Aware new guards – Doing more harm than good

Sometimes you can’t help but wonder what’s wrong with all these people. Study so much yet can’t think properly. They think they are doing a good job. They think they are pushing their Anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) ideology the right way. They think their takeover of Aware is right and will go unchallenged. Boy are they very the wrong.
Firstly, the old Aware isn’t Pro-LGBT. So why is there a need to takeover them? And that bunch of woman took over Aware like an invasion, thinking people will sit down there let them do whatever they like? Wake up girls. And after taking over the place, they all create a hell of a mess by sacking people, changing locks and allow burly man inside the centre. Hello, that is a woman counselling centre, use your brain a little can? You do until like that, how to gain supporters for your clause?
And by pushing their Anti-LGBT ideology, they made many pro-LGBT people join Aware.
If the new guards don’t get overthrown this Saturday, Aware will go down as a Christian Fundamentalist group that is Anti-LGBT and lose all its creditability. The old guards can always setup another association and continue their work. The people will support the old Aware members where ever they go.
If the new guards gets overthrown, we might have another problem. Ever since the call for vote of no confidence, lots of Pro-LGBT people has joined Aware. When the new guards is out, Aware will have a huge group of Pro-LGBT members. Will they use this opportunity to drive Aware towards a Pro-LGBT direction? I hope not. But if that happens, we only got 1 group of people to blame: The Christian Fundamentalist who overthrow the old guard and created this mess.
Like I said previously, everything is peaceful until that bunch of woman come and create trouble. I”m not anti or pro LGBT. But I just can’t stand the way this group of people do things.


  1. even if the old guards are re-installed, i don’t think they will push a pro-LGBT agenda. they’re seeking to promote understanding and equality for all woman issues, not encourage people to go gay.
    their past efforts have showed this, i don’t see why it would suddenly go skewed. and i’m sure even pro-LGBT people just want to see more understanding, less discrimination and not promote the LGBT lifestyle per se.
    missyling’s last blog post..Away in Cambodia

  2. hmm… sounds familiar…
    A thinks B is bad and too extreme, so A invaded B forcefully to set them on the right path, but who knows A actually got hidden agenda one… then the angry survivors of B formed their own groups outside to terrorise A every now and then. Worse still, ppl still think tat A is not doing the right thing to start a war on B…
    reminds me of United States of America and Iraq…
    Cloudywind’s last blog post..槌心风暴之 Be Aware

  3. Quote: “If the new guards don’t get overthrown this Saturday, Aware will go down as a Christian Fundamentalist group that is Anti-LGBT and lose all its creditability”
    Question: how will an anti-LGBT agenda make AWARE lose its credibility? That can only happen IF AWARE was a pro-LGBT organization to begin with, no? Otherwise, what credibility does it have vis-a-vis the LGBT agenda?
    AWARE is a women’s rights group, no more, no less. Whether it supports the LGBT agenda is secondary. Women’s rights is women’s rights, and does not include gay rights. So far, not many people seem to be able to tell the difference. Strange!
    A Christian “fundamentalist”.
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  4. Isaiah: Nobody wants Aware to become a Pro or Anti LGBT group.
    As you had said, Aware is about woman’s rights. Which is why we need to stop this group of people from taking over Aware and use it to push forward their Anti LGBT views?

  5. So if pro-LGBT rights folks who push their agenda were running AWARE, that’ll be okay as compared to those who are anti and who will push their agenda?
    Would you vote against a group of women leaders in AWARE who were pro-LGBT? I’ll like a honest answer.
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  6. Isaiah: I think I already made my stand very clear in the beginning. I’m neither pro nor anti LGBT.
    I don’t have any voting rights. If I do, yes, I would vote against anyone that is Anti or Pro LGBT. I think Aware should be neutral on LGBT topic which it has always been. Until this group of people come in and claims that the old Aware is Pro LGBT and wants to push for Anti LGBT.

