[Nav-i-gator]

For setting the perspective: Put a bunch of babies in isolation and let them grow up together without any external influence. And let's see what they discover first on their own - religion or sexuality. Should be an easy guess.

Now coming to the topic of alternate sexuality being natural/unnatural - well, I don't know, and I don't care. And this is what striking down the section 377 would mean - accept people on what they are as a person, not on whom they like to be with in bed.

Criminalizing homosexuality/alternate-sexuality is wrong, and so is celebrating it. What we need is - indifference.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

For setting the perspective: Put a bunch of babies in isolation and let them grow up together without any external influence. And let's see what they discover first on their own - religion or sexuality. Should be an easy guess.

Good one!

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Now coming to the topic of alternate sexuality being natural/unnatural - well, I don't know, and I don't care. And this is what striking down the section 377 would mean - accept people on what they are as a person, not on whom they like to be with in bed.

Spot on. People need to be accepted for what they are, not because of their sexual orientation. We should be very passionate about that!!
Personally, sexual orientation I think is natural. It is just how you were born. Might and often takes people a long time to come to terms with it. They really should not have too.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Criminalizing homosexuality/alternate-sexuality is wrong, and so is celebrating it. What we need is - indifference.

In ideal world that is how it would be. But as with all change, it takes a lot to make that change. Coming out is usually a huge thing for that individual and some have done so very publicly. You could argue whether that was necessary. But it does generate a certain momentum.

Inequality, because that’s what it is, never goes away without a lot of effort. Once it’s gone and we become as you say “indifferent” we tend to forget how we made it go away.

Think about women’s suffrage (right to vote). In many countries that is and has been a given for decades. But in every country women had to fight, often for decades to get what most of us would consider a basic right/entitlement. They were out there protesting, picketing, shouting and celebrating their successes. The right to vote equally to men comes natural. Neither my wife or my daughter or any woman in the Netherlands would think otherwise or even pause to think about it. But it took a very long way to get there. When the law was changed, women could vote overnight. But that did not change the mindset of those folks, (men) who were dead against it. It took/takes a long time for these matter to become the norm to the extend we become indifferent to the topic.

Discrimination on sexuality will take a long way. First step, obviously is to ensure it is actually illegal to differentiate on sexual preference. But then it takes a long time before society at large starts accepting this new norm to the point where it is simply not a topic of debate.

We have this huge annual gay parade in the canals of Amsterdam every year.
https://www.amsterdamgaypride.nl/canal_parade/ It’s an absolute hoot!

Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in general is probably more mature in general acceptance of gays/LGBT then many other countries. But the very fact that we have such a parade/celebration is probably an indication that also in the Netherlands it might not be that accepted as we would to think / hope.

Not everybody is indifferent to it. We have some very strong religious groups and political parties here. (Very strict Reformed)

So still a long way to go and until then, I am happy to see and support all these LGBT celebrations, marches, posters, parades etc.

Jeroen

[devilicious]

Believe me, coming to terms with your orientation is way too difficult for the person themselves. It took me my entire adulthood (I'm just 30) to understand it and it still takes a lot of support (human and chemical) to deal with it in India.

Comparing homosexuality to having sex with animals and other addiction is a sadistic way of looking at it. Glad to see support from so many members though.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by devilicious

Believe me, coming to terms with your orientation is way too difficult for the person themselves. It took me my entire adulthood (I'm just 30) to understand it and it still takes a lot of support (human and chemical) to deal with it in India.

Good for you. Live your life the way you are inclined. We used to be a tolerant nation in matters of sexual orientation till prejudiced colonial laws were brought in by the colonial rulers and started a new trend of intolerance and a route for our worthy police to make some money.

Comparing homosexuality to having sex with animals and other addiction is a sadistic way of looking at it.

The sickness of hatred lies in the minds of those who talk this way. Ignore them. Best of luck.

[sgiitk]

until 35A(?) also goes it will not do too much good.

I hear this may not have been legally inserted.

A good start nevertheless. Let us hope for a united India in all respects soon.

[civic-sense]

Am not a religious person, but lets not forget the fact that religion gave us morality. This is not to say that there can't be morality without religion, but most of the morality that people practice is given by their religions. It is easy to put down somebody else's religion on the basis of tenets that are against modern morality, but religion is what it is - archaic. Pick some other realm and you'd see that your own religion is archaic. So there are no winners here.

I am not against people practicing any religion including its archaic tenets as long as he keeps it to himself or within his group and not force it on somebody else.

It is extremely difficult for sexual minorities to gain acceptance of with the mainstream, and religion is not helping their cause one bit. Having born straight, all other sex feels unnatural to me, but that is me and my personal space, and I don't care what the other men do in their respective spaces.

That said every individual should be free to profess and propagate their views, archaic included, as long as it is not forced on the rest. Of late I have observed that the modern left gets offended by anything that does not conform to their views and classify them as aggression. Freedom is a two way path - if you are free to profess what you think is right, so is the other party.

[devilicious]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

It is extremely difficult for sexual minorities to gain acceptance of with the mainstream, and religion is not helping their cause one bit.

I politely disagree with this to be honest because one thing our country is great at is ACCEPTANCE. Be it any religion or belief. We may deviate from this time to time but it is inherited in our culture. Now that we have started talking about it, making serious movies on it, we will get there!

[GeneralJazz]

Originally Posted by devilicious

I politely disagree with this to be honest because one thing our country is great at is ACCEPTANCE. Be it any religion or belief. We may deviate from this time to time but it is inherited in our culture. Now that we have started talking about it, making serious movies on it, we will get there!

Quite the opposite! Our country is anything but accepting. We cant even accept the fact that there are people whose diet is different from ours, dressing is different from ours, whose language is different from ours and so on. The recent mob lynchings over alleged consumption of meat, targeting south indians in certain states, lynching people for wearing certain clothes are proof that we as a society are highly intolerant.

[devilicious]

Originally Posted by GeneralJazz

Quite the opposite! Our country is anything but accepting. We cant even accept the fact that there are people whose diet is different from ours, dressing is different from ours, whose language is different from ours and so on. The recent mob lynchings over alleged consumption of meat, targeting south indians in certain states, lynching people for wearing certain clothes are proof that we as a society are highly intolerant.

I'm afraid but if you think the lynchings and other stuff you've mentioned is a daily routine, you're highly mistaken. Moreover, these incidents are more of political in nature. You'd understand what I mean by this if you follow Indian politics. In a population of over a billion people with multiple cultures and religions, some incidents are bound to happen but by large, our society is tolerant my friend. Acceptability is in our blood.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by am1m

The same "case" I have "for" anything that is not against the law (am talking about the IPC btw, I don't know about any "higher authority" ). Why should I oppose it if it doesn't cause anyone harm? (Before the whole 'x tends to be more-co-related to abuse' argument is brought back - if it doesn't have the potential to cause more harm than any aberration of heterosexual behavior does.) I have my own reservations about homosexuality (and religion). But as long as the law is not broken why oppose it and why sit in judgement over those who think that is/are ok?

Well, I'm obviously coming from a very small minority standpoint as far as this thread is considered, and don't seem to be convincing anyone, lol! I'm okay with that. Discourse can be a healthy thing.

Everyone is "religious" in the sense that everyone has beliefs and/or puts their trust in something. You seem to be saying the IPC/courts settle your mind on what's right/wrong, acceptable or not. That's okay, but it's not really non-religious. You put your faith in these entities, I put mine in something/someone else. It is not as though you are arguing from a position of neutrality against a narrow-minded person. There have been a lot of codes/courts in the world besides those you cite! Nobody is "neutral", everyone is narrow-minded in the sense that they have a code that drives their ideals / actions (even if that code is: "there is no code"!). That goes for everyone contributing here, no exceptions.

Anyway, I dealt earlier with the need to be careful re: definitions of "harm" - all things are not readily apparent, since it can take a generation or two to come to terms with the effects of many, many things. We ought to soberly consider pointers and evidences not because they are infallible, indisputable facts, but because they keep us from irrationality, from blindly celebrating (or else condemning) things that many of us would otherwise have very little understanding of, even if within ourselves.

Someone commenting above felt, if I understood correctly, that it would be wrong to deny his acting out on natural attraction for women other than his wife. In a case like that, then "harm" only applies to myself - I will be (psychologically?) "harmed" if I don't sleep with other women??? Whereas if my wife is "harmed" by my cheating on her, then she is obviously an insecure prude. Despite thousands of years of history (and likely thousands of Indian films yearly) that point us to a higher, immutable reality, people who can feel jealousy and who value the love of one person are immature and foolish.

I was just at the Taj Mahal a few days back, my third visit. The man had over a dozen wives and three hundred concubines... and only one, apparently, with whom he experienced true love. There are deep things, there are shallow things, there are things we can afford to be a little careless about, others we cannot. Is my wife only about physical attraction? Can I not deny myself without feeling personally wounded, for the sake of another? Wow.... I suppose this belief system is something like, "I am my own god" - my desires are to be served, above all other considerations.

