In my post ' Gay relationship and Gay Marriages ' I had expressed my views on the subject But I was sorry to note the reaction. There was a barrage of hostile comments, some almost abusive, some calling me mad, some calling me a homophobe, others calling me an idiot.. Am I not even entitled to express my views ? It appears that the answer is no, and if one dares to do so, a torrent of invective, abuses and curses is bound to follow
It seems that if a man ' marries ' another man , or a woman another woman ( whatever that may mean ), it is being modern, but if a man marries a woman that is being backward and retrogressive !
This is an interesting new definition of modernism !
Sir when the hon'ble supreme Court has given its verdict is it correct to express our view?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes, it is correct, because, as many of us have misunderstood, the hon'ble Supreme Court has not given a final verdict, but rescinded the law to be discussed by the legislature. And in a democracy, you can always express your opinion with goodwill.
DeleteDear Markandeyaji,
ReplyDeleteYou definitely have the right to express your views and so does the 120 billion Indians. As the former Justice and former Chairman of the Press Council of India, you commands enough influence to have any of your views discussed threadbare in the media.
This issue is something like a struggle for the LGBT community. On top of them you said single women can be psychotic. Do you know how many women in India does not bear a child and how many women could not marry because they did not had dowry or beauty.
When you enter a sensitive place and put your view across, you should be ready and willing for the responses coming in. Not just happy about accolades. When you throw your prejudices, be prepared for the back lashes as well.
You being in such enviable positions, one might think that you already would have anticipated them.
Or are you one of the 90% idiotic Indians you were talking about ?
Like religious bigotry you stand against, I will have to say that you appear to be a social bigot too, unfortunately.
Do you think these men will challenge their world just for 2 min sexual pleasure, now and then ? Do you think Indian women will decide not to marry and have kids just to be called modern ? Does this men and women have that much power to stand against our social diktats ?
I used to be like you until I met some gay men and lesbian women. I found there is no difference between them and us. If they want to be happy, why not ? They have the same right to be happy like I have.
And if I call them names, i should be ready for them to call me names.
Well all said, I am not entirely sure, you will be open to suggestion at this late of your life. But if you are, then please travel to other countries and other cultures, know different people and make an attempt to be compassionate to the fellow human beings. Try to understand things that are unlike you.
Being such a master in your past, I wonder if your comments were intentional to gather public support in favor of LGBT community.
In such case, you have succeeded in your goal and I wish all the best to my LGBT friends in a bright future as well as single women.
STOP PRESS:
ReplyDeleteTODAY I SAW THE PROPAGANDA ABOUT PURULIA ARMS DROP ON TIMESNOW TV THE SECOND TIME.
THE CHIEF ACCSUED KIM DAVY SAYS HE ESCAPED TO NEPAL IN PAPPU YADAVs CAR.
HIS BODY LANGUAGE WAS CLEAR -- HE LIED !
I was reminded of Aamir Khan's SMJ season 2-- good the bad and the ugly.
Aamir Khan clearly tells Indians to vote for people like Amit Sarkar, the son of Ajit Sarkar - a R commie leader who was murdered. He then clearly says nobody should vote for people like Pappu Yadav. Commie Amit Sarkar appeared on the final episode of Satyamev Jayate Season 2 to narrate the story of his father's murder from his own constituency Purnia, Bihar.
Pappu Yadav was accused of murdering Ajit Sarkar -- but it was a false charge and he was acquitted in May 2013..
Why should a TV program ask people whom to vote for and whom not to - and that too a Commie ? ( SMJ season 2 - episode 5 )
http://indiaopines.com/satyamev-jayate-challenges-pledge/
As a SLAP ON THE FACE to Aamir Khan, the people of India chose Pappu Yadav-- he defeated strong man and seasoned politician Sharad Yadav at Madhepura in the 2014 general elections,
Sharad Yadav has been elected to Lok Sabha seven times.
Shows how much people care for perception management by Aamir Khan.
The Purulia arms drop case is the legal case regarding an incident on 17 December 1995 in which unauthorised arms were dropped from an Antonov An-26 aircraft in Purulia district in the state of West Bengal in India.
A Latvian aircraft dropped a large consignment of arms including several hundred AK-47 rifles and more than a million rounds of ammunition over a large area in Jhalda, Ghatanga, Belamu, Maramu villages of Purulia district on the night of 17 December 1995-- sorry it was NOT for Ananda Marga .
The chief accused "Kim Davy" (real name Niels Holck, alias Niels Christian Nielsen) claims that it was a conspiracy of the Congress Indian government together with RAW and MI5 to overthrow the communist government in West Bengal --WHICH IS NONSENSE !
A GUN AIR DROPPING WHITE TERRORIST ACCUSED OUR PM, OUR GOVT, OUR CBI, OUR RAW -- AND HE IS BEING FREE PUBLICITY BY OUR BENAMI INDIAN MEDIA.
Kim Davy, who claims the central government itself was behind the arms drop to counter the CPI(M) cadres--which is NONSENSE !
In 1997, a court established that the Ananda Marga group was the intended beneficiary of the arms drop. --this is the quality of our Indian system !!!!
capt ajit vadakayil
..
THE MOMENT YOU SAY ANYTHING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY HASBARAS ATTACK YOU .
ReplyDeleteCULTURAL TERRORISM IS MORE SERIOUS THAN "SPILLING BLOOD" TERRORISM --AS THIS NEW FORM OF ATTACK ERODES OUR CHILDREN WHO ARE THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION .
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/12/cultural-terrorism-by-benami-media-and.html
capt ajit vadakayil
..
I think if we are for toleration of diversity, we are also to tolerate differences in opinion and Mr. Katju has full right to state his opinion and hold his belief as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Just because he is a judge, does not mean that everything he says must always concern the laws. Like any other citizen, he can express his own thought. But having said that, it follows that whatever discussions might be brought up are purely intellectual and we can always argue about one thing or the other. There should be no attack ad hominem.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the claim of modernism is an absurdity and ambiguous. It relates to not only the LGBT issue, but also issues of reservation, secularization, industrialization, the urban-rural dichotomy, etc. The situation is murky, and some people voicing their idea for rights on the basis of modernism, are not representative of the whole LGBT community. Secondly, because the Lgbt right is an issue that concerns a minority, it is all very easy for some to suppress it by showing an apparent mistake in the argument. But modernism is something that concerns all, not excluding those that express their opinion against it.
My idea is to express a democratic opinion, which should be, I believe, the concern of all here. Not to attack one another for one's own concept of right.
nico article
ReplyDeleteipl 8 man of the match
ipl 8 winner
ipl 8 point table 2015
ipl 8 results
ipl 8 prediction
pepsi ipl 8
ipl 8 match result
ipl 8 2015
pepsi ipl 8 man of the match
pepsi ipl 8 winner
pepsi ipl 8 point table 2015
pepsi ipl 8 results
pepsiipl 8 prediction
pepsi ipl 8 images
pepsi ipl 8 match result
pepsi ipl 8 2015
ipl live streaming 8
nico article
Great information about modernism. You can only define this type post. Keep it up :)
ReplyDeletecollege paper writing service reviews