CC1981 Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 It is an illogical argument to say that homosexuality should be legal just because it exists among animals. False. It would be illogical if it existed amongst animals but didnt amongst humanity. The fact that it exists amongst humans as well as animals STRONGLY points to the fact that homosexuality is/can be by birth and not a product of some 'deviant thinking or sick philosophy' that one needs to curb. That is the main point of drawing attention to homosexuality existing on animal kingdom : to establish that homosexuals are/can be no more straight than you or I can be gay and to discriminate against them is no different than discriminating against someone for being black or brown or grey or being tall or short. Arent humans supposed to have some laws and a civil society that distinguishes us from the animal world? Ultimately, arnt we animals too and part of the animal kingdom ? Why do you have the need to deny your descendance from apes and the fact that we too are animals - just far more socially skilled and intellectually capable than others we know of. And no, it is not a question of personal freedom. Otherwise polygamy, sati, drug abuse, prostitution etc should also be allowed by that argument. Illogical argument. It is most definitely a question of personal freedom, as the act does not involve or affect ANYONE but the participants. Sati is ridiculous - you wont find any woman who is looking forward to being burnt alive and therefore, is not a personal choice but a socially imposed diktat. As per drug abuse, prostitution and polygamy goes, i have no problems with them either. Doesn't mean i partake in any/all of them, it just means that i am quite okay living in a society where there is prostitution, drug usage and polygamy/polyandry. In India at least the overwhelming majority is opposed to making homosexuality legal and until that opinion changes the law should remain as such. False. Democracy has its limits, especially when it comes to fundamental human rights. Nomatter how many people you can get to agree/disagree with you, the right for a fair trial and habeus corpus is inalienable to mankind, simply because democracy does not change what is right/wrong on a fundamental level as far as treating everyone fairly goes. Homosexuality is a similar case....i don't care if you or 99.999999 % of Indians (who's ideas on sexuality are stunted, undereducated and highly inexperienced to begin with and thus of low value to me) think its wrong, it still doesnt change the fact that adults have the right to do whatever the hell they want in their own bedrooms as long as there is consent from all parties involved. And tomorrow if 99.99999% of Indians decieded that dogs were unwanted and should be exterminated, it wouldnt make it right either.
Aditi Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 It is an illogical argument to say that homosexuality should be legal just because it exists among animals. Obviously, that argument is illogical. The point that homosexuality exists among animals was raised to counter the argument that homosexuality is 'unnatural', not to counter the legality of homosexuality.
seedhi Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 If homosexuality is allowed on the basis of personal freedom the what is to stop polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, necrophilia, drug abuse, prostitution, sati pratha, untouchability, etc to be also allowed. If a higher caste refuses to shake hands with an SC that is strictly his personal freedom, but in India it WILL land him in jail. If existence in the animal world is used as the basis then just about any deviance can be justified. Many animals do not have a family system and abandon their young after they are born - so should a mother be allowed to dump her child into a garbage bin. Incest is prevalent in many animals so maybe that should also be legal too. There can be any number of such examples.
triam Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 If homosexuality is allowed on the basis of personal freedom the what is to stop polygamy, polyandry, bestiality, necrophilia, drug abuse, prostitution, sati pratha, untouchability, etc to be also allowed. If a higher caste refuses to shake hands with an SC that is strictly his personal freedom, but in India it WILL land him in jail. If existence in the animal world is used as the basis then just about any deviance can be justified. Many animals do not have a family system and abandon their young after they are born - so should a mother be allowed to dump her child into a garbage bin. Incest is prevalent in many animals so maybe that should also be legal too. There can be any number of such examples. Dude, existence in animal kingdom was given as a counter for people claiming it is unnatural. polygamy, polyandry, drug abuse, prostitution are all different from sati pratha, untouchability or bestiality and necrophilia. The difference being mutual consent or not. if a guy from upper caste refuses to shake hands with an SC it is not mutual consent, obviously the SC is not agreeing to that same with bestiality, consent from an animal is not there, same with necrophilia where you cant get conset from a dead person. Hope that makes it clear, drinking your own urine is disgusting, but people do it, is there a law against it??? Now if you have a case of someone being forced into prostitution, then it is illegal, if they choose it, it should not be. Hope you get the difference
beetle Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 If homosexuality is allowed on the basis of personal freedom the what is to stop polygamy' date=' polyandry, bestiality, necrophilia, drug abuse, prostitution, sati pratha, untouchability[/color'], etc to be also allowed. If a higher caste refuses to shake hands with an SC that is strictly his personal freedom, but in India it WILL land him in jail. If existence in the animal world is used as the basis then just about any deviance can be justified. Many animals do not have a family system and abandon their young after they are born - so should a mother be allowed to dump her child into a garbage bin. Incest is prevalent in many animals so maybe that should also be legal too. There can be any number of such examples. polygamy...........unfair to the woman. polyandry..............unfair to the man. bestiality...............since animals can not give verbal or written consent ...it is unfair to animals. necrophilia.............again no consent from the corpse...hence disrespectful to the dead person. drug abuse............although it is self abuse...the buying and selling of drugs supports most criminals in the world...hence banned. prostitution.........forced prostitution is a crime .....any other kind should be fine as long as the prostitutes and the pimps pay taxes. sati pratha.........sati pratha invoves burning aperson alive. That is murder. How can it even be brought into this argument ?How can you put murder and love making in the same category? untouchability........is a form of discrimination towards another human. Homosexuality. .......sex between consenting adults. I really don't understand why some ones sexual preference should trouble someone so much.
