Closet

Hehe

``disingenious`` indeed, tahmed32.

and about insults and verbosity, you should go through mr. the_happy_ones post too.

toodles,
H.

re tahmed32 sahab

The gene that shows high positive correlation with homosexuality in men is Xq28 and is present on (as the name suggests) the X chromosome of the 23rd pair. Whether it is a biological determinant of homosexuality in men is ofcourse not known. Since it`s on X chromosome in men, it is inherited from the mother and as such does not mean that it would select itself out of the gene pool in one generation.
Your other suggestion that gay people are individuals having difficulty building relationships with people of the opposite sex is laughable. How many gay men do you know in US? If popular culture and some people I know are to be believed, gay men form very close friendships with women.

re tidbit #53
If evolutionary psychology is to be believed, men are naturally inclined to be more promiscous than women because men have billions of small gametes and women have one large gamete per month. Since women are more selective, heterosexual men are forced to be less promiscous than they would like to be. However, no such constraint exists for homosexual men and they are more promiscous. I do not know if lesbian women on average have more partners than heterosexual women. Evolutionary theories would suggest that they will not and ``condemned by society`` theory suggests that they will.

sac # 51: tis ok :)....dont mean to presumptuous but figures show tht gays are more promiscuous?? wonder why?? could it be that they`re condemned by society so they try to live up to that??

re tahmed32:

Your gay gene theory doesn`t fly. Firstly because it may not be genetic but hormonal. The latest research is that gays have an excess hormone in the lower parts of their brains compared to `normal` men. Secondly if it indeed is genetic, who says gays don`t enter heterosexual marriages. I know quite a few.

later
-sac

re Tidbit #30:

I thought you weren`t serious. I apologize.

Now taking your question in earnest, according to a widely quoted study the average gay person(whatever that means) in America has more than 70 sexual partners in their lifetime. The number for a white guy is between 10 and 15. For white women its 4-10. Draw your own inferences.

re saminashah #48:

For once surprise me.........be original. You`ve got nothing to lose but your hangups.

later
-sac(hopefully a breeder)

Seems like there are two controversial issues and one implicitly non-controversial issue on this board, as follows:
Controversial Issue 1: Are gays good or bad? And corollary: Are those who think gays are bad themselves bad. My conclusion: This is a meaningless issue, not worth wasting even ``chowk time`` on.
Controversial Issue 2: Is it OK to use deviate from the standard form of the english language? Thanks to poster ``happy one`` for raising this issue. My conclusion: Most of the time (at least using examples from this article and from various posts it is not OK). Reason: Most of the time (in case of the writer of this article, and in case of poster moulabux) he is clearly trying to use words and phrases that he either misspells (NOT mistypes, as moulabux claims, but simply cant spell - as in case of his use of the word ``disingenious`` as the happy one pointed out, causing moulabux to respond by posting insults to the happy one). OR, worse, whose meaning he does not understand. As in case of the writer of this article inviting gays to ``make out with him`` (clearly unaware of the meaning of this phrase, which is an invitation to come screw him). Happy One was correct in pointing this out. This of course is the common disease among many pakistani ``educated`` people: trying to impress people with the use of words they dont really understand, or snappy phrases, rather than trying to write thoughtfully and clearly. Ludos, I mean kudos :-) , to the happy one for making this an issue on a board where the main issue (as above) is a superficial one.
Noncontroversial Issue: This is where I pointed out that, there cant be any such thing as ``gay genes``, since by logic these would have been dead end genes that the ``gay couple`` would not have any descendants to pass on to. And as such, gays can stop acting as if they are represent anything more than (a) another form of kinky sex and/or (b) individuals having difficulty building relationships with people of the opposite sex. They cant claim they are built this way. I assume the silence means that all those politically correct people on this board agree on this point.

the_happy_one,

leaving spelling errors and punctuation mistakes aside, you also make the point for me. You somehow perilously assumed that I implied homosexuals are more prone to rape than heterosuxuals. Your counter statements are self-defeating.

and I don`t itend to make this a personal battle ground. You tell me of growing an IQ, while all you do is spew self contradictory balderdash.
You`ve an IQ of a 4 year old. [and i`m sure he was glad to get rid of it.]

the_happy_one,

leaving spelling errors and punctuation mistakes aside, you also make the point for me. You somehow perilously assumed that I implied homosexuals are more prone to rape than heterosuxuals. Your counter statements are self-defeating.

