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

[Indrani]

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.

No, I am not. There is no such legal provision for homosexuals and neither it should be recognized. You can claim discrimination against pedophiles, incestual couples, etc. etc, but these relationships should never have legal sanction. They can always choose to marry a person of opposite sex and claim same rights as others. If they are not willing to do it, then should not cry discrimination.

 

[Indrani]

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.

Dharma is the natural order. They fall out of the ambit of natural order. So the rules formulated for them will never be that as of mainstream society.

 

[Sahasranama]

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.

It is not desirable, but it is natural. It may be perverted and serves no useful purpose like a nipple on a male or an appendix, but its natural.

You earlier said its as natural as schizophrenia or Retarded kids being born. It may probably serves a larger evolutionary purpose which are yet unaware of.

If its natural, then its also a part of society and if its a part of society then it has its place in the law.

 

[Kloitra]

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.

Child marriage, divorce (women don't have to keep living with someone they can't live with!), castism to name a few. Women empowerment on a broad scale.

 

[Indrani]

Sorry, I dragged it from some other discussion.


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?


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

Everyone cannot be right. That goes against logic. If everyone and everything was right, then there would be no wrong. The word wrong becomes obsolete. Just try using the English language with no negative words. Let us see how far you get with that.

 

[Kloitra]

Everyone cannot be right. That goes against logic. If everyone and everything was right, then there would be no wrong. The word wrong becomes obsolete. Just try using the English language with no negative words. Let us see how far you get with that.

There are situations where there is no perfect solution. When the choice is subjective.

 

[Indrani]

It is not desirable, but it is natural. It may be perverted and serves no useful purpose like a nipple on a male or an appendix, but its natural.

You earlier said its as natural as schizophrenia or Retarded kids being born. It may probably serves a larger evolutionary purpose which are yet unaware of.

If its natural, then its also a part of society and if its a part of society then it has its place in the law.

No, it is not natural. They are not doing it out of desire, but because they were born with a condition. An abnormal condition.

Schizophrenics and retarded kids do not have the same rights as others. We do not let them drive on the roads. We do not let them have many many rights which is considered normal for other. It serves no evolutionary purpose.

 

[Indrani]

There are situations where there is no perfect solution. When the choice is subjective.

This is not one of it. Not knowing where to be subjective and trying to be ham-handed with rules and laws without taking into account contexts, cultures, nuances is half the problem in this world.

 

[Sahasranama]

No, I am not. There is no such legal provision for homosexuals and neither it should be recognized. You can claim discrimination against pedophiles, incestual couples, etc. etc, but these relationships should never have legal sanction. They can always choose to marry a person of opposite sex and claim same rights as others. If they are not willing to do it, then should not cry discrimination.

Pedophiles, incestual couples etc. destroy the society. Homosexuals do not. In that sense, they exist outside society. So do we make the "outcastes" ? the new dalits ?

Studies show they are sexualy incapable of normal hetrosexual relationship. So in that narrow sense they serve no purpose in society.

 

[Indrani]

Child marriage, divorce (women don't have to keep living with someone they can't live with!), castism to name a few. Women empowerment on a broad scale.

Women did not live with someone they did not want to live with even then. Going to live in maika was quite common for disgruntled couple back then too. India still has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Education, monetary independence, etc. etc, still has not changed the mindset of the society. Child marriage happens even today in those villages which adopted it for survival purposes and now has become tradition. India legally still recognizes those marriages. Caste system is alive and kicking well, only now it appears as caste based polity rather than caste based society.

 

[Sahasranama]

No, it is not natural. They are not doing it out of desire, but because they were born with a condition. An abnormal condition.

Schizophrenics and retarded kids do not have the same rights as others. We do not let them drive on the roads. We do not let them have many many rights which is considered normal for other. It serves no evolutionary purpose.

An abnormality is also normal. Its a statistically certainty. Like those with down syndrome.

We do not give such "people" similar legal rights because they are incapable of operating in society.

Not because they serve no evolutionary purpose. It is always safer to assume we do not know what evolutionary purpose is or what it takes to evolve. Maybe like the retards, homosexuals too serve a purpose which we are blind too.

 

[Indrani]

An abnormality is also normal. Its a statistically certainty. Like those with down syndrome.

We do not give such "people" similar legal rights because they are incapable of operating in society.

Not because they serve no evolutionary purpose. It is always safer to assume we do not know what evolutionary purpose is or what it takes to evolve. Maybe like the retards, homosexuals too serve a purpose which we are blind too.

No, it is not called a normal. It is called an abnormality.

That is right, we do not give them rights because with rights comes responsibilities and the gay couple are not capable of discharging those responsibilities of traditional marriage.

We cannot plan for some evolutionary response 1000 years hence. We ought to look at our survival and our societal survival in the now and the immediate future.. Just like the retards, homosexuals too serve a purpose as an example of what is not normal or desirable.

 

[Sahasranama]

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

A man who commits a heinous crime is convinced he is doing the right thing. Which is why he does it in the first place.

But does it become all right ? There is no "my" POV here, only the POV of what is right as defined by religion or society or law.

 

[Kloitra]

This is not one of it. Not knowing where to be subjective and trying to be ham-handed with rules and laws without taking into account contexts, cultures, nuances is half the problem in this world.

That is your position.

Women did not live with someone they did not want to live with even then. Going to live in maika was quite common for disgruntled couple back then too. India still has the lowest divorce rate in the world. Education, monetary independence, etc. etc, still has not changed the mindset of the society. Child marriage happens even today in those villages which adopted it for survival purposes and now has become tradition. India legally still recognizes those marriages. Caste system is alive and kicking well, only now it appears as caste based polity rather than caste based society.

Actually women were not treated well. I believe there was some line like doli jayegi and arthi ayegi or something. Women separating wasn't viewed well, even now. And what I said was was both the practices abolished and being suppressed. Although it is closer to truth to say being suppressed. No matter how you justify them, they were socially accepted practices which are being phased out. Majority can be wrong. Or you have reason to believe caste system is good?

 

[Kloitra]

A man who commits a heinous crime is convinced he is doing the right thing. Which is why he does it in the first place.

But does it become all right ? There is no "my" POV here, only the POV of what is right as defined by religion or society or law.

If you decide that POV of a society or a religion is right, that would leave no freedom to change, would it?

 

[Sahasranama]

No, it is not called a normal. It is called an abnormality.

That is right, we do not give them rights because with rights comes responsibilities and the gay couple are not capable of discharging those responsibilities of traditional marriage.

We cannot plan for some evolutionary response 1000 years hence. We ought to look at our survival and our societal survival in the now and the immediate future.. Just like the retards, homosexuals too serve a purpose as an example of what is not normal or desirable.

If nature churns out such "abnormality" at regular interval, is it really "abnormal" ? or is it just a reflection of our prejudice that labels it "abnormal" ?

Gays may not be able to have children by sex like many other IMPOTENT and BARREN couples. But they can be sperm donners or surrogate mothers. In a scientifically advanced society they too can (if required) contribute to the genetic diversity.

But clearly one's contribution to society cannot merely be measured on that scale.

How is their existence any more dangerous to society than the existence of couples who refuse to have children or cannot have children ?