What is Digg?74 Comments
- timothiuz, on 07/17/2009, -4/+36Of course, the religious leaders.
- jacobo, on 07/16/2009, -6/+36Is it still gay if the ballywoods don't touch?
- MrRtd, on 07/17/2009, -4/+30Again, God damned organized religion trying to control society. The only people that fear homosexuals are those who fear their own homosexuality.
- GrammerPants, on 07/17/2009, -2/+26Who else would care?
- professorchaos1, on 07/17/2009, -1/+17The British were the ones who outlawed homosexuality. The court overturned a law that was more than 100 years old.
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -0/+16Ugh that case should be thrown out. Either those people are lying ***** or they have serious ***** problems.
- Elranzer, on 07/17/2009, -1/+16Methinks the religious leaders doth protest too much.
I wonder what's in THEIR closets... - inactive, on 07/16/2009, -2/+16Wow, it's just like here except with more people and less money!
- Janv1er, on 07/16/2009, -2/+15If nature wanted people to fly, it would've created a flying system in a humans back but it didn't..
If nature wanted people to see far away, it would've created a zooming system in a humans eyes but it didn't..
If nature....
I can keep going for a long time.
Oh and I bet you've never broken the sacred yin and yang, you've never poisoned you're body with unnatural foods, you've never done anything that nature didn't intend, like use a computer, right? - fleecejohnson, on 07/16/2009, -2/+14On the bright side, I hear a lot of gay porn is being outsourced these days.
- SQLDigger, on 07/16/2009, -10/+22Man, it sucks to be gay in India. Those poor guys never seem to be able to get a head.
- diggmehard, on 07/17/2009, -2/+13Great computer science icon from Britain, Alan Turing, was tortured to death because he way a gay. He has an Indian connection too. His father was posted in Orissa, India.
- pingveno, on 07/16/2009, -0/+10FTA
"In taking up the appeal, the highest court is responding to a petition by two private citizens who claimed they were deeply hurt by the judgment “inasmuch as it seriously affects them and fellow countrymen in all spheres of their lives, personal as well as social.”"
Deja vu? - nextekcarl, on 07/17/2009, -1/+10He wasn't tortured to death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Death
Though I would argue the 'treatment' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Convictio ... was a form of torture and may have lead to his death. - SpykerSpeed, on 07/17/2009, -0/+8Tell that to gays in the South.
- Ninh, on 07/16/2009, -2/+9Which begs the question what your dong does in the mouth of your wife?
- kaosethema, on 07/17/2009, -2/+9young Indian boys
oh wait, i'm thinkin catholics...
young Indian girls - mrsteveman1, on 07/17/2009, -0/+6They're "socially conservative", it's both.
- SpykerSpeed, on 07/17/2009, -0/+5Wow, I had no idea Turing was gay. Thanks for the info.
- yocouchdigga, on 07/17/2009, -1/+6/'cobra-commanding'
- Joest23, on 07/17/2009, -1/+6This is still better than it being punishable by law to be gay.
- Hetman, on 07/16/2009, -3/+8Not really. In america you can be openly gay. In india you still have to hide your sexuality. This is not about gay marriage this is just about being able to be open about who you are.
- prashantpawar, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5I try to convince as many indians as possible for gay rights, and compared to America its much much easier because its not explicitly forbidden in Hinduism(although Muslims in India make the same hue and cry as conservative Christians in America do).
- demodifier, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6Irrespective of which country you are from, try and search for the entire judgement of the Delhi High Court that is behind all of this. It's an excellent read and establishes a lot of precedence. I am definitely not a legal expert but as far as I understand it makes a very compelling case against all of the common pseudo-rational protests against homosexuality and in fact goes on to say discrimination based on sexual preference violates the fundamental right to equality. I think it would be hard for the Supreme Court to turn over this decision.
The SC took up this case as every Indian has the right to an appeal. That doesn't mean it's going to agree with the petitioners. Moreover, something that the article misses, the petitioners have also appealed that this ruling has led to same-sex marriages, which as of yet is illegal in India. Hence the court's added interest. - hadees, on 07/17/2009, -2/+6"It is mostly western cultural penetration (no pun intended) encouraging homosexual relationships."
No one is encouraging homosexual relationships. It is simply that we don't care. Live and let live. If they aren't directly harming you or anyone else then why should you or anyone one else care. - prem444, on 07/17/2009, -0/+4Wherever there is religion, there are homophobes
- felman87, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5How did I know ti was a Russell Peters link?
- raks1991, on 07/17/2009, -1/+5India is at least trying.Pity those gays in the middle east.
- LittleDas, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3Those *****. I like Turing.
