Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 5th July 2009, 01:44   #136
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Panjim, Goa
Posts: 362
Thanked: 156 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
come on now. i am making a sincere effort as to what part of my opinion you do not agree with. hence the question. surely you can't say my question wasn't a fair one. i would really like to know what it is about "unnatural" that really riles you.
Ahem! Well, the gays on this forum paid me 50 bucks to advocate on their behalf for an hour (yup, I know I am cheap) and their money has run out. Unless they pay me another 50 bucks, I am going to watch this documentary produced by kevin smith - "Small town gay bar" The coffee is ready as well.
Astleviz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 01:59   #137
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi View Post
I agree, lol.

Here's an article from the Times we might find interesting, especially someone else who quoted Animal planet and National Geographic. Wrong example, lol.

The highest population of same-sex or gay relationships amongst all animals is with Bottlenose Dolphins.

Toads have sex with both sexes of ther species.

One fourth of all bearded vulture mountings are male-to-male.

The rest of the article here: Lesbian albatrosses and bisexual bonobos have last laugh on Darwin - Times Online

Quite funny actually.

And Hell Rider, more than 10% of all reptile offspring are eaten by their parents, I think he was quoting that example.

Guys, we really need to ease up. Too much tension in this room. Chalo, everybody, lets have a coffee and breathe slowly. Let's not spiral this thread into deletion.
LOL yeah. i've read those too. and yeah, its a great argument against the "unnatural" theory.

Sam,
trying to get this back on an even keel. humor me, if you will.

a statement was made that a gene exists for homosexuality. in actuality that is very far from the truth. a simple googling as i pointed out can clarify that.

but for the sake of this argument, lets consider that a gene does exist.

first question, how does this gene propogate itself if there is no reproduction ?? that is something for which there is no compulsive explanation at the moment. but lets ignore that as well.

now consider this,
we already know that genes determine our behavior, traits, likes, dislikes, physical attributes etc. as also our propensity to certain actions.

we know now for certain that there are a number of diseases that can be tied to specific genes.

we also know some of these genes are a result of genetic disorder. i.e. its because its a bug in nature's code, in the simplest possible terms.

so, accepting for the sake of argument that a homosexuality gene does exist, i have 2 questions :

1. certain blood disorders and other illnesses (or any genetic disorder) for e.g. can be tied to very specific genes, apparently. do you consider that natural / normal or abnormal / unnatural ?? because most of us don't have these illnesses. only some unfortunate kids seem to get it.

2. if you consider that abnormal / unnatural, would you be willing to stipulate that the gene for homosexuality, when present (speaking hypothetically again) is an aberration ???

i am really throwing up this point to get a feel of what is the real thought process when people say homosexuality is not against the order of nature. how do they rationalize that homosexuality too was as nature intended and not merely an aberration ??

IMO, there seems to be a disconnect between acceptance of homosexuals on a people level and an actual understanding of homosexuality. it seems to me that one is forced to choose sides and completely sway one way or the other.

For e.g. is it acceptable that I am completely okay with homosexuals and can be comfortable in their midst, and support the cause for their right to have sex the way they see fit, but at the same time, not accept that it is way nature intended it ??

p.s.
there was another example you failed to mention. two male gay penguins some place (i forget where) had "adopted" a stone as a baby. they were then taking turns sitting on it and taking care of it, as a regular penguin couple would. it was quite cute and funny really.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:04   #138
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astleviz View Post
Ahem! Well, the gays on this forum paid me 50 bucks to advocate on their behalf for an hour (yup, I know I am cheap) and their money has run out. Unless they pay me another 50 bucks, I am going to watch this documentary produced by kevin smith - "Small town gay bar" The coffee is ready as well.
fair enough.

well, they certainly got their money's worth. and on the bright side, at least you are getting paid for it.

cheers and enjoy the docu.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:11   #139
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Panjim, Goa
Posts: 362
Thanked: 156 Times
Default

Roy and Silo, two New York Central Park Zoo male Chinstrap Penguins, became internationally known when they coupled and later were given an egg that needed hatching and care, which they successfully did.
(source: wikipedia)

