Now am not saying that the above might incite or encourage people from doing so but in general, these questions are controversial, and moreover, incite bad behaviour in people and hence, they are better ignored.
This is a self-contradictory statement. So which one do you think it is? If you don't think these posts encourage people to commit those acts, then why can't you just ignore these posts and move on? Do you want to censor these posts simply because you don't like them?
If you think otherwise, can you show me proof of a scholarly discussion/debate on a sensitive topic that has incited people to commit illegal acts?
A similar thing came up on Islam Meta SE on the topic of homosexuality and this is what they decided:
Should we be preventing anti-gay material?
An outright ban would be opening a box of worms because of this point you mentioned: "Islam itself contains anti-gay content." Islam contains so much that will be reprehensible to most Non-Muslims (and even many people who think they are Muslims), you'd have to censor out a lot of orthodox doctrine. Take half the criminal law parts of sharia, and you'd have to censor them based on what "be nice" lists.
My take on it is this: it has to be possible to describe Islamic doctrine exactly as it is as well as the scholarly arguments that underpin it. Endorsing the offensive parts (or apologist talk about them) however should not be tolerated.
I suggest we adopt the same policy here. Since this is a site about Hinduism, scholarly discussions about even sensitive topics should be allowed. If OP is looking for answers that justify certain actions, which are illegal in most countries, then the question can be rephrased to remove such bias or be closed/deleted if cannot be salvaged. E.g., questions like Vedas and Vedic dharma on homosexuality should be allowed but racist questions like Can we trust white gurus? Do they have any credibility? and comments like "no hate for Homosexuals but for Homosexuality" that endorse homophobia should be flagged and deleted.
