The recent verdict by Delhi High Court on IPC 377 legalizing private consensual homosexual relationship has brought to fore a strong debate over merits and demerits of such a judgment. Gay activists seem to have won this round of battle about the legitimacy of homosexuality in a civilized society, but let us objectively analyze if society
The movement of gay-rights is not more than 150 years old and surfaced first in Germany. Till 1973, the American Psychiatric Association used to consider homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was only after a round of voting that was won by gay-activists that homosexuality was removed from the list. Several other organizations in the followed the suit. However, on the whole, the fact remains that no scientific study has ever been able to vindicate why homosexuality was earlier a disorder and now an accepted deviant sexual behavior. The change of status has been merely due to voting and lobbying.
The recent advocacy of gay rights in India is hinged on a few critical assumptions – homosexuality is inborn, homosexuality is natural, each individual has the right to self- determination, the constitution guarantees freedom irrespective of sex (which implies sexual orientation as well) and that private acts of individuals has no adverse bearing on society at large. Some gay-activists have even attempted to give it a saffron color. Hindu Council UK recently issued a statement that Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality. Each of these assumptions demands closer scrutiny.
Assumption 1: Homosexuality is inborn
A myth that was widely circulated to justify homosexuality was that homosexuality is in the genes. However recent scientific researches have failed to prove this. The Gay-gene study conducted in 1993 by Dr. Dean Hamer, who was a proclaimed gay-activist of his times, is the basis on which the recent gay-activism has spurted. This study primarily is the reason provided to justify that homosexuality is inborn.
The fact remains that this study itself has been subject to many controversies and has not been proved authentic till date. The study was conducted without a defined control group and condemned even by pro-gay magazines like ‘New York native’. Dr. Hamer has never reported his original data till date and efforts to replicate his study have failed without exception. In April 1999, Science Magazine finally discredited the research of Dr
Even Dr. Hamer, forced by exposure of the fraudulent studies was forced to
- Female homosexuality is not inherited but transferred culturally
- there is not a single master gene can makes people gay
- I donʹt think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay
He was cornered to claim that male homosexuality is 50% genetic and 50% environmental. Now this 50% genetic came from ‘Gay Twin Study’ which has also been discredited long ago.
The Gay-Twin study has been criticized by pro-sodomy magazines for having unrepresentative sample and inconclusive studies. Interestingly the study data showed that step-brothers are more likely to be both gay than twin- brothers!! In summary, no study whatsoever, ever has been able to prove that gays are born. West has long discarded ‘gay is inborn’ as a reason for gay-activism, but the myth still holds sway over most of its supporters in India. A gay- activist Swami Agnivesh recently commented that the sole reason why he supports gay movement is because he believes that gays are born by nature just as left-handed and right- handed people. He even claimed to reverse his stand if one can prove that gays are not born.
Please read the excellent research by Ryan Sorba on this here:
In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” It stated:
“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
“However, owing to the failure of any of these studies to link homosexuality to genetic/inborn factors, it was forced to tactically shy away from its stand. That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged those permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
Please note that this was forced to the despite strong homosexual overtones in the document.
Assumption 2: Homosexuality is natural
Proponents of the gay movement claim that homosexuality is present in other species as well and they show photos of male animals in gay-like acts. Thus they conclude that homosexuality is normal and natural. This concept was widely propagated by Stanford professor Joan Roughgarden and biologist Petter Bockman.
However, there are some glaring loopholes:
First, they can claim that only 1500 species at most show signs of the claimed homosexuality. This is only 0.01% of total species. Now is a trait of only 0.01% of 14 million species of fauna supposed to be representative natural behavior for humans?
Second, humans get into homosexual relationships because of attraction to the opposite gender and not merely to a body part. This is not the case with animals whose pictures these gay- lovers present. To animals, the same-sex lust is not the driving factor for them to pose in the way they pose in these pictures. They show
Third, should animals be
Further, if being natural is logic for homosexuality, even humans are part of nature. small children drinking cleaning fluid is also natural and should be emulated.
Assumption 3: Right to self-determination
Many proponents of gay-rights say that what two mutually consensual adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is not a state matter but their personal choice. Hence the state should not interfere.
However, if homosexuality is to be legalized on grounds of mutual consensus, then it would open a Pandora’s box. By exactly the same line of reasoning, even the following, for example, would demand legal protection:
a. Humans eating dead humans (this does not harm other living humans). Thus hospitals and morgues can run a business out of selling meat of dead patients.
b. One human eating another human after killing him provided the killed human is an adult and gives his consensus to such a death. Proponents of Right of self- determination may consider this to solve problems of drought in many areas. One consenting member of a community can kill himself/allow himself to be killed and others can feed on his flesh.
c. Adultery would also demand legalization. If one gets into physical
d. Consumption of narcotics in private circulation may also open up exactly on the same set of
Assumption 4: Right to freedom
The Court has upheld that Right to freedom irrespective of sex implies ‘irrespective of sexual orientation’ as well. The critical point is that if such open-ended interpretations are to be made of each word of constitution, this may again open a host of such issues which may be difficult to answer. The point to be considered is that was sexual orientation in minds of designers of constitution when they inserted this clause of freedom in the document. And has any new scientific evidence come up to force expansion of the meaning of this word. The judgment only gives reference to other
In fact reversal of homosexuality is a common phenomenon which proves beyond doubt that homosexuality is not even a stable trait, even if unnatural. No scientific study has been able to justify why homosexuality should not be considered a mental disorder. The references to documents of Psychiatric and Psychological Association are of little use because
Thus every other patient of
Assumption 5: Society is safe
A logic given by the court is that legalizing homosexuality will help bring AIDS treatment to homosexual patients. This is akin to supplying a pyromaniac with petrol and match-stick and then promising that pain-killers will be supplied to those who get burned.
For two critical points need to be noted in this regard. First is that there is no reliable cure for HIV/AIDS till date. So even if homosexuals are suffering from AIDS, you cannot help them get rid of it permanently.
And the second most critical point is that homosexuality is the greatest culprit for beginning and propagation of HIV/AIDS till today. MSM (male making sex to male) accounts for 49% of HIV patients in America and anal-sex which is the only option for MSM is the main villain. Further monogamy is practically non-existent among homosexuals (some studies have reported that homosexuals change
Legalizing homosexuality seems to bring
To quote from Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment 2009, Forty-Eighth Edition, Chapter 31 on HIV Infection & AIDS:
“At the end of 2005, there were approximately 421,873 persons in the United States living with AIDS. Of those, 77% are men, of whom 59% were exposed through male-to-male sexual contact, 20% were exposed through injection drug use, 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact, and 8% were exposed through male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.”
Assumption 6: Gay-ism is part of Hinduism
A new hoax being circulated is that Gay-ism is acceptable under Hinduism. This was recently started by Hindu Council,
The trend for gay-support may be fashionable and invite
The foundations of any sensible culture are rationalism, scientific temper and greater interest of the general public. Even 19(5) (6) clauses of Right to Freedom in Constitution of India mentions interests of
Thus, unless proven that homosexuality is completely safe and harmless for
I have not yet discussed the morality issue at all, and queer situations where legal backing of homosexual tendencies makes women unsafe even among women and men among men. After all
In summary, the gay-activists including court should first give convincing explanations and