He done it again!
"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: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ .--- 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 http://yuki-thejourney.blogspot.com/2007/08/prejudice-may-be-forever.html :---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.
"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. : )