Comments on: The Illusion of Gay Rights

By: ChrisChristopher

ChrisChristopher — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:22:14 +0000

I agree with just about every point you’ve made in this wonderful article. There is no such thing as “gay” rights, just as there is no such thing as “white” rights. There are only rights for everyone. The right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of one’s own happiness. If you are gay, then being with a man will make you happy. If are a lesbian, being with a woman will make you happy. If you are bi then being with one or the other will make you happy, or at the very least help you along towards achieving your own happiness. The government has no place dictating who how many people of a certain “minority” (I hate that term) may be hired or fired. Just as they have no right to decide who I will marry and how I will live with that person. Well, I’m done rambling. Again, a very excellent article.

By: manorath

manorath — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:57:36 +0000

Great job you have done in writing a post on the reading down of Section 377. While I agree with your views on respecting individual freedom, I did find lots of instances where your views were unacceptable.

Sexual orientation, an identity or a behaviour?

Not all same sex practices can be dismissed as a kind of behaviour. Some behaviours can be default in some individuals and it becomes an identity there. Try forcing a straight man into gay sex! And the question of people trying to ape this ‘newly cool’ behaviour is baseless. What about the rights of individual identity? Why shouldnt someone be as effeminate as he is?

Our society, or illusion in ur words, is a heterosexual society. No, dont give me any more **** on this! We have mothers’ day, fathers’ day and what not? Even paternity and maternity leaves!! Look at the Shiv ling that we worship!! Isnt that an extreme flaunting of heterosexual ‘behaviour’?? So u still think heterosexuals dont wear their sexualities on their sleeve? What about that boyfriend, girlfriend referances in teen groups?? Wouldnt it be uncool, as per the current trends, for a boy to flaunt his boyfriend?? He has no courage, leave aside the individual rights, to do that, as doing so would make him fall out of that group, thanks to pro-discriminatory people like u!

Look at the society you visualise : a self governed society with the fittest surviving. As per the present scenario, heterosexuality is the smoother domain and the one that is dominant. In a bid to survive, we would then have homosexuals trying aversion therapies and bisexuals aping the str8. What have you got to say on this? To let the homosexuals make love, and abandon them to perish? I would’nt rule out the chances of them surviving, but well, the chances are not much and they will have a hard way holding on to their true identity! Its just like letting a chicken to find its own ways of survival in a field full of cats.

Imagine reading this in newspapers : IITs welcoming girls with closed gates! ABC university calling the candidature of XYZ in 1999 invalid, citing his coming out recently and going by its anti gay norms! What have u got to say for this kind of discrimination?

And on a comment regarding the number of instances the law was used, well, this law was used by police men, blackmailing gay men and attacking people of a particular identity and extorting money.

Any section of the society subject to discrimination, that can lead to economical backwardness, qualifies as a minority and I wonder what makes the writer averse to the minorities tag! Remember, people of different castes are not in any way different from each other in their normalcies and so is this issue in multiple ways unfit to be compared with smokers and non smokers. Homosexuality is not acquired in most of the cases : it’s the mental and physical makeup of an individual that decides his orientation and still this is an area where nothing has not yet been proved in favour of anything. Too early to just ignore this as a personal choice.
manorath´s last blog ..Living a lie

By: Arvind

Arvind — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:46:33 +0000

I don’t have a problem with either Indian Whites or other Whites. I have a problem with those who feel inferior and the need to imitate Whites and impose their ideas on everyone. These include the Indian Communists and Macaulayites. The debate about gays is totally useless for the reason I gave, yet a lot of energy and taxpayer money is devoted to it because there are people in India who feel the urge to behave like Whites and impress the Whites. The wonderful book by Richard Crasta titled “Impressing the Whites: The New International Slavery” comes to mind.

By: Vikas

Vikas — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 10:30:49 +0000

Very useful debate here! I am preparing for an interview for an elite post in the parliament and expect this issue to crop up.

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:17:27 +0000

In short, this debate is a red herring and it was started by some non-gays who wanted to imitate the Whites and then lobby for some prizes/money.

First of all dude, its a shame that we live in a country where using the word “White”(a word designating the race) identifies the foreigners.
Sonia Gandhi is White, you got a problem with White Indians?

