Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Same sex attraction. Should it be stopped? (Page 37)

Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3492

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 2:43am | IP Logged
Originally posted by monar

So I read this on tweeter sometime back...

Newly born doesn't have specific sexual orientation, they have gender, so homosexuality must be some sort of disorder.

Ermm I can't deny the logic behind this tweet

Sexuality is developed at adolescence. Nobody can actually claim heterosexuality or homosexuality at birth. Its a simple logic. Just as we, who love to call ourselves 'normal', get attracted towards opposite sex in this age, similarly they too get attracted to same sex. No refined medical theory, as far as I know, calls it a disorder in any way.

Different - true. Rare - true. But Disorder or anomaly? No. I don't think so. And there isn't a doctor who can claim to cure this so called disorder by any means.LOL

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

lord_kalkiDemonStarPrinsesse.SuviFaraan92

monar IF-Sizzlerz
monar
monar

Joined: 09 March 2010
Posts: 10715

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 2:46am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by monar

So I read this on tweeter sometime back...

Newly born doesn't have specific sexual orientation, they have gender, so homosexuality must be some sort of disorder.

Ermm I can't deny the logic behind this tweet

Sexuality is developed at adolescence. Nobody can actually claim heterosexuality or homosexuality at birth. Its a simple logic. Just as we, who love to call ourselves 'normal', get attracted towards opposite sex in this age, similarly they too get attracted to same sex. No refined medical theory, as far as I know, calls it a disorder in any way.

Different - true. Rare - true. But Disorder or anomaly? No. I don't think so. And there isn't a doctor who can claim to cure this so called disorder by any means.LOL



anything which is not ordered is disordered not a big deal?
regarding cure ask Baba Ramdev TongueLOL

lord_kalki Groupbie
lord_kalki
lord_kalki

Joined: 21 June 2010
Posts: 89

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 3:27am | IP Logged
Hi frndz.
Nice and relevant debate. I don't think dat being gay is anything bad or weird. We shud understand them instead of mistreating them with conservative ideas. They undergo a lot of hardships to survive in dis world and its better if we don't increase their pain if we cant reduce it.
Those who beat up gays in the name of god, are themselves greatest sinners who disrespect god's creation. God can never forgive them.

Live and let live.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

..kiran..Pirated_FunDemonStarFaraan92

Summer3 IF-Stunnerz
Summer3
Summer3

Joined: 24 September 2007
Posts: 44430

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 3:54am | IP Logged
 
Frankly without allowing a Homosexual person to defend himself and have a say, we should not pass judgement.
 
If they are born that way, then there is nothing much they can do.
We may just have to expand our mind and understand them better.
 
Most unions are for purposes of raising a family and the question is whether 2 males or 2 females can do an equally good job as a man and a woman. The answer would of course be yes.
 
Frankly women are actually intelligent enough to control everything and thus make men slaves. They are pretty efficient too.
This is something for the men to worry about, what can happen in future.Shocked
 
 

The following 5 member(s) liked the above post:

RehanismPirated_Funmonarglace-bleueFaraan92

-Believe- IF-Stunnerz
-Believe-
-Believe-

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 27247

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 4:01am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

@Believe -
1. I meant mental growth and mature thinking. - If someone disagree with your thoughts/views,doen't mean other person is immature...!
If that person provides crap and illogical reasons to support his views then he's certainly immature.--IF you cant prove, then you can blame others thoughts are imature and blah blah,thats prove your immaturity..
2. Bhagwat Gita accepts anything which is logical and rejects anything which is a fallacy. --That depends As I wrote, Gita doesn't bind you - it sets you free.-- My dear friend,sets you free does't mean they will accept all your deeds!!
True. But Bhagwat Gita, or should I say Krishna, accepts anything which is just, even if it goes against the traditions or norms. Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody has been able to PROVE with facts and evidences that homosexuality is a wrong or harmful deed.Big smile--
Now dont say Krisha is homosexual...can you prove Homosexuality is good for society!!???
clearly wrote what is the definition of natural and unnatural as per Vedas.--Veda still says Homosexuality is a Sin!! plz dont change it!!
May be, if it does, then I reject it in the same way I reject Quran or Bible. But I quoted that Rigvedic phrase to establish that everything which seems different to our eyes need not be unnatural. -- Sorry , you again wrong...Rigvedic quote doest accepted homosexuality...
4. The third Gender got equal respect and privileges as others and no one treated them as a weird species. So I assume they were considered normal and acceptable.--then why they treated as third gender!
Why are women recognized as women? Does that mean they are not respected? In fact I think its necessary to recognize the Third gender because in many cases we have seen homos or transgenders don't wish to be called 'men' or 'women'. They wish to be identified the way they are.--mentally!
5.I never said that believers are ignorant. Many supporters of homosexual rights are themselves strong believers. I said that those who stick to BLIND-BELIEFS and are averse to reasons are ignorant. --Belief is based on reason ...reason is analysis, reason is argument, reason is an intellectual process...if you say you dont believe...these matter also a type of Belief...but as I said before majority only decide these minority need to give their rights or not!!Smile

