Reproduced from a blog post dated 5 July 2009, as it has found relevance all over again due to the Supreme Court’s act of reviewing its decision to strike down the Delhi High Court order of that year:
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he ruling by the Delhi High Court that treating consensual gay sex as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India’s Constitution, is welcome. Indeed, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is nobody’s business, least the state’s. But the euphoria in the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) community succeeding the verdict must not suppress some questions that keep intriguing the learned who are not so visible in the debate. Most importantly, the charged atmosphere of political correctness that one is witnessing now in the media should not stem further scientific research into the subject.
This exposition will have three sections: the first legal, the second scientific and the third religious. In the section that deals with law, this writer will enumerate one by one what is good in the new interpretation by the court and what remains odd, and how society is likely to handle it. In the section on science, the piece intends to enlighten readers about what they should have known by watching Discovery Channel and National Geographic, if not everybody can be expected to subscribe to medical journals. In the portion on religion, Research will cite original scriptures in Sanskrit, Arabic and (Koine) Greek, and translate and explain them to ascertain how correct the respective interpretations by modernists and religious heads are.
SECTION I: Law
Argument # 1:
Social background of most policemen subjects all laws to abuse; Sec 377 is no exception
Social background of most policemen subjects all laws to abuse; Sec 377 is no exception
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code states: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.”
One can see that the term “homosexual” or “same-sex” does not figure in the law. However, problem lies in the clause “against the order of nature”, which is open to both misuse and abuse. The incident gay rights activists (including straight people who are fighting for Indian homosexuals’ right to equality) highlight repeatedly is one that happened in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001. The police had invaded two offices of some local AIDS prevention organisations to arrest the staff, levelling on them the charge of “encouraging homosexuality” in the city.
While, to some, the incident projects India as a society with mediaeval ethos, the finer aspect that cannot be missed is the social background of policemen in the country. In no way can the majority of India’s police, which is the department’s lowest rung, be considered to represent or appreciate the education and values of the country’s urbane middle class. Ergo, the burden of guilt of being a regressive nation is not on the middle class. Where then is the pressing need to have the monkey off our shoulders? This nuance is not being made clear in the discourse that we are not levied by a guilt conscious; we simply want the country’s policing standards to improve.
This writer was, while frequenting the residential quarters of DCPs situated in Delhi’s Hauz Khas locality as a private tutor several years ago, requested by the officers’ orderlies to fill application forms on behalf of their ‘class eight pass’ relatives living in remote villages all over the country. The applications were for jobs of constables. The casual chats that I used to have with these officers’ helps, in course of filling the forms, revealed the stage from where corruption in police begins.
Since several state education boards issue Class X certificates based on an exam that includes the syllabus of Class IX, for a villager who is just about literate and is looking for a job in a city, the maximum formal education that can be claimed is of the eighth grade, as up to that stage the claim need not be substantiated with a board certificate. And if the rising level of the Indian population’s education and demand for jobs raises the entry bar, the villager is ready to fake it. Though Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and semi-urban centres of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are the most infamous for certificate manufacturing and selling rackets, villagers from the most literate state of India, Kerala, too do not shy away from corrupt practices if that is what it takes. I left the application forms of a certain Kutty, a certain Thomas and a certain George half way when asked to fill ‘matriculation’ against the entry of education, the certificate for which their benevolent relations in Delhi said they would “manage”.
[Only on one of these occasions was a DCP present in his house. When asked why he had not helped his servant fill the form, he excused himself by saying he had a prior appointment, quickly put a shirt on his vest and rushed out. As if to plead innocence on the matter, no other DCP was at home when his orderly asked me to fill his cousin’s or nephew’s application form.]
What follows next, the orderlies revealed, is a bribe of Rs 250,000 (this was the rate in 1999-2000), as the high entry bar in terms of education is easily scaled using fake certificates. Villagers who are determined to get the job sell off their measly land holdings and borrow heavily from local moneylenders to collect the amount. Then, as a candidate, waiting to be inducted as a constable, staying temporarily in Katwaria Sarai, had told this writer once, “इतना तो साल भर में कमा ही लेंगे ; आगे तो फ़ायदा ही फ़ायदा है (I am sure to break even within a year. Whatever I earn thereafter will be profit)!”
In the hands of these virtually illiterate, highly indebted police force, any law is a potent weapon for extortion. And a typical villager’s idea of “order of nature” is certainly not homosexuality, much as homosexuals may be present in villages too. Ask a constable what he thinks homosexuality is and the most likely answer you will get is “sodomy”. The long demanded but still pending police reforms, which must cover social education of the force as much as correct the flaws in the recruitment process, alone can address this issue. It will go a long way in redressing the abuse of other laws as well.
The uninitiated mass’s narrowing down of the concept of homosexuality as nothing but sodomy brings us to the next argument. But before that, it must be added: when placards in the gay pride parade announced, “To love is not a crime,” did they factor in the fact that in the eyes of law even heterosexual love has no meaning? Law, by definition, is supposed to be shorn of emotions. This is not nitpicking; the new reading of the law actually does little to honour two consenting adults’ feeling for each other as decriminalising a relationship is not the same as legalising it.
Argument # 2:
Why ignore court’s reluctance to legalise homosexuality? What can be a social fallout if homosexual relations are legalised?
As homosexuality has still not been legalised, the Indian society has to wait for a typical case, say, where a homosexual couple seeks to adopt a child, to come up and wait for a high court or the Supreme Court to set a new precedent on the issue. But if such a verdict in future goes in favour of a homosexual plaintiff, it could have social implications that encompasses what we understand as a child’s rights.
Our society has to debate whether it has the right to push an unassuming child into a situation where he/she might be subjected to uncomfortable, intrusive questions at school or the neighbourhood park. There is no point denying the fact that Indians by and large have a terrible sense of propriety when it comes to asking a stranger questions regarding his/her person. Obviously, since parents themselves do not have this sense, they cannot prevail upon their children to develop the sense either.
“Are you married?” may be okay. But if you say, “No,” it follows the question, “Why?” If you are married, “do you have children?” If it has been some years for which you have been married, “why no children even now? Don’t want it so soon? Planning? Have a problem? Seen a doctor? What does he say?”
In such a society, adults may be able to handle it; they may suppress their unease and anger, put up a silly smile and ignore it. But imagine a child being asked by his/her friend, “Are both your parents men/women?” If a new-born or a little older infant is adopted by a homosexual couple, will the law expect the child to take an informed, mature decision to get into such a situation?
It is beyond both the jurisdiction and capability of a court of law to change society. It must wait for a change in the mindset before issuing a verdict that, by general Indian standards, is revolutionary. This writer had thought of offering citations of researches done on the issue, but found none conducted in India. Of course, a university cannot conduct a research on a practice that is illegal and not widespread in the country. If some homosexual couples have indeed raised children, the subjects are scattered, the sample is beclouded and certainly not big enough to project a representative picture. European countries, the US and Canada have had instances where children have been brought up normally by homosexual parents, but Indian society will take time to reach there. Presuming that the evolution of every society traverses the same path, that is.
Argument # 3:
Why ignore the fine print?
As for sex in particular, it is curious to note that the LGBT community went delirious on hearing the pronouncement of the verdict even as the court refused to lift the applicability of Section 377 of the IPC from non-vaginal sex. This vital detail has also not been highlighted, though mentioned in obscure corners, in newspapers.