  7. There has been no evidence to suggest that the current AWARE has been Pro-LGBT. They have just been neutral in portraying LGBT in a neutral light.
    Just because that a woman is lesbian does not mean that they should be discriminated against if aid is required and they are suffering abuse. Being ‘counselled’ to change their sexual preference when they are already suffering from abuse will apply even more stress on them.
    Furthermore, your analogy of a Pro-LGBT AWARE against an Anti-LGBT AWARE is flawed. An Anti-LGBT organisation can and probably will cause the group to be singled out and deprived of aid in a timely manner. A Pro-LGBT organisation can, on the other hand, mainly cause more aid to be diverted to the select group.
    Comparing exclusion versus inclusion, exclusion is likely to cause more harm as a select group is deprived of aid. Inclusion will just ensure that they receive more, if not the same amount of help.
    However should AWARE become a group which actively encourages LGBT and its own agenda, instead of simply portraying it in a neutral light; I believe its members will be more than willing to take down the exco in a vote of no-confidence. Much like what is happening to the current group.

  8. Isaiah, again with those theological blinkers, you’ve failed to consider that women’s rights naturally include the rights of lesbians.
    And that’s the issue here. The rights of one segment do overlap with another. In certain respects, yes it would be somewhat more okay if pro-LGBT rights folk were pushing their agenda in AWARE, because AWARE has ALWAYS been an inclusive organisation.
    The theology that these bunch of women stand for, however, is a theology rooted in hate, fear and contempt of an entire swarth of people. That, in and of itself, is discriminatory already, and is well against the very foundations that AWARE is built on.

  9. Isaiah,
    Again, please try to understand the real issue at hand. Why do we criminalise pedophilia and bestiality? Because by and large, they are not consensual. A child, or an animal cannot knowingly consent to sexual intercourse. The issue there is power. We criminalise pedophilia and bestiality because they are tools of enslavement and coercion.
    Homosexuality, between two CONSENTING ADULTS is not. And please stop being so obsessed with the act of sex, which has been turned into such a fetish by fundamental Judeo-Christian religions.
    By equating homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, you are fixating on the physical aspect, and you are denying that there can exist a loving, mutually respectful relationship and bond between two women, or two men. Melissa Etheridge, the singer, was in a 10 year relationship with Julie Cypher (now separated.) Can you tell me that a 10 year relationship can be based only on SEX?
    Now I have answered your questions logically, so I would very much like you to answer mine.
    a) Have you ever had to troubleshoot for a client on a weekend? Then shouldn’t you be sentenced to death for working on the Sabbath? (Exodus 35:2)
    b) Have you ever had Chilli Crab? Don’t you know the Bible rates that as an abomination? Just like homosexuality? (Leviticus 11:10)

  10. Marcus:
    Really? So are you saying that there can be no love between a human being and an animal, in the case of bestiality, such that it leads to a physical expression of this love through sex?
    Well, you know, I’m not the one crying out for inclusiveness. Liberals are. If we’re talking about inclusiveness, why not those too? With the way this world is going, I won’t be surprised that bestiality will be accepted as a norm in time to come, just as homosexuality itself has.
    Marcus: the fact that you can ask me those questions goes to show how little you understand of Christianity. The short answer is that we are no longer under the yoke of the Law. If you want the long and Biblical answer, I’ll be most happy to tell you elsewhere, as it won’t be nice to hijack DK’s blog with a long reply.
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  11. Conveniently, since you have no reply against my refuting your unfounded allegations regarding pedophilia, you’ve dropped it and fixated now on bestiality. In simple terms, can the animal articulate its love for the human partner? Can it? You ask yourself that same question. But I am being drawn away from the pertinent arguement at hand by your inane comparisons based solely on physical sex.
    I am not sure if you have homosexual friends. I do. I have a number. One of them came out to his parents when he was 16. They are Christian, and have refused any contact with him since then. He’s now 28. I also have a number of very pious Christian friends, including a rather long stint with a evangelical ex-girlfriend. I also have 10 years of Methodist schooling behind me. You should meet some homosexuals. You’ll realise that as much as you like talking about the FAMILY and how homosexuality will ruin the family, think about it. Every gay man or woman is also a daughter, son, uncle, aunt and maybe even father or mother. Are they not components of families too? Or is your worldview so utterly narrow that only a man, a woman and two children constitutes as a family. Religion has done as much, if not more to tear families apart.
    Of course. The New Testament has completely set you lot free, and yet the reasoning for homosexuality as an abomination is to be found in the same book. My line of reasoning is this. You can’t bloody well pick and choose which part of the bible you believe in? It’s all or nothing, if you believe each word to be the literal truth, then everything is the truth, and if you are wearing a T-Shirt made of cotten and polyesther blend, then by the grace of god, your neighbour should be allowed to come and bash your head in with a stone (Lev 19:19)
    Look, we’re not going to be able to change each other’s minds, and man have I had this same conversation with tons of Christians over the years. But let me say something. Jesus was a swell dude, who had lots of great ideas, chief of which is that everyone matters. There’s another swell dude, who doesn’t get quoted as much, but knows quite a bit about human nature, Shakespeare. He said, “Sure, He, that made us with such large discourse, looking before and after, gave us not that capability and god-like reason, to fust in us unused” Meaning: God gave us our intellect and reasoning to be used, not to be surrendered at the altar of a 2500 year old book, or to a cell group leader.

