Alright. I have to respond to this, it's just to... enraging? Sure, that must be the word. Add in a few synonyms about being intolerant, disrespectful and in many regards quite incorrect.
First note that I'm not looking for a fight, but there are times when you have to stand up for what you believe in. If this was just some flagrantly stupid and oafish 'anti-homosexual' post, I would probably ignore it... seeing that it would have done it's own job in making the author uncredible and the material useless. However this post is rather well done in many regards, and deceivingly so. Muhammad- I'm glad that you're posting your ideas and your thoughts, as much as I disagree with them. While some of your english grammar was a bit hard to decipher, it was good enough. I'm not attacking you sir, just your premises. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for what you believe them. Now I'm going to set a few things straight about your anti-homosexual letter (no pun intended). Know that I would adamantly defend your rights to post this any where on the web, as i do feel it is an essential part of free speech that I agree with.
Some terms to know in my argumentative case:
- 'straw man' argument'
[A Straw Man Argument is a statement a person makes if they want to more easily attack an opposing position. It is a fallacy based on caricature.]
Thruought this post, I will cite MANY fallacies, in addition to incorrect data. One of the most frequent I spoted was 'straw man' For a list of logical fallacies, go here:
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/intro_fallacies.asp
for some clarification on what some of them are, check this out:
http://www.colorado.edu/PWR/writingtips/23.html
Now onto the post.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Muhammad_Mukhtar_Alam [/i]
To
The Chief Justice
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Sub: Reasons for preserving section 377 of Indian Panel Code and rejecting the appeal of NAZ foundation
Honorable Sir,
1. I, Muhammad Mukhtar Alam, a Ph.D. candidate at Delhi University would like to draw your attention to the petition of Naz Foundation that has been accepted in the High Court of Delhi. The petition challenges “the constitutional validity of section 377 of the IPC on the grounds that it criminalizes homosexual act even between two consenting adults”. (The Hindustan Times December 8,2001). The division bench comprising of Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice Sanjay Kishen Kaul issued notices to the respondents including the Union government, the Delhi government, the Commissioner of Police and the National Aids Control Organization (NACO) and sought their replies by January 28, 2002.
2. I would like to respond to this as a private citizen and a world citizen and call for a dismissal of this petition. A favorable judgement for the petition will violate the children to have reverent role models, and, most importantly will create a supportive social climate for the adoption of homosexuality in India.
[B] Here is a logical deduction fallacy. Let us look at the context of 'A favorable judgement for the petition will violate the children to have reverent role models.' First off, the deductive fallacy. First assign the two subjects 'children' and 'role models' to variables 'A' and 'X' accordingly.
In your example, you say 'A' will be violated by NOT having 'X' in the form of 'reverent'- which you do not clearly define. Thus, you deduce that 'A' MUST have 'X.' In other words, you make the assumption that children must have reverned role models, or they will be violated. While you furthermore do not tell how these violations have any bearing, or what these violations are, moreover the logic is non sequitor... in that children do not have to have a specific type of 'role-model' to not be violated. [/B]
3. I would like to strongly oppose the move of Naz Foundation as an anti-children, anti-family and anti-God [i]foundation[/i].
[B] You do not propose any sort of ctiation or references to prove any of this, and furthermore, you do not give the sigificance of this assertation. [/B]
Also through my research work I have proved that environmental factors for the adoption of homosexuality is ignored by all these campaigners of civil liberties while overemphasizing the contribution of genetic determinism.
[B] STRAWMAN argument. You make the 'adoption of homosexuality' your caricature, inadvertantly claiming that 'overemphasizing the contribution of genetic determinism' is a bad thing. You provide no context for how why the adoption of homosexuality is 'bad.' [/B]
There is a case for “hijras” but then there is no case for the homosexuals who have been imitating a deviant and degenerate sexual practice that has been approved in the European and American laws.
[B] You say that there 'is a case for hijas'- meaning transvestites- yet you fail to claim what 'case' you are talking about? Do you mean that transvestites deserve some civil liberties, however homosexuals do not?
