Gay Sex decriminalized in India

[Bharatvarsh2]

Good decision.



In general Hindu society from what I know did not approve of it or place it on par with heterosexual relationships but they didn't kill or persecute them either. The current laws criminalizing it were from under Brit rule.



On the question of marriage I support privatization of all marriage, the people concerned can write up their own marriage contracts instead of letting the anti male family courts railroad men. So things like child support etc in case of divorce can be decided by a contract before the marriage takes place.



So if two gays want to have a private ceremony and call it "marriage" who cares, the society at large won't recognize it as marriage.



Gay's in general are obsessed with their sexuality & try to make it the focal point of their entire identity.



As I mentioned once it was in Canada I believe that a gay couple actually sued and won agains a private wedding photo business who said that they dont take photos of gay weddings. They are not happy to have their so called "wedding" but want to impose it on private businesses.



And if you have been to a so called gay neighborhood you see what I can only term as degenerate behavior (i.e male gays not lesbians) where you can guess that they are doing the hanky panky in public washrooms or parks. Male gays are very promiscous and hence the astronomically higher HIV rates among them compared to heterosexuals.



Their politics also tend to be very leftist/socialist, even in India they are big Congress supporters despite the fact that the Islamist allies of Congress would love to stone them to death. They are also just as intolerant as any xtian fundie if anyone questions the establishment version of homosexuality being innate or states facts about their high HIV rates etc.



Here is an example:

And rightly so. After all, the university is committed to academic freedom. Its faculty has the "freedom and an obligation … (to) discuss and pursue the faculty member's subject with candor and integrity, even when the subject requires consideration of topics which may be politically, socially or scientifically controversial. … (a) faculty member…shall not be subjected to censorship or discipline by the University ... on grounds that the faculty member has expressed opinions or views which are controversial, unpopular or contrary to the attitudes of the University…or the community."



None of this applies to professors who dissent from socialist, statist, or culturally left-wing view, however, as I would find out.



In March of 2004, during a 75-minute lecture in my Money and Banking class on time preference, interest, and capital, I presented numerous examples designed to illustrate the concept of time preference (or in the terminology of the sociologist Edward Banfield of "present- and future-orientation"). As one brief example, I referred to homosexuals as a group which, because they typically do not have children, tend to have a higher degree of time preference and are more present-oriented. I also noted – as have many other scholars – that J.M Keynes, whose economic theories were the subject of some upcoming lectures, had been a homosexual and that this might be useful to know when considering his short-run economic policy recommendation and his famous dictum "in the long run we are all dead."



During my lecture no question was raised. (You can hear the same lecture, given some time later, on the Mises Media server.) However, two days later an informal complaint was filed by a student with the university's affirmative action "commissar." The student claimed that he as a homosexual had been made to "feel bad" by my lecture. Based on this "evidence" the commissar, who, as I would find out only weeks later, was a former clergyman turned "certified" gay activist, called me at home to inform me that he would shut down my class if I continued making such remarks.



I agreed to meet the commissar in my office thinking that this would bring matters to a quick end. The student would be informed about the nature of a university and academic freedom, including his right to ask and challenge his professor. Instead, the commissar lectured me on what and how I was to teach my classes. I explained to him the difference between a professor and a bureaucrat and that he was overstepping his bounds, but to no avail. However, because the student had falsely claimed that my remarks had been about "all" homosexuals, I agreed to explain the difference between "all" and "average" statements during my next class.



In my next lecture I explained that when I say that Italians eat more Spaghetti than Germans for instance this does not mean that every Italian eats more Spaghetti than every German. It means that on the average Italians eat more Spaghetti than Germans.



Upon this the student filed a "formal" complaint. I had not taken his feelings seriously. He felt "hurt again;" and as he had learned from the commissar, feeling bad twice constituted a "hostile learning environment" (an offense that is not defined in the university by-laws). From then on the commissar made the student's case his own. Every pretence of acting as a neutral mediator was abandoned, and he became a prosecutor.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe15.html

The concept of time preference mentioned above is explained here briefly:

Under nanny statism, America has become a society dominated by a high-time-preference populace. What is meant by high time preference is that a person prefers present satisfaction over future satisfaction. For example, let’s say that two people are interested in purchasing a $5,000 high-definition TV. A person with a high rate of time preference would prefer "present satisfaction" and purchase the TV using a credit card and pay off the debt over time. A person with a low rate of time preference would save the money over time and purchase the TV once enough money had been saved. Hence, a person who has a high rate of time preference is present oriented while a person with a low rate of time preference is future oriented and typically has a better personal financial condition.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/englund/englund19.html