On eight

If you are a California voter and if you believe in equality for all


On eight
by Choob Dosar-gohi

This morning, in my daily ritual of visiting Iranian.com, the random advertisement box which for some time now has replaced the heading of this site took my attention.  I have trained myself to ignore the large advertisements in the heading of Iranian.com and have come to accept that the large advertisement which overpowers the site is a reflection of the times in which we live.  The economic man in consumer capitalism has no choice but to buy the idea of choice through advertisement, market himself in an economy where everything is measured by cost and profit, and become a self-responsible individual in a market that needs political intervention to insure profit.

But this morning, a day before the elections, what caught my eyes was an election advertisement which presents the election consumer with an uncanny union of the smiling Republican and Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates.  It announces jubilantly that the point of consensus among the competitors of the presidential campaign is that marriage is between a man and a woman: “At Least They Agree on Something: Yes on 8!”  This anti-gay marriage advertisement also contains a video of the debates where all candidates, unequivocally announce that they perceive marriage to be exclusively heterosexual (I was thinking the support for Israel is the other point of consensus in this marriage pact between the Republicans and the Democrats, but we will leave aside that minor detail).

Now, if you have read an old post of mine [Gay Geography], you would know that I am against marriage sanctioned by the state, be it straight or queer. I do not see “queering” and re-signification as being necessarily subversive and have reservations about rushing to the City Hall to get married.  I think rather than subscribing to the institution of marriage, one has to question its regulatory role in the production of docile subjects. However, since the eradication of heterosexual marriage is not on the ballot, I believe America needs to live up to its claims of equality and justice and stop discrimination against those who it has excluded from full citizenship rights for so long.

I think the issue is no longer about critiquing the normalization of queers or about questioning the institution of marriage. It is about the false claims of equality and justice in American democracy.  Unfortunately, the political situation does not allow a nuanced analysis where one can intervene and interrogate the new forms of governmentality and the imposition of moral codes on queers through marriage.  What is at stake now, I am afraid, is discrimination against people who are constituted through the discourse of freedom and equality, but are denied those very rights.  Ironically, in the civilizational thinking that operates on binaries of freedom and oppression, queers in the US are celebrated as free citizen-subjects of the American democracy vis-à-vis their oppressed counterparts in Iran, for example.  This is the paradox of American citizenship, which is not exclusive to queers, but has a history, especially among racialized subjects.   

Of course, any anthropologist could tell you that marriage has different meanings and different functions in different historical periods and in different places.  Regardless of what one thinks about marriage, its roots, its function in capitalist economy, and its shifting connotations through time, if one has claims of equality for all, then one needs to live up to those claims and see the hypocrisy hidden in Proposition 8.  If one subscribes to the rhetoric of rights and responsibilities in the American democracy, then one needs to hold the state accountable for its promises.  That is why I would like to reiterate some specific points about proposition 8, which I have borrowed from the No on Proposition 8 site.  If you are a California voter and if you believe in equality for all, I encourage you to vote NO on 8.

* Fiction: Prop 8 doesn’t discriminate against gay people.
* Fact:  Prop 8 is simple: it eliminates the rights for same-sex couples to marry. Prop 8 would deny equal protections and write discrimination against one group of people—lesbian and gay people—into our state constitution.

* Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.
* Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education. And no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it.
California’s top educators including Superintendent of Schools Jack O’Connell and California Teachers all agree: Prop 8 has nothing to do with education.

* Fiction:
Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.
* Fact: The court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

* Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.
* Fact: California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

* Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…
* Fact: Prop 8 is about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. Prop 8 is about whether Californians are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

* Fiction: If Prop 8 isn’t passed, people can be sued over personal beliefs.
* Fact: California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.


Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

As a matter of fact domestic partnership ensures those very rights you speak of, specifically for emergencies, if you are speaking of the same life or death emergencies as I'm thinking, like, in a hospital, for example when consent needs to be granted.

As far as other states' recognition, that's entirely up to those states. Nevada, for example, isn't required to acquiesce to California's will.

Like I've said, I don't have an issue with how people want to live their personal lives. But "equal justice under law" does not mean that the masses are coerced into accepting something when there has already been a vote on the issue.

If Prop 8 failed last night, I'd live with it. Why is it that the No On 8 crowd can't get over the voting results? This is what democracy is all about isn't it? There are countries that are so intolerant and inflexible, they make these Mormons and evangelicals look like a bunch of pushovers, but I'm the one who is negatively labeled.