Coming to the issue of why is there a need of gay rights in India, well the things is our laws are so useless because we have way too many laws which are not suitable for the poverty of India.
We can create a law for banning sex, and sure it will be ineffective nobody will be really stopped from having sex, but then all the bribe we will have to give, we are better off by NOT paying those bribes. That money can be used for other things.

By: Arvind

Arvind — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 04:30:21 +0000

This debate in India is ridiculous unlike the debate in the US for two reasons. First, laws in India mean nothing as India is not a rule of law state. Laws in India are irrelevant as people just do what they please. Purely in terms of reality, gays have more rights in India than in USA since USA is a rule of law state and laws have an impact on ordinary citizens. In short, this debate is a red herring and it was started by some non-gays who wanted to imitate the Whites and then lobby for some prizes/money. In general, Indians don’t care one way or other about this issue. Notice that this is a nineteenth century British law passed by White people and even the cops don’t care about it.
Secondly, notice that the issue of Uniform Civil Code is never discussed by those who made this non-issue an issue.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:15:13 +0000

Supreme Court have brought stay on Gay Marriages which i guess is good move . :)

SC/Government neither has any authority to allow nor any power to stop gay marriage or whatever the consenting adults decide to do voluntarily, unless their act does not harm any other third person directly or indirectly through harm to 3rd person’s property.
But then, the allowance for Gay marriage by HC and stay on it by SC, both are ridiculous, and the essence of this article oppose both moves.

Now this topic is shut down for you.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:10:27 +0000

I don’t want kids anymore.

If you do not want kids anymore, you have all right to not to have kids anymore.
No matters what will be the repercussions. Whatever the repercussions you will face, will be entirely your own responsibility. Government has no authority to force you to have kids even though you do not want any kids more.

About HC/SC, this article has nothing to do with that.

By: GP

GP — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:17:08 +0000

@Renegade
By the way - Supreme Court have brought stay on Gay Marriages which i guess is good move . :) .

By: GP

GP — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:12:44 +0000

@Author and Renegade

what you are saying is that two consenting adults should be thrown in
Jail for doing something with their bodies which technically be their
right to do so?

Nope! I am not saying that. its not CRIME if people( be it
homosexuals or heterosexuals) could not procreate.

Are you saying that somehow people do not have the right to not
reproduce kids?

Nope, its their own choice. My point was only to stress - what are
the repercussions if everyone starts thinking - I don’t want kids
anymore. best example can be given as “Japan” where govt. have to offer
special incentives for couple to encourage procreation ..Now plz don’t
misunderstand here neither i want to distract from main point. I totally
understand your site is about individual freedom/choice/liberty,etc.
and certainly you would NOT like to think about future repercussions of
certain individual decisions on whole nation or society ( @ Diva — Plz
ignore these collectivists statements as i know ur not in good terms
with ppl who propose collectivists ideas :) ) but I still feel - this
issue exists and you can’t ignore that . i mean cmmmon..just be
seriously and think - “What if all ppl wants NOT to procreate ..wht will
be its repercussions on society or whole nation?”
Don’t you think — Somewhere we are kind of encouraging homosexual
behaviour by decriminalising article 377? ..Isn’t it like - “sending
message to youngsters,future generations “its OK to be gay” and in term
corrupting social mindset?

I totally understand - if we think objectively — > Article 377 is
violating individual rights so definitely it shud be abolished-I get it
..totally!
BUT - lets think from a different angle

Just to again summarize my points — I would like you to comment on -
1) Imitation of such behaviour( read - homosexual) by youngsters if we
allow them to think that its “OK” to be a homosexual/gay. Just think
from collectivist mindset (yeah I am talking about japan example here )
What will be repercussions ?

@renegade_division :

Objectively speaking your ideology should support all measures which actually make our future generations more healthy and more populous because the people should not have a right to be gay because then our future generations will not be possible.

I am not thinking on those lines. I am not the one who decides who
should live or who should die. If you wanna discuss what are the
measures
for creating healthy and stronger race then I guess Science already have
answer for that but certainly we need to have a GLOBAL autocratic system
driving all the decisions on planet earth to do that.. :)
Currently its just not possible and certainly no one denies moral and
ethical aspects revolving around that issue which makes it preety much
illegal and immoral.
— — — -

Similarly weaker people should not have a right to procreate and we must
punish the genetically defective
people(criminalize it) because otherwise we will be carrying their
defective gene.

