Court in India criminalizes homosexuality

reply to post by Astrocyte


I am a perpetual antagonist. My reply is going to be in that spirit, but know I enjoyed reading your post and appreciated much of it for many reasons.

That being said, sometimes I feel our society exaggerates the plight of gays. Is that really the worst thing we can think of as wrong in our world, or even in our own societies? I can think of other things: poverty, bullying, materialism, that if addressed, would make a far better world.

No exaggeration. If anything there isn't enough attention to the matter. Change is directly related to the attention it's given.

Now you mentioned bullying as a bigger plight. I would be interested to hear your argument separating 'bullying' from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

All that aside. I don't believe the majority of LGBT supporters are taking the position of isolating Gay Rights as the only plight in our World…. You yourself gave a list of issues. So is it so foreign a concept that we would also have a list?? And that LGBT equality would be one of them. It continues to bewilder me that people somehow assume we only recognize and or care about this one issue… I think it's absurd!

We recognize it as a big one. One among many.

dellmonty

woodwardjnr
Seems strange they want to continue this outdated colonial law, meanwhile the former colonial power is probably the most liberal country in the world when it comes to gay rights. India wants to be more oppressive than their former colonial masters.

they just don't want a bunch of panty wearing fags corrupting their society.Who can blame them?exile the fags and forbid them to dwell in a normal society would be the best.

Evidence? That's quite a large claim that they're 'corrupting' society, do you have proof? If not then you have just shown your own ignorance.

I am quoting from Wikipedia on opinion of religious leaders on this issue:

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad's vice-president Om Prakash Singhal said, "This is a right decision, we welcome it. Homosexuality is against Indian culture, against nature and against science. We are regressing, going back to when we were almost like animals. The SC had protected our culture." Singhal further dismissed HIV/AIDS concerns within the LGBT community saying, "It is understood that when you try to suppress one anomaly, there will be a break-out of a few more."[27]

Maulana Madni of the Jamiat Ulema is echoed similar homophobia in stating that "Homosexuality is a crime according to scriptures and is unnatural. People cannot consider themselves to be exclusive of a society... In a society, a family is made up of a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. If these same sex couples adopt children, the child will grow up with a skewed verison of a family. Society will disintegrate. If we are to look at countries in the West who have allowed same-sex marriages, you will find the mental tensions they suffer from."

Rabbi Ezekiel Issac Malekar, honorary secretary of the Judah Hyam Synagogue, in upholding the judgment was also quoted as saying "In Judaism, our scriptures do not permit homosexuality."

Reverend Paul Swarup of the Cathedral Church of the Redemption in Delhi in stating his views on what he believes to be the unnaturalness of homosexuality, stated "Spiritually, human sexual relations are identified as those shared by a man and a woman. The Supreme Court's view is an endorsement of our scriptures."

So the view of religious leaders of India are clearly against homosexuality.

The Indian government can always take a referendum on this issue, as India is a democratic country, and a referendum is the right way.

My personal experience of working in India with large number of people says that Indians are overwhelmingly against homosexuality.

I have already expressed my personal opinion on this matter and many other Indians have expressed as well.

I think this is it on the issue. There is no point taking it further.

We respect the views of posters here but wish to say clearly that we have no intention of legalizing gay marriages in India.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Now you mentioned bullying as a bigger plight. I would be interested to hear your argument separating 'bullying' from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I was going to go to the library, but you asked a question that I hoped you would ask.

I actually study trauma, with a particular focus on how bullying induced trauma affects adults after they leave school. It's surprising how many people, till this very day, carry the scars of childhood bullying without even realizing it. "tis the way the brain works, that we forget the reasons for "why" we feel a certain way.

Although gays/lesbians/tg are often bullied, they do not make up the majority or even a sizeable minority of the people who end up get bullied.

You know who gets bullied? The shy kids. The short kids. The heavy kids. The ethnic kids. Pretty much anyone who "sticks out" - who doesn't conform to the social norms the bully recognizes, who ends up getting bullied.

Bullying is a phenomena that cannot be analyzed in isolation, but has to be studied in relation to other phenomena, in particular, attachment problems. How many infants who experience attachment problems end up being bullied in grade school? What does attachment difficulties do to the developing personality?

