Friday, August 31, 2007

The anti-homosexuality code of Genghis Khan.

An interesting news on Genhis Khan, by today, the world's first anti-gay.

RESEARCHERS have republished Genghis Khan's code of laws, which banned homosexuality.

"Genghis Khan's Code," published by the Beijing-based Commercial Press, contains Chinese and English versions of the code as well as interpretations of the laws based on research findings.

In article 48 of what is believed to be the world's first constitution, Genghis Khan banned homosexuality. It stated that "men committing sodomy shall be put to death," according to experts with Inner Mongolia's research institute of ancient Mongolian laws.

They spent 14 months compiling the code.

Experts say this was because Genghis Khan wanted to expand the Mongolian population, which was about 1.5 million, compared with 100 million Chinese in the Song Dynasty (960-1279).

Genghis Khan's code of laws also highlighted environment protection, researchers found.

The code stipulated that the death penalty was applied to those found guilty of damaging grassland with unauthorized excavations or fire. It also prohibited hand washing or drowning people in rivers.

Reproduction of the code was based on research findings by the experts, who referred to literature from Mongolian history, as well as other classics including Marco Polo's travelogue.

The original text was lost more than 600 years ago.

Genghis Khan, whose grandson Kublai Khan founded the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368), unified Mongol tribes and conquered most of Eurasia.

Other links:

Yuki's thoughts: Gosh, this really kind of proves Asians are less tolerant than our Caucassion counterparts... or is it.... ???

Yuki's choice reading: Witch-hunting in the nineties -

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

About transsexuals and Gender Identity Disorder.

These are some of the lastest scientific testimonies in the last few years, closer truths of our core existence. If there are any of you who have other useful links, please do present it:

A Discussion on the Relationship Between Gender Identity And Prenatal Exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in 46XY Individuals.

Gender Identity Disorders and Bipolar Disorder Associated With the Ring Y Chromosome.

Genetics Of Sex And Gender Identity.

Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus.

Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics, Study Says.

The Heritability of Gender Identity Disorder in a Child and Adolescent Twin Sample.


A thoughtful article:

Britain - Which of these women were born men?
by Chris Morris
Marie Claire
July 2002

Imagine living your live feeling trapped in a man's body, unable to dress, behave or be treated as the person you feel you are. Chris Morris hears the inspiration stories of three male-to-female transsexuals.

What is transsexualism?

One in 10,000 men and one 30,000 women are born transsexual.

Unlike transvestites, who cross-dress occasionally for fun or sexual kicks, transsexuals feel trapped in the wrong body.

One Dutch study believes the condition is caused by an imbalance of the sex hormones that affect the brain's development in the womb at six to nine weeks. This research showed that one small part of a male-to-female transsexual brain is physiologically the same as that of a woman, while the brains of gay and straight men are identical.

How do you change sex?

At least 5,000 people have had a sex-change operation in the UK in the past 30 years.
The sex-change process begins with a referral to a psychiatrist and counselling.
Male transsexuals then start oestrogen treatment, which helps them develop breasts, smoother skin and rounder hips. Body hair is also reduced, while facial heir is removed by electrolysis or laser.

Patients live as a woman for at least a year to prove that they are happy and socially stable in their new role. They must come out at work, but are protected from discrimination by law. During this time, documents such as driving licence and passport are changed to 'female'. Proposals are under way to change birth certificates.
More counselling follows before the three- to four-hour operation on patients over eighteen.
Dr Russell Reid, consultant psychiatrist at London's Hillingdon Hospital, says about 75 per cent of male-to-female transsexuals, striving to live as 'normal' women, have heterosexual male partners.

'When I hit puberty, my erections repulsed me'

*******, 21, works for an Internet company. She had sex-change surgery in October. 'I had the operation to change my body from a man's to a woman's eight months ago. You can get it done on the NHS, but it takes five years, so I took out a bank loan for ?,000 and went private instead.
'I was scared about going into hospital. It's a three-hour operation, which involved removing my testicles and penile tissue, and inverting the penile skin and scrotum to make a vagina. They made a clitoris out of tissue from part of my glans. I had been taking oestrogen for a year to slow my facial hair, but I had to stop taking it a month before the operation. So while they were making my vagina, I was Iying there with a beard.

'The main worry with the operation is something going wrong afterwards, such as deep-vein thrombosis, vaginal prolapse or that the clitoris might be too sensitive or numb. But I just wanted to get it over with. For me, starting the oestrogen treatment a year before had been more important. As well as slowing down my facial hair, it gave me softer skin, small breasts and made my nipples more sensitive.

'I've felt different for as long as I can remember. I was bullied at school for being feminine. When puberty arrived, I was repulsed by my erections and deepening voice. At times I felt suicidal.

'It wasn't until I was nineteen that I understood what being transsexual was. I'd bought a computer and looked it up on websites. It basically meant I was a woman trapped in a man's body - I had a female brain. Until then, I thought it was just the weirdos you saw on The Jerry Springer Show. I sat there almost shouting: "That's me! That's me!" as I read people's stories.

'I told my mum a few months later. I'd been dressing up in secret and one I day she caught me wearing one of her dresses. I sat on the sofa and burst into tears. It took six months for her to understand what it was I wanted. But she did some research and she's great now.

'I was officially diagnosed as a transsexual in August 2000 and referred to psychiatrists. As well as starting the hormone treatment, I had to live as a woman full-time for a year to prove to them that I'd be happy in the female role. "********" is what my mum would have called me if I'd been born a girl.

'It's cost me around ?5,000 to change sex. That includes the psychiatry bills, the operation and electrolysis and laser sessions to remove the rest of my facial hair. I need up to ten sessions for it to be permanent and I'll need speech therapy to feminise my voice. It's been worth every penny, though. There are still a few things that get me down, like having to shave twice a week and rub oestrogen gel on my breasts to help them grow, but I'm happy with myself now.

'I didn't have any expectations about the results of my operation, but Mum said she was impressed. At first, my vagina was very swollen. Even now, I have to use a special instrument a sort of medical dildo - which I insert once a day for fifteen minutes to stop it healing up. It used to be three times a day, first with a small one, then with a big one.

'For a while after the op. my body didn't know what sex was, even if my brain did. However, I'm able to have sex again now, which I'm very happy about physically. I'm a bisexual female and I'm in a relationship with another male-to-female transsexual. My sex drive is less urgent than it used to be and I don't think about sex all the time. I can orgasm and the sensation is much the same as when I was a man. I don't miss my penis. It's just been changed to a different shape. 'Nobody would choose to go I through this. But I've never once thought about changing my mind. It's what I've had to do _ to be happy.'

'Coming out was very frightening'

***********, 22, is a website designer. She realised she was transsexual at nineteen, and is now living as a woman while waiting for sex-change surgery. 'Before I knew I was transsexual, i went through years of pain. I thought I must be gay, bisexual or a transvestite, and often felt suicidal. It's only now that I'm living as a woman that I finally feel comfortable with myself.

'I expect to have my sex-change operation in August. By then, I'll have completed my "real-life" test by living as a female for a year. I was diagnosed as transsexual last August and I've been ******** ever since. I've always known I'm different - I used to buy clothes from Top Shop and try them on in secret - so although it's scary, it's a relief, too. The day I was prescribed female hormones, I literally ran to the chemist so l could start taking them.

'The real-life test is the hardest bit for any transsexual because it involves coming out, which is very frightening. My dad doesn't talk about it much, but I know he wants me to be happy. My older brother says he's proud of me and my colleagues have been great. I told them by e-mail and got messages back saying: "Good luck" and "You're so brave".

'Men do behave differently to me now. They open doors and I've even had wolf whistles, but that's just funny. My sexuality is lesbian.

'I know now that a genital defect I was born with has contributed to my transsexualism. One of my testicles didn't descend properly because of hormone imbalances in my mum's womb, which is often the case with transsexuals. Although I'm taking out a loan for the operation, it's worth it as I'm 90 per cent comfortable with the way I am now and the operation will just complete the change.

'When people stare at me, I still get worried that they've guessed and will say something. It hasn't happened yet, though. After coming this far, the most important lesson I've learned is to do whatever makes me feel comfortable. Otherwise, I don't know where I'd be.'

'I'll have my sperm frozen'

*********, sixteen, is about to do a beauty therapy course. She Is on hormone treatment and hopes to have sex-change surgery when she's 21. 'I became ****** - the female ********* - on my sixteenth birthday.

