Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?
Tarek Fatah September 21, 2003
#162 Posted by yogiraj on September 24, 2003 9:05:19 am
``#134 by tahmed32 on September 23, 2003 12:41pm PT
(why islam when south so soon after the prophets death), that was indeed a great question you asked which i wish my co-religionists would ask themselves as well.``
Every religion went/goes/will go south. My own always do. It is called something like Hinduism.
What I do like and am very proud of is Hindu. What I have learned to dislike is ISM.
ISM puts you in impossible position. It decides for you. It says you must do this. No questions asked.
Those who say so are insecured.
Neither your or my Prophet(s) were. As simple as that. My idiotic respon....
Yogiraj Patil
(why islam when south so soon after the prophets death), that was indeed a great question you asked which i wish my co-religionists would ask themselves as well.``
Every religion went/goes/will go south. My own always do. It is called something like Hinduism.
What I do like and am very proud of is Hindu. What I have learned to dislike is ISM.
ISM puts you in impossible position. It decides for you. It says you must do this. No questions asked.
Those who say so are insecured.
Neither your or my Prophet(s) were. As simple as that. My idiotic respon....
Yogiraj Patil
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#161 Posted by Romair on September 24, 2003 8:13:55 am
ZahraJ #151: “Hopefully, you did not take my comment on the ponytail in a negative stride... )”
No offence taken. I am not quite sure whether having a ponytail would be considered an offensive comment, to begin with. Many people in my profession, including me, have one.
I took a college course in Philosophy, as an elective. It was quite interesting. We studied about a philosopher (cannot recall his name), who considered having sex with dead people to be legitimate. I found that quite odd, and initially considered him a sick man. However, after getting through that class, I realized that such conclusions are reached, after applying one set of principles to all situations, without biases, i.e. the philosopher may not approve of having sex with dead people, but that is the logical result of applying a principle that he used to prove something else. So if he accepts the principle, then he must accept all results it may lead to.
This is why, philosophically, Secularism has never appealed to me, nor have the double-standards of most of those who push it (philosophically, Islamism/religionism hasn’t appealed to me either, but due to different reasons). The world has too many biases and is too grey to fully accept any, “ism.” Any believer in Secularism has to support gay marriages at the State level, even if they don’t support it at the personal level. And any believer in gay marriages has to support polygamous marriages at the State level. It they want the State to define, “Marriage,” then they cease to be Secular. And if they support gay marriages in the USA, then they must support them in Pakistan or India, or anywhere else. The definition of Secularism is the same everywhere. No if and or but about it.
But how many flag bearers of Secularism are willing to put their money where their mouth is? Are we going to see a mass movement of Secularists trying to legalize gay marriages in Pakistan? Or are they going to oppose gay marriages, and just restrict their Secular support to the Ahmedi issue and Blasphemy laws, only?
Every human being thus has biases. This is why I find all this talk about Secularism, and all its vocally shrill flag bearers, to be quite illogical. If you peel enough layers of their skin, you will find, that at some point, they also will bring religion into politics, with some kind of a lame excuse. You can see plenty of those double standards on this thread, at the moment.
I actually do not support gay marriages. But at the same time, I do not declare myself to be purely Secular, either. If I think the State should define marriages, based on some Church’s definition (which I do believe), then I feel ethically, I do not have a right to paitn myself as a flag bearer of Secularism (since I don’t believe in it fully, myself). But, while I have biases, I don’t have a double-standard, i.e. I don’t claim to be Secular, while not being Secular.
There are only two groups who do not practice biases on this issue. The first is the group that believes purely in the Church defining the law of the land. This would be the group pushing some form of Shariah - be it of the Muslim, Jewish or any other variety. This is not to say that this group is fair or correct. Just to say that they follow one principal on all issues. Their definition of right and wrong is based on religion i.e. they say gay marriages are wrong, because their religion says it is wrong.
The other group, which is not biased, is the 100% Secular group. This group does not allow the State to use the Church’s definition in anything, including marriage. This group will thus accept all unions as equally legitimate, regardless of how sickening they may seem.
Most of us, including me, are in between these groups, due to our biases. It is too difficult for us to be in one or the other of the two groups, mentioned above. For example, my definition of a valid marriage is what I consider Islam to define as a valid marriage. At the same time, I do not approve of any kind of Shariah, which discriminates against anyone from another faith. Having said that, I would not want my son to get married to a gay person. But if I had a gay couple as a neighbor, I would not discriminate against them personally. Though I would feel uncomfortable if my son started hanging out with them, regularly, even if they were the nicest couple in the world. But extending that furthur, if I do not discriminate against a gay couple, then if I had neighbors who were brother and sister married couple, and were from a culture where such marriages were allowed (there probably is at least one such culture in the world), I would not discriminate against them, also. Though I would not want my son hanging around with them, either.
