Is RSS more liberal than BJP on section 377 of IPC?

Whether homosexuality should remain a criminal offense under Section 377 IPC,  RSS Joint General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had said that sexual preferences are a personal matter and the organization doesn’t hold any view on it.“I don’t think homosexuality should be considered a criminal offense”.
“sexual preferences are private and personal. Why should RSS express its views in a public forum? RSS has no view on that. It is for people to have their way. Personal preference of sex is not discussed in RSS and we don’t even want to discuss that.”  Dattatreya Hosabale
Ram Madhav also reiterated this belief,  “As for Section 377, let us see what stand the government takes on this issue. But I can say this - the penalizing and criminalisation aspects need to be looked into. Whether to call homosexuality a crime and treat it as one in this day and age is questionable.”
But unlike vocal RSS, the Bhartiya Janta Party has maintained his noble silent on this issue, although many in BJP like Arun Jaitley support decriminalization many don’t which is not unlike other parties. Sashi Tharoor was shushed not just by BJP but his own party members.
Does BJP lack any cohesive ideology? What is Integral humanism in BJP anyway?

Is homosexuality objectively and scientifically natural?

"Nature had created sexual organs merely for reproduction and hence naturally they should be used merely for reproduction" I believed that I've grown immune to this sentence, years ago when I started writing about homosexuality I would often get these type of comments from conservatives. I would get agitated easily and ask them to tell, what is so natural about airplane technology and so on (read my earlier ranting here)
Recently I was given the same reason, but the difference was that the person who stated this was pro-LGBT. Needless to say, that person agreed that airplane technology is unnatural but acceptable nonetheless.
The argument put forward was that homosexuality should be accepted because of the free will of individual rather than it being a natural thing. The purpose of sex is the reproduction and homosexual relationship doesn't fulfill this purpose, we have to look into the matter in an objective and scientific way without getting emotional on the issue. Masturbation and contraception are equally unnatural and even though it is unnatural it is accepted as a person is exercising the free will of an individual.
But I have several problems with this stand which I would like to point out here,
Firstly, the argument of homosexuality being unnatural historically is put not to explain the sexual behavior of human under scientific curiosity and there is hardly a question of objectivity but more about that later. That 'Homosexuality is unnatural' was put to dehumanize and demean homosexuals as Deviant or sick people. Using the word 'unnatural' today would still have a negative impact and would not generate acceptance in society.
On the other hand, saying one have free will and one becomes deviant is an ideology that is appropriate for church.
The god does not like homosexuality but gave us free will and due to satanic temptations, some come to like it and hence they are evil is the Christian theology. Homosexuality is a sin, we don't hate sinner who having free will have fallen to Satan's plan but hate the sin which is satanic' this is an age old logic put forward by the conservative.
When the western world became disillusioned with the church, the state and church were separated and so was the people approach to look at things, but it couldn't be said that it cut the chord that instant with the culture, which the church governed and imposed its ideology upon for centuries. They desperately needed a new vocabulary to justify their innate homophobia and invented words like unnatural, Deviant etc. homosexual were not sinner now but diseased and homosexuality was not satanic but sickness. The conservative felt validated by these scientific 'findings"' and quickly adapted to this rational sounding argument.
What was it, if not a mere change of words?
Somehow a person could still accept the homosexual as equal healthy being just because they have free will within this unnatural framework is very surprising, I must congratulate the person, but I doubt many would be able to do the same.
Secondly, In terms of being objective in our approach to discover what is the purpose of sex, I must say this is a futile work. Nature being inanimate, it could not validate any objective reason for purpose of sex which then is given to it by the human being without its consultation subject to human understanding.
Even so within human understanding, an objective approach would want for evidence which would not support the theory that the sex is essentially for reproduction. Throughout history sex has been used for several purposes, expression of love, fulfilling the marital duty, a manipulating tool, an intimidating threat, reproduction, sexual gratification, violence and harassment, spiritual awakening, religious rituals and even as a currency are few examples among many others. Choosing one as the real purpose of sex is oversimplifying the complex nature.
Another way to look into it is to ask whether anything is unnatural at all? The human psyche itself is the product of nature. If natural selection has not eliminated homosexuality should we question the "naturality" of the way human beings are evolved? A better approach to it would be to try to understand how homosexuality has a part to play in human existence which may make us realize it is not the only reproduction that is responsible for our species continuous existence.
A homosexual relationship is real, in terms of existence, I will go back to my original stand if it exists it is natural just because it does not fulfill the expected notion of the purpose of relationship in direct way would not mean it serves no purpose at all. A Scientific approach would mean to look for evidence, and the existence of heterosexual relationship could not discredit the existence of homosexuality. They both exist, they both must have a purpose, in strictly scientific terms of course.
Should homosexual accept the label unnatural even when many negative connotations are involved in it? Do you think there would ever be an objective and scientific response of what is the purpose of sex? Is free will? and individual freedom enough to grant rights to an individual? Let me know what readers responses are to these questions.

Why I'm against gay marriage

The best thing about gay sambandham is that it is not recognized marriage in India. Why do people want to invite state in their bedroom with gay marriage thing (even when the sex is punishable)? Samlaingik sambandh has rendered these sanskriti ke thekedar and rights and liberty ke chowkidar redundant. The feminist can not take a side, the conservative were never there. As far as domestic violence is concerned, then no violence in any relationship should be tolerated by the state, be it romantic, friendly or blood.

As far as those homosexual men are concerned, who leave their libertarian stand and took up feminism or religion, they have become an enemy to their own cause, fighting the same enemy.

Asking a government to be deciding factor in individual life even onto your own bed is not saner than inviting religious authority to do the same. It was the feminist who first went hambistar with sarkar. Before that, it was the religion which was a continuously watching pervert. 

A state or religion should not interfere with individual personal space, not in the market, not even in so-called public sector services.

It should be kept at a minimal level, and better than asking for recognition of gay marriage one should ask for sticking down any state sponsored marriages. Give the government minimum job that it can perform better, why make it a priest, maulvi, pundit, vyapari, vyabhichari, and even a dildo.

Note: Sodomy is illegal under Article 377 while such law like Defense of marriage act exists, many Hindu couples can marry under present Hindu marriage act due to some weird loophole please refer Ruth Vanita's Love's Rite.

LGBT Duties

LGBT is, of course, denied the basic rights that even the animals enjoy. It is good they have raised their voice against the Victorian hangover. Lekin as a third person what I see?
Bahar sey, it seems LGBT group in India is blindly imitating their western counterparts (Like any other community in India.)
What does pride parade will give? I don’t know.
How can society give them right to be obscene that even the straights of the country do not have?
Indian society and religion are quite Homophobic. (While all the great Homosexuals of West converted into one form of Hinduism to other.)
LGBT community has a place of garbage. When the rainbow flag is flown high along with Tiranga on an Indian road, the other person perceives it as if garbage is being thrown on the road. They don’t protest, though, just like they don’t do if actual garbage is thrown.
It is not tolerant society but too lazy to actively protest. Although this trend is changing with active Hindutva (and YAY for that…sometimes.)
What is left when the parade is over? Just like any other function in India, it leaves Kuda-kachra all over. While demanding rights they have totally overlooked the duties.
Not only this, there was no active participation of ‘OUT’ LGBT community in Swach Bharat Abhiyan. They truly missed an opportunity to come out and lead with Societal Duties that is absent in Indian mind.
LGBT Indians are too lazy, hypocrite and messed up with both ‘right and left’ nonsense just like an Indian.
LGBT duties are no different than ordinary duties of Indians just like their rights.

Next time when you come out to protest (In your ridiculously peaceful manner, without any civil disobedience!) remember to wash your feet before it gets anything (or anyone) dirty. 

भोग से पाप वाया वासना : बौध एक्सप्रेस

भोग से पाप वाया वासना : बौध एक्सप्रेस

बुद्ध घर बार छोड़ ध्यान में थे, (या सो रहे थे किसे पता?) मर आया। वह अपने साथ काम लाया था। पर वह बुद्ध का ध्यान भंग न कर सका, बुद्ध सोते रहे और काम हार गया। वह मर गया।

समाज को दो प्रकार में विभाजित कर सकते है। काम सकारात्मक और काम नकारात्मक। एक ऐसे समाज की कल्पना करीए जहा नर का नर से सम्बन्ध को हेय दृष्टि से न देखा जाता हो। कुछ कुछ प्राचीन यूनान की तरह। एसा समाज केवल काम संतुलित ही हो सकता है। जहा काम को सिर्फ एक भोग समझा जाता हो। कुछ कुछ पूर्व बौद्धिक भारत की तरह। आज का भारत काम नकारात्मक समाज है जैसा की पश्चिम भी था और ज्यादा हद तक अभी भी है। लेकिन कामसूत्रआदि ग्रन्थ किसी काम नकारात्मक समाज के नहीं लगते। महाभारत आदि भी काम संतुलित समाज को ही दर्शाते है। वेद को काम सकारात्मक कह सकते है और कुछ आगम शास्त्रों को तो काम उल्लासक। सर्वलान्करण में भारतीय समाज काम संतुलित ही था और कहीं – कहीं काम सकारत्मक भी। पहले काम को भोग समझा जाता था। यह एक संतुलित सोंच थी। आज के समाज में जहा काम को इतना हीन समझा जाता है, ऐसा विचार काम सकरात्मक ही लगेगा। भोग से नुक्सान भी हो सकता है। भोग वासना को जन्म देती है। चिक्तसिय तौर पे वासना पे काबू पाना होगा। वह एक चिकत्सिय विकास था। फिर एक ऐसे धार्मिक और सामाजिक आन्दोलन की कल्पना करिए जो काम को केवल वासना समझे, जैसा श्रमण आन्दोलन। कुछ कुछ बौध धर्म जैसा जो काम को निर्वाण में बाधा समझता है।

इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग के एक आर्टिकल में पढ़ा की बौध धर्म में समलैंगिकता का विरोध भारत में पहले से मौजूद व्यापक हेय दृष्टि ही थी। मेरा ऐसा मानना नहीं है। जब काम को भोग माना तो काम के विषय पे चिकत्सिय पाबंधियो के अलावा और कुछ विरोध समझ नही आता। भोग में कुछ भी अच्छा लग सकता है। एसा संतुलित समाज समलैंगिकता के खिलाफ नहीं जा सकता।  भारत का स्वरूप वैसा ही होगा जैसा काम उन्मुक्त जन जातियों का या प्राचीन यूनान का। प्राचीन यूनान की ही तरह यहाँ भी नर से नर का सम्बन्ध बुरा नहीं माना जाता होगा जबतक वह अन्य सामाजिक बन्धनों के अनुरूप हो।

संघो की स्थापना के बाद, मठवासियो को किसी प्रकार की भी काम रूचि पे प्रतिबन्ध था। काम निर्वाण में बाधा है अतः पाप था। इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग में कहा गया है की इस प्रकार तो विषमलैंगिक सम्भोग ज्यादा पापी होना चाहिये क्योंकि उससे परिवार शुरू हो सकता है जो निर्वाण में ज्यादा अवरोधक है। लेकिन ऐसा हुआ नही। इसका जवाब उसी आर्टिकल में है। बौध मठों में किसी भी प्रकार की काम जिज्ञासा एक पाप था। मठ तक में तो सही पर जब ये मठ के नियम (जैसा की इंडियन फिलोसफी ब्लॉग में भी कहा गया है) साधरण जनता के नेतिक व्यव्हार में लाये जाने लगे तब मुसीबत शुरू हुई। सभी

प्रकार के सम्भोग पाप तो थे पर साधारण जनता के लिए एक ‘योनी सम्भोग’ को पाप श्रेणी से हटाना ही पड़ा। बाकियों के पापी रहने से कोई वांशिक अथवा व्यावहारिक विप्पति नहीं थी।

बौध ग्रंथो में मिलता है की कैसे संघो में पन्दको को आना मना था और जो आ चुके थे उन्हें चुन के बाहर निकाला गया था।

फिर यही संघई नेतिकता भारत के आने वाले विचारों में घुल गयी और धीरे धीरे विक्टोरियाई नेतिकता का सहारा पा कर एक काम सकारात्मक समाज को अति नकारात्मक बना दिया। आज भारत का जो काम नकारात्मक स्वरुप है वो भगवान् बुद्ध, महावीर और आगे आने वाले ब्रह्मचारी सन्यासियों के कारण ही है।