Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity

Let's not enter bedrooms of consenting adults. Far too many consequential matters to discuss. Regards Madhav

  Original Message  
From: Sarbajit Roy
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:29
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Reply To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity

Dear Pavan

An important point was left out from Mr Joshi's email which I hasten to fill.

The litigating PRIVATE parties before the Delhi HC and the SC in the
377 cases, are almost all DUMMY / PROXY parties for vested interests
which are putting up bogus "straw man" arguments designed for the
Court to strike down / aside.

In fact the next round is all set to have a new generation of
intervenors all waiting to act as though they represent the public to
put forward new fake arguments. NGO fronts for the RSS, VHP and
Catholic Church in particular are all lining up to accept the golden
showers by the US porn industry to anyone who wants a piece of it
(said with a straight face).

Sarbajit

On 10/14/14, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Pavan
>
> IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
> where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
> and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
> few places where it happens.
>
> Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
> reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
> between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
> strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
> that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
> major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
> rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).
>
> IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
> 21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
> (late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
> Victorian mores and moralities.
>
> The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
> is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
> wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".
>
> Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
> brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
> decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?
>
> I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
> USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
> Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
> CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
> number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
> exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
> They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
> to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
> seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
> channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
> prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
> the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"
>
> PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
> extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
> thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
> around, and nobody is shy to have their say.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Joshi,
>> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
>> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
>> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
>> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
>> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act
>> between
>> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
>> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
>> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
>> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
>> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
>> Pavan Nair
>> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>>
>