homosexuals an institutional foundation for their relationships would give them strong incentives to settle down and have families. This would be the surest way to reduce such risky behaviour, and make them 'grow up', so to speak.

Ironically, it is for this very reason the homosexual community itself is split over the issue of gay marriage. There are many who do not wish to have to face the legal 'burden' of settling down into a permanent relationship.

- Wannabe Lawyer

I'm gay and I'll like to stay monogamous.

I know many people are deeply disgusted by the minority gays that sleeps around, go around crusing, go to popular crusing locations like CityLink Flash and Splash toilet to have toilet sex. What I can say about them is that, they are just as desperate as anyone would, just that they do it the extreme way. I personally wouldn't agree to anyone to go crusing or sleep around.

Just like heterosexuals in the minority, we go Batam to have our 2nd wife live there, go to the red light districts for prostitutes, so on.

People with such attitutes only occurs in the minority. Many homosexuals and heterosexuals will like to stay monogamous, if they can, that is.

"gay people hitting on me is still wrong" -- that's something you don't have to worry about, we have discerning taste.

I agree that it's no use trying to make people change their minds about homosexuals.

We will just have to see who is right in the end.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarted.