[Gansan]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

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.

May I try to answer this question, though it is not directed at me?

Well Sam, it is not a disease. And they are most certainly not sick people. But look at it this way:

Man gets attracted to woman ; Woman gets attracted to man = natural order of things.

Man gets attracted to man ; Woman gets attracted to woman = not in the natural order of things.

When the natural order of things is not present in an individual, he or she is not well. We delve deeper, and we learn it is genetic, pre-dates the time of birth, a man trapped in a woman's body and vice versa. May be it can be termed a deficiency. I empathize with them, understand their situation perfectly. They should not be persecuted, my mind welcomes this legislation.

But my heart says certain things are better off of out of the public eye, should not be flaunted or worn on one's sleeve. It refuses to accept a gay couple as man and wife.

After all, only man and wife is the natural scheme of things. May be it is what the religious zealots call "God's scheme of things".

[carboy]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

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.

Yes. But why did your mother think that they cause cough & cold?

[hell_rider]

another point..

it is all very well to talk about "being progressive" and "sexually aware" and other such, but there are some very ugly aspects to homosexuality as well, in the way it destroys other people's lives.

how many of you know of gay men who have gotten married only to please their parents, because they are basically spineless and ruin the lives of the girls they are married to ??

don't tell me you are scared to tell your parents your gay. i can accept that. but don't you have the guts to tell them that you do not want to get married ?? there are so many reasons you can think of. you can definitely be man enough to put your foot down on such an important decision. "I am not ready". how difficult is it to say that ?? why ruin a girl's life just because you are basically a spineless pig ???

now when you speak to these girls or their families, it is very difficult to expect them to have any nice feelings or pleasant thoughts for gay people.

this is one reason i support this ruling. at least such spineless cowards will not have the excuse of saying that i did not disclose my sexuality because i was afraid of the legal repurcussions. now such "not so innocent gay people" can be sued and imprisoned, for the ruin they bring to other's lives.

i have seen it happen at very close quarters, so i know what i am talking about. it not pretty.

[phamilyman]

Oh jeez, seems i missed alot of discussion past few hours. I'd fully go with Sam's thoughts, as well as greenie and bblost's funny but thoughtful idea

@Huntrz: There is a world outside your definitive statements, unbound by it.

@hell_rider: Fully agree. You have raised a peripheral but very true valid point.

By that logic, maybe conservative parents would now be anxious to see their kids dating members of the opposite sex - as it'd remove any nagging doubts Surely helps the kids!

[setuniket]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

.

Agree 100%

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

Not yet, but yes pursuing law.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

By that logic, maybe conservative parents would now be anxious to see their kids dating members of the opposite sex - as it'd remove any nagging doubts Surely helps the kids!

They would be rather happy watching kids going out with someone from opposite sex.

[Gansan]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

By that logic, maybe conservative parents would now be anxious to see their kids dating members of the opposite sex - as it'd remove any nagging doubts Surely helps the kids!

+1! That may be one of the most valid, unintended fall outs of this verdict.

[hell_rider]

Originally Posted by Roy.S

So you purport to have understood the intentions of nature?
I don't think so.
.

given that your response to my post does not offer :
1. an alternative explanation as to why homosexuality or non-vaginal sex between heterosexuals is termed "unnatural"
2. an alternative explanation as to how nature works and that survival, reproduction and evolution is not genetically programmed

your post is of no value. what would be of interest and benefit to this discussion is actually putting down "what you *do* think" instead of stating "i don't think so" to an opinion you do not agree with.

Originally Posted by Roy.S

As far as I am concerned, we are still a bunch of semi evolved simians.

Drop the "we". You are however, at full liberty to speak for yourself

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by hell_rider

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 anal sex, between two heterosexual people, for the exact same reason.

Wow! Primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction. Which books have I been missing my friend? That makes most of us, who have sex for pleasure, unnatural. So what's your grudge against gays?