  12. I’m giving you parallels. Does not a dog wag its tail when it’s owner who loves it is nearby or pats it? Can animals have affection for their owners or those that love them? Perhaps you can ask the folks at SPCA?
    I have homosexual friends, and by no means does your association with an evangelical girlfriend or howsoever many years of schooling in a Methodist school make you a Christian or increase your knowledge of Christianity. That’s evidenced by your insistence on me avoiding those questions.
    Yes, they come from the same book, but a cursory understanding of that book produces exactly just what you espouse, even to the point of quoting verses out of context and trying to prove that I am cherry-picking verses when you’re doing exactly that yourself. Besides, I don’t think I’ve quoted you verses yet.
    Yes, my worldview is narrow, and I’m not open-minded in this case. Some think that’s a shame; too bad. God has ordained marriage to be solely between a man and a woman, and yes, a family unit is one man (husband), a woman (wife) and children.
    Friend, Jesus was/is more than a swell guy. He’s King of kings and Lord of lords. He’s Creator and Judge. One day you, too, shall stand before Him to be judged. I’m not scaring you, just telling you the truth, and I care enough for you as a fellow human being to tell you that.
    P.S. by the way, Jesus Himself taught about the sin of homosexuality. Since you obviously do, or have, read the Bible (or at least selective sections of it), I shall leave you to discover those for yourself.
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  13. Isaiah: Singapore is a multi-religion country. I know that Christianity is against homosexuality and I respect your religion and belief. But there are many others who don’t share the same religion as you. So why force your religion and belief on others? Let others have the choice to decide. If you don’t believe in homosexuality, enforce it in your family. Not the entire country.

  14. DK:
    Nobody is forcing the anti-homosexual agenda down anyone’s throats. As far as I can see, it’s the pro-LGBT lobby trying to do exactly that, by asking people to vote against the new Exco at AWARE on 2 May so that AWARE will be more “inclusive”. Makes you wonder who they want to include, doesn’t it? In case you missed my point, homosexual issues are not women issues — they are distinct from one another.
    Now, we can all see that the new Exco was legally voted in, so let them do their jobs, shall we?
    Finally, it’s funny how the liberals come out barking for their agenda to be accepted, but turn it around and they immediately play the “We are victims!” card.
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  15. Eh? Jesus taught about homosexuality?
    I’ve studied the six clobber passages inside out and none of them where directly attributed to Jesus. The topic never appears in the 4 gospels.
    And there are Christians who believe homosexuality is compatible with the Bible. Do you make the audacious claim that your interpretation is superior to theirs?

  16. “One day you, too, shall stand before Him to be judged. I’m not scaring you, just telling you the truth, and I care enough for you as a fellow human being to tell you that.”
    And if the new EXCO of AWARE goes by your thinking above, what kind of programs do you think they’ll roll out? Definitely not something that is secular in nature 🙂
    I guess one of the good things to come out of this would be everybody would know the agendas of both parties (old and new)
    Last but not least, I find the slippery slope argument linking homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia and necrophilia (yeah that too!) quite tiring. Do you seriously classify these groups of people as the same? Do you seriously consider that giving ‘rights’ to gays will eventually leads to people having sex with animals and corpses in their bedrooms? (and who is to say they are not now? haha)
    hatasan’s last blog post.."Darling, shall we go apply for a HDB flat?"

  17. I’m atheist, i think all of you fundies in believe in mumbo jumbo batshit especially the fundies with their godspiel, doing everything to undermine science, then at the nearest sign of cardiac arrest, take no expenses spared to use the latest in medical technology.
    if anything cardiac arrest/disease is just gods way of calling you home.. don’t fight it.
    Why is religion given the kid gloves when it comes to reason/debate?
    really, I ask you , do you believe that opposing faiths (eg: muslims, taoists, hindus, satanists, wiccans) WILL GO TO HELL?
    what about non believers?
    Friday, April 24, 2009
    The Royal College shares the concern of both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association that positions espoused by bodies like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) in the United States are not supported by science. There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Furthermore so-called treatments of homosexuality as recommended by NARTH create a setting in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
    The Royal College of Psychiatrists holds the view that lesbian, gay and bisexual people should be regarded as valued members of society who have exactly similar rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. This includes equal access to health care, the rights and responsibilities involved in a civil partnership, the rights and responsibilities involved in procreating and bringing up children, freedom to practice a religion as a lay person or religious leader, freedom from harassment or discrimination in any sphere and a right to protection from therapies that are potentially damaging, particularly those that purport to change sexual orientation.
    In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organisation followed suit in 1992

    in otherwords, all the “CHRISTIAN SCIENCE” = BOGUS/FAKE/LIES
    just like THIOLOGY is being shown to be a huge lie all over.

  18. Isaiah: If nobody is forcing anti-homosexual agenda down anyone’s throat, please explain the takeover of Aware? 6 members in the new exco are members of Anglican Church of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive, a church with a strong stand against homosexuality. Dr Alan Chin, husband of the new Aware president, is a well known anti LGBT who has written several letters to ST forum slamming LGBT.
    So if this group of people are not doing this to promote their anti LGBT views, then what are they doing? They have sudden interest in woman’s rights? I seriously doubt so after seeing all the things they have done ever since their takeover. They don’t even THINK about the woman who are still having counseling with Aware. All they care is their stupid power struggle and the anti LGBT idea.
    How would you feel if a man wearing shorts and tight T-Shirt is allowed into Aware’s office when there are woman coming to the office for counseling, some because they have been abused by man? This clearly shows that the new exco members have no bloody idea what Aware is about. So why should they remain in the exco?

  19. @Anon:
    Care to at least quote some sources? It’s easy for me to also say “there are folks who…” to substantiate my claims.
    Well, I’d point you to how the gay lobby has successfully re-defined the meaning of marriage for one and all in most parts of the developed world. I wonder what else they’ll redefine for you and me in future.
    Now, that’s a bold claim — that Christians do everything in their power to undermine science. As with Anon above, care to quote sources?
    Question is, have they already forced it down anyone’s throats? Or is everyone jumping the gun because the media has told us that they all come from the same church and have anti-LGBT views?
    Have they been given a chance to show that they will also help homosexual females the same way that a Christian doctor would treat a homosexual man or woman (I personally know a good brother who does that even he has a strong stand against the LGBT agenda and believes as the new Exco and I do that homosexuality is a sin).
    Since you’ve stated that you’ll also vote out any Exco with a pro-LGBT position, what are you going to do if and when the old Exco is reinstated? Call for another no-confidence vote since the old guard are generally known to be pro? I hope you’ll champion that cause as you said you would. 🙂
    Isaiah’s last blog post..Barbarians at the Gate!

  20. @Isaiah
    Oh please, I realize you’re fond of exaggeration. So far only 5 states allowed same sex marriages – hardly most parts of the US (Total: 50 states). 6 countries in total followed the concept of same sex marriages. And that is a total percentage of how many developed countries? Quit all these scare-mongering! You underestimated the power of the conservaties in the developed world.
    But most importantly of all, how did they redefine marriages for me and you? You mean you’ll have to consider same sex partners now? Does it make your marriage any less precious when you know that same sex couples enjoyed similar status and benefits in other countries? Remember, the argument for same sex marriages is conducted in courts, in a legal and logical process.
    hatasan’s last blog post.."Darling, shall we go apply for a HDB flat?"

  21. Isaiah: There is no need to wait till they start forcing the Anti LGBT views into everyone’s throats. Their past records already shown everything. The same reason why I would never ever vote for SDP during election.
    And the old Aware isn’t Pro-LGBT. I’ve said that countless of times and I think many people have repeated that point. They are neutral on the LGBT issue. Which is why I support the old Aware.
    This whole entire saga happens because this group of people took Aware’s neutral stand as a pro stand. And look at the mess it has created now.
    And I want to repeat myself again that the new exco is not interested in woman’s rights. Go read up on what they have done that night when they changed the lock to the centre. These are things that someone with passion for helping woman that has been abused will never ever do.
    I’m not just against the new exco because they are anti LGBT. I’m also against them because they are not interested in woman rights. All they are interested in is power struggle and anti-LGBT. If they are interested in woman rights, they would have join Aware and be active in the activities before the AGM. But they didn’t.

