[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by huntrz

I still stand by the words that homosexuality is a disease

A disease?

Without any sarcasm or attempt at humour, I wish to understand your point - when you say that homosexuality is a disease, do you compare it directly to leprosy and meningitis (physical diseases) or schizophrenia (mental disease)?

My question - do you perceive it as a medical disease (either curable or incurable) or do you refer to it as a social disease? I ask because of the reference to swine flu.

I'm not arguing, just trying to understand your opinion.

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by huntrz

Come on greenhorn, do you really need someone else to declare something before you can have an opinion. Does this mean that before HC's verdict you really treated homosexuals as criminals? Would you wait for WHO to declare Swine flu an epidemic before taking precautions.

It is my opinion (NOM) that a lot of the advocates of homosexuality are a vocal minority, who tag along because, as you've said, this is a fashionable thing to do, along the lines of saving baby seals and hugging trees,Zoosexual rights and making sure dogs are put to death humanely. Yes, these are trivial matters compared to LGBT rights, but so are LGBT rights when compared to the bigger issues that need public attention. Last week, pages of public dailies, airtime, and team bhp were dedicated to discussing a certain actor and the nature of his actions. This is this week's flavour.I suppose we'll be losing a few more reams of newsprint and some more breaking news to this issue.

And all this while,Bigger human rights issues are still not taken care of. People are killed because of money , caste , religion, police, and sheer negligence. Interestingly nobody cares for these issues. Apparently they are not sensational enough. There are significantly larger minorities, with worse fates with no one to champion them, because nobody is interested.And I dont blame them. If I were to start a thread here on team bhp on problems faced by dalits, it would probably go down like a lead balloon among other threads, as opposed to the 1000+ view's this thread has gotten.

Rant aside. Personally, as a catholic, I subscribe to the Church's views on it, and no, i don't follow it blindly. But in an argument , facts take precedence over my beliefs ( which are irrelevant , since they shouldn't be forced on others anyway )

And I dont feel too proud about this, why? because change should come from within. The majority of Indians will probably disagree with the ruling, and the act was struck down only to bring Indian law in line with international rights and stuff.Would this change have occurred if there was absolutely no external persuasion on India to do so? I doubt it.

[devarshi84]

Originally Posted by pranavt

The fact that people will believe blindly, whatever they're told. Ignorance is bliss.

Dark/Brown chocolates are good for health which I actually consume routinely. But the sugar sweetened chocolates and sugar candies we get in the stores here in India are not. They should not even be called chocolates.

As you said, Ignorance is bliss.

The subject we are discussing is pretty controversial. When I returned to Toronto after a 2 year hiatus in India, I knew of the culture I am merging into. I still have respects for my teachers at school who are gay. They are actually my good friends and we have also gone for dinners and other events. I have seen gays kiss on public trains (and people changing seats immidiately which I find derogatory) in Toronto which is the most multi-racial and open culture I have come in contact with. But then I am also against public displays of affection among heterosexuals.

There are good things about our Indian culture and bad things too. While Homosexuality has been a part of Indian culture before, The glory was brought by the West. But then the West also brought to us restrictions to Child marraige. Now if we have bhang, does it mean that everyone should get to smoke marijuana in India openly including your children who are hardly 18 years old?


@ greenhorn: I totally agree, this law doesnt really affect a large population and there are other bigger issues to be focused on and I better do that.

[dockap]

dont mean to offend any homos or people who think its the in thing now with famous people and film personalities hugging and holding hands with them nor looking at it with a religious point of view
I think its un natural and should never be legalised
i dont think it should be considered a crime or attract severe punishment
but why give so much publicity to it i dont hate homos i woudnt say that its a disease but definately its un naturall and they need psycological counselling-its not a pathological disease but a psycological disorder
-imagine you come home soon one day and find your teenage son with his best male pal in an uncompromising position what would you do ?
hey son its cool its the in thing i can give you some extra tips if you need?
or the same situation with your daughter?
i would definately not want such a situation and i am sure 99.9% of you will also not want to see such a situation
forgive me for being so blunt but the topic is such and most of us reading this are adults many with families and children
if you have no problems with your children being homos than you should support this rule legalising homosexuality

[MileCruncher]

Originally Posted by huntrz

I accept that I am conservative and have no ambitions to be labelled otherwise if the asking price is to defy simple notions of commonsense and nature,

Dear Huntrz, You have an opinion and as other have said it previously already, one is entitled to have an opinion and so it is. But request you to clarify, what is common sense, who's common sense are we talking here and whats so common about common sense.

Subjugating the issue on discussion here to such generic and wide adjectives is not exactly in good taste.