In the euphoric atmosphere, another important aspect of the judgment that the community seems to be ignoring willingly is that the new reading of the law has the limited ambit of Delhi; for other high courts across the country, this is a precedent following which is not binding for them. One may note, the venue of the infamous 2001 incident, Lucknow, remains outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Argument # 4:
A couple’s privacy, a homosexual’s publicity and visualisation of some real life scenarios
Why were the defendants (BP Singhal and Co) alone worked up so much that they decided to appeal against the verdict in the Supreme Court? Why should the Naz Foundation not plead before the apex court that non-vaginal intercourse too cannot remain in the ambit of Section 377? Also, why should even heterosexuals not be displeased with this clause and make common cause with the gay community?
Declaring homosexual mating as legal but maintaining that Section 377 still applies to non-vaginal sex is a glaring paradox in the judgment.
Is this fine print worth ignoring because nobody has ever lodged a First Information Report about being forced to have non-vaginal sex by his/her partner? If so, what is the fuss about? If nobody knows who is having non-vaginal sex at home, how does one know whether, say, two or more young men sharing a house, leaving for office every morning, coming back home every evening and living in the night under the same roof — there are thousands of them in every Indian city — are straight or gay?
The Indian situation is more complex than that in the West. An example, stating which would look to Indians like stating the obvious, is that of a friendly gesture that is commonplace here. Placing an arm around a friend’s shoulder is something all of us have done as we whiled away time at the school playground or inside a neighbourhood park. We did it when we were 5, when we were 15, when we were 25. Some Indians do it all their lives. Do it in France and maintain the posture for a while; you could be construed as gay! So, how is a gay identified in India?
A little-known filmmaker alleged on TV on 2 July that he was harassed by the police at a railway station. Since he is not famous and was, at the time of being apprehended, obviously not carrying a placard on his chest declaring his sexual orientation, how did the police identify him as gay? Will it betray this writer’s unrefined taste to ask what he was doing on the platform to attract the police’s attention? If he made some unsolicited advances at some other man who was a stranger, wouldn’t the police catch even a heterosexual man if he were to make unsolicited advances at a woman present on the platform? If he did something to a male companion, wouldn’t Indian police catch me even if I were to kiss my wife in the open?
This writer’s imagination is not running riots; if the interviewer had asked the filmmaker to elaborate what had happened that day, he would have done more justice to the story.
Argument # 5:
A patient’s right to treatment
This is the aspect on which the new interpretation of Section 377 will be decisive, hopefully. A homosexual HIV positive or AIDS patient, while visiting a hospital, will not have to face the police before he faces the doctor. Nor will the staff of any genuine NGO trying to help the patient be slapped with the charge of running a sex racket.
Recalling the Lucknow incident, the state at that time had, in spite of all evidence of legitimate activities of the arrested activists, refused to release them. The police went ahead and filed charges against them in a lower court which, in its judgment, called homosexuality a “curse on society”. Curse? Yes, given the condition of justice delivery especially in the country’s lower courts, it is not surprising to hear magistrates and district & sessions court judges invoke words like “curse” and “sin” in their written judgments, as if they did not graduate with a degree in law but one in theology.
The National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) was a mute spectator to the incident. It could not defend its own policies due to the existing archaic and discriminatory, pre-2 July 2009 interpretation of the law. Understandably, Director-General of NACO, K Sujatha Rao, a relieved person now, reacted positively to the development, explaining that her organisation’s reaching out to the LGBT community, a “high-risk” group for HIV/AIDS cases, was hard earlier as the law made it difficult for her staff members to work with sex workers and gays. “They were the hidden population, and we could not reach them as the law was not favouring them,” she said.
However, the statistic is confusing. According to the revised 2007 report, India has an approximate 2.5 million people living with HIV. According to NACO, there are 2.35 million men having sex with men (MSM) in the country. So, what percentage of this 2.35 million comprises the 2.5 million HIV positive patients? For many years, the percentage of such patients, the media has repeatedly reported, has been increasing rapidly among heterosexuals too. Why are homosexuals then still being classified as a “high risk” group? Is it actually a higher risk group? It is, if the statistics in the US shows the trend everywhere including India. According to the Americsn Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 16,749 cases of HIV infection through male-to-male sexual contact were reported in 2007. The corresponding figure for high-risk heterosexual contact was 11,111. NACO’s web page on HIV data does not show classification by transmission category.
NACO’s classification looks anomalous also because of a finer calculation: Among the other high risk groups identified by the organisation, viz., sex workers, truckers and injecting drug users, the percentage of heterosexuals far exceeds that of homosexuals.
To pinpoint the category, NACO’s statute should identify what it calls the कोठी/kOTHI (receptive partner) homosexuals as facing a higher degree of risk.
Out of an estimate of 2,500,000 gays and 100,000 lesbians in India, the highest concentrations of homosexual men are in four major states: Maharashtra (48,000), Tamil Nadu (30,000), Delhi (28,000) and Gujarat (26,000). Out of these 30% are yet to identify themselves. Since NACO intervenes only after a homosexual identifies himself/herself, more than a law or the repealing or re-reading of an existing law is needed to cover the entire vulnerable population, whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals.
SECTION II: Science
Too much of noise in the talk shows of news TV on 2 and 3 July had strained this writer. Whatever temptation for some more of it remained was gone with a quick surfing of channels in the evening of 4 July. On panel on NDTV were again the usual suspects. Mercifully, Times Now and CNN-IBN had moved on.
The tenor of debates following the Delhi High Court verdict in those 3 days suggested that, according to TV journalists, that homosexuality was natural was a foregone conclusion. If so, why did they call for a debate on it? The very holding of the debate shows either they have doubts or they want to address the doubt in the mind of the audience? If so, why did no psychiatrist feature in the debate on TV?
The print media proved none the better. Why has no newspaper so far commissioned a medical science professional, who is known for his/her research on the subject, to write on the issue in its edit or op-ed columns? Why this egregious omission?
Research first recalls the work of a scientist, critical to the debate, that nobody is talking about.
Argument # 1:
An appropriated and then wronged scientist
Veteran journalist Prannoy Roy hasn’t heard of him. Neither has experienced television anchor Arnab Goswami. Nor did a top functionary of a State Minority Commission or a prominent Christian clergy. The gay or pro-gay activists who were in the respective panels of NDTV, Times Now and CNN-IBN on 2 July cannot speak about him. Actress Celina Jaitly has perhaps never heard of him.
English media journalists will not speak or write about him because today they all subscribe to political correctness. Religious heads cannot take the stand that their religion does not allow them to. And his name inconveniences those who advocate homosexuality by claiming that the orientation is natural. Hence, gay rights activists won’t name him either. For the actress named above, her desperate attempt to take a scientific line of argument suggests her case is one of plain ignorance or half-baked knowledge of science.
None in the gamut of newspapers, from the almost academic Hindu to consumerist Times of India, recalled the scientist in the morning of 3 July.
He is Dr Robert L Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of the Biometrics Research Department at the New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University, New York City, the US. He is the scientist, the pioneering research of the team of which he was a part in 1973 had paved the way to the US legislature’s act of decriminalising homosexuality. Twenty eight years later, the scientist found something more. He published his findings to revise his own older findings that had turned obsolete according to his latest knowledge. But the world had turned too politically correct by then. He was shouted down. In 2001, when he first released his work, he was told by the American Psychiatric Association that his findings were not peer-reviewed and, hence, not acceptable. When he got them peer reviewed in 2003, a sponsor of the journal in which the findings were published, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, resigned and the gay community reacted the way it was expected of them: They raised a ruckus. In the din, no other voice could be heard. And the aftermath of Spitzer’s 1973 work, which had set in the social trend of associating oneself with modernity and liberalism by arguing how ‘natural’ homosexuality is, could not be reversed.
