The two campaigns have essentially the same premises.

According to a fax from the alliance, legislating against discrimination of gays and lesbians is ``dangerous'' because it will send the ``wrong message'' to the community that ``homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, which is against the prevalent view.''

The petition declares ``the homosexual issue is highly controversial'' and ``forcing legislation would only polarize society and cause trouble.''

It maintains that any such legislation will offer ``special protection, not a human right'' because homosexuality is essentially in a different league from physical and mental disability, sex and pregnancy, which are protected under Hong Kong's equal opportunity laws.

``Legislating means pushing people who don't agree with homosexuality ... it infringes on these people's rights and freedom,'' the petition argues. It also maintains that ``examples overseas show the legislation is often abused.''

``These are tactics of fear,'' said vocal gay activist Roddy Shaw of the Civil Rights for Sexual Diversities, referring to the flood of campaign letters. ``The templates they offer are no-brainers. It's so irrational to ask people to support them by telling them to copy and paste paragraphs and send them to the government.''

He calls those who say no to the legislation ``the other side.''

For him and other activists, a war has been declared.

Conflicts worsened when gay activists protested last month at a Mong Kok ``upstairs bookstore'' - so called because of their independent nature - and disrupted its business after the shop's owners dumped 700 gay and lesbian university student publications meant for free distribution.

The bookstore ``had a Christian background,'' Shaw said.

``These magazines were not for sale, but they cost the students their own pocket money,'' he said. ``The bookstore should have at least told the students they were not distributing the magazines anymore and returned them.''

Attempts at discussions and reconciliation have been scarce until recently.

Shaw said both gay activists and Christian groups had ``opened fire'' at previous meetings, but a public forum, organized by the Sex Culture Society last month, sought to change that.

Civil Human Rights Front convenor Rose Wu, a Christian, wants to promote a more liberal and tolerant stance among the territory's religious groups but she fears her views are very different from the majority of Christians here.

``It's a pity that religious organizations can't clearly grasp the purpose of the proposed legislation. They are highly alert but not very objective or balanced in the debate - they are victimizing themselves and wrongly imagine that the church would become disadvantaged as soon as legislation comes into being, '' Wu said.

``Religious groups shouldn't stop at thinking about legislation, or whether these [gays and lesbians] are right or wrong, but whether they are human like you and me,'' she continued. ``They should reflect on whether we have done enough to love our neighbours.''

Shaw, Wu and others lobbying for the legislation have a long battle ahead, and not only against religious forces.

An initial poll of 350 middle-class people conducted on the Internet by the Home Affairs Bureau last month showed that 64 percent of respondents were against legislating against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

About 67 per cent did not believe there is widespread discrimination in Hong Kong, although gay and lesbian groups say they received more than 40 queries or complaints related to discrimination last year.

The number of respondents who believe same-sex couples should have some of the rights and benefits of married couples, however, were the same as those who think otherwise.

``Hong Kong people are pragmatic,'' Shaw figures. ``Things like financial and tax rights draw a more positive response from most people.''

Wu said: ``Hong Kong is not exactly conservative, but there's been very few serious discussions on the issue, including what difficulties gays face here. Some people, for example, still believe they will catch a disease just by sitting next to a homosexual.''

Shaw agrees, but says he is aiming for very little. ``You can call me perverted, immoral and unhealthy - that's fine with me. But does that entitle you to deny me my right to comfortably shop, work and go to school?''