Decriminalisation of Homosexuality-I

‘Second Independence’ or Second Enslavement?

If anyone hoped that sanity would continue to prevail on the issue of homosexuality, their hopes were belied. Finally, the Supreme Court bench of five judges, in a unanimous judgment, scrapped the Article 377, turning in effect homosexuality legal. As the anticipation was already high, the celebrations followed without wastage of even an iota of second, with the whole media without any noticeable exception turning pink. The Times of India described it as ‘Second Independence’. That brought to my mind the memories of a National Seminar on AIDS, 15 years ago, in which many notable intellectuals, including Late Kuldip Nayar and K R Malkani participated. K R Malkani, the then Vice President of BJP, notable ideologue of RSS and Editor of its magazines, Organiser and Panchjanya, described Times of India as ‘Times of Sodomy’, referring to a front page article on gay rights published in the paper a few days earlier. Surprisingly, neither the RSS nor the BJP continued with their old stands, and their role in the Supreme Court judgment cannot be ignored.

The truth is that irrespective of almost unanimous position of the overwhelming majority of the schools of almost all the religions (with few insignificant exceptions in Christianity and Hinduism) against homosexuality, none of the religion based organisations played any active role in trying to forestall the inevitable. Even more surprising is the behaviour of the medical fraternity which despite the well-known huge threats to health associated with homosexuality failed to take any stand.

Homosexuality not unnatural

The Supreme Court has opined that homosexuality is not unnatural. But the questions still need to be asked are:

1. Can any Biologist or Anatomist or Physiologist confirm that anus is structurally and functionally made for intercourse?
2. Can any Biologist or Medical Scientist confirm that anus plays any role in reproduction?
3. Sex is the function of reproduction (even if it does not always lead to reproduction) just the way eating is a function of nutrition (even if eating is not always done for nutrition). If somebody tries to eat through nose, ear or anus, will it also become natural?
4. During the hearing, the Supreme Court argued that even prostitution and promiscuity are dangerous and the threat of AIDS from these and homosexuality will be reduced if legalised. I had then argued asking a few questions in the process:

• That all the three are extremely dangerous; but out of the three, homosexuality is most dangerous. Count the dead among the 40 million deaths due to AIDS, most of them will be prostitutes, or homosexuals or those who came in their contact.
• Even if condoms are properly used, the risk reduces by only about 30 pc. The failure of condoms is much higher in rectal sex than in vaginal sex. While vagina is naturally built to receive penis, anus is not and the tears caused lead to higher risks; let Anatomists and Physiologists tell the world that anus is not fit to receive penis and penile discharges, and that it is a blatant violation of human anatomy and physiology.
• If there is freedom of choice in having hundred partners with no legal ban on it, why there is no freedom of choice in having more than one wives?;
• If there is freedom of choice in having sex before 18, why no freedom of choice in marrying before 18?
• Why no freedom of choice in driving on the right side of the road and in not using helmets?
• Why are human rights of the babies inside wombs forgotten while allowing women to have choices?

Freedom of Choice is a selective concept used by the economic and political forces to further their own interests; only freedom of good choices can be given, not that of dangerous choices. In a country, where even the meat of a particular animal is banned on account of the religious sensitivities of a community, we are being told that homosexuality is a human right and freedom of choice.

The argument that consent makes this legal is fallacious. Bribes are given and taken through consent of both. Will it become legal? A Hindu cannot marry a second woman even if it is through consent of all. If somebody kills another due to mutual consent, will it become legal?

Difference between “homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals

Human Rights is the most notable plea in defence of homosexuals. There is a difference between “homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals. The former are unacceptable but the latter should be ensured. Homosexuals need attention: social and medical. They need to be protected from unauthorised punishments by other members of society and they need the psychological support for giving up their addiction so that they can join society as normal people. The right to treatment is of course for every human, including even the murderers.

5. Stage formula of spreading Evils: Normalisation to Institutionalisation to Legalisation to Commercialisation to Globalisation

When merchants find market potential in some propensities traditionally regarded as vices, they adopt a time-tested methodology to further their plans. The first step in this methodology is Normalisation, by which an impression is generated through surveys that a certain practice is not uncommon among the masses. The arguments in favour of its being “normal” and “natural” are advanced with the help of partners in the media, institutions and non-governmental organisations. The Normalisation is followed by Institutionalisation, a process by which the vice becomes an institution in itself. Advocacy groups and organisations and communities specifically aimed at defending and popularising the vices are floated.

Institutionalisation leads to a demand of Legalisation. Political and social movements are organised to pressurise the lawmaking and law-enforcing institutions to accept the vice as legal and to decriminalise any activities associated with that vice. Once this is achieved, the stage is set for the largescale commercialisation. Anyone opposing the new development is hounded by the media and the NGOs; critics are brutally forced into silence. The whole methodology of course involves lots of funds; once the commercialisation is set into process, huge money starts flowing. This is accompanied with massive popularisation and glorification. People start taking the vice as a sign of high living. More and more people start succumbing with the growth of market.

Separate Gays and Lesbians from LGBT

One strategic step taken by the market sponsored institutions supporting gay rights was clubbing them with eunuchs and transgenders. The truth is that eunuchs and transgenders need to be given a separate place away from gays and lesbians. Eunuchs (overwhelming majority) in particular are the victims of forced surgical removals of their testes in childhood under extremely inhuman conditions. By bringing them along with them, gay activists have increased their social power. With market forces fully behind them, their job became quite easy.

Most Dangerous of all Sexual Practices from Medical Point of View

• Reduces Life Expectancy by more than 20 years;
• Majority of 4 crore deaths due to HIV/AIDS are either Gays or Prostitutes or those who came into their contact; and
• If all humans become gay, within 50 years there will be negligible population of human beings on earth and no human being left within 80-100 years.

Natural Vs Human

The demoniac march of the commercialised sex has necessitated that all perversions must be considered “normal and natural” behaviour and any stigma associated with them should be struck with a fatal blow. The chiefs of homosexual net and their marshals have been advancing the nonsense argument that relations between two persons belonging to the same sex are natural as a sizeable percentage of human population has such propensities. The commercial convenience makes them forget that “natural” and “human” are not synonymous. The natural phenomena are essentially good for mankind; these defend humans against death, disease and destruction because they are aimed at the common rather than the individual good. Even when they seem to be destructive (natural tragedies), they are the manifestations of an effort on the part of the Nature to bring back the harmony that has somehow been disturbed. The natural tragedies are therefore aimed at averting bigger tragedies in the future. The human tendencies, on the other hand, are generally the result of self-gratification and tend to disturb the natural equilibrium. It is the human (not natural) weaknesses that have given rise to crimes, diseases and abnormal acts, including sexual perversions. If homosexual proclivities are accepted as natural, murderous instincts and tendencies to rape, steal or impinge upon others’ rights must also be regarded natural. And if the latter deserve outright condemnation, reform and punishment, the former also require the same treatment.

Threat to Life

Homosexuality, particularly man to man, is the most unhealthy and unhygienic of all forms of sexual relations, as it carries the highest risk in spreading infections. Syphilis, Gonorrhoea and AIDS – all have started in homosexuals and spread later to heterosexuals.  It is needless to say that the rise in the demand of legalising homosexuality in the world has intensified with the rising fortunes of gay market. It is already a big market in western countries. The truth is that sex market as a whole is the largest growing market, and gay market is the largest growing sex market.

A report on gay tourism says:

“…They claim since same-sex marriage has been legalised in British Columbia in 2003, Whistler has been the ideal place to get married. They even advertise their own wedding planners, called “Two Dears and a Queer”. And nothing is complete without a full advertisement to honeymooners as well, some after having the wedding, the couple as well as guests can stay to celebrate. Whistler then becomes a one-place stop for every wedding need, and they have event planners and organisers to prepare everything for you, enabling visitors to just be there to escape and have a fun relaxing time. It’s an extremely clever marketing scheme: since the queer community comes here for two main reasons, to visit Whistler or to get married, why not get everything done at one spot?”

In short, according to a commentator, “The US has made a billion dollar industry off of homosexual media – HBO shows, movies, books, magazines. Like most things in the US, anything that has the potential to generate profit will be considered.”

But that does not make homosexuality acceptable because it has huge effects on the longevity as well as the quality of life. Obviously, homosexuality is a threat to whole mankind, and it is the biggest threat to the life of homosexuals themselves. In India, HIV prevalence, according to NACO surveys, is almost 8 times more than normal population. If legalising it helps anyone, it is the market. Hardly any gays are punished by the court in India. Legalising helps the big market bosses to float companies. Gay literature, gay clubs and gay porn will mushroom with the result that more and more people will fall victim to homosexuality. To argue that it will help in the control of AIDS has absolutely no leg to stand. A little change in the law that ensures care of gay of HIV patients would have sufficed for that. AIDS cannot be controlled unless there is an effective campaign against prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and promiscuity.

The following arguments are being given in support of homosexuality:

1. That it exists since antiquity is a fallacious argument because all sins and crimes exist in human society since ancient times. On the contrary, it is right time to try to reduce them rather than glorify them if we want to prove ourselves progressive.
2. That it is nonsense to object if it is between two consenting adult individuals (as if consent makes every act right or legal.)
3. That legalising homosexuality would mean acceptance of right to life. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If institutionalised, it threatens the whole human species; it is a threat to life of those who practise it as well as others who come in their sexual contact.
4. That it is based on the principle of Freedom of Choice: Freedom of Choice is understandable only if it is the freedom of good choices. Freedom of dangerous choices and death cannot be given to the people.
5. That it is a born problem; as if all the congenital diseases are left without treatment.

Normal hygienic and healthy behaviours are important components of civilisation. Perversions cannot be but the antidote of civilisation. The perversions that threaten the lives of individuals and peaceful survival of the most notable natural institution of family cannot be described anything but barbarism at its worst. What can then be said of the “Civilised World” that safeguards, promotes and commercialises the sexual perversion of the most abominable kind and the most life threatening – Homosexuality?

(to be concluded)