Guest Shivani Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 Lol!! What a freaking joke you are, tex1des! Religious leaders from every religion have opposed moves to legalize homosexuality, but of course you would put in the Muslim opposition. Christian : "It (homosexuality) is not at all acceptable and agreeable. It is against the tenets of the Bible. Man and woman were created in God's own image. Homosexuality is against the society," Rt Rev Abraham Mar Paulos Episcopa, Head of Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar diocesan here, said. Hindu : The Vishwa Hindu Parishad is also opposed to any dilution in the Section 377 of IPC. "It is against the culture and family system in India. It will result in spread of a number of diseases. But we will see what changes, if at all, are introduced in the section," said Vinod Bansal, spokesperson of Delhi unit of the Parishad. Sikhs : "Homosexuality is unnatural," said Sukhdev Singh Bhaur, general secretary of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which administers historical Sikh shrines, mainly in Punjab state. "We oppose any proposal to give legitimacy to such acts," Bhaur added. Propaganda machine! Do you(not you in person but people collectively) realise that Homosexuals aren't the way they are by choice? This is how the nature, the Almighty has made them... Yes they are also the creations of God/Nature ... So do you expect God/Nature would prohibit something that they've created ? NO! Tell me one thing ... Dothese Maulanas (or Molvees whatever) Shankaracharyas Heads and Fathers of the Church hold a 'Power of Attorney' of God that says or classifies deeds into this and this as a sin and so and so as a sacred deed ? See as long as your activity does no harm to the people directly or indirectly associated to you it is all okay ...But if you're harming ANY soul by any of your deeds, that has to be classified under the category of CRIME ... How on the Earth does a person's sexual orientation bother you in any way ? Homosexuality shouldn't be a crime in law and a sin in religion! Please treat them like humans irrespective of their sexuality ... They are a reflection of just who we are... Please don't create barriers between them and the rest of the world ... Let them lead their life they want and we can lead ours the way we want to ! I'm sorry to use the word 'they/them' cuz in a way this is again how i'm discriminating ..But i couldn't manage without it :p
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 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. There are innumerable women who would prefer a male child. no. there are none. any such decision favoring the gender of the child is a direct result of the nurturing of the mother in her youth and the considerable hardships associated with her being a woman. thus, if a mother does desire a male child, its out of a desire to protect her offspring from a fate similar to hers. therefore, it can hardly be called a free and uncoerced choice. 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. again, abortions based on the gender of a child are nothing but another form of oppression. whether the fetus being aborted in a boy or a girl. if a mother must decide upon an abortion, then she ought to do so regardless of the gender, and i am not convinced that this is a form of oppression. it is a form of maintain a healthy sex ratio on this planet. keep in mind that if tomorrow the world is faced with a catastrophe that wipes out half the planet, humanity would survive even in the absence of a singe man. thought without fertile women, we are doomed. if anything, protecting young, future mothers ought to be a single most objective of all humanitarian aide, and other public policies. Not only that, even sex selective fertilization is disallowed in India, which again is a clear violation of personal freedom. upon this, we are in agreement. But this suppression of reproductive freedom of women is legally sound, as the interest of the society is served by it. not really since the number of in vitro fertilization are remarkably small as compared to the usual methods of conception. 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. I actually would prefer the military to be the best judge of this. no, the military may not be the best judge on this matter, just as south was not the best judge on matters of slavery, or the southern white community was not the best judge on matters of jim crow laws, just as post ww2 germans were not the best judges at the human rights trials of nuremberg... if a particular population has been feasting on a regular diet of skewed opinion it may not be the best judge when asked to make an nonpartisan decision on a sensitive matter. only when the institution of emasculating the fellow soldier or the opposition, both completely needless (i was never inspired to train harder when being insulted, i was merely motivated by the prospect that a half way decent job would keep the master sergeant off my back...), till then, the military is hardly an unbiased judge on this matter. however, after forced amalgamation, and mutual coexistence has taken roots, till one generation that is not poised by the seeds of the old plant arises... an unbiased decision is unlikely. and btw, i could assemble a legion of ex generals, and other servicemen that would vouch that the current 'dont ask, dont tell' policy is rather pointless, and there is very little separating a gay soldier from a straight one. having unabashedly straight soldiers has not served india all that well as you might believe. our latest tiff in kashmir was due to the alleged raping of a minor by a few soldiers that then snowballed into a major demonstration and its subsequent backlash.
