Applause to the Delhi High Court for invalidating the use of Section 377 against men indulging in gay sex! A triumph to human rights and the government staying out of private sexual matters of its citizens. The Media has in general welcomed this judgment; and thanks to corporates like Amul for espousing the cause. However, there are certain sections of society that have not. The religious right from all religions practiced in India (save Buddhism, perhaps?) have protested the decision and are campaigning for its withdrawal by the Supreme Court. Followers of the Abrahamic religions have obvious references against homosexuality in their scriptures. But this does not give them the right to impose their sexual restrictions on everyone. It is the Hindu, Sikh and Jain religious right that seem to be misguided. These religions have no universal restrictions on the sexual activities of adults and have in fact been very liberal throughout their histories in not only tolerating, but also accepting and accommodating alternative sexualities.
The Indian Army is discontented with this decision which is surprising. Their comments suggest that decriminalization is going to increase the incidences of gay sex, which I have much difficulty understanding. Now consider this – if you like having sex with women, would this recent judgment change your preference to having sex with men? The idea is just absurd. Changing sex is not illegal in India – does this make everyone undergo surgery and hormonal therapy to become the opposite gender? An ancient Greek army in Thebes consisted of 300 men who were 150 pairs of lovers that was indomitable by much bigger armies because they fought not only to protect themselves and their state, but also to protect their lovers. An enemy smartly copied this move to raise a bigger army of male lovers that defeated the ‘Sacred Band of Thebes‘. So recruiting gay lovers can, if anything, only prove profitable to any army as history has shown.
The argument of gay sex being ‘against nature’ or ‘unnatural’ has been discarded thanks to casual as well as scientific observations. Searching online for ‘gay animals’ will yield numerous results proving my point. There is also an increasing body of scientific literature demonstrating the inherent origins of gay people preferring their own gender. A surprising note of discord comes from the Hijras – they fear they will lose out on business because decriminalization of gay sex will lead to a dearth of childbirths and will moreover lead to anarchy. This argument does not deserve any response. But transsexuals come under the ‘queer’ and ‘lgbtq’ umbrellas leading me to wonder if India’s LGBT movement is not being inclusive enough.
I usually like Swapan Dasgupta because he sympathizes with ‘the Right’ groups in India that are often unreasonably marginalized by the Media as well as the Government. But it’s impossible not to scoff at Swapan’s article misleadingly titled ‘Homosexuality was seen as an aberration in Hindu society‘. Misleading because, while Swapan refers to the Bible and British history, he has not referred to a single Hindu scripture to substantiate his premise. Instead his article is only opinions on and a clairvoyant vision of Indian history discrediting the prudence of The Telegraph‘s editors behind publishing it. On the other hand, the Narada Smriti forbids marriage between a gay man and a woman. The Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana says: “There are also third-sex citizens, sometimes greatly attached to one another and with complete faith in one another, who get married together.” (KS 2.9.36). And Yashodhara’s Jayamangala says: “Citizens with this kind of [homosexual] inclination, who renounce women and can do without them willingly because they love one another, get married together, bound by a deep and trusting friendship.” The Sushruta Samhita even says that sexual predisposition is determined before birth (SS 3.2.42-43). Therefore Swapan, homosexuals have not until recently been seen as deviants or unnatural in Hindu society.
Another of Swapan’s virulently anti-gay articles in The Pioneer titled ‘Aggressive gay evangelism‘ is particularly disturbing. While he appreciates the decriminalization of gay sex, he considers homosexual relationships morally not equivalent to heterosexual ones and moreover as indecent and unnatural. I have already debunked the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and will not reiterate it here. Swapan argues that gay activists will demand more rights in India – and what is wrong with that? He writes about the lowering of age for consensual gay sex to 16 years in Britain recently, but fails to mention that it was only standardized for all people regardless of sexual orientation. He also incorrectly suggests that “there are demands for … altering the school curricula to show that man-woman relations are not the natural order of society.” On the contrary, the demand is to educate children on the equality of relationships whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex. He’s against “militant gay campaigners” that out closeted gay individuals – now, Swapan, one would not be in the closet if it weren’t for the likes of you in society being prejudiced and discriminatory.
I do hope, against Swapan’s wishes, that India soon grants complete equality to its gay citizens including marriage, adoption and protection from discrimination like its more progressive neighbour, Nepal. This is not tolerance spinning out of control, but only acceptance of a minority into mainstream society.
You might also like:
You have tried good explanation to prove your point, but as you told animals do it, I would like to tell you that is why they are called “animals” because animals don’t have discrimination power. We are human beings ‘We are civilized’ and have capacity to decide. You have not understood Kamasutra properly “bound by a deep and trusting friendship” does not mean physical; it’s meaning is deeper than that. It is like scientist who is in love with his research and forgets even food and everything when he is doing that research. The object of research is like scientist partner. He lives happily with it even if he is not married. In the same if there are two people of same sex who understand each other better and bound by unconditional love they cannot think anything else apart from each other, and that does not mean that they should be physically attracted to each other. I would like to remind that we are superior beings on the earth, more civilized with power of discrimination. We don’t have to go back to our predecessors way again. We have passed that stage.
Sometimes animals also commit incest, why don’t you go and bang your mom and sis?
Ram, that will apply to everyone because animals certainly indulge in heterosexual intercourse.
Especially with your analogy of scientists, you should know that humans are basically one among millions of species of animals. We of course tend to think that we’re “superior”, but that doesn’t mean that a man and woman don’t have sex – did you not know that millions of animals also have heterosexual intercourse? And therefore, does that mean a man and a woman shouldn’t have sex because animals do? Also by your logic, homosexual love transcends heterosexual love because you call it’s meaning “deeper”. So whether you’re for or against, your arguments are unsound.