Boyfriends

I have a piece that I plan to write about cultural differences between Western and Eastern cultures, but today I wanted to touch on one subject that I was reminded about yesterday at the weekly base bazaar.  I saw two younger Afghan men with their arms around each other's neck walking from a booth on one side of the bazaar to the other.  Gay?  Who knows... That's not what the gesture and act means here.

U.S. Troops are always taught in our cultural classes before deployment to the Middle East that two men holding hands doesn't necessarily mean homosexuality.  In Asian culture, it's perfectly normal for two men who're friends to walk down the street holding hands.  I've seen this as far east as Korea and as far west as Iraq.  It doesn't have the same connotation as our prejudiced Western society view.  It just means that they're friends, much like two little children will do the same thing before they're taught the concept of shame and that this act is not something two men do.

While I was in the permanent ISAF bazaar last week, I walked into an electronics and video store.  On the ground in front of an adjacent shop were a couple of younger Afghan guys laying on a rug curled up on top of each other and basically spooning while watching a portable TV.  I realize that this is Ramadan and that most of them would be asleep during the day so they can stay up all night celebrating, but then again, this was just very interesting to see and it was hard not to look.  I wanted to take a picture, but I thought that would probably be too much to ask.

In the United States and some of the less progressive Western world, we base much of our morality on a book which is anywhere from 2000-5000 years old depending on which parts of it you read.  This same book has been transcribed, translated, and rewritten numerous times over the millennia, often to fit a specific group's underlying agenda.  Because of this, it has lost a lot of its original meaning, not to mention that many parts are now incorrect based on the concept of "lost in translation".  (I’ll be doing a piece about that later too)  The more ardent followers of this book cast judgment and shame upon those they feel they need to correct and condemn to a miserable afterlife.  They put on an air that they themselves are perfect, and pick and choose certain passages to uphold while completely ignoring other parts of that book.  They're so selective in fact that they can justify some of the most horrific actions because they are either condoned or talked about in this book.  This book does have a lot of good reading specifically about how to be a better person and treating others with respect, dignity, and love.  Those parts just get overlooked all too often.  Has anyone else read it?  How about the original texts?

Throughout history, homosexuality was typically ignored, and generally known and accepted as something behind the scenes of mainstream society.  In the U.S., it wasn't until the 1950's McCarthy era of witch hunts for suspected homosexuals, communists, socialists, etc. that American society began it's path towards sexual identity prejudice and bigotry and engaged in an all out assault culturally, religiously, and legally.

With the advent of the Internet and instant connectivity to anywhere, albeit anonymous if so choosing, more and more people are reaching out into what was once taboo.  If you don't believe me, just peruse the Internet.  Sites such as "Craig’s List" have literally millions of ads from married individuals looking for discreet bisexual and homosexual encounters. I'm not saying I approve of this behavior; I'm just saying that this phenomenon is growing.  As our country relaxes its social standards in some circles, others are attempting to tighten their grip.  Ultra political conservatives and evangelical religious organizations seek to legislate morality in a partnership that only the Devil himself could have organized.  In fact, some of the leadership is probably his minions doing his unholy work, as countless "gay Uncle Toms" have been outed for working against the gay rights movement while they themselves were engaging in extra-marital homosexual activities.

I remember as a child that my older relatives who were born before or just after the turn of the 20th century would refer to my male childhood friends as boyfriends. I always thought this was odd that they never had that same sort of grasp on the concept as I had. But that term became perverted by religious activists much like the word "gay" has changed to a completely different meaning over time.

Kids today are in a nexus of growing tolerance and generational taught prejudice. While statistically speaking, greater numbers of  the younger generations of Americans are more tolerant of homosexuals.  Just as perplexing, the number of hate crimes and bullying incidents continues to rise with sexual orientation being the number one topic for instigation.  Even the term "gay" has further evolved to mean something different with the younger generations as it's now used as a synonym for stupid.  From happy to homosexual to stupid, words evolve in weird ways at times.

I put on a uniform and go to war for a country that protects the individual rights of its citizens based on its constitution.  We tout ourselves as a model to the world about personal liberties and freedoms, yet we still restrict the freedomes of our own citizens based on specific religious dogma.  I believe that personal rights are just that, personal, and that no one has the right to interfere with them unless they can potentially harm another person.  Certain factions of our political system seek to take away personal rights based on their own religious views while still clinging to other rights they feel they're entitled.  Who has the right to restrict who someone wants to marry, or sleep with, cuddle up to, or just hold hands with because they feel a connection with that person?  To put it in modern terms, that's just gay.

And for a country to take away personal freedoms of a certain population of its citizens based on a religious undertone for the “good of the country”, I'd like to quote Sinclair Lewis: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." (1935)

More to follow.