Legalising lgbt is blasphemy of hinduism

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Some final thoughts.

Shri a-TB says it is in nature for someone to be gay. But he does not know why nature does that. He is ok if rapist is punished even if it is in his nature to commit the act with which I agree but since gay are consenting people and unite at the physical level and also importantly at the level of soul, the relationship is pure.

The only redeeming factor for gays even according to shri a-TB is that the relationship is at the level of soul. Let us accept it and leave it at that.

Please note: According to Shri a-TB he does not know whether there is a creator or not.

 

[a-TB]

Some final thoughts.

Shri a-TB says it is in nature for someone to be gay. But he does not know why nature does that. He is ok if rapist is punished even if it is in his nature to commit the act with which I agree but since gay are consenting people and unite at the physical level and also importantly at the level of soul, the relationship is pure.

The only redeeming factor for gays even according to shri a-TB is that the relationship is at the level of soul. Let us accept it and leave it at that.

Please note: According to Shri a-TB he does not know whether there is a creator or not.

The final thoughts are a bit corrupted. Let us put this in proper perspective.

First, I dont know what a soul is and what a creator is. People are welcome to believe whatever they want, I just do not know and most religious explanations are full of holes. I am not rejecting any but I have not heard convincing arguments though in my interactions with Mr KRN, he made a few good points.

Similarly I liked to read Mr tks explanations though most often I did not fully understand them (and hence a bit frustrating) .

All others who speak of God and spirituality endlessly are unconvincing because the message of their hearts seemed to be corrupted to me.


But I sometimes sense nature in its full glory and I see my body & mind in nature as well nature in my body and mind. To me that is closest to God that I can relate with.

I did not say, 'the only redeeming factor' - that is a prejudicial view.

In both hetrosexual and homosexual relationships, you find variety. Some are in only for sex, some for love and sex and some only for love. There is no difference.

Ultimately our own growth is the only thing that matters. I cannot think I am a somebody to fix the world though I can rebut and fight hate and prejudicial messages when they occur.

I do not have ill will against any member here. My arguments are only against their messages and ill effect it has.

I wish there is a right prayer to end this for now - May all be well !

 

[sravna]

What is convincing or unconvincing to someone may depend on what one wants to believe. One can understand but pretend not to understand. That is the reason I believe real intelligence happens with realization and not just understanding.

 

[sravna]

Ethics is one of the problems AI scientists are grappling with. Ethics should go with intelligence and has to flow from it. This point is totally missed among the AI community where they see ethics as something that can be built by framing a set of rules. One really cannot reason ethics as it has to come from within.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Everything in this world is subjective and temporary (a-sat).

I do not know everything about Hinduism, anybody who Claims such is not being Honest.
The Sabarimala case was clear discrimination against women, and I am against discrimination.

The Temple can say that Muslims are not allowed, and the Indian constitution allows that, I will accept that (personally I do not like that either). We have to restrict some for security reasons I accept that.

Coming to the sexual orientation of people, Like Sadguru Jaggi says it is none of the business of others, except the consenting adults.

I against any crime as described in the constitution. India is a democracy if you do not like a law change it.
But do not bring religion in that argument.

agreed sir.

neither do I know everything about hinduism sir.

in fact you know a plenty lot more about hinduism than I do.

thanks for posting your comments. they make interesting reading, informative and educative regardless of whether I am in agreement with your views or not.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Why should you condemn anyone who is not hurting you? Such thinking itself is worthy of concern because intolerance of other human beings is hurtful to a society. Condemnation repeatedly against a group for the way they are born is a form of hate. Hate crimes start with condemnation.

The creator may or may not exist.

If he/she did, Did he/she create sex organs for self pleasure watching porn?? Is that worthy of condemnation??

Hypocrisy is the worst thing there is in daily life

have you not condemned me in this post of yours sir!!!?

yet I love you with phileo love as I love my own self. (and please do not misconstrue this as being gay).

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

You brought Hinduism into the discussion with the decision of India's court.

It is legitimate to know what religious indoctrination you have had. You may have grown out of it which could be relevant too and these questions have nothing to do with any personally identifiable information. People who passionately argue have been open about stating what they stand for and how they are raised. We have had self claimed atheists but they have had no qualms about sharing their background (which has nothing to do with ID).

No one said about disqualification but your background (which is not really an ID) throws light on your comments about Hinduism



The paranoid response proves there is an agenda. We will leave it at that.

I am free to bring anything into this discussion as long as the forum administrators permit it.

whether you see light in my comments or not is immaterial and is not my botheration/concern as much as poking your nose into my religious background should not be yours.

ok, you win the argument and let us assume your word is final in this digression if that would satiate your ego.

please quit dwelling on this matter irrelevant to this thread.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

why do the following terms exist in the lexicon:

1. illicit affair
2. illegitimate birth
3. concubine

... and many more which belong to the above class?

people who indulge in acts which would label them as above, do not disturb others either.

yet stigmatic terms are attached to them. why?