  22. My thoughts exactly…
    If the new EXCO was genuinely interested in women rights, they could jolly well form their own association – Christian Women whatever
    So why didn’t they?
    It is because they took it on them to fight what they deem as a “pro-LGBT” slant that AWARE has taken by being neutral on this topic…
    By casting the first stone, they cannot now paint themselves as the victim/s

  23. Allow me to apologise for “hi-jacking” the band width, but appended below is a comment from another blog that needs to be shared. (Don’t know how to link it!)
    I’m not sure if you are christian but I am. I’ve read counter-arguments and assertions and I think it is a waste of time because the pro-gay camp and anti-gay camp will just continue to rebut each other with equal verocity.
    Thio-Li Ann’s speech, I presume arises from her deeply held convictions about christianity.
    It would thus be prudent to establish morality based on the bible itself. The bible to me, is the word of God but human interpretation can be fallible. The basis of the anti-repeal camp’s belief is that homosexuality is categorically a sin, perverse, deviant etc.
    However, after a thorough examination of the bible, I’m not too sure if it is really sin and we need to re-examine our intepretation.
    We can see how morality has evolved within the bible itself.
    1) After the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen19), Lot and his daughters commit incest to perpetuate reproduction when Lev 18 and 20 clearly prohibit it. (Gen 19:31). Eventually, this incestuous relation spawned a tribe of Moabites (Ruth). From Ruth’s union together with Boaz (son of the prostitute Rahab) came David and later Jesus.
    2) Women were regarded as chattels/property as evidenced in several of God’s laws in the Old testament. Eg when a woman was raped, the rapist had to marry her after paying a sum of money to her father. Women were also regarded as vessels of reproduction. (There was a law in which a widow who had no son had to marry the second son in line to sire a male.) Many of the men in the Old Testament had several wives, Abraham, Issac etc again for the purposes of reproducton. It was only when Jesus came that adulterty was sanctioned and the status of women was elevated.
    3) Slavery was allowed in the olden times but it is now clearly “abominable” and “criminal” as is incest and rape.
    When the bible is read, it has to be intepreted within its proper context which includes the following:-
    a) the point in time in which the book is written;
    b) the history, literature and philosophy employed by the writer;
    c) the audience that the writer is addressing etc.
    In my view, there is a distinction between absolute morality and contextual morality ie you cannot simply superimpose what is infinite onto what is finite.
    Most Christians assume that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah represents God’s wrath against homosexuality. Unfortunately it is not so.
    Ezekial 16: 49 reads: Look this was the inquity of your sister Sodom. She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idlenes; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, and they were haughty and committed abominations..and so I took them away as I saw fit.
    Zephaniah 2:8-11: I’ve hear the reproach of Moab…. With which they have reproached my pple, & made arrogant threats against their borders. …..Surely Moah shall be like Sodom, & the people of Ammon like Gomorrah…..because they have reproached & made arrogant threats against the people of the Lord of Hosts” (pride, arrogance and inhospitality but not homosexuality)
    Matt 10:11-15: “Now whatever city/town you enter, inquire who is in it is worthy & stay there till you go out & whoever will not receive your words, when you depart that house/city shake off the dust from your feet….Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the Land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Jesus’ words of inhospitality but not homosexuality, see also Mark:6-11, Luke 10:10-12, Luke 17: 26-29, Lamentations 4:3-6,Isiah 13: 11-19 etc)
    There are a total of 29 verses pertaining to Sodom and Gomorrah and nowhere is homosexuality mentioned. Hence, christians who maintained that it does have according to the bible, gotten the Gospel wrong.
    Interestly is the parallel story in Judges.(Read Judges: 19:11-30)(Gen 19:29). There, the men in Gibeah similarly demanded sex from a travelling Levite who took refuge in an old man’s house. In Gibeah, the men too were offered women which they first spurned but later raped & killed . The offering of women by Lot and the old man was obviously a diversionary tactic and if the men were really gay, then it makes no sense to offer women to them just for them to spurn it. The difference between the two stories is that the travellers in Sodom were angels who blinded them while the Levite in Gibeah was only an ordinary man. Otherwise the men in Sodom would have raped Lot’s daughters. The Levite in Gibeah subsequently chopped up his raped and dead concubine into pieces and distributed them to other people. (This again emphasizes how low the status of women was in that society). Later, the Levite, with the help of the Israelites and God, too destroy the city.
