How homosexual act is against nature, Supreme Court asks anti-gay group

[samsingh]

NEW DELHI: Anti-gay rights groups, challenging legalisation of gay sex, were today asked by the Supreme Court to explain how such acts are against the order of nature as submitted by them.

A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya said that the interpretation of constitution has changed over the last sixty years and the issue has to be seen in that light.

"What is homosexuality? Who is the expert to explain order of nature," the bench observed when the senior advocate Amrendra Saran submitted that nature does not recognise homosexuality and lesbianism which are against its order.

The rest at the Times of India website:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/How-homosexual-act-is-against-nature-Supreme-Court-asks-anti-gay-group/articleshow/11901142.cms

[stopbush]

1. Of course, homosexual acts are common in nature.

God save us from the religionists of all stripes.

[Moonwalk]

2. Homosexuals and homosexual acts are common among human beings. It can't be against our nature...

or "Nature" with a capital "N" if it happens and has been happening as far back as we can tell. What we naturally do is in our nature and a part of "Nature."

[JDPriestly]

16. It's also more common than you would think among animals.

[Moonwalk]

29. Oh, I know, but I'm not sure we should play into that argument...

See, if you point to the homosexual penguins, all you'll get from the person you're arguing with is "We're not penguins!" Never mind that they're trying to have it both ways (they want us to be like animals if animals are not homosexual, but don't want us to be like animals if they are).

My point is, using homosexual acts in nature only goes so far as an argument for humans engaging in homosexuality. Among seahorses, the male carries the babies to term. That's unnatural for humans, but natural for seahorses. What is "natural" among animals isn't always natural to us. if we're going to talk about what is "natural" then we need to cut out this stupid argument that we have to act like the animal world (i.e. no homosexuality) or that we are acting like the animal world (i.e. homosexuality). We only need to act in a way that is natural to us, and if historical record says that homosexuality is common among human beings--meaning it happens everywhere, no matter the culture and has always happened everywhere no matter the culture, then it is "nature" not nurture and, therefore "natural."

What other animals do is immaterial. However, if people want to make it material, then, of course, you can point out the homosexual penguins

[JDPriestly]

33. Actually, it was quite common in several ancient civilizations.

It would be very difficult to prove that it is not natural if it occurs.

I don't have a personal interest one way or the other, but I think that if you look at history, there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. Heterosexuality is more common, but that is about as far as it goes. What does "natural" in terms of human behavior mean anyway?

[Tafiti]

40. I see your point, but...

...it still wouldn't work as an argument, insofar as you're arguing against an anti-gay Christian.

You see, homosexuality is sin and man sins; ergo, it is not at all surprising that this particular sin - homosexuality - is and has long been rampant among humans. Humans sin a lot, we all know this. Nothing to see here, move along.

Remember you're dealing with people who fervently believe that homosexuality is a choice, in spite of how hateful and discriminatory people are toward homosexuals in our society. Why would somebody, given certain circumstances, willingly choose alienation and ostracization when he or she knew that would be the result of "coming out"? He or she wouldn't, it's common sense, yet people still refuse to believe it's not a choice.

[Moonwalk]

47. No argument works against a religious fanatic--so you're presenting a moot point if....

Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2012, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

we're talking about arguing against a fanatic be they Christian or, in this case, Hindu. They will think homosexuality unnatural no matter how many homosexual penguins we point out. No argument on my part about human nature, nor on your part about animal nature will work as they only valid argument, on their part, is what it says in their Holy text AND how THEY interpret it.

So if we're talking religious fanatics, we might as well throw out all arguments because not one of them is going t make a dent.

What I'm pointing out are arguments that might sway those who say "it's unnatural" but are not religious fanatics. Who seem to think that "natural" means male/female only in nature or between human beings. They are the ones who might be swayed by counterpoints and evidence. And my point is that when we point to animals, the natural reaction of most these people is to say, "we're not animals." Of course, we are, but because they tend to react this way when we point to the penguins, we need to be able to go farther than that. We need to be able to not only rely on homosexuality among other animals, but make sure they see the evidence of it being "natural" as in "human nature."

This is how we may sway those willing to listen to the arguments rather than just go along with the religious fanatics.