I kept my male name because it sounds feminine, too. The night before, I had my hair braided, a manicure and leg wax, and went to bed in a nightie. The next day, I put on a gel-filled bra, skirt, top and platform shoes. Looking in the mirror was such a thrill.

'When I was twelve, I wrote my mum a letter, saying I should have been born a girl. She was in tears when she read it and said I was confused. We talked it over for days before getting professional advice. A gender specialist told me it could just be puberty. However, if it was something deeper, I'd have to wait until I was sixteen to start changing sex legally, and eighteen till I could have the op. But over the next four years, my feelings just got stronger.

'When I turned sixteen, I started having injections to suppress my testosterone. That helped, but I had terrible mood swings.

'Since I've started dressing as a girl, I get a lot of male attention. I'm a straight female inside and I fancy men, but i know I can't see anybody right now in case it gets physical, so I just flirt. The other day, this man offered to carry my shopping and started chatting me up. He'd actually known me as male *********, but didn't realise.

'My mum does wonder if I've made the decision too early. She'd like grandchildren, so I plan to have sperm frozen before the op that can be used to fertilise the egg of a surrogate mum.

'My grandparents say I'll always be their grandson, which upsets me. I hate being reminded I was a boy. Every time I have a bath I'm reminded and get depressed.

'It's not easy living like this. I used to get angry that other teenagers had "normal" lives, but the feeling isn't half as bad now that I know who I am.'

The operation

During gender-reassignment surgery erectiie tissue is removed from the penis, leaving the urethra (for urination) and part of the nerves of the glans (to form a clitoris).
An incision is made through the perineum' end skin from the penis and scrotum is turned inwards to form the vagina and labia.
Healing takes up to three months During this time the patient has to use a medical dilator to stop their vagina closing up. The use~decreases over time, but can last for several years.

For further help

Mermaids is a support group for young transsexuals and their families. For more information visit or call 07020-935066
The Beaumont Society is a transgendered support group. For help or advice call its information line on 01582-41220.
Press For Change campaigns for equal civil and legal rights for transsexuals. Visit for more details.

© 2002 - Marie Claire


Jesus image in Tamil daily.

Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'.

A Malaysian newspaper is facing calls to shut down after it published an image of Jesus holding a cigarette and what appeared to be a can of beer.

Malaysia's Muslim-led government closed two publications last year for carrying controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

Now some members of Malaysia's minority religions say they want the same treatment over this latest incident.

Religion is a famously sensitive subject in Malaysia.

So when Tamil-language newspaper, Makkal Osai, published a picture on its front page apparently showing Jesus smoking and drinking it was bound to cause offence.

Christian groups said that although the Jesus of the Bible was a compassionate figure - who turned water into wine, shared a flagon with his disciples at the Last Supper and mixed with tax collectors and prostitutes - action should still be taken.

The paper has since issued an apology, explaining that a graphics editor had mistakenly taken the image from the internet. Most of Malaysia's churches appear to have been appeased.

Not so though the Malaysian Indian Congress, an ethnic Tamil political party in the governing coalition, most of whose members are Hindu.

A senior party official has demanded that Makkal Osai's editor be sacked and the paper closed.

Interestingly, Makkal Osai has been very critical of the Malaysian Indian Congress, which owns a rival Tamil-language newspaper.

Non-Muslims are also waiting to see how the government responds, given that it took tough action over the publication of the Prophet Muhammad cartoons.

Yuki's thoughts: I do not see what the incident has got to do with the Malaysian Indian Congress, a chance for political revenge justified by religion? Strange.

Other source and links:

When gays can be one... 600 years ago....

Are Homosexual Civil Unions A 600-year-old Tradition?

Science Daily — A compelling new study from the September issue of the Journal of Modern History reviews historical evidence, including documents and gravesites, suggesting that homosexual civil unions may have existed six centuries ago in France. The article is the latest from the ongoing "Contemporary Issues in Historical Perspective" series, which explores the intersection between historical knowledge and current affairs.

Commonly used rationales in support of gay marriage and gay civil unions avoid historical arguments. However, as Allan A. Tulchin (Shippensburg University) reveals in his forthcoming article, a strong historical precedent exists for homosexual civil unions.

Opponents of gay marriage in the United States today have tended to assume that nuclear families have always been the standard household form. However, as Tulchin writes, "Western family structures have been much more varied than many people today seem to realize, and Western legal systems have in the past made provisions for a variety of household structures."

For example, in late medieval France, the term affrèrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.

The new "brothers" pledged to live together sharing 'un pain, un vin, et une bourse' -- one bread, one wine, and one purse. As Tulchin notes, "The model for these household arrangements is that of two or more brothers who have inherited the family home on an equal basis from their parents and who will continue to live together, just as they did when they were children." But at the same time, "the affrèrement was not only for brothers," since many other people, including relatives and non-relatives, used it.

The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: "All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other's legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés."

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

He concludes: "The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth."

Reference: Allan Tulchin, "Same-Sex Couples Creating Households in Old Regime France: The Uses of the Affrèrement." Journal of Modern History: September 2007.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Chicago Press Journals.

Yuki's thoughts: I repeat the end of the article again:

"The very existence of affrèrements shows that there was a radical shift in attitudes between the sixteenth century and the rise of modern antihomosexual legislation in the twentieth."

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

The Pretence.

I have a former employer who is a good friend (G) and a person I consider my spiritual brother (T) praying for me yesterday afternoon. Knowing (G) is a blessing, at times I feel obligated to him and (T) because they helped me a lot. But (G) often accuse me of 'not trying hard enough' looking for a job, when the fact is I had been scouring all areas I could find, even at a time I am not having my car around to travel because of two accidents for the past month. Furthermore, (G) always thinks that I am 'confused', and very verbally says so.

When we started praying, things kind of got uncomfortable when (T) continuously refer to me as 'him' more than 'her' and then cried as if I am doing something very bad. And the basis of his prayer is that I have been 'away' from God far too long. I quickly woke up from prayer and read Romans 14. Something is wrong. In fact, for all my 'not trying hard enough' accusations, I even had an interview and went to KL after I visited them in the shop. And I even got the job.

I felt sometimes conversations between me, (G) and (T) are always about playing catch. They expect me to know 'the answer' without telling me. Most of the conversations are also in the wrong frequencey, and I found what they say irrelevant to me as a person.

Today I had sms conversation with (T), just to confirm my suspicion. This is how it goes:

T: [God makes choices. ] If we want to work with Him and have His
blessings, we must accept His ways. If we trully love Him, we will love what He
choose to love. When we choose to humble ourselves and persist in seeking God's
will, the Lord calls that 'Great Faith' ,and He rewards it.

T: Matthew 6 : 33 James 4 : 2-3

Me: Motives are examined. I want only what would give me pleasure? Does not
apply. Something is not right. I hope you be honest is there expectations on me?

T : What is right? What is not right? Seek the Lord, because He says, "I am
the Way , the Truth and The Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
"God bless u with His love, joy and peace.

Me: It is confusing me. I tried very hard to know what (G) was saying when
he said I did not try hard enough to look for jobs, when I did. You said the job
in KL may not be God's will. The job is mine. Why so? Has it got anything to do
with the fact I am a girl by default? Please be direct. I am lost.

T: [God makes choices. ] If we want to work with Him and have His
blessings, we must accept His ways. If we trully love Him, we will love what He
choose to love. When we choose to humble ourselves and persist in seeking God's
will, the Lord calls that 'Great Faith' ,and He rewards it.

Me: You and (G) believe me as a girl is not part of God's plan for me, and
that you still bear the faith that God would bless me if I pretend as a boy?

There had been no answers from (T) until now. The silence from him speaks a thousand words. It is sad that people would choose to love me into changing to something they love me to change into, in the name of God.

There was a day I went to (G)'s shop handled by (T) wearing long jeans. (T) seemed to be happy seeing me wearing it. To him, a slight change of dress code is a sign of change to redemption. I know I look weird, but he says I look good. But I did mention to him clearly whatever I wear I am still a girl. I wonder if (T) understands it.

Seeking God as a comfort zone to our own sense of insecurity over differences we sometimes could not accept is something I find tragic. And the tragedy for me is that they are the very people I respect and love in my life. That is why I choose to be non Christian identified and just keep my relationship with God personal. In the eyes of people around me, wearing a skirt means I am against God. In my Father's eyes however, I already know for certain that whatever I look, or wear, I am His daughter on earth, and His spirit in heaven. In this I have peace.

