Homos in a democracy…why not?

Posted on 23 October 2008 by fiddlesticks

Writer needs a 101 courseCould have been betterNot badPretty good. Enjoyed reading it.Wow.. Can i have sex with the author? (11 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Of late, all over the world, we’ve witnessed a lot of effort to suppress the gay community, and in several places legislation either exists that makes it a criminal offense to indulge in homosexual activity or is being contemplated. In countries of the middle east and other Muslim countries where even though there may be a fascade with a democratic setup in place, the laws of the land are solely based on the religious slander mentioned in their so called holy books, which makes them a theocracy, and in turn criminalize homosexuality. No, I’m not gay, but it shouldn’t be a problem for someone to say he or she is, much less be considered a crime, to be one.

In a true democracy, laws are not and should not be formulated based on the fairy tales written a long time ago. Moreover, I don’t even want to get started on how there is enough evidence medically to suggest that homosexuality isn’t a disease as most religious nutters make it out to be.Nature has it’s own homosexual displays, with dolphins taking top honours in this. Click here to read about the findings from National Geographic. The point that needed to be made is, if a country wishes to remain a democracy, then the laws cannot be based on religion. Simple, ain’t it? Political correctness may demand that we not ask such questions about the conflict between religion and science publicly, but hey, politically, we don’t care, remember?

[ad]

And on a parallel note, (this was told to me by a dear friend) didn’t Adam and Eve’s children commit incest (if you believe in Adam and Eve) ? Surely that couldn’t have slipped by god’s ever watchful eye. Another feature that will become common in my writing is the non-usage of an upper case ‘G’ when referring to god because common nouns, and imaginary ones at that, don’t deserve an upper case letter. Our gay comrades may not even subscribe to the theory of Adam and Eve; for them, it could well have been Adam and Steve! I guess we’ll never know the real reasons for the carnal exploits of the progeny of Adam and Eve, because none of the story books mentions anything about it, and so like any curious Homo sapiens, I’m asking a perfectly legitimate question.

In this day and age where people try to put their best political foot forward and appear to always be politically correct rather than just plain correct, it would be rather comical to ask the question, “Mom, dad, did they have birds and bees buzzing around them, with flowers blooming under the sun?” instead of asking it the way we (those who don’t care) usually ask it today, “Did they have sex?” or the equivalent euphemism “did they make love?” or any of the several nastier versions where sex is substituted with words a lot cruder than sex.

Oh, and I’d love to get an answer to the incest question anyway; even a funny one would do.

4 Comments For This Post

  1. Jim Says:

    Homosexuality might not be a disease, but it is certainly not god made us (yeah god with the small g).
    But the point is, fine, everyone has a right to chose. But don’t start asking for benefits what “normal” couples have.
    There have been many benefits passed on to heterosexual couples by a democratic govt. Most of these benefits (like tax) are made only because of the fact that a society needs children to succeed. Children are the future of the economy and it makes sense to reward people for protecting and bringing up this future.
    Homosexual couples unfortunately do not fall under this category, fine they can adopt. but lets face it, how many gay men do u know who have kids?

  2. dmitri Says:

    I totally agree with Jim here. Homosexuals should not enjoy any benefits that heterosexual couples do. And gay marriages should not be allowed. Let them call it something else or coin a new word for it but not call it marriage or matrimony. I guess that way most people would be happy..maybe they should call it a union..it looks like homosexuals just want media attention n nothing more than that…However I believe that they should be accepted equally just as anyone else in society…but thier union shouldnt even be compared to a marriage.

  3. fiddlesticks Says:

    I haven’t mentioned about the benefits gays should or shouldn’t receive. I thought it is evident that there is a lot more an article on gays would have covered, and I chose not to because they’ve all been covered somewhere or the other. The point I was raising was not to bring in legislation based on religion in a democracy. No one seems to have understood the simple English used here and are commenting about their prejudiced opinions and not about what was posted here. Bleugh! I’m wondering if I should spoon feed everyone now.

  4. goldenwords Says:

    I too agree with whats said above. But i argue that even though we might not want to give them benefits of a married couples, we do need to protect them.
    For example, in case of a divorce, we need to protect both the people involved the same way a heterosexual couple is protected.

Leave a Reply