Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?
Tarek Fatah September 21, 2003
#178 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 8:10:54 pm
Fuzair,
``We don`t have to allow pederasty either since the age of consent is generally considered to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8.``
A little cirular, aren`t we? :-) Shouldn`t this sentence really be ``We set the age of consent to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8 because we generally don`t approve of pedarasty.``
...just a thought.
And yes, I agree that 6 or 8 might be a little too young to know even how to say no, but 12-14? Well, when your kids grow to that age, find out for yourself. :-)
``We don`t have to allow pederasty either since the age of consent is generally considered to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8.``
A little cirular, aren`t we? :-) Shouldn`t this sentence really be ``We set the age of consent to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8 because we generally don`t approve of pedarasty.``
...just a thought.
And yes, I agree that 6 or 8 might be a little too young to know even how to say no, but 12-14? Well, when your kids grow to that age, find out for yourself. :-)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#177 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 8:10:54 pm
Romair,
bhai, you need to distinguish between the secularity of a state, deducible from its constituion and laws, and that of its people (whose minds and hearts no law can control).
In this light, even though I agree that the US is (even ideologoically) not secular, your following statement is not on. THere is no equivalenec.
``In fact, the USA is not a Secular society, at all. PM, as a Christian, has more chance of being elected a Congressman in a Muslim Pakistan, than I, as a Muslim, have of being elected a Congressman in a Christian USA. So socially speaking, neither Pakistan, nor USA, nor India etc. is Secular.``
rgds,
PM
sorry.. must admit i haven`t read the remainder of your post. You are a bit too long winded yaar, though I sometiems enjoy your manner of ``philosophilising``
bhai, you need to distinguish between the secularity of a state, deducible from its constituion and laws, and that of its people (whose minds and hearts no law can control).
In this light, even though I agree that the US is (even ideologoically) not secular, your following statement is not on. THere is no equivalenec.
``In fact, the USA is not a Secular society, at all. PM, as a Christian, has more chance of being elected a Congressman in a Muslim Pakistan, than I, as a Muslim, have of being elected a Congressman in a Christian USA. So socially speaking, neither Pakistan, nor USA, nor India etc. is Secular.``
rgds,
PM
sorry.. must admit i haven`t read the remainder of your post. You are a bit too long winded yaar, though I sometiems enjoy your manner of ``philosophilising``
#176 Posted by ironman on September 24, 2003 8:10:54 pm
fuzair,
``Fortunately, we don`t have to allow bestiality since I am not sure any one could argue (and win) that they got an ``informed consent`` form signed by an animal.``
:-) That will keep me amused for a while!
``Fortunately, we don`t have to allow bestiality since I am not sure any one could argue (and win) that they got an ``informed consent`` form signed by an animal.``
:-) That will keep me amused for a while!
#175 Posted by Romair on September 24, 2003 2:02:19 pm
Fuzair #175: I agree with the first paragraph of your post. But have a disagreement with part of the second paragraph.
I think in the USA, eventually gay marriages will have to be legal. Or the USA will have to re-evaluate its definition of Secularism. No society is purely Secular. In fact, the USA is not a Secular society, at all. PM, as a Christian, has more chance of being elected a Congressman in a Muslim Pakistan, than I, as a Muslim, have of being elected a Congressman in a Christian USA. So socially speaking, neither Pakistan, nor USA, nor India etc. is Secular.
However, the USA (and India), uptil now, claim to be legally and constitutionally Secular. For example, there is no legal bar on being a Congressman in the USA, based on religion (sidenote: Pakistan, despite being a non-Secular govt. system, now is one of the few countries in the world, in which, religious minorities are more enfranchised than religious majorities). Similarly, in a Secular society, there can be no legal bar on the definition of marriage, based on religion. Yet there is. This is the contradiction, that the Western societies are now being forced to face.
It is true that twenty-year olds in the USA cannot drink, while twenty-five year olds can. However, the interpretation of that law is not based on religion. They cannot drink, not because the Bible says they cannot. The law was interpreted outside the boundaries of any religion. And it applies equally to gay and straight twenty-year olds, as well as to Muslim and Christian twenty year olds. If the law was that straight twenty-year olds can drink and gay twenty year olds cannot, because the Bible said so, then it would be equivalent to the gay marriage law.
