Little buttons, churches and things

Take a pill buddy. Remember when you are pointing one finger at someone else you are also pointing 3 fingrs back at yourself. Stop blaming US liberals for everything wrong in the world. Grow up, get a job, do something. It`s awfully easy to sit on the bleachers and watch the rest of us bloody and torn down here in the arena of life and condemn us. Get your hands dirty. YOU can make the world a better place, but you have to DO something. Not just sit around and rationalize and criticize. Next week, while I`m down at the soup kitchen, handing out caring, sympathy along with a bowl of soup. I hope to see you there. I`ll be the white, middle aged woman wearing a splattered apron.

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! :)

Kafir... the research I referred to, I read about some months ago in a text book written by the professor who taught the class I took. The book is called, ``Marriage and the Family`` by David H. Oslon a professor at the University of Minnesota in the Department of Family Social Science. Sorry, I don`t have the time to go through 600 some pages of the book, but Professor Olson should be able to help. If not, contact me and I will find it for you: mariam@ispahani.org

=zensufi=

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! :)

Re: Kafir

ATTENTION!

I thought I`d bring this your to attention. There is a highly detailed and well penned article, in September`s Harper, discussing the motivation behind Matt Sheperd`s murder. It is an extremely well balanced article and does not hold any punches in its analysis.

Since I live in Utah, which is a stone`s throw from Laramie, where the murder happened, I think the writer has accurately captured the ``real man`` phyche of Wyoming`s culture, because I have experienced it too, but only in racial terms.

You can access the Harper web site at www.harper.com

Also; you could ask the editors to publish it on Chowk.

Re: DURDANA

Thanks for the clarification on eye-balling. Unfortunately I don`t see what that has to do with the present discussion. Even if the ``average adult`` used his knowledge to come to the conclusion, for example, that homosexuality is a sin and a crime against nature and whatever else, that still wouldn`t make the ``average adult`` right. When Britain decriminalised homosexuality in 1967 (I believe that`s the year, I could be off by a year or three) the majority of the population was against such a move. But forward thinking, rational persons in the government realised that it was the right and proper thing to do. (The same situation obtained with the death penalty.) And that`s just what we entrust our politicians and others(the ``experts`` you so condescendingly referred to) to do- make decisions for the betterment of society as a whole, among other things.

``I know relation ship is more than a stick & a hole,but note what is important to a women is her ability to do so(use an intended receptacle)...``

As if the ``ability to do so`` is the most or the only important thing in a woman`s life. (And by the way, a woman`s vagina isn`t a ``receptacle.``)

``BUT WHAT SENSE IS PUTTING A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE OF WRONG SIZE,LOCATION&DESIGNATED FUNCTIONS.``

Again you bring up the image of two men having sex to blanket homosexuality. I Am not in the mood to get into that one...maybe Kafir will oblige me...

``Regarding defining one self by your sexuality,NO BODY DOES MORE THAN GAYS-----THEY ARE DRIVEN BY THERE SEX PREFERENCE TO VISIT GAY BAR,GREENWICH VILLAGE,SANFRANSISCO,GAY CHURCH,HANGOUTS ETC``

If they are ``driven`` to do anything, it`s certainly not by their sexual orientation (not a preference.) If anything, it`s the marginalisation by the heterosexual majority that sees gays forming their own communities and institutions, places of refuge where they can find acceptance and understanding.

Jonty

Hallo! - I agree with Kafir... a person`s sexual orientation is not related to their ability to parent! No clue how this topic went off into adoption, but please note... prospective adoptive parents are very carefully screened irrespective of their sexual orientation. The social worker does not and should not raise an eyebrow if a client discloses their sexual preference! Most adoption agencies make ALL folk welcome. By the way, according to research, the statistics state that gay men have the most stable relationship as a couple, next follow gay women, and last but not least heterosexual couples. Strange, eh? :-)

=mariam ispahani=

Jonty #49

Briefly by ``eye balling``means without detailed measurements,analysis,expert testimony,& other unnecessary clause put in my biased peoples,An average adult in the even 40 50 percentile of I.Q.curve with education not only in colleges but by libraries,T.V.telecommunications,are FULLY capable of comming to better judgment than ``Experts`` in there field,I know because i am also asked to depose expert testimony which i have to against my will,kicking & running all the way.So please no expert telling what has been true all along!

I know relation ship is more than a stick & a hole,but note what is important to a women is her ability to do so(use an intended receptacle) & similarly men have Penile implant,Viagra,etc.Realation ship is when two human beings meet.I am sure no one will raise eye brows if you have one, BUT WHAT SENSE IS PUTTING A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE OF WRONG SIZE,LOCATION&DESIGNATED FUNCTIONS.The thaught of it is abbhoring.