Name:  roy_silo.jpg
Views: 247
Size:  10.2 KB

From the same article-
A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied. According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found througout the animal kingdom. A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
Astleviz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:15   #140
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Sam Kapasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mumbai (but wat
Posts: 6,989
Thanked: 1,378 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
Sam,
trying to get this back on an even keel. humor me, if you will.
OK bring it on then

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
IMO, there seems to be a disconnect between acceptance of homosexuals on a people level and an actual understanding of homosexuality. it seems to me that one is forced to choose sides and completely sway one way or the other.
I agree. I don't think it is necessary to take extreme sides or have an strong opinion on homosexuality.
Just the healthy acceptance of the fact that it exists should be enough in our social structure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
For e.g. is it acceptable that I am completely okay with homosexuals and can be comfortable in their midst, and support the cause for their right to have sex the way they see fit, but at the same time, not accept that it is way nature intended it ??
Absolutely. Well put too.

And by doing that, you would have already done far more than those who either shy from it, detest and abhor it or try to cure it. None of those are necessary.
I do not know if there is a homosexuality "gene" - I do know that some men and women are born homosexual and they simply cannot help it. If nature's intention is for every man and woman to fall in love with the opposite sex, then homosexuals are clear exceptions.

You have a very healthy perspective. Personally I do not think gay people care if heterosexual people understand, advocate or even like homosexuality. You don't have to like the orientation or the people either.

All they seek is acceptance and equal human rights. Making homosexuality an offence makes gay people hide and prevents them from getting social assistance especially with regards to AIDS. Which brings us back to the appreciation of the current alteration of section 377.

And another thing that someone brought up earlier, promiscuous homosexuals that go whooping around flaunting sexuality and sexual innuendo in everything they do annoy me too. But they don't constitute all the gay population. That is just generalization. Besides, those guys are the ones that are easily identified as homosexuals and therefore stereotyped.
The majority of homosexual men are regular guys with regular jobs.

Last edited by Sam Kapasi : 5th July 2009 at 02:21.
Sam Kapasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:19   #141
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astleviz View Post
Roy and Silo, two New York Central Park Zoo male Chinstrap Penguins, became internationally known when they coupled and later were given an egg that needed hatching and care, which they successfully did.
(source: wikipedia)

Attachment 154539

From the same article-
A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied. According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found througout the animal kingdom. A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.
LOL yeah...those are the guys i was talking about. now that did bring a smile to my face the morning i read it.

EDIT:
hey thats not the one. the one i was referring to was these two guys just "adopted" a stone. an actual stone. lemme hunt for that one on google.

Last edited by hell_rider : 5th July 2009 at 02:24.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:24   #142
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Panjim, Goa
Posts: 362
Thanked: 156 Times
Default

And now for some facts and figures-

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphids. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
—Petter Bøckma
(academic adviser for the Against Nature?)

Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.
-Bruce Bagemihl
(animal researcher and author)

This does away with 2 commonly held misconceptions-
1. Homosexuality is unnatural
2. The sole purpose of sex is reproduction

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of birds displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by hell_rider View Post
hey thats not the one. the one i was referring to was these two guys just "adopted" a stone. an actual stone. lemme hunt for that one on google.
You'll find that too in the same article-
Zoos in Japan and Germany have also documented homosexual male penguin couples. The couples have been shown to build nests together and use a stone to replace an egg in the nest. Researchers at Rikkyo University in Tokyo found 20 homosexual pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Aditya : 5th July 2009 at 06:32.
Astleviz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:36   #143
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

i can't find the exact article i read. but i think its this one.
Females Flown in to P-p-p-pick Up 'gay' Penguins

and this one is good too
Wiinterrr's Day: More on the New Gay Penguin Parents...

and with that i'm off to bed. that was an extremely invigorating discussion.

and sam,
thanks for understanding i am not a homophobe.

EDIT:
ASTLEVIZ : sorry i already made above post. saw your clarification later.

Last edited by hell_rider : 5th July 2009 at 02:38.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 02:44   #144
BHPian
 
dockap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mangalore
Posts: 843
Thanked: 373 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astleviz View Post
No I still don't understand. I've always had sex for pleasure and I don't need nat geo or discovery to tell me that it's unnatural because the producers and directors of that show also have sex for pleasure. By your reasoning, using contraceptives or adopting family planning is unnatural because it prevents reproduction. By your reasoning, people who have been told by their doctors that they are infertile (not necessarily impotent) shouldn't have sex because they can't reproduce.

