Homosexuality a crime or not?

[CC1981]

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.

True. I agree with you here: both polygamy and polyandry are prehistoric ( actually, archaeologically and paleontologically, polyandry is the oldest form of sexual practice: before civilization, mankind didn't actually know that having sex caused babies and sexual relations were remarkably open-even incestuous. Since women gave birth to babies and babies were seen as 'miracles', women had elevated status in society-more so than men and were 'divine' - this is the basis of matriarchial societies which predates all other societies in mankind). And if the group of people are consenting adults, i don't care if they are polygamous or polyandrous.

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?

Labour and food is a necessity on a societerial level from animals. True, it isnt fair, but it is irrefutable that until very recently, no society could exist without domestication of animals - for labour and/or for food. However, your sexual release is not a necessity on societerial levels, especially when the animal isnt consenting and there are other avenues for sexual pleasure ( between humans). Therefore, your argument that if its okay to have animals for food/labour, then without these diktats on sexuality, beastality goes too, is most definitely illogical. If tomorrow, you could get consent from a cow - verbally or written, i would have no problems if you had sex with that said cow.But until such a time, it is rape and cannot be allowed. Pure and simple!!

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.

Then that is okay too. People donate their bodies for science, i'd think its pretty effed up, but if a person wants to will his/her dead body for necrophilia, i'd have no problems with that - provided that there was some facility in place to prevent the dead/rotting flesh from spreading disease to the society.

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.

Err no, they do not. This is an anomaly of North America, not the world. On a world scale, heterosexual AIDS carriers easily outstrip homosexual ones - both in prevalence rates as well as actual recorded cases. To give you an example, India, South Africa and the sub-saharan Africas have the largest % of HIV positive people and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual.

Thats definitely a minority view.

But a valid one nonetheless. It is also a minority view that beleif in a creator God is unjustified but that doesnt make it any less logically sound. Ethics and logic arnt hostages to democratic procedure. Human rights for example, is not a factor negotiable by democracy, so minority view or majority view is irrelevant to this discussion.

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.

No, since suicide isnt allowed, stands to reason that suicide by self immolation shouldnt be allowed either. And the reason suicide is illegal and should remain illegal is fairly obvious : By making it legal, it makes no difference : people who really want to kill themselves will do it anyways- with or without the aid of the law. So making it legal is not going to see any more cases of suicides. Nobody is going to go ' oh, now its legal to commit suicide, so now its okay to finally fulfill my lifelong wish and kill myself'. But making it legal can certainly see abuse of the legal system, where murders and foulplay are played off as suicides and the legality of it would mean little/no investigation once circumstantial evidence corroborates it to be a suicide ( since the legal system hinges on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', any and all avenue of innocence- in this case, suicide being made legal- would immediately halt the case investigation). Ofcourse, there is a highly controversial and ethical debate about assisted suicide for terminally ill patients or like the dude from that Metallica song who has his hands,legs,eardrums,eyes all blown out, but that is an entirely different topic alltogether.

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.

No, you cannot force a person to shake hands with someone - if i dont want to shake hands with you coz you are white/brown/black/punjabi/mallu etc. you cannot make me shake hands. But at the same time, you can sue me for racial discrimination/caste discrimination etc. if you can find any single irregularity in my running of my subordinates at work and win, especially if you can prove that i wont shake hands with someone due to their race/religion/ethnicity/etc.

Think harder.

