I love how evil always dresses itself up with high-minded, euphemistic names. For example, the repressive government of Myanmar is known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council(SLORC). In Zimbabwe, the brutal and corrupt Robert Mugabe’s political party is known as the Patriotic Front. And, of course, during the Joseph McCarthy era, we had the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee. There are countless other examples of reprobates disguised as responsible leaders or political parties.
We can now add the The Society for Truth and Light to this repugnant list of phonies who hide their sinister behavior, sinful lies and outrageous cynicism behind a facade of “good”. The Society is an anti-gay “Christian” outfit based in Hong Kong that has published an irresponsible report hawking unscientific “ex-gay” snake oil cures.
Although the 52-page booklet is raw hatred of gay people, it is deceptively named, “Acceptance–Caring for Homosexuality”.
How much does this group care?
They are using materials from the discredited anti-gay organization, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). This is an organization that:
1) Had to kick George Rekers off its board this year after the “esteemed” doctor was caught taking a prostitute on a European vacation that he had met on Rent Boy.com
2) Had to kick off another board member this year, Arthur Abba Goldberg, who had been exposed by South Florida Gay News and Truth Wins Out as a convicted felon. Goldberg refers clients to a “life coach” who asks clients to strip naked and fondle themselves.
3) Had for years regularly published essays by Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, who also is a catalyst behind Uganda’s infamous “Kill the Gays” bill. Lively is recognized by the Southern Poverty Law Center for running a certified hate group.
4) Has virtually no peer review studies on homosexuality, yet mysteriously claims expertise on the topic. NARTH’s information runs counter to every respected medical and mental health organization in the nation — including the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
5) Had a board member, Gerald Schoenwolf, who wrote a noxious essay on NARTH’s website that seemed to justify slavery
6) Had used widely condemned and discredited “life coach” Richard Cohen as a therapy trainer. Cohen was permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association for misdeeds.
Given NARTH’s sordid history, why is this Hong Kong organization — that claims to stand for morality — peddling its lies?
Clearly, this organization is obscuring truth and shedding little light on the topic of LGBT people.
Hong Kong residents should beware of this ministry.
It is selling outdated and bankrupt ideas hatched in America that no one here takes seriously.
Please, do your research. Do not be misled by ideologues and money-hungry charlatans who are out to commit consumer fraud.
Don’t be fooled.
Don’t be duped.
Don’t be misled.
Don’t be taken advantage of.
The Society for Truth and Light, forsooth. A name like that should make anyone but the most naïve suspicious.
As has been noted before, a country that calls itself a People’s Democratic Republic doesn’t have to be a tyranny, but it probably is.
We went to Hong Kong a few years ago. We decided to be ol’ fags, and walked everywhere holding hands.
No one cared, or even seemd to look twice.
2 Ben in Oakland: Why would anyone “decide to be smth”? Do you choose to be something else elsewhere? Do you call it “freedom”? I do not change myself depending on the place I go, that’s what I call freedom.
2 William: It’s a normal name for a religious organisation, no need to be so smart. John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life”.
@3
You are aware that in some places, such actions could result in violent reprocussions? What Ben is a saying is that he had more freedom to wo what he wants there, but not necessarily in other places.
2 Gyeong Hwa Pak: Aware, moreover, I support restrictions on being “ol’fags” in public places. Why should children see this unnatural stuff?
P.S. More than that, it’s so unaesthetic.
I think fat people holding hands is inaesthetic too. I think chinese people holding hands with white people is inaesthetic. Let’s pass a law.
I know, let’s try this one: NO DOGS OR CHINESE ALLOWED. An actual sign that used to be there back when the British were running things.
And yes, children should see big ol fags holding hands. then they stop making self-serving remarks like “inaesthetic”, and realize the there is really no difference inless oyu have “issues”..
And then the children who are going to grow up gay have postive role models instead of whatever it is that you are peddling.
“Why should children see this unnatural stuff?”
Ah, always comes down to the “for the children” theme, with the religionistas. Big snore. And who are you, A-Him, to decide what is or is not “unnatural”? Can you think for yourself, or do you let ignorant, barbaric churches and their mythology formulate all your thoughts?
“I support restrictions on being “ol’fags” in public places. Why should children see this unnatural stuff?”
Actually, let me put it this way.
So what is it that these poor innocent children are going to see? Two men or two women holding hands. that’s it.
