Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

India bans homosexual acts again?!

ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 5:22:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If this article is to be believed 1.2 billion people just lost some of their rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2013 11:33:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Don't even... this is so freaking insane I know. Nobody was even expecting them to go back, so it wasn't even an issue most of us were keeping a tab on.

Their reasoning is that a court is an interpretor of law, not a law maker. So they don't have the authority to void the section 377 (the section illegalising gay acts). According to them, high court overstepped its boundaries when it did away with the section back in 2009.

The problem with this is that the courts DO have the authority of deciding the constitutional validity of a law. The basic tenet of the constitution is that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of gender, sex, caste, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The courts say that 377 doesn't really discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation since its not illegal to be gay, its illegal to have gay sex. Yeah.

Anyway, they are looking at the parliament to amend the law, since its technically its duty. And we have three major political parties, and two of them have taken issues with the ruling, the third hasn't really said anything. One of the two is going to form a government in around 10 days, so its not all gone. I think we are going to scrape this ruling in near future.

Plus, Hinduism accepts gays and considers it natural, so I guess no one can really play the 'against our culture' card.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 11:18:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/13/2013 11:33:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
Don't even... this is so freaking insane I know. Nobody was even expecting them to go back, so it wasn't even an issue most of us were keeping a tab on.

Their reasoning is that a court is an interpretor of law, not a law maker. So they don't have the authority to void the section 377 (the section illegalising gay acts). According to them, high court overstepped its boundaries when it did away with the section back in 2009.

The problem with this is that the courts DO have the authority of deciding the constitutional validity of a law. The basic tenet of the constitution is that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of gender, sex, caste, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The courts say that 377 doesn't really discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation since its not illegal to be gay, its illegal to have gay sex. Yeah.

Well I hate to disagree with your analysis, but the court correct about that, a law against an act is not discriminating against only those who want to commit that act. If a straight person tried to have homosexual sex that is banned too. That's why I said 1.2 billion people instead of a hundred million. Just because someone doesn't wish to exercise a right doesn't mean they haven't lost it.

In a perfect world I'd like to see constitutions which work without crazy twisting and reinterpretation, a constitution declares that laws must not only be equal but must respect liberty as well.

Anyway, they are looking at the parliament to amend the law, since its technically its duty. And we have three major political parties, and two of them have taken issues with the ruling, the third hasn't really said anything. One of the two is going to form a government in around 10 days, so its not all gone. I think we are going to scrape this ruling in near future.
Well as you describe it you should be able to leave the ruling and scrap the bad law.

Plus, Hinduism accepts gays and considers it natural, so I guess no one can really play the 'against our culture' card.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2013 12:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 11:18:47 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/13/2013 11:33:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
Don't even... this is so freaking insane I know. Nobody was even expecting them to go back, so it wasn't even an issue most of us were keeping a tab on.

Their reasoning is that a court is an interpretor of law, not a law maker. So they don't have the authority to void the section 377 (the section illegalising gay acts). According to them, high court overstepped its boundaries when it did away with the section back in 2009.

The problem with this is that the courts DO have the authority of deciding the constitutional validity of a law. The basic tenet of the constitution is that no one can be discriminated against on the basis of gender, sex, caste, AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION. The courts say that 377 doesn't really discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation since its not illegal to be gay, its illegal to have gay sex. Yeah.

Well I hate to disagree with your analysis, but the court correct about that, a law against an act is not discriminating against only those who want to commit that act. If a straight person tried to have homosexual sex that is banned too. That's why I said 1.2 billion people instead of a hundred million. Just because someone doesn't wish to exercise a right doesn't mean they haven't lost it.


Well, of course there IS a rationale for the ruling- Supreme Court is the highest court. Critical thinking is what it prides itself on. The problem is that, even though it isn't anti-gay, it could have been pro-gay. i.e., it isn't wrong (technically) is abstaining the judgement, but given that it has overstepped its boundaries in the past- and in this particular case- a compelling case can easily be made that banning gay sex = discriminating against gays, it could have easily made the ruling. Just one strike. The ruling seems like a rationalization, more than genuine commitment towards holding the principles of whatever.

In a perfect world I'd like to see constitutions which work without crazy twisting and reinterpretation, a constitution declares that laws must not only be equal but must respect liberty as well.

Yeah.
Anyway, they are looking at the parliament to amend the law, since its technically its duty. And we have three major political parties, and two of them have taken issues with the ruling, the third hasn't really said anything. One of the two is going to form a government in around 10 days, so its not all gone. I think we are going to scrape this ruling in near future.
Well as you describe it you should be able to leave the ruling and scrap the bad law.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Scrap the entire Section. The problem with scraping it earlier was that it was the section that ALSO dealt with sodomy and child sexual protection and the likes. So scrapping it would have been problematic, given that it would have legalized child male rape. Now that we have a new law though (2012), we are in a position to scrap it completely, so that's that.

Plus, Hinduism accepts gays and considers it natural, so I guess no one can really play the 'against our culture' card.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?

Yeah there are... they are a minority though.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:01:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/14/2013 12:23:51 PM, Cermank wrote:
Well, of course there IS a rationale for the ruling- Supreme Court is the highest court. Critical thinking is what it prides itself on. The problem is that, even though it isn't anti-gay, it could have been pro-gay. i.e., it isn't wrong (technically) is abstaining the judgement, but given that it has overstepped its boundaries in the past- and in this particular case- a compelling case can easily be made that banning gay sex = discriminating against gays, it could have easily made the ruling. Just one strike. The ruling seems like a rationalization, more than genuine commitment towards holding the principles of whatever.

