I was watching CNN news tonight and while scanning the ticker I noticed that homosexuality is illegal in India. While any sovereign nation has a right to pass whatever laws it wishes to, other civilized countries have an obligation to regard such a blatant violation of human rights as a morally reprehensible. I do not see why there isn’t an economic boycott of nations that hold homosexualism to be a criminal act. I also do not see why this isn’t a gigantic priority for human rights organization. There have been sufficient incidents of anti-homosexual assault, torture and murder here in America to the point where one can only imagine how much worse it is in a country that legally condones suppression of homosexual rights.
Enlightened nations of the world must band together to rid our planet of such bigotry. South Africa was boycotted for apartheid, how is it that this has not gained greater attention from the global community? I fully recognize that the current administration’s marginalizing of America’s homosexual community provides tacit approval for other nations to do the same or worse. I think this is something that our country will be very ashamed of at a later date. I see all of this as purest hypocrisy and it makes America’s stance on human rights just so much lip service.
Isn’t America morally obliged to help wipe out the criminalization of homosexuality in the name of human rights?
I agree with you but the religious right in this country are just as bigoted and would never support such a policy. in fact, wasn’t there a recent poll in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling on the Texas sodomy case that showed that a majority of Americans still thought homosexuality should be llegal in this country?
No politician would have the nutsack to endorse such a policy for fear of offending all the retards. It’s the same way with drug laws.
I suspect the law is not particularly strong. There are well-known groups of “transvestite” or “homosexual” men in Northern India called hijra who perform at marriages or other events (with services on the side?), and may have some perceived religious significance.
NeSBiT, please note that nowhere did I let my own country slide. I hold out little hope for positive change while the current administration is seated. As I have already said, I think that one day America will wince collectively to remember the backward and shameful stance it once held.
The Supreme Court has recently ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Homosexual “acts” between consenting adults can no longer be legislated against by states.
Lawrence and Garner v. Texas struck down anti-sodomy laws in something like a dozen states. It’s embarrassing they were on the books anyway, even if they generally weren’t enforced. But at least they’re gone now.
whoops, totally forgot about the supreme court decision. But while we’re boycotting india we should boycott all the muslim countries that outlaw other religions and require women to cover up.
Not just in Northern India. There are plenty in Bombay as well. Note that these are not “homosexual” or “transvestite” men. They are castrated men, most of them, forcibly initiated into that community at a young age (around 10-12).
Hijra are basically despised beggars who find a wedding, then sing and dance until they are paid to go away. Their existance doesn’t equate with acceptance.
I agree about the right-wingers here not giving a damn about homosexual’s lives. Didn’t George W label them as ‘sinners’? Surely the war on terror doesn’t involve helping out people as evil as the terrorists (just using Bush’s own logic here).
Nesbit, it is off topic but since you come up out of the blue with your remark: can you be a bit more specific aboui those “Muslim countries” you refer to?
Thank you.
Now to stay on topic: When it comes to homosexuality, there are a lot of countries all over the world where gay people face all sorts of discrimination.
I’m not familiar with the laws in India and I don’t think many of the members here are. Maybe it would be helpful to give reference to the article of that law to see how it is formulated before discussing its contenance?
Forgot… From what I have read and heard about it, I got the impression that the eunuchs and their performances at weddings are a very old custom in local culture.
Some may be forcibly “initiated”, of which I’m not informed. I’ve heard of others who choose to become one as adult.
To me it surely would be interesting to find out more about this strange tradition with contributions from a member in India.
I believe one of the moderators lives overthere but I don’t recall his name.
Salaam. A
I’ll answer Aldebaran’s query for Nesbit. There are a number of Muslim countries that have strict dress codes for women. Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind as the most obvious. As far as not allowing other religions, see: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/14012.htm
Yes, I could forsee that the Wahabbi-delirious Saudis would come up together with Shi’a-delirious Iran.
Yet do you have any idea that what is dictated in a few countries and/or locations is not “the rule” in countries where Islam is considered and described as the State Religion?
I think people should try to see beyond those few examples everybody always again and again comes up with and then describe it as “Islamic”.
For your information: it is not.
Hijab isn’t prescribed in Al Qur’an. Prescribed is that women should cover their bossom as decency and/or modesty for both men and women is prescribed in Al Qur’an.
Freedom to worship God for Christians and Jews and all who believe in God, is prescribed in Al Qur’an.
“Let there be no compulsion in religon” is a direct quote from Al Qur’an.
By the way: There is a development going on in Egypt that worries not only the government. Women - also of the higher classes - seem to go back on wearing hijab . They aren’t “forced” at all to do that, on the contrary. They risk and on several occasions also face discrimination.
As for Pakistan, to say it simple: that is one of the most sad examples of a destabilized nation one can come up with. When you quote a law(no matter which law) you can’t even be sure if it shall be a law the next day because you can have a regime change overthere for nothing more then that an opposition group or even members of the governments decide that the president or one or more members of the government aren’t “Islamic” enough.
And when I read that quote “defile the sacred name of the holy prophet” it made me smile. Because it is a stupid sentence since it refers to an impossibility for the simple reason that
No name is sacred but the name of God
No one but God can decide if someone is holy
Muhammed when he was alive didn’t care all that much to be “defiled”, otherwise he wouldn’t have endured what he endured according the hadith. So why would he care now that he is dead.
Why would any Muslim get upset or even care to hear someone “defiling” the prophet of Islam when every Muslim knows that this is coming from someone who doesn’t believe that the Message of God was transmitted to Muhammed.
Salaam. A
Now to go back on topic - which is discrimination against gay people - I have a question for the US’ers posting:
Is the film “Philadelphia” (released a few years ago) reflecting some part of the reality in the USA or is it just a story, to have a story to make a very good movie.
Zenster, I know this is a poor excuse, but it is, at least, a plausible explanation. Essentially, this is one of the problems with democracy. The majority of the people win, whether their view is in conflict with what we say to be everyone’s in-alienable human rights. The simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough people concerned with gay rights to make such a boycott possible. I don’t think this is right, mind you, but I think that it’s probably an accurate explanation for the “why not” part.
This is off-topic, but another example of the majority versus “the way it’s supposed to be”: on all US currency the phrase “In God We Trust” is printed. The first amendment clearly states that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, and yet by printing that phrase on US currency, the US Government is endorsing all forms of mono-theism and tacitly refuting all poly-theistic religions.
