Religious leaders denounce moves to legalise homosexuality

[Texy]

I'm surprised to see people failing to see the hypocrisy by the muslim leaders... probably blinded by secularists Hypocrisy: Muslim leaders denouncing homosexuality and promoting polygamy yet failing to denounce forced sex and oppression within heterosexual relationships, abuse and mental abuse. Their religious laws from the bronze age gives all the power to men who are in control and women are simply objects. Men can choose upto 4 wives yet those wives could be divorced simply by pronouncing talaaq 3 times... Muslim leaders giving their approval to marital rape as it is within the rights of a man to do anything with his wife. Muslim leaders punishing the girl for being immoral when she's raped and she's either jailed or punished with lashes whilst the rapist is only fined few rupees Muslim leaders failing to recognize honor killing existing amongst Islamic culture...terming it under western propaganda. Muslim leaders hardly ever speak out against any Muslim political leader (ie: Saddam) involved in crimes involving other muslims however, they're extremely vociferous when it comes to non muslim leaders being involved in crimes against muslims (good or bad aside) Muslim leaders up in arms when cartoons are drawn, muslim leaders declaring rewards and giving fatwas yet no outrageous protest when it comes to terrorism by fellow muslims.

[seedhi]

And who said awareness is not being spread about the issue? There are many groups doing it and these court cases also highlight how our society is systematically discriminating against a particular group. Also' date= yeah gay marriage should be the next logical step. This is only a part of the entire process.

So we arent going to see the end of the routine gay pride marches yet:((

Which country allows drugs? if you are referring to Marijuana, it is already legal in India in certain states.

Cocaine and heroin have been decriminalized in Portugal.

And the process of the importance of a female child is also in the works. Female literacy rates and their active involvement is on the rise. There is still a long way to go but we are not regressing.

But currently our laws do restrict the reproductive rights of women. Similarly, why not restrict the rights of gay people till there is awareness or consensus in the society?

I suppose you were very happy about the Shah Bano case as well, when divorce rights of Muslim women were overruled by the Parliament because it did not appeal to the religious senstivity of a particular group? Probably not, because that group happened to be Muslim. But now when the court has passed an equally important equal rights judgment and it is in contradiction to your views of sexuality, you want the Parliament to step in and overturn the court's ruling?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Shah Bano judgment was in consonance with the pursuit of Uniform Civil Code, which is part of the Constitution of India. In my earlier posts I have listed the problems that have not been addressed by this judgment. What happens in the army? Will openly gay people be allowed in army? Will employers be able to discriminate between openly gay and straight people? In addition, the Supreme Court had already left the matter to the Parliament, so I dont know what changed in a couple of years to pass this judgment. It also sets a precedent which can lead to legalizing many activities like drugs, polygamy etc. Giving alimony rights to Muslim women is incomparable.

[fineleg]

Wow' date=' this is a great day for individual freedom in India, never expected this to happen so soon, I am overjoyed.[/quote'] Exactly! :two_thumbs_up:

[DomainK]

Now gays can find and chose their partners easily. Straight guys are safe.

[mainhoonna]

What consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is nobody else's business.This is a good step. On another note ,some of the posters here are way too much obsessed with islam.If you're that keen on reform ,how about starting with the practice of your own religion.

[THX_1138]

I think polygamy should be legalized for all and also polyandry. What consensual adults choose to do in their bedrooms should not be the government's concern. The government should worry about the rapes' date=' murders, extortions, terrorism, and corruption which is rampant in society and not about some gang bang in someone's house.[/quote'] there is a difference between a sexual orgy and polygamy. polygamy is the legal recognition of a man's attachment to a woman and vice versa. the act of marriage should be between two individuals. there is no room for a third or fourth.

[beetle]

there is a difference between a sexual orgy and polygamy. polygamy is the legal recognition of a man's attachment to a woman and vice versa. the act of marriage should be between two individuals. there is no room for a third or fourth.

true.

