NEWS

Queer Azadi - Mumbai's Rainbow March - August 16th, 2008

August 11, 2008
Sakshi Juneja

Why didn't Mumbai have the Pride march when the other three metro cities were having it?

Well, on June 29th, Delhi, Calcutta and Bangalore had their Rainbow marches, and as a commentor on my previous post pointed out (Thanks for the info, Sachin), Mumbai is having one too. For those of you who've just come in, the Pride is a march taken out by the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) community, or, in short, the Queer community to protest their marginalization in our hetero-centric society.

However, Mumbai did not have the Pride march the same day as it was happening in other cities (a first for Delhi) in India, not to mention across the globe. And I thought to myself:

1. Why?

2. Didn't this show a disturbing lack of solidarity by the Mumbai queer community for their counterparts in the rest of country?

3. Was it just the lack of organisation?

And

4. Now that we're having one, I'm curious, why adopt a different name 'Queer Azadi'?

I posed these questions to two prominent LGBT activists, Ashok Row Kavi (UNAIDS, Humsafar) and Geeta Kumana (INFOSEM), who are also part of the organising commitee of the upcoming march.

The whole point of having the march on the 16th of August, they said, is to show that even while our country may have got independence from the British, we're still not free of the laws created and instituted by them- most notably section 377 of the IPC that criminalizes homosexuality. That apart, they also wanted to strike a note closer home by connecting queer freedom to our own context, whereas the marches that took place in June followed the tradition of commemorating the Stonewall Riots that took place in New York on June 28, 1969.

Still, what about the show of unity that having the march the same day as the other three cities would have meant?

Kavi called it a case of having one's cake and eating it too.

"Lots of guys from Bombay were at all three marches, so what's this about us not participating? It's just that I think we wanted to do this a bit differently. And no, why CAN'T we be different? This way we can have our cake (go for any of the other three marches) and also have our own where other cities can participate. This time we have large contingents coming from Pune, Surat, Baroda, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Delhi and Kolkata."

Kumana insisted that it wasn't an organiser problem at all. As a matter of fact, if you visit Queer Azadi, a detailed coverage of the meeting is available for all to see.

As Kavi pointed out,

"Sure there are class, community and other differences. At least Bombay handles it honestly. I know there are diferences in Kolkata, Delhi and Bangalore too and they flare up quite frequently on the Net. Here we sit down and thrash them out across the table. There is a saying in Hindi -when there are so many vessels close together, they do make noise."

Finally, as for the different name, here's what he had to say about it.

"Come on, Bombay is DIFFERENT! It is the most corporate and business like of all Indian cities. Do you think any other city would have thought of pink Gandhi topis for the march? It also shows India's pluralism."

So there, questions answered. Now it's time to do the do and show some pride.

In case you too are interested in showing support, here's where you go:

Assembly on August 16 at August Kranti Maidan at 3.30 2.30 pm. The march will leave for Girgaum Chowpatty at 3 pm.

Main issues for protest:

* Section 377, anti-sodomy laws: Quit India

* Forced marriages of gays and lesbians

* Constitutional provision to fight sexual and gender discrimination

* End homo- and transphobia, in educational institutions, workplaces, families.


Saakshi O. Juneja is an active blogger, feminist and overboard dog lover. Currently working as a Business Development Manager for a sportswear manufacturing company in Mumbai, India. Did graduation in Marketing & Advertising from Sydney, Australia. As far as blogging is concerned...is a complete Blog-a-holic.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Aaman
URL
August 11, 2008
12:50 PM

Do you think the Health Minister Ramadoss' pro-lifting the ban on homosexuality has any significance?

#2
blokesablogin
August 11, 2008
05:12 PM

It is strange how when I was India I never once thought of "homosexuals" as a separate "group". We once had a conversation at home where we acknowledge that there were people with "different" sexual preferences and that was the end of it. It was after coming to the US that I learned that homosexuality was a "big" deal. Most of us in Tamil Nadu knew Jayalalitha's sexual preferences but that did not prevent her being CM. I doubt that can happen in America.