Cheers

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by dockap

dont mean to offend any homos or people who think its the in thing now with famous people and film personalities hugging and holding hands with them nor looking at it with a religious point of view
I think its un natural and should never be legalised
i dont think it should be considered a crime or attract severe punishment
but why give so much publicity to it i dont hate homos i woudnt say that its a disease but definately its un naturall and they need psycological counselling-its not a pathological disease but a psycological disorder
-imagine you come home soon one day and find your teenage son with his best pals p...s in his backside what would you do ?
hey son its cool its the in thing i can give you some extra tips if you need?
or your daughter with her head in between her friends legs?gift her an artificial strapon p....s?
i would definately not want such a situation and i am sure 99.9% of you will also not want to see such a situation
forgive me for being so blunt but the topic is such and most of us reading this are adults many with families and children
if you have no problems with your children being homos than you should support this rule legalising homosexuality

99% of the parents also wouldn't want their offsprings to smoke. Does that mean if they found their children with a pack of smokes, they would call them diseased or indulging in an unnatural act?

Secondly what's unnatural about being gay? If there were a handful of people out of the 6 billion that inhabit this planet who were gays, maybe it could be termed as unnatural but we are talking about hundreds of thousands, or maybe even million of people here. What's unnatural about that?

Also how do you define unnatural? I think unnatural means going against the laws of nature. Like the sun rising from the south or a cow eating flesh. But which natural law is being subverted by gays? Is there a book of natural laws that I am unaware of? I think you are justifying your moral opinions by trying to call them natural and therefore anything that doesn't confirm to your morality must be unnatural. If it was unnatural to be gay, there wouldn't be millions of gays.

[Sam Kapasi]

Perhaps the support team was right in being wary right at the start.

It has turned into a endless controversial debate. Unfortunate.

And yes, there are bigger issues at hand, like money, caste, religion, human rights and more. But whether we progress socially or not, whether we address those issues or not, there are laws already in place that address those factors.

There were none in favour of the LGBT.

The law accommodated and addressed them too, finally. I brought it up. Some thought it was a good idea, some didn't. Both opinions must be respected.

However everyone here is just dying to answer the questions that nobody asked "Is it OK to be gay?" or "Are you OK with people being gay?" or "Do you like gay people?"- nobody asked those questions.

Honestly.

[hell_rider]

Originally Posted by ballkey

However, I'm not particularly thrilled with this celebration of queerness, the weird costumes and disfigurement that accompanies. Sex is a personal, private activity. I don't get the "pride" part. I think the "pride" rallies have done more to fuel the revulsion in people, rather than making them open. You cant change people's minds by going out in the open and flaunt something that they revile. The gay community needs a more subtle, nuanced approach.

100 % spot on. i am all for sexual freedom and choices. its ones personal choice. i don't believe homosexuality is a disease, nor does it disgust me, like some people openly admit to disgust of homosexuality.

but some gay people do disgust me.

for e.g. why shove your sexual choices down everybody's throat ?? i have this particular irritation with some gay guys who shove their sexuality in your faces *ALL THE TIME*. exaggerated mannersims, attire and gestures. what the hell ??

i am heterosexual. but i don't go around thrusting my pelvis at the women at a party to advertise my sexual orientation, do i ?? so why do some gay people need to do that ?? that is one thing that really pisses me off. i mean every aspect and facet of their lives screams out their sexual orientation. what is the need for that ? is it necessary to force everyone else to constantly acknowledge your sexuality ??? at every public place ?? while you are at work ?? while you are in a meeting ?? do you have to do it ??

i don't have a right to judge you by what you choose to do and with whom in the confines and privacy of your bedroom. but i will judge you if you shove it in my face, because, frankly it irritates me.

[Astleviz]

It's ironic that some of us talk about aping the west and at the same time they use a cellphone, drive a car, commute by trains and planes, wear jeans, sneakers and sunglasses, watch hollywood movies, use a computer and internet, go to a doctor when sick, wear a wristwatch, celebrate new years day, drink coke/pepsi/red bull/beer/vodka/scotch/tropicana, study in an english medium school, call their parents mummy/papa (or mom/dad), use a digital camera to take pictures and videos, an mp3 player to enjoy their music. All of these are products of the western world. But we don't have a problem in embracing all of these because they make our lives comfortable and interesting but as soon as someone does or say something that is in conflict with our morality or opinions, we accuse them of aping the west.
If this is not hypocrisy, what is?

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

However everyone here is just dying to answer the questions that nobody asked "Is it OK to be gay?" or "Are you OK with people being gay?" or "Do you like gay people?"- nobody asked those questions.

Honestly.

These are the questions which need to be asked. If indians do not ask themselves these questions, and find the right answers, there is nothing to be proud about.It will remain just a court ruling, to be honoured in letter, rather than spirit. You can probably tell the rest of the world with pride that being gay is legal in India. But once they visit, they might find that it is not quite so.