Oh, and since you are comparing human beings with animals, have you seen those shows on animal planet/discovery where they discuss how in some animal species, some males devour their own offsprings? If they do it, does that mean we should too? C'mon if rabbits mate only for reproduction, should all human beings who mate for pleasure be termed as unnatural? The only thing that is natural is evolution, the natural order of things dictate that the weak and the unnatural eventually die out, but gays have been around for centuries and they have only grown in number, so I don't think nature is biased against gays, then why should we be?
if you had watched those channals you would have known that humans have descended from apes

in my previous post i said that god programed sex for reproduction and continuation of the species also he made it pleasurable so that they would want to do the act
animals need to reproduce at every given chance cause in the wild only 5 to 10 % of the offspring will reach adulthood to continue the cycle of reproduction
whereas in humans due to availability of medical treatment life expctancy has increased and infant mortality is falling so if you start reproducing without contraception say from the age of 20 to 80 you can have 50 to 60 children and chances are good that all of them will survive to adulthood and thats with 1 wife if you have multiple wifes or girlfriends you can produce hundreds of children in your life time if you dont use contraception that is not viable
there should be a balance in new life and death
in wild animals they have natural method of population control like i said only 10% may survive to adulthood to reproduce due to other preadetors

in humans we need contraception cause its not normal to have a hundred children unless you are a multimillioniar or billionair in the gulf so that you can protect and feed and educate them
like wise in animals you will observe the stronger males have more females cause they can protect them and their offspring(they dont need money )

hope you understand why why contraception is normal in human beings but not in animals and why homosexual behaviour is un natural in humans and animals alike
also now you have started giving reference articles about animals in zoos with gay behaviour and in your previous post you said you are not intreasted in what animals do

Last edited by dockap : 5th July 2009 at 02:48.
dockap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 03:00   #145
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 538
Thanked: 59 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Astleviz View Post
And now for some facts and figures-

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphids. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."
—Petter Bøckma
(academic adviser for the Against Nature?)

Bagemihl devotes three chapters; Two Hundred Years at Looking at Homosexual Wildlife, Explaining (Away) Animal Homosexuality and Not For Breeding Only in his 1999 book Biological Exuberance to the "documentation of systematic prejudices" where he notes "the present ignorance of biology lies precisely in its single-minded attempt to find reproductive (or other) "explanations" for homosexuality, transgender, and non-procreative and alternative heterosexualities.
-Bruce Bagemihl
(animal researcher and author)

This does away with 2 commonly held misconceptions-
1. Homosexuality is unnatural
2. The sole purpose of sex is reproduction

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of birds displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh man !!! i was almost off to bed.

okay,
to begin with i never said homosexuality does not exist in the animal kingdom.

to proceed i need to know if we are both on the same page when it comes to what we are actually mean when we say "nature". Are you referring to the animal kingdom as "nature" ? because we humans too are "nature".

when i refer to nature, i am talking solely about the instincts at the genetic level of every living organism on the planet.

i already raised a couple of questions with respect to genes and homosexuality and illnesses in my post to Sam. What are your opinions on those.

The point I am trying to make is that just because something happens does not necessarily mean it is as nature intended it. because like i said earlier, if you consider that genetic disorders or genes that cause diseases are not normal, then you have to consider that such a gene or a genetic pattern that causes homosexuality can also be considered an aberration.

i can't buy that point about sex not being only for reproduction. i mean there are countless more examples that prove otherwise. there may be creatiures that do not need the process of sex for reproduction. but in every species that sex is practiced, it is for the primary purpose of reproduction. OK, like humans, some more species as you have pointed out, may have evolved to get pleasure too out of sex, but that still does not take away from the fact.

because nature as a rule will never cause a certain organism to evolve in a certain way merely for "pleasure". every act of nature always has a practical evolutionary reason behind it, be it survival or propogation of the species.

even in the penguin example, we need to realise the fact, that the gay penguins might raise that baby very competently. but the fact remains, that their genes in turn will never propogate once they are dead. so can we say that in the order of nature, they have been weeded out of the gene pool ??

and i'd really like your opinions on the questions i raised to Sam in my post.