So what are they going to learn if the fags and lesbos are allowed to appear in public?
Let’s see. They will learn that gay men and lesbians exist. Whoops. they already know that. that horse left the barn decades ago.
They will earn that gay men and lesbians are people with lives and relationships. Yup. We’d better keep that out of the children’s faces, because they might want to try it, and then everyone will be gay, and the chinese empire will fall, and mankind will die out cause no one wants to be hetero anymore, except good Christians, and you don’t know about even them. They’re so easy to tempt, after all.
Or maybe because it is so much easier to hate, denigrate, despise, and feel superior to people if they have no human dimensions, nothing in common with you. Better to to stay on message so there won’t be any confusion when you teach them to hate and despise.
They’ll learn all about gay sex, especially butt sex. Because that’s the
very first thing anyone thinks of when they see people holding hands. Hmm, I wonder what they do in bed? Do they like butt sex? And it’s just one very short step from seeing someone holding hands to wanting to get some o’ dat buttsex.
Nope, they’re just holding hands.
Oh, wait a minute. i know what it is. If children see same sex couples, and they see that they are human beings just like them, not filthy, degraded, slavering slaves to vice and corruption, then they might question the words of their elders, especially their religious elders. they could throw out the whole “authority” of scripture. And the ones who are gay, who will grow up to be gay no matter how much bigotry they are spoon-fed in the guise of rleigion, will grow to have happy fulfilled lives with people they love, perhaps rasing the cast-off products of irresponsible heterosexual reproduction, andh ave the lives that god intended them to have.
And we oculdn’t have that, could we?
“Why should children see this unnatural stuff?”
1. Homosexuality is natural.
2. Being natural or unnatural doesn’t make things right or wrong. That’s a fallacy on your part.
3. Oh please, children see much worst than two loving couples in public. Furthermore, if they grow in a society that is tolerant of it, they’ll think nothing of it.
4. Take you’re “gays are icky” remarks and shove it.
Right on Gyeong Hwa Pak! Sock it to the religionistas!!
Ben,
Not to disagree about the post itself, but the “No dogs or Chinese” is largely apocryphal. I know you love a random factoid, so here goes…
The park typically in question was in Shanghai, not Hong Kong, and was a ‘private’ public park located at the northern end of the Bund (on the border of the British and U.S. concessions). Unaccompanied local Chinese were restricted shortly after it was built up until the 1920′s, something which could be largely said about the entire concession areas themselves.
The history of the concessions areas in Shanghai and elsewhere is much more complex (and interesting) than it is typically reduced to (and that’s also a very understandable reduction). If nothing else, the decayed Chinese government had its own reasons to restrict Western and Japanese influence on the local population; and the concessions were very much used in that way by them, albeit these areas were also the outcome of being strong-armed into an unwanted ‘compromise’ in the first place.
Not saying some bigot/idiot, somewhere, sometime, didn’t put up exactly such a sign but ‘Fist of Fury’ wasn’t a documentary, much as I love a high flying kick as the next man.
Here endeth the lesson :)
(I was just thinking “Ooh, ooh, ooh I’ve got an idea for a Wikipedia article!”, but on checking I sadly see I’ve been beaten to the punch once again. A nicely succinct job, actually, and the sign in question is there to read. Unsure of what they had against bicycles either, but I do appreciate their strict enforcement of rules on perambulators. Damned perambulators).
L.O.L.
And no less important a point for all that it is untrue– apparently.
I know about the sign in Fists of Fury, and in fact, that was the image in my mind. However, I can swear I also read it some place authoritative. But this might have been 30 years ago when I was still interested in kung fu and zatoichi.
Oh, guys, is being “ol’fags” just mean holding hands? Well, ok, children are either too young to notice to uncles holding hands or mature enough to be explained that some people have certain problems.
There is no evidence that homosexuality is natural. Physiologically homosexuality is not natural, and only if your brain is indoctrinated or heated by sex drive you can claim that this simple physiology thing means nothing.
Come on, guys, you can lie to yourselves as long as you like, but there will be always people who won’t put up with you lying to others.
You must have come across this quote from G. Orwell: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals can believe them”. This is fair enough for the idea of normality of homosexuality.
It’s great that most people, maybe silenced by your political correct fascism, still understand that the king is naked.
Wow, A-Him, you really don’t know things about physiology or brain chemistry, or really much of anything, do you?
Can you mow your own lawn without blowing up your underpants?
