Court in India criminalizes homosexuality

reply to post by ketsuko


"openly gay" means people who want to use their status legally and openly.

Marriage is a basis of so many things - people are parents, inherit wealth, socialize etc.

NihilistSanta
This is nothing more than citizens in India being allowed to have their country governed the way that they want.

If you read the judgement it has some painful logic ... When presented with statistics that demonstrated decreases in things like HIV and AIDS if the legislation was left in place the response was that India is not a Western country, and that logic doesn't apply in India. (Paraphrasing)

India is a country where around 40% of women can't read with an estimated quarter of the entire population being in the same category. That also translates to the private sector where large numbers of Indian businesses don't provide employee training. Some of their schools don't even have a curriculum at all.

India is getting there slowly, but it's not a country driven entirely by educated decisions and freedom of ideas yet. In many places in India it will be very dangerous to endorse certain view points.

I believe educating citizens leads to people that understand minorities should have freedoms to make mistakes or act in legally immoral ways if they wish. That includes believing in gods I don't think are real, having hobbies that are freaking odd, and having the bestest mowhawk ever.

You know family values? Those things Americans used to have before they allowed Hollywood and government to destroy them.

I view that differently.

Committee on public information for example:

'Report the man who spreads pessimistic stories-or seeks confidential military information, cries for peace, or belittles our efforts to win the war.'

It's just one president endorsed quote from last century, there are hundreds of others. Much of the wholesome preHollywood American image appears to have been an elaborate facade. If you believe in your American constitution and your rights such as the right to bear arms or speak freely then surely you will find it hard to identify a 'golden decade' of America with family values and freedom all in one package?

Unless you think freedom is women making sandwiches and men keeping their mouth's shut I suppose.

Progressives complain about countries being invaded and national sovereignty but then condemn them when their culture and views don't mirror our own.

I think it's easy to get into bipartisan politics on this type of thing ... but the truth of the matter is not everyone with a 'progressive' view thinks that way at all.

I don't condemn India or its people, but I'm well aware that improved education amongst other things will help the country and its policies. It's a long term thing, and invading countries with some self inflated idea of purpose isn't going to be the answer in most cases.

Just because I critique India's policies it doesn't follow that I should want to invade India.

reply to post by Pinke


We hear you.

The primary issues in India remain education, poverty alleviation etc.

"Sexual freedom" can wait.

www.lifesitenews.com...

The CDC had already revealed last year that approximately 53% of the estimated 56,300 new HIV cases in 2006 were in homosexual men ,The new statistics, however, estimate the prevalence of HIV/AIDS relative to the homosexual population, which allows comparisons to other groups in the wider population. Because of the difficulty of determining the homosexual population, the CDC had to estimate. Based on a variety of national surveys, they based their statistics on the median estimate that homosexual men constitute 4 percent of the overall male population, reports RH Reality Check.

homosexual lifestyle is extremely high-risk and often leads to disease and even death

As you can see there seems to be some clear problems with being GAY

but of course information like this and the actual reason behind the court ruling is kept at sidelines

Right..so... there are two sides to a coin...its a supreme court decision , they are more informed about this than folks here passing out judgments on an entire country . DO we allow the spread of a disease such as HIV so that we can accommodate a very small percentage of a population ? I have nothing against Gays but the problems seem to be quiet clear ...

reply to post by Pinke


You act like being illiterate or uneducated is the only reasoning for a culture not openly accepting gays. As far as an American "golden-age" yes it did exist. The crime statistics, economic stats, the divorce rate, lower drug use, welfare programs, abortion stats,incarceration rate, failing education, the decline of culture and many other things can attest to this. Am I trying to go back to that age? No that ship has sailed but we can put a stop to further degradation of the family which is the foundation of any society.

People believe sensationalist news about rape in India but how about rape in America? How many women will be raped tonight after going to bars, parties, etc. I bet there are more rapes per x number of people here than in India but that wont make the news here because that's just a normal Friday night in the USA.

reply to post by maddy21


Have you read the report that more people die from MRSA than Aids?

Being Gay is not a health risk, having unprotected sex could be, and straight people do the same

reply to post by Darth_Prime

Dear Darth_Prime,

I always enjoy your contributions. They are thought provoking and come at thing from a different angle than I would expect. I appreciate your work here.

Have you read the report that more people die from MRSA than Aids?

Actually, I hadn't, so I looked it up. It was reported in 2007 for data from 2005. Sure enough, in that year MRSA had claimed approximately 18,500, while AIDS bumped off an estimated 16,000. Both figures were estimates, but even if the numbers were reversed I would wonder what they meant.

