141–150 of 178 posts
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait till you hear about these crimes: 1) Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code Adultery.—Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either descript…
Interestingly, consensual adultery is still an offense in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
So men evolve, but women don't, huh?
Just because your own personal experience propositioning men for gay sex instinctively repulses 50% of them doesn't mean your anecdotal suggestion means anything about the rest of humanity. Maybe you just need to take a shower.
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…
> Morality systems come on top of this fundamental fact, because morality systems are just the conscious justifications we give to our feelings. This is a serious claim, one that moral philosophers (even those inclined towards moral fictionalism/nonrealism) have issues with. Just two of them: * This account fails to distinguish between moral beliefs and cultural taboos . Individuals tend to think that they can justif…
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/uterine+cal...
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…
> 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 ab…
In the case of your Nazi example, people supported Nazism because the economy was in a shambles. When you're not eating, you don't really care as much about the Jews.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Germany, the infamous §175a StGB that made gay sex illegal was only finally removed in 1994. I think it was practically ignored for some time before that, but that was only 24 years ago. And yes, it feels just as unreal to me.
That's not entirely accurate, because the 175 was changed quite a lot over time. Initially it was jail-for-sex, but then in the late 60s it was changed such that basically the age of consent for gays was 21 (IIRC a notable exception was that if _both_ partners were below 18 then it wasn't punishable anyway -- so only if one was younger than 18 and the other 18-21 it was punishable, which is very weird indeed). Then t…
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?
> 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? Well, read up on the evolution of moral systems and such. Those rules are not entirely arbitrary (even the ones coming from a religious origin, those are still manmade and follow certain rationales). The problem is that such laws don't always make sense beyond their expi…
I mean, as a thought experiment, do you really not internally know that bothering other people who are bot bothering you is wrong and ugly? Most people don't agree with that?
Edit: I am being downvoted, so this is apparently fairly controversial. That's unfortunate, in my mind. I personally believe that the democracy, liberty and prosperity that exists in the world today would not have been possible without America, its founders, and others who argued for this kind of liberty--most notably enlightenment figures. So I guess if you disagree with it, you're pretty lucky to happen to be here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? That's generally how these things have progressed in most countries I'm aware of. First you make the simple fact of being homosexual not be illegal. Same-sex marriage often comes much later.
I think OP is joking about the taboo against sex and focus on marriage in Indian society.
This is a welcome step. It was good to see the Government not being a road-block in this case[1]. Hopefully, future decisions which make life easier for LGBT folks will be taken in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies instead of courtrooms. 1. https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/sec...
This case was just a formality. Any thing done by govt against LGBT will going to be struck down by the court unless they decided to change the Article 14, 15 and 21. In that case they will need 2/3 votes in both houses and president sign.