Kathmandu, Anil Mahaju and Diya Kashyap met about a year ago, were attracted towards each other and, after going steady for some time, decided to tie the knot.


The wedding will be solemnised at a little party in Kathmandu Saturday attended by friends and well-wishers - but no relatives.

Anil and Diya are not their real names but the names they have chosen for their future life together. Both the groom and "bride" are men and the wedding will be the first public gay marriage in Nepal where homosexuality is a crime, punishable with a year in prison and a fine.

"I am really excited and happy that they have dared to challenge (traditional) culture and family values, where the whole society is oriented towards heterosexual marriage," says Sunil Pant, president of Blue Diamond Society, Nepal's most prominent gay rights organisation that is offering its premises for the wedding.

"It is very courageous of them and I congratulate them."

As part of a gay rights organisation, Pant knows better than most the perils homosexuals face in Nepal's conservative, patriarchal society. Blue Diamond Society has to routinely bail out gays and transgenders arrested by police on weekends, beaten up, detained without trial and even sexually assaulted inside police stations.

Blue Diamond Society had also informed human rights organisations about the murder of a teenager in southern Nepal, allegedly by his father, after his family discovered he was gay.

About six years ago, two women in the tourist town of Pokhara decided to get "married" in secret. But the local media got hold of the news and the ensuing blaze of publicity resulted in the women's families first throwing them out and then trying to keep them locked up forcibly.

Though the couple came to Kathmandu and tried to start afresh by opening a small grocery, they continue to be harassed by local toughs, including security personnel.

While Anil is a 28-year-old graphics designer, Diya is a 22-year-old working at Blue Diamond Society as an outreach worker counselling on the spread of HIV/AIDS through unsafe sex and other problems faced by the community.

Their wedding, according to Pant, will be a simple, semi-traditional affair in which they will exchange rings and garlands before witnesses, followed by a little feast for the guests.

However, there will be no priests chanting the traditional wedding mantras.

The "revolutionary" wedding takes place at a time Blue Diamond Society and two other organisations, Mitini Nepal and Shakti Samuha, are asking for gay rights to be included in the new constitution of Nepal.

They want changes in the citizenship law where tesrolingis - transgenders - would be recognised as tesrolingis in the citizenship card and other government certificates, which currently have just two genders, male and female.

They also want the fundamental right of equal wage regardless of gender and recognition of marriage or civil union between two individuals regardless of their gender and sexual orientation.


Source: http://www.keralanext.com/news/?id=825758

what Psychologists including Freud also say is that a person with 'latent homosexual' feelings tries to supprss it, as he feels that it is wrong. And he tries to defend his ego by acting just the opposite, viz, preaching and lambasting against homosexuality. This is 'reaction formation'. as per this theory, 'gay bashers' are in reality 'repressed and latent homosexuals' who try to bash gays in order to defend their own insecurities about their own sexual orientations. So I think u need to get urself analysed once, to learn more about urself.

"We have to ban pedophilia *and* homosexuality. "

Good luck! The whole world is moving in the direction of giving more room for gays in the law and you seem headed in the opposite direction. If you have a gay kid, (and believe it or not it is genetic), I hope you will not be as fervent about banning homosexuality. Ask macho man Mr Cheney!

"Yes, they have been against girls as well, no doubt. Let's keep in mind that heterosexuality is a natural state. "

Says who? Homesexuality also comes quite naturaly to some people.

"Do you think a cow can do the same"
What if the man claims that the cow really loves him? What about a 9 yr old that professes her love for a 40 yr old? As I said, we're opening a can of worms with this gay marriage BS.


"And he tries to defend his ego by acting just the opposite, viz, preaching and lambasting against homosexuality."

Yeah, now make an ad hominem attack on me. Psychologists of today DO say that pedophilia may have a genetic basis to it. Some day, they may make the case that pedophilia is normal as well. How can you guarantee that they will not make the case? You can't, buddy.

"Homesexuality also comes quite naturaly to some people"

Pedophilia may come naturally to some people as well. Your counterargument will be?

Legal age defined by law.

I have one question about homosexuality. Is it true that there are more homosexuals in country like US because you have more freedom here i.e. they can choose to become gays and lesbians. In country like Nepal, people have no option to become gay which I think is cool because people(mostly teens) don't really wonder and ask "I did such and such ...am I gay?" When I was in Nepal I personally did not know anyone who was gay or lesbian.. Just one concern.. what examples do we set from these homosexuals to the next generation. Should we tell them that it is ok to be gay and choose to be gay (if they like)? I am not against gay/lesbian people but do not support them as well. In Nepal what will law do if two dudes get married, I wont be surprised even if someone marries an animal and get away with it legally...

Rudra prasad jee, 'genetic basis' is not the basis for saying that something is normal or abnormal. ok, so pedophilia has a genetic basis, so what? dreaded diseases like various cancers and Hemophilia also have a genetic basis, so r they normal?

the whole point is that u don't say whether a behavior is normal or abnormal on the basis of 'genetic inheritance'. that is where the issue of 'mature, consenting adults' comes into picture.

From : - http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

So far, we've examined the reasons everyone talks about for opposing gay marriage. Now, let's examine now the real reasons, deep down inside, that people oppose it, hate it, even fear it:

Just not comfortable with the idea. The fact the people aren't comfortable with the idea stems primarily from the fact that for many years, society has promoted the idea that a marriage between members of the same sex is ludicrous, mainly because of the objections raised above. But if those objections don't make sense, neither does the idea that gay marriage is necessarily ludicrous. Societies have long recognized that allowing civil rights to certain groups may offend some, and at times, even the majority. But that is why constitutional government was established -- to ensure that powerless, unpopular minorities are still protected from the tyranny of the majority. Simple discomfort with a proposal is no reasonable basis for not allowing it - how many Southern whites were once uncomfortable with allowing blacks to ride in the front of the bus, or allowing black children to attend the same schools as their own, or drink at the same drinking fountain? Half a century ago, those ideas were just as unthinkable - yet nowadays, hardly anybody sees them as a problem, seeing the fears as nothing more than racism, pure and simple.

It offends everything religion stands for. Whose religion? Many mainstream Christian denominations, to be sure, and definitely most branches of Islam and Orthodox Judaism, but outside those, most religions are unopposed to gay marriage, and many actually favor it. When the Mormon church arrogantly claimed to represent all religions in the Baehr vs. Lewin trial in Hawaii, the principal Buddhist sect in that state made it very clear that the Mormon church didn't represent them, and made it very clear that they support the right of gay couples to marry. That particular Buddhist sect claims many more members in Hawaii than does the Mormon church. In a society that claims to offer religious freedom, the use of the power of the state to enforce private religious sensibilities is an affront to all who would claim the right to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Marriage is a sacred institution. This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion and their marriage anyway.

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. Well, I've known (and dated) plenty of very masculine gay men in my day, including champion bull-riding rodeo cowboys and a Hell's Angel biker type, who, if you suggested he is a limp-wristed fairy, would likely rip your head off and hand it to you. There was a long-honored tradition of gay relationships among the tough and macho cowboys of the Old West, and many diaries still exist detailing their loving and tender relationships out on the range, and the many sacrifices they made for each other. Plenty of masculine, respected movies stars are gay - indeed, Rock Hudson was considered the very archtype of a masculine man. Came as quite a shock to a lot of macho-men to find out he was gay! So what's wrong with all these kinds of men expressing love for each other? Why is that so horrible about it? A society that devalues love devalues that upon which civilized society itself is based - love and commitment.

The core fear here is the fear of rape and a loss of control or status as a masculine man. This is instinctual and goes right to the core of our being as primates. If you examine what happens in many animal species, especially displays of dominance in other primate species, dominance displays often have sexual overtones. When, for example, in many species of primates, a subordinate male is faced with aggression by a dominant male, the dominant male will bite the subordinate, causing him to squeal in pain, drop the food or the female and present his rump. This is an act of submission, and it is saying to the whole troupe that the subordinate is just that - subordinate.

This happens in humans just as it does in other primates. It is the cause of homosexual rape in prisons. Homosexual intercourse in prisons is not an act of sex as much as it is an expression of dominance and a means of control. Nearly all of the men who aggressively rape other men in a prison setting actually revert to (often promiscuous) heterosexual sex once they're on the outside.

So is this something straight men should fear from gay men? Well, you can relax, all you straight guys. You've nothing to worry about. The vast majority of gay men prefer sex in the same emotional setting most of you do - as a part of the expression of mutual love, affection and commitment. We're not out to rape you or force you into a subordinate position. The majority of gay men don't want sex with you because we're looking for the same thing in a sexual relationship that you look for - the love and affection of a devoted partner. Since we're not likely to get that from you, you're not desirable to us and you have nothing to fear from us. The small minority of us (and it's a very small minority - less than 3%) who do enjoy sex with straight men understand your fears and are not going to have sex with you unless it's clearly and completely understood on both sides to be on a peer-to-peer basis and your requirement for full and complete consent and need for discretion is honored.

The thought of gay sex is repulsive. Well, it will come as some surprise to a lot of heterosexuals to find out that, to a lot of gays, the thought of heterosexual sex is repulsive! But does that mean the discomfort of some gays to heterosexual couples should be a reason to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? I don't think so, even though the thought of a man kissing a woman is rather repulsive to many homosexuals! Well then, why should it work just one way? Besides, the same sexual practices that gays engage in are often engaged in by heterosexual couples anyway - prompting the ever-popular gay T-shirt: "SO-DO-MY -- SO DO MY neighbors, SO DO MY friends."