beetle Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Curbing homosexuality not a solution for HIV: HC New Delhi, September 30: The Delhi High Court said that problem of HIV cannot be solved by curbing gay sex and pulled up the Centre for seeking the retention of penal provisions against homosexuality on this ground. "Please show material, research paper or any document even from other country to show that decriminalisation (of gay sex) would lead to spread of HIV," a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar observed when the Government contended that homosexuality spreads the disease. "If your argument is correct then spread of HIV should have stopped in the country as the law has been there for many years. But it is not the case as many people are dying of the dreaded disease, the court said. The court objected to the contention of Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra that the Home Ministry's affidavit, on which the government is relying, does not say any thing on this aspect. "It's a strange situation. Your first affidavit (Home Ministry's) is silent. There is not a single word on what you are saying while other affidavit (Health Ministry's) is pointing out that the penal provision leads to marginalisation of HIV patients," the court said. "How would the court decide the matter. Has there been any empirical study done by the government to substantiate its stand," the court said. It said that a special law should be made to provide proper care and treatment to HIV patients like other countries. "Unlike other countries we have not brought any special laws for people suffering from the disease on the pretext that penal provision under Indian Penal Code is sufficient," it said. Putting forward the Centre's view, the Additional Solicitor General said that gay sex is a threat to society and it could not be decriminalised. "Right to health of few persons cannot supersede Right to health of society. There has to be balance between them and it is for this purpose that Section 377 is there," Malhotra said. The court was hearing a PIL filed by gay rights activists seeking courts direction to amend Section 377 of Indian Penal Code by decriminalising gay sex among consenting adults in private. The IPC at present holds an homosexual act as an offence and the Section provides a punishment of up to life imprisonment for indulging in such acts. Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by decriminalising homosexual acts, is infringing upon their fundamental right to equality by decriminalising homosexual... http://www.indianexpress.com/news/curbing-homosexuality-not-a-solution-for-hiv-hc/367849/
coffee_rules Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 All those supporting 'Homosexuality' are closet gays. It's time you came out. It all starts with 'maybe it's not unnatural'. or "Animals do it, so could we'!
triam Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 All those supporting 'Homosexuality' are closet gays. It's time you came out. It all starts with 'maybe it's not unnatural'. or "Animals do it' date=' so could we'![/quote'] There are very few times that you come across someone putting their point of view across so succintly and so definitely, that there is no way out for the people who argue against it to continue their argument, but to give up, hang their heads in shame and convert their opinion. These instances are rare and should be carved into history for posterity so that future generations will benefit from this fountain of wisdom. People, we are in the presence of greatness, recognize and repent.
Ram Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 If the existence of homosexual behaviour among animals is reason enough for it to be justified among humans, then certain animal species eat their own offsprings. So, is cannibalism among humans justified too? And, among many animal species, there is a pronounced gender bias. For eg, amongst the lions, the female lions is there for solely two reason: Hunt and re-produce. So, can we then take that there should be no concept of gender equality among humans? You cant have it both ways can you, citing homosexual behavior of animals to justify similar behavior of humans and then not follow other behaviorial patterns? Also this trait of incest/padephelia etc is very very common in Banobos and Baboons. And here this, necrophaelia is common among some ducks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.research). So, where do we stand on these isssues now?
Ram Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 All those supporting 'Homosexuality' are closet gays. It's time you came out. It all starts with 'maybe it's not unnatural'. or "Animals do it' date=' so could we'![/quote'] That comment is in extreme bad taste. We're discussing a subject thats generally considered taboo in our society, whats wrong with people having a fresh perspective of things?
triam Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Dude, When people called homosexuality unnatural, the example of animals was given, nobody said that since animals do it we can do it too. there are two lines of thot here Mutual consent - Cannibalism - do you think there is mutual consent??? if both parties agree and are deemed to be sane, sure go ahead have a party? Paedophilia - obviously mutual consent here applies too and the age of the kid applies too, the legal marrying age in India is 18, so that overrides the mutual consent since kids are naive. Incest - go ahead mutual consent btw adults, the govt or society has no business intervening, although since it is proven that offspring through incest causes a lot of diseases, that should be banned. Unnatural (whatever that means) - I believe you are the one who asked if animals do it and the response was to that, not to justify homosexuality since it need not be, because it happens two or more consenting adults. Necrophilia - If consent from a dead body can be gotten, go ahead, since that is not possible it is illegal. So there is no issue as far as I can see, if you forget your strawman argument. Nobody is saying we should do it since animals do it.