Furthermore, you then make an accusation of 'deviant and degenerate sexual practice' in regards to homosexualism, yet you provide no logical basis for your argument - a red herring argument, and an ad hominem attack... how repugnant. Yet you refuse to see evidence of scientific data that shows evolutionary link to homosexuality and how traverse it is in animal societies. Chimpanzees have homosexual behavior, ostriches have homosexual behavior, and even domestic house cats. In fact, one type of chimpanzee- the Bonobos- are the most sexually diverse primate in existance... and amazingly have the LOWEST rate of warfare, murder or violence in their societies. No I'm not trying to make a fallacy of association by saying directly that more diverse sexuality leads to less violence, its simply an interesting note. Moreover, you will probably try to come back with an attack on my person as an evolutionist and an athiest. (1) I'm not athiest. (2) I'm an evolutionist, and will certainly admit that not every thing is known about evolution and there are still MANY missing links and proofs, yet the theory of evolution (which by itself lends credibility, as a theory is a well tested and proven hypothesis) is quite credible in and of-itself. Therefore, we must also take into account evidence that humans are derived evolutionarily from Apes, or an ancestor to Apes, and therefore need to take into account some inate socio-biological accounts. When we do this, and see the wide-spread permeation of homosexuality in chimpanzee (of which we share the closest genetic link) culture, it is indeed interesting that one argues against homosexuality as being anything other than 'natural' - if not considered socially deviant because of heriditary prejudices that are not argued against by logical or scientific means. I'm pretty certain that I am not going to convince you, but I'm hoping anyone that happens to read what you wrote will also see this.
(Citation:
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm, and
Bloom, Howard. "The Lucifer Principle.")
If you do not want to see the scientific evidence found in other primates, perhaps you would like to debate about the homosexuality found in Indias past:
Homosexuality has an ancient history in India. Ancient texts like Rig-Veda which dates back around 1500 BC and sculptures and vestiges depict sexual acts between women as revelations of a feminine world where sexuality was based on pleasure and fertility [1]. The description of homosexual acts in the Kamasutra, the Harems of young boys kept by Muslim Nawabs and Hindu Aristocrats, male homosexuality in the Medieval Muslim history, evidences of sodomy in the Tantric rituals are some historical evidences of same-sex relationships.
However, these experiences started losing their significance with the advent of Vedic Brahmanism and, later on, of British Colonialism. Giti claims that Aryan invasion dating to 1500 B.C began to suppress homosexuality through the emerging dominance of patriarchy.
In the Manusmriti there are references to punishments like loss of caste, heavy monetary fines and strokes of the whip for gay and lesbian behaviour. In the case of married women, it is mentioned that 'luring of maids' is to be punished by shaving the women bald, cutting of two fingers and then parading her on a donkey. Manu's specifications of more severe punishments fbr married women can suggest either a wide prevalence of such relationships among married women or a greater acceptance of these practices among unmarried women. In either cases, these references point to the tensions in the norms of compulsory heterosexuality prescribed by Brahmanical partite.
Both sexual systems coexisted, despite fluctuations in relative repression and freedom, until British Colonialism when the destruction of images of homosexual expression and sexual expression in general became more systematic and blatant. T'he homophobic and Victorian puritanical values regarded the display of explicit sexual images as 'pornographic and evil'. The Western view, since the time of Colonial expansion, has been strongly influenced by reproductive assumption about sexuality. These puritanical values and attitudes were in turn mapped into the interpretation of sexual activity among colonial people which is evident from the responses to all forms of 'unnatural' sexual practices. The Indian psyche accepted the Western 'moral and psychological' idea of sexuality being 'pathological' rather than the natural expression of desire, which once used to be part of Indian culture.
