Supreme Court pronounces gay sex illegal

[Precambrian]

Nope it isnt what ? The carnal side of hinduism as depicted in Khajuraho is also hinduism. That is a fact' date=' so when BJP says they are anti-gay because gayness is against hindu/indian culture, they are flat out wrong, as proven by the khajuraho temples.[/quote'] Catholic priests have been caught indulging in paedophilia. Would you then say paedophilia is integral part of christianity and when the anybody arguing the contrary is "flat out wrong'?

[Muloghonto]

Catholic priests have been caught indulging in paedophilia. Would you then say paedophilia is integral part of christianity and when the anybody arguing the contrary is "flat out wrong'?

Do you seee any catholic churches or cathedrals with paedophilic decorations or carvings ? Do you see any evidence in cathoic literature that paedophilia is supported ? If not then yes, one can say with reasonable certainty that catholicism never supported paedophilia and thus, the paedophilic priests are in violation of catholic principles. In case of hinduism, we have example of hindu temples with carnal carvings on it. That is proof positive that at some point, some sections of hinduism accepted sexual conduct that would be considered 'deviant' today. Therefore,for the BJP to say that they are anti-gay because it is against our 'sanskriti and dharma' is incorrect, as we have evidence of some section of hinduism accepting sexually 'abnormal' practices.

[Sachin=GOD]

Govt has filed a review petition today - kapil sibal.

[Precambrian]

Do you seee any catholic churches or cathedrals with paedophilic decorations or carvings ? Do you see any evidence in cathoic literature that paedophilia is supported ? If not then yes, one can say with reasonable certainty that catholicism never supported paedophilia and thus, the paedophilic priests are in violation of catholic principles. In case of hinduism, we have example of hindu temples with carnal carvings on it. That is proof positive that at some point, some sections of hinduism accepted sexual conduct that would be considered 'deviant' today. Therefore,for the BJP to say that they are anti-gay because it is against our 'sanskriti and dharma' is incorrect, as we have evidence of some section of hinduism accepting sexually 'abnormal' practices.

is there a central authority in hinduism that oversees construction of temples and its upkeep and decorum since last two thousand years? Then why Khajuraho is considered as a representative of hinduism? Is there pooja and all goingon in there? Sabarimala, a famous temple in South India, does not allow women (who are menstruating) to enter the premises. So by ur generalisation, is hinduism intolerant of women who menstruate as well? :yay: One or two monuments which claim to be temples cannot represent hinduism. Yes, the worship of shiva in form of penis (linga) shows hindu culture has been accomodating of sexuality. But Khajuraho is perversion at its best. How many temples other than Khajuraho depicts sexual perversion like that?

[ganeshran]

Retarded stand how? Because you have, like only a dim witted forum addict can, repeated it ad nauseaum in this thread? All you bring is the same old meaningless worn out labels - chaddi brigade, religtards - not even those of your own, like a true dullard you've lifted them from elsewhere. Given that the 'secular' and 'progressive' parties have been in power for a majority of time since '47, and repeatedly dismissed representations and recommendations to repeal 377, how's the stance of chaddi brigade even worth a second glance? Or should I assume that, just like your taste for silly labels, you find mere statements more discussion worthy than genuine (lack of) action - like a distinguished retard?

Whining about labels is a bit rich given the number of personal insults you've had to resort to, in order to avoid making any point :cantstop: The chaddi brigade's stand is retarded because it is scientifically wrong. the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that homosexuality has a biological basis and not a lifestyle choice. Scientists are already close to identifying the epi genetic markers for homosexuality. Calling it unnatural is just as wrong because homosexuality is widely seen in the animal kingdom, even exclusive homosexuality. Congress's stand in 2009 was just as bigoted when they opposed the review of the section but they have come around since then

[urbestfriend]

Whining about labels is a bit rich given the number of personal insults you've had to resort to, in order to avoid making any point :cantstop: The chaddi brigade's stand is retarded because it is scientifically wrong. the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that homosexuality has a biological basis and not a lifestyle choice. Scientists are already close to identifying the epi genetic markers for homosexuality. Calling it unnatural is just as wrong because homosexuality is widely seen in the animal kingdom, even exclusive homosexuality. Congress's stand in 2009 was just as bigoted when they opposed the review of the section but they have come around since then

Can you cite me some research papers for this overwhelming consensus among scientists? Also if they have not yet identified the epi-genetic markers, how could it be called consensus?

