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

Pray,your good sense ,spreads!

Sent from my iPad

> On Oct 14, 2014, at 1:17 AM, Madhav Nalapat <mdnalapat@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
> Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
> Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
> Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
> Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
> WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in