All the above are stands which are philosophically inconsistent, due to my biases, i.e. they do not follow one philosophical principal, all the way through. I may have extended the philosophical principle fairly beyond where many people would, but I am still unwilling to follow it completely to the logical end. The logical end being, that I should judge the brother/sister couple and the gay couple purely on the content of their character, and not on their marital preferences. Or if I am going to follow some sort of Islamic law on marriages, then I should follow Islamic Shariah on everything. I feel too uncomfortable at both these ends.
Due to this, I am not Secular, nor Islamic in my politics, and I admit it. What I cannot understand are people who cry Secularism all the time, and then want the State to define the concept of marriage. Such individuals are, “conveniently Secular,” i.e. they are Secular to the point where it seems, “cool,” and they can get the support of certain groups; but not beyond that. That indicates that they not only possess the biases that we all have, it also indicates a lot of hypocrisy on their parts.
The gay marriage debate is going to define the Church vs. State debate in Western societies. It is really going to get interesting, after gay marriages are legal (the more important ruling would be the corrollary to this, i.e. “the State cannot define marriage”). The floodgates may open, completely altering Western societies. The logical end of this process will be that gays will have a right to equal govt. budget/benefits/laws in all affairs. This would include teaching, “gay” subjects in schools, e.g. in high school sex education, teaching about homosexual sex, as a legitimate option, also. Pointing out gay relationships as normal in elementary school textbooks. The State paying for gay events like proms and walks, etc. in high schools. Public school teachers not pointing out gay relationships as abnormal in any environment, since public schools get State funding. School administrations not discouraging gay dating.
All of the above is kind of happening at Public colleges. However, by that time, parents feel that their children are mature enough to handle it. What will happen if it starts at elementary and high schools, on a regular basis? I have a feeling, at that stage, all these parents may state that pure Secularism isn’t all they thought it to be. And they may start running around trying to get their kids into Catholic and private “non-gay” schools.
It is really interesting how people behave when their own biases finally stare them in their faces. I think it results in their toning down their vocal 100% support for any one kind of, “ism.”
No offence taken. I am not quite sure whether having a ponytail would be considered an offensive comment, to begin with. Many people in my profession, including me, have one.
I took a college course in Philosophy, as an elective. It was quite interesting. We studied about a philosopher (cannot recall his name), who considered having sex with dead people to be legitimate. I found that quite odd, and initially considered him a sick man. However, after getting through that class, I realized that such conclusions are reached, after applying one set of principles to all situations, without biases, i.e. the philosopher may not approve of having sex with dead people, but that is the logical result of applying a principle that he used to prove something else. So if he accepts the principle, then he must accept all results it may lead to.
This is why, philosophically, Secularism has never appealed to me, nor have the double-standards of most of those who push it (philosophically, Islamism/religionism hasn’t appealed to me either, but due to different reasons). The world has too many biases and is too grey to fully accept any, “ism.” Any believer in Secularism has to support gay marriages at the State level, even if they don’t support it at the personal level. And any believer in gay marriages has to support polygamous marriages at the State level. It they want the State to define, “Marriage,” then they cease to be Secular. And if they support gay marriages in the USA, then they must support them in Pakistan or India, or anywhere else. The definition of Secularism is the same everywhere. No if and or but about it.
But how many flag bearers of Secularism are willing to put their money where their mouth is? Are we going to see a mass movement of Secularists trying to legalize gay marriages in Pakistan? Or are they going to oppose gay marriages, and just restrict their Secular support to the Ahmedi issue and Blasphemy laws, only?
Every human being thus has biases. This is why I find all this talk about Secularism, and all its vocally shrill flag bearers, to be quite illogical. If you peel enough layers of their skin, you will find, that at some point, they also will bring religion into politics, with some kind of a lame excuse. You can see plenty of those double standards on this thread, at the moment.
I actually do not support gay marriages. But at the same time, I do not declare myself to be purely Secular, either. If I think the State should define marriages, based on some Church’s definition (which I do believe), then I feel ethically, I do not have a right to paitn myself as a flag bearer of Secularism (since I don’t believe in it fully, myself). But, while I have biases, I don’t have a double-standard, i.e. I don’t claim to be Secular, while not being Secular.