Lame, weak response. So far, i've seen no tangiable argument from you, or any anti-homo person here as to why exactly it should be illegal. i've only seen two very stupid arguments - one that stated that it should be illegal because some fictitious God from a book claiming to be the true word said so and another, where it is making illogical parallels between homosexuality with beastality,incest,sati etc. But either way, those are irrelevant to this argument, as this discussion is about homosexuality. As it has been established, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder or a perversion of nature. It has been established, without a shadow of doubt, by the scientific community, that homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality- they are just a fringe population and forever are going to be a fringe population. It has also been established that there is no perversion of nature in homosexuality, as it is prevalent in many different animal species, thereby proving that it is hard-wired and just as natural as any other fundamental human traits. Therefore, i do not see where your doubt/distrust of the homosexual way of life stems from. I've always thought that those who protest the most about homosexuality are either: a) religious nutters who'll follow any rule-nomatter how inhumane,mindless or idiotic- as long as it is packaged in their brand of religion, or b)themselves closet gays/in denial and the existence of their own homosexual tendencies and the presence & acceptance of homosexuality in the open continuously creates angst in them that they were never strong enough or didnt have families undersanding enough to follow the true desires of their heart. It is these closet individuals who have a struggle maintaining their veneer of heterosexuality, who think that open homosexuality will 'provoke others to become homosexuals'. Otherwise, it makes no sense to be anti-homo. It is just another trait amongst humanity,no different from being tall or short or black or brown. homosexuality also presents no threat to the society or species : in humanity as well as in every single animal species (that show homosexuality), the homosexuality club is a fringe minority. Of the hundreds of animal species that exhibit homosexuality, not a single one is threatened with extinction due to homosexual individuals not reproducing and the same holds true for humanity.Hell, i doubt that anything more than 5% of the society are homosexual and even if they were to quintuple that prevalence to 25%, it still doesnt threaten human existence as a species.And from any hetero's perspective, it is irrefutable fact that a homosexual individual increases YOUR chances with the opposite sex, as by default, there is less competition. Not to mention, from an Indian's perspective, i WISH more Indians were homos and/or homosexuality was more accepted in the open. Atleast, however miniscule, there would be some slowing of India's booming population : where some sense would prevail and today's model of every single desi and his dog breeding like rats, popping out kids and having zero concern about the nation of India- the land of India, its foliage, species etc. and proliferating like bacterias till their own bloody land cannot sustain them anymore will stop or slow down ! In just over 100 years, India's population has gone from 250 million to 1.1 billion...and remember, 100 years ago, the surveyed number included Pakistan and Bangladesh..so really, 'India's population has gone from 250 million to 1.4-1.5 billion in just over 100 years....that is 1.15-1.25 BILLION more people...how insane and how terminally catastrophic and how blindly Indians still keep reproducing like rats and balk at anything that challenges their insane and animalistic desire to pop out kids....madness!

[seedhi]

Not to mention, from an Indian's perspective, i WISH more Indians were homos and/or homosexuality was more accepted in the open. Atleast, however miniscule, there would be some slowing of India's booming population :

This is truly amazing. On the one hand you say that homosexuality will reduce Indias population growth and on the other hand you are against allowing suicide. If decreasing Indian population is the such a worthwhile goal then the most impact would occur if we encourage suicide cults in our society. Young people should be encouraged to live off their parents money until their twenties and then commit suicide without procreating. If homosexuality can be seen as a panacea for population control then so can suicide and should be allowed. And in any case if homosexuality is inherent in the biology of an individual then legalizing or criminalizing it wont have any effect on the population growth anyway.

[CC1981]

On the one hand you say that homosexuality will reduce Indias population growth and on the other hand you are against allowing suicide.

Nothing amazing about it- i hate to repeat myself and i have already said why suicide cannot be allowed: allowing it makes no difference to the suicidee but it sure helps in abusing the legal system by passing off some deaths as suicides. If its legal, it'd be investigated less thoroughly...simpe logic, really.

If decreasing Indian population is the such a worthwhile goal then the most impact would occur if we encourage suicide cults in our society.

Utter nonsense...encouraging suicide wont make any difference, because simply being told by a random dude to go kill yourself doesnt mean you will...and if you do, you are dumb. Birth control etc. are far more productive ways of population control/reduction.

If homosexuality can be seen as a panacea for population control then so can suicide and should be allowed.

Don't twist my words- i didnt say it would be a paracea for population control : i said categorically that homosexuality doesnt affect a species survival in terms of procreation potential. Ofcourse, in a child-hungry society like India, it might dent the growth of our population somewhat if, atleast people figured there is nothing wrong in living life as a homosexual if that is their choice. Encouraging suicide on the other hand makes no sense whatsoever and if you are trying to play the fool, you are doing a poor job of it ! Encouraging suicide wont see any results towards that goal, just as encouraging homosexuality wont see people becomming homos! not to mention, there is no comparison between a path that ends life and a path that practices living life with largely the same ideals, except different preferences in the bedroom.

And in any case if homosexuality is inherent in the biology of an individual then legalizing or criminalizing it wont have any effect on the population growth anyway.

On the average, exactly. In India's case, it might dent the population growth somewhat, since homos cant be in the open in India and like in many other sexually repressed cultures, homos in India are largely forced to have a dual life - they are forced to have a family, kids etc. to maintain social acceptance and having their lovers on the side...its pretty common amongst homos from phillipines as well. These are the type of 'families' that shouldnt exist in the first place and wouldnt in the first place. In an open society, like say Canada, homos arnt going to make any difference in terms of population growth, as the homos here can be homos. But in India, all those homos-men and women- who are resigned to have a pretend marriage & kids, just to mention social veneer, wouldnt have to procreate....and i am sure you can understand the concepts behind exponential growth...if today, indians became mature and logical enough (as a society) to accept homosexuality as a natural way of life ( just like our ancestors did in the past, during our golden ages), then it'd mean atleast a few million homos who wouldnt have to have kids and pretend to be 'normal'. Not only would it be psychologically liberating for them, its millions of kids (on an exponential growth curve) per generation that need not exist in the first place !!

[seedhi]

Nothing amazing about it- i hate to repeat myself and i have already said why suicide cannot be allowed: allowing it makes no difference to the suicidee but it sure helps in abusing the legal system by passing off some deaths as suicides. If its legal' date=' it'd be investigated less thoroughly...simpe logic, really.[/quote'] Makes no sense. Murders are sought to be passed off as suicides whether or not suicide is legal.

Utter nonsense...encouraging suicide wont make any difference, because simply being told by a random dude to go kill yourself doesnt mean you will...and if you do, you are dumb. Birth control etc. are far more productive ways of population control/reduction.

Not everyone will commit suicide but at least some will. At the very least we will get rid of the dumb people and losers if suicide is encouraged. Think of it as euthanasia for a disease called failure.

On the average, exactly. In India's case, it might dent the population growth somewhat, since homos cant be in the open in India and like in many other sexually repressed cultures, homos in India are largely forced to have a dual life - they are forced to have a family, kids etc. to maintain social acceptance and having their lovers on the side...its pretty common amongst homos from phillipines as well. These are the type of 'families' that shouldnt exist in the first place and wouldnt in the first place. In an open society, like say Canada, homos arnt going to make any difference in terms of population growth, as the homos here can be homos. But in India, all those homos-men and women- who are resigned to have a pretend marriage & kids, just to mention social veneer, wouldnt have to procreate....and i am sure you can understand the concepts behind exponential growth...if today, indians became mature and logical enough (as a society) to accept homosexuality as a natural way of life ( just like our ancestors did in the past, during our golden ages), then it'd mean atleast a few million homos who wouldnt have to have kids and pretend to be 'normal'. Not only would it be psychologically liberating for them, its millions of kids (on an exponential growth curve) per generation that need not exist in the first place !!

I have an even better solution to control population growth - allow female child abortion. Lets make it acceptable to abort the female child. IT IS ALLOWED IN OPEN SOCIETY LIKE CANADA. It will definitely have a much greater impact in controlling population growth.

[Aditi]

Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I can take or leave it if I please. :D

[CC1981]

Makes no sense. Murders are sought to be passed off as suicides whether or not suicide is legal.

Yes, murders are passes off as suicides, but suicides are still illegal- which means that the case gets a thorough investigation, regardless of foulplay or suicide. But decriminalizing suicide would make it that much easier to pass off murders as suicides...ie, it leaves more potential for abuse of the system.

Not everyone will commit suicide but at least some will. At the very least we will get rid of the dumb people and losers if suicide is encouraged. Think of it as euthanasia for a disease called failure.

Seriously, what are you smoking ?? You cannot convince someone to commit suicide- good luck trying to covince even the biggest bum on the street to commit suicide. Regardless, as i said earlier, you're purely trying to obfuscate the discussion here- this discussion is about homosexuality. I guess since its established that homosexuality is no less natural than heterosexuality, that homosexuality poses no threat to society and our species, you are left grasping at straws.

I have an even better solution to control population growth - allow female child abortion. Lets make it acceptable to abort the female child. IT IS ALLOWED IN OPEN SOCIETY LIKE CANADA. It will definitely have a much greater impact in controlling population growth.

Why do you have to pull nonsense outta your backside ??? show me where female infanticide is allowed in Canada...and how does your solution make any sense - how can you be demeted enough to compare murder with what adults do behind closed doors of their free will, is beyond me and i suspect you are either a religious nutbar, a closet homo who feels threatened in your 'act' of heterosexuality if homosexuality is out in the open or a cowardly conservative who resists change by default. Bottomline is,you have failed to countera single point i've made and you've tried to make nonsensical analogies which i've exposed them for wha they are.