#3
blokesablogin
August 11, 2008
05:13 PM

It is strange how when I was India I never once thought of "homosexuals" as a separate "group". We once had a conversation at home where we acknowledge that there were people with "different" sexual preferences and that was the end of it. It was after coming to the US that I learned that homosexuality was a "big" deal. Most of us in Tamil Nadu knew Jayalalitha's sexual preferences but that did not prevent her being CM. I doubt that can happen in America. I think we are pretty mature as a country and we do not need to do this silly "western" thing. All this "noise" is so jeuvenile.

#4
smallsquirrel
August 11, 2008
05:57 PM

blokes, you've got to be kidding me with this. you think india is more progressive, on the whole than the US when it comes to sexual orientation? it's CRIMINAL in India!

the reason you never thought of homosexuals as a separate group in India is because they are so repressed that they have to hide their identity (well, except hijras that is) and for the most part stay in the closet. yah, ok, so you had a progressive family. that's nice. you really think that the rest of india accepts homosexuality?

no, they do not. the accept that maybe it exists, but most think if you force the person to marry it will be "cured" and "go away". the reason jayalalitha's orientation was accepted is because it was NEVER EVER mentioned. if she came out of the closet officially the shit would hit the fan.

Do you know any homosexuals? anywhere? and why have you put "homosexuals" in quotes?

#5
smallsquirrel
August 11, 2008
07:35 PM

sakshi.... "pride" weekends are often staggered in the US so that people can go to festivities in different cities. as one of the people you spoke to said, maybe they wanted to show solidarity in a different way... by attending the marches in other cities. especially since there are not thronging thousands available and willing to march, maybe it would have been better to have the marches on separate weekends to have a better showing? not sure many would travel to all the different cities, but it is a thought. I guess you could look at it all a number of different ways.

any way you choose to look at it, I am just glad it is happening... am just sad it's after I left and I cannot be there to show my support.

#6
blokesablogin
August 11, 2008
08:48 PM

smallsquirrel- you do not know the Tamil press- it is really very different! Anyways, the "reason" for the "quotes" is because they are just as "normal" as you and me (I did gather you have a husband from prior correspondence). As I do not have to "define" or "declare" my sexual preferences, I don't think anyone needs to. It is a personal choice that is better kept personal.
Yes, I do have a few friends who do not have the same sexual preferences as I do and it has not impacted our "relationship" in any profound way one way or the other.
I did not say that India is more "progressive"- just that it is more mature. All this bickering in the ENGLISH press is what this is! And to "appear" cool and "in" equally "English" Indians will "show" their "support".

I remember my husband's uncle once telling the story of their milkman in the village who ran away one day with the "man of the house"!! It is shared as an anecdote, just as the "woman who ran way with the milkman"! This happened like almost 50 years ago. The English press and the urbanized "Indian" raised in a diet of English press can never understand the "crass crudity" of the rural, regional press.

#7
smallsquirrel
August 11, 2008
09:07 PM

hunh, well you've made a big leap there thinking i do not understand the Tamil press...

and you really do not understand homosexuality. yes, for heterosexuals it is a given, everything in society is centered around it and people simply assume that you are straight. when you are gay, you are bucking that each and every day in every aspect of society that you do not think about. so while you think it is not necessary to define sexuality, you think that because yours is deemed "normal" by society and the social norms of daily life are set to back that up.. and encourages it.

not so for homosexuals. they have to worry about all the different aspects of life you so obviously take for granted. you may know homosexuals, but you hardly empathize with their struggle.

#8
XYZ
August 11, 2008
09:51 PM

Maybe the gay community wanted their pride parade to coincide with Ganesh Chaturthi, their favorite festival?
http://desicritics.org/2008/01/16/012013.php

#9
Chaitanya S
August 11, 2008
11:22 PM

Blokesablogin: "As I do not have to "define" or "declare" my sexual preferences, I don't think anyone needs to. It is a personal choice that is better kept personal". You've hit the nail on the head.

Gay parades should be on the lines of "population control drives". Atleast they'll spread some awareness which is useful to society. Chest thumping about your sexuality somehow does not seem a reasonable method to change a law. It just shows disrespect towards the judiciary.

#10
commonsense
August 11, 2008
11:46 PM

Blokes:

"As I do not have to "define" or "declare" my sexual preferences, I don't think anyone needs to. It is a personal choice that is better kept personal".

That's one way to look at it.

