Daily Times

Barack Obama, the president of the United States, said in a public statement the other day that he supported marriage between any two men who wished to live together. Upon hearing this news, men at a dinner last night, where I was also present, decided not to vote for him in the upcoming presidential election. It is likely that millions of American voters will react similarly. It is true that candidates in an election claim to possess qualities that they think are regarded as commendable. At times, their assessment of public attitudes is misconceived. Mr Obama’s observation has been well received within the gay community whose members immediately contributed $ 15 million to his election campaign. It has probably alienated many more conservative and even moderate voters.

Men have been having sex with men since time immemorial. In the ancient world — Egypt, Rome, and Greece — many middle and upper class men were bisexual. They were married to women and in addition, they had good-looking boys with whom they also had relationships. In this connection, one might recall Mary Renault’s novel, The Persian Boy, which describes the lifelong companionship between Alexander the Great and a Persian slave. Bisexual relationships were not considered reprehensible or even improper in those earlier ages. Then somewhere along the line, the Church of Rome condemned sodomy as moral turpitude, but it did not go away. It has continued to be practised in most of the known civilisations. In western societies, it is being treated as a personal choice to which individuals are entitled. Gay men and lesbian women are coming out of the closet and publicly declaring their preference. Some of the persons owning it have been holders of high public office. However, this is still a minority view. There can be little doubt that the majority does not approve of marriage between two persons of the same sex. It seems to me that it may have been politically incorrect for President Obama to make the aforementioned statement.

Another aspect of the matter needs to be considered. A person’s romantic interest in another of the same sex may be genetic, something that he has inherited from somewhere way back in his ancestry. Cultural restraints may suppress it in some but not necessarily in all cases. In fact, the adoption of a sexual preference comes as an act of one’s own volition. President Obama should have considered the impact of his statement on young boys and girls. They may conclude that if the president of their country says homosexuality is all right, they might as well go with it. All of this is not to say that Mr Obama is usually thoughtless in taking positions. In this case, however, his observations were misconceived and misdirected. They amounted to loose talk.

It should be noted that loose talk comes effortlessly. It does not require a deliberate examination of relevant ground realities. The consequences of this talk are of no great concern to the speaker. Back home in Pakistan, there is no shortage of people who are given to it. Surprisingly enough, it is pervasive in the houses of parliament. One may encounter a coherent speech in the National Assembly once in a while. Of the members who do speak, few indeed are those who come prepared to make their presentations. More often, the speeches are tirades shouted by the government and opposition spokesmen to insult and demean their rivals. Far too many of the members feel no obligation to speak to the issue that is presumably before the house. They speak as the spirit, such as it may be, moves them.

There is an abundance of loose talk in television shows. The host, or let us say, the anchor, in this setting is accompanied by two or more guests who are presumed to be well conversant with the subject under discussion. Quite often in framing his questions, the anchor suggests the answers he would like to have. Generally speaking, his guests will comply. If one of them does not take the line being given, the anchor ignores him and moves on to another participant. Those who do respond often avoid giving him a straightforward answer. They will provide long introductions and historical background of the issue at hand. They will justify the present conduct of their favourite politicians by arguing that others in the recent or remote past had acted the same way.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani appears to have resolved that he will be second to none when it comes to talking. He feels free to make declarations that will prove to be incorrect and he does not hesitate to give assurances that he knows he cannot fulfil. An interesting issue arose a few days ago. As a reaction to the unprovoked killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers by US forces, the government of Pakistan suspended the movement of supplies to the NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan. It was assumed both in this country and abroad that the NATO supply line would be reopened before the end of May. The prime minister nevertheless declared that this would be done only if the United States apologised for the killings and agreed to stop drone attacks. The United States has not accepted either one of these demands. An apology is not forthcoming and the drone attacks continue. Yet it is expected that the NATO supply line will be reopened within the next few days.

Another case of loose talk may be recalled. President Zardari was invited to the NATO Summit in Chicago. Heads of government assembled there were waiting to hear him announce that the NATO supply line would soon be restored. No such assurance was given. Ms Hina Rabbani Khar, the Pakistani foreign minister, and Ms Sherry Rehman, the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, billed Mr Zardari’s participation in the conference as a spectacular success. In fact that was far from being the case. Most of the other delegates at the conference avoided him and President Obama declined to meet him. He returned home empty handed.

The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts and can be reached at anwarsyed@cox.net