There are only two groups who do not practice biases on this issue. The first is the group that believes purely in the Church defining the law of the land. This would be the group pushing some form of Shariah - be it of the Muslim, Jewish or any other variety. This is not to say that this group is fair or correct. Just to say that they follow one principal on all issues. Their definition of right and wrong is based on religion i.e. they say gay marriages are wrong, because their religion says it is wrong.
The other group, which is not biased, is the 100% Secular group. This group does not allow the State to use the Church’s definition in anything, including marriage. This group will thus accept all unions as equally legitimate, regardless of how sickening they may seem.
Most of us, including me, are in between these groups, due to our biases. It is too difficult for us to be in one or the other of the two groups, mentioned above. For example, my definition of a valid marriage is what I consider Islam to define as a valid marriage. At the same time, I do not approve of any kind of Shariah, which discriminates against anyone from another faith. Having said that, I would not want my son to get married to a gay person. But if I had a gay couple as a neighbor, I would not discriminate against them personally. Though I would feel uncomfortable if my son started hanging out with them, regularly, even if they were the nicest couple in the world. But extending that furthur, if I do not discriminate against a gay couple, then if I had neighbors who were brother and sister married couple, and were from a culture where such marriages were allowed (there probably is at least one such culture in the world), I would not discriminate against them, also. Though I would not want my son hanging around with them, either.
All the above are stands which are philosophically inconsistent, due to my biases, i.e. they do not follow one philosophical principal, all the way through. I may have extended the philosophical principle fairly beyond where many people would, but I am still unwilling to follow it completely to the logical end. The logical end being, that I should judge the brother/sister couple and the gay couple purely on the content of their character, and not on their marital preferences. Or if I am going to follow some sort of Islamic law on marriages, then I should follow Islamic Shariah on everything. I feel too uncomfortable at both these ends.
Due to this, I am not Secular, nor Islamic in my politics, and I admit it. What I cannot understand are people who cry Secularism all the time, and then want the State to define the concept of marriage. Such individuals are, “conveniently Secular,” i.e. they are Secular to the point where it seems, “cool,” and they can get the support of certain groups; but not beyond that. That indicates that they not only possess the biases that we all have, it also indicates a lot of hypocrisy on their parts.
The gay marriage debate is going to define the Church vs. State debate in Western societies. It is really going to get interesting, after gay marriages are legal (the more important ruling would be the corrollary to this, i.e. “the State cannot define marriage”). The floodgates may open, completely altering Western societies. The logical end of this process will be that gays will have a right to equal govt. budget/benefits/laws in all affairs. This would include teaching, “gay” subjects in schools, e.g. in high school sex education, teaching about homosexual sex, as a legitimate option, also. Pointing out gay relationships as normal in elementary school textbooks. The State paying for gay events like proms and walks, etc. in high schools. Public school teachers not pointing out gay relationships as abnormal in any environment, since public schools get State funding. School administrations not discouraging gay dating.
All of the above is kind of happening at Public colleges. However, by that time, parents feel that their children are mature enough to handle it. What will happen if it starts at elementary and high schools, on a regular basis? I have a feeling, at that stage, all these parents may state that pure Secularism isn’t all they thought it to be. And they may start running around trying to get their kids into Catholic and private “non-gay” schools.
It is really interesting how people behave when their own biases finally stare them in their faces. I think it results in their toning down their vocal 100% support for any one kind of, “ism.”
#160 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 7:06:41 am
Madani Sahib: Feel free to write me @ postmatser@chowk.com. Please then post a msg here with a code word so I know it is really you. Thanks. PLease note the spelling!
#159 Posted by tahmed32 on September 24, 2003 7:06:40 am
PM #154 I am glad to see that instead of getting mad, you got even. Good show, very good show indeed, as they say in england.
As reward, mr. ahmedmadani will show you his male kabooter dance.
As reward, mr. ahmedmadani will show you his male kabooter dance.
#158 Posted by Saminasha on September 24, 2003 5:04:00 am
PM,
Pretty much all of the queer theory I read and ALL the gay and lesbian people I know doesnt/do not concern itself/themselves with adult-child relationships. Secondly, this board is neither a feminist nor Lambda conversation.
I`m a bit curious- are you just bringing this up to yank some chains?
Pretty much all of the queer theory I read and ALL the gay and lesbian people I know doesnt/do not concern itself/themselves with adult-child relationships. Secondly, this board is neither a feminist nor Lambda conversation.
I`m a bit curious- are you just bringing this up to yank some chains?