[ganeshran]

Can you cite me some research papers for this overwhelming consensus among scientists? Also if they have not yet identified the epi-genetic markers' date=' how could it be called consensus?[/quote'] I'll link you to the papers once I get home. The network at work blocks a lot of pages under the "Sex" category IIRC, the latest study identified an epigenetic marker.

[Muloghonto]

is there a central authority in hinduism that oversees construction of temples and its upkeep and decorum since last two thousand years? Then why Khajuraho is considered as a representative of hinduism? Is there pooja and all goingon in there?

Khajuraho is representative of hinduism because it is a hindu temple. Period. Nobody said that it is the ONLY representative of hinduism but the BJP statement and your stance is simply incorrect: Khajuraho proves that sexual perversions are a part of hinduism- or atleast, were a part of hinduism in the past. Therefore the BJP are wrong to say that they are upholding Indian sanskriti/hindu values by being anti-gay. Khajuraho proves that gayness is a part of hinduism.

Sabarimala, a famous temple in South India, does not allow women (who are menstruating) to enter the premises. So by ur generalisation, is hinduism intolerant of women who menstruate as well? :yay:

Part of hinduism is intolerant of menstruating women. Hinduism is not monolithic or linear, there are plenty of parts of hinduism that defies orthodoxy. You have no business saying that the BJP are right in their assessment that gayness is anti-hindu because Khajuraho proves that gayness is part of hinduism as well.

One or two monuments which claim to be temples cannot represent hinduism.

If they are hindu temples, then they DO represent an aspect of hinduism that you simply cannot ignore. The existence of these hindu monuments are sufficient to include them as a part of hinduism.

Yes, the worship of shiva in form of penis (linga) shows hindu culture has been accomodating of sexuality. But Khajuraho is perversion at its best. How many temples other than Khajuraho depicts sexual perversion like that?

Perversion or not, its existence makes it a part of hinduism & hindu history. Period. No amounts of denial will change the fact that some segments of hinduism a long time ago accepted virtually all possible sexual behaviour. That makes it a part of our heritage & hindu history that you simply cannot claim didnt exist. The position of 'gayness is anti-hindu and its presence is an affront to hindu/indian cultural history' is most categorically false because of Khajuraho temples and their existence proving that at some point, some segments of hindu society accepted sexual behaviour of the atypical monogamous heterosexual nature. That is a part of your-and mine- hindu heritage. If i choose to glorify that aspect of hinduism, you have absolutely no valid position to counter otherwise.

[Prakat]

Interested to know what the poster sees as perversion in the temple carvings..

[Muloghonto]

Interested to know what the poster sees as perversion in the temple carvings..

Personally I dont see anything there as perversions. I was using the word as a social norm, where anything not monogamous & heterosexual is invariably cast as 'perverted'. My policy with sex is simple- satisfy the golden rule and then i dont care, whatever floats your boat, i say go for it. (Golden rule being- a) there MUST be consent from all participants and b) they must either be all adults or all minors). Hetero, gay, transgender, group- anything and everything is okay as long as the golden rule is followed. IMO sex is too personal and too unique an experience to have judgements over. Our ancestors realized this. Pity that most modern 'hinduvtas' dont realize this and follow a morality code that is more or less a rip-off of the desert God's code book of anti-sex/anti-fun way of life. And by desert God, i am not hinting at any innuendo here, i literally mean the desert God- all theological tenets that are the product of a desert dominated culture of the middle east- be it jews, christians, muslims or dead babylonian religions.

[Prakat]

I agree. Most right wing brethren are actually the product of Macaulay education in their social and sexual mores.

[Zanjeer]

Swastika is not ONLY a hindu symbol, its a symbol that has existed not just in Indo-aryans but also in many other cultures. Nobody said Hitler represented hinduism- he himself didnt say so. But khajuraho temples and kama sutra are part of hindu heritage, so when modern hindus choose to depict hinduism as only the 'sati-savitri' stuff of psuedo-islamic/christian values of chastity, i choose to remind them that once upon a time, long long ago, many of our hindu ancestors had no problem with sexually promiscuous behaviour and being hindu does not mean re-packaging arabic style laws of chastity under shiva/vishnu commandments. Infact, i see NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that hinduism valued chastity and sexually conservative behaviour before its takkar with Islam. Those are distinct features of the desert God and desert religion, not polytheism from a land of plenty.

