Court in India criminalizes homosexuality

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Dear Lucid Lunacy,

As you have had the courtesy (and patience) to write to me twice, please allow me to respond to your more recent post, which amplifies your point from the first post to me.

Focusing on sex itself is erroneous. It undermines the whole issue, by not appreciating the full scope of sexual orientation. Gay people don't just want to have gay sex. They want the same things heterosexuals do. Companionship, romance, commitment, love. The freedom to have an intimate relationship. Sex, just like in heterosexual relationships, is merely a component of that. It's only one aspect of the drive underlying their orientation. Would it not be undermining heterosexuality if all we attributed to it was sex sex sex?

I don't see why focusing on the sex act, in this case, is erroneous. Last night, I spent two and a half hours orally conversing with two men I had only known through their internet words. We are laying plans to meet, if circumstances allow, in some city convenient to all of us. We expect to have buffalo wings or sandwiches, beer or soda, and much more conversation.

In the most complete sense, I love these two men I have never met, and would rush to their aid if necessary. Any gay or straight could do the same thing. Either or both of them could move in with me, should circumstances require. I have shared sleeping quarters with men at times in my life, and have never had the slightest urge towards homosexual desire or behavior. There have been times when my job required me to be so committed that I was prepared to die for another person.

What, then, is left that the homosexual feels he (or she) is lacking? Only sex, and the romance that leads up to it. Everything else can be obtained without reference to sexual orientation. It is about sex, and it is why I shouted in my last post, wondering why sex was so unique and untouchable among all of our drives. Why is sex the only drive we must give free rein to?

Anyway, again I appreciate your patience.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


It's more than okay if you don't reply. No obligation. I appreciate that you did though

I suppose what I could have said was "Do homosexuals see that there is no difference between a law prohibiting certain sexual actions, and the inclination to engage in those acts?" My belief is that, legally, there is a difference.

This distinction is precisely what I have been attempting to discuss. Sure yes legally they've made a distinction. Here in the States that distinction would be ruled Unconstitutional. Why? Never mind that they are a different culture for now (ill get to that soon). Just the idea that being gay and having sex are distinct from one another. 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;"

This isn't for India atm this is for our discussion. 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). The point isn't that sex is all gay people desire. When they feel they wish to express it with their partner or lover they should be allowed to if said nation values liberty. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness go hand in hand. If you take away the freedom to express an orientation your stripping them of their ability to be happy. If my heterosexual parents had not been able to have sex they would have been miserable. Does that mean sex is all they wanted from each other?? No! It means they would have been denied the fullness of the experience the two desired for each other. The fullness of the intimacy they felt was so right...

They didn't come up with the same answer you did. Are they required to?

No.

They have determined that homosexual activity harms their society. All of society is the victim.

They are not somehow immune from being in error ethically because they are a sovereign nation. Extreme example. Hitler and his Nazis. Just to exemplify the point. Clearly we don't feel a need to respect their ways simply because they are of a differing culture. We have no moral reservations making judgements there. Obviously an extreme example, but I will be continuing that line of thinking albeit more mildly.

Do you or I understand their culture and history well enough to tell them they are wrong? Of course we don't.

I would say yes.

As I mentioned before I am admittedly quite 'leftist' and 'progressive' and it's clear you represent the other side of that spectrum. Hopefully we can find some middle ground here. Yes is my answer, and I don't think it requires us to know their culture or history that well necessarily. Just our own. Did that sound imperialist enough?

Before I continue I want to be clear about something. In fact I will use your quote for it:

One of those definitions is the imposition of culture and beliefs on another country or people. Never mind the fact that you can't force anyone to accept a belief

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. It seems people are so sensitive to even simple conversation on the matter that from them they cry foul saying "you're trying to force your culture on us!!". Let us not be so extreme here. Can't we be open to discuss and collaborate ideas? Does that automatically make someone imperialist?

That said. Again my answer to your question is yes. Yes I do think we understand enough to be able to make a value judgement. I'm going to mention another rather extreme example. Let's take the instances of girls and women being punished for being raped. They are raped and they're punished for it. Are we supposed to take an apologist position here and just raise our shoulders while saying 'We may not understand it. However, they have an established culture'.

Here is an excerpt from a TED Talk from Sam Harris. He illustrates the point better than I could.

Now, this brings us to the sorts of moves that people are apt to make in the moral sphere. Consider the great problem of women's bodies: What to do about them? Well this is one thing you can do about them: You can cover them up. Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as "wrong" in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?

Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?

Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her. What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?

Again obviously extreme examples. Please appreciate the underlying idea. This idea that we have nothing of merit to add to the conversation simply because we are not living in India. I don't agree. With all my being I don't agree.

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. I'm not attempting to put it on the same plane as the holocaust! But I certainly wouldn't dismiss the matter as 'Oh well we have other bigger issues in the World'. Yes we do, and this is one of them.

We are not dealing with a traditionally accepted human right upon which the world agrees. This is a case of GargIndia telling us, quite properly, to mind our own business.

And now I hope it's clear what my response to that would be.

Spent less time on this one :/ Busy with web work.

Do they ever write "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be greedy, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like theft?" Do their fingers ever type out "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be angry, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like murder?" Can they stand up and say "Imagine a world were you are allowed to be full of hatred, but not allowed to act it out in an observable way like racial discrimination?"

So for this to be analogous to the scenario I wrote we would be making homosexuality akin to anger, greed, and hatred. In the sense it's a negative thing in of itself…

In the most complete sense, I love these two men I have never met, and would rush to their aid if necessary. Any gay or straight could do the same thing. Either or both of them could move in with me, should circumstances require. I have shared sleeping quarters with men at times in my life, and have never had the slightest urge towards homosexual desire or behavior.

That's because you're not of the homosexual orientation.. You just gave a scenario so far abstracted from what I am talking about I really don't know how to respond to this. Now describe a situation where you were spending time with a woman, whom you were romantically and or sexually attracted towards. Then we will discuss the circumstances surrounding it. We'll explore whether there is a space between platonic feelings and just straight up sex that includes intimacy and romance you would not otherwise share with a person.

What, then, is left that the homosexual feels he (or she) is lacking? Only sex, and the romance that leads up to it.

The way I see it and feel about it is that sex is merely part of whole. It's no less and no more important than the other aspects. To attribute importance to sex is not to say it's of more importance. It's simply acknowledging how most people feel inclined to manifest their respective orientation. Sex only appears to be of huge importance because it's that aspect that's being denied.

Why is sex the only drive we must give free rein to?

It's clearly quintessential to the well-being of people. Most people. While recognizing that truth it becomes a matter of giving free rein to it under reasonable constraints. Is it consensual? Is there a victim involved?

We have to learn to put controls on our instincts and inclinations.

Let's be objective here. One orientation is being provided the freedom to practice restraint and the other is forcefully being restrained. If what you believed in was 'learning' to do it, that would entail all people having the freedom to restrain or not.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by GargIndia

 

Laws being dictated by religious thought should not be allowed, that is the supposed separation between church and state,

not everyone follows the same Dogma, for a Government to say "God doesn't believe in homosexuality" so it's outlawed and if you don't believe in the Bible sorry not sorry, that is wrong

My friend - people and religion are inseparable.

The structuring of society that you see (conversion of a tribal/lawless society into a structured/lawful society) is due to religion.

You can choose to ignore the role of religion in your own life, but that would be your personal view.

The knowledge gained by saints is already 'seeped into' society and has converted into human laws.

You have chosen not to answer other mundane issues - like inheritance, if either the sperm or egg comes from a partner outside marriage for child bearing.

reply to post by GargIndia

The structuring of society that you see (conversion of a tribal/lawless society into a structured/lawful society) is due to religion.

Just as one example this years 'happiest country' went to Denmark. They have a fairly high atheist population and stand apart in their secular values. Something to consider when positing the necessity of religion in society.

References if you want to how 'happiest country' was determined:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
unsdsn.org...

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


The communist countries claim to have almost all atheist population - for example China, former USSR etc. but do not have very happy people.

You can always find an example - this way or that way - often that proves nothing.

The modern world has a very corrupted form of religion - so it is not surprising that people are unhappy.

However an atheist society often turns into a moral-less and lawless anarchy. You have to consider that too.

GargIndia

You can always find an example - this way or that way - often that proves nothing.

For now I will give you that but it extends to examples you would give to religion as well.

The modern world has a very corrupted form of religion

Again something every religion claims. Each one claiming they have the ultimate truth and all other religions are corrupt. I don't believe you over them. Belief on my part will require more than faith.

However an atheist society often turns into a moral-less and lawless anarchy. You have to consider that too.

Consider it, yes. Believe you're correct, no. This is the mentality that atheists are somehow void of morality. That's not true.