#157 Posted by ahmedmadani on September 24, 2003 12:17:13 am
D. Mitter...... You have pointed correctly problems. I am not trying only many are trying in many ways. Some times one has plan for impossible. AS I SAID AT THIS STAGE ALL THINGS ARE SET AGAINST IT. I studied data publically available in India and concluded its not that difficult to attract ``mid class tourist``. I estimated from data almost 65 millions indians take trips for pleasure more than 1000 miles away. All northern indians are in that range from us.
I studied data regarding Indians going to Nepal. Its encourging. If from southern India areas you see last year travelled to Nepal if only 5% travel to Our destinations it will be unimaginable feast for our industry. I personally do not think its impossible.
What has happened is of all rulers of pak this govt has done terrible and nearly impossible what no Indian ruler was able to do. I NEVER SAW TOTAL INDIA TOTALLY AGAIST MR. MAHARAFF and PAKISTAN. INDIANS CONSIDER HIM LIER. AFTER KARGIL DAMAGED DONE IS IMMENSE. MR. MUSHARAFF MADE A PERSON ON STREET TO DEVELOP HATRED UNIFORMLY. THIS IS IN ALL STRATAS of HINDUS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT and LEFT and RIGHT WINGERS
I do not expect going war to stop at all it will continue for future , its future.
Tours are not possible , impossible if indian has to go to Dubai to reach karachi. Visa is problem not only for indians but even some pakistanies also. Visas are not issued easily.
Yes its Daydream but I do not believe in miracles. But some are optimists and they want people to look at this. I do not know may be it may happen after 10 years. One does not know today the system is Bush approved, things can chage internally or externally. Who knows? But what is harm of dreaming of mid class indians travelling with suits full of money (and specially rich sindhi hindus)?
I studied data regarding Indians going to Nepal. Its encourging. If from southern India areas you see last year travelled to Nepal if only 5% travel to Our destinations it will be unimaginable feast for our industry. I personally do not think its impossible.
What has happened is of all rulers of pak this govt has done terrible and nearly impossible what no Indian ruler was able to do. I NEVER SAW TOTAL INDIA TOTALLY AGAIST MR. MAHARAFF and PAKISTAN. INDIANS CONSIDER HIM LIER. AFTER KARGIL DAMAGED DONE IS IMMENSE. MR. MUSHARAFF MADE A PERSON ON STREET TO DEVELOP HATRED UNIFORMLY. THIS IS IN ALL STRATAS of HINDUS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT and LEFT and RIGHT WINGERS
I do not expect going war to stop at all it will continue for future , its future.
Tours are not possible , impossible if indian has to go to Dubai to reach karachi. Visa is problem not only for indians but even some pakistanies also. Visas are not issued easily.
Yes its Daydream but I do not believe in miracles. But some are optimists and they want people to look at this. I do not know may be it may happen after 10 years. One does not know today the system is Bush approved, things can chage internally or externally. Who knows? But what is harm of dreaming of mid class indians travelling with suits full of money (and specially rich sindhi hindus)?
#156 Posted by ahmedmadani on September 23, 2003 11:06:08 pm
PM: I will give you my email soon. I donot not what is chowk policy? Sure I will be availble to you as I like talking to young people.
This is just comment.
Mr. N H Khan ,guy female Khabutars are quite rare but they are most beautiful birds. They are very gentle creatures I have even seen.There is sublime drama of their courship and can put in words but it is not subject here. In general these gentle birds not attacked but for some reasons, some times some males attack them viciously and they attack so bad that poor bird nearly looses all feather on top. Then separtion for some times is remady. While any body has seen courtship of some pegions as great dance. You will find always few male pigons who literally dance around, just opposite to human dance. In Pegions leading dancer is male and female is just concert. I use to own few dancing male Khabutors.
The male slowly follows female making noice with straight neck and then he spreads his tail as fan and almost uses as broom on earth he is standing then she moves ahead and not paying attention pecking in earth. This male jumps just enough to tail gate. And its beautifully nature directed. If its body is white and wings of black or red dark color is great visual display.
As Mr. N H KHan said all khabutars lived happily is essense of posting..
I feel most missed the Sage Vatsayan the author of famous treaties very important advice.
Sage Vatyasen reminds readers with all intricasies the most important organ lies between eyes that is mind .
I always appreciates comments by Dost- Mitter and Mr. N H Khan and have great respect for their sagacity. May be as they say old is gold.
Best wishes for everybody.
This is just comment.
Mr. N H Khan ,guy female Khabutars are quite rare but they are most beautiful birds. They are very gentle creatures I have even seen.There is sublime drama of their courship and can put in words but it is not subject here. In general these gentle birds not attacked but for some reasons, some times some males attack them viciously and they attack so bad that poor bird nearly looses all feather on top. Then separtion for some times is remady. While any body has seen courtship of some pegions as great dance. You will find always few male pigons who literally dance around, just opposite to human dance. In Pegions leading dancer is male and female is just concert. I use to own few dancing male Khabutors.