 

[sravna]

why do the following terms exist in the lexicon:

1. illicit affair
2. illegitimate birth
3. concubine

... and many more which belong to the above class?

people who indulge in acts which would label them as above, do not disturb others either.

yet stigmatic terms are attached to them. why?

Very true sir. A mature society has a good sense of what is right and what should be allowed for peace functioning. Modern thinking which is still half baked thinking has not yet grasped the issues of morality in depth. It thinks it can reduce it to a set of rules and solve all the ethical problems.

But it will evolve and let is give it a chance.

 

[renuka]

have you not condemned me in this post of yours sir!!!?

yet I love you with phileo love as I love my own self. (and please do not misconstrue this as being gay).

Bromance!LOL

 

[renuka]

why do the following terms exist in the lexicon:

1. illicit affair
2. illegitimate birth
3. concubine

... and many more which belong to the above class?

people who indulge in acts which would label them as above, do not disturb others either.

yet stigmatic terms are attached to them. why?

1)Even Lesbian/Gay couples stay committed if they are in a real lasting relationship but if they cheat their partners then they would be considered to have had an illicit affair.


2)illegitimate birth..not possible if both stay connected but possible if a bisexual has sex with both males and females and gets the female pregnant...and this would be illegitimate birth.

3)Concubine...possible...eg Malik Kafur was the concubine to Khilji.


We can gaily see get facts straight that stigma is also attached if these happens.


BTW what ever happen to Karma theory now?
Why isnt the Halal squad saying this is all Karma?

As and when needed Halaal squad omits effect off Karma..totally Haraam to do that becos Karma is the understanding of our faith.

Remember guys...if you are so anti -gay..this forms an imprint in your Karmic records and you might have to take a birth as a gay to experience what you hate so much.

 

[prasad1]

agreed sir.

neither do I know everything about hinduism sir.

in fact you know a plenty lot more about hinduism than I do.

thanks for posting your comments. they make interesting reading, informative and educative regardless of whether I am in agreement with your views or not.

Thank you. In a healthy relationship, people should accept others as they are, trying to force change someone else will not end well.

We make our arguments, and we are persuasive enough, others may follow.
If we fail to effect the change, and it means that our argument was not strong enough.

 

[prasad1]

why do the following terms exist in the lexicon:

1. illicit affair
2. illegitimate birth
3. concubine

... and many more which belong to the above class?

people who indulge in acts which would label them as above, do not disturb others either.

yet stigmatic terms are attached to them. why?

society just adds words, and sometimes gives a new meaning to an old word.
Take for instance the word "Gay":

The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.


However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man. Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.

Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.

By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and many still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical, sounding like a disorder. As such, it was common amongst the gay community to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s). At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay. Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.

Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/

 

[prasad1]

why do the following terms exist in the lexicon:

1. illicit affair
2. illegitimate birth
3. concubine

... and many more which belong to the above class?

people who indulge in acts which would label them as above, do not disturb others either.

yet stigmatic terms are attached to them. why?

People find ways to insult others all the time.
It is the animal instinct to dominate others. Humans are one of the animals. We hurt others not only at physical but also on an emotional level.

Our insulter-in-chief Trump invents words to insults people he does not like that day. These words will remain in the language forever.

The word "bastard" used to ultimate insult 50 years ago.
A bastard (also historically called whoreson, although both of these terms have largely dropped from common usage) in the law of England and Wales is an illegitimate child, that is, one whose parents were not married at the time of his or her birth.

That word can apply to a very large number of today's children, but it still remains a derogatory word.

 

[prasad1]

Some final thoughts.

Shri a-TB says it is in nature for someone to be gay. But he does not know why nature does that. He is ok if rapist is punished even if it is in his nature to commit the act with which I agree but since gay are consenting people and unite at the physical level and also importantly at the level of soul, the relationship is pure.

The only redeeming factor for gays even according to shri a-TB is that the relationship is at the level of soul. Let us accept it and leave it at that.

Please note: According to Shri a-TB he does not know whether there is a creator or not.

I am sorry to butt in on this conversation.
Sravanaji, What was the reason for this post?
Shree a-TB has shared his views in the forum, we know him from his posts.
Why do you think you needed to make his view a special note?
What was the motive and who were you signaling, by that statement?

To me, it looks like a "Dog whistle"

Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.

He is ok if rapist is punished even if it is in his nature to commit the act

That sentence is mischievous at its best.
You keep equating the word "RAPE" with "HOMOSEXUALITY". In the English language, they are distinct and not synonymous.

In today's society at least in India "Rape" is illegal, immoral, degrading, violent, forceful without consent. And there is a VICTIM (dead or alive). It may involve both genders.