A child with attachment trauma ends up having very great difficulties experiencing good affect i.e. they feel bad and stressed most of the time. This affect disorder essentially cripples their ability to connect with other human beings. Imagine a 4 year old, growing up with these problems, attending jk. How would he be seen by his peers? As someone who studies this phenomena, I can tell you, it's a difficult thing to watch. The kids who naturally experience good affect are bothered, disturbed even, by the quietness of the 4 year old with attachment difficulties. Bullying begins at this age. The quiet kid may be playing with a toy - usually by themselves - and the more expressive 4 year old will come up and take the toy from him. The affect-challenged 4 year old will generally keep his/her mouth shut. This is a difficult thing to watch, because this is dissociation. The 4 year old is so traumatized by his attachment difficulties in his early life that he wont even recognize the emotion of having a toy taken from him. He won't express his anger. He'll sit there, and take it.

Kids like this tend to grow up and be the prime targets of bullying throughout their school experience.

But not all kids who get bullied have experienced profound attachment trauma. Sometimes, their trauma is less severe. These kids will be the "shy" ones, the "high reactive" ones, who still manage to make friends, but remain very sensitive to social criticisms. Kids like this are susceptible to bullying because they lack the "masculine" i.e. assertive orientation of other kids. Being sensitive to feelings of anxiety and shame, they'll either accept the bullying as not actually being bullying, or they'll turn inwards, dissociate, and avoid.

Then theres the kids who "stick" out for external reasons. Their skin color, their weight, their height, their appearance, or their femininity (if their boys), masculinity (if their girls). I'm still talking about bullying within an elementary school environment. In high school, bullying becomes a little more complex, since with age comes greater psychological and social complexity.

When you get down to it, there are so many adults walking around nowadays who feel inhibited; who won't talk in front of certain other people - who wont allow themselves to experience a certain affect - because the affect arouses "shame" feelings. In my own dad, who is a district manager of a very large and successful retail company, who has amazing social skills, I see remnants of the bullying he experienced growing up, from his brothers, from other boys. The way this finds expression isn't through dissocation (a severe trauma response) or even anxiety. Rather, it is how he relates to the people his brain associates with bullying. He is soooooo obsequious. He'll bend over backward, tolerate insults and disadvantage. Why? Because this is how he has always functioned. In his mind, he probably doesn't recognize the reason for this behavior. But in reality, it is a "trauma" that shapes this response.

This is a subtle cognitive trauma. My dad, a successful businessman, is not even the most noteworthy example of how bullying affects how adults interact with each other. But be assured, bullying is an enormous problem that only now, in our more mature and aware civilization, are we beginning to do something about it.

I think it's absurd!

I never said it wasn't an issue. Someone shouldn't have to suffer shame, anxiety, and depression about their sexual feelings. I may not "agree", but my disagreement does not mean I want that person to stifle themselves, to never experience good affect, to essentially suffer, because I, another person, have a different awareness of what their sexual inclinations mean.

I want all people to be happy, to thrive. In order for this to happen, there has to be tolerance, there has to be acceptance, there has to be awareness of the other persons subjective experience.

My qualm was with how much attention it seems to get. Maybe i'm wrong. I haven't seen any statistical analysis of how much attention news media gives to LGBT issues verses bullying, poverty, etc.

In anycase, I suppose it's good that society is trying to increase awareness.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


You are correct a number of examples can be trotted out to show the effects of environment on child development but my point was to illustrate that my cousin even at a young age felt shame and disgust with his living situation. His grandmother was very nurturing and it wasn't until he realized what her living arrangement was like that he felt this aversion to her. By instinct he knew he should have a mother and father. The children around him knew it. His feelings turned to a general lack of disrespect because he did not recognize their authority and noted the fact that they did not conform to convention. In his teens everything he was doing was essentially to get away from them and to overcompensate for his perceived abnormality due to living arrangement from his peers.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Dear Lucid Lunacy,

I feel as though I have some small obligation to respond to your lengthy and thoughtful post. I do it rather hesitantly, however, because of your opening line to another poster; "I am a perpetual antagonist." I'm absolutely positive that you didn't mean that, unless you meant it to mean "I will always argue the opposite side whether I believe the position or not." In either case, I fear a conversation is unlikely to be productive. But "Hope springs eternal . . .," so "Tally-Ho!"