I often use my mother as an example for this. She worked as a doctor when she was younger dedicating her life to healing the sick (which you said was a spiritual quality). Later she started a residential care home for the medically fragile. Our family, under her guide, literally cares for many children and teens with severe medical conditions 24/7. Because their parents (often religious) were either really bad people or (to no fault of their own) didn't have the medical expertise to care for them. This is what my family dedicates its time to. My entire family is atheist.

Just one example among an ocean of them.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


You are NOT an atheist. You simply do not believe in the Christian version of God.

A human that does the right things (10 rules - please read thread by VedaTruth on ATS) is a lover of God.

You do not have to know God or believe in God. This happens automatically.

As regards gay people, I told you earlier that both man and woman are needed to raise a child successfully. A family unit with two male parents would find it hard to raise a girl child. Similarly a family unit with two female parents would find it hard to raise a male child. Often a boy needs a mother badly for emotional support and vice-versa.

reply to post by GargIndia

You are NOT an atheist.

You do not have to know God or believe in God.

So that was your response to atheists having morality? Okay. I will infer what I will.

You're changing the definition to fit your needs. If you don't believe in god(s) you're an atheist. It's what it means. I didn't really understand your point though.

A human that does the right things (10 rules - please read thread by VedaTruth on ATS) is a lover of God.

I can do you one better. How about I read many of the Upanishads? Then in college I focus on the philosophy of religion and take multiple courses in Eastern religion and mythology? Meanwhile, around the time ATS first starts up befriend a member who is very familiar with the Vedas and regularly posts about it. Would that be an acceptable substitute Please don't presume to think I am completely unfamiliar simply because I don't share you faith.

As regards gay people, I told you earlier that both man and woman are needed to raise a child successfully.

Yes you did. You told all of us this. And you defined success as providing 'emotional' and 'material' support.

You're wrong. It's that simple. There is countless examples of you being wrong.

According to what you just said we should never see an example of a single mother or single father providing the care the child needs. This has happened. Many times. So you're wrong. Can you acknowledge this?

Now the same is true for gay couples. There are many countries in this World that have been 'gay friendly' for a while. This ship has already sailed my friend. Many people have already been raised by gay couples. And they turned out…. more or less indistinguishable from people that were raised otherwise.

reply to post by GargIndia



It is my belief to have a religion or not, but one cannot use religion to set laws and rules that i don't abide by due to the diversity of belief

as far as inheritance that is something one can work out with the surrogate i am sure

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Which Upnishad did you read? Can you tell me the names of the Upnishad?

I would be very happy to discuss Veda with you. Let us see what you know.

A single parent can raise a child successfully if supported by extended family. The extended family includes grand-parents, aunts, uncles etc. I have seen plenty of single parents who live alone struggling with needs of children. So maybe in your society it works better. Not in India.

India does not have social welfare provided by the government as it exists in many European countries and even USA.

The children raised by single parents (also where parents do not spend time with children) are often suffering from personality disorders, eating problems etc.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by GargIndia

 

It is my belief to have a religion or not, but one cannot use religion to set laws and rules that i don't abide by due to the diversity of belief

as far as inheritance that is something one can work out with the surrogate i am sure

Religion is nothing but a set of beliefs. Even you have beliefs which may be contrary to established set of beliefs.

If laws are set by "diversity of beliefs", then there will be no enforceable laws as every human has ability to think independently of all others (This is a faculty given by God to humans - intuition and discretion, which does not exists in animals).

You need to give me specific examples of laws as it exists in your case.

reply to post by NihilistSanta

The above is the issue. India has 2.5m gays out of 1bil people. Democracy and freedom is allowing the culture to govern itself not when you force the other 99% of people to bow to the demands of 1 percent.

Homosexuality is thought to be between 3-10% of a populace. So using the most conservative 3% we get a figure of 30 million not 2.5

However the population is 1.237 billion so we get the conservative figure of 37,110,000 gay people.

Let me know if I did the math wrong. Not my strong suit.

reply to post by GargIndia


Criminalizing Homosexuality due to religious reasons being one that this topic is dealing with

before Gays not being allowed to get married or recognized due to Religious reasons,

that would be like an atheist leader saying all prayer is illegal, and churches demolished, or a Gay leader criminalizing straight people, look at it from the other side would you like it?

reply to post by Darth_Prime

look at it from the other side would you like it?

