India's gays prepare to join the rainbow nation
Government ready to repeal law drafted under the Raj which made homosexuality a criminal offence
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More pictures
The Indian government is considering rewriting a law drafted more than 100 years ago that criminalises homosexuality. The news emerged as the capital, Delhi, held its second gay rights march yesterday and other cities across the nation played host to similar parades.
Reports suggested that senior ministers would meet soon to discuss how to repeal the so-called Section 377 that makes it a criminal offence for couples of the same gender to have sex. "This section is an absurdity in today's world," a government source said. "The government will certainly move to repeal it."
The battle to change the law has been long and slow. The legislation was drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1860 during British colonial rule and states that "whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment".
Campaigners have long complained that the law is outdated and repressive, saying that while there have been few prosecutions during the past 20 years, it has been used to harass gay men. In 2004, a lawsuit filed by Voices Against 377, an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations working on issues from women's rights to Aids prevention, was filed at the Delhi High Court. The matter is still pending.
"Let's not hold our breath on this," said Angali Gopolan, head of the Naz Foundation, one of the groups in the lawsuit. "I am hopeful but I would rather wait until we have a result." She said the new re-elected government led by the Congress Party might have felt it had a greater mandate to act. "Perhaps it is more sensitive," she said. "Let's hope they follow through."
In a country that once produced explicit treatises on the sexual arts only to have emerged as a conservative, buttoned-down society, gay rights have rarely been a priority for the authorities. The rights movement is in its infancy and gay life is driven largely underground. Eunuchs, the so-called third sex and once an essential part of the Mughal court, also face discrimination and abuse. Campaigners say driving homosexuality underground makes it far harder to counter Aids and provide homosexual men with treatment should they become infected.
Few Indian celebrities are openly identified as gay. One of the few, the Delhi-based fashion designer Rohit Bal, who has dressed Uma Thurman and Naomi Campbell, recently told a television interviewer that he knew many ministers, businessmen and society leaders who were gay. He said he also understood the pressures that kept them in the closet. "I wish there were more prominent people who were open about such things," he added. "Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what people think about me. If anyone wants to judge me, judge me for what I am and what I have achieved and not for whom I am sleeping with."
The organisers of Delhi's second gay parade had been encouraged by an unexpectedly large turnout last year. They were hoping for even larger numbers this time and had organised street theatre and a wedding band. Other cities such as Bangalore and Kolkata have been hosting similar marches for years.
Leslie Esteves, a gay rights activist and march organiser, said: "Last time, because it all came through at the last minute, we didn't have enough time to spread the word. But this time we are prepared. There were people not only from Delhi but also from other states in the north."
The move to review the law appears to be driven by the Home minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram. His predecessor, Shivraj Patil, was opposed to changing it. Many in the government said altering the law would help end discrimination against gay people and could help fight Aids, but Mr Patil claimed a repeal would encourage the sexual abuse of children. The law is also used to prosecute paedophiles.
The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, asked departments to review the government's position and resolve any differences, as a result of the case being heard by the High Court.
"It should have been done long ago," a government official told The Indian Express. "The provisions are beyond any reason or logic. But now since there is a consensus emerging the decision to repeal is only a matter of time."
Equal rights? A pink guide to Asia
*Pakistan
Homosexuality is still a criminal offence: Islamic law prescribes 100 lashes or death by stoning for sodomy, and Pakistan's civil code requires a minimum of two years in prison. But gay couples in cities such as Karachi and Islamabad are increasingly finding the courage to set up home together.
*Thailand
Bangkok's ladyboys are world-renowned, and Thai society is relatively relaxed about homosexuality, yet under the law it was considered a "mental problem" until seven years ago. But households headed by gay couples lack the legal protection of those headed by heterosexual ones.
*China
China has not been quick off the mark about gay rights: homosexuality was classified as a "hooligan act" until 1997 and a "mental disorder" until 2001. But in the past few years it has been making up for lost time. Gay tourism to the country is growing. The launch of Go Pink China saw the first China-based travel company offering gay-friendly tours, and this month Shanghai celebrated its first Gay Pride week.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
"...an absurdity in today's world,"
to see it as immoral. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it is natural, normal, or right. It's more an argument in the vein of "Well everyone else is doing it, so it must be ok.", which is a fallacious "appeal to majority" argument.