[zubinpepsi]

is porking a poohole has more chances of acquiring HIV than porking a punani ?? i thought porking without rubber has more chances of acquiring HIV.. can someone explain me pls why the govt is saying accepting gayism, will increase hiv virs infection..

[coffee_rules]

is porking a poohole has more chances of acquiring HIV than porking a punani ?? i thought porking without rubber has more chances of acquiring HIV.. can someone explain me pls why the govt is saying accepting gayism, will increase hiv virs infection..

Govt has made various studies and it knows that people are waiting for the Govt to okay gay sex. As soon as they say go ahead, people in large numbers will involve themselves in unprotected gay sex and thus HIV infections will increase exponentially. :-D

[beetle]

Delhi HC to Centre: Why penalise gay sex? 1 Oct 2008, 1940 hrs IST,PTI NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday faced tough questions from the Delhi High Court for justifying retention of the penal provisions against ho mosexuality that allegedly subject gays to discrimination in society. "What is that compelling State interest to continue with such a provision like Section 377 (carrying a punishment of upto life sentence)," a Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said adding "Such people suffer from indignity and discrimination in the society". The Bench said that due to the penal provision, homosexuals are not coming out openly in the society for treatment of HIV which comprises 8 percent of their community. "If there is a stringent law prescribing punishment upto life imprisonment do you expect MSMs (man having sex with man) would come forward for their treatment of HIV," the Bench observed adding "People (gays) are living under constant fear of being prosecuted." The Government, however, contended that these problems could be easily tackled by educating these people and there is no need to scrap the provisions against gay sex. "Demand for legalising such acts is not the answer. People indulging in such acts do not come forward because of shyness but blame the government," Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra argued. Reacting sharply to Centre's submission, the bench said "Why don't you educate those people who go to prostitutes to prevent spread of HIV." "How are you educating people to co-exist with people who are not like them. Are you telling them to view these people as doing things which are against the order of the nature," it said, questioning the government on its mechanism to deal with health problems of gays. Malhotra, while justifying the penal provision against gay sex, said that India cannot follow the trends of western societies where such acts are considered normal. "We cannot compel our society to follow the trend of western society," Malhotra said while countering the submission of gay activists' counsel who had cited laws in various countries, including Canada, South Africa and Cyprus in support of their plea seeking to decriminalise gay sex among consenting adults in private. "There is no concept of sexual orientation in Indian Constitution," Malhotra said adding that right to privacy of MSMs is not absolute and the interest of the larger society should be taken into consideration. "Gay sex is against the order of the nature. We will disturb the nature by allowing them to do so. In the compelling circumstances the State has to take the help of the law to maintain the public morality," Malhotra said. Earlier, the Court had pulled up the government for contending that provisions against gay sex were required to solve the problem of HIV. "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 had 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 homosexual act as an offence and provides a punishment of up to life imprisonment for it. Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by decriminalising homosexual acts, is infringing upon their fundamental right to equality by decriminalising homosexual acts on the ground of morality. http://http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi_HC_to_Centre_Why_penalise_gay_sex/articleshow/3550414.cms

[seedhi]

Why do you have to pull nonsense outta your backside ??? show me where female infanticide is allowed in Canada...and how does your solution make any sense - how can you be demeted enough to compare murder with what adults do behind closed doors of their free will.

Maybe you have some comprehension problem. I said abortion of female child should be allowed in India, not female infanticide. Abortion != infanticide or murder, get it? Abortion in Canada is allowed without legal restrictions, sex determination followed by abortion is allowed in Canada. Similar thing is not allowed in India. Clearly if a couple does not want a female child they should not be saddled with one. Many couples keep having children till they get a boy. So allowing the abortion of female child will definitely reduce the population given Indian preference for boys and even in the long term as there would be fewer females to generate offspring.

[Aditi]

If there will be fewer women due to aborting female foetuses, that means the men will turn to each other at some point :haha::haha:

[CC1981]

Maybe you have some comprehension problem. I said abortion of female child should be allowed in India' date=' not female infanticide. [b']Abortion != infanticide or murder, get it? Abortion in Canada is allowed without legal restrictions, sex determination followed by abortion is allowed in Canada. Similar thing is not allowed in India. Clearly if a couple does not want a female child they should not be saddled with one. Many couples keep having children till they get a boy. So allowing the abortion of female child will definitely reduce the population given Indian preference for boys and even in the long term as there would be fewer females to generate offspring.

