rageaddict Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Going by this, beastility is also a part of Hinduism and Hindu Culture and every true Hindu/ Hindu Nationalist party must take pride in it. Maybe after the demands of poofters are met , we must also legalize Beastility ASAP to honour our open minded and sexually liberated ancestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Going by this, beastility is also a part of Hinduism and Hindu Culture and every true Hindu/ Hindu Nationalist party must take pride in it. Maybe after the demands of poofters are met , we must also legalize Beastility ASAP to honour our open minded and sexually liberated ancestors. beastiality is a different issue altogether. Theoretically, i have no problems with it, provided you could get the animal in question to comprehend whats about to happen and get consent. Because really, if a horse could communicate and express its love for some...err..loving and you were willing to provide it, what exactly is wrong with it ? Perhaps those carvings were in that light. or maybe they were comitting animal abuse. But yes, it too is a part of hindu heritage. I have no problems saying that some of our hindu ancestors had sexual practices i wouldn't identify with. Do you have a problem admitting that ? If so, the problem lies with you, not the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnterTheVoid Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Bwhahahahahahahahahah Muloghonto saar, how the fark is one supposed to get the consent of a horse before someone starts anally penetrating it? :hysterical: More gyaan awaited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanjeer Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Going by this, beastility is also a part of Hinduism and Hindu Culture and every true Hindu/ Hindu Nationalist party must take pride in it. Maybe after the demands of poofters are met , we must also legalize Beastility ASAP to honour our open minded and sexually liberated ancestors. Excellent point. That is what I was saying in the above posts. This kajuraho temples were built by the notorious and impure versions of rajput clan who used those places as sex resorts. There are some documentary films about this which I have seen on history channel. If what mouligonto saying is the truth, why these sex temples are only in kajuraho? Why not all over India's millions of temples?. Kajuraho is very close to a place called orcha( which means secret place) where this particular rajput clan used it as a sex resort. All he had to is google it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prakat Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Impure, sex maniacs, naughty rajput clan. Zanjeer should write his own game of thrones set in 1000 AD India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 This is the problem in seeking religious acceptance of modern day practices. Why should homosexuality be accepted today because it was in the past? It has got nothing to do with it! Homosexuality is acceptable because it is scientifically proven to be natural and also found in other animal species. We don't need a character certificate from Bible, Bhagvad Gita or Koran to grant fundamental rights to homosexuals. Just common sense will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanjeer Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 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. 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. 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. 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. So whatever the historians who spend their lifetime on this saying are bull crap and you know better than them and I should start believing you eh???:haha: I agree Hinduism spoke about sex but it never encouraged gay sex. Show me an evidence other than kajuraho where gay sex and animal sex are promoted in ancient India? If gay sex and animal sex were performed in India, why is it only in kajuraho? Why not in some other millions of temples in India? If you don't know the facts, you better ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanjeer Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Impure' date=' sex maniacs, naughty rajput clan. Zanjeer should write his own game of thrones set in 1000 AD India.[/quote'] yaar, if you don't believe me, y don't you google it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 beastiality is a different issue altogether. Theoretically' date= i have no problems with it, provided you could get the animal in question to comprehend whats about to happen and get consent. Because really, if a horse could communicate and express its love for some...err..loving and you were willing to provide it, what exactly is wrong with it ? Perhaps those carvings were in that light. or maybe they were comitting animal abuse. But yes, it too is a part of hindu heritage. I have no problems saying that some of our hindu ancestors had sexual practices i wouldn't identify with. Do you have a problem admitting that ? If so, the problem lies with you, not the facts. Man.. you are a Legend. Tell me one thing. When did you ask for an animal's consent before killing them for pleasure (of your eating) ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Excellent point. That is what I was saying in the above posts. This kajuraho temples were built by the notorious and impure versions of rajput clan who used those places as sex resorts. There are some documentary films about this which I have seen on history channel. If what mouligonto saying is the truth' date=' why these sex temples are only in kajuraho? Why not all over India's millions of temples?. Kajuraho is very close to a place called orcha( which means secret place) where this particular rajput clan used it as a sex resort. All he had to is google it.