Quantcast
U.S. & World

India government likely to review anti-gay sex law

Comments

Return To Article
  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Well, I guess India can now become the new aparthate South Africa. I'm sure many boycotts and protests along with demands for sanctions will occur. Or will they?? It will be interesting to watch the reactions of liberals worldwide.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    Well done, keep up the good work!

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Ranch

    It is not always religion, but what with the extremist radical Muslims seeming to dominate todays world of violence in the name of God, one could see your point. Remember though that one of the most bigoted organizations of somewhat recent times was the NAZI Party of WW11 Germany, and religion had little to do with that. Also, there are some very bigoted countries in the world based pretty much on racial and or cultural priorities.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 11, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Religions must defend traditional marriage and families and that is not bigoted, its essential for the preservation of the human race.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 11, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    @ Third Baker
    the article states: "The government, meanwhile, has begun acknowledging India's transgender — or hijra — community, the origins of which go back millennia to a time when transsexuals, eunuchs and gays held a special place in society backed by Hindu myths of their power to grant fertility."

    Homophobia was introduced by British rule to India.
    Despite "the special place" homosexuality had in India before the British colonization, still India managed to have a large population.

    Homosexuality never was and never will be a threat to the preservation to the human race. That is just another fallacy rooted in religious biases.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Baccuss. Gay people don't reproduce. Many countries, especially in Europe, have declining populations, not because of gays but what will they do if that trend doesn't change? That's all I am saying and it has noting to do with homophobia. Just the facts of population dynamics.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Mother nature decided the best parents were a mother and father. I'm with Mother Nature.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 11, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    I expect this to be a temporary setback. India has made great progress in modernizing in the last half century and continues to absorb reforms for which the third world trails. But full gay equality is the emerging human rights cause that I am hopeful will win out in India as it is in the Western world.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    I'm with Mother Nature and the Supreme Court of India. Don't we wish we had a Supreme Court with the same intestinal fortitude?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 11, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    @ Thid Baker

    Most gay people will reproduce when they want to have progeny. If you look at the most famous and loving gay couple in history Prince Jonathan and David. David had many, many children and even adopted Jonathan's son after his death.

    The homosexual population (to my knowledge) has never exceeded 10% of the total population. Therefore, you have 90% of heterosexuals who can fulfill that role.

    Homosexuals have been reproducing for millennia. In places like India where arranged marriages are the norm many homosexuals live heterosexual lives and reproduce.

    Homosexuals also provide homes and families to many children of heterosexual parents (obviously) through adoption. No, no, we don't steal/take the children away from their natural parents. We adopt them because there is an excess of children being born to unfit heterosexual parents. Yes, we want to strength traditional marriage and traditional families by given the opportunity to all children the opportunity to have a loving home.

    Please help me: What is so hard to understand? LGBT wants to have a family as you do. Marry the one they love, hopefully, as you did. Nothing more nothing less.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    Baccus,

    LGBT wants to have a family as you do. Marry the one they love, hopefully, as you did. Nothing more nothing less

    And polygamist families just want a family too.

    And same with two brothers that want to marry. Their love is just as true as the love of any homosexual couple.

    Please do not discriminate. Start including polygamsits and two brothers who want to marry in your cries for equality and then I'll listen. Until then, don't come crying about discrimination.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    The mere raising of an issue of gay rights always seems to spark an excessive level of venom from the crowd that is scarcely impacted by gay members of society going about their lives. It reminds me of Scott Fitzgerald’s whimsical allusion to “the contempt we reserve for what we don't understand.”

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    For population topics, it should be noted that many gays switch back and forth throughout their lives. There are likely hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in the world who now say they are gay but have procreated at a former time in their lives. I believe the great majority of people who say they are gay are truly bisexual. Gays often switch at some point in their life, and in some cases switch back.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Dec. 11, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Only 3 article subjects seem to fire up Chris B in his many, many screen guises - gay bashing, race bashing, and BYU bashing. Makes me proud to be a liberal Cougar.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 11, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Linus
    Bountiful, UT
    I'm with Mother Nature and the Supreme Court of India. Don't we wish we had a Supreme Court with the same intestinal fortitude?

    1:06 p.m. Dec. 11, 2013

    ========

    Why don't you go live in a Theocracy and not a Free Country.
    Shariah Law is what many on the Right-wing want.

    No homosexuals,
    No drugs,
    No alcohol,
    No pornography,
    No LGBTS,
    No aborations,
    No Educations,
    No Liberals,
    and
    No political opposition.

    Just like Iran, North Korea, and Nazi Germany.

