'I don't believe that anyone capable of violence against gays are not capable of similar violence against non-gays for different reasons.'

Leave 'em gays aside, what about long-haired men?

ONG: I won't involve myself in discussing this issue in the context of religion.

However on the statement that "Many males resort to violence against gays because they feel that gays demean and have a negative impact on their manhood", my belief is that anyone capable of violence against gays for whatever reason are also more likely than the average male to be capable of the same violence towards non-gays, including their own wives and children.

I don't believe the point that "gays demean and have a negative impact on their manhood" is the real reason for violence. It is only an excuse. On a different occasion, when they decide to resort to violence against someone else, the reason or excuse could be the victim's race or religion.

I don't believe that anyone capable of violence against gays are not capable of similar violence against non-gays for different reasons.

Steve Oh: Jonathan Kent has just proved my point. Kent, you and your gay friends excel in misunderstanding the Bible. The hair that Paul refers to is not the anatomical or physical term for hair but the stylised and ornamental, which is contrary to the Jewish and Christian love of modesty. Pagans used to adorn and arrange hair to the detriment of those who see them. It was relevant to the custom of the day.

As for historic evidence of gay immorality, try this: Concerning Roman homosexuality, by Bruce W Frier in a 1999 book review for Bryn Mawr Classical Review wrote the following:

"In Rome of the early Empire, there were many men who threw off the conventions of traditional Roman manhood and instead assumed an ‘effeminate' appearance and manner, thereby, in the usual case, advertising their eagerness for sexual encounters with other males. These were the ‘softies' (molles), the cinaedi . Their numbers cannot even be guessed, but, in a city of a million persons, they might easily have numbered in the tens of thousands.

"Juvenal saw them flocking into Rome on every available transport (9.130-133). The Apostle Paul adduces overt homosexual behaviour as his chief example of the capital's decadence (Romans 1.26-27)."

Kent wrote: "Frankly he commits a far greater perversion than any of which he might accuse a gay person. He has taken a gospel of love and though his selective reading of it turned it into a gospel of hate. That's not the act of a Christian."

The above is so typical of gay hysteria. Is lying and making false accusations part of being gay? You can be gay as you choose but don't be that stupid and dishonest as to falsify someone's real position.

I repeat for the umpteenth time "I love gays like God loves all sinners" but they can't change Christianity. Leave Christianity alone, there's nothing wrong with long-haired men, but the same can't be said for gay Christianity, which is heresy. Contact me, talk to me and you will see I love gays. I don't hate them, I just hate their heresy.

Cry for Malaysia: Someone told me that he and his friends belong to a growing population of nudists. They have difficulty functioning normally, mentally and physically, when having their clothes on.

Like gays, the nudists hope to practise nudism openly and their ways be accepted by society. Until then, so long as the nudists are doing their thing in private and not causing awkwardness or inconvenience to others, no one should need to be troubled by their nudism.

The homosexuals may learn something from the nudists while they await acceptance in some societies.

GP123: I see a common mistake made by the anti-anti-homosexuality: they immediately assume that the anti-homosexuals are not compassionate to the homosexual person.

There is a big difference in disagreeing with the choice of the homosexual and hating the person. Why jump to that conclusion? You may not agree with each other but don't question the values behind each other.

Teh Thian Hwa: Leave God out of the equation and the discussion becomes near impossible. It is about seeing things from God's eyes, not through ours. That means to examine what the Bible says.

Contrary to writer's view, Jesus wasn't a neutral figure in this. He came to affirm the laws of Moses, which had plenty to say about homosexuality. If it was a purely social discourse, I'd agree with Jonathan. But this ‘minister' ( Ouyang Weng Feng ) seeks to start a church, which appears to ‘okay' a practice that is unequivocally against God's ways.

This makes it a Christianity-related argument and you can't then ignore what God has to say about this. It becomes an argument where God's ways must prevail. If you want to exclude God, then I agree with the writer entirely. If, however, you want to look at it from the perspective of a Christian church, you are way off the mark.

David: Why does anyone bother to engage with people who spend so much time trying to convince the world that queers are hell-bound (unless saved by him through 'counselling')? He's obviously obsessed with homosexuals, which raises the question of whether he has a psychic blockage in him which he has yet to wake up to.

Isn't it strange that people keep referring to this and that 'holy' book to justify their hatred (cloaked as love) of difference? You want to hate, hate lah . Who cares? God, who is bigger than any 'Christian' or other 'god', will always give the bigot his just desserts one day. So let him be, people.

The above are a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only Malaysiakini subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .