Originally Posted by dcwk04
Malaysia is a conservative and religious nation. Her first Rukun Negara is Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan, and we have not yet seen a politician, community leader, or lawmaker who has readily admited to being atheist or [s]antagonist[/s] agnostic. Religion preaches against homosexuality. What are the chances of homosexuality or transsexualism gaining legal ground here, in a nation that so readily mixes religious legalism (Syaria' laws) with governance?
First thing's first. Buddhism was never a religion to begin with, take note.
Be it legal or not, the community is already there. There are things that we can't change such as PM must be a Muslim, Islam is already the national religion and it disregards the practice of unnatural sex. But, they never said being in love with a person of the same sex is wrong. Playing around with words yes, but if the couple didn't openly speak of their sexual lives, are they at fault? There are things to be kept between people, and sex is one of them. Unless the law enforcers deliberately hunt down the couple to proof that they have sex natural or unnatural(which I don't think they are that desperate) then ain't they safe from the law? It's how you solve the problems, not just look at it and say its just impossible. Life ain't as sweet as fairy tales, its up to individuals to handle the situations wisely.
Originally Posted by dcwk04
Because if we all believe what we want to and then act out on those beliefs, then the world would go chaotic? Because social laws dictate that we conform, at least to laws and regulations, to maintain peace and harmony?
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Acting out of your beliefs does not include causing havoc. If the effect of your act is only for you and yourself to bare with, I do not see how other parties are to be involved into your responsibility.
Buddha he himself did mention before, "do not just follow instructions blindly. Think thrice and wise before you act." If you were to be wise enough, you will not cause havoc. How does loving another person of the same sex cause havoc? By showing affection? Even PDAs are not really acceptable around even of heterosexuals, so you've got to be wise.
PS: Theravadian Buddhism perception towards homosexualities(including practice of sex)
In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved. 
Since I'm living the way of Buddhism, if both parties' affections are mutual, its perfectly fine. I'm still practicing good deeds, care for others and do not cause harm. Am I wrong?
PPS: haha thanks dcwk04, your trivia was true!
"However, the Buddha sometimes advised against certain behavior not because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds with social norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behavior will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly come under this type of behavior. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she or he is going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public attitudes. In Western societies where attitudes towards sex in general have been strongly influenced by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, by the ideas of highly neurotic people like St. Paul, there is a strong case for changing public attitudes." 3