GETTY
Indian transsexuals in yesterday's gay pride march in Bangalore.
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Mixx
Independent Minds« Back to India's gays prepare to join the rainbow nation
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
EDITOR'S CHOICE
-
Is this the end of the celebrity memoir? -
Martin Lewis: People's champion -
When the party in the desert ended -
Bob Geldof's return to Ethiopia -
Ballack on Robert Enke - the friend he lost -
Travellers Guide to the Red Sea -
Jamaica: Cool in the Caribbean -
Bangkok: Real Thai tranquillity -
48 hours in Lille -
Indy Choice: Best of the new films -
Cost and time-saving Christmas ideas -
Indy Choice: The best of the new music -
Ultimate Christmas Gifts - Part Two -
Luxury fillings for baked potatoes -
Outspoken audience with Joss Stone -
Looking back on the Noughties -
The 50 best Christmas gifts for children -
Johann Hari on Alan Bennett -
China sets ambitious emissions target -
The White House crashers -
Forget gold and silver, invest in garlic -
SA v England: latest scorecard -
'Bycatch' downed by industrial fishing -
There's an app for lost news -
Plug pulled on Nadal's power game? -
Terry scores PR own goal -
MPs are us: a visit to Parliament -
A new dawn for Iraqi theatre -
Directors on cinema that inspired them -
Boyd Tonkin on nature writing in a crisis -
Malcolm McLaren: National treasure? -
Film Sequels - love at second bite -
Ways to say goodbye -
Queens of the small screen -
The ten best Christmas hampers -
Win film premiere tickets -
See 'Messiah': ENO special offer
|
|
ON THIS SITE
Comments
"...an absurdity in today's world,"
to see it as immoral. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it is natural, normal, or right. It's more an argument in the vein of "Well everyone else is doing it, so it must be ok.", which is a fallacious "appeal to majority" argument.
The other frequent argument I see is that it is "outdated". Since when does age simply nullify significance? This is arbitrary and also fallacious.
Another defense I find elsewhere is that "other animals do it too". Well they do other things we wouldn't justify in human society and we are hardly exactly the same as other creatures on this planet.
From whatever angle you look at it, why is this seen as ok?
2-Normal? (for those who are not born heterosexual) Tick
3-Right? (for those who don't subscribe to inconsistent and internally contradictory texts written thousands of years ago. Anyone still condemning wearing garments of more than one fibre, eating shellfish or usury? No, thought not). Tick
"2-Normal? (for those who are not born heterosexual)" - Again for cannibalism, those who are not born vegetarian? Or anyone born who initially has no sense of morals or ethics. By that logic, to have relative morality and ethics is perfectly normal and therefore crime and what is right or wrong cannot be defined, which leads to the next point...
"3-Right? (for those who don't subscribe to inconsistent and internally contradictory texts written thousands of years ago. Anyone still condemning wearing garments of more than one fibre, eating shellfish or usury? No, thought not)." - finished off with an ignorant, arbitrary, straw-man argument. The questions remain unanswered. Not to mention, it's already been established that by your logic, taking it to its full conclusion, that what is right and wrong is relative and therefore arbitrary. If you want to rationally and logically defend this position, you cannot be arbitrary.
Your argument is self-refuting. You cannot account for right and wrong in the first place, so why do you consider inconsistency, contradiction or condemnation to be wrong?
Natural is conforming to what life and particularly human beings were made to be and do (For example, be fruitful and multiply. Honour all life, and humanity in particular.)
Normal is the normal function of life to fulfill those natural purposes (i.e, male & female companionship, morality, ethics, positive relations.)
Right would be that which doesn't cause life to be estranged from it's Creator, corrupt creation and dehumanise individuals.
1. Natural. What does natural mean? Relating to nature? He agrees "other animals do it too". I think that is agreement that it is natural. The argument "they do other things we wouldn't justify in human society" seems to imply that "natural" is not necessarily a desirable state, or perhaps from "we are hardly exactly the same as other creatures" that human nature and animal nature are different. Is wearing clothes natural? How about having a haircut? Shaking hands? Telling the time? Praying?
rn homosexual. I'm also unconvinced about the idea that people are born celibate except for procreational purposes which the religious right are happy to parade about as the definition of normal. Since I am assuming this comment is directed at "gay sex" than "gay culture" you have to ask yourself does sex have a function besides procreation? And if so why should that function be limited to between male and female and even between one male and one female? Is there a reason?
3. Right. Morality is a religious concept, therefore suggesting that it is immoral relies on the people you are labelling immoral to be a follower of the religion which has rules which forbid whichever practice is being labelled as immoral. A Christian gay may be immoral (may be because the rule is based upon interpretation of religious texts which are deeply ambiguous) while an Atheist gay can only be amoral. Perhaps taking a more secular look and using a term like "ethics" which does not imply a following of religious rules you have to come up with a maxim which supports your argument, I guess Wer would say something like "People should not practice behaviour which is offensive to others" while Rob would say "People should be free to do what they wish if it does not cause harm or inconvenience to others". But what if I found that praying to God or Allah or some other superbeing was offensive, should that be banned?