coffee_rules Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 That comment is in extreme bad taste. We're discussing a subject thats generally considered taboo in our society, whats wrong with people having a fresh perspective of things? --------------------------------------- Memorable quotes from "40 year old virgin": Cal: [David and Cal Playing a video Game] You're *gay* now? David: No, I'm not gay I'm just celibate. Cal: I think? I mean, that sounds ga- I just want you to know this is like the first conversation of like three conversations that leads to you being gay. Like... there's this and then in a year it's like, "Oh you know, I kinda wanna, ya know, get back out there but I think I like guys" and then there's the big, "Oh I'm I'm a g-gay guy now". David: You're gay for saying that. Cal: I'm gay for saying that? David: You know how I know you're gay? Cal: How? How do you know I'm gay? David: Because you macramed yourself a pair of jean shorts. Cal: You know how I know *you're* gay? You just told me you're not sleeping with women any more. David: You know how I know that you're gay? Cal: How? Cuz you're gay? and you can tell who other gay people are. David: You know how I know you're gay? Cal: How? David: You like Coldplay. ------------------------------------------------------ I was only playing that game. http://www.commonplacebook.com/jokes/gay_jokes/you_know_youre_5.shtm
Kohum Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Whats your view on the subject? Should it be allowed or not? At the title of the post " Homosexuality a crime or not?" Crime - not. But it's a psychological dis-order and needs to be treated as such.
CC1981 Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 All those supporting 'Homosexuality' are closet gays. It's time you came out. It all starts with 'maybe it's not unnatural'. or "Animals do it, so could we'! Actually all those who support homosexuality are decent human beings who care for the rights of others instead of being narrowminded enough to think that their own preference is the only way. By the way, psychological research has proven that in north american atleast, rabid anti-homosexuality mentality is either a product of religiousity or closet-homosexuality in denial. Want me to throw a few papers at you on this regard ??? Either way, i see you have zero ability to logically and ethically debate the points i've raised.
CC1981 Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 But it's a psychological dis-order and needs to be treated as such. False. That is the view perpetrated by religion (which is dumb). Presence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom outside of humanity proves, without a shadow of doubt, that it is not a psychological thing but an innate thing that can be euphemized as "hard wired" You cannot blame homosexuality on psychological disorder if a mindless creature devoid of psyche ( eg: a frog) demonstrates homosexuality.
CC1981 Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Incest is prevalent in many animals so maybe that should also be legal too Incest is far more prevalent in mankind than in any single animal species. Incest is extremely rare in animal kingdom because animals are far more sensetive to pheromones than human beings and pheromones in all species make next-of-kin to be repulsive to each other in a sexual way.
seedhi Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 polygamy...........unfair to the woman. polyandry..............unfair to the man. That is your assumption. What if a group of people consent to be involved in polyandry or polygamy. Polygamy has been going on since the beginning of time. bestiality...............since animals can not give verbal or written consent ...it is unfair to animals. A most amazing argument. Since when have humans begun taking consent from animals when they are employed to provide for labor? Dammit man, we KILL animals to eat them, do we take their consent? necrophilia.............again no consent from the corpse...hence disrespectful to the dead person. What if the man writes in his will that his corpse can be used for bestiality and his relatives agree? Such a consent is implicitly already taken when a corpse is cremated or buried. drug abuse............although it is self abuse...the buying and selling of drugs supports most criminals in the world...hence banned. The only reason criminals are engaged in drug distribution is because it is banned and a crime. To give a similar argument - homosexuals constitute a disproportionate number of AIDS carriers and therefore should be curbed. prostitution.........forced prostitution is a crime .....any other kind should be fine as long as the prostitutes and the pimps pay taxes. Thats definitely a minority view. sati pratha.........sati pratha invoves burning aperson alive. That is murder. How can it even be brought into this argument ?How can you put murder and love making in the same category? What if the widow is willing to self immolate? Its just a form of suicide. Should be allowed since it is just a consenting adult. untouchability........is a form of discrimination towards another human. Its personal freedom if someone doesnt want to shake hands with another. Why should a person be forced to shake hands? He is not harming the other guy by not shaking hands with him. Homosexuality. .......sex between consenting adults. I really don't understand why some ones sexual preference should trouble someone so much. Think harder.
Aditi Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 But it's a psychological dis-order and needs to be treated as such. According to whom? All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. "On December 15, 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, removed homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted the same measure on January 24-26, 1975." - Wikipedia
beetle Posted October 1, 2008 Posted October 1, 2008 >>>Think harder. I think control freaks who want to control what other people do behind closed doors with each other's consent need to think.
Recommended Posts