I just have a question for you : how the hell can you compare killing people with what people do behind closed doors ?? Why is killing babies 'more palatable/better solution' to you than agreeing to let people do whatever the hell they wanted in their bedrooms, as long as its consentual ?? what is the logic in what you are stating ? Your objection is rather silly and demented to be frank. PS: Canadians arnt medieval period barbarians stuck in preffering boys over girls...Indians are mostly that way....people abort in Canada if they dont want the kid, regardless of its sex...which is why our sex-ratio ( ratio of men to women) is far healthier than India's and which is why we don't need to ban sex determination of foetuses....but that problem is prevalent in a semi-barbaric nation like INdia....which is why it is relevant to that society...clear ? PPS: Every nation on this planet defines late term abortion as murder....clear ?

[seedhi]

I just have a question for you : how the hell can you compare killing people with what people do behind closed doors ?? Why is killing babies 'more palatable/better solution' to you than agreeing to let people do whatever the hell they wanted in their bedrooms, as long as its consentual ??

Its not a question of better or palatable, but is definitely a more effective solution. And strictly speaking the right to abort a child falls well within the personal freedom of a woman.

PS: Canadians arnt medieval period barbarians stuck in preffering boys over girls...Indians are mostly that way....people abort in Canada if they dont want the kid, regardless of its sex...which is why our sex-ratio ( ratio of men to women) is far healthier than India's and which is why we don't need to ban sex determination of foetuses....but that problem is prevalent in a semi-barbaric nation like INdia....which is why it is relevant to that society...clear ?

So you do admit that in India personal freedom (right of woman to abort a child) is infringed upon in the interest of the society, something you agree with in this case (of abortion). That is exactly the argument against allowing homosexuality.

PPS: Every nation on this planet defines late term abortion as murder....clear ?

You should get to know more about Canada (I presume you live there). Canada has very few legal restrictions of abortion, and late term abortions are allowed there and are not prosecutable.

[CC1981]

Its not a question of better or palatable, but is definitely a more effective solution.

False notion you carry here. What is effective or not effective isnt just a function of numbers, when we are talking about society, it most definitely is also a question of palate. The most effective means of population control is outright genocide...but its effectiveness in terms of numbers is irrelevant, as it isnt a socially effective solution.

And strictly speaking the right to abort a child falls well within the personal freedom of a woman.

Within reason, i agree.

So you do admit that in India personal freedom (right of woman to abort a child) is infringed upon in the interest of the society, something you agree with in this case (of abortion). That is exactly the argument against allowing homosexuality.

But that argument is null and void and infact, quite contradictory. Your argument against homosexuality cannot use 'interest of society' as a factor - it is pure fearmongering and sticking to baseless ideals.As i said before, it is a clinically proven fact that most homos are homos by birth,they dont just 'choose' to be homos. I am surprised at this line being given and i often wonder how hetero are those who think that sexuality is simply a matter of choice- i know i couldnt do a man up his shut for a million bucks, coz it is not sexual to me- pure and simple. If you still don't get what i mean, watch American Beauty and pay attention to the character of 'Ricky's dad'. So it has been established, that you cannot simply 'convert' people into a sexual preference- atleast, that is valid for the vast majority. Therefore, the survival of the species and society is not at risk, because most of the society is hetero and will remain hetero. This is also backed up by the simple fact that in animal kingdom, homosexuality has a free reign ( you dont see Bonobo court to whip homo bonobos!) and yet, not a single species is affected by their homosexual population in any significant way - the growth/sustainance of the species are not at risk and all the species with homosexual tendencies still revolve around a heterosexual culture of mating and bonding. So now, we've ruled out 'homo converts', homos changing social order and homos threatening the growth/sustainance of the species. So we can utterly nullify your arguments for homosexuality and infringement upon the interests of the society. But on the other hand, we can most definitely point towards the damage society does upon itself by denying the homosexual elements within it : In semi-barbaric nations like India, where people cannot be what they want short of social ostracizing or outright danger to their physical self, homosexuals are, by and large, forced to conform to the society,atleast topically : ie, most homos get married, have kids but have their gay lovers on the side. This isnt just true for India, this is true for every repressed society - Phillipines, Arabia, some Latin American countries, etc. So effectively, we have millions of people who are forced to live their entire lives as an 'act' - the psychological damange it causes to them, to lead their entire lives in forced incognito, cannot be underestimated, neither can the effects of being raised by 'parents' of such damaged psyche, where there is a basic lack of trust, secrecy and inherent ultra-defensiveness in the person. Furthermore, by forcing homos to conform to society, we are aiding and abetting in our population crisis - since these people, if accepted as openly gay, wouldnt exactly go get a 'showpony wife/hubby' and have kids. So now, you have an argument for the infringement upon the interests of the society by denying homosexuality.