Taking away their freedom to express their 'inclinations' while giving it to another orientation is in direct violation to this:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;"

I'm afraid I don't understand you here. You're using an incorrect quote from the Declaration of Independence, and claiming that something is in violation of it. That's impossible. First you can't violate a declaration, it's not a law. Secondly, the idea that "the pursuit of happiness" means you have a right to do what makes you happy, is something no court has claimed. Third, the proper quote is:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note, that they announced only the rights given to humanity by God. There is real questioning in the US, and around the world, whether God gave Man a "right" to engage in homosexual activity. That doesn't sound like His style.

You seem to think I am focusing on sex and ironically I feel you are. Sex is just a component to an intimate relationship, but it's an important one for most people (of all orientations).

I agree with your statement completely. Sex is a component of some relationships. Sometimes for gays or straights, that's all there is to the relationship. But my point, once again, is that the only portion of a complete relationship that India, or anti-Sodomy laws, is inhibiting is the sexual portion. The only thing that you, or anyone else is asking India to change is the sexual activity portion of their laws. I'm sorry to insist, but the only issue in this case is sexual activity.

They are not somehow immune from being in error ethically because they are a sovereign nation.

Again I agree completely. Neither is the United States. We could be ethically wrong as well. Yes the Nazis are an extreme example, but you need an extreme example to make your point. Besides, I didn't realize we had shifted to an ethical discussion from a legal one.

The Nazis were attacked and conquered in order for one group of nations to impose their will on it's government. I sincerely hope you don't believe that India should be forced to surrender it's decision making power over the issue of sexual activity. We don't need to respect an approach simply because it's different. We can even make a judgment that, in our opinion, they are in error. But, unless you care to say that India has fewer rights to independence than the US, Venezuela, or any other country, and that we should order their government to make laws we like, what, exactly, do you propose to do about it?

I agree. Not only is this not about force, attempting to force belief would ultimately be futile. What I would argue for, and I think others in this thread, is simply sharing our views on the matter.

I don't understand you. Clearly, that's not what's happening here. Were that the case, we could have had one post saying, some people on ATS agree with India and others don't, and it would be done. People are, however, trying to persuade others that they have the "right" view. Why? What is the goal in persuading some ATSer in Iowa that India has it wrong? It will certainly have no effect in the US, we don't have that issue before us.

Is it an attempt to persuade people to bring pressure on India? Is it to get attention for the idea that in some parts of the world, gays have fewer rights than in other places? If that's the case, why bother? That's true of Christians, women, children, Jews, and I suppose of many other groups.

India has clearly considered the matter and decided. No one has any problem with declaring it to be different from the decision we would make. India knows that already. I'm sure they read newspapers and that our State Department has talked to them.

The battery acid in the TED talk, occurring in the Islamic world, isn't enough for us to try to stop an Islamic country from imposing the beliefs we abhor. Bush did it in Iraq, and was universally condemned. Obama is leaving the Middle-East to it's battery acid and stoning, saying we don't care enough about that to really stop it.

Let us not be so extreme here. Can't we be open to discuss and collaborate ideas? Does that automatically make someone imperialist?

Battery acid, stoning, NAZIs? I didn't think I was being extreme, but perhaps it came across that way.

The gravity of the situation concerning gay rights and denying them of it…..is of huge moral consequence to me. It's a huge huge issue.

And now, back to the legal issue. It may very well be a "huge huge issue" to you. It's not to many other people. India wants to punish that type of sexual activity, we punish bestiality and necrophilia. Again, what do you want to do? If you want to force India, by economic or military warfare to change their laws to what we happen to like, I think you're traveling down the wrong road. Why them and not Russia? They have roughly the same law. Is it because if we picked on India we might not get our nose bloodied? That sounds like a cowardly bully picking his target.

This may very well be a big issue, but even if it is, what are we proposing to do which will force India to change it's laws? They've heard both sides of the issue, up and down. They've decided. They won't listen to ATS, heck, most of the time I don't listen to ATS. Do you want Obama to do something? Do you want him to go to India and say change your laws or we'll punish you? Then when that hits the papers around the world, what result do you see occurring?

I am attempting to find common ground with these questions. I'm hoping to find some reasonable course of action. Right now, happy about it or not, this seems like a battle the US shouldn't fight with the tools it has, and would lose drastically if it tried.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It is not just the issue of US laws being right for India or not?

I see that homosexual protagonists simply do not answer critical questions - which proves they are dishonest.

Dishonest can never be ethical or correct; and we better not listen to them.

We have no interest in wrecking the family system that we have in India that has stood the test of time.

I believe that India needs to improve the conditions of women and children. Empowerment of women is specially important in the sphere of financial security and ability to raise their children in a good manner.

