If you thought religious rule couldn’t invade your personal business anymore, allow me to introduce you to Terengganu. Terengganu is a Malaysian state that has a problem with public affection. As a result they have created the Public Display of Affection Intelligence Agency or the PDAIA.
The mission of the PDAIA is to look out for any un-Islamic behavior and report it to the religious authorities immediately. But what exactly is un-Islamic behavior? Well for starters, the innocent act of an unmarried couple holding hands qualifies. Or how about the heinous act of kissing between to consenting unmarried adults? Yep, that will get you reported to the Islamic Gestapo too.
What’s frightening about this policy is not just the invasion of one’s personal business, but who is doing the spying. The government will enlist citizen spies like waitresses and janitors. Pitting a country’s citizens against one another can’t be a good idea.
You know… the more I read about these religious extremists, the more they remind me of Nazis. What ever happened to leaving people alone? Many people wonder why I harbor such anger towards religion. This is a prime example. Leave people the f*ck alone and mind your own business. So long as a person’s actions don’t negatively affect another human against their will, then leave them the f*ck alone. It’s none of your damn business.
And you Christians are guilty of this too. So what if two men want a relationship. They are consenting adults who have just as much of a right to happiness as you do. You like chicks, they like dicks. So what. Leave them the f*ck alone. You think they’re going to hell, and they disagree. Get over it and mind your own business. Trust me, the world will be a much happier place.
Yikes! I apologize for the rant… got a little carried away :)
Thanks go out to Jennifurret for the news tip!
Related posts:
How very 1984-esque also.
BTW there are gays that like the lady parts. Other than that I totally agree. I don’t think I’d really have a problem with religious people if they’d leave everyone else alone.
Oh damn, that was supposed to be:
BTW there are gays that like the lady parts but no one seems to mind them.
Sorry for the double post.
No problem! I honestly don’t understand religious people who have to force their views on others… especially when the actions of others are harmless. It’s like saying that since I hate mint chocolate chip ice cream, no one should be able to eat it. Chocolate is the only way!
Sigh, silly people.
I wonder if anyone would be willing to defend this. Anyone?
Flapjack – I don’t know if you are gay yourself or not, but what do you mean there are gays who like the lady parts?
I wonder if this has anything to do with the recent study about condom size and Indian men. I realize this is Malaysia, but Malaysian men may suffer from the same inadequate man-parts as their Indian cousins. Perhaps, when they see others kissing, it reminds them that they have tiny tinky-winkies. Just, a thought.
@proofNOTtruth-
I’m a gay who likes lady parts, some of them anyway. It’s the lady-brain that got me to throw in the towel. Couldn’t figure ‘em out to save my life.
BTW…mostly joking :-)
Gays can be female also proofNoTruth. In which case, they would like the lady parts.
I was referring to this: “They are consenting adults who have just as much of a right to happiness as you do. You like chicks, they like dicks”
“And you Christians are guilty of this too.”
Guilty of what, reporting homosexuals to the government?
@Scott: Guilty of butting in on other people’s business. That’s all I was saying.
gasmonso
@Scott:
“Guilty of what, reporting homosexuals to the government?”
Actually, yes. That’s how people actually got tried for sodomy laws before they were found unconstitutional in Texas v. Johnson. People who weren’t too happy about having gay neighbors would call in the police. This isn’t just in the United States either… Germany (prior to and during the time of the Nazis) also had a fun little habit of ratting out homosexuals to the government because of their “sinful” deeds.
Ahhh gasmonso, welcome to the dark side; mmm your anger sustains me.
Well, you know I’ve been ranting about religious misogyny since I started posting here. But I’d like to play the protagonist this time;
Cause we have similar laws (for good reason, I might add) which protect the “Public Eye” from lude/incidiary behavior. Not that seeing a couple being intimate is going to incite me to rape or anything; but a sexually permissive society may cause a number of similar problems.
So where do you draw the line? And for that matter, do you even want to draw a line? Should public displays of affection only be illegal if they cause a mob disturbance of some kind? There definatly needs to be SOME laws to keep the kids from fornicating in the streets, like I’d do if I had the chance.
Jennifurret: Your Feather Boa sketch is pretty good!
@shaze:
I would draw the line at exposing oneself. There are already laws on the books for that so it’s not an issue. This whole kissing and hold hands crap is insane.
gasmonso
Shaze:
“Not that seeing a couple being intimate is going to incite me to rape or anything; but a sexually permissive society may cause a number of similar problems.”
Actually, countries that are more sexually permissive such as Finland and Norway have lower rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Because they’re more open about sexuality, have more abortion clinics, and actually teach their children about sex instead of hiding it, they have a lot less problems.
Shaze said it. It’s just a matter of where you draw the line. The only thing that changes is what you find indecent in public. I think Americans are extremely prude. Just look at the racy ads that are permissible in Europe but not in the US. Women can go topless on many beaches without any scandal; try that in the US. I see a great resemblance between the FTC fining for malrobe malfunctions and the PDAIA, except one is about broadcasts and the other enlists citizens. Really, the showing of a breast should not offend anyone, it’s ridiculous — most are beautiful. So, the only objection you can honestly have is the mechanism of the enforcement, reporting to religious authorities instead of secular ones, and perhaps the enlistment of civilians.