[/quote'] :haha::haha: History channel is your source ? No wonder you are so deluded. I got news for you. History channel is TOI of history- its all about masala history to make it appealing, its not about facts. Heck, they used to have a fradulent show about ancient aliens on that channel. In anycase, why does it matter if its only in Khajuraho ? Ironically, you seem to view hinduism in the same way fundamentalist christians/muslims view christianity/islam. That there must only be one way and the way of the majority is the only way. Perhaps that is a product of your McCaulean education but the fact is, hinduism is NOT about majority behaviour. There is plenty of things in hinduism that the majority do not do or agree with. Aghoris eat dead bodies. Yet, they are also hindu. There are plenty of sadhus out there who refuse to acknowledge any authority of the brahmins- yet they are hindu. I never said the sex temples of Khajuraho is representative of mainstream hinduism or all hindu behaviour. I said it is a part of it, which is true. All the above examples i gave are part of hindu religion, yet not the majority behaviour. It doesnt have to be a common practice to be considered hindu practice, that is a fundamental aspect of hindu religion. As i said earlier, if you wish to not identify with non-mainstream practices of hindu religion, don't. No one is forcing you to. But you have no right to call it un-hindu just because it is not followed by the majority. It is a part of hindu religion & heritage because they were hindus who were following their own ways and were considered hindu by them and by others. Oh and orcha being called a secret place. LOL, you really have no idea why, do you ? Its because Kalinjar fort used to protect Orcha so well that no invader till the British actually set foot in orcha- they would always show up at Kalinjar, seige the fort and mostly leave out of failure. On the rare occasion they won, they'd get vassalage from the rulers of Kalinjar and go away. But they never penetrated past Kalinjar, which is why orcha is called the 'secret place'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 This is the problem in seeking religious acceptance of modern day practices. Why should homosexuality be accepted today because it was in the past? It has got nothing to do with it! Homosexuality is acceptable because it is scientifically proven to be natural and also found in other animal species. We don't need a character certificate from Bible' date=' Bhagvad Gita or Koran to grant fundamental rights to homosexuals. Just common sense will do.[/quote'] i agree with the above but that is not my point. I dont care what scriptures say if things can be reasoned out with modern science & technology. What i do care about, is people who have no idea of the vastness of hindu practices, its diversity and its unique history trying to see it from the lens of fundamentalist 'these are the only ways, all other ways are heretical' thought more in line with monotheist faiths. My problem is with the BJP, Zanjeer type of people who consider themselves thekedaars of hinduism and will invent fiction to disenfranchise a part of hinduism because they do not agree with it. That is dishonest and ignorant. My point was that. Nobody has any business telling lies about how 'deviant sexual behaviour' is not a part of our sanskriti and heritage because they most definitely are, as evidenced by the flourishing sex temples of Khajuraho, which were a major site of activity for over 3 centuries. I didnt say it was a mainstream part of it but a practice does not have to be mainstream or prevalent to be considered part of a particular culture or faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 So whatever the historians who spend their lifetime on this saying are bull crap and you know better than them and I should start believing you eh???:haha: I agree Hinduism spoke about sex but it never encouraged gay sex. Show me an evidence other than kajuraho where gay sex and animal sex are promoted in ancient India? If gay sex and animal sex were performed in India, why is it only in kajuraho? Why not in some other millions of temples in India? If you don't know the facts, you better ........ Who are these historians ? Show us some source please. As i said, i have studied history for a very long time and i have never found a historian of any merit who has argued successfully that Khajuraho temples were not hindu temples. I dont need to show you evidence other than Khajuraho, since i never claimed Khajuraho to be representative of ALL hinduism. I simply said it too is hindu, meaning what is depicted in Khajuraho is a subset of hindu culture and religion. As such, for a subset, it does not have to be present everywhere to be acknowledged, otherwise I would have said that it is fundamental to all hindus. The facts are simple. Hinduism is heterodox, which means 'there are many ways' in hinduism. There are hindus who eat dead people ( Aghoris). There are hindus who believe in going around naked, sitting in the middle of nowhere and performing meditation while refusing to acknowledge any authority of the Brahmins. There are hindus who fall into the standard brahmin-kshatriya-vaishya-shudra-achoot line of thinking. There were hindus who accepted any and all sexual practices. They are all hindu and there are no thekedaars of hinduism to say otherwise. If you don't like it, pick your path and follow it, no one is stopping you. but you have no right to say the minority streams of thought in hinduism are not hindu. That is most blatant disrepect towards what actually is hinduism and what actually was hinduism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Man.. you are a Legend. Tell me one thing. When did you ask for an animal's consent before killing them for pleasure (of your eating) ? I dont kill them, i go to the supermarket and buy animals that were already killed. Regardless, i can say that killing something to eat it, is the most fundamental right of life. I know you will counter with the standard vegeterianism idea of 'it doesnt have to be that way, you can be more compassionate' etc. etc, but fact is, it may be a lesser choice morally, borne out of convinience more than anything, but i am satisfying a necessity of my life by eating animals. Animal sex without consent from the animal is tantamount to rape. Rape has never been seen acceptable because of a 'necessity' of the individual, so you cannot make that comparison. And if you find any legal precedent where a rapist is enabled by the justice system because it is a 'necessity and a major convinience' for them, then perhaps your argument would have some merit. Till then, beastality by default is wrong because beastality by default is rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Bwhahahahahahahahahah Muloghonto saar, how the fark is one supposed