His Gift Dear Jenab-e-fairdinkum,

Thanks for the compliment, mais je ne peux pas comprendre la perse.

``Apart from the fact that they all claimed some form of metaphysical or divine source of inspiration, not much else is common between Mohammad and people like Mani, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. I have deliberately excluded Gautama Siddhartha (Bhudda) from the group.``

Why exclude the Buddha? Just because his claims to divine inspiration/enlightenment can be accommodated within Islamic dogma (since he precedes the `seal of the prophtes`) while the others cannot?

``Would you care to identify your particular approach or methodology you have used to arrive at the conclusion that Mohammad`s thoughts and ideas (Quran, hadiths, and his various speeches etc.), his influence on history of mankind etc., is [sic] in no way better than for example, David Koresh`s?``

I never said that Mohammad`s ideas and influence were equivalent to Koresh`s. I`m merely making the point that as mere mortals ourselves, we have no way of experiencing the divine inspiration the self-proclaimed prophets claim to have access to, so we have no way of verifying the truth of the matter. We cannot perform the experiment ourselves.

What we can do, though, is look at the lives of these individuals and determine the nature of their character through their actions and teachings. We can use our own reason and experience to determine whether their teachings are true and appropriate for own own lives. Personally, I find the humanity of these men to be much more inspiring than their claims of divinity. Thus, people like Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, and others who exemplified compassion, justice, selflessness, and love in their lives become more influential and respected in history than other self-serving individuals like David Koresh or Jim Jones. But again, it`s their HUMANITY that sets them apart, not their claim to divinity. And in our lives, I`m sure we all know people who inspire us to love others and act selflessly - our mothers, fathers, dear friends, teachers. Do they need to claim divine inspiration for us to listen to their ideas and learn from their actions? Does it really matter if they do or don`t?

His Gift Re: fairdinkum et al.

Sorry, but as a non-religious person, I cannot buy your distinction between `wahi` and other paranornal phenomena such as psychic prediction, UFOs, alien abductions, magic, etc. All are based on the testimony of the person(s) experiencing the phenomenon and cannot be confirmed by third parties. The rest of us `non-initiated` ones just have to take their word for it (or not). Your elevating `wahi` to some surperior, divine status is purely based on your particular religious convictions and not on any reasonable argument.

Besides, many others throughout history have claimed access to some metaphysical or divine source of inspiration (such as Mani, Gautama Siddhartha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, David Koresh). Why should their claims be discounted as fraudulent while those of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and other Quranic figures be accepted? Isn`t that intellectually unfair?

Re: PM

I agree with much of what you say. I, too, believe that all phenomena fall within a natural law, but the reason so many of them seem inexplicable is because we haven`t broadened our understanding of natural law enough to encompass them. As for predicting the future, I wouldn`t be so quick to dismiss such occurrences as hoaxes. There`s a lot of evidence out there to suggest that there`s truth to the matter. If time is an illusion, then the future, present, and past coexist and may be accessible to some faculty of the human mind that we have not yet discovered. Of course, this is all conjecture (from someone very ignorant of physics), but it`s worth thinking about, no?

Re: all

I predict that you will all enroll in a remedial English class taught by PM and Bina (that is, if they don`t scratch each other`s eyes out before you get to diagramming sentences...)

Little buttons, churches and things Thanks for the reference, Mariam. I`ll see if I can find the book at the public library. It`s nice to know they`re including gay people in the curriculum of the ``Marriage and Family`` class, and in a Midwestern university to boot! :)

Of Boylove and Boylovers Dear PM,

So you WERE Patrick Masih all along! Wow, you really fooled us all, you clever fellow, you! Who could have guessed that `PM` could be the very Patrick Masih who gushed unabashedly in earlier Interact! Sessions about how much he wanted to kiss his boy students full on the lips...

I hope you`re having fun lusting after the shirtless boys on the beaches of Karachi, in which case you probably won`t be reading these responses, but heck, it`s too cold and foggy here in SF to go outside and idle on the beaches myself, so I`ll just send you a few thoughts.

First, a bit of advice: Drop the petulant, pedantic, sarcastic, I`ll-teach-you-a-thing-or-two-you-ignoramus attitude. It only serves to detract from your objective and inflames others` passions against you. If you want others to keep their emotions in check when thinking about this issue, then you need to lose the condescending tone. You need to show a little more respect for them (with all their intellectual inconsistencies and prejudices), and a lot less preachiness. And please, drop the personal attacks. Such immaturity does not become you.