I am interested to hear what he has to say considering he said his religion brought peace and harmony to everyone.

reply to post by GargIndia

Which Upnishad did you read? Can you tell me the names of the Upnishad?

Why does that feel like a challenge and not an invitation for discussion?

I would be very happy to discuss Veda with you. Let us see what you know.

Sure. I was going to suggest you create a thread on it. Have you already that you can link me? I usually suggest a member create a thread when they claim to know absolutely the mind of God. Always interested in their argument.

So maybe in your society it works better. Not in India.

In many societies. And thank you for clarifying you didn't mean a mother and father was always necessary for successfully raising a child, and that you meant specifically in India.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


How do you know 3-10% of Indians are gay? Any references?

As regards religion, you tell me what you studied. Which Upnishad? We shall center the discussion around that.

As regards peace and harmony due to religion, it is a separate topic and we shall take that in another thread.

I have already suggested the thread by VedaTruth on ATS. It covers topics on Veda.

I have chosen not to create threads. You can create one if you like on the topic.

reply to post by GargIndia

How do you know 3-10% of Indians are gay? Any references?

Know? I don't know. Nor do you. Nor does Nihilistsanta.

Not 3-10% of India. 3-10% of humans. So any given population.

I am basing this off of my many years of reading and research. If I am wrong please someone point it out and tell me what the accurate figure is. Again, not for India, but the human populace in general. Obviously if you live in a place that strongly discriminates against your orientation you're more likely to be dishonest during polls/surveys.

This 3-10% range includes both gay men, gay women, and bisexuals.

I used the most conservative percent when I gave those numbers. Is it your position that the Indian population is less than 3%?

As for references. Sure give me a few moments and I'll dig some stuff up. Funny that you should make these demands though. Considering you've claimed absolute truths about the reality of everything and haven't backed it up despite me asking for it Still, I'll post it in a bit.

As regards religion, you tell me what you studied. Which Upnishad? We shall center the discussion around that.

I've spent a fairly considerable amount of time with Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Islam. Either academically, through practice, or discussion in forums. We shouldn't center our discussion here around it. I'm being off-topic enough as it is. Another thread would be better fit for that.

As regards peace and harmony due to religion, it is a separate topic and we shall take that in another thread.

Okay.

Lucid Lunacy


reply to post by GargIndia

 

In many societies. And thank you for clarifying you didn't mean a mother and father was always necessary for successfully raising a child, and that you meant specifically in India.

edit on 19-12-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

This is anecdotal but my cousin was raised by his lesbian grandmother on his fathers side and her partner. He has so many drug and mental problems combined with being in and out of jail probably 30 times and he is only 23. When he would come visit when I was younger he would complain about living there about how kids made fun of him and he didn't want anyone to come to his house. He didn't respect them and probably hated them and began stealing from them. After his grandmother died he was left to live with her partner and he had zero love or connection to that lady as they were not blood. The lady also has no ties to him now and kept his inheritance. This is I am sure not how it works in all cases but just putting my experience out there for consideration.

Personally, I don't think homosexuality is "natural", or intuitively recommended, but I think it is ABSURD that a government should criminalize it.

My position is not an easy one to reconcile with the society I live in. In general, I support the need to show tolerance for all peoples; to religious minorities, to gays, lesbians, transgendered; people of disparate political views.

Aye, politics is a convoluted sphere, isn't it? My religious-metaphysical sense tells me one thing, my heart-socially aware sense tells me another. I want to honor both, but in reality, I can only give one precedence.

India has made a really stupid, backwards mistake, and you know it was spearheaded by its 200 million + Muslims, as opposed to the generally more heterogeneous Hindus.

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.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


Definitely. There is no reason not to consider what you said and factor it in. It's as valid as the next experience and should be weighed into the matter. I gave some of my own earlier concerning my care home. We have taken in I believe close to 28 kids over the course of 25 so years. Some short stay, most long. These kids had parents that either didn't want to or couldn't care for them. The ones that didn't were frankly morally atrocious people. Sexual and drug and violent abuse. The vast majority of those parents were both heterosexual and religious. There was one kid though that had a lesbian mother who was also morally reprehensible and didn't care about her child.

There is a plethora of experiences that can show atheists, the religious, heterosexuals, and homosexuals, screwing up and or just being down right bad people. There is a common denominator here. We are just people. There is bound to be, for that reason, some pretty horrible gay people. Actually this should support equality. This acknowledgement that we share such common ground. Bad apples in all orientations.