Originally posted by: vishmewell
Suchitra, in one of your posts you wrote that exposure of woman's body is thought of as liberal and sense dignity is lost or something to that extent. When that trend was opposed, it was women who fought for it and made a hue and cry that women are oppressed and we can do everything a man can do.... so we got got it... now both men and women can wear less clothes and infact women surpassed men.
Now talking about sexual orientation, same thing is happening and people talk about equality and respect irrespective of sexual orientation. Down the road in 20 years, people will disgust the same acts when society opens up.
Democrats have always been liberal and becoming more and more liberal. Republicans don't embrace these abnormal liberal views but follow "don't ask don't tell" policy. Kerry wasn't a great presidential candidate anyways. His support for same sex marriages and abortions are contributing factors but not determining factors in losing 2000 elections.
So one must beware of what they support and who they elect because that will determine the culture/trend we set for our future generations.
Ofcourse I agree... that Kerry didn't loose just cause of that.
But yeah I mean here its usually a topic to discuss and a 'hot' one.
Women covering up is not oppression at all. Rather women being not educated and treated properly by their Men (father,brother, husband and son) is oppression.
The thing is same sex has existed for Ages.
If you look at the Biblical and Islamic and ofcourse Judaic traditions ( as they have common roots)
You will see that the People of Prophet Lut (Arabic)/LOT (Evangelical) were same sex oriented. They were warned and were given forewarnings by Prophet Lut. They did not budge nor change their ways.
God sent Angels and destroyed them.
Thus in this three religions (from their scriptures) they are pretty against them. THis is one reason you find Conservative Christians holding strict rules against them.
About Hinduism though culturally it is something that is very wrong and unacceptable, I am yet to find a verse that strictly opposes it.
One notion is found in the incarnation of Ayyapa, where he was to be born via two men.
We find that Vishnu had to take a form of a woman and become one with Shiva to have a child to fulfil that condition.
But here also you will find that it is illogical for a same sex orientation to be something normal. Vishnu had to take a form a woman showing that for life to be formed and to continue it is only possible via two sex genders
Thus, my point being here that this has always existed and not something new but was always opposed and against nature.
-
P.S> I hope I did not offend anyone!
Edited by suchitra_1 - 15 years ago
Anupamaa
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