    I live America - land of the Free.
    Sometimes, there's going to be some I don't like their choices.
    But that's the price we pay to live in a Free Society.

    Alma taught Amulek just how important Free Agency is --
    As they were forced to watch woman and children being burned to death,
    and had the power of God to stop it,
    Alam said that the wicked must be allowed to do their wickedness.

    That's how important Free Agency is.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    @SCFan;

    I disagree. IMO, *organized* religion is the root of all evil.

    @Thid Barker;

    Marriage isn't even necessary for the preservation of the human race. Humans reproduced without marriage for a couple hundred thousand years. Marriage is only a fairly recent arrival on that long period of history. Defending "traditional marriage" is nothing more than defending bigotry. Declining numbers in various countries are NOT related to homosexuality.

    Those of you who are "with Mother Nature" should realize that SHE created homosexuality; it occurs in so many of her creations, it's likely to be found in all of them.

    @Ken;

    I don't think they're "switching" back and forth, they're just finally accepting their true value just as they are.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon

    I wonder if you realize the way your post read. You talk about things like homosexuals, drugs, pornography, abortion, ect. Then you point to an Alma episode where the wicked were allowed to do their wickedness. I would, if I did not know you better, believe that you were saying that things like homosexuality, abortion, pornography, drugs, ect. were wicked. But they are not in your world, are they?

    P.S. Would you care to validate your point that conservatives want some form of Shariah Law in America. All conservatives want is for laws to exist that keep the public safe from many of the ills that destroy a society. Crime, drugs, immorality being uncontrolled both in media and in everyday life. That plus the freedom to keep most of the money and work product they earn. Not having an oppressive government that taxes its citizens into a semi-slave status. That too much to ask of a liberal?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    @Chris B --

    "Please do not discriminate. Start including polygamsits"

    Here we go again.

    Look up the "harm principle". An increased risk of harm to others has always been a legitimate legal reason for restricting personal freedoms.

    The short version -- polygamy and incest convey a significantly increased risk of harm to others, compared to other forms of marriage. Therefore it is in the interest of our government to keep them illegal.

    Gay marriage does NOT convey a significantly increased risk of harm to others, compared to other forms of marriage. Therefore there is no excuse for government to keep it illegal.

    " cries for equality"

    Unless you can prove that polygamy, incest, etc. do NOT convey significantly increased risks, then they are NOT equal -- and should not be treated as such.

    Would you like to try to prove that?

    @happy --

    "All conservatives want is for laws to exist that keep the public safe from many of the ills that destroy a society."

    How does same-sex marriage destroy a society?

    Please be specific.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @happy2bhere;

    "All conservatives want is for laws to exist that keep the public safe from many of the ills that destroy a society. "

    Then you shouldn't oppose same-sex marriages since they're not one of "the many ills that destroy a society". Is equality too much to ask of a conservative?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    @ Thid Barker: If reproduction and the survival of the human race is your primary concern, then advocate for a law that requires married couples to have at least three children and demands that infertile couples or couples that choose not to have the requisite number of children be divorced or prohibited from marrying in the first place.

    If reproduction and survival of the human race is your primary concern, then advocate for laws requiring young people to be married by the age of 23 and to have their first child by 25.

    If reproduction and the survival of the human race is your primary concern, there are a lot of other areas you can focus on that are a lot more relevant than whether or not gays should be thrown in jail for having sex with each other.

    The fact that you choose homosexuality as the focus of your concern indicates that there is more at play (such as animus) than just the continued survival of the human race.

  • portlander Arlington, WA
    Dec. 12, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    Why is it that "modernizing" and "progressing" always ends up meaning to set aside morality and God's law? I want to teach acceptance of God's law and the rejection of immorality. I don't want to be forced into accepting, even promoting immorality.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    The thundering herd of liberal posters pounce on this story. Misconstruing the position of conservatives and deliberately using false and extreme language to bash those who favor marriage as being one man and one woman. The ridiculous idea that organized religion is the root of all evil falls on deaf ears as we see even today the compassion of Christians helping the poor at Christmas. Conservatives do not want to limit expression and many including myself are fine with civil unions for gays and lesbians. The name calling like equating conservatives to Nazi's,and not wanting people to be educated is simply false.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 12, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    @ portlander
    You wrote:

    "Why is it that "modernizing" and "progressing" always ends up meaning to set aside morality and God's law? I want to teach acceptance of God's law and the rejection of immorality. I don't want to be forced into accepting, even promoting immorality"

    Morality seems to be a relative concept, you see. There are several things that I consider immoral;
    Abraham having a son with Hagar and then throwing her and her son out of their camp..
    Solomon having concubines and a big number of wives
    The Law of Moses and all the stoning for various "offenses"
    The role of women as property and valued according to their ability to have children
    Paul teaching Jewish law as part of the gospel
    The Inquisition
    Slavery and the list could go on and on.