'i put no stock in religion. I hv seen lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of God. Holiness is in right action n courage on behalf of those who can't defend themselves. N goodness - what God desires - is here (head) n here (heart). By what u decide to do everyday, u will be a good man or not' quote fr "kingdom of heaven'

(The last sms I sent to (T) today. And it is still left unreplied. Really feeling at odds because they are my friends.)

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Fun with blog film ratings.

I had some fun with blog film ratings, so after trying it out here:

My ratings are:

Surprisingly, youths below 17 are not allowed on my blog unless they bring along their parents!

I share the pleasure of having this R rating with Ms. Marti Abernathey's blogsite (

and also (dreads) Scott Thong (


Unfortunately, no admitance is allowed youths below 17 at all for Ms. Autumn Sandeen. ( Seems her blogsite is rated:

--------------------- is rated:


Those blogsites with this rating...

Includes... Edmund Smith's Xgaysite ( and Xgaywatch (

Gosh... Edmund Smith is so innocent compared to me....

Worrysome Christianity.

Scott Thong issued the LGT community an apology here:

I am very proud of him. But it is kind ruined when another being crashed into it militia style on the apology post, on the commentary below.

Dear Scott, it takes great pride to appologise and it is one of the traits that
should be trully instilled in God’s children. (a) I do agree with you
all the way about the questions of the existence of homosexuality and i strongly
oppose concerning the notion that it is ok to appoint a gay pastor to lead the
christians and homosexuality in life.
Christ is the head of the Church
and and He is no gay. (b)So who gives the particular pastor and other so
called gay pastors the right to be one , the head of a church when he doesn t
even follow the teaching of the Bible itself but deliberately creating his own
doctrines to suit his need
. Then Our worship to God is in vain if we
follow human doctrines instead of our Lord Jesus’ teachings (cf. 2 Jn 9; Gal
1:8-9; Jn 4:24). (c)I’m happy to read your personal attacks on Yuki’s
posts and questions and i cant even find any forms of arrogance in it as all
those statements are coming from your personal opinion based on the true
teaching of Bible
. Yuki ,on the otherhand is more inclined to human
interpretations than using the bible to look for answers. (d)She
believes in God and a christian herself, unfortunately is still doubtful of what
is propagated by Jesus and having tunnel visions in her understanding between
the old and the new tastement
.It is not enough just to call Jesus our
Lord. We must do the will of the Father. If we do not obey Jesus’ teachings, we
are as foolish as a man who builds a house without a solid foundation.
(e)So the gay should should be blame for being what they are but they
are wrong in the eyes of God and should be exposed to the teaching of Bible not
to have another church for gays!!!!
Well , the true answer for the
above question is already stated in the Bible, not wikipedia, not from the
journals or whatsoever, So the question of of our salvation is as stated in Mat
24 : 13.

The Word for believers are supposed to be the lamp unto the feet and the light unto the path. But for people like this Highlander, it is a source of ammunition of intolerance and prejudice.

a) Homosexuals exist. Highlander says no. Wow. But I agree with most of the LGTs it would have been better if Rev Ou Yang, never place his sexuality out on his ordaination. It is just amazing that people do not even appreciate such honesty on sexuality, but instead calls it a lie.

b) I wonder what is the proof of 'creation of his (Ou Yang) own doctrines.' He is only gay for goodness sake. Heck, at least Ou Yang is out and honest. I would not like to attend a church headed by a highlander who do not even have a profile, and shoots then hides for the fun of it.

c) Justifying attacks on a person, then flaming, then worshipping the Bible instead of Christ. Is this really a Christian?

d) I mentioned before sometimes bigotry blinds a person's eyes in the face of dialogue. Any reader of my blog would already have this fact hammered: I am not a Christian anymore. And is it tunnel visions, when every Christian knows the difference between the war God of the Old Testament and the God of Love in the New Testament? Highlander worships a book again.

e) Now Highlander worships his own bigotry.

I think you all would know there are other comments in regards to Ou Yang, some even nastier ones like this: Observe comment 12. Also another one who comes and shoots and do not dare to show himself who he or she is. And another evidence that the bigotry is still discriminative between gays and lesbians. I am already over annoyed to reply to such loathsome show of antigay lies and hate mongering. But it is these mentalities that is bringing a more dangerous side out from anti-homosexuality, and Christianity.


Breaking news...

We do have our reasons to get worried on the Christian side that is becoming militant. It somehow got started after the 9/11 attacks, where the Bible is again used to justify the war on Iraq. Some cultish deviants of Christianity, the same ones that are so deeply condemning the LGT community, is really starting to show a sign of 'gathering of an army'. The New Testament had countlessly mentioned the wolves in sheeps clothing, the kinds of fruits that certain tree bears and a confused army going against God. Not all who call to God Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. All the signs of the army going against God are actually some Christians themselves, may be increasing.

Last year, a show-movement called Jesus Camp was on air, presenting the training of children to become "Christian soldiers" to wage war against unbelievers. This is what I fear the most in saying that untrained minds could easily be influenced into self-imprisoned zombiedom.

Becky Fischer, a preacher for these children, went on to explain how the children are 'usable resource for the cause of Christiantiy', even went on to admit they are brainwashing children with their own brand of moral values, citing, 'studies have shown that a person's moral values in life are set in place between the ages of seven to nine years of age and will change very little after that'.

Watch the trailers of the show here:

I wonder will we Malaysians, who profess to be Christians who are Asian toned, would sink down to this shocking level of cultish militancy, feeding it to our children's minds. And as a Christian world, are we going back to the times where Christianity is still a war based religion? Now, back to our original story....


Somewhere along the way, some sections of Christianity seems to be losing touch with reality. Defining God for others is already serious. Defining our own hatred and bigotry along with defining God for others and into is utterly insane. But it seems that is what everyone is doing now.

Recycled 'myths' presented by people throughout the century, and like homosexuality today, is really getting tiringly stale. But it is still amazing when people buy into it as the truth. Even when it is proven by such hard realism and factual evidence, there is always the religious magical word called 'God says so'. When that fails, they then create their own non-peer or non-third party viewed 'sciences and evidences'. When they realise people are coming on to them liars, here comes the ultimate 'on / off' switch of Bible selection. It goes like:

Slavery? (The Bible is so obviously pro-slavery, from Genesis to Revelations)
- More than 25 verses says so, and for the future, four verses in Revelations.
- Switch: ON - Oh, you know, it is the past. The culture is different at that time and now, erm...

Earth being flat? (The Bible confirmed the earth is flat and the sun goes around it is the 'truth')
- More than 5 verses says so.
- Switch: ON -Well, the Bible never really clearly says that... even so the writers of the Bible do not know about it back in those centuries... The Bible is the inspired Word Of God you see....

Everything God asks to kill; like children, people who work Sundays (The Bible, God says so!)
- Tons of verses in the Bible asks for people to be killed because of what we define as trivial matters today!
- Switch: ON - Actually, those times are when before Christ came, so you see, it is okay...

Woman to stay silent? (The Bible wants women to be ultra submissive and covered head to toe)
- Three PASSAGES in the Bible says so, all in the New Testament, soundly and clearly.
- Switch: ON - No, actually Paul was just expressing his desires for women to be in proper conduct in church... furthermore times are different now. Anyway, my wife is important to me....

Homosexuality (The famous Christian prejudice)
- Six verses, four in Old Testament, three by Paul the woman discriminator in New Testament.
- Switch: OFF - Its an abomination. No. It is unnatural. See God says so! Look at all the heterosexual sex diseases inflicted on homosexual men with their gay lifestyle? Hah. You see those dirty men! Huh? There are lesbians? Oh ya. They are living in sin too. Whatever! God condemns homosexuality. Period! Homosexuals do not exist. Even if they exist they can change by living a celibate life! Yeah! Homosexuality is even more serious than heterosexual's adultery!


Friday, August 24, 2007

Musings about J. Michael Bailey and Edmund Smith.

J.Michael Bailey is the king of transgender junk science and misinformation.

This is what happens when a person has limited or no knowledge about transgenders / transsexuals, but went on to create their own science.

Michael Bailey calls me a person who is:
1) a homosexual who is uncomfortable being with a man as a man.
(Relations to me? Even if I am not with a man, I am still a girl, but unfornately a transsexual)
2) a man who has erotic fascinations of being a woman.
(Relations to me? Well, I am sure I do not feel erotic. I know I am still a girl now, even though while writing his I am wearing jeans and a short sleeve shirt.)