Citaton: (
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/grhf/SAsia/suchana/0909/rh374.html)
We then can review your last, at least partially false, line of statement. You claim that 'U.S. laws have approved homosexuality.' You are bloody wrong about that. There is no law in the United States as a whole that allows for marriage between homosexuals. While this is unfortunate, we can further see more examples of the intolerant laws of the U.S.- in that Sodomy is still illegal and adoption by homosexual partners is only allowed in 18 states. I'm not sure about European laws. What there is are 'equal protection' laws that do not descriminate based on gender or sexual orientation, that is, how one fornicates.
Moreover, your attempt at slandering the U.S. and Europe based on their supposed support of these (as far as i know) 'laws' is quite... pathetic. There is no reasoning for why American and European models are 'wrong' even if they DID support Homosexuality in their legal system. Again, I am claiming no laws (or ones that are applicably applied) exist.[/B]
My related academic submissions pointing out the need to review of the decision of American Psychiatric Association contained in my conceptual organization for description, analysis, prediction and control of the personal/ social / world order can be seen at
http://updates.takingitglobal.org/read/Muhammad_Mukhtar_Alam . The submissions are web referred at a youth site are part of the findings of the discourse analysis for my Ph.D. dissertation on “A Study of the Cognitive Representations related to the Concept of World Citizen” that has been presented to University of Delhi in September 2000.
[B] I'll be sure to read all of it. [/B]
4. The petition contends that article 377 of the IPC violates the liberties enshrined in the constitution under article 14.15,19 and 21 in so far as it penalizes predominantly homosexual acts in private between consenting adults. This can be seen that this is an instance of overgeneralization for the provisions of the cited articles.
[B] This argument is fallacious in that it is non-sequitor. Again, examining the context... '...penalizes predominantly homosexual acts in private between consenting adults.... this is an instance of overgeneralization.' Alright, this does not follow because there IS NO FALLACY OF OVERGENERALIZATION proven by your statement. Back up your claims. [/B]
There is a concern for the rights of the children for reverent role models. Making homosexual act lawful will mean endangering the lives of many children who are being already provided with an overdose of atheistic libertarian values where pre-marital and extramarital affairs do not get denounced, punished and condemned.
[B] Strawman argument... and some dichotomous arguments that are unsupported... wow.
Again, there is a deductive reasoning argument that does not tell us WHY children 'need' reverent role models but makes the assumption that someone that is anti-homosexual is a reverent role model, and then seemingly make the claim that this is 'good.'
Then we move onto: 'Making homosexual act lawful will mean endangering the lives of many children' This is a 'black and white' argument. let us assign variables. let the two verbinations - or actions- be the recipient of these articles. therefore: 'making homosexual acts lawful' is assigned to variable 'P' while 'endangering the lives of children' is assigned to 'Q'
you make the statement: 'If 'P' then 'Q.' However, for this argument to work, you need to prove it. You need a clear link in the middle.. HOW DOES P RESULT IN Q? Perhaps you can argue my contraposative (if 'Q' then 'P')...
I'm sorry, but you do not clearly show evidence that being tolerant of sexual practices endangers the lives of children, at all. If anything, teaching children to be intolerant of other people- even if that act may be 'immoral' ends up hurting more people, in that 'hate crimes' often lead to violence. We can also look at sexual assaults as a form of 'endangerment.' While sexual assaults from homosexuals on children might be a claim you could make, you would then also have to argue that 'promiscuous behavior and heterosexuality endangers children' - since sexual assaults on children also come from those of heterosexual nature. I think we can both agree that the claim would then be ludicrous.
Continuing on...
"...who are being already provided with an overdose of atheistic libertarian values where pre-marital and extramarital affairs do not get denounced, punished and condemned."
STRAW MAN ARGUMENTATION!!!! You simply try to bash 'atheistic libertarian values' without providing a basis to prefer other values or WHY these values are bad. I'm not going to argue for or against 'pre-marital,' or other sexual values, as this is not the premise of my argument. [/B]
5. The article 377 of the IPC deals with the subject of unnatural offences and states that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of the nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend upto ten years and shall also be liable to fine”.