It just goes to show that Church and State cannot be separated as easily as people think. What one does at home is greatly influenced by the decisions the State makes – specially about institutions which it funds, like schools etc.. Westerners are now facing a dilemma they had conveniently brushed under the carpet for a long time, i.e true and complete separation of Church and State. Are the willing to do it?
I doubt it. If they do, then everything you mentioned in para 1 of your reply becomes fair game. And laws and policies will have to be changed in all govt. funded institutions, like schools, boy scout troops, etc. And, Americans, at a a personal level, are quite religious, hence they will try hard to oppose all of this at the State level, even if collides with Secularism.
Then again, maybe in another generation, gay marriages, gay symbolisms in elementary school books etc. will become normal in Western countries, much like African-American symbolism has become normal. Who knows? There are gay Congressmen, at the moment. If would be interesting if one of them, were to be in a gay marriage, and then go onto become the US President. He would be the President of a country, that does not recognize his own marriage.
It would also be interesting to see how many gay married couples fight equally hard to legalize polygamy. Who knows, polygamy and gay marriages may become the trend in the West. Maybe, Islam was onto something when it legalized polygamy, under certain conditions. Interestingly, supporting polygamy is considered a sign of extreme backwardness in the USA, and supporting gay marriages is considered the sign of liberalism in the USA.
I think in the USA, eventually gay marriages will have to be legal. Or the USA will have to re-evaluate its definition of Secularism. No society is purely Secular. In fact, the USA is not a Secular society, at all. PM, as a Christian, has more chance of being elected a Congressman in a Muslim Pakistan, than I, as a Muslim, have of being elected a Congressman in a Christian USA. So socially speaking, neither Pakistan, nor USA, nor India etc. is Secular.
However, the USA (and India), uptil now, claim to be legally and constitutionally Secular. For example, there is no legal bar on being a Congressman in the USA, based on religion (sidenote: Pakistan, despite being a non-Secular govt. system, now is one of the few countries in the world, in which, religious minorities are more enfranchised than religious majorities). Similarly, in a Secular society, there can be no legal bar on the definition of marriage, based on religion. Yet there is. This is the contradiction, that the Western societies are now being forced to face.
It is true that twenty-year olds in the USA cannot drink, while twenty-five year olds can. However, the interpretation of that law is not based on religion. They cannot drink, not because the Bible says they cannot. The law was interpreted outside the boundaries of any religion. And it applies equally to gay and straight twenty-year olds, as well as to Muslim and Christian twenty year olds. If the law was that straight twenty-year olds can drink and gay twenty year olds cannot, because the Bible said so, then it would be equivalent to the gay marriage law.
It just goes to show that Church and State cannot be separated as easily as people think. What one does at home is greatly influenced by the decisions the State makes – specially about institutions which it funds, like schools etc.. Westerners are now facing a dilemma they had conveniently brushed under the carpet for a long time, i.e true and complete separation of Church and State. Are the willing to do it?
I doubt it. If they do, then everything you mentioned in para 1 of your reply becomes fair game. And laws and policies will have to be changed in all govt. funded institutions, like schools, boy scout troops, etc. And, Americans, at a a personal level, are quite religious, hence they will try hard to oppose all of this at the State level, even if collides with Secularism.
Then again, maybe in another generation, gay marriages, gay symbolisms in elementary school books etc. will become normal in Western countries, much like African-American symbolism has become normal. Who knows? There are gay Congressmen, at the moment. If would be interesting if one of them, were to be in a gay marriage, and then go onto become the US President. He would be the President of a country, that does not recognize his own marriage.
It would also be interesting to see how many gay married couples fight equally hard to legalize polygamy. Who knows, polygamy and gay marriages may become the trend in the West. Maybe, Islam was onto something when it legalized polygamy, under certain conditions. Interestingly, supporting polygamy is considered a sign of extreme backwardness in the USA, and supporting gay marriages is considered the sign of liberalism in the USA.
#174 Posted by fuzair on September 24, 2003 12:12:58 pm
Hmmmm. Interesting fight going on here. Let me add my two cents in.
Either we assume that the individual is sovereign, in which case homosexuals must be allowed to marry (if they so wish) in the same way that heterosexuals are allowed to. However, the only problem with this is that, by the same logic, incestous marriages (as long as they are of legal age) must also be allowed, as must multiple-partner marriages. As long as they are consenting adults, we can`t forbid it. Fortunately, we don`t have to allow bestiality since I am not sure any one could argue (and win) that they got an ``informed consent`` form signed by an animal. We don`t have to allow pederasty either since the age of consent is generally considered to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8.
