Indian Interests

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Locked
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

Atricle 377 should go. India has a tradition of accommodating the third sex right from the time of Mahabharath. If anything, we should be at forefront of legislating for transgendered and gays. I dont know why some RSS types are against repealing article 377. Even the most influential Hindu spi / Indian spiritual leader - Sri Sri Ravishankar has called for it to be repealed for not keeping in with Indian tolerant ethos and view of sexuality.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests

Post by ramana »

X-Postt. Mull over it....
quote="RamaY"]I know I am not supposed to enter this street.. but just wanted to leave these droppings so gurus can deliberate...

All this al-keeda etc are symptoms of a larger natural process for nations to reach their dynamic equilibrium states... starting from colonial days, the christian west redrew the internal borders of these natural civilizations to suit their imperialistic needs...

Now that this western imperium crumbling (for various reasons), these civilizations are trying to reach their natural state of being. Unfortunately (or fortunately based on which side of the bread you like to butter) the current international structures, policies and posturings do not allow this civilizational transformation to happen peacefully... hence the need for al-keedaas.

The recent developments in Eye-Rock question many fallacies that are wrapped in good English as some earth shattering ideas...

one is shia-sunni conflict and who is a bigger mard.
second one is even more interesting... we are told that no one can win afghanistan... but somehow taliban can not only win afghanistan but can hold on to it... so what is the source of this afghanistan's tfta-ness, the people or religion... another question is why arent the supporters/trainers in TSPA are as TFTA as Talibannis.. what is this maya...

looks like yindustan will need its own version veerabhadra sainya to force the local civilizational equilibrium from iran to thailand.. the more peaceful buddhists are doing their part already in myanmar...

when will bharat wakes from its secular tamas?[/quote]
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Interests

Post by KrishnaK »

ramana wrote:X-Postt. Mull over it....
quote="RamaY"]I know I am not supposed to enter this street.. but just wanted to leave these droppings so gurus can deliberate...

All this al-keeda etc are symptoms of a larger natural process for nations to reach their dynamic equilibrium states... starting from colonial days, the christian west redrew the internal borders of these natural civilizations to suit their imperialistic needs...

Now that this western imperium crumbling (for various reasons), these civilizations are trying to reach their natural state of being. Unfortunately (or fortunately based on which side of the bread you like to butter) the current international structures, policies and posturings do not allow this civilizational transformation to happen peacefully... hence the need for al-keedaas.

The recent developments in Eye-Rock question many fallacies that are wrapped in good English as some earth shattering ideas...

one is shia-sunni conflict and who is a bigger mard.
second one is even more interesting... we are told that no one can win afghanistan... but somehow taliban can not only win afghanistan but can hold on to it... so what is the source of this afghanistan's tfta-ness, the people or religion... another question is why arent the supporters/trainers in TSPA are as TFTA as Talibannis.. what is this maya...

looks like yindustan will need its own version veerabhadra sainya to force the local civilizational equilibrium from iran to thailand.. the more peaceful buddhists are doing their part already in myanmar...

when will bharat wakes from its secular tamas?
[/quote]

very mullable
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SanjayC »

schinnas wrote:Atricle 377 should go. India has a tradition of accommodating the third sex right from the time of Mahabharath. If anything, we should be at forefront of legislating for transgendered and gays. I dont know why some RSS types are against repealing article 377. Even the most influential Hindu spi / Indian spiritual leader - Sri Sri Ravishankar has called for it to be repealed for not keeping in with Indian tolerant ethos and view of sexuality.
Have you seen any third sex baby being born to anyone? Most of these "trans gender" dudes are artificially created by castration. Many times, children are abducted for the purpose. They operate like an extortion gang, barging into occasions like marriages and new born children. It is about time these people were made extinct by declaring castration as illegal.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SanjayC »

RoyG wrote:I agree. The criminalization of homosexuality, nudity, etc stems from victorian and islamic colonialism. We should get rid of these stupid laws.
Sure -- I would love to go to office nude.
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SRoy »

Its not article. Its section.
About 377.

There has been a clever act by the rights groups by mixing trans-genders with LG. Done with the fact that transgenders already exists in some degree of acceptability in all traditional societies. The clever homos have sought to gatecrash riding in the backs of a traditional social group.

Can anybody point out any deliberate persecution or discrimination of transgenders?
While LG phenomenon is practically "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, the libtaards really want official endorsement. Sorry, but that stamp is not coming for them. Nobody is bothered about their lifestyle and what they do inside four walls, but society at large is not going to celebrate that at every gali and nukkad.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Indian Interests

Post by RoyG »

SRoy wrote:Its not article. Its section.
About 377.

There has been a clever act by the rights groups by mixing trans-genders with LG. Done with the fact that transgenders already exists in some degree of acceptability in all traditional societies. The clever homos have sought to gatecrash riding in the backs of a traditional social group.

Can anybody point out any deliberate persecution or discrimination of transgenders?
While LG phenomenon is practically "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, the libtaards really want official endorsement. Sorry, but that stamp is not coming for them. Nobody is bothered about their lifestyle and what they do inside four walls, but society at large is not going to celebrate that at every gali and nukkad.
I agree. But then why criminalize it in the first place? Just create three categories male, female, and intersex for identification purposes and get rid of all laws dealing with sexuality. What's the point?
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SRoy »

^^

Gender re-categorization and relevance of section of 377 are separate topics.

Don't fall in the libtaard trap. Section 377 was probably created with jails and barracks in mind.

