W
warthog
zero
And do you not see a logical folly in judging a whole section of people, whom you have no personal interaction with? In other words, your entire information on them is based on third party hearsay. So it would be like some American who has never left his town his whole life, but after reading a few internet articles, and seeing a few internet 'documentaries' decides to launch a tirade against Indian culture.
I have come to know several over the past 10 years (gay men and gay women), in India and abroad. Some of them are flamboyant, some totally not. Some gay men could even be said to be very masculine. Some of them liked displaying affection in public. Most did not. Some of them had several sexual partners. Many of them were in caring monogamous relationships. I even know an elderly couple who have been gay and loyal and committed to each other for decades.
NONE of them were predatorial or hitting on random people.
I have come to know several over the past 10 years (gay men and gay women), in India and abroad. Some of them are flamboyant, some totally not. Some gay men could even be said to be very masculine. Some of them liked displaying affection in public. Most did not. Some of them had several sexual partners. Many of them were in caring monogamous relationships. I even know an elderly couple who have been gay and loyal and committed to each other for decades.
NONE of them were predatorial or hitting on random people.
W
warthog
you didnt answer my question.
i myself am waiting for answers from many days. only blr_p agreed that those were some valid questions. others seem to just argue on individual rights and revokation of law without thinking abt more implications to come in future. blr_p also posted an article.
W
warthog
vebk i answered your question and plz answer mine.DO you support gay marriage,gays adopting kids and homosexual teaching in schools?
i myself am waiting for answers from many days. only blr_p agreed that those were some valid questions. others seem to just argue on individual rights and revokation of law without thinking abt more implications to come in future. blr_p also posted an article.
I gave you my answers to the question, in as practical a way as i could.
But i'm not that familiar with the in's & outs of joint families. Let's see if anyone writes an article about it tho i don't feel it would be impossible to resolve. As I said earlier the key point is ACCEPTANCE, with that the solution becomes feasible
I gave you my answers to the question, in as practical a way as i could.
But i'm not that familiar with the in's & outs of joint families. Let's see if anyone writes an article about it tho i don't feel it would be impossible to resolve. As I said earlier the key point is ACCEPTANCE, with that the solution becomes feasible
but key point of ACCEPTING is not mentally/religiously possible.
..in that case then any more advances for gay rights will take a very long time to happen in the country.
But if you look at how this ruling happened, i would say it was more intolerance than religon that holds it back. Had the Supreme court not said to give it a second look it might never have happened at all or at least been put off.
So why did the Supreme Court give it a second chance ? They are more liberal perhaps.
But now its not illegal anymore this discrimination is no longer institionalised. Once the law says its no longer illegal to be so, attitudes will change slowly. Had this topic been started before the ruling came out i bet we would not see such a 50-50 split it might have been 70-against 30-for. Now that a court has ruled we find the reasons more convincing and feel more confident to use them ie its a reality with sound reasoning behind.
So if we follow this pattern then credible problems have to occur for gays to once again make a watertight case to advance rights. For now they are still celebrating, lets see how long it takes for them to become unhappy enough to go to court again ?
..in that case then any more advances for gay rights will take a very long time to happen in the country.
But if you look at how this ruling happened, i would say it was more intolerance than religon that holds it back. Had the Supreme court not said to give it a second look it might never have happened at all or at least been put off.
So why did the Supreme Court give it a second chance ? They are more liberal perhaps.
But now its not illegal anymore this discrimination is no longer institionalised. Once the law says its no longer illegal to be so, attitudes will change slowly. Had this topic been started before the ruling came out i bet we would not see such a 50-50 split it might have been 70-against 30-for. Now that a court has ruled we find the reasons more convincing and feel more confident to use them ie its a reality with sound reasoning behind.
So if we follow this pattern then credible problems have to occur for gays to once again make a watertight case to advance rights. For now they are still celebrating, lets see how long it takes for them to become unhappy enough to go to court again ?
W
warthog
blrp for you morality and immorality is non important.you believe in feasibility.so if i say in future people walk naked everywhere you will say its alright cuz its accepted.you think via brain and not your heart.you think about biological love and not unconditional love.I hope you wake up btw i am still waiting for vebk to answer.I know he has read it.