There was an odd man in Hong Kong
who ranted teh gay was all wrong
In an airport toilet
with lack of deportment
he’s arrested in nowt but a thong.
(sorry)
2 Evan Hurst: You see, only intellectuals can believe in some stupid ideas, I really know little, o the smartest! :)
A-Him,
Better to be an intellectual with stupid ideas than a stupid who thinks he’s an intellectual.
We’ll look out for news of your embarrassing arrest.
xxxooo, G&D
A-Him said “There is no evidence that homosexuality is natural.”.
LOL, you idiot! There’s tons of evidence that gayness is natural – hundreds, perhaps thousands of animals that engage in it in nature:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
So, dear natural peaceful homosexuals, a tiny scratch on your perfect bodies is enough for your hatred to come out. That’s what you call coming out? I see! Well done! ;) You showed your weakness and immaturity too early, people, why didn’t you pretend for a bit longer?
2 grantdale: I didn’t say I am an intellectual, I am very glad for you being one.
2 Priya Lynn: Oh, I see, so you are a zoologist? “Let’s do it as they do it on Discovery Channel”, like that song, aga.
2 Priya Lynn: Oh, yep, and some species eat their sexual partner after the fertilisation. Although fertilisation in case of homosaxual contacts is out of question, will you consider eating the partner? :)
Thank you for the Freudian compliment about my body, A-Him.
2 Evan Hurst: Oh, that’s by no means a compliment, and even less “Freudian”. Shouldn’t we let old Freud rest in peace? He won’t have much positive stuff to tell you.
You said “Your perfect bodies.” I merely accepted the compliment, though, in my opinion, I have some work to do, but don’t we all.
Are you still talking, troll?
2 Evan Hurst: Hey dude, you are not only the smartest, you are the politest! Like it! Go on, what other -est you’ve got in stock? I’m rather a hobbit, and you don’t be an orc.
A-Him said “Oh, yep, and some species eat their sexual partner after the fertilisation.”.
That’s irrelevant. You claimed gayness wasn’t natural – obviously it is.
In thousands of species, and actual science is starting to figure out why it survives from an evolutionary perspective. The “gay gene” has always been a strawman used by scientific illiterates who understand nothing about genetics or how genes interact with each other. All of this is easily found in peer-reviewed journals and on the Google, but wingnuts are impervious to facts that don’t fit their prejudices and deep self-loathing, so I won’t bother.
The thing about people like A-Him is that you can shove facts under their noses until the cows come home and bellow them into their ears with megaphones and they will shut their eyes, jam their fingers in their ears, and scream “NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!” just like a spoiled, bratty two-year-old having a temper tantrum. And the best way to deal with such behavior is what my Mom did: a bloody good spanking.
2 Scott Amundsen: Wow, you sound like you are a spanking expert! And you usually spank polar bears, don’t you, Mr Amundsen? Guys you’ve got a nice bunch of people here.
The facts you operate are not actually facts but mere hypotheses or preliminary finding that need further verification. Do you think I am not aware of the “fact” you are talking about? I might know little, but you do not need to be extra smart to see that they are not compelling, you just need a bit of logic and unbiased mind. Most of the findings you guys are talking about would not be accepted for publication in decent magazines if there were not on the topic of homosexuality. But I see you guys yourselves are experts in physiology, psychiatry, brain chemistry and polar bear spanking.
Until now you showed nothing much but insult, impatience and verbal violence in your attitude to me, just as in your attitude to anyone who. This is something to think about, dudes.
… to anyone who does not side with you.
Something to think about:
“No man who says ‘I’m as good as you’ believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.”
C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
A-Him said “Until now you showed nothing much but insult, impatience and verbal violence in your attitude to me”.
LOL, that’s hilarious comming from a hypocrite who started out by calling us unnatural, abnormal and facists. Its amazing how someone can be so self-unaware – clearly that’s what hate and bigotry does to you.
And you’re right A-Him, we’re not as good as you. We support your equal rights but you do not support ours – We’re better than you.
2 Priya Lynn: It’s simple: I’m talking about homosexuality, you guys are talking about my mental abilities. Can’t you see the difference? This website is called “Truth Wins Out”, so, don’t you want to find truth? Oh, I know, you’ve got your comfortable truth and fight to protect your peace of mind. It’s your choice. And what do you mean by saying that you guys support our equal rights? That’s so funny. My right to be normal? No, thanks, I do not need any “help” of this kind, never had I seen any “Hands off heterosexuals” slogans from you guys, you would rather have your hands on :)
2 Priya Lynn:
You wrote: “And you’re right A-Him, we’re not as good as you.”