to get the consent of a horse before someone starts anally penetrating it? :hysterical: More gyaan awaited I want you to think on this: what really is wrong between two consenting adults having sex ? Is there anything wrong in it ? If the answer is no, well then what really was wrong in an adult and a God having sex ? Was there anything fundamentally wrong in Abhimanyu, who is part God ( due to his godly lineage from Indra, via Arjun) having sex with a mere human ( Viraat's daughter, who is not part God at all) ? Now lets take this thought process further. If two consenting adults from ANY species deciede to have sex- what is wrong with it ? If you cannot find a reasonable justification on why sex outside of your own species is fundamentally wrong, then the issue of beastality has only one major hurdle left: of rape. Because if consent cannot be obtained, it is, by default, rape. So as of now, any and all beastality is wrong because it is rape. In the future, if someone invents a gadget to communicate with horses and the horse says 'i want to have sex with you', then, with your consent, it is not rape anymore, thus removing the major obstacle towards beastality. But till ( or if) that happens, it is by default wrong because it is, by default, rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I want you to think on this: what really is wrong between two consenting adults having sex ? Is there anything wrong in it ? If the answer is no, well then what really was wrong in an adult and a God having sex ? Was there anything fundamentally wrong in Abhimanyu, who is part God ( due to his godly lineage from Indra, via Arjun) having sex with a mere human ( Viraat's daughter, who is not part God at all) ? Now lets take this thought process further. If two consenting adults from ANY species deciede to have sex- what is wrong with it ? If you cannot find a reasonable justification on why sex outside of your own species is fundamentally wrong, then the issue of beastality has only one major hurdle left: of rape. Because if consent cannot be obtained, it is, by default, rape. So as of now, any and all beastality is wrong because it is rape. In the future, if someone invents a gadget to communicate with horses and the horse says 'i want to have sex with you', then, with your consent, it is not rape anymore, thus removing the major obstacle towards beastality. But till ( or if) that happens, it is by default wrong because it is, by default, rape. :hysterical::hysterical: So having sex without animal's consent is rape but killing them is not = murder.Also all dairy farmers touch udders of cows without their consent .All of them too should be charged with molestation.Anyway putting something in vagina without consent is also rape but humans impregnate cows buffaloes and other mammals without their consent through artificial insemination so humans are already raping animals at much larger scale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 :hysterical::hysterical: So having sex without animal's consent is rape but killing them is not = murder.Also all dairy farmers touch udders of cows without their consent .All of them too should be charged with molestation.Anyway putting something in vagina without consent is also rape but humans impregnate cows buffaloes and other mammals without their consent so humans are already raping animals at much larger scale No, look up the definition. Murder cannot be applied to animals that are killed for food. A tiger does not murder you to eat it, it kills you. You dont murder terrorists sentenced to death, you execute them. Murder, by definition, is killing for a wrongful purpose. Killing a creature to eat it, does not satisfy the definition of murder. PS: i do not know the fineries of the legal discourse. I thought for it to be rape, you must derive sexual pleasure from it. I may be wrong but under such a definition, we are not raping farm animals, we are molesting them. Which, IMO, is unsavoury but justifiable, since natural rates of fertilization could never keep up with the global demand for meat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 stay tuned ... he might tell us how killing is ok rape is not. :haha: You have already missed the bus, i have already commented on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 No, look up the definition. Murder cannot be applied to animals that are killed for food. A tiger does not murder you to eat it, it kills you. You dont murder terrorists sentenced to death, you execute them. Murder, by definition, is killing for a wrongful purpose. Killing a creature to eat it, does not satisfy the definition of murder. PS: i do not know the fineries of the legal discourse. I thought for it to be rape, you must derive sexual pleasure from it. I may be wrong but under such a definition, we are not raping farm animals, we are molesting them. Which, IMO, is unsavoury but justifiable, since natural rates of fertilization could never keep up with the global demand for meat. Rape is a legal term described by various countries differently.In india even if you put your ---- in --- of a man even forcibally ,you are not charged with rape you can be charged with section 377 if it stays.I don't think any country define rape if a man put his dick in animal's ass or vagina .So that term cannot be used I am sure all animals in India must be celebrating after supreme court's decision as it is the law which is applicable on them too:cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 jjnrLt3VuSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Rape is a legal term described by various countries differently.In india even if you put your ---- in --- of a man even forcibally ,you are not charged with rape you can be charged with section 377 if it stays.I don't think any country define rape if a man put his dick in animal's ass or vagina .So that term cannot be used I am sure all animals in India must be celebrating after supreme court's decision as it is the law which is applicable on them too:cantstop: Err the US,Canada, etc. defines rape as deriving non-consensual sexual pleasure from physical contact with genitalia of another person. Pretty sure ultimately beastiality in the western world is illegal either due to legislation derived from the bible or from the rape point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts