What is the difference between Sheik Yasin's supposedly Muslim homophobia and that expressed by fundamentalist Christians? To one who subscribes to neither mythology, both expressions of sexual repression seem pretty equivalent to me.

One thing I know is that the more that religious extremists of any persuasion blather on, the less credibility they have. Sure, "Islamo-fascism's" vilification of homosexuals is reprehensible, but I find the kind of homophobic diatribe enunciated by Christian fundamentalists above just as dangerous and distasteful.

As for the openly racist comments expressed by others above, they are neither on topic nor worthy of consideration.

Some people at this forum seem to express surprise that I and others would take offense to Yasin's comments on gays because, after all, they emanate from his religious beliefs. Well, what if I routinely referred to Jewish people as "vermin" and justified it on the basis of my religious beliefs? Wouldn't that be considered just a tad bigotted? At any rate, I'm not so worried about myself but more interested in the terrible problems facing young gay Muslims who are the "meat in the sandwich" in this whole issue.

So far there have been 13 posts in 24 hours on this article. I'm fascinated that people find the topic of homosexuality so interesting. Some other articles haven't had a single posting. But flattered though I am, I do look forward to the day when homosexuality is no longer considered interesting and don't bother responding to the issue. But in the meantime I know you just can't stay away :-)

GIAMAN

put simply, the difference is, if 'he' is in power and you live under Sharia law, you will be EXECUTED if you are homosexual.

If Evangelical (as opposed to the hyper fundamentalism of Fred Phelps and company on the loooooony end of the scale) Christians are 'in power' (something we would only seek in a democratic way, and for means of 'influence' rather than control as in a 'theocratic' way)
The worst you should experience if you were a PRACTICING gay is not welcome in common fellowship with Christians. Some possible legal bariers to
a) adoption of children,
b)same sex marraige,
c)the teaching of Homosexual behavior as 'normal' in school curicula

They are far less terminal than having your thoat cut by some gloating Imam.

If you cannot see this difference as being 'stark' and far apart then I would be concerned about the value of your contribution here.

Remember, we have been living under a Judao Christian heritage for quite some time, homosexual issues have been advanced very far, and I don't see much of a 'body count' so far. And for every 'gay bashing' you care to name, I can probably name a 'harrassment by gays' event of an equal number, including the Lesbian at my wifes work who is creating havoc, hitting on any girl who she seems to like. (continually, whether they like it or not).

BOAZ_David suggests that I am vilifying religion by referring to it as a disease. That was not my intention.

I speak of religion, not as a specific church; not as a group or nation of believers; and not as the personal morals and values held by an individual.

I speak of religion in a constructed context - as a man-made system of processes and actions that one personally adopts to play out one's spirituality.

In this context I believe that religion (as opposed to spirituality) is indeed a disease - "an unhealthy condition of mind or body". Religion is, and has always been, an unholy mechanism for war, death, slavery, crimes against humanity, suppression of human rights, racial oppression etc.

Spirituality, on the hand is an integral part of the human being and should be nurtured and respected. It is everyone's right to hold such beliefs as they wish and to live their OWN life with integrity.

Sharing and discussing with willing participants is perfectly legitimate for developing one's spirituality. However, any group or organisation that creates processes and systems for enforcing such values upon individuals, especially those who do not share those beliefs, can be suitably described as a virulent disease. Politics can also be described in the same manner - as it can often be another form of religion for some.

I am not sure which definition of vilification David is using so I'll provide two:

Firstly: a common legal form within Australia is to "publicly incite hatred by threatening violence". I think it is quite clear that I am neither inciting hatred nor threatening any kind violence.

Secondly: a common language definition is "to speak ill of or try to degrade by slander, to defame". I believe, but may be incorrect, that one cannot vilify a concept, belief or pattern of thought.

If I were to suggest that Jews, Christians or Moslems are diseased I would be guilty of vilification. But to label a system (religion) that causes so much death and destruction in our world as a "disease" is, by simple language definition, completely valid.

Addendum: Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim populated country does not invoke the death penalty for homosexual activity. There are very few countries in the world that have the death penalty and not all of them are Islamic! It wasn't that long ago that our "Christian" nation dealt out long-term incarceration for acts of homosexuality.

OK folks. Let's get down to the basics.

In my career as a mental health/psychiatric nurse, I have worked with more gays than straits. And by the way, I am female and happily married.

Some of these gay people have become close friends. Even so, as a nurse I will never understand a person inserting a penis in to faeces - body contaminated refuse. In other words - pushing into sh++

But I still love my fellow men.