Another view would be: since heterosexuality is taken to be the default position and VERY public indeed, it's best to keep homosexuality in its various forms AND support of it by folks who are not gay and who are not sure if they are gay or not, very PUBLIC. Especially in view of the fact that the laws assume that compulsive heterosexuality is indeed the default key on the wide keyboard of delicious "polymorphous perversity".

#11
blokesablogin
August 12, 2008
01:25 AM

hey folks, I also hang out with a bunch of "queers" who do not take sexuality seriously- a bunch of celibates! Now, that is also a "part" of the Indian populace. They are also called "gurus" or sometimes "godmen" or sanyasis! They have their "celibate" parade too- once in 12 years called the Kumbh mela. I think human sexuality is overrated and overdone in the press, because we have no life. Period.

Sex is an appetite like hunger- basic for biological survival. Sometimes the male-female attraction ceases to exist altogether or transforms to a same sex attraction. Sometimes there could be "polyandrous" or Polygamous attractions, sometimes it could be male AND female. whatever permutations, combinations, it simply comes down to a personal experience experienced in a relationship. Read the stories of Kaccha and Devyani, of Shikhandi, of Yayati in the Mahabharatha. Of Indra, of Gautama's wife Ahalya in the Ramayana. Many stories of sexuality chronicled in the books of the past.

Making for "media space" is just that- to sell more paper or sponsor another "reality" "march" on TV! Let us enjoy the "fun"!
As for the "political" legalities of all this, since when has anyone bothered so much about the law in India? Noe THAT is news to me!LOL!

#12
Sakshi
URL
August 12, 2008
08:00 AM

Aaman : Well anything favorable is welcomed with open arms in this matter. However words hold no meaning till they are put in action. So hopefully Mr. Minister will take his opinion forward and do the do.

#13
smallsquirrel
August 12, 2008
08:19 AM

blokes... this is the last thing I am going to say in the matter. but I cannot understand why you would dismiss something that is obviously important to a lot of people, especially when you are not a part of that group. do you realize how closed-minded that is? you do not think about your sexuality because in every culture the default is heterosexual, and so you do not have to think about how to define yourself. but for people who are completely left out, these things take on larger proportion.

and no, it is not simply about who you have sex with. that is a horribly simplistic and naive view. it is about who you LOVE. who you are legally able to pass on your name to. your life. your ties, if you can have children (many homosexuals are not allowed to adopt), if you can have your partner be your next of kin and make decisions for you in hospital. it's huge. and your dismissal of it as simply having to do with sexual urges is so very sad and narrow.

and wow, OK, celibates. well, they do have the above issues, so clearly that is why you do not understand them.

#14
temporal
URL
August 12, 2008
06:51 PM

ss:

re: the last para

holy bavarian pope!

#15
commonsense
August 12, 2008
07:18 PM

SS,

Thanks for pointing out that it's no all about sex, but about relationships, kinships, caring, nurturing etc.

#16
kerty
August 13, 2008
12:31 AM

A group that defines itself by its sexual orientation, whose identity rests solely on its sexual orientation, whose sexual orientation is its sole reason d'etre.

I don't mean that they would be incapable of relationship, caring or nurturing, but I don't see these to be defining foundation of these groups - these groups exist because of their sexual orientation, period and like all other humans, and because humans are social animal by nature, they too may be capable of relationship and caring - however, it remains to be seen if their agenda is to strengthen the very foundation of relationship, kinship, caring and nurturing - the family institution, or is it to annihilate them with politics of sexual anarchy.

#17
The Buddha Smiled
URL
August 13, 2008
07:38 AM

Kerty in #16: "the politics of sexual anarchy"?!

what, pray tell, does that exactly mean? And how long will the queer community demonstrate to you that their motivations are pure and true before you are satisfied with the evidence presented and will offer a verdict that all people really want is the freedom to love and live with any consenting adult, regardless of individual gender or sexuality?

#18
smallsquirrel
August 13, 2008
08:15 AM

kerty, if you're going to try to be pretentious at least get it correct... the phrase is raison d'etre...

the rest of your paragraphs I could not for the life of me understand

#19
commonsense
August 13, 2008
10:11 AM

Kerty:

""it remains to be seen if their agenda is to strengthen the very foundation of relationship, kinship, caring and nurturing - the family institution, or is it to annihilate them with politics of sexual anarchy.""

it remains to be seen what kerty's agenda is. once he can find his own voice and learn to write with some clarity.