Let's take your points one at a time-

1.this is programmed into the genetic code of every living organism.
Incase you don't know, there is a gene for homesexuality too, and in case of gays, they are genetically programmed to be gays. So how is it unnatural.

2. now the primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction.
So all of us who have sex for pleasure are freaks as we are all unnatural.

3. homosexual sex can never lead to reproduction. hence it is called "unnatural"
If I and my partner use a contraceptive, we can't reproduce either. So all those who use contraceptives or adopt family planning and yet have sex are unnatural. And what about those couples who for some medical reason can't reproduce? Should they not have sex at all? If doctors tell me that I am infertile and can't reproduce, does that mean I can't ever have sex?

Originally Posted by hell_rider

another point..

how many of you know of gay men who have gotten married only to please their parents, because they are basically spineless and ruin the lives of the girls they are married to ??

For every gay man you know who got married only to please their parents, I know 10 heterosexual men who got married to please their parents (or for dowry) and then had extra marital affairs and ruined the lives of their partners. That makes heterosexual men sicker that homosexuals, by your reasoning.

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by Astleviz

Wow! Primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction. Which books have I been missing my friend? That makes most of us, who have sex for pleasure, unnatural.

Cars were designed for transportation. Yet we're a bunch of auto enthusiasts who obviously take pleasure in driving our cars. A lot of people look at me as If I'm some sort of idiot when i say I just went for a spin.Just to have fun. Not the intended use, so the average person might find it strange, and yes, unnatural.

But i think even you would be surprised if your santro decided to take your ikon out for a spin

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by Gansan

May

Man gets attracted to woman ; Woman gets attracted to man = natural order of things.

Man gets attracted to man ; Woman gets attracted to woman = not in the natural order of things.

Whose natural order of things? Who has defined this natural order? It's like saying-
men like cars, women like diamonds = natural order of things
men like diamonds, women like cars = not in the natural order of things

Going by the same logic, taliban thinks that believing in their flavor of religion is the natural order of things and everybody else is unnatural. Who has given us the right to presume or dictate what the natural order of things are? If it was unnatural to be gay, nature would have wiped them out. But they have existed for thousands of years and their numbers have grown. It means nature wants them to survive and flourish.

[msbehave]

It's indeed a historic day! Kudos to the supreme court and their progressive judgement.

@bblost, loved your post

I'll end with a quote I read on someone's t-shirt - heterosexuality isn't normal, its just common

[Astleviz]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Cars were designed for transportation. Yet we're a bunch of auto enthusiasts who obviously take pleasure in driving our cars. A lot of people look at me as If I'm some sort of idiot when i say I just went for a spin.Just to have fun. Not the intended use, so the average person might find it strange, and yes, unnatural.

But i think even you would be surprised if your santro decided to take your ikon out for a spin

Bullock carts and trucks were designed for transportation. Mercs and Rolls were designed for luxury. Ferraris and lambos were designed for thrill of traveling fast.
And if a lot of people think that you are an idiot if you take your car out for a spin, does that make them right? Do you agree with them? Don't you just dismiss them as boring sods?

On a lighter note, my santro may not have taken my ikon for a ride, but my ikon has certainly towed my gypsy to the garage a couple of times

[Roy.S]

Originally Posted by hell_rider

.....your post is of no value. what would be of interest and benefit to this discussion is actually putting down "what you *do* think" .......
.......Drop the "we". You are however, at full liberty to speak for yourself

Well, my evolved friend, all I'm saying is do not be so sure that you have understood what nature intends. I do not really have anything of value to add because I do not think that anyone can say with any certainty whether homosexuality is natural or a deviation. But to criminalize it and persecute gays seems to be wrong.
As as far as the "we" goes, I stand by it. Does anyone really have the arrogance to claim that the human race has reached the pinnacle of evolution? Just as we are shocked at some of the barbaric practices of our ancestors, I'm sure a few thousand years hence, our descendants will be shocked at some of the things we did.

[hell_rider]

Originally Posted by Astleviz

Wow! Primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction. Which books have I been missing my friend? That makes most of us, who have sex for pleasure, unnatural. So what's your grudge against gays?

