I find the recent exchange of letters and comments on the issue of the gay church quite amusing for their hypocrisy. I had refrained from commenting, because the response has so far been predictable, but for the record, I think certain things need to be said again and again for the sake of our children.

1. The meaning of human rights- Most strange is what seems to be a belief that for reasons the naysayers have taken remarkably great pains to repeat, certain people do not deserve equality and rights as others.

Considering our country has constantly been battered by racism masquerading as a fight for the rights of certain communities, the continued espousing of hatred and rejection of gays is ironic.

The ethnic minorities of Malaysia have been called to go home to China, to India. Perhaps gays might soon be called to go back to Sodom, if it had not been apparently levelled to the ground by the hand of God.

I am more surprised that negative views on the issue come from Malaysiakini readers, who otherwise respond positively to issues of eradicating discrimination of all kinds, like the fight for the rights of minorities and the underprivileged, those of the Indian community, or the Orang Asli, or women's rights. People have stood up for the rights of death row prisoners. Even animals have rights on Malaysiakini .

Seen in this context, it seems gays occupy the lowest rung in Malaysian society, worse than animals. So following the many lengthy and convoluted arguments of the naysayers, human rights do not apply to gays.

This is justified using the word of the Christian or Muslim God, but despite constant claims that these are the religions of peace and tolerance, forgiveness and love, I have yet to see any true signs of these qualities in their arguments.

2. Bigotry by any other name - And sure, it is being repeatedly stressed that the issue is purely about O Young's church yet I do not see any restraint in dragging all manner of bigoted and hateful notions into the argument.

I have lost count of the number of ill-informed and sweeping statements against gays made in this 'noble' defence of the church while at the same time espousing the claim that they have nothing against gays per se. Really? Then what is 'The truth is animals know better what homosexuals don't’ supposed to be if not simply hateful?

I am not interested in challenging them because it has become very clear that those naysayers will only believe what they want despite any logic thrown at them, and there is logic abound in Pang Khee Teik's excellent piece and O Young's own letter . Their critics have not read with their hearts but only with their eyes, focused purely on points at which to continue their attack.

I don't think people really care that they object or dislike the idea of homosexuality. What is obnoxious is justifying it and propagating your hate over someone who is different from you. Because your ideas will go on to influence others to justify their hate, and eventually that will lead to discrimination and may lead to violence.

If I have my history right, they burned so-called witches and heretics during the inquisition because they were 'different'. That is the power of the majority and it is frightening. If enough people think something is right, then it must be. And there go our human rights principles.

If we get enough people agreeing that Penan should not live in the jungles, then I guess the poor folk will have to give in to the will of the majority who think their lifestyle is wrong. This is exactly what is being said, on the fundamental level. Different situation, same bias.

3. Freedom of religion - What really bothers me, though, is the constant argument that all religions feel the same way. That is pure rubbish. The sort of so-called condemnation of homosexuality does not exist in Hindu, Buddhist or Taoist texts.

Some disingenuous naysayer may find some evidence to the contrary but I will challenge them to show that the cause is the scripture, and not social and extra religious, and often specific, circumstances.

Please remember, the whole world isn't ruled by your religion or your god. That is why freedom of religion, and the freedom not to practice religion, is a universal right. If you feel your religion wants you to reject homosexuality, that is your private right. But when you spread your ideology to others it becomes an infringement of universal human rights.

Fortunately for me, my father has never been a religious person. He never condemned gays, and even once told me he that a teacher of my friend was his friend, and laughed that he was 'gay’ but not in a negative manner. He said he was a nice guy.

He also told me at his deathbed that the ‘boyfriend’ of my uncle who had a stroke, was a good man and that my uncle was very lucky to have him by his side to tend to him in his dying days.

I always thought my father was conservative, and in many ways he was. But he never propagated hate.

From my experience, it is the less educated or less Western-educated people, and those more relaxed about religion, who have displayed impressive tolerance towards gays. I guess one reader put his finger on it when he said hate has to be taught.

I myself was told off once about my own hateful statements of transvestites in university by my best mate, who is straight and non-religious. I corrected myself right away, and now having known and talked to a few transvestites, feel shameful of my error.

Many blue-collar workers I have met have also never shown any hostility to gays. It always seems to be the well-educated upper classes who believe they have been saved, who seem most hostile. And it is quite clear a lot of the hateful statements made recently stem from the Anita Byrant school of hate in the States, and the American conservative backlash against the gay movement over the past decade.

Interesting how homophobia is now a Western import. The whole idea that gays trying to find affirmation here is likened to militancy is ludicrous. That notion came from Middle America, one of the greatest exporters of hate in the world. So are arguments of ‘destroying the family unit’. All very familiar to the Clinton era.

I once saw a documentary on how a Polynesian transvestite is simply treated as another daughter in her family. Their family unit has suffered no destruction, and I am told this common in the Pacific. So why the fuss?

4. O Young's right to be Christian - That said, to each his own. I do not share your belief in your God and will not let your religious convictions rule me. Christians may be made to believe that their God is the highest, and people like me are destined to hell but that's just within your spiritual sphere, please keep it in there. A lot of us don't really mind being told this, we just laugh it off.

We of other religions have our own beliefs as well as to who or what is highest. Some believe in Shiva, some in Buddha, some in Mother Nature, some in science, and some like my Dad, in his own innate goodness.

However, in the spirit of freedom of religion and expression, I would hold that it is the right of gay Christians or Muslims to want to practice their religion in their own way.

Religion is about one's personal communion with the divine, not some organised group's self-confessed authority. There is no legitimate human authority in religion, each and every one up to the highest so-called spiritual leader, is subject to the ultimate judgement of the divine, whatever form that may be.

And that is why there is no place for religion in politics, because there will always be someone who is prejudiced in the process of majority rules.

Critics may bay all they like, but that is what our constitutional freedom means. No one has the right to impose his/her method of religious practice to anyone. This argument has also been used against the implementation of hudud , so I find it hypocritical that people can take an about turn when it comes to differing practices of Christians.

As for some saying they are only objecting to the sex, well, until Christians swear on their holy book that they will only have sex to procreate (hence no more sex for post-menopausal couples), then I say expression of intimacy is private between two parties. Some go missionary, others play scrabble. Personally I think using fruit in sex is disgusting but that's my problem.

As far as I am concerned, the passage on Sodom did not specify ‘anal sex’ yet every ‘good Christian’ reads it into the text. For all you know, the people of Lot wanted to braid the Angels' hair. And how did Sodom, which concerned men wanting to go after the angels, drag in other LGBT into the web of hate? I don't see any references to lesbians in Lot. I find such things disturbing and anathema to genuine spiritualism.

So I say, leave O Young's church alone. You can go tell your friends and kids not to go there, but please don't spread your prejudice to ruin things for others who appreciate what he is doing.

Until you have first hand experience of how your hate turns into tragedy for somebody's son or daughter, you will no doubt remain on your high horse. Only last year I passed a house in Klang and my straight friend told me that a teenager had hung himself because he could not take his parents' mental torture any more. As someone in this debate has said, his blood, also lies on your hands.