[B] I'd just like to comment on how lurid that law is... and let me argue by reasoning here. Muhammad- would you agree with laws based on the segregation of religion and the dirilects that would make provisions for fines and incarcaration because of ones religious beliefs? What if the line read: 'Any who believe in Allah or any form of diety, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, etc...' Would this not outrage you?
Well, you would probably argue that it is your right and freedom to make a choice in beleiving in Allah and to follow the Islam faith, and I would fully support you on that. I will attempt to show your faulty reasoning on homosexuality on this alternative point. You claim that homosexuality is a 'choice' rather than a biological trait, even if it is not seemingly phenytypical. Alright, so let us accept your definition of 'choice' in this regard. You would decry any sort of law that banned the practice of Islam, a choice you make, but then disallow anothers choice in their own beliefs? Perhaps you may find it morally repugnant and wrong, but what gives you the right to then impose this value on others without being a hypocrite?
Your response will probably be some sort of religious proof that homosexuallity is inherently wrong. My friend, religion and science do not mix very well. Science is falsifiable, religion is not - which means that there is no basis for proving its correctness.. it must be accepted (by faith). Yet in this letter to the S.C. of India, you then try to use science to backup your claims... find scientific proof that homosexuality is BAD for people, and that it can TRULY be cured (and simply not socialised from the person, because of societal ostracizaton and other forms of cruelty). [/B]
There is a need to preserve this provision as its deletion even with regard to the homosexuals and lesbian will create problems for the collective social health and individual health.
[B] Again, you fail to give any clear reasoning or proof beind this.[/B]
6. It has been argued that “section 377 creates an arbitrary and unreasonable classification between natural (penile-vaginal) and unnatural (penile-non vaginal) sexual acts that violates article 14’s equal protection before and under law”. Here Naz Foundation already assumes the existence of a “sexual minority” whose rights are considered to be violated.
[B] It is fairly obvious to see that there is an established minority, since if there was not one, this law- which targets homosexuality would not exist.
Let us look at the context of 'arbitrary and unreasonable classification' - which in and of itself is a fallacy, since only society claims that it is unatural and classifies it different. There is no scientific proof that it is unnatural.
Looking at IPC 377: "What does this non-bailable and cognisable offence imply? It is based on the centuries old misconception that sodomy and homosexuality is one and the same thing. A homosexual man is viewed as a 'type of person' who has only anal intercourse with his partner. However the emotional attachments, fantasies and affectionate and erotic desire are not been given due consideration. Thus, de jure, it is an attempt to criminalise sodomy while de facto it is an attempt to criminalise and stigmatise homosexuality. Hence conventionally homosexuality is bought as an offence under the IPC."
(YMCA, Mumbai. Joseph, Sherry.: The Law and Homosexuality in India.p.150-154. Location: SNDT Churchgate.)
This is the argument that th NAZ org. is making. [/B]
There is no recognition of such minority in the constitution. There should not be any recognition to such a minority in the law.
[B] There does not need to be a recognition of such a minority in the constitition, since the 14th article establishes equal protection under the law (even if its only by legal-ease).
The argument follows allong this course: "Sec. 377 is obsolete and must be struck down as being unconstitutional on the grounds that Right for Privacy is part and parcel of the Fundamental Rights of life and liberty under Article 21 of the constitution and recognised by the 1948 International Convention on Human Rights; Sec. 377 is a violation of Article 14 of the constitution since it discriminates persons on the basis of their sexual orientation; having been enacted in 1860, Sec. 377 is archaic, absurd and implemented by the British in all its colonies, including India, but now been repealed in England, the country of origin.
<
>
Again, it is apparant that your historical look on sec. 377 is not well backed by Europe, who have made such laws of sexual descrimination illegal. The very sodomy laws that were created, where done so by British-Colonialist rule.[/B] You attempt to seemingly make an accusation of incedulosity by saying that 'intellectual athiests' are themselves devient or 'wrong' - (and thus harmful?), yet you do not back your case up by proving this at all.. [/B]
Also Naz Foundation is misguiding the court on its understanding of constitutionally recognized minorities. There is no violation of the article 14 of the constitution with reference to the provisions of article 377 as there is no recognition for “sexual orientation” as a category.