[closeupready]

3. For me, as a man, sex with a man is the most natural thing in the world, more fulfilling than even

for example, food or water. Obviously, food and water and oxygen are essential elements for life, but being romantic with another man is the most fulfilling thing, more than anything else. It absolutely makes me feel totally real and at peace with the world and myself. K&R

[samsingh]

36. well put

[RKP5637]

41. +1,000,000,000 +++ n/t

[xchrom]

4. du rec. nt

[Ian David]

5. If Nature didn't want dicks to be sucked and vaginas to be licked...

... Nature wouldn't have made it feel so damn good.

You know what's going against Nature?

Sticking a penis in your eye.

You know how I know this?

Because it hurts (or so I imagine it does).

But still, if people want to go around sticking penises in their eyes, who are we to judge?

[closeupready]

6. Exactly. Freedom means, among other things, the liberty to be weird.

To do things differently. Just because.

And if you hate liberty, there's always Texas and Saudi Arabia and Iran.

[usrname]

26. Rule 34

says that you'll find some eye-fucking on the web somewhere.

/Now nose-fucking... that's some really weird, perverted and gross shit.

[rtassi]

35. Best laugh I've had in a while ... Called the way it is ...

[samsingh]

37. put it where it feels good for both people

[pangaia]

43. Well,

I never heard it put quite that way before, but I can dig it. :&gt )

[Honest_Abe]

7. Not natural!?!?

Homosexual behavior has been OBSERVED in nearly every mammalian species and most vertebrate species (which is not to say it doesn't occur in ALL of them). How can anyone possibly say it is not natural?

[Hugabear]

8. but..but..those are the EXCEPTIONS to the rule

When you see homosexual acts in other species, they're not really homosexual acts...they're just playing around...it doesn't mean the same as homosexuality in humans...der der der...

By the way... - although this is how anti-gay idiots usually respond when this is pointed out

[closeupready]

10. Right - "dominance behavior". Or another good one, "lack of available opposite sex partners"

As if no male could ever conceivably prefer penis to vagina. Or female preferring vagina to penis.

Talk about psychological hangups.

[saras]

17. umm - how does "natural" explain the gay-bashing deer Bagemihl described in Texas?

Yes, there's "gay" deer in Texas, "gay" as in culturally and behaviorally different, not merely behaving towards males like "normal" males behave towards females.

And there's gay-bashing male deer that beat up on them.

That's the problem with "natural".

And let's not even consider traumatic insemination. Rip the female's body open, spray sperm around the inside, and hope that some gets to the reproductive tract. That's "natural", too, and the fundies would just LOVE to get hold of THAT concept.

Biological Exuberance, by Bruce Bagemihl. Over a decade old, but still a great read.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Biological_exuberance.html?id=5CbRGV8AAIQC

[closeupready]

20. I actually have a copy of that title on my bookshelf.

Never read it cover to cover, but have referenced it in the past.

Wasn't aware of the gaybashing male deer, though. Guess I missed that chapter.

[ieoeja]

22. Texas has a gay deer in it?

Lord have mercy on our souls!

[MACARD]

11. My Bitch (female dog) has sexual relations with her sisters, they cant tell me Dogs can't be Lesbian

[DCKit]

12. Too easy....

[msongs]

9. judge is trying to get a "religion based" answer which is the only objection possible other than

"I don't like it". ""I don't like it" is not a good reason to sue. All these anti gay morons are basing their views on their relgions, and anti gay policies should be fought as imposition of religion.

[LuvNewcastle]

15. That's what it's really about.

When people say that homosexuality is unnatural, what they really mean is that it makes them feel uncomfortable. Religious reasons are justifications to make others conform to their views.

[Moonwalk]

31. Here's an interesting religious based answer from Wiki if they're arguing Hinduism and Homosexuality

"Hindus have many sacred texts and different communities give special importance to different texts. Even more so than in other religions, Hindus also foster disparate interpretations of the meaning of various texts. The Vedas, which form the foundation of Hinduism for many, do not refer explicitly to homosexuality, but Rigveda says Vikruti Evam Prakriti (perversity/diversity is what nature is all about, or, what seems un-natural is also natural), which some scholars believe recognizes the cyclical constancy of homosexual/transsexual dimensions of human life, like all forms of universal diversities..."

Bold mine. From here.

[eyewall]

13. I think I would have mentioned this story takes place in India.

The arguments about Nature are a smokescreen for theocratic dogma. "It's against nature" is the way religious zealots say "God disapproves". It's dangerous when you have courts deciding issues that originate in religious discrimination, based on a religious group's faith based beliefs, but cloaked in a pseudo socio/scientific disguise. It sounds like this court is asking the right questions but it will be a much better world when dogma stays in the church and societies are run with minds rooted in clear honest reality.

