Ever since Praveen left this link on one of my posts, I’ve been disturbed, itching to leave a comment or write a post. I have to admit I have been dithering; I’ve never really done this before – taking on an argument on the blog. I decided to write about it anyway because I do feel that I may make a difference, however small in removing misconceptions. I have absolutely nothing against the author of this post never having come across him before and there is nothing personal in here, I’ve tried to stick as far as possible to the facts and what I feel about them.
As will be obvious from my post, I’m far from being homophobic. However I may use language such as different / not normal – and these are in no way to be construed as being homophobic.
I am straight and I am married to the only boyfriend I ever had.
And now that that is done with, please do read the post for mine to make sense. Close on the heels Sec 377 being declared unconstitutional by the Delhi High Court, suddenly a lot more people are talking about homosexuals in India, there is a higher level of debate, more open bigotry, more morality and religion argument all over the place.
This post begins well enough, with no signs of judging anybody.
“Everyone in this world has the right to live the way he or she wants to. And there needs to be favourable public opinion and suitable laws to help them do so. Even though the mindset is beginning to change in India, a lot of us still consider members of the sexual minority as objects of either sympathy or ridicule. All they want is acceptance — that we accept them the way they are — but we are being tight-fisted about that.”
Great, same page so far.
“But I have a problem. Which is sort of technical, or perhaps ethical, in nature. I can understand lesbians and gays and transgenders being classified as sexual minorities. But bisexuals? From what I understand, a bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to and can have sex with a male as well as a female. In other words, a bisexual is someone who can have the best of both worlds. Does that make him a minority? If anything, he is a majority-majority. He is like the native of a feudal village where he enjoys the status and privileges of being a member of the upper caste and then comes to the city to get a job under the quota meant for scheduled and backward castes.”
Ok here’s where I have a problem too. Firstly when we talk about rights to sexual minorities (let’s come to the definition later), here’s what comes to my mind:
– The right to have a same-sex relationship
– The right to marry someone of the same sex
– The right to have a child – biologically or otherwise
– The right to not be discriminated against by society / by law enforcement authorities
No one is asking for 99% reservation for homosexuals in the IITs of 59% reservation in Parliament or any kind of benefits that might put another section of society to a disadvantage. Giving a homosexual any of the rights I have mentioned does not hurt another in any way.
I suppose the author of the post has no issues with a gay or lesbian person, but with a bisexual – saying they have best of both worlds and calling them “majority-majority”. Alright here’s the thing, here’s why they’re still a minority. Let’s take an example of a bisexual girl A. So she has the entire male population to choose from and a minority of the female population. If it so happens that she falls in love with a man and chooses to spend the rest of her life with him, it is convenient and happy for all. However if she does make the disclosure that she’s bisexual to the man concerned is he going to be comfortable with that. So here’s roadblock number 1 being faced. Then the more obvious issue, what if she falls in love with a woman? Roadblock number 2 is that that woman is straight and hence there is no future. Roadblock number 3 is where she does fall in love with a lesbian, it takes us back to square 1 that there are so many legal hassles and discrimination.
The thing is that being bisexual does not mean being promiscuous (which is not illegal in any case). And it does not mean having a different partner each night, conveniently swapping sexes each day.
“This is not to say one cannot be a bisexual. I am not even making a judgment if it is wrong to be one. If nature has made them that way, who are we to sit on judgment. All I am saying is, why accord a special status to them, as if they are victimised? If at all, it is people who often fall victims to them — directly or indirectly.”
Yeah we have no right to judge anyone, point taken. However what is this “special status”? I don’t see any special status being awarded to anyone! And why are we talking of being victimized. There can be no victims where consensual sex is involved. And any thing other than consensual sex is a crime, whether we’re talking of man raping woman, man raping man, woman raping man, woman raping woman, whatever is the permutation it’s a crime and cannot be condoned. So its black or white as regards victims, no shades of grey whatsoever.
“A woman would rather discover that her husband slept with her woman friend than find out that he is also sleeping with his male colleague.”
Ok I haven’t conducted research on this subject – but I personally do not agree with this statement. Infidelity is infidelity, and dealing with it is a very personal thing and can hardly be generalized.
“Our history as well as contemporary society is also replete with cases when men, drunk on their sexual prowess, have not only raped their wives but also sodomised young, soft-looking males at the first given chance. Would you plead for the sexual rights of such men? And if yes, then plead for what — that they continue having the best of both worlds?”
As I have said, rape and sodomy are entirely separate issues with crime written all over them. No one is talking of rights to them at all. Even the recent ruling has exempted sodomy and having sex with children. So that is not a problem at all.
“I know this is the age of political correctness and consensus, but there should be a limit. I mean, if you are having sex with your wife or girlfriend and at the same time getting a blowjob from your male servant, be my guest. I have no issues. But please don’t claim to be a sexual minority and join the gay pride march. Stay home and have your fun.”
Again please let us not confuse legal rights with morality. The fact is a straight person has the right to screw around with a hundred people if he / she chooses to do so. Not so for a gay person. That is the distinction we need to make and not get into whether it is morally correct or not.
“Wait a minute, let me throw the garb of political correctness into the bin. It is too painful and constricting to write under its weight. Ok, the thing is, nature is supreme. You can afford to fuck around with it, but not too much. Nature made Adam and Eve, and not Adam and Steve. But doesn’t matter if Adam and Steve get cosy and do a few things which, according to nature, only Adam and Eve are supposed to do. It begins to matter only when Adam and Steve start bearing and raising kids.
It is Eve’s job to bear kids, and when Steve seeks to replace her, catastrophe is not too far away. I have no issues Steve getting pregnant, but that amounts to screwing Mother Nature. You will have hell to pay for, just as we are paying for Global Warming. In a few decades from now, a paradise like Maldives won’t even exist — just because we took Mother Nature for granted.”
Isnt this kind of contradictory with the let’s not judge stance taken earlier? And as far as my knowledge goes, medical science has not advanced to the extent of Steve becoming pregnant. And even if that day comes, how many Steves are we talking about anyway, for it to become the cause for the extinction of the human race or other catastrophic event? Not particularly comparable with global warming.
“Also, why are those who are into animals been excluded from the group of sexual minorities? After all, walls of Khajuraho temple depict bestiality as well and it is not uncommon to hear funny anecdotes about a man mounting a cow or a donkey or a horse. There are porn films that show animals returning the favour to women.
I think I know why no one is fighting for the rights of those who have sex with animals. Since this is the age of political correctness, consensus is very very important when it comes to sexual intercourse. And there is no way of telling if the donkey or the horse had been consenting.”
Frankly I’ve never really given bestiality a thought, and as the author points out, there is no consensus involved really. And to put matters in perspective, fact is we have the right to kill and eat animals….
Maybe we should stop and think about what does go through a homosexual’s mind. The process of self discovery, of coming out to family, of having limited choice of partners (finding love is tough enough!), facing discrimination from self righteous people. If homosexuality was a state of mind or a whim, no one in their right minds will put themselves through all the trouble.
The bottom line is this: We live in a secular country, supposedly free from the dictats of religion. Our laws are not designed to protect the moral fibre of the society and who is to say what level of morality the country is to operate at? My mother’s morality looks down upon having more than one relationship itself. Clearly that sense of morality cannot be allowed to dictate the average Joe on the street? So when the average Joe on the street feels that homosexuality is immoral, that cannot be the law for the erm average Steve. The argument as to whether homosexuality is a matter of choice or whether it’s in a person’s genes is also irrelevant. So what if it’s a matter of choice?
Years ago women had very few rights, Dalits were deemed “untouchable”…time has brought about change. How much longer do homosexuals have to wait?