OK, this time i really am off to bed. but will definitely pick up here tomorrow.

g'nite guys.
hell_rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 03:01   #146
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Sam Kapasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mumbai (but wat
Posts: 6,989
Thanked: 1,378 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dockap View Post
whereas in humans due to availability of medical treatment life expctancy has increased and infant mortality is falling so if you start reproducing without contraception say from the age of 20 to 80 you can have 50 to 60 children

hope you understand why why contraception is normal in human beings
That doesn't prove that contraception is normal.

It proves that medicine is abnormal.

You have merely stated that medicine, medical treatment and all that we have fortified around ourselves to protect and safeguard ourselves is against the basic laws of nature, where only the fittest humans should have survived.

And I couldn't agree more. We are as far removed from our basic natures as we could be.

Last edited by Sam Kapasi : 5th July 2009 at 03:03.
Sam Kapasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 03:33   #147
BHPian
 
dockap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Mangalore
Posts: 843
Thanked: 373 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi View Post
That doesn't prove that contraception is normal.

It proves that medicine is abnormal.

You have merely stated that medicine, medical treatment and all that we have fortified around ourselves to protect and safeguard ourselves is against the basic laws of nature, where only the fittest humans should have survived.

And I couldn't agree more. We are as far removed from our basic natures as we could be.
yes if we really want to be natural then its naked humans living in natural caves eating raw meat and fruits and vegetables
no ac homes,cars,lcd tvs,home theater systems,pcs,videogameshmmm thats not good
i ilke these un natural things
off to bed now
dockap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 05:40   #148
BHPian
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Panjim, Goa
Posts: 362
Thanked: 156 Times
Default

hell_rider

1. What is natural? By definition, anything that is in accordance with or determined by nature. So everything that happens is natural. Earthquakes, Tsunamis, bush fires, people with 6 fingers or solar eclipse, everything is natural.

2. What we call unnatural is nothing but our inability to explain it within the realms of our reference points. A thousand years ago, solar and lunar eclipse were considered unnatural, now we know better. 500 years ago, if people saw a hundred ton of metal soaring across the sky like a bird, traveling for thousands of Km without stopping, everyone would call it unnatural. Today we have airplanes and we know that there is nothing unnatural about them as they follow the natural laws of physics to fly.

3. If a person is born with 12 fingers or with a hole in his heart, it is not unnatural. It is an aberration, but certainly not unnatural. Just because we call it unnatural does not mean that nature has changed it's course. All it means that we are witnessing a natural phenomenon that we don't see too often.

4. Nature has no morality, it is only human beings who tend to look at things from moral perspective. So it's immoral to kill or cripple a child as far as humans are concerned. But when there is an earthquake or a tsunami, nature does not make a distinction between a child and an adult, between a saint and a sinner. It destroys everyone and everything with equal disdain.

5. Human beings can only try to know or understand the natural order of things. But we really don't know. We are still learning, discovering new things. Any claims otherwise are purely pretentious.

6. If something happens, it is because nature allows that to happen and therefore perfectly natural. Whether we perceive that event to be natural or unnatural is merely our perception.

7. Just because something is uncommon or rare doesn't make it unnatural. Our perception of natural is defined by what is common. If we don't see something too often and when that event occurs, we call that unnatural. This year there was virtually no winters in some parts of Rajasthan (if you compare it to the temperature over the past few years). many people thought it was unnatural. It wasn't unnatural, it's just that we didn't quite understand why it was so warm during winters and therefore we thought it was unnatural. But the fact is that there was a reason for that.

8. The sole purpose of sex is not reproduction or propagation of species. This was a misconception that has now been proved wrong. That is one of the purpose. Almost all the species of animals indulge in bi/homosexual acts. And we are not talking about a few specimen from those species. Please go through the wikipedia links I posted earlier and you'll be surprised that 10-20% of many species are bi/homosexuals. There are over 1500 animal species in which homosexual behavior has been recorded. This proves that it is not just humans and a few other species (as you have pointed out) that use sex for something else than reproduction. Almost the entire animal kingdom is known to indulge in these supposed "unnatural acts" though in varying degrees. If you doubt this, please refer to the links I posted earlier.

