India decriminalizes Homosexuality

[Nikhil_cric]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

it is not as simple. Gays also need to find someone to be a part of their sexual activities and in doing that they tend to approach straight people.  It is not easy to find other gay people. 

What I meant was I don't see them as being particularly more troublesome than heterosexual s. 

[Nikhil_cric]

4 hours ago, nikred said:

Agreed. We atleast have hope.

BTW nice name.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Thanks bro. :)

[Laaloo]

Disgusting. What a farce!!!

[Tibarn]

In my view, this is a horrendous judgement by the SC, filled with cognitive dissonance, colonial-era tinged paternalism, and possible overreach. For all the grandstanding of India being "the world's largest democracy," this judgement is further confirmation that India is devolving into (or always was?) an oligarchical banana republic, or, more accurately I guess, a kritarchy/kritocracy.   

 

Off topic: LOL at some of the alternative facts being spread here, but I digress...

 

[MechEng]

@beetle What do you think of NAMBLA? Should India decriminalize that too?

[MechEng]

17 hours ago, Franco Vazquez said:

I don't know why people are actually celebrating. I can see LGBTQIStYVEWDS community celebrating it but why straight people and celebs are making a huge deal out of it? How many gays are there in India? 1 million or 2 million? How many poor, unprivileged people struggling with basic necessities of life are in India? 

Are you into reading stuff? If yes, I would recommend you this pdf book, it's insightful actually - https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future-Ted_Kaczynski.pdf

 

Do read from "PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM" onwards, it's pretty interesting and answers your question.

 

P.S. : Kaczynski may not be the best person around, but this book is very interesting.

Edited September 7, 2018 by MechEng

[Muloghonto]

14 hours ago, rkt.india said:

homosexuality is not about choice. A straight person cannot become homosexual by choosing it.  You cannot pick and choose your sexuality.  It is genetic and inherent.

It is not *just* genetics. Genetics gives you the 'body parts' to do as they are told, by the hormones. Which is controlled by that gland in your brain/part of the brain. THIS balance of hormones (which we know the effects of, but are still only barely scratching the surface in research), determines whether you are 'man,woman, straight,bi, etc'.  This hormonal balance, largely falls in the 'straight cis-gender' identity for species homo sapiens - by overwhelming margin ( ie, 70-80%+). Like many other species out there. In rest of the cases, the hormonal balances are different, leading to different 'self-identification' as male, female, neither, trans, straight,bi, etc. 

 

This is all totally normal for many,many species. 

And whats pretty funny, is that our closest species genetically - the bonobos- have been widely noted to :

a) prostitute themselves

b) engage in both forms of gay sex, especially the female kind, pretty openly. 

 

[Muloghonto]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Agree everybody has a right to live on their terms. But why do they want to let others know what they want to do in their personal space. I don't go around proclaiming who I spend time with. I don't believe in this gay pride or parade thingy. They have infested college campuses and conduct recruitment drives with this flaunting. Young people think it is cool and hep. 

Discussing WHO you spend time with (ie, the person) is not the same thing as talking about sexuality. 

I for one, am completely OK with talking about sexuality with adults, so long as its spoken respectfully, as it is a CORE sensetive topic to many of us. And why not ? This obviously constitutes a large part of our free adult life ( having or thinking about sex) and drives a lot of our behaviour. 

There definitely is nothing wrong in sexuality, so long as its not ONLY about sexuality either. 

And guess what ? After living in one of the *the* most liberal part of the world when it comes to sexuality (which is west coast US/Canada, amongst few other European places), 99.99% people dont talk much about it till they get to know you - ie, friends. 

 

So whats the problem here ? If you find the topic too embarassing, then don't talk /participate or ignore it. We all ignore a lot of things we dont like/enjoy, do that. There is no reason to oppose what consenting adults do or talk about, in their own free time, publicly, show PDA or not. 

[Vilander]

16 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Are you into reading stuff? If yes, I would recommend you this pdf book, it's insightful actually - https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future-Ted_Kaczynski.pdf

 

Do read from "PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM" onwards, it's pretty interesting and answers your question.

 

P.S. : Kaczynski may not be the best person around, but this book is very interesting.

nice one , it has a ton of content to trash a leftist with and sound big..lol gold. But i found the below interesting.