If you want, read the quote once more, I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying that you are not as good as me. Not even as homosexuals, although I do not take this into account. I just do not think in such terms. You guys do. Why?
Dude, we’re basing the word ‘truth’ on accepted scientific facts and consensus.
Your mental abilities are getting put through the ringer for obvious reasons.
Perhaps if you are too sensitive to handle such things, you shouldn’t look at the internet.
“There is no evidence that homosexuality is natural”
Wanna bet?
Iemmola, F., & Ciani, AC. (2009). New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line. Archives of Sexual Behaviors. 33(3), DOI: 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6
Not that you would understand scientific literature, of course.
A-Him: As the English philosopher A.J. Ayer wrote, “Nothing that actually happens is contrary to nature, though there are some actions that we misleadingly call unnatural as a way of expressing our disapproval of them.”
“No, thanks, I do not need any “help” of this kind, never had I seen any “Hands off heterosexuals” slogans from you guys, you would rather have your hands on :)”
Honey, just because you think you’re too hot to resist doesn’t mean anyone else thinks so, too.
“It’s simple: I’m talking about homosexuality, you guys are talking about my mental abilities.”
Because it’s not like you’re fitting the crazy internet conspiracy crackpot trope to a T, or anything. Or… you know, wantonly contradicting yourself. Or spouting out nonsense like “you usually spank polar bears”.
I think it’s hilarious that you’re unwilling to be held to the same standards that you hold for everyone else. That’s certainly the behavior of a well-balanced, intelligent, mature adult.
2 Evan Hurst: Thank you for your reply. I have to disagree that your truth is based on accepted scientific facts and consensus. What you are saying sounds good, but it is not so, because as you might know many “findings” of pro-gay scientists still need to be verified, of course just as those of anti-gay ones. And there is no consensus, and probably will never be since the nature of the problem is special and refers to psychology, brain (which is far from being properly studied and understood), behaviour. Homosexuality for every particular person involved is a very sensitive issue, because it has to do with you personally, and also due to neurotic nature of it (well, in opinion of scientists I agree with). So, once again, consensus might exist in your gay society, but since homosexuality is not a religion or matter of taste which differ, the rest of society cannot accept your consensus as a proof, although you might think otherwise.
I am not too sensitive, guys, I do not mind your language, but I had to point in out to you and others who might read this (well, I doubt, actually), because in my opinion verbal abuse of a counterpart in a discussion reveals underlying problems of the abuser. My irony and jokes (well, in my understanding) was a way to react, but not violently.
2 Gyeong Hwa Pak: Thanks, I’ll read the abstract now. OK, it says “These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution.” So, how much $ do I get for winning the bet? :) Guys, these scientists are at least honest in their paper, but pro-gay media lacks this honesty.
2 William: Well, in this case we need to agree on terms before we start a discussion. I see your point, following this logic inborn or acquired health problems are also natural. But at the same time we cannot call them a norm and try to cure them.
2 Makyui: I do not think you understand why I wrote about “polar bear spanking” (note that you distorted my words), if you wish, read the posting by a guy called Scott Amundsen (you should know who Scott and Amundsen were) who’s Mum used to say something about bloody something spanking. Sorry-la.
Your accusation in double-standards is groundless, if you wish, prove.
You can disagree with facts all you want, A-Him.
We don’t actually care. You can pretend the earth is flat, the sun revolves around it, and that Jesus rode a dinosaur to Denny’s every Tuesday. We don’t care. Your abject ignorance to reality is simply not my problem. You can continue to comment, and my commenters will continue to make a fool of you, and that’s also fine.
Also:
“I am not too sensitive, guys, I do not mind your language, but I had to point in out to you and others who might read this (well, I doubt, actually), because in my opinion verbal abuse of a counterpart in a discussion reveals underlying problems of the abuser. My irony and jokes (well, in my understanding) was a way to react, but not violently.”
This is a wingnut tactic used when people are making them look stupid. Hit the fainting couch about the “tone,” and how mean people are being to them.
No one should pay any attention to it, as it is meritless and trite.
2 Evan Hurst: You guys do care and hearing something not in line with your doctrine is painful to you, although you say otherwise, and comments above prove it. And “we don’t care” claim speaks for itself in this contest.