#20
kerty
August 13, 2008
10:59 AM

Sexual culture in all its variations, combinations and permutations that reject boundaries, norms, common good. Just because something takes place among consenting persons does not clinch the argument. It has to be judged by how much good or harm it brings to the society and what that society values.

#21
Anamika
August 13, 2008
12:04 PM

Kerty, re: #20: And WHAT good do heterosexual practices do our society? Other than producing countless millions in overpopulation who are then left to starve and grow up on the streets? Or indeed to grow up into narrow-minded allegedly educated individuals who believe that dowry, dowry death, domestic violence, marital rape, abortion of female foetus, are all for the "good" of the society. Spare me such "good" heterosexual practices!

#22
kerty
August 13, 2008
01:03 PM

dowry, dowry death, domestic violence, marital rape, abortion of female foetus.......

Perfect examples of chaos and corruption when society loses its norms and values by pursuing greed and narrowly-focussed interests - the chaos would manifest within cultural/social framework, no doubt, and they become easy targets in sleezy propaganda. Just as unmitigated greed and materialistic laissez faire can unleash chaos and corruption in the society, so would sexual anarchy. And society normally would react to it by extracting the price from their votaries. No ifs and butts.

#23
commonsense
August 13, 2008
02:38 PM

Kerty:

""It has to be judged by how much good or harm it brings to the society and what that society values."'

So, Kerty is the self-appointed judge. And ladies and gentlemen, his judgement is: (hysterical drumroll!!!)

Kerty:

""dowry, dowry death, domestic violence, marital rape, abortion of female foetus.......

Perfect examples of chaos and corruption when society loses its norms and values by pursuing greed and narrowly-focussed interests...""

So, according to Judge Kerty, all the evils enumerated above are a totally modern intervention that never happened in the past, those golden days we can only look back in nostalgia since evil monkeys such as CS appeared on the scene.

#24
commonsense
August 13, 2008
02:52 PM

Kerty:

""No ifs and butts.""

when you raise the dubious moral panic of what you call "sexual anarchy", I can understand why you mention "butts"...but what pray, are "ifs"??

#25
Kartikeya
URL
August 14, 2008
10:06 AM

Kerty... why would an individual being allowed to pursue his sexual preference (homo or heterosexual) take us all the way to "sexual anarchy"? Besides, the grouping that you complain about is forced by the prevailing laws.

The next stage in this debate (hopefully we can avoid this by expeditiously passing progressive legislation), is for homosexuality to be passed on as a lifestyle "choice".. which i suspect is at the root of the "sexual anarchy" obsession.

The fewer prejudices we harbour and foster, the better. Best wishes to the LGBT Rights activists.

Some maturity from Bollywood would help too. May be Aamir Khan should make a film about homophobia... like he recently did about dyslexia.

#26
kerty
August 14, 2008
04:19 PM

"why would an individual being allowed to pursue his sexual preference ... take us all the way to "sexual anarchy"?"

Because there are few billion individuals, each one pursuing ground-breaking combination/permutation of sexual explorations and preferences, each seeking to tear down prevailing taboos, norms, consensus. Where each norm and taboo is seen as a phobia to be pulled down with parades and bolliwood drama.

Currently, consensus exists against adultry, rape, sex without consent, sex with 13-18(hell, they are are biologically ready for sex), sex with objects and animals - but individuals can technically broaden their minds to enjoy such sex acts, and those who do not enjoy them or feel harmed, well, one can argue that they suffer from inhibitions and phobias that prevent them from trying and enjoying them, so welcoming and accepting any sexual preference is merely a matter of changing mental conditioning and broadening perspective - yes, even rape and sex with child can be a preference and fantasy, and resistance to rape, a curable mental condition, a phobia. A slippery slope indeed where life comes to imitate porn and becomes inseparable from it, where breaking of taboos and sexual deviancy is not merely tolerated, but celebrated as preference, choice, new bench mark of freedom and tolerance. But there is God and there is Aids to poop the party. Amen!