 

. "Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth "

[Vilander]

good deal..now we will see more lesbian marriages eventually. I think hormonal males who are genetically females are often forced into marriage with men in India, this can end.

[MechEng]

15 minutes ago, Vilander said:

nice one , it has a ton of content to trash a leftist with and sound big..lol gold. But i found the below interesting.

 

. "Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth "

Yeah, atleast he's being honest with his manifesto without the propaganda drivel.

[Moochad]

21 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Yeah, atleast he's being honest with his manifesto without the propaganda drivel.

Not to mention the cherry-picking of one part of the article without including the rest of the statement. 

Quote

231. Throughout this article we’ve made imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them; and some of our statements may be flatly false. Lack of sufficient information and the need for brevity made it impossible for us to formulate our assertions more precisely or add all the necessary qualifications. And of course in a discussion of this kind one must rely heavily on intuitive judgment, and that can sometimes be wrong. So we don’t claim that this article expresses more than a crude approximation to the truth.

232. All the same, we are reasonably confident that the general outlines of the picture we have painted here are roughly correct. Just one possible weak point needs to be mentioned. We have portrayed leftism in its modern form as a phenomenon peculiar to our time and as a symptom of the disruption of the power process. But we might possibly be wrong about this. Oversocialized types who try to satisfy their drive for power by imposing their morality on everyone have certainly been around for a long time. But we THINK that the decisive role played by feelings of inferiority, low self-esteem, powerlessness, identification with victims by people who are not themselves victims, is a peculiarity of modern leftism. Identification with victims by people not themselves victims can be seen to some extent in 19th century leftism and early Christianity, but as far as we can make out, symptoms of low self-esteem, etc., were not nearly so evident in these movements, or in any other movements, as they are in modern leftism. But we are not in a position to assert confidently that no such movements have existed prior to modern leftism. This is a significant question to which historians ought to give their attention.

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Moochad

[Moochad]

6 hours ago, Tibarn said:

In my view, this is a horrendous judgement by the SC, filled with cognitive dissonance, colonial-era tinged paternalism, and possible overreach. For all the grandstanding of India being "the world's largest democracy," this judgement is further confirmation that India is devolving into (or always was?) an oligarchical banana republic, or, more accurately I guess, a kritarchy/kritocracy.   

 

You can't expect much else from the SC, it is populated by colonial remnants.  They think the country is their personal fiefdom. 

Quote

Off topic: LOL at some of the alternative facts being spread here, but I digress...

You should see the past threads where these issues were being discussed by the poster @Green Monster , a US board certified psychiatrist. There was all kinds of alternative facts there where people were denying  medical science and misinterpreting science articles because it was not favoring their politics. 

 

You would have loved that thread   Although I think Green Monster has been banned as I haven't seen him here recently.

 

Edit: What is the prognosis here you think? 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Moochad

[beetle]

1 hour ago, MechEng said:

@beetle What do you think of NAMBLA? Should India decriminalize that too?

What has that got to do with granting basic human rights to people?

 

If some deviant people advocate the rape of young girls , will the courts criminalize heterosexual sex ?

 

Why do people against gay rights bring pedophile into the argument?

 

How is rape and consensual sex comparable ?

 

Do people think pedophilia did not exist when 377 was active?

 

Just like rape of girls can not be prevented by banning heterosexual sex, similarly rape of boys  cannot be prevented by banning homosexuality.

 

Pedophilia is a criminal offence that can has to be kept in check by better policing .

 

 

 

[beetle]

52 minutes ago, Vilander said:

good deal..now we will see more lesbian marriages eventually. I think hormonal males who are genetically females are often forced into marriage with men in India, this can end.

Same with gay men being forced to marry women and living the false life to keep family and society happy .

 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Discussing WHO you spend time with (ie, the person) is not the same thing as talking about sexuality. 

I for one, am completely OK with talking about sexuality with adults, so long as its spoken respectfully, as it is a CORE sensetive topic to many of us. And why not ? This obviously constitutes a large part of our free adult life ( having or thinking about sex) and drives a lot of our behaviour. 

There definitely is nothing wrong in sexuality, so long as its not ONLY about sexuality either. 