What I'm saying is leave the Constitution alone. This country can't even follow the laws already on the books and people want to make new redundant ones.


American Wife


by American Wife on

What fun is it be to be so prim and proper all the time.  Sometimes I just feel a need to break out of this strait-laced girdle of conformity and social norms.

Come on... admit it.   Doesn't it feel just a little better when you stub your toe and you let out a big old m***********.  Is that oblique enough for the moderators or will I get my knuckles rapped again?

But anyway, I'll behave...:-(

I know if I get kicked out of class I won't be alone...LOL

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Public Discourse

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

This is not C-Span. It's not the UN. We're adults and we're just shooting the breeze. What a borefest it would be if it was just a tea party with bleeps over us. Even if we use the words that are causing twisted panties so badly, it's still bringing traffic and interest to the site. people are debating and discussing and that is what public discourse is anyway. It has nothing to do with using fancy or foul words.

American Wife

Ba Jaan

by American Wife on

I understand your point... it makes sense.  That's cool.  I just don't think I cuss indiscriminantly though.  I totally agree with Marge... a well-placed "word which describes sexual intercourse between two consulting adults" or " colloquial word to describ buttocks" just sounds RIGHT...:-)

If you do read me or Marge, you would see that we don't abuse profanity.  Moderating a PUN for God's sake!  This IS an adult site.  There are no children visiting here to be offended by the occasional cuss word.  Are you offended more by words than ideologies?  I'd much rather hear a few choice goodies than some of the garbage spouted right and left. 

I appreciate good intellectural conversations.  I also appreciate adult humor and clever wit. 

My beef is that there is no explanation for my reprimand.  I didn't spell out the "sex" word... and Q used the other bad word before I did!  I know the moderators don't read every single comment... but I'm willing to spend some time going back and pulling out some REALLY vile comments that they missed if they're going to be so prudish about mine.

So there!  :-)


so close...

by choobe tamaam tala (not verified) on

53% yes and 47% no so far.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

This site is inconsistent to be kind

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

I've seen articles and blog entries with the same words I'm using here. Seems that this site is inconsistent in how it handles cuss words. I did not THREATEN to leave for Huffington or any other site, I drew a comparison. I was being warned by the moderators, you're one I assume, for quoting John McCain and making a pun on the word Country. 

Don't be so afraid of cuss words. They're like accessories. Too much is never good. 

Suddenly things are changing here. For the worst. JJ used to even publish vile and foul pictures and WORDS yes WORDS. YOu publish sex tapes of mullahs and that's not objectionable? Well it is. It's pornographic!

News Goffer

Rooting for No on 8 in California

by News Goffer on

CNN says with 6% of precincts counted, 55% yes and 45% no at this time. It's still too soon to tell. I am rooting for the no votes to rise and defeat 8.

Choob Dosar-gohi

obama won!!!! big relief...

by Choob Dosar-gohi on

obama won!!!! big relief... hope 8 is defeated too. congrats :)


To Marge and American Wife

by Ba Adab (not verified) on

Why is this site getting on your nerves? You have proven time and again that you are intelligent, articulate, and extremely educated. Why can't you use language which conveys your meaning and does not include profanities? Is your point better made when you say shit and fuck and ass and whore? No, not really. Leave the cheap language to people whose logic and rationale does not have a leg to stand on. I personally think they don't do a good enough job of moderating word hooligans and profanity lovers on this site. And I hope you don't consider this a cheap shot, because I really like your viewpoints, but if things are so much more lax and easier for you on Huffington Post, then by all means go ahead and join the conversations there. I am impressed when people who are articulate and intelligent and interesting also speak decent and convincing words. We might all be anonymous and unverified, but each of us must remember that behind the blue hair and the goldfish, there is a real person who must uphold certain standards of public discourse.


Yopu or Shmopu, makes no difference

by Zion on

Choob Dosar-gohi, It is definitely great to constantly read and know more about theories one disagrees with, and the names of the founders of such theories. However I was not disagreeing with any particular ideology or theory that you adhere to. I was not debunking the claims of your gurus. I was making a point about any such set of theories by real or imaginary people, and yes even by typos!

Even the ones some one as ignorant as me knows little about are at the end of the day theories and ideas that might very well be wrong. They thus can't be used to take other people's freedom of choice, even by geniuses of encyclopedic knowledge who know the names of all thinkers of history and the minute details of their respective philosophies.
Unfortunately for all ideologues, that is the way it is.

'but just like many things which you defend or critique, "yopu" is an illusion, a misreading, a non-existing object which has come to life in your defense of another illusion...'

Indeed it could be that many of what I defend end up being mere illusions, but my dear, it could also be that you yourself are under the illusion that all that you believe to be "non-existing objects who come to life only in defense of other illusions" are really what you think they are. I have no problem with realizing illusions, I throw them away, stay with the ones that are not yet debunk and keep an open mind. You however sound as if you believe you have found the true essence (or lack thereof) of everything in the world, including what goes on inside my head.
What can I say, good for you!


Word plays

by Zion on

Choob Dosar-gohi,

You can keep insisting that what I say is just another ideology or that

"The twin pillars of liberalism and enlightenment (which I believe you enshrine as universally superior) are ideological. You can choose to use the word ideology for whatever you like, but again that will remain basically your opinion. That of one person. It won't change the logic.
In a sense, your efforts in word play is identical to what the same Christian fundamentalists like to say about atheism. How it is also a religion. How the realization that there is no reason to believe in a supernatural being whose assumed existence in no way helps understanding the world is basically the same as a belief in any number of such supernatural beings. Your insistence is as valid as such antiquated apologetics.

"And again, choice and choosing are not outside of ideology."
what is your point? If choice is ideological what do you want instead? No choice? and that is less ideological or morally better? Or taking away the choice of the ideology that has weaker force behind in favor of the other one?
Every individual obviously has a basis for the choices she makes. In that sense, yes. But no overarching ideology should take this choice from someone who disagrees with that ideology.

'Suffice it to say that the impossibility to which you referred is absolutely possible!'

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. You are referring to this?
No ideology, no theoretical framework can trump the right of individuals to access information

I am obviously arguing about whether or not such an act is justified. Clearly such acts are committed all the time by sheer power, but are they defensible?

"You have not yet answered my question of why is that the site owner, despite his values, posts Christian fundamentalist ads, but won't be able to do the same with Islamic fundamentalist ads?"

Why are you asking me? It is his website and he can choose what ads to post. You can choose to frequent to this website or not. In any case, if your concern is why one set of ads are not being posted, then cry out for their inclusion. How can asking for others to be banned as well be better?

If you are implying that the feds will come after him again,I doubt it. The website will come under extreme scrutiny (or so I hope), and if any connections with Islamist groups are found action will be taken. That is because unlike what you claim, not all forms of fundamentalism are equivalent. The line is drawn when a group or a voice asks for the deliberate killing of others. That is because killing is the ultimate suppression. You have to be alive to be able to be free and to choose. An ad advertising for blowing up abortion clinics or killing Gays and Lesbians is a different matter, as is the actions of Islamists around the world compared to the group whose ad you see here.

Nevertheless, even this has little to do with capitalism or the notion of advertising, and if you think Islamists who cry for the death of infidels or Christians who blow up abortion clinics should also be given a voice, that should be your call. You can set up a website and promote them and heroically bear the consequences for a freer society. It would still not justify asking for others to be banned as well.

Choob Dosar-gohi

oh, and zion: "Yopu" is not

by Choob Dosar-gohi on

oh, and zion: "Yopu" is not a social theorist. Yopu was a typo. I am too lazy to spell check. I meant to type: "you see, .." and I typed "yopu see,..." I am sorry if I confused you, but you clearly did not understand my point. I suggest that if you refute certain theories, you educate yourself about them. You are right, "yopu" might be wrong, but just like many things which you defend or critique, "yopu" is an illusion, a misreading, a non-existing object which has come to life in your defense of another illusion... In any case, it was entertaining to read your response. zendeh baad yopu who is the backbone of american democracy! ;)


Zion's right wing ideology

by Q on

only in the mind of a lunatic is there such thing as ideology-free Captialism.

This isn't Fox News, so playing BS language games wont' work. No one talked about "choice" or "rights". No one said people don't have a "right" to advertise, just that Iranian.com SHOULD reject that advertising. Zion leaves in a hare-brained utopia that pretends there is no ideology, or power play behind capitalism and financial relations in society.

It's not BS to say that Iranian.com should exercise good judgement on what causes it chooses to associate with. However, I know for a fact that Zion does not believe this because otherwise it would mean:

- No Sanctions on South Africa, Cuba or Iran, because we should let "capitalism" work it's way through "choice".

