Letter To Malaysiakini:
Reader Semarak would do well to heed his own advice ("Lending divine credence to intolerance"). He doesn’t realize that he has become what he condemns. In the name of tolerance, he resorts to intolerant name-calling ("bigot" replaces "faggot"), stigmatizing those who disagree as “sanctimonious crowd simulating God in their ventriloquist acts”, and distortion (Does he really believe that religious Malaysians aim to “practice their lynching skills on” homosexuals?). Ironically, now he’s the one with a righteous cause, battling the uncivilized forces of darkness, armed with “universal values” and “central tenets”.
I have great respect for Camille Paglia, a self-proclaimed lesbian who authored Sexual Persona: Vamps and Tramps. She wrote: "The objections of conservative Christian ministers who believe in the Bible are well-founded… People on the left have got to accept that it is not simply bigotry that causes believing Christians to object to this kind of element in popular culture." That’s a fair-minded assessment from a fierce critic.
Unfortunately, after following the exchanges so far, I've come to realize that unlike her, many homosexual supporters do not want an open debate on this moral issue. If you disagree with them, you're a bigot. Period. And you ought to be publicly and socially demonized as a dangerous, narrow-minded, religious fanatic. But my moral objection against homosexuality per se no more fosters violence against homosexuals than Semarak's disagreement against my view fosters violence against religious folks.
Actually, many conservative Christians and Muslims, who think homosexual behavior and the physical/verbal abuse against homosexuals a deep offense to God, are civil citizens bearing no personal “ill will” against them. Religious folks are quite willing to tolerate homosexuality, for the simple fact that tolerance is reserved for behavior one thinks is inappropriate or immoral.
Do you tolerate homosexuality? If so, then you must think homosexuality is morally questionable. If you think it's morally permissible, then you don't tolerate it. You agree with it. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side.
In that spirit of tolerance, I agree with Semarak’s timely call for respect and compassion towards Malaysian homosexuals. Personally I harbor no “holier-than-thou” or “enmity” against them. I just disagree with the view that homosexuality is a “way of life” that does not cause psychological, physiological and moral harm to them. I just think he is wrong, as he thinks I am.
But could we not have an irenic debate without being victims of character assassination?
Reader Semarak would do well to heed his own advice ("Lending divine credence to intolerance"). He doesn’t realize that he has become what he condemns. In the name of tolerance, he resorts to intolerant name-calling ("bigot" replaces "faggot"), stigmatizing those who disagree as “sanctimonious crowd simulating God in their ventriloquist acts”, and distortion (Does he really believe that religious Malaysians aim to “practice their lynching skills on” homosexuals?). Ironically, now he’s the one with a righteous cause, battling the uncivilized forces of darkness, armed with “universal values” and “central tenets”.
I have great respect for Camille Paglia, a self-proclaimed lesbian who authored Sexual Persona: Vamps and Tramps. She wrote: "The objections of conservative Christian ministers who believe in the Bible are well-founded… People on the left have got to accept that it is not simply bigotry that causes believing Christians to object to this kind of element in popular culture." That’s a fair-minded assessment from a fierce critic.
Unfortunately, after following the exchanges so far, I've come to realize that unlike her, many homosexual supporters do not want an open debate on this moral issue. If you disagree with them, you're a bigot. Period. And you ought to be publicly and socially demonized as a dangerous, narrow-minded, religious fanatic. But my moral objection against homosexuality per se no more fosters violence against homosexuals than Semarak's disagreement against my view fosters violence against religious folks.
Actually, many conservative Christians and Muslims, who think homosexual behavior and the physical/verbal abuse against homosexuals a deep offense to God, are civil citizens bearing no personal “ill will” against them. Religious folks are quite willing to tolerate homosexuality, for the simple fact that tolerance is reserved for behavior one thinks is inappropriate or immoral.
Do you tolerate homosexuality? If so, then you must think homosexuality is morally questionable. If you think it's morally permissible, then you don't tolerate it. You agree with it. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views. They're on our side.
In that spirit of tolerance, I agree with Semarak’s timely call for respect and compassion towards Malaysian homosexuals. Personally I harbor no “holier-than-thou” or “enmity” against them. I just disagree with the view that homosexuality is a “way of life” that does not cause psychological, physiological and moral harm to them. I just think he is wrong, as he thinks I am.
But could we not have an irenic debate without being victims of character assassination?
Comments