This is another man, who seems to think his science is inclusive for all. There is no doubt that autogynephilia is one of the reasons a small portion might partake on transcending genders, another being some homosexuals uncomfortable with themselves. But he has mistook the smallest minority, for the majority. It seems his research only concentrates on crossdressers, not transsexuals.

I do not know this man to comment further. But my point is, this type of misinformation is often used by a greater bad. It paints some of the LGTs with stigma and dogma, and once it sticks, the opinion seldom changes.

Reminds me the prince:

Edmund Smith calls me a person who has
1) 'Self Issue towards ones gender'.
(Relations to me? I do not have any issues, I am darn sure I am a girl but with a birth defect)

Edmund's homosexuality is already questionable, described by his own testimony of his broken relationship with his father and then looking for love in the wrong places, everything that surrounds his homosexuality is environmentally constructed.

Which is why you would notice, ALL of the ex-gay stories presented by him has the same lines, broken family relationships, problems, issues growing up. It is the reason why I still stress that his experience in social constructed homosexuality would be of benefit to those like him.

The problem lies with his beliefs, that his ministry is definitely applicable to all homosexuals. He would be a destructive influence for homosexuals whose circumstances are the total opposite (great relationship with parents, normal puberty). Those with trained minds would reject him totally. But there are others, those desperate to change for an easier social life, they will land themselves in trouble.

Because Edmund's beliefs that the change he is promising is inclusive of all, some will end up an emotional and psychological mess. Especially when his 'gender confused' theory is confusing by itself; Edmund was dressed by his mother as a girl when he was young, which is probably the reason why Edmund is so convinced this is one of the 'causes' to his homosexuality.

It would also appear to be the reason why Edmund always mixes the two separate entities of homosexuality AND transgenders together. How RLM handle those who are biologically born homosexuals should be heavily scrutinized. And anymore mad sciences presented by him about transgenders should be rejected.

(Just to share, see, I am not dressed by my mom when I was young. I am not even bothered what to dress as. I just wonder what that thing sticking out of my groin is doing there, and dislike the effects it has on me.)

Real Love Ministry's education for the general public, that gays live a hurful and painful life, and the picture they paint that all gays care about is sex and fulfilling 'urges'; is way far off from the reality of homosexuals living today. RLM seems to be oblivious to the hard truth that homosexuality is just another orientation. Edmund Smith totally overlooked the fact that even heterosexuals, have sexual urges. A new ministry for heterosexuals, anyone?

Thursday, August 23, 2007

ASIA: No room for transgender people in HIV funding.

This article was out today:

COLOMBO, 21 August 2007 (PlusNews) - In Asia, as in many parts of the world, men who have sex with men often hide their sexual preferences for fear of being harassed by police, ostracised by their families or discriminated against by their communities.

But transgender people, who do not identify with the sexuality they were born with - known as "warias" in Indonesia and "hijimas" in parts of India - are less likely to hide their sexual orientation, and face even higher levels of stigma and discrimination than men who have sex with men (MSM).

The result, according to presenters at a special session on transgenderism at the 8th International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific (ICAAP), in Colombo, Sri Lanka, this week, is to push them further underground, making them extremely hard to reach with HIV prevention, care and treatment.

They often suffer from depression as a result of rejection by family and friends, which can lead to substance abuse and other risk-taking behaviours, making them particularly vulnerable to HIV infection.

Aashabharathi Ponnusamy, who heads the Tamil Nadu Aravanigal Association in India ("aravani" is the Tamil word for transgender people), which works to secure the rights of transgender people, said they were often also highly mobile because of the difficulties they faced in finding employment.

Taking on a female identity can also put transgender people at risk of the sexual violence that women are more likely to be subjected to in many societies.

Emasculation surgery is illegal in India, and is done in back-street clinics where the instruments may be unsterilised and the risk of infection is high, while little is known about the side effects of hormone medication on HIV-positive people, or interactions with antiretroviral drugs, yet it is available over the counter in countries such as Thailand.

According to Thomas Guadamuz, of the Centre for Research on Health and Sexual Orientation at the University of Pittsburg, in the US, it is also not uncommon for transgenders in Thailand to buy silicone from illegal traders and to share needles to inject it.

A small but growing number of interventions are now targeting MSM and injecting drug users, but most of the evidence relating to transgenders and their HIV risk is anecdotal, and strategies to provide them with HIV programmes are still in their infancy in most countries.

Several speakers at the conference said getting funding for programmes catering to transgender people was extremely difficult.

Yuki's thoughts: More needs to be done to create awareness and familiarity in transgender issues. In some sense, we Malaysian transgenders should feel blesssed we are in a more tolerant country than most. At least we still have that little space, though small, to stay alive.

Yuki's FYI:

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

God, Gays, Plugs and Sockets.

From The Malta Independent Online:

God, Gays, Plugs and Sockets by Daphne Caruana Galizia

In the correspondence pages of another newspaper, a debate is going on about whether God loves gays and whether homosexuality is ‘allowed’ (apparently, it isn’t). Yes, really. You wouldn’t believe it, would you? We’re in the 21st century and in the European Union, and still there are many among us who are much taken with these medieval themes. I suppose they are the sort of people who have never recovered from the decriminalisation of sexual acts between people of the same gender. While they might not actually approve of the execution of homosexuals in Iran, they sympathise with the spirit of that thinking.

What amazes me is the literalism with which this subject is debated in the context of Catholic doctrine and biblical teaching. The various writers of letters to the newspaper speak as though we are living in a theocracy, where religious teaching is the law of the land: “The Bible says…”; “Jesus said…”; “The Catholic Church tells us…”; “Catholic doctrine teaches…”. They make not even a passing reference to secular law, as though it is something nasty imposed on this country by outsiders, the law of a coloniser, there to be resisted, ignored or honoured in the breach. They speak as though the only laws that count for them are the rules laid down by the Vatican. They know no others. Despite the decriminalisation of homosexual sex many years ago, here they are, still insisting to whoever will listen that homosexuals of all shape, hue, stripe and religion must never have sex unless they are married to somebody of the other gender.

It is one of the first things noticed by the more literate ‘outsiders’ in Malta and the Maltese who have been away for a long time: the unremitting use of Jesus and the Church as a reference point for behaviour, in the correspondence pages of all our newspapers and even in private conversation. I recently met a woman who returned to Malta for a visit after having lived elsewhere in Europe for 30 years. She was astonished to find that her former school-friends, who are in their late 50s, discuss morality using the terminology of school doctrine classes, and with the same mindset. Aside from the fact that this points to a lack of intellectual development – what I call the ‘foot-binding of the mind’ that was performed on Maltese women until the current generation, it is as though the law and secular morality do not exist.

Whip away the moral framework of Catholic teaching, and these people founder. Without clear instructions from their books of doctrine, they don’t know the difference between wrong and right. They have no parameters for decent behaviour. The teaching of morality within an exclusively religious context is one of the main reasons why so many people here are sleazy, untrustworthy, prone to sharp behaviour which they interpret as cleverness, disloyal, corrupt, and generally lacking those qualities which an older generation describes as irgulija.

When they drop their religion, or more precisely their religious fear of divine retribution, they are unconfined by any standards of behaviour.

If they were taught that something is wrong because Jesus said so, and not because it is intrinsically wrong for reasons that are entirely secular, then when they no longer believe in Jesus, they no longer believe that the thing is wrong. The growth in the number of fervent believers in prayer groups is just the flip-side of the coin. The other side is the growth in the number of people who don’t believe in anything at all, except grabbing as much as they can on their way out.

The debate about whether homosexuals are freaks of nature, people who are essentially “wrong”, genetic mistakes who persist in perversity instead of hiding themselves away in solitary chastity, brings to the fore another class of people behaving badly. They are the ones who think that because they have the Vatican on their side, they can tell us who is allowed and who isn’t allowed, whom God loves and doesn’t love, and who we are allowed to have sex with or not. The only response to that kind of thing is the equally rude “Shut up and mind your own business”, but apparently there are those who cannot resist the temptation to engage these relics of a different world in debate. How can they ever hope to convince them with logic and argument? It’s impossible. The only thing to do with such people is to ensure that they are never in a position of power over others. Fortunately, there are legal and political safeguards against the return of the Inquisition.