Alternatively, the individual is not sovereign and sovereignity belongs to the state. In which case, the state decides which rights it wants to give to which citizen. In spite of all of the blather about ``inalienable`` rights, there is no such thing. Even US citizens have had their rights trampeled by Ashcroft and Co after 50 years of having these rights continously expanded by the Supreme Court. In the current case, the American State has decided that certain rights are not to be extended to homosexuals but they are to heterosexuals. Homosexuals might not like it, but they have no real recourse either. Many 18, 19, and 20 year olds don`t like being told they can`t get a legal drink, but there isn`t much they can do about it. Now, eventually, the State may decide to let homosexuals marry--it did allow black-white marriages eventually--and there will be some who will oppose this the same way that some opposed black-white marriages, but there won`t be all that much they can do about it. Similarly, many states in the US deny convicted felons the right to vote, and there isn`t much the felons can do about that either.
So, as I see it, banning homosexual marriage isn`t so much a denial of basic human rights (no such thing, objectively speaking) or upholding morality or religion (again, no such thing as absolute morality and the less said about religious morality, the better) as it is of the state deciding how far to grant which rights to which groups. So, neither the religious moralists or the inalienable rightists have a real case. Sorry, guys.
Regards.
Either we assume that the individual is sovereign, in which case homosexuals must be allowed to marry (if they so wish) in the same way that heterosexuals are allowed to. However, the only problem with this is that, by the same logic, incestous marriages (as long as they are of legal age) must also be allowed, as must multiple-partner marriages. As long as they are consenting adults, we can`t forbid it. Fortunately, we don`t have to allow bestiality since I am not sure any one could argue (and win) that they got an ``informed consent`` form signed by an animal. We don`t have to allow pederasty either since the age of consent is generally considered to be 16 or 18 and not 6 or 8.
Alternatively, the individual is not sovereign and sovereignity belongs to the state. In which case, the state decides which rights it wants to give to which citizen. In spite of all of the blather about ``inalienable`` rights, there is no such thing. Even US citizens have had their rights trampeled by Ashcroft and Co after 50 years of having these rights continously expanded by the Supreme Court. In the current case, the American State has decided that certain rights are not to be extended to homosexuals but they are to heterosexuals. Homosexuals might not like it, but they have no real recourse either. Many 18, 19, and 20 year olds don`t like being told they can`t get a legal drink, but there isn`t much they can do about it. Now, eventually, the State may decide to let homosexuals marry--it did allow black-white marriages eventually--and there will be some who will oppose this the same way that some opposed black-white marriages, but there won`t be all that much they can do about it. Similarly, many states in the US deny convicted felons the right to vote, and there isn`t much the felons can do about that either.
So, as I see it, banning homosexual marriage isn`t so much a denial of basic human rights (no such thing, objectively speaking) or upholding morality or religion (again, no such thing as absolute morality and the less said about religious morality, the better) as it is of the state deciding how far to grant which rights to which groups. So, neither the religious moralists or the inalienable rightists have a real case. Sorry, guys.
Regards.
#173 Posted by Naqshbandi on September 24, 2003 12:12:57 pm
no civilisation in history has even countenanced the abomination which is gay marriage. it is against all norms of morality and decency. even the ancient greeks--where bisexually was commonplace--did not go as far as giving this sick behaviour the cloth of decency by attaching the label of marriage to it. this is because marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.
Allah and His Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam--nay, ALL prophets from Adam alayhisalam onwards have condemned homosexuality (which is reason enough to condemn it for the Believers) in the strongest possible terms and it is a sign of the depravity of the age in which we live in that such abomination is tolerated and even encouraged.
then when Allah sends down new plagues and diseases upon mankind we wonder where they came from...
la hawla wa la quwatta ilah billah.
**
Allah and His Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam--nay, ALL prophets from Adam alayhisalam onwards have condemned homosexuality (which is reason enough to condemn it for the Believers) in the strongest possible terms and it is a sign of the depravity of the age in which we live in that such abomination is tolerated and even encouraged.
then when Allah sends down new plagues and diseases upon mankind we wonder where they came from...
la hawla wa la quwatta ilah billah.