All these talk about kajuraho sex temples are absolutely bull crap. There is only one kahuraho sex temple is available in India. If you know the history of the kajuraho, you wouldn't be talking about it. Kajuraho is closed to a place called "orcha" and bundelkhand where chandel rajputs lived a luxurious life style and this place was used as a sex resort by them. They had close relationships with mughal empires and they too used it as a sex resort. This chandel rajputs are claimed to be one of the notorious and impure version of rajputs because they mixed with local aborgines and lived a without any honor. The sex temples were built to satisfy their mughal masters who used it as a resort. Within few centuries chandel rajputs were driven out of the place but the temples still remains.

[moniker]

Unity in diversity http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Muslim-leaders-laud-stand-of-BJP-RSS-on-homosexuality/articleshow/27696980.cms

[Muloghonto]

All these talk about kajuraho sex temples are absolutely bull crap. There is only one kahuraho sex temple is available in India. If you know the history of the kajuraho' date=' you wouldn't be talking about it. Kajuraho is closed to a place called "orcha" and bundelkhand where chandel rajputs lived a luxurious life style and this place was used as a sex resort by them. They had close relationships with mughal empires and they too used it as a sex resort. This chandel rajputs are claimed to be one of the notorious and impure version of rajputs because they mixed with local aborgines and lived a without any honor. The sex temples were built to satisfy their mughal masters who used it as a resort. Within few centuries chandel rajputs were driven out of the place but the temples still remains.[/quote'] This is nothing more than horsepoop. Here is a history lesson for you: a) Chandel Rajputs were in power from 900s to late 1200s CE. Long before the Mughals arrived, which was in mid 1500s. b) Khajuraho temples were built in this period. What they got used for later on, is irrelevant and mostly unknown. What is known, is they were built in a period where tantric hinduism and tantric buddhism were at their pinnacle in India ( this is the Kannauj triangle period, ie, 700s AD to 1100s AD). The above story of yours is nothing more than fictitious fabrications done by modernist hinduvtas who simply cannot accept the historic reality that ancient Indian sexual values were far more in line with modern western values than India's today, which are in line with arabian values.

[Zanjeer]

This is nothing more than horsepoop. Here is a history lesson for you: a) Chandel Rajputs were in power from 900s to late 1200s CE. Long before the Mughals arrived, which was in mid 1500s. b) Khajuraho temples were built in this period. What they got used for later on, is irrelevant and mostly unknown. What is known, is they were built in a period where tantric hinduism and tantric buddhism were at their pinnacle in India ( this is the Kannauj triangle period, ie, 700s AD to 1100s AD). The above story of yours is nothing more than fictitious fabrications done by modernist hinduvtas who simply cannot accept the historic reality that ancient Indian sexual values were far more in line with modern western values than India's today, which are in line with arabian values.

what a load of bull crap is this . Lol.. It was built around 700 AD to 1100 AD but as I said it was built by a. Notorious and impure version of chandel rajputs who lived more like thieves. It was no surprise that they built sex temples. They mixed up with local aborgine tribes and it was more of a sex resorts. Chandel rajputs were driven out but they were replaced by bundela rajputs in the early 15th century when mughal empires wanted them to convert to Islam. My forefathers were bundela rajputs and they left bundelkhand to ensure that they dont convert to Islam. Its history and you can't change it. btwn I agree that chandels didn't bow down to mughals but mughals did used it as a sex resort in the mid 15th 16th century. But the kajuraho temples were built by impure version of chandel rajputs who more or less lived like thieves and mixed with local aborgine tribes.

[Sachin=GOD]

Muloghonto in the thread and history of Bull Sh!t starts :cantstop:

[Muloghonto]

what a load of bull crap is this . Lol.. It was built around 700 AD to 1100 AD but as I said it was built by a. Notorious and impure version of chandel rajputs who lived more like thieves.