Please let others decide what they should and what they should not pay attention to, your interpretation of my words is your personal opinion.
I have no intention to continue this “discussion”, although you kindly permitted me to :) if at some point someone gets to read this, he will see that there are different ways to look at things, and maybe that will help, there is enough material above to make all sort of conclusions, both favourable and not, both for you and for me, and that’s good. Thank you, guys.
okay, if that’s what you need to think to make you feel better?
Seriously, dude, we’re professionals here, and we deal with anti-scientific b******t all the time, so, if we’re dismissive, please, don’t worry your little head reading too much into it.
I’m not spending time psychoanalyzing what deep personal issues are causing you to troll gay blogs.
A-Him, you are just more proof that it’s pointless to argue with kooks.
Well, the fact that homosexuality has existed since animals have used sexual procreation should be an indicator.
A-Him, you are using a construct based on ancient greek philosophy, the science of which is wrong Aka Sun Earth relationship.
If homosexuality is caused by exposure to other homosexuals then why are there the same percentages of homosexuals in China as there are elsewhere.
My God was smart and she built up humankind with a genetic failsafe switch – too many people, make some that don’t procreate, but are otherwise normal, healthy productive individuals.
I know that many things are blocked in China… Sorry you don’t know the truth
Scott, to be fair, do you really think you’re going to win the argument with competing visions of God? It’s always a dead end argument, for both sides.
The Health Department has recorded 105 new HIV cases in the second quarter of this year, bringing the total to 4,649 since records began in the mid-1980s. Sixteen new AIDS cases were also reported in the same period, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 1,141.
Most of the new HIV cases were acquired through homosexual or bisexual contact. A consultant with the department, Wong Ka-hing, said although the latest figures were consistent with previous quarters, dealing with HIV transmission among gay people will remain a challenge.
RTHK English News, 31 August 2010
Hong Kong Residents: Beware!
And your point A-Him?
Are you suggesting that millions of people who can only express their love though same-sex relations instead marry people they do not love and are not attracted to? The result being miserable gay people and even more miserable spouses? How, exactly, is this helpful?
Or, maybe you are just trying to scare people about LGBT individuals in hopes of inciting ridicule, rejection, persecution, imprisonment. Or, would you take it a step further and encourage mass murder?
Because the science is quite clear that gay people cannot change. Even “ex-gay” groups will tell you that the vast majority of LGBT people cannot change and do not change in their programs. NARTH’s lead scientist George Rekers was recently caught with a rent-boy, yet the booklet in Hong Kong ignorantly and arrogantly peddles his work, by citing NARTH.
Have you no morality or shame? Are you a con artist who profits from peddling false information.
Seriously, stop dancing around your real agenda. What is it that you want? What do you intend to do with millions of gay people? What is your vision? What is your end game?
Because right now, you are using code words and petty arguments to obscure what it is you are truly after. If you can’t be honest about who you are and what you want, then you will be banned from this site. So, make sure your next comment is reasonably intelligent and meticulously spells out your agenda.
Finally, HIV is a disease. It can be contracted by anyone — not just gay people, in case you have not noticed, the majority of people in the world with HIV are heterosexual.
If you want to play the disease game, any moron can distort statistics to show another group should be discriminated against. For example a bigoted idiot who wanted to condemn Asian women might trot out this little statistic:
Rates of end-stage-renal-disease are increasing at a rate of 11% per year for Asian and Pacific Islanders compared to 6% per year for whites.(Healthy People 2010, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office; November 2000.)
Yeah? So what? Does this mean Asian women have a dangerous lifestyle? The fact is, in the ebb and flow of humanity, different groups will be more susceptible to diseases for a variety of reasons — including bigotry that drives them underground. It is just the way it is. It is not a moral judgment from God, as you smugly and pigheadedly suggest.
The fact is, that most gay men do not have HIV. The rate for those who use condoms regularly is practically nil. And, lesbian sex is much safer than heterosexual sex So, if you truly gave a damn about diseases, you would be teaching safe sex seminars for gay men and urging straight women to go gay. But, you are not doing any of these things – because you don’t give a damn about the science. What you do is cherry-pick science to support an ideological — and farcical — agenda.
A-Him, gay people have been around for thousands of years before HIV and they will be around thousands of years after it is long gone and remains only in history books. So, your entire argument as it pertains to civil rights and treatment in society is a straw man and totally irrelevant.