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 Do you(not you in person but people collectively) realise that Homosexuals aren't the way they are by choice? This is how the nature' date='[b'] the Almighty has made them... Yes they are also the creations of God/Nature ... So do you expect God/Nature would prohibit something that they've created ? NO! Tell me one thing ... Dothese Maulanas (or Molvees whatever) Shankaracharyas Heads and Fathers of the Church hold a 'Power of Attorney' of God that says or classifies deeds into this and this as a sin and so and so as a sacred deed ? See as long as your activity does no harm to the people directly or indirectly associated to you it is all okay ...But if you're harming ANY soul by any of your deeds, that has to be classified under the category of CRIME ... How on the Earth does a person's sexual orientation bother you in any way ? Homosexuality shouldn't be a crime in law and a sin in religion! Please treat them like humans irrespective of their sexuality ... They are a reflection of just who we are... Please don't create barriers between them and the rest of the world ... Let them lead their life they want and we can lead ours the way we want to ! I'm sorry to use the word 'they/them' cuz in a way this is again how i'm discriminating ..But i couldn't manage without it :p that is arguable. the almight or the moderatelymighty did not make zilch.
THX_1138 Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 isn't this contradictory to: err... most religion is self contradictory, illogical and rather anachronistic.
seedhi Posted July 5, 2009 Posted July 5, 2009 no, the military may not be the best judge on this matter, just as south was not the best judge on matters of slavery, or the southern white community was not the best judge on matters of jim crow laws, just as post ww2 germans were not the best judges at the human rights trials of nuremberg... if a particular population has been feasting on a regular diet of skewed opinion it may not be the best judge when asked to make an nonpartisan decision on a sensitive matter. only when the institution of emasculating the fellow soldier or the opposition, both completely needless (i was never inspired to train harder when being insulted, i was merely motivated by the prospect that a half way decent job would keep the master sergeant off my back...), till then, the military is hardly an unbiased judge on this matter. however, after forced amalgamation, and mutual coexistence has taken roots, till one generation that is not poised by the seeds of the old plant arises... an unbiased decision is unlikely. and btw, i could assemble a legion of ex generals, and other servicemen that would vouch that the current 'dont ask, dont tell' policy is rather pointless, and there is very little separating a gay soldier from a straight one. having unabashedly straight soldiers has not served india all that well as you might believe. our latest tiff in kashmir was due to the alleged raping of a minor by a few soldiers that then snowballed into a major demonstration and its subsequent backlash. You completely misread my reply. I said that the section 377 should have been debated and its fate decided in the Parliament. Only in the matter of homosexuals joining the army, should the military be given a free hand to decide if it wants them or not. In civilian matters the army has no role, the Parliament is the place to decide.
THX_1138 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 You completely misread my reply. I said that the section 377 should have been debated and its fate decided in the Parliament. Only in the matter of homosexuals joining the army, should the military be given a free hand to decide if it wants them or not. In civilian matters the army has no role, the Parliament is the place to decide. actually i did understand what you had to say, but as i said before, here we are in disagreement. and the reason for that is not constitutional. before everything else, let me address this one matter: the army is an extension of the government, the department of defense or the ministry of defense as it might be known as in india. therefore, it is subject to the same non discrimination laws that are applicable to the rest of the government of india or any federally financed programs. hence, if the constitution is ammended or a government law is passed that states the abolition of discrimination on basis of sexual proclivities, the military is required to shun its intolerance or find new paymasters. now for the point about what the military has to say about this matter: well frankly, i dont care. as i stated before, this is an institution rife with corruption, often criticized for lack of accountability and as much of a sham as it is a necessary evil. had india none of the hostile neighbors it has at the moment, the military of india would have long been held accountable for the numerous trespasses it has made against its own population. true, its a very nobel profession, and coming form a family where for the past four generations, at least one individual has served in the armed forces, british indian, indian or american; to call the military a sham is not easy. i have experienced first hand their hypocrisy, and as i have said numerous times before, a very intolerant attitude which often emasculates the opposition or its own members. there is very little room for sympathy and humanity in the forces. therefore to expect such an institution to make such a progressive change in itself, to surrender a long held tradition, is foolhardy. change must be forced upon them, and thereafter with the passage of time, they shall adhere to the new, reformed, and might i even add civilized (though there is nothing civilized when you are in the business of dealing out death).