Let's take your points one at a time-

1.this is programmed into the genetic code of every living organism.
Incase you don't know, there is a gene for homesexuality too, and in case of gays, they are genetically programmed to be gays. So how is it unnatural.

2. now the primary purpose of sex, as nature intended it, is for reproduction.
So all of us who have sex for pleasure are freaks as we are all unnatural.

3. homosexual sex can never lead to reproduction. hence it is called "unnatural"
If I and my partner use a contraceptive, we can't reproduce either. So all those who use contraceptives or adopt family planning and yet have sex are unnatural. And what about those couples who for some medical reason can't reproduce? Should they not have sex at all? If doctors tell me that I am infertile and can't reproduce, does that mean I can't ever have sex?

let me address your points too one by one :
1. Reproduction being the purpose of sex as intended by nature:
if you are denying the fact that the primary reason for sex is for reproduction, you really have been reading the wrong books.

it is a matter of fortune for us humans that we are one of the very few species who derive a lot of pleasure from sex, and have found ways and means to enjoy sex without actually reproducing.

think about it. if nature did not intend sex for reproduction you could have your testicles hanging at your throat where your adam's apple is, and inject your sperm orally into the female when you wanted a baby. but thats not the way it works, is it? thats because our sexual organs too have evolved with a purpose. thats the reason you have your nuts hanging where they are and thats the reason you ejaculate through your penis. if you can't understand this, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

really, defending homosexual rights is one thing, i believe in it too. but saying that reproduction is not the purpose of sex as intended by nature is taking it too far.

2. What about us who have sex for pleasue or practise birth control. Are we freaks or unnatural ??No, but we are circumventing nature's intention. we are evolving, still. we humans have evolved to be one of the more intelligent life forms on the planet. as far as i know, no other species has devised a way to engage in the act of reproduction, yet avoid offspring, successfully by intention and plan. what you choose to call it, unnatural or freaky, is your choice. thats the reason why until very recently, the Catholic church was against birth control. it is only recently with the spectre of AIDS that they have altered and toned down their stand against contraception.

3. Gene for homosexuality
suggest you stop being carried away by liberal propoganda and research for yourself. google for homosexuality+gene and then come back here to discuss it further. studies have been on. nothing conclusive has still been found. before you post some link pointing to this, may i inform you that independent studies have "published" results. but they are yet to verified and accepted as conclusive. even going through the first page of summary results of the above google search, will tell you how far biogentics is from actually tying homosexuality to a specific gene or genetic patterns.

its easy to get very gung ho and impassioned over a cause. but that shouldn't blind you to other established facts.

[hell_rider]

Originally Posted by Roy.S

Well, my evolved friend, all I'm saying is do not be so sure that you have understood what nature intends. I do not really have anything of value to add because I do not think that anyone can say with any certainty whether homosexuality is natural or a deviation. But to criminalize it and persecute gays seems to be wrong.

you basically repeated the same thing by saying i "shouldn't be too sure that i have understood what nature intends". unless you can present something to the contrary, you should not be telling me that.

and please, i am not criminalizing homosexuality, nor for persecution. i have gay friends and am quite comfortable with them. i have lived abroad for a number of years and have been exposed to a far larger number of gay people than some of the bleeding hearts in this thread are. i am not a prude and i believe in the right of an individual to make his/her own choices. so just because i am arguing another aspect of homosexuality does not make me a homophobe.

Originally Posted by roy.s

As as far as the "we" goes, I stand by it. Does anyone really have the arrogance to claim that the human race has reached the pinnacle of evolution? Just as we are shocked at some of the barbaric practices of our ancestors, I'm sure a few thousand years hence, our descendants will be shocked at some of the things we did.

come one, didn't you know i was joking with that comment ?? chill dude. of course we aren't fully evolved. just watch lok sabha tv for an hour. who in their right minds, after observing our politicians can say that humans have fuly evolved ???