Homosexual is legal and may involve sexual relation with CONSENT.


The main difference is the word CONSENT.
Rape is without the CONSENT of one of the party.
Homosexual is with CONSENT.



As far as Human behavior scientists know no one is born Rapist, but according to the same scientist, people are born with Homosexual desires.

 

[sravna]

I am sorry to butt in on this conversation.
Sravanaji, What was the reason for this post?
Shree a-TB has shared his views in the forum, we know him from his posts.
Why do you think you needed to make his view a special note?
What was the motive and who were you signaling, by that statement?

To me, it looks like a "Dog whistle"

Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is "in the know" will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.

I agree with you. I am sorry about that. The post was not necessary.

 

[prasad1]

Ethics is one of the problems AI scientists are grappling with. Ethics should go with intelligence and has to flow from it. This point is totally missed among the AI community where they see ethics as something that can be built by framing a set of rules. One really cannot reason ethics as it has to come from within.

If you research the word "ethics":

The epic poems that stand at the beginning of many world literatures, such as the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Iliad and the Icelandic Eddas, portray a set of values that suit the strong leader of a small tribe. Valour and success are the principal qualities of a hero, and are generally not constrained by moral considerations. Revenge and vendetta are appropriate activities for heroes. The gods that appear in such epics are not defenders of moral values but are capricious forces of nature, and are to be feared and propitiated.
More strictly ethical claims are found occasionally in the literature of ancient civilizations that is aimed at lower classes of society. The Sumerian Farmer's Almanac and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenhotep both advise farmers to leave some grain for poor gleaners, and promise favours from the gods for doing so. A number of ancient religions and ethical thinkers also put forward some version of the golden rule, at least in its negative version: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.

Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality.


Ancient Greek philosopher Plato blew a hole in these arguments.

A modern theist might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.

This example illustrates the way in which ethics differs from the descriptive sciences. From the standpoint of ethics, whether human moral codes closely parallel one another or are extraordinarily diverse, the question of how an individual should act remains open. People who are uncertain about what they should do will not be helped by being told what their society thinks they should do in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Even if they are told that virtually all other human societies agree and that this agreement stems from evolved human nature, they may still reasonably choose to act otherwise. If they are told that there is great variation between human societies regarding what people should do in such circumstances, they may wonder whether there can be any objective answer, but their dilemma still would not be resolved. In fact, this diversity does not rule out the possibility of an objective answer: conceivably, most societies simply got it wrong. This too is something that will be taken up later in this article, for the possibility of an objective morality is one of the constant themes of ethics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy


If on the other hand, God gave ethics and moral values, it should be universal and uniform, That it is NOT.

Ethics changes over period of time and place, so it is not devine.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

1)Even Lesbian/Gay couples stay committed if they are in a real lasting relationship but if they cheat their partners then they would be considered to have had an illicit affair.


2)illegitimate birth..not possible if both stay connected but possible if a bisexual has sex with both males and females and gets the female pregnant...and this would be illegitimate birth.

3)Concubine...possible...eg Malik Kafur was the concubine to Khilji.


We can gaily see get facts straight that stigma is also attached if these happens.


BTW what ever happen to Karma theory now?
Why isnt the Halal squad saying this is all Karma?

As and when needed Halaal squad omits effect off Karma..totally Haraam to do that becos Karma is the understanding of our faith.

Remember guys...if you are so anti -gay..this forms an imprint in your Karmic records and you might have to take a birth as a gay to experience what you hate so much.

transmigration of soul is a myth madam.

the law of karma has nil effect on those who are justified righteous by faith and whose souls are eternally saved madam.

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

If you research the word "ethics":

The epic poems that stand at the beginning of many world literatures, such as the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Iliad and the Icelandic Eddas, portray a set of values that suit the strong leader of a small tribe. Valour and success are the principal qualities of a hero, and are generally not constrained by moral considerations. Revenge and vendetta are appropriate activities for heroes. The gods that appear in such epics are not defenders of moral values but are capricious forces of nature, and are to be feared and propitiated.
More strictly ethical claims are found occasionally in the literature of ancient civilizations that is aimed at lower classes of society. The Sumerian Farmer's Almanac and the Egyptian Instruction of Amenhotep both advise farmers to leave some grain for poor gleaners, and promise favours from the gods for doing so. A number of ancient religions and ethical thinkers also put forward some version of the golden rule, at least in its negative version: do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.

Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality.


Ancient Greek philosopher Plato blew a hole in these arguments.

A modern theist might say that, since God is good, God could not possibly approve of torturing children nor disapprove of helping neighbours. In saying this, however, the theist would have tacitly admitted that there is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Without an independent standard, it would be pointless to say that God is good; this could mean only that God is approved of by God. It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in the existence of God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory account of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation. A different account is needed.

