2 gay Indians go into a strip club with an orthodox Jew...
India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
101–110 of 178 posts
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#102The concept of only a few deciding on societal mores, which we also saw in the US, should be seen as a real problem, even if you agree with the position of the "black-robed tyrants"... A vigorous debate in society, which should have occurred, has been short-circuited.
Consenting adults' rights on anything shouldn't be a matter of debate. It's none of the debater's business.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is so weird. I never understood the motive behind tyrannizing other people. How is that winning at anything other than being an asshole? Why don't people just leave other people alone? Is it so much different to tyrannize a woman for being feminine, or just being attractive? Most of us are instinctively disgusted by that--or at least claim to be?
I think it is worth looking for the rational (that is to say, non-moralistic) cause. The fact the gays are pressured to act straight across in nearly every society in such similar and intense ways indicates that there's likely a common cause. e.g. If one culture hates dogs and kills them on sight, you might say that culture has a prejudice against dogs. If 95% of cultures hated dogs and killed them on sight, you shou…
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's people trying to have more grandkids.
I have to disagree. I don't think people who opposr and hate gay people are doing it for evolutionary purposes. I haven't met anybody who thinks this guy is gay which meand he won't be making any kids, so let's hate him. Hate comes from much more fundamental place than that.
For majority of people it's not "normal" hence different. And for majority what's different is scary. The same reason why immigrants of different skin color than majority population are hated.
The same reason applies to extremely short, extremely tall, people with deformities, person with vitiligo in black/brown countries etc are treated differently, made fun of.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is so weird. I never understood the motive behind tyrannizing other people. How is that winning at anything other than being an asshole? Why don't people just leave other people alone? Is it so much different to tyrannize a woman for being feminine, or just being attractive? Most of us are instinctively disgusted by that--or at least claim to be?
I think it is worth looking for the rational (that is to say, non-moralistic) cause. The fact the gays are pressured to act straight across in nearly every society in such similar and intense ways indicates that there's likely a common cause. e.g. If one culture hates dogs and kills them on sight, you might say that culture has a prejudice against dogs. If 95% of cultures hated dogs and killed them on sight, you shou…
> So, given a population of people, some who have a gene that makes them pressure gay kids to act straight, and some who don't, over time the pressuring gene will spread through the population. And here we are.
There's no gene like that, though. I'm skeptical of evolutionary explanations like this -- it's easy to come up with one for almost anything.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to elaborate?
It's naive to think western liberal cultural change is a one-way street. This is the kind of thing that comes in waves. Just look at the radical transformation of the pre-colonial Kingdom of Buganda into present-day Uganda with its sodomy laws and internet meme pastors, perhaps ironically catalysed by the west, a west that has since flipped the complete opposite direction. It's only a matter of time before the tables…
> It's an unstable system, it all depends on what the majority population happens to be interested in in this particular century.
It doesn't work that way. Take Nazism for example:
The NSDAP won the 1933 election with 43.9% votes. Literally 43.9% of the German people believed and supported the Nazi policies of Hitler.
To think that the Germans would again revert back to Nazism would be insane. What happened was an aberration at best.
Any form of extremist thinking is what is considered an unstable system. Sure extremism will have it's day but not always. It's always the moderate values and living that triumphs and continues to provide stability. So what you say is exactly opposite to what the reality is. Aberrations don't provide stability.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#106I ask a genuine questions and HN moderators immediately hides the comment.
I can't ask questions here anymore? I wanted to know how people rationalize that this okay?
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about tyrannizing "far-right fascists"? Anti-abortion folks?
What sort of tyrannization are you referring to those sects being subjected to? It doesn't seem like they're currently being subjected to anything worse than some verbal disparagement, which is hardly comparable to the kind of discrimination many other minorities suffer. Are you hypothesizing that right-wing extremists might come to be discriminated against in some consequential fashion comparable to criminalization…
You can't work/belong to in most media companies, any major film/TV company, any major tech company, almost any university, many law societies and groups, many medical organizations. If you're discovered, you'll be fired, shamed, and blacklisted from the industry more broadly (see: James Damore).
You essentially can't have a normal career in tech, media, journalism, acting, law, medicine, or any academic field. You can sometimes have a career, but it'll be highly constrained by your identity as a hated Other for the power class.
You can have a little irrelevant job somewhere, but watch out: If any attention is drawn to you, you'll be fired there as well. One example is Tony Hovater:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nat...
He was fired from his job at a restaurant, couldn't pay rent, and people started posting his home address online. So he and his wife lost their home fleeing physical violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/2...