9. You have mentoned "because nature as a rule will never cause a certain organism to evolve in a certain way merely for "pleasure". every act of nature always has a practical evolutionary reason behind it, be it survival or propagation of the species." What is the basis for this assumption? How can you claim to understand what nature wants or doesn't want. I have posted several links with facts and figures (from credible resources) to support my statement. I suggest that we go through all those wikipedia links unless we want to simply ignore academic research and findings and just want to argue about whose opinion is superior.

10. You have mentioned "when i refer to nature, i am talking solely about the instincts at the genetic level of every living organism on the planet". Has there ever been a scientific study to determine what that insticnt is? Or are you assuming that there is such an instinct. There are people whose basic instinct is survival, they are instinctively geared to think about their safety and at all times. There are others whi don;tcare about their lives or safety. whose instincts are natural? Most of us would say that the survivor's instinct are natural but that's because we cannot identify with or understand someone who has a deathwish.

11. The taliban thinks that anyone who does not subscribe to their flavor of religion or does not confirm to their code of conduct should be punished or even killed. For them it is the natural thing to do, for them it is unnatural to pray to Ram or Jesus or any other god. They have their own definition of what is natural or unnatural. You have your own definition, I have mine, the swedes have their own definition and the pygmies have their own. All this means is that it doesn't really matter what we as individuals think. It doesn't matter what we consider to be natural or natural because nature does not follow the rules that we have ascribed for it. We have not yet fully grasped all the laws of nature, we don't yet fully comprehend why certain things happen.

12. To end this discussion, the only honest thing we can say is that "We really don't know". We are trying and we have figured out a few things, but there is so much yet to be learnt that thinking that our belief is the universal truth is mere vanity. This applies to me and you and every human being on this planet. And till we really don't know, it is unfair and retrogressive to judge other people and condemn them as sick or perverts or unnatural just because we don't understand why they do or say certain things.

I am not trying to say that I am right and you are wrong. I am saying that we are all semi-ignorant (or partially learned) and none of us can claim to represent what is right or true or natural in this world.

This is my last post on this topic since I'm off to Delhi shortly from where I'm driving down to Leh-laddakh. But I have tried to pen down everything I had to say in this matter, and if anybody has a difference of opinion, I respect that. But he should extend the same courtesy to me and to those who think, act or look different from them (including the LGBT brigade).

And to make matters clear, I like women. Pretty women. Curvaceous women. Smart women. Funny women. I like them all.

Last edited by Astleviz : 5th July 2009 at 05:45.
Astleviz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 07:31   #149
Senior - BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mumbai
Posts: 1,945
Thanked: 1,878 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by huntrz View Post
Dear Milecruncher, I felt I narrowed it down as much as I can but if you think otherwise please refer to my explanation below.




Sam-
I call it a disease and a social disease to be precise. It has the potential to create a social chaos. In the process of accepting the people who are gay by birth or by chance, we are giving our future generations the option of being gay by "choice". Give it a thought. Its a double edged sword. I appreciate that you are ready as a parent to support your kids if they happen to be gay(and so will I) but would you like to be the one to show them the path towards homosexuality. Would it be a natural choice for you. I hope you understand the gravity of the situation.

Let me be candid here.
I am a smoker and the first time I puffed a cigarette was due to 2 reasons-
1. out of curiosity
2. cigarettes were easily available.
And then I was addicted to it.

I didn't graduate to marijuana because it wasn't easily available.

Is it so difficult to understand that by allowing hommosexuals to assert themselves in open public we are handing over an easily available and socially acceptable option to our future generations to try their hands on. Ten years down the line my experience with cigarettes could be replaced with some one's experience with homosexuality.

We cannot do anything for the curiosity factor but shall we not endeavor to make things difficult to access which we feel that our kids shouldn't voluntarily opt for.

