sexy_singh

guv i understand that it seems out of place in this thread - but this thread only exists because its the trendy test of the day, how much can one absorb without flinching, without expressing any discomfort, at any cost. To what extend can you sacrifice independence for the sake of correctness? issue smishue ... - Russel Peters

Sukhi, i admire your open mindedness here. The thing is, people who care about social inequity (like say you or me) have been "forced", in some way or other, to a priori take upon the mantle of defending anyone and anyone who is different, for whatever reason in the name of equality and other vague things like tolerance. Because someone cares about injustice, this should immediately elicit a quick fire, text book response in defending, for example homosexuals with a convenient catch phrase, such as "you are a homophobe or homophobic". Not only is this silly, it is also unrealistic. If the idea of social responsibility is confused into becoming a politically correct struggle that denies the existence of difference and at the same time advocates a world where we are all "equal", in some vague manner, then it is a dishonest and false struggle. It is to do a deservice to ourselves and those who suffer from inequity to propagate this false veneer of "tolerance". I'd rather we be honest with ourselves and others and admit our prejudices, thus coming to terms with a real understanding, than towing the politically correct party line as part of general group think. If we dont base our actions in honesty then who knows where we will drift and then why should anyone take us seriously for we lack substance and are guided by an external notion of correctness instead of our own personal morality and rationality. Social responsibility, the act of acting responsibily in our social systems does not, and should not be hijacked or pushed into absurdity as a reaction. Socially responsible acts involve "doing something cuz u truly care". The fact is that homosexuals, for one reason or another, are different from "us" and conventional wisdom dictates that we must embrace this difference to the point that there is no difference and we can all hold hands and be happy. I have no problem with that if you truly believe it. However i very much doubt that this is practical, for most people. You see, we lie with ourselves when we say that we believe in the freedom of equality. Because were this true, then it would in turn require that individual responses to particular differences be free from expectation, prejudice or even preference. But this simply isnt true. For there are Correct responses and there are Wrong, Immoral and *cist responses. It is this ruse of equality that bothers me. We live in a world of difference and Equality says, "well there really isnt any difference. its all in your head. do away with this difference and you have equality". The problem with that is, taken to its rightful conclusion, this Equality leaves us in a worser state than we began with - namely, it forces upon us uniformity and homogeneity which supposedly was our problem in the first place. That is, the minority groups were pressured to conform to a particular way of thought and act - that of the majority. In this way, Equality pretends to offer an alternative, taking us around a bent circular track and shunning the very differences it claims to defend. Finally i leave with you something to consider. We are taking about homesexuals today. I would like to offer another example, that of the monosexual. Since this sounds like a strange thing, lets define our monosexual in the way of construction. Sexy Singh (entirely unrelated to yours truly!) lives a quiet unassuming life. Infact, it is so quiet that sexy singh has no partner to share with, the pleasures and mispleasures of relationship. Fated, through a horribly stifling personality and conventional unattractiveness, SS struggles to get by. His only comfort comes from the blue grey glimmer of a television screen late at night. Sexy is miserable because he sees happy, smiling and fun loving people having lots of .. uh, fun. Since he cannot do any of these things, he settles for the next best thing, becoming acquintated with his various appendages and imagination. The sad thing is, no one cares about poor old sexy. There are a million and one sexy singhs in this world, so called monosexuals who have been forgotten. Whos looking out for the one handed wrestler? Where is the recognition, where are the rights and where are the social activists dedicated to giving sexy a voice and a, uh, hand. No one cares about sexy because it doesnt matter what sexy does in teh comfort of his bed, late at night. And truly, that is the way it should be for homosexuality, or any other sexual perversion. Sexy could choose to publically declare his monesexuality by bookmarking porn websites, subscribing to various magazines and all kinds of other media. He could express his "self" on t shirts, or even write books and organise protests. Sexy though, realises that his sexuality is his sexualty and doesnt see the need to make a big fuss about it. I'll leave it there for now because im tired of typing

yeh, i do. firstly, honest disclosure. i dont like gay ppl. its a personal thing, like not caring much for say britney spears or the AKJ. or whatever. i dunno if its anything like hate - because i've known hate, and this isnt so much hate. I've hated individual homosexuals before, but that was probably just cuz they were so damn annoying. *ahem* my reason? What bothers me is that the world is supposed to be all accomodating for their sexual preference. Why should it be an issue at all? Its made an issue because its one of those stupid tell-tale signs of overenthusiastic social reformists who have no meaning in their lives beyond trying to glean moral superiority by noting the apparent flaws in the morality of others. As far as i can tell, its a non-issue. It should never be such a big deal that some sexual deviants wish to live their lives in a particularly strange and destructive manner. That these ppl (or perhaps just the so called activists) demand for special consideration is silly. There. i've said it. Now we can stop asking stupid questions like "is homosexuality allowed in sikhi" just because its the convinient social reform issue of the day.

