Because of the power of his love , became a slave to his slave.

Mahmud of Ghazni founded the Ghaznavid Empire and ruled as a sultan. He fell in love with Malik Ayaz, a Turkish slave, and their relationship became the epitome of idealized love in Islamic legend and Sufi literature. As the story goes, Ayaz asked Mahmud who the most powerful man in the kingdom was. When the sultan replied that it was himself, Ayaz corrected him, claiming that in fact Ayaz was the most powerful, since Mahmud was his slave. The “slave to a slave” became a favorite trope in Persian literature. R.G.L.





Malik Ayaz, son of Aymáq Abu'n-Najm, was a Turkish slave who rose to the rank of officer and general in the army of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (also known as Mahmud Ghaznavi). His rise to power was a reward for the devotion he bore his master.
The love between the first Islamic ruler in the Indian subcontinent Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni and slave Malik Ayaz was such that it became an Islamic legend . Poets praising the power of love looked to Sultan Mahmud as a prime example of the man who , because of the power of his love , became a slave to his slave[1]






In 1021 the Sultan raised Ayaz to kingship, awarding him the throne of Lahore, which the Sultan had taken after a long siege and a fierce battle in which the city was torched and depopulated. As the first Muslim governor of Lahore, he rebuilt and repopulated the city. He also added many important features, such as a masonry fort which he built in 1037-1040 on the ruins of the previous one, demolished in the fighting, and city gates (as recorded by Munshi Sujan Rae Bhandari, author of the Khulasatut Tawarikh (1596 C.E.). The present Lahore Fort is built in the same location. Under his rulership the city became a cultural and academic center, renowned for poetry. It is said that in old age "Sultán Mahmúd . . . spent his whole time in the society of Malik Ayáz, neglecting the business of the state."[2] The tomb of Malik Ayaz can still be seen in the Rang Mahal commercial area of town.

In Maryland, Gay Marriage Seeks a ‘Yes’ at the Polls

In Maryland, Gay Marriage Seeks a ‘Yes’ at the Polls

When Marylanders go to the polls in November, the state could become the first to affirm same-sex marriage in a popular vote.


Maryland lawmakers with Gov. Martin O’Malley, left, after he
 signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.
 Opponents collected enough signatures to put a referendum
 on the November ballot.


In March, lawmakers in Maryland approved a measure to allow such unions, but it came with a built-in escape hatch: it would not take effect until 2013.

The waiting period was intended as a compromise with opponents of the measure and as an insurance policy for supporters. Lawmakers feared validating marriages for a period, only to have them overturned by a popular vote later, as happened with Proposition 8 in California.

Opponents of same-sex marriage in Maryland seized the opportunity to contest the law and gathered more than 100,000 signatures to put a referendum on the November ballot, setting the stage for a renewed debate on the issue.



Derek McCoy, the director of the Maryland Marriage Alliance, which opposes same-sex marriage, said: “I think what we’re going to prove here is marriage is on the table, and marriage does matter. And because it does matter, Marylanders are engaged.”

But supporters of same-sex marriage in Maryland say they have reason for optimism, too.

There has not been a state vote on the issue since President Obama voiced his support for same-sex marriage this year and the N.A.A.C.P. came out in favor of it.

“The two biggest factors for us this year are that it’s 2012, and public attitudes have continued to evolve,” said Josh Levin, the director of Marylanders for Marriage Equality. “When the president talked about how his position has evolved over the course of some years, there are a lot of people for whom that’s the case.”

The ballot language will also be different in Maryland. In the other 32 states where voters have been asked about the issue, the referendum question was phrased so that a vote in favor of the measure was a vote to reject same-sex marriage. In Maryland, ballots will ask the question in the affirmative and will explain that there will be an exemption for religious groups.



In January, a poll conducted by The Washington Post found that half of Maryland residents supported same-sex marriage. Since then, polls have suggested a rise in support — in large part, advocates believe, because more black voters have warmed to the idea.

That will be particularly significant in Maryland, where in a typical election blacks make up roughly one-third of voters.

Because the presidential election will draw large numbers of voters to the polls (and, in Maryland, many will be Democrats), turnout will be less of a concern among advocacy groups than persuading voters who might be on the fence.

“It’s all about persuasion,” Mr. Levin said. “It’s about going out and making sure that people understand that marriage for gay and lesbian couples is just about treating everybody fairly.”

Advocates of same-sex marriage are planning to spend $5 million to $7 million promoting their cause during the next few months, but they expect significant spending — millions of dollars, they say — from the measure’s opponents during the final weeks of the campaign.

Although Maryland currently recognizes same-sex marriages from other states and the District of Columbia, the referendum would be a significant victory for advocates of same-sex marriage, particularly after the state’s legislature rejected a similar law in 2011.