Who shud decide that ?..I mean what are the criterion for deciding
who are “ethnically defective people”
..cmmmmmmon I am not hard core fan of Nazi regime who spread this
bullshit and neither its possible even if someone wants to give it a try
:)
— — —
Now regarding your point of intercast/inter-religion marriages — I wud
say - The biggest concern for parents of such couple would be - Whether
new person(bride/groom) would be able to adjust in our family or not coz
his/her relion/faith , clothing/eating habits are different from us and
what if our relatives/close frndz won’t approve such marriages and
thereby we are taking a risk of getting alienated from our society”
< — — I mean that’s what their mindset is.
Now here again - Personally - I am NOT saying - such
intercast/interrelion marriages shud not take place — — of course not
coz our constitution is quite clear about “Age of adult consent” and
technically /legally two adults can decide for themselves whats good or
bad for them .
See, I am not saying ppl should always abide by social norms coz
afterall everyone stands for him/herself. But if u think other side of
coin ..maybe from mindset of people who still prefer not to alienate
from society/family bcoz of that one decision (read - which is not
approved /accepted by his/her family/relatives/particular community )
then I hope u will get my point here.

The only thing he can achieve is teaching those gay people how to curb
their attraction to same sex people. But they cannot CREATE attraction
for opposite sex.
yeah about SWAMI RAMDEV… Yup your point makes sense.- He can help
them to eliminate/control attraction towards same sex but who knows if
that helps them in turn
to develop attraction towards opposite sex? …I know its just a
speculation and i might be wrong — but if he is willing to try for
greater good — then why not?
By the way - All humans are conditioned to think /act in certain way
based on thier upbringing , friend circle,relatives,etc — So its quite
obvious — there is something different for homosexuals ( i dnt know -
may be conditioning,upbringing,mental health..cud be anything)
which can / has a scope to change and see of that makes difference to
change their sexual preferance ..right?
I mean I am not doctor or expert in these things - BUT have u ever
thought - How homosexual behaviour acquired by such ppl (as its NOT
genetic)?
(I know its NOT point of this article and I am diverting here ..but just
for a thought..if u want to think/discuss on those lines) >>
— — — — — — — — — — — —

If RSS thinks that by 2050 Hindus will be in minority, then is it right
for them to make Hindu-Muslim marriages illegal? What kind of message
Hindus are sending to their kids by not making hindu-muslim marriages
illegal??

They are sending message that - They have valid political and social
reasons to justify their decision/demand even though its against “Two
consenting adults right to marry to the person of their choice” but let
me tell you
any collectivist mind won’t oppose this coz for them greater good ( read
- welfare of his/her own community /socity) always take precedence over
individual goals.
BUT here - As the law is ON your side you can marry to a person of your
choice but then - u need to make up your mind whether u want to be in
good terms with your society or not ..if u think u can lead happy and
peaceful life without approval of anyone else ( read - social/your
community approval)
then so be it…get on with ur life ..no need to pay attention to RSS or
anyone else for that matter.
From technical side - I dnt think SC will approve RSS demand of terming
such marriages as illegal simpley bcoz its against constitutional right
of freedom
So no worries from legal point of view. :)

By: Raksh

Raksh — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:46:42 +0000

ohh my god u writes so well. Seriously i have been reading the various Blogs from past 18 months but i never seen any of the author to have such good knowledge about the article he/she has written. Really u r making me to falling in love with u. (that’s a complement) keep writing girl best of luck.

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:47:00 +0000

@GP Said:

Are you saying that somehow people do not have the right to not reproduce kids?

First of all there is no such thing such as “Right to reproduce”, although there is such a thing as “right of not to be stopped from reproducing”(one is positive right, another is negative right).

But lets say for example you did have a right to reproduce, then what about right to be gay? What about Right to be loved? What about right to not to be forced in having sex with an individual you don’t want to have sex with?

Tell me something GP, if you like girls(presuming you are a guy) how did you end up liking girls? Did other people tell you that you must like girls? Did your dad teach you, like he taught you to not to steal or lie? You hung out with guys all your life, you might never have had the feelings you get when you see girls. You never feel like sucking your gut in, and straightening up your hair when a good looking guy walks into the room(although what you might have felt is jealousy).