I took a quick look at Wiki for MRSA and found this:

MRSA is sometimes sub-categorised as community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) or healthcare-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA), although the distinction is complex. . . . By 2005, identified CA-MRSA risk factors included athletes, military recruits, incarcerated people, emergency room patients, urban children, HIV-positive individuals, men who have sex with men, and indigenous populations. (Emphasis added)

It appears that, at least in some cases, MRSA kills people having homosexual sex, before the AIDS/HIV can, so it's counted as a MRSA death.

As I understand it, MRSA infection may be entirely unrelated to any action that the victim might have taken. Upon admission to a hospital, he is at risk. Whereas with AIDS and HIV, my understanding is that it is almost always brought on by unprotected sex, or IV drug usage.

Note, that I'm not assigning any blame to anyone, just wondering what the death figures for the different causes mean? Why are they significant? Why mention them?

Being Gay is not a health risk,

I don't think there are very many people who believe that it is. There may be some confusion between being gay and having gay sex, but a celibate, non-drug using gay man is unlikely to get AIDS.

having unprotected sex could be, and straight people do the same

Here, I think you are missing an important distinction. The fact that the sex is unprotected is not the driver to the spread of AIDS. In a country full of people who had only had sex with their spouses during their lifetimes, and who did not shoot up, the spread of AIDS would be largely a non-issue. The problem isn't unprotected sex, the problem is unprotected sex with people who might be HIV carriers.

Fortunately or unfortunately, homosexuals tend to have more sex partners than heterosexuals. That increases the risk of infection and speeds the spread of the disease.

In any event, a post well worth discussing. Thank you.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

There may be some confusion between being gay and having gay sex, but a celibate, non-drug using gay man is unlikely to get AIDS.

A sexually active gay man that gets tested regularly, makes sure his partner does, is unlikely to as well. Perhaps not as effective, but always using protection would also work. So I think you're confused Charles. Gay men can be sexually active and not at risk. You just have to be smart about it, like everyone else.

As for the stats on HIV/AIDS. They can change rather drastically practically overnight. In fact they have before. Not because people technically acquired it overnight (per se). The parameters of the diagnosis changed. You have AIDS when you have a certain aliment next to a specific T Cell count. What happens if they change the specified T Cell count? Well, just like that, thousands of people who didn't have AIDS now do overnight. Additionally, if they add an ailment to the definition of AIDS it would have similar affect. To add to the uncertainty here, not every country has the same parameters for the diagnosis.

Not sure how relevant that is to the discussion just thought I'd share.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Dear Lucid Lunacy,

Thanks, I think you're right that a very careful gay man can avoid HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, that's in theory only. In real life apparently, homosexuals aren't that careful. CDC tells us that male homosexuals are 4% or less of the population, but account for the majority of HIV/AIDS cases. They seem to be suffering at least 15 times as frequently as heterosexuals. I suspect they're not being as careful as they should.

The risk, it seems, doesn't bother gays enough to practice preventive measures as they could, but don't.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Thanks, I think you're right that a very careful gay man can avoid HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately, that's in theory only. In real life apparently, homosexuals aren't that careful. CDC tells us that male homosexuals are 4% or less of the population, but account for the majority of HIV/AIDS cases. They seem to be suffering at least 15 times as frequently as heterosexuals. I suspect they're not being as careful as they should.

For the sake of discussion lets isolate gay men. Understanding of course both gay men and gay women fall under the homosexual category.

I strongly feel you're too quick to conclusively connect one thing with another. This idea it's due to gay men not being as careful as their heterosexual counterpart.

What if…. gay men are being just as reckless as the rest. The difference being the nature of their sexual activity.

Anal sex increases the likelihood of HIV spreading (when unprotected) compared to unprotected vaginal intercourse. Not because they are gay, because of more micro tearing. Their demographic partakes in this activity more. It makes sense their numbers would be higher. It doesn't necessarily imply they're 15x more reckless, it could just be, all things being equal (all orientations having unprotected sex), their sex just happens to transfer it at a higher rate. My point is, if the same percent of heterosexuals engaged in anal sex, and as often, their statistics may very well be on par. Ultimately the answer is the same though. Everyone should get tested, require their partner get tested. Use protection. This would be true for all orientations, and not just for homosexual men even though anal sex has a higher transmission rate. So the answer isn't to outlaw gay sex, it's providing adequate healthcare and education.

I request people not to make this thread a comparison or merits of types of sexual activity.

The simple fact is India is a conservative society. Indians are still quite traditional and religious.

Law enforcement has to worry about reactions of people at large to the legislation. The laws have to fit the people.

The traditional attitude in India is that sex is for procreation, which is only possible one way.

The laws are there to protect the family system, inheritance system, social harmony etc.

NihilistSanta
reply to post by Pinke

 

You act like being illiterate or uneducated is the only reasoning for a culture not openly accepting gays.

GargIndia
reply to post by Pinke

 

The primary issues in India remain education, poverty alleviation etc.