Some aspects of that law, including the exemptions for religious groups, were incorporated into the New York law that legalized same-sex marriage last year.

This November, Maryland will be one of four states voting on same-sex marriage. The others will be Maine, Minnesota and Washington. For Minnesota voters, the question will be whether to reaffirm an existing ban.

Even if Maine’s residents vote on Nov. 6 to legalize same-sex marriage, the polls there will close one hour later than those in Maryland — meaning that should Maryland’s referendum succeed, it would be the first in the nation to do so.

The weight and symbolism of that potential outcome for other states has not escaped advocates in Maryland. This was highlighted last month when Gov. Martin O’Malley and Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown attended a packed fund-raising event at a private home in Chevy Chase, Md. The evening brought in $250,000 in donations for Marylanders for Marriage Equality.

According to Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Maryland state senator who attended the event, Mr. O’Malley delivered a “rousing” speech comparing Maryland’s decision on same-sex marriage to the Battle of Brooklyn during the American Revolution.

In that battle, a small militia from Maryland delayed British forces and enabled American troops to retreat to Brooklyn Heights.

“This group of people from Maryland stood firm, and thus protected opportunities for the American experience with freedom to actually occur,” Mr. Madaleno said, recalling Mr. O’Malley’s remarks. “Once again, Maryland will stand firm and demonstrate leadership for the rest for the country.”

Gay Olimpic handsomes

Matthew Mitcham 

 Edward Gal y Carl Hester

New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance

A Northern California author says he's discovered the missing link that explains the biological source of sexual orientation. While doing research for his recent book, The Whole-Brain Path to Peace, James Olson stumbled upon what he says is the direct correlation between hemispheric dominance in the brain and whether a person is gay or straight.




Olson’s theory portends that both heterosexual men and lesbians are generally dominated by the left hemisphere of the brain, which is committed to sequential, thought-oriented processes. And heterosexual women and gay men are much more likely to be dominated by the right hemisphere of the brain, which regulates feeling and cultural awareness.

Olson believes that current research looking for a “gay gene” is searching in the wrong place. Rather, Olson contends, sexual orientation is determined by brain hemisphere dominance. Most men are left-brain dominant, whereas most women are right-brain dominant. Seizing on the implication that “most” necessarily excludes some people, Olson wondered what happened when brain dominance was reversed from the standard.

After reviewing a large collection of scientific literature, Olson hypothesized that when a man is right-brain dominant or a woman is left-brain dominant, that person will be gay or lesbian.

“I think that probably a hormone or a gene is responsible for the brain-dominance [pattern],” said Olson in an exclusive interview with The Advocate. “That [reversed brain dominance] is what causes homosexuality.”

If sexual orientation is determined by brain dominance as Olson contends, it’s important to note that the pathways connecting the two hemispheres of the brain and determining which side is dominant are mostly finalized before birth. As such, Olson reiterates conventional scientific wisdom that sexual orientation is predetermined and unchangeable. The author, a straight, single man originally from Oklahoma, also believes that his observation could help demystify the source of sexual orientation and thereby foster peace and understanding.

“We fear what we don’t understand,” said Olson, who holds a business degree from the University of Oklahoma. “I’m looking for peace and an end to this war against gay people. The answer is education — if people understand what’s going on, then the fear disappears.”

Olson says he culled numerous peer-reviewed articles about the hemispheric preference — and corresponding behavior — of straight, gay, and bisexual men and women. One important study Olson cites comes from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, which found that scans of gay people’s brains most closely resembled — in structure and composition — those of heterosexual people of the opposite sex. Essentially, the 2008 study posited that a lesbian’s brain closely mirrored the structure of a straight man’s brain, while a gay man’s brain was most similar in structure to a straight woman’s.

Ultimately, Olson may have found the scientific explanation to what many consider to be common colloquial knowledge about traditional gender roles and queer sexuality. Olson’s theory provides a physiological basis for the idea that men are more aggressive and logical, whereas women are more compassionate and emotional.

Brain dominance, Olson contends, regulates more than just sexuality — it also controls perception of the world, which heavily influences perspective. Olson explained that right and left-brain processes and functions are nearly identical in all brains, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Given that, he said, one could understand how a male perceiving the world through a right-brain dominant lens — like the one used by most heterosexual women — would share a similar perspective with that straight woman. This is the case with gay men and lesbians, he said, whose brains closely resemble the brains of straight people of the opposite sex.

The author, who considers himself an integral philosopher, says his theory can predict the sexual orientation of a person according to his or her hemispheric brain dominance with a 95% accuracy rate. Tests to discover one’s own hemispherical dominance are available online, and free to the public on Olson’s website.