Someone here spoke of "maturity" of viewpoint here - which would in my view consist of moving beyond the "if it doesn't hurt anyone, feel free to do it" which seems an inherently not very thoughtful way of operating - to a realm where we carefully consider deeper things: why we as people are as we are, what motivates, what are the effects of our beliefs and behaviors, what is at stake at various levels, etc. We are all so limited in our perspective in time and space, we can be blind to things more permanent / important.

When I was growing up, margarine was supposed to be healthier overall than butter. Of course, nobody ate it and dropped dead within five years, so it was obviously "harmless" (and it cost less). At one time in history, leeches were commonly used in medical practice by learned, highly respected men (and women) - they did not kill all of their patients by these methods, and felt they were doing their best. Intelligent, scientifically-minded people (not speaking of religious ones) also thought the earth was flat, and worked out impressively elaborate systems of astronomy to explain why the night sky changed as it did; In one way they were smarter/cleverer than Galileo, though they were absolutely wrong. His system was simpler, because the correct core supposition was in place.

So there are many things earlier considered harmful that are now considered to not be, AND vice-versa: things accepted in the past, and now deemed harmful. If we're sincerely interested to know the harm or good in something (often we're not), we have two choices: We can believe whatever authority we're told to (and/or that we trust), or we can do some investigations and base our disinterested conclusions on hard data (the opening scene of "The Matrix" comes to mind). In my view, if our authority figures and science are both pure (not driven by personal interests), then both paths will end up at the same place ultimately.

Of course purity is a rare thing in both. Therefore, many persons today considered "enlightened" and progressive will definitely be proven otherwise in a coming time, and some ideas now cast aside as antiquated and ridiculous will inevitably rise again and be considered credible. If we are honest we all know of cases of "ancient wisdom" (medical, philosophical, agricultural, whatever) that was once discarded but now is being upheld. We can speak of the follies / condescension of past social/religious ideals, but I hear a lot of condescension from the "other" side(s), too - "We've moved beyond "superstition" or "outmoded" ideas, we know better".

Whereas my being educated (or not) and broad-minded and non-religious (or not), thinking I'm progressive and free-thinking (or not) really has nothing to do with anything. Whatever our perspective in the present, we have to humbly acknowledge that it, too, may one day be deemed "wrong" - and may in fact BE in gross error. We cannot possibly be different in this than all generations of humanity before us.

Which is to say that there IS some kind of transcendent reality out there - We may attach it to religion or we may not, but "it" - Truth with a capital "T" clearly exists... Truth never changes, what changes is the waves of human opinion and behavior (along with our sense of fashion, etc).

Were the WWII era fascists "right" because they were educated and influential, because they spoke well and managed to convince a majority of some populations that their program was the best one (they were not "religious" in the normal way of thinking, mind you, but they certainly held certain beliefs very strongly). Are the physical benefits of something like yoga to be put into question simply because the exercises have sometimes been connected with "religion"?

Butter really was better than margarine after all... but a lot of money was made pushing margarine (which isn't even tasty) on people in the meanwhile. No ancient ever would've thought it was a good idea to whip up a bunch of vegetable oil and create something LIKE butter, when in fact the real item was readily available. Margarine came about as a cheap imitation for soldiers and the poor, a conception of kings who wanted armies on the cheap and industrialists. Who are our own spin-doctors?

If we can't look beyond the IPC (or whichever other code/law) then we are to be pitied. All known systems of justice, etc, are but shadows - more or less imperfect - of things more transcendent and I daresay eternal.

-Eric

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by devilicious

I'm afraid but if you think the lynchings and other stuff you've mentioned is a daily routine, you're highly mistaken. Moreover, these incidents are more of political in nature. You'd understand what I mean by this if you follow Indian politics. In a population of over a billion people with multiple cultures and religions, some incidents are bound to happen but by large, our society is tolerant my friend. Acceptability is in our blood.

I am not so sure. What would you say about those who oppose inter religion and inter caste marriages and even kill people for it? What would you say about those who use derogatory language towards Africans and even darker people in India? What would you say about those who try to attack the followers of other religions? What would you say about those who think a woman must not wear shorts or go out or drink? How many Indians would be ok with a girl drinking openly? Outside of upper class enclaves in big cities, you won't find many. India is unfortunately a very intolerant and repressive society where people are keen to monitor and control every tiny aspect of someone's life. Of course things are changing with people becoming modern but we can hardly be called a very open and tolerant society. Can you imagine people beating up someone for bringing a girlfriend home in even most developing countries like Brazil or Mexico? Or objecting to their relationship on grounds of religion or caste? We are about 50 to 100 years behind in our thinking compared to most countries.