No. Majority never decides the rights of minority. If that happens, social equality and justice shall be a distant dream. This is the reason why, even in Democracies, Rights are decided by Judiciary and NOT by Public Voting.--If you check whole parlimentry system, majority only given the minority rights...judgement is against public interest can be reviewd..judiciary must be commended for their decision. How would you interpret the statement that We declare that Section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution
 


Edited by Believe - 03 June 2011 at 4:11am
Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11413

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 4:35am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

..kiran..

Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3492

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 4:51am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

@Believe -
1. I meant mental growth and mature thinking. - If someone disagree with your thoughts/views,doen't mean other person is immature...!
If that person provides crap and illogical reasons to support his views then he's certainly immature.--IF you cant prove, then you can blame others thoughts are imature and blah blah,thats prove your immaturity..
What is that I can't prove? Haven't I proved my point with evidence each time? I don't think I had made any vague statement. Its you who have been making allegations and being adamant in seeing logic.

2. Bhagwat Gita accepts anything which is logical and rejects anything which is a fallacy. --That depends As I wrote, Gita doesn't bind you - it sets you free.-- My dear friend,sets you free does't mean they will accept all your deeds!!
True. But Bhagwat Gita, or should I say Krishna, accepts anything which is just, even if it goes against the traditions or norms. Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody has been able to PROVE with facts and evidences that homosexuality is a wrong or harmful deed.Big smile--
Now dont say Krisha is homosexual...can you prove Homosexuality is good for society!!???

Now that you have failed to prove any ill effect of homosexuality, you are asking me to prove that its good? Homosexuality is neither good nor bad. Its a part of the nature. If there's love and respect in a society, its good. If its devoid of love and runs on outdated and uncivilized norms, its trash. Simple. So I believe giving equal rights of marriage and recognition to homosexuals is definitely a step towards progress.

As for Krishna, he's beyond all these things. Some texts suggest that Shiva and Vishnu involved in a sexual union and produced a son called Shasta to kill a demoness Mahishi who had asked the boon of being killed only by a son of two males.

clearly wrote what is the definition of natural and unnatural as per Vedas.--Veda still says Homosexuality is a Sin!! plz dont change it!!
May be, if it does, then I reject it in the same way I reject Quran or Bible. But I quoted that Rigvedic phrase to establish that everything which seems different to our eyes need not be unnatural. -- Sorry , you again wrong...Rigvedic quote doest accepted homosexuality...

I never said it does. I just said the definition of natural and unnatural is not always as we think. And frankly I don't care if it does or it doesn't. What is righteous should be upheld and the decision of right and wrong should be made on practical analysis and not any age-old religious scripture.

4. The third Gender got equal respect and privileges as others and no one treated them as a weird species. So I assume they were considered normal and acceptable.--then why they treated as third gender!
Why are women recognized as women? Does that mean they are not respected? In fact I think its necessary to recognize the Third gender because in many cases we have seen homos or transgenders don't wish to be called 'men' or 'women'. They wish to be identified the way they are.--mentally!
5.I never said that believers are ignorant. Many supporters of homosexual rights are themselves strong believers. I said that those who stick to BLIND-BELIEFS and are averse to reasons are ignorant. --Belief is based on reason ...reason is analysis, reason is argument, reason is an intellectual process...if you say you dont believe...these matter also a type of Belief...but as I said before majority only decide these minority need to give their rights or not!!Smile

No. Majority never decides the rights of minority. If that happens, social equality and justice shall be a distant dream. This is the reason why, even in Democracies, Rights are decided by Judiciary and NOT by Public Voting.--If you check whole parlimentry system, majority only given the minority rights...judgement is against public interest can be reviewd..judiciary must be commended for their decision. How would you interpret the statement that We declare that Section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution

That was a judiciary statement not public statement. And clearly it is NOT against public interest and that is why it was passed while the previous law was abolished. Most NGOs, doctors, psychologists, human rights organizations and even the UN applauded this verdict of the SC. Only few illiterate and irrational religious leaders opposed it. Laws are framed for all and applies to all. If the SC had asked public opinion in passing laws, every law would have been biased. Most people, due to lack of proper knowledge, still think that homosexuality is abnormal/harmful. But the SC disagrees as it sees matters intellectually and not with sentiments or misjudged faith.
 