Jennifurret, same is true if you compare alcohol in France vs US. Young Americans don’t know how to deal with alcohol because they’ve been repressed instead of taught. Then they suddenly are able to get drunk and do stupid things, which reinforces the repression on others.
“Decency” and drinking laws are just about one thing: appeasing offended and frustrated people.
Are arranged marriages linked to the PDAIA? I was just thinking about frustration. Perhaps muslims in that country are frustrated that people could marry for love instead, and they themselves couldn’t. They feel threatened by that possibility? And want to deny others what they couldn’t have? Obviously I’m speculating.
@NoReligionIsPeace:
It basically comes down to religious societies like the US are more accepting of violence than of sexuality. This is proven time and time again. Watch any tv show in the US and there’s an extraordinary amount of violence. But if a tv show shows a booby, like the Superbowl incident with Janet Jackson, then all hell breaks loose from the religious conservatives. It’s insanity.
Also, there have been several cases where breastfeeding mothers have been in trouble for “exposing themselves” in public. What kind of sick person finds that erotic?
It’s just weird.
gasmonso
gasmonso: I share in your anger. I am at this point trying to find civil words but the only ones coming to mind are the ones George Carlin kept talking about…F#*KS#!TNAZIMOTHERF@#KERSAHHHHHHHHH. Sorry, religious Nazis piss me off. It makes all my words run together and require editing for polite company.
@gasmondo:
About breast-feeding, I think the question should not be ‘what kind of sick person finds that erotic’ but ‘Why should anyone cares that someone could find that erotic’…
I, for one, do find breasts erotic in most situations and; breasts-feeding, clothes-changing, jogging, nudism or any activities surrounding the breast in question does not reduce the erotic appeal it has to me.
Regular guys’ are horny 24/7; they say the avergage man thinks about sex every 5 seconds. (3 for me) And it seems that early on, religion was the only form of birth control.
We are now a completely fearful and sexually immature culture in the West. Our girls grow up afraid to put out, people get frusterated, then turn to non-conventional methods for getting off. (Not saying this is bad, just explaining the self-correction)
Drinking is a WAY bigger problem in Europe than over here. (Illegal drinking on the other hand…)
I’m sorry I’ve got nothing, I totally agree with all your points. Being religious for a day is hard.
“Our girls grow up afraid to put out”
That’s not what I keep hearing…
Then again, if you are wrong, it means I’m missing it all, so I hope for my own sake you’re right…
Shaze:
I forgot to thank you for the art compliment. Thanks!
Gabriel, I don’t think there’s a man alive who understands woman. Even less so the understanding religion
also, about teen pregnancy, I don’t get why “the american public” is not capable of figuring out this isn’t working…
The netherlands has had the lowest teen pregancy rating for a long time, so here’s a hint from a dutch guy (yeah, i know males don’t get pregnant, no need to make remarks)
TELL YOUR KIDS WHAT IT’S ABOUT!
that abstinence you’re walking is really working with the 1 in 25 rating isn’t it? (Enter Netherlands, where abstinence is considered crap, and condoms are available litterally everywhere with the 1 in 250 rating)
“Actually, yes. That’s how people actually got tried for sodomy laws before they were found unconstitutional in Texas v. Johnson. People who weren’t too happy about having gay neighbors would call in the police. This isn’t just in the United States either… Germany (prior to and during the time of the Nazis) also had a fun little habit of ratting out homosexuals to the government because of their “sinful†deeds.”
While I have no doubt that this happened, I was calling Gas to task for lumping all Christians together and trying to do it in a light hearted way. I don’t think that most Christians want to make homosexual acts illegal. If that were true then given the fact that by all accounts we’re the majority, then it still would be. I think a very vocal minority do and I have no problem with telling them how freakishly stupid that is. We can’t legislate our own particular brand of morality.
@Scott:
It is fairly evident that Christians oppose homosexuality as was seen in the last elections. Several states had tried to pass same-sex unions and they all failed except for like one.
Many Christians, including friends and family of mine, claim to accept homosexuals as people, but their actions don’t match up. They’ll talk to them at work and even become friends. But when it comes to it, they won’t even vote for them to have basic rights like a civil union. That’s disturbing and two-faced.
And that is the majority of Christians.
Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is process by which two people make a commitment to one another. And it also affords them certain benefits (ie taxes, etc) under the law.
If marriage was solely a religious event, then Atheists should not be allowed to marry too. And furthermore it should not be recognized by the government, nor should married couples receive any benefits.
gasmonso
How can one claim that
A hearty amen to that gasmonso. Gay people should be allowed to reap the same benefits the government offers straight people. If the government recognizes marriage it becomes an inherently secular institution. If Christians want to keep it a religious rite only then all government support and benefits for it should be pulled. Gay people don’t choose to be gay just like black people don’t choose to be black. Not allowing gays to have equal benefits is the same as forcing blacks to the back of the bus. It is bigotry in its worst form, bigotry “ordained by God.”