The male slowly follows female making noice with straight neck and then he spreads his tail as fan and almost uses as broom on earth he is standing then she moves ahead and not paying attention pecking in earth. This male jumps just enough to tail gate. And its beautifully nature directed. If its body is white and wings of black or red dark color is great visual display.
As Mr. N H KHan said all khabutars lived happily is essense of posting..
I feel most missed the Sage Vatsayan the author of famous treaties very important advice.
Sage Vatyasen reminds readers with all intricasies the most important organ lies between eyes that is mind .
I always appreciates comments by Dost- Mitter and Mr. N H Khan and have great respect for their sagacity. May be as they say old is gold.
Best wishes for everybody.
#155 Posted by PM on September 23, 2003 9:27:27 pm
Samina,
No, I very well mean boys in the I-will-not-let-the-state-set-the-age-of-consent kinda way. Or, I-do-not-think-the-politics-of-feminism-need-apply-to-male-cross-generational-affairs way.
Generally speaking, 12 seems a reasonable age to me. The legislatures of Holland , Spin and (almost) New Mexico seem to agree.
And oh, i didn`t assume you agreed with everything coming out of every feminist school.
Here`s something for you: It`s a little dated, but still reflects my baisc attitude.
There`s an even more relevant article here but it`s a nightmare to read since its formatting has gone awry since chowk got its facelift.
stuka: #149
``80% OF MAMMALS COMMIT BESTIALITY??? What the hell are you talking about?``
No, I meant they engage in homosexaul activity. But then, that`s `same diff` to you, isn`t it?
Okay, I will indeed pardon your utter ignorance of the true nature of the birds and the bees (actually, we`re talking more about the bears and the boars here-- mammals).. but only if you (a) read at least this one article by economist/philosopher George Monbiot and promise you won`t so discredit your fellow Indians here with your shocking ignorance on matters sexual again. I mean, used to be a time when a good journalist, like a good teacher, used to be someone who ``knew a little about everything....``
For crying out loud, Mr. Google is always aorund to disabuse you of your ignorance, even if he can`t save you from your prejudices.
No, I very well mean boys in the I-will-not-let-the-state-set-the-age-of-consent kinda way. Or, I-do-not-think-the-politics-of-feminism-need-apply-to-male-cross-generational-affairs way.
Generally speaking, 12 seems a reasonable age to me. The legislatures of Holland , Spin and (almost) New Mexico seem to agree.
And oh, i didn`t assume you agreed with everything coming out of every feminist school.
Here`s something for you: It`s a little dated, but still reflects my baisc attitude.
There`s an even more relevant article here but it`s a nightmare to read since its formatting has gone awry since chowk got its facelift.
stuka: #149
``80% OF MAMMALS COMMIT BESTIALITY??? What the hell are you talking about?``
No, I meant they engage in homosexaul activity. But then, that`s `same diff` to you, isn`t it?
Okay, I will indeed pardon your utter ignorance of the true nature of the birds and the bees (actually, we`re talking more about the bears and the boars here-- mammals).. but only if you (a) read at least this one article by economist/philosopher George Monbiot and promise you won`t so discredit your fellow Indians here with your shocking ignorance on matters sexual again. I mean, used to be a time when a good journalist, like a good teacher, used to be someone who ``knew a little about everything....``
For crying out loud, Mr. Google is always aorund to disabuse you of your ignorance, even if he can`t save you from your prejudices.
#154 Posted by PM on September 23, 2003 9:27:27 pm
#141 by tahmed32
PM: you write ``there is infinitely more to gay relationships than taking it up the rear. ``
I am sure there is. After all, the rear is only one body orifice.
I`m sure you and your (much) better half would know all about that.
``(Please dont get mad - I could`nt resist it.)`` ;-)
PM: you write ``there is infinitely more to gay relationships than taking it up the rear. ``
I am sure there is. After all, the rear is only one body orifice.
I`m sure you and your (much) better half would know all about that.
``(Please dont get mad - I could`nt resist it.)`` ;-)
#152 Posted by echoboom on September 23, 2003 8:48:58 pm
FOR EVERYONE:
The Story of a Man-Made Disease
by Edward Hooper
April 2003
When their leaders cannot be relied upon, people believe what they are led to believe. Truth and knowledge become perverted by political expediency, by the needs of the day.