If there is recognition for sexual minority there can be also a call to recognize the human rights of the thieves and pickpockets to indulge in their smart acts of fooling cheating and looting.
[B] Another Strawman argument with some very poor 'dichotomous' fallacies... wow.
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution does allow for 'sexual orientation,' under the basis of its non-descriminatory accord on 'sex.' When we look at the word 'sex' we must understand what that word means.
Here we go:
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things that are involved in reproduction by two interacting parents and that distinguish males and females
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 : GENITALIA
Therefore we establish two principalia definitions of the word 'sex' - that being of sexual behavior as well as what is commonly refered to a 'gender' - since sex is determined by varying gentalia. If this non-descriminatory law only applied to people of a certain genetalia to another, as well as the existence of enlarged mammalry glands in the female's breasts and the ability to bear children. using the term 'sex', then the only way someone could descriminate against that is if genetalia was presented and shown to others, or the frequent flaunting of pregnancy or the breasts were shown. This word, then, also implies 'gender' - which are various roles assigned to males and females that often socially determines who and what they do, the tasks they undertake in society and so forth. In this case, these roles also apply to sexuality and sexual intercourse, and thus, cannot be descriminated against.
Your argument that we should include the 'human rights' of thieves is well based. I fully agree with human rights for all dissidents of law, so long as the law being broken infringes upon anothers rights. Though I also think those people should suffer legal and consequential ramifications, and loose some 'civil rights,' though not their human rights. However, being homosexual does not infringe on anothers rights. Or if it does, you must also agree by similar-contemplation reasoning that the teachings of Islam or ay religion also infringes on the rights of others. Hmmm....[/B]
7. It has been argued that Section 377 imposes traditional gender stereotypes concerning the “natural” sexual roles for men and women upon the sexual minorities”. Here again there is an explicit reference to the “sexual minority” which refers to men and women who have been misguided for appropriating homosexual acts.
[B] As proven, there exists a sexual minority. All you are doing is making your own arguments seem invalid.[/B]
Instead of calling for help in correcting the deviant behavior an appeal is being made to recognize it as a normal and natural act. All traditional gender roles can not be denounced.
[B] Why do they need to correct their deviant behaviour? Is it because you, or other homophobic people cannot tolerate something that is not congruent with your own dogma, so you would then eliminate it? Would you then hail the causes of Hitler to rid the world of all "jews, gypsies, slavics, moslems, homosexuals, cripples and all non-Aryan and non abbhorrent forms of life,"? (Citation: 'Rise and Fall of the Theird Reich, P. 277)[/B]
Atheistic feminist discourse needs to have recognition of the limits that are imposed biologically, ecologically, and morally.
[B] More Strawman argumentation... you attempt to make 'athiestic feminist discourse' the caricature.. and then pursuade us that this is BAD. A few things... first off, I happen to know many feminists that are not athiests. I'm one of them. Yes, I'm a male feminist... wow. What 'biological, ecological and moral' limits do you speak of? Do you mean OPRESSION??? [/B]
“Hijras” need a special rehabilitative attention and for them there is no imposition of gender roles. Hijra’s are sexually challenged with reference to reproductive capacities and there is no imposition of gender roles on them. For homosexuals and lesbians, specific gender roles will continue to be socially desirable.
[B] These are baseless, abusive, ad hominem arguments that are being brought up with a non-logical circumstance,and there seems to be no supportive evidence [/B]
8. According to the petition, the social effects (of article 377) drive gay men underground with a devastating impact upon HIV prevention efforts as “ it becomes difficult to identify and target this population for HIV /AIDS prevention efforts through education and provision of medical services”. I would like to denounce this contention, as most of men who have unnatural sex with men can not be considered to be so ignorant and illiterate. As per journalistic accounts most of the men and women identifying themselves as gay and lesbian respectively are quite well educated.