Now imagine that suddenly our society’s morality gets changed one day, lets say there is a massive population crisis, and being straight is seen as exactly how you see being gay. If you try to have sex with a girl, then you will be thrown in to the jail. Your parents push you to get married to another man. Either they hand you an effeminate man, or they hand you to a 6 ft tall bear(a large hairy gay man) who treats you gently.

Tell me, in this scenario, what would you rather do? You saw the female couple(straight women married to a lesbian) in the neighboring house and you clearly feel attracted towards her, and she feels attracted towards you. You will either:
1) Break the law/society’s norms and cheat on your husband and she cheats on her wife, in which case you will leave the respective spouses highly dissatisfied.
2) Not break the law/society’s norm and just be in a relationship you don’t want to be in, and in this case you will leave both you and your neighbor highly dissatisfied. Hell if you don’t like gay sex you will try to avoid it at all costs. If it comes too hard, you will imagine in a girl in place of your husband while doing it.

Do you realize how messed up this whole situation sounds? This is how exactly the society will be(and has been) if you don’t allow gay people to come out of closet. Who knows considering the level of arranged marriage in the society, your parents might marry you to a lesbian. Imagine that, being married to a girl who does not like you, or feels attracted to you. Wouldn’t it be good that its clear in the society that everyone finds out whether they are straight or lesbian.

Even if its a life style choice, and your parents raised you to be straight. Do you think you can, not like women just by choice or will power? Now lets say in the above example(of dystopian world) you were raised as a gay kid. You went to college, and now you found out that you are now attracted to girls(just like today you can be attracted to conservative girls, or modern girls, or Muslim girls etc etc). But now your parents married you to another man. You feel attracted towards girls, you travel in the bus, you really want to rub your body against a girl. But too bad, society considers heterosexuality as sexual deviancy. (Consider it the way a man would feel if he feels attracted to women in short skirts, or at least English speaking urban women, but he was forced to marry a rural girl from the village who will never wear anything but Gaghra Choli). Comparatively easier than the other situation, but it still doesn’t solve the problem, and it still screws the lives of the people.

If you are happy being straight, good for you. But don’t try to make the lives of the gay people difficult just because they don’t happen to be like you.

Life is tough enough as usual, we don’t need more problems for more and more people because it doesn’t suit our taste or our cultural values.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:05:36 +0000

Are you saying that somehow people do not have the right to not reproduce kids?

Are you going to oppose it?
So all those Shankaracharya’s and Baba’s including Baba Ramdev, and all those Nuns, and Padrees, and all those Maulvis and Mullahs, and Jaini Munis who volluntarily denounce sexual life and exhibits celibacy, should be thrown in jails as they have no right to “not to reproduce” and every duty to reproduce because that is why they are living for?
Every woman who because of some bilogical problem cannot become a mother should be declared Bhanjh and thrown in jail or may be burnt alive (as per your idea)?
Every impotent male, (a Big % of males are impotent naturally) should be killed or jailed permanently?

Its ridiculous.

By: GP

GP — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:08:34 +0000

@renegade_division :

what you are saying is that two consenting adults should be thrown in Jail for doing something with their bodies which technically be their right to do so?

Are you saying that somehow people do not have the right to not reproduce kids?
Article 377 is violating individual rights so definitely it shud be abolished-I get it ..totally!
BUT - lets think from a different angle

Just to again summarise my points — I would like you to comment on -

1) Imitation of such behavior( read - homosexual) by youngsters if we allow them to think that its “OK” to be a homosexual/gay. Just think from collectivist mindset (yeah I am talking about japan example here ) What will be repercussions ?

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:59:29 +0000

What kind of message Hindus are sending to their kids by not making hindu-muslim marriages illegal??

And you asked about the Evil, the Devil is always at his work.

check this

Love Affair, Conspiracy and Tax payers Money. http://gargid.blogspot.com/2009/07/love-affair-conspiracy-and-tax-payers.html

Maharastra government has directed CID to check whether Muslim boys are enticing Hindu girls as part of a ‘conspiracy’.

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:37:27 +0000

@GP Said

2)People ignoring the fact that - If we decriminalise “homosexual behaviour” then it means allowing future generation to think - Its OK to be a Gay which will be NOT OK coz it certainly means - you can’t procreate i am not saying - every individual on this planet becomes gay but you certainly need to think that - innocent Children imitate elders and if they start thinking its ok to be homosexual then definitely its not good.

