Secular Burqa
Friday, 26. June 2009 - 7:54 PM
Let me pick up from where BarbarIndian’s superbly acid post left off. He points to this Slimes of India piece that dwells on the Supreme Dignity that a Burqa confers on women. Extracts from that piece follow.
Many Indian Muslim women in cities and small towns can barely veil their disgust over French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s comments on
From the college lecturer in Mumbai to the young married woman in Bihar’s Munger to the student in Lucknow — all say the burqa is an article of faith, a pillar of support….In a world where sexual-crime is rampant, the burqa denotes comfort, security and allows a woman her dignity, they say. Daughter of Nawab Jafar Mir Abdullah of Lucknow’s royal family, 26-year-old Mahruq, who is pursuing her BEd feels safer wearing a burqa to public places like Nakhaas, a crowded locality. “I feel protected from eve-teasers and anti-social elements as they don’t get to see me or my body,” she says.“A covered body sends out a positive signal that says no sexual mischief will be tolerated,” says Moonisa Bushra Abedi, professor of nuclear physics in Maharashtra College in Mumbai…The need for modesty is pointedly made out in the Quran, say these women, and a chador is perfectly in order. They scoff at Sarkozy who had said that the burqa is not a religious sign but a sign of subservience.”Any Muslim woman who is close to her Quran will embrace the burqa,” says Tabassum.
Full marks to Slimes for picking up the cudgels on behalf of a certain community (ssh!) almost immediately on cue. Barely three days after Sarkozy committed the blasphemy of condemning the Burqa, comes the Slimes’ mighty rejoinder. Of course, this rejoinder will please the sections that need to be perpetually pleased, not to mention a secular party that will be smiling benevolently at its ever-reliable media mouthpiece.
Yet again, this piece offers us a study into the tactics the secular media employs to brainwash an already overly-dumbed down Indian public. Note the words I’ve underlined. Gather real (or seemingly-real) but severely personal opinions from authority figures (real or otherwise)–descendant of a Nawab, a nuclear physics professor–and pass them off as the final word on Burqa. The intent is quite obvious: create the impression of legitimacy in readers’ minds if they as much as harbour any negative impression about the Burqa.
But the story reverses on the Hindu side. Picture this: a Hindu organization chastises some Hindu women for not dressing up to meet the need for modesty. Important Note: I’m using the same language sanctified by this Slimes article. This piece would make front-page news the very next day and…well, you know the drill by now. The same Slimes would spin the incident using these well-chosen terms:
-
Moral policing rears its ugly head again
-
Freedom of women endangered by Hindu fundamentalists
-
Women are not safe anymore
-
Hindu fanatics taking us back to regressive times
-
<Add your own creative spin here>
But no, no one, not even the head of a state gets away with “insulting” anything remotely…err…green (or is it black in this case?). So the Slimes language goes thus:
Many Indian Muslim women in cities and small towns can barely veil their disgust
Further, the Slimes also suddenly wakes up to the fact that we live in a world “where sexual-crime is rampant.” But unwittingly, it reveals what it tries hard to conceal. The reasoning behind imposing the Burqa, which it quotes with such gusto is but an echo of Islamic impositions.
“Any Muslim woman who is close to her Quran will embrace the burqa,” says Tabassum.
For Muslims, modesty in dressing is not left to individual discretion. Women are urged to ‘protect themselves from evil elements’, says professor Hashia. A woman’s behaviour is her message, their scriptures say. “It is not easy to separate a Muslim woman from burqa,” says Tabassum.
Isn’t the mention of “evil elements” quite interesting? I leave it to your intelligence to discern the mindset that lays down such reasoning to “protect” women. It is exactly the same mindset that harassed Taslima Nasrin among other things. It is also the same mindset that sanctions female genital mutilation (a Google search reveals interesting results).
The Slimes is basically trying very hard to showcase for us the amazing personal freedom that women enjoy under Islam’s merciful umbrella. Perhaps it has hasn’t heard about a certain Samira Bellil. Here’s a sample of the said amazing personal freedom she enjoyed.
As a teenager Bellil rebelled against the traditional constraints of her community and wanted to live freely as a young French woman.
Samira was first gang-raped when she was 14, by a gang led by someone she knew. They beat her viciously and raped her all night. A month later, one of the most violent attackers in the gang followed her and dragged her off a train by her hair, while other passengers looked the other way. She was then brutally raped by him again….Bellil’s parents, who believed they were shamed by her presence, expelled her from her house. “People outside the community don’t know,” Bellil has written. “And everyone in the community knows, but they won’t say anything….The word tournante is a French adjective meaning “turning”. It is used as a slang term to mean a gang rape.
The typical scenario that takes place is that the targeted young woman is drawn or lured into a secluded area where she is brutalized and repeatedly raped by groups of men who take turns raping her. The victim is usually insulted for behaving in a Westernized manner.
Also, perhaps the Slimes doesn’t know that entire blogs are dedicated to condemn everything the Burqa stands for.
Postscript: Where is the the Pink Panties Brigade raising their unstinted support for supporting the right of women to wear Burqas–pink or otherwise?
Tags: Burqa, Freedom of women, Individual rights, Islam, Islam Watch, Personal Freedom, Slimes of India, Slimes supports the Burqa, Society & Culture, Status of women in Islam, Times of India, Women in Islam
26. June 2009 - 9:24 PM
isnt it just abt anybody’s personal choice. isnt there a difference in saying ‘we will not support forcing woman to wear burqa’ and ‘burqas are not welcome’. if somebody want to wear a burqa, let them do so. while, it is not right to suppress women (or men) in the name of (any) religion, isnt it wrong to disallow people from following their religion?
26. June 2009 - 10:37 PM
Sandeep, I found Sarkozy shallow in his condemnation of the burqa. He sounded positively idiotic when he said the burqa was not a religious symbol. With this he, a supposedly conservative French nationalist, let’s Islam off the hook.
Moreover he stopped dead there. What does he plan on doing with Islam and Muslim immigrants in France? Are they welcome if they discard the burqa?
Sarkozy thinks so.
The Islamic witnesses you mention speak the truth. Muslima women are proud of their burqas whether they wear them or not.
I wholly agree with the other larger point of MSM perfidy. Nothing better can be expected from such rogues.
26. June 2009 - 10:52 PM
My question to those clowns at the Times is:
If Burqa secures dignity, where isn’t Bachi Karkaria wearing one? Is it because there’s no dignity working for a newspaper whose publisher gets summoned to court for doing his job of giving you the latest on school porn MMS?
26. June 2009 - 10:53 PM
>If Burqa secures dignity, where isn’t
.. WHY isn’t ..
26. June 2009 - 11:56 PM
Sandeep,
As far as the pink chaddis are concerned, I think they will be in hibernation in their rat-holes till the next elections.
I will not be surprised at another pink chaddi campaign before the elections with the slimes doing the job of the spokesmen of the these pinkos.
27. June 2009 - 11:02 AM
May be off-topic. Now our Home Minister apologises to christians for Kandhamal but not a single word about the brutal killing of the swamijee. Hmm. So called secularism!!!!
27. June 2009 - 8:33 PM
“So called secularism!!!!” – Please start acknowledging the fact that THIS is true Secularism. There is no other variety.
Thank you
27. June 2009 - 8:36 PM
“In a world where sexual-crime is rampant, the burqa denotes comfort, security and allows a woman her dignity”
The women in Afghanistan has been confined to the Burqa for over a decade. Do they have any of the COMFORT, SECURITY and DIGNITY these idiots are talking about?? Will the Slimes of India ever point to this simple fact? Are these people brainwashed enough to say that being raped by her husband or in-laws night after night, is better than eve-teasing? May be, because brainwashing can achieve amazing results.
There is another twist to the tale – protection of women in Islam like you would protect your property. Many miss that women have been “commoditized” in Islam where slave keeping is fully justified. And this sets the stage for “using” women for one and only one purpose – to propagate. Most people reflecting on Islam (deliberately?) miss that this concept of “commoditization of women” serves a geostrategic purpose and is the cornerstone for the rapid expansion of Islam.
Of course the pink-chaddis are missing, but where the hell is Shabana?
27. June 2009 - 10:50 PM
Guys, this Burkha Dutt on the Burkha topic: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=e918f39b-e4c1-4752-b845-702ac8749b80&Headline=In+my+space
Wtf?! She draws a parallel between the ghoonghat (I believe this had everything to do with Islamic influence in North India), Dupatta and the Burqa.
The best part however is the equivalence she draws between the Bindi and the Burkha. Aparrently, the burkha was now constituted for aesthetic reasons!
28. June 2009 - 6:44 AM
“I believe this had everything to do with Islamic influence in North India”
Believe?? Isn’t this a fact that women in north/west parts of India started covering up themselves to save themselves from being dragged into the harems of the Mughals and Nawabs? Just look at other parts of India where Islamic rule didn’t spread as much, and women never had to put a ghoonghat. Do you see women in the South putting a Ghoonghat? I think President Patil drew some flak from the sekoolar guys for spelling this truth.
28. June 2009 - 10:34 AM
“Wtf?! She draws a parallel between the ghoonghat (I believe this had everything to do with Islamic influence in North India), Dupatta and the Burqa.”
p6,
Some practices of Hinduism like ghoonghat were due to the islamic invasion and the subjugation of the people of North India. In occupied cities, Hindus lived as second-class citizens and had to pay jizyah (protection money) to the muslim rulers. This jizyah, however, did not guarantee that their women would be left alone and the muslim invaders took any woman that took their fancy.
Another practice of Hinduism is child-marriage which also is due to the invasion. Islam allows muslims to marry girls at the age of 6 (in Iran this is 9 years) and this is why muhammadans took children as sex-slaves. Hindus started to marry their children at a young age in order to save them from the harems.
Below is the link to an excellent site on jihad -
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html?syf=contact
28. June 2009 - 4:39 PM
I like Comrade Dutt’s humour. She begins by proclaiming herself to be a feminist and a liberal. Well then if she posted anonymously on the internet nobody would know she is not a dog either.
Incidentally, with advancing age she’s beginning to look like a female trapped in a middle-aged man’s bulging body. Tons of makeup is not helping, obviously. A Burqa for Burkha would be a good idea, not to liberate her from prying male eyes but to liberate males from having to put up with visual hideousness paired with aural shrillness.
28. June 2009 - 4:43 PM
The most ‘WTF statement’ of the article was :
“Denying that the burqa has any oppressive value to it, they say modern burqas are quite fashionable, with gems and jewels embroidered on them. Fancy ones can be priced as much as Rs 50,000, and these aren’t the bridal ones.”
rotfl !
I believe there should be a mandatory course in logic for all the journalists
28. June 2009 - 6:14 PM
The level of journalism (what’s that
) that TOI displays is pathetic.
It doesn’t contribute to the public understanding of these issues in anyway.
Years ago, I was part of a group in orkut called “Say no to Mullas and Ninjas”. This was a protest group formed by Muslim women (many of them Pakistani too) who were opposed to the Burqa. Would the TOI hear their voices ?
28. June 2009 - 10:01 PM
“A Burqa for Burkha would be a good idea, not to liberate her from prying male eyes but to liberate males from having to put up with visual hideousness paired with aural shrillness.”
Good one. She may add a few others with her, including the all enlightened Teesta and Shabana.
28. June 2009 - 10:04 PM
Let’s not mix politics with the serious responsibility of judging female appearance. Shabana still looks good. Setalvad’s looks dont matter.
29. June 2009 - 12:18 AM
OT said, “Incidentally, with advancing age she’s beginning to look like a female trapped in a middle-aged man’s bulging body. Tons of makeup is not helping, obviously. A Burqa for Burkha would be a good idea, not to liberate her from prying male eyes but to liberate males from having to put up with visual hideousness paired with aural shrillness”.
I liked this comment, because it is fully in tune with the tenor and quality of the posts/ comments in this blog. It is unabashedly beautiful in that no illusions or pretensions to what this forum expects from its readers and comnentators.
29. June 2009 - 1:52 AM
@OT: I haven’t looked at Shabana or Teesta from your angle
Whatever they say is disgusting enough for me.
@Deva:
“I liked this comment, because it is fully in tune with the tenor and quality of the posts/ comments in this blog.” –
Amidst a serious debate on politics, you “picked” this comment because it suits you. As the saying goes, a vulture may fly miles above the beautiful earth, it only eyes the carcasses. Obviously, sarcasm is not for you.
As for the lack of “illusions or pretensions”, this is why I visit this blog. Looks like you are more interested in the “illusions or pretensions”, so may I suggest you another website? How about, http://www.ndtv.com?
29. June 2009 - 11:04 AM
>>I liked this comment, because it is fully in tune with the tenor and quality of the posts/ comments in this blog
Exactly. Keeps bringing people back again and again, and even leaves them begging for more.
Though I should admit that in this instance part of the attraction is in the subject of burqa, generally black, but with some affinity to red at times.
29. June 2009 - 5:20 PM
…Moonisa Bushra Abedi, professor of nuclear physics in Maharashtra College in Mumbai…….
:LOL:
Maharashtra College is run by Khairul Islam Higher Education Society, a secular ramshackle institution affiliated to Mumbai Univ. offering bach. degree courses in Arts, Sci and Commerce. There isnt any PG courses, leave aside anything with “noo-kliyar physics”
Is the ToI confusing djinn physics with nuclear physics ?
29. June 2009 - 6:58 PM
Some one should ask Slimes of India journalists, why are mooslime women not allowed to offer namaz along with men in the mosque, either with or without burqa….wonder if it has anything to do with dirty thoughts that run through the men’s head when they bang it on the floor during namaz
Some liberalism in islam…
29. June 2009 - 7:54 PM
Actually, I was presently surprised that Turdesai’s channel actually had quite the opposite tone to the Burqa debate. It really didnt (surprisingly) smell of love for Green or the Burqas. Undergoing metamorphosis perhaps?
The Slimes and ms dutt’s channel should perhaps focus on what happens to veiled girls on Ground Zero of Islam- in Saudi Arabia-between the velvet sheets in the House of Saud. So much for sexual attacks and being modest.
29. June 2009 - 10:17 PM
I notice some folks think the burqa is despised by the Muslima. Huge mistake. Nowadays even the young and the yuppy will wear the burqa or the hijab.
Fact is Islam is a primed machine that is ever ready to over-run it’s declared enemies. The point is what we are doing to not just stop this machine but become and remain prime ourselves?
Our craving and treasuring for/of liberal attitudes is doing us great harm.
(Start rant)Today this government even thinks of normalizing homosexuality in society and not a squeak from Hindu organizations yet. Tomorrow and logically, they will even legalize same-sex marriages and still we might look at it as being “liberal” and “Hindu”.
Let us remember that nothing is separate. All are connected. This government does not go to vote on the issue of homosexuality but will meddle with laws. They know they will lose if they go to vote. Hindu society does not approve of deficiencies even though it may tolerate aberrations.
Look at the great mischief of the homosexual brigade. Teaming up with Dalit organizations and selling their case as similar injustice. All the while they ask for the repeal of a British law without the dimwits realizing that Dalit intellectuals adored British rule (for whatever reasons). Someone needs to point them to this square peg in their round hole. (end rant)
Coming back to the point, net net if we think the Muslima is anti-Islam, we are very wrong.
30. June 2009 - 4:15 AM
@Palahalli: No is really saying that the Muslima is anti-Islam. Don’t let the mindless caterwauling by the ELM distract you; even if a few Shabanas or SRKs try to give that impression by criticizing openly a few Mullahs for not sending their sons to Jihad. Those are for momentary fun. In the long run, when a Taslima is beaten away or say, the burkha debate, they will remain indoors and watch the fun on TVs. Until the time, of course, when they reappear on TV cameras to tell the public that they are strongly against fundamentalism.
Having said that, I strongly think that most (not all) women in Indian Islamic community who wear the burkha, do it out of fear rather than for respect of religion or necessity, as is being projected by ELM. Nevertheless, there are quite a few Islamic women who wear the burkha proudly; probably these few lucky ones have never been battered by their men or they match their men equally in extremism.
30. June 2009 - 7:22 AM
Sandeep
Support removal of section 377, decriminalize homosexuality. Piss off the islamists and missionaries at the same time appearing uber liberal!!!, hindus anyway dont care about anything.
30. June 2009 - 9:12 AM
Today this government even thinks of normalizing homosexuality in society and not a squeak from Hindu organizations yet. Tomorrow and logically, they will even legalize same-sex marriages and still we might look at it as being “liberal” and “Hindu”.
Palahalli, could you please elaborate? Do you think that Section 377 shouldn’t be abolished? And what does Sanatan Dharm say about homosexuality and how homosexuals should be treated in a society?
30. June 2009 - 9:35 AM
Palahalli,
(Start of Rant)
Please keep your understanding of Hinduism to yourself. If you are saying that homosexuality is an aberration and should be tolerated and not approved, then I seriously think your view of Hinduism is based on some type of superficial ideology like Islam, Communism or Christianity.
A thought experiment for you. The underpinning foundation of Sanatana Dharma is compassion (not tolerance as one usually refers to it) towards one and for all based on their understanding of the truth. You cannot arrogate yourself to a position to pronounce on behalf of the Sanatana Dharma what it says when you do not even provide any proof of the same.
(End of rant)
So, you would much rather prefer homosexuals to suffer on account of the society’s disapprovals rather than seeing them contribute to the welfare of the society in their own manner? Your viewoints are reductionist and lead to homogenising the socirty and not in the mould of garland making with different people maintaining their identities that is the essence of Sanatana Dharma.
30. June 2009 - 11:19 AM
Bhavananda – We do not know for sure what the Muslima thinks. Its better to assume she loves the burqa rather than assume wrongly. I have never seen any one complaining. Not even in sweltering heat.
Kaffir – This is what the subject section has to say:
“377. Unnatural Offences.
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”
Now the politics of the campaign. It is surprising that no one has come up with figures that would point toward misusing this law. All we really have is random incidences. I have friends who are homosexual and they know homosexuals. They move freely and frequent all social gatherings as heterosexuals do. Citing the law is a canard.
If there is no evidence that homosexuals are a persecuted lot then why make the said section a point of argument? A starting point at that. It is also interesting that Sanatana Dharma’s TOLERANCE of homosexuality is often cited as willing acquiesce in the act itself. Such argument is cited also by those that normally would never allow for Sanatana Dharma more respect than human snot. So the Dharma becomes good when it suites me and not when it doesn’t.
But it does not stop here. Some of us fail to realize that family is at the core of our Dharma. Life perpetuation is at the core of the family. Life perpetuation without family is a negation of Dharma and thus meaningless. The family is required for balance. Of course the homosexuals cannot get themselves to publicly admit to such a Dharma negating “lifestyle” and so they will naturally, as they have done now, insist of “same-sex” marriages with the right to adopt. Once this sets in, anybody who rejects this (by this time) valid and legal arrangement will also be accused of discriminating against homosexuals if one chooses not to associate with them in any way, let alone striking marital relationships with their adopted offspring. I certainly would not like my daughter to have two fathers-in-law. I don’t know about you guys.
More intrinsically, the homosexual argument for “equality” rests on foundations of Liberal complete equality and total non-discrimination. If you do not hire or if you fire a homosexual, you are open to charges. If you do not let out to homosexuals, you are open to charges. One must understand that this is a subversion of normal society.
One understands that Sanatana Dharma has never persecuted the so-called “sexual minority”. I agree. But to say Santana Dharma condones this aspect of life is to play footsie with the freedoms we have because of our Dharma. I have seen no family teach their kids that it’s ok to be homosexual. It’s a condition much like alcoholism that needs to be fought off by the affected individual. Moreover Hindu society is not expected to condone anything just because it happens naturally. I have said this before to anybody who likes to try this argument. What about bestiality? Don’t we have depictions of such scenes on our Temple walls? (I’m using the same argument as the homosexual “Sanatanis”.) Why not give Man the equal freedom without any discrimination, to cohabit with a Bitch? Perhaps a better breed? What is so wrong with that? They can adopt a child or a puppy and then get the child married to a healthy Dog or the Dog married to a healthy human adult? Why is this so unthinkable? Can anybody argue against this on the same premise that they seem to adopt while arguing for homosexuality? To say Sanatana Dharma accepts everything is to throw ones mind to the winds a la Gandhi. Much worse too.
Is it necessary to repeat that on any given day these “freedom and equality” mongers will spit on the very same Dharma that they use now to legalize and subvert our society?
Anup talks about my views leading to homogenizing human society. Would Anup now agree to homosexuality and bestiality as two flowers in his garland? Who says these flowers cannot contribute toward Society? All we need is legal sanction and its concomitant legal implications to nourish this garden full of flowers.
30. June 2009 - 11:32 AM
Anup, for one to have compassion one must show evidence that compassion is lacking. I would like to see some evidence from you to show just this. Lack of compassion in Hindu society for such “sexual minorities”.
If you say the lack of societal and legal sanction of their marriages and barriers to rights to adopt children are evidence of lack of compassion then please place yourself in a situation where your kids have two fathers-in-laws or two of the opposite kind. Better still a father-in-law who is a strong bred Dog. (No limits here)
Please don’t feel offended because being offended will be against the law and expose you to charges of not being a true Dharmi who respects all flowers and all!
Please let me know your thoughts.
30. June 2009 - 6:22 PM
Homosexuality needs to be de-criminalized on moral/ethical grounds at any rate. However given the amount of pending law reform, gay sex law is not a priority for India, unless gays are being charged and punished under this law. I think it just sits there on the statute book without really being applied. Are there any studies showing how many cases were filed and convictions secured under this law in the last X number of years?
On the point of “pissing off” Islaimists and Christian fundamentalists by supporting the repeal of this law: note that the LGBT crowd by and large hates Hinduism and is pals with Islamist/evangelical extremists (another one of those life’s eternal ironies). The reason is that their ring-leaders are largely left-wing. To them, Hindu-baiting comes first, gay rights come next. The pink panties movement in the end petered out as a farcical LGBT pride parade in Bangalore.
30. June 2009 - 6:24 PM
>>The pink panties movement
I meant to say, pink panties “movement”. (On clotheslines when there’s a breeze, mostly).
30. June 2009 - 6:25 PM
“Why not give Man the equal freedom without any discrimination, to cohabit with a Bitch? Perhaps a better breed? What is so wrong with that?”
Palahalli, too late!
30. June 2009 - 8:56 PM
Kaffir – I read the link. But this man will not cohabit with his bride bitch. Probably that’s the reason why the BBC calls this ceremony superstition!
But if he did/had cohabit(ed) with his bride bitch this same liberal media would have called Selvakumar a great man who never discriminated between woman and bitch!! A man who believes in complete equality.
The thing about the law 377 is that India can do without it too. Results will not vary. Our society is Conservative. Just because there is no law, I will not tolerate homosexuality within my personal precinct. That’s one. The other thing is this entire campaign to treat homosexuality as some alternate and valid human life-style. Marriages, adoption etc etc. And the premise these demands are based on are truly awe-inspiring as in a horror movie. Complete equality and complete non-discrimination.
I could build anything on such premises.
1. July 2009 - 5:47 AM
Moreover Hindu society is not expected to condone anything just because it happens naturally
I don’t know what natural means to you but if it means mimicking nature then well you must know that a lot and I mean a lot of animals which are gay. There has been huge history of people famous in history and those of our times who are gay. So you need to clarify your opinions on natural first.
I have seen no family teach their kids that it’s ok to be homosexual. It’s a condition much like alcoholism that needs to be fought off by the affected individual.
I am sorry but do you think homosexuality is like alcoholism where it can be fought off? This is the same line of thought which is adopted by the Christian church in having “straight camps”. Well your sex orientation is not different then the colour of your skin. Can somebody blame you for being attracted to your opposite sex? This is ridiculous to think homosexuality is something like a choice.
The family is required for balance. Of course the homosexuals cannot get themselves to publicly admit to such a Dharma negating “lifestyle” and so they will naturally, as they have done now, insist of “same-sex” marriages with the right to adopt
Is it so hard for you to believe that 2 men or 2 women are incapable of giving the same love education and morals required for a civilized society that a people of opposite sex can give? Aren’t you doing the same thing your Muslim and Christian extremist friends are doing? Hating everything they don’t fully know or understand. This narrow minded view obviously does not put you far away from these guys.
1. July 2009 - 7:26 PM
Shaz – I’ll respond to your queries patiently but let me just say that I’m not impressed with you trying to fend off my reasoning by implying negative association.
#1 – There are not very many meanings to the term “natural”. I know some animals exhibit homosexual tendencies. I also know a number of talented personalities are/were homosexuals. Its worthwhile to realize that these animals or such personalities do/did not make a case or fetsih of/for their homosexuality. They just were. Its also worthwhile to realize that they existed and were productive inspite of their sexual proclivities. That does not say much for the charge that Society hounds homosexuals per se. Finally, these animals and folks have had no role to play in the perpetuation of their species. This may be a very minor point for our liberals, but its in fact central to any species survival. More so human beings. That’s abnormal although natural.
#2 Well, I can introduce you to a friend who was lesbian and now is not. I have also known homosexuals who were heterosexuals before they “realized” they were not. I’m very surprised you feel anybody can be blameworthy if they are attracted to the opposite sex. What should they be attracted to otherwise? This equivalence in the homosexual argument does not wash at all.
#3 How can two fathers be equal to a father and mother? Or how can two mothers be equal to a mother and father? Are you saying there is no difference between a male and female of the human or any species? I’ve mostly likened homosexual adoption to keeping pets. Why would I keep a pet dog or any animal of choice, if I could produce one through union? Is it not true that there are many people who love and relate to their pets? Is that really the same as loving and relating to one’s children or to children adopted because a couple could not have them; not for lack of effort?
1. July 2009 - 8:54 PM
Can someone explain to me why in Hindu and early buddhist classical cultures, there was no interest in homoseuality? No one can give me a proper answer because they have none. No one cared to notice it or to condemn it. It was condemned by Christians and Muslims showing that it was a large part of their culture. It is largely a cultural thing, which was prevalent in ancient Greece and also very amongst Muslims due to the segration of women. I noticed the high incidence of homosexuality in Kashmir amongst Muslims, perhaps due to the segration of the women. Hindus did not care for it–there were neither against it or for it.
And this is essentially my attitude. What people do in private does not concern me. However marriage is between a man an woman. Most gay rights want marriage to ensure property rights they argue but this can be done through legal channels. Why do they wish to get married? I cannot imagine growing up having two fathers or mothers…So while I have nothing against homosexuals and care very little about what people do in private or if two men live together, I do think marriage is between a man and a woman if children are going to be riased. I also do not think it approprite for kids to be raised by single parents, but othen this is not a choice when people get divorced, the consequence is that the child suffers due to the irresponsibility of the parents.
Please someone explain to me homosexuality was not something that was given weight to Hindu culture, in the sense of being for or against it?
Moreover, when I was in college I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashoinable to be homosexual and many kids are confused in this respect. Could it be due to the modern culture?…There are men who just like to stay single, do not care much for the presence of women but are not homosexuals. Usually these kinds I think would have been genuine monks in earlier times.
I believe the fashion is largely because sexuality is emphasized a great deal by pop culture. When Plato for instance says the highest friendship is between a man and a man, he is not speaking of homosexuality, but friendship of intellectual equals, and women in his time were not educated.
Even though the Greeks had homosexuality, it was not glorified…
1. July 2009 - 9:01 PM
Can someone explain to me why in Hindu and early Buddhist classical cultures, there was no interest in homosexuality? No one can give me a proper answer because they have none. No one cared to notice it or to condemn it. It was condemned by Christians and Muslims showing that it was a large part of their culture. It is largely a cultural thing, which was prevalent in ancient Greece and also very amongst Muslims due to the segration of women. My husband noticed the high incidence of homosexuality in Kashmir amongst Muslims, perhaps due to the segration of the women. Hindus did not care for it–there were neither against it or for it.
And this is essentially my attitude. What people do in private does not concern me. However marriage is between a man an woman. Most gay rights activists want marriage to ensure property rights but this can be done through legal channels. Why do they wish to get married? I cannot imagine growing up having two fathers or mothers…So while I have nothing against homosexuals and care very little about what people do in private or if two men live together, I do think marriage is between a man and a woman if children are going to be riased. I also do not think it approprite for kids to be raised by single parents, but othen this is not a choice when people get divorced, the consequence is that the child suffers greatly due to the irresponsibility of the parents.
Please someone explain to me homosexuality was not something that was given weight to by Hindu culture, in the sense of being for or against it?
Moreover, when I was in college I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashoinable to be homosexual and many kids are confused in this respect. Could it be due to the modern culture?…There are men who just like to stay single, do not care much for the presence of women but are not homosexuals. Usually these kinds I think would have been genuine monks in earlier times. Or some men are just content to be bachelors and do not care mcuh for women and often intelligent men. I know many such men. They are not homosexuals.
I believe the fashion these days is largely because sexuality is emphasized to an inordinate degree a great deal by pop culture…. When Plato for instance says the highest friendship is between a man and a man, he is not speaking of homosexuality, but friendship of intellectual equals, and women in his time were not educated.
Even though the Greeks had homosexuality, it was not glorified…I believe it arose from the segration of women who were confined to household chores and were not educated like the men.
Posted on July 1, 2009 at 8:54 PM.
1. July 2009 - 9:08 PM
Sorry for typos..I type fast…
Can someone explain to me why in Hindu and early Buddhist classical cultures, there was no interest in homosexuality? No one can give me a proper answer because they have none. No one cared to notice it or to condemn it. It was condemned by Christians and Muslims showing that it was a large part of their culture. It is largely a cultural thing, which was prevalent in ancient Greece and also very amongst Muslims due to the segration of women. My husband noticed the high incidence of homosexuality in Kashmir amongst Muslims, perhaps due to the segration of the women. Hindus did not care for it–there were neither against it or for it.
And this is essentially my attitude. What people do in private does not concern me. However marriage is between a man an woman. Most gay rights activists want marriage for homosexuals to ensure property rights but this can be done through legal channels. Why do they wish to get married? I cannot imagine growing up having two fathers or mothers…So while I have nothing against homosexuals and care very little about what people do in private or if two men live together, I do think marriage is between a man and a woman if children are going to be riased. I also do not think it approprite for kids to be raised by single parents, but othen this is not a choice when people get divorced, the consequence is that the child suffers greatly due to the irresponsibility of the parents. It must be terrible for the child because he does not choose to grow up in a single parent home.
Please someone explain to me homosexuality was not something that was given weight to by Hindu culture, in the sense of being for or against it?
Moreover, when I was in college I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashionable to be homosexual and many kids are confused in this respect. Could it be due to the modern culture?…There are men who just like to stay single, do not care much for the presence of women but are not homosexuals. Usually these kinds I think would have been genuine monks in earlier times. Or some men are just content to be bachelors and do not care to get married and are often very intelligent men. I know many such men. They are not homosexuals.
I believe the fashion these days is largely because sexuality is emphasized to an inordinate degree by pop culture…. When Plato for instance says the highest friendship is between a man and a man, he is not speaking of homosexuality, but friendship between intellectual equals, and women in his time were not educated but confined to the home.
Even though the Greeks had homosexuality, it was not glorified…I believe it arose from the segration of women who were confined to household chores and were not educated like the men and hence could not take part in the gymnasium in the activities of men.
Posted on July 1, 2009 at 8:54 PM.
Posted on July 1, 2009 at 9:01 PM.
1. July 2009 - 9:22 PM
I do not like burqa because it says more about the men than the women. I mean what kind of culture it must be when women need to be covered up in black from head to toe to be protected from the men? It really says more about the men than the women and it would be scary to be around such men. How about the men dress in black so they can get an idea of how ridiculous they look? So if their women are covered up head to toe that means they can do whatever to other women who do not wear such garb? But I do agree that some women probably wear it due to pressure from their communities and they believe that it is “good” for them being raised in burqa wearing culture. Ancient Hindus hardly wore clothing. People just get used to what they grow up in.
All men who make such rules to coverthemselves in black from head to toe first!
1. July 2009 - 9:33 PM
I do not like burqa because it says more about the men than the women. I mean what kind of culture it must be when women need to be covered up in black from head to toe to be protected from the men? It really says more about the men than the women and it would be scary to be around such men. How about the men dress in black so they can get an idea of how ridiculous they look? So if their women are covered up head to toe that means they can do whatever to other women who do not wear such garb? But I do agree that some women probably wear it due to pressure from their communities and they believe that it is “good” for them being raised in burqa wearing culture. Ancient Hindus hardly wore clothing. People just get used to what they grow up in.
All men who make such rules should cover themselves in black from head to toe first!
I think the burqa is repugnant to Hindus because they are used to celebrating the human form in art like the ancient Greeks and covering women head to toe was never a part of their culture. I have noticed that in some states Hindu women cover a lot –this is due to Islamic influence unfortunately–
1. July 2009 - 9:59 PM
It is interesting that Freud (I really dislike Freudian psychology just like Communism and Marxism–everything is reduced to sexual libido by Freud–it is very easy to be a reductionist–reduce everything to one thing like Marxism which reduces history to economics ) also did not have a very positive view of homosexuality.
1. July 2009 - 11:08 PM
Is it really, REALLY necessary to type lengthy comments, multiple times?
1. July 2009 - 11:13 PM
I thought the old ones would be deleted…I type fast and often submit without checking what I wrote…will try to read before resubmitting.
2. July 2009 - 12:49 AM
Completely off-topic but some outrageous comments compel me to react.
First of all, using alcoholism as an analogy is ill-conceived and illogical. An alcoholic is someone who drinks too much alcohol. A homosexual is not someone who has too much sex and needs to get over an “addiction”. Sex-addicts are not to be confused with homosexuals! Duh!!!
Also illogical is the question of allowing humans to cohabit with animals as an extrapolation of accepting homosexuality in our society. I would ask these people to look up the meaning of “consenting adults”. A dog or a goat is not a consenting adult.
Do animals deserve only to be raised for their meat, butchered mercilessly, and their carcasses eaten with relish? Is cohabitation with a superstitious human that much worse than being hacked to death? I think not.
Now let this not be construed as an open invitation for all the rabid non-vegetarians to come streaming out of the woods defending their habits. I’m completely tolerant of their ‘bestial’ desires even though I do not condone it.
Coming back to the issue of consenting adults, the natural argument that follows this is that in the future we may have people demanding that they be allowed multiple partners, living in communities. Obviously this sort of society did exist in the past and as society continues to evolve in a circle, these habits will be accepted and discarded from time to time. Slavery was acceptable to society until it evolved and enlightened human beings revolted against it.
Now as for the utterly cunning argument of two fathers and two mothers, etc. Obviously a man and woman nurture differently. But a good human being is a preferable substitute to a delinquent or absent father or mother. A heterosexual father-in-law who rapes his daughter-in-law cannot be chosen over two decent, non-violent, but homosexual FiLs.
A “family” is made up of loving and caring individuals. It’s not some narrow convention that is convenient to a few narrow-minded people. Cannot believe this little bit of common sense is so hard to see!
Also, it’s monumentally stupid to believe that homosexuality is a modern construct. And even more stupid to believe that allowing them equality and dignity in society will threaten our very existence. They have always been living amongst us and if anything, the population of earth has exploded.
If anyone has any scientific data to prove that homosexuality is a disease or that it was a modern invention, I’d love to hear it. I don’t want to hear about how it makes you uncomfortable. Or how it doesn’t confine to your definition of what’s natural and what’s not.
Lastly, most people who argue against homosexuality are close-minded with extremist views and no amount of logic will convince them. My comment is for not those people, but for those who are willing to listen to others’ views and open to having a healthy debate.
2. July 2009 - 1:52 AM
I think homosexuality is largely a cultural matter–some cultures emphazise it and other’s don’t even notice it like the Hindu culture. No one wants to treat homosexuals badly. The question I ask is why do they have to be “married” when obviously a woman and man get married? They can live together and assure themselves of property rights through legal channels, or of the financial benefits of marriage through legal channels. But according to some “actiists” they must also be allowed to raise children. This is where I disagree. No one wants to deny them rights for a lifestyle choice. However, a child is best brought up with a father and mother. Period. Sometimes this is not possible because people get divorced, or sometimes a child is brought up by abusive parents. One can also say why not condone polygamy? It is also a matter of consenting adults. Why is society so stict in not allowing polygamy for men who can afford multiple wives and can take care of them properly? Again because marriage is an instutution that involves two people and society needs certain limits for it to function properly.
I also do not like the idea of children having to read books like Sam has two fathers in the first grade–and when I saw excesses at the gay parade it really make me think whether modern culture makes it more fashionable, although it is something that obviously has been around.
I don’t understand it much, I would never treat someone badly because of it or deny them rights, but I do believe that children ought to be raised by a man and a woman and society should not break apart the family for this kind of thing.
My take on the matter is to treat everyone with respect because it can also happen in any family.
2. July 2009 - 2:38 AM
CC – With your last comment you close all dissenting views. Where is the question of the debate remaining *healthy*? So I suggest don’t take the moral high ground yet. Not at least until you know for certain that dissenting folks have not been able to respond to your argument logically.
Let me try to respond to your points of order now;
1. The analogy with alcoholism is to the extent of *it* and *them* being disorders. My point is that homosexuality is not normal although it may occur naturally in some human beings/species just like alcoholism occurs naturally because some folks succumb to alcohol while others (drinkers) do not.
Take another analogy. You may want to tell me how homosexuals are different from say, people who are suicidal? The only difference is that the latter would want to end their own lives while the former want to end their line. All natural but abnormal.
Also I’m not too sure that homosexuality is not an addiction in itself. Take for instance people who say they are bi-sexual. Obviously these folks have had homosexual experiences but have managed to stay in *some* control.
An interesting thought occurs. Can bi-sexual adults run campaigns for *male & female* spouses and still claim to be monogamous to the function of one sex? What is the liberal view on such a scenario?
2. While on dogs and goats – are you saying every time they mate they get raped? Obviously not. They simply mate. A man who consents to mate with a bitch and if the bitch does not bite back and instead accepts the man, is a consenting adult bitch. We all know that a bitch that’s willing to mate has reached *adulthood*. You doubt this because its not on statute books? I suggest we not be discriminatory toward bitches that loves men and add this clause in. More may come.
3. So you would put on par eating chicken and cohabiting with one? Nice argument. Logical even
4. The argument of the *circular* style of evolution will only make sense if we accept that we will go back to barbarism at some point in time. If that point in time has arrived, at least let’s not sell it as “equality” and “tolerance” and “compassion” and “non-discrimination” and heavens forbid *civilization*!. After all, you won’t accept slavery because it was present at some point in our history?
I think the family has evolved and is valued for a purpose. It has evolved after a lot of lessons were learnt the hard way.
5. On the “two fathers” theme your argument is disingenuous. Quite obviously I would prefer two dads to delinquent parents ***If I Did Not Have A Choice***. Thankfully, there is not dearth of heterosexual choices.
6. A family is *made up of* IF *it comes about* in the first place. Homosexuality does not appreciate the family because it has no part in its *coming about*. Homosexuals can have pets. Not children. Hard facts.
7. Homosexuality is as old as the Earth. Granted. No one denied that. But homosexuality also has never been given legitimacy and brought on par with normal human life. Today homosexuals demand rights to marriage and adoption. The most amazing thing is that they demand the right to adopt after they themselves give up their own right to have children due to their own choices in life. They need pets. Not children.
8. Homosexuals choose to kill off their line. Their progeny, through non-action. If that’s a disease or not, is a non-issue. I really don’t care as long as they don’t make it a legitimate choice in law.
2. July 2009 - 5:49 AM
“Not at least until you know for certain that dissenting folks have not been able to respond to your argument logically.”
Okay I’m going to make a sincere effort to rebut your statements in good faith.
“My point is that homosexuality is not normal although it may occur naturally in some human beings/species just like alcoholism occurs naturally because some folks succumb to alcohol while others (drinkers) do not.”
Why is it not normal if it occurs naturally in some human beings/species? Or do you not get the import of your own logic?
Alcoholism is a disorder. Human beings can choose to be alcoholics or choose to get over their addiction. Homosexuality is not a disorder. It’s not a lifestyle choice. People do not succumb to it.
“Take another analogy. You may want to tell me how homosexuals are different from say, people who are suicidal?”
Suicidal thoughts are a form of mental illness. It can be treated with therapy. Are you seriously claiming that homosexuals are mentally ill? If not, exactly where is the logic with this analogy? Like I said before, show me scientific data to prove that homosexuality can be treated.
A more appropriate analogy is that of some people being born right handed and some left. Some people are just born with homosexual tendencies and it’s not logical to equate that with some sort of illness or abnormality.
About bi-sexuality, I have to reiterate my previous statement (which I was so hoping you would pause to think about before rushing to make illogical comments. Nevertheless…) about consenting adults. Which brings me to your next horrendous claim!
“A man who consents to mate with a bitch and if the bitch does not bite back and instead accepts the man, is a consenting adult bitch. We all know that a bitch that’s willing to mate has reached *adulthood*.”
Are you seriously equating a thinking human being with an animal? Are you claiming that a passive animal is somehow equivalent in mental capacity to a human being? Can anyone see any logic in this statement?
“So you would put on par eating chicken and cohabiting with one? Nice argument. Logical even”
Yeah nice argument, because you are a non-vegetarian. Did you ask the animal if it wanted to be eaten by you? Did you ask the animal if it wanted to cohabit with you? The animal is “DUMB”. Meaning that it cannot consent to being eaten or being married. Until you can tell me what it wants, leave the animal alone and don’t presume to speak for it.
“Homosexuality does not appreciate the family because it has no part in its *coming about*. Homosexuals can have pets. Not children. Hard facts.”
These are not hard facts. These are just intolerant and dogmatic statements. What is indeed a fact is that a homosexual person is also a human being. Human beings have a natural tendency to nurture and raise children. Just because a homosexual does not procreate through conventional means doesn’t mean he is incapable of caring for a child.
Infertile people can adopt children. Homosexuals are no different. And again, your narrow minded definition of a family cannot be imposed on the rest of the world.
“Homosexuality is as old as the Earth. Granted. No one denied that.”
I’m actually quite pleasantly surprised with the above statement. I think we have some hope
“Homosexuals choose to kill off their line. Their progeny, through non-action. If that’s a disease or not, is a non-issue.”
Lesbian women are fully capable of giving birth to their own biological offspring, which is absolutely no different than a single straight woman choosing to give birth through AI without the need for a male partner. Do we outlaw that? What’s next on this intolerant agenda?
Gay men similarly use surrogates who give birth to their children which are biologically related to them.
So in conclusion:
- Animals are not equal to consenting adult human beings.
- Homosexuals do not choose to be born that way and they do not kill off their “lines”.
2. July 2009 - 8:45 AM
I really dont even have to defend the points that I made earlier cause CC had done an absolutely wonderful job about blowing all the arguments made. Hats off!!!
But let me clarify a few points
>>>Well, I can introduce you to a friend who was lesbian and now is not. I have also known homosexuals who were heterosexuals before they “realized” they were not. I’m very surprised you feel anybody can be blameworthy if they are attracted to the opposite sex.
Ok since you claim she was your friend did you personally treat her different when she was a lesbian. I am sure as a good friend you would have stood by her and supported her no matter what her sexual orientation was. Well I am asking you to do the same thing for people who are gay i.e don’t discriminate against them or send them to jails for that.
@ larissa
>>> I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashionable to be homosexual and many kids are confused in this respect.
I am sorry this argument is like saying people like to be born as slaves because its fashionable. Would anybody for kicks just come out and say they were gay just so that they can get discriminated against.
>>>However, a child is best brought up with a father and mother. Period.
How in god’s name can you be so sure that two men or women are so incapable of bringing up kids. Look if you are looking at certain traits which need to exist in parents I am sure people can provide the same comfort, discipline, security that any man and woman can give for a right upbringing open minded child.
p.s @Palahalli I am really sorry if I offended you with my negative association to every one of your “extremely” convincing arguments which was filled with such “positive” and warm messages that would make your heart burst with joy.
2. July 2009 - 10:49 AM
Those who have a poor understanding of homosexuality have a poor understanding of human sexuality in general, imo.