Look this debate will never end if you choose to remain oblivious to facts. What is your stance? You won't accept homosexuality under any circumstances - whatever facts/evidences/justifications/reasons you are provided with? You will continue to deride it as a disease or menace? Right? Then so be it.

But please do not speak of those crap things like 'dragging' homos and treating them for their 'mental illness'. It only displays your own ignorance and lack of wisdom. It really doesn't make much difference to me or to those who welcome illumination. The people and the society are changing for the better and if you don't wish to be a part of that change, then please do not retard its course. That would be a great favour.

Thank You.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

..kiran..Pirated_FunPrinsesse.SuviFaraan92

..kiran.. Groupbie
..kiran..
..kiran..

Joined: 28 October 2010
Posts: 182

Posted: 03 June 2011 at 5:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Believe

How many Gay memebers here...then disclose your sexuality!!? If not why?
 
Yes, it would be nice to hear what gay people have to say. I don't think they should be scared of stubbornly narrow-minded 'normal' people who refuse to treat them as people. If you are trying to suggest that people defending them here are homosexuals, then that would be a weird thing to suggest.
 
That's like saying people defending blacks should be black, people defending women's rights should be women, or *gasp* homosexuals. Why? Can't 'normal' men say that women should have the right to vote, or whatever it is? You know, at one point, when women didn't have rights, the men who would speak out for it would be considered effiminate. I'm glad they still persisted, because people's perceptions change, the interpretation of religion changes. I hope it does in the case of homosexuals too.
 
Whats sex means to these gays!!?
 
As hard as it is to understand, it means pretty much the same as for a lot of 'normal' people. It's a physical expression of love.
 
Those who support these peoples rights...may be tomarrow some-other sexualy worried group ask for different type of rights(incest/with animal)...that time you will accept!!!?? If not why???  
 
Because animals cannot consent, I will always be against bestiality.  As for incest, I will be against that too, because an encouragement of incest would disturb the important role that family institutions play in society. If the role of the family structure disintegrates in 2000 years, so it'd be something like, as soon as you're born, you are sent away from your mother and there is no such thing as 'family' - kind of like it is for some animals.. then there would be nothing wrong with incest, I think. 
 
Both feel wrong as of now, not because they're 'weird' but for actual concrete reasons. And doing it with animals will always be wrong, no matter what, because I will always think that animals should be treated with respect, no matter what popular beliefs are.  
 
Oh and please, homosexuals are not "sexually worried." It's just worrying to homophobes for whatever reason. 
 
that time how can you tell these things are not becos of Genitical problems?
 
Of course bestiality and incest are not because of genitical problems. It has to do with what a person feels attracted to, their personal tastes.
 
then you will approve or ur education will help to solve the issue?
 
My education will always help, as I hope I have shown. I refuse to be swayed by what most people think, because that changes. The fundamental 'rights' and 'wrongs' supported by concrete reason doesn't. Like I said, at one point women didn't have rights. Religion was (mis)used there too to deny them of basics that we now take for granted, such as eduation.
 
Some one mention before in religious books like Bibble/Quran/Bhagwad Geeta, the Upanishadas and the Vedas. Do you find any positive mention about homosexuality in these holy books...or even in kamasutra there is any??
 
I will never be able to answer that half as well as Darklord_Rehan, so I'll just say "ditto to what he said" Tongue
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan

Originally posted by Believe

Originally posted by Darklord_Rehan


 
2. Bhagwat Gita accepts anything which is logical and rejects anything which is a fallacy. --That depends As I wrote, Gita doesn't bind you - it sets you free.-- My dear friend,sets you free does't mean they will accept all your deeds!!
True. But Bhagwat Gita, or should I say Krishna, accepts anything which is just, even if it goes against the traditions or norms. Fortunately or unfortunately, nobody has been able to PROVE with facts and evidences that homosexuality is a wrong or harmful deed.Big smile--
Now dont say Krisha is homosexual...can you prove Homosexualiry is good for society!!???
 
