'(lips)Kiss of love' protest outside RSS office in Delhi, 70 detained

[Indrani]

This is again a particular view of the society, that is damaged. You imagine the society should be a particular way, it should have certain norms. Whether they are your own views or a collective one. They encroach on your idea of social norms. From their point of view, society is getting better. This is all relative.

It is the majority whose view must be taken into account. There has never been a society where everyone can be pleased and no one should attempt such an utopian society, such attempts are doomed to failure. Since they cannot present any convincing arguments to support their view and how this step optimizes societal welfare, their's is a view which should be dismissed.

 

[Sahasranama]

Except for inherited property, a person could name anyone as beneficiary in his will. It would not be an issue.

That is an ideal case scenario. 90% of people do not make a will. Most deaths are sudden, not many plan for it. What about inheritance rights? What about joint bank accounts ? What if they want to adopt a child ? What about their car ? Who gets to burn their body ? ....its a long list. I have only covered some of it.

It is unethical to not to give them adequate legal coverage which will not make them look like second class citizens with respect to heterosexuals.

Its a complex situation, not as simple as you assume it to be.

 

[Indrani]

You see that approach has its own problem and it is similar to how we / society deals with Hijaras.

They have got no legal protection, they cannot even buy their own house in their name.

What about share of property when a gay partner dies ? There are legal issues today which did not exist in our earlier society which had different legal laws.

Except for their sexual identity, I do not see how we are depriving them of any other rights. They are citizens of this country, then they should hold all other rights including the right to property. There is something called as Will which the gay partner can make, or sell the property to his partner for a token amount. There are many ways to get around it. You cannot burn down a house to get rid of a mosquito.

 

[Kloitra]

Society is just a larger representation of Nature's laws and human behaviour and survival. It follows all the rules that human survival depend on. That is the only way it can exist.

You call it damaged due to your lack of understanding. Society gets better when chances of human survival gets better. India still lags behind in our life expectancy.

I thought society has evolved beyond it!
Anyway, I am not calling the current Indian society damaged. I am just saying that people who think that the direction in which they think society should change is right, are wrong. There is no right or wrong direction for society to change.

If someone wants to legalize homosexuality, he is right from his point of view, and if someone wants to keep it illegal, he is right from his point of view.

My point of view - if an act involves two consenting adults and doesn't hurt others, it should not be suppressed by law. Ban nudity/porno in public. Restrict sensual activities in public, but their personal activities involving no one else should be beyond the scope of law.

 

[Sahasranama]

It is the majority whose view must be taken into account. There has never been a society where everyone can be pleased and no one should attempt such an utopian society, such attempts are doomed to failure. Since they cannot present any convincing arguments to support their view and how this step optimizes societal welfare, their's is a view which should be dismissed.

Its always ethics and morality which decides the right path, not the might of the majority. Dharma.

Attempt should be made irrespective of victory or failure. Bhagwat Gita.

 

[Indrani]

That is an ideal case scenario. 90% of people do not make a will. Most deaths are sudden, not many plan for it. What about inheritance rights? What about joint bank accounts ? What if they want to adopt a child ? What about their car ? Who gets to burn their body ? ....its a long list. I have only covered some of it.

It is unethical to not to give them adequate legal coverage which will not make them look like second class citizens with respect to heterosexuals.

Its a complex situation, not as simple as you assume it to be.

Well if they do not make a will, they better start to learn making a will the moment they get a partner. There is no inheritance rights because they are not married or born of each other. So to appropriate laws meant for some other context to their own is not right. They should not be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs to be brought up in a normal heterosexual family. Who gets to burn their body? Their father, brother, sister, whoever is available, or use the electric crematorium.

It is not as complex a situation as you are making it out to be. They are not normal married couple and none of the rules, laws, rights apply to them in that situation.

 

[Kloitra]

It is the majority whose view must be taken into account. There has never been a society where everyone can be pleased and no one should attempt such an utopian society, such attempts are doomed to failure. Since they cannot present any convincing arguments to support their view and how this step optimizes societal welfare, their's is a view which should be dismissed.

What if majority is wrong? You know that many practices have been abolished in recent history, many are still seen as evil and being suppressed. All of them were mainstream, practiced by majority. Just because majority likes something doesn't makes it right.

 

[Indrani]

Its always ethics and morality which decides the right path, not the might of the majority. Dharma.