2. July 2009 - 12:06 PM
CC & Shaz – Thanks for your respective arguments.
Let’s see now their worth -
1. I’d like you to think more on *normal* and *natural*. Its *normal* for a species to self-perpetuate. Its *natural* or *part of nature* that some amongst the species cannot. This is an abnormality. Again, for instance I might be born with one limb. It’s natural in that it’s part of nature but not normal.
2. Alcoholism is a disorder that occurs in human beings who succumb to alcohol’s effects. There are heavy daily drinkers of alcohol who nevertheless remain in control of their drink. They drink because they want to. Those who succumb; drink because they cannot remain without alcohol. This latter are alcoholics. Homosexuality is a disorder when seen from the bi-sexual argument.
The analogy with suicide is limited to the point of killing self and killing my line *willingly*.
The Right Handed and Left Handed analogy is wrong because I can still use either of these hands, to write etc. If I could never normally write with my Left Hand but was Left Handed, then that would be an abnormality. The analogy is on stickier grounds because homosexuals are not bereft of procreative sperm. So as in the case of the Left Hand it may require greater *will* to make it write.
3. I don’t understand your argument of “consenting-adults” wrt bi-sexuals. Are you saying if a woman and man consent to partner a bi-sexual, they would have a legal case?
I would like you to apply your *homosexual* logic to *bi-sexuals*. Why can they not get a male *and* female partner because they swing both ways naturally?
4. I’m pleasantly surprised/relieved that you find cohabitation with animals horrendous even though human beings can be *naturally* inclined toward it. I was thinking you would want to treat this as an “equal rights” issue.
But wait, you would allow for such co-habitation if someone could prove that an animal will willingly cohabit with a human being. All you need is a language *you* can understand. That means *such* human beings can still accuse you of not having understood them fully and therefore discriminating against them through your ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Fair?
5. I still cannot understand your deprecating attitude toward animals. Animals are not *DUMB*. They have a language we cannot understand and find inadequate. There is a *HUGE* and *UNCONQUERABLE* difference between being eaten and being a sexual partner.
However there are human beings who claim to understand their needs. Therefore such human beings are not averse to cohabiting with animals of their choice. My question to you is; are you ready to give such human beings a fair chance in court?
6. I kind of like the way you use the word *conventional*. Procreation through normal and natural ways is *conventional*. So obviously there must be *unconventional* methods too. Very politically correct. The fact is homosexuals *give-up* their right to procreate because they say and rightly so, that their manner of living does not allow them to procreate. This marks them off from normal folks who *try their best* to procreate but cannot due to various deficiencies. Their minds are inclined toward parenthood and thus their *failure* to procreate drives them to adopt or to use the various new scientific methods available to them. Homosexuals are *not* infertile.
Suffice to say the latter were developed due to heterosexual *requirement* and not due to homosexual *self negation of such requirement*.
The homosexual need of pets is perfectly understandable. They can have animals but not human children.
My “definition” of family is one that has evolved over the period of human history. You still haven’t told us your definition of family. It seems anything goes with *love*.
Yes, I would put the *Single Parent* option in the same league as homosexuality/lesbianism. It does not even carry the same levels of “justification” that homosexuality might claim to carry.
I don’t think its intolerant at all. The fact is its liberal arrogance we see on display. That we can defy nature’s will and laws any which way we like and still survive.
Shortly, homosexuals exist. However they refuse to live as heterosexuals do; for whatever reason. Therefore their claim to similar rights as heterosexual should be denied.
Shaz – I’m not talking for criminalizing homosexuality. I’m talking against providing it the legal legitimacy it now seeks.
If we are going to discuss dispassionately and logically then there is no question of *necessarily* expecting positivity and warmth. My right to be discriminating cannot be taken away by the liberal need of political correctness. There will be positivity and warmth on display if and when the subject requires it.
Thank you.
2. July 2009 - 12:41 PM
“Those who have a poor understanding of homosexuality have a poor understanding of human sexuality in general, imo.”
- I doubt if anybody has attained nirvana in this subject. A quick browse on the internet will show folks that the debate on homosexuality is wide open.
However this debate is not about sexuality per se; human or otherwise. That indeed is a treacherous road to take.
The debate here is more on effects of legitimization of homosexuality and bring it on par with heterosexual society. Hindu society took care of transgenders by giving them their own community space. Liberal die-hards would look at this as segregation. That’s so much bull shit.
Since homosexuality was invisible to the naked eye it did not require the need for its own space.
Legal legitimization of the so-called sexual minorities will make it incumbent upon heterosexual society to accept in the face of legal punitive action, such sexual minorities in their midst.
If sexual minorities want to thrive let them build their own wherewithal. Let them have their own businesses that can support their own lifestyles. I would like to retain my right of admittance to them. I will not let my house nor will I engage with them as I would with my heterosexual companions. It will be on need basis only.
I cannot let any law take this basic right away from me.
That is the essence of the debate.
Thank you
2. July 2009 - 8:59 PM
Someone PLEASE explain to me that Hindus did not make much of homosexuality. How come they never cared to condemn it like Muslims and Christians and how come they never actively supported it? Because one’s attitude towards it is cultural and you cannot change that. There is nothing in classical Indian culture which even gave it the slightest importance. Some cultures put up with it and others ignore it. And I think Hindus realized that some people are that way and let them be without thinking too much of it. And that’s pretty much my take. I could care less what people do in private. But if some people make lifestyle choices that preclude having children, why do they want to have children? I am just opposed to that. They argue they want marriage for property rights–this can be done through legal channels.
Also from my study of Greek civilization, yes there was homosexuality, but you do not see great Greek philosophers actively in support of it and encouraging it–they also largely ignore it–read Plato and Aristotle…they are more concerned with philosophy and not sexuality when they say the highest friendship is between men, it means intellectual equals as women were not educated at the time.
I think the modern day Western pop culture emphasizes sexuality to an inordinate degree. I wonder if it is because Westerners were repressed in the Victorian age and hence this result?
I know many homosexuals. I have always treated them with respect. However, I also believe that children ought to be raised by a man and woman. Thank you.
2. July 2009 - 9:16 PM
The following is from writing.com by someone named Khalish.
—–
NEVER ARGUE WITH A FOOL
It is best not to argue,
But if you do at all,
Never do so with a fool.
A fool can defeat all.
He does not care for the facts.
He does not know debate.
He’s a stranger to reason.
Logic he can negate.
In the end the fool will win,
His logic is so strong!
Decides what he does not like
And then it must be wrong!
It’s better to keep quiet
When challenged by a fool.
Else, to prove his own wisdom,
He will make you a tool.
It is hence my policy
To not respond to those
Who ask questions not to learn
But to be bellicose.
—–
However, Sukhi at lazydrive.wordpress.com says differently
“You know that saying about why not to argue with fools – the one that goes “dont argue with a fool, they’ll take you to their level and beat you cos they’ve more practice?”.
I think that’s just bollocks – and chickening out.
The fools need to be put down, and shown their place – especially in arguements. Its far easier to get a smart person to agree they’re losing the arguement than to get a fool to do so.
And IMO the best way to do it is beat them on their ground – let them switch topics, carry on with their assertions – and counter them with things even fools cant disagree with!
Leaving the debate open for fools to take over is about the worst thing one can do. The best way is to close it fast, and aggressively. ”
So I’m actually confused about what to do here. Advice anyone?
2. July 2009 - 9:26 PM
Wow, this headline news greeted me this morning!
India decriminalizes homosexual sex
–excerpts–
Stephanie Nolen
New Delhi — Globe and Mail Update Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 02, 2009 07:43AM EDT
The New Delhi High Court struck down the law that criminalized consensual homosexual sex today, in a move that will radically change life for millions of gay, lesbian and transgender Indians and represents a huge shift for gay rights in the developing world.
—-
Full article here : theglobeandmail.com/news/world/india-decriminalizes-homosexual-sex/article1203903/
2. July 2009 - 9:53 PM
I hate to make offtopic comments but some of the arguments are too lunatic to ignore. Especially given that the Delhi high court has legalized this.
****************************************************
Well said Palahalli, and I fully agree with you. IMO, homosexuality is a manifestation of the perversion of a hypersexualized western civillization. A few points need to be added.
1. It is hardly a biological phenomenon as the case is made out to be. A prominent beating stick is the declaration by the Am. Psychiatric society that homosexuality comes natural. But these guys also consider Freud as normal. Plus, definition of whats BIOLOGICALLY NORMAL is dependent on the social aspects E.g. the normal male height in France is different to that in China. If this is indeed biological phenomenon, shouldn’t similar variation apply to human mind?
2. As for social acceptance, OK – lets say we “normalize” this perversion. Whats next? Some people may consider it normal to incest, which is legal in Sweden. Should we let brothers have sex with brothers in India to? Sisters with sisters? Consider the fact that the above case would not be “evolutionarily harmful” in that there would not be any children with genetic defects.
3. Lets consider an even more serious issue – something that comes NATURALLY/BIOLOGICALLY to a lot of people – pedophilia. Should this be legal? We arbitrarily set 18 as the year of consent. But, biologically speaking a 12 yr old can be more mature than an 18 yr old and so to speak, if a 12 yr old wants to bang a 40 yr old, will that be allowed? Even if its consensual? 10 yr old father and 12 yrs old mothers are growing in numbers in UK and USA. Is that our future?
So, for those who think that it comes naturally / biologically to some people which is BEYOND their control – lets stop kidding ourselves and accept that homosexuality, is just a social perversion. Just because the western civilization has accepted it does not mean we will have to do that.
PS -
2. July 2009 - 9:55 PM
Returning to the subject of Burqa, here’s Pat Condell — humorist, atheist, vegetarian by choice and, (formerly?) leftwinger — on burqa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
2. July 2009 - 10:31 PM
“So I’m actually confused about what to do here. Advice anyone?”
- Do they not tell you that fools cannot decide what course to choose when presented with clear options?
And a quick session on how to cite news clips accurately can help too.
***
I’m very sorry I expected sensible debate from liberals.
My fault.
2. July 2009 - 10:44 PM
Yeah right, sensible debate from someone who claims to communicate with animals enough to understand that they don’t mind being killed and being eaten.
And apparently, there must be some kind of statistics to prove that all suicidal people are healthy young men and women in prime of child-bearing ages who jump off a cliff, thus “killing their lines”.
This is the kind of sensible debate one can expect from a FOOL. DUH!
2. July 2009 - 10:48 PM
Oh Btw, this statement “So I’m actually confused about what to do here. Advice anyone?” was RHETORICAL apart from sarcastic. Please look that up on Google. Also look up the meaning of these two words while you’re at it : Consenting Adults.
2. July 2009 - 10:51 PM
“RHETORICAL apart from sarcastic” – Ha ha! Good one.
2. July 2009 - 11:20 PM
Something interesting for our equality mongering and non-discriminating liberal *fools*.
Read up on Joal in the comments.
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2009/03/nan_rich_bestiality_sex_animals.php
I learnt a new word today – Zoophilia
2. July 2009 - 11:48 PM
“equality mongering and non-discriminating ”
Striving for equality and non-discrimination among fellow human beings is a sign of society evolving from a primitive and barbaric culture to a more enlightened, compassionate, and tolerant one.
There is no scientific data to prove that homosexuality is “abnormal”. Homosexuals also do not stop procreating. In countries which accord them equal rights, they do carry on their genes forward.
Would we discriminate against physically handicapped people because they are supposedly abnormal? Don’t we go the extra mile to accommodate these people into society?
The current argument against homosexuality from you Palahalli is in the same vein as Hitler discriminating against the Jews because they were an inferior race. We know how that went. We also know who won the American Civil War.
Why are you so threatened by them? What if you were one of them? Would you like to be cast out and vilified?
3. July 2009 - 12:05 AM
Spirited talk by Pat Condell from the youtube link!
I have often come across this argument from people who defend the Burqa by comparing it with the Habit worn by Nuns in Christianity. This is a false and specious argument because there is no equivalent for Nuns in Islam. All Muslim women are required to wear the Burqa, where as ordinary Christian women who are not nuns are not required to wear the habit. The habit signifies austerity and doing away with worldly possessions, whereas the Burqa is worn to protect modesty.
Also, it’s important to differentiate between various types of the Burqa: one that fully covers the body from head to toe, with only a meshed net for the eyes. Others which are just scarves wrapped around the head but revealing the face. The latter is non-threatening, probably non-discriminating and also completely acceptable as an alternative to the full body armor.
3. July 2009 - 12:48 AM
CC – Enlightenment comes from using discrimination in choice. When one uses discrimination then one cannot link up to equality blindly.
Of course homosexuals are not abnormal. Neither are those zoophiliacs. But its nice to learn your “viveka” is not completely numbed as when you discriminate against zoophiliacs.
Allright, so being born with one limb is normal? Of course I will not discriminate against a person with one limb who is trying his best to lead a normal life. Unlike homosexuals, such disabled folks are true fighters and are an example to other human beings. Its an insult to compare them with homosexuals who are happy in what they have become!
Your comparisons with of homosexual condition with Hitler and the US Civil War are ridiculous to say the least.
Still if one were to look at facts one will see what the Jews and Blacks have made of themselves. (Israel and Africa come to mind) I suspect your equalizing and non-discrimination will never allow for an honest answer to come forth.
If I were one of them (homosexual), I would hope to never remain one of them. I would also hope to find it in me to fight my way out. I would know that I will be vilified if I imposed myself on heterosexual society. Last, I would not be arrogant in my claims of equality.
3. July 2009 - 12:58 AM
“There is no scientific data to prove that homosexuality is “abnormal”” -
I made a longish comment on this so-called absence of scientific data but it seems to have been held for moderation. Sandeep can you clear this?
Briefly, science doesn’t “necessarily” conclude whats normal and what abnormal. Society does. E.g. whats the normal height of a man?? The French are 5′10” and the Chinese are 5′6”. Who’s abnormal? Is it normal to have sex with your sister or brother? Swedes think incest is normal and you can marry your sister/brother from one parent. Indians don’t do that (so far). Is incest normal? Even though its consensual? Between adults?
PS – Science also has it grey areas, especially in the subjective areas of psychology/psychiatry. You often get funded depends more on what your peers think rather than its scientific merit, per se.
3. July 2009 - 1:27 AM
>> Of course homosexuals are not abnormal. Neither are those zoophiliacs.
Okay, we need to hash out this basic premise before moving onto anything else, because otherwise I don’t see the point of this debate at all.
According to you, is an animal equal in mental capacity to an adult human being? Why do you obstinately continue to ignore the fact that animals are only being used and abused by human beings for their own selfish reasons?
Animals on planet earth which do not belong to the Homo Sapiens species are not capable of giving their consent to participating in sex acts with human beings.
Zoophiliacs exploit animals in the same way that non-vegetarians do. One group has sex with the animals without their consent and other group kills and eats them without their consent.
Therefore it is illogical to equate Homosexuals with Zoophiliacs.