[B] What the petition is clearly defining, is that because they are considered DEVIANT, and are ostracized from society, put in their own caste where laws exist to prevent them from getting help, then this in turn presents a de facto and a de jure inability to gain legal or medical help. This is irrespective of the 'educational' level of any persons, as the petition is not addressing the competent level of the matter, but rather the realistic social truth that homosexuals cannot get this help because of the mindset placed on them, not because of their intelligencia.[/B]
There is no need for making homosexuality lawful in our country. There is need to campaign for the reverting to the pre-1973 position in so far as the related categorization in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of US is concerned. Sheldon B. Korchin has noted the fact interestingly in his book on Clinical Psychology that it was the gay movement in US that compelled APA to change the understanding of homosexuality in 1973. “Homosexuality was no longer considered a sexual deviance rather it was just an 'alternative orientation'” (Sheldon J. Korchin (1998),"Modern Clinical Psychology, Principles of Intervention in the Clinic and Community", CSB Publishers).
[B] It was also the Civil Rights movement who helped to change laws, stigmas and stereotypes with African-Americans in the U.S. Why then would it be any different for another group of people being descriminated against? You claim that the APA needs to revert back to the DSM claim that homosexuality is a disorder. Would you then also demand that 'drapetomania' - a 'disorder' that was attributed to runaway negro slaves who tried to gain their freedom- also be reinstated?
(citation: Szasz, T. The Manufacture of Madness A Comparative Study of the Inquisition & the Mental Health Movement. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997:138.)
If so, then I'm terribly sorry for you. [/B]
It may be noted that there is hardly anything “oriental” about this “orientation”. Homosexuality is a product of lack of moral control and absolutely wrong socialization .It is curable. The best cure can be tried by seeking forgiveness for the past sinful deeds.
[B] This argument first tries to establish that sexual orientation is a product on the bast of moral control. Therefore, one would have to argue that all sexual orientation is a pragmatic response based on moral control, having nothing to do with biochemistry or biology. Are you then willing to argue that rodent orgies are a product of lack of moral control??? Your argument uses circular reasoning, which i'm sorry, is not going to cut it.
You then inaccurately state that 'homosexuality is curable' as if it WERE a disorder. This 'cure' is be seeking forgiveness for sinful deeds, so you argue. This cure then, is not a cure for a disease, but rather a re-socialization and acceptance of racist, xenophobic and oppressive pedagogy and ideology. While I am not going to argue if this is right or wrong, in an attempt to not be ethnocentric, I will question its motives. The 'cure' is simply a change in way of thought, and is usually in the form of brain-wash or inability to continually take the social intollerancy from arguments such as you are proposing. Tell me sir, if you lived in a society where every day you were spit on, mocked and told that you are devient, disgusting and lower than a dog.. would you not feel flaked or worn out by this? Would this form of social exclusion eventually hurt you, internally? For many people it does, and thus, they conform to societal demands. This is the cure you speak of... [/B]
9. It is important to campaign for the restoration of the old definition of degenerate practice of homosexuality that is being celebrated and paraded in the dancing halls and bars of the irreverent and atheistic West whereas practice of religion is propagated to be restricted to the privacy of the homes.
[B] Have you ever heard of the 'fundamentalist Right?' Yeah... religion in america is not secluded to that of the home, and I'm quite positive it is also not such in many other countries. Homosexuality still remains a minority to religious practices. Furthermore, you're using red herring STRAW MAN arguments... unfortunately. [/B]
Also, I would like to appeal the people in the “orient” to campaign for deleting the word orientation as this word has been abused by referring this to a sexual deviance in DSM manual of American Psychiatric Association.
10. According to a study conducted by Himachal Pradesh Voluntary Health Association, Shimla 20% of the children have experienced homosexual atrocities. “Another after effect of this is sharp increase in Transportation work which mainly comprise of rural people of HP with large involvement of children working as cleaner. For one Big Cement plant viz. ACC Cement Barmana approximately 8000 trucks are operating.