**
#172 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 12:12:57 pm
echo: re. #168 Really intriguing research article, that. Sad and sickening, if the author’s contentions are true, as they seem to be. For the benefit of those without the time or patience to read through the whole article, here is, IMO, the gist:
What is undeniable is that over the last two or three years a substantial body of scientists and medics, many from the USA, seem to be keen to promote an explanation for the origin of AIDS that, though avowedly iatrogenic, caused by the actions of physicians, involves no specific individuals or governments. No names, no scandal. Nobody held to account. No law-suits.
The arguments, the denials and protestations will sputter on for some time, but I firmly believe that over the next few years it will gradually come to be realised that the pandemic of AIDS was sparked by the large-scale field trials of an experimental polio vaccine - trials that employed African ``volunteers`` as guinea-pigs. I think that more and more people will begin to question whether this might be the most memorable and awful own goal yet scored by Homo sapiens, (or H. sapiens iatros).
Whether this scenario will ever be proved is debatable. Certainly a vigorous campaign of opposition and defence has been mounted, one that has the air of being coordinated. But the prospects for proof may be somewhat less unlikely than they at first seemed. There is much more supporting evidence than can be printed here. And in the meantime, various further tests are underway.
An immense, horrific tragedy is unfolding in Africa and around the world. Sometimes we give it a few minutes as it passes uncomfortably across our TV screens. And sometimes, preoccupied or faint-hearted, we look the other way.
Tens of billions of dollars are now being devoted to regime change in the Gulf. Is it not time to ask when some of those billions will instead be allocated to the global fight against AIDS - the origins of which can be traced back to well-intentioned people in the same country that now spearheads the fight of ``good`` against ``evil``?
Thanks once again.
Rgds,
PM
P.S. er.. what did any of it have to do with gays?
What is undeniable is that over the last two or three years a substantial body of scientists and medics, many from the USA, seem to be keen to promote an explanation for the origin of AIDS that, though avowedly iatrogenic, caused by the actions of physicians, involves no specific individuals or governments. No names, no scandal. Nobody held to account. No law-suits.
The arguments, the denials and protestations will sputter on for some time, but I firmly believe that over the next few years it will gradually come to be realised that the pandemic of AIDS was sparked by the large-scale field trials of an experimental polio vaccine - trials that employed African ``volunteers`` as guinea-pigs. I think that more and more people will begin to question whether this might be the most memorable and awful own goal yet scored by Homo sapiens, (or H. sapiens iatros).
Whether this scenario will ever be proved is debatable. Certainly a vigorous campaign of opposition and defence has been mounted, one that has the air of being coordinated. But the prospects for proof may be somewhat less unlikely than they at first seemed. There is much more supporting evidence than can be printed here. And in the meantime, various further tests are underway.
An immense, horrific tragedy is unfolding in Africa and around the world. Sometimes we give it a few minutes as it passes uncomfortably across our TV screens. And sometimes, preoccupied or faint-hearted, we look the other way.
Tens of billions of dollars are now being devoted to regime change in the Gulf. Is it not time to ask when some of those billions will instead be allocated to the global fight against AIDS - the origins of which can be traced back to well-intentioned people in the same country that now spearheads the fight of ``good`` against ``evil``?
Thanks once again.
Rgds,
PM
P.S. er.. what did any of it have to do with gays?
#171 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 10:56:36 am
labrynth1:
Thank you for that from-the-heart testimony. We can argue the philosophical/theological nuances of the issue till the cows come home, but what is often forgotten is that, contrary to what many ``anally-fixated`` folk here would have us believe, this is not about ``ghand maranay`` rights, but about the right to share your love and love with another the person without being stigmatized by society for it.
You mention genes. For me, it isn`t important whether the roots of deviant sexuality are genetic, biologic, psychological (conditioned) or a combination of any of those factors. You certainly don`t choose it, and you should have full rights to live in peace and dignity unless foes can argue a clear and present danger (That old `survival of species is the most pathetic, indicating anxiety over latent homoeroticism if anything, and arguments about children ebing exposed are really, in the end, only circular)
Best wishes for a happy future. I am not sure I am in favour of the idea of gay couples raising children (just yet), but my reasons are pragmatic rather than `doctrinal`.