3. July 2009 - 1:37 AM
Bhavananda,
I had 2 comments from you in moderation and cleared both. Is there a third one?
3. July 2009 - 1:46 AM
Palahalli, I thought you’d be glad that parts of 377 having to do with consenting adults have been repealed, since 377 was imposed by the British based on, and inspired by their Christian faith. We should be glad that this leftover from colonial times and from an Abrahamic religion which doesn’t know how to celebrate sexuality and only induces guilt and shame, has been overturned.
I can understand the concerns regarding western-exported activism, but then, your arguments are no different than what the “right wing” in the west uses. I haven’t really seen any argument in your comments which is from the Vedas or any other Hindu texts.
3. July 2009 - 2:07 AM
Sandeep – thanks a bunch for clearing them. No, I only had two comments.
3. July 2009 - 2:09 AM
>>Allright, so being born with one limb is normal? Of course I will not discriminate against a person with one limb who is trying his best to lead a normal life.
A homosexual is also fighting to lead a normal life in society. Why do you discriminate against him? Because he doesn’t have sex like you do?
>> Unlike homosexuals, such disabled folks are true fighters and are an example to other human beings. Its an insult to compare them with homosexuals who are happy in what they have become!
Homosexuals enlist in the Army and serve their country. They are not brave? It is cruel and malicious to say that they are happy in what they have become… because again, they didn’t choose to be born that way. Most homosexuals suffer all their lives living in a hostile society.
You begrudge them happiness? Who made you god??
>> Your comparisons with of homosexual condition with Hitler and the US Civil War are ridiculous to say the least. Still if one were to look at facts one will see what the Jews and Blacks have made of themselves. (Israel and Africa come to mind) I suspect your equalizing and non-discrimination will never allow for an honest answer to come forth.
Whaaaa???!! What about Israel and Africa? What did the Jews and Blacks make of themselves? They fought for freedom and the right to LIVE. Are you in some cunning way justifying the holocaust and slavery?
>> If I were one of them (homosexual), I would hope to never remain one of them. I would also hope to find it in me to fight my way out. I would know that I will be vilified if I imposed myself on heterosexual society. Last, I would not be arrogant in my claims of equality.
How would you not hope to remain one of them? By committing suicide? Or by trying to “cure” yourself of your homosexual tendencies. If it’s the latter, please give me scientific data (I have been screaming myself hoarse asking for such data) to prove that Homosexuality is a disease and that it can be cured. Until then please refrain from calling others arrogant.
3. July 2009 - 2:35 AM
Whoa whoa! You too Bhavananda? Alright FINE!
Your comments about the normal heights of human beings were beyond hilarious. It is actually exasperating to explain the basic premise that human beings come in all shapes and sizes. Also, I cannot believe that this simple concept of Consenting Adults is quite incomprehensible to seemingly SANE people.
>>2. As for social acceptance, OK – lets say we “normalize” this perversion. Whats next? Some people may consider it normal to incest, which is legal in Sweden. Should we let brothers have sex with brothers in India to? Sisters with sisters? Consider the fact that the above case would not be “evolutionarily harmful” in that there would not be any children with genetic defects.
Thankfully you made my job easier by answering your own question with the last sentence. Incest is dangerous to human beings because of genetically defective offspring. There is plenty of data to support this and unless this somehow changes in the future (maybe we evolve so that incest is not dangerous anymore) this issue cannot be brought to a conclusion as of now.
As for the Swedes accepting incest, any reasonable person would know these habits are acceptable based on the culture of the land. In India it is okay for cousins to marry but not so in North America.
>>3. Lets consider an even more serious issue – something that comes NATURALLY/BIOLOGICALLY to a lot of people – pedophilia. Should this be legal? We arbitrarily set 18 as the year of consent.
Yes, pedophilia is a serious issue. And NO it cannot be legal!! But did you just say it’s Natural?? What are you smoking dude???
We didn’t arbitrarily set the legal age limit to 18. Let me research on Google, the origin of this age limit, but I suppose you can do that too. Having sex with under-age children is criminal and that’s how it should be.
Why? Again. A child is not a consenting adult.
3. July 2009 - 2:51 AM
Sandeep, I found Sarkozy shallow in his condemnation of the burqa. He sounded positively idiotic when he said the burqa was not a religious symbol. With this he, a supposedly conservative French nationalist, let’s Islam off the hook.
Sarkozy is not a conservative French nationalist. He is only so to win elections as are most politicians. Moreover, if you have been to Paris, you realize that France’s trade with the ARab world is very important–many expensive shops are closed to outsiders so that people with $$$ from the Arab world can shop at the most expensive stores. A great deal of France’s economy is dependent on this perhaps. Nations are friends with those that bring in $$ to them. This is just politics as usual, nothing right or wrong with it.
3. July 2009 - 3:46 AM
There seems to be this strange paranoia about Zoophilia and Pedophilia. I.e. that if we legalize homosexuality, we may have to start accepting these other behaviors too.
This is absolutely unwarranted because there is no precedent for this. I suspect that people are hiding their inherent bigotry with these illogical excuses.
3. July 2009 - 4:30 AM
@CC: I responded to you but it seems to be in queue/moderation. I’m not inclined to copy/paste. Hopefully it will come up.
Here’s a one-liner: Would consenting s@x between two adult sisters (no offsprings) of a common parent (i.e. not cousins) be acceptable? Why not?
3. July 2009 - 6:05 AM
>>Here’s a one-liner: Would consenting s@x between two adult sisters (no offsprings) of a common parent (i.e. not cousins) be acceptable? Why not?
Great question! The answer is really simple. I do not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual incest. If one is allowed (two sisters) the other should be allowed too (brother and sister).
And since we already know that incest is biologically dangerous and therefore deemed illegal, there is really no question of accepting or legalizing homosexual incest.
This is very same argument for the legalization and acceptance of homosexuals. We should not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual sex.
Also, I did some research on why generally incest is “icky” to most societies and this website has some really good information on this.
ablongman.com/html/henslintour/henslinchapter/ahead3.html
3. July 2009 - 6:07 AM
In India it is okay for cousins to marry but not so in North America.
What? Where? Among Muslims perhaps. Not among Hindus…unless there are some sects I have not heard of? In our community we are divided into gotras and you cannot marry the same person from the same gotra–this was smart and intended to prevent children with genetic defects long before people knew of the science of genetics. In North America, some Catholics marry cousins. In breeding also happens in Quebec, I have heard.
3. July 2009 - 6:18 AM
Yes of course I’m talking about Hindu cousins marrying! But of course, from different gotras or however you’d like to explain it.
Here’s a simple and easy to understand example:
Two sisters marry into different gotras. They have kids. These kids can now marry and have healthy offspring.
3. July 2009 - 6:27 AM
No that is incorrect. They would still be cousins and this would be unheard of! Two sisters can marry two brothers however. Not their children once they are related!
3. July 2009 - 6:28 AM
The gotras of both parents are taken into account. I have never ever seen marriage between cousins.
3. July 2009 - 6:34 AM
>> I have never ever seen marriage between cousins.
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It does. And it’s pretty common too.
3. July 2009 - 6:38 AM
Well I have never heard of such a thing, except amongst Muslims who can marry first cousins and for whom uncles can marry nieces.
Anyway sorry to digress from the topic…
3. July 2009 - 8:37 AM
larissa, from what I know, marriage between an uncle and niece is allowed in some South Indian Hindu communities. Perhaps someone who knows more can shed some light on this (or correct me if I’m wrong).
3. July 2009 - 9:02 AM
Hey Sandeep, my comment is stuck in moderation. Please to clear it please.
3. July 2009 - 1:28 PM
An interesting article by Pakistani Columnist Irfan Hussain on burqua.
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/irfan-husain-the-great-burqa-debate-179
It is however not surprising to me that Irfan Hussain, being an arch-liberal(To the chagrin of many commentators here, such species exist in Muslim community also) would have opposed burqua. In my own experience, it is most of the time community pressure or family pressure, that makes most of the women wear burqua, rather than the reasons quoted in the TOI report.
Sadly, there is a sense of deja-vu (remember Shah Bano case?) in the way both media and government cave in to the pressure from conservative, fundamentalist and parochial elements in the Muslim community in the pretext of “not hurting religious sensibilities”. Thus the media would not publish opinions of those who oppose burqua, or at least want to assert their right to dress as they wish. My own dire prediction is that the government will either leave article 377 as it is, or let the judiciary (as in recent Delhi HC ruling) bite the bullet.
All this caving in does not go well with those who, with their eyes fixed on future, care more to be the citizens of a free, democratic an secular country and care less for the boundaries their religion or self-proclaimed religious leaders want to draw around them. As a result of this caving in, the whole community is seen as regressive, narrow-minded and in conflict with almost all the values of enlightenment. In this atmosphere, any Muslim who wants to stand up for the values of enlightenment is seen as committing something like blasphemy.
To me, both these issues bring into focus again a more fundamental question. Would we, as a secular community, seek to restrict the role of religion as a private affair between a man and his god, or would we allow religion to infest all of our social and political life, and influence our statute books.
3. July 2009 - 8:08 PM
Ok, looks like a big can of creepy crawlies has opened up.
CC – I’ll try to be brief in my responses and ask questions where required.
1. Would CC agree to human-animal cohabitation if it could be shown that consent exists?
2. The homosexual is not trying to lead a normal life. He is trying to redefine what is normal to suite his purposes.
3. CC must know that homosexuals are/were not permitted to join the forces. This has nothing to do with bravery. It has everything to do with their capacity or the lack of it to mingle with heterosexual soldiers.
No. I do not begrudge homosexuals their happiness. However I, a heterosexual cannot be expected to facilitate it. They can be happy amongst themselves without impinging on heterosexual Society.
4. The Jew and Black comparisons with homosexuals do not make sense. If you push the argument anyways, I will say that Jews have made great contributions to civilization and the Blacks have miserably lagged behind. There also would have been no civil war if there had been no threat to the *Union*. Historical fact.
5. A disorder is not necessarily a disease. I have not said homosexuality is a disease. It is a disorder that can be overcome given the requisite will.
I have an interesting tale on “consenting adults”. In the movie “Kinsey”, Alfred Kinsey’s research student and Kinsey’s wife discuss the possibility of them having sex. Kinsey comes into the room and the two “prospectives” share their plan with Kinsey. The next scene is post breakfast and Alfred is calling out his wife. The wife is in bed with Alfred’s student. The husband (Alfred) is actually saying he’s getting late for work – so hurry up please! (Our future as liberals would have it)
6. Incest (by this I mean the immediate family) too will be acceptable. After all, science can make anything possible. So “A” can marry his sister and then have sex with their daughter who consents to the act.
7. CC, you obviously don’t know that “ages of consent” start from 12. In some Islamic countries there is no specific age at all. Presumably sex is allowed post puberty. So what are these silly anti-pedophiliac laws doing? Let’s get rid of them!
8. South India; son/daughter by father can marry father’s sister’s daughter/son. They are *cousins* as against brother and sister – (son/daughter by father’s brother).
*Immediate family* baseline for incest is common across the world. The rest is not.
Thank you
3. July 2009 - 8:20 PM
Kaffir – I’d like to go on merits of each law.
Then you talk of “celebrating” sexuality. What exactly does this “celebration” entail? Is sexual anything; a celebration? If yes then shall we have no rule at all? Who draws such rules? The State, Society or the individual?
I am not good at quoting Vedic verses. I don’t even know if there exist verses in support or opposition of homosexuality just like I don’t know if there are explicit injunctions for or against pedophilia and incest and bestiality. Yes, there are carvings depicting bestiality on some Temples. Per Kinsey’s report its possible that 3-7% of any population (the 10% homosexual of whole is a contribution of this same report)is prone to bestiality. In that case all we need to wait for is a campaign to legalize bestiality and then welcome cross species couples. That too is a celebration of sexuality (enhanced and universalized)
Thank you
3. July 2009 - 8:46 PM
Anwar Shaikh – “Would we, as a secular community, seek to restrict the role of religion as a private affair between a man and his god, or would we allow religion to infest all of our social and political life, and influence our statute books.”
- To me this is not clarity but confusion confounded. Root of most if not all of our miseries.
1. Are we (presumably “Indian” Society) a Secular community?
2. How does this Secular community “restrict the role” of religion to the private domain?
3. If this Secular community sees religion “infesting” its public domain, then how is this Secular community comfortable investing its private domain with such “infestation”?
Shortly, are Secular-liberals not trying to misguide the religious by telling them there is a way to restrict religion to the private domain when they actually want to to tell them that they should throw religion out altogether?
So when I support the right of the Muslima to wear the veil, I think I’m being honest to her need of her religion. This need is obvious because she has not converted out of it. We also delude ourselves repeatedly by assuming that some large evil force holds Muslims in thrall of Islam. They are scared to convert et al. Maybe it’s true of some. Certainly not of the majority.
In India the State is Secular and not Hindu.
Nevertheless when in conflict with the State, Muslims and Christians rarely recognize it as such and they then see a *Hindu State* instead. – Why should Hindus bear the brunt of decisions made by the Secular State or its courts of law that actually, vehemently deny any Hindu character in its institutions?
So my own position is that Muslims must be allowed to live as Muslims and by their laws.
3. July 2009 - 9:01 PM
Sandeep, some comments in moderation. Please clear them. Thank you
4. July 2009 - 12:01 AM
=>
This need is obvious because she has not converted out of it. We also delude ourselves repeatedly by assuming that some large evil force holds Muslims in thrall of Islam.
=>
Since the punishment for heretics and apostates is death (and it’s the duty of any Muslim to punish a heretic/apostate), that should be more than enough force to keep Muslims within the fold. It even keeps lefty non-Muslims deferential to Islam to the extent that they don’t even criticize it – they are not stupid, and they’re not blind to what happened to Theo van Gogh, Taslima Nasreen, Rushdie etc. and what happened after the Danish cartoons were published.
4. July 2009 - 2:48 PM
Kaffir – What you say is reasonable but this still does not explain the worldwide regression into Islam.
The only thing I propose is to give Muslims their Islamic Shar’ia. Let them experience their religion in its entire splendor. Why should we refuse them that? Even though it’s the Secular State that does the refusing now.
5. July 2009 - 2:15 AM
@Palahalli: I disagree with your following comment – “Let them experience their religion in its entire splendor.”
The only people who’d be happy with that are Islamist/Jihadi men, like you find in AfPak or the Saudis. Plus, it will only increase the suffering of their women.. The bigger problem will be with the non-Muslims because INVARIABLY the demands won’t stop will implementation of Sharia – it will only legitimize the jihadi wetdream of a worldwide Islamic rule.
Feeding a snake only produces poison, no nectar is ever formed.
5. July 2009 - 8:38 AM
Bhavananda – Today’s situation is that most non-Muslims have a benign impression of Islam. (There are no Islamists and Jihadis. There are only Muslims.)