And guess what ? After living in one of the *the* most liberal part of the world when it comes to sexuality (which is west coast US/Canada, amongst few other European places), 99.99% people dont talk much about it till they get to know you - ie, friends. 

 

So whats the problem here ? If you find the topic too embarassing, then don't talk /participate or ignore it. We all ignore a lot of things we dont like/enjoy, do that. There is no reason to oppose what consenting adults do or talk about, in their own free time, publicly, show PDA or not. 

It was not about not being able to talk freely about sexuality. You didn't get the context totally. I don't make my sexuality define me and I don't expect the same from them. If they sleep with same sex. so be it, I don't care. I don't ask. so don't f'in tell and don't tell me that defines you. There is more to life than your sexual preference is what I am talking about. 

[Stradlater]

10 minutes ago, beetle said:

What has that got to do with granting basic human rights to people?

 

If some deviant people advocate the rape of young girls , will the courts criminalize heterosexual sex ?

 

Why do people against gay rights bring pedophile into the argument?

 

How is rape and consensual sex comparable ?

 

Do people think pedophilia did not exist when 377 was active?

 

Just like rape of girls can not be prevented by banning heterosexual sex, similarly rape of boys  cannot be prevented by banning homosexuality.

 

Pedophilia is a criminal offence that can has to be kept in check by better policing .

 

 

 

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say

But nothing comes out when they move their lips

Just a bunch of gibberish...

 

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It was not about not being able to talk freely about sexuality. You didn't get the context totally. I don't make my sexuality define me and I don't expect the same from them. If they sleep with same sex. so be it, I don't care. I don't ask. so don't f'in tell and don't tell me that defines you. There is more to life than your sexual preference is what I am talking about. 

Again, you talk like you've never been around people with alternate sexual viewpoints than mainstream. Its not a defining feature. Just like cricket, i am sure is not defining feature of you. It is a huge PART of most people's makeup & like, along with various other hobbies, strong opinion stuff etc. 

I simply don't see why you think we should all ignore this and its wrong for people to like talking freely about sexuality. Where you make the leap to 'defining them', is beyond me. Most homosexual people i know, they dont use homosexuality as the central facet of their lives either.Lot of ignorance on the topic by means of actual experience, being shown here.

 

Saying there is more to life than sexuality is like saying there is more to life than cricket. Well obviously. Then why do you talk about cricket ? is it cntral to your life and cricket defines you as a person ?

 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Muloghonto

[coffee_rules]

18 minutes ago, beetle said:

What has that got to do with granting basic human rights to people?

 

If some deviant people advocate the rape of young girls , will the courts criminalize heterosexual sex ?

 

Why do people against gay rights bring pedophile into the argument?

 

How is rape and consensual sex comparable ?

 

Do people think pedophilia did not exist when 377 was active?

 

Just like rape of girls can not be prevented by banning heterosexual sex, similarly rape of boys  cannot be prevented by banning homosexuality.

 

Pedophilia is a criminal offence that can has to be kept in check by better policing .

 

 

 

You should know about western christian conservative opposition to home sexuality for these questions. These white conservative think tht if home sexuality is legalized, then men will have sex with boys. Hence the pedo connect with this issue. They think that if gay men are allowed to get married, then the next issue to deal with is bigamy and orgies and pedos. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, you talk like you've never been around people with alternate sexual viewpoints than mainstream. Its not a defining feature. Just like cricket, i am sure is not defining feature of you. It is a huge PART of most people's makeup & like, along with various other hobbies, strong opinion stuff etc. 

I simply don't see why you think we should all ignore this and its wrong for people to like talking freely about sexuality. Where you make the leap to 'defining them', is beyond me. Most homosexual people i know, they dont use homosexuality as the central facet of their lives either.Lot of ignorance on the topic by means of actual experience, being shown here.

 

Saying there is more to life than sexuality is like saying there is more to life than cricket. Well obviously. Then why do you talk about cricket ? is it cntral to your life and cricket defines you as a person ?

 

Gay Friend: I have sex with men and I am proud of it

Me: Ok, thanks but TMI

Me: I like to wear pink underpants and shout out loud 

Gay Friend: ok, but TMI

 

So, you get my point?