What is the Christian problem with other people having gay marriages anyway?
I don’t know how it’s done in the US, but over here, technically a marriage means going to city hall, saying “i do” and putting your signature under a paper. You can add as much ritual, party, ceremony or chicken slaughtering as you want, but really, church has nothing to do with it.
I can kind of understand (under the premise Gay=icky) that you don’t want gay marriage in church, but WTF is the problem with gay marriage outside of church? When did the church start (officially) dictating the law?
“”
Gay people don’t choose to be gay just like black people don’t choose to be black.
“”
unfortunatly, there are some retarded christians who don’t agree with this simple thruth and think that “gayness” is a disease.
Hello Alcari,
Here in the States, Christians want to own the word ‘marriage’. I have a strong suspicion that if our governments (marriage is a State-level thing here) stopped granting marriage licenses and started issuing civil-union licenses instead that carried the exact same legal rights and responsibilities to both gay and strait couples, the problem would disappear overnight. Marriage is seen here as having spiritual overtones. American Christians actually believe that if gays are ‘married’ by the States, it would cheapen the spiritual quality of their own, happily strait marriages.
Well put Sidfaiwu. If marriage is tied to both government benefits and religion, the only result is trouble. I second the motion for civil-union idea for eveyone. If you want a religious marriage than do so at your local place of worship.
I’ll bring this up next time I’m at the White House.
gasmonso
Gasmonso, you said:
“And you Christians are guilty of this too. So what if two men want a relationship. They are consenting adults who have just as much of a right to happiness as you do. You like chicks, they like dicks. So what. Leave them the f*ck alone. You think they’re going to hell, and they disagree. Get over it and mind your own business. Trust me, the world will be a much happier place.”
You seem to be appealing to some standard of right and wrong in order to condemn “Christians” (and Muslims, and others who don’t agree with you). In the above quote you make a number of moral and value judgements. Are you saying these things because you merely have uncomfortable feelings and emotions about what such people do and say, or are you into this this because you get a kick out of rubbishing other peoples different ways, or do you actually believe that they are objectively wrong and ought to correct their behaviour?
“or do you actually believe that they are objectively wrong and ought to correct their behaviour?”
Well Dooh!
@Neando:
I thought I made it very clear. Christians have taken up arms against homosexuals when they should be preaching love and tolerance. I find religious arguments against homosexuality to be devoid of any substance. It is based solely on ignorance.
Sure the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination, but it also says that eating shellfish is too. Not to mention that getting a tattoo is wrong under the eyes of God.
The list goes on and on. So why the focus on homosexuality? I would like someone to clarify what is so wrong about homosexuality. Please inform me because I always thought that love is love whether its between a man and a woman or between two men. The hatred that Christians express towards homosexuality seems worse than that love.
What’s interesting is that when I was a Catholic in my younger days I hated homosexuals. I honestly thought they were perverse and disgusting freaks of nature. I also had reservations about minorities having grown up in a white suburb because there weren’t any there.
Fortunately, when I went to the Marines, I realized that I wasn’t much different than people of other races and cultures. The feelings that I had were based on my ignorance and luckily for me I was enlightened.
Of course being in the Marines reinforced a hatred towards homosexuals. It wasn’t till I got out and attended a university that I began to understand homosexuals. My first boss was one and he never spoke of it until one day I just asked. He was rather surprised to say the least, but more than happy to discuss it. I learned a lot from him and several others that I have met since.
I remember asking him once if being gay was a choice. He simply replied, “Do you chose to be straight?” Being gay or straight is a lot like being left or right handed. Look what happened to left handed people years ago. They were discriminated against and for what? Ignorance and fear.
The same applies here. Homosexuals are stuck on this planet just like the rest of us. They have the same desires, feelings, and emotions as we all do. They are just in the minority and misunderstood, and thus feared.
I’m just babbling now, but I hope you understand where I’m coming from. If you would like me to clarify something then please just ask :)
gasmonso
gasmonso, thanks for the background info. Christians have no cause to hate homosexuals or any other category of person, and it is not difficult to demonstrate on purely Christian grounds that such hatred is sinful. Any follower of Christ who does not love his homosexual neighbour is not following Christ as his teaching clearly teaches.
On the OT law, many make the error of failing to distinguish between moral, civil and ceremonial law, and also that many laws that would apply to Israel at that time as a theocratic state do not apply to other peoples at other times. The laws against sexual perversions are part of the moral category which are by nature universal.
In short, if God created man in His own image in order to reflect His own glory, then He has the “right” to dictate to man how he should behave according to the purpose for which he was made. After all, God is the designer and creator and so knows best how man ticks and best functions as man qua man. So if God, who is necessarily good, issues a moral command or prohibition, He has darn good reasons for doing so–reasons that may or may not be available to us. Gotta run….
I lack opportunity now to elaborate