同性戀是不是由西方傳來的玩意，證明同性戀其實在中國古已有之的反駁例證不勝枚舉，像小曹反問明光社為什麼不支持一妻多妾制也是一例。可是我更覺得匪夷所思的是，明光社究竟打著什麼立場指責同性戀由西方傳入？拜託，基督教何時成為了中國國教？基督教才是由西方傳入不是嗎？我倒想知道耶路撒冷究竟在哪裡，是不是中國四嶽之一？聖經又到底以什麼文字寫成，作者是孔子老子嗎？我不明白明光社有什麼資格以「從西方傳來」為理由反對同性戀。

到底同性戀是不是選擇，違不違反自然就不多說了，只能說句原教旨害人不淺。

小曹, in this essay kindly put up by 阿野, and selected for the front page, asked the question: "明光社，妳為甚麼不支持一妻多妾制？" The question is no doubt rhetorical, the interrogator knowing very well that 明光社 could in no wise support polygamy. But in so asking, the interrogator also hinted at some subtle relationship between reasons used by 明光社 to denounce homosexuality, and reasons it might be forced to acknowledge that support polygamy; in both cases, the crux is the Bible.

Neither 小曹, nor 阿野, nor, our usual rejoinder, XOX, would have anything to do with the Bible. The reasons they appeal to pertain to either the innateness of homosexuality, or the importance of individual choice, or both. But of course, these reasons might also come to support polygamy in a general way. Why should a man and two women, or a woman and two men, agreeing to live together as a family, be forbidden to do so? Why, in other words, should we not analogize consensual family composition to consensual sex, both being a matter of choice? Appealing to the said kinds of reasons, homosexuals, or those supporting their RIGHT, must also ask: "同性戀者，妳為甚麼不支持一妻多妾制？"

I recall that XOX did elsewhere say, to the effect that she had nothing against polygamy. Whether she would put the thought as she did respecting LGBT, to wit,

"Polygamist rights are human rights. And they deserve to have the same rights as all other members of society";

Whether she would say so as enthusiastically, we cannot quite know. Perhaps she would. Never, to the best of my knowledge, had she, nor any other person used to decrying 明光社's logic, made the support of polygamy a central theme of his or her essay. Understandably so.

I simply cannot help comparing the language of 李智良 with that of XOX, the former having written of me thus on another occasion:

"你思路咁清晰、諗野咁細緻、辯證推論、援引例子又咁叻、而且番文又咁好，無謂浪費時間同D 思路吾清晰、前言後語矛盾、政治傾向咁明確、又點都吾係你嗰皮既人講咁多啦，總之，你講飽就好去瞓啦，呢個世界咁多野好去關心，要你咁花精神去理零零舍舍呢一個網站的事，浪費左你這個人才，我非常抱歉。"

(See: http://www.inmediahk.net/comments/view-comment?comment_id=170961&return_...)

and the latter equally wonderfully:

"P.S. I don't really care about what you response, it is probably about the same bullshit about how you think you are right because of "a b c d e...."."

Common to this "你講飽就好去瞓啦" and this "it is probably about the same bullshit" is something no reader can ever mistake, to wit, the attitude: "Say what you may, bigot, I am simply right." No wonder that XOX loves to call others bigots; she must pre-empt them, as in the War of Terror the greatest terrorist must pre-emptively call its enemies by that name. 小曹, the author, happened to quote a verse from the New Testament, which is interestingly relevant in the present context.

「你不見自己眼中有樑木。怎能對你弟兄說，容我去掉你眼中的刺呢？你這假冒為善的人，先去掉自己眼中的梁木，然後纔能看得清楚，去掉你弟兄眼中的刺」──路加福音，六章四十二節

But for the benefit of the reader, it is more useful, trumps and counter-trumps aside, to outline the structure of the debate in the following terms. XOX proposed two things, to wit, and I cannot help using English letters to number the points,

(a) Those Christians who find in the Bible divine injunctions against homosexuality, have read it selectively, and are therefore wrong.

(b) Regardless of the truth or falsehood of various Christian interpretations of the Bible, its authority must be overruled by the secular principle of "equality and non-discrimination."

Clearly, affirming (b) frees one straightway of any controversy respecting (a), and this much, I think, defines the basic attitude of XOX. So, however a Christian happens to read the Bible, rightly or wrongly, XOX keeps her trump-card. But she seems also to think that (a) has some force, and any Christian who finds the Bible against homosexuality must therefore be a bigot.

XOX seems further to intimate, by saying that "the church-going-bigots are very selective in what htey try to emphasize," that her reading of the Bible, finding it in support of homosexuality, is in fact the right one; or else she herself would be another church-going selectively-reading bigot, only, from her point of view, on the right side of things. XOX may kindly show us how her reading of the Bible must be judged NON-SELECTIVE and RIGHT. I hope she may succeed.

As for (b), the trump-card, she must say more, as to why polygamy is not another BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, to be advocated and defended equally arduously. She appeals to gender equality, but that is a vague notion, it being unclear why a group of one man and two women cannot find themselves perfectly happy with that arrangement, equality being not their concern at all. Even if equality be indeed a concern, why can a man or a woman not find it sufficiently protected, seeing that exit, i.e. divorce, is always allowed? Pushing the argument further, we may consider the case of two men and two women, wherein, by number, equality seems to be perfectly upheld.

But the key point is this: Shall we say, that polygamy is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT? My original post is meant to urge homosexuals like XOX to cry up their rhetoric as well for homosexuality as for polygamy, calling both a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, and not only something to be mercifully allowed by the state. A basic human right may be qualified in actual practice, and all kinds of safeguards designed to protect gender equality - whatever that means - can be written into law. Still, the right, in its generality, remains a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

Say this aloud, XOX. Do not soften your language whenever you turn from homosexuality to polygamy. The resoluteness, the combativeness, the anger, the killer-like language and gaze: how wondrous it is to contrast this XOX with the timid twin speaking of polygamy. I gather even 李智良 would have cause to marvel with me.

明光社：「由於同性戀有A、B、C個醫學、倫理爭論，所以一定是不能接受！」
日本右翼：「由於南京大屠殺有A、B、C疑點，所以一定是假的！」
新納粹分子：「我們沒有屠殺猶太人！因為有A、B、C個疑點！」
相似：三者都會誇大少量的爭拗點，之後強行說自己的說法是對的。

明光社：「你不能否認我們宗教有歧視同性戀的權利！」
石原慎太郎：「根據大日本主義，我就是鄙視支那人，吹咩？」
新納粹分子：「根據納粹主義，任何非白種人的人都是低等的！」
相似：三者都根據自己的意識形態來歧視別人。

明光社：「性傾向歧視立法，把同性戀放置高位，將其強加於異性戀身上，有違平等原則！」
安倍晉三：「東京審判是戰勝國強加於戰敗國身上，毫不公平，所以要作廢！」
新納粹分子：「對納粹德國的審判是戰勝國強加於戰敗國身上，毫不公平！」
相似：三者都厚顏無恥，不承認自己犯下的錯（侵犯平等原則的行為已經不能用平等原則來保護）。

明光社：「我們是為了同性戀者好，所以不能為性傾向歧視法案立法！」
二戰時的日本：「我們侵略亞洲是為了解放大東亞，使其擺脫西方的殖民主義！」
新納粹分子：「希特拉是為了擺脫凡爾賽條約對德國的剝奪，才四出侵略的！」
相似：三者都會找冠冕堂皇的理由來支持真實的目的。

明光社：「反同性戀行為不等於反同性戀者。」
日本右翼：「參拜靖國神社，美化侵略歷史，不會影響與亞洲國家的關係。」
新納粹分子：「主張把猶太人逐出德國，不等如反猶太人。」
相似：三者都誤以為溫和的歧視行為是沒有問題的。

明光社：「保護同性戀的法案用造成逆向歧視，歧視反同戀者的人！」
日本右翼：「對慰安婦、中國勞工補償道歉，是對二戰時英勇的皇軍的『逆向歧視』！」
新納粹分子：「對猶太人的保護法案，是對納粹分子的逆向歧視！」
相似：三者都自關注自己的私利，漠視自己曾對別人造成的傷害。

明光社：「只要有性傾向歧視法案，就會有獸交、三人結婚等道德敗壞的情況出現！」
日本右翼：「認可皇軍侵華時的暴行，會敗壞日本的民族尊嚴，是自虐史觀！」
新納粹分子：「認可二戰時納粹的暴行，會敗壞德國的民族尊嚴！」
相似：三者都將小事化大，庸人自擾。

http://boyangu.wordpress.com/

Like it or not, I respect some Christians, and believed that their religion has made them better persons.

But that is not the case for most HK local church goers.

So, in my attempt to give respect to Christians who are not bigots, I would only use the term "Church going bigots" to describe many (if not most) of the HK local church goers who are at the same time bigots.

I thought it is easy to spot that I have nothing against Christians, and I do know that many of the Church going Christians outside of Hong Kong are not bigots.

It is just the fact that they allow bigots to spread bigotry in the local churches that make it the case rights now.

Anyone who is a racist and/or sexist and/or homophobic is a bigot.

A bigot is a bigot, and the most vocal bigots in Hong Kong go to local Churches, that is all.

小弟摸不著頭腦，為啥有些人總愛祭出「由西方傳來的玩意」來否定某事物的存在價值，好像汽車、飛機、紅綠燈、斑馬線就不是「由西方傳來的玩意」嗎？更摸不清，為什麼罕有人對此語意滑轉的謬誤辯論法提出嚴正的挑戰：「不錯，那可能真的是由西方傳來的玩意，那又如何！？難道一件事物的好壞，決定於它的出處乎哉？」

至於基督教，不明白到底為何人人皆稱它出自「西方」。它明明出於中東以色列，屬東方的亞洲。猶太人明明就是東方亞洲人。耶穌是猶太人，因此也是東方人，基督教憑什麼稱「西方」喔！

又，聲稱同性戀「在基督教看來是最嚴重的『罪』」，則更莫名其妙。簡之，在撰寫聖經的各年代，眾作者根本不知道今人所理解的「同性戀」這個現象，更沒有現今的「性傾向」這個概念。即聖經時代並沒有「同性戀」、「同性愛」或包含類似概念字眼的存在。

因此不論任何聖經譯本，如果含有「同性戀」等等字眼，則這譯本在翻譯的過程中，就註定必然出了岔子：

Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse
http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/index.html

嚴格來說，整本聖經並沒提及同性愛和性傾向，更遑論「同性戀是罪」！