Random Rant in a Political Group

 Excerpts from a conversation in a group I’m part of  

SAK:

I think every person has a right to his views. I personally feel that encouraging homosexuality is detrimental to the society.

What two individuals do privately is entirely upto them and no body has the right to snoop on their private lives. But normalising it and insisting on the acceptance by the society is not in the interest of the society and strikes at the root of family which is the basic unit of civilisation.

I personally would be very uncomfortable if my children had to be brought up in a society which encourages and normalises homosexuality.

Me:

One, civilisation is always an evolving concept. What was civilised back then is considered uncivilised today. Like, beating one’s wife or children. Or slavery. Or many other ills. 

Homosexuality is a sin when seen through the myopic lens of religion, or thru personal biases. However, it’s a normal behaviour seen across the entire animal world. 

You cannot encourage homosexuality. Nobody becomes a homosexual because you encourage (or discourage). While the jury is yet out to determine if it’s genetic, it certainly is not a learned behaviour (except in confines of a jail, or a long-sailing ship, where desperation leads to a lot of anormal behaviour that would disappear once the confines are removed).  Whether you like it or not, homosexuality has been declared normal by most ‘civilised’ nations and societies, despite opposition from religious nut heads. 

And, lastly, homosexuals are also part of the society, just like you and I. Discriminating against them is the similar to discriminating against left-handed people. You don’t make them left-handed by encouraging them, nor do you make them right-handed by discouraging. Hope you understand. It doesn’t matter what you personally think. Things will change.

SAK:

There are too many nuances in defining civilisation.

However irrespective of such definitions to me civilisation is that people are free to protect their private lives but to insist that the other recognise his right to be openly homosexual would interfere on my right to bring up my children teaching them that homosexuality is unacceptable. 

As they say the liberty to swing my hands is unfettered provided it does not go near the other ‘s nose.

Why should a homo sexual have right to force me to recognise the normalisation of his quirks. As i said nobody is interfering in his private life.

As far as the so called developed ‘civilised’ world is concerned the results of this disregard for the rights of others to bring up their children as they choose is showing up in their falling birth rate frighteningly below the replacement rates putting their very existence in danger

Panini:

My dear friend you are fighting against the cult of wokeism. Its interpretation of ‘diversity’ is to include the cults at the margin even at the expense of excluding what is known as mainstream culture.

Me (to Panini):

Whatever you don’t agree doesn’t become woke. Because queer people are at the societal margins, it doesn’t make them any less human. Nor does it make their fights and struggles any less a cause to be not supported. 

If you lived in the 19th century, you’d have called Raja Ram Mohan Roy also as woke.

Me (to SAK):

You should found your own nation to ensure you teach what you want to, to your children. 

Also, sexuality is not private, if you look around. We boast about the families we have, and declare proudly of the children we have created. What’s private then? 

Falling birth rate has nothing to do with homosexuality. Please get your facts right. Just because you get 32 when you add up 3 and 2 it doesn’t become right.

SAK:

This is brilliant. I find my own nation to teach my own children and i am a bigot.

I am sure homosexuals are ensuring that there are 2.1 children which is replacement level and they are also encouraging others to have children at the replacement level so that we are able to maintain the country’s economic  and military power.

Me:

Yes, you’re a bigot.  Glad you said it yourself. 

You don’t find anything wrong in your children learning about a thousand wrongs in the world, but have problems only with homosexuality. Possibly because that is what religion says. Not because it’s a rational thought, or a deduction arrived through logic or application of scientific temper. And, then you use invalid data templates to justify your stance.

SAK:

Thank you so much. I thought reasonable people can have views which the other person does not like but would recognise that the other person has a right to have that view without calling him names. I will leave it at that.

Me:

There was nothing reasonable in whatever you’ve said so far.

SAK:

I disagree with you but i recognise your right to have your views.

Me:

Using some great man’s quote will not make you a liberal. Thankfully we are not living in a totalitarian country. 

Note:

I haven’t altered anything said (including mistakes or grammatical errors, if any). I have just copied stuff and pasted it here from the actual conversation. 

Scratch the skin of the so called progressives in this country and you’ll find homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic people under that. These two are such samples. There were more who were giving thumbs up to what was being said by these two. Not another soul rose up to tell them off. Each of them identifies as a liberal, secular person! 

After this, I’d rather trust a rabid Sanghi than a liberal - at least you know what he’s thinking!