India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling • Hacker News Board

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#121

Post by tallanvor » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

axilmar wrote: post #90

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?

Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). And when the brain doesn't find good pattern matches, it alerts the person of something very strange and potentially dangerous going on. Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications…

Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing.

Just looking at same-sex marriage allows you to clearly see correlations in approval of same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou...

Beyond the differences between a number of the religions, You can look at the results for "Sources of guidance on right and wrong by views about same-sex marriage". The clear majority of those who oppose it do so based on religion.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#122

Post by sonnyblarney » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:35 PM UTC

phakding wrote: post #103

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. 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…

"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."

I don't agree at all, and I agree with the original post.

I think a slight majority of men have an 'instinct' against gay sex that is not learned or socialized. The 'hate' is another thing , as something maybe more developed. I think at least 50% of the population has an emotional revulsion to the notion of 'male same sex' (not female same sex) and but only a tiny portion for whom that turns into something more aggressive.

Also 'gay' is not just 'different'. It's not like someone wearing a different hat.

Reproduction is at the core of the survival of the species, much like oxygen, food and water are at the core of your individual survival. Those instances are extremely powerful, the most powerful social motivators of all. So I actually do buy that 'moral shame' towards those who are seemingly 'opting out' of reproduction is part of a kind of darwinian social evolution.

FYI - it's mostly the same reason that people who are 'obviously abnormal', ill or deformed. Women and Men want healthy children, that's a very deep instinct. Nobody (and probably not you) is actually attracted to deformed or obviously ill individuals. We may feel sympathetic to them, and want to help them - but we are definitely not attracted to them. 'Mocking them' - that's just people being crude.

So obviously it's all armchair whatbout thinking ... but I'm inclined to think that this issue is deeply rooted in evolution and cultural evolution.

But yes it's good news for gay Indians.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#123

Post by sonnyblarney » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:38 PM UTC

tallanvor wrote: post #121

axilmar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). And when the brain doesn't find good pattern matches, it alerts the person of something very strange and potentially dangerous going on. Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications…

Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing. Just looking at same-sex marriage allows you to clearly see correlations in approval of same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-abou... Beyond the differences between a number of the religions, You can look at the results for "Sources of guidance…

"Homosexuality is generally only disturbing to people who have been taught that it's supposed to be disturbing."

I believe it's much deeper than that, it's evolutionary.

Some codified 'teachings' i.e. religious or otherwise may push our instincts in one way or another.

FYI there would have been ancient religions very much in favour of 'same sex' though probably not same sex marriage.

I suggest that a little more than 1/2 of men are repulsed by the notion of gay sex (totally different for women though) and that it's instinctive.

More complicated issues like 'hate' or systematic social shame etc. are obviously culture. But my bet for the impetus of it all is on evolution, not just some arbitrary moral systems.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#124

Post by tome » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:39 PM UTC

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…

jlawson was very specifically giving a non-moralistic explanation.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#125

Post by tome » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

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…

In these replies: everyone misunderstanding what jlawson actually explained.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#126

Post by wtallis » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:42 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #107

wtallis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

> This is off the top of my head. There's lots more.

I'm sure there is. But there's no way to pretend that it at all approaches the scale of discrimination that women or blacks or gays have been subjected to. The mere existence of violent reprisals doesn't put their victimization on an equal footing with those who had to fear the KKK. Those events are currently far more exceptional than gay-bashing or lynching of blacks have been in the past.

And among your specific examples, all but Stanger were activists working in support of political causes that put other minorities in a very understandable defensive mood, given how government-supported white nationalism would obviously cause far more harm than white nationalists have been receiving from the riots they help incite. (This is not to say that they were deserving of violence because of their activism, but it means they aren't a representative sample of their political group as a whole.)

The picture I'm seeing isn't tyranny or even a trajectory leading to tyranny. It's outlier events at the fringe of a conflict that is overwhelmingly a peaceful albeit heated political conflict. Any disagreement at this scale will have outliers like this. More than one quarter of US adults voted for Trump. Are there any demographic measures by which they're collectively worse off than blacks during the Jim Crow era? Especially the ones who are no more active in promoting their beliefs than bumper stickers, yard signs, and voting in primaries? Are there actual statistics to support your assertions that they're being thoroughly shut out of so many career paths and industries, not just self-selecting to avoid institutions they view as full of bad people and bad morals? Is anyone who's not a public figure being subjected to this supposed tyranny?

Calling the current conditions for right-wing extremists in the US "tyranny" seems like a vast overreach (and one that offensively minimizes much worse historical oppressions), which is why I asked for clarification whether that was what was really meant.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#127

Post by jm__87 » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:46 PM UTC

phakding wrote: post #103

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. 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…

Personally I always assumed it is not about fear at all. Ask any bigoted moron and they won't say they are afraid of gay people and I believe them. I think it could be a few things. One possibility is that the person believes in a certain social hierarchy and is trying to enforce it (e.g. they believe gay people should be lower on the hierarchy than them and feel justified in letting them know it). Another alternative is someone who feels bad is trying to displace their own negative emotions and picking the easiest targets because they feel they are low in the hierarchy themselves. Probably there is also some merit to parents wanting grandkids and being upset if their child is gay. Another possibility is religious motivations - deeply religious people may worry their gay relative won't be accepted in to heaven or something like that.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#128

Post by dagw » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:47 PM UTC

Delmania wrote: post #96

axilmar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). And when the brain doesn't find good pattern matches, it alerts the person of something very strange and potentially dangerous going on. Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications…

> Homosexuality is disturbing to people because their brain cannot find relevant patterns that have to do with homosexuality-related experiences (sights, images etc). I'd like to echo this. A while back, a coworker and friend of mine who is homosexual took me to a coffee shop that caters primarily to homosexual men. I had never been with him before in that social context, but his actions did fall within the stereotyp…

I did feel myself uncomfortable with the situation

But was that discomfort specifically related to homosexuality or just the general discomfort one feels when one finds oneself in an entirely alien social context? If you where to go with him to that coffee shop twice a week for a couple of month do you think you'd still find it uncomfortable?

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#129

Post by oytis » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:52 PM UTC

nextstep wrote: post #53

M_Bakhtiari wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you are wrong. There are minor setbacks and reactions to liberalization of society, but ultimately the trend over the past many hundreds of years has been generally toward a more equitable and accepting society almost everywhere in the world. Also, LGBT is definitely not a small minority interest and the more accepting society becomes, the more people realize that these issues are incredibly mainstream.

We'll probably consider freedom and equality good things int the next centuries, but our ideas of what to call freedom and equality seems to be changing drastically from time to time.

Not so long time ago people were fighting for more sexual freedom, it was even possible to produce a film about sexual love between underaged people (with underaged actors) for instance. Today we're introducing more rules about how people should sexually approach each other and paedophilia is an absolute taboo. And we consider this change a step towards freedom and equality again.

So I wouldn't be surprised if our definition of freedom would deny homosexuality at some later point.

Re: India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling

#130

Post by patrickg_zill » Thu, Sep 06, 2018, 12:55 PM UTC

ashleyn wrote: post #102

patrickg_zill wrote: post #73

The 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.

It's a societal issue.