[The Outsider]

there is a difference between a sexual orgy and polygamy. polygamy is the legal recognition of a man's attachment to a woman and vice versa. the act of marriage should be between two individuals. there is no room for a third or fourth.

Hang on....why should you, I, or the government be interested if 5 consensual adults want to tie a marital bond and give each other the special place that comes with marriage? What next, gays should not marry? WTF are you or the government to tell me that I cannot share a special bond with more than one person? seedhi, I'll reply to your post later in the day.

[THX_1138]

Hang on....why should you, I, or the government be interested if 5 consensual adults want to tie a marital bond and give each other the special place that comes with marriage? What next, gays should not marry? WTF are you or the government to tell me that I cannot share a special bond with more than one person? seedhi, I'll reply to your post later in the day.

because, what you might believe to be consent, is not actually consent. most individuals who have large harems are rich or influential muslims who are either able to extort 'consent' or encourage 'consent' from their 4 wives. not to mention the severe imbalance in the relationship where the man reserves the right to divorce the woman at the drop of a hat. this is a lot like marriages where women are later exploited either for dowry or the lack of it. the mitigating circumstances of the woman do not permit her to speak out against the decision. similarly, it is not particularly easy for a 16 year old girl who has led a seriously sheltered, if not oppressed life, riddled with poverty, to protest against a decision made on most occasions by a quasi who has been aptly bribed by her to be husband, usually an old disgusting fart. the quasi in turn would 'motivate' the girl's parents into making the decision for her. to presume that polygamy is consensual is a delusion. if you wish to make polygamy legal here are the few things i want recognized before hand: 1. The man may not force the women to engage in intercourse against her will. Failing the observation of this rule, the woman shall be permitted to seek a state of separation from the husband and permitted to seek divorce. 2. Divorce shall only be possible through legal paths and not verbal contracts. 3. The woman shall be entitled to her own system of beliefs, i.e. she must be permitted to her own level of spiritual entanglement. 4. The minimum age for marriage must be 20-21 for women. 5. Upon marriage, the woman shall be entitled to an equal share of the total assets of the husband and his previous wives. A share she shall claim upon divorce.

[THX_1138]

So we arent going to see the end of the routine gay pride marches yet:((

certainly not untill your silly little rath yatra is derailed.

Cocaine and heroin have been decriminalized in Portugal.

and again that has nothing to do with this issue. drug related laws and their enforcement are not even in the same ball park as the abandonment of a law that is nothing but a lingering vestige of a colonial past.

But currently our laws do restrict the reproductive rights of women. Similarly, why not restrict the rights of gay people till there is awareness or consensus in the society?

what laws are you talking about? and there ought to be no law restricting the reproductive rights of a woman. if you or anyone is born without a mother fracking uterus with fallopian tubes and two ovaries, then you or anyone lacking the above should stay the frack away from attempting to control what a woman chooses to do with those organs. i wouldn't want women to lobby for a law that places restrictions on what a man can do with his c*ck and balls, then why the hypocrisy from the men?

You are comparing apples and oranges. The Shah Bano judgment was in consonance with the pursuit of Uniform Civil Code, which is part of the Constitution of India. In my earlier posts I have listed the problems that have not been addressed by this judgment. What happens in the army? Will openly gay people be allowed in army? Will employers be able to discriminate between openly gay and straight people? In addition, the Supreme Court had already left the matter to the Parliament, so I dont know what changed in a couple of years to pass this judgment. It also sets a precedent which can lead to legalizing many activities like drugs, polygamy etc. Giving alimony rights to Muslim women is incomparable.

if the army is dumb enough to discriminate against soldiers because one is gay or otherwise, maybe they need to watch zack synder's 300 and know this: homosexuality was a common practice in all greek soldiers, especially the spartans. it was seen as a bonding exercise that envigorated the troops, promoting a greater sense of solidarity and their a furiousity on the battlefield if a lover was injured or periled. not to mention that a gay soldier is no less of a soldier than a straight one.