Olson is quick to highlight the great amount of diversity among humans and readily admits that his theory is not proscriptive for the entire spectrum of human sexuality. He hypothesizes that people whose desires don’t fit into a binary model, such as bisexual, pansexual, and genderqueer folks, may engage both hemispheres of their brains on a more regular basis, though he currently lacks supporting research. Less research exists on transgender identities, bisexuality, and other non-binary sexual attraction, so Olson says his conclusions aren’t expected to extend to every segment of the LGBT spectrum.

Nevertheless, Olson’s supporters say his common-sense conclusions may be our next best hope at understanding the origins of sexual orientation and proving that LGBT people are not mentally ill, making a lifestyle choice, or in need of a cure.

Olson’s book, The Whole-Brain Path to Peace, has received four national book awards and required a broad range of research to complete. This brain-dominance theory, and the paper which presents it, is his first effort to synthesize scientific information, and Olson believes it is the first to discover the connection between brain hemisphere dominance and sexual orientation.

BY SUNNIVIE BRYDUM

Gay relationships could be factor in US deportation cases

Policy is part of federal program designed to improve use of government resources on low-priority cases

fter pressure from lawmakers, US homeland security officials have reiterated that a foreigner's longstanding same-sex relationship with a US citizen could help stave off the threat of deportation.

Homeland security spokeswoman Marsha Catron said on Friday that binational gay couples are eligible for consideration under a federal program designed to focus government resources away from low priority deportation cases.

But that does not mean the Obama administration will automatically shelve deportation cases or process green card applications involving foreign citizens married to same-sex American partners.

The statement, which builds on comments homeland security officials first made last summer, comes three days after 84 lawmakers demanded the agency put its position in writing to help protect same-sex couples from deportation.

Immigrant advocates welcomed the comments but said a formal policy is still needed.

What Is PANSEXUAL

Pansexuality, or omnisexuality, is sexual attraction, sexual desire, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward persons of all gender identities and biological sexes.




Self-identified pansexuals may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are insignificant or irrelevant in determining whether they will be sexually attracted to others.




The Oxford English Dictionary defines pansexuality as, "not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or activity."



The concept of pansexuality deliberately rejects the gender binary, the "notion of two genders and indeed of specific sexual orientations", as pansexual people are open to relationships with people who do not identify as strictly men or women.

Owner Says He'd Close Before Selling Wedding Cake to Gay Couple

The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop says he's rather close than sell a cake to a gay couple for their wedding.





Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig are getting married in Provincetown and then headed to Denver for a reception with family. So they inquired at the cake shop only to be turned away, being told the shop's operators "don't serve gay weddings."


A petition calling for a boycott has nearly 5,000 signatures, but owner Jack Phillips told KCNC-TV no protests or petition will change his mind.


"If it came to that point, then we would close down the bakery before we compromised our beliefs," Phillips told the station.






WANNA DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT ?


 a petition to Jack Phillips, Owner/Head Pastry Chef which says:

"Change your bigoted policies regarding the treatment of the LGBT community."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://signon.org/sign/boycott-masterpiece-cakeshop?source=s.em.mt&r_by=5253056

Thanks!

How we LOVE vol III

How we LOVE vol II

How we LOVE

Support without judgement

The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

Taken on our 18th Anniversary, which also happens to be the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, June 28. 
Wayne’s on your left, Cody’s on your right.



This post is all I have to say about the Chick-Fil-A controversy. It sums up various posts on the issue and various points made by my friends and I. From now own, rather than spend time debating this issue person by person, I’m going to point people here.

My hope here is to find common ground with those who have disagreed with me on the issue, and maybe to persuade. It’s not to ridicule or to best.

So, in the interest of common ground, let’s start here:  I acknowledge the absurdity of all this debate.

It’s definitely strange to have days-long Facebook debates flare up everywhere over a chicken sandwich. The anger, sarcasm, and hurt feelings on display seem strange or even laughable because most people have seen Chick-Fil-A as just a restaurant with a funny ad campaign. I’ll get into some of the whys and wherefores of that later. But, for now, let’s just say that, yes. It can seem ridiculous to get all worked up over fast-food chicken.

Let’s also agree that this isn’t about curtailing anyone’s rights under First Amendment. The Constitution is a legal document. This is not a legal argument. No one is arguing that Chik-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy should be put in prison, or silenced, or censored by the government. This has nothing to do with government censorship or government abridgment of Freedom of Speech. So don’t worry: the ability of this millionaire to legally spend his millions as he sees fit is not in jeopardy. You need not defend it.

Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty of things. Please read carefully. These things have been said before, but not by me, and not all in one place. Please read with an open mind. If you can’t read with an open mind, please leave, take a minute, come back, and try again. If you can’t do that, then please don’t bother. Please read all of the words here, rather than just reading half of the argument and assuming you know what I’m saying. Read these words as they are written. Again, if you don’t want to read my words, then don’t continue.

