Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 178 posts

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#111

Post by spamizbad »

jlawson wrote: post #94
wallace_f wrote: post #42

Earlier 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…

There were quite a few cultures that accepted homosexuality, most famously the ancient Greeks. But also parts of India as well. They got their anti-sodomy laws from the British and just kept them until recently. I can’t speak to the cultural components however.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#112

Post by aluren »

jlawson wrote: post #94
wallace_f wrote: post #42

Earlier 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…

I have always had issues with justifications of moral systems containing the word 'evolutionary', especially when it comes to things like homophobia.

First, because it sounds incredibly simplistic. Time after time new findings show that there's more to evolutionary processes than we thought, and there's more to the human brain than we thought, so imagine the sheer complexity of understanding both at the same time. It strikes me as suspcious, if not intellectually lazy, that an explanation for a phenomenon involving incredibly complex fields that have stumped generations of scientists can fit in a few sentences.

Second, because people using these kinds of arguments are not, in fact, biologists. As it happens, I know a fair few myself, and although it's not exactly the field of all of us, none are willing put this kind of argument forward. Not that it is necessarily wrong, but it speaks miles that people who would feel more qualified to give their opinion exercise much more caution than people who aren't.

Third, because many behaviors that don't make sense from an armchair evolutionary biologist's point of view are commonplace in nature. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_hom... There are many more such kinds of behaviors and we don't really understand where they come from or why they exist (if there's even a reason).

I don't want you to take it wrongly or read my post as dismissing what you said off-hand with arguments of authority etc. Nor should you take it personally, as there are many posts like yours and I simply chose to reply to the more detailed one. Again, it's not necessarily completely wrong, but probably simplistic to the point of being harmful. Just please be mindful of that the next time you're invoking the word 'evolutionary' in an argument to justify something.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#113

Post by spamizbad »

05 wrote: post #60
i_am_nomad wrote: post #41

This is great, though it also illustrates how much farther India (and other countries) have to go in legal protection of LGBT people. Also, a bit off-topic here, but it also reveals how stupid and hypocritical California's policy is, forbidding travel of state employees to US states that don't grant certain protections to transgender people. You can't go to Oklahoma because they don't have self-selection for bathroom…

Holding US states to higher standards than foreign countries surely is hypocritical.

Is it? We certainly do it with regards to human rights and economic freedoms.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#114

Post by tallanvor »

jlawson wrote: post #94
wallace_f wrote: post #42

Earlier 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…

This is simply not true. There is no evolutionary cause that rationalizes prejudice against gay people. The simple fact that homosexuality has been observed by individuals in many species without similar reactions says a lot.

Ancient Greece and Rome did not have significant stigmas against homosexuality, although it may not have been as common as some stories would suggest. Native Americans tended to respect homosexuals because they contributed to the tribe and helped care for the tribe's children - they put in more than they received.

Prejudices against homosexuality coincide with the development of monotheistic religions, first with the Jews when the old testament was written, and this continued with the development of Christianity and Islam as they also consider the old testament to be a holy text. Modern Asia (specifically regarding China and Japan, but others as well) still has some issues with homosexuality despite not having the same religious influence, but those cultures tend to strongly emphasize conformity and not standing out. These cultures also tend to still expect the elderly to be taken care of by their children, while the Western world has moved towards helping the elderly retain as much independence as possible rather than mixing multiple generations together.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#115

Post by Ensorceled »

vijaybritto wrote: post #51

Irony is that a British news outlet is posting about it when they were the ones who introduced that law in India before 157 years!! Anyway, a great step in the right direction!

How is that ironic? ALL of the Brits who introduced that law are dead, they aren't running news outlets.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#116

Post by sonnyblarney »

spamizbad wrote: post #111
jlawson wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

There were quite a few cultures that accepted homosexuality, most famously the ancient Greeks. But also parts of India as well. They got their anti-sodomy laws from the British and just kept them until recently. I can’t speak to the cultural components however.

The Greeks also sent their young boys off to have sex sex with much older men, as part of their path to becoming adults.

We'd consider that repulsive by today's moral mores - so I'm not exactly sure that 'they once did it' makes it 'ok'.

They also had slaves and were cool with that.

But more broadly, the notion of sex, sexuality, social mores, relationships varies a lot and it's difficult to contextualize.

While the Romans had a lot of 'same sex' and generally mightn't have been ashamed of it, they didn't have same sex marriage and there's nothing to indicate that people thought it should be appropriate either. So we have to think a little bit about how a society with so much 'same sex' would have thought of 'same sex marriage' as utterly bizarre and possibly immoral.

Even in 2018 these things are still contextual from one place in the world to the next. That makes it hard.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#117

Post by gdfasfklshg4 »

majewsky wrote: post #80
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should study history related to gay rights over the last few centuries. Whilst we are currently in a better situation in many western countries the course of change has been anything but a smooth set of improvements.

Where did you see GP implying a "smooth set of improvements"? They're explicitly talking about the big picture.

I would hardly call the introduction of this law that has finally been overturned a "minor setback". Nor would I call chemical castration which happened in the UK in the 20th century a "minor setback". These are both pretty big picture.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#118

Post by mallomarmeasle »

aluren wrote: post #112
jlawson wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

I have always had issues with justifications of moral systems containing the word 'evolutionary', especially when it comes to things like homophobia. First, because it sounds incredibly simplistic. Time after time new findings show that there's more to evolutionary processes than we thought, and there's more to the human brain than we thought, so imagine the sheer complexity of understanding both at the same time. It…

Here is an insightful book on homosexual behavior in other animal species, to add to your wiki link: https://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Homosexuality-D...

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#119

Post by jm__87 »

Jedd wrote: post #108
jlawson wrote: post #94

Earlier 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. 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 popul…

> If this were the case, we'd have 'bred out' the gay, surely?

This assumes that there is a gene that determines whether someone is gay or not. I was under the impression that gay and trans are an epigenetic phenomenon that occurs during early development. In the womb, a male brain develops too much along the female trajectory or female too much along the male trajectory, either due to presence of hormones that should not be there or the lack of hormones that should be there.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#120

Post by maxerickson »

tallanvor wrote: post #114
jlawson wrote: post #94

Earlier 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…

This is simply not true. There is no evolutionary cause that rationalizes prejudice against gay people. The simple fact that homosexuality has been observed by individuals in many species without similar reactions says a lot. Ancient Greece and Rome did not have significant stigmas against homosexuality, although it may not have been as common as some stories would suggest. Native Americans tended to respect homosexu…

It's a pretty short list of species that have anything like the complex social behaviors of humans.

(I mean to comment very narrowly about looking to other species for shaming behaviors, I'm not trying to argue the broader issue either way)

Post reply on HN