    I am grateful to "modernizing" and "progressing" because from my point of view they have made us a more just society and more in accordance with all the children of God living in equality and dignity.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 3:23 p.m.

    Contary,

    I've explained it many times. Trying to suggest that incest and two brothers marrying are the same is a falsehood. There are countless relationships that engage in sexual relations before marriage and there are countless marriages that do not engage in sexual relations. Marriage does not equal sexual relations. Just because many marriages involve that does not mean that it only happens after marriage or that it always happens in marriage.

    Besides, two brothers can't procreate, mother nature didn't two men to procreate.

    And trying to deny people the right to marry simply because other people similar to them have had less than desirable results is nonsense.

    I can point you to a study that proved that violence in interracial couples is higher than in monoracial couples

    "Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial Couples: A Comparison to White and Ethnic Minority Monoracial Couples" Rachel Fusco 2009

    Increased risk

    If your "reason" for denying polygamists or two brothers the right to marry because of "increased risk" then your same argument would suggest interracial marriages not be allowed, as there is proven "increased risk"

    That is discrimination and I will not support it. Thank you.

  • Ken Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    @Contrarious, You seem to believe there is an arbitrary baseline inherent risk in marriage and that every single marriage currently allowable does not increase above that risk level. That couldn't be more false. Every marriage has "risk" of whatever kind you're referring to. Due to differences in age, culture, race, economic background, education, each marriage brings different(and not equal) risks to it. Every current marriage does NOT have the exact same inherent risk, which by definition, means some marriages have higher risk than others. So to try and claim the government has established a definitive risk level and every marriage is currently at the exact same level, no one higher, no one lower, is wrong. If it were proven that two people who have an age difference greater than 3 years leads to a 1% increased "risk" would the government bad any marriage where the people have age differences greater than 1%?

    No.

    They would not.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    @Portlander;

    Setting aside bigotry and discrmination is *embracing* morality; not
    rejecting it. Why you would refuse to accept equality and love is beyond
    me. As to "god's law", well it's quite impossible for a fictional being to
    have any "law".

    @New to Utah;

    Let me see if I understand you correctly.

    1)We've "misconstrued" that you conservatives LIKE having gays thrown in jail for 10 years for loving someone?
    2) We've misconstrued that you conservatives have worked to WRITE LAWS in Africa & Russia that criminalize gays?
    3) We've misconstrued that you think "separate is equal"? We've misconstrued that you've donated MILLIONS of dollars to anti-equality efforts, trying to keep LGBT people second class citizens?

    What a giant "misconstrual"; our bad!

    Helping a few people at Christmas in no way absolves you of the harm you've done the rest of the year.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    @Chris B --

    "Trying to suggest that incest and two brothers marrying are the same is a falsehood."

    Actually, it's a legal reality.

    Additionally, you're forgetting that we don't change laws based on isolated cases. We don't make drunk driving legal just because a few people might be able to get home safely while drunk. Similarly, we don't make incest legal just because two brothers might conduct an incestuous marriage without harm.

    "a study that proved that violence in interracial couples is higher than in monoracial couples..."

    No it doesn't.

    As a similar study in that same vein ("Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial and Monoracial Couples") specifically states: "regression analyses indicated that interracial couples demonstrated a higher level of mutual IPV than monoracial white couples but a level similar to monoracial black couples."

    Keep trying, Chris.

    @Ken --

    "seem to believe there is an arbitrary baseline inherent risk..."

    No.

    Compare to drunk driving.

    Most sober drivers are safer than most drunk drivers. But some sober drivers are more dangerous than some drunk drivers -- even though the drunk ones drive illegally. There is some overlap, yet we still keep drunk driving illegal and sober driving legal.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 13, 2013 11:31 p.m.

    Open Minded Mormon and Ranch Hand, turn off MSNBC, NBC and all the liberal papers and actually
    think about what you write. There is so many false statements, innuendo's and put downs. I have experience living in liberal land. I know that they have three times the money and the power of the press and Hollywood to give them power. Liberals like to bash and run its all emotion based on some supposed victim. Citizens still can believe marriage is between a man and a woman.They can also support morality until the morality police come and arrest us.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 14, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    @New to Utah;

    You can still believe marriage is between a man and a woman. What you CANNOT do is force others to live by your beliefs. You may not take away the rights of others just because they're different than you. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one.