"Sexual freedom" can wait.

It's easy to belittle an issue like this, or try to make some claim that I'm trying to say that 'education' haughtily enables sexual freedom and people who disagree with me are dumb ... but ...

Education impacts poverty, freedom, understanding and also the empowerment of women. I doubt most persons would disagree that education is a fundamental stepping stone to women's rights. The empowerment of women is a yard marker for progress as far as I'm concerned, and I think one day a lot of people will feel the same way about gay people.

The empowerment of women and the acceptance of individual freedom and choice should be something that people crave and look forward to ... and if you honestly believe that a law against a particular type of oral sex is the only thing between complete moral collapse then you have more to worry about than my leftist views.

As far as an American "golden-age" yes it did exist.

When?

I bet there are more rapes per x number of people here than in India but that wont make the news here because that's just a normal Friday night in the USA.

If you hate America so much, why don't you move to India? I'd avoid the Northern part, they have things like honor killings there, but you know there are large parts of it that are really nice.

maddy21
DO we allow the spread of a disease such as HIV so that we can accommodate a very small percentage of a population ? I have nothing against Gays but the problems seem to be quiet clear ...

When was the last time a gay person infected you with AIDs or HIV?

The major spreading factor of HIV is frankly the sexual drive of men. The only reason heterosexuals spread less HIV is because women are involved in the process. The same goes for a whole lot of negative things actually ... I wouldn't for a moment suggest that we start legislating against all men on a regular basis, but that's the precedent you're setting.

Men are more likely to kill. More likely to be in car accident. More likely to rape. Why should women have to put up with men's problems? Lets dismiss male freedom, and remove their ability to drive and hold sharp implements and guns. It's only fair after all, why should women have to put up with the spread of violence to accommodate men?

I have nothing against men, but the problems seem to be quite clear.

reply to post by GargIndia


Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with your other points

but…

The traditional attitude in India is that sex is for procreation, which is only possible one way.

That's not true.

Gay people procreate all the time through surrogate mothers and insemination. You can argue the 'unnaturalness' of that if you so desire but it doesn't negate that gays can and do procreate.

Yes I realize your points about culture. As other members have suggested, change starts somewhere. Perhaps it's a delicate balance between appeasing to a populace and ushering in changes that 'rock the boat'. Change is required for any culture though, regardless of how much they don't seem to want it. This has been true for all cultures, and will continue to be so.

reply to post by Pinke

The major spreading factor of HIV is frankly the sexual drive of men. The only reason heterosexuals spread less HIV is because women are involved in the process.

Wait what?

Okay I agree with your points about feminism. I'm a feminist myself. (feminism being that I agree with gender equality and that I recognize a lack of it!)

The majority of HIV spreading is no different than the spreading of any other STI. To attribute it to sex drive in of itself is ridiculous when the prevention is obviously awareness of one having one (getting tested) and using protection. That's clearly a sufficient prevention regardless of drive.

Now to say it's the sex drive of men are you meaning to isolate gay men?? Otherwise you're bringing women into the picture. If you do so then how are women not equal participants in sex?? How is their willingness to have protected sex, or be aware of their sexual health or that of others, not equally on them? If it's not, then how is that not counter to female empowerment? Surely they have the strength and will power like men to get tested and make sure the guy is using protection.

Sorry if I completely misunderstood you.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Not that I am necessarily disagreeing with your other points

but…

The traditional attitude in India is that sex is for procreation, which is only possible one way.

That's not true.

Gay people procreate all the time through surrogate mothers and insemination. You can argue the 'unnaturalness' of that if you so desire but it doesn't negate that gays can and do procreate.

Yes I realize your points about culture. As other members have suggested, change starts somewhere. Perhaps it's a delicate balance between appeasing to a populace and ushering in changes that 'rock the boat'. Change is required for any culture though, regardless of how much they don't seem to want it. This has been true for all cultures, and will continue to be so.

There is no provision for surrogate mother in Indian law. Surrogacy is happening but it is looked as a medical procedure only. But there are many problems when a person outside marriage is involved in child birth. For example, take the case of inheritance. How family wealth is passed on if the child has one parent outside marriage?

Marriage is a very important institution which has many implications in a "social" context. I would in fact argue that sex is a secondary aspect of marriage.

reply to post by GargIndia

I would in fact argue that sex is a secondary aspect of marriage.

I would argue the same! Although I would argue it a close second to communication!

You're very tied to how your society is running right now and how it shouldn't change….

…as you said….India is very conservative. This mentality is very conservative.

No change. Change is bad.

I myself represent an extremely leftist progressive approach. I'm the opposite of this mentality.

I dont respect tradition or culture for the sake of culture. I believe that our sense of morality has to transcend it and think globally. In doing so I recognize certain moral travesties that no culture should have. Culture is not immune from a global and growing understanding of ethics and morality.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Pinke

 

Wait what?