[devilicious]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

I am not so sure. What would you say about those who oppose inter religion and inter caste marriages and even kill people for it? What would you say about those who use derogatory language towards Africans and even darker people in India? What would you say about those who try to attack the followers of other religions? What would you say about those who think a woman must not wear shorts or go out or drink? How many Indians would be ok with a girl drinking openly? Outside of upper class enclaves in big cities, you won't find many. India is unfortunately a very intolerant and repressive society where people are keen to monitor and control every tiny aspect of someone's life. Of course things are changing with people becoming modern but we can hardly be called a very open and tolerant society. Can you imagine people beating up someone for bringing a girlfriend home in even most developing countries like Brazil or Mexico? Or objecting to their relationship on grounds of religion or caste? We are about 50 to 100 years behind in our thinking compared to most countries.

Well this is going out of topic but a reply is required. The so called developed countries you mentioned are the ones with highest rates of crime against women specially rape. Ref:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Bringing girlfriends home and drinking openly are a problem of society aka culture and not intolerance. If u follow American politics you'd know what intolerance is with black people. Again for the other issues you mentioned, I've already answered for in my previous post so won't repeat. The thing is, if you want to find issues anywhere, that is exactly where you'd concentrate. Just look at the majority and you'll see the beauty of the country.

[Lobogris]

Originally Posted by devilicious

Well this is going out of topic but a reply is required. The so called developed countries you mentioned are the ones with highest rates of crime against women specially rape. Ref:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Bringing girlfriends home and drinking openly are a problem of society aka culture and not intolerance. If u follow American politics you'd know what intolerance is with black people. Again for the other issues you mentioned, I've already answered for in my previous post so won't repeat. The thing is, if you want to find issues anywhere, that is exactly where you'd concentrate. Just look at the majority and you'll see the beauty of the country.

So you think India doesn't have any crime against women? You claim that drinking and bringing a girlfriend home are "cultural problems". There, that is how intolerance starts, where you want to impose your culture on others. I am not stating that other countries don't have any problems. I am only contesting the claim that India is a very tolerant country. Coming to the US, yes there is discrimination against blacks to a minor extent. I have lived in the US for twenty years. However, no one will beat you or kill you for having a white or black spouse or partner. Try getting an Indian parent to accept a black husband for their daughter. Here in India, just last year there were widespread attacks on African students by mobs, not in some remote village but in Delhi NCR itself. India is a great nation in many ways but we need to first introspect and acknowledge our mistakes before we can start to change.

[Jeroen]

Some interesting statistics about gender equality

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31327/WBL2019.pdf

Of course, gender inequality is just down to intolerance.

Jeroen

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ringoism

Someone commenting above felt, if I understood correctly, that it would be wrong to deny his acting out on natural attraction for women other than his wife....people who can feel jealousy and who value the love of one person are immature and foolish.

Misinterpretation. What I said was - "I'm attracted to my wife, I've been and still am attracted to several women. Imagine if for my whole life I was told that was wrong (which to some extent does happen anyway in a closed society like ours). That I needed to suppress my impulses, that these were unnatural, that I needed to be 'fixed'".

I meant that I have been attracted to women all my life and that bit about the 'closed society' was that growing up in 80s India, things were a bit more conventional wrt to gender interactions. Fortunately no one ever told me that it was wrong or unnatural to be attracted to women. So, what I meant to say was imagine if I were homosexual and all my life I was told that being attracted to men was wrong and that I needed to be 'fixed'. Hence my sympathetic viewpoint wrt this issue. I guess I should have put it more clearly, but thanks for the entertaining sermon about adultery and concubines and the Taj Mahal. Also, it is possible to have impulses like an attraction to women other than one's wife and still not act upon them.

Originally Posted by ringoism

You seem to be saying the IPC/courts settle your mind on what's right/wrong, acceptable or not. That's okay, but it's not really non-religious. You put your faith in these entities,

Actually, it is really non-religious. It's got nothing to do with faith. The IPC is man-made (just like every religion!), subject to scrutiny, open to being changed and challenged, just like how this particular law was changed. It's a whole lot different from a dogma or doctrine that's handed down from generation to generation and followed blindly. But that's a whole different argument.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Which is to say that there IS some kind of transcendent reality out there -

Perhaps, perhaps not. You have the freedom to believe that without being judged or considered abnormal and that's a great thing.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Were the WWII era fascists "right" because...

Ah, Godwin's Law, almost there!