Section 377

[blr_p]

warthog

are you aware that over a 100 yrs ago in this country & abroad , it was not unusual for ppl to be already married by 16 !!

Because avg life expectancy was in the 40s, half what it is now, provided of course you did not catch some incurable-for-the-time disease.

So tell me whether we have come out from decline or not ?

the link i posted is not from a fringe site.

Sure, its the times, but i found the word pupils purposely vague !!

You seem to have missed the fine poiint that they would not be telling this sort of info to "pupils" below the age of 16 as it would be err....illegal

''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

If its ok to say that a prince and a princess might marry, to a seven yr old, what is the problem in the event a prince perferred a prince instead ?

How does this cause problems for a 7yr old ?

Does a 7 yr old even understand what marriage means let alone the fact that its a gay marriage.

you are supporting the end of family.

Explain coherently why you have said this ?

Because its sounds very suspiciously like the culture or society argument. Implying of course that they are so weak that they will crumble the moment gays are accepted. If so you are directly stating that these institutions are very weak to begin with

An odd strategy indeed.

 

[warthog]

you didn't reply to my question.When you are married and have kids will you like to see your children to read gay stories in 6th class?

 

[blr_p]

So the only ppl qualified to talk about these matters are those married with kids ?I would not have problems with a gay storybook because a 7yr old wont know much about it, but tell you what, if you go and kick up a storm and take the kid away from his friends at school then i think he might get more curious Your concern seems to come from the fear that if one is taught stories that one will become gay. If you move from the position "ZOMG gays are teh evil" to nothing special about gays ie like everyone else, things become more clear. That they prefer someone of thier own sex is akin to me like someone preferring fair complexion or not or blondes over brunettes.In a nutshell that is the MAIN difference between those pro & against.

 

[warthog]

i will not reply to your above post.I want others to know what type of world we are soon going to see.

 

[vebk]

I am worried less about gay people, and more about hate-mongers. In fact I am worried about the effect they have on society. People who preach hate and persecution are the ones who will crumble society and culture, not people who want live a life of simple dignity and be left to themselves. It's people who create issues out of non-issues that threaten to push us into a dangerous area of intolerance and non-acceptance. There is virtually no difference between anti-gay activists, anti-women-drinking-in-bars (mangalore) goons, babri masjid-destroying communal haters etc. They all start with the same premise that their values are supreme and non-conformists should be persecuted and eliminated.

And considering you hardly ever answer or reply to questions / comments directed towards you, I think it's a bit hypocritical that 50% of your posts begin with "you didn't answer my questions."

And I think people who know and interact with gay people are way more qualified to talk about the gay issue than armchair preachers and fatalists.

I reiterate that this judgment has only decriminalized homosexuality, and has not given any legal recognition to gay marriages etc. But even if we were to take it that far, as far as the awkwardness for parents goes, in an ideal world explaining gay couples to their children should be no more awkward than explaining people of other religions, races etc.

 

[warthog]

so you also support gays having children.This is pushing too far.

 

---

[blr_p]

as far as the awkwardness for parents goes, in an ideal world explaining gay couples to their children should be no more awkward than explaining people of other religions, races etc.

Oh totally, i just posted that article to show what passes as "informed comment" in the newspapers here.

All the arguments presented there are non-issues.

The stuff in red was a real howler.

 

[vebk]

so you also support gays having children.This is pushing too far.

Stop being dramatic. I never said I support it. I never said I don't support it either. My point merely was that's not at issue here AT ALL. The judgment begin discussed only decriminalizes same-sex consensual sexual intercourse. It has said nothing about marriage, inheritance, adoption etc. The judgment does not even say homosexuality is great and awesome. It just says that
there is no legal ground on which you can designate and discriminate homosexuals to be criminals.

 

[warthog]

but whats your stance on same sex marriage and same sex couple adoption and same sex teaching in schools.?blrp supports it and i was speechless and i am still.i am all for rights and the govt has no business who i am mating with but plz answer my above question.

 

[vebk]

I will answer your questions only if you answer one of mine first - how many gay people do you know personally?