seedhi Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 actually i did understand what you had to say, but as i said before, here we are in disagreement. and the reason for that is not constitutional. before everything else, let me address this one matter: the army is an extension of the government, the department of defense or the ministry of defense as it might be known as in india. therefore, it is subject to the same non discrimination laws that are applicable to the rest of the government of india or any federally financed programs.Well, first of all, discrimination against homosexuals has not be explicitly made unlawful, even with the striking down of (parts of ) section 377. Also, even in the USA, the military does discriminate against homosexuals. Even the Democratic administrations have not thought it fit to force the army to change this policy. hence, if the constitution is ammended or a government law is passed that states the abolition of discrimination on basis of sexual proclivities, the military is required to shun its intolerance or find new paymasters.Actually even today the military in India is granted a different standing than civilian institutions with regard to the policy of recruitment. No form of reservation is implemented in the military recruitment process, even though all governmet and public sector entities along with educational institutions are required to implement the reservation policy. Even the Parliament reserves its seats but not the Indian military. So, there is a recognition that the military recruitment process needs to be shielded from civilian laws to ensure its efficacy, and the process is best left to the military itself.
THX_1138 Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Well, first of all, discrimination against homosexuals has not be explicitly made unlawful, even with the striking down of (parts of ) section 377. Also, even in the USA, the military does discriminate against homosexuals. Even the Democratic administrations have not thought it fit to force the army to change this policy. Actually even today the military in India is granted a different standing than civilian institutions with regard to the policy of recruitment. No form of reservation is implemented in the military recruitment process, even though all governmet and public sector entities along with educational institutions are required to implement the reservation policy. Even the Parliament reserves its seats but not the Indian military. So, there is a recognition that the military recruitment process needs to be shielded from civilian laws to ensure its efficacy, and the process is best left to the military itself. its a matter of political capital. you expend it as it arrives. at the moment, the emphasis of the current administration is a healthcare bill, a climate change bill (though both are unsatisfactory in my opinion). these two bills are seriously jagged pills that taxpayers and representatives have to swallow or the country's stagnation on those two issues will persist. though this i firmly hope: repealing the 'dont ask dont tell' bull crap. i know two guys who are in the armed forces, both in iraq right now, and both very much in the closet, and neither is any less of a soldier than any other man or woman.
The Outsider Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 So we arent going to see the end of the routine gay pride marches yet:(( Hopefully not. Cocaine and heroin have been decriminalized in Portugal. Ok, wasn't aware of that. A person under the influence of drugs can cause harm to the society, how do two people having consensual sex in their bedroom have any adverse effect on the society. 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? Why do you think our society has not reached that level of awareness? You'll never reach consensus on such an issue, even western countries have not, but awareness and respect yes. 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. No, I am not. I am just saying the interpretations of the constitution are best left to the judiciary and there should not be any interference from legislative bodies.
The Outsider Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 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) ? Yeah, primarily sexual behavior. Generalizing personal choices which can adversely effect the society like driving while drunk are not things I would ask to be legalized. 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. That's a fair point in principle, but let's analyze whether it can indeed be pandemic to the extent of adversely effecting the current balance of the society. All we have to do is look at Muslims in India - they are allowed to have upto 4 wives. Let's ignore the inherently unbalanced system of polygamy being allowed there. We see only a tiny minority who actually practise it. Our society has been so hardwired about the one partner for one person practise that any consensual changes to it would not come about easily. Sure, the rich would be able to afford multiple wives, but they do that even now with multiple mistresses. For them to get consent from their existing wives to get a new one would be just as impossible as it is now because humans are so possessive about their partners, sharing them is a huge taboo.
Recommended Posts