This is the biggest bullshit point you have ever made on this blog.
Homosexuality is not like BDSM(Bondage-Dominance-Sadism-Masochism) which can be actually used by any couple. This is the whole point of the article.

But anyways lets presume that homosexuality is by choice(as your third point is), what you are saying is that two consenting adults should be thrown in Jail for doing something with their bodies which technically be their right to do so?
Lets just presume that in next generations everybody becomes gay and starts having gay sex, and that means that there are no kids anymore and the whole world population ends. Are you saying that somehow people do not have the right to not reproduce kids?
Somehow we must force all the people without kids to produce kids?

What about Nazi breeding programs for better humans? Don’t you think that by allowing weaker individuals to procreate we are destroying the quality of our future population? I mean don’t judge the above idea just because there is the term Nazi attached to it. Objectively speaking your ideology should support all measures which actually make our future generations more healthy and more populous because the people should not have a right to be gay because then our future generations will not be possible. Similarly weaker people should not have a right to procreate and we must punish the genetically defective people(criminalize it) because otherwise we will be carrying their defective gene.

About Swami Ramdev, then he just sounds like a complete moron to me when he makes stupid claims like that, but then in India almost all the Swamis and Sadhus talk about controlling the sex drive, so I guess he isn’t offering anything new. Though offering to make a gay man like women, or making a gay woman like men is just way out there. The only thing he can achieve is teaching those gay people how to curb their attraction to same sex people. But they cannot CREATE attraction for opposite sex.

I have talked to a bunch of my lesbian friends(in US), and they all say that they just wish if they were straight. The social stigma is just so huge with gay people. On the top of that since only 10-15% of the population is gay, therefore their selection criteria for potential mates is severely limited.

The problem is whether being gay is a choice or not, throwing people who engage in a specific non-aggression behavior is just wrong.

If RSS thinks that by 2050 Hindus will be in minority, then is it right for them to make Hindu-Muslim marriages illegal? What kind of message Hindus are sending to their kids by not making hindu-muslim marriages illegal??

How about inter-caste marriages? You may think otherwise but there are a HUGE number of people in this country who want their kids to marry in the same caste. Do you think if someone is TERRIFIED of not having clear separation of castes then he should have a power over you and your life and prevent you from marrying outside your caste?

If you rely on the fact that since you will always be the part of the a majority, or that the majority will always do the right thing and think the right things(like currently majority does not want laws banning inter-caste marriages) then you are doing a big mistake. There has to be an ideological basis for your beliefs.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:17:19 +0000

@ GP
You are extremely funny alongwith being ridiculous, all your opposition against gays will remain even if there will be no gay.

1)Even though high court rules in favour of abolishing article 377 as its violating constitutional right of individual,This decision will be challenged in SC (Supreme Court)

No where I mentioned HC or SC, it doesn’t matter. Lesbians will exist always no matters your fake courts allow it or not. I am a bisexual, its not compulsive, its chosen behavior. I am Bi because I want to be Bi. B constitute the B of LGBT.

2)People ignoring the fact that - If we decriminalise “homosexual behaviour” then it means allowing future generation to think - Its OK to be a Gay which will be NOT OK coz it certainly means - you can’t procreate i am not saying - every individual on this planet becomes gay but you certainly need to think that - innocent Children imitate elders and if they start thinking its ok to be homosexual then definitely its not good.

it is 100 % OK to be gay, or Bi or Lesbian or to have sex with your goat, whatever you want, until it is not interfering any other person’s life and his/her property (his/her body is his/her primary property) without his consent. Government/society has no authority to say anything on that. This site is all for supporting Gays and Lesbians.

3)Homosexuality is aquired and not genetic which is well proven by WHO reports so isn’t it good idea to change their sexual preference back to heterosexual so that they can be considered as NORMAL human beings

That is why it is more important, its a person’s choice to be what he want’s to be. Government can do nothing about it. Homosexuals are NORMAL, Homosexuals are normal that is why government doesn’t need to announce them as minority. Homosexuals are as normal as heterosexuals are, that is why there cannot be specific gay rights, if Homosexuals are abnormal, than government may announce them as minority, but the fact that they are normal is true.
I support gay marriages, there’s nothing criminal or wrong in it, Human does not take birth to procreate, although he can, a woman unable to be a mother doesn’t become a burden on society, an impotent male doesn’t need to commit suicide, a wife of an impotent male doesn’t need to go to some ramdev ( or someone like that) to get his holy seeds in her womb.
There is no obligation on anyone to procreate, if you DO NOT WANT, you may opt for not having sex throughout your life, CELIBACY cannot be crime, similarly, gay/lesbian sex cannot be crime, nor it can be denied by society if two person voluntarily opts for it, but the thing is, government announcing gays as minority is wrong.

