Sees
Dragonslayer
Just getting that out of the way because it seems to be a common implication.
Still not "racism" to point out how messed up some places are.
shahz likes generalizations and straw-men.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just getting that out of the way because it seems to be a common implication.
Still not "racism" to point out how messed up some places are.
India just became more dangerous than it was before....for gay folk anyway.
Do you disagree?
The US is irrelevant to my claim.
shahz likes generalizations and straw-men.
So you might disagree.Maybe it will get more dangerous, but you don't know jack about how India works to make such statements. There are parts of India where the law works and parts where it doesn't. There are parts where communities will protect you till death, even if you're gay. There are liberal parts, and conservative parts. It's incredibly diverse as a country. It's a lot like America was a couple of centuries ago.
Instead of addressing the issue, you seek to make it about me, eh?Anyways my point to you was people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially houses made of big shiny glass.
You presume too much.Typical crap lol, come to defend your RF posse again. It's missing a few members they should show up soon.
So you might disagree.
Instead of addressing the issue, you seek to make it about me, eh?
That just doesn't work.
Not only did I read the title, I wrote it, & even explained it to you.Again read the title of the thread which was started by you and the following posts
Typical crap lol, come to defend your RF posse again. It's missing a few members they should show up soon.
Yeah, and what shocks me even more is that bhAratiya government officials spend crores on rupees on stuff like politics or Mars missions and what not, yet don't ever think of using that money to distribute among the 60% or so who make less than $2 a day. It's funny how the average annual income in bhArat at independence was greater than that of China, yet in the modern era it has more people in poverty than all of sub-saharan Africa. I assume it partially has to do with population, but corruption also plays a big part.Yup. Sad to say, but that does seem to be the unvarnished truth with crap like this.
Yeah, and what shocks me even more is that bhAratiya government officials spend crores on rupees on stuff like politics or Mars missions and what not, yet don't ever think of using that money to distribute among the 60% or so who make less than $2 a day. It's funny how the average annual income in bhArat at independence was greater than that of China, yet in the modern era it has more people in poverty than all of sub-saharan Africa. I assume it partially has to do with population, but corruption also plays a big part.
excellent post. You obviously understand how the wheels of legislation roll. The USA is so mixed up with court, state and federal legislation that many of its folks get lost over such matters. I am sure that proper legislation will happen in India soon enough.What Indian Supreme Court has said is very simple - and very correct - that courts cannot make the law - that is the Constitutional position. It has to be the Parliament which can make the law. Therefore, Dehi Court erred in de-criminalizing it, it over-stepped its powers. It had no jurisdiction for such a thing. Supreme Court asked the Central Government about its views if it would like to change the law. Unfortunately, we have an election coming up, and there were many important bills to be considered, so, the Central Government could not apply itself to make a change in the law, though it indicated that it is in favor of de-criminalizing it. The matter has been left to the next Government which will be in power by June 1st.
What Indian Supreme Court has said is very simple - and very correct - that courts cannot make the law - that is the Constitutional position. It has to be the Parliament which can make the law. Therefore, Dehi Court erred in de-criminalizing it, it over-stepped its powers. It had no jurisdiction for such a thing. Supreme Court asked the Central Government about its views if it would like to change the law. Unfortunately, we have an election coming up, and there were many important bills to be considered, so, the Central Government could not apply itself to make a change in the law, though it indicated that it is in favor of de-criminalizing it. The matter has been left to the next Government which will be in power by June 1st.
A criminalization of homosexuality is not a good thing, even if it wont be followed. Saying this because LGBT issues lies close to my heart. I would be critical of any nation that passes laws like this.Maybe it will get more dangerous, but you don't know jack about how India works to make such statements. There are parts of India where the law works and parts where it doesn't. There are parts where communities will protect you till death, even if you're gay. There are liberal parts, and conservative parts. It's incredibly diverse as a country. It's a lot like America was a couple of centuries ago.
Anyways my point to you was people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, especially houses made of big shiny glass.
Interestingly, the original British law criminalizing homosexuality can be more accurately interpreted as permitting it because of the wording - only "unnatural" couplings are a crime. Homosexuality is natural. If I were a lawyer in India, that's the angle I would take.
Brilliant point .........
You should've been a lawyer. (you could still have done yer gardening!)
OK, don't take this wrong. I'm not calling you racist SF, BUT........ Are you saying you have to be white to be a racist?I'm not white and it's not "racist" to realize that some places on this planet are screwed up. America's pretty messed up compared to other Western nations, for example.
OK, don't take this wrong. I'm not calling you racist SF, BUT........ Are you saying you have to be white to be a racist?
OK, now we are getting somewhere.
In light of the recent Arizona proposed legislation, we are in the cesspool as well don't you think?