And about spouting off asinine drivel , speak for youeself. All you`ve done [so far ; and the future isn`t too bright either] is spew self contradictory balderdash. You`ve an IQ of a 4 year old. [and i`m sure he was glad to get rid of it.]

H.

Deewar,
Breeders are an interesting lot, some of us more than others...start using that term for hets and see how quickly Sac and his lot start thinking about terminology...but of course, some of refuse to deal...we get off on our use of the word ``homo``-even though every culture and language has a term for being queer that was chosen by the queer community-so that not using the terms the khush community defines themselves with is a bit of a power play. Noor`s right; call a African American person a ``negro`` over here and see how much time people are going to waste in sympathy while you hide behind some of the excuses we`ve read on this board....and I dont mean the writer Sahib who I believe as Scout opined should be commended for opening up the discussion, but for the breeders who should know better....

The amount of trouble that I went through to create a new e-mail address to be able to register at this web site and pen down my two cents’ worth should speak for itself when it comes to a desi queer’s self-consciousness at putting forth something as simple as ‘his point of view’ on the subject. But first things first:

I wonder what locale of my dear country you are referring to ramiskhan when you say that ‘homo’ and ‘making out’ have the seemingly innocuous meanings that you put forth as the norm of everyday vernacular in ‘big cities like Karachi’. The author’s naivete aside, ‘homo’ is not the word of choice when one wants to refer to a fellow homo erectus who belongs to the happy clan. And may God have mercy on the poor beings that agree to ‘make out’ on important issues of geo-political and/or national security. And before temporal’s gut gives another heave, I think ‘intellect’ is favoured over ‘intellectual level’. Or shall I take my foot outta ma mouth?

Why does the notion of a serious relationship or more precisely the concept of a monogamous same-sex relationship seem so absurd? And the question, believe me, is addressed to people on both sides of the happy divide. My relative inexperience at interacting with fellow happy people limits me in pronouncing a judgement but I have yet to see the concept given any credence by both straight and gay people alike.

all those who question the relevance of the homosexuality issue: please read the_happy_one reply#16 – “Gay people don’t want special rights, they just want all the rights that straight people have. The rights to marry, adopt, show affection in public, eat burgers, fart, take roller coaster rides, fight in the military, go bungee jumping, dance, pray, joke and play cricket. They are not looking for a positive reaction from you, they are hoping for no reaction at all.” Thank you the_happy_one. I’d be honest with you, this particular piece was the reason why I even went to the trouble of ‘interacting’ on this board. But alas, I have yet to see a post that even vaguely begins to accept this prescription.

So my point of view? Let me just second what I’ve transcript-ed above and say kudos to the_happy_one. That and the fact that in another 15 minutes I need to have my butt in me boss’ room with a 5-pager report (in a VERY non anally challenged context ofcourse! She’s a she you see).

I am beginning to suspect that heterosexuals are a low IQ cult....or perhaps part of one massive alien conspiracy to take life as we know it to the verge of extinction....I mean, all this breeding cant really be good .... can it ?

Btw...someone mentioned the Kinsey report.... its a funny little report. Says many many heterosexuals---oh well, I mean people with more than incidental or exclusively heterosexual experience--- like their rear end being poked while having a heterosexual go at the opposite sex. Something is rotten in Denmark...dont you think ? Perhaps Kinsey is a member of the counter hetero cult. Less low IQ, but low still. Perhaps he just made it up to support his spectrum of sexuality/continuum of sexuality theory.

I dont understand whats so wonderful about this allegedly predominantly hetereosexual world which homosexuality will destroy ? And I cant also think of much that would be wonderful in an equally homosexual world. Well, except that there might be fewer people.

I notice that most things have opposittes. Dark-Light, Black-White...its a kind of natural thing, isnt it ? Wouldnt it be a bit unnatural if heterosexuality didnt have its oppositte i.e Homosexuality !

Are only homosexual humans bad ? Or homosexual dolphins too ? Or homosexual Iguanas ? Or bisexual cats ? Personally, I am scared to death of heterosexual snakes.