My entire intention is to expose the full extent of Islam onto Muslims because they clamor for it; and with obvious effect, non-Muslims. After the ball starts rolling how many non-Muslims due you think will have any illusions about Islam anymore?
I’m not particularly bothered about the Muslima. I don’t see her as any different and unwilling part of the Islam project. She’s in it her whole length. Btw, what kind of thanks are non-Muslims getting for all their effort at protecting the Muslima?
“it will only legitimize the jihadi wetdream of a worldwide Islamic rule.” – This has acquired de-facto legitimacy today. It will provoke a de-jure opposition when Islam will rule Muslims in India.
You saying of the snake is very apt. Don’t you see? The snake (Islam)itself never produces nector but it does produce poison. The effect of its poison will have a churning effect on our Society and cure it of its illusions about Islam. It will cure non-Muslims as a whole.
5. July 2009 - 8:12 PM
I this these problems will stop when the Mid-East runs out of money that it gets from oil. About 60 years back no one cared 2 cents for these palces–and indeed, what have they built with their oil? How have they contributed to world civilization except to spread their religion with oil $$ to the remotest corners of the world? These countries mostly produce nothing. Even Iran will have an economy based on carpets and pitacchios without oil–and that is one country there there is some intellectual life.
Look what happened to Dubai when oil dropped to 40 dollars–it was in shock for a while…Unfortunately oil is rising again…
Some smart people will come along and produce some alternative energy. However, oil is going to be around for at least the next 30 years or more. But already people are making the switch slowly to alternative fuels–then when those countries become poor, they will have to either modernize or perish…And that is when they will begin questioning their culture and religion. Now they can afford to think themselves superior because the rest of the world subsidizes them by buying their oil and they need not look within or question fundamentalist form of governance.
I don’t think must else can be done except hope that people discover alternative energy and switch to alternative source soon. And this indeed is happening everywhere.
5. July 2009 - 10:57 PM
@Palahalli:
” Today’s situation is that most non-Muslims have a benign impression of Islam … My entire intention is to expose the full extent of Islam onto Muslims because they clamor for it; and with obvious effect, non-Muslims.”
That, again, is a fault of your perception of the truth. For example, non-Muslims today can very well see the effect that Sharia has on non-Muslims; it is in full implementation in Afghan, Pak and many other Arab countries. They can very well see the effect on non-Muslims as well.
“The effect of its poison will have a churning effect on our Society and cure it of its illusions about Islam.”
As for the snake and poison, I’m not too sure if the poison will cause a churning or completely destroy what’s remaining of the Hindu civillization. If the poison could lead to churning, Hinduism would have existed in Pak/Bangladesh/Kashmir where the poison currently in full display; if not in Pak or Kashmir the display of poison could’ve caused a churning in Indian Hindus. Clearly nothing like that has happened, so stop daydreaming about unleashing the “real Islam” – it would finish us completely. Whats worse, is that Hindus in their death-bed would proclaim that this is the *misrepresentation of Islam*.
5. July 2009 - 11:52 PM
Bhavananda –
- You say non-Muslims can see clearly, the adverse effect of Shar’ia on non-Muslims and Muslims themselves. Very well. I would like to believe this report but is it true?
The distancing of Shar’ia from Islam is a tactical wonder made possible by cunning Muslim leadership and acquiescing non-Muslims. No doubt Shar’ia can be abused as barbaric, even by Muslims themselves! Without of course saying the word.
- “misrepresentation of Islam” – Well, Hindus are doing it today. Worse, this convenient non-Muslim rhetoric irritates the Muslims and gives them greater cause against Hindus. It does no good to the Hindus too.
It is not very convincing to look at Pakistan-Bangladesh-Kashmir as any good examples in this context. There was never any Hindu leadership that had a clear understanding of Islam for what it was/is. Of course there were pockets of warning ever present but these were unceremoniously ignored even by Hindu leadership. The only person who saw Islam for what it was and could do to the Hindus, was Ambedkar. How much of a stir his thesis caused (1936) in the Mahasabha and Sangh circles is evident in it’s utter absence.
Shortly, the point I’m making is that it is not the duty of non-Muslims to dilute Islam when the Muslims clamor for an undiluted version. As long as this drama goes on, Muslims will constantly imagine themselves under siege while non-Muslims will constantly imagine themselves as great helpers and reformers of Muslims and Islam.
Until and unless Muslims witness the full glory of Islam in their lives; they will never get the chance to reject it. Until non-Muslims see this full glory in play, they will never get the chance to see Islam for what it actually is and then will themselves to break free from its stranglehold.
This much is possible in a country with a Hindu majority and Muslim minority.
Thank you
6. July 2009 - 8:01 AM
My above ^^^^ scenario is applicable only for countries that have a non-Muslim majority and naturalized Muslims like in India. Muslims in India are not immigrants.
For countries that have Muslim immigrants, their choices are technically simpler. Deport and outlaw.
8. July 2009 - 9:37 PM
Sandeep, I hope it’s okay to paste excerpts from another blog here. If not, feel free to delete.
These are excerpts from the latest post at satyameva-jayate.org
—
Pioneering gay activist Ashok Row Kavi recounts that when he was studying at the Ramakrishna Mission, a monk told him that the Mission was not a place to run away from himself, and that he should live boldly, ignoring social prejudices, and testing his actions to see if he was hurting anyone. Inspired by this advice, Row Kavi went on to found the gay magazine Bombay Dost. In 2004, when Hindu ultraconservative leader K. Sudarshan denounced homosexuality, Row Kavi wrote an open letter to him in the press, identifying himself as “a faithful Hindu,” asking Sudarshan to read ancient Hindu texts, and pointing out that not homosexuality but rather modern homophobia is a Western import. Vedanta teacher, Swami Chinmayananda (1916–1993), when asked his opinion of homosexuality, replied, “There are many branches on the tree of life. Full stop. Next question” (Kumar 1996, 6–7).
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (born 1956), founder of the international movement, Art of Living, when asked about homosexuality, stated, “Every individual has both male and female in them. Sometimes one dominates, sometimes other, it is all fluid.” When asked about the high suicide rate amongst gay youth, tears came to his eyes and he responded, “Life is so precious. We need to educate everyone. Life is so much bigger. You are more than the body. You are the spirit. You are the untouched pure consciousness.” (Rupani 2003, 15).
In her 1977 book, The World of Homosexuals, mathematician Shakuntala Devi interviewed Srinivasa Raghavachariar, priest of the Vaishnava temple at Srirangam. He said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a former life. The sex may change but the soul retains its attachments, hence the power of love impels these souls to seek one another. A Shaiva priest who performed the marriage of two women stated that, having studied Hindu scriptures, he had concluded, “Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female” (Vanita 2005, 147).
—
I think this should give a good perspective to our narrow-minded anglophile friends who have internalised British and Victorian culture through years of brainwashing in “english medium” schools.
8. July 2009 - 10:28 PM
CC – My response.
1. Swami Chinmayananda- “There are many branches on the tree of life. Full stop. Next question” – Indeed. Let’s treat all such branches equally. I have listed some in this thread. I can find more.
2. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – “Every individual has both male and female in them. Sometimes one dominates, sometimes other, it is all fluid.” – Fair enough. Logically then, such feelings need not stop with marriage. Does Sri Sri agree?
3. Srinivasa Raghavachariar – He said that same-sex lovers must have been cross-sex lovers in a former life. The sex may change but the soul retains its attachments, hence the power of love impels these souls to seek one another.
AND
“Marriage is a union of spirits, and the spirit is not male or female”
- This is a fine case for accepting bestiality too. Agree?
****
To summarize – I am not an anglophile nor am I a homophobe. The reverse is also not true.
I have not denied the existence of homosexuality or of any of these various “branches on trees”.
All I am saying is providing legitimacy to these “branches”; on the premise of “Equality & Non-Discrimination” will lead to certain inescapable and logical conclusions. But it seems that even CC is averse to such conclusions. Even CC seems to have his/her phobias. (That’s my hope)
I am very clear – I will not tolerate two fathers-in-laws nor of the same and opposite sex nor will I tolerate Dog-in-laws nor bitch-in-laws. Should I be bothered about being called “narrow-minded” and “brain-washed”? Most certainly not.
Thank you
8. July 2009 - 11:49 PM
Well seeing as how you are still confused about the canine species and the homo sapien species, it is obvious you need to first learn some 2nd grade (or whichever grade they teach about the Animal Kindgom) science. Ancient Hindu wisdom seems a li’l bit out of your understanding level just now.
Apart from that your openly declared intolerance of homosexuals is quite clear and unambigious. And I am tolerant of your intolerance. And when the issue comes to vote, we’ll let the people decide… as it should be in a democracy.
8. July 2009 - 11:57 PM
CC – I’m simply amazed.
I asked you a question some posts back. “Will you agree to bestiality if I can prove consent?” You did not care to answer.
Second,
You speak grandly of a democratic process that was squished under liberal heels. Please remember that the change in law was NOT put to vote. In fact, Moily’s later hurried retraction of his pro-abrogation statement was more in tune with what a vote would have in fact decided!
So, before preaching democracy, I’d like to see it practiced or even acknowledged, first.
8. July 2009 - 11:59 PM
“I asked you a question some posts back. “Will you agree to bestiality if I can prove consent?” You did not care to answer.”
I did answer. Perhaps you didn’t read it. Go ahead and prove to me that a dog can sign a legal document. Please!!
9. July 2009 - 12:02 AM
And this “law” you speak of is Article 377. And if you bothered to read any news (use google please) it would tell you that the British imposed this law on us. It’s a carry over prejudice that you seem most aggrieved to let go of. And that’s why I used the words brainwashed and anglophile.
9. July 2009 - 12:10 AM
“I am very clear – I will not tolerate two fathers-in-laws nor of the same and opposite sex nor will I tolerate Dog-in-laws nor bitch-in-laws. “
You will not tolerate two fathers-in-law. So hypothetically, if your legal age adult daughter married a guy with two dads, you will not tolerate it? I wonder what form your intolerance will take. I will not dare to presume. Why don’t you tell us?
I am sickened to think that it’s people like you who give credence to dangerous phrases like “Hindu Taliban”.
9. July 2009 - 12:29 AM
CC – Shortly,
1. “I did answer. Perhaps you didn’t read it. Go ahead and prove to me that a dog can sign a legal document. Please!!”
- So, now you want legal documents signed before sex? We spoke of “adult consent” remember? Not marriage yet. Also, I need not sign anything to get married. Before or after. Address the point please.
2. What law did the British not impose on us? But why are you running away from your much adored “democratic vote”??
3. Please don’t worry about “what form” my intolerance will take. That’s for me to decide.
4. If you don’t want intolerance to manifest itself, stop inviting such manifestations in the first place. One way to do it is by disabusing our society of “your” liberal pogroms.
9. July 2009 - 12:47 AM
CC – Please read up – http://www.answers.com/topic/zoophilia
Informative. Wonder when the zoophiliacs can celebrate their sexuality and “coming out of closets” day!
Not fair to them! Not fair!
9. July 2009 - 12:55 AM
“- So, now you want legal documents signed before sex? We spoke of “adult consent” remember? Not marriage yet. Also, I need not sign anything to get married. Before or after. Address the point please. “
I did address the point and you are yet to prove to me how a dog will give its consent. What planetary conjunction are you waiting for?
“What law did the British not impose on us? But why are you running away from your much adored “democratic vote”??”
If the British did impose ALL our current laws on us, why do you still want to obey your colonial masters? Now you want to hide behind the politics of the Congress party?
Ask someone to teach you how to use Wikipedia and Google. Then google these words in that order “tyranny of the majority”. If a 100 million people are baying for the blood of a man whose only crime is that he is a homosexual, then in a democracy we need to protect that man and not feed him to the wolves. Understand?
“Please don’t worry about “what form” my intolerance will take. That’s for me to decide.”
What are YOU running away from? Why can’t you answer what form your prejudice will take? Will it be harmless? Or will it not?
“If you don’t want intolerance to manifest itself, stop inviting such manifestations in the first place.”
Wow, finally you got down to business huh? Blaming the victim!!
If you don’t want to get raped, stop wearing those jeans. If you don’t want to get raped and murdered, you better wear a Burqa and not walk around displaying your body to me!
Ha ha ha, somehow this comment is absolutely relevant to the article at last.
9. July 2009 - 12:59 AM
Zoophilia again. Your obsession with this is strange. As is your dogged refusal to learn the differences between a human being and other species in the animal kingdom.
9. July 2009 - 1:09 AM
CC – The linked article has all and more information you will ever need on zoophilia. Don’t be shy. Read.
“If the British did impose ALL our current laws on us..”
“If”?? Did you say “if”? You mean your not sure? And you picked up “this” one law to show your angst against British imposition? Btw, who bayed for the “blood” of the homosexual?
Please look up the meaning of “prejudice”.
Imposition of an unwanted liberal worldview on our society is the same as molesting our society. Your “rights mongering” will do a lot of damage yet. Please don’t blame the “rape victim” for striking back then.
9. July 2009 - 1:13 AM
I think it’s safe to presume that you will never back up your claim of a dog giving it’s “adult consent”. The rest of your gibberish in your last post therefore doesn’t make sense.
9. July 2009 - 1:19 AM
CC – Define “adult consent”.
Btw, did you figure out the “ages” of consent yet?
9. July 2009 - 1:25 AM
It is quite obvious that you cannot bring yourself to answer the question. You know why don’t you?
9. July 2009 - 1:29 AM
And here are some more questions I expect you ask:
- Define “Human being”
- Define “Dog”
Save your breath and use google instead.
9. July 2009 - 2:01 AM
CC – Why can you not define something you so vociferously defend?
In the Philippines, I can sleep/marry with/a 12 year old. In Saudi Arabia, I can sleep/marry with/a any girl who’s reached puberty. LEGALLY.
Consent? Of course!
Btw, bestialty/zoophilia is not banned in Sweden and Denmark.
You speak of consent. Should you not define it?
9. July 2009 - 3:12 AM
I wonder… when you were busy hunting around for information on what’s banned and not in Sweden, Philipines, Saudi Arabia, etc.. you didn’t find information on the ONE country relevant to this debate? The name of that country is India.
What shining dishonesty!!
Have fun beating around the bush some more.
9. July 2009 - 3:18 AM
Here’s what dishonest commentators like Palahalli are skilled at:
CC – Homosexuality should be legal because it’s mutual consent between two adults.
Palahalli – Oh no if you legalize homosexuality, then Zoophilia will soon be legal too.
CC – No that’s preposterous because an animal is NOT a consenting adult.
Palahalli – Oh but it is!!
CC – Proof please?
Palahalli – (Still beating around the bush)
9. July 2009 - 9:56 AM
All that I can say is with freedom comes responsibility.
You can’t hold a nation hostage to the whims n fancies of a minority. That’s what happens in India.
