Bursting the claims of LGBT-homosexuality proponents

no to homosexuality

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, on the whole, has won as well?

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. Hamer.

Even Dr. Hamer, forced by exposure of the fraudulent studies was forced to redefine his conclusions as follows:

  • 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 same kind of attraction to anything else including a piece of red meat!

Third, should animals be right benchmark for us to model our behaviors? Do we follow them in other aspects as well. Animals do not have developed toilet habits. They do not wash hands after excretion or before food. Should we also follow the same in spirit of being natural? Even things like child-sex, animal sex, incest etc should also demand emulation.

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 relation with another consenting adult, regardless of his or her marital status, the state would have few arguments to control the same.
Similarly, the consensual physical relation between close family members, may also deserve state protection.

d. Consumption of narcotics in private circulation may also open up exactly on the same set of argument of self- determination.

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 court judgments in other countries but has provided support of no scientific study that can prove that sexual orientation is as birth-based as sex or caste.

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 in these associations, such matters are decided by voting and lobbying and not after scientific analysis.

Thus every other patient of mental hospital may demand freedom under open-ended interpretation of the constitution.

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 upto 80 partners in a year) by very nature of source of their sexual cravings. The Family Research Council report on lifestyle comparison of homosexuals and heterosexuals compiles results of several surveys and researches worldwide in this regard. Read more on it at

Legalizing homosexuality seems to bring right of self- determination to certain deviants at risk of infecting the entire society with HIV/AIDS. No one can stop homosexuals from being bisexuals as well under the same set of laws and hence propagate HIV/AIDS and other STD to less vulnerable sections of the society.

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, UK whose secretary Anil Bhanot claimed that Hindus know of a technique of producing homosexuals. When challenged to provide evidence of the same, he was at loss. The fact remains that there is no approval of homosexuality in Hinduism. Some verses of Manusmriti do seem to mention severe punishment for homosexuals. Apart from that, Hindu scriptures only recognize heterosexual relationships. Even heterosexual relations are condemned if they involve any kind of immorality or use of force or fraud. Hindu Council was cornered to admit that if they support homosexuality, they will have no explanation for condemnation of Sati, Devdaasi or untouchability. At this point, they exited the debate. Because no Dharmashastra or Vedas support any idea even remotely in favor of homosexuality.

The trend for gay-support may be fashionable and invite lot of media attention. But not much comes in support of it in terms of any new scientific studies or arguments that can justify why it is not a threat for society overall. The trends for HIV/AIDS as published by WHO, Harrison and CMDT only make homosexuality appear an even more dangerous tendency than ever thought before.

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 general public to be supreme.

Hinduism doesn’t support LGBT

Thus, unless proven that homosexuality is completely safe and harmless for public at large, or that homosexuality is an inborn trait that people can do little about, any legalization of homosexuality will victimize rest of the population. And that seems clearly impossible till the menace of HIV/AIDS and other STD exist for whom homosexuality is biggest culprit.

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 what drives a homosexual, in absence of any birth-related or physiological factor, is only lust and that can manifest in any situation in any manner.

In summary, the gay-activists including court should first give convincing explanations and evidence to prove that legalization of homosexuality will have completely no repercussions on the general public at all. Only then can we look forward to a gay-India. Or else we are giving legal blessings to ‘sex terrorism’ as if ‘jihadi terrorism’ was not enough for us!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here