For Dr Spitzer, worse was to follow his epidemiological deduction of 2003. Some Christian publications used it to further their own anti-homosexuality argument. This put a tag of religion on Spitzer’s work, thereby raising permanent doubt about his latest work’s academic authenticity. Gays and lesbians said his latest survey had a predetermined outcome and that there were visible loopholes in the methodology of his procedure that identified homosexuality (of some subjects in the whole sample) as unnatural. Strangely, the 1973 research too had similar lacunae; nobody pointed them out back then.
There are three big ironies in Spitzer’s story: First, he turns from a hero to a villain in a matter of three decades. Second, he is considered academically credible for his first work but politically motivated for the second. Third, and this is the biggest irony, 1973 is considered modern, 2003 is not! Prannoy Roy in particular, who tried to sound as if it were a Victorian era puritanism versus modernism debate by urging his Christian panelist, “Isn’t this the 21st century?” must be asked which out of 1973 and 2003 lies in the 21st century.
Let’s study how Spitzer defends himself against the charge of a politically motivated research.
Excerpts from an interview of Prof Spitzer with Dr Christl R Vonholdt, Germany
Institute for Youth and Society, 29 February 2000:
CRV: In 1973 the word homosexuality was removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders, the DSM. Dr Spitzer, were you the chairman of the DSM when this happened?
RS: No, I was not the chairman. I wrote a position paper. I was a very junior member
of the taskforce. It was called the “Taskforce on Nomenclature and Statistics”. I had met with some gay activists who insisted on meeting with our committee.
CRV: Can you tell us more about the history?
RS: These gay activists met with me and insisted that they have an opportunity to talk to our committee because they found out that I was on this committee which dealt with the nomenclature. I arranged to have them meet with the committee. They made their presentation which, of course, was that homosexuality should be removed, that there was no scientific evidence etc. When they left the meeting, the head of the committee turned to me and said: “You got us into this mess. Now you’ll get us out of it. You come up with some kind of a proposal”. So I organized a symposium. It was held in Hawaii at the annual meeting in May 1973. At that symposium, we had different viewpoints for and against removing homosexuality.
I then became convinced that it would be useful to remove it and wrote a position paper which the committee then adopted.
CRV: Why did you think, at that time, it would be good to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders?
RS: Well, I think there were many considerations. First of all, the way the issue had been drawn. The people who believed that it was a disorder and should stay that way were pretty much insisting that as a homosexual you could never be happy, that this was a very serious mental illness and represented a very severe disturbance in personality.
Members of the committee and other people thought that this was not the case, that there were many homosexuals who were quite satisfied with their condition, who did not want to be helped. They were being pressured and unfairly forced into treatment they did not want. So the compromise – and it was actually a compromise – was to say that homosexuality, by itself, is not a mental disorder. However, if it was ego-dystonic, if the homosexual was bothered, he then was entitled to treatment and it would still be considered a mental disorder. So homosexuality itself was removed but when it was ego-dystonic, it remained. In 1987 even that was removed, but that is a different story.
What I think is important to recognize is that both sides of this controversy – and it was very bitter – believed that they had science on their side. The group that was allied with me and with the gay activists believed that it was prejudice that had kept homosexuality as a mental disorder. On the other hand, those who wanted it to remain, predominantly psychoanalytic clinicians, were convinced that we were only responding to gay activists’ pressure. I think there was also a feeling in the homosexual community that in order for them to do better in terms of civil rights, they had to overcome this obstacle and that as long as psychiatry labelled homosexuality a mental disorder, they could never go and demand their full civil rights. So that became part of their political agenda.
CRV: I see some inconsistencies here. It is one thing to call a neurosis a neurosis — whatever type of neurosis, and still have people with a neurosis who will say: “I personally don’t feel I have a neurosis and I feel happy”, yet one should still not take the word neurosis from the list of emotional disorders. Is there not a difference between what homosexuality is or what neurosis is and what people themselves feel about it? Was that not all mixed in together?
RS: I think you could make that argument. I’m not interested in re-examining the 1973 decision although I am now in a very awkward position because I seem to be now on the other side since I am exploring whether therapy can actually be helpful to those homosexuals who want to change.
CRV: You are doing a study at the moment with people who claim that they have changed. Can you tell us more about this study?
RS: Well, the study has really only finished its pilot phase. I have interviewed about 30 people. Most of them are men and come from a very religious orientation. Most of them are primarily motivated by conflict between their religion and their sexual behaviour and that has driven them into seeking change. Many of them have had therapy with mental health professionals. Many of them have not had any formal therapy but have been involved in ex-gay ministries. I have interviewed them. We have a very detailed questionnaire; it takes about thirty to forty minutes. On the telephone we examine their previous sexual behaviour — but it is not limited to the behaviour. We also are very interested in their arousal, their sexual attraction, (and) their sexual fantasies.
What we are really studying is whether from this [therapy] or not. The study will not answer how frequently this happens. The reason we think it is a useful study is that the gay activists have pretty much convinced everybody that it (change) never happens. So that is why we are interested in first seeing whether it happens at all. So far we have been impressed that it does seem to happen. What we hope to do in the future is to have a much larger sample and also get more individuals who are not motivated primarily by religious concerns. That is actually interesting because when I went into psychiatry in the 1960s, it was very common to have homosexual men come for therapy. It had nothing to do with religion; they just wanted to overcome their homosexuality. It may be that with the gay acceptance and gay affirmative therapy that more recently it is only people or predominantly people motivated by religious conflict who want to make the effort to change.
[Click here for the full interview]
What is evident from the excerpts above is a point that goes in favour of homosexuals who would like to remain so always and another that goes against them. It is clear that it was religion that induced the sense of guilt in most of the subjects that Spitzer examined in 2000-01. On the other hand, the researcher did not handpick them to arrive at any predetermined conclusion; they had approached him voluntarily. Therefore, to cast aspersions on the integrity of the scientist’s work of 2001 was grossly unfair. What cannot be overlooked, the use of the word “most” by the doctor shows that not all patients were motivated by religion.
And, since some gays had approached Spitzer for the work that led to the 1973 publication, to make two wrongs a right, should anti-gay people allege that it was the first work, and not the second, that was politically motivated?
The underlined part in the interview shows that this is a developing science. Medical practitioners in general and psychiatrists in particular are not ruling out any possibility. Thus, when pro-gay activists are arguing their orientation is natural and the Church is saying it is not, and both are quoting scientific researches selectively to corroborate their respective claims, they are clearly peddling half-truth. And in science, a half-truth does not exist; it is falsehood.
This writer, after weighing the pieces of evidence in favour of either side in the debate, finds that the argument that homosexuality is not natural is stronger. But, in true spirit of a sincere student of science, this is not his faith or final belief. He did not despair when his fellow-journalists did on Pluto being declared “not a planet”. He will not be worked up if some day science proves with finality that homosexuality is natural. There is no scope for opinion; let our beliefs never go against the latest knowledge and cling on to an older one.
Update: While Spitzer apologised for his work of the 1970s, from the media reports one can reckon how much politics of the intervening decades and the changing face of society, rather than purely scientific considerations, played a role in eventually extracting a “sorry” from him.
Argument # 2:
How animal behaviour has been studied wrongly
Curiously, appearing in the debate on Times Now on 2 July, actress Jaitly was the only one who took an overt scientific line of argument. The passages that follow will punch holes in her inference that homosexuality is natural because many animals too display such behaviour. However, this section has more import than the attention the comments of Jaitly, not a scientist, merit. The same analogy was cited in the US Supreme Court case Lawrence vs Texas, 2003, to demonstrate the ‘naturalness’ of male-male sodomy. The mention of the author of that study will follow the explanation of the phenomenon in the animal kingdom.
There exists a clear distinction between sporadic homosexual behaviour throughout one’s life, such conduct at a certain age, and being a homosexual from one’s birth to death. In the wild, most males have to compete fiercely to be able to mate with a female. The hierarchy in each family or society of a given species is well defined. Showing savage but natural disregard towards their own children, mothers chase their sons out of the family for the sake of security of more babies taking birth every season, to avoid any brother-sister mating (thereby stunting genetic variety), and to prevent the clash of a growing adolescent male with the alpha male (for incestuous mating!).
For some three to ten years in case of bigger mammals, these ‘outcast’ males wander in the wilderness waiting to be strong enough one day to be able to overpower the master of a group. But testosterone, the hormone responsible for the male sexual urge, does not wait that long. As testosterone develops, these males must give vent to their burgeoning stock or just go crazy. That is when stopgap homosexuality creeps in.
It serves quite a few purposes. Ejaculation proves that their reproductive organs work. In Thomson’s Gazelles (Eudorcas thomsoni, a species of deer found in African grasslands), titillation is with mutual consent. Males do not have intercourse with other males. A deer fondles the genitalia of another with gentle kicks of a front toe for a while and then the second returns the favour to the first.
In the case of common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), the reason is slightly different. A chimp attains puberty when it still appears a kid. The hormonal growth is so fast and replenishment of sperm after each ejaculation is so rapid that a sexually raging chimp would not spare anyone who comes his way. In a matter of an hour, chimps may have a round of heterosexual and another of homosexual intercourse. The females get so used to this treatment that they almost get addicted to it. So, when in a group most chimps are ‘busy’, a female may get her vulva rubbed by another. Even a great age difference is not an impediment.
In elephants (both African and Asian — Loxodonta africana and Elephas maximus respectively) and sea lions (the Otariidaefamily, the New Zealand variety Phocarctos hookeri in particular), it’s a different game. The one who rides during the couple’s anal sex is a bully: It is his way to assert his position in the society’s hierarchy. This is like the behaviour of some boys who have lived for many years in hostels, or inmates of a prison who for years have longed to see even the face of someone from the opposite sex. Their conduct is not even of the bisexual variety; it stops right after getting a partner of the opposite sex. That is, it’s not bisexual because sex with the same gender and that with the opposite one does not continue simultaneously.
Disclaimer: This writer does not suggest that human homosexuals indulge only in anal sex.
In very clear terms, here, the anus is a compromise for a vagina. The creature being penetrated is a reluctant but hapless participant. No. Rather the victim. The age or the size difference is too much for the smaller of the two to protest. It is sexual harassment. And sexual harassment is less about sex, more about power. The stronger harasses the weaker.
The list of animals that stay homosexuals for a while is big. In short, given a choice, no animal remains homosexual all its life. If it does, the choice did not exist. Animal homosexuality is a rehearsal for the ultimate objective of procreation for which a heterosexual intercourse is the only natural recourse. When one comes across gay partners for life in the animal kingdom, they are cases where neither partner could successfully invade the harem of an alpha male after overpowering the ‘ruler’. In the other type of homosexual behaviour, it is a simple case of ragging.
We have got a paradox here. Homosexuals like to give the analogy of animals to prove their point while the religious argue that human beings are a class above animals and hence the comparison does not hold. However, as the arguments above suggest, it is the very analogy that homosexuals have chosen that is not working in their favour. Animals turn out to be too pragmatic to get involved in something that produces, well, nothing. But this is the procreation argument used by religionists who have a tendency to belittle bestial sensibility!
This article cannot accommodate the rationality and justification for homosexual behaviour in all the 1,500 odd species enumerated by Bruce Bagemihl in his 1999 review. But a common term used in most medical journals that have dealt with the issue can be shared with the readers. Biologists are reluctant to use terms such as “homosexual animals” or “homosexuality in animals”; they make it a point to call it “homosexual behaviour in animals”. As explained above, the terms do not mean the same.
Also pertinent is the point that Bagemihl is not a biologist. He served on the faculty of University of British Columbia and earned aPhD in linguistics from there in 1988. Time columnist Jeffrey Kluger, of course, called him a “cognitive scientist” too. Now, the study of cognisance can at best be categorised as a social ‘science’, not a biological science.
Anyway, when any homosexual behaviour is sighted and then cited to further the ‘homosexuality is natural’ argument, the following questions must be asked:
- Is the alternative of heterosexual partner available to the subject being studied? If yes, are the heterosexual partners from genetically diverse groups? (Every animal tries to the extent possible not to mate within the family)
- Is animal homosexuality comparable to the situations in hostels that are exclusively for boys or girls, or to that in jails?
- Is the female of the species physically domineering so as to scare the male away?
- In a given couple, isn’t the animal that is always seen mounting the other actually a bully? (Compare with similar instances of ragging in colleges)
- Among males, does the act culminate in ejaculation by both? (If not, the one not ejaculating is not enjoying the experience)
- Are sperms planted inside the anal orifice always or at least 50% of the time? (‘always’ is a better premise; animals are alien to the idea of coitus interruptus)
Bagemihl does not get into several of these details in his study of any of the 1,500 species. His published work, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (St Martin’s Press, 1999), is clearly an academically incomplete work, betraying impatience to make a political statement. By his own admission, “I’m a scientist who is gay,” he says, clarifying, “I can’t separate the two. I wrote this as a scientist, but the implications for humans are enormous.”
Not understanding the import and exact context of the above questions when they were put in a social networking website, an opponent in the debate countered my question, “Is the female of the species physically domineering so as to scare the male away?” by giving the example of the black widow spider. Since it kills the male after mating with it, why isn’t the male scared away, he asked. Wrong question.
The female black widow spider (genus Latrodectus) uses the corpse of the male it mates with as a nutritional source for the eggs it lays in the male’s body after killing it post-mating. It’s the natural behaviour of all females of this particular species without exception. Scared by such inevitable fate mating would lead to, the whole male population of no species can turn homosexual.
Several rounds of debate that this writer has had in various networking websites has shown that most opponents have this tendency of taking a fraction of my statement as cue and then flying off tangentially.
Argument # 3:
Careless, ignorant use of biological terms by the chattering class
In course of debates on the subject with the so-called liberals, one often comes across the term “hermaphrodite”. Like the gays’ and lesbians’ claim of being born that way, many talk of people who are born hermaphrodites while referring to eunuchs! This is outrageously ignorant.
Both according to biology and the Oxford English Dictionary, a eunuch is a “castrated male”. It is not expected of (learned or cultivated) sociologists to have a thorough knowledge of science. What exposes their agenda is the deliberate display of wrong language.
A hermaphrodite is either a species where both male and female organs are present in the same individual. Or it is parthenogenetic; that is, while reproducing, the ovum develops without being fertilised by a spermatozoon; hence it involves only one parent. Has anybody heard of a human being who has naturally got the fully developed features of the first or is capable of pulling off the feat of the second? Why then use this word while discussing transgender human beings?
How this class of people, some of whom are columnists in newspapers, cite Hindu texts wrongly to claim there has been an accepted tradition of eunuchs in India since the mythical times will be discussed in the section under religion.
One need not be a scientist to interview hijras of India and find out why they became a part of the group. It is a social construct that is extremely protective of all members of the order and hence becomes a refuge of some jobless, hardly educated, hapless men. The basic eligibility criterion laid down to a wannabe hijra is that, within a stipulated time after joining the order, the male has to get himself castrated.
[The mediaeval method of surgery is too crude a sight to watch and bear. Such instances have been documented and telecast by the BBC, Discovery Channel and National Geographic among several other reputed European and American broadcasters. Indian news channel Times Now too had made a programme on hijras, but it did not have such vivid (graphic?) descriptions.
New research shows not all hijras have undergone castration, but social studies reveal that only those who brave the crude operation and survive it rise the ranks in the hijra hierarchy. Some who join the clan are those who were born with ambiguous genitalia.]
The new entrant has to also convince the head of the clan that his intentions in joining the order are not mala fide; there exist severe rivalries between the different clans of hijras in every Indian town and city; the investigation of the candidate’s antecedents is to prevent subterfuge and subsequent sabotage. Once he — there is no need to be confused as to whether such a person should be referred to as “he” or “she” — is a part of the group, he begins bluffing the world around, just like every other man who joined the group before him does: “What can I do if God has made me like this?” What is sad, the audience by and large believes in this cock and bull story. Even if you consider a person born with ambiguous genitalia, it’s a medical condition; what’s so divine about it?
This paragraph is for my foreign readers; most Indians have witnessed it; many have experienced it. The hijra clans are glorified extortion rackets, sustained by centuries’ old superstitions of the land where they thrive. Most people in the subcontinent value their ‘blessings’ and fear inviting their ‘wrath’. Conveniently, the hijras invoke Vishnu’s name in front of Hindus (otherwise they worship Bahuchara Mata and Aravan) and Allah’s name while in the milieu of Muslims to instil fear in the minds of the people. They come to your house during wedding ceremonies and after your child is born; the local municipality and the office of the registrar of births, deaths and marriages help them get the addresses. The instance after your child’s birth is more scary. In the name of blessing your child, they will take him from the cradle or your lap and begin a burlesque dance while singing some film numbers totally out of tune in a croaking voice. After a while, the head of the troupe will pause and approach the head of the household and demand a hefty sum. In less developed smaller towns, the amount is in the range of Rs 200 – Rs 500. In Delhi and Mumbai, it is anywhere between Rs 2,000 and Rs 10,000. If the child’s father refuses to pay, they will not return the child. You cannot even enter a scuffle with them as the baby is still in their custody; besides, you are inhibited to hit a ‘woman’. To pressurise you more, they could turn vulgar, display their genitalia or even urinate on your floor and hurl the worst of expletives at you. The disgusting show could continue for up to a couple of hours. Mercifully, they will not hurt your child, though they may threaten to.
Outraged by hijras, their means of sustenance and the superstition that feeds their economy, India’s British rulers had banned them. In the name of tolerance and laissez faire, and perhaps because the post-independent ruling class did not want to antagonise its superstitious subjects, the ban was lifted. And now you have a breed of ‘liberal’ ignoramuses shedding copious tears for them. It’s time the government policy on transvestites/eunuchs was reviewed. Hopes for it are dim though; even the atheistic communist state governments of Kerala, Tripura and West Bengal have never tried to proscribe the cult.
Nevertheless, for some years, this writer has noticed, Indian men are turning less and less superstitious about them. I once witnessed some young men beating up hijras black and blue while travelling by train from Delhi to Kolkata (while demanding money from those college students, a hijra had grabbed one of them by his crotch).
Now men like those in that train know, when they are hitting a hijra, they are actually not hitting a woman.
Lesbians, gays and bisexuals should seriously consider ousting from their political pressure group all transgenders who are part of hijra rackets. Or, hijras may consider returning to the mainstream; government may think of a feasible employment package for their rehabilitation. No civilised society can bear with the ribaldry that hijras represent.
Argument # 4:
The birth and trigger factors of homosexuality — how true?
Two clichéd defences by the two sides in the debate: Homosexuals say they were born as such. Those who say homosexuality is not natural argue that some event in an individual’s life triggers homosexuality in him/her. This writer’s point is: the two are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that a person is born homosexual but there can be found an event — rather a biological accident — in the life of the subject’s mother that triggered a different sexual orientation in the foetus. That is, the trigger exists — either before or after the subject’s birth.
For example, when a lesbian is born, the reason could be congenital adrenal hyperplasia. What this jargon means can be understood by following this process: Adrenal glands produce cortisol from cholesterol. Cortisol is a steroid hormone required for normal endocrine function. If non-sex chromosomes suffer from a recessive disease due to mutations of genes for enzymes that help in this production of cortisol, then sex steroids are produced in surplus or less than the adequate quantity. The resultant high androgen levels during foetal development affects the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the foetus. Such a female is likely to be born with pronounced male characteristics and have homosexual tendencies (ref: Psychosexual development of women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia).
When a gay is born, he could be hyper-masculine or hypo-masculine. In the first case, explains a Department of Psychology and Graduate Group, Neuroscience, Endocrinology, University of California, “men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother’s body appears to ‘remember’ previously carried sons, altering the foetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood”.
In case of hypo-masculinity, there are sexual behaviour-controlling clumps of neurons in the anterior hypothalamus which, if they are about half the size than normal, can make the foetus/baby homosexual. This was a 1991 experiment result that was successfully replicated in sheep in 2003.
One can clearly see that the biological events above can be categorised as one or more of these: disease, disorder, abnormality. It may hence, going by human knowledge so far, be foolish to ask a homosexual to change his/her sexual orientation. But there is no harm trying to explore ways to prevent a foetus from turning homosexual.
It is important not to miss the caveat issued in 1994 by the scientist who had carried out the tests in 1991:
It (the 1991 research) also made the unassuming (Simon) LeVay one of the most misunderstood men in America. “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find,” he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. “I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay centre in the brain — INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behaviour. My work is just a hint in that direction — a spur, I hope, to future work.”
Argument # 5:
The news of gay gene was hoax
As recently as May this year, the American Psychological Association updated its records to state: “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 that 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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
This is a clear departure from the organisation’s previous stand: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
Compare the underlined parts in the two paragraphs above.
How was the myth of the ‘gay gene’ propagated? In 1993, a team led by Dean Hamer studied 76 gay brothers and their families. The team found that the maternal uncles and cousins of the subjects studied numbered considerably more than their paternal counterparts. Then, to check if there was an X chromosome linkage to the phenomenon, the researchers examined the 22 markers on the X chromosome of the gays to check if similar alleles* existed. The result of another test showed 82.5% of sibling pairs had similar alleles in the distal region** of Xq28***. This percentage was way above the range of 50% expected in case of fraternal brothers.
* An allele is a member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene.
** Distal region is the region between more of the two distances (or the most out of three or more distances) between two (or more) things.
*** Xq28 is a genetic marker. To a scientist, a genetic marker is a gene or DNA sequence that looks peculiar and hence stands out, so to speak, in the chromosome being studied. The peculiarity is a result of mutation or some change in the genomic position.
Logic in the experiment: If male sexual orientation is influenced by a gene or genes at Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. By contrast, if there isno such gene, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing.
Not being able to understand such technical parlance, some journalists reported the tests’ results as the discovery of a ‘gay gene’. The over-simplified interpretation of the results — and an obvious wrong conclusion drawn from them — created a furore in the science community. It prompted at least five more teams, the works of which are widely known to students of genetics, to carry out tests to check whether the results were similar. These five research teams were headed by S Hu, AR Sanders, JM Bailey, G Rice and J McKnight & J Malcolm. One may study their findings from this paper too: “A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation“.
The respective results in the case of Hu’s and Sanders’ studies were 67% and 66% of gay brothers in new saturated samples showing to share a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28. Bailey’s team and that of McKnight and Malcolm found no significant dominance of gay relations among their subjects’ maternal relations. Rice’s lab could not replicate the Xq28 linkage results at all.
Further studies were all the more detailed; they involved full-genome scans. Just four years ago, Brian Mustanski’s team, testing a much larger sample of 456 subjects, found much weaker link for Xq28 than what was reported by the other scientists named above. However, they did find other markers with significant likelihood scores at 8p12, 7q36 and 10q26, the latter two having approximately equivalent maternal and paternal contributions.
This makes this writer reiterate: This science is at a developing stage; please do not jump to conclusions. As of now, there is no gay gene known. If it’s located in future, we will know… hopefully from thoroughbred science journalists.
Argument # 6:
Lay man’s philosophy challenging a different order of nature
A question must be asked to homosexuals: If the nature’s design of union between a man and a woman could be defied, why couldn’t homosexuals devise a method of uniting that does not bear any resemblance with the processes of sexual union used by heterosexual couples?
Another question that is about such similarity is: How come, like in heterosexual union a man remains a man and a woman – woman, in a homosexual couple too, say, L1 and L2, L1 always plays the ‘male’ and L2 the ‘female’? Why can’t L1 be the ‘woman’ and L2 be the ‘man’ and vice versa alternately? Why for some days in their seven-year long relation couldn’t Martina Navratilova, for example, play Judy Nelson’s ‘wife’ instead of always being her ‘man’? Being not constrained by two different sets of sexual organs as is the case with a heterosexual couple, shouldn’t a homosexual counterpart observe a greater degree of equality or exchange during the process of mating?
The corollary of the second question is: Why is it seen invariably that in a homosexual couple, the partner that acts like a man has more masculine physical features while the one who conducts herself like a woman is physically softer of the two?
Argument # 7:
Media policy: be shrill to gag the politically incorrect, and ‘win’ the debate
In the “Newshour” programme on Times Now on 2 July, all that anchor Arnab Goswami allowed Father Dominic Emmanuel, Director of the Delhi Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church, to utter after any statement that needed a context, were “no, no…”, “what I want to say is that…”, “my point is…”, etc, while his pro-gay activist opponent Anjali Gopalan of the Naz Foundation and Tripti Tandon, advocate for the applicants at the high court, were allowed to speak uninterrupted. Arnab himself raised the pitch and volume of his voice so high every now and then that even a word of the priest’s explanation of his case could not be heard. Finally, picking a statement of Father Emmanuel out of context, Goswami asked him, “Do you mean, Father, that children of broken families become homosexuals? That’s all we have time for tonight!” He turned towards the other camera in the studio set and said, “We leave it to our viewers. Do write in to us… !”
That was a clear bid to ridicule the stand of religion on the issue. And it was unfair. Since Father Emmanuel had counted a few more reasons for homosexual behaviour in some individuals, that a broken family necessarily turns a child into a homosexual could have, in no way, been what he wanted to say. The priest was any way wrong, but there was a better way to expose that (explained in the next two paragraphs as well as under the section on religion).
A broken family can have several repercussions. A child of the family may meet with one or more of these consequences: chronic stress, depression, rage, self-medication leading to drug addiction, alcoholism, low self-esteem, lack of confidence in one’s capabilities and/or any kind of self-defeating lifestyle (T Harris, GW Bifulco and A Brown, 1986; N Garmezy, 1986; M Maine, 1991). For that matter, if the child is resilient enough, he may bear no implication of the feud between his/her parents at all. But to stay in the context of this section, let us find out if homosexuality is a probability in such cases.
There is no such evidence. However, a family troubled by marital discord may lead to certain situations where a child feels that the opposite sexes are not compatible or, taking advantage of the weak family set-up, a sick aggressor may abuse the child. If the abuser happens to be of the opposite sex, an aversion for that sex may develop in the child’s mind. But there is no ruling out of such possibilities even where the family bonds are pretty strong. And there is no thumb rule that the sick aggressor will be of the opposite sex.
Argument # 8:
The clergy on TV are neither saints nor scientists, but heckling makes them come across as victims
When a Catholic clergy says that a probable outcome of a broken family is a heterosexual boy growing up to become a homosexual man, let us, before dismissing everything related to religion as hogwash, study certain institutional frameworks that the Church has built over the ages.
Take this article by Rev Dr David Kyle Foster, for example. It talks about two probabilities: (1) a homosexual can be a paedophile and (2) a child who is abused could grow up to be homosexual, for the one who had abused him belonged to the same sex. The promotion of his writing by the Church of the Messiah and Mastering Life Ministries may raise doubts over its scientific import. But are the authors that he quotes — Timothy Dailey and David Finkelhor to name two — all dubious?
Not quite. But when the Church quotes them, the citations are incomplete or out of context, or the inference drawn is wrong. Let’s take for instance the study by John MW Bradford, D A Christian website quotes this sentence from the study: “Researchers have variously estimated the incidence of homosexual paedophilia between 19% and 33% of reported molestations… (p 218)”viz, “The Heterogeneity/Homogeneity of Paedophilia,” [Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa, (1988)].
Why does the author shy from deriving from which sexual group the remaining 67% to 81% come from? On checking the same research work from an academic source, one would find: “… sexual offenders constitute a heterogeneous group…” The mischief stands exposed.
On the contrary, what Arnab Goswami’s style does is leave the audience with a nagging thought: Why did he not let that man speak? What could have been the motive? Did he do it on his own volition or was it a decision of the channel’s higher management? Such questions in the minds of viewers (the medium’s consumers), the market-oriented Bennett, Coleman & Co Ltd must understand, can affect their channel’s position in the market in the long run.
SECTION III: Religion
Argument # 1:
The premise that Hindu society has traditionally accepted alternative sexuality rings hollow
My clincher in this argument is that the depiction of an incident in a (realistic) book merely suggests that the incident happened. From mere depiction, it cannot be inferred that the incident was accepted by the public at large. Hindu texts do depict several forms of sexuality, but nowhere do they describe what level of acceptance any of those less common forms enjoyed in ancient India. The acceptance part is an imposition on the texts by today’s ‘modernists’.
On the 12th page of the 3 July edition of The Times of India, mythologist Devdutt Pattanaik, along the lines of several newspaper columnists’ pet refrain, wrote: “In the Valmiki Ramayana, there are descriptions of Rakshasa women who kiss women in Ravana’s bed on whose lips lingers the taste of their master.” What kind of a pro-lesbian argument is this? Is the body more important than the mind? Does Pattanaik suggest that while coupling a lesbian actually visualises or dreams of a man in the place of the woman she is having sex with? In that case, it’s an anti-homosexual argument rather than a pro-homosexual one of the type explained inResearch’s argument # 6 under the science section.
Following is the exact verse, the translation of which Pattanaik must have referred to:
सुंदरकाण्डे नवमः सर्गः
रावणाननशङ्काश्च काश्चिद् रावणयोषितः |
मुखानि च सपत्नीनामुपाजिघ्रन् पुनःपुनः ||५७||
Ninth chapter in Sundara Kaanda:
rāwaNānanashangkāshcha kāshchid rāwaNayOShitah /
mukhāni cha sapatnInāmupājighran punah punah //57//
Translation: Numerous young wives of Ravana were kissing one another, taking the face of each other for that Ravana.
The writer, seemingly on purpose, ignores the explanation given in the next verse, which is…
अत्यर्थम् सक्तमनसो रावणे ता वरस्त्रियः |
अस्वतन्त्राः सपत्नीनाम् प्रियमेवाचरंस्तदा ||५८||
atyartham saktamanasO rāwaNE tā arastriyah/
aswatantrāh sapatnInām priyamEwācharanstadā//58//
Translation: Those beautiful women were enamoured with Ravana; thus having lost their senses, bewitched and inebriated, they would sniff the faces of their co-wives, taking them for the face of Ravana.
Had Pattanaik read the 58th verse too, would he have argued that lesbians are lesbians either because they are looking for a man in their woman partner or because they are under the influence of alcohol? It is to avoid such mischievous interpretations that in Islamic practice a quote from the Qur’an is considered inadmissible unless the preceding and the succeeding verses too are quoted.
Argument # 2:
Spirituality, rationality, science and linguistics combined proves ‘liberal’ theory bogus
A pet theory of ‘liberal’ Indians — and foreigners who are taught what India is by these ‘liberals’ — is that Hinduism sanctioned eunuchs through the icon of Ardhanārīshwara. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The word “ardhanArIshwara” literally means “half-woman god”. According to some Hindu theologians, it is a symbol that signifies the plain scientific fact that the world is a result of a union of the man, embodied by Shiva, and the woman, personified by Shakti. Spiritually, this is द्वैत/ dwaita, meaning duality of form.
The Shaivas do not agree. According to them, Shiva alone is the origin of life. If interpreted rationally, this would mean they are saying the first man came into existence before the first woman.
There is a parallel found in the Rgveda where an egg splits into भूत/bhUta (the body) and प्राण/prANa (the life). The first Veda says, “He who appears as a man has a woman inherent in him and she who appears as a woman is as much a man.” If the Vedas are too esoteric, a lower vehicle of the Puranas may be considered. The Ardhanārīshwara here symbolises at once both the power of renunciation and asceticism and the blessings of marital felicity.
It would take an outrageously blunt brain to read the above as an ode to eunuchs. Who eunuchs are according to biology has already been explained and how the English language defines eunuchs has already been pointed out.
Argument # 3:
Islam forbids homosexuality, but the ‘expert’ didn’t give citations
One of the panelists in the debate on the court judgment on Times Now was Kamal Farouqui, Chairman of the Delhi Minorities Commission. He vehemently opposed the idea of homosexuality being natural and declared, “No Muslim will ever accept it.” He was right. If you are a Muslim, you cannot defy the Qur’an. In the holy book, Surah 7:80-84 says:
وَلُوطًا إِذۡ قَالَ لِقَوۡمِهِۦۤ أَتَأۡتُونَ ٱلۡفَـٰحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِہَا مِنۡ أَحَدٍ۬ مِّنَ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ (٨٠) إِنَّڪُمۡ لَتَأۡتُونَ ٱلرِّجَالَ شَہۡوَةً۬ مِّن دُونِ ٱلنِّسَآءِۚ بَلۡ أَنتُمۡ قَوۡمٌ۬ مُّسۡرِفُونَ (٨١) وَمَا ڪَانَ جَوَابَ قَوۡمِهِۦۤ إِلَّآ أَن قَالُوٓاْ أَخۡرِجُوهُم مِّن قَرۡيَتِڪُمۡۖ إِنَّهُمۡ أُنَاسٌ۬ يَتَطَهَّرُونَ (٨٢) فَأَنجَيۡنَـٰهُ وَأَهۡلَهُ ۥۤ إِلَّا ٱمۡرَأَتَهُ ۥ كَانَتۡ مِنَ ٱلۡغَـٰبِرِينَ (٨٣) وَأَمۡطَرۡنَا عَلَيۡهِم مَّطَرً۬اۖ فَٱنظُرۡ ڪَيۡفَ كَانَ عَـٰقِبَةُ ٱلۡمُجۡرِمِينَ (٨٤)
wa lūţāan ‘idh qāla liqawmihi ‘ata’tūna al-fāĥishata mā sabaqakum bihā min ‘aĥadin mina al-`ālamīna//80//
‘innakum lata’tūna ar-rijāla shahwatan min dūni an-nisā’ bal ‘antum qawmun musrifūna//81//
wa mā kāna jawāba qawmihi ‘illā ‘an qālū ‘akhrijūhum min qaryatikum ‘innahum ‘unāsun yataţahharūn//82//
fa’anjaynāhu wa ‘ahlahu ‘illā amra’atahu kānat mina al-ghābirīna//83//
wa ‘amţarnā `alayhim maţarāan fānžur kayfa kāna `āqibatu al-mujrimīna//84//
Translation: Al-Araf — And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? (80) Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. (81) And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure. (82) And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind. (83) And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence of evil-doers! (84)
وَجَآءَهُ ۥ قَوۡمُهُ ۥ يُہۡرَعُونَ إِلَيۡهِ وَمِن قَبۡلُ كَانُواْ يَعۡمَلُونَ ٱلسَّيِّـَٔاتِۚ قَالَ يَـٰقَوۡمِ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِى هُنَّ أَطۡهَرُ لَكُمۡۖ فَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ وَلَا تُخۡزُونِ فِى ضَيۡفِىٓۖ أَلَيۡسَ مِنكُمۡ رَجُلٌ۬ رَّشِيدٌ۬ (٧٨) قَالُواْ لَقَدۡ عَلِمۡتَ مَا لَنَا فِى بَنَاتِكَ مِنۡ حَقٍّ۬ وَإِنَّكَ لَتَعۡلَمُ مَا نُرِيدُ (٧٩) قَالَ لَوۡ أَنَّ لِى بِكُمۡ قُوَّةً أَوۡ ءَاوِىٓ إِلَىٰ رُكۡنٍ۬ شَدِيدٍ۬ (٨٠) قَالُواْ يَـٰلُوطُ إِنَّا رُسُلُ رَبِّكَ لَن يَصِلُوٓاْ إِلَيۡكَۖ فَأَسۡرِ بِأَهۡلِكَ بِقِطۡعٍ۬ مِّنَ ٱلَّيۡلِ وَلَا يَلۡتَفِتۡ مِنڪُمۡ أَحَدٌ إِلَّا ٱمۡرَأَتَكَۖ إِنَّهُ ۥ مُصِيبُہَا مَآ أَصَابَہُمۡۚ إِنَّ مَوۡعِدَهُمُ ٱلصُّبۡحُۚ أَلَيۡسَ ٱلصُّبۡحُ بِقَرِيبٍ۬ (٨١)
wa jā’ahu qawmuhu yuhra`ūna ‘Ilayhi wa min qablu kānū ya`malūna as-sayyi’āti qāla yā qawmi hā’uulā’ banātī hunna ‘aţharu lakum fa attaqū Allāha wa lā tukhzūnī fī Đayfī ‘alaysa minkum rajulun rashīdun//78//
qālū laqad `alimta mā lanā fī banātika min Ĥaqqin wa ‘innaka lata`lamu mā nurīdu//79//
qāla law ‘anna lī bikum qūwatan ‘aw ‘āwī ‘Ilá ruknin shadīdin//80//
qālū yā lūţu ‘innā rusulu rabbika lan yaşilū ‘ilayka fa’asri bi’ahlika biqiţ`in mina al-layli wa lā yaltafit minkum ‘aĥadun ‘illā amra’ataka ‘innahu muşībuhā mā ‘aşābahum ‘inna maw`idahumu aş-şubĥu ‘alaysa aş-şubĥu biqarībin//81//
Translation: Hud — And his people came unto him, running towards him – and before then they used to commit abominations – He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the presence of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? (78) They said: Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want. (79) He said: Would that I had strength to resist you or had some strong support (among you)! (80) (The messengers) said: O Lot! Lo! we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee. So travel with thy people in a part of the night, and let not one of you turn round – (all) save thy wife. Lo! that which smiteth them will smite her (also). Lo! their tryst is (for) the morning. Is not the morning nigh? (81)
Lot (other spelling/phone: Lut/lut/; not pronounced as the English word “lot”; the ‘o’ here is close-mid back rounded vowel, and the ‘t’ is voiceless, emphatic, alveolar stop), a nephew of Ibrahim/Abraham, appears as one of the earlier prophets in the Qur’an*. When a Muslim needs to be explained by the clergy as to why or how Islam is against homosexuality, Lot’s instance is given.
[*The Biblical account of Lot/Lut is different]
There used to be two cities Sodom and Gomorrah where people were believed to be homosexuals. According to the Islamic belief, Allah sent three angels disguised as handsome men to Lot, who pleaded helplessness in protecting them. The men of the two cities were overjoyed at the arrival of three new ‘preys’. Lot offered his men his daughters and pleaded with his folk to spare the three boys, but they wouldn’t listen. The angels then revealed their identity to Lot and asked him to leave the place, deserting his wife (who was not deemed ‘pure’). Lot left. The next morning the two cities were found completely destroyed. Islamic legend has it that Allah turned those places “upside down” and “rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread layer on layer”.
This writer’s point is not why Farouqui did not turn his speech theological; that could have been over the top. My point is, he could have just mentioned what he said had the backing of the Qur’an so as not to leave any doubt in the minds of Muslims. And the message to the TV show anchor is: Why argue with someone, the terms of whose holy book are non-negotiable? Extremist and moderate Muslims do interpret their religion differently. But it’s not likely any practising Muslim will come up in support of the acts of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Argument # 4:
The Christian argument is more sophisticated; the clergy avoids sounding dogmatic
In Islam, settlement of a dispute is a three-stage process. First find out what the Qur’an says about the issue. If there exists no comparable instance in the Book, try finding analogies from the Prophet’s life (the Hadith). If even from there you do not get much clue, call a body of clerics to arbitrate on the issue. The Catholic Church, as has been observed since the time it was witnessed that an overwhelming majority of Christians were ready to believe only what was scientific, does not work that way.
The head of an archdiocese is not likely to say he, being a true Christian, is helpless because the Testament forbids homosexuality. Interestingly, God kills everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah according to the Old Testament too (19:4-5, 24, 25). Paul condemns homosexuals (gays as well as lesbians) in the New Testament as well (To the Romans: 1:26-28).
Some scholars say the Bible is not a translation of the original Old Testament as the Hebrew used in that era is not known to anybody in the present-day world. The translation was offered by Masorites in the 10th century after adding vowels to the original words. Original Hebrew had only 22 consonants and no vowel.
The New Testament was written most probably in Aramaic, the language Jesus and people of Judea spoke at his time. Aramaic is similar but not identical to Hebrew. The New Testament in Greek is a translation from Aramaic. Some scholars disagree; they say the available version in Koine Greek, a language that used to be spoken in the eastern regions of the Roman Empire, is the original one.
Following is the New Testament text referred to above (Original and undisputed Hebrew text of the Old Testament could not be obtained):
26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας. αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες. 28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν Θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ Θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,
Translation: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; …
Today, the Catholic clergy, appearing on TV, wouldn’t tread the path of persuading believers in the name of the Lord. He would compile the results of several researches conducted by various reputed universities and quote the most convenient portions to forward the Church’s argument, a piece of evidence of which has been provided in the section on science above. If a journalist must interview a Catholic head on the issue, it should either be on print or, if it has to be on TV, the anchor’s homework should be thorough. That homework, of course, is not possible without some grinding in science education. But it’s not too difficult. There are not more than two dozen odd writers whom the Church quotes. So, read their conclusions, keep a stack of the hard copies on the desk as a ready reckoner, and you are ready to conduct the interview.
[The Protestant clergy is conspicuous by his absence on Indian TV.]
But much more experienced than Times Now’s Goswami, even NDTV’s Roy did not make the effort. In the debate on 2 July onNDTV, Roy, going against his normally calm and composed demeanour, thundered at Abraham Mathai, deputy chairman of the Maharashtra Minorities Commission, “Who are you to decide what is moral?” If the BBC is any standard, one has never heard its anchor inviting somebody to a discussion and then questioning, “Who are you?” If the interviewee is of no consequence, why was he invited in the first place? Second, by any journalistic and civilised standard, “who are you?” is too rude a question to throw at anybody in any verbal exchange except when the questioner is not well versed in English language and culture, which is not Roy’s case. His education and long stay in England during his formative years makes his choice of phrase ironical. Third, anybody who has an opinion can be asked, “Who are you (to have this opinion)?” If a representative of a body of people is called and then asked, “Who are you to say it is morally wrong for somebody else?” (the exact words of Roy), it raises a very fundamental question: How does a democracy function? How do you speak to a crowd? You have to speak to a representative of the crowd. Isn’t it that simple? TV journalists don’t think so; they ask this question to all representatives of people every other day on every other channel. Fourth, let nobody have an opinion; let science be the decider; let politically correct journalists read science.
It cannot be expected of everyone to follow science or religion as if one were obsessed. What hurts is the absence of an appreciation of nuance in journalists who are the most visible in India today. Perhaps they merely represent a common malaise in society where few get it right, where few understand what the statement of a person means exactly. Careful, patient hearing should do away with the question, “What do you mean?” As for senior television presenters, this question mirrors more of the prejudice they imbibed through Western education that sees everything political as left or right, between which every difference is irreconcilable. You take a scientific view and you will be called an atheist. You support some aspect of religion and you will be found a subscriber of dogma. The respective markets that the two clubs cater to forces an English media journalist, who may not have a thorough knowledge of science, to take the risk of being labelled an ‘atheist’; and it forces a representative of a religious body, much as he may not know everything about his religion, to take the risk of sounding like an ‘obscurantist’. Some, like the Catholic clerics on TV, try being a crossover and end up looking silly.
Till the time this condition prevails, the biggest casualty will be truth, especially the truth that is defined as the latest knowledge of science. The problem is, even those who swear by science get emotionally attached to certain discoveries and when that science is replaced by yet another set of discoveries, these people are reluctant to let the old go.
That homosexuality is natural was the latest knowledge in 1973. That it may not be so was indicated in 2001. At the moment, the position of science is not known with finality; more pieces of evidence are accumulating on the not-natural side though. Unfortunately, though some doctors have tried turning homosexuals into heterosexuals, not much effort is being made to redress abnormalities like congenital adrenal hyperplasia or maintain prenatal androgens in adequate measure or maintain the normal size of some vital neurons in the anterior hypothalamus. The focus in the labs is more on ‘why and how it happens?’ and not on ‘now that we know why and how it happens, let’s fix it’.
As for law, irrespective of what science says, homosexuals must be treated as equal citizens. Prannoy Roy equates this stand to “sitting on the fence”. The Naz Foundation finds it paradoxical. That again is a failure to appreciate nuance. ‘Give me the whole of it, or I’ll take nothing’ is a misplaced demand to make to religion. The ball is not in the cleric’s court; it is in the scientist’s.