[B] This part of the petition seems to detract and deceive by using irrelevant data to try to low-ball the person reading this. It is erroneous and certainly... um... has no bearing as evidence, as it does not address 'homosexual atrocoties.'[/B]
As per one small study 20% of such children have experienced homosexual atrocities”. There are other studies that have shown the involvement of homosexuals in sexual abuse of the children through internet as well. Thus, I would like to argue that granting revision and elimination of the prohibitory provisions of article 377 will further increase the incidence of child sex abuse by male homosexuals.
[B] This is called a Non Causa Pro Causa argument- and is an inductive fallacy.
You make a claim that there is 'evidence of sexual abuse from homosexuality' on children.. alright.. I can buy that (even though you don't cite your source). Yet how is this a positive correlation that giving equal rights to homosexuals and keeping them from being descriminated, and homosexuals who preform sexual abuse? By simply giving people legal equality under the law, this does not promote crimes of sexual abuse on children. One might reasonably conclude that whether someone is garunteed the rights to do what they already are (in being gay or lesbian), or if they are a sex-offender, that the position would not matter. To try and assert that because someone is given the legal rights under the law as people of differing views and sexual preference that they will then be socially accepted and looked up to is absurd. There will still be the social stigma attached, which is an unfortunate thing. This is an impact in my argument because as you recognize, other forms of 'sex abuse' on children from heterosexuals as being wrong, and in fact heterosexualism is not considered socially deviant, then your conclusion that if homosexuality was accepted that rape and molestation by homosexuals would increase is... UNFOUNDED. It is part of the non-causa pro-causa argument. Here is an example:
"Nearly all heroin addicts used marijuana before they tried heroin. Clearly marijuana use leads to heroin addiction." [Note: Only a small percentage of those who use marijuana then try heroin. The argument is focusing on the wrong correlation.]
You say that eliminating a statute ordinance will increase sex abuse by male homosexuals. However, you're trying to hit from the wrong pool. What would have to also happen, if we follow your correlation, is that an increase in male-homosexuality would follow as resolvent by this statute. Yet there is no empirical data that supports that.[/B]
In UK, there had been a demand by the gays for reducing the age of consent from 18 to 14. Considering the dominance of the atheistic liberal ethos, many children and adults will be become prone to the abuse of homosexuals.
[B] This is completely non-sequitor... it does not follow with the argument. There is also, of course, no evidence to support your claim. In fact, you seem to insinuate that due to 'dominance' by atheistic liberal ethos, by hapstance, the liberal atheists will be the ones perpetrating the homosexual abuse of children! What wizadry! (oh yeah, and Harry Potter is evil too.) [/B]
Also there had been a study where 70% of the abused children had been the victims of sodomy by homosexuals.
[B] where is your source and citation? Im filling to bet there is some more fallacy [/B]
11. Considering the above I would like to appeal for the dismissal of the petition of Naz Foundation while also seeking the deletion of references to adoption of homosexuality as matter of human right in the documents of Amnesty International.
<<<
12. Considering the developments in Europe and US in this regard there might be a call for redefining institution of family so as to incorporate homosexual couples as family. There may be call then for them to be considered as legitimate recipient of abandoned children for adoption. Thus it can be seen that for many youth, children and future generations permission of deletion in provision of article 377 of IPC, there will be a great intellectual confusion. This will also have significant adverse impact in the families where some boys and girls under the persuasion such neo-liberal atheistic “social workers” and homosexuals will be called on to “come out of closet” and announce to the families and relatives that they are gay.>>
[B] I can't even really follow your reasoning or logic... you just seem to use abusive strategy to adhominem other ideologies... while not really addressing what you mean or how this is relevant to the petition. Are you insinuating that 'coming out' is a bad thing? Are you also insinuating that children raised in a 'gay' family become gay? Because, and this borders on a fallacy myself- and let it be known i'm not speaking for the world at large- but I have two friends, both raised by gay couples (one male-male, the other female-female) and neither of the two are gay... but they also recognize that there is nothing wrong with it. Their biochemistry and socialization influences simply set them on a heterosexual path. [/B]
13. According to a study reported in Hindustan Times of 10 May 2001, two psychologists led by Dr.Robert Spitzer proved that highly motivated homosexuals could be converted. They also repudiated the attitude of the mental health professionals” who have bought the idea that once you are gay you can not be changed. He and his colleagues have found that 66% of men and 44% of women had achieved good heterosexual functioning.