Just because they believed in tantra ? Sorry, that does not cut the mustard. They lived like theives- we are talking about the same Chandela Rajputs that gave us Yashovarman. Whether they were pure or impure by current hindu definitions, is irrelevant. What they were, clearly, was hindus, who made sex temples, found thousands of hindu artisans to work them and atleast 3 centuries of hindu priests to perform pujas in them. This makes it a hindu temple and a part of hindu history, period.

It was no surprise that they built sex temples. They mixed up with local aborgine tribes and it was more of a sex resorts. Chandel rajputs were driven out but they were replaced by bundela rajputs in the early 15th century when mughal empires wanted them to convert to Islam. My forefathers were bundela rajputs and they left bundelkhand to ensure that they dont convert to Islam. Its history and you can't change it.

Seems like you are quite fit at changing history yourself. I dont care what the chandela rajputs lived as. We have evidence that it was a hindu temple. Purohits did puja inside those temples. Of that we have archaeological evidence. Therefore, they are part of our hindu history and heritage. period. also, i see more backwardness from your post than from some of our ancestors 1000 years ago. Mixing with aboriginals is 'backwardness' ? Perhaps for uneducated blue-blooded ones who have nothing more than fictional family history of two-bit zameendari turned into dreams of ancestral glory but to most of us, it is a blatantly backwards & racist viewpoint.

btwn I agree that chandels didn't bow down to mughals but mughals did used it as a sex resort in the mid 15th 16th century. But the kajuraho temples were built by impure version of chandel rajputs who more or less lived like thieves and mixed with local aborgine tribes.

The mughals were not aware of Khajuraho and Khajuraho site remained unused from early 1600s CE to their discovery under the British. So unless you mean Babur or Humayun actually had time to go to a part of India they never fully controlled for sexual escapades, there were no mughal presernce- ever- in Khajuraho.

[Zanjeer]

Just because they believed in tantra ? Sorry, that does not cut the mustard. They lived like theives- we are talking about the same Chandela Rajputs that gave us Yashovarman. Whether they were pure or impure by current hindu definitions, is irrelevant. What they were, clearly, was hindus, who made sex temples, found thousands of hindu artisans to work them and atleast 3 centuries of hindu priests to perform pujas in them. This makes it a hindu temple and a part of hindu history, period. Seems like you are quite fit at changing history yourself. I dont care what the chandela rajputs lived as. We have evidence that it was a hindu temple. Purohits did puja inside those temples. Of that we have archaeological evidence. Therefore, they are part of our hindu history and heritage. period. also, i see more backwardness from your post than from some of our ancestors 1000 years ago. Mixing with aboriginals is 'backwardness' ? Perhaps for uneducated blue-blooded ones who have nothing more than fictional family history of two-bit zameendari turned into dreams of ancestral glory but to most of us, it is a blatantly backwards & racist viewpoint. The mughals were not aware of Khajuraho and Khajuraho site remained unused from early 1600s CE to their discovery under the British. So unless you mean Babur or Humayun actually had time to go to a part of India they never fully controlled for sexual escapades, there were no mughal presernce- ever- in Khajuraho.

Nope. Not because they believed in tantra. I don't call them impure but the historians do it. They call them impure version of rajput because they married and mixed with local aborgine tribes. There are reasons why the shekawaths and rathores are considered as pure versions of rajput caste because they didn't mix and married with local aborhine tribes. I don't say it. Historians say it. (google it). Shekawaths and rathores don't marry with chandels because of this reasons. As far as Brahmins doing poojas in the sex temples, the rajputs are considered to be the saviors of the Brahmins. When Scythians and huns came to India they were converted to Hinduism and given this high social status by Brahmins and they made them believe that they are kshatriyas. No wonder Brahmins did pujas in sex temples just to live a comfortable live under rajput kingdoms. As far as mughals coming to kajuraho, if you see the map of the bundelkhand region, bundelkhand, orcha, kajuraho are very close to each other. Even if mughals didn't came to kajuraho temples, it is a fact that it was built by impure version of rajputs who more or less lived like thieves. Its a fact and all you have to do is google it.

[randomGuy]

Retarded stand how? Because you have, like only a dim witted forum addict can, repeated it ad nauseaum in this thread? All you bring is the same old meaningless worn out labels - chaddi brigade, religtards - not even those of your own, like a true dullard you've lifted them from elsewhere. Given that the 'secular' and 'progressive' parties have been in power for a majority of time since '47, and repeatedly dismissed representations and recommendations to repeal 377, how's the stance of chaddi brigade even worth a second glance? Or should I assume that, just like your taste for silly labels, you find mere statements more discussion worthy than genuine (lack of) action - like a distinguished retard?