Oh i really dont know. But variety is quite wonderful. Dont you think ?

ramiskhan...
first of all...you have no idea what i was referring to when I made that statement. I have no quarrel with what the writer has said...nor do I see this completely from my society`s perspective (which culture and society I belong to is and always has been questionable anyway)...I have not been away from Pakistan long enough to know that even the word `nigger` is what you would call a normal term in Pakistan. Yes, we Pakistanis shorten words, and use terms we read in books thinking that it is normal, because the social significance/context/whatever of these terms are not explained to us. We can call ourselves Pakis, but heaven forbid a white Britisher should say that to us. Or is that now normal as well? And while we`re talking about normal terms...is it still normal to call a Christian like me a `choora` in Pakistan?
I think this is a good article...but I will say as I have before...doublecheck, read and reread before you submit something...this applies to all of us. I don`t have a problem with the writer`s english. I`m glad ramiskhan sahib, that you don`t have a problem with the word homo in Karachi...just be aware that the shortened version of homosexual has been used in beatings of gays here, as a serious insult, not just kind of an insult. I love my `khush` friends dearly and am always startled when I see words such as `homo`. It was not my intention to make a big deal, or see this from just one perspective.
and I will not be returning to this board...so please don`t even bother replying to me at least..because i will not be reading it.
thanks for your time, and peace!

i havent see any remarks from any homosexuals here, chowk`s readership dont have any queer ?
and most suprisingly not many Indian bursting to show they have doing better from Paksitan. SWEET DREAMS

39# by nooralain [but then i realize just how much this place is in need of broader minded people} LOOK WHO IS TALKING!

I am surprise that people are more interested in communication skills rather then issue, which part of the article you didn’t get? If you got all then what’s wrong with the communication? Why is important to set high standards of English. Is it necessary to have only those articles on Chowk where most of the readers have to look into dictionary? After a long time I read something different on Chowk, which is not repeating same, politics, India & Pakistan, Jihad, USA, Women issues etc.

What’s wrong with the word homo?

Happy_a_day and Nooralain…. its seem you people never been to Pakistan or atleast not in recent years. Homo is the term, which is most commonly, used to identify homosexuals in Pakistani society; may be in the places where you live it kind of insulting but in paki land its normal,I am,being a paksitani living in karachi cant see any bias or insult in it. Remember, the writer is the one who is bringing this issue, why you thought he want to insult the community? You don’t have to see everything in your society’s prospective.

``Making out``, again Happy_A_DAY, its not writer’s fault if you are not aware of use of this terms in Pakistan especially big cities like Khi. It’s clear that writer is referring to Khurram’s agreement to open his thoughts and I have seen many people in Khi use this term in similar meanings quite often, irrespective of its actual meaning.. how many meanings the word fu*k has , NOT EVEN AN ACTUAL WORD?

Freesoul is right, intellectual level of brown skin is very low, how can those people comment on sexual discrimination, who themselves involve in discrimination based on standards of English.

Links pasted in #1 by Freesoul give very good info to understand homosexual life in Pakistan.

the author is naive to writing and the usage of politically correct terminology......we shouldn`t make fun of his naivete or criticize him so harshly. not all of us grew up in a Western `politically correct` society.
not all of us learned to speak and write English perfectly in school.

what is good is that this author is expanding his knowledge and understanding about this controversial subject....and allowing others the chance to express their opinions about it.

Re: moulabux

Firstly: What is `disingenius`?

Secondly: So you agree that homosexual are as guilty or innocent of rape as are heterosexuals? You make my point for me! You were the one implying that somehow homosexuals are more prone to rape than heterosexuals. Any and every statistic will prove your point duly laughable.

I suggest you first grow an IQ before spouting off since until the time that you cultivate some basic cognitive abilities all that will drool from you will be asinine drivel.

warm regards.

#23 by Tidbit on November 19, 2002 0:15am PT

somone once told me that there`s actual love involved in same-sex relationships instead of mindless sex....is that true? (pardon my ignorance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tidbit,

Yes that is true, my brother had a boyfriend for many years, they were very emotionally involved with each other. When they broke up, they went through the same pain and agony that every normal couple goes through. Many gay people are looking for a monogomous relationship, and some are not, just like straight people.