Legalizing this will only legalize the casting couch of the Page3’s and the ones in fashion industry. As if homos weren’t doing it in closed rooms and were strictly abiding by laws all the while.
So, whats next after legalizing it?
CC,
Lets have a democratic vote. I am sure India will turn out against this verdict. Will you accept that humbly??
9. July 2009 - 11:05 AM
“You can’t hold a nation hostage to the whims n fancies of a minority. That’s what happens in India.”
I don’t understand why the homosexual minority needs to be lumped with the religious minority. Unless you are afraid that the Congress party with it’s sickening vote bank politics will have Arjun Singh create reservation blocks for people of the homosexual classes along with the “backward” classes. So in what way are the homosexuals presently holding this country hostage?
A subsidised trip to Paris for the homosexual minority perhaps is in the cards?
“Legalizing this will only legalize the casting couch of the Page3’s and the ones in fashion industry.”
What, so the casting couch is occupied only by the gays? Since heterosexualty is legal, is the casting couch legal for them? I don’t understand how legalizing homosexuality will legalize the casting couch…
“As if homos weren’t doing it in closed rooms and were strictly abiding by laws all the while”
So you’re afraid they’ll now start smooching in public and that makes you uncomfortable? But it’s okay for the “normal” couples to do it in public places?
“Lets have a democratic vote. I am sure India will turn out against this verdict. Will you accept that humbly??”
Er… I am supposed to accept the tyranny of the majority?
Peacefully accepting the current laws while never giving up the struggle for individual rights is what I believe in, so I hope that answers your question.
9. July 2009 - 4:45 PM
CC – Why do you get perturbed by my citing foreign precedence as in Sweden, Denmark and the Philippines? We are talking about human nature and this can hardly be limited to India.
The campaign for homosexual rights etc. in India is also not a Hindu campaign. This campaign is rooted in the International and borderless liberal campaign for Equality and Non-Discrimination. So, it’s time to withdraw anchors from some assumed and presumed Hindu legitimacy for homosexuality etc.
The way I see it; you have based your arguments on two premises – 1. The premise of complete Equality and Non-Discrimination. 2. The premise of inalienable Individual Rights. You have only sought to use “Hindu consent” to bolster the former two premises.
These two premises compliment each other and so you are able to argue that every individual homosexual has his right to be what he is and since he is also entitled to equality and non-discriminative treatment from State and Society, he is per-force equal to every other individual within the jurisdiction of State and Society.
What is not making sense to me is the fact that you deny similar rights and equal status to zoophiles and other sexual “branches”. You also seem to couch your “prejudice” in an (in)human argument of assumed lack of consent from the animal partner.
In the article I linked earlier, you will note that the zoophile argument is the same as the homosexual argument. These are sexual acts that are preceded by expressions of “love” between two partners. Two homosexual partners are able to communicate their feelings in the human language and the human and animal partners are able to communicate and understand each others needs in their “customized” communication – no stranger to human body-language. In the latter case also, consent is had through “non-objection” and sexual overtures, from the animal partner. This language is neither understood by you nor I. Just like you presume to understand homosexuals and I presumably, don’t). This dispute too can be settled by the courts. All it requires is some campaign arm-twisting.
[This (Ages of consent) varies from State to State and Society to Society. "Consent" can be defined academically. However, the import of this definition varies wildly. Like I showed; from age 12 and earlier to age 18 or more. Obviously, sexual consent does not seem to be linked to adult-hood unless adult-hood is linked to the "flowering" of female/male. In India, folks used to get married pretty early in life. My grand mother married at age 14]
Now your disagreement seems to be on the word, “adult consent”. It appears you do not want to acknowledge the simple fact that consent in the sexual sense is that which is understood to be consenting and legally valid. (The entire homosexual campaign against section 377 was to force the State to validate homosexual consent)
****
Some more observations -
1. “Minority” is primarily a mindset conditioned by culture that is not shared with a Majority. So, all minorities tend to behave similarly. Some go hyper, that’s all. Taking the example of reservations, what makes you think you are intellectually equipped to oppose reservations for homosexuals? What would your argument be?
2. “Since heterosexuality is legal,..”?? – What if it is deemed illegal?
3. “So you’re afraid they’ll now start smooching in public and that makes you uncomfortable? But it’s okay for the “normal” couples to do it in public places?”
- Yes. But more importantly homosexual rights are not going to be limited to just “smooching” in public. It will include adoption rights and rights to marry of the same sex. This will have a deleterious effect on our society that “you” don’t seem to hold yourself responsible for.
4. So the democratic “Yea” is tyranny now?
5. There you go. “Individual Right” can be used to justify anything. Homosexuality and zoophiliacs.
Thank you
9. July 2009 - 7:49 PM
CC,
You are just picking on my words.
Why shouldnt the homosexuals be put in the same frame as sexual minorities. Both are troublesome isnt it. Just look @ the kind of obscene protests they do. Men wearing bras over T-shirts. Disgusting. What kinda protests are these. As a i said freedom comes with responsibility.
Regarding casting couch i didnt mean to justify casting couch for heterosexuals. Please understand.
On smooching. I would not accept that for heterosexuals either. Again answer is freedom comes with responsibility. why should one do it in public places? Guess what impact its gonna have on young minds. Today u want smooching, tomorrow u want people to hump each other in public.
You wanted democracy and now you backtrack and call democracy tyranny of majority. Decide first what you want.
BTW could you please come up with some stats on people being persecuted based on article 377. i haven’t seen anyone talk with facts.
9. July 2009 - 8:47 PM
Harish :
Sorry, didn’t mean to pick on your words.
“Just look @ the kind of obscene protests they do. Men wearing bras over T-shirts. Disgusting.”
You sound like a Victorian prude. Doesn’t freedom of expression mean anything at all anymore?
Yes I accept democracy. With Liberty and Justice. If the people are tyrannical enough to persecute the minorities because they feel disgusted about their ‘behaviour’, I will petition the Govt to protect the minorities.
I think you have a narrow view of what freedom and democracy means and it’s really not my place to educate people about what they should have learned well in school.
9. July 2009 - 8:58 PM
“If the people are tyrannical enough to persecute the minorities because they feel disgusted about their ‘behaviour’,” – There is no case without this propaganda.
9. July 2009 - 9:47 PM
After sifting through much clutter, I found these carefully hidden gems!
“In the latter case also, consent is had through “non-objection” and sexual overtures, from the animal partner.”
Back to square 1 just like I expected. You used this same demented and cunning argument that non-objection is equivalent to consent, many many posts ago. An animal gives you sexual overtures? Your mendacity knows no bounds.
“This language is neither understood by you nor I. Just like you presume to understand homosexuals and I presumably, don’t)”
There you go again equating homosexual people to animals. I don’t “presume” to understand them. They are actually telling me and the whole world what they want. I didn’t see any dogs or cats give interviews to Burkha Dutta demanding sexual equality. Maybe you saw them making sexual overtures?
So you cannot understand human beings who also happen to be homosexuals? Is that your defense?
“It appears you do not want to acknowledge the simple fact that consent in the sexual sense is that which is understood to be consenting and legally valid.”
Do you even understand your own statement? Prove to me how an animal will prove mutual informed consent before a judge… in the sexual sense.
The animals cannot even prove murder and you’re arrogantly spinning yarns about their sexual consent?
9. July 2009 - 10:45 PM
CC,
>> I think you have a narrow view of what freedom and democracy means and it’s really not my place to educate people about what they should have learned well in school.
Ok fine I dont understand freedom and democracy. Could you please enlighten me??
Your statement is typical of a liberal, escapist mind.
Wow. Define freedom of expression. What does it encompass? If tomorrow i feel like shitting on the road and protest, should be ok with you in the name of freedom of expression.
Let me give you another example. Lets take the case of drinking. Its the same people(read high society) who advocate that drinking is classy blah blah, people know their limits etc etc. Its the same ones who are found running over pedestrians in a drunken revel. Do you see what I mean when i say freedom comes with responsibility?
BTW, gimme some stats and facts on how many people have been persecuted based on section 377.
9. July 2009 - 10:46 PM
CC – Don’t get stuck in your mis-conceptions.
1. “An animal gives you sexual overtures?” – It does nothing to ME. This is the argument zoophiliacs use. Have you refuted them apart from voicing your own prejudices?
2. “They are actually telling me and the whole world what they want.” – Precisely what the zoophiliacs tell the whole world. In a language WE understand. They (zoophiliacs) claim to understand what their choice of animal wants. Have you refuted them apart from voicing your own prejudices?
3. “So you cannot understand human beings who also happen to be homosexuals? Is that your defense?” – A defense as honorable as you use; to subjugate and suppress zoophiliacs.
4. “Prove to me how an animal will prove mutual informed consent before a judge… in the sexual sense.” – Please stop talking rubbish! Why should anyone go to a judge before having sex?? Let an animal expert take a call on “animal consent” if your curiosity needs satisfaction. READ the article for what they have to say.
5. “The animals cannot even prove murder and you’re arrogantly spinning yarns about their sexual consent?” – Ridiculous statement. Everybody INCLUDING fellow animals know when one of their own is getting killed. What’s your point here?
10. July 2009 - 12:29 AM
Harish, wanting freedom and equality for all human beings does not come from an escapist mind. If you want lessons on the freedom of speech and expression, I’m sure you can find reliable and authoritative sources easily enough on the internet.
Palahalli, the misconception you seem to be gripping onto like the jaws of death is that animals are capable of giving informed consent. You need a lesson in biology.
“Why should anyone go to a judge before having sex? “
Er… have you been sleepwalking? That is the whole point of this debate I thought! While you are gleefully having legal sex because you are a heterosexual, homosexuals are being denied the same rights. They can get prosecuted for committing gay sex acts. They want homosexuality to be legal.
I cannot believe you have the temerity to pretend that the basic premise of this entire issue is not visible to you.
If zoophiliacs want legality, the courts need to give it to them. That’s where mutual consent between the partners comes in. Now why is this so hard for you to understand?
Btw, the day the zoophiliacs with the help of “animal experts” prove in a court of law that the animals gave their consent for sex… is the day every non-vegetarian gets prosecuted for murder. So that will effectively end your blood lust for animal meat.
I am confident that the vast non-vegetarian population will never let that happen, so stop hiding behind this imagined zoophilia bogey and debate the matter currently at hand… i.e. providing legality to homosexuality.
10. July 2009 - 12:36 AM
Oh btw, Harish you would shit on the road to protest what? I would like to know what you are protesting for by defecating in public.
10. July 2009 - 1:26 AM
CC – So it’s “informed” consent now?
Again you speak of the “legality” of heterosexual sex. It’s like talking about the “legality” of life itself. Weird!
“They want homosexuality to be legal” – Show me the numbers. How many arrested and terms from ever since the law was in force. Show us the numbers instead of spewing propaganda.
It’s also not true to say that the “legality” of homosexuality is the premise. It’s the “rights” of the so-called sexual minorities that’s being discussed here. I would like to know from you why a certain sexual minority should have more rights than another. Because you cannot understand them? How presumptuously illiberal
“If zoophiliacs want legality, the courts need to give it to them.” – Funny! Funny! It’s like you would have humbly accepted the courts adverse verdict in the homosexual case.
You sound silly bringing in meat eating. But then, looks like you would be ok if the zoophiliacs were vegetarian.
Zoophilia looks a bogey to a persecuting, heartless, prejudiced person. Why do you want to suppress this sexual minority? Get them out of their closet too.
10. July 2009 - 2:35 AM
“Again you speak of the “legality” of heterosexual sex. It’s like talking about the “legality” of life itself. Weird!”
So now you answered you own question. Being a heterosexual is as natural as being alive to you.
NEWSFLASH: Homosexuality feels as natural as life to them too.
You frequently make statements that sound logical yet, you fail to get the import of your own logic. Now that’s what’s weird.
It’s a nice ploy people like you use to deflect from the subject or avoid answering the question. Why are you yammering about for statistics? I thought you already learned how to use google a few posts ago. You prove to me that the homosexuals are NOT being persecuted and that they have the same rights and freedom that you have.
Vegetarian Zoophiliac?? Dude, now you also need to google the word Oxymoron. Although, in my personal opinion if there is indeed this “vegetarian zoophiliac” who cares about animals enough not to eat them, in that case love is better than bleeding to death. For the animal that is. But I don’t know. The animals didn’t speak to me yet to tell me which they preferred.
10. July 2009 - 7:01 AM
CC,
You dont know how to debate. I thought one could take this debate to a logical conclusion. And you start your search with google tirade. Why dont you support your claims? I am talking to you, so its your responsibility to define the term “freedom of speech and expression”. How do i know your definition matches with which one of the hazaar items google throws up. Escapist to the core isnt it?
BTW, on the shitting part it was a hypothetical situation unfortunately you chose not to answer it, rather chose to go personal.
And by your logic of animals cant give consent orally, then i guess people shouldn’t own pets. Pets never give oral acceptance or in written that they want to stay with so and so person. Will the mahout take consent from the elephant before training an elephant? Will the jockey take consent from a horse before riding it?
Do animals give consent for anything?? 
I am sorry I cant take this discussion any further because of your prejudice.
10. July 2009 - 10:48 AM
CC-I agree that homosexuals feel natural about their ways.Zoophiliacs feel the same way too.So do numerous other “sexual minorities”;all in dire need of equal rights always.
I asked you for stats because I couldn’t find any.
Why is that an oxymoron? So you would much rather folks have sex with their chicken than eat them? Hmmm.Even if the chicken did not speak to you, why do you think they’d refuse? Would you? If placed in the said chicken’s circumstances?
Think about this and that’s another nail in the anti-zoophiliac camp’s coffin!
10. July 2009 - 4:52 PM
China closes down mosques in urumqui today – made my day
11. July 2009 - 12:20 AM
“I agree that homosexuals feel natural about their ways.Zoophiliacs feel the same way too.So do numerous other “sexual minorities”;all in dire need of equal rights always. I asked you for stats because I couldn’t find any. “
Yes, it’s the same with Zoophiliacs and other sexual minorities. Obviously this is a slippery slope, but I still believe in equal rights for everyone. So *if* in the future, these other sexual minorities are able to make a good case for themselves, then I will not oppose it.
The implications of sanctioning legal status to bestiality and zoophilia might seem horrendous. Dog-in-law as you said. But this is how I look at it. Homosexuality has been legal in the United States for many decades now. They can even marry, adopt and form civil unions in many states. It’s legal in Canada too. And yet, I don’t hear as much a whisper of support for legalizing zoophiliacs. The reason being that in the present day it is very hard for these minorities to make their case… one of the important reasons being Mutual Consent.
So for now and in the foreseeable future, I don’t see how they can get legal status. If you have data to prove otherwise, do share it.
I haven’t found hard stats on how many homosexuals have been persecuted, but I did read news articles on how policemen harass the gay community to pocket haftas and bribes. They carry out sting operations to “bust” gay gatherings and put them through much humiliation. Also, society is still intolerant of them and prejudice still exists. Often, gays are forced by their families into heterosexual marriages.
