Specious Arguments against Decriminalization of Homosexuality

  A number of Specious arguments have been advanced to argue against decriminalization of homosexuality.

• That it is unnatural. There’s a wealth of scientific evidence that suggests otherwise, and that it’s part of the genetic coding of a section of the population (please refer to our edition of December 13).

• That it is against ‘our culture’. Again not true, because our ancient texts and our art are replete with instances of homosexuality (see TOI of December 12 and 13). Fact is, the anti-gay law was enacted by our erstwhile colonial masters 153 years ago and reflected their Victorian values, not ours. (Even the British have long since discarded it, and have now cleared same-sex marriage.)

• That it is immoral. So, a man who is in multiple relationships with women would perhaps be considered “immoral”. But are his actions criminal? 

    Ultimately, that’s what it boils down to: Is it criminal? Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to consider the homophobic claim that homosexuality is “unnatural”, “immoral” and “against our culture” — none of which it is — the question we need to ask is, is it criminal? Does it hurt anyone, except the sensibilities of our self-appointed moral police? Does it threaten public peace and order? 

    It does not. 

    Justice A P Shah, in his judgment of 2009, cut to the heart of the debate when he placed “constitutional morality” above “public morality” even if it was the public morality of the “majority”. The Constitution guarantees its citizens liberty, equality and privacy — and Section 377 violates every one of these values. 

    Which brings us to another disturbing and dangerous argument that the Supreme Court has made, and which is being repeated by fundamentalists of all hues and religions: that homosexuals are a “minuscule fraction” of our population. First, that is incorrect: Given the estimate that they are 7-13% of our population, even if we were to consider just our adult (18+) population of 762 million (and not the entire population of 1.2 billionplus), it adds up to almost 100 million at the upper end of the range, which is larger than the population of Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Singapore and Finland put together. 

    Even at the lower end, that’s 7%, it’s about the size of India’s entire tribal population and half its dalit population. So, even if one were to accept a conservative estimate of the size of the country’s gay population, it is by no means “minuscule”.
    But if, again for the sake of argument, we were to accept the “minuscule” argument, does that mean that our tiny Parsi community should have no protection under the Constitution? They are, after all, “minuscule” compared to Hindus, Muslims and several other religious and ethnic groups/ denominations. 

    What if someone tomorrow were to decide that cremations and burials were the only “natural” way to dispose of the dead? Would that make the Parsi tradition of disposing of their dead as the “unnatural” acts of a “minuscule” community? Should it be declared “criminal”? Should their dakhmas (towers of silence) be shut down and should Parsis who bid their loved ones goodbye in their own traditional way be thrown into jail? 

    When Independent India was born, our nation-builders provided for two nominated seats in Parliament for representatives of the Anglo-Indian community — because they felt the community was perhaps too small to secure representation in a general election. 

    Our democracy needs to be large-hearted enough to accept people of diverse faiths, beliefs and orientations, as long as they do not subscribe to hatred and violence. Who and how they choose to love, consensually and in private, shouldn’t be anybody else’s business.

( from Times of India )