[B] During the Spanish Inquisition, many people were 'highly motivated' to be converted through Christianity. Need I further comment? This goes back to my earlier argument of re-socialization and complacency... to deny oneself what they really feel for the sake of social conformity and compliance. It's wrong because it allows disparity and inequality among people. We could argue whether this is right or wrong, but obviously since the petition does not address the rest of the equality clauses, it must mean that you sir agree that religious, racial and other forms of 'differences' should not be contentions for disparities or descrimination... [/B]
With reference to the petition of Naz Foundation it can be seen that there is no reference for the existence of controversy on the etiology of homosexuality. Instead, they have been calling for making homosexuality lawful.
[B]First and foremost, calling the existence of homosexuality a form of 'etiology' is sort of abusive in itself, as it denotes homosexuality and again ascribes it as a disease.. which it is not. Furthermore, I do not think the petitions intent was to inform the Supreme Court on the historical and bioligcal origins of homosexuality, for it deals with the present conditions and thus does not really need to be inclusive of the very origins of homosexuality. Moreover, if you are to make the same argument as a grounds basis for dismisal of the petition, then let it be known that the Chief Justice will hopefully catch the failure for you to backup or solidify evidence of many of your claims, including the origins of 'reverent role models,' 'heterosexuality,' etc... ridiculous, no? [/B]
14. In case, there is a favorable judgement, there can not be an end to the social denunciation of lesbians and homosexuals in India considering the strong conservative values that are shared across the religious groups in this regard. If the petitioners and their tutors think that they are “progressives” then they must recognize that RSS, practicing Muslims, Christians, Jains and Buddhists will continue denouncing them for their misguided understanding and seek correction in attitudes. Considering the history of dissidence this may be noted that appropriation of homosexuality is an instance of the most extreme and worst development in the anti-Christian discourse in Europe that was championed by Michel Foucault who could have excluded gays and lesbians while advocating for better treatment of women, blacks and prisoners. But then in his zeal for unearthing the archeology of knowledge he tried to have “limit experience” in the bars with provisions for sadomasochist experiences and liberated the gays and lesbians from the psychiatric label. Formation of groups of lesbians followed who have a vision to change the legislation in all societies. Unfortunately, Richard Falk has also included such a change in the existing legislations as part of “humane governance” (Falk, Richard (1995), "Towards a new global politics ,world order model project report of the global civilization initiative", Polity Press Cambridge, UK )
[B] I'm just appauled at your argument... I've already argued this before through fallacy after fallacy. Furthermore, I do not know any Buddhists who think that homosexuality is wrong. Perhaps because I have studied it a bit and also follow philisiphies of Buddhism; however, I am fairly certain you are incorrect in that assunmption that Buddhists would further 'denounce' homosexuality.
Mr. Alam, thank you for an interesting post to run through and respond to. I look forward to your response. Remember, I'm not trying to attack you or make you look bad- but I am questioning your logic and trying to make this a learning experience. I myself am heterosexual, and at one time felt the way you did about gays and lesbians. I was homophobic and intollerant. I thought gays were a bane on society. Then I became a little more open minded and actually talked and researched things... especially after finding out that, produdly, my cousin is gay. To this day I have several homosexual friends... and one day hope that the terms homosexual and heterosexual mean the same thing: the process of having sexual intercourse for enjoyment and comfort. Thank you again, and good day.
In peace,
~Jedimike
