Oy, what my people will think about gay marriage

Bullshit. You’ve received a negative response and now trying to evade responsibility for your earlier statements. Do you agree with “your people” or not? On exactly which issues do you agree with them? On what basis do you conclude that the views you’ve expressed in this thread are held by most, or even many South Asians (who I believe number over 2 billion depending on how much “South” you include, so anyone who claims to speak on their behalf is spewing bullshit until proven otherwise)?

In the West, to parade or not to parade is the woman’s choice. To declare it “unacceptable” is to deprive women of that choice.

Define “objectify” please. Vague terminology wins you no points, here.

Define “morality” please, and try to be aware that morals vary by culture, though I can see this is a stumbling block for you.

Define “natural order of society”, please. As I understand it, “natural orders or society” are simply caste systems and gender-role definitions and a lot of other purely arbitrary traditions.

You’re right. Men should do the dishes more often.

If God himself wants to intervene, let him. I don’t recognize your right to speak on his behalf any more than I recognize your right to speak on behalf of a third of the human race.

So everybody looks down on everybody else? So what?

Damn straight. As a comfortable westerner (Canadian, not American, though), I feel confident in saying Fuck any South Asians who feel the way you describe, and I seriously doubt most do feel the way you describe. Fuck anyone who thinks I need a morality adjustment. By the same token, I think there are large portions of the world that seriously need a morality adjustment. Does that make me a hypocrite? Hell, no, because I recognize the rights of others to agree or disagree with me as they see fit.

So, what will your people think about gay marriage (or Western morality in general, since you’ve expanded the debate to include it)? Why should the Americans waste a microsecond even caring?

Me too. While I do not agree with some of what WeRSauron has said, I do agree in principle with much and have reflected on much of what s/he has said.

PS: I am pro-Gay marriage.

Please dare not to assume the motives behind my actions. I do not agree with many of my fellow South Asians, although I understand why they think or believe what they do.

(For those said this was thought-provoking - your comments meant a lot to me.)

Perhaps I should clarify - the views I am attempting to air are those of the vast majority of South Asians (South Asia as being defined as comprising Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal, also known collectively as the South Asia subcontinent). These may not necessarily be the views of the higher classes, but they most certainly are of the lower classes, and as far as regional stability goes their views are more pertinent as the lower classes are more prone to violence and manipulation.

The people in higher classes are more prone to adjusting, questioning, and even abandoning traditional cultural values. The majority of a nation, however, adheres strongly to the values passed down for centuries beyond memory. It is their belief that it is their values that keep their society together, which if abandoned will lead to the destruction of society. And, indeed, this is what some religious leaders and politicians capitalize on - they seek to win the support of the masses by promoting patriotism, nationalism, and the elevation of one’s own culture (and its values) above and at the expense of other cultures or nations.

Now, I will admit that America is liked much better in India (and perhaps Sri Lanka) than in the Muslim areas, but India is becoming more radical as time goes by. That the Bharatiya Janata Party is in power - with Hindutva organizations, such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiv Sena, supplying much support to it - is one undeniable sign of the growing power of nationalistic Hinduizing elements in India. These people hate America, viewing it as a cultural imperial power, and seek to vault India over America’s head. The periodic attacks on American establishments, especially restaurants, also points to popular uneasiness with an American presence in India.

Why should America care? Because what happens in one part of the world affects what happens in another.

The hatred of America that has infected the Pakistani populace - again, the majority of the people, generally of the lower classes - has infected those here. I can count on my fingers my relatives from Pakistan (whose ancestors came from India) who like America. Everyone else accuses America of imperialism, attempting to destroy Islam and Pakistan, evangelism, and pandering to the wishes of its supposed master, Israel. These same people, if they become more radical, can easily be recruited by various extremist and terrorist organizations. This is the ultimate dilemma - hating America so much they’d work to undermine it, but not being able to leave it. (I find it so sad how people are using America to attack America, and there is nothing America can do about it.)

Now, the matter of gay marriage does not involve only attitudes regarding homosexuality. From my knowledge and experience, homosexuality is an underground presence in much of South Asia. Adhering to traditional cultural values, the general population sees homosexuality as deviant, unnatural, and against God’s wishes (whether Allah or Bhagavan). It is easier to be homosexual in India, openly or otherwise, than in Muslim areas. But gay marriage is another issue all together. In Pakistan, marriages are by definition religious affairs. You must have the presence of a maulvi (or imam or mullah or whatever), and the standard documentation is the nikahnamah, which is used in Muslim marriages. Christians, I believe, have their own paperwork. In a region where the concept of homosexuality as accepted in West is entirely foreign, the concept of gay marriage would be taken as a sure sign that the end of times is near.

One note: Like most non-Western nations, South Asian men can be more physically intimate than in America. It is common to see men holding hands, arms around waists or shoulders, and the like. In Arab countries, one may see men kissing each other when they meet. However, homosexuality, meaning sexual acts between men, is another matter all together.

One reason why homosexuality is so condemned has to do with the perceived role of the male. The male must always dominate, and in homosexuality the role of at least one man is reversed, which is inexcusable or at the very least seen as unnatural.

Another issue has to do with families. Sons and daughters are expected to get married - it is a matter of some shame if a son or daughter cannot get married. Creating a family is seen as a duty, not a choice. One who refuses to get married is seen as shirking his duties to his family, society, and culture. Homosexuality interferes with this, destabilizing society (in the views of others).

A cousin of mine came to America a few years ago to study. There was a party at the house of his uncles, where four or five uncles lived. As is usual in South Asian parties or events, the men were dancing with each other. (Men dancing with women in many South Asian events are regulated by many rules. A woman who dances with a man not close to her, that is, not her husband, father, brother, or close cousin, would be seen as promiscuous and no doubt would be the subject of much gossip. I speak from experience.) One of the uncles quickly went and closed the blinds, explaining that if the neighbors saw them, they would think they were gay. They also informed him that the US government pays for special operations for gay people to become women - the treatment, they said, for being gay. This same cousin was taught in an American-style university in Pakistan (closed down now) that one can contract AIDS from eating pork, which is why AIDS is a such a problem in Western nations.

Why is America hated for its lose morals? Elders see America as having much potential, potential which it is squandering. They see their youth emulating America, which also raises their concern that their youth might abandon their culture and go after a foreign one. To these people, America means nothing but licentiousness, drunkeness, drug use, promiscuity, disease, bad music, bad clothing, etc. Nothing good, they believe, can come from America. Yet, because of its position in the world, there is little they can do. They detest America for leading their youth - and even some who are not youth - astray. America’s promotion of free thinking, open-mindedness, asking questions, thinking for oneself, and following one’s own path is seen as undermining one’s culture and its values.

The youth, for their part, have a hate-love relationship with America. They, like all youth the world over, want their freedom. They see America as the pinnacle of freedom, happiness, and enjoyment. America means fun to them. As much as they admire and emulate the culture, they have a strong opposition to American foreign policy. They do not like American heavyhandidness, they do not like what they perceive as America’s attempts to destroy Islam. They do not like America’s slavehood to Zionism. The list goes on and on. And when their illusions of America are shattered, they feel betrayed, and many go back to their culture with a vengeance - joining organizations advocating the overthrow of American imperialism, if not America itself.

Now, let me repeat that I do not agree with my people. They are misguided. I do not agree with their points of view - especially regarding American “imperialism” and its compliance with Zionist conspiracies. I am a Zionist, I am an American, and so I know what America and Zionism are really about (rather than what they are seen to be about).

An added note - again, the people I am referring to are the vast majority of the people, those whose views are not usually aired as they do not occupy the higher levels of society. I do not speak for all South Asians - of this I am quite aware. I, for myself, see homosexuality in a different light compared to those in my own family. I see the issue of gay marriage in a different way compared to others. But I understand the others, and I empathize with them. (I ended with something that sounded almost communist, so I deleted it. Oy. Scary this business can become.)

WRS - listening to the common people

WeRSauron, thank you for the time and effort you put into that informative post. It is indeed useful for these Boards to have somebody with their “ear to the ground” in such an important part of the world.

However, I must say that you seem to have some difficulty differentiating your opinion from that of your society overall: perhaps your confusion does mirror the confusion you see around you.

We all know that there are simple, salt-of-the-earth people all over the world who hate homosexuality and believe it to be sinful and unnatural. These sentiments, sadly, often find expression in outright persecution, violence and even murder of homosexuals. But what do you believe? You cannot hide behind the views of the judgemental, backwards mob. If you think it wrong to victimise homosexuals who are harming nobody, you must speak up and say so. This is difficult, requiring no little bravery, and may lose you face or even friends, but it is the right thing to do.

As hard as you might find it to imagine that one day homosexuality might gain acceptance, think about all of those other impossible steps of progress which the West led the world in. Three centuries ago, slavery was the norm; pity the brave soul who spoke out on slaves’ behalf! As time went by, they became not slaves but (second class) citizens. Eventually they became full citizens with all of the rights of any other citizen. Where interracial marriage was once considered taboo, as homosexual marriage is now, the West led the world in its adoption, and such a thing now barely raises an eyebrow. At the beginning of the last century, who thought that women could ever vote, or gain an education? Again, the West led the world.

I appreciate your warnings of popular sentiment in Asia, WeRSauron. But on any issue, you must ask which is the side of development and progress and, more importantly, which side are you on?

So, I am a bit lost here. Is WRS really insinuating that I should be denied equality under the law here in America because of what a bunch of backwards gits living in South Asia will think?

Yes.

Beneath the “informative” rationale and the disclaimers about not agreeing with all South Asians (even though all South Asians have the same morals), that is what he is saying.

True points. America is currently creating more hate (not Peace) in the world. More “terrorists” are being recruited by our actions.

Well, I do agree: “American “imperialism” and its compliance with Zionist conspiracies.” I see it every day.

Me too, the world needs more empathy.

My opinion is that the government should have no say regarding the personal lives of the people. Marriage is a social and civil institution, as well as cultural and religious, but the former two prevail the most. Furthermore, as the civil rights issue in the America shows, the government is not obligated to necessarily bow down to the discriminatory aspects of the general public - for better or for worse.

In deciding a stand on an issue, I ask myself - which stance should the government take that would fulfill its duties of protecting the state, protecting and safeguarding the people, and aiding the destitute?

Human morality - in reality, compared to in theory - is a very hazy and complex issue. I, personally, see nothing wrong in two people of the same sex establishing and maintaining a stable relationship. However, I strongly oppose promoscuity by gays and straights alike. Furthermore, I see marriage as something special, not to be thrown away willy-nilly. Divorce should be a final option, after all resources have been exhausted.

If a gay couple can be together, good. If a straight couple can be together, good. The state should remain neutral - neither pro-gay or anti-gay - in this issue, because sexual orientation is a non-issue. Meaning, a person’s sexual orientation should not matter in terms of marriage, employment, welfare, etc.

Somewhat paradoxical to this: whereas I believe that having gay feelings, desires, etc., are not a choice, I do believe that acting upon them is a choice. One must choose, based on one’s morals and standards, what actions to take. Some gay people may give in to their desires. Others may desire to give in but within a controlled environment of a stable relationship. Others may deny it all together. Whatever they choose is fine - as long as it does not endanger public safety, health, and stability.

Promiscuity - whether by gay people or straight people - endangers, in my opinion, public health. Adultery, in my opinion, should be illegal and prosecuted as such; and I believe that extramarital (or extra-relationship) affairs or trysts endager the health of the adulterer’s family by opening up the possibility of infecting one’s family members with a disease contracted from outside. (I know of one man who was close friends with a couple who, it was later found out, had AIDS because the husband had an affair and ended up infecting his wife. His children, however, were not affected.)

As human beings, we have the ability to control our actions, and we should do so.