So here goes:

1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:

- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.

- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed.

- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.

3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both.

If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder?

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that:

4. If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.

Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.

You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen.

Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Well, it makes me a Chikin.

Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not.

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll  examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.

So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.

This is all I have to say. If you’d like to debate the issue further, I’ll do it, but I’m not going to go around and around on the same points. If you’re just going to repeat yourself, save us both some time. If you haven’t taken the time to actually read this carefully and actually consider carefully what I’ve said, then I see no reason to waste further words.

The ball is in your court. Again, I urge you to do the right thing.

- Wayne Self
Twitter: @owldolatrous
Facebook: facebook.com/owldolatrous

Wayne Self is a playwright and composer whose current project is a musical tribute to the 32 LGBT and allied victims of the 1973 arson fire at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans, LA. Considered by many to be the largest hate crime against LGBT people in U.S. history, the fire is sometimes seen as a lesson in the perils of silence. ”Upstairs” will give voice to the victims of the fire–many of whom self-identified as Christian–and is scheduled to premier next year, in time for the 40th anniversary of the tragedy. For more information about the Upstairs fire, please visit http://www.bilerico.com/2012/02/new_orleans_inferno_the_upstairs_lounge_fire.php. For booking or production information, contact ewayneself@owldolatrous.com.

We Are Not Arguing Over Chicken

Facebook can feel faceless sometimes. Over the last week, the site has seen a lot of conversations about Chick-fil-A, often among total strangers able to shout at each other just because they happen to have a friend in common. It is worth remembering that behind each unfamiliar headshot or puppy pic is a real person. When you litter your friend's wall with vitriol about the idiocy of your interlocutors, you are talking about people, not pixels.

So here's my message to social conservatives: Just because you were a member of the Boy Scouts, I don't think you are a bigot. Have those waffle fries; I'm not going to glitter-bomb you. But please, hear me out on why these organizations are so troubling to me, personally. Let's get beyond the avatar, so we can understand that this is more about people than about anonymous wall posts.

Hi. My name is Conor Gaughan. I am 32 years old. I was born an Air Force child. Most of my formative years were spent in the suburbs of Denver. Mike and MaryAnn were incredible parents, instilling in me a strong moral compass. I have an older brother -- Ghirmay. He joined our family after emigrating from Eritrea. He's now married with three adorable girls. I have a younger sister -- Michaela. She is a senior in high school. As a family, we grew up going to church every Sunday. I attended a Christian Brothers high school. In 2002, I graduated from Harvard, with a degree in economics. While in school, I was a varsity letterman, and I started a non-profit to help at-risk youth. In the ten years since completing my degree, I've largely worked in finance. And, I now work in the media business helping nonprofits to speak the language of American Pop Culture. Oh, and somewhere in there, I came out of the closet. It's nice to meet you.

Growing up is never easy. But, teenagers who grow up gay are four times more likely to take their own lives. No, that has nothing to do with our sexuality on its own -- suicide rates are lower where gay kids are accepted. It's because our institutions, and all too often the adults in our lives, tell us we're not as good as our straight peers. In 29 states, it is legal for an employer to fire me for who I am. In 31 states, leaders and voters have told me that I am not worthy of the fundamental human right to marry. You want to marry because you love your Mr. Right; I have no rights to do the same. And, the consequences of this inequality are terrifying and real. For example, I can be denied access to my loved one on his deathbed. There are over 1,100 other rights that I am denied.

When gays get so angry about a chicken sandwich, it is because Chick-fil-A has given around $5 million to fight to discriminate against us. When we praise brave Eagle Scouts who give up their badges in protest of the Boy Scouts of America's prejudice, it's not about scoring political points; it's because there are kids in dens who are being taught to believe that they are less than equal. When we rant about the pastor who preaches that gays should be thrown into a concentration camp, we scream out of fear. And our fears are justified -- in the last seven days, a lesbian in Nebraska was carved with a knife, a gay man in Oklahoma was firebombed, and a girl in Kentucky was kicked and beaten -- her jaw broken and her teeth knocked out -- while her assailants allegedly hurled anti-gay slurs at her.

I am your coworker, your frat brother, your cousin, your neighbor. And I am watching as you defend institutionalized discrimination.

Eat all the chicken sandwiches you want. But, realize that behind this debate are real people -- kids like the girl in Kentucky who fear for their safety, women like Sally Ride's widow who are denied their spouse's Social Security benefits. Even if it doesn't seem like it, we want nothing more than to leave behind the angry debates on Facebook and on Capitol Hill. There are, after all, a lot of pictures of One Direction and grandkids we would rather be posting, sharing and 'liking.'

Fuente: huffingtonpost