Too much use of 'chaddi brigade' when you have Muslim leaders lauding stand of BJP, RSS on homosexuality http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Muslim-leaders-laud-stand-of-BJP-RSS-on-homosexuality/articleshow/27696980.cms And what abt chaddis like me who are firmly for LGBT rights. :cantstop:

[Muloghonto]

Nope. Not because they believed in tantra. I don't call them impure but the historians do it.

I have never heard of any historian calling them impure. To do so,is a very basic element of failure to appreciate history, which has really one commandment: never judge the morals of eras long gone by, by today's standards. For such standards do not apply. This is not a new concept, its been the fundamental pillar of history for well over 200 years.

They call them impure version of rajput because they married and mixed with local aborgine tribes. There are reasons why the shekawaths and rathores are considered as pure versions of rajput caste because they didn't mix and married with local aborhine tribes. I don't say it. Historians say it. (google it). Shekawaths and rathores don't marry with chandels because of this reasons.

Oh okay. Casteist endogamous bullcrap. Got it. It has no bearing on the discussion. Who you marry and who you don't has no basis in who is a hindu and who isn't.

As far as Brahmins doing poojas in the sex temples, the rajputs are considered to be the saviors of the Brahmins. When Scythians and huns came to India they were converted to Hinduism and given this high social status by Brahmins and they made them believe that they are kshatriyas. No wonder Brahmins did pujas in sex temples just to live a comfortable live under rajput kingdoms.

That is your speculation or some 'historian's speculation' but it has really no basis in facts. Just pure old 'trying to make some semblance of the unconforming values by todays value system' mentality. It does not matter. They were hindu, its a hindu temple. Nomatter how much you may not like it, sex temples are part of hinduism. Period. Therefore, to say that certain sexual acts considered deviant today are not a part of our religious and cultural history, is incorrect.

As far as mughals coming to kajuraho, if you see the map of the bundelkhand region, bundelkhand, orcha, kajuraho are very close to each other. Even if mughals didn't came to kajuraho temples, it is a fact that it was built by impure version of rajputs who more or less lived like thieves. Its a fact and all you have to do is google it.

Err, you seem biassed- perhaps because it is in your interests to de-humanize the chandels to seek positive affirmation on your ancestral acts of usurpation of power ( if what you said about your genealogy is true). Quite a common mentality. Either way, i doubt the tag 'theif' can be applied to a dynasty that made its name by earning independence from Indra III when the Tashtrakutas were making chutnee of all the Parihars and Rajputs in the North. They were far more successful at their persuit of royal lifestyle than any Rajput since them. But it does not matter. Facts are facts. Sex temples = part of hinduism, hindu heritage and hindu history. What is considered sexually deviant in today's Indian culture was accepted in Hinduism a long time ago. Those are the facts. If you seek to follow the modern version of Hindusim and its value system,where basically anythng but sex with your wife is wrong, go ahead. But dont peddle the nonsense that hindu history & heritage is singularly reflective of modern indian sexual conservativeness. For that is simply not true. Hinduism was far more sexually open in the past. Its not just Khajuraho. Our ancestors were the only documented producers of an encyclopedia on sexual behaviour- the Kama Sutra. The last 'real God of Hindusm to've walked amongst man'- Krishna- had a million and one girlfriends. Our beloved five heroes of mahabharata had sex with the same one woman.These 5 are all born because their mother chose to summon five different Gods and spend 'alone time' with them.We are the only freaking old civilization to've produced a brilliant architectural piece on religion and sex ( Khajuraho). many of our apsaras and dance girls in temple carvings are depicted topless. Aapne aankhe kholo, we are not the descendants of sati-savitri & ram-sita type archetypes. atleast, not singularly. Many of our ancestors- some would say most- if they were brought back to life today, would identify more with the western sexual scene than what type of sexual backwardness prevails in India. You can choose to ignore that aspect of hinduism if you wish. But you cannot deny me the right to celebrate or identify with it if i so choose. For that too, is hindu sanskriti.