You cannot use logic with people who are essentially illogical in their thinking. It doesn’t have any effect. Religious faith, intolerance and overwrought emotions have in-built defences against logic. The most common argument they use is that homosexual sex is evil in the eyes of God because it is “barren” and can never produce a child. Yet there is no parallel teaching that copulation after the menopause is evil in God’s eyes – on the contrary, women whose child-bearing days are long past are urged to have sex with their husband on demand “because it is their duty”.

Anyway, I’m not going to get into that, because it’s too irritating, and I’m sure that these people are the exception, not the rule. Most of us realise that the sexual life of others is none of our business, unless it involves coercion or children. What I do find even more astounding is the way these people are completely out of step with reality, and they don’t even realise it. Even the new generation of priests don’t speak or write like that, and yet here we have all these God-bothering lay-people, presuming to instruct and condemn. One woman wrote to quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church – a book that is up there with the worst of them in creating discord, division, pettiness and prejudice. My own attitude towards the Catechism is that anyone who needs a book of instructions so as to know how to be a good person and behave well is a lost cause to start with. How can any person, as this woman did, write to the newspapers to quote this particular gem from her Catechism book? “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” She even gives the reference: 2357.

I suppose the Catechism of the Catholic Church – I wouldn’t know, because I threw my copy away long before I left school, having had absolutely no interest in it – has no instructions on how far one should go in causing severe offence to others who are doing nobody any harm. That would be why the Catechism-quoting newspaper correspondent found nothing wrong in writing this: “The physical anatomy of two men does not complement each other and neither does that of two women. It is like having two electrical sockets on a wall which, no matter how close they are to each other, are unable to generate light.” Yes, I know – it’s unbelievable, more so when you consider that this is a middle-aged woman who, intellectually, has not moved an inch beyond the primitive thinking of metaphors and examples from “everyday life” of the MUSEUM classroom of childhood. And then there was this: “Homosexual behaviour fails to achieve… the continuation of the human race. No homosexual couple can ever generate a child. There are certainly heterosexual couples who are, unfortunately, infertile – but this is not the norm. So much so that a village hypothetically inhabited solely by homosexual couples will eventually disappear while one peopled by heterosexual couples will not.”

This is not just profoundly insulting, like the crass comment about plugs and sockets. It is also profoundly ignorant, and displays some very confused thinking about fertility. Homosexual people are not infertile, unless it is for the same reasons that affect the fertility of heterosexual people. Homosexual women come equipped with the same array of reproductive equipment as heterosexual women, and homosexual men – this might not be taught at the MUSEUM – produce sperm in the same way that heterosexual men do (oh, surprise, surprise). So where is the infertility? Many homosexuals choose to have children, and do so. Many homosexual men are regular donors to sperm banks and have, with supreme irony given our newspaper correspondent’s arguments, fathered the children of women whose heterosexual husbands couldn’t do so.

Whether you approve or not is beside the point; the point is that being homosexual does not make you infertile. It only makes you unable to have a child with your partner. Equally, there are only rare examples of “infertile couples”, though there are many infertile individuals. And I just love that bit about the hypothetical village of homosexuals. There are so many other interesting examples of hypothetical villages that I can come up with, starting with a hypothetical village of interfering busybodies who insist that we all live by their Catechism. Why not round them up and get them all to live together, so that the rest of us can live in peace? Then they could live their lives in bliss, policing each other and reporting the neighbours to the Vatican’s Sex Police.

Ah, but I love even more the confident assertion that a village of heterosexual people will never die out. Give this woman some books to read other than the Catechism. Give her documentaries to watch. Take her on trips abroad, or even on a little tour of our own tiny islands. The world is full of the ghost-sites of villages that have died out, and presumably they weren’t all inhabited solely by well-groomed men with a keen interest in art and dance or women in baggy tracksuits and no make-up. Entire races and civilisations have died out, not just villages – for a great variety of reasons, including the one that we are experiencing now: the fact that people are fertile and heterosexual does not mean that they will have children. Practically every couple in the Maltese Islands is having sex that is every bit as barren, to use the terminology favoured by the Catechism-quoters, as homosexual sex. If they’re not using one of a variety of forms of contraception, as the vast majority are doubtlessly doing, then they are having sex in the Church-approved “safe period” – another exercise in illogical thinking, because the only reason that it is “safe” is precisely because it is “not open to life”. Our negligible birth rate is not the result of people “turning” homosexual, but the result of people having sex only when they know that conception is out of the question.

What is perhaps most interesting about all these people who write to the newspapers to quote the Catechism at us is their assumption that everyone is obliged to live by the rules of Catholic teaching. It doesn’t occur to them for one minute that it is only Catholics who are obliged to live by those rules. Everyone else, including the legions of lapsed Catholics in this country, can do precisely as they please, within the limits of the law and common decency. Even Catholics can do as they please, because there is no Inquisition to force them to stick to the rules.

Yuki's thoughts: God's peace and love for mankind should overpower everything.

Somethings will never change.

He done it again!

Scott said:
"As Yuki has raised this accusation against me, I feel that I owe an explanation. (Here comes another justification by Scott) The 'insane bashing and insulting' that Yuki implies refers to the following that I wrote in my own blog:

---Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?---

My remark above referred to the Star report, which said:

---Perry believed the church would be a blessing for the gay and lesbian communities in Malaysia. He also spoke of his promise to his partner that he would stand by him, when De Blieck was diagnosed with HIV two decades ago.---

Perhaps I was insensitive in the way I put forward this remark. (This is close to the apology I was looking for, then... ) But I will reiterate my three points above in a more neutral manner:

1) Issues of homosexuality aside, Christianity prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage. How did De Blieck then get the HIV virus without breaking Biblical precepts? (I admit that this is assumption on my part - De Blieck could have been nonChristian at that time) (De Blieck may have non sex that time too)

2) Homosexuality and even marriage aside, how did De Blieck get HIV? Perry is not mentioned as having HIV, otherwise standing by his partner De Blieck would not be a noteworthy point at all. The assumption then is that De Blieck had unprotected sex with someone other than Perry. How does this reflect on his integrity and moral conviction? (Acccording to The Star, Perry was there when De Blieck was diagnosed with HIV two decades ago, implying that they were already together as partners when the HIV was discovered.)(Whatever problems we have with Perry, we should respect Perry for standing by his partner in times of despair... who says there is no such thing a same sex love? This is a beautiful thing, but interpreted by Scott as still immoral? Maybe he is attending Church of Malaysia under whatzhiznameohallentan)

3) Their devotion to Christian standards of godly behavior thus in question, how does this reflect on their ability/willingness/authority/ to correctly guide believers on matters regardgin the Christian faith? (Repentance of past sins notwithstanding)The above questions do nothing to forward a discussion of Biblical interpretation on homosexuality. (And Scott calls this neutral)I thus admit that it was an ad hominem attack, designed to call into question how devoted to the precepts of Christianity the church leaders really are. However, there are NO INSULTING LABELS AT ALL.

The Star's sentence on Perry's devotion to De Blieck was crafted to put them in favourable light - homosexuals are faithful partners just as much as heterosexuals.

What I did was to point out that this 'favourable light' situation could not happen if unfaithfulness had not taken place in the past (rape, IV injection and etc notwithstanding).

I have not apologised as I did not make any insulting remarks, nor was I asked to apologise by Perry or De Blieck - the persons allegedly 'insulted'.

Had I called into question the moral standards of ALL HIV sufferers or homosexuals IN GENERAL, then Yuki might have a valid basis to ask me to apologise. (He STILL did not read back his writing, or his prejudice blinded him without him knowing.)

And of course, I have the right to air my opinions ON MY OWN BLOG. If anyone wishes to file a complaint with Wordpress, along with concrete evidence of my breaking any rules, they have the right to do so.

<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>

This is another long story:

In contrast to my single instance of arguable insulting, Yuki has been shown to regularly partake of such ad hominem attacks on me. In this very post's comments, Yuki insinuates that I am 'proud' of my 'insult'.

Yet nowhere will you find that I stated my smugness over my remarks, nor are there even any condescending terms in my entire post. If I am proud of anything, it is that I did not use any deragotary terms against these men - a point of integrity that I always carefully uphold, knowing this plural and politically correct Net that I inhabit.

Forgive my defensiveness, but I contend back that Yuki commonly uses insults, condescension and smear terms are used against me instead of focusing on my arguments points.

Just look to Yuki's comment above for the condescendingly used term boy, used to discredit me with its connotations of being inexperienced, naive and immature.