 
Please prove that it's bad for society. Only if it's 'bad' can it be stopped. And it will only be bad and if you can show the harm that it causes.
 
 
5.I never said that believers are ignorant. Many supporters of homosexual rights are themselves strong believers. I said that those who stick to BLIND-BELIEFS and are averse to reasons are ignorant. --Belief is based on reason ...reason is analysis, reason is argument, reason is an intellectual process...if you say you dont believe...these matter also a type of Belief...but as I said before majority only decide these minority need to give their rights or not!!Smile

No. Majority never decides the rights of minority. If that happens, social equality and justice shall be a distant dream. This is the reason why, even in Democracies, Rights are decided by Judiciary and NOT by Public Voting.--If you check whole parlimentry system, majority only given the minority rights...judgement is against public interest can be reviewd..judiciary must be commended for their decision. How would you interpret the statement that We declare that Section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution
 
 
Yes, if a judgment is against public interest, it can be reviewed. But what are the grounds for review? Is that decided as per popular vote?
 
Let's say, tomorrow, the majority of the population says that child marriages are legal but a judge rules according to his interpretation of the law, that they are illegal because they infringe upon children's rights. His decision is then taken on review.
 
Would you say that because the majority of the population disagrees, the judgment is wrong and should be set aside? Let's say the majority decides that children are too young to have rights and their parents are the right people to decide their fate, let's say that a part of this majority uses a misinterpretation of religion to support this view, then that would mean that child marriages should be allowed.
 
The majority seems very convincing indeed. They have evidence from religious texts showing that at one point, kids were getting married. They use the 'parents are right' argument which kind of makes sense. They gave birth to us. They should know what's best. What does a 4 year old kid know anyway? Poor misguided judge.
 
I'm sure you would disagree that judicial review should allow for such a situation. Well, I hope.
 
The thing is, there are human rights that are pretty much universal. And under no circumstances should the most fundamental of these be derogated from. No matter what the majority thinks. Because the majority's views change with the tides. The rights, however, will stand the test of time. 
 
It would always be wrong to infringe upon somebody's right to dignity, equality and freedom.
 
And by "wrong" I mean that it is against the public interest. The public interest, for me, lies in the fact that nobody's rights are infringed upon. Of course this is a contested issue. It's not clear what "public interest" means, but for me at least, it means the values of society, their ideas of what's fair and just, insofar as it's all consistent with Constitutional rights and values.
 
What does public interest mean to you? Would it allow for my example above that allows for the legalisation of child marriages?
 
 
 
 
And I would like to add something about religion too. I believe in God and I believe in the principles of all religions because they are all premised on the idea of being good, doing good. It is good and important to follow the rules set out in religious texts as a guidelines to being a good person.
 
Unfortunately, religious texts are open to many interpretations. So sometimes, some people get confused. And sometimes, some people (mis)use religion to further their own political agenda.
 
Millions of Muslims were killed in the Gujrat riots for so-called religious reasons. Religion was used as a tool. I felt ashamed that these people called themselves Hindus. Same is true of some Muslims who use religion as a way of justifying themselves when they bomb places, and of those Christians when they went about on their Crusades centuries ago. The idea was that God wanted them to spread Christianity. So that justified them in killing the barbarians to make (what remained of) them 'civilised.'
 
But these wrong acts that were 'religious' in nature don't make the religion wrong. Islam does not promote terrorism, Hinduism does not promote violence, etc.
 
My point is, religion can be misinterpreted so that the very spirit of the religion is destroyed, while that same religion is used as justification for bad deeds.
 
Therefore, if you are using religion to defend your views, just make sure that you are not just looking for 'events' that support your claim, make sure that you first go to, and focus on, the fundamental precepts of the religions - the ideas, the spirit, the purpose of that religion.
 
Because the other peripheral things that serve to exemplify this ethos, can always be, and will always be open to various interpretations, some of which will be highly un-religious in nature. It would be sad to fall prey to such misinterpretations.
 
 
 
 


Edited by ..kiran.. - 03 June 2011 at 5:38am

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

RehanismPrinsesse.SuviDemonStarFaraan92

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
World Cup should be stopped?

2 3

Author: raj5000   Replies: 18   Views: 1194

raj5000 18 1194 16 April 2007 at 10:35am by ...M...
India- atourist attraction?

Author: -misha   Replies: 2   Views: 806

-misha 2 806 22 September 2005 at 7:49am by sowmyaa

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index