India decriminalizes homosexuality

[Talon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03india.html?_r=1&ref=asia


NEW DELHI —In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.

...

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal.” The law, known as Section 377 of India’s penal code, has long been viewed as an archaic holdover from colonialism by its detractors.

Score one for human rights in my ancestral homeland!


Still, the decision was condemned from many corners in India. “This is wrong,” said Maulana Abdul Khaliq Madrasi, a vice chancellor of Dar ul-Uloom, the main university for Islamic education in India. The decision to bring Western culture to India, he said, will “corrupt Indian boys and girls.”


Here we go, blame the big bad great satanic west. But really, I had no idea that human rights was exclusively a western ideal. :p

[Slytovhand]

I'm actually surprised it was illegal in the first place...though, when it mentions the British, then it makes sense to me.

I would have thought with Buddhism and Hindu, that homosexuality wouldn't have been a great issue there..(and then, we bring it Islam...).

Good on them!

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Is it just me or does every instance of 'there are gay rights problems THERE?' end up answered by the realization that religion has something to do with it. After all, human rights and religion can't possibly mix :rolleyes:

We have yet another victory, though, and so it's time to celebrate with:

CAKE!:D

[Nyoibo]

Trust the English to have made that law.

I remember reading something about a hindu priest talking about gay marriage and relationships and that he said he has nothing against it as it's a meeting of two souls, and souls have no gender, I like that idea.

[Rapscallion]

Trust the English to have made that law.

If you read the quotes, there's condemnation of the relaxing of the law as bringing western culture to India. Can't win :p

Rapscallion

[Talon]

I would have thought with Buddhism and Hindu, that homosexuality wouldn't have been a great issue there...


I've never heard of a pundit decrying or even addressing homosexuality. But then again I was an infrequent attender of temple, and on those few occasions I tended to sleep through them :)

Trouble is, religion is an inherently irrational exercise. If a pundit wanted to, he could easily claim some ancient scripture said so, therefore obey. It's not true, but who's going to rock the boat? On the other hand, Hindu temples don't have an institutional hierarchy. As far as I know there's no megatemples, and less chance of a Hindu equivalent of Ted Haggard rising to power.

[Rapscallion]

I would have thought with Buddhism and Hindu, that homosexuality wouldn't have been a great issue there..(and then, we bring it Islam...).

Just remembered. I have a few buddhist colleagues, and I've been told in the past that some sects of buddhists are rather mysoginistic. Wouldn't make too many assumptions.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

There are dozens of sects of Buddhism, just as in Christianity. Buddhist teachers in the West have sold a more philosophical and New Age-y version. That's not to say that it's not "Buddhism", but it's not representational of the kind of Buddhism practiced by millions of people in regions such as Japan and Korea. Japanese Buddhism especially has been shaped by the traditional misogynistic culture of that country. Things have and continue to change there now (as they have in the predominantly Christian US) but it's clear that religions adapt to their climate; not the other way around.

But that's neither here nor there. T'was the Protestant Brits who outlawed homosexuality in India. Hindus and Buddhists may or may not approve of homosexuality, depending on their culture and upbringing, but they generally aren't as preoccupied with sex as Christians.

[anriana]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03india.html?_r=1&ref=asia



Score one for human rights in my ancestral homeland!



Here we go, blame the big bad great satanic west. But really, I had no idea that human rights was exclusively a western ideal. :p


Technically speaking, didn't Islam come to India from the West?

My religion originated in India and is practiced by a small percentage of people there. There are two major different camps. The more conservative one thinks there are strong differences between men and women (going so far as to say that people who incarnate as women have less positive karma than those who incarnate as men) and strongly condemn homosexuality. The more liberal ones look at homosexuality with basically the same attitude as heterosexuality: just like Christianity and Buddhism, the ideal is to move past sexual attraction of any nature.


Three guesses which one I align with.

[Flyndaran]

...The more liberal ones look at homosexuality with basically the same attitude as heterosexuality: just like Christianity and Buddhism, the ideal is to move past sexual attraction of any nature.


Three guesses which one I align with.

Narnia, follower of Aslan? No?
Eh, I despise all religions that try to deny reality, especially biological reality.
People are mammals. People are sexually active. People are etc.
Denying this, or trying to move beyond reality is dangerous gibberish.
I don't mean to address you personally. This is what I see with regards to nearly every religion or superstitious belief.

[BroomJockey]

Denying this, or trying to move beyond reality is dangerous gibberish.