    The sin in Sodom was inhospitality, not homosexuality. In the olden times, the ancient code of hospitality was sancrosant ie, when a foreigner seeks refuge in your home, you cannot let anything happen to him and this stems from Jesus’ second commandent of loving thy neighbour as thyself. It is repeated several times in the Old Testament:
    And, if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you……you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev 19: 33-34, See also Ex 22:21, Deut 14:29, 24:14-22, Rom 12:6-15 etc)
    In the olden times, there were dangerous places in various lands & wars and the winner often raped the defeated male enemy for to treat them as women would make them feel inferior. Lot & the old man in Gibeah were merely abiding by the ancient code of hospitality by extending a roof over the angels and Levite (travellers seeking refuge in a foreign land)
    Christians who assume that the sin in Sodom was homosexuality have equated the homosexual act/ rape with homosexuality. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two; one is merely an act while the other is a sexual orientation/preference/inclination (whether biological/psycological). As in heterosexual unions, it is not the sex that governs the relationship but the mind and emotions of gay people that governs it. The question is whether the writers at that time had a concept of sexual preference when they penned down God’s word.
    Another salient point is that Jesus said nothing on homosexuality. Jesus had plenty to say about adultery but mentioned nothing on homosexuality. If it is really that evil, perverse or dangerous, then it is odd that he said nothing about it. Christians who take that stand have to address this point.
    In Matt 19:11-12 Jesus makes the following remark:
    All cannot accept this saying but only those to whom it has been given..For there are enunchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, & there are enunchs who were made enunchs by men……He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.
    In the old testament, enunchs were mentioned several times in Esther & Isaiah. (The prophet Daniel too was a enunch). The king in olden times used to get enunchs to look after his concubines. These men were either castrated ones or born enunchs who were the homosexuals….(Others though, take the view that born enunchs are men without testicles). Whatever Jesus meant, it is unclear. However in Isaiah 56:4-8, it is prophesized
    To the eunuchs who keep my covenants…I will give in my house…a name, better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be taken away.
    There were apparently also intimations of homosexual relationships in the bible.
    See 1 Sam Chap 18-20, 2 Sam I:26 for the relationship between Jonathan and David:
    “…the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, & Jonathan loved him as his own soul…” (1 Sam 18:1)
    ” Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul” (1 Sam 19:17)
    “I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women” (2 Sam:1:26).
    Depending on the version used (the one I quoted above is NKJV), the depth of the relationship differs– the NIV version claims that it was a relationship between best friends. Whichever it is, it begs the question of what exactly about homosexual relationship is prohibited.
    I have heard different intepretations of Lev and Romans but will not propose to address them here. Contrary to what anti-christians may think, the bible is actually a moving account of love, compassion, inclusiveness and humanity. The underlying theme from the Old Testament to the New Testament is encapsulated in Jesus’ words:
    Matt 22:36-40: Teacher what is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul & with all your mind This is the first & great commandment. And the second is like ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these 2 commandments hang all the law & the Prophets. (Both christians, non-christians, aethists or agnostics may refer to the bible and see if all that I’ve said is true).
    I think that before we stand up what what is right and just, in particulary for christians, we have to establish that what we stand up for is indeed the truth. I am not saying that the above is the truth but in the light of so many questionable points, it is really impossible to make a clear stand on this matter.
    Finally in Rom 12:9-21 of the behaviour of a christian is stated thus:
    “…Be kindly and affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honour giving preference to one another…Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion…If it is possible, live peaceably with all men…Do not be overcome with evil but overcome evil with good.”
    I hope that both camps will keep this in mind the above when expressing their opinions in future, rather than name-calling or quarrelling.
    In Christ’s love

  24. Chloe: Wow, thanks. That’s a good read. Maybe you can post the URL here, I’ll edit the link for you. 🙂
    I’ve watched the Discovery Channel special on Good Friday where they tried to decode the bible. One thing that they also mentioned was that the destruction of Sodom might be due to inhospitality instead of homosexuality.
    But I’m in no position to debate on this since I didn’t read the entire bible.

  25. Isaiah, you are the funniest thing I’ve read today! And I mean it.
    Good luck to you on Judgement day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *