This is not USA-HC tells married man in live-in relationship

“This is an era of EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE, most of the diseases/medical conditions have no root cause found till date, these are termed IDEOPATHIC, there are assumptions that this might be the most probable cause. Then experts sit down & make a policy which is agreeable on that particular time frame.”

 I do not understand a thing of the above.  What I wanted to say was that in science nothing is “proven” by voting. “Homos*xuality is a preference.” It is just an opinion and not a “proven fact”. Opinions are ascertained by voting. Facts have to be found out. The goal of medicine is to find cure for illnesses. There are two ways. One is basic approach and the other is just experience. For instance diabetes is caused due to lack of control or absence of insulin generation. So the cure is to inject insulin or take medicines that will stimulate the pancreas to generate insulin.

There are many diseases for which the cause is not known but medicines are available. In other words “the proof of the pudding is in eating it” Here there are genuine effective medicines but there are also hundreds of fakes.

My objection is to the use of the word “proven”, which is a strong word in interpreting scientific results. Whether homos*xuality is an aberration or not cannot be proven. Parents will become extremely unhappy if they come to know that their child is suffering from a debilitating incurable disease. Equally it will make parents equally unhappy if they come to know that their child is homos*xual. Telling them that homos*xuality is only a preference and not a disease will be no consolation. There was a very old film called “Blue Denim”. It was the story of a young boy, who was homos*xual and his mother was very unhappy about it.

Heteros*xuals will be wary of homos*xuals, whatever definition one may give to the latter. Just by seeing one can know whether one is a male or a female. But how to know whether a person is homos*xual or not? I have no problem if homos*xuals are declared as normal. But it should be possible for heteros*xuals to distinguish them. It should be insisted that they should wear a particular type of dress to distinguish them as homos*xuals.

In public schools often young boys become victims of sodomy. There is a literature which says that male anatomy is more suitable for sodomy than for heteros*xual relationship.

Come on, wats the use of beating about the bush. I made the point clear that what is the matter to be contested (highlighted green). In whichever way it was put, I stand by this crux only. If u agree, just tell...its simple.... or debate about this very crux. No point criticizing for the sake of criticism.

Sometimes while pushing some point blindly one makes such statements which are not acceptable to the liberal world at all:

Heteros*xuals will be wary of homos*xuals, whatever definition one may give to the latter. Just by seeing one can know whether one is a male or a female. But how to know whether a person is homos*xual or not? I have no problem if homos*xuals are declared as normal. But it should be possible for heteros*xuals to distinguish them. It should be insisted that they should wear a particular type of dress to distinguish them as homos*xuals.

and

In public schools often young boys become victims of sodomy.

How u reached such a perception about public schools in particular?

SEE, SODOMY IS A PERVERSION, ITS A CRIME, BEING HOMOS*XUAL IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT.

Section 497 of Indian Penal Code says:

Whoever has s*xual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such s*xual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

If anyone has the consent of the husband of a woman, then it does not amount to adultery to have s*xual intercourse with that woman, according to Indian Penal Code.  Can Delhi High Court make same comment against the woman?

Ha..ha..! You cannot put an Indian question when British law is in force.

The matter highlighted in green. The words “s*xual preference”  “not a disease, these are just words which do not mean anything and repeating them is exactly beating about the bush. Can one say to the parents of a homos*xually oriented child “your child is not suffering from any disease.  It is just his s*xual preference. You cannot make him heteros*xual. Leave him/her that way”?

How to make out whether something is a disease or not a disease?  All our emotions are controlled by body-chemistry. As far as s*xual feelings are concerned men and women have different body chemistry. A homos*xual will have different body chemistry from that of a hetero-s*xual of the same gender. An external statistical study of a few persons and coming to any conclusion is no science. A few incorrigible homos*xual adults came together, declared that they were normal and forced American Psychiatric Association to toe their line. That is not science. That is politics.

While declaring homos*xuals are normal there is an unsaid presumption that they will be a microscopic minority to affect the population. Suppose their percentage increases to 50 or more, the Government will make homos*xuality a crime, just as in the case of pre-natal s*x-determination.  Also they will take measures for the preservation of the species homo sapiens.

You say sodomy is a crime and it is not homos*xuality. If we want to debate this here we will have to discuss the practices of gays and lesbians. In any case the topic here is not homos*xuality and many who want to discuss the subject will be missing if we discuss here, because the title is different.

@Mr. Chandrasekhar:

The case before the Delhi High Court does not come under Section 497 of IPC. In the subject case the genders are reversed and there is no Section under IPC for that. Further Section 497 is not British law. It was a law enacted by the British but was never exactly the law in Britain.

If you want to know more about Section 497 visit the following site.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-Adultery-by-wife-44957.asp

Dear Mr. Ramani,

Read Indian Penal Code, 2009 my version of Indian Penal Code, 1860 revised and re-drafted which contains an interesting chapter called s*xual offences in page 2 of this weblink.

https://www.citehr.com/294003-new-law-government-india.html

Thanks and regards,

Chandrasekhar

Chandrasekhar

Share your User ID and PWD to access the abv. link as creating our own fresh registration will entail SPAM from same site we are lead to !