[THX_1138]

oh and an addendum to my previous post: most guys who feel threatened by gay men, you know the guys who feel that gay men might try to make advances on them, yeah... no self respecting queer is interested in your flabby, hairy and pungent ass.

[seedhi]

what laws are you talking about?

In India women cannot have sex selective abortions. Not only that, sex selective fertilization is also disallowed. Clearly, the reproductive rights of women are curtailed. Even abortion is allowed only in rare cases, like rape, incest etc.

and there ought to be no law restricting the reproductive rights of a woman. if you or anyone is born without a mother fracking uterus with fallopian tubes and two ovaries, then you or anyone lacking the above should stay the frack away from attempting to control what a woman chooses to do with those organs. i wouldn't want women to lobby for a law that places restrictions on what a man can do with his c*ck and balls, then why the hypocrisy from the men?

I agree with you on this one.

if the army is dumb enough to discriminate against soldiers because one is gay or otherwise, maybe they need to watch zack synder's 300 and know this: homosexuality was a common practice in all greek soldiers, especially the spartans. it was seen as a bonding exercise that envigorated the troops, promoting a greater sense of solidarity and their a furiousity on the battlefield if a lover was injured or periled. not to mention that a gay soldier is no less of a soldier than a straight one.

Whatever you say, but if someone goes into a military interview in India proclaiming that he is gay, then he is going to be rejected no matter what. I am not sure what happens now. My understanding is that though the act of homosexual intercourse is "decriminalized", homosexuality has not been "legalized" in the sense that employers (including the army) may reasonably cite homosexuality as a basis for discrimination.

to presume that polygamy is consensual is a delusion. if you wish to make polygamy legal here are the few things i want recognized before hand:

Are you talking specifically about India or in general? Because in India polygamy of upto 4 wives is allowed among Muslims without the safeguards desired by you. Only non-Muslims are not allowed polygamous marriages.

[varun]

^^ @ The Outsider: I'm not sure the case of polygamy is a valid comparison as having multiple partners is a choice, unlike homosexuality. Civil rights laws apply to discrimination against minority groups which are "born that way": People of color, People with an innate attraction for the same sex, People born into a certain religion (yes the indoctrination is very deep sometimes to expect a change in behaviour by choice). We tend to fall into the trap of no-holds-barred civil liberties sometimes, but laws are there to maintain a fairly consistent societal fabric, which seems to work..

[The Outsider]

because, what you might believe to be consent, is not actually consent. most individuals who have large harems are rich or influential muslims who are either able to extort 'consent' or encourage 'consent' from their 4 wives. not to mention the severe imbalance in the relationship where the man reserves the right to divorce the woman at the drop of a hat. this is a lot like marriages where women are later exploited either for dowry or the lack of it. the mitigating circumstances of the woman do not permit her to speak out against the decision. similarly, it is not particularly easy for a 16 year old girl who has led a seriously sheltered, if not oppressed life, riddled with poverty, to protest against a decision made on most occasions by a quasi who has been aptly bribed by her to be husband, usually an old disgusting fart. the quasi in turn would 'motivate' the girl's parents into making the decision for her. to presume that polygamy is consensual is a delusion. if you wish to make polygamy legal here are the few things i want recognized before hand: 1. The man may not force the women to engage in intercourse against her will. Failing the observation of this rule, the woman shall be permitted to seek a state of separation from the husband and permitted to seek divorce. 2. Divorce shall only be possible through legal paths and not verbal contracts. 3. The woman shall be entitled to her own system of beliefs, i.e. she must be permitted to her own level of spiritual entanglement. 4. The minimum age for marriage must be 20-21 for women. 5. Upon marriage, the woman shall be entitled to an equal share of the total assets of the husband and his previous wives. A share she shall claim upon divorce.