``Jus` wondering: How many of you are posing questions her [sic] that you would actually want to ask yourself, but are to [sic] afraid of the answers. [sic]``

Oh, NOW who`s being presumptuous and reading the minds and motivations of others? Tsk, tsk. Wasn`t such presumptuousness one of your major rants throughout this response session?

``I suspect nothing I could ever say would be believed simply because, to you, I am a Pedophile, which makes me a predator almost by definition.``

Please, Patrick, don`t get so defensive. I never accused YOU of being a predator. I simply said I wasn`t convinced that children are capable of giving informed and mature consent in matters of sex. Thus, I questioned the consensual nature of man-boy sexual relationships. I suppose I`ll actually have to read testimonials of boys who have been in such relationships and how such a relationship affected their adult life in order to understand the issue of consent from their perspective. More homework...ugh!

Regarding incest, you write: ``Of course it would be okay for the parent to be the teacher - although like I said, I have misgivings about cross gender intergenerational relationships But I can`t really justify my misgivings so I reserve final judgement n [sic] that issue.`` And of heterosexual pedophilia: ``I still have problems with intergenerational heterosexual activity, if for no other reason, then [sic] practical ones. The possiblilty [sic] of pregnancy being one. There are other reasons I believe, as I`ve explained in my article, why I believe the man-boy (or by the same token, woman-girl) relationships to be special.``

Well, well. How convenient for you. Why, pray tell, should pregnancy be a problem for heterosexual pedophilia if 90-95% of pedophilia (according to you) involves non-penetrative sex? And haven’t you heard of contraceptives?? What other `practical problems` with heterosexual pedophilia are you talking about? And how is man-boy sexual love `special` while man-girl or woman-boy love is not? Just because the former gets you off while the latter two don`t? Please enlighten.

As for incest, in your world of unrestricted child sex, I would MUCH rather go to a loving parent to learn about sex than to a stranger. Wouldn`t you, buddy? If not, why not? (remember, we`re assuming the parent is loving, and not abusive). If not, what is it about a father-son relationship that distinguishes it from a non-familial man-boy relationship in terms of sexual fulfillment? If there is no qualitative difference, shouldn`t society encourage incest over pedophilia??

Regarding your ideal world in which pedophilia is accepted, you write: ``My `ideal situation`? Well, I [sic] not that much of a dreamer. I try and focus on the immediate steps. Lemme think about it a while.``

Yes, Patrick, do think about it a while, for the proof is in the praxis. Do you envision a world where parents will gladly send their boys off to get sexual training with some pedophile organization in their community? Or will the parents host a dinner party inviting all the pedophiles in their neighborhood for a lovely evening in which their son will decide which lucky man gets to be his sexual tutor? Hmm...not likely, eh? Or do you envision a world in which pedophiles seek out lonely and troubled boys from neglectful or abusive homes (which is probably what happens now?), in which case your pedophilia can only exist in secret? A world in which unhealthy families with distanced sons become a NECESSITY for the fulfillment of your sexual needs?

On another note, you mentioned `spiritual sex` more than once in your article and your responses. What exactly is that, as opposed to physical sex? Do you somehow fondle the boy`s spirit instead of his penis??

Untitled Lovely poem, Sakina. I especially like the line ``The dried bundles of the past/

have been placed carefully/ between the folds and layers of myself.`` Ties the imagery and theme together beautifully. Sometimes it seems that every generation is born to make up for the sorrows and disappointments of the previous one, to realize its unfulfilled expectations and hopes. And so the past becomes the future.

Looking forward to more of your work :).

Information Revolution - Utopia or Bust? Great to see you back on Chowk, Wasiq!

I agree that given current economic disparities around the globe, the Information Age looks more dystopian than utopian for the have-nots. To the vast majority of the world that cannot afford access to a computer or to the internet, Information Technology is useless and meaningless. The disparity will become much greater as the internet transforms from a luxury into a necessity. For instance, here in the US, many employers are now posting job openings EXCLUSIVELY on the internet and not bothering with newspapers or employment agencies. This, of course, saves them money, but it now automatically excludes all those candidates who may not have instant or constant access to the internet.