Regarding defining one self by your sexuality,NO BODY DOES MORE THAN GAYS-----THEY ARE DRIVEN BY THERE SEX PREFERENCE TO VISIT GAY BAR,GREENWICH VILLAGE,SANFRANSISCO,GAY CHURCH,HANGOUTS ETC.It is such that there gayness is the compass of there life & they follow it as a priority No.1

Satrangi#50

No there is no ``authentic``mosque for Gays,and why should there be,a)muslim pray DIRECTLY to god no POPE or intermediary between the created & the creater!b)Since predominantly mosques are visited by MEN,if only they shut up(gays),ONE could go and pray there (RIGHTS to do so where ever they choose to.)Just dont make a pass at the other muslims...Justjoking-LOL.

Re: Kafir

Good point, i agree with you.

On a tangent, has anyone heard of MUSLIM GAY MOSQUES ?

Re: DURDANA

``I understand 10% of population would rather sleep with men spl. now when they sort have gained.``

Why is it that when most heterosexuals think of homosexuals, the first and often only thing that comes to mind is an image of two men engaging in penetrative sex? Firstly, being gay isn`t the exclusive purview of men. Secondly, gays are complex beings like everyone else and their sexuality is only a part of their full self. Their sexuality doesn`t define them, just as a straight person isn`t defined by his or her sexuality (or shouldn`t be.)

``We can argue all the century defining every normalcy but most people go by ``eye balling``question.Even Clinton used the trick of throwing the burden of defining by the opponent unsucessfully.``

Care to expand on what you mean by the ``eye-balling question?``

Re: Gay marriage

I think the key here is choice. Just as straight couples can choose not to get married but live in common-law relationships that are- or should be- legally recognised by the state, so too should gays be able to exercise the option of marriage, if they so desire, for all the reasons stated previously by Kafir and myself.

Kafir #

I dont hate normally any body(untill past decency)& certainly i wouldnt mind if Homosexuals kept a low profile.You yourself admitted that majority will always be Heterosexual,thanks god,I expect them(minority) to realize who is incharge.They can fight (in Wich ever way )for more priveleges like any minority.We can argue all the century defining every normalcy but most people go by ``eye balling``question.Even Clinton used the trick of throwing the burden of defining by the opponent unsucessfully.I understand 10% of population would rather sleep with men spl. now when they sort have gained.But there is no great advantage (rather disadvantage) with this preference so it should (and it is ) on the low priority list of matters to attend to.

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.

Re: Kafir

I said I didn`t want to get in to an argument over semantics. As to whether it is dysfunctional with respect to family or sexuality, I meant with respect to family. Society is built around the family unit which arises out of marriage, which is a heterosexual institution (homosexuals trying to claim it for themselves notwithstanding). As for ``dysfunctional sexuality``, your arguments seem to imply that since all sexuality is innate (and I`m not arguing that it is not)it cannot be dysfunctional. What about pedophiles? I`m sure they claim their sexuality is inherent ``like race and gender`` as well. I think they are dysfunctional as well [and according to your ``argument`` I must understand the roots of this sort of attraction otherwise how could I blame pedophiles for molesting children? ``TO PARAPHRASE YOU: UNLESS I WAS CAPABLE OF MAKING THIS DECISION MYSELF``...well, I am pretty sure one does not have to have pedophillic desires to view pedophillia as dysfunctional] And do you personally certify people to be ``TRUE HETEROSEXUALS``?...does one have to take a test?

Re: Kafir & Jonty

The reason I raised the question of morality, was because some of the ``rights`` being demanded necessitate moral decisions. The right to adopt children. First of all this is not a right, it is a privelege granted by the state. Heterosexual couples have a lot of red tape to go through to adopt. And you can bet that what the case worker thinks of their morals definately has an impact on adoption decisions. Likewise please read up on any hotly-contested child custody case and then tell me that the ``moral lifestyle`` of both parties is not viewed by the courts as important in making such decisions. So morality does play a role in determining whether one is fit to adopt/raise children.

Which brings me to marriage. I do not even understand why Gays want the state to recognize their unions. As far as I can tell, all it does is raise your taxes, [the only thing I can think of is insurance coverage ofr ``partners``, and if that is the only reason you want the state to recognize gay marriage...well that should never be areason to get married, gay or straight]

``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.



true to an extent but the issue of procreation mush as many liberal hate this concept should also be taken into consideration. If homosexuals become a majority this world would end in a few decades - hello ?, no babies ?. As an agnostic i am not talking about anything remotely religious,but common sense dictates that f--king among heterosexuals does sustain life.

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.

Re: Satraangi

``From my personal experience there are the effimenate gays, who have womanly gestures, and also talk like that. These people are the butt of jokes.``

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

``Then there are the people from up north who have no women, and need to take out their sexual frustration by interacting sexually with men only.``

``Hope this answers your query.``

More than you will ever know, Satraangi.

Jonty