Take care,
PM
Thank you for that from-the-heart testimony. We can argue the philosophical/theological nuances of the issue till the cows come home, but what is often forgotten is that, contrary to what many ``anally-fixated`` folk here would have us believe, this is not about ``ghand maranay`` rights, but about the right to share your love and love with another the person without being stigmatized by society for it.
You mention genes. For me, it isn`t important whether the roots of deviant sexuality are genetic, biologic, psychological (conditioned) or a combination of any of those factors. You certainly don`t choose it, and you should have full rights to live in peace and dignity unless foes can argue a clear and present danger (That old `survival of species is the most pathetic, indicating anxiety over latent homoeroticism if anything, and arguments about children ebing exposed are really, in the end, only circular)
Best wishes for a happy future. I am not sure I am in favour of the idea of gay couples raising children (just yet), but my reasons are pragmatic rather than `doctrinal`.
Take care,
PM
#170 Posted by sattar2 on September 24, 2003 10:56:36 am
I think the issue of gay marriages in the US should be treated as a legal one, without the undertones of biblical morality. Bible and Quran discourage homosexuality, but this should not be the basis for legal discrimination against gays. This issue should be dealt with on basis of fairness and justice, which is the core principle of the US`s legal framework. If there are no legal barriers to fornication, adultery, pornography, prostitution (at least in Nevada) … all severely discouraged by the Bible … there should be no Biblical barriers to extending marriage rights to gays. The moral brigade would love to haul prostitutes, adulterers, and them faggots to city’s main square on pubic holidays and cheerfully stone them to death … and that is just another reason why these moralists should stay locked up in churches and mosques.
Heck, I am as much a muslim as the next guy … and looking at a pretty lesbian pains me beyond belief … but I cannot rightfully discriminate against others due to my heterosexual bedroom morality. As for the feds … it seems that they are already in our bedrooms … since they grant special privileges to spouses; not that it necessarily constitutes a problem. Denying similar rights to gays, in my view, amounts to hypocrisy … which remains far more evil than any conceivable sins of flesh … and is rightfully condemned in Islam in far more severe terms.
I am neither encouraging nor discouraging homosexuality. I am only pointing out an inconsistency in the government’s ideals of justice for all … and what I see as an issue where these ideals are clearly abandoned.
- Asad
PS: Urstuly Sahib, you did not elaborate on your comments about Mirza Sahib. What happened? Did your frantic web-search not yield anything … or are you now questioning your mullah’s credibility? You should come clean on this one … and not become silent like cousin Naqsh when taken to the task.
#169 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 10:56:36 am
Samina, and all concerned with the truth rather than with fear-rooted hysterics:
Harmful to Minors?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020415Harmful_to_minors_excerpt.html
Harmful to Minors?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA020415Harmful_to_minors_excerpt.html
#168 Posted by echoboom on September 24, 2003 10:23:52 am
Please, Please read this.
It could be your child, your friend or your near & dear one.
YOU JUST CANNOT SAY:``DIE(Live) & LET DIE(Live)`` It is YOUR & EVERYBODY`S BUSINESS TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO OR NOT.
You are not alone. You can`t afford to be lonely.
WARNING TO GAYS:and those supporting them``
It could be your child, your friend or your near & dear one.
YOU JUST CANNOT SAY:``DIE(Live) & LET DIE(Live)`` It is YOUR & EVERYBODY`S BUSINESS TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO OR NOT.
You are not alone. You can`t afford to be lonely.
WARNING TO GAYS:and those supporting them``
#167 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 9:58:37 am
re Saminasha: ``Secondly, this board is neither a feminist nor Lambda conversation.``
I`m not sure to what this is in reference, but I do recall erroneously saying ``feminist schools`` when I meant g&l groups. Freudian slip? hmmmm.. sorry ;-)
PM
I`m not sure to what this is in reference, but I do recall erroneously saying ``feminist schools`` when I meant g&l groups. Freudian slip? hmmmm.. sorry ;-)
PM
#166 Posted by labyrinth1 on September 24, 2003 9:12:12 am
First a fall I would like to thank Tarek for introducing such
a topic on chowk which is still considered taboo (even amoung
the liberals or so-called liberals). Being gay sure is tough
specially in a society which is hypocrite in many ways.Benig
gay has always been tough with me but in the end I stopped thinking
and believed in the theory of genes coz` as far as I could re-call
I was born as gay! and I know many to share these kind of taughts!