An entire list of insinuations that I am bigoted, prejudiced and anti-homosexual-persons can be found in this post of Yuki's, which was reposted in full and replied to by me here:

A few examples, all Yuki's own words:

Here is a jumbled box. You can read all about it in previous postings in my blog. It is so obvious he is oblivious to what is going around in himself. Perhaps another lust, the lust to judge?

---In my last reply to Scott which everyone can read here, I felt we reached the half way point in which we can dialogue. But sadly, he transformed into somewhat the discriminative creature.------You hereby state this: You have the right to go to church, serve in the ministry, while praising and worship God. You also reserve the right to deny homosexuals the right to go to church, serve in the ministry, while praising and worshiping God. Yes?------You hereby state this: Any positive mention of civil rights for homosexuals would infringe your comfort zone, and you feel that, while maintaining your civil rights, it is your right to deny homosexuals their civil rights. Yes?------Please believe me; you are just not in this field even scientifically to talk about it. All you can do is prejudice and say God says so and so, that homosexuals are not Christians, when God says barely anything.------I think this misinformation campaign will suit you. They are very disturbing and I must admit I am not fit to discuss anything with them. It is that exasparating. Perhaps, you can put your thoughts on it, They have a forum there too: .--- The site quoted is obviously a polemic against Christianity, basically ridiculing the notion of God being loving and just - because He won't instantly and miraculously restore the limbs of amputees. Therefore, He eitehr doesn't exist or is mean and spiteful. In short, Yuki is equivalating me to mockers who intentionally quote Scripture out of context to suit their own purposes - only I of course do it against homosexuality.And some from Yuki's blog at :---Again Scott Thong replied. And again based on personal dogma. It is amazing the measure of blind faith partaken by this young boy. I am not that free like him to bang dogmas down on people, therefore I will put it point to point. I always refrain from using Bible verses up to this, but I choose to do so to inform Scott Thong this prejudice is over.------Scott Thong has finally admitted why he hates homosexuals, it is because of his disgust on 'two gay partners have sexual acts together, or are thinking of it, or have the intention.'. As we can see again and again, the bigotry exists mostly on men, and less on homosexual women, again , proof of Scott Thong's own own discrimination.---<<<< >>>>

If you ask me, Yuki's probing and accusatorily structured questions reveal more about Yuki's own preconceptions about how much of a bigoted fundamentalist I must be.
(The problem is anyone who reads and reads what he writes would contrue him as a moron. But a friend of mine did justify for him surprisingly, that sometimes words written has no emotions. It is hard to know what is the person expressing through written communication. But after this, I am sure he is out.)

For otherwise, where did I say anything to paint myself as such a firebrand anti-gay rights activist? What did I do to incur such wrath, when I always try to be as non-confrontational as possible?
(I posted the same lines again and again. I think even if I paste the lines again and again till the day I die, he still would not understand).

Especially the last quote, taken out of its context and used as 'proof' of my homophobia! Simply for not using gender-neutral language to include lesbians in my argument against homosexuality, therefore I MUST be motivated solely by personal disgust at the idea of male homosexual love!
(He is homophobic. I wonder if he understands what that word means. He is still fearful of the idea of same sex love to still comment again, and again, and again...)

And all these despite the fact that I REPEATEDLY made the claim that I am not opposed to homosexuality in and of itself, merely holding the opinion that the Bible does not advocate it. My interpretation of Scripture that does not agree with Yuki's own interpretation therefore makes me an irrational bigot.
(Everybody can interpret what he writes as coming from himself, not God, not even the Bible)

Even though nowhere in our series of replies did I ever state that I oppose homosexuality - other than from viewpoint of Bilical interpretation - I am repeatedly smeared as wanting to remove all human rights from homosexuals. It got pretty tiring, I can tell you.
(Tired? He could not respect homosexuals enough for him to stop bigoting and bitching about how God according to Scott condemns homosexual, and he is tired?)

Judge for yourself, and decide if Yuki debates rationally and unbiasedly as Yuki claims, and by implication whether Yuki's quoted resources are as neutral as claimed - all things that Yuki ironically accuses fundamentalists of NOT BEING CAPABLE OF DOING.
(I already placed a lot of references from the most neutral sites I can find, all of you are welcomed to test it)

(On a personal note, I found Yuki's logic and reasoning to be quite convincing until they wee substituted with the onslaught of attacks. Now I have to judge all information I receive with a few grains of salt.) Yeah, yeah... If he really agrees with my logic and reasoning then he would apologize and the topic would have ended.

In closing, forgive me host for posting a long comment. I felt that I had the right to defend myself from any accusations. Note too, please, that I make no attacks against Yuki of my own, save to point out that Yuki regularly demonises me - despite my huge efforts to be neutral and polite as I understand it.

Let's see:

"The bottom line: You can be gay, but you can’t be Christian and gay".

Read all the other posts and would find similar waves of one sided prejudicial discriminative comments again and again. I do not need to say, 'read and judge for yourselves'! It is already self explanatory. Attacks after attacks, and then stating it is because God says so or implying that person started it first.

He shot me so many times today he might as well say I am a homophobic-phobic or an anti-anti gay. Then goes to say "Note too, please, that I make no attacks against Yuki of my own, save to point out that Yuki regularly demonises me - despite my huge efforts to be neutral and polite as I understand it." Great, Yuki started it first!

Read the 'HUGE efforts'. Yeah, NOT apologizing is such a mammoth task. At least even Alan Chambers (Exodus International), even Dr Warren Throckmorton, knows how to apologize after making bizzare statements to the gay community. I guess he is just a boy after all. (I believe as a girl in my 30s talking to a boy in his 20s, he is a boy, and probably not yet half a man even)

PS. I have minor prophetic powers! I predict that Yuki will attack my character and make accusations of homophobia against me again on account of my comment! Bottom line is, whatever I say is wrong and full of my seething internal prejudice."

We can see now it is no longer our problem, but his problem, that he just could not get that 'homosexual' issue out of his head and move on. I am beginnning to realise he really do not know what he is doing. Anyway, I replied.

On the contrary, Scott already explained himself again. Of course he has prophetic powers, he can suddenly be SO SURE that Terry's partner 'SLEPT?' his way into HIV.Scott, like I said, could just say sorry and everything ends. In any case, he is still bothered by what two men do in bed. Instead of reading back what he written, he went on to justify it? How low.Dogmas will be dogmas, but the lust to justify dogma is ridiculous indeed. ALL of Scott's remarks that would hurt a good Christian gay is here in his first post:

Ironically, all of what I write is not for Scott to read.My audience of my writings is not Scott. My audience are those who are born homosexual, only to be accused of having a 'lifestyle', and asked to 'renounce' it, like being born homosexual is equivalent to being born a devil .My audience are those who are born homosexual, to have Scott tease them that they are having a habit likened to a drug addiction that should not be 'fed'.

How dare he? How could he? You would say, but I just could not be bothered or angered. Scott is straight. He will never know how a homosexual feels being punched down by bigoted tyrants. I will know how a homosexual feels; more so, being a transsexual female.

Many Christians like Scott would lust after what human beings do in bed, or lusting after everything that has the word homosexual in it; instead of lusting after God. Serves him, I have no time for such people.

Christians who are unfortunately born children of a lesser God all over the world will understand. And I am affirming it to all who are reading. We are here ready to love and to be loved in peace and joy. Lets show it to the world. : )

I would also my part acknowledge that there had been angst in my last few posts as a result of him. Being all my life being at the end of such comments and remarks as everyone LGT, my heart do feel sick. But we will learn to smile back.

I am no longer a Christian representative. No people from discriminative war based versions the Christian faith can hurt me anymore. Rest assured the happy-go-lucky Yuki will return. I love all of you, whoever and wherever you are. : )

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Hate Crime In Malaysia.

The local newspapers were almost silent about this, but luckily, some sources picked it up from being swept under the carpet:

"Ayu, a male-to-female transsexual, was seriously beaten by state religious officials who detained her while she was talking to friends at the Old Melaka bus station in Kota Melaka, Melaka (Malacca) state, southwest Malaysia at around 11.30pm on 30 July. Ayu may be at risk of further abuse, and other transsexual people may also be in danger.

Ayu was reportedly approached by three enforcement officers from the Melaka Islamic Religious Affairs Department (Jabatan Agama Islam Melaka, JAIM), a local government body tasked with enforcing social norms based on Sharia law. The officials, all dressed in civilian clothes, reportedly punched and kicked Ayu when they detained her. One of them reportedly kicked her hard in the genital area. They only identified themselves as JAIM officials when bystanders intervened to try to prevent the assault. When she said she was in serious pain, they took her briefly to the local JAIM office, before transferring her to Melaka General Hospital. She had to undergo surgery on 31 July for a pre-existing abdominal hernia condition, which had been aggravated by the assault."