Other open issue will be - whether homosexual couple will be able to offer same kind of parentage as that of any normal ( Read -heterosexual) couple?

Being a single mother or father can not be termed as crime, similarly, being a gay parent or lesbian parent of an orphan child cannot be termed as crime, and if one of the lesbian, goes for gene sperm bank and have her own biological child for the couple, than it is the best thing possible.

Not all (many) won’t procreate ever in life, impotency rates are too high and getting higher in males.
Also, there are many who voluntarily chose for Celibacy, your baba ramdev is a celibate with his stinking ***, Hitler was also a celibate. Hence your opposition for gays because they can’t procreate is farce, it is their choice.

The article has already mentioned that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, I even gave examples of some people smoke, other don’t some people like tea other don’t, so government can’t say that those who do not like tea are minority. You were unable to understand the article, that is why you thought something is missing.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:07:27 +0000

it will NOT be in best interests of society to give social approval/acceptance to such relationships.

Society is nothing but an illusion, a human construct which exists in imagination.

Nobody needs any approval from society to make any voluntary deal, be it business deal or emotional deal.

By: GP

GP — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:57:31 +0000

Correction : ( PLz note NOT :) )
it will NOT be in best interests of society to give social approval/acceptance to such relationships.

By: GP

GP — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:53:59 +0000

@Author

Couple of points which are missed

1)Even though high court rules in favour of abolishing article 377 as its violating constitutional right of individual,This decision will be challenged in SC (Supreme Court)
2)People ignoring the fact that - If we decriminalise “homosexual behaviour” then it means allowing future generation to think - Its OK to be a Gay which will be NOT OK coz it certainly means - you can’t procreate i am not saying - every individual on this planet becomes gay but you certainly need to think that - innocent Children imitate elders and if they start thinking its ok to be homosexual then definitely its not good.
3)Homosexuality is aquired and not genetic which is well proven by WHO reports so isn’t it good idea to change their sexual preference back to heterosexual so that they can be considered as NORMAL human beings :)

In fact , I guess that’s the reason why SWAMI RAMDEV already thrown challenge to such individuals to visit him and he will change sexual preference of such individuals which can help them to lead a NORMAL life.

If you seen Debate on the same issue on INDIA TV - then I hope you will understand my point.

By the way his point seems to be valid coz he pose very interesting question - “As gay/homosexual can’t procreate it will be in best interests of society to give social approval/acceptance to such relationships.
Also it will have bad impact on mental conditioning of innocent minds who often learn by imitating elders”

Other open issue will be - whether homosexual couple will be able to offer same kind of parentage as that of any normal ( Read -heterosexual) couple?

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:49:24 +0000

Look dude if my father or mother finds it out tomorrow that they are gay, well then they are gay. What can you do about it? The acceptance part is for the society then its their wish how they want to handle it. I will be glad that they finally realized that.
But actually it is no different than my mother or father getting divorced, and my mom or dad getting into a relationship with someone else and marrying another person.

It never happened to me, but my friends have their parents separated and married and divorced multiple times. Do you think I stopped being friends with them because they got separated?

About the issue of my wife coming out as a lesbian(oh I just noticed you are using the terms “becomes gay”, nobody becomes gay, they either are, or they are not), then again, why do I want to be in a relationship with a girl who does not like me or men? I mean it is quite unfortunate that we ended up together(that’s why I am not going to go for arranged marriage), but if it was that way then what can be done?

just in case let me also deal with your usage of terms such as “becomes gay”, now lets say people could just become gay by choice. Then if my mom and dad became gay by choice then so be it, it is no different than them getting divorced. If my wife becomes lesbian then again its her choice, its no different than she divorcing me and going with another man. How is going with another man any less or more acceptable to me than her going with another woman.(In fact I would be glad that she went with another woman, and not a man, because it kind of means that it wasn’t my fault. My bad luck, but not my fault).

