Yay For Blacks, Nay For Gays

Blacks were overwhelming against gay marraige.

unfortunately, proposition 8 was defeated.

I find it DISGUSTING that all minority groups that were responsible for the majority of passing 8 have the NERVE to cry about"discrimination", and then go and do the same to others. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.. If they can TAKE AWAY this EXISTING right, who's to say some day , somoeone won't TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS and send you race card carrying crybabies back to Africa and Mexico? Who's to say YOU won't have to sit in the back of the bus and drink out of seperate water fountains ONCE AGAIN. Yes the judges went "against the people" and approved same sex marriage , because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Do you think the "people" wanted YOU to be freed of slavery when you were, or able to to marry into other races when that was struck down? NO. The "people" wanted everything to stay the same at the time. The GOVERMENT STEPPED IN and said that was wrong - AGAINST THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE, which is the ONLY reason you are now free to do as you wish today. Karma.

calm down, man/woman

The point I am trying to make here is to remember that its not easy to change minds and hearts. It takes a long time, sometimes even centuries. But one should keep on fighting for the cause.

There are gay folks amongst the minorities as well.

Deepti:

The majority is against sex with animals, because it is not natural. Your arguments that majority need not be right, could also be wrong.

Suresh, its the age old argument where people bring in bestiality and pedophilia when arguing against homosexuality.

And it isn't the same. Sex with animals is gross, pedophilia takes away the innocence of children and causes life time trauma but homosexuality if between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own.

I don't want to take sides here, but you do raise a valid point regarding whether it is right to let the masses decide about the laws of the land.

I never understood the concept of propositions and measures in the US. I thought deciding on such issues is the job of legislators, whom we elect anyway. I remember one time in California when there was a proposition to ban horse meat (and which successfully passed). C'mon, it couldn't have gotten sillier than that.

The same thing with jury duty. I find it absolutely ridiculous that common people have to decide on matters which require understanding of legal intricacies. Isn't that what judges are trained and paid to do? No wonder we had travesties like the OJ verdict. Not to mention the enormous amount of inconvenience these jury duty summons cause the average citizen.

I am glad I got out of that country. I know some of my Indian friends still there dread receiving jury summons. Thankfully I live in a country where I don't have to be a slave of white institutions anymore.

Deepti

"homosexuality if between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own."

majority of people do not think so.

Just because consent is present does not clinch the argument for a behavior. What if no consent is needed as no other person is involved in a behavior(beastiality), does that clinch the argument? Society may use different criteria (other than consent) to measure harm that certain behaviors and life-styles may bring.

Led

"you do raise a valid point regarding whether it is right to let the masses decide about the laws of the land."

It is direct democracy where people are allowed to have say in how they will be ruled in certain matters. We now have political and technological means to achieve direct democracy. While it does not do away with representative democracy, it compliments it. It allows local community standards and local socio-cultural matters be determined and implemented locally. It is decentralization of power and bringing empowerment closer to communities where people live.

Nation at one time used to hold that politics and power should be left only to professionals and every person should not have a say in it, and power should be far removed from people and kept at some unreachable power center - franchise of voting even representatives was withheld from large number of groups. We now let every tom, dick and harry, weather he/she is deaf, dumb, ignorant or idiot to participate in electing representatives. It empowers both people and democracy.

Gay marriage and certain level of beastiality is legal in Netherlands. A number of Dutch scholars came out a couple years ago wrote this(link below) about the state of marriage in the Netherlands.
http://www.familywatchinternational.org/fwi/marriage_DUTCH_researchers_letter.pdf

Further read on this.
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.as

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

The homosexuals have the freedom to practice their lifestyle in their own house. I have a problem with them wanting to spread and teach their perversion to elementary school kids in the public school system. That is where I draw the line. I am a pro-family and pro-lifer.

This is not about hatred towards the gay community; it is about family preservation and preservation of humans.

concerned-citizen (so-called):

""This is not about hatred towards the gay community; it is about family preservation and preservation of humans.""

If this is not hatred, I wonder what you would be spewing if you were intending to express your hatred towards gays and lesbians.


so-called concerned citizen:

""The homosexuals have the freedom to practice their lifestyle in their own house.""

You err on the side of generosity. But have they been threatining to "practise their lifestyle" in your house or what?

....Among five major energy and environmental ballot initiatives from California to Missouri, all but one were voted down. Does that mean that apparent public support for clean energy withers away when the rubber meets the road? ....Read complete article, here is the link

Not So Green: Voters Nix Most Environmental State Ballot Measures
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/11/05/not-so-green-voters-nix-most-environmental-state-ballot-measures/

so-called concerned citizen:

"I have a problem with them wanting to spread and teach their perversion to elementary school kids in the public school system. That is where I draw the line. I am a pro-family and pro-lifer."

I have a problem with you spreading this perversion on public fora. "pro-lifer"? as in against capital punishment but in favour of life sentences?

concerned-citizen so-called:

""Gay marriage and certain level of beastiality is legal in Netherlands."'

wake up friend. gay marriage is legal in many countries, including "catholic" spain, most EU countries, canada etc. etc. etc. get used to it my friend; if you dislike gay marriage, don't get married to a same-sex partner. simple! easier done than said.

could you be more precise about that "certain level of bestiality"?? what level are you talking about?

Is beastiality when you are beastly to your partner?

commonsense,

If you have even 1% of common sense, you would research on the ill-effects homosexuality has on society. You choose to spew out nonsense and contribute no facts to prove me wrong.

Yes, I am a pro-lifer. I believe life begins at conception. You have a problem with that, common sense with no common sense.

That kind of beastly would get you - 498A!!

Aaman#16,

I am not sure if you are serious here. Beastiality is sex with animals if you really want to know.

commonsense #15,

"could you be more precise about that "certain level of bestiality"?? what level are you talking about?"

If the animal does not complain, then it is ok to have relations with an animal in the Netherlands.

CS, btw the high court asked VHP to prove that gay sex causes bodily harm.

"In several countries where the ban has been lifted (from gay sex), no one has claimed that the act is injurious. Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) does not say that it causes injuries to people involved in such acts," the bench said.

The court objected to the VHP's contention that gay sex should be banned as it could cause injury to the private parts of the people indulging in the act.

"Do you have any material to substantiate the claim that indulgence in such acts causes injury to people's body?" the bench asked the organisation.

Advocate H.V. Sharma, appearing for the VHP, however, could not place any material before the court to substantiate its claims, saying that no such study had been conducted in India.

Seriously, what ill effects? What straight people have in common with gay people apart from being human is indulging in anal sex and blow jobs;)

Deepti Lamba #21,

The ill-effects has to do with the effects it has on societies, not sex act itself. Over and over again, scholars around the world are voicing their findings on the degradation of world communities pertaining to the spread of homosexuality.

Again, if two consenting adults want to engage in this lifestyle, then fine. But please do not spread and teach this to little children in schools. More than half of the kids in public school system in the U.S. are a product of dysfunctional family. They are already living in confusion and emotional torment. Adding homosexuality adds further to their confusion and leads to suicide.

Has it been yey or ney for feminism?

Hillary did not run as a feminist nor as a woman, but as a qualified person who happened to be a woman - so she played down gender identity. But not for feminists who rallied behind her - for them, she was an epitomy of feminist dream and achievement. Hillary energized the feminist base and brought them closest they ever been to the highest power center of the land. But they saw their prize snatched away by Barak - resentment and bitter disillusionment among feminist ranks was palpable - yet all hope was not lost as Barak's audacity of hope has a tent big enough for feminists.

But than Palin happened. She turned feminism upside down. Feminists were reduced to deny a woman who could be a heartbeat away from the highest office which feminists regard as a highest achievement for women. Palin and feminists balkanized the right to speak for women, to women, on behalf of women. Though Palin lost, she neutralized the gains Hillary's movement had brought for feminists. Palin's mandate accomplished. And Palin is not going to disappear any time soon - she will hang around in GOP to neuralize whatever gains Barak may create for feminism. If GOP has any smarts, they would keep the dagger of Palin hanging, just in case. So the verdict? I would rate feminists as a big nay.

Social/evangical Conservatives have been the biggest winners of this election - they have consolidated their power within GOP, and pushed out all the moderates from GOP. They have won every proposition and ballot initiative that was on the ballot. And they have made it near impossible for Barak to achieve his mandate. Unless both sides declare a cease-fire in the raging cultural war, Barak can not succeed in his presidency.

Even if one looks at arithmetic of Barak victory, it is not as sweeping or convincing - shift in mere 3-4 points would have spelled completely opposite mandate. Had it not been for a timely economic meltdown, it is hard to imagine Barak's victory. In spite of having not a single thing working in Gop's favor, softballs like McCain-Palin could pull off support base of 48% - that means, GOP needs only few points to rewrite history - and Barak presidency will give plenty of opportunities. GOP need not rewrite its politics to undo Barak by 2012.

Deepti:

""CS, btw the high court asked VHP to prove that gay sex causes bodily harm.""

I had no idea, but not surprised by this organization and other self-appointed thekedaars of "indian-ness" and "moral majority". Reminds me of that line: "the moral majority is neither".

Although i agree that sometimes gay sex causes bodily harm, albeit not quite in the sequence that the VHP and their delusion ilk imagine. rather, when self-righteous bigoted cowards gang up on gay folks to beat them up.

concerned-citizen:

""The homosexuals have the freedom to practice their lifestyle in their own house.""

I totally agree with you. it would be impolite of gay or non-gay folks to have sex in YOUR house; unless of course you invite them and join them too. it's your house, and nobody should be allowed to bother you.

Concerned Citizen, I find religion and greed to be the cause of much misery to man and not sex between consenting adults.

If hetrosexual families are dysfunctional why lay the blame on homosexuals?

Telling kids that there are two mommies or two daddies instead of a mommy and daddy doesn't mean your tot is going to ask for a instant sex education regarding homosexual activity. And even if they do- one can simply say that they love each other and hence are together. Same explanation is given for straight couples.

Kids accept facts pretty fast and their minds aren't dirty. This is old excuse touted by homophobs all the time and lacks depth.

The only thing that leads a closet homosexual to suicide is a homophob who verbally and physically abuses him in school, makes his life living hell and drives him to take his own life since the rest of the school also believes that the 'queer' brought it upon himself.


Harm to society? Cable television and stuffing yourself silly on beef burgers has done greater harm to American society than alternate lifestyle.

concerned citizen:

""Yes, I am a pro-lifer. I believe life begins at conception."'

don't worry! nobody believes life begins before conception.

concerned-citizens:

""More than half of the kids in public school system in the U.S. are a product of dysfunctional family.""

so is it because they belong to gay families, hence "dysfucntional" in your view or is it because as the self-appointed contractor for so-called "normal family" you have been sleeping on the job and ought to be fired? Or, to make it easy for you, is it both?

concerned citizens:

""If the animal does not complain, then it is ok to have relations with an animal in the Netherlands.""

and if the animal complains, does it have to be in writing to be admissable in the courts?

concerned citizen, i'm seriously concerned about you.

btw, what about "animal husbandry"??

Although i agree that sometimes gay sex causes bodily harm,....

CS, straight sex can also cause bodily harm as well and I won't get explicit;)

""Do you have any material to substantiate the claim that indulgence in such acts causes injury to people's body?" the bench asked the organisation."

That should be very easy to substantiate, first hand, no need for studies. Just ask the bench to bend and let it rip. With all those gays around, it should be easy to arrange.

I do not understand why this court acting like an advocate and activist for gays? This is judicial activism and abuse of power. It should be enforcing the laws, not play activist for overturning them. Where is the political mandate for judges to be activists? If the laws of the land need to be changed, it is the job of the elected legislators, not the unelected bench.

kerty:

""I do not understand why this court acting like an advocate and activist for gays?"'

as if that's the only thing our friend does not understand. a bit of overstanding, on the bench perhaps, might help.

The modern saying:
Practice gayism, control population
(good for countries like India and China)

Dear CS and Deepti,

Here is a litmus test for you. I know it is a little personal, and pardon me if it offends you, but when self is on the line it forces one to rethink ones principles.

When you think about your family, your kids etc., do you ever wish or hope that some of them will turn out to be gay? If not why not?

Personally I sincerely wish that my kids will not turn out gay. I will let them choose their own lifestyle of course. I have nothing against gays, and I do some friends who are gay.

I don't think gays should be allowed to influence little kids in manner. Just as we keep sexuality out of their lives, we should also keep alternative sexuality out as well.

Regards,

Ravi

Ravi Kulkarni: The reason people wish their kids wouldn't be gay is not becoz there is something wrong with gay people but becoz some unevolved members of society make it extremely hard for a gay person to live with equal rights.

there was a time when people in some places wished they wouldn't have a daughter but now as women have equal rights, society is evolving and leaving such thinking behind.

Here's a litmus test for you: Do ever find yourself wishing that your kids don't grow up to be mean or unfair to people just becoz you raised them with hard-headed and unyielding definitions of "normalcy"?

Dear Aditi,

Thank you for your reply. Actually I have nothing against gay people or that they are somehow deviant. I believe all the rights of companionship, visitation and inheritance should be awarded to them and in fact I have no problem with gay marriage either.

The reason I don't want my children to be gay is not because it is a hard life or the society looks down upon them. Like most parents I would like my kids to grow up and have their own kids and so on. It is a little hard for gay people to have kids of their own you know?

As for my litmus test: I believe in letting go. So while I do try to teach my children to be good people, ultimately I know that they are individuals and I am prepared to let them go when the time comes.

Regards,

Ravi

Homosexuality is a gateway lifestyle to sexual anarchy. It has to be measured by how much chaos and harm it brings to the health of society; to vital institutions like marriage, family, child welfare and committed relationships; to the vital values like fidelity, monogamy, commitment. So the issue of gay lifestyle is larger than Aids or individual rights or equality or consentual behavior. It is an instrument of cultural war and casualty of war can be felt far and wide in the society. Society has the right to criminalize certain behaviors and lifestyles in the larger interests.

My reply to Aditi's litmus test was lame. So here is another try:

First thing I try to teach my children is to be better persons. We are minorities in an alien land ourselves and have complete sympathy for alternative lifestyles and belief systems. I live by certain principles, which are by no means set in stone and open to modification as I live and learn. I encourage my children to think for themselves and arrive at right and wrong.

Regards,

Ravi

Ravi Kulkarni,

In response to your litmus test, I really wish my two kids to be whatever they wish to be: gay, non-gay or somewhere in between; it's their life. lucky i live in a part of the world where they will not be seen as freaks, regardless of what they chose to be.

Like aditi, i am more concerned about whether they turn out to be sincere, caring and compassionate individuals and that is what counts.

As for only non-gay people having children, that's not true. As well, not all non-gay people choose to have children. I would hate to pressure my kids to have children or not to have them. It's their life.

My sincere, no-grandstanding response to your fair question.

Ravi

Your re-reply to the litmus test is still lame.

If something is worth fighting for and worth championing, if something is good enough for everybody else, why is it not good enough for your own life, and your own kids?

Why would you not let gays help introduce you or your kids into such a good lifestyle?

What is the harm in letting your kids try it, experiment a bit and let them find it out for themselves if they like to pursue it or something else - why indoctrinate them exclusively into hetero-sexuality - doesn't such partisan political indoctrination amount to state sponsoring only hetero-sexuality?

Besides, isn't letting your kids do it for a good cause, to strengthen the rights and democracy? Does it not make one duty bound to try it out, and a patriotic thing to do? What arguments you have for schools and gays not to educate and lab-test homosexuality to your kids?

Ravi

Your re-reply to the litmus test is still lame.

If something is worth fighting for and worth championing, if something is good enough for everybody else, why is it not good enough for your own life, and your own kids?

Why would you not let gays help introduce you or your kids into such a good lifestyle?

What is the harm in letting your kids try it, experiment a bit and let them find it out for themselves if they like to pursue it or something else - why indoctrinate them exclusively into hetero-sexuality - doesn't such partisan political indoctrination amount to state sponsoring only hetero-sexuality?

Besides, isn't letting your kids do it is for a good cause, to strengthen the rights and democracy? Does it not make one duty bound to try it out, and a patriotic thing to do? What arguments you have for schools and gays not to educate and lab-test homosexuality to your kids?

Dear CS,

Thanks for your excellent reply. I learned something new about myself today from your and Aditi's replies.

Regards,

Ravi

kerty: when you say "kids" do you mean offsprings in general or like little children. if so then i suggest you stop moronically suggesting that people have their kids "experiment" with sexuality. choices about sexuality and sexual preferences are adult choices. children and adolescents just need to feel acceptance, not spoon feeding and indoctrination. also conditioning, may i remind you, is largely social in nature for most human beings and is not restricted to just parental indoctrination.

and looking at comment 37 versus comment 41 I'm starting to think that maybe there are two voices inside your head and both are commenting on DC!

Dear Kerty,

I don't believe there are principles and morals that are good for everyone and for all the time. These are man made, and there is a hierarchy among the rules: laws of nature, laws of land, morals and personal principles. Except for the first all are man made and mutable. I am for the strict enforcement of law but for the rest, I strongly believe that they should be left to individuals.

Belief in absolute morals leads to fascism. We have seen it again and again in history. Morals change with time, place and circumstances. Therefore I am not for banning any kind of lifestyles, as long as they don't directly affect others.

I don't believe it is for government or schools to teach any kind of sexuality to young children. It is for individuals to decide what they want to do with their lives. No one should be forced to adapt a lifestyle they are uncomfortable with.

Regards,

Ravi

Ravi #44

I would not argue with most of what you have said. However, I would argue for criminalization of lifestyles that are harmful to the society. If society has to choose between harm caused to social and moral fabric of society, victimization of a majority vs harm caused to sex-based lifestyle and its small band of votaries, than picking lessor of the evil would trump every time. It is fitting Karma that those who champion harmful lifestyles be required to have their own kids bear the harm of the lifestyle. Let karma be a bitch.

Aditi #43

"choices about sexuality and sexual preferences are adult choices."

Sex is a deeply personal and private matter and should be left as such, as has been the case for ages. Outing it from private domain into public domain for ideological purpose invites scrutiny and opposition. Sexual preference outed for the purpose of cultural war loses the privileges of privacy and status of being a personal matter/choice. It becomes my business, everybody's business to examine such sexuality and sexual preferences, be it adult or otherwise, be it consentual or not. Whenever something is injected in public domain, every level of society scrutinizes how it would effect them, what harm or benefits it would bring to them, they would oppose or support it based on such cost-benefit analysis . Right-based activism seeks to evade such political process while seeking to engage in cultural war and institutionalize such cultural war in statism.


"children and adolescents just need to feel acceptance, not spoon feeding and indoctrination. also conditioning, may i remind you, is largely social in nature for most human beings and is not restricted to just parental indoctrination"

When sex is outed into public domain, you can not prevent it from indoctrinating kids or adults. Public domain is governed by rights, freedom, expression, choices etc, therefore it is accessible to all, kids of all ages, adults of all stripes. Parents lose their freedom and ability to condition and indoctrinate their kids as they see fit - Rather their ability and effectiveness to raise their kids as they see fit is transferred to the public domain where various sexual lifestyles vie to woo and access the kids and youth to increase their life-style share. That is why people have to scrutinize what gets to occupy the public domain in the name of rights and freedoms. Public domain can not be left to laissez faire of sexuality and lifestyles - nor can be nationalized thru statism - it is best such lifestyles are left to balkanized, localized and personalized existence. The laws against gays exist to keep it that way, not to throw gays in jails. I do not think any gays have ever been jailed - than why is this a burning issue? The significance of gay movement is ideological and it forces an equally ideological response.

Some of our best friends are gay and have children - there are ways, and I don't think I'll go into how a wonderful child can have two daddies or mommies, biologically. In fact, I would have no problem if our children were gay - we're all bisexual to some extent and our plumbing is not what defines our identity, at least not mine.

I would be interested in knowing President-elect Obama's stand on Prop 8, if he has one.

Aaman

"our plumbing is not what defines our identity, at least not mine."

Yet. The gay identity is built precisely on such plumbing, exists solely because of such plumbing, chooses to champion only such plumbing, and willing to scorch-the-earth for such plumbing-centric identity.

Ravi, like CS said I have no problems if my children are gay. Being good human beings is all that matters. But at least one of them should give me a grandchild to spoil whether biologically or through adoption.

One of my gay friends is such a wonderful parent that he puts my mothering skills to shame and I think he is one of the most charming and compassionate man I have had the privilege to meet.

If there were more people like him the world would be a better place to live in.

Mess with nature and the nature messes u

I wonder when they will let siblings and child-parents marry each other and have babies :-). BC and MC will no more be a gaali then :-)

What is wrong with this picture?

"I have no problems if my children are pedophile or pedophile plays with them as long as it is consentual and nobody is bodily harmed.

One of my pedophile friends is such a wonderful parent that he puts my mothering skills to shame and I think he is one of the most charming and compassionate man I have had the privilege to meet. He brings so many candies for my kids.

Why is loving children such a bad thing? If there were more people like him the world would be a better place to live in. Both gays and pedophile are geting a bum rap and should not be criminalized. We should respect their sexual preferences and freedom, we should educate children so they are harmed or taken advantage of against their will, but lets not ban them"

Dear Kerty (#44, #46, #52),

I don't believe the situation is so bad that majority of our population is becoming gay and we are in danger of becoming extinct as a result. Nor are the gay people flaunting their sexuality openly. If anything, sexual content is becoming ubiquitous in every media. If you are arguing that we need to reduce sexual content, I am with you.

I still don't understand why you want to criminalize gay people? All you are doing is to drive it underground. By doing that all you are achieving is even more criminalized people. Just look at drugs. Due to our ridiculous laws, drug lords and dealers are the only ones who benefit. People still continue to consume drugs anyway.

Your comparison between gay people and pedophiles is not apt. When two consenting adults indulge in gay sex, there is no victim. A child on the other hand is a helpless victim who is not aware of the consequences or his or her act.

Regards,

Ravi

Amaan:

""we're all bisexual to some extent and our plumbing is not what defines our identity, at least not mine."'

A basic truth that all the moralizers want to deny. Thanks for stating it so clearly. the dichotomy between a clear-cut gay and straight is a false one. The dichotomy between a bigot and a non-bigot though, is crystal clear.

Correction #52 last line...
"We should respect their sexual preferences and freedom, we should educate children so they are NOT harmed or taken advantage of against their will, but lets not ban them"

Ravi

"I don't believe the situation is so bad that majority of our population is becoming gay and we are in danger of becoming extinct as a result."

That is not the only criteria why we criminalize things in society. Rape, murder, dowery, sati etc are not practiced for majority, does not cause extinction of the majority nor pose any danger to the majority, and yet they are criminalized.

"Nor are the gay people flaunting their sexuality openly."

I think they do. Their agenda is to seek equality and parity with heterosexuality, bring it into mainstream and public domain like heterosexuality.

"I still don't understand why you want to criminalize gay people? All you are doing is to drive it underground."

Underground, in private sphere, in privacy is where it belongs. That is where it must be driven to. And if takes criminalization, so be it. It has been banned in India. So gays by definition are felons. How many gays are in jail? How come all these gays are not in jail? So criminalization is merely symbolic, a deterrent, meant to keep this lifestyle off public domain.

"By doing that all you are achieving is even more criminalized people. Just look at drugs. Due to our ridiculous laws, drug lords and dealers are the only ones who benefit. People still continue to consume drugs anyway."

You have to feed something to the underbelly of the society at all times - if not alcohol, than marijuana, if not marijuana than coccain, if not coacain, than something far worse. As soon as you legalize one thing, underbelly moves on to next heinous level. The key is to draw the battle lines that keep the underbelly fixated on something that society can live with.


"Your comparison between gay people and pedophiles is not apt. When two consenting adults indulge in gay sex, there is no victim. A child on the other hand is a helpless victim who is not aware of the consequences or his or her act."

In case of pedophilia, you assume that there is no consent, that there is a victim, that victim is helpless, that participants do not enjoy sexual acts - while it may be true for kids under 13-14, but it is not always true for kids 14-18 who are biologically endowed and emotionally capable to handle and enjoy sex. Than what is the rationale for criminalizing pedophilia in all cases, especially when there are already laws to protect people against rape, violence and molestation?

You see, legal system works on judicial precedence and political movements work on slippery slope, incremental activism - once you legitimize the gateway, all other cocktails working on similar principle use identical methods and arguments to seek legitimacy. Once you open a door to let the air in, insects and flies too would follow, you lose control what would be allowed and what would not be. Gateway opens the door. Once gateway opens the door to sexual permutations and combinations, even if pedophilia or beastiality or rape-roleplay are banned, sexual deviancies would become a fixture of society's underbelly, waiting for critical mass to seek legitimacy. In order to push sexual deviancy to the fringe of the underground, you have to ban the gateway. You have to feed something to the beast, to the underbelly, to the fringe - let it be gays, not pedophilia or beastiality or something far worse.

Ravi

"I don't believe the situation is so bad that majority of our population is becoming gay and we are in danger of becoming extinct as a result."

That is not the only criteria why we criminalize things in society. Rape, murder, dowery, sati etc are not practiced by majority, does not cause extinction of the majority nor pose any danger to the majority, and yet they are criminalized.

"Nor are the gay people flaunting their sexuality openly."

I think they do. Their agenda is to seek equality and parity with heterosexuality, bring it into mainstream and public domain like heterosexuality.

"I still don't understand why you want to criminalize gay people? All you are doing is to drive it underground."

Underground, in private sphere, in privacy is where it belongs. That is where it must be driven to. And if takes criminalization, so be it. It has been banned in India. So gays by definition are felons. How many gays are in jail? How come all these gays are not in jail? So criminalization is merely symbolic, a deterrent, meant to keep this lifestyle off public domain.

"By doing that all you are achieving is even more criminalized people. Just look at drugs. Due to our ridiculous laws, drug lords and dealers are the only ones who benefit. People still continue to consume drugs anyway."

You have to feed something to the underbelly of the society at all times - if not alcohol, than marijuana, if not marijuana than coccain, if not coacain, than something far worse. As soon as you legalize one thing, underbelly moves on to next heinous level. The key is to draw the battle lines that keep the underbelly fixated on something that society can live with.


"Your comparison between gay people and pedophiles is not apt. When two consenting adults indulge in gay sex, there is no victim. A child on the other hand is a helpless victim who is not aware of the consequences or his or her act."

In case of pedophilia, you assume that there is no consent, that there is a victim, that victim is helpless, that participants do not enjoy sexual acts - while it may be true for kids under 13-14, but it is not always true for kids 14-18 who are biologically endowed and emotionally capable to handle and enjoy sex. Than what is the rationale for criminalizing pedophilia in all cases, especially when there are already laws to protect people against rape, violence and molestation?

You see, legal system works on judicial precedence and political movements work on slippery slope, incremental activism - once you legitimize the gateway, all other cocktails working on similar principle use identical methods and arguments to seek legitimacy. Once you open a door to let the air in, insects and flies too would follow, you lose control what would be allowed and what would not be. Gateway opens the door. Once gateway opens the door to sexual permutations and combinations, even if pedophilia or beastiality or rape-roleplay are banned, sexual deviancies would become a fixture of society's underbelly, waiting for critical mass to seek legitimacy. In order to push sexual deviancy to the fringe of the underground, you have to ban the gateway. You have to feed something to the beast, to the underbelly, to the fringe - let it be gays, not pedophilia or beastiality or something far worse.

kertyfication: when any rational discussion is ambushed by smokescreens of hyperbole

kertyfied: as in certifiably non-rational; usually irrational too.

kertyfied: also a synonym for mortified

this thread is officially certified kertyfied. no further comments will be entertained.

kerty after reading some of your comments I am more afraid of you and the likes of you than I would ever be of any homosexual. I really mean that. If I ever have to leave my kid with a babysitter and my choices were you and a gay couple, I'd take the gay guys over you.

Your rationale of de-criminlazing (and even comparing) pedophilia to homosexuality is SO dumb that it makes me wonder if maybe society could criminalize such stupidity. You sound like some people who years ago compared black people to savage animals just to deny them equal rights in society.

I agree with #50: "Mess with nature and the nature messes u"

Nature is what made these people have a certain sexual preference so we shouldn't mess with it as long as it involves 2 adults and mutual consent.

Chandra: Incest has been shown to result in birth defects and hence the illegality associated with incestuous marriages although in some places those aren't illegal either...but homosexuality is!

aditi.. we won;t even mention that he's simply made up some kind of "agenda" that doesn't exist. it is the typical rantings of a person who is simply afraid of what he doesn't have the first clue.

I would leave my child with a whole host of people before Kerty. He is filled with lies and hate, and that is so much more dangerous than just about anything else on this planet.

Aditi

"I am more afraid of you and the likes of you than I would ever be of any homosexual. I really mean that. If I ever have to leave my kid with a babysitter and my choices were you and a gay couple, I'd take the gay guys over you"

Majority of people feel the same way about homosexuals and 'con' salesmen of homosexuality. They wouldn't trust them with kids, adoption, marriage, friendship, relationship, or as neighbor, nothing. They too are afraid of its champions and their agenda which does not stop at homosexuality. So the feeling and allergy is mutual.

"Nature is what made these people have a certain sexual preference so we shouldn't mess with it"

Most sexual preferences for most people are acquired and learned habits, hobbies, fantasies, roleplay, experimentation, widening of sexual horizons, adding spice to life, giving it a try at least once etc etc. Sexual preferences mirror pornography and visa versa. To sell it as anything else is a con job.

To the extent sex can attract two persons and bind them for an orgasm, it is possible to have orgasmic coupling of two individuals, but no committed and lasting relationships or families thru which kids can be raised. And that is what sexual politics deliver - inability to sustain marriages, family, raise kids by majority of couples - orphaned and fostered kids, kids raised by single parents, kids raised by gays. Kids and elders come out the biggest losers when vital relationships are melted away by sexual politics.

" Incest has been shown to result in birth defects and hence the illegality associated with incestuous marriages "

Now that we have technology to prevent birth as well as birth defects, what does it do to the alleged and outdated rationale behind banning incest? Incest does not have to lead to birth, birth defects or marriage, so there is no rationale left to criminalize incest, is't it? As long as it is a private matter between two consenting adults that does not harm anybody, why should there be different yardsticks for homosexuality and incest? Why such step-motherly attitude to incest? Aren't feminists repackaging incest so it can be decriminalized and legitimized too? There are whole lot of sexual can of warms that share the same rationale and same arguments, and there is nothing to stop them from crawl out to the mainstream once those rationale and arguments are undermined by gay movement. That is what makes gay movement more dangerous than homosexuality in itself. Societies always had homosexuality but what people abhor is gay movement and its agenda.

"Majority of people feel the same way about homosexuals and 'con' salesmen of homosexuality...."

Hmmm, I'm starting to see why people have a hard time finding a babysitter!

...I didn't bother reading the rest of your 500 word ramble. I hate to break it to you but a majority of people don't.

Aditi

"...I didn't bother reading the rest of your 500 word ramble. I hate to break it to you but a majority of people don't"

The power of ideas and arguments do not rest in who makes them and who reads them, who agrees with them and who does not. Vanities do not bother me. Some people actually I recommend not to read my posts.

Roland Martin of CNN said the reasons blacks voted for Proposition 8 is because it was a "moral issue" to them. Well then, if blacks are so concerned about morality, why are the majority of black children born today abandoned by their fathers?

i think the troll is way over-fed sometimes...

without comment!!

""Vanities do not bother me."'

Kerty# 65 well said!

kerty:

""Vanities do not bother me."'

since i don't put on make-up very often....i don't need them vanities

kerty: you misinterpreted the human vice there. it wasn't vanity just short attention span. besides comment 65 demonstrates that when your comments are succinct it makes it easier for people to know its BS right away. becoz upon a second read #65 essentially translates into "the power of ideas does not rest with anybody" :)

Commonsense ,would you have been comfortable having parents of the same sex ? especially when the majority kids in your school have normal parents . .Homosexuality is a mental problem and it should be treated as such

Kela,

my non-response to your #72, should be taken as a response.

kerty #63 I am not sure which world you live in but we do not have the "technology" to prevent birth defects. If you know of some such "technology" that we in the scientific field are not yet aware of please, enlighten us!

Aditi

My point was simply that sex does not have to lead to child birth - technology does exist to prevent pregnancy and child birth, and through that, one can preventive against medically risky pregnancies

Pre-natal care can detect many issues associated with defective fetus.

Field of neo-natalogy is so advanced that premature babies and problem babies (some of them weighing merely few grams) can be saved to be healthy babies - they do not suffer life-long complications, because many problems can be detected early and corrected before they manifest. My wife's brother is a neo-natologist for 25 years and he shares many stories of ground-braking recoveries under his care. Most birth defects are no longer life-threatening and technological aids exists to overcome many physical handicaps. That is not to suggest that medical field has a cure for all medical conditions, or that technology can make people overcome every disability.

Kerty: 2 different fields altogether: neonatalogy and congenital birth defects.

Do you know what neonatalogy is? :) I'm guessing you haven't had too many "neonatalogy conversations" with your wife's brother lately. Neonatalogy involves care of newborn infants, especially wherein the infant is born with issues: pre-maturely or underweight etc.

Now do you know what birth defects are? They include congenital or chromosomal defects. A lot of congenital birth defects are not life threatening but are significantly debilitating or sometimes even disfiguring. Genetic intervention would be required to "prevent" a birth defect and this is something we are still miles away from accomplishing. If we could do that then we could prevent cancer and heart defects before a person was born just by modifying their genetic make-up! Down's syndrome is one such resulting disorder. Inbreeding results in the precipitation of gene mutations within a certain family contributing to such genetic defects and disabilities. They significantly and sometimes irreparably reduce the quality of life of the individual.

The point isn't that every marriage or every sexual act has to lead to a pregnancy. The issue is it could and hence the government can see it fit to ban incestuous marriages. However, there are states and nations where it is perfectly legal to marry first/ second cousins or even uncles etc (which could result in congenital defects), but gay marriage is illegal.

AN.

when arguing rationally with Kwerty, good luck!

Aditi

Ok. I am not a doctor and wouldn't pretend to know finer differences among different branches of medicine, different anomalies and what causes them. May be you know more about that field than I do. But that is not the central point.

My main point is that incest sex, like any other sex, does not have to lead to pregnancy and consequent complications of child-birth. Just like gay sex does not have to lead to AIDS due to sex. Both can be casual, do not have to lead to committed relationships or marriage, and complications to health can be prevented by safe sex practices. Both can potentially be harmful to the persons involved - Gay sex can increase the risk of STDs and HIVs which can be overcome with safe sex. In case of incest, there is greater risk of psychological damage which can be overcome with mental conditioning and support-groups. If HIV does not prevent legitimacy of Gay lifestyle, why would Congenital abnormality prevent it for incest - what interest a state would have in controlling sexual behaviors of consenting adults? Rationale and arguments in favor of banning or not banning are identical for gay lifestyle and incest. One can make similar justifications for many other sexual life-styles - once a legal and social precedent is set, they will trigger to all such lifestyles. That is why Gay lifestyle is called a a gateway lifestyle.

Kerty:

""I am not a doctor and wouldn't pretend to know finer differences among different branches of medicine, different anomalies and what causes them.""

Unusual humility for a change! should we be suspicious?

This is so dumb. Its like arguing with a monkey.

Kerty: Legalizing gay marriage would allow more homosexuals to be in monogamous relationships. And this would lead to an increase in STDs?!! How?

Do you know what this thread is about? I have a feeling you have no clue: Its not about promoting promiscuity (hetero or homosexual) that you keep refering to as "gay-lifestyle". Its about an unfair ban on gay marriage which allows two people of the same sex to be in a monogamous relationship.

IF you use HIV as a platform for your argument, all sexuality should be banned. Sexual morality or depravity are not confined by the type of sex one is having :)

Bottomline: There is no scientific study where homosexuality versus heterosexuality increases STDs. But there are plenty studies which demonstrate that incestuous sex can result in congenital defects in resulting offspring.

AN:

""This is so dumb. Its like arguing with a monkey."'

All the monkeys emailed me (the head-monkey!) to indicate that they feel insulted by the comparison.

Aditi

"Legalizing gay marriage would allow more homosexuals to be in monogamous relationships. And this would lead to an increase in STDs?!! How?"

Because homosexuality is synonymous with sexual anarchy, it is a gateway to culture of sexual experimentation in all its possible sexual combinations and permutations - it can not promote or sustain monogamy in the society, nor can it create or sustain consensus around sexuality at society level. Proliferation of STD/HIV is twin side of such sexual laissez faire. The only reason homosexuality is seeking marriage rights is to seek parity with heterosexuality and destroy the monogamy and institution of marriage that is built on such values and sexual world-view. That is why Gay marriage and gay lifestyle are opposed and banned by most societies.

"its not about promoting promiscuity (hetero or homosexual) that you keep refering to as "gay-lifestyle". Its about an unfair ban on gay marriage which allows two people of the same sex to be in a monogamous relationship."

People do not believe the snake-oil salesmanship of homosexuality or gay marriage. People believe that gay agenda is about sexual anarchy, destroying monogamy and institution of marriage and family. People believe that it does bring harm to families, kids, women, men, society and therefore ban is justified. People can also see feminist-gay tag-team nexus where feminists seek to exploit the chaos and dysfunctions unleashed within relationships, marriage and family by negationist sexual lifestyles.

"IF you use HIV as a platform for your argument, all sexuality should be banned."

HIV is transmitted by non-monogamous sexual culture, and ban is can be justified in the interest of public health as well as health of vital social institutions.

"Bottomline: There is no scientific study where homosexuality versus heterosexuality increases STDs. But there are plenty studies which demonstrate that incestuous sex can result in congenital defects in resulting offspring"

Homosexuality unleashes sexual anarchy within the domain of heterosexuality. Thus increasing the health risks for entire society thru uncontrollable non-monogamous sexual inter-connectivity - they eventually contaminate the blood supplies and medical facilities, from where transmission of health risks is subsequently carried out also to those who do not participate in non-monogamous sexual culture. Thus entire society is put to risk, not just gays, just so that gay lifestyle can create an alibi that it is not responsible for health risks, but rather a victim of it, just like everybody else.

Both homosexuality and incest has to be banned - not merely from health point of view, but also for serious harm they brings to the social and cultural institutions of the society upon whom welfare and well-being of millions of men, women and children rest.

kerty: why is homosexuality alone synonymous with "sexual anarchy"? Why not heterosexuality? Sexual experimentation exists within hereosexuality too. so is asexuality the way to go?

Aditi

Hetero-sexuality can indeed be subjected to sexual anarchy. That is why it is willing to accept certain trade-offs, frame certain norms and try to build a consensus around a sexual world-view that can create a win-win compromise for vital take-holders in the society.

Aditi

Hetero-sexuality can indeed be subjected to sexual anarchy. That is why it is willing to accept certain trade-offs, frame certain norms and try to build a consensus around a sexual world-view that can create a win-win compromise for vital stake-holders in the society.

as the thekedaar of all the monkeys, i have the authority to inform you that all the monkeys are positively despondent now.

kerty: "That is why it is willing to ..."

Who is this "it"?

...not that I understand the rest of it but I was just mystified by this "it" that seems to be the aribitrator of all things sexual. :)

Aditi

"it" refers to hetero-sexuality, hetero-sexual society.

huh? not as in "he, she or it" as the case maybe?

i believe kwerty hasn't had a wild night out for a while

a little bit or perhaps even a heavy dose of "sexual anarchy" might set his screws right

CS, some people believe masturbation also causes bodily harm, hence forth monkeys are banned from feeling their privates both in public and in private;)

yep deepti,

for humans, for sure, jacking off leads to blindness and hair growth on the palms. this is not an urban or jungle legend. this leads to a dramatic loss of productivity (the economic, not the sexual type), so i would support kerty's proposals for setting up a masturbatory police to ensure that such sexual anarchy does not lead to economic anarchy. indeed i nominate kerty to be the next global jack-off cop. hope he won't cop out from this position of incredible social responsibility.

actually, kerty has a point. sexual anarchy among monkeys would be terrible....breeding more monkeys etc. maybe he should be in-charge of preventing monkeys from getting into monkey business....

hey kerty seems to have disappeared...possibly enjoying himself?