Yea definitely a double standard. Everyone can all think critically when they want to.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?

Yeah there are... they are a minority though.

Minorities can make quite a commotion if they organize though. Ten people who care a lot can be a larger political force than a hundred who don't care at all.

What I am amazed at is that there are no homosexual advocates on this thread blasting on about it. To me something like this is a thousand times more important than a marriage license but I haven't seen any Americans sit up and give a damn.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:16:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 12:01:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/14/2013 12:23:51 PM, Cermank wrote:
Well, of course there IS a rationale for the ruling- Supreme Court is the highest court. Critical thinking is what it prides itself on. The problem is that, even though it isn't anti-gay, it could have been pro-gay. i.e., it isn't wrong (technically) is abstaining the judgement, but given that it has overstepped its boundaries in the past- and in this particular case- a compelling case can easily be made that banning gay sex = discriminating against gays, it could have easily made the ruling. Just one strike. The ruling seems like a rationalization, more than genuine commitment towards holding the principles of whatever.

Yea definitely a double standard. Everyone can all think critically when they want to.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?

Yeah there are... they are a minority though.

Minorities can make quite a commotion if they organize though. Ten people who care a lot can be a larger political force than a hundred who don't care at all.

Well, they don't really care that much tbh. They are pretty quite and live and let live, as long as its not offending their religion directly. And apparently I should be eating my words because the Hindu party DID come out in opposition of gay sex. I don't get my country. Why do they have to be so dumb :-/

What I am amazed at is that there are no homosexual advocates on this thread blasting on about it. To me something like this is a thousand times more important than a marriage license but I haven't seen any Americans sit up and give a damn.

Well, its half a way across the world. People have limited empathy.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:05:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:16:40 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/18/2013 12:01:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/14/2013 12:23:51 PM, Cermank wrote:
Well, of course there IS a rationale for the ruling- Supreme Court is the highest court. Critical thinking is what it prides itself on. The problem is that, even though it isn't anti-gay, it could have been pro-gay. i.e., it isn't wrong (technically) is abstaining the judgement, but given that it has overstepped its boundaries in the past- and in this particular case- a compelling case can easily be made that banning gay sex = discriminating against gays, it could have easily made the ruling. Just one strike. The ruling seems like a rationalization, more than genuine commitment towards holding the principles of whatever.

Yea definitely a double standard. Everyone can all think critically when they want to.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?

Yeah there are... they are a minority though.

Minorities can make quite a commotion if they organize though. Ten people who care a lot can be a larger political force than a hundred who don't care at all.

Well, they don't really care that much tbh. They are pretty quite and live and let live, as long as its not offending their religion directly. And apparently I should be eating my words because the Hindu party DID come out in opposition of gay sex. I don't get my country. Why do they have to be so dumb :-/

The disgust doesn't come from religions it just finds a home there.

What I am amazed at is that there are no homosexual advocates on this thread blasting on about it. To me something like this is a thousand times more important than a marriage license but I haven't seen any Americans sit up and give a damn.

Well, its half a way across the world. People have limited empathy.

It's not just about empathy it's about justice. Deviant sexual orientations are minorities, they are not capable of voting themselves their own rights. If there was anyone or any group that should understand the importance of standing up for the rights of others even when you yourself don't wish to exercise those rights, it should be the homosexual advocacy.

The continued narrow focus of so many of these so called enlightened individuals disturbs me. Especially when displayed by Americans who go off to fight wars in the name of freeing people half way across the world every other decade.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:02:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:05:21 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/18/2013 1:16:40 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 12/18/2013 12:01:25 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 12/14/2013 12:23:51 PM, Cermank wrote:
Well, of course there IS a rationale for the ruling- Supreme Court is the highest court. Critical thinking is what it prides itself on. The problem is that, even though it isn't anti-gay, it could have been pro-gay. i.e., it isn't wrong (technically) is abstaining the judgement, but given that it has overstepped its boundaries in the past- and in this particular case- a compelling case can easily be made that banning gay sex = discriminating against gays, it could have easily made the ruling. Just one strike. The ruling seems like a rationalization, more than genuine commitment towards holding the principles of whatever.

Yea definitely a double standard. Everyone can all think critically when they want to.

Aren't there still quite a few Muslims and Christians in India?

Yeah there are... they are a minority though.

Minorities can make quite a commotion if they organize though. Ten people who care a lot can be a larger political force than a hundred who don't care at all.

Well, they don't really care that much tbh. They are pretty quite and live and let live, as long as its not offending their religion directly. And apparently I should be eating my words because the Hindu party DID come out in opposition of gay sex. I don't get my country. Why do they have to be so dumb :-/

The disgust doesn't come from religions it just finds a home there.

Probably one of the more intelligent things I've heard on here.

What I am amazed at is that there are no homosexual advocates on this thread blasting on about it. To me something like this is a thousand times more important than a marriage license but I haven't seen any Americans sit up and give a damn.

Well, its half a way across the world. People have limited empathy.

It's not just about empathy it's about justice. Deviant sexual orientations are minorities, they are not capable of voting themselves their own rights. If there was anyone or any group that should understand the importance of standing up for the rights of others even when you yourself don't wish to exercise those rights, it should be the homosexual advocacy.

The continued narrow focus of so many of these so called enlightened individuals disturbs me. Especially when displayed by Americans who go off to fight wars in the name of freeing people half way across the world every other decade.

lol. Well, fighting wars is masculine and cool.