As far as South Asians are concerned, they and other people of their type are living in a dream world. Old values no longer exist - the values of one generation are different from the values of the previous by the fundamental fact that each generation is exposed to different circumstances, which circumstances determine one’s values and how they are to be put into practice. Furthermore, even though I believe a person should think of oneself keeping one’s place in and duties to society in mind, there should be more allowance for each person to develop and modify oneself and to even differ from the norm. The age of blind obedience is slowly ending. There is great beauty in diversity and pluralism.

Finally, the reality of the world is that values, morals, and standards are becoming more internal than universal. Instead of demanding or expecting others to conform to one’s morals, one must concentrate on determining one’s morals, and then remaining faithful to them. One may advocate one’s morals, but one may not enforce them as a universal truth.

Now, how this will change in certain levels of South Asian society - steeped as they are in a dream world where an ideology defines everything - I don’t know. I wish and hope for change - for a wind to blow away intolerance and bigotry, to replace it with love for all and a willingness to consider another’s plight.

According to some, the Bhagavadgita was revealed when the world (India, in this case) was steeped in immorality and vice. People were very religious, but ignored the moral precepts. They emphasized and focused on the ritual aspect, forgetting that there is more to religion than sacrifices and austerities. So, Krishna came and overthrew that system, replacing it with one that focuses on piety, devotion, extinction of oneself in God, and mindfulness (or, with the four paths to God - devotion (bhakti-yoga), knowledge (gnana-yoga), and practices (raja-yoga)). If this is true, what we need now is for Vishnu to reincarnate and deliver the world from ignorance, backwardness, intolerance, and bigotry.

They say that Muhammad came to end the era of Jahiliyyah (ignorance) and inaugurate the era of Islam (submission), that he did away with the horrible practices of the unenlightened era. We need another Muhammad now to come and either blow a fresh breath of air into Islam or to replace it, doing away with the ignorance that has accumulated since his birth.

But this is all vain hopes. To be free in mind and body, one must flee to the West, where the more enlightened will welcome one. Truly, the blessings of the Almighty are with those who love more than judge. (Innama, barakat 'ullah lillazina “love more than judge.” I can’t do Arabic.)

WRS - have I rambled enough?

This is not true. In fact, the “radicalization” of India with BJP, Hindutva et al is largely a pro-American sentiment. This is because the radical Hindus see America as an ally in the “war on terrorism” (read: bigotry against Muslims).

I think these fears are unfounded. America is a cute little punching bag for lower and upper classes around the world but they aren’t going to enlist with Al-Qaeda… especially over issues like homosexuality, Iraq etc. It is too far removed from their areas of concern.

The irony in this is delicious but again I think you over-state the importance of such thoughts.

This is true for some youth in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen and parts of South-East Asia. May be a small part of Pakistani youth buy into this propaganda. But, why are talking about all this in the context of the Indian subcontinent? With a population of 1 billion, you would probably not find a single Indian in Al-Qaeda.
IOW, most of your comments are misplaced.

  1. That would be known collectively as the Indian subcontinent. South Asia isn’t a subcontinent, it’s a region.

  2. Unless you’ve spoken with more than 600 million Indians and a like percentage of the populations of the other states you name, or you’ve seen polls conducted on the subject, you aren’t speaking for the vast majority of anyone except people you know.

  3. The BJP couldn’t give two shits about American gays being allowed to marry. They’re far too busy taking “Maharastra back for the Hindus”, and so forth.

  4. Indians don’t blow up anyone except other Indians. None of “your people” (and in the sense of ancestry, they’re my people too) ever go outside the region to find people they feel need killing, except the Pakistanis, and only recently.

  5. I beg to differ with your contention that India is any less secular than, say, the United States. What Christianity has taken the better part of two millenia to achieve, Hinduism has been for years- a mishmash of un- or barely substantiated beliefs, rituals, and characterizations. Except in a few places, Indian politicians can’t get into the business of religion, because they represent too many different sects within Hinduism (let alone outside it).