The Times article also notes he feared violence (specifically from armed thugs at his wedding). Which isn't surprising considering other violent incidents, like the guy who tried to gun down Steve Scalise at a baseball game, countless petty screaming and grabbings and punchings of anyone wearing a MAGA hat, etc.
It happens at every level, too. Not just Google developers telling Damore "I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you." But even high-level Democratic party politicans openly calling for Trump admin officials to be harassed in every public space:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/rep-waters-dr...
This sort of thing filters up and down; Maxine Waters said that because it's a fairly normal attitude in her peer group.
Another example - the violent mobbing of Charles Murray and Allison Stanger. Stanger ended up in the hospital in a neck brace.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/middleb...
This is off the top of my head. There's lots more.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world is so weird. I never understood the motive behind tyrannizing other people. How is that winning at anything other than being an asshole? Why don't people just leave other people alone? Is it so much different to tyrannize a woman for being feminine, or just being attractive? Most of us are instinctively disgusted by that--or at least claim to be?
I think it is worth looking for the rational (that is to say, non-moralistic) cause. The fact the gays are pressured to act straight across in nearly every society in such similar and intense ways indicates that there's likely a common cause. e.g. If one culture hates dogs and kills them on sight, you might say that culture has a prejudice against dogs. If 95% of cultures hated dogs and killed them on sight, you shou…
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's people trying to have more grandkids.
If this were the case, we'd have 'bred out' the gay, surely?
Acceptance of difference, including different sexual orientation, is higher in secular societies.
Religion seems to be a much more obvious, much more common, correlation to intolerance of homosexuality -- in no small part because the most popular written texts that form the basis of the bigger religions dictate an intolerance. The fact that reflects and feeds an innate distrust of different I think is important in the sense of maintenance of these beliefs, but can too easily conflate causality.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it is worth looking for the rational (that is to say, non-moralistic) cause. The fact the gays are pressured to act straight across in nearly every society in such similar and intense ways indicates that there's likely a common cause. e.g. If one culture hates dogs and kills them on sight, you might say that culture has a prejudice against dogs. If 95% of cultures hated dogs and killed them on sight, you shou…
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's people trying to have more grandkids. I have to disagree. I don't think people who opposr and hate gay people are doing it for evolutionary purposes. I haven't met anybody who thinks this guy is gay which meand he won't be making any kids, so let's hate him. Hate comes from much more fundamental place than that. For majority of people it's n…
> I don't think people who opposr and hate gay people are doing it for evolutionary purposes. I haven't met anybody who thinks this guy is gay which meand he won't be making any kids, so let's hate him.
That's not how evolution works. Unexpected movement on the ground near your feet doesn't scare you because you have carefully thought about how it will affect your chances to reproduce, but because the siblings of your ancestors didn't pay attention, were bitten by snakes and didn't get to reproduce.
Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the original purpose of society is for its members to leverage each other to achieve more / be safer etc than as lone individuals. Controlling access to sex was one of the ways societies found to achieve those goals. For a simple example, communities with much laxer sex rules, found themselves frequently torn by relationship related feuds. Requiring (and punishing non-adherence) to sticking to some fixed husband/…
Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world and were probably quite prevalent through history. Plausibly, in the good old days before washing machines when keeping a home together was a gargantuan task, the economic equilibrium just happened to be 1:1 male/female pairings. Examining the substance of marriage law in England, for example, suggests that most of meat of law and…
>Are you certain about that thesis? "Lax sex rules" haven't torn apart the modern world
For one, we now have more elaborate laws and enforcement of them, and people are much more docile and civilized.
We don't just go and beat each other up like in communities of yore. Try an extramarital affair in old rural community though (not even an ancient one), and watch what happens (e.g. the husband blowing your brain with a shotgun).
Second, depends on the definition of "torn apart". E.g.:
https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v3i9/U0VQMTQ0MA==.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1673... https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175606161... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2593091/
And let's not even add "crimes of passion" (what those societies tried to avoid). E.g.:
In New York City, 1 in 4 homeless households became homeless because of domestic violence or crimes of passion.
Nearly 15% of women have been injured by an act that could be classified as a crime of passion.
https://brandongaille.com/27-intriguing-crimes-of-passion-st...
>and were probably quite prevalent through history.*
I you mean that some people always had all kinds of sex relations, yes (nobody said adherence and enforcement was or could be absolute or affect the powerful as much as the masses). If you mean that there were fringe societies (e.g. those studied by ethnology) that had lax sex rules, then also yes.
If you mean that big well known historical societies at large embraced and accepted lax sexual behaviors, that's wrong. E.g.:
https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-myth-of-the-anc...