- darthom, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3The real problem is the religious taboo... eating meat.
- Samohtneas, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3Prove otherwise?
Oh, wait. - inactive, on 07/17/2009, -1/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_In ...
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4A trip to the psychiatrist's clinic does nothing for homosexuals. Very few people even claim to have successfully changed their sexual orientation. It's an inherent feature of someone.
- raks1991, on 07/17/2009, -2/+5Religious leaders again interfering in the personal lives.GOD MADE THEM THAT WAY!
- Suricou, on 07/17/2009, -0/+3I think it's the standard 'collective morality' argument. I don't know much of indian culture, but in the US it's very popular with the more religious types. The theory behind it is that in matters of morality, there is no such thing as a right to privacy - because God judges the whole country it is the duty of all to oppose sin. Gay people having consenting sex in private really does effect everyone, because it brings down God's wrath.
You may have to adjust it a little for non-christian religions, but I think the princible still holds. - RogueGenius, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2No matter whee you go in the world, it's always the same thing. The religious oppress and the rest of us suffer.
The day the last religious man is laid in his grave will be the greatest day in history. - prem444, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2So you are the kind of 'straight' guy who fools around with guys and stays with a girl? Fooling around with another guy is acceptable but being in love is not?? Thats a bunch of *****.. I understand that people in developing nations arent privy to such details but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. It only means that the society wasnt open enough to accept it and people remained within closed doors.. Things are changing now. And I should say for the good.. No man can take away the right to be happy from any other man or woman.
- RogueGenius, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Aside from the typical mindless, right wing nonsense about 'liberal penetration...' This is actually a pretty accurate post. "Gay" is a pretty tentative concept in most cultures. It's only the western, religious (read: conservative) culture that has labeled and defined it. We all know, the most 'macho' man in history, Alexander, would be considered 'gay' by a weakling baptist preacher. It speaks to the historical stupidity and weakness in American (primarily southern) culture.
It's our problem, not really theirs. - hadees, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Well your opinion or not I don't think the statement I quoted is accurate. No one is encouraging homosexual relationships in the West and we certainly didn't invent it. They are more acceptable now but you can say that for a lot of social conventions.
The concept of gay varied greatly through out history but there were long term homosexual relationships that were generally acceptable. They might not have been called a marriage but I think it is disingenuous to predicate the definition of "gay" on those kind of terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_hist ...
Now if you are talking about strictly modern day ideas I guess its possible to say other modern cultures don't have the same view on homosexuality but again that has been something that has been in flux through out history along with other sexual conventions such as group sex, prostitution, and polygamy. Although in the globalist society we are moving towards its hard to say they have no concept of it even though from a cultural prospective they might not approve. - SpykerSpeed, on 07/17/2009, -2/+4link?
- Suricou, on 07/17/2009, -1/+3Torture is a bit of a stretch. Accidentially, maybe. He was just forced to undergo a cruel (and ineffective) treatment to 'cure' his homosexuality, which then lead to his suicide.
- xsecretfiles, on 07/17/2009, -3/+5Got any more pictures?
- raks1991, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2God made them that way.God is imaginary.So it is natural to be that way.Hence proved.
- ladyattis, on 07/17/2009, -0/+2Proof in the pudding that all too often individuals in power will plead to the false god of society to justify evil in any form. Whether or not it kills these people, the fact they can't simply be left the hell alone is an evil of the ancient world (where one's own property and life was owned by the polis (the people, the city, etc)). It's time the individuals claiming to be the head of the Indian government to grow out that superstition of the collective (and the other superstitution of polylogism, which they use to justify their evil).
- demodifier, on 07/22/2009, -0/+2Not sure about Islam but Hindusim doesn't have any parallels to the Christian story of God punishing the citizens of Sodom for their 'sin'. So the majority of non-Christian Indians shouldn't really protest about this on grounds of collective morality. They have been vocal about social and traditional continuity. This of course is rather easy to refute because the same 'tradition' denied rights to women and practised discrimination based on caste. In discarding those practices, we have long accepted the fallibility of such traditions.
The Indian constitution actually goes ahead and suggests that as our society is inherently non-democratic in nature due to its history there needs to be in place a 'constitutional morality' that would protect individual rights in the face of opposition from personal morality, as long as protecting those rights does not violate the fundamental nature of the constitution. - flip2trip, on 07/16/2009, -4/+6First I went boo...then I laughed and had to dig you up. ;)
- cfuse, on 07/17/2009, -1/+2Yeah until DADT is repealed they are going to have to live in fear ... oh, you meant the other ones.
- KiloKaan, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1no pun intended?
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is