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

You can probably tell the rest of the world with pride that being gay is legal in India. But once they visit, they might find that it is not quite so.

My gay friends are Indian and live in India as they have their whole life and are well aware of the situation. They're reading this thread too.

if you have no problems with your children being homos

In such a situation, I sincerely hope you have the courage to offer them understanding and support as a parent. Clearly the rest of world has little to offer them.

[hell_rider]

Originally Posted by Astleviz

Secondly what's unnatural about being gay? If there were a handful of people out of the 6 billion that inhabit this planet who were gays, maybe it could be termed as unnatural but we are talking about hundreds of thousands, or maybe even million of people here. What's unnatural about that?

Also how do you define unnatural? I think unnatural means going against the laws of nature. Like the sun rising from the south or a cow eating flesh. But which natural law is being subverted by gays? Is there a book of natural laws that I am unaware of? I think you are justifying your moral opinions by trying to call them natural and therefore anything that doesn't confirm to your morality must be unnatural. If it was unnatural to be gay, there wouldn't be millions of gays.

i won' comment on the morality aspect, but i'll try to address the "whats unnatural part" of your question.

nature, and that includes every living organism on this planet, is always busy with three things : surviving, reproducing and evolving. this is programmed into the genetic code of every living organism.

now the primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction.

here comes the unnatural part. homosexual sex can never lead to reproduction. hence it is called "unnatural". but then, so is non-vaginal sex, between two heterosexual people, for the exact same reason.

not saying its right or wrong, just trying to get at the logic as to why its termed "unnatural".

[setuniket]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I quote the declaration of the Chief Justice S Muralidhar, J..

Justice S Murlidhar and Chief Justice A.P.Shah, J both of them headed the bench and delivered the judegement .

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I interpret that section 377 will continue to govern issues of sex with minors and child-abuse.

Non-consensual non-vaginal sex and with person below 18 yrs of age.

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

Non consensual sex between adults is rape, and that is handled by section 375 and 376, which are not discussed in the judgement.

Non Consensual Penial-Vaginal sex is defined u/s 375 and punished u/s 376 while any other non consensual sex will be still be defined and punished u/s 377

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

The deletion of section 377 will also take away the criminal stigma of having sex with animals. Though I sincerely doubt that anyone in the history of India has actually been arrested for having sex with a buffalo, chicken or goat... still, for argument's sake, this shows an equality to all sexual orientation as per my original debate with Greenhorn.

Even if no one has been prosecuted for Beastility, I would rather expect this part(of judgement) is not implemented, sex with animal is sick. How do animals consent for sex, it should still be a criminal act u/s 377.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

I have a question about the title - is it Indian morality? or Indian legality? )(excuse the english) - its not like the average common man has his opinion changed - its that the law no longer makes it illegal!

I think the title is still not apt, its just the judiciary, How many people(even in the forum) who think like both the hon. judges. Lets have a poll. wat say?

Originally Posted by greenhorn

as posted by setuniket, Legal morality is not equal to public morality. I suppose this is both. Indian Legal Morality

For now its not both, its the legal morality which has changed, public still doesnt approve of it, the replies in the thread prove that.

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

I felt that the courage to change our penal code reflects on our collective morality progressing as a nation.

But the willingness to adapt our law to social circumstances shows progression of morality. After all, morals were incorporated into our constitution too.

It shows progress but that doesnt effect the society as a whole unless people in the society start accepting it. For now these people will be protected from cops and get vital support from NACO which is of utmost importance IMO.

Originally Posted by greenhorn

And all this while,Bigger human rights issues are still not taken care of. People are killed because of money , caste , religion, police, and sheer negligence. Interestingly nobody cares for these issues. Apparently they are not sensational enough. There are significantly larger minorities, with worse fates with no one to champion them, because nobody is interested.And I dont blame them. If I were to start a thread here on team bhp on problems faced by dalits, it would probably go down like a lead balloon among other threads, as opposed to the 1000+ view's this thread has gotten.

+1 to this, I strongly agree, We have bigger issues to be taken care of. Now this has been sorted out. Judiciary, Government and Media should move ahead to tackle issues which demand immediate attention.

[Sam Kapasi]

For now these people will be protected from cops and get vital support from NACO which is of utmost importance IMO

.

Agree 100%

You've offered some wonderful inputs indeed setuniket. Thank you. Are you a lawyer?

[Roy.S]

Originally Posted by straight6

Like a great man once said. "India's having a population crisis. We could do with a few homo's".

That was Russel Peters! That guy kills me!

Originally Posted by hell_rider

now the primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction.

So you purport to have understood the intentions of nature?
I don't think so.
As far as I am concerned, we are still a bunch of semi evolved simians.

And yeah, the ruling was a good thing.