what about sukhi

khalsa faul is a manmukh

sin? its a mathematical function describing the ratios between sides of right angled triangles. karma is a sexy mp3 player made by rio. the two are related because you can break the karma up into triangles and measure lengths and angles. hope this helps.

homosexuality sucks .. , so it follows that the two go together. ps. hi sukhi

hmm, yeah well to keep things updated .. ive decided to keep with inertia and suck it up. so hes helping me, and i hate myself for being in this situation, but i have no realistic alternative so i'll stick with it. hard to rationalize it away, without admitting im in the wrong .. but oh well. cheers for the comments guys, the hard thing about advice is following it even when you know it makes sense.

what is a community if not the sum total of its parts.

well said guv'nor.

Assumption: God can destroy any object. The orginal statement is equivalent to: If He couldnt destroy a rock so big that he could carry then god isnt almighty. But our assumption says God can destroy any object, so it false that "He couldnt destroy a rock so big that he could carry". From a false statement you can derive anything, so we conclude that the original statement was true.

no. next question

Its funny because i went to an AKJ all night kirtan event and saw plenty of hand holding amongst hte men. They even did other stuff like hug each other for long periods of time while chanting. I dont think their women are allowed to do that stuff though. I didnt notice it. But i was given looks when i sat down in the back (due to a lack of space) . Anyway i agree with banning hand holding. I'll never have a hand to hold so i dont see why anyone else should either. Its obvious that this is for a hygiene reason .. you cant transfer germs if you dont hold/shake hands. Thats the next step ofcourse. ban hand shakes. we got a perfectly fine greeting dont we? Why should we adopt the white mans western dirty greeting.

I know exactly what hes talking about. See sukhi, people like me arent very religious. But the people on the other side, the ijiots who talk the talk, look the look and say they walk the walk - they give people like me reason for having a religious meaning. I can be religious simply by noting their hypocrisy and saying "well im not like them, i dont do what they do" - so im more truthful than the religious. you see how that works? In reality im not religious - i have no meaning - and they are full of crap. But i have truth on my side, even though that im not actually doing anything special. The problem is with them. Opinions like mine are only cool because they suck, and not because we are cool. We're just normal. It actually has little to do with political correctness. It has more to do with truth than anything else. How? Well show me a religious person whos truthful and honest. Who doesnt pretend to be something hes not. Show me such a person and i'll not ridicule him, i'll not make PC points against him because i hold such a person in great esteem.

Well the difference between them and me is that they pretend to take things seriously when in fact they are just hollow and empty and im openly admitive of not taking much seriously. now as far as that seriousness goes there needs further qualification. I think i speak for the others when i say we have the utmost respect for Gurbani and the legacy of Baba Nanak. Please dont think that because you fool yourself and others around you that you are "serious" and in "Chardikala" that you really are. There, free of sarcasm you have the truth veerji, bul chuk maf etc etc. <insert more bs here> (Btw using words like Panth, Akhand paat, Rehat doesnt make you anymore a sikh than playing the same words on a tape recorder makes the recorder a sikh)

Wow, that mod-cut really does take a lot away from my post. I was referring to a particular group of people who frequent a certain before mentioned board ...

haha these (mod-cut) .. i wish evolution takes care of them but seriously. when did the "panth" get hijacked by such stupidity ..

haha, quoting from that page dude linked;

i wish *someone* would pay attention to me

i dont understand? so should i open or not? ;(

thanks guys, appreciate the replies. its not just about pride, i can swallow it, i think. but then i'll feel guilty of "using" someone, because i resent them, yet im not being open with my feelings. that bothers me. the guilt.

and its really important for me in my personal life, as well as career and other things ..... so i kinda *need* his help ..... the game of waheguru is complex and frustrating!

thing is beast, ive seen so many people who are ungrateful bastards who forget those who got them where they are now .. i dont ever wanna become one of those. its confusing :-/

well pheena, this person is an ok person - hes arrogant and stuff but mostly hes fine. but he once said things about my father and cuz hes older than me and my paji, i didnt say aynything back. but its been brewing inside me and it makes me mad that he'd do that .. i considered forgiving him, but im still angry.hes also really judgemental and thinks hes gods gift to man but paradoxically he talks about "hunkar" in others and how thast so bad for example the indian cricket team - he thinks they are full of themselves ok i lie. its about sukhi

how do ppl feel about asking for help from someone they hate? is it dishonest? is it wrong? say if there is something htey can help you with that will benefit you and others as well - is it then okay to swallow your pride and ask for help - AND at the same time not feel guilty about it?