How does one persuade trusting citizens that an emperor is naked? In the fairy story, it takes the naïve candour of the little boy who is too young to realise the consequences of speaking out of turn. But once he does speak, the rest of the people look up and see that what he says is true, that their ruler is behaving with an imperial disregard for both truth and decency.
Let us see if that works in the real world, too.
Gentlemen and ladies, people of the town. I wish to make an announcement.
AIDS is a man-made disease.
Eye-opener on AIDS
The Story of a Man-Made Disease
by Edward Hooper
April 2003
When their leaders cannot be relied upon, people believe what they are led to believe. Truth and knowledge become perverted by political expediency, by the needs of the day.
How does one persuade trusting citizens that an emperor is naked? In the fairy story, it takes the naïve candour of the little boy who is too young to realise the consequences of speaking out of turn. But once he does speak, the rest of the people look up and see that what he says is true, that their ruler is behaving with an imperial disregard for both truth and decency.
Let us see if that works in the real world, too.
Gentlemen and ladies, people of the town. I wish to make an announcement.
AIDS is a man-made disease.
Eye-opener on AIDS
#151 Posted by ZahraJ on September 23, 2003 8:48:58 pm
Romair(Post 135):
(Hopefully, you did not take my comment on the ponytail in a negative stride... )
Another set of good points!
In reality, most people have their biases whether they admit them or not. I have mine whether I mention them or not is another thing.
[They are non-Secular when it comes to marriage, but Secular in all other areas.]
[Marriage is a religious concept. Each religion defines it differently. It is only through religion that it has become a social concept. The whole concept of separating Church from State demands that the State will not legislate on any issue based on the definitions provided by the pre-dominant religion of the country (or by another religion). In Western societies, this holds in nearly all laws. Jews, Athiests, Christians, Muslims, Gays, Straights etc. have the same rights and responsibilities under the criminal law of Secular countries. Yet they have different rights under marital law, i.e. the State has legislated tax benefits, rights etc. based on legalities that are derived from religious interpretations.
Based on this, anyone who believes in Secularism, has to, by philosophical definition agree that the State cannot define the word, “Marriage.” A secular state has to treat all unions as equal. Either give benefits to all, or not give benefits to all. One’s own definition of Marriage should, in a Secular society, remain within one’s own home (a phrase supporters of Secularism openly use in all cases, except in defining Marriage).
[In addition, anyone wanting Secularism in Pakistan would have to, by philosophical principle support gay marriages in Pakistan also. Otherwise, they don’t believe in a complete separation of Church and State, and thus fail to remain Secular. ]
True!
[Interestingly, anyone who supports gay marriages then has to, under the same philosophical principal, not define marriage himself. This means he/she would have to support polygamous marriages and any other union (however sickening those unions may seem to anyone). Social norms on marriages, can thus, not be used to define a legitimate union, since social norms are defined differently by everyone. ]
Theek Hae`.
[All of this is (and has) obviously opened up a huge can of worms. Once the word marriage gets redefined, or the State is not allowed to define it, then what happens to the concept of marriage. Everyone will want their own definition of union to be accepted under law. ]
Agreed!
[Will we someday see a Will and Grace, in which, Will has a polygamous marriage with four gay men.]
A purely disgusting, rubbish and BS program. Waste of bandwidth with no substance. Even the buk buk with Dharma and Karma needs to be shut down as well.
[I think eventually, due to high divorce rates, the concept of living together, and planned out of wedlock children will overtake the concept of marriage.]
I don`t disagree with you.
[After all, the whole concept of natural and unnatural relationships has its basis in social practices which have their basis in religious practices.]
Couldn`t say it better!!!
[Looking at it purely from a biological point of view, limiting one’s self to just one partner (marriage) is actually the biggest unnatural act. Marriage is, in fact, a way to control our natural instincts.]
I would add to the above, ``a purely male perspective.`` You may have taken that for granted, but I just wanted to spell it out.
(Hopefully, you did not take my comment on the ponytail in a negative stride... )
Another set of good points!
In reality, most people have their biases whether they admit them or not. I have mine whether I mention them or not is another thing.
[They are non-Secular when it comes to marriage, but Secular in all other areas.]
[Marriage is a religious concept. Each religion defines it differently. It is only through religion that it has become a social concept. The whole concept of separating Church from State demands that the State will not legislate on any issue based on the definitions provided by the pre-dominant religion of the country (or by another religion). In Western societies, this holds in nearly all laws. Jews, Athiests, Christians, Muslims, Gays, Straights etc. have the same rights and responsibilities under the criminal law of Secular countries. Yet they have different rights under marital law, i.e. the State has legislated tax benefits, rights etc. based on legalities that are derived from religious interpretations.
