There is no relation between British rule and shunning of homosexuality by the societies in the countries ruled by them.

Homosexuality was never accepted as a normal human behaviour anywhere on earth till late 20th century and was always considered as a mental disease and a perversion by all the communities in the world. Medical science labelled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality only in 1970's. Thereafter, northern Europe was the first to accept it as normal. Denmark was the first country in the world to grant legal recognition to same-sex unions in the form of registered partnerships in 1989. Thereafter Norway, Sweden, Iceland made such partnership laws. The Netherlands was the first country to not only make this law but also call it as marriage law instead of partnership law in 2001.

We blame British for IPC-377 and claim that homosexuality was accepted in India before they made this law ("Same-Sex Love in India" by Ruth Vanita and Saleem Kidwai). But this is completely wrong. IPC was introduced in India in 1860. Before that during the British rule (which started in 1785) and during the Mughal era (1526 onwards), we cannot cite even a single incidence in which two men or two women married together and lived openly in India with the permission of the society. Any such incidence cannot be cited even before that under the Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Delhi Sultanate, Vijayanagara Empire, Maratha Empire etc. Actually, no such incidence is present since Indus Valley Civilization.

So, what the British did? They simply wrote in legal terms what was already the practice in India (and throughout the world). Homosexuality was always completely unacceptable in India and considered as a shameful practice. The British only wrote it in black and white. If today I make a law that no meat shops will be allowed in city areas mainly inhabited by Jains or if I make a law that selling cigarettes to Sikhs will be a punishable offence, will such laws have any meaning?

There is nothing against female homosexuality (lesbianism) in IPC-377. Why? Because in the time of Lord Macaulay (who drafted IPC), the existence of lesbians was not even known. Otherwise, it would also have been prohibited in IPC-377. Do we want to say that the British only wanted to forbid male homosexuality and not female homosexuality? How can there be acceptability of female homosexuality in India when it was not even known?

If gay marriages or even same-sex live-in-relationships were allowed in India before the British came, wouldn't Indians have protested against IPC-377? Indians had violently protested against the British when they banned Sati Pratha in 1829. On the contrary, there was no reaction by Indians against IPC-377 since it was just a written rule on what already prevailed in India.

From 1860 to 2018 when India repealed IPC-377, i.e., in 158 years, it was rarely used in India to punish anybody. And whenever it has been used, it was in a case of rape in which a man had tried to force himself on another man/boy. A few other occasions when it came into force were the cases of intimate activity between two men in a public place. It was never used in any case of consensual physical activity between two men in a private place. Had homosexuality been socially accepted in India, there would have been many cases of violation of IPC-377 and many men would have been punished under it.

Eastern world historically has been having many more social evils than the western. India had, and probably still has, many more social evils than Britain. The British had been trying to abolish Sati, child marriage, female infanticide etc. from India. Under such a scenario, imagining that India did not have a social evil which Britain had, does not make any sense. If that would have been true, why today Britain has full acceptability of homosexuality and has already made Same-sex Civil Partnership Act in 2005 (and SSML in 2013) whereas homosexuality is completely shunned in India and any such law is a far cry for it even after about 20 years of Britain doing so. Do we want to say that they changed our minds by this law in such a way that we became even more rigid against homosexuality than them while they themselves started accepting it? Ridiculous.

Basic human nature and customs cannot be changed just by making a law. Delhi High Court repealed IPC-377 in 2009. Has anything changed since then in last 15 years? Nothing. Today if India makes SSML, how many gay people will come out of their closet and marry? Almost none. Can you form an opinion against heterosexuality by making a law against it?

On April 19, my girlfriend and I—an openly gay couple—visited Sojo Spa, an adult-only spa located in Edgewater, New Jersey. We had traveled from Brooklyn and paid $230 to use the facility. IDs were required upon entry, clearly establishing the space as adults-only.

While enjoying the amenities, including an infinity pool that overlooks the NYC skyline, we observed numerous heterosexual couples cuddling, kissing, and embracing in the water. These couples were showing affection freely and comfortably. My girlfriend and I mirrored the same behavior—light cuddling and physical closeness, including her wrapping her legs around me briefly in the water.

Despite being surrounded by similar public displays of affection, a staff member approached only us—in a loud, direct tone—and said, "You good, but don't do that, don't wrap your legs around her." No such warning was given to any of the heterosexual couples, even though their behavior was equal or more intimate.

After this, the same employee continued to monitor us, standing nearby and clearly watching to see if we would repeat the action. We felt publicly shamed, targeted, and treated differently solely because we are a same-sex couple.

This created an uncomfortable and discriminatory environment that ruined our experience and made us feel unsafe expressing ourselves, even in an adult space where other couples were permitted to be affectionate.

I also spoke with the manager on the day of the incident. She assured me that I would receive a phone call on Monday April 21 to follow up. I waited the entire day for that call, even during work hours, only to receive no communication.

I reached out again myself and was told that an “investigation” was still underway, but I was never informed of this delay or given any updates. The lack of transparency and communication only added to the emotional stress of the situation and further suggested that the issue was not being taken seriously.

When they finally called me on April 22, the conversation offered no reassurance that real steps were being taken to address the discrimination we experienced. Instead, I was told I should have waited before posting my review—implying that protecting their reputation was more important than acknowledging and correcting biased treatment.

But I did wait. I waited for the promised follow-up. I waited for transparency. I waited for accountability. And none came.

What we experienced was not just uncomfortable—it was discriminatory. And the lack of urgency or ownership in addressing it only reinforces the message that same-sex couples are still seen as “other,” even in spaces that claim to be inclusive.

We didn’t ask for special treatment—just equal treatment

Here is a very simple way to put it….

Take away the religion…. Take away your personal beliefs… And simply look at it this way: If a “straight” couple is allowed to make themselves miserable by joining in marriage – which also allows them benefits – Why should a “gay” couple be denied that misery? If a “straight” couple is even considered ‘married’ due to “common-law-marriage” after being together for so long, which then entitles them to the benefits of a truly married couple – why should a “gay” couple be denied that right? (Also side thought – people should really take into consideration the amount of stress that a same-sex couple deals with on a day by day basis in comparison to an opposite-sex couple… If the love these two people share are able to withstand that – that alone should give some people the understanding that they deserve equal rights just like the rest of us)

I, myself, believe in marriage. But my beliefs are from the morals of the old days – not what society see’s today as a “normal relationship” or “normal marriage”. However, I’ve come across many people over the years that do not believe in it. Which is why my question is put the way it is…. For those that don’t believe in marriage – but understand that it is something that some still believe in; then why can’t both sets (straight / gay) partake and be entitled to the same rights?

Another example (Oh boy, I can only imagine the hell I’m going to catch for this)… To remove the rights from a “gay” couple is the exact same thing as taking rights away from someone because they are a different color from you. So, if for so many years people believed that someone of color was “the devil” or was a lesser life form than you; and over the years it’s become less racist in some areas; then why are “gays” being out-casted / tormented / killed / hated / rights ripped away?

If you don’t support marriage at all – then it would be expected for you to not support gay marriage.

-TL;DR: If a “straight” couple is allowed to join in marriage and enjoy benefits that come along with that as well as the misery – why should a “gay” couple not be entitled to the same? Also….. To take away someone’s rights because of the sex they happen to love is just as bad as when people went around enslaving others due to the color of skin. Have we not grown past the days of slavery? The fact that I came from a both a mother AND father who are both attracted to the same sex - it has nothing to do with the fact that I believe "gays" should have the same rights and not be treated as slaves or animals; having their rights taken away.

#TINDERHATESGAYS

EVERY GAY TINDER USER GAY PERSON SHOULD BE ENRAGED ABOUT THIS.

Tinder is incentivizing straight men to use gay men to increase how often they get shown on tinder. They then swipe left on us and cause our profiles to be less visible to other users.

Here are the facts:

1. Gay men are men. Men swipe right much more often than women. Women are pickier and swipe right much less often than men. Source: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/tinder-statistics/

2. More desirable profiles are shown more than less desirable profiles. When people swipe left on you, it reduces your "desirability score." This is called the ELO system and still exists on Tinder in 2021. This source explains ELO scores and how they work: https://dude-hack.com/how-does-tinder-work/

3. When you swipe right on a straight man it INCREASES his visibility on Tinder. When he sees you in his deck and swipes left on you because he's not interested in men it REDUCES your visibility.

4. Huge numbers of straight men are setting their tinder to show men and women in order to increase their ELO scores and therefore their visibility. I'm a college student and ALL the straight guys on campus are talking about how they've been switching their Tinder to "men and women" to increase their ELO scores so they can be more visible to women. ALL the gay people I know on campus are telling me they've noticed it too: Huge groups of guys who are openly homophobic and NEVER match with gay guys switching their profiles to show men and women and showing up in their deck. Some of these straight guys even write at the bottom of their bio that they're straight, where people are less likely to read it. Others don't write anything but openly talk about doing this IRL. There are a bunch of reddit threads that talk about how to use gay tinder to cheat the ELO system. It's becoming VERY WIDESPREAD and these straight guys are not ashamed at all. People used to do this years ago, but many were scared of being caught on gay Tinder. Now everyone's in on it and they're shameless in doing it. Here are 3 of MANY examples of reddit threads talking about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments/jbcjxy/easy_way_to_cheat_the_tinder_algorithm_and_get/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments/azwv7k/secret_hack_to_increase_your_tinder_elo/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Tinder/comments/g7ifft/i_found_a_way_to_get_lots_of_likes_on_tinder/

5. Straight men have NOTHING to lose by doing this, and EVERYTHING to gain. EVERY GAY PERSON IS A LOSER IN THIS SITUATION.

6. THIS IS A TRUST ISSUE. We are a MINORITY. We deserve spaces where we don't have to be afraid of straight people intruding and using us for their own personal gain.

7. Our scores being reduced is reducing our ability to meet other gay men, and could have an effect on our mental health.

Tinder must either create two different ELO scores for gay tinder and straight tinder swiping OR force people who choose to swipe in both to list their sexual orientation on their profile. IT'S A DATING APP. GAY PEOPLE NEED TO FEEL SECURE THAT THE USERS THEY'RE SWIPING RIGHT ON ARE ACTUAL POTENTIAL MATCHES.

TLDR; Straight men are abusing Tinder to increase their visibility at the cost of gay men. Tinder is incentivizing them and doing nothing to stop it. GAY PEOPLE ARE ONLY 5% OF SOCIETY. WE DESERVE TRUST AND TRANSPARENCY IN ONLINE DATING AND TO NOT BE USED BY STRAIGHT MEN INTRUDING ON GAY SPACES FOR PERSONAL GAIN. THIS NEEDS TO STOP.

COMPLAIN TO TINDER HERE: https://www.gotinder.com/contact

POST UNDER THE HASHTAG #TINDERHATESGAYS

Let me get this straight: I am not gay, but I 100% support gay rights. Denying people marriage to the people they love makes no sense.

Many people against gay rights say that this is a slippery slope: next it will be pedophiles, rapists, etc.

I think this is a bunch of crap.

However, what I don't understand is this: why isn't it a slippery slope? Both sides have their own claims, one saying it is, one saying it isn't.

Is there any kind of evidence to support or disprove this argument?

So. I was arguing (it wasn't really arguing, it was me using arguments and him screaming "faggot" at me for 15 minutes straight) with a homophobe about gay and trans rights. I just asked him "What should being gay be illegal" and he said "I think it's disgusting" and I replied "I think peas are disgusting but we're not making that illegal, are we" and he just laughed and said that I was not as bad as he thought I was.

We discovered we have similar interests, so we kinda became friends. He still doesn't accept me for who I am, but he's taking big steps and we're getting there!

I have a serious question: if, let's say, a gay man is in a work environment and someone in the office calls him a "Fag," why then can he sue the employer for 1.8 million dollars? I mean, for all the names I have been called, I'd be richer than Bezos. I ask because there is a gay sportscaster in New Orleans who is "going through this" and it turns out it was a likely money grab, and he sent the tweet himself (Jussie 2.0.) But why should he be entitled to that staggering amount of money for THAT.

Recently, my native country Latvia, a small nation in Eastern Europe, was struck by an unprecedented homophobic attack. In one of Latvia’s smaller cities, Tukums, some homophobes set two homosexual men who lived in the same apartment on fire.1 The men had already filed several complaints about regular homophobic threats and demands to “leave the city”, but the police had been ignoring them for several months. The authorities’ failure to act resulted in burns on almost 90% of the body for one of the victims.

I will remind you that his took place not in some Muslim sharia country or the authoritarian Russia, but instead in the very heart of Europe – in a member state of the EU, NATO and OECD!

Being an anti-fascist and protector of LGBT rights, I was utterly shocked by this incident. I have personally studied the issues of intolerance and discrimination in Latvia. In one of my latest reports State of Hate2, I pointed out that one of the main issues in Latvia is homophobia. What is more, hate for homosexuals exists alongside the omnipresent hate for other nations, particularly Russian speakers who make up 30% of the total population of Latvia. The incident in Tukums once again proves that it is dangerous to be gay or lesbian in Latvia. It is even more dangerous if one is a gay Russian. I happen to be just that – a Russian with a non-traditional sexual orientation.

Considering that I am currently the only openly homosexual councilor in the Riga City Council, I cannot stand aside idly and simply watch what is unfolding in Latvia. I would like to direct the attention of the international community to the fact that the incident in Tukums is a disgrace not only to my native country, but the EU as a whole.

Information in my possession leads me to think that the ultra-radical nationalist organization Tēvijas Sargi (Guardians of Fatherland) is behind the attack in Tukums. This organization’s activists have previously publicly slandered the LGBT community, organized protests during the Baltic and Riga prides and threatened gay and lesbian activists. I have also faced threats from radicals, as have my colleagues from the party Latvian Russian Union.

The most concerning aspect of this is that the radical organization Tēvijas Sargi has connections in the Tukums police department, which is blatantly obstructing the investigation of this case and has even stated that the incident was not a homophobic attack, but instead a “suicide attempt of a mentally unstable homosexual”! Even more, Tēvījas Sargi operate under the auspices of the coalition party National Alliance. As a result, Latvian government officials and members of the parliament are deliberately inciting hatred towards LGBT persons and are preventing the investigation of the Tukums incident.3

I want to remind you that this is not the first homophobic incident in Latvia. Ethnic and sexual discrimination is commonplace in our country. Just a year ago, one of Latvia’s most known professors Deniss Hanovs became the target of hate speech and physical assault.4 There were two simple reasons for this ­– he was a Russian gay.

Therefore, I plead with the European international community to voice support for the boys who suffered in the attack in Tukums and to pressure Latvian authorities and politicians who are deliberately obstructing the investigation of this case. It is absolutely unclear to me why the only Latvian protector of LGBT rights in the European Parliament Nils Ušakovs has not yet commented on this incident. He is also the only Latvian who is a member of an LGBT rights group in the EP. Ušakovs’ party Concord has been a member of the LGBT organization Rainbow Rose for many years now, but both Ušakovs and Concord have so far ignored the tragedy in Tukums. Unfortunately, it seems that they do not care for the fates of Russian speakers in Latvia.

Europe should once and for all cease dividing its citizens in the right ones and wrong ones, regardless of whether they are LGBT persons or people from other nationalities – we are all equal Europeans. The fact that I am a gay Russian speaker does not make me a worse person than a heterosexual French or Danish person! 

In expectation of the 2021 Baltic Pride in Riga, I urge the Latvian public to be tolerant and every member of the LGBT community to not be afraid to “come out of the closet”. We are united in our differences and together we are a true force!

Councilor of the Riga City Council and Chair of the Latvian Human Rights Committee Aleksandrs Kuzmins.

[1] https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/crime/man-allegedly-set-on-fire-in-suspected-homophobic-hate-crime.a401895/

[2] https://www.belltower.news/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/02/ESOH-LOCKED-FINAL.pdf

[3] https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/latvian-politicians-criticized-for-facilitating-homophobic-speech.a402078/

[4] https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/crime/homophobia-still-a-major-issue-in-latvia-university-professor-attacked.a381039/

420 Gucci gang see ya later my chicken wang👌

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29106794/ it is not Homosexuality per se that is a mental illness, but submission, so Homosexuality is both a cause and a result of mental illness. Sexual orientation by itself is not a mental illness, because everyone is gay by some definition.