[dipsydoodle]

14. The names of the judges was a bit of a giveaway

Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya.

[eyewall]

18. well, yeah, once you read the post it was obvious.

I meant in the title that shows on the home page. Not that it would have kept me from reading it, but I was surprised when it turned out to be the Supreme court of New Delhi and a mental image of Scalia and Thomas's pinched faces with stern flatulently puffy expressions of self importance faded into a santoric haze.

[dipsydoodle]

19. Hence the merit

in actually reading evrything before responding in any way.

[eyewall]

23. ahem... lol

did you actually read my reply, or just the header?

I DID read the original post. That's how I knew it was a story about India's Supreme Court and not ours. In the OP's title it says nothing about India, if you read the header on the home page, or whatever page, it says "How homosexual act is against nature, Supreme Court asks anti-gay group".

I was merely suggesting that putting (India) in the title would have been relevant info.

[dipsydoodle]

25. I'd already read the original link

but hadn't grasped that some may not have noticed its India until I saw your post.

[eyewall]

27. thanks, I think we're talking around a corner at each other.

My only point is that the original post TITLE does not say India, anywhere. I assumed it was the US Supreme Court until I opened the article at which point it was extremely obvious that it wasn't.

I agree with everything you say.

It's not important.

[samsingh]

38. i should have included 'India' in the title

however, what's interesting is that the Supreme Court of India is challenging, aggressively, the anti-hate group. Scalia and his breed would be doing the opposite. The Indian Court is acting in the way i would think a supreme court should act.

[eyewall]

39. I'd guess that means the Indian Supreme Court

is smarter and less corrupt than the US version.

You're right, this is how it should be.

[samsingh]

42. that's what i thought when i saw the article in the morning

[MNBrewer]

21. Know what else isn't natural?

Worshipping gods. Yet that (chosen) behavior is protected.

[boppers]

48. But so many other species worship....

Wait...

[RobertBlue]

24. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species,"

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

[Iliyah]

28. Yea its common

amoung so called "lower" animals. I even witnessed my female dog and cat go at it together, so it can apparently cross species too.

[Moonwalk]

30. Did the cat and dog enjoy it?

[boppers]

49. What makes an animal "lower", in that definition?

It's in most animal groupings. It's great for evolutionary reasons, which is why is hasn't even been "out-bred".

[starroute]

32. There's a theory that homosexuality in humans serves as an aid to child-rearing

It may not quite take a village to raise a child -- but it takes a whole lot of family, and the differences between humans and apes make that apparent.

At some point, probably back in the Homo erectus days, our reproductive patterns shifted. Instead of having one baby every four or five years, our ancestresses became capable of having one every two years -- and the best guess is that this was made possible by the invention of fatherhood and a rudimentary form of marriage. Getting a man to invest in providing food and a bit of child care really helped if you needed to manage an infant, a toddler, and a rowdy four-year-old all at the same time.

It was perhaps around the same point that human females started experiencing menopause -- when meant that grandmothers were also available to help with their daughter's children instead of being tied up with their own. That may not have made a lot of difference at first, when lifespans were still short, but little by little it helped increase both the survival rate of the little ones and the life expectancy of the old folks themselves, who had become increasingly valuable to the group.

And somewhere along the line, the bachelor uncle was added to the package as well. Having extra male family members around who didn't have children of their own -- especially if they were prepared to undertake more nurturing and womanly roles -- was another plus.

Over the last 40,000 years or so, we humans have multiplied like crazy and expanded all over the planet. Though overpopulation may appear as something of a curse at the moment, that expansion has been the basis of everything else we've achieved as a species. And we owe much of it to the fathers, the grandmothers, and the gay uncles.

[BadgerKid]

34. India decriminalized homosexuality in mid-2009

supposedly on the basis that it "violated fundamental rights to personal liberty (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution) and equality (Article 14) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 15)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_sexual_orientation

I'd like for our Constitution to be similarly respected.

[boppers]

50. 2003 in the US, 6 years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

[elleng]

44. 'Who is the expert to explain order of nature?'

Good one.

[and-justice-for-all]

46. The order of nature has been explained

just ask an Evolutionary Biologist, and a few other disciplines that concur with Evolution.

[and-justice-for-all]

45. Since Humans are a product of nature...

and do not reside outside of it, and seeing that Homosexuality does exist in a number of other species...Homosexuality is thus only logical.