Based on this, anyone who believes in Secularism, has to, by philosophical definition agree that the State cannot define the word, “Marriage.” A secular state has to treat all unions as equal. Either give benefits to all, or not give benefits to all. One’s own definition of Marriage should, in a Secular society, remain within one’s own home (a phrase supporters of Secularism openly use in all cases, except in defining Marriage).
[In addition, anyone wanting Secularism in Pakistan would have to, by philosophical principle support gay marriages in Pakistan also. Otherwise, they don’t believe in a complete separation of Church and State, and thus fail to remain Secular. ]
True!
[Interestingly, anyone who supports gay marriages then has to, under the same philosophical principal, not define marriage himself. This means he/she would have to support polygamous marriages and any other union (however sickening those unions may seem to anyone). Social norms on marriages, can thus, not be used to define a legitimate union, since social norms are defined differently by everyone. ]
Theek Hae`.
[All of this is (and has) obviously opened up a huge can of worms. Once the word marriage gets redefined, or the State is not allowed to define it, then what happens to the concept of marriage. Everyone will want their own definition of union to be accepted under law. ]
Agreed!
[Will we someday see a Will and Grace, in which, Will has a polygamous marriage with four gay men.]
A purely disgusting, rubbish and BS program. Waste of bandwidth with no substance. Even the buk buk with Dharma and Karma needs to be shut down as well.
[I think eventually, due to high divorce rates, the concept of living together, and planned out of wedlock children will overtake the concept of marriage.]
I don`t disagree with you.
[After all, the whole concept of natural and unnatural relationships has its basis in social practices which have their basis in religious practices.]
Couldn`t say it better!!!
[Looking at it purely from a biological point of view, limiting one’s self to just one partner (marriage) is actually the biggest unnatural act. Marriage is, in fact, a way to control our natural instincts.]
I would add to the above, ``a purely male perspective.`` You may have taken that for granted, but I just wanted to spell it out.
#150 Posted by subroto on September 23, 2003 8:48:58 pm
I can`t believe so many people feel threatened by Gays. So what exactly are you scared of? Scared some gay man will make a play for you? “Tumhare ghar may bhai baap nahi hai kya?”
“But its against the laws of nature!”
So are you nature’s watchdog? Keeping your eyes open for approved “natural” hetrosexual activities. The hetro taliban. Or is it HetroMan patrolling the skies keeping your arse safe.
“Let them do what they want in their bedrooms not outside like baysharams”
So baysharmi is a hetrosexual perogative. Wokay.
“God is watching”
Hope he is not getting too excited the way you people are.
“It is there in the scriptures”
I hope your wife is sleeping in the outhouse during her time of the month for that is written in the scriptures too.
“AIDS! These people are causing AIDS, shameless creatures”
Yeah sure what about the poor housewives and children dying from this disease, shameless creatures right? Vaise I believe Malaria still causes more deaths worldwide, must be the gay mosquitoes.
“But gay men have more sex”
Does someone keep a count? Unless gay means happy in which case a happy man is one who….
Lets just re-post the last paragraph from the article
“Only God knows whether we are right in standing up for our gay friends but we do so in all sincerity and with the hope that no one should shower grief over the happiness sought by another human being. Let us learn to live and let live. ”
“But its against the laws of nature!”
So are you nature’s watchdog? Keeping your eyes open for approved “natural” hetrosexual activities. The hetro taliban. Or is it HetroMan patrolling the skies keeping your arse safe.
“Let them do what they want in their bedrooms not outside like baysharams”
So baysharmi is a hetrosexual perogative. Wokay.
“God is watching”
Hope he is not getting too excited the way you people are.
“It is there in the scriptures”
I hope your wife is sleeping in the outhouse during her time of the month for that is written in the scriptures too.
“AIDS! These people are causing AIDS, shameless creatures”
Yeah sure what about the poor housewives and children dying from this disease, shameless creatures right? Vaise I believe Malaria still causes more deaths worldwide, must be the gay mosquitoes.
“But gay men have more sex”
Does someone keep a count? Unless gay means happy in which case a happy man is one who….
Lets just re-post the last paragraph from the article
“Only God knows whether we are right in standing up for our gay friends but we do so in all sincerity and with the hope that no one should shower grief over the happiness sought by another human being. Let us learn to live and let live. ”
#149 Posted by stuka on September 23, 2003 8:23:33 pm
PM:
``There is no difference between homosexuality and bestiality. Both are perverions of nature.``
Wow, this is getting crazier by the minute! I suppose then, that 80% of mammals stand guilty of “perverting nature.”