Attempt should be made irrespective of victory or failure. Bhagwat Gita.

Nope. Many a foul and inane rules can be guised as ethics and end up destroying and collapsing the entire civilization. Their situation is not dharmic. So the rules of Dharma do not apply there.

 

[Sahasranama]

Except for their sexual identity, I do not see how we are depriving them of any other rights. They are citizens of this country, then they should hold all other rights including the right to property. There is something called as Will which the gay partner can make, or sell the property to his partner for a token amount. There are many ways to get around it. You cannot burn down a house to get rid of a mosquito.

Their sexual identity does not need legal sanction. It exists outside the law.

I have explained it a bit further in my post above. There has to be a natural law of justice. A legal cover to recognize the right of a gay couple.

One does not have to call it a marriage, call it by some other name as long as their legal status is recognized.

 

[Sahasranama]

I thought society has evolved beyond it!
Anyway, I am not calling the current Indian society damaged. I am just saying that people who think that the direction in which they think society should change is right, are wrong. There is no right or wrong direction for society to change.

If someone wants to legalize homosexuality, he is right from his point of view, and if someone wants to keep it illegal, he is right from his point of view.

My point of view - if an act involves two consenting adults and doesn't hurt others, it should not be suppressed by law. Ban nudity/porno in public. Restrict sensual activities in public, but their personal activities involving no one else should be beyond the scope of law.

Society exist to ensure man's survival. How can it evolve beyond it ?

There is no right or wrong is exactly what Indrani is now arguing when she says Might of Majority is Right. See how similar both of your arguments are ? Only for her is a temporary suspension of right and wrong. For you its permanent.

There is no point in repeating the argument about "no harm done" when it is already proven that harm is done.

 

[Indrani]

What if majority is wrong? You know that many practices have been abolished in recent history, many are still seen as evil and being suppressed. All of them were mainstream, practiced by majority. Just because majority likes something doesn't makes it right.

This is not an artificial society with synthetic rules. What practices have been abolished? Sati system was never mainstream. It was very rare occurrence. Jauhar, child marriage were responses to stresses which once the stress left the system, got corrected with majoritarian approval. Widow remarriage? How many widows do you see remarrying in India? Adopting artificial rules in contravention to the societal consciousness would get you nothing more than bragging rights in the West.

Majority are not fools and should not be bound to live by the whims of a minuscule minority.

 

[Indrani]

Their sexual identity does not need legal sanction. It exists outside the law.

I have explained it a bit further in my post above. There has to be a natural law of justice. A legal cover to recognize the right of a gay couple.

One does not have to call it a marriage, call it by some other name as long as their legal status is recognized.

Nope. What is unnatural cannot have claims on natural laws. That is a contradiction. Since their union is not legal, they cannot have legal rights as a couple.

They can live as friends and bequeath their property to each other as friends.

 

[Sahasranama]

Well if they do not make a will, they better start to learn making a will the moment they get a partner. There is no inheritance rights because they are not married or born of each other. So to appropriate laws meant for some other context to their own is not right. They should not be allowed to adopt a child. A child needs to be brought up in a normal heterosexual family. Who gets to burn their body? Their father, brother, sister, whoever is available, or use the electric crematorium.

It is not as complex a situation as you are making it out to be. They are not normal married couple and none of the rules, laws, rights apply to them in that situation.

So by advocating additional responsibility on Homosexuals and their partners you are in effect practising discrimination.

By denying their partnership a legal recognition you are promoting discrimination.

 

[Sahasranama]

Nope. Many a foul and inane rules can be guised as ethics and end up destroying and collapsing the entire civilization. Their situation is not dharmic. So the rules of Dharma do not apply there.

Dharma does not directly address the issue of homosexuality. Which is why it is gray in hinduism.

There is nothing specifically against it or for it either.

 

[Kloitra]

Society exist to ensure man's survival. How can it evolve beyond it ?

Sorry, I dragged it from some other discussion.

There is no right or wrong is exactly what Indrani is now arguing when she says Might of Majority is Right. See how similar both of your arguments are ? Only for her is a temporary suspension of right and wrong. For you its permanent.

What she is saying is that her point of view or the majority is right. How is it same as saying everyone is right from his point of view?

There is no point in repeating the argument about "no harm done" when it is already proven that harm is done.

This is a relative argument, harm is done from 'your POV'.