The other frequent argument I see is that it is "outdated". Since when does age simply nullify significance? This is arbitrary and also fallacious.
Another defense I find elsewhere is that "other animals do it too". Well they do other things we wouldn't justify in human society and we are hardly exactly the same as other creatures on this planet.
From whatever angle you look at it, why is this seen as ok?
2-Normal? (for those who are not born heterosexual) Tick
3-Right? (for those who don't subscribe to inconsistent and internally contradictory texts written thousands of years ago. Anyone still condemning wearing garments of more than one fibre, eating shellfish or usury? No, thought not). Tick
"2-Normal? (for those who are not born heterosexual)" - Again for cannibalism, those who are not born vegetarian? Or anyone born who initially has no sense of morals or ethics. By that logic, to have relative morality and ethics is perfectly normal and therefore crime and what is right or wrong cannot be defined, which leads to the next point...
"3-Right? (for those who don't subscribe to inconsistent and internally contradictory texts written thousands of years ago. Anyone still condemning wearing garments of more than one fibre, eating shellfish or usury? No, thought not)." - finished off with an ignorant, arbitrary, straw-man argument. The questions remain unanswered. Not to mention, it's already been established that by your logic, taking it to its full conclusion, that what is right and wrong is relative and therefore arbitrary. If you want to rationally and logically defend this position, you cannot be arbitrary.
Your argument is self-refuting. You cannot account for right and wrong in the first place, so why do you consider inconsistency, contradiction or condemnation to be wrong?
Natural is conforming to what life and particularly human beings were made to be and do (For example, be fruitful and multiply. Honour all life, and humanity in particular.)
Normal is the normal function of life to fulfill those natural purposes (i.e, male & female companionship, morality, ethics, positive relations.)
Right would be that which doesn't cause life to be estranged from it's Creator, corrupt creation and dehumanise individuals.
1. Natural. What does natural mean? Relating to nature? He agrees "other animals do it too". I think that is agreement that it is natural. The argument "they do other things we wouldn't justify in human society" seems to imply that "natural" is not necessarily a desirable state, or perhaps from "we are hardly exactly the same as other creatures" that human nature and animal nature are different. Is wearing clothes natural? How about having a haircut? Shaking hands? Telling the time? Praying?
rn homosexual. I'm also unconvinced about the idea that people are born celibate except for procreational purposes which the religious right are happy to parade about as the definition of normal. Since I am assuming this comment is directed at "gay sex" than "gay culture" you have to ask yourself does sex have a function besides procreation? And if so why should that function be limited to between male and female and even between one male and one female? Is there a reason?
3. Right. Morality is a religious concept, therefore suggesting that it is immoral relies on the people you are labelling immoral to be a follower of the religion which has rules which forbid whichever practice is being labelled as immoral. A Christian gay may be immoral (may be because the rule is based upon interpretation of religious texts which are deeply ambiguous) while an Atheist gay can only be amoral. Perhaps taking a more secular look and using a term like "ethics" which does not imply a following of religious rules you have to come up with a maxim which supports your argument, I guess Wer would say something like "People should not practice behaviour which is offensive to others" while Rob would say "People should be free to do what they wish if it does not cause harm or inconvenience to others". But what if I found that praying to God or Allah or some other superbeing was offensive, should that be banned?
"Since when does age simply nullify significance?" Quite often, 100 years ago it was normal for children to work as near slaves, women and poor people not to have the right to vote, black people to be a lower species than white people, etc. All people were certainly not created equally! Progress has made some steps towards levelling the playing field out though we are still hundreds of years away from seeing an equal society for all. Time helps us to iron out the blemishes in our society that are deeply rooted in tradition, superstition, greed etc. It would be difficult not to argue that society has improved across the ages.
Its an illness. Mind and body out of sync.
So, what is 'the order of nature'? Where is this defined? It can only be defined by scientific observation. What does scientific observation reveal?......
You yourself have said that the reasons for repealing the law are based on fallacious argument (I can agree with you there for the examples you gave), but the law itself is badly written and has itself been applied using fallacious arguments, those being the desires and prejudices of those who apply the law. (Oh, I don't like the idea of two men being intimate, it disgusts me so it should be illegal. - how's that for a fallacious argument?)
Badly written laws, based on the emotional hangups of Victorian aristocrats have no place anywhere and never had. You seem to be arguing that since it is there and has been for a long time, then it should stay; that is what I call a fallacious argument.
I don't believe this is true. There are many things that can't only be defined by scientific observation. To prove otherwise, you would have to go beyond scientific observation which would be self-refuting.
You can define the order of nature in two ways:
1) By that which created nature
2) By what can be observed in nature according to that which created nature
Scientific observation says that life reproduces after itself either sexually or asexually. In particular, mankind reproduces through the union of a male and a female. This is the order of nature according to observation.
According to the Creator, men and women are to be life companions, and therefore intercourse is the realm of a husband and a wife. They are further told to be fruitful and multiply. This can only naturally come about through the union of a male and female germ cell. Intercourse was also a provision to deepen intimacy and relationships.
You presume that the law has been applied according to personal desires and prejudices, but this is based on an assumption and not necessarily on truth. Thus, from your presupposition, you go on to imply that the law is badly written. My argument is not that it should stay because it has been there a long time, but that life was intended to be a certain way.
My other point is that refutations for such laws, which are deemed as emotional prejudices, also come from emotional prejudices. Therefore, discussion must turn elsewhere.
Because all the arguments that class it as an immoral act are spurious, equivocal, religious arguments based on outfdated and pre-scientific notions of purity and religious exclusivity that have been revealed to be nonsense.
Because all morality has be universal; not limited to the beliefs and convictions of a specific rel;igious group.
Because no mature moral philosophy, based on a real philosopher like Kant or Plato or Bertrand Russell, has the temerty to deignate a specific sexual act as sinful.
Because the vast majority of unnatural sexual acts have been proved to be common in every form of relationahip, materosexual and homosexual, animal as well as human.
Because the proofs that the 'immoral' brigade have relied on have been shown, over and over and yet over again, to be false: based on lies, hypocrisy and obfustication.
Becasue anyone who knows any gay people knows that the best gay relationships, like the best heterosexual relationships, are dignified by love, ennobled by joint responsibility and have the obvious, self-evident qualities that make it obvious to anyone, to a child, to a friend to an impartial observer, that this is something worthy and decent, something that is good.
And those people who try to debase goodness by making degraded comparisons with criminal acts, rape and sadism, are bad, immoral, false people.
You will never be able to make gay people look like garbage again. The time when that was possible has passed. The only sex acts that are evil are the ones deformed by force and cruelty. that is the exxence of sexual morality; there is none; there is only the morality of free will.
Gandhi will cry in the grave as he moved around naked to preach Ahnisa non violence even to cow, dogs, cats and snakes. Human more. He will want the British Raj to come back to India say, "Take the gays to UK, USA and let them stay there where they are wanted. India? Of all the places. India? I am amazed, India, surprises, I could swoon . With the Indian coming via as Miss World the trend has shifted to more beauties to counter attack the shortage of men. Aha.. now I see, the man cannot get married to women in India because they are broke and women want the dowries Bad Eh.
Why, why, why Gandhi left them naked.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
All I did was ask why homosexuality is just taken as ok without question, and so far no one has been able to give an answer. That said, it's up to the people whether they choose to indulge or answer me, obviously they want to. You also arbitrarily label my arguments as "specious". Without a rational reason as to why they are specious, why shouldn't they try to refute them? Afterall, it shouldn't be hard.
That said, no one is stopping anyone from celebrating anything. They are perfectly free to. I, on the other hand, am simply seeking some answers.
What about men who become monks or women who become nuns? Are they just as questionable, eschewing heterosexual companionship?
Religionists demand laws are changed not just to favour them, but to make life worse or limit medical choices for everyone else.
Religionists have caused more wars over the Centuries than any other group of peoples.
So while I accept Religionism is a lifestyle choice, it has caused the break down of society, thus;
*It has no place in schools except as part of a study of sociology.
*Teachers should not promote religionism although the child of a religionist may be presented to the class as the product of an alternative lifestyle choice.
*The minimum age for adults to consent to religionism should be 21.
It is not a question if you agree with certain lifestyles, the issue is should others be free to pursue it. As this does no harm to others outside of those directly involved should it be illegal.
Traditional marriage in India is a disgusting state of cruelty and bondage. Anything that replaces it with something more compassionate, open and free from sadistic cruelty and domination should be welcomed.