I am not talking about how the idea is implemented in practice - I agree most instances of polygamy that we see are a result of subjugation of women, either direct of indoctrinated. My argument holds for only strictly consenting adults - they should be allowed to practice it and it should come with an added condition that polyandry be legal as well. I agree with all your points. I think you are basing them on the presumption that I am endorsing Islamic polygamy, which I am not. I am supporting a strictly equal rights idea of polygamy and polyandry between consenting adults.

[The Outsider]

^^ @ The Outsider: I'm not sure the case of polygamy is a valid comparison as having multiple partners is a choice, unlike homosexuality. Civil rights laws apply to discrimination against minority groups which are "born that way": People of color, People with an innate attraction for the same sex, People born into a certain religion (yes the indoctrination is very deep sometimes to expect a change in behaviour by choice). We tend to fall into the trap of no-holds-barred civil liberties sometimes, but laws are there to maintain a fairly consistent societal fabric, which seems to work..

Homosexuality might be a natural condition, but there are strong arguments that it is at least partly social as well. For me, it's an irrelevant notion as to whether someone is homosexual genetically or through social conditioning. Both should have equal rights to choose and live by their choice of sexual behavior. See, even the unequal concept of legal Islamic polygamy although allowed in India it is seldom practiced. It's not that making polygamy and polyandry will drive the society nuts with every second person going for multiple partners, but it will help people make a choice if they want to.

[varun]

Homosexuality might be a natural condition' date=' but there are strong arguments that it is at least partly social as well. For me, it's an irrelevant notion as to whether someone is homosexual genetically or through social conditioning. Both should have equal rights to choose and live by their choice of sexual behavior. [/quote'] Well, I notice that you're referring to only sexual behavior here, which I don't disagree with necessarily, but would you be ok with generalizing your statement further (to pertain to all kinds of behavior as long as it doesn't harm anyone) ?

See, even the unequal concept of legal Islamic polygamy although allowed in India it is seldom practiced. It's not that making polygamy and polyandry will drive the society nuts with every second person going for multiple partners, but it will help people make a choice if they want to.

Sure, choices are good. (Actually that reminds me of a lecture regarding how too many choices will result in a lack of neurological satisfaction.. but getting back on track) The point is, that there is a system in place in society for a long time, which may or may not be a good system, but is for the most part a system in equilibrium. However when you meddle with the fabric of socially acceptable behaviors, you have to very careful so as not to drastically alter this equilibrium. A hypothetical case in point regarding polyandry/polygamy: - The rich and powerful end up having more and more wives (not just partners) - They end up having many more legal progenies which inherit their wealth - The poor and their lineage start getting wiped out due to lack of suitable partners, and/or progeny - The chasm between the rich and the poor starts growing much more - You might think it is Darwinian natural selection sure, but the underlying principle of modern society has been fairness. The above mentioned social dynamics were seen the the medieval era and don't have a place in a civilized world.

[The Outsider]

Some interesting points there Varun. Will try to reply in some detail later - a short post would not do justice to your well thought out one.

[THX_1138]

In India women cannot have sex selective abortions. Not only that' date=' sex selective fertilization is also disallowed. Clearly, the reproductive rights of women are curtailed. Even abortion is allowed only in rare cases, like rape, incest etc.[/quote'] i believe women can receive an abortion without question in india, if not, then measures must be taken accordingly. as for gender selective abortions, that is a measure to actually maintain a gender equality and is an extension of laws preventing female infanticide. if a woman seeks an abortion, she seeks it for a myraid of reasons: unwanted pregnancy, failure of birth control, rape, incest, possible complications in child birth, and of course, financial reasons. i dont know if late term abortions are permitted in india, but i argue that fetuses diagnosed with severe birth defects ought to be aborted. however, a decision made in lieu of the gender of a the fetus, is usually a decision that is a result of coercion by family member who are selective about the gender of the child.