I strongly oppose homosexual activity, not only in India, but also in USA.

reply to post by GargIndia


Why do you oppose it so much though? why am i unworthy because i was born Gay? i am still a Human, if you don't approve of my personality, or my views fine, but just because my sexuality? why?

reply to post by charles1952

I do it rather hesitantly, however, because of your opening line to another poster; "I am a perpetual antagonist." I'm absolutely positive that you didn't mean that, unless you meant it to mean "I will always argue the opposite side whether I believe the position or not."

? O_o

More simple than that. I mean it as such:

1. One who opposes and contends against another; an adversary.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Not much else meant. Just that my posts are often not an 'agreement' post.

I will shoot a reply soon I must add though that I am also quite hesitant to do so. When you keep insinuating things like invading India and or forcing them to change their laws when my posts have not conveyed that. Clearly made a point to say that's not what I would want or am suggesting. My direct response in a recent post to the idea of 'force' was

What I would argue for, and I think others in this thread, is simply sharing our views on the matter.

Can't we be open to discuss and collaborate ideas?

I'd really appreciate it if we honored what each other types.

Anyhoot. Have a couple replies in the que to get to before I can get to yours.

reply to post by GargIndia

I see that homosexual protagonists simply do not answer critical questions - which proves they are dishonest.

Dishonest can never be ethical or correct; and we better not listen to them.

So in your mind its proven all these 'protagonists' are unethical and liars and you should never listen to them.

Gotcha.

Now I know what kind of 'peaceful and harmonious' person I am really dealing with.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Dear Lucid Lunacy,

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE ANSWERING MY LONGER POST ABOVE.

One of my many, many faults is that I am too wordy. That flaw leads me to produce posts that are difficult for people to read all the way through. I'm afraid that has happened here. At the risk of missing some subtleties, let me rephrase my last post.

1.) If you are a "perpetual antagonist," we won't reach agreement because then you won't be an antagonist anymore. What did you really mean? (Thank you for supplying an answer.)

2.) I know you are not specifically calling for military action against India. That was a basic premise of my line of thought. The central question of my thread (If there was one) was, "If you don't want to force India to change it's law, what do you and the OP have in mind for India and this thread?"

If all you, the OP, and some others wanted to do was to say "India thinks gay sex is a crime, that's terrible," fine. You done it, and sent that message by ATS to people who live in places which, for the most part, don't have that as an issue. So, why bother? No one can show it's legally or religiously in error, and appealing to a universally accepted set of basic human rights won't work, because there isn't one for gay sex.

Are you hoping to have any effect on India? Perhaps trying to raise up the American people to demand that Obama do something about it by applying pressure to India? Are you reacting (as I sometimes do) to an issue near to your heart by losing perspective? That's not always a bad thing, passion drives us to great heights, as well as to great depths.

3.) As for respecting what you type, I can assure you that I do. I wouldn't have bothered to respond at such length if I thought your work was pure piffle. I thought you wrote something that needed to be examined and discussed, and I wasn't quite clear about it. I certainly respect you, I'll let you know how I feel about your thoughts when I understand them more clearly.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by theantediluvian


Call A&E. Maybe they can send a "tolerance delegation" over and get India to believe everything you want them to believe.

Has it ever occured to you that some people think it's wrong? (I have a medical backround, and just the health issues involved alone...)

Not everyone accepts it, and you will never get them to. Almost everyone tolerates it.

Homosexuals in America went from claiming to supposedly want "tolerance," to now wanting everyone to accept/celebrate/promote their lifestyle. That's quite a leap. Whatever happened to just living and letting live? That's not good enough. Now they want marriage, and the right to tell cake decorators that they HAVE to decorate a cake for their gay wedding, even if the cake decorator's religious views are against the gay lifestyle, and gay marriage. Wouldn't it be easier to just find a cake decorator that doesn't care whether someone is gay or not? Why no! Of course not! For it is now not enough to be tolerant, but one must now SUBORDINATE one's own religion views to the views of gays, as if the views of gays and those who support the gay lifestyle are somehow more erudite, educated, and worthy, than anyone who happens to disagree with them.

Please, explain to me how a homosexual couple suing a cake decorator for not doing their cake, on religious grounds, is anything resembling TOLERANCE on the part of the gay couple suing? Explain how gay couples suing churches for not performing marriage ceremonies is TOLERANT, church's that they might surprisingly find DISAGREE with their lifestyles based on religious beliefs. Yes...very tolerant on the part of those gay couples.

