Reader Semarak would do well to heed his/her own advice ('Lending divine credence to intolerance'). Semarak doesn't realise that he/she has become what he/she has condemned.

In the name of tolerance, Semarak resorts to intolerant name-calling ('bigot' replaces 'faggot'), stigmatising those who disagree as "sanctimonious crowd simulating God in their ventriloquist acts".

Does Semarak really believe that religious Malaysians aim to "practise their lynching skills on" homosexuals?. Ironically, now he's the one with a righteous cause, battling the uncivilised 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-foundedpeople 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 is a fair-minded assessment from a fierce critic.

Unfortunately, after following the exchanges on malaysiakini so far, I've come to realise that unlike Paglia, 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 demonised 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.

Many conservative Christians and Muslims who think homosexual behaviour and the physical or verbal abuse against homosexuals a deep offence 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 a term reserved for behaviour one thinks is inappropriate or immoral.

Do you 'tolerate' homosexuality? If so, then you must think homosexuality is morally questionable. If you think it is morally permissible, then you do not tolerate it. You agree with it. We do not '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 harbour no 'holier-than-thou' or enmity against homosexuals.

I just disagree with the view that homosexuality is a way of life that does not cause psychological, physiological and moral harm. But couldn't we have a debate without being victims of character assassination?