Logical inconsistency. You said in the "What I Did Today" thread that you can let aggression go. Aggression is part of man's mammal nature. So what makes aggression so much easier to move past as an animal trait? It's the same as sexuality.

[Flyndaran]

Logical inconsistency. You said in the "What I Did Today" thread that you can let aggression go. Aggression is part of man's mammal nature. So what makes aggression so much easier to move past as an animal trait? It's the same as sexuality.

I don't deny my anger. That leads to unhealthy repression. Letting it go is simply a learned response to stop feeling something. I will always feel anger as a human. I just deal with it.
I agree that it is a fine line.

[BroomJockey]

I don't deny my anger. That leads to unhealthy repression. Letting it go is simply a learned response to stop feeling something.

*searches for a magnifying glass*

So, you "let go" to stop feeling something, but they want to "move past" to stop feeling it, and this provides a minute enough difference for you to criticize one, but embrace the other. I think I'm gonna need an electron microscope for this one.

[Nyoibo]

"They don't believe what I do, therefore they're wrong"

[Flyndaran]

*searches for a magnifying glass*

So, you "let go" to stop feeling something, but they want to "move past" to stop feeling it, and this provides a minute enough difference for you to criticize one, but embrace the other. I think I'm gonna need an electron microscope for this one.

Let go of destructive over-feelings, not all of a type of emotion. I also don't harbor any delusions of changing my animal nature to the degree of moving past it.
It's like the difference between treatment and cure. I don't believe the human nature can be cured.
Is that clearer?

[Nyoibo]

I don't believe the human nature can be cured.


Nuclear weapons, and lots of them.

[anriana]

Narnia, follower of Aslan? No?
Eh, I despise all religions that try to deny reality, especially biological reality.
People are mammals. People are sexually active. People are etc.
Denying this, or trying to move beyond reality is dangerous gibberish.
I don't mean to address you personally. This is what I see with regards to nearly every religion or superstitious belief.

Unlike some other religions, there is nothing "wrong" or "sinful" with being sexual and it's not required of the laity, it's just not the ultimate goal. Most people don't conquer human nature to that point, which is fine - they just can't be monks/nuns until they do. And I can speak with an English accent.

[Slytovhand]

depending on their culture and upbringing, but they generally aren't as preoccupied with sex as Christians.

From the people who brought you the Kama Sutra... :p



Back to the other topic.... take for example the Orange People. Rumour had it it was all about sex sex sex and more sex. Apparently, the idea was... keep having it until you're over it. Once you've gotten over it, then you can start to focus on more spiritual matters. But while it's still a hang up, you can't completely focus on what you're supposed to be doing. Of course, my information could be... wrong.

[McDreidel09]

Funny how a country who got their independence from the British around the time my grandmother was born is faster at accepting homosexuality than the U.S. Go figure.

[Flyndaran]

Unlike some other religions, there is nothing "wrong" or "sinful" with being sexual and it's not required of the laity, it's just not the ultimate goal. Most people don't conquer human nature to that point, which is fine - they just can't be monks/nuns until they do. And I can speak with an English accent.

Religions often try to deny human nature. But whatever floats your boat, even if it is living a life of denial and self-abuse. Maybe that religious mentality is worth it. As a genetic atheist, I can't ever really relate or even understand that form of human nature.

[anriana]

Religions often try to deny human nature. But whatever floats your boat, even if it is living a life of denial and self-abuse. Maybe that religious mentality is worth it. As a genetic atheist, I can't ever really relate or even understand that form of human nature.

You can't understand the desire to conquer human nature? To conquer one's body? To suppress fatigue, hunger, and lust and be able to focus on higher matters? They don't have to be religious higher matters - they can be intellectual or secular philosophy just as well.

[Flyndaran]

You can't understand the desire to conquer human nature? To conquer one's body? To suppress fatigue, hunger, and lust and be able to focus on higher matters? They don't have to be religious higher matters - they can be intellectual or secular philosophy just as well.

No. Going the vulcan route is not healthy... controlling is not supressing.
Separate topic:
Higher matters? Why is philosophy higher than eating, resting, and sex? Just because animals other than humans can do it does not make it less important.

[AFPheonix]

Funny how a country who got their independence from the British around the time my grandmother was born is faster at accepting homosexuality than the U.S. Go figure.

Considering our country was founded in part by a group of people even more puckered than the British, I don't find it all that surprising.