20 years from now, you will find a lot more uncles and aunts, and cousins and friends coming out in India. You will be surprised.

And by the way, just for the fact, I have been through my gay-hating days. Initially all straight people find this idea appalling. We find it appalling because we never experienced same sex attraction so we find something very unnatural in it. But it usually takes sometime to get adjusted to.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:37:21 +0000

Its not about you or me, it is about the fact that, your parents have a responsibility towards you till you do not get the basic requirements to make consensus choices, you do not become independent. And that also doesn’t depend on any arbitrary age of consent, it is to be noted individually for different cases, once you become indpendent, your parents are neither responsible for you, nor answerable to you.

Suddenly you come to know that your father is although heterosexual, but is having an extra marital affair, and want divorce with your mother and get rid of her, and your world seems to be shattered. But the fact, that divorce is his right if he is not feeling good to keep the marriage go on, cannot be denied. Suddenly you find out that your mother although heterosexual, but having an affair with your father’s friend, and there are doubts that you are not genetically related with your social father, rather you are genetic son of your father’s friend, and your world shatters.

It keeps going on in the world at different stages, it has nothing to do with gay rights or even with this article.

By: Martin

Martin — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:20:04 +0000

suddenly your father becomes gay and you accept it then the above article is ok, other wise when you have your wife if she is lesbian if you can agree that is ok or if your mother want to become a lesbian you will agree, the the above article is ok for You only!

By: renegade_division

renegade_division — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:28:20 +0000

Mlost!

what about calling someone low cast or untouchable, that’s whr rights come

I am sorry dude but calling someone anything is HIS RIGHT, and not being called a low caste or untouchable is not your right. I don’t even know what rights those will be(Right of not to be verbally harassed?? lol).

If someone refuses to hire another individual based on any preference other than his ability, then they are the people who are taking the loss. An extreme example would be, Germany not getting Albert Einstein, because they hated the Jews. The victory of Allied forces was the best example of the non-discriminator winning against the discriminator.

On the daily market level, if you refuse to hire black or gay guys, and they are actually that smart, then I will hire them for lesser pay and kick you out of the business.
I explained it in this article here:
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/economics/why-women-are-paid-less-than-men.html

In summary what I showed in that article is that anybody who discriminates against women, by not hiring them or by paying them less for the same amount of work will be thrown out of the market(not because Market is some sort of benevolent entity, but because Market seeks profit, and the profit lies with hiring the women for lesser wages).

I haven’t seen Philadelphia, but if majority of minds are unwilling to hire a gay or black then the minority which hires a gay or black will become the richest entity.

By: Unpretentious Diva

Unpretentious Diva — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:37:04 +0000

but what about calling someone low cast or untouchable

Verbal rage doesn’t mean violence/aggression by any means. You cannot go to someone’s place/home and start abusing him, and if you do so, he will throw you out using his Property rights.
If a person is known to abuse you, you obviously won’t be going to his place.
Person in general cannot fight on roads, if roads are private property.

The fact that all Individual rights can be established not by governmental promises of rights, but by the factual property rights cannot be denied.

So instead of demanding government to slap you penalties for opening up your mouth, why not start demanding firm property rights?

Here is explanation why you need to demand property rights rather than governmental interventionism and distatorship in deciding what one can say and what one cannot.
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/random/freedom-of-speech-a-joke-or-tyranny.html

And

The fundamental right is described in the constitution as:
All citizens shall have the right-
• To freedom of speech and expression;
• To assemble peaceably and without arms;
• To form associations or unions;
• To move freely throughout the territory of India;
• To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
• to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Now consider the right to freedom of speech.
It suggests that Every Indian has a right to express him-self and a freedom to say, write and speak anything.
So how is it possible if you do not define where he can speak freely?
One can not and should not go to some other person’s house and start abusing him.
He certainly does not have the right to speech on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has approved, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.
Similarly, A person does not have a ‘right to freedom of the press’; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it).
Indians need to realize that without property rights, it is impossible to define freedom. Indians need to realize the necessity of Individual autonomy.
Right to vote cannot be a fundamental right to define freedom; it is just a signatory right to voluntarily choose a system to safeguard the fundamental right of freedom, and that is the “property right”.
http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/the-impasse-of-democracy-voting-is-not-a-solution-it-is-a-killer.html

You should look at both of the articles thoroughly.