They might recruit. The fear of recruitment is baseless because it is based on a false premise - that gay people recruit straight people to become gay. We don't. We don't recruit because we know from our own experience that sexual orientation is inborn, and can't be changed. Indeed, the attempts by psychologists, counselors and religious therapy and support groups to change sexual orientation have all uniformly met with failure - the studies that have been done of these attempts at "therapeutic" intervention have never been shown to have any statistically significant results in the manner intended, and most have been shown to have emotionally damaging consequences. So the notion that someone can be changed from straight to gay is just as unlikely. Yet there remains that deep, dark fear that somehow, someone might get "recruited." And that baseless fear is often used by bigots to scare people into opposing gay rights in general, as well as gay marriage.

The core cause of this fear is the result of the fact that many homophobes, including most virulent, violent homophobes are themselves repressed sexually, often with same sex attractions. One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized - bash the queer and you don't have to worry about being aroused by him.

The opposition to gay marriage stems ultimately from a deep-seated homophobia in American culture, borne out of religious prejudice. While many Americans do not realize that that homophobia exists to the extent that it does, it is a very real part of every gay person's life, just like racism is a very real part of every black person's life. It is there, it is pervasive, and it has far more serious consequences for American society than most Americans realize, not just for gay people, but for society in general.

Legal age defined by law? NAMBLA members want to reduce the age of consent. You can't guarantee that they won't succeed in their endeavors. In Europe, that good ol' bastion of liberalism you look up to, they really are trying to change the age of consent. Thank god I live in the United States. They have no moral compass in Europe these days. In some places, even bestiality is legal. Actually, even in some states here in America, like Washington. Maybe they changed it. I don't know.

Lets get real, pedophilia has a whole different moral dimension from homosexuality. Unless you are Bill Oreily and think NAMBLA scouts are prying on your kid in his playground.

To add a dose of realism, no one in their right minds will reduce the age of consent to something as ridiculous as 9 or 10. It simply is not going to happen but is a fear that the religious right is playing on to serve a vested interest.

NAMBLA and Bill Oreilly are two sides of the same moronic coin to me.

"Unless you are Bill Oreily and think NAMBLA scouts are prying on your kid in his playground. "

They are, my friend. I have already done a quick sex offender search for my neighborhood. There are tons of sexual molestors in my neck of the wood.

If you don't believe me, do a search on:
http://www.ancestorhunt.com/sex_offenders_search.htm

rudra prasad upadhya,

are you that gullible that you will believe a man can understand a cows language professing love?
with a 40 yr old and a 9 yr old comparison you bring out a lot of interesting situations. You said 40 yr old man and a 9 yr old girl. Thats interesting to me. Why not 40 yr old woman and a 9 yr old boy? What is more interesting is that you brought out a heterosexual union that you think will be a problem out of legalizing a homosexual marriage. Isn't that a little funny? I dont think homosexuality has anything to do with pedophilia. This is like me saying if you legalize homosexuality, you will have to legalize narcotics too. There are no connections. Theres no worms in the can that we are about to open Mr. RPU, infact its already open.
Pedophilia is a crime because one of the protagonists is a child. someone who can't defend of himself/herself. That's the reason its a crime. We need laws to protect people who can't protect themselves, and a minor is one of them.

'add a dose of realism, no one in their right minds will reduce the age of consent to something as ridiculous as 9 or 10."

Dude, as I said or implied or insinuated in one of my previous posts, they probably said the same thing about gay marriage 50 years ago.

rudra prasad upadhya,

so banning gay marriage will stop them from reducing the age of consent?

In many cities in America, gay marriage has already been banned. Boston is the bluest city in the Union. I understand that gay marriage has been put in the ballot in Boston as well. Let's see how it turns out.

"Why not 40 yr old woman and a 9 yr old boy"

That's wrong as well. I already mentioned Mary Kay Lateornou's case.

"is more interesting is that you brought out a heterosexual union that you think will be a problem out of legalizing a homosexual marriage"

Do you get what I'm saying? I suggested that homosexuality will open a whole new debate. Pedophiles(who may or may not be homos) will want to push their beliefs as well.

"Pedophilia is a crime because one of the protagonists is a child. "

That's what we say today. What guarantee can *you* give me that the law won't change in the future? That's where we're heading anyway.

Alright, I have had it with this discussion. I'm out.

well if there is a consent from both partners and the law welcomes it...then what's the big deal, just like gay marriage we will head towards another revelation...pedophile society..hehe...let's bring them all on!

that was my original point


LooTe

"That's where we're heading anyway"- we r not heading there. We are there since ages. Girls have been married at ages of 6 - 7 from many centuries in Nepal. A 70 year old man marrying a 12 yr old girl, that too as his nth wife is not an unheard news in Nepal or India. Age of giving consent for marriage has been raised and fixed only in recent times in Nepal. So we r heading towards things which are definitely going to be better than the past.

WHATS WRONG IN GAY MARRIAGE