Do Foes of Gay Marriages Simply Fear Joy?

`no one should shower grief over the happiness sought by another human being.`


great piece

Well done!

I dont have any tears to shed for those poor gays who wish to be considered a married couple. No matter how they twist and turn, they cant change the fact that they lack the apparatus to produce children. And marriage is about producing children.

I would rather shed tears for those poor girls in Pakistan who can only dream of the living standards these gays enjoy in the west, and for whom marriage is often a dream that often turns into a nightmare that they must live through day after day for the rest of their lives.

If two hairy men think it is cool to sleep together, no one stops them. The only thing that a marriage certificate buys them is pension for the surviving partner and some health insurance benefits which they can generally afford anyway, given that they dont have any children (or at most one or two adopted children.

So, spare me these politically correct tears. Shed real tears for people who deserve those tears - the miserable millions you left behind when you moved from Pakistan to Canada.

The author wrote:

``If you believe your religion doesn`t permit gay marriage, then simply don`t marry a person of your own sex. End of story. Why would you wish to impose this standard on people who believe that religion, in their interpretation, does not exclude same-sex marriages?``

...which begs the question as to what the state is doing recognizing marriage in the first place? If it is such a personal concept then quite frankly a legalistic notion of some sort of ``union`` between a couple (trio, whatever), absent of any references to the apparently ambiguous ``marriage``, would do.

The matter is just a bit more than a question of semantics. I would love to have the definition of ``family``, for example, be extended to include my mother as a dependent, consistent with the setup of a traditional desi family. Fat chance, and personally I wouldn`t fight for it - realistically our government can`t afford such things.

However, given all the possible combinations of relationships we can use to extend ``marriage`` or ``family``, what is it about homosexual unions that entitles them to special consideration?

Salute Tarek! Both to you and your wife.

It`s nice to see people willing to show defiance in face of racist bigots.

Thanks mr. TF for writing and thanks for owner of Chowk for printing it.
These articles change perception of men and women and we overcome hatred created by uniform people. I have changed lot in last 56 years and going towards liberal attitude. Love is most potent force in personal life. Recently I had been to India and met my relative. She was different than others as `` nilopher`` married wrong person and still being outcaste by community. Whenever I went to India made point to see her for curious what happens to her life.( I wrote little travellogue in chowk as response- I did not massaged for better or worse). In recent travel to india she accompinied us to taj. and we had time to chat about. As she is beyond 45 I asked her and she answered. I asked her on what on earth you decided to marry Hindu Kafir. She said she fail in love. I asked her did you know it is most painful to her parents and siblings? She said yes. I asked could you not have married little richer and smarter Muslim? She said she could have. Then I asked her why not? she said she was in mad love. I told her you were not in 18, or 20 ears old but 24 and educated. Answer same she was in love. I asked tell me really was it worth all troubles. She does not know, but she has no second thoghts. On that she told me love is not like account keeping. May be she is right in that. Earlier years I use to feel she is traitor. Now I feel who I am to decide she is happy with her kafir maratha Brahmin husband and he was obviously still fascinated by her and their children. Why I should get disturbed by happy family. Before I some how avoided being photograhed with her family, I had anger for her Hindu kafir husband. This time their daughter sat on my lap and had a picture. I was amused , charmed by her just like her mother when she was young and full of energy. First time felt this hindu kafir ``sob`` is not that bad as he keeps children and their mother happy. Still I can note how they gaze at each other lovingly.We were in gallery and watching passing show on street. She dropped, nicely dressed to see if we want anything or show herself god knows. Her husband her lover was charmed to see her and started gazing intensely at her in my prescence. She was embarrased by my prescence and his intese gazing, turned to go in said to me he is still like stupid young man some times. I know she really liked his intese gazing, just felt why she married, he still loves her with more intensity.We had dessert and the second helping came like his ``watchful mother`` she just put little spoonful, I was watching this drama unfolding she told me he needs to watch eating sweets. Then myself and husband were talking she came and decided to take picture. We were ready but she said wait. She brought newly pressed shirt and ``ordered`` him to change, I was amazed she cared how he will look in picture. I ate even `` marathi dessert`` made up of thickened curd and saffron and sugar and alphanso Mango slices, i relished it. Then I said good bye and walked happily out.

I have seen a love drama, i am happy , it just filled me with happiness and bliss.
Then met her family about 250 miles away. No body asked about her. She is dead to them. Her father walked with me as I departed, he asked me how is nilopher. I said she is in still love and is happy, she is still beautiful. I told him i will get pictures of her and her family.Her old father did not ask me more about that. I also said nothing as I was happy for her to see her in love, her husband in love and the bubbling daughter darling of both. I was sublimed, was filled with joy no place for hatred and mean minded attitude.

Very sweet!

[In true Islamic tradition, she proposed, he accepted.]

How romantic!!! :)

Digit,

Oh I think its pretty obvious why your great uncle cant be considered a spouse or lover...if it isnt, please let us know.

Secondly, there are several additional aspects of this; recognition in the eyes of all govt. and social service institutions. Shouldnt the spouses of a gay employee receive the same benefits a het couple gets? How about decision making if a spouse is too ill to make one for themselves? What about wills? The list goes on.