Religion was my foe,as all my life I had to fight with it and live
with it ..Islam never allowed homosexuality,it sure is a sin, and I know
it but what would I do? I am born this way ...maybe God made me like this..
I am not feminish at all ...not predictable .. I am a man but gay!
I fought against all odds (with due respect to the hypocritical soceity of
Pakistan) and in the end got married with my love! and now I live back in UK..
soon we will have kids (insh`allah)...but come again, am I respected in society?
no! (coz` they considers me as a rouge element nothing more then a sex manic) but
I am honest about myself ...better then those who prey and hurt others..!
My message is live and let others live ...my story is like of the couple
the only problem is that we are two males....married? yes...
as far as some people thinking about mamals ...for there information
male dolphins are considered to be homosexual in nature...its a fact!
a topic on chowk which is still considered taboo (even amoung
the liberals or so-called liberals). Being gay sure is tough
specially in a society which is hypocrite in many ways.Benig
gay has always been tough with me but in the end I stopped thinking
and believed in the theory of genes coz` as far as I could re-call
I was born as gay! and I know many to share these kind of taughts!
Religion was my foe,as all my life I had to fight with it and live
with it ..Islam never allowed homosexuality,it sure is a sin, and I know
it but what would I do? I am born this way ...maybe God made me like this..
I am not feminish at all ...not predictable .. I am a man but gay!
I fought against all odds (with due respect to the hypocritical soceity of
Pakistan) and in the end got married with my love! and now I live back in UK..
soon we will have kids (insh`allah)...but come again, am I respected in society?
no! (coz` they considers me as a rouge element nothing more then a sex manic) but
I am honest about myself ...better then those who prey and hurt others..!
My message is live and let others live ...my story is like of the couple
the only problem is that we are two males....married? yes...
as far as some people thinking about mamals ...for there information
male dolphins are considered to be homosexual in nature...its a fact!
#165 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 9:05:19 am
TAhmed:
I think the truly English would go ``Good form!``. Thank you. You weren`t too bad yourself about a hundred or so posts ago. :)
I think the truly English would go ``Good form!``. Thank you. You weren`t too bad yourself about a hundred or so posts ago. :)
#164 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 9:05:19 am
TAhmed:
I think the truly English would go ``Good form!``. Thank you. You weren`t too bad yourself about a hundred or so posts ago. :)
I think the truly English would go ``Good form!``. Thank you. You weren`t too bad yourself about a hundred or so posts ago. :)
#163 Posted by PM on September 24, 2003 9:05:19 am
Samina,
re. ``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.
No, Samina. I am dead serious and very passionate about intergenrational love.
My major gripe with the gay movement is they bartered away their historical roots to buy them mainstream acceptance. Historically, what is regarded these days as hateful `P` word was the dominant paradigm of homosexuality. A cursory look through the pages of history should revela that easily enough.
Feminists? Many of them brought in the power discourse, relevant as it is in male-female relations, to an area it really wasn`t needed again-- again mainly to win mainstream acceptance, or sometiems just to lash out.
I really don`t have the time to discuss this at the moment in any depth. You might profitably read the 200 or so interacts that followed the second of the two articles I provided hotlinks for earlier.
best rgds,
PM
re. ``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.
No, Samina. I am dead serious and very passionate about intergenrational love.
My major gripe with the gay movement is they bartered away their historical roots to buy them mainstream acceptance. Historically, what is regarded these days as hateful `P` word was the dominant paradigm of homosexuality. A cursory look through the pages of history should revela that easily enough.
Feminists? Many of them brought in the power discourse, relevant as it is in male-female relations, to an area it really wasn`t needed again-- again mainly to win mainstream acceptance, or sometiems just to lash out.
I really don`t have the time to discuss this at the moment in any depth. You might profitably read the 200 or so interacts that followed the second of the two articles I provided hotlinks for earlier.
best rgds,
PM
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 165 W/Salam WRWB My... How real is your
- masadi: HP writes "he problem... How real is your
- MatloobZaman: Re: # 26 by... Faith and Religion
- satyamvada: Murad, You are... Faith and Religion
- akcheema: I must say I... Alcohol and Teenagers: A
- ahmedmadani: ONLY OBAMA IS HOPE,... How real is your
- ahmedmadani: SAD thing Happening. Hope... How real is your
- VRV: 164, T32, Freeedom of speech... How real is your