“So you would much rather folks have sex with their chicken than eat them? Hmmm.Even if the chicken did not speak to you, why do you think they’d refuse? Would you? If placed in the said chicken’s circumstances?”
Yes, I would much rather the chicken was not reared just for its meat. Good question. If hypothetically, I was in the chicken’s place, I would much prefer sex to painful death. Okay fine, let’s say you killed me “humanely”. I still wouldn’t prefer death.
That being said let me clarify that I have long made my peace with non-vegetarians.
Finally, Lord Hanuman was born to Anjana, a female vanara (monkey) and Vayu. He is revered as God. That’s the culture of my land. Not Article 377. Hindu society is a tolerant one. Or atleast we used to be. It wasn’t until generations of children were taught to deride their own culture that we started being prudish about who should have freedom and who shouldn’t.
11. July 2009 - 12:33 AM
Harish, you lunatic.
You are the one who brought up both these examples. A guy wearing a bra and you shitting in public.
And now you’re jumping down MY throat for not explaining to you what you might have meant?!!
11. July 2009 - 9:01 AM
CC,
See you don’t have the decency to debate. Can you carry forward something without getting personal? Typical liberal mindset of going personal if one cannot answer the questions raised.
The examples were to exactly understand the gambit of freedom of speech and expression from your viewpoint. Since you have been unsuccessful in clarifying the same, I guess we have reached a point of no return.
I know you are a proud Hindu, it becomes imperative on you to read how debates were handled with dignity in Hinduism. BTW, its not to impose a dogma onto you but just to make you know how debates were handled.
Good luck.
11. July 2009 - 12:03 PM
CC – I’m not surprised at all.
Yesterday’s newspapers tell me that our judicial eminences in the Supreme Court are already scratching their bright heads, asking themselves, -
“Hey, did we legalize same-sex marriages too?? Nah..I think the folks down under at the Highs only decriminalized LGBT sex..but then…why are these folks marrying each other??”
It took a “lowly” astrologer, as the MSM never fails to remind us of the petitioner’s profession; to remind such rational species up on the Bench, about the consequences of falling for the LGBT’s “breast” beating!
They have also rightly asked for the two-timing government to come out of its own convenient closet and explain its stand. If the dumb ass BJP had been any different from the LGBT brigade, it would take up this issue immediately and not be similarly confused.
I’m also not surprised that the US would legalize in lieu of “consent” being proved. All it requires is a sufficiently “liberated” judge and not any inherent merit in the case, to legalize.
Well, as Harish would say; we’ve reached the nadir in the debate. No, I haven’t any complaint about CC getting personal with me. I’m on the subject itself. All this clearly shows readers the pitfalls of unquestioned “equality for all” and undiscoursed “non-discrimination”.
I’ll continue eating my chicken and leave the copulation to the cock.
Thank you
11. July 2009 - 2:57 PM
Palahalli, you don’t surprise me with your convoluted reply. Your intolerance for gays and other minorities seems rooted in a school of thought that is exactly similar to the mullahs of Islam, the religion which you profess to hate! Suspicious to say the least and begs for a Freudian explanation of your homophobia.
And yes, your hypocrisy of exploiting everything to suit your convenience displays a serious lack of integrity. Continue claiming that animals *want* to be abused… and oh yes… engage in business with the gay community on a “need basis”. Your own words, the latter.
And I’ll always wonder why some people just can’t ‘Live And Let Live’!
11. July 2009 - 3:39 PM
Harish, excuse me for picking on your words again.
“See you don’t have the decency to debate.”
No, I just didn’t have that much patience to explain to you your own words.
“Can you carry forward something without getting personal? Typical liberal mindset of going personal if one cannot answer the questions raised. “
Typical liberal mindset?! Ha ha, I think you meant to say typical escapist mindset.
“The examples were to exactly understand the gambit of freedom of speech and expression from your viewpoint. Since you have been unsuccessful in clarifying the same, I guess we have reached a point of no return. “
Okay, I’ll try. I’m going to quote your exact words again for the sake of correctness, so don’t get all sensitive.
“Just look @ the kind of obscene protests they do. Men wearing bras over T-shirts. Disgusting.”
I took that to mean that “they” the homosexual community wore the bras over the t-shirts to protest the inequality meted out to them. They were protesting for the cause of equal rights. They were protesting for legalizing homosexuality. So YES, that falls under the purview of Freedom of Expression.
Now as for you shitting in public. Why do you want to do that? What are you protesting against? To make what point? To fight against what injustice?
Seems to me you just want to defecate in public to counter their protests. That’s not only being a jerk, but also a menace to the public and NO that is not a form of freedom of expression.
So I hope you now understand why I wanted to know exactly what you were protesting against and if you indeed had a legitimate cause to defecate in public, before passing judgment.
But just the fact that you thought defecating in public without cause was a form of freedom of expression tells me that you have a poor understanding of your own phrase “with freedom comes responsibility”.
As you can see its exhausting going through such excruciating detail only to clarify what you should have figured out for yourself. And excuse me, if I don’t seem keen on doing it again, proud Hindu or not.
11. July 2009 - 4:49 PM
CC – It’s a very simple and plain response.
I’m not inhibited by what is or is not Islamic. I have not mentioned Islam or any religion to make my point.
I’m merely countering your support for “sexual minorities” to have equal rights as heterosexuals.
I used the zoophile argument to draw you out of the comfortable cocoon you placed yourself in. This utter lack of responsibility is the underlined rule of all liberals across the world. “Let somebody else pick up the rubbish – I’m just exercising my freedom of choice!”
You say – “And I’ll always wonder why some people just can’t ‘Live and Let Live’!”
- Not as long as “some people” continue to subvert the society I live in.
Thank you
12. July 2009 - 12:07 AM
No perhaps. But then Orthodox Jewish women also coverr themselves from head to foot and are required to shave their heads and wear a wig and to cover their hair. I think perhaps the origins are in the semitic cultures–Jewish peoples went to Europe and their womean dress like Europeans now and marrying with Europeans many assimilated. However among the very orthodox Jews their garb resembles that of Muslims. And what about the dress of European women during Victorian times? I remember a friend from Tonga telling me that origianlly the Europeans came to her island and were covered head to foot and the islanders now almost naked. Now its the reverse– Europeans are in bikinis at the beach while the island people cover head to foot! Considering the Koran takes a lot from the Bible and Christianity, and considering that Arabs and Jews had similar origins, this tradition must be peculiar to those from the region. Amongst many orthodox Catholics in Spain I have also seen women in long clothing. And you see it certainly amongt the nuns in the Catholic orders. So while Jewish peoples went to Europe, and began to dress like Europeans except for the very orthodox, Muslims stayed in the Mid-East and do not realize that their garb dates to somthing pre-Islamic from Old Testament times.
Among the ancient Greeks, married women wore the stola–which signified that you were married. In Kashmir this garb is still called stola. But the ancient Greeks and Hindu celebrated the human form–in art. In the Mid-East cultures from where the three monotheisms arose, you do not really see such art, except in pre-Christian times.
12. July 2009 - 12:30 AM
Please erase the above comment–some typos
But then Orthodox Jewish women also cover themselves from head to foot and are required to shave their heads, wear a wig, and to cover their hair. This is because it distracts the men from thinking of god I read somewhere. I think perhaps the origins are in the semitic cultures–Jewish peoples went to Europe and their womean dress like Europeans now, and marrying with Europeans many Jewish peoples assimilated. However among the very orthodox Jews their garb resembles that of Muslims. And what about the dress of European women during Victorian times? I remember a friend from Tonga telling me that originally when the Europeans first came to her island, they were covered head to foot and the islanders hardly wore clothes. Now its the reverse– Europeans are in bikinis at the beach while the island people cover head to foot–having copied the Europeans of the Victorian times! Considering the Koran takes a lot from the Bible and Christianity, and considering that Arabs and Jews had similar origins, this tradition must be peculiar to those from the region. Amongst many orthodox Catholics in Spain I have also seen women in long clothing. And you see it certainly amongt the nuns in the Catholic orders. So while Jewish peoples went to Europe, and began to dress like Europeans except for the very orthodox, Arabs stayed in the Mid-East…I think the burka dates to somthing pre-Islamic from Old Testament times. Maybe those places were violent towards women and they had to cover. Who knows?
Among the ancient Greeks, married women wore the stola–which signified that you were married. In Kashmir this garb is still called stola. But the ancient Greeks and Hindu celebrated the human form in art, and the female form is in abundance in art both amongst the ancient Greeks (pre-Christian) and amongst Hindus. After Islamic invasions, HIndu women began to cover more, adopting Islamic customs (and perhaps to protect themselves)… In the Mid-East cultures from where the three monotheisms arose, you do not really see art celebrating the female form except in pre-Christian times.
So my take on it is that it is something arising in the deserts of the Mid-East from Old Testament times and before…
12. July 2009 - 12:51 AM
After Islamic invasions, HIndu women began to cover more, adopting Islamic customs (and perhaps to protect themselves)… In the Mid-East cultures from where the three monotheisms arose, you do not really see art celebrating the female form except in pre-Christian times.”
Perhaps???? You fucking idiot.
The Hindus have had to do a lot more than just cover themselves to protect the dharma.
12. July 2009 - 1:34 AM
Palahalli, you’re simply and plainly dishonest. Islam was only used as a metaphor for comparing the nature of your intolerance and theirs. Your strawmans don’t throw me.
I thought in my last post, I made clear my stand on Zoophilia. You just simply and plainly lack the honesty required to acknowledge it. Because if you did acknowledge that you read what I had to say on the rights of all sexual minorities, then you wouldn’t be able to create another imaginary bogey of all liberals lacking responsibility; liberals who don’t address the sticky issues. I did address them. But it’s just another “Inconvenient Truth” you will pretend to ignore.
So it seems to me that you’re the one actually hiding in the cocoon. Doesn’t it strike you that you’re also one of “some people” subverting society with your intolerance of minorities? It’s funny that you think just being heterosexual somehow gives you singular claim to live in society.
My narrow minded fellow Indian commentator. All that is required to “live and let live” in society is to be a decent, good, human being. Not your sexual proclivity. I hope you will calmly reflect on these words before returning to your prejudiced cocoon.
Bowing out now…
12. July 2009 - 6:51 AM
@Krishna
Watch your language. Well they did not resort to the extent of wearing a burqa to protect themselves. And if their men folk had been more organized and constantly resisted in an very organized way perhaps things would have been better for them!!! When I read the history of some areas the passivity of the Hindus in the face of defeat sometimes was also amazing, although many bravely resisted…You cannot change history and dewlling on such things only makes you depressed. One only hopes Hindus learn from their history.
But a country with millions of prostitutes is not very woman friendly either…Look up the extent of human trafficking in India…that is happening NOW and will shock you more than what happened in the past….
12. July 2009 - 7:07 AM
@Krishna
I know very well what happened to Hindu women after the Islamic invasions–to the bad details. However, dwelling on unpleasant things in the past is futile unless it causes you to act in the present. My point was simply that the covering of women was not found in India to the extent found in the Mid-East cultures, and Hindu culture celebrated the female form in art and sculpture.
As for the present, I know that in cities like Delhi a woman does not walk out at night. I was lucky to know life in the hill areas where you did not even lock your doors 20 years ago (even in those areas this is not the case now), but women are not generally safe in many Indian cities.
12. July 2009 - 7:23 AM
@Krishna
and yes women also adopted many things from Islamic culture–for e.g. the baggy pyjamas and top many still wear. I have a feeling henna on hands also came from there….
Moreover, we not discussing what happened to Hindu women after Islam (which I think we all know without going into the nasty details) but the burqa–
12. July 2009 - 8:05 AM
I doubt homosexuality is a major problem in India which has far greater problems. I think the reason we hear so much of it in the news is that the Western media is largely interested in this issue.
India has 1 million child prostututes and about 3-15 million sex workers depending on statistics. How about people take a stand against such issues also?
As for human trafficking India is quite on par with some countries of the Gulf…
How about criminalizing child prostitution for a start?
12. July 2009 - 8:15 AM
CC-Nope will do.I did not find you taking responsibility for the consequences of your proclivities, on.society.It would please me if you can point them out to me.
It’s understood that you want sexual minorities to have the same rights as heterosexuals.For this to happen,you must prove that such sexual behavior is also as normal as heterosexual behavior. (This latter you do with aplomb) Where then is your responsibility for what will follow? You want a majority to change where a minority won’t?
I’m not questioning the right of the sexual minority to live in society as long as it’s their society they live in.
And there is no question of “live and let live” when they violate the society I live in.
If protecting my environ is narrow-minded, then so be it.
Thank you
12. July 2009 - 8:28 AM
Larissa – Homosexuality promises to become a huge problem. But I agree with you on prostitution.
Interestingly, prostitution itself is legal in India but trafficking is not.
In a society where degradation is held up as ‘equal rights’ it does appear that each one has his case or cause ready.
Capital punishment for those proven to be guilty of child prostitution. The buyer of course since he is doing it for pleasure, unlike the seller who is doing it out of desparation and poverty. Middle men go the buyers way.
12. July 2009 - 9:22 AM
CC,
Why dont you clear the air about what i have been asking there would be no confusion is it?
If you dont have the patience that’s your problem.
I am only asking you to quantify freedom of expression. What comes under the gambit of it? What doesnt? Who decides it?
And you blame me for the confusion.
>>“Just look @ the kind of obscene protests they do. Men wearing bras over T-shirts. Disgusting.”
This is where you got me wrong. When i was talking their protest, I didn’t mean to reprimand their protest. I was talking of the means they were using to protest. Means are as important as cause isn’t it? Can you prove to me that men wearing bras is harmless to the society? Could they have chosen other means? I think the statement of mine is quite clear, which shows my reservations to the kind of protest. If you don’t have the patience to understand what i mean, I am sorry I can’t really help.
I am sure the transsexuals also would be yearning for equality. In the name of equality how would you deal with it if they expose their private parts in public during protest. This is exactly what they do in the trains rite.
From your words it looks like, if i was fighting for equality i could choose any means of protests even shitting in public. Correct me if I am wrong.
Do we want to legalize suicide as well? After all its one’s own life. Does it come under the purview of Individual freedom that you are talking of?
20. July 2009 - 10:36 AM
Well if it is Islamic then it is secular in India; I though everyone knew that!
20. July 2009 - 10:54 AM
interestingly all the comments about homosexuality is like bestiality is taken from Christian arguments against it.
Some Indians cannot let go of the colonial mentality even while pretending to make up their own arguments. I suppose that is also ‘authentically’ Indian.
20. July 2009 - 12:45 PM
Carvaka – I’m presuming your referring to my arguments.
If so, I’d like to hear your arguments; also presumably “authentically” Indian, FOR equal rights for sexual minorities.