LGBT lobby’s unnatural way of championing gay cause?

December 22, 2013 by  
Filed under newsletter-india

Unnatural way of championing the cause of homosexualsDecember 18, 2013: It is a classic case of double standards. When Muslim organizations, rightly or wrongly, opposed the Supreme Court ruling on Shah Bano case in mid-1980s on the plea that the community has its own Personal Law, the entire media and opinion-making class rose in chorus to ask as to how can the apex court ruling be challenged.

The truth is that India has personal laws for followers of different religions and people have right to question that judgement.

But when the same Supreme Court on December 11, 2013 quashed the Delhi High Court ruling of July 2, 2009, which decriminalized the same sex relationship, the whole opinion-making class went on to call it a regressive step. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) activists called December 11 as the black day. The media went all out to back them.

When the politicians – cutting across party lines – initially hesitated in giving their opinion they were criticized by panelists sitting in various television channels.

A day later, political leaders did come out with their stand. Some agreed and some disagreed with the Supreme Court. Once again those who rejected the ruling said that this is an archaic law made by the British over a century back.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the SC ruling should be temporarily set aside. What is more important is the manner in which these enlightened liberals went on to denounce and brand those who supported the ruling as backward and outdated. How can one be pilloried simply because one supports the ruling of the highest court of the land.

After all there are different opinions on lesbians and gays even in many countries of the West, where there is no such ban. In the Bible belt of the southern part of the United States there still is a huge population opposed to it. Are they all in the Stone Age?

True one has the right to oppose the ruling in public platform. But does it behoove the media to back LGBT agitation against the Supreme Court ruling and dub everyone opposed to it as not fit for this modern world? Is not it the tyranny of the media?

From now onward, the judges will think many times before giving any ruling on controversial issues. After all the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land and custodian and protector of Indian Constitution. If there is some reservations on its ruling, one has the right to disagree. But there should be a way to it. The SC gives its rulings under the Constitutional provisions, as per existing laws. It is for Parliament to make or amend laws.

Now come to what the media in India and the West said about the ruling. May one ask, whether new or old could ever be the criteria for any law. If a century old law – even if a thousand year old – is better than one enacted today, it should be appreciated. So how has this been made a criteria to reject Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. After all most of our laws are more than 150 year old – enacted in 1861. So why are we following them?

Our Constitution is over six decades old while that of the United States over 200 years old. One can debate its merits and demerits and make certain amendments, but can we call the Constitution archaic?

What these ladies and gentlemen failed to understand is that homosexuality is itself a very old practice. It dates back to the time of Prophet Lut (Lot in Old Testament) – or may be even older. The Prophet asked the people of Sodom to desist from such evil practice but they refused. The word sodomy has its origin from there. One can find the reference of sodomy in Old and New Testaments, Quran and other holy books.

So instead of old versus new, the debate should be on whether it is good or bad for health of an individual, society or country. For argument sake just accept that homosexuality is not unnatural, but very much natural.

But then is it not the fact that it contributes immensely to the spread of HIV-AIDS? Who can deny that homosexuals were the first to be inflicted with this disease in the United States?

Almost all the arguments made in the electronic and print media were based on what is happening in the West where gay marriages are being legalized. But may one ask a very simple question: Why should we follow West? Is it the only example of development? And even if we want to follow the West why are we so selective and not follow everything of the West?

Take the example of the United States. There is no need to have a licence for gun. So the country with 30 crore population has, according to some estimates, 31 crore guns. More than 30,000 people die in the gun related violence in that country every year. Why not adopt the same law and be called progressive? After all there is National Rifle Association which strongly opposes any control on gun – even if school-kids and students on campuses are mercilessly mowed down.

Nothing could be more progressive than allow 125 crores Indian to have 125 crores guns. So there would be no problem if millions would die in the gun-related violence every year and class rooms and campuses are splattered with blood.

There is no denying the fact that notwithstanding gay marriages and all those sexual concessions, the United States is ranked among the countries with highest number of rapes. Why in so liberal a society one should have such crime and so many sex-starved people?

If homosexuality is one of the most important factors responsible for the spread of HIV-AIDS why can not a government make a law banning the practice which leads to death of so many people. After all the government spends huge amount every year in protecting its people from such a dreaded diseases. In that way, it has the right to penalize those who are spreading them.

In the name of individual freedom, the liberals have adopted classic double standards. They pressurize the government to ban tobacco as it causes death to lakhs of people every year. Those smoking in public places are even fined as smoking affect the health of passive smokers too. Similarly, there is always pressure on the government to fight the menace of drug.

But when any government bans the sale and production of liquor on the basis of the argument that it is bad for health of individual as well as the society, the same set of people would stand up and question – whether it is at all implementable.

They would plead that the country would lose huge amount in the form of excise duty, but would not take into account even larger amount spent by the government on diseases caused by liquor.

Similarly, if the government tries to control homosexuality because it is unnatural and causes AIDS, it is being criticized for intruding into an individual’s right to freedom. But should not the government allow junkies to go on taking drug at will – as stopping them would be an intrusion into their right to freedom.

After all homosexuality is illegal in about 75 countries of the world. Several of them are more advanced than India and almost on par with the western society.

So how come we will become outdated if we do not de-criminalize it?

– tcn

Enter Google AdSense Code Here

Comments are closed.