How does the state invokes section 377? By peeking into bedrooms? No, that's possible only when someone decides to beam it outside their four walls.
Essentially the LG libtaards are saying that "Hey, we are doing this, we want to tell everyone as well. But since doing that pulls in 377, we want it to go".
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Interests

Post by darshhan »

While criminalization of homos is indeed extreme from Tolerant Indic point of view, now is not the right time to decriminalize it. Firstly we have to defeat the NGO/Foreign sponsors of Identity movements. One should remember while we indics do tolerate homos, by no means we encourage it. Homo behaviour is still looked down upon. If we repeal article 377, then these malicious NGOs and foreign sponsored groups will start hosting Gay Parades and gay seminars all over the country just to bolster gay identity movement. Indics will never want this to happen.

just look at the pic below NSFW

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... LpnRCDuFRN

We do not want this drama in our country. Hence Article 377 is a must.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Interests

Post by darshhan »

Another important thing to remember is that Western sponsors of gay movements are pushing for gay rights in India to destroy the institution of Indian family. As a matter of fact many of those indulging in gay sex in India are straight people which is extremely ironic. The thinking is after all a hole is a hole. Once gay sex becomes part of mainstream coupled with feminism and growing misandry in modern society, the decline of family becomes inevitable, which will lead to a drastic fall in fertility rates having extremely disastrous consequences for any country. This is already happening in America and other western countries.

Just remember one thing. Bachcha to aage se hi hoga, peeche se kabhi nahi.(A child will always be born from front and not from behind). In order to ensure availability of future generation of children, homogiri should never be encouraged.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

My advise to such people who are against section 377 is that they should visit temples in India that have sculptures indicating oral and anal sex including homosexual activity. It is a stupid section that needs to go. If a society's values can be only protected by a colonial law, God help such a society.

Thankfully Indian society, especially Hindu society had a open view on sexuality, nudity (especially in arts), etc. Due to several decades of middle east rule over India, the value system has become bigoted and hypocritical and has made sex taboo (while indulging in it anyways). Several RSS and VHP folks who vehemently oppose repealing 377 have little understanding of Indian culture and are just propagating the Vicotonian and Middleeastern views on sexuality. We should get over this slave mentality.

Sexuality and family values are orthogonal to each other. Joint family system is dying in India with educated southern states leading the way - this accelerated in last 20 years and the current trend is bound to continue regardless of gay movements or section 377. Section 377 is anti dharmic. Period. Those that argue otherwise should show proof from pre-moghul Indian literature and history.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

SRoy wrote: About 377.

While LG phenomenon is practically "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, the libtaards really want official endorsement. Sorry, but that stamp is not coming for them. Nobody is bothered about their lifestyle and what they do inside four walls, but society at large is not going to celebrate that at every gali and nukkad.
Not debate-dharma! In other words, it is not an intelligent argument. You are making a fundamental flawed assumption that only those that are gays or indulge in oral / anal sex want 377 to be done away with. In that line of argument, would you say those that argue against capital punishment are all murderers or criminals? Also, one can claim that several that want to retain 377 are hypocrites that indulge in such acts but consider them shameful and put on such an act outside! Let us just restrict discussion to (de)merits of the section.

From various surveys in magazines and general observation one has to conclude that majority of Indians indulge in oral sex and have done so for at-least a few thousand years in hetero sexual setting. Indian / Hindu literature and temple sculptures are proof enough (there are several such centuries old temple sculptures that indicate homosexual acts). We will be a highly hypocritical society to ban or restrict sexual acts between consenting adults in private. That's what 377 is in effect. The question is not about such sexual acts per se, but about fundamental individual freedom. That's why I say that those that really understand Indian values would not support 377.

The notion that abolishing 377 will amount to encouraging homosexuality is BS. 377 is not about homo / hetero sex. It is about government poking its nose into peoples private life in bedrooms. Such laws are indicative of a totalitarian police state and should have no place in Bharath.
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SRoy »

^^

Majority of people practicing inside their homes whatever are not asking to repeal section 377 either. Section 377 for majority of people, yours truly included, is inconsequential, unless I invite a policemen inside my home to certify section 377 compliance for each sexual act. None needed.

Rest of the post is nonsense.

I was in a neutral point of view till last couple of months. But what the heck, why plead for sense when libtaards are hell bent upon taking everything for granted.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Interests

Post by darshhan »

schinnas wrote:My advise to such people who are against section 377 is that they should visit temples in India that have sculptures indicating oral and anal sex including homosexual activity. It is a stupid section that needs to go. If a society's values can be only protected by a colonial law, God help such a society.
Schinnas, Are you sure? I live in India. I have been visiting temples for almost all my life and I have visited temples in every part of India(including Kashi Vishwanath, Tirupati, Ujjain Mahakaleshwar, Omkareshwar etc). Nowhere I have seen sculptures as described by you. My humble request. Do not denigrate our places of worship just to further your agenda. Please desist. Anyway if there is even one or two temples having sculptures that you mentioned, they are exceptions rather than norm.
schinnas wrote: Thankfully Indian society, especially Hindu society had a open view on sexuality, nudity (especially in arts), etc. Due to several decades of middle east rule over India, the value system has become bigoted and hypocritical and has made sex taboo (while indulging in it anyways). Several RSS and VHP folks who vehemently oppose repealing 377 have little understanding of Indian culture and are just propagating the Vicotonian and Middleeastern views on sexuality. We should get over this slave mentality.
Boss open means tolerant. Yes we have always tolerated gays and will continue to do so in future. But that there is absolutely no proof that we encouraged or glamourised homosexuality like you are doing. If anything gay sex has always been looked down upon albeit in a benign and non violent way. I doubt if any homo has been injured/killed/maimed ever in India.
schinnas wrote: Sexuality and family values are orthogonal to each other. Joint family system is dying in India with educated southern states leading the way - this accelerated in last 20 years and the current trend is bound to continue regardless of gay movements or section 377. Section 377 is anti dharmic. Period. Those that argue otherwise should show proof from pre-moghul Indian literature and history.
Forget joint family, it is family that is dying and while there are many reasons for the decline, Gay and feminist movement are acting as catalysts for such decline. No body ever claimed article 377 is dharmic. But what to do when predatory NGOs/foreign entities are all waiting to unleash gay pride events and sexualize kids in India. Sometimes adharma has to be countered by adharma. Even Bhagwan Krishna used quetionable tactics(wrt morals and ethics) in Mahabharat. In comparison we are just humans.

P.S. You are free to further your agenda, but please do not use dharma or Hindu temples to propagate it. Just a humble request.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: Indian Interests

Post by darshhan »

SRoy wrote:^^

Majority of people practicing inside their homes whatever are not asking to repeal section 377 either. Section 377 for majority of people, yours truly included, is inconsequential, unless I invite a policemen inside my home to certify section 377 compliance for each sexual act. None needed.

Rest of the post is nonsense.

I was in a neutral point of view till last couple of months. But what the heck, why plead for sense when libtaards are hell bent upon taking everything for granted.
SRoy ji, Fully agree. When was the last time anybody got arrested under 377? Does it even matter?

This again proves that the whole chorus of repealing this largely inconsequential law has been orchestrated by devious NGOs to further their own malicious agendas.

On the other hand Indian public couldn't be less bothered.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SanjayC »

schinnas wrote:My advise to such people who are against section 377 is that they should visit temples in India that have sculptures indicating oral and anal sex including homosexual activity. It is a stupid section that needs to go. If a society's values can be only protected by a colonial law, God help such a society.
Can you please point me out to the temple which has sculptures of gay sex? As for your other arguments, you are naive. Policies are decided considering today's social mores, not what they were 1000 years ago. If what was fashionable a 1000 years ago today threatens the glue that holds the society together, there is no harm in banning it. That it was fashionable in 800 AD in India is hardly an argument.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7830
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Interests

Post by rohitvats »

darshhan wrote: SRoy ji, Fully agree. When was the last time anybody got arrested under 377? Does it even matter?

This again proves that the whole chorus of repealing this largely inconsequential law has been orchestrated by devious NGOs to further their own malicious agendas.

On the other hand Indian public couldn't be less bothered.
Fact that some raised a voice against Article 377 and you're against the 'glamorization' of homosexuals does not mean there is anti-national agenda behind it.

The main opposition to this act is that it basically criminalizes the very existence of 'gays' and 'lesbians' - an argument which draws sustenance from Christian values. As you've yourself said that Indian society has been benign towards homosexuals, it does not need laws like this which run contrary to grain of understanding in the society. That is the long and short of it.

And if you feel that society will be corrupted by acts like gay-parade and stuff like that - then you've underestimated the society greatly. And you don't become homosexual by 'seeing' something. Given the attitude of society towards homosexuals, I doubt someone would want to be identified as gay in public. That is the level of hostility they face.

As to change in family values in India and all that - it is happening all around you. And no, it does not require any 'western influence' - people are responding to ground realities around themselves. From double income families where kids as young as 6 months stay in day care centers for 8-12 hours to people planning their pregnancy after they've achieved certain goals and financial position in life. It's happening all around.

The society needs to draw inspiration and sustenance from its ancient roots and knowledge to create a framework to manage these changes - and not some archaic laws based on foreign sensibility.
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

ramana wrote:X-Postt. Mull over it....
quote="RamaY"]
looks like yindustan will need its own version veerabhadra sainya to force the local civilizational equilibrium from iran to thailand.. the more peaceful buddhists are doing their part already in myanmar... when will bharat wakes from its secular tamas?
RamYa Bhayya , Like the idea of Thhaa Thaa Thyaa.
Not so long ago, onlee 10 years ago, i said and say it again, India need 10 Million Men volunteer army,armed with few thousand nukes and Mind of Modi(KhabbarDesiDimag, Do first think later). Then go on cleaning ,rearranging redecoration misison in near abroad. All will be well till Yug Change. Right now YinduKumaras possess 1/3 of these essential Siddhies to do the right thing.
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Lilo »

Re: Gay prides and Fashionability of Homoseksuality in Bollywood and MSM.
Lilo wrote:On Homosexuality:

Likely causes
1a) Prolonged Childhood abuse - by adults especially those in positions of power (basically themselves Bisexuals Homosexuals, Convents , Madrassas etc)
1b) Other children influenced by sexually abused children into (on the face of it mutually "consenting") sexual acts.
2) Teenage circumstances - in Briturd style boarding schools,in madrassas, in gangs , in correction facilities, in hostels , basically in power structures reenforced by regular sexual domination.
3) Adulthood - in those who are otherwise hetero yet with greater and greater "exposure" have made a lifestyle choice of being bisexual and homosexual and whateversexual depending on what gets them off at that point. Then in those subjected to sexual deprivation (like prison life, remote inhabitation - like brokeback mountain like circumstances) , Muslim societies.
4) Those who by birth (genetically or otherwise) with underdeveloped primary genetalia and therefore inclined for homosexuality .
5) Those who by them selves discovered their sexuality to be homosexual without any sexual experience (sexual contact with others) but by the random chance(my guess : this is far less than one percent of kids and less than 10% of the current adult homosexuals) innate in the process of discovering sexuality .This "original fixing" can happen from toddlers age till they are 4-5 and can express by itself by sexual maturity age. Inspite of the factors 1a) 1b) 2) 3) contributing to the bulk ~ 90% of current homosexuals and bisexuals - most of them will cite 5) as their experience due to fear and shame among other reasons - mainstream media, film , fashion etc dominated by Lgbt types hype this experience and make a dance and show out of it (many a times literally) - which starts a vicious cycle feeding to 1) 2)and 3) .

Stick to the policy of our ancestors and sexually educate children growing into teenagers with a firm bias towards heterosexuality and heterosexual union (marriage) while not acknowledgeing the concept of homosexuality to the children at any stage. Case in point : no ancient temple whose sculptures otherwise served as sex education props have sculptures depicting homosexual union or even sodomy - probably recognising that such deviant choices when "chosen" as in 3) can be deleterious to an individuals psyche.
When pop pressure is subsiding the govt may again legalise teenage marriage - to cut down with the "experimenting" with sexuality phase in teenage that is gaining fashion as in western societies .

My conclusion: Protect homosexual people from discrimination (especially for the sake of 4) and 5) ) and inspite of the (replicating) effects from those coming from 1) 2) 3) -both abusers and victims).
Outlaw homosexual marriage and any such public display of homosexuality which can influence children during their sexual development. Basically shut shop with the LGBT identity politics and activism. For former the law has to be draconian wrt abuse of children,homosexuals and women
Nominally ,yet in no uncertain terms criminalize other group based hedonistic lifestyles - the so-called "alternative lifestyles" (many swingers for example progress onto to become bisexuals) .Sodomy also.In this cases law need not be implemented vigorously as just its presence will prevent these sexual activities from finding mainstream space and legitimacy and thus they will remain confined to four walls which is the correct state of affairs for a healthy society whose underpinning is heterosexual marriage. Po*rn too has to stay nominally criminalised and its prevalence has to be cut down to as low as humanly possible.

Indian society is ok with and acknowledges the circumstances of men who take to womanhood - the problem is the brutal police state and the violent feudal thugs(representing a local power apparatus as in villages and slums) and the fanatic bigots in middle class (who may have been repressing their 1) 2) 3) experiences or desires) . Then there is the general problem of prevalent sexual violence (as in rape and molestations) on women which is also faced by homosexuals - especially as in latter case community based support is weak compared to women - so they are especially targeted by our society's violent dregs.

However there is no fascist (Nazi) or Bible or Koran sanctioned level of hatred (as in hate enough to persecute or lynch publicly) towards homosexuals in India due to our dharmic ethos. The current level of bigotry itself is a outcome of the Victorian and abrahamic memes transposing and replicating in our society's DNA over past few centuries. Recognise this and develop our own laws and provide own community participated roles to othersexuals. No need of gay pride or lgbt pride level of in your face "sexuality as an identity" level activism borrowed from the West's historical experience on Homosexuality.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 0#p1570290
RajeshA garu's opinion too is pasted below.Unlike mine he doesnt suggest keeping Homoseksuality nominally criminalised.
RajeshA wrote:LGBT and Dharmic perspective - I {on BRF}
LGBT and Dharmic perspective - II {on BRF}


Here the Wikipedia article LGBT themes in Hindu mythology gives a good summary. In fact there is an abundant presence of the LGBT theme in our mythology and even though looked as unusual it is accepted due to the close association of Hindu deities with the theme. So how should we proceed to think about it.

1. Those of us who believe in Ātman, see it as without any gender. And as we take birth and rebirth we may change bodies which may have different genders. So even though we have a gender-specific consciousness, we shouldn’t be fanatic about it.

2. My personal sense says there is absolutely nothing Adharmic in any same-sex unions or sex-changes. It is for the individual to decide it for himself. I must say I did not think like this like this till a few years ago despite much Western exposure.

3. LGBT people should not be scorned at should one become aware that one is such. One should respect his individuality and individual decisions.

4. If LGBT people exist, then it cannot be totally against nature unless one sees nature as serving solely social stability. However statistically speaking nature has given majority to heterosexual sexual orientation, which does make sense. One could make the case that nature foresees homosexuality in order to have a buffer in a population for times when gender-wise population ratio gets skewed in one direction due to natural or unnatural causes. This allows for a rise in homosexuality among the majority gender and thus preserves the social harmony.

5. The other issue is whether civil unions between individuals of the same gender should be entertained. This has to do with issues of taxation, inheritance, judicial responsibility, ownership, visiting rights, etc. There is no reason to deny this to them, however care should be taken that it is not abused, especially not say for immigration purposes.

6. The issue is however whether a lifestyle is productive and acceptable for the society at large. The downside is that people like to ape other people whom they find culturally and socially upward mobile, hip and cool. So would an LGBT lifestyle as is seen in the West be so impressionable on the children and young minds that instead of following their natural instincts of heterosexuality, instead they strive for an LGBT lifestyle? An open public LGBT lifestyle could jeopardize the cultural sensitivities of the broader society. But an LGBT lifestyle in a closed LGBT community cannot be considered harmful to society at large, and LGBT community should be allowed to pursue it among themselves.

7. There are a few models for begetting children available to LGBT people. Sperm donation, surrogate motherhood, adoption of children related by blood, etc. are some options. However adoption of children by LGBT people is something that the society would have to weigh in. This could expose the child to an LGBT lifestyle which may be considered by society as less than psychologically healthy for the child.

8. So I would say

- Yes to decriminalizing homosexuality and LGBT. Yes to freedom of sexuality, sexual orientation and association.

- Yes to civil unions for gays and lesbians.

- Yes to respect for LGBT individuals.

- Yes to educating society about existence of LGBT community and health issues.

- No to public display of LGBT promiscuity and LGBT-specific lifestyle. In closed and private groups allowed.

There would of course be different opinions on this.

Till this ruling by Supreme Court on Section 377 criminalizing gay relationships, I must say I have myself been somewhat homophobe and a few years earlier a hardcore homophobe.

What has changed is that because of this ruling I’ve had to revisit this issue and try to see it through the prism of Dharma!

And even though I knew some of the Bharatiya mythology around LGBT themes, I never bothered to changed my own perspective on it till now.

But when one looks through the Dharmic perspective one does see zero intolerance for it. In fact I would say that Hindus today who do show intolerance are in fact a product of Islamic narrative and Victorian conservatism, and not necessary situated in Dharmic rootedness.

There are Hindu leaders who despite being some of the more intelligent types have fallen for an old trick of left-liberals, and that is to paint themselves as intolerant by speaking against some community defined by some behavioral attribute, in this case sexual orientation. And they have let know of their prejudices on social media.

In order to compete with the Islamic Momeen and Western Macho, many Hindus are willing to equate them with Vīrya, the Bharatiya manhood ideal, and thus position Vīrya too as contrary to tolerance for LGBT, for fear of Hindu man getting smeared by femininity or homoeroticism and thus weakness viz-a-viz another man, one possibly of an inimical persuasion.

This is a foolish fear and we should rise above it.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1557564
RajeshA wrote:
kapilrdave wrote:Once again, I'm not against LGBT rights. But I am against celebrating, encouraging and glorifying it.
That is the core argument on which Indians could agree.

Even though a certain behavior can be tolerated in society based on Dharmic considerations, glorification of it can be injurious to society at large.

So no public display of homoeroticism or gay pride need to be allowed. That should remain indecent behavior.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1557842
India should discourage this "seksuality as identity" "seksuality wearing on one's sleeve" type street politics - ultimately seksuality when the rubber meets the road is an issue mainly operating in the fourwalls space of one's habitation and there are far more important identities in public life for them to be superseded by one's Seksuality.

Finally,
Schinnas garu, pray point me to the depictions of Homoseksuality and A*nal seks on sculptures on our temples, if you cant - i suggest you to not to indulge in falsifications .
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Coomi Kapoor's Column
Picture imperfect

An embrassed Ministry of External Affairs is trying to keep a tight lid over a faux pas during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s recent visit to India. The Sarabjeet Singh painting hanging at the Prime Minister’s Race Course Road office, which formed the backdrop for the handshake between Narendra Modi and Wang, was of the disputed Aksai Chin mountain range. Paintings by well-known artists are hung at Race Course Road by rotation and this particularly inappropriate painting — India and China both claim the territory — was probably selected by accident. Fortunately, the significance of the painting seems to have been lost on the Chinese, who are already annoyed over the presence of Tibetan PM-in-exile Lobsang Sangay at Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. It seems a controversial RSS leader with Nepal connections slipped Sangay’s name into the list of invitees. The RSS is unhappy with Modi’s efforts to forge closer ties with China.

Bureaucratic chat

When he first took over as prime minister in 2004, Manmohan Singh met secretaries to the Government of India just as Narendra Modi interacted with senior government secretaries recently. Singh also urged officials to approach him directly if they had a problem. The then Tourism secretary took him up on his suggestion and met the PM to complain about her minister who was arm-twisting suppliers of liquor to ITDC duty-free shops at the airport for extraneous reasons. Singh heard out the secretary sympathetically, but did not protect her and she was soon transferred out of the ministry.
The 77 top bureaucrats who met Modi believe that the new PM means business. Unlike Singh’s interaction with them, the two-and-a-half-hour meeting on June 5 was interactive, with the secretaries giving suggestions. Modi, without the help of notes, responded to their requests and remembered their names. The PM assured them that ministers would not have the right to select their own staff but would have to follow due procedure.

Kursi Kissa I

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s request for a special chair during her recent visit to Delhi was not a new phenomenon. The need for a specially designed chair for Jayalalithaa first came to notice in 2004 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the prime minister and the AIADMK chief had come to meet him. The Tamil Nadu czarina found it difficult to get out of her chair as she tried to stand up to greet senior BJP party leaders. To avoid a repeat of the embarrassment, the Prime Minister’s Office speedily ordered two wider chairs for the exclusive use of Jayalalithaa. The chairs are reportedly still at Vajpayee’s residence. There are probably other similar chairs in Central government storage, but the new regime appears unaware of their existence. Hence the need for Jayalalithaa to transport her own chairs to Delhi.

Opting for comfort

Arun Jaitley has turned down the bullet-proof Ambassador car he is entitled to as defence minister. Jaitley found the car too small and prefers his own, more roomy private vehicle. Incidentally, Jaitley, who in all his years as MP had opted to stay at his private residence in Kailash Colony and loan his official government bungalow, 9 Ashoka Road, to his party, may finally be moving into a government bungalow. This is for security reasons and because there is not enough parking space outside his private residence. Friends of Jaitley, including journalists, cricketers and lawyers, were recipients of his generosity and were permitted to use the lawns of 9, Ashoka Road, for wedding receptions.

Colour clash

Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was overshadowed in some official photographs because he was dressed in a simple black suit while Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj stood out in her white sari with a red blouse and red jacket. Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh was even more striking in a green sari and a red blouse. Customarily in international diplomacy, women envoys, be it Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice, wear formal business suits in single shades. On the day she took office, Swaraj was resplendent in a parrot green sari with a red jacket, while Singh was equally striking in a red sari with a yellow blouse. Ruchira Kamboj, who was summoned from Paris to be chief protocol officer to receive high-level guests from SAARC countries for the PM’s swearing-in, was the subject of much comment on Twitter because of her unusual long-sleeve sari blouse with an animal pattern. Incidentally, Kamboj slighted the Bangladesh Speaker by refusing to welcome her personally at the airport. She opted to receive only heads of government.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

SanjayC wrote:
schinnas wrote:My advise to such people who are against section 377 is that they should visit temples in India that have sculptures indicating oral and anal sex including homosexual activity. It is a stupid section that needs to go. If a society's values can be only protected by a colonial law, God help such a society.
Can you please point me out to the temple which has sculptures of gay sex? As for your other arguments, you are naive. Policies are decided considering today's social mores, not what they were 1000 years ago. If what was fashionable a 1000 years ago today threatens the glue that holds the society together, there is no harm in banning it. That it was fashionable in 800 AD in India is hardly an argument.
You are not only grossly uninformed about Indian values and hinduism and arrogance is not covering that. A simple google search will have given you enough proof.

Here is Devdutt Patnaik's well researched article. http://devdutt.com/blog/did-homosexuali ... india.html
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

darshhan wrote: P.S. You are free to further your agenda, but please do not use dharma or Hindu temples to propagate it. Just a humble request.
Read my post once again. Impressed that you can read an agenda that I am unaware of myself!

Whatever you are spouting about feminist movement, gays, etc., has very little to do with 377. Question for you. Leaving aside all these gay rights, feminism, family system topics, tell me why you want government to tell people how and in which way they are allowed to have sex in private?

Visiting temples, living in India have nothing to do with understanding India or Hinduism. I know relatives who visit temples everyday but remain totally clueless about the important sculptures there. A simple google search would have answered your questions. The best and most artistic of the sculptures are in the parihara and the gopurams. Even the priests in the temple are often clueless of significance of most sculptures - expect that of the deities. So it is fully understandbale why you didnt notice much. Not to say that all temples have it, but some temples do and I have seen it in atleast one famous temple and it is not the Khajuraho.

https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+ ... 00&bih=799

Devdutt Patnaik is as aware of Indian puranas as anybody here and is doing yeoman service in forging managment practices based on wisdom from puranas. You may want to read his well thought out views here:
http://devdutt.com/blog/did-homosexuali ... india.html

Before you run into judgement again thinking I am for or against gays LGBT, etc., you would be wasting your time. I personally hold more prudish views on sex.. in fact I think sex other than for making babies is not right thing to do. If the urge cannot be controlled it should be with one partner in marriage and very infrequently. But that is from my spiritual practice and should be a self imposed discipline.

That said, I am against 377 for a simple reason - such laws make sense only for middle east totalitarian regimes. Government has no business to tell its people how they should behave in their bedrooms.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

rohitvas, well said.

Folks - We got little distracted in this thread. We should not confuse abolishing 377 with encouraging gays / lesbians. Let me summarize the key objections to 377 again so we can have a focused discussion.

1. Section 377 which criminalizes any type of sexual activity other than vaginal sex between man and woman is not consistent with Indian tradition and values. It was a colonial law based on fundamentalist Christian and Victorian era values.
What are Indian tradition and values? - Sex within marriage, high respect for fidelity, encouragement of brahmacharya and abstinence, etc. At the same time, sexual urge is a primal animalistic instinct in humans and Indian and Hindu society has been tolerant of these. While we encourage We even have Kama Sutra, written by a Rishi! The most important value is tolerance for different view points as long as it does not violently impact others. Tolerance does not mean we encourage something.

2. Modern society places emphasis on individual freedom and liberty. In India, we always had this with a twist that it was more for freedom to search for union with Godhead. One can explore it even through left handed tantra paths some of which involves sex. Government just has no business telling people what they do within the confines of their bedroom.

3. In addition to normal people, 377 is seen (and can be used to) criminialize homosexuality. India has never criminalized it while we do not encourage it as well. Government should take a hands off policy while social and spiritual leaders establish social norms with strength of their arguments and not through repressive laws (which is more like a middle eastern mindset).
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4080
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Lilo »

schinnas wrote:
SanjayC wrote:
Can you please point me out to the temple which has sculptures of gay sex? As for your other arguments, you are naive. Policies are decided considering today's social mores, not what they were 1000 years ago. If what was fashionable a 1000 years ago today threatens the glue that holds the society together, there is no harm in banning it. That it was fashionable in 800 AD in India is hardly an argument.
You are not only grossly uninformed about Indian values and hinduism and arrogance is not covering that. A simple google search will have given you enough proof.

Here is Devdutt Patnaik's well researched article. http://devdutt.com/blog/did-homosexuali ... india.html
Replied in LGBT issues dhaga >> http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1673165
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Prem »

[youtube]7z9NUV_YrOo&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Atri »

Image

Image

Image

Such stones are found outside almost every village in mh, kn etc. it is called VeergaL and gadhegaL.

VeergaL stone commemorates local warrior, hero, sportsman who did something outstanding.

GadhegaL otoh is a curse given (usually to ladies but sometimes to men as well) for bad behavior that they will be brutally phucked in musharraf by huge donkeys, elephants, horses, and sometimes other men till sun and moon exist. Usually person condemned for some heinous crime or prostitution or rape of some "kulin lady" were cursed by village this way. Usually punishment would either mean excommunication from caste and/or death. In medieval times, excommunication was considered worse than death. All these are not from british times. Some are from preislamic prestine classical hindu era from rashtrakuta, chalukya and vkataka times. Some are from maratha times.

Anyways, I participated here only to show this part of our culture where unnatural sex is considered a worst form of curse. I don't mind gays having right to have fun, its their business. No glorification and PDA please. And most importantly bliss not to cite our culture to justify all this. Homosexuality is not brahmacharya. Heterosexuality is, if practiced as per dharma.

If 377 can be amended to be limited to tough-love in jails or homosexual rapes etc, i think it should be done. No gay marriage chutiyapa please. No tax breaks etc of a natural family to be extended. Anyways, when uniform civilcode comes, all this will be immaterial onlee. I welcome the elevation of transgenders though. They deserve equal treatment.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

Atri Sir,
Isnt brahmacharya total abstinence from sex in mind and action. Ofcourse true brahmacharya is nearness to Brahman, but talking in terms of how the term is used normally?
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Atri »

schinnas wrote:Atri Sir,
Isnt brahmacharya total abstinence from sex in mind and action. Ofcourse true brahmacharya is nearness to Brahman, but talking in terms of how the term is used normally?

Many terms are misinterpreted, sachin ji. Deracination has had its toll. Following yuga-dharma is the key. Any dharmik relationship is brahmacharya. The idea of relationship is to strengthen the man-woman relations for healthy family. Oral and anal sex may not be useful for pricreation, but if couple likes it, it strengthens the bond between them which results in more of normal sex, more kids, and kids living and growing in healthy family to become productive members of society and continue the thread of sanatan dharma ahead.

There is no such scope in homosexuality. No matter how close gay couple comes, they cannot procreate. Adoption is ok in urban centers now in west but this is not how society developed through ages. And its not always the option - threat of child abuse especially in case of gay couple exists. It exists also in hetero couples - but not usually in healthy joint or even nuclear family.

This argument can also be extended to infertile couples. Dharma had given rights to woman to seek pregnancy from another man, if husband is unable to impregnate her. It was called Niyoga. Man too had this freedom and he has exercised this freedom much more frequently. Biologically there are always more girls than boys and high attrition rate of men in medieval and ancient times due war etc, made polygamy sustainable. Modern law does not make this difference. Plus number of girls have plummeted. Hence above is not in accordance to prevalent yugadharma.
Last edited by Atri on 15 Jun 2014 11:36, edited 1 time in total.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SanjayC »

schinnas wrote:You are not only grossly uninformed about Indian values and hinduism and arrogance is not covering that. A simple google search will have given you enough proof.

Here is Devdutt Patnaik's well researched article. http://devdutt.com/blog/did-homosexuali ... india.html
Devdutt Patnaik can go suck his thumb -- as Rajiv Malhotra tweeted recently, he started off well, but now has been coopted by the Goras and does their agenda. You cannot comprehend that the campaign for free gay sex is being orchestrated from the US as a way to destabilize India's social structure and make Indians lose their moral compass, thus making them ripe for conversion. This is standard church tactic in every country targetted for conversion -- they create social turmoil first by promoting things that are a direct attack on the social consensus and the currently held values of that culture. So hair splitting about what the Hindu scriptures say or what you saw in which temple is irrelevant. Once gay / lesbian sex is made legal, do you think US will stop at that? They will organize gay crowds to lay siege to temples and mutts, claiming that they are dens of bigotry against gays. Next, they will organize a gay parade in Varanasi and rename a Ghat as Gay Ghat. The possibilities are endless.

That's why I said you are naive -- when instead of trying to spot the mischief about who is behind this gay sex thing and with what agenda is it being orchestrated by the US embassy (who is being advised by a gang of social psychologists about the best way to destabilize traditional Indian social structure that holds the country together), you are combing Hindu scriptures and temple statues to see proof of gay sex. Who cares what ancient Indians used to do? You have to see what is in India's best interests today.

And can you tell me exactly which section of Indians are fiercely agitated about the urgent need to allow gay sex? I am yet to meet anyone in relatives or friends or neighbours or traditional Hindus in my village who even utter a word about it -- it is so irrelevant to them and they positively abhor the thought. So exactly who is agitating so urgently to allow gay sex in India? You will see that they are just a handful of dubious celebrities and media men who are habitually on the take from the Goras. If today a referrendum is held about legalizing gay sex in India, what do you think the result would be?
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Interests

Post by schinnas »

SanjayC -
Not sure if you are really aware of the dynamics between Church and gays. Church is the big enemy for gay rights movements. I had a hearty laugh when I read your theory that church is instigating gay rights movements. Besides 377 is NOT exclusively about gay rights or gay sex. You are over-dosing on CTs here..
chandrasekhar.m
BRFite
Posts: 317
Joined: 16 Dec 2009 20:27
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: Indian Interests

Post by chandrasekhar.m »

abhishek_sharma wrote:Coomi Kapoor's Column

Colour clash

Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was overshadowed in some official photographs because he was dressed in a simple black suit while Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj stood out in her white sari with a red blouse and red jacket. Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh was even more striking in a green sari and a red blouse. Customarily in international diplomacy, women envoys, be it Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice, wear formal business suits in single shades. On the day she took office, Swaraj was resplendent in a parrot green sari with a red jacket, while Singh was equally striking in a red sari with a yellow blouse. Ruchira Kamboj, who was summoned from Paris to be chief protocol officer to receive high-level guests from SAARC countries for the PM’s swearing-in, was the subject of much comment on Twitter because of her unusual long-sleeve sari blouse with an animal pattern. Incidentally, Kamboj slighted the Bangladesh Speaker by refusing to welcome her personally at the airport. She opted to receive only heads of government.
Seriously, there are people who think our ministers should change their clothing style even in India when meeting envoys? Sounds ridiculous to me that because the Western diplomats and envoys wear business suits and the Chinese followed them that we should too. Are journalists now going to make such trivial comments when Modi saar won't wear uniform coloured clothes/suits while receiving guests? Sounds like a Dilli Billi gossip column to me.
SanjayC
BRFite
Posts: 1557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Interests

Post by SanjayC »

schinnas wrote:SanjayC -
Not sure if you are really aware of the dynamics between Church and gays. Church is the big enemy for gay rights movements. I had a hearty laugh when I read your theory that church is instigating gay rights movements. Besides 377 is NOT exclusively about gay rights or gay sex. You are over-dosing on CTs here..
Dude, you have no clue about how Western imperialism works. America is the sworn enemy of communists but has no problem in creating communist / Maoist movements in other countries to destabilize them. Nepal's Maoists and Latin American leftist guerrillas are CIA creations. I may detest shit but I won't have any problem in picking it up and rubbing it on the face of my enemies if it serves my purpose. America is sworn enemy of Islamic terrorists too -- did it have any problem in creating Taliban to screw USSR in Afghanistan?

Same philosophy is with church. The Church hates secularism -- but surprise, surprise -- it is it the biggest supporter of secularism in India and even runs the Catholic Secular Forum. Now, what did you say? Church does not like gays and will not support the gay movement in India? Smell the coffee, dude. It will support everything, even Islamic terrorists, as long as it serves its purpose of screwing the pagans and making them ripe for harvesting.
JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7127
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Interests

Post by JE Menon »

>>Section 377 which criminalizes any type of sexual activity other than vaginal sex between man and woman

Is this accurate?
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Interests

Post by ShauryaT »

The opposition to amendment of Section 377 by Indian law makers is well grounded in Indian customs and traditional law, even if the law in question came via the beliefs of the Victorian era. Arvind Sharma documents in his work "Homosexuality and Hinduism" the general aversion to homosexuality in Indian custom and law. These works are backed by several shastras across multiple eras. Any suggestion that Indian tradition or law was "accepting" of homosexual acts or relationships is a deliberately misconstrued view of our history and customs.

As for Devdutt Pataniks "supposed" observations based on what is supposed to happen in some Puranas is pure speculation on his part - I believe misguided.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 16 Jun 2014 03:24, edited 1 time in total.
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by JwalaMukhi »

SanjayC wrote:
And can you tell me exactly which section of Indians are fiercely agitated about the urgent need to allow gay sex? I am yet to meet anyone in relatives or friends or neighbours or traditional Hindus in my village who even utter a word about it -- it is so irrelevant to them and they positively abhor the thought. So exactly who is agitating so urgently to allow gay sex in India? You will see that they are just a handful of dubious celebrities and media men who are habitually on the take from the Goras. If today a referrendum is held about legalizing gay sex in India, what do you think the result would be?
Perfecto! This issue is and needs to be at the bottom of the totem pole. The media and other interested parties would like "to set the agenda" for the government, so government goes into reaction mode of responding to the agenda set not by govt, but by vested interests. Luckily, so far the government has its agenda and mandate to go by, and prioritize what it needs to focus.

Sorry to say, this issue pertains to very miniscule section currently, although the principle may be larger than miniscule. But there are many many important and basic problems that needs sustained focus, especially as its impacts everyone including the "miniscule" population. Then after that they are still more basic and fundamental problems which has more impact on a majority of the population. Then after that the issue that affects the "miniscule" would be catered too. May have to get used to the way the government needs to work. But lot of people have seen governance work with minorities as the central focus for a long while and have forgotten how good governance works. The agenda lies with the government and not with the 2 bit media or anyone else.
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Indian Interests

Post by Rony »

Sri Sri on MF Hussein. Whom and why did he paint nude ? At the end Sri Sri mentions about "Terrorism of the pen" which everyone should be aware of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6aO8NcN2vM
JwalaMukhi
BRFite
Posts: 1635
Joined: 28 Mar 2007 18:27

Re: Indian Interests

Post by JwalaMukhi »

BTW, what is the government waiting for from being secular? Why is it twiddling its thumb from not interfering with religious institution like the temple funds? Waiting for the perfect muhartam or waiting for the rahu kalam to pass?
krithivas
BRFite
Posts: 685
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Offline

Re: Indian Interests

Post by krithivas »

Christian Evangelical Church sexual abuse of Indian Children
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... et%20Promo
manju
BRFite
Posts: 705
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: CA, USA

Re: Indian Interests

Post by manju »

chandrasekhar.m wrote:
abhishek_sharma wrote:Coomi Kapoor's Column

Colour clash

Visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was overshadowed in some official photographs because he was dressed in a simple black suit while Indian counterpart Sushma Swaraj stood out in her white sari with a red blouse and red jacket. Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh was even more striking in a green sari and a red blouse. Customarily in international diplomacy, women envoys, be it Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice, wear formal business suits in single shades. On the day she took office, Swaraj was resplendent in a parrot green sari with a red jacket, while Singh was equally striking in a red sari with a yellow blouse. Ruchira Kamboj, who was summoned from Paris to be chief protocol officer to receive high-level guests from SAARC countries for the PM’s swearing-in, was the subject of much comment on Twitter because of her unusual long-sleeve sari blouse with an animal pattern. Incidentally, Kamboj slighted the Bangladesh Speaker by refusing to welcome her personally at the airport. She opted to receive only heads of government.
Seriously, there are people who think our ministers should change their clothing style even in India when meeting envoys? Sounds ridiculous to me that because the Western diplomats and envoys wear business suits and the Chinese followed them that we should too. Are journalists now going to make such trivial comments when Modi saar won't wear uniform coloured clothes/suits while receiving guests? Sounds like a Dilli Billi gossip column to me.
Height of slave mentality. I am glad Modibhai went in pyj kurta to Bhutan and hope he sticks to it everywhere else too..
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indian Interests

Post by KrishnaK »

I love how support for homosexuality is because ancient hindus tolerated (or the horror of even supporting) it already, or not because it wasn't so kosher back then. Not very different from bakis wanting to be araps from the 8th century.
Locked