Decriminalizing homosexuality would encourage newer crimes in the society which we haven't thought of and we aren't ready for, simply because there the still is no clear legal provisions. There is no clear provision in law to safeguard men against rape by a man. By decriminalizing homosexuality and with Section 377 in its current form it would be reduced to proving "absence of consent".
Hate to point this out. You Dear Sir, are sounding exactly like that group called the Taliban. I am sure you like all other civilized people do not accept the Taliban's views and policies. In the same way why should we enforce any state polices on who sleeps with whom?

I am sure you would be surprised to know even with the section 377 on all our cities and towns have had a flourishing 'gay' culture. If someone wants to be gay, we cannot stop it. Yes this removal of 377 will stop the police harrasment on that section of people, which is much needed.



Female rapes have not stopped because we have an anti rape law. And no males are not getting raped just because the gays are afraid of section 377. And rape is rape, there are laws for that applicable equally to both females and males. Lets not confuse these two seperate issues here.

People will continue to experiment and decide what they want and this could include sexual preferences too, so what? For example you have chosen to smoke, I have never smoked in my life and by choice. We both had the media and the cool factor of smoking thrust into our faces, but it is still a matter of choice.

I respect the court's decision here. It clearly shows that we are an active vibrant and free society. This makes me proud to be an Indian!
apachelongbow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th July 2009, 07:50   #150
Distinguished - BHPian
 
Sam Kapasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mumbai (but wat
Posts: 6,989
Thanked: 1,378 Times
Default

Quote:
once he is 18 years old i have no problems if my son wants to smoke or consume alcohol but definately woudnt like him being gay
You have a greater chance of controlling a drug addiction (nevermind smoking and alcohol) than you have of controlling the sexuality of your children. If your child is born gay, the he is born gay. And your liking it or not has little to do with it.
Do not for a minute assume that every homosexual man's parents were OK with homosexuality or that they encouraged it or discussed it. Most parents of gay kids around the wrold would rather just not talk about it at all. Nor should you assume that every sibling of a gay person is gay too - just to prove that it has nothing to do with upbringing either.

So it honestly doesn't matter if you like it or not. And even less to do with your son being 18.

Even I would like my son to be born with 10 fingers and 10 toes, 2 arms and 2 legs. While this may be the norm, no doctor can guarantee this to me in advance. I'd like a intelligent child, but may end up with one who is not. No guarantees. And it has little to do with my likes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dockap View Post
yes if we really want to be natural then its naked humans living in natural caves eating raw meat and fruits and vegetables
no ac homes,cars,lcd tvs,home theater systems,pcs,videogameshmmm thats not good
i ilke these un natural things
off to bed now
lol I am well aware of the fabric of materialism that we have built around ourselves.

What I find amusing is that you think it is natural for a man to propel himself around using a metal contraption, to be seated in a box that is artificially cooled, to use his ambidexterity to click on little buttons that make words on a computer and to push buttons that simulate a game that can only be viewed on another invention, the screen.

All that is natural.

The Internet, pornography, 31 flavours of Ice Cream, beggar children, religious wars, protistution, pollution, world wars, rape, murder for amusement, Himmesh Reshammiya, Nazism, secularism, Satya Sai Baba, massage chairs, Antibiotics, steroids, literarure, religion, caste, botox, silicon, margeritas, kleptomania, Rakhi ka swayavar, submarines and by your own declaration, condoms too. All is this is natural.

And Homosexuality is unnatural? In short, you say that it is natural for a man to torture and kill a man for his money and possessions, but it is not natural for a man to love a man?

Last edited by Sam Kapasi : 5th July 2009 at 08:06.
Sam Kapasi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pathetic service experience at Landmark Honda, Ahmedabad rockporiom Indian Car Dealerships 4 16th June 2015 00:58
Hyderabad-Salem:Diversion Landmark? ranjitp1 Route / Travel Queries 32 21st June 2012 16:02
Game Changers - Landmark events in the Indian Automotive Scene amit_2025 The Indian Car Scene 71 12th February 2012 06:38
Panel for landmark changes in Motor Vehicle Act vbraju Street Experiences 2 2nd January 2011 13:04
A Landmark Shift in Bajaj's Advertising??? vasudeva Motorbikes 12 31st July 2009 07:05


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 17:59.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks