Thread: Are you happy with the verdict?

I want to know how many of you are happy with decision that Delhi court took in favour of homosexuals??

I am in favour.

Please continue the debate here:http://www.indiabroadband.net/news-d...lhi-court.html (Historical Verdict by Delhi Court)

Homosexuality is some kind of disorder of the mind/body where a person prefers another person of the same sex. They are definitely queer but because of that they should not be discriminated against and called criminals under IPC.

Please post your name while voting. I can three votes, one from me, one from kixi and third from...???

ok now four

count me. I am for the verdict.

Originally Posted by just4kix

Homosexuality is some kind of disorder of the mind/body where a person prefers another person of the same sex. They are definitely queer but because of that they should not be discriminated against and called criminals under IPC.

I don't know whether you're a doctor or some psychologist, but I never heard that homosexuality is some kind of disorder. Is it your thinking or you really have some medical findings to back up your thoughts? I'd love to have my doubt cleared.

All I know that it's one's sexual orientation and nothing else and there's nothing wrong with it. So it's perfectly okay (and legal now) if a person is attracted to the same sex.

mine.....

i am not happy with the SC verdict, i think this will issue problems to the society..

as this is abnormal, we should actually look for medic way to indefect this..

Originally Posted by mail2sc

i am not happy with the SC verdict, i think this will issue problems to the society..

Problems in society is a different matter, here I am asking you your opinion, how comfortable are you with this?

Originally Posted by nandini

count me. I am for the verdict.

I don't know whether you're a doctor or some psychologist, but I never heard that homosexuality is some kind of disorder. Is it your thinking or you really have some medical findings to back up your thoughts? I'd love to have my doubt cleared.

All I know that it's one's sexual orientation and nothing else and there's nothing wrong with it. So it's perfectly okay (and legal now) if a person is attracted to the same sex.

Nature did not design any sexual being to have homosexual relationship. Anything that goes against nature is not in order - it is a disorder. We could argue on the "extent" of the disorder till cows come home. Homosexuality is also found in some primates. All medical and psycology journals now say that homosexuality is not a disorder. Because people want to be politically correct, they do not call it a disorder.

As I said, I am not against homosexuals. But let us leave the "political correctness" to the side and call a spade, a spade.

Wheather its correct or incorrect is different , I personally don't like it.

Well I am not a politician and I am definitely not here to make politically correct statement.
According to you "One that doesn't go with nature is disorder!!!".
I find it substantially correct but still who said nature is constant. Nature has not drafted any indelible rules. How can it make such a stiff rule when nature itself is constantly changing?

You know we had functional appendix in our body some thousands of year back. According to Darwin it was used to digest leaves. That means our body was NATURALLY suited for vegetables. But over years we consumed less vegetables and more meat...so the appendix became smaller and smaller. Now there's no use of this in our body.
We defied nature and still we're not disordered. Are we?

It's just an example. I know that you know a lot more.

So my point, is it's not at all unnatural even if we defy nature without harming the later.

Very well said Nandini.

Originally Posted by Manish

Very well said Nandini.

Thank you!!!
I need more kudos.

Wait for kixi you'll surely get some

Originally Posted by nandini

Well I am not a politician and I am definitely not here to make politically correct statement.
According to you "One that doesn't go with nature is disorder!!!".
I find it substantially correct but still who said nature is constant. Nature has not drafted any indelible rules. How can it make such a stiff rule when nature itself is constantly changing?

You know we had functional appendix in our body some thousands of year back. According to Darwin it was used to digest leaves. That means our body was NATURALLY suited for vegetables. But over years we consumed less vegetables and more meat...so the appendix became smaller and smaller. Now there's no use of this in our body.
We defied nature and still we're not disordered. Are we?

It's just an example. I know that you know a lot more.

So my point, is it's not at all unnatural even if we defy nature without harming the later.

:lol: It is a totally irrelevant argument. Am I to believe that you are equating vestegial organs to homosexuality. Yes. Nature keeps changing. But Nature does have definite laws of redundancy. When an organ like appendix has no use, it becomes vestegial. That, my dear, is evolution. Are you seriously suggesting that humans are slowly evolving to become homosexuals and hence that is not a disorder?

In homosexuality, organs are being used, but not for the purpose they are designed for.

Reproduction/progeny are the one of the two prime laws of nature. Every organism exists in nature and it primary function is to survive and reproduce. That is how nature works. An organism that does not procreate gets wiped out of existence. That is the final truth.

Many people are born with abnormalities. I am not a research scientist to explain how it happens. It happens. Does nature design a person to be born with six fingers, two hearts, conjoined twins, etc? Yet it happens. These are natural disorders. Some are very acceptable, some are not. Some can be lived with, some can be cured, some cannot.