Full news here:

More here:
(I wish they used the correct lingo here, it is SHE not HE and HER not HIM.)

I choose to believe there is a place for everyone here in Malaysia. However, what should we do when one group steps out of their borders and impose their values upon others in such disgusting manner? What should we do to prevent further violence against LGTs in the future?

Video: Christian Perspectives Of Homosexuality And Pastorial Care.

As some of us know, there was a dialogue called Christian Perspectives Of Homosexuality And Pastorial Care organized by Safehaven, Singapore, on May 10th 2007. The objectives, as published, are are as follows:

"The objective of the dialogue would be to offer the larger Christian community, the opportunity to hear and be exposed to alternate views on homosexuality, to be informed and engaged, to overcome the fear of “the other”. Fundamentally, Safehaven wants to start the process of conversation, to encourage dialogue rather than division, to show that whatever differences of interpretation or opinion (where there is no simple “right or wrong” answer) we as Christians can honestly face differences while maintaining pastoral care and unity as Christians sharing a common tradition."

The panel consists of:

1. Rev. Dr. Tan Kim Huat(Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament andDean of Studies at Trinity Theological College)

2. Anthony Yeo(Clinical Director of Counselling and Care Centre)

3. Edmund Smith(Founder of ex-gay movement Real Life Ministry)

4. Rev. Dr. Yap Kim Hao, PhD(Boston University, Mass, USA)(First Asian Bishop of The Methodist Church in Malaysia and Singapore, Pastoral Advisor- Free Community Church)

The Moderator:Augustine Anthuvan(Assistant Programme Manager, MediaCorp Radio)

Original link:

This is probably the best video featuring Real Love Ministry's Edmund Smith yet. Watch in to find out.

Monday, August 20, 2007

When the Real Love Ministry Is Confused: Understanding The Ex-Gay Ministry Part One (Basics)

This is a piece about the serious level of misinformation and lies (it is yet to be ascertained whether it is by purpose, or accident, or oversight) presented by the ex-gay ministries in South East Asia. The ministry closest to home would be examined, namely the Real Love Ministry or RLM (Edmund Smith), an ex-gay ministry (scientifically called 'transformational ministry') in Malaysia supported by NECF (The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship); it has certain affiliations to Choices Ministry in Singapore, which is tied to Exodus Asia Pacific, under the umbrella of Exodus International.

What would be uncovered here are undisclosed scientific evidence, stances on medical professionals, reality facts and hard truths in regards to homosexuality, which would not be mentioned in any of Real Love Ministry's seminars, talks or articles. It is a ministry based not on science but on scripture, not on reality but on dogma, not on facts but on beliefs; this ministry is set to re-educate a new generation of untrained minds, not into the affirmation of the existence of homosexuality and transsexuals as a valid condition, but preaching the affirmation of intolerance on an existing orientation and identity that is based on prejudice and discrimination.

Most people that hold up Sodom against GLBT people do it to support their own hatred (self hatred or otherwise). You might as well bang your head into a wall 10000000 times as to try and explain Sodom to them. - Marti Abernathy (

The Basics About Homosexuality and 'Change'

[From: Just The Facts About Sexual Orientation And Youth by The American Psychological Association: (

"The reason for publishing this factsheet now is the recent upsurge in aggressive promotion of 'reparative therapy' and 'transformational ministry'. 'Reparative therapy' refers to psychotherapy to eliminate individuals' sexual desires for members of their own gender. 'Transformational ministry' refers to the use of religion to eliminate those desires. Since mid-1998, a number of organizations have invested significant resources in the promotion of reparative therapy and transformational ministry in the press, in conferences targeting educators, and in television and newspaper ads.

... more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a cure."]

[From: Attempts To Change Sexual Orientation by Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. (researcher and writer of Lesbian, Gay and HIV/AIDS issues)

"Some psychoanalysts claim to have conducted empirical research demonstrating that their "therapies" are able to change gay people into heterosexuals. Their studies have multiple flaws, including a lack of safeguards against bias and a lack of control groups. Rather than having patients evaluated by an independent third party who is unaware of which patients received the "reparative therapy," these studies are simply compilations of self-reports from psychoanalysts who are attempting to change their patients' sexual orientation (and who are highly motivated to report "success").]

Thus far, The Real Love Ministry had yet to compile any report of any success stories of changes in orientation. Even 'testimonies' are rare, and also vague because of the non-existence of a person. It is either just a name without a true identity, or just a note “the name and personal information of the writer of every 'dear rlm' email is always changed to protect the writer.”

Change Is Possible!... Or is it?

(... that sort of person will often need some assistance. but the best assistance would come from a professionally trained psychologist, not form a amateur who approaches the situation from a dogmatic position. a person who (now that we have a glimpse of the inside of rlm) is showing all the signs of cultish behaviour, and who would probably benefit from therapy himself. - Kenny Clarke (

[In 1998, December 12, the American Psychiatric Association meeting.

"The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient."
"Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction."

"The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed."

"Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."]

Coming up on part two, the establishment, and some of the musings by the Real Love Ministry in regards to Lesbians, Gays and Transgenders would be closely examined.

Timing could not be more perfect.

Someone asked me what I think of the thought that homosexuality is just not warranted because it is against the rules of procreation.

I give them these sites:

Many do not realise that we have a global epidemic in our midst. We would leave an earth with less supplies to accomodate our children, and grandchildren. A lot of countries are already affected .

Perhaps the balance of asexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, and homosexuality is the best answer after all.

Announcement: Yuki is now non-Christian identified.

In regards to the events that happened in the past couple of years as a Christian Transsexual Female, stretching from the encounters with Pastor Edmund Smith (Real Love Ministry) to Reverand Ou Yang (Metropolitan Community Church); I hereby resign myself from being Christian identified until further notice.

This is by personal conviction backed by medical sciences, experiences, Christian faith, social circumstances and the selfish reality of these 'ministries'. I have found much impartiality, prejudice, manipulation in these circumstances in reference to the former, an ex-gay group bent on promoting intolerance based on religion led by a sexually insecure or confused straight, and latter, a militant based SSA affirming group led by a man indulging in numbers or empowerment.

This is also due to the disappointing and appalling response from Christians throughout the blogs in Malaysia in regards to the truth and facts of gender identity and sexual orientation. The lines are already blurred by such parties, and it does not need me to add to the equation.

The soon to be established Reflections Ministry in Malaysia would still be a Christian affiliated group, but I shall take little or no part into discussions in relations to transgender or homosexual issues, and will delegate the faith part to a responsible Christian brother or sister. My part would be still fighting mostly for education about, and human rights for transgenders worldwide.

Thank you.

Friday, August 17, 2007

My final reply to Scott.

The 30 questions I posted to Scott in my last post are answered here:

I will admit this. All the questions are trick questions. And by his comment and uncovering the answers, you will realise why I submit these questions to him.

I stress this again and again is plain words with his style:

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

You can be Christian and hold on to your beliefs, but respect those who are Christian and homosexual, and homosexuals from other religions, and do not act on your faith based prejudice.

"My whole series of posts began because Yuki linked to and excerpted my post, not the other way around. The unwritten blogger’s code recognizes this as a direct challenge. Commenting on someone’s blog also counts."

I commented on my own post after he commented on the article on Rev Ou Yang, which can be viewed here, and is self explanatory when he includes these words of insult to homosexuals, even those who are Christians, worldwide :

"Let me be clear that I am all for acceptance of people who lead homosexual lifestyles. However, the homosexual lifestyle itself should be renounced and left behind.
The correct way of dealing with this is to accept homosexual persons, but to show them God’s love for them and how God does not want them to live life short of what He intends for them. Visit this link to ex-gay Edmund Smith of Real Love Ministry for how homosexuals can be accepted without condoning sinful homosexuality.
If that doesn’t make you stop feeling homosexul inside, then supress it. I was an angry and horny young man, and I survived 25 years without beating people up or having illicit sex. That’s what self-denial is all about, you can’t break a habit by accepting and feeding it.
The bottom line: You can be gay, but you can’t be Christian and gay.
Or go ahead and remain gay. Open a new religious-congregation building - just don’t call it a church.
Lead the worshippers in prayer - just don’t call yourself a pastor.
And teach your version of religion - just don’t call it Christian.
By professing to the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus for our sins yet continuing to live in wilful sin, you seriously grieve the Holy Spirit. (See the bottom of this post on homosexuality and the Bible for Biblical mentions against homosexuality.)"

