Not So Gay ?

The Delhi High Court ruling legalising or decriminalising homosexual acts amongst consenting adults has stirred a hornest's nest. The section 377 of the Indian Penal Code that criminalises consensual sexual acts between members of the same sex has been declared violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution. However, the reactions that have erupted quite vociferously against the Delhi HC ruling are regressive in nature.

An astrologer, Suresh Kaushal who was amonst the first to raise the objection, has said that even animals do not act in such unnatural ways. The SC would be hearing the merit in his stand, along with the voice of Naz, a gay rights activist group. There are also certain religious heads belonging to the Sikh, Muslim and the Christian communities who have been very explicit and overtly expressive in their objection on the same. There have also been a few health experts who have said that this legalisation would perpetuate unsafe sex and consequently the HIV virus.

Now, there are a few not so comfortable questions these objectionists need to answer:

1) Isn't the criminalisation of homosexual activity amongst consenting adults not against the articles 21 , 14 and 15 of our Constitution? Article 21 talks about the Right to life and liberty, which infers the right of an individual to choose one's partner. Article 14 talks about the Right to Equality and the Equal protection of laws, and the Article 15 talks about non-discrimination on the basis of caste, religion ,race, creed, sex, and here sex should not be merely referred to the gender but also to mean sexual orientation. This rests on the same principle of protecting the minorities like women, muslims, sikhs etc.

2) When certain communities/religions have their own personal laws to determine their way of life as against the law of the land, now suddenly why start harping that it is against any sacred book/religion and that India should not legalise such an act? Since when did the law of the Land start affecting them?

3) There are still many unexplained reasons (environmental and genetic) for the behaviour and the sexual oreintations of the gays/homosexuals. Who is anybody to talk about the naturality or the unnaturality of this act till the reasons are well researched and the results known?

4) How can we explain the double standards of people who invite the enuchs to bless a new born baby, while scorning at homosexuals?

5) Instead of fearing an increase in unsafe sex, is it unthinkable that the legalisation of consensual adult homosexual act would result in more of such people asserting their sexual right and coming out into the open? Is it not more feasible to educate them on safe sex and the HIV virus in such a scenario?

Instead of introspecting the above, many are just harping on the decline in moral values that the Delhi HC ruling would encourage. It would do more good to be informed about homosexuals than criticising them. (In fact I have been thinking of the widening in the scope of rape to include homosexuals:))

The term 'Gay' was originally meant to mean ' carefree, happy and uninhibited', also used loosely to comment on the morality of an individual. And during the 20th century, it attained the meaning now widely used for similar kind of reasons. There are arguments as to the environmental and genetic basis or such sexual orientations. There has been no authentic conclusion so far. However, there have been some studies on the fruit flies, where a DNA transplant made the male fruit flies move away from the females and get attracted to the male fruit flies. Also, there have been studies on the physiological and cognitive similarities between straight men and gay women, and similarly between gay men and straight women.

So, the crucification of personal choice of sexual orientation and partners need not be so malicious as has been expressed from various quarters. It is after all a matter of personal choice, and morever, what about heterosexuals who indulge in homosexual acts, or are bisexual? In which ambit would such individuals fall?

Let us all believe in the policy of 'live and let live' There is nothing wrong in disliking or not prescribing to a thought or an action which may be morally debatable in one's eyes. The strength of an individual lies more in the continous strive in learning to cohabitate peacefully with people holding such thoughts or values. Now, if that is not being GAY---GOOD AS YOU, what is?????