As I said, we could argue till the cows come home.

well if you think my arguments are totally irrelevant then i can't help you.
I just threw an example that we can still live in harmony even if we defy nature.
Anyway I give up,thanks to your sarcasm...

Chill out friends! Have some thing

boat_drinks.jpg

Originally Posted by Manish

Chill out friends! Have some thing

boat_drinks.jpg

one parcel for me please ... I'll Pm the address

I am for the verdict .

I am neither Homosexual nor do i understand how their mind works . But i believe that our society should be tolerant one . Banning it merely pushes it underground , which does not help us one bit .
I think this is one of the age old diseases in human society . For ages people have been discriminated by others based on their ideologies , color , caste , religion etc ..... Tolerance level has been very low ..... I think this is changing now and we are becoming more of an enlightened society

We should tolerate things even if they are very different as long as they are not criminal . Morality is something which should be restricted to Religion's domain . I dont think its Govt's responsibility to police its citizens .

Originally Posted by just4kix

Nature did not design any sexual being to have homosexual relationship. But let us leave the "political correctness" to the side and call a spade, a spade.

That is a wrong notion ! .... just recently i was watching Animal Planet and some biologists have noticed Lesbianism among lizards !

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
-Nat Geo
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate

================================================== =========================

The field of study of sexuality in non-human species has been a long standing taboo,[1] with researchers either failing to observe or mis-categorizing and mis-describing sexual behaviour which does not meet their preconceptions. (See: Observer bias) More current research provides views such as that of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, which in 2006 held an exhibition on animal sexuality:

Many researchers have described homosexuality as something altogether different from sex. They must realise that animals can have sex with who they will, when they will and without consideration to a researcher's ethical principles

The presence of same-sex sexual behaviour was not scientifically observed on a large scale until recent times. Homosexual behaviour does occur in the animal kingdom outside humans, especially in social species, particularly in marine birds and mammals, monkeys, and the great apes. Homosexual behaviour has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented.[36]

To turn the approach on its head: No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue
-Wikipedia
Animal sexual behaviour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categorizing Homosexuality as abnormal is way of Biased thinking from Ancient times , just like other forms of descriminations

i am naturally for the verdict... free will.

But i just seriously hope this is not evolution (as was being discussed early on here)!! :lol: Species evolve for better procreation, not no procreation at all for goodness sake!! :lol:

Originally Posted by nandini

According to Darwin it was used to digest leaves. That means our body was NATURALLY suited for vegetables. But over years we consumed less vegetables and more meat...so the appendix became smaller and smaller. Now there's no use of this in our body.
We defied nature and still we're not disordered. Are we?

As far as I know this is indication at first(before Darwin) gives French zoologist Lamarck(Jean Baptiste de Monet Lamarck) in his "Philosophique Zoologique" in part of 'Use-Disuse of Organ"(1809).
In case of Darwin he has mention "Variation" (in his "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection") where also we can get explanation for vestigial organs(like appendix) but due to some error of Lamarck theory, it did not get such importance.

Whatever be that's not topic but when you mention about Darwin I think another theory of Darwin become more relevant in this topic that is Sexual selection where he mention that usually heterosexuality is normal for all animal.That mean
Either homosexual person is exceptional for his law
or they have some genetic disorder

Important point of Darwinism

• Prodigality of reproduction
• Struggle for existence (1.Intraspecific,Interspacific,unhospitable environments)
• Universal occurrence of variation
• Survival of the fittest
• Natural Selection
• Origin of new species

source--Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

Originally Posted by newprouser

Wheather its correct or incorrect is different , I personally don't like it.

there's going to be a lot of disappointed men out there ;-)

-F

Originally Posted by PunchsucKr

i am naturally for the verdict... free will.

But i just seriously hope this is not evolution (as was being discussed early on here)!! :lol: Species evolve for better procreation, not no procreation at all for goodness sake!! :lol:

maybe not. maybe this is one way of nature saying that we have
procreated too much and need to reduce the overpopulation.

-F

homosexuality is the nature's process of making species or part of the gene pools of the species extinct in the process of natural selection. The higher the level of homosexuality, the closer it is to extinction.
So its just that we are entering the highway to oblivion

Originally Posted by farce

there's going to be a lot of disappointed men out there ;-)

-F
-F

double meaning :nono::sneaky2:

Originally Posted by panchabhut

homosexuality is the nature's process of making species or part of the gene pools of the species extinct in the process of natural selection. The higher the level of homosexuality, the closer it is to extinction.
So its just that we are entering the highway to oblivion

You just made up that 'fact', didn't you?

-F

there has been several papers on frogs and lizards on this issue. its attibuted as one of the reasons even in case of pandas.
if it applies to frogs and lizzards, it could equally be applicable to humans.