Re: [IAC#RG] IAC's position on homosexualtity

Dear Pavan

IAC, and this mailing list, is starting to achieve a national position
where balanced and highly intellectual discussions are taking place,
and quite openly between different groups. This is truly one of the
few places where it happens.

Unfortunately last year the discussions on this list, for various
reasons connected with anger against Congress, tended to be a battle
between AAP and BJP boosters (somewhat in proportion to their national
strength), while IAC's membership looked on bemused. Thankfully all
that is now behind us, with almost a 1,000 new subscribers from the
major political parties being inducted as observers (with full posting
rights should they wish to avail it under IAC's list regulations).

IAC was founded in early 20th cent. I tried to drag it into the early
21st. Other members disagreed and so the pendulum swung back to 1860
(late 19th cent.) Indian Penal Code's
Victorian mores and moralities.

The core of the section 377debate can emerge by comparing it to what
is loosely termed "stealing the affections of a brother officer's
wife", ie "conduct unbecoming of an officer".

Q: If I flip this to when "an officer steals the affections of a
brother officer FROM the wife", would you still support
decriminalisation of gays in the armed forces ?

I also don't think that gays are 5% of the population. Even in the
USA, the most wildly optimistic figures are 4%. The official India
Govt figure is around 30 lakh gays (incl. L's B's and T's) in India
CONCOCTED by the Govt body (NACO) most interested in exaggerating this
number. But since there are so many "gays" in the media and arts, they
exercise a hugely disproportionate effect far exceeding their numbers.
They are also taking over the information resources, like WIKIPEDIA,
to concoct and fabricate information on a wide variety of topics
seemingly unconnected to homosexuality. They now also have 2 major TV
channels in India which are COLORing small town India with non-stop
prime time transvestitism which is being made socially acceptable for
the porn invasion which is slated to come via "4G"

PS: I still say that IAC will move into the 21st century with
extremely modern and LIBERAL views and with considerable consensus on
thorny issues such as these :-) so long as cool citizens like you are
around, and nobody is shy to have their say.

Sarbajit

On 10/13/14, pavan nair <pavannair1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Joshi,
> Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree that we have to leave
> it to the legislature to amend the relevant section, if at all considered
> necessary and that the said section is constitutional being a part of the
> IPC. However we (IAC) need to clarify our stand on this. For instance, we
> may disapprove of same sex marriages and yet decriminalise the act between
> humans even if it is against the order of nature (all gay sex is against
> the order of nature of heterosexual people). Bestiality could be covered
> under cruelty to animals. About 5% of the population is homosexual which
> amounts to 50 million or more people. The section makes them criminals in
> the eyes of the law and therefore in my view needs amendment. Regards.
> Pavan Nair
> PS Sarbajit, I think we need more views/discussion on this issue.
>