I refer to the letter Homosexuality will bring devastation by YK Lai.

I had a good laugh reading the letter. The writer mentioned that: 'Many homosexuals are not living quietly but are aggressively promoting their sexual lifestyle and preference in public domains'.

Pardon my ignorance, Lai, but how many cases of sodomy have you heard in the recent past, compared to rape cases? In fact, chances are that most rural folk might not have even heard about sodomy had not the Anwar saga occurred. So who displays their sexual preference more?

And why is Lai against same-sex marriages or child adoption by gay couples? I can understand protests about gays being priests due to religious concerns. But again, please bear in mind that we have no right to impose our will if a couple chooses to ignore religious rulings and do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others and is within the legal boundaries of the country.

Most of Lai's rants about anti-civilisation (sigh) and anti-social behaviour (what!) seem to be due to religious fanaticism, I assume. Marx once described religion as the 'opium to the masses' for religion can provide an illusion of relief .

But like opium, religion can become addictive and the relief is mostly illusionary as it doesn't solve any of the real problems. We have enough crimes as it is. Please do not criminalise gays. Go after the rapists, snatch thieves and killers - they are the ones hurting the masses.

Call them uncivilised and anti-social, not gays.

As for ST's Debate homosexuality but show respect, his comment on the 'institution of normal heterosexual family' - as he put - is hilarious. Let us look at this time-tested institution of heterosexual family (whatever it means).

Are divorces increasing? Why about affairs and love triangles? What about incest, abuse and wife-beating? How can one conclude that a gay couple won't be able to bring up a child better than a traditional heterosexual family (the 'normal' one, that is).

Our society is heavily biased against homosexuals. The moment one declares him or herself a homosexual to any person, that person instantly becomes a self-appointed priest or mullah or swami to try and convince the former on the evils of practicing homosexuality (scientific or otherwise).

As Mark Twain once said, 'The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane'.

I personally think there is no need to discuss whether or not heterosexuality is the right way to satisfy our sexual needs or whether or not it is okay to have a homosexual relationship. For me, my way, for you, yours.