This example illustrates the way in which ethics differs from the descriptive sciences. From the standpoint of ethics, whether human moral codes closely parallel one another or are extraordinarily diverse, the question of how an individual should act remains open. People who are uncertain about what they should do will not be helped by being told what their society thinks they should do in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Even if they are told that virtually all other human societies agree and that this agreement stems from evolved human nature, they may still reasonably choose to act otherwise. If they are told that there is great variation between human societies regarding what people should do in such circumstances, they may wonder whether there can be any objective answer, but their dilemma still would not be resolved. In fact, this diversity does not rule out the possibility of an objective answer: conceivably, most societies simply got it wrong. This too is something that will be taken up later in this article, for the possibility of an objective morality is one of the constant themes of ethics.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy


If on the other hand, God gave ethics and moral values, it should be universal and uniform, That it is NOT.

Ethics changes over period of time and place, so it is not devine.

thanks a million sir!

how about 'scruples', 'scrupulous' and 'unscrupulous' sir? are these also subjective/relative?

 

[GNANA SUNYAM]

Thank you. In a healthy relationship, people should accept others as they are, trying to force change someone else will not end well.

We make our arguments, and we are persuasive enough, others may follow.
If we fail to effect the change, and it means that our argument was not strong enough.

why should we ever aim/attempt to effect change?

'karmaṇy-evādhikāras te mā phaleṣhu kadāchana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr mā te saṅgo ’stvakarmaṇi' - Bagwad Gita 2:47

 

[a-TB]

transmigration of soul is a myth madam.

the law of karma has nil effect on those who are justified righteous by faith and whose souls are eternally saved madam.

Let us see what is said: So one is destined to go to Hell, then with righteous faith ( meaning believe in Jesus as a savior) then you go to heaven forever.

But extrapolating of Renuka Madam's point is that your Karmic imprints will follow and forever you will be locked up in gay sex in the heaven LOL Let us hope heaven is not forever

 

[a-TB]

I am free to bring anything into this discussion as long as the forum administrators permit it.

whether you see light in my comments or not is immaterial and is not my botheration/concern as much as poking your nose into my religious background should not be yours.

ok, you win the argument and let us assume your word is final in this digression if that would satiate your ego.

please quit dwelling on this matter irrelevant to this thread.

By the rules of the forum we all have immense freedom. But to me that is a low bar.

It seems you are concerned while claiming you are not bothered. You dont have to reply to this.

If someone asks for your name, phone number, address, where you are employed etc , it is one thing.

That would be distasteful and one is right not to answer the question and even admonish the person asking the question.

But the question asked here is different. Let us use an example.

Imagine we have a political operative of one party and participates in political discussions putting down the views of opposing parties. In my understanding it would be lack of integrity if the person does not own up to the affiliation. Such a disclosure is not required by the forum rules. But when someone hides behind rules and not willing to disclose affiliation and agenda, on their own, all the forum members can do is to draw their own conclusions (and take whatever the person states with a grain of salt).

 

[prasad1]

Ethics is one of the problems AI scientists are grappling with. Ethics should go with intelligence and has to flow from it. This point is totally missed among the AI community where they see ethics as something that can be built by framing a set of rules. One really cannot reason ethics as it has to come from within.

This definition of ethics is completely wrong.
Ethics is the moral code of a society at a given time and place.
Wearing Burka is ethical in Afganistan, it is not in a security checkpoint.

wearing shoes inside a temple is unethical, but wearing shoes in a church is ethical.

Aztak ate human flesh, that was ethical in their books.

Ethics are purely learned, the moral value of the society at a given time, a human raised by monkeys will have the Monkey ethics.

A Hindu child raised by Eskimos in Alaska will acquire the Eskimo values and will have no Hindu values.
We are not born with ethics, and there is no ethics to come from within.

 

[a-TB]

This definition of ethics is completely wrong.
Ethics is the moral code of a society at a given time and place.
Wearing Burka is ethical in Afganistan, it is not in a security checkpoint.

wearing shoes inside a temple is unethical, but wearing shoes in a church is ethical.

Aztak ate human flesh, that was ethical in their books.

Ethics are purely learned, the moral value of the society at a given time, a human raised by monkeys will the Monkey ethics.

A Hindu child raised by Eskimos in Alaska will acquire the Eskimo values and will have no Hindu values.
We are not born with ethics, and there is no ethics to come from within.

Good point.

Besides what has come from 'within' , wanting to criminalize LGBTQ is nothing but ugly from my ethics . But then due to their upbringing that is their ethics.

 

[sravna]

Good point.

Besides what has come from 'within' , wanting to criminalize LGBTQ is nothing but ugly from my ethics . But then due to their upbringing that is their ethics.

Why dont you learn to not indulge in personal attacks when you try to present your views? I never do that. Kindly mend your approach.