I agree with you on this one.

good to hear

Whatever you say, but if someone goes into a military interview in India proclaiming that he is gay, then he is going to be rejected no matter what. I am not sure what happens now. My understanding is that though the act of homosexual intercourse is "decriminalized", homosexuality has not been "legalized" in the sense that employers (including the army) may reasonably cite homosexuality as a basis for discrimination.

of course, that is all because of a fake sense of jingoism instilled in the soldiers. from my limited experience, there is a general move to emasculate the opposition, a means of ridicule and propaganda and can at times be useful in convincing the soldier that he is impervious to the opposition. though mind you, all such misrepresentations are quick to vanish once one enters the battlefield. one gains respect for the opponent, if he or she is dogged in their resolve, regardless of their unpreparedness or unprofessionalism. therefore, such moves to emasculate the opposition are rather pointless and end up doing nothing but creating an atmosphere of hostility towards anyone who has homosexual procilivities or is defensive of those with such proclivities. somehow calling a guy a '***got' or 'fga' is a bigger insult that 'dumb', 'illiterate', 'born of a mother with questionable morals', or the one i find most amusing 'nerd' (when it is the nerd who will eventually if not already call the shots). its all because of a culture of a masculine jingoism straight out of a chuck palahniuk.

Are you talking specifically about India or in general? Because in India polygamy of upto 4 wives is allowed among Muslims without the safeguards desired by you. Only non-Muslims are not allowed polygamous marriages.

thats what i am talking about... if you want polygamy to be recognized, then we need to at the very least observe the suggestions i made, or others that are more stringent. ideally i want polygamy abolished. and those who are too late to be affected by this law, should be entitled to pursuing bigamy cases against their male partners.

[seedhi]

i believe women can receive an abortion without question in india' date=' if not, then measures must be taken accordingly.[/quote']Abortion is only allowed in India under special conditions like rape, incest, or when the continuance of pregnancy is harmful to the mother or the fetus.

however, a decision made in lieu of the gender of a the fetus, is usually a decision that is a result of coercion by family member who are selective about the gender of the child.

There are innumerable women who would prefer a male child. I am not justifying for a moment the societal pressures that lead to this tilt towards the male child. However, disallowing sex selective abortion is a suppression of female reproductive freedom. Not only that, even sex selective fertilization is disallowed in India, which again is a clear violation of personal freedom. But this suppression of reproductive freedom of women is legally sound, as the interest of the society is served by it. Which is exactly my point - that the ability to exercise personal freedoms, even if they do not interfere with those of others, is not guaranteed if the overall interest of the society is harmed by it. Now the question is whether the High Court can determine whether a particular law is useful to protect the overall interest of the society/nation. In my opinion, the best place for this is the Indian Parliament not the High Court or Supreme Court. In short, I am more concerned about the precedent this sets rather than the actual repeal of parts of section 377.

of course, that is all because of a fake sense of jingoism instilled in the soldiers. from my limited experience, there is a general move to emasculate the opposition, a means of ridicule and propaganda and can at times be useful in convincing the soldier that he is impervious to the opposition. though mind you, all such misrepresentations are quick to vanish once one enters the battlefield. one gains respect for the opponent, if he or she is dogged in their resolve, regardless of their unpreparedness or unprofessionalism. therefore, such moves to emasculate the opposition are rather pointless and end up doing nothing but creating an atmosphere of hostility towards anyone who has homosexual procilivities or is defensive of those with such proclivities.

I actually would prefer the military to be the best judge of this.

[Kriterion]

Erotic desire is legitimate form of expressing love between two individuals minus pre marital, and extra marital in Hinduism but opponents of homosexuality will argue that love between two men and two women is not the same form of love as a love between a man and a woman...hence only lust is experienced there and lust is a sin.

isn't this contradictory to:

Hinduism describes the family as an illusion or maya. Having personal relationships or partners is a great distraction that keeps the soul from liberating itself. What is true and what makes life meaningful is our relationship with God, because in the real sense the hidden self is nothing but God only. Hinduism therefore explains every individual to be wary of the illusory nature of the family and develop a divine oriented attitude while performing their obligatory duties as a sacrifice to God. If family itself is an instrument of maya, polygamy makes it more difficult for an individual to break out of his illusions.