One must know that in this fast changing world, even the human values are also changing with the passage of time. But, however, one may argue that the Delhi High Court verdict on section 377 is a panacea for homosexuals. While one cannot and should not interfere in some one else's business, it should be admitted that homosexuality is unnatural. If we look at the nature and flora and fauna, there is nothing as homosexuality though all animals indulge in sex. Therefore, once Radhakrishnan wrote in his 'Hindu View of Life' that man is the only animal that drinks when he is not thirsty, eats when he is not hungry and indulges in sex all through the year. Homo sexuality is limited to satisfy their particular unnatural urge. Nothing beyond that, the Nature has produced opposite sex for pleasure and reproduction. The homosexuality satisfies only one part. Therefore it is a psychological problem. Therefore, there is no point in discussing and debating this issue. It should be buried and left to the people concerned.
Maneshwar Nayak Reading `Hindu' as 'Indian', and vice versa, does not deny the reality of the sub-continent’s civilization and intellectual history. So-called non-Brahmanical Buddhist principles and practices are also part of vast hindu diaspora. The exchange with other religio-cultural traditions like Islam and Christianity does not change the core of our culture. Those who say `hindu' refer to Brahminism are only trying to divide Hindu society. Indian is a British colonial construct, i.e. a part of the Macaulayian legacy needs rejection. The question of "alternative personal, social, cultural and sexual options" has not direct relation to the above context and maybe `ignored' and 'not worthy of public discussion' because they are in fact, mainstream viewpoint; it is not a matter of depriving rights of `marginal'? The Homos were in Hindu past too (Khajuraho and in Karnataka one may see that on the face of temples) but society is an evolving phenomenon and all be Hindu, Muslim, Christianity denounces that. Court cannot make civic ways; it has limitations and that should be known. It does not mean fundamentally undemocratic perspective. Why you people are so much on Brahminical tag, was ram a Brahmin whom all revere as GOD and bhakti traditions has not opposed that Ram and Krishna. Sufis might have rejected Islamic obstinacy. Patriarchal or Matriachal both norms of moral conduct are acceptable in Hindu ethos which is abalanced one. True,” The discourse of rights for Gays etc., is a contemporary discourse and requires both an openness and a focus" but defying social norms maybe individual's pleasure but not the way to say it is for equal rights, freedom of choice and expression of one's life. If one says he loves being naked would you allow?? The nature of contemporary law and criminality, maybe changed but legalising it will open a Pandora' box. Dr. Dhanakar Thakur