The marraige debate is going to be interesting.

Interestingly, many commentators point to polygamy (even willingly entered polygamy) as a sign of the backwardness of Arab societies. Yet they point to gay marraiges as the symbol of the progressiveness of the Western societies. I have always found such logic strange, and a double standard. So I would be interesting in finding out the author`s views on the State recognzing polygamy as legal. If it leads to the happiness of all parties in the polygomous relationship, should they be, ``pilloried for seeking the same happiness?``

Where to draw the line and where not to. I believe, gay marraige recently won out (though barely) in Canada. It has yet to win out in USA.

One should keep something in mind. It is actually not just the, ``religious`` community that opposes it in both these countries. They obviously oppose it, but so do a lot of non-religious people. After all, both countries, Canada and USA, are willingly secular, yet, combined, more than 50% of their populace don`t support gay marraiges. They all cannot be put in the religious bucket.

Without passing judgement, if one agrees with the author`s argument, then one has to revisit the concept of marraige to begin with. In a purely secular society, why should the concept of marraige exist, to begin with. It is after all, a religious concept. Which has now turned into laws with certain tax benefits.

If I decide to live-in with someone, why shouldn`t I get tax benefits? What if someone decideds to marry their sister? What would their status be? Should that marraige be recognized, if it leads to both parties` happiness? What if someone wants to marry their mother, or their father? Interestingly, I believe, though not sure, but marrying cousins maybe illegal in a lot of American states. Yet so many Pakistanis are married to their first cousins. What if they are prosecuted? One assumes such individuals should support gay marraiges. Yet I doubt they will support it. At the same time, gays should support people marrying their sister. But I believe they don`t support it.

What if someone wants to marry themselves? This was actually an argument presented in a major Canadian newspaper. Should they be allowed to do so?

I think marraige is a concept on which everyone has a double-standard, including gays and straight individuals. If one wants to take the religious angle out of it, then one should either take out the concept of marraige all together, with no benefits offered to anyone. On the other side, if one wants it to extend to gays, then one must extend it to cousins, sisters and brothers, and anyone else one may want to marry.

It is too easy to conveniently place the lines where one`s own moral conscious thinks the State should place them. Some people`s moral conscious places them at heterosexuality. Others takes them to include gay marraiges. Will they then accept marraiges definitions that go beyond this? If yes, then they have a clear moral argument for gay marraiges. If not, then they cannot argue under the argument of religion coming between two people`s happiness.

In any case, interesting article.

Digit,

Oh I think its pretty obvious why your great uncle cant be considered a spouse or lover...if it isnt, please let us know.

Secondly, there are several additional aspects of this; recognition in the eyes of all govt. and social service institutions. Shouldnt the spouses of a gay employee receive the same benefits a het couple gets? How about decision making if a spouse is too ill to make one for themselves? What about wills? The list goes on.

#3 Ahmed Madani
A wonderful post and as usual written straight from the heart.

re tahmed # 6

Ditto. Hear, hear.

What consenting adults do in their bedroom or their churches is their business. Just don`t ask my legislature to endorse. promote, or prohibit it. What is this thing with the radical gay movement, on one hand they don`t want the state to get into their bedroom but on the other they want the state`s seal on their unions. Typical left-liberal double-speak.

I agree fully with tahmed32 on this. yaar! anything that goes against NATURE, is simply incomprehensible.

ahmedmadani`s traveloque was a nice read. I am happy too, about her being happy there.

Saminasha #8: I have the feeling the author will not reply. So, I will ask you the question.

I think there is no clear cut answer to what should and should not be marraige. So I was wondering, withouth passing judgement, what your views are on the State allowing polygamy, in Canada?

For example, what if a man (or woman) wants to willingly marry two women. And both these women willingly want to marry the man. And they feel it will result in their happines. Should the State allow them to be married?

If you ever get a chance, do follow the polygamy debates in Utah, where the Mormons live. I believe (not sure) Mormon scriptures place Polygomy as a central part of the Mormon belief. And I believe many Mormons believe in it, including, apparently some government officials. Yet, the US Federal govt banned it, even for Utah, even when all parties are consentual. Just like it banned gay marragies, even when all parties are consenting. In fact, I believe a man can actually be prosecuted for having two or more wives. Interestingly, the State does not ban a man and two women living together, and having marital and sexual relations with each other, for as long as they want to have them. I have always found that strage also:

``Salt Lake City Weekly

Utah`s Polygamy Conundrum
by Christopher Smart

Following a publicity gaff in August, when Gov. Mike Leavitt embraced polygamy as something that might be protected under the U.S. Constitution, Utah Attorney General Jan Graham grabbed the chance to say her office would fight against abuses that stem from plural marriage. (http://www.polygamyinfo.com/media%20plyg%20237%20slweekly.htm)

Sexuality and sexual preference is a matter of personal choice. Let it be. If they want a civil union aka marriage of sorts... why not ... let them have it.

6:tahmed and 12:sigalph235

Right On!

Even liberalism has its limits. Isn`t that so?--CYA or PYA is a pragmatic western dictum.

What do the neo-mullahs and peo-mullahs say?