What you do is immoral and despicable. You suffer from poor character, lack common decency and have no honor.
2 Wayne Besen:
I started to write comments because you posted an article on Hong Kong, which is the city where I live and which I care about. My friend in the mainland China asked me to find materials on reparative therapy in Chinese, so I was making a google search for ex-gay groops in Hong Kong and found this article. That’s it. I am not trolling gay blogs, as you can see.
I am not suggesting anything to millions, and definitely not the things you are writing about, I never wrote this, so you have no grounds to accuse me of making poor spouses miserable. God gave us free will, so a person with homosexual tendencies can choose for himself what to do with his or her life.
I visited your website by clicking your name, you are a public speaker, you are doing good job, but I am not trying to scare people about LGBT individuals, I stand for the right of all individuals to be given objective information on this matter.
I am not a scientist myself, neither are you, although Mr Hurst claims a status of a professional. Yes, you are professionals gay movement, no mistake. Your notion that the science is quite clear that gay people cannot change is a groundless generalisation. Firstly, talking about homosexuality, there is no such thing and “the science”, there are scientists, and they opinions differ. Secondly, homosexuals and heterosexuals have identical physiology (let’s leave out some unclear findings in the brain of deceased homosexuals with AIDS), so they do not need to chage physically, homosexuality is a psychological phenomenon, and you just cannot say “cannot change” when psychology is concerned. Anything can happen in such case. I do not mention miracles that God can perform, this is not in your set of reasons, so I leave it out.
I believe that change is possible, although it is very hard, and personally I believe that faith and Church play important role in the change, at least for one reason, which you might understand: it provides support and hope. But there are reasons you will not understand, which are more important, but I do not want you to mock at them, so I leave them out, those who wish to find out, will find out.
As for those homosexuals who cannot change when they try, it’s not that they cannot change in principle, it’s that many give up, for change is not instant, extremely painful and requires a lot of effort. Well, even when change does not happen, there is always a choice based on personal beliefs: to live a homosexual life or not.
Disgraceful behaviour of some ex-gay leaders cannot be used as a proof of normality of homosexuality, it only shows that change is hard, and people make mistakes. Doctors know how harmful smoking is yet many of them cannot withstand the addiction. The only difference is that smoking doctors are still doctors, whereas ex-gay leaders involved in homosexual behaviour cannot longer be leaders and, unfortunately, cannot longer be trusted, at least for a certain time. Nevertheless, their behaviour cannot be used as a proof of the failure of reparative therapy.
“Have you no morality or shame? Are you a con artist who profits from peddling false information.” You deserve the same question. Unfortunately, our understandings of moral values and things we feel ashamed for have now drifted apart, so it’s hard, although not impossible, for us to understand each other on this point, so it is wise to leave this out of this discussion if it can be called one.
Seriously, I do not intend to to anything with millions of gay people, but I tell those who I meet what I think about the problem of homosexuality.
Mr Besen, I do not think that I was dishonest in the matters of who I am and what I want. If you think so, you can ban me from this blog, that would be great if you could leave my comments as well as comments of the others, it will be useful for both of us: for you they will show how stupid are these anti-gay people, for me they will provoke people to think.
Although I refuse your demand for meticulous explanation of my agenda, you have no right to ask for this, and I do not deem it necessary to say more than I wish to on this matter, but not in order to conceal truth, as you might say, I have no other truth than that I have told you.
Finally, you have read the news, and RTHK is a reputable and unbiased source, the news also is not biased. You are right about world statistics, but since you warned Hong Kong residents, I wish to focus here on Hong Kong issues and statistics since it is my city and warn my people too. And I do not want to play the disease game. I just want to show what trouble homosexuality brings into my community.
You are saying “It is not a moral judgment from God, as you smugly and pigheadedly suggest”. In our Church we refrain from this sort of conclusions on any matter. Firstly, we cannot know God’s ways and judgments; secondly, even those things which we see as punishment, God turns into our benefit if we are ready for that. So I posted the news only for the reasons explained in the previous paragraph.
You wrote “What you do is immoral and despicable. You suffer from poor character, lack common decency and have no honor.” Well, you are being too harsh and I gather you do it on purpose. These are very beautiful and powerful words you have written, but we are in different systems of values and what is moral for you is immoral for me, no wonder you think the same. Let others make their minds. I’ve said.