Tolerance for me, but not for thee? That's what I see from the political wing of the gay community, for the last 10+ years, or longer.

Maybe India sees the road the morally weak West is going down, and doesn't want to go down the same road? Maybe someone needs to go over there and tell them they need to tolerate it, because we do, and then once they tolerate it, they better be ready to quickly accept/celebrate/ and promote it in schools, just like here. I'm sure that'll convince 'em.

This is awesome!!! Now if they would wise up here in the states things would be on the right track. In India they see through the BS gay and lesbian agenda and call a spade a spade. Here in the states we have too many whiney ass liberal tree huggers to ever accomplish anything as intelligent as this. Now in the US the only apparent people with any legal rights left are gays and atheists. Homosexuals has pissed and moaned so long that it has come to the point that opponants of homosexuality cannot speak out publically against them without fear of retribution. Private Christian store owners are forced to accept them. I am so sick of seeing this crap in the news.

The concept of marriage between man and woman has been there for ages, in ALL cultures, and has endured because it is natural, logical and ethical.

How can a man ever be compatible with another man?? It is biologically impossible.
A woman can find comfort with another woman but sex can never be satisfying (in a natural way).

Unnatural sex is invitation to disease. If unsafe practices keep on increasing, USA will soon find its medical system unable to sustain.

USA is going through a phase of experimentation which would not last. Everything has a cost. Nothing is free. Ultimately the exorbitant cost of welfare will kill all illogical and unnatural laws.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Yes, and soon you wont be able to shop in any stores, Straight will be the new Gay!

I want to summarize again my viewpoint:

1. Homosexuality is bad (including unnatural sex with woman) both ethically and healthwise.

2. The purpose of sex is procreation. The laws should support only this part. The government is not responsible for perversions and fantasies of people.

3. There is no merit in 'gay marriages' - it only legalises bad behavior. There is no merit is burdening ethical citizens with costs of caring for sick who engage in unethical and unhealthy practices.

4. The government must worry about issues that it can control - for example providing for destitute women and children, and making sure children get a healthy environment.

reply to post by GargIndia

2. The purpose of sex is procreation.

No, sex has multiple purposes. It's good exercise, it promotes feelings of well being by causing the brain to secrete dopamine and seratonin, it is emotionally and spiritually fulfilling and imbues satisfaction, it creates physical and emotional bonds, it feels good, it's entertaining and is an outlet of artistic expression like a sort of dance, it's fun and it's good for you!

Procreation is a by product of nature that comes as a surprise to the naive. It took mankind quite some time to figure out how pregnancy happens, in the first place. Procreation is a trick of nature, forcing on us what we would not always choose. It's about survival of the species and is the most animalistic part of us.

I believe that it is our "god given right" to outsmart nature and to become self determined in procreation and our responsibility to the next generation. We are no longer victims of our biology. We dictate when and if, and how many children we deem capable of bestowing our best.

No. Sex isn't all about procreation any more. Humanity is flourishing and has evolved beyond that stage in our evolution of pure survival. Now, we're incorporating altruism. We nurture and have laws that protect and provide access for the handicap. Families aren't going to wither and die because we are flourishing enough to tolerate couples that have no chance of sexual reproduction. That isn't an excuse to humiliate and alienate a sector of society anymore.

The laws should support only this part.

Laws are not meant to support religious dogma or bias. Laws are meant to protect the rights of the citizens they governs, by their consent. Unfortunately, today all too often, laws are made to support class division.

The government is not responsible for perversions and fantasies of people

Who determines what are perversion and fantasies? History shows us that many scientist were condemned for heresy for their fantasies, only to be vindicated. What will you do if science proves that "gay" is genetic or biologically based? What if "gay" is equivilent to being "left handed". How will you justify your hate?

One more thing.......

India? Really? The country that gave us the Kama Sutra! Are you kidding me? I'm pretty sure, GargIndia, Chapter Nine is too racy for you!

reply to post by windword


As there are perverts in your society, there are perverts in India.

Is 'Kamasutra' a model to be followed? No, not at all. If some medieval king engaged in sexual fantasy, that does not become gospel.

While you may engage in sex for 'fun', if you get sick, or make others sick; it is not the government's job to treat you or similar. I must make that very clear to you.

Your ideas about science, religion, procreation, and governance are all confused due to your mental state.