I particularly like your observation: ``It seems to me that in face of such overwhelming amounts of information, people will spontaneously and instinctively gravitate towards localized groups, sort of virtual communities, that share certain ideas. They will do so at the exclusion of other communities, so we haven`t really fulfilled our dream of a global village.`` This is a crucial point. Chowk, for instance, attracts Pakistanis and Indians mainly, or those who already have an interest in the region. The same can be said of other special-interest sites. People seem to be using the internet to deepen their understanding of certain categories they already regard as important or interesting, not using it to discover new ideas or interact with new people already outside the borders of their social and cultural landscape. Just like you don`t find African-Americans interacting on this site, likewise you probably won`t find Pakistanis interacting on some African-American focused website. The dream of a global village thus remains elusive. When we go searching on the internet, we automatically exclude all those terabytes of information and knowledge that we don`t value a priori.

Re: temporal

I agree that this article will get the short end of the stick because of the rapid succession of articles after the `boylove` controversy. The Chowk staff`s ``let`s shove this embarrassing boylove debacle off the frontpage as fast as we can`` tactic is SO transparent.

Little buttons, churches and things Re: Satraangi

I don’t know of any actual Muslim gay mosques, but there is a virtual gay mosque in cyberspace called Queer Masjid run by a certain brother Sulayman X. I don’t know the web address, but I`m sure you can find it through some search engine. Personally, I don`t know why `gay Muslims` want to torture themselves by trying to reconcile their sexuality with a religion that is obviously and viciously homophobic, but I guess `to each his own`...

Re: Durdana

Your sexism is more disturbing than your homophobia. Women can be homosexual, too, you know (as Jonty has already pointed out more than once). As for the rest, Jonty answered perfectly well, so I’ll leave it at that since I’m tired and ready for a long restful weekend.

Re: zensufi

I would be interested in reading that research about the stability of homosexual vs. heterosexual couples. Can you direct me to it?

Re: FerozK

Thanks for the info. I’ll check it out. Bon weekend! :)

Of Boylove and Boylovers PM:

Well, I must admit, you get an `A` for persistence in responding to the chowkwalas. You seem to have mastered the art of rebuttal, are excellent at pushing arguments to their logical limits, and astutely point out inconsistencies in people?s responses. However, you have failed to convince me (and probably others) that the nature of your relationships with your boylovers is consensual and not coerced. If your relationships are truly consensual and you can prove that, then we can discuss the issue further. However, if they are coercive in nature, then your actions are unacceptable and no amount of erudite logistical gymnastics and historical precedent will justify them.

Specifically, I would like to know how you go about meeting your boys. You mentioned that you don?t solicit your students, so where do you find these children? Do you attend boylove social mixers or conventions? Do you search on the internet? Do your friends with young sons offer them to you for the boys` sexual education? Do you seek out lonely and vulnerable boys in public places? How do you hook up??

Also, if you think that children are intellectually and emotionally ready to handle sex like an adult, do you think it?s proper for a parent to have sex with his/her child in order to educate him/her about sexuality (what your `dogmatic moralists` call `incest,` in case I`m not being clear)? Why or why not? Wouldn`t it be better for a child to have a parent teach him about sex rather than a stranger?

Also, what happens when a man-boy relationship becomes abusive? What recourse does the boy have? He is obviously physically, intellectually, and emotionally inferior to the man, so how is he supposed to respond?

Finally, to second Feroz`s question: In your ideal world, how would society accommodate boylovers?

I remember having a huge crush on my Phys. Ed. teacher when I was 12 years old. He was very handsome, kind, generous, encouraging, supportive, humorous, and an all-around nice guy. I fantasized about spending time with him, and my heart would race every time he patted me on the shoulder or smiled at me. However, now having been in adult relationships and having understood the emotional and intellectual faculties that are needed for a healthy one, I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would NOT have been able to handle any sort of sexual relationship with my gym teacher, no matter how much I may have wanted to at the time. It would have ruined the gradual process of sexual awakening and maturity that I, like every child, am entitled to. I`m of course speaking from my own experience (which is all any of us can really go by on this issue), so I just cannot buy your premise that a child is capable of informed and mature consent in matters of sex.

Little buttons, churches and things RE: Satraangi

Procreation: the overarching concern of every heterosexual... Why are straight people so afraid that the simple fact of accepting homosexuality and gay relationships will lead to the whole world becoming gay? Are you all so insecure in your own sexuality? Gay people simply laugh at this absurd fear. Trust me, the world will NEVER have a homosexual majority. Even here in San Francisco, the gay mecca of the world, the gay population is no more than 30%, if even that. There are still PLENTY of babies being born here, my friend. No need to worry, the heterosexual culture is alive and well and will continue to thrive :).

If anything, non-reproductive homosexual relations SHOULD be encouraged by our policy-makers to curb the out-of-control population explosion around the world. Accepting homosexuality will never lead to the end of humanity, but over-population most definitely WILL.

Re: Faraz

This discussion is becoming rather convoluted. Let`s throw out `dysfunctional` from our vocabulary – it`s pretty a useless descriptor. Everyone`s sexual orientation is `natural` and `functional` for that person – it functions as the means of sexual gratification (a completely natural human need). However, how this sexual orientation is expressed in relation to others is where questions of `morals` and rights and wrongs emerge. A sexual relationship between two consenting adults of either the same sex or the opposite sex is considered morally acceptable in and of itself (adultery and other breaking of social contracts notwithstanding) because the relationship IS consensual. Pedophilia, bestiality, etc., are morally questionable because the consensual nature of such relationships is in doubt. Thus, one has reason to forbid pedophilia and bestiality because one individual`s right to choose freely is being violated in the relationship. This is an important distinction. Can you see that?

Morality is about how you treat other people. It’s really that simple. ``Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.`` I don’t know why we try to make it more complicated than that. You raised the issue of adoption. `Privilege` or `right` (more semantics!), it`s still something heterosexual couples can do much more easily than homosexual couples. Why should one`s sexual orientation have anything to do with his/her ability to raise a child in a loving, safe, supportive home? Being gay or straight is NOT a moral issue. Being compassionate, generous, forgiving, selfless, honest, trustworthy, and responsible are the real moral issues to be raised when considering who should be a parent.

As for gay marriage, it would do more than just raise taxes. It would allow for legal rights like child custody in case of the death of one parent, inheritance rights in case the deceased partner leaves no will, power of attorney, insurance benefits, and others I`m forgetting at the moment (I’ll have to check a source later). Most important of all, it would encourage long-term monogamous relationships in the gay community by providing social acceptance and validation for them. What harm would it do to straight people, anyway? If anything, straight people should feel complimented that gays want to partake of one of their most venerable institutions.

Of Boylove and Boylovers PM:

Wow, you`ve really stirred the pot here! I admit I began reading this article with the very prejudices and assumptions about pedophilia or `boylove` you pointed out at the beginning. You’ve built a strong fortress of arguments in support of your sexual orientation, and you certainly did make me question the hypocrisy of current sexual politics: condemning homosexual inter-generational relationships (man-boy) as perverted crimes while sanctioning heterosexual inter-generational relationships (man-girl) through marriage; and seeing children as asexual, when we all know well and good that we all have sexual feelings beginning in childhood.

Having said that, and assuming that your relationships with boys really ARE consensual, as you claim, and not coerced (which is a BIG assumption and really hard to prove), I left your article feeling sorry for YOU, not for the boys. You wrote that the intensity of your love was so great that you would be willing to sacrifice your life for these boys. I seriously doubt any of your lover boys would do the same for you. I doubt any of your boys will EVER feel the selfless love for you that you feel for them. Is this the kind of love you want? Don’t you realize that they’re just using you for their own selfish ends, that the emotions you have invested in them cannot be reciprocated? I wonder if you suffer from a lack of self-love and self-respect since you’re willing to subject yourself to such an unequal relationship? Are you not the real loser here?

It’s true that such unequal relationships (where one loves selflessly and the other selfishly) do exist among adult couples also, whether heterosexual and homosexual, but it seems that such inequality is INTRINSIC to man-boy love. It’s not a healthy thing for either party.

And please do respond to BG’s question: Are you really attracted to the boy as an individual person, or are you in fact attracted to the youthfulness of body and mind that he represents? Is the latter true love? What happens to your love when the boy becomes a man?

Little buttons, churches and things RE: Satraangi

``Homosexuality if seen from a Pakistani (only) perspective is not about intimacy. Its about f--king only.``

I think the same can be said about a lot of HETEROsexual relationships in Pakistan as well.

Little buttons, churches and things Dearest Durdana,

You are so right! My God, I have been SOO wrong this whole time, blind to your astonishingly brilliant arguments and observations. Yes, you see there IS this huge conspiracy amongst all the scientists, doctors, and psychiatrists in the world to brainwash the poor witless heterosexual majority into accepting homosexuals. In fact, all these doctors and scientists ARE in fact closeted gays themselves, working in kahoots with the alien invaders who want to destroy humanity through homosexuality. We must rise up and resist !!

Any yes, we must make people aware of the insidious ``way gayness is a privelege ,right &status of celebrity kind.`` Did you know that gays don?t have to pay any taxes?! Yes, it?s true! And when a gay person ``comes out``, the secret gay/alien organization sends them an expensive gift certificate to Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci, Prada, and many other high-fashion establishments so that the gays can make the heterosexuals feel inferior by dressing better than them, in effect making them envious of the gay lifestyle, ultimately resulting in their wanting to become a part of it themselves. Such devious tactics!! And they also get special treatment when applying for jobs, housing, or university admissions. This blatant favoritism must be stopped!! And yes, it`s true that they`re always hanging around famous Hollywood celebrities (who are ALL gay as well - another alien conspiracy to brainwash us through the media. Will the madness never stop?!!) We must work together to expose these horrors for the COMMON GOOD OF SOCIETY!!!

Words of praise and adulation for opening my mind to the TRUTH would keep flowing from my pen, O Esteemed One, but you see, since I am afflicted with this dreaded HOMSEXUALITY disease, I must run off to engage in wild monkey sex in an orgy of biblical proportions... Lord help me!

Little buttons, churches and things Re: Faraz

Jonty already addressed your questions very succinctly, so I won’t go into a detailed response myself. You seem to be conflating two distinct issues: Sexuality and Family. Yes, you need to define what you mean by `dysfunctional.` The function of a family, imho, is to provide a nurturing and supportive social unit which fosters the well-being and development of each of its members. There can be many types of `functional` families, including ones with two gay parents (and there already ARE plenty of great examples). If, on the other hand, you mean to say that homosexuality is a dysfunctional sexuality in and of itself, then you have to offer logical reasons why you think so. Which leads to the issue of morality you raise…

Homosexuality ONLY becomes a moral issue to those who are homophobic. They base their prejudice on a very culturally-specific Judaeo-Christian-Islamic view of homosexuality. Instead of seeing it as an INHERENT character trait like gender or race, they view it as a moral CHOICE, like rape or infanticide. Thus, they feel compelled to pass a moral judgment. (by the way, even if one considers homosexuality a moral choice, it is NOT in the same category as rape or infanticide; the former is a consensual act while the latter two definitely are not)

Which leaves me wondering: Why can’t they seem to accept the fact homosexuals cannot choose their attractions and orientation? Is it because they themselves DO have a choice in the matter? It seems to me that TRUE heterosexuals would accept the fact of exclusive attraction to one sex, whereas BISEXUALS would know that a choice really DOES exist. So, they can wax moralistic about curbing one’s lusts for the same sex and turning one’s desire to the opposite sex, BECAUSE THEY ARE CAPABLE OF THIS DECISION THEMSELVES. True heterosexuals and true homosexuals are not capable of such a decision.

Re: satraangi

OK, I admit, I was irked! I’m trying to maintain a fair-minded composure here, but this topic hits real close to home... No, I am not bigoted against what you call `narrow-minded people.` I am against narrow-minded ideas. All people are capable of understanding and open-mindedness when fear and ignorance are dispelled. And yes, I DO associate regularly with people harboring narrow-minded ideas (at work, with neighbors, with family, in community outreach), whether these ideas are racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, or whatever. I try to help people let go of their misconceptions and fears (like I’m trying here on Chowk), but often without success. Sometimes I wonder if it’s worth all this time and energy, whether anyone really listens...

Re: FerozK

Yes, California will be crucial in the next elections. It’s too bad the GOP has been sabotaged by the Christian Right, because they do have some very good ideas and policy objectives. The Christian Right’s extremism and anti-intellectualism, exemplified by its rabid homophobia and creationist agenda, will the GOP’s undoing.

Gardens of Stone A sadly touching poem, Feroz. I first understood the true nature of war when I visited the Vietnam War Memorial in D.C. a few years ago. As I saw friends and loved ones tracing the names of their sons, fathers, friends and crying silently for their ``wilted dreams``, I realized that war is ultimately about death. It`s ironic that we fight and sacrifice the lives of our children simply for our tombs, for our bodies lie much longer beneath the ground than above it.

Little buttons, churches and things Re: FerozK

California is split in terms of support for gay rights issues, with the liberal/Democratic counties in Northern California (and LA county in the south) supporting them, while the majority of conservative/Republican Southern California does not. Republicans are making gay rights a real big deal for the upcoming elections, so it will be interesting how California voters respond to that.