Scott says:

"I was intending to let this subject slide with my last post, but Yuki has directed 20 questions personally at me and requested that I answer them. So I will oblige."

Previously Scott said:

"Yuki and myself will not stop debating/arguing this point in the near future. And from the tone of Yuki’s last replies, the discussion seems to be getting quite hot under the collar."

The rest of his comments, set the tone of the answers he gives.

The answers are all self explanatory, but I wish to show our readers something.

Now for the my questions and his answers:

1) Do you feel more comfortable with girls sleeping with girls more than guys sleeping with guys?

"As a heterosexual male, I find girl-on-girl action more tiltillating. However, I find neither guy-guy nor girl-girl any more offensive/non-offensive in and of itself.
Why do I use that double term? What I mean to say is that personally, I do not find any homosexual acts repugnant per se, but at the same time I cannot reconcile them with the Biblical guidelines.
Once more I will state as my defense: I am not any more or less opposed to guys than to girls or vice versa."

Scott answers later at question 30:

30) You hereby state this loud and clear, before God and me: When you see two men holding hands (min) or having sex (max); you feel offended, disgusted and uncomfortable first, long before you think of God, or what God has to say, or pray for them. YES?

"I admit it, yes, in the same way I would feel anger at inconsiderate drivers long before I think of praying that they will be nicer people."

Think about this answer, and this next line:

"But to put a limit on it, I don’t feel personal ‘disgust’ (a very strong word), more of the conviction that it is wrong by God."

2) Do you claim homosexuality as non existant orientation, and just a ‘lifestyle’ based chosen behaviour that consititutes immediate sin, as disagreed by these groups, which agrees by me:

"No, I do not claim that. I am quite convinced that genetics play a part in predetermining the types of sexual attraction. However, I do not believe that it is 100% the root cause."

I repeat the comments he made on his first post:

That after on his first post he claimed the words "homosexual LIFESTYLE" is something to be "renounced and left behind", that you "cannot break the HABIT by accepting and feeding it", and that you cannot be "Gay and Christian", you can only "go on and be gay", and that "homosexuals continue to live in WILLFULL SIN"

"Even if it is decidedly proven that homosexual orientation is entirely inborn, that does not make us free of responsibility for our decisions and actions."

If Scott believes homosexuality is entirely inborn, we would be talking about sins and not arguing natural orientation.

"Zoophiles claim that their preference for bestiality is natural and unchangeable. Paedophiles too. People who have extra-strong sexual drives can blame the hormone levels. They can accept the fact and go on doing what comes ‘naturally’ to them, or they can decide it isn’t right and deny their urges."

"Not to equate homosexuals to zoophiles or criminals (but I am sure you will accuse me of that anyway), but I use zoophiles for the following reason:"

Is there something wrong with this two contrasting statements?

He went on to state:

"What do you, as an self-claimed enlightened LGT follower of Christ, think of having sex with animals?

Is it wrong, repugnant or unnatural? Why do feel so? Note that there is no mention against bestiality in the New Testament, and doubly so Jesus never mentioned it at all. Does this mean having sex with animals is a God given gift? And that anti-animal-sex activists are bigots?"

Equating without equating?

3) Do you disagree with these 477,000 mental and health professionals’ stance? (APA fact sheet)

"In this modern day and age, just as you can claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is negative/reversible/mental is influenced and prejudiced by fundamentalists, I can make the counter claim that every study and survey that shows homosexuality is positive/unchangeable/inborn is affected by pro-LGT bias."

He is accusing neutral bodies of mental and health professionals of pro-LGT bias? I never take information from pro-gay Christian sites like It is because THAT would be bias. I always go for neutral. And the studies, as it is already almost widely known, ARE influenced and prejudiced by fundamentalists. I wish he spent more time finding out more than finding a reason to justify himself.

4) Even if science proves homosexuality is a God given orientation, you would still say no because God says so, even though He never said it clearly?

"So let’s say that it IS inborn. Is it God’s specific will, or is it a result of the fall of humanity? Genetic diseases, birth defects, allergies, all of these are inborn and thus not caused by the surroundings. But did God intend for these things in His original plan? Did He intend for ‘procreative’ acts that cannot multiply and fill the earth?
Put it this way: If God had made humanity purely and exclusively homosexual, that would be one way to wipe the earth clean of mankind from the very start. Do you disagree with the biology of that statement?"

He still equate homosexuals with 'the fall of humanity'. We can easily say 'heterosexuallity is caused by the fall of humanity. As for procreation, I wonder if he realises the problems we are having with overpopulation of the world, birth control, abortions, young girls getting pregnant, abandoned children, humans outliving the earth's supplies, etc. etc.

(To his credit, I am impressed that he HAS a bit of knowledge on gender identity vs sexual orientation, as proven in questions 5 and 6. No comments on question 7 self explanatory, question 8 is neutral and consistent.)

9) Do you admit you initiated the first attack the LGT community, when you openly fired on the gay pastor who wants to open a church for LGTs to worship on the 10th of August?

"Bottom line is, I have always felt that in making my post, I was defending my beliefs. Just as you feel that you are defending your own in your posts. I claim that the first salvo was launched by the pastor in question, not me."

(Sometimes I wonder if Scott ever read back what he writes)

A look at all two of his posts shows No signs of Rev Ou Yang attacking the Christian straight community in Malaysia, but Scott DID attack him AND Troy D Perry and his partner.

To Rev Ou Yang:

"Or go ahead and remain gay. Open a new religious-congregation building - just don’t call it a church.
Lead the worshippers in prayer - just don’t call yourself a pastor.
And teach your version of religion - just don’t call it Christian."

It intensifies here:

To Rev Troy D Perry and his partner:

"Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?"

"Sirs, you are a disgrace and embarassment to the Christian faith and all the holiness that Christ stands for. Can you seriously, honestly face up to God Himself on that final day and tell Him that you are righteous and sinless?"

(I feel sick reading this)

And to all Christian homosexuals:

"Spiritual and emotional love’, not just sex? I beg to differ, all true Christians show spiritual and emotional love for all mankind. Being gay by definition implies a sexual factor."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and it again contradicts with what Scott commented earlier in Q2, which he contradicts himself again in Q3.

I am crying writing this. I do not think I can go on.

To summarize, a good read across the few articles he wrote, and the blog to blogs discussion; you would realise inconsistency, double standards, ill perceptions towards homosexuals, favouritism, justifying prejudice, etc. etc. All the questions are linked to one another and the answers are self explanatory.

Scott can twist his words around 'yes i said hijack' then 'no i did not say hijack' all he wants, or ' I am being attacked first' after he launched such scathing verbal towards people of the community. God will judge. I do not wish to be like him. He had already reduced himself to a moronic status.

I am blessed to have known some believers in Christ, who have shown the light to the world. People ask them about their joy in the Lord. They do not need to impose their beliefs, then deny it. And they are homosexuals.

Refer to all of the discussions with what Scott wrote and I wrote, and you would realise why some people are not Christians, they have not met one... or they already met one.... No wonder they said most Buddhists make better people....

I am now close in deciding to renounce myself from being Christ identified in public, and just keep it as a personal relationship with God. I am just too ashamed to be lumped in with such people.

This had been a hurting experience for me. It is a good learning curve though to go head on against this bigotry masked in religion. Will be back once I recovered from this.

Scott says:
I dare say that during this discussion, it is me who has been more level headed, objective and willing to see the other point of view (yours).

Scott will never be level headed, objective, or willing to see the view of anyone who is homosexual, or transsexual. We are all nothing but sex and orgies to him.

("Perry promising to stay by his partner De Blieck when the latter was diagnosed with HIV? And how does a real Christian justify the free sex that led to getting HIV? How does Perry reconcile the fact that De Blieck must have been having fun on the side?"
"Sirs, you are a disgrace and embarassment to the Christian faith and all the holiness that Christ stands for. Can you seriously, honestly face up to God Himself on that final day and tell Him that you are righteous and sinless?"
"Being gay by definition implies a sexual factor"
*Scott Thong*)

Scott Thong could just say sorry and the topic is closed. But Scott will always be unrepentant, and owes Our Saviour with us a huge apology for the rest of his life.

Have a good weekend. Take care.