Well, in first place i do not have any strong opinion about gay, lesbian sexual preferences but still i feel that the Delhi high court judgment was quite appropriate and its conforming to the founding principles of our modern country. On the other hand i dont like the way homosexuals are waging their battle against the so called "tyranny of majority community". By doing this they are alienating a majority community against themselves. There has to be gradual process to understand the "social", "emotional" and "sexual preference based discrimination" they face in our society. As far as i am concerned for me that type of relationship is a dirty relationship and its against the natural law of reproduction and if adopted by all it may practically extinct the human race as we know. On the other hand if we talk about absolute freedom then we can say that this type of relationship should be legalized but as they say for the greater good of mankind if minority has to die then so b it.
I have read in many placed and mostly in the "campaign" by Times of India et al that Indian culture has some inclination towards this relationship and to prove that they take very immature and trivial examples. Forget our "elite" that lives in big metros if you in villages you will be amazed to see that this type of relationship is not known there. Now lets talk about history a bit, so far as i have read and known i dont remember any single historical figure who was homosexual. Homosexuality in India came from the Turks. Allauddin Khilji is the most celebrated homosexual in our entire history. His relationship with his Commander in Chief Malik Kafur was very well documented. He may have followed by few other kings but in a general sense this type was condemned by all the sections of Indian society.
Now i will talk about my personal experience with that type of guy. I was returning from my summer training in IIT Kharagpur with my friend Manu Sharma in a train. This guy from "Times of India" was sitting next to me in sleeper class compartment. He made few moves towards me and he tried to seduce me. I was caught off-guard and i was scared like anything and i changed my place to Manu's compartment. I was very very scared at that moment. If we legalize this type of relationship then sexual anarchy (apart from the rape of woman) wont be a distant idea.
7 comments:
Didn't know about the incident during summer internship... :)
Though the first para is diplomacy at its best second is more of a historical evidence of the origin (typical you)...
Though I liked the last line which may be a possibility in distant future... (Shawshank Redemption)
That incident happened some day in later June 2003. I was scared like anything and it proves a point too. Humans are sexually very vulnerable.. aren't they :)
The incident you mentioned highlights you fear (and I must have felt the same way). Now you know how women feel when they are teased or when somebody makes sexual advances towards them.
Just because something is condemned by a society doesn't mean that you won't allow it. For example, when "sati pratha" was abolished, didn't it resulted in condemnation from our society??
@Sarvagya
Society also condemns Incest relation ships... should we allow it.
Society also condemns adultery.. an it has been in indian society for years ... should we allow it..
And there are many things...
Some one has to draw a line some where... I am not against homosexuals ... but i don't advocate them...
I do advocate for gays. Incest and adultery kill the sanctity of family values but homosexuality doesn't. Moreover, you cannot change somebody's sexual orientation by force or by meditation or by blah traditions. And it is not easy to draw a line anywhere we want.
I have come across homosexuals and though we differ on our orientation, they are very smart people and in no way are responsible for sexual anarchy (as you claim). Sexual anarchy leads from society in whole and rape is a form of it. It's not homosexuals but we as a society which will lead to such anarchy.
define sanctity?
Again this sanctity is a standard created by society itself.
Because he/she is intelligent does not make him/her morally or eithically correct.
Ravana was intelligent too... every dictator was intelligent including Hitler or great invader like Alexander or great king like Alauddin-Khilji.
Technically speaking there is no difference between consensual gay relationship or incest or adultery...
Its easy to blame society... I am part of that society and i will try my best to oppose this gay/lesbian relationship weirdo...
legalizing gay relationship does not mean legalizing rape also.Had this been so, Shiney Ahuza whould have been living his life aram se.
Whatever happened to you was an attempt to rape, and by no way this is legal even now.
And I wonder what made u say it may be legalized in distant future...
Post a Comment