As for sexual orientation education, I think it’s an extremely important issue. Most stereotypes and prejudices develop early on in life, so if children can become aware of this issue at an early age (typical sex ed classes take place in sixth or seventh grade), we may be able to avoid their developing into homophobes later in life. If you’re interested in this topic, I suggest you view an excellent documentary called ``It’s Elementary`` about children’s views on homosexuality. The open-mindedness and clarity of understanding of the little children is astonishing, while the teenagers seem to echo the ignorance and bigotry of many homophobic adults. It’s available on www.frameline.org.

Re: the happy one

Thank you. I couldn’t have said this more clearly and convincingly. :)

Re: satraangi

You’re the reason we need more education on gay rights and gay issues. Let’s substitute the word ``gay`` with ``Indian`` in your post and see how it sounds:

``nothing to say against Indians as such, personally as i am sure with everyone else, certain types of personality types i cannot get along with. Certain personality types annoy the hell out of me, and the list goes on. Though we really cannot stereotype Indians generally, but the ones we can stereotype, i find their personalities annoying, and by personality i mean the way they are including physical gestures etc. I have been approached by Indians in Jackson Heights, NY, a predominantly Indian area - as most people would`ve made the statement: `if they leave me alone i have nothing against them,` well i suppose thats what i believe. And yes majority of Indians do dress funny and act stereotypically, living near Jackson Heights for years has taught me that.``

Do you get how bigoted that sounds? Just as all Indians don’t act or think the same, neither do gay people. A white person may not like the way an Indian dresses, smells, or uses certain hand gestures while bobbing his head from side to side when speaking. Does that justify hating him?

Re: durdana

Your post makes no sense. How is supporting gay rights ``disregarding the needs of other people``? Can you imagine for a second that there is someone out there who supports gay rights while not supporting abortion? Or does that fact throw your whole worldview off-kilter?

Little buttons, churches and things Re: Sakina

Right on! Excellent observation about the intersection of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and the like. More often than not, each issue overlaps with the others and doesn?t exist in a vacuum, as do prejudices associated with each. There are white gay men who are racist, blacks who are homophobic, poor men that are sexist, rich women who have contempt for the lower classes. To some extent, the oppressed and the oppressor exist in each of us.

Re: Faraz

My bad! My epithet ?white trash, Bible-thumping hicks? was meant as a reflection of an attitude prevalent among certain liberals. I, of course, love my ultra-religious right-wing countrymen dearly, though I disagree with them on many issues. :)

As for the UU being ?flaky??Their not subscribing to rigid, absolute notions of theological and philosophical truth in no way detracts from the integrity of their beliefs. The secular humanist principles they believe in provide a solid ethical and philosophical foundation just as the Bible and Quran do for many Christians and Muslims.

Finally, since you?re so concerned with finding a cause to espouse more deserving than gay rights, I suggest you put your creative energy to use and design a homeless-rights pin. Distribute these to all your friends and get out there to support the cause. In fact, why don?t you round up some of your homeless brethren from the inner city neighborhoods in your area and invite them to the next $1000 per plate Republican fundraiser where your blue-blooded conservative friends can proudly sport their new shiny badge of compassion. I?m sure the social mix would make for a lovely evening.

Re: FerozK

What? Politicians in San Francisco advocating gay rights for their own ends? Sacre bleu! ;) In this City by the Bay where at least a quarter of the population is gay or lesbian, it would be political suicide not to. As for their actually caring about gay rights, well, since many of them ARE gay, I would think yes, many do. The issues today include non-discrimination in housing, employment, and school/university admission; domestic partner benefits in the workplace and legal benefits equal to those for heterosexually married couples; inclusion of sexual orientation in public school sex education curricula; and gay marriage. SF has come a long way in achieving these goals, but the struggle isn?t over yet.

Personally, I look forward to the day when someone?s sexual orientation will be regarded as simply another aspect of his or her make-up, a day when gay people won?t have to keep politicizing their sexuality in order to gain equality and acceptance, a day when we won?t have to march in parades to publicly assert our pride, because being gay will no longer be a cause for shame. But that day is a long ways away?

Re: jay

Your attack on the ?brown sahibs? is way out in left field. Did you even read the criticisms of the article, or did you just launch your generic diatribe to express some deep-seated anger? Read the responses again, carefully. I don?t think any of your brown sahibs are blindly supporting the American way or those liberals who advocate gay rights while ignoring other types of human rights issues.