Primarily being facetious pointing out that blaming people for sexuality, gender, and race is inappropriate.

Now to say it's the sex drive of men are you meaning to isolate gay men??

On a slightly non-facetious point ... I believe sex drive encourages reckless sex. I believe men have a higher sex drive. I believe gay men have disproportionately higher instances of HIV partly because of this. Allow gay men to be public and forge relationships = less HIV.

Therefore I think it's ludicrous to use HIV as a marker. We've had a similar conversation once before so I imagine is maybe familiar with my logic? Or not.

Regarding HIV in heterosexual relationships ... complex topic. In my experience men are more likely to desire unprotected contact etc etc ... but is not really something I think is significant or that I'd bring up when being facetious. The point is if we're blaming gay men for being men, I imagine it opens the door to blame them for other things too.

Then perhaps we can start blaming heterosexual people for spreading STDs as well and finally start the United Lesbian Government of Awesome!

I'm being facetious again >.<

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


I understand your viewpoint.

You must understand that most people in our society are struggling for a sound financial support.

At least 50% of population is suffering from some form of mal-nutrition.

Any laws that disturb social harmony cannot be good.

Now from humanitarian aspect, I agree that a same sex couple should not be criminalized, though I strongly disapprove of such behavior.

God has made man and woman; and assigned specific roles to them - to bear and raise children in a healthy and sound way. We should respect the natural laws as they are.

Both man and woman have specific capabilities and disposition; and both mother and father are needed for sound upbringing of child.

I know this as I am a father, and I know my wife is so critical to my children.

Everybody should appreciate that a same sex couple can "arrange" to have a child, but can never provide emotional and material support a normal couple could.

reply to post by GargIndia


I was drunk when I made my lasts posts. Apologize if it was conveyed as such!

Still, I will take the antagonist position here again.

You must understand that most people in our society are struggling for a sound financial support.

I do. I mean I think I do. This is a strife all societies suffer. Even the "imperialist America" has a large populace that is struggling for financial support. Support I believe they can and should have potentially if only we valued it.. Regardless, that's not at all a unique phenomena in the World. Not that I am undermining the gravity of India's situation. I am not.

At least 50% of population is suffering from some form of mal-nutrition.

A very unfortunate fact One that I think your society and others should feel of importance and contribute towards! I understand it would take precedence over other matters. There are basic needs that need to be met.

Any laws that disturb social harmony cannot be good.

That I strongly disagree with. Again, this ties into the idea of change always being bad I was mentioning before. If a society views their current state of being as the ideal state of equilibrium it leaves zero room for growth right? Stagnation is death, as they say. Where in that mentality is the idea for making changes? Truly? Of course a law that is "counter-culture" is going to 'ruffle feathers'. That's inevitable. People in general resist change, but that doesn't mean change is necessarily bad for the people. Here in America we have this idea of protecting the minority from the majority. If we always appeased to popularity then the minority would be screwed, and in our eyes so would be social justice.

Now from humanitarian aspect, I agree that a same sex couple should not be criminalized, though I strongly disapprove of such behavior.

In my opinion those two are not mutually exclusive. In the sense that if you 'disapprove' of their behavior at a legal level then your are very much criminalizing them. How do you think you can agree they shouldn't be criminalized? What to you does that entail? Is it, what I mentioned before in previous posts, the notion that they are 'allowed' to be gay but not allowed to act on it? Again, in the spirit of humanitarianism, where is the recognition of the nature of sexual orientation. That any orientation, gay or straight or bi, is an underlying phenomenon that happens regardless of acting it out. To fail to recognize the lack of choice is a social injustice in of itself.

God has made man and woman; and assigned specific roles to them - to bear and raise children in a healthy and sound way. We should respect the natural laws as they are.

I don't believe in any god that has intervened. I don't believe god has assigned any roles to anyone. Your culture and your religion claims these divine truths but it does so without evidence just like all the other religions claiming the same. Why should I, or anyone else, believe your religion's claims are more true than the other religious claims that are contrary to yours?..

Both man and woman have specific capabilities and disposition; and both mother and father are needed for sound upbringing of child.

Clearly not true. We have countless examples of single moms and single dads raising kids successfully. Additionally, countless examples of gay parents doing the same. Failing to recognize that is either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance on the matter.

Everybody should appreciate that a same sex couple can "arrange" to have a child, but can never provide emotional and material support a normal couple could.

Sorry everyone shouldn't appreciate that. That's horribly wrong. Same sex couples can and do provide the emotional support needed. See the fact you don't see it, or believe in it, is clearly why this seems so foreign and unviable to you. So read forums and talk to us. I am confident if you do you will see that gay couples can and do raise successful families..

Invest in private prisons in India.