vahan79

May I ask why you have decided to be intimate with only women for the last 25 years? Cultural reasons? Did you fall in love with a woman and get married, or did you make a conscience effort to limit your sexual relations to members of the opposeit sex, as you say is the "only choice."

Anonymouse, do you not see your inconsistencies. Allow me to point out yet ANOTHER. Quote: "The relevant point from that is Foucault himself acknowledged that homosexuality was just a behavior, or a tendency that was now acquiring proportions of a 'fixed identity.'" Then you say: Quote: "So you're using yourself as the evidence for the entire subject eh? So even genetic studies have not reported conclusively that homosexuality is genetic, but you yourself in your high horse know the answer with absolute certainty and thus the debate should end here because phantom22 knows it all!" See? Implicit in your argument is that Foucault must be right about what homosexuality is all about becausse, after all he IS a homosexual. (Foucault "himself"...you use "himself" purposefully to imply that as a homosexual male his theories are to be given more credence. You mention that Foucault is homosexual somewhere else, too). But when phantom22 uses himself as a example, then you deride him for being unscientific. Your problem (well, one of them) is that you make arguments that rely on implicit assumptions. Then you deny making the assumption with "I never said that". What you miss is that you don't have to explicitly say something for it to be implicit and part of your argument. Example: If I say, "People under the age of 18 are too young to have sex." Implicit in my statement, among other things, is that sex requires a certain amount of maturity and that 18 year olds have at least the minimum amount of maturity. If you say to me, "you think that sex requires a certain level of maturity and 18 year olds have achieved it?" I can't respond, "I never said anything about maturity, you liberal egalitarian ignorant hippie!" It was implicit and essential to my argument, even though it was unstated. I think you think you are smarter than you are. This is always the downfall of people who otherwise are kinda smart. You should recognize and accept your intellectual limitations. Just friendly advice; I am seriously, seriously not trying to insult you....

Չեմ կարծում որ այս հպատակն անպիտան է... եւ ճիշտ ես որ ուրիշ կարեւոր ու օգուտ հպատակները կան, բայց հիմա այս թեման ինձ համար հետաքրքիր է...

հասկացա

How is it shoved down your throat? If you are saying that having pride parades once a year or having gay people featured in some movies is shoving it down your throat, you are certainly paranoid! Are you saying that you should be allowed to be intolerant, but gays should not be allowed to have parades? Why are you given free reign to act as you wish, but others shouldn't be, others are "shoving" things "down your throat" by expressing themselves? I am trying to get to the heart of your point...

It is a misconception that gay couples on average have more income than straight couples. I think the reason this misconception has spread has to do with the fact that the most vociferous gay couples are those that are economically well-off and can afford to be so public. Also, poorer people from poorer areas struggle with coming out more because they can't afford to live in the ritzy areas like West Hollywood (or Toronto?) where they would be accepted. I mean, just think about it, why would gay people be richer? I am still not sure I get your point. Are gays asking for special privileges?

Կոպիտ էի... Sorry, Raffi. հարգելի ֆորումի անդամ եմ ես?

(1) I think this dialogue is interesting and helpful. I don't see why you are unwilling to discuss this all publicly if you are, as you suggest, willing to discuss it. (2) I think I see your point, kinda, but let me point out one thing. Marriage, under American constitutional law, has been recognized not only as a right, but as a "fundamental right." It is not a mere "privilege." The denial by various governments (state and federal) of the right of same-sex couples to marry is grounded in a different analysis, which the Supreme Court has never directly expounded, but will probably go something like this, either: (a) your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you can still marry, as long as it's a person of the opposite sex, i.e., the right is limited to opposite-sex unions; and ( the government can infringe your fundamental right because there are compelling government interests involved: preservation of the family unit and reproduction of a national populace. Neither is too compelling. In fact, the first was rejected by the Supreme Court when it held that disallowing marriage between races (in this case black man and white woman) is impermissible; it is not enough to say, "you can get married! just to someone of your own race!". The second is even weaker. Should we disallow sterile heterosexual couples to marry since they can't bear children? (3) We need to stop dilly-dallying around the real issue. America disallows same-sex marriage because religious fanatics freak out at the idea. It is a blatant violation of this country's constitutional commitment to keep state and church separate.

If nothing else, this is what you still have yet to explain: (1) What is this so-called homosexual agenda? Who is organizing it? (2) I am assuming you acknowledge that gays are oftentimes identifiable and singled out for discrimination by both the government (i.e., laws preventing same-sex marriage, etc.) and by private individuals (gay bashing, etc.). So, then you must acknowledge that they are a group of some sort that is targetable. Why shouldn't this group fight for their rights not to suffer this oppression? Why is whether or not they can control their behavior the touchtone? Are you advocating that instead of fighting to be who they want to be, they should instead alter their lifestyle to blend with what society wants of them? To what end?

(1) Why do you ignore the arguments that answer your questions? I said EVEN IF it is behavior and they can control it, why should they not have equal rights to live their lives freely? You have not explained why homosexuality is only valid if it is NATURE and not NURTURE. (2) You say you aren't defining culture by race/ethnicity, but only use it as a yardstick. That is the same thing! You are saying that homosexuality doesn't "measure up" (literally) to race/ethnicity and therefore is not a culture. You are assuing that cultures all have to be immutable characteristics, but we know this is not true, because as I have pointed out, religion forms cultural identity (Irish, Armenians, etc.) (I am still confused why homosexuality has to be proven to be a culture or not). (3) Dude, I am not trying to be tolerant and hip by going to the club. My friend invited me. I went. I reported back on my (surprising) experience as I promised. Not everything is a political statement. (4) You are the one pushing us toward a "banal utopia." You are the one seeking to surpress free speech. "Gays, stop having parades! Gays stop advertising! Conform to the heterosexual majority!" I am not telling you that you can't be intolerant. Be intolerant! As long as it doesn't infringe upon my rights or my friends'.

Okay, so your problem is that you spout all these statements as if they are facts, but they are just unsubstantiated rumors. First of all, gays do NOT have the highest rates of HIV, Black Africans do. Second, there is no evidence that they are "more promiscuous", you are basing that solely on stereotype and perception, even if you had statistics, you have to account for male tendency to exagerate and female tendency to underexagerate, which is driven by societal norms; HIV is more likely to spread between unprotected gay sex because of the blood/semen contact in anal sex. Third, your argument proves to much and fails to apply AT ALL to lesbians, who have probably the lowest rate of HIV transmital. You have yet to respond to the most essential of essential issues. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF GAY PEOPLE CLAIM TO HAVE THEIR OWN CULTURE OR NOT? They are not demanding superior rights, they are only asking for EQUAL rights. You make no sense when you say that gays have suffered no more marginalization than 2000 years ago. First, I am not sure that that is true. As you have stated, homosexuality was an accepted practice in Ancient Greece and Rome. Second, WHO CARES? That's like saying women shouldn't get to vote today; they traditionally weren't allowed to vote and by not allowing them to vote they are no less oppressed than they were 2000 years ago. Also, anthropology has come a long way since Boaz, my friend. Fundamentally, anthropologists are by definition experts on cultures and human interaction. Your prison point is such a red herring. You are saying that because prisoners can (and do) participate in homosexual acts that being gay is "behavioral." Therefore, there is not such thing as gay culture. I can learn sign Turkish and immerse myself in Turkish culture. I can act Turkish and eat Turkish food. Everyone will think I am Turkish by my look (Armenian/olive) and my BEHAVIOR. Does that mean that Turkish culture is non-existant? Is not really a culture? Pedophilia is most common with men molesting female children. Priests are not the most widespread child molestors and most of even THEIR victims are female. You (maybe it wasn't you, maybe it was Domino) are confusing what gets media coverage for statistically sound data. The problem with your argumentation is this: (1) You set up all these points based on assumptions that my counterexamples and Nairi's points disprove. Then you say that you aren't making those assumptions, but you don't realize that without them your argument rests on nothing. Instead of explaining how your argument is still relevant, you then go off about liberals and how everything is about being PC (going way off the subject into ad hominem territory). THEN, you conclude without ever bringing us there with logical steps that are both valid and sound. (2) It is apparent that you fancy yourself a logician, maybe even go to law school or something. But, a word of advice, try to be clearer in your arguments. Direct your attention to the actual point and be explicit about what you are trying to say. You keep on repeating the same things over and over, but you don't really say what your point is. Let me help you: "Homosexuality is not immutable, but rather a behavior that can be altered/suppressed/etc., so it is not a true culture, and THUS WHAT??????" WHAT is your point??!?!?!??! That gays shouldn't get to have a parade? I can have a parade for left-handed cat lovers that don't eat meat on Tuesdays if I want. That they should stop gathering together in groups? My cat lovers group can do that, too. That they are not oppressed/marginalized? Even if that is true, so what? Are you suggesting they should just accept whatever is handed to them and not fight for their rights, even as individuals?

I don't know if you realize this, but you use a lot of words to say very, very little. If we tease out some semblance of an argument from your post, we can pare it down to this: Gay culture is no culture at all, because rahter than being based on an immutable characteristic, it is based on a behavior, which is, by definition, a matter of choice. Okay, now let's address this: (1) You are assuming that cultures have to be defined fundamentally by ethnicity or race. This is false. Anthropologists/ethnographers study a range of cultures. One that comes to mind is the "deaf culture." Deaf people have their own "subculture" within the predominantly hearing mainstream. The culture is defined not solely by language, but also by sense of humor, values, and traditions, just like any other culture. (2) You assume that because people can't pinpoint their own specific group (bisexual, gay, etc.) that this means that it is all a big hoax, or somehow less real than heterosexuality. First, I am not sure that people who are "changing" are doing so because their sexuality is really changing, but instead, because they aren't sure of what they are. Second, not being sure of what you are is not unique to this situation. What about a half-Armenian, half-Black kid? Would you say that because he/she can't pinpoint one race to stick with, he/she has none? (3) That gays exist across cultures from time and memorial does not mean anything. Again, you are limiting culture and/or minority status to culture. It is called "begging the question." You define culture as "ethnicity/race" and then say, see, it's not like "ethnicity/race", it is not a culture! You forget that women are a group that exists in every culture, but this does not make their struggles in a male-dominated global structure any less real; it surely doesn't lessen the need for female activism for the protection of women's rights. (4) Foucault tries too hard. I think we all know that. His statement makes no sense at all. First, it doesn't account for lesbians in any way. Second, it assumes that being gay always involves sodomy. Lots of gay people don't even do that. So then what? This is the basic thing: Gays/Lesbians/etc. are a group that has been marginalized by society and persecuted from their behavior, a behavior which they cannot control (and even if they can, I don't see why they should have to...no one has explained why it has to be "nature" not "nurture" to be right! I mean, it is by nurture, not nature that I speak Armenian, does taht mean it is not okay and I must reject the language?!?). In order to fight for their rights, to find acceptance, to feel a sense of community and strength against the mainstream oppression, they (sometimes) group together. Any subgroup creates a subculture. Voila, culture. Why do you care anyway? By the way, I went to the Club Nur. It was actually really fun. The music was awesome and there were like 100 super hot (straight) girls there, too. Everyone just seemed to have fun, there wasn't that weird pressured feeling you get at the straight clubs. Also, girls would dance with me thinking I was gay. It's actually a girl-magnet!

Isolate themselves? Khent es? That is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Try "it is not okay for the majority to marginalize the minority" Also, isn't that ironic, considering the fact that we are on an Armenian Forum message board...isn't that "isolating"?

Actually, gay animals are abundant in nature. The most studied are the gay dolphins that mate for life, monogamously. I saw it on the discovery channel.

Your analysis is problematic on several fronts. First, ethnic minorities are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin alone. That is a gross over-simplification. Skin color is how we identify people who belong in a certain group, but it is not the motive for racism. Discrimination against Blacks is rooted in a distaste for their culture and behaviors. This is obvious if you look at American history, the Irish were one of the most hated groups for the longest of time even though they were white. Armenians were hated by Turks, even though they look similar. Both had to do with religion, probably (irish were catholic, armenians christian). This, my friend is not immutable. Second, you are right that in implying that discrimination based on lifestyle is silly. That is the core of what you are saying, isn't it? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to discriminate based on your preference for Linux? But, if Linux-users, like gays were the subject of say mass killings (holocaust), imprisonment (cuba), random attacks and rapes by civilians and police (everywhere), and biased laws, then you might think differently. Or maybe you think that gay people shouldn't be gay. You seem to admit it's biological, so I don't know how you can make that argument, though...

Yes, so what? What bothers me most about people posting on here who are anti-Armenian-Muslim is that I doubt (HIGHLY doubt) that most of them are even church-goers. Effectively, I am sure they are atheists anyway (even if they SAY they are Armenian Apostolic). At least Sassun is devoted to God! I have been to churches all over LA and you NEVER see young people there (15-35). You see children and տատիկներ . The only time young people show up is when their friends are getting married (or they are) Ամոթ ձեզ !!!

Yeah, I thought about that. It can be, but if you look it up in the dictionary, that is what it will say. I had lots of Lebanese and Syrian friends (Muslim and Christian) growing up in Greece. In Greece, Armenians and Arabs often cling together (at least in my area). But, I have lived in California for 15 years now. Your English is very good! How is that?

I am not sure what you mean. But, let me try to answer. The key difference between Greek and Armenian with respect to dialects is that with Armenian, both Eastern and Western are considered correct. In that way, they are almost treated as their own languages. Yes, they are mutually intelligible (with practice), but so is Spanish and Portuguese. With Greek, there is a standard modern language. All dialects are dialects, and that's it. Pontic Greek, like Tsakonian Greek, is completely different and might be considered its own language. They evolved from the Doric branches, not the Attic branches. In other words, speakers of those must learn modern Greek to communicate with mainlanders. Cypriots speak a variant/dialect of Modern (Attic) Greek, so they are not hard to understand with some practice. In sum, the complicating factor here is that there is not "base" langauge that is considered the "proper" one for Armenian. There is EA and WA, and the sub-dialects of each of those. I know there is resistence to calling them different languages, but we there is some evidence: (1) you need a different book to learn the language because the grammar is that different. (2) no matter what people say, EA speakers cannot understand WA speakers. Try speaking WA to a Yerevantsi who has never heard it before...he/she will not understand you. He will CLAIM to understand you, but really won't. The reason the Diaspora can understand both WA and EA is because we have had exposure to both. As an EA speaker, I hear WA all the time on TV and around town (plus, my mom is WA speaker) Anyway...this post was all chaotic. Sorry.

քանի pride parade՚ներ ես գնացել? Եթե չես գնացել, ինչպես գիտես?

Hmm...have you ever thought that the "homosexual agenda" argument you are making is propaganda from the Christian right? First, isn't the more logical take on the "spread of gayness" that people are feeling more and more comfortable to come to terms with who they really are now that being gay has become (a little) more accepted? That is, people don't feel the need to stay "in the closet" as long as they used to. Second, why would people join a "fad" of being gay? It is by no stretch of the imagination seen as popular or trendy. That is such a myth! Only gay people and a few open-minded straights will accept a gay person, it's not like cool=gay in that many places, even in LA, dude. Again, this is propaganda. So what if people experiment...have you ever considered that they are trying to figure out who they are? Yes, there is a "gay culture", but isn't that just a product of unity among gays in certain areas (like West Hollywood, etc.). There is an Armenian culture that is invented as well. Armenian culture was invented by Armenian people, same with gay culture. It is different in many ways, but in many ways it is the same. Your writing implies that there is some puppeteer standing behind the scenes controlling everything and drafting the gay constitution. It's not that way....

Thanks for responding! But, actually, my friend is anything but a lisping, swishing, hand moving gay. He was the quarterback/captain of the high school football team and played baseball, actually. Anyway, I think those types of gay people are just the most obvious, but there are lots of others that you wouldn't know about (like my friend). Also, I think you must have a problem with gays if you don't like their "advertising" it. They have a subculture, right? Just like Armenians. We advertise, have our own section of the city (Little Armenia), plus we have Glendale. We have our own programs on the international channel, our own phone books, etc. Why isn't it okay for them? I think you are assuming that they are trying to push their gayness in your face and be confrontation, but I have always seen those things as a way of galvinizing them together, giving them a sense of community. About Hollywood. There are SO few openly gay/ out gay (what is the right term?) actors/actresses. It is not accepted. Yes, gay shows up on lots of shows/movies, but I think it's more just for straight people's entertainment. Look at Jack on Will & Grace....we are laughing AT him not WITH him. It reminds me of how tv and cinema would use black people for entertainment back in the day (and arguably even today!) Anyway, thanks again....

Davigh does mean harp! I always use this as an example to show that the Armenian language is gendered because the word for "harpist" is "davghaharuhi" which implies that only women can play the harp! What about harpo marx or whatever his name is/was?! So, was she attracted to your Muslim-ness? (to keep it relevant) Are there many Armenian-Muslims in Lebanon? Have you always lived there? oh, and ana baaref SHWEYET 'arabi.

Yeah, I made the mistake of saying "Oh, cool, gay, cool, uh....I watch the L Word." Leave me alone, it was an awkward moment. He just laughed at me, so it worked out.

I wrote a response but it was lost in cyberspace. Anyway, I see your point about my argumentation. I guess there was two parts and I didn't make this clear: (1) Islam's position (as you have defined it) is logically unsound; and (2) even if it were sound, it is wrong from a Christian perspective and as a Christian, I therefore think it is wrong. Since you won't see the latter (and shouldn't, I guess!), I'll stick to the purely logical argument. Okay, so God has a requirement that people enter into marital contract before they engage in intercourse (i.e., premarital sex is haram). Now, God must have a reason for this, right? Is it marriage for marriage's sake? Or is there some deeper, more logical reason. If it's just for the piece of paper, then sure, these temp. marriages should be okay. But, this makes God's requirement of marriage seem highly whimsical. (Indeed, entering in and out of marriages just for the sake of having sex undermines the requirement altogether; the exception swallows the rule). I can have sex with as many people as I want as long as I am married to them, where marriage to them means nothing to me but sex. (You try to argue that marriage is more than just sex, but you know that temp. marriage ISN'T more than just sex. So, you define marriage very differently depending on what you are trying to argue. You need to have one unified definition or else the word is meaningless.) Temp. marriage makes a mockery of God's requirement. You can't bifurcate marriage. You say "Yes, of course there are reasons why God stipulates marriage. Marriage brings about a healthy society, in terms of organizing healthy relations between men & women, raising children in a caring household, etc. All these are very important in the general welfare of society" But temp marriage doesn't bring this about, right? So by definition (your own!) it is not genuine marriage! Simply put, since temp. marriage doesn't advance these goals, it does not fulfill the basic reason why (based on what you said!) God stipulates marriage. Thus, it is a sham unto God. Also, re: Hadiths. I know what they are, but as you know, they have been oftentimes disproven as not true statements of Mohammad. Also, there is no uniformity within Islam as to which are real and which are not, so this makes it very very hard to rely on them. Lastly, Al-Anisa doesn't say very much about this at all. I think it is a stretched reading of the text to infer the correctness of temp. marriages from this particular text.

Interesting. I will say that there are lots of Armenian children that need to be adopted in Hayastan, but they will not allow gay couples to adopt. Also, preference is given to Armenians, but have to be a married couple and I think Armenian Apostolic. I read this all somewhere a long time ago...may have changed.