You should get to know more about Canada (I presume you live there). Canada has very few legal restrictions of abortion, and late term abortions are allowed there and are not prosecutable.

Geez. Nice deduction, Sherlock. Considering that it says 'Vancouver, Canada' under my userID location, i wonder how much grey cells it took to come to THAT deduction ?? Anyways,kindly dont teach me what is kosher and what isnt in Canada. All Canadian hospitals are run by the government ( save for literally 1 or 2 highly controversial private clinics). Inorder for a doctor to perform abortion on a woman who's pregnant beyond six months, the doctor *MUST* show tangiable risk to the mother if the pregnancy progresses or culminates into birth. Short of that, the doctor's license will get revoked, no questions asked. If you want a late term abortion in Canada simply coz you dont want the baby ( and you were dumb enough/psycho enough to leave it this late), you better get busy with a coat-hanger in your shower or find a quack doctor in the slummy chinese areas of a few cities. Short of that, its a no-go, star.

[seedhi]

So now, you have an argument for the infringement upon the interests of the society by denying homosexuality.

That is your opinion, and not the opinion of the society itself that you seem to be concerned about. An huge majority is against legalizing homosexuality. Anyway the question of whether something is in the interest of the society is a highly subjective one on which only the elected representatives should decide not the courts.

Kindly dont teach me what is kosher and what isnt in Canada.

You claimed that late term abortion is considered murder in Canada - thats clearly false. It might be discouraged but is not prosecutable like murder is.

[CC1981]

That is your opinion, and not the opinion of the society itself that you seem to be concerned about.

No, not my opinion - it is a logical conclusion based on scientific, psychological and ethical facts.

An huge majority is against legalizing homosexuality.

As i said, that is/should be irrelevant. Human rights, logic and ethics arnt hostages to a democratic/popular process. Isnt that obvious to you ?? As i have proven on this thread ( along with other likeminded individuals), there is nothing consistent, logical or ethical about this 'large majority of indian society' that is anti-homo. The majority, in this case, is simply speaking, wrong and which is why it needs to change/homosexuality needs to be legalized.

Anyway the question of whether something is in the interest of the society is a highly subjective one on which only the elected representatives should decide not the courts.

Disagree.

You claimed that late term abortion is considered murder in Canada - thats clearly false. It might be discouraged but is not prosecutable like murder is.

It is considered murder which is why it is not authorised by the goverment ! The difference is, due to the nature of this murder, the penalties are different.

[triam]

This whole conversation has veered off into different directions, if we may can the people who oppose homosexuality list out the reasons they oppose it??

[beetle]

>>>.I have an even better solution to control population growth - allow female child abortion. Lets make it acceptable to abort the female child. IT IS ALLOWED IN OPEN SOCIETY LIKE CANADA. It will definitely have a much greater impact in controlling population growth. Are you serious? If so...you are a real sick bastard! Really sick in your head!

[seedhi]

>>>.I have an even better solution to control population growth - allow female child abortion. Lets make it acceptable to abort the female child. IT IS ALLOWED IN OPEN SOCIETY LIKE CANADA. It will definitely have a much greater impact in controlling population growth. Are you serious? If so...you are a real sick bastard! Really sick in your head!

It was in response to the other poster CC1981 touting legalization of homosexuality as a means to control population growth. Also illustrates an example that not every moral/legal concept can be blindly imported from the west into India. Sex selective abortions are allowed in most western countries but will cause havoc in India.

[CC1981]

It was in response to the other poster CC1981 touting legalization of homosexuality as a means to control population growth.

Quit trying to twist my words. I didnt say homosexuality is the manna to population control. I mentioned the very valid fact that if homos wernt discriminated against harshly in the society, they'd not need to 'pretend' to be normal by having kids and families, which automatically means a million or so less births per year, which makes a difference ! It was mentioned by me as a perk, not as a solution.

Also illustrates an example that not every moral/legal concept can be blindly imported from the west into India. Sex selective abortions are allowed in most western countries but will cause havoc in India.

While i do believe that India can learn a lot from the west, i didnt say that we should blindly copy them. But in the context of this discussion, it is clear that the 'majority public' in India, its legal system etc. are in error.