- This site and every other online community should immediately accept advertising from NABMLA, Pornography, Suicide Bombing promoters and KKK. Why? because of "choice".

This is of course flawed. It pretends like Iranian.com somehow has an "obligation" (ideology?) to provide choice for the rest of the community. Choice is not something someone else "provides", it is part of inalienable freedom. Zion needs to read up a bit deeper.

It's not what I like or don't like, it's what this site and it's owner claim it represents. I do not like, but respect Javid's choice to accept money from these intolerant sources. But he cannot reject anybody else' content now without being a complete hypocrite.

Choob Dosar-gohi

kaveh and zion

by Choob Dosar-gohi on

Thanks to Jahanshah, I can finally leave comments as a registered user. Kaveh: domestic partnership does not give the same rights as marriage, when it comes to emergency and other states' recognition of the rights. Like I said, prop. 22 is not giving any rights to queers, but denies them the right to marriage. Queer is a term that many people use to refer to themselves. Unlike gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual, transgender, etc, queer is not about fixed identities and questions binaries of gender and fixed notions of sexuality. Queer turns the traditional meaning of it (i.e. strange) on its head. If you are interested, you can read some queer theory. Zion: I do get your point, but I guess you don't get mine. This is not the place to have a discussion about poststructuralism and its questioning of the fully constituted subject. Suffice it to say that the impossibility to which you referred is absolutely possible! And again, choice and choosing are not outside of ideology. The twin pillars of liberalism and enlightenment (which I believe you enshrine as universally superior) are ideological. You have not yet answered my question of why is that the site owner, despite his values, posts Christian fundamentalist ads, but won't be able to do the same with Islamic fundamentalist ads? Could the politics of funding be a factor? (I don't know, i am just suggesting/asking) How about the hegemony of a particular form of secularism that is tolerant of the much ignored religosity in the US system, but allergic to Islam? you can't pass one form of fundamentalism zeer sibili, but be intolerant of the other form (well, you can, but I am saying that there is a paradox in doing so). I have nothing against Jahanshah and actually like him. I am saying (and have said this to his face too) that "nothing is sacred' mantra is an empty claim, in so far as many things remain sacred on this site. And the whole "profanity" discussion here is also a good example of this sacred/profane thinking. My reaction: "nothing is sacred," my ass! (am I allowed to say ass here or is that too profane?) American wife: did I call anyone a pervert? I agree with you dear.



by Zion on

You are still missing my point. People have a right to choose. The site owner, but more importantly the viewers have a right to view the ads and choose. Freedom of individuals to choose is above ideologies. It is quite simple really. No ideology, no theoretical framework can trump the right of individuals to access information (any kind of information including ads you don't like) and the freedom to choose. That's because frameworks, ideologies and theories could very well end up being wrong. They can't have the authority to demand any form of censorship for the sake of the morality of their cause.

maybe it is through this "right to choose (or the illusion of the right to choose) that subjects are produced.

Subjects can't possibly be produced by having the "right to choose". Whether an actual choice is only an "illusion of the right to choose" deep inside, is and remains the claim of a certain ideology or theoretical framework only, which could prove to be wrong or incomplete at any later time.

Capitalism has many faults. It is possible to argue that in many real life instances people are manipulated and their choice is but a mirage that does not exist. Then the effort should be to overcome this, the struggle should be to increase their real freedom. Not the opposite way. To ask for less choice for people, to ask for people not to able to see what you deem as ads for evil or corrupt causes can't possibly be in the right direction, no matter what the faults of Capitalism (or any other system.) The call for restriction is always formatted in the name of a higher good. Since ideologies that define this higher good can be wrong, such demands to suppress any form of choice that Capitalism (or any actual system) already provides is unjustified and must be opposed and ridiculed. :-)

Capitalism is the backbone of free society, not because of any of its peculiar ideological or theoretical aspects, but because of the freedom of choice it gives to the individuals, incomplete and faulty as they may be. That is why my standpoint is not ideological, and yours is. It is even clear in the style of your responses. Baudrillard or Yopu could very well be wrong. The way they analyze things might be mistaken. Their "theories" can't possibly take precedence over people's freedom of choice. Even if they happen to believe that such a choice "in reality" subjugates people, or turns them into consumer machines or Zombies or infidels. It is simply not for them to decide.
It is not up to you, or the wise founders of social theories you adhere to, to decide for the viewers of this website what kind of ads are good for them and what kind of ads will poison their minds because of their evil intents. It is up to every individual to decide for herself.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

This site is getting on my nerves

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

The use of profane language? Are you kidding me? Is this Bible chat? We aren't insulting each other and this isn't a Miley cyrus Rox forum. Even on Huffington Post you can cuss even on CNN and fox you can cuss as long as you don't threaten and insult (McCain) lol.

I think this legislating from the bench business is being overblown. Kalifoynya has much bigger issues. Also, this is a special case. It's not going to set a bad precedent. They need gay marriage, let them have it.


Kaveh Nouraee

Re: What!!!

by Kaveh Nouraee on

Does this mean if a Japanese man with a heavy accent posted a comment on this website about today being "Erection Day"  would he get deleted?

That would make us look like very inhospitable people!!


American Wife


by American Wife on

MY repeated use of profanity?  I think I used the little ** thingies like everyone else does.  And Q was the one who used the other bad word. 

Please explain.

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

22 states marriage is between man and woman. Domestic partnership has been on the books a year before Prop 22, actually.

I used the wrong name. My bad.


Moderator 1234

Dear American Wife

by Moderator 1234 on

Please refrain from using profanities in your comments.  Your repeated use of profane words could lead to deletion of your comments.  Thank you.

American Wife

much ado about nothing...

by American Wife on

So much fuss is made about this... I just can't believe it.  The sickest f**ks in the world have been heterosexual and yet you call gays perverts.  Did you know that in most states oral sex is against the law?  Oh yeah, I'm sure you're going to see all the guys speaking out against THAT. 

Q... so if the site advertises something you support, it's ok.  But if it advertises something you're against... it's "whoring".  Uh... ok.  Isn't there something about freedom of expression somewhere in the human rights act?  

Kaveh... doesn't proposition 22 BAN same sex marriage?


Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

My "hooked on phonics" software is malfunctioning.

Bowties? Umm, no. Never liked them. They remind me of Pee-Wee Herman and Les Nessman, the newsman character on WKRP in Cincinnati.

I'm not suggesting that California is playing by the rules. I'm demanding that they do. . Yes, I voted to recall Davis. He was worthless. Tripling the car tax? That was the last straw. When that tax hike was enacted, I brokered a lease on an Mercedes SL55 for a client of mine. His registration cost more than his lease payment. It was ridiculous. He had to go.

Ahhnold isn't as bad as you make him to be. There's a ton of room for improvement, but he also has a pretty crappy bunch surrounding him in Sacramento.

I agree, that the Republicans have been f-ing up a lot. Part of it stems from a lack of clarity of purpose and leadership. But they're also constantly on the defensive. There are a ton of people that think "conservative" is a filthy word. The GOP's greatest error in recent years has been that they are playing the DNC's game, rather than having the DNC play the GOP's game.

As for me, well, I never was a follower.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Kaveh, it's Kalifoynya

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

You're talking as though California really plays by the rules. Puleez. Get over it. BTW Do you wear bowties? Are you the real deal REpublican or just an Internet Republican?

Also, were you part of the REpublicans who did the recall on Governor Davis? I feel kinda bad for him now because Ahhnold is so much shittier than Davis. What's your opinion on that? Why are REpublicans f-ing it all up all the time all places? 

BTW I think it's amazing that anyone is still a REpublican after Bush if they aren't working in the party in some capacity. You're a rare bird. 

Kaveh Nouraee


by Kaveh Nouraee on

First of all, the word "queer" is one I find derogatory.

What is this argument really about? It's about the right to enter into a legal contract, is it not? I don't have any problem with any couple, whether heterosexual or same-sex, entering into such a contract.

What I have a problem with is a handful of judges in San Francisco playing the role of activists and legislating from the bench.

All but one of these judges were appointed by Republicans, and being that my political views are quite well known, this isn't a partisan issue for me. It's a matter of judges abusing their power. It's a fairly safe bet that these judges, being that they're in San Francisco, acted in order to please the gay community in the Bay Area (and elsewhere in California) in order to secure retention votes that will keep them on the bench.

What I also have a problem with is how there are no guarantees that the legal rights of those who object to same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds will be protected. The way it is written, a conflict exists.

Then you have the No On 8 crowd trying to BS the public with "oh, Prop 8 will hurt tax revenue and have a severe fiscal impact". That's just plain bullshit.

Registered domestic partnerships already exist. Same sex couples have that right, which they should use to the fullest to protect their estates. Gay men and women are generally more affluent than heterosexuals and should have estate planning befitting their financial status. Domestic partnerships give them that.

Legislate this properly, write the law so that EVERYONE is protected and that there are no conflicts. Then have those who are registered to vote among the 36 million plus in Ahnold's "kelliforniya" decide....not four schmuck judges looking to keep their jobs.


maziar 58

YES OR NO......

by maziar 58 on

I think from now on we will see big verbal fights and $$ lawsuits from both part of the fence, And that package only come from free civil society.

me personally am not in favor of it.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Zion, why don't you move to Israel?

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Maybe because it truly sucks there? Of course you'd rather live here. And we're so glad that you do. You're an absolute delight. A breath of freshly exhibited gassy digestion.


ideology? masses?

by choob dosar gohi (not verified) on


your stand point is as ideological as mine, except that it comes from a particular school of thought that announces itself to be non-ideological while accusing others of being contaminated by ideology. It goes back to Bell's "end of ideology" as post-WWII discourse and Fukuyama's "end of capitalism" as post-89 discourse. Indeed it is most ideological at the moment it claims to be non-ideological.

What i am saying is that instead of looking as individuals as already-constituted subjects with the right to choose, maybe it is through this "right to choose (or the illusion of the right to choose) that subjects are produced. Advertisement is a technique where the consumer feels like an individual with the right to choose while being provoked to compete. Through this competition (imaginary as it is) it creates a monotony (in Baudrillard's terms, postulation uniforme). This is how the idea of consuming masses is produced by consumer capitalism. Yopu see, the idea of the "masses" is not just exclusive to a particular Marxist ideology, it is ingrained in capitalist logic.

Now, the issue of Iranian.com being saturated with "yes on 8" advertisements is not about if JJ has the right to post ads or not. The issue is what is it that makes one to sell ad space to such hateful proposition? Is not Iranian.com's mantra "nothing is sacred?" How is that people (more specifically Christian fundamentalists) who think marriage is so sacred that they spend millions of dollars to stop queers from getting married, post ads in 3 corners of this site? Why is that someone like Jahanshah, against himself and what he thinks about marriage, has to sell ad spots to these fundamentalists? Would there not be a riot on this site if he posted an ad by a conservative faction in Iran? Why some things are sacred while others are not?
More importantly, what is it about the current neoliberal discourses and economies that gives people no choice (while selling them the illusion of choice) to market themselves as entrepreneurs? Look at the Iranian media in diaspora. Would they survive if they did not act as neoliberal entrepreneurs? I think terms such as "choice" and "rights" are void of meaning. Just the way "freedom" and "justice" are. It is under the guise of such lovely terms that people are discriminated against, put in Guantanamo, killed, tortured,isn't it?

For all it's worth, I do not believe in "masses" being brainwashed, etc. I think subjects participate in their own subjection and subjucation as "individuals with rights."


not asking for validation but rights

by choob (not verified) on

anonymous0009 hm,

queers are not asking for validation from you, they are asking for their rights from a state that bases its claims of equality and justice on rights and responsibility. They are asking the citizens who live in (or perhaps under the illusion of) a democratic society for their votes to have the same human rights as other human beings. Unless you think of them as subhuman, then you cannot deny them those rights. Once you question how heterosexuality took the status of the norm (no, it ain't any more natural than homosexuality), then maybe you can go beyond your attitude of charity towards queers. No one is asking for your validation. Queers are valid. Being 'the same" and being equal are two different things. If queers are not the same as heterosexuals (and one needs to question this binary categorization all together), but they should be equal as human beings in a society that has claims of democracy, equality, and justice, don't you think?Queers are not asking for charity. They are asking for their rights in a discriminatory society that excludes them because of regimes of heterosexuality that form not just the law, but other forms of power/knowledge that group people into normal/abnormal.


prop 22

by choob (not verified) on


why don't you read this page about prop. 22, rather than making it sound like a positive initiative for queers.


Farhad Kashani

Javid has done a great job

by Farhad Kashani on

Javid has done a great job leaving the door open for Iranians from all dfferent ideological beliefs to express their opinion on this site, and by that, it has proven that most Iranians reject the blind anti American and blind anti Israeili and blind anti Modernism hate the IRI supporters and their leftists allies used to spit out on this site. Thank you Mr. Javid! Supporters of the dark evil regime in Tehran and regressive leftist ideology are upset because Iranians have spoken out and are taking their voice, and next their country, back.

Lets all go out and vote NO on prop 8.