Dude..what the hell are you talking about???
Here is a definition of bestiality:
Definition: [n] sexual activity between a person and an animal
Synonyms: zooerastia, zooerasty
80% OF MAMMALS COMMIT BESTIALITY??? What the hell are you talking about?
``No wait, I think I get it now. “Nature” is that what stuka believes to be in the rightness of things, even for birds and bees, never mind how they (actually) act empirically``
Al your big words do not take away from the fact that in nature, opposite sexes are meant to attract each other and not the same sex. Pardon my ignorance but I have never heard of a dog sodomizing another up the arse. So, ``nature`` is how the birds and bees and all of God`s creatures act, regardless of your beliefs in God or Darwin. All the usage of your Yehoodi logic does not change that fact.
People have gone crazy or what? Homosexuality is same as heterosexuality? The asshole is meant to push stuff out, not take stuff in. Sorry about being so graphic but you guys are taking what is so obvious and turning it around into some bullshit philosophy debate...
``There is no difference between homosexuality and bestiality. Both are perverions of nature.``
Wow, this is getting crazier by the minute! I suppose then, that 80% of mammals stand guilty of “perverting nature.”
Dude..what the hell are you talking about???
Here is a definition of bestiality:
Definition: [n] sexual activity between a person and an animal
Synonyms: zooerastia, zooerasty
80% OF MAMMALS COMMIT BESTIALITY??? What the hell are you talking about?
``No wait, I think I get it now. “Nature” is that what stuka believes to be in the rightness of things, even for birds and bees, never mind how they (actually) act empirically``
Al your big words do not take away from the fact that in nature, opposite sexes are meant to attract each other and not the same sex. Pardon my ignorance but I have never heard of a dog sodomizing another up the arse. So, ``nature`` is how the birds and bees and all of God`s creatures act, regardless of your beliefs in God or Darwin. All the usage of your Yehoodi logic does not change that fact.
People have gone crazy or what? Homosexuality is same as heterosexuality? The asshole is meant to push stuff out, not take stuff in. Sorry about being so graphic but you guys are taking what is so obvious and turning it around into some bullshit philosophy debate...
#148 Posted by Saminasha on September 23, 2003 4:01:29 pm
PM,
*Cough!* Uh...you mean ``boys`` in the slangy, young consensual man way, right? And, please note that I dont agree with all g&l movements in the West wholesale. Just the ones that are honest enough to think things through...but that conversation would be interesting to have in the future.
re: AIDS and homosexuality
And cholera, the bubonic plague, typhoid, etc. are het diseases....did all the hets in the world soul search and change their relentless breeding? Puullleeeze.... yet another way to stigmatize a minority-attach a humanity wasting disease to them. I suppose all those truck drivers insisting on unprotected sex with sex workers in south asia have nothing to do with aids in the subcontinent....
*Cough!* Uh...you mean ``boys`` in the slangy, young consensual man way, right? And, please note that I dont agree with all g&l movements in the West wholesale. Just the ones that are honest enough to think things through...but that conversation would be interesting to have in the future.
re: AIDS and homosexuality
And cholera, the bubonic plague, typhoid, etc. are het diseases....did all the hets in the world soul search and change their relentless breeding? Puullleeeze.... yet another way to stigmatize a minority-attach a humanity wasting disease to them. I suppose all those truck drivers insisting on unprotected sex with sex workers in south asia have nothing to do with aids in the subcontinent....
#147 Posted by PM on September 23, 2003 1:42:56 pm
re Air-Marshall-turned-Mr.Philosopher #135
Good thoughts. Agree with most of them. Not this, though:
``Showing out of wedlock sexual relationships with multiple individuals is already accepted in the Western mainstream.``
Yes, it is showed aplenty, but hardly ever glorified. In fact, I dare say the ``other woman``, if unmarried, is looked down on much more in the West than in the East. In my expeirience anyway.
Good thoughts. Agree with most of them. Not this, though:
``Showing out of wedlock sexual relationships with multiple individuals is already accepted in the Western mainstream.``
Yes, it is showed aplenty, but hardly ever glorified. In fact, I dare say the ``other woman``, if unmarried, is looked down on much more in the West than in the East. In my expeirience anyway.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- sadna: "It is significant that... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Sadna, If YLH is correct,... Living Gandhi and King
- majumdar: Muthu, i can understand if... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: No one is asking... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- jayp: Re: # 200 You forgot... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Frankly I don't understand... Living Gandhi and King