"Since when does age simply nullify significance?" Quite often, 100 years ago it was normal for children to work as near slaves, women and poor people not to have the right to vote, black people to be a lower species than white people, etc. All people were certainly not created equally! Progress has made some steps towards levelling the playing field out though we are still hundreds of years away from seeing an equal society for all. Time helps us to iron out the blemishes in our society that are deeply rooted in tradition, superstition, greed etc. It would be difficult not to argue that society has improved across the ages.
Its an illness. Mind and body out of sync.
So, what is 'the order of nature'? Where is this defined? It can only be defined by scientific observation. What does scientific observation reveal?......
You yourself have said that the reasons for repealing the law are based on fallacious argument (I can agree with you there for the examples you gave), but the law itself is badly written and has itself been applied using fallacious arguments, those being the desires and prejudices of those who apply the law. (Oh, I don't like the idea of two men being intimate, it disgusts me so it should be illegal. - how's that for a fallacious argument?)
Badly written laws, based on the emotional hangups of Victorian aristocrats have no place anywhere and never had. You seem to be arguing that since it is there and has been for a long time, then it should stay; that is what I call a fallacious argument.
I don't believe this is true. There are many things that can't only be defined by scientific observation. To prove otherwise, you would have to go beyond scientific observation which would be self-refuting.
You can define the order of nature in two ways:
1) By that which created nature
2) By what can be observed in nature according to that which created nature
Scientific observation says that life reproduces after itself either sexually or asexually. In particular, mankind reproduces through the union of a male and a female. This is the order of nature according to observation.
According to the Creator, men and women are to be life companions, and therefore intercourse is the realm of a husband and a wife. They are further told to be fruitful and multiply. This can only naturally come about through the union of a male and female germ cell. Intercourse was also a provision to deepen intimacy and relationships.
You presume that the law has been applied according to personal desires and prejudices, but this is based on an assumption and not necessarily on truth. Thus, from your presupposition, you go on to imply that the law is badly written. My argument is not that it should stay because it has been there a long time, but that life was intended to be a certain way.
My other point is that refutations for such laws, which are deemed as emotional prejudices, also come from emotional prejudices. Therefore, discussion must turn elsewhere.
Because all the arguments that class it as an immoral act are spurious, equivocal, religious arguments based on outfdated and pre-scientific notions of purity and religious exclusivity that have been revealed to be nonsense.
Because all morality has be universal; not limited to the beliefs and convictions of a specific rel;igious group.
Because no mature moral philosophy, based on a real philosopher like Kant or Plato or Bertrand Russell, has the temerty to deignate a specific sexual act as sinful.
Because the vast majority of unnatural sexual acts have been proved to be common in every form of relationahip, materosexual and homosexual, animal as well as human.
Because the proofs that the 'immoral' brigade have relied on have been shown, over and over and yet over again, to be false: based on lies, hypocrisy and obfustication.
Becasue anyone who knows any gay people knows that the best gay relationships, like the best heterosexual relationships, are dignified by love, ennobled by joint responsibility and have the obvious, self-evident qualities that make it obvious to anyone, to a child, to a friend to an impartial observer, that this is something worthy and decent, something that is good.
And those people who try to debase goodness by making degraded comparisons with criminal acts, rape and sadism, are bad, immoral, false people.
You will never be able to make gay people look like garbage again. The time when that was possible has passed. The only sex acts that are evil are the ones deformed by force and cruelty. that is the exxence of sexual morality; there is none; there is only the morality of free will.
Gandhi will cry in the grave as he moved around naked to preach Ahnisa non violence even to cow, dogs, cats and snakes. Human more. He will want the British Raj to come back to India say, "Take the gays to UK, USA and let them stay there where they are wanted. India? Of all the places. India? I am amazed, India, surprises, I could swoon . With the Indian coming via as Miss World the trend has shifted to more beauties to counter attack the shortage of men. Aha.. now I see, the man cannot get married to women in India because they are broke and women want the dowries Bad Eh.
Why, why, why Gandhi left them naked.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
All I did was ask why homosexuality is just taken as ok without question, and so far no one has been able to give an answer. That said, it's up to the people whether they choose to indulge or answer me, obviously they want to. You also arbitrarily label my arguments as "specious". Without a rational reason as to why they are specious, why shouldn't they try to refute them? Afterall, it shouldn't be hard.
That said, no one is stopping anyone from celebrating anything. They are perfectly free to. I, on the other hand, am simply seeking some answers.
What about men who become monks or women who become nuns? Are they just as questionable, eschewing heterosexual companionship?
Religionists demand laws are changed not just to favour them, but to make life worse or limit medical choices for everyone else.
Religionists have caused more wars over the Centuries than any other group of peoples.
So while I accept Religionism is a lifestyle choice, it has caused the break down of society, thus;
*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology.
*Teachers should not promote religionism although the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice.
*The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21.
It is not a question if you agree with certain lifestyles, the issue is should others be free to pursue it. As this does no harm to others outside of those directly involved should it be illegal.
Traditional marriage in India is a disgusting state of cruelty and bondage. Anything that replaces it with something more compassionate, open and free from sadistic cruelty and domination should be welcomed.