#27
commonsense
August 14, 2008
10:43 PM

Kerty:

""Currently, consensus exists against...sex with objects""

huh? huh? huh? (my vocabulary tonight is fairly limited)

#28
commosnsense
August 14, 2008
10:46 PM

kerty:

""sexual deviancy is not merely tolerated, but celebrated as preference, choice, new bench mark of freedom and tolerance.But there is God and there is Aids to poop the party. Amen!""

Beyond sick. No doubt "I don't pretend to be PC" will once again be the alibi for such sickening crap. Shame. An insult to my conception of what it is to be human.

#29
commonsense
August 14, 2008
11:54 PM

kerty:

""sexual deviancy is not merely tolerated, but celebrated as preference, choice, new bench mark of freedom and tolerance.But there is God and there is Aids to poop the party. Amen!""

And I thought Jerry Falwell was dead, without any hope of reincarnation, since he did not believe in reincarnation;

""Falwell also regularly linked the AIDS pandemic to LGBT issues and stated, "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."""

#30
Chandra
August 15, 2008
12:34 AM


I think Gay and Lesbian people should have the right to do what they wish but I donot see any reason to change our laws. Our attitude towards minorities of any type will change not due to change in laws but with more education and prosperity. I think LGBT groups should spend more effort educating ordinary folks which in turn should eventually lead to legislation of favorable laws.

#31
The Buddha Smiled
URL
August 15, 2008
06:33 AM

Chandra,

While I agree that changing a law does not necessarily change social perceptions, it is a small but necessary way of gaining greater legitimacy in a wider society that does not recognise the LGBT community in general. Imagine living in a situation where wanting to be with the person you love is considered a crime - it is a level of oppression that is quite insidious, and also renders the ordinary LGBT helpless, with no recourse to the law if harassed or threatened.

Educating people or changing laws - which one goes first? It's a bit chicken and egg, isn't it? But I think its probably easier to change laws and then gradually hope for the best.

Kerty's statement in #26 is particularly disgusting - I wonder if he'd be quite so supercilious if he ever met anyone who had contracted AIDS or HIV through "normal" heterosexual conduct - like SO many people around the world. Oh yeah, and what about those babies who contract HIV from their mothers in the womb? Or women and teenage girls who are gangraped by HIV-positive militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where HIV is used as a weapon of war? Or people who are infected by syringes while on the public transport system in Johannesburg as part of gang wars? But I guess that since all of these take place within the "normal, socially acceptable" structures of heterosexual conduct, its all good.

And yes - the last time I checked, Section 377 of the Indian constitution didn't have anything in it about sex with objects; if it did, would that mean that straight sex with a sex symbol (i.e. someone who was OBJECTIFIED by the adoring masses) would probably be illegal. Poor Bipasha, and poor, poor Hrithik. Someone should tell them that they're probably in contravention of Kerty's law of acceptable sexual behaviour!

#32
Anamika
August 15, 2008
08:24 AM

TBS: Bravo! And amen!

Kerty's comment is particularly hideous. Moreover it is also ill informed and ill reasoned:

1. While "consensus" may exist against adultury, the last I checked, India does not have Taliban/Saudi style laws and it is definitely not criminalised.

2. Re: rape and paedophilia, Kerty cannot seem to actually differentiate between forced/coerced sex and consensual sex between two adults. That says worse things about his moral standards and mental state than any thing else.

Cheers all..happy weekend.

#33
commonsense
August 15, 2008
09:24 AM

TBS on Kerty:

""I wonder if he'd be quite so supercilious if he ever met anyone who had contracted AIDS or HIV through "normal" heterosexual conduct - like SO many people around the world. Oh yeah, and what about those babies who contract HIV from their mothers in the womb?""

Conjecturing here, but going by Kerty's comment #26, his smug response would be that HIV etc. are the consequence of "sexual chaos" and the desire to engage in all sexual desires. This is evident by his last sickening and chilling sentence:

Kerty:

""A slippery slope indeed where life comes to imitate porn and becomes inseparable from it, where breaking of taboos and sexual deviancy is not merely tolerated, but celebrated as preference, choice, new bench mark of freedom and tolerance. But there is God and there is Aids to poop the party. Amen!""

Not sure whether he is baiting or just being himself. There are many like him, and not just the now dead born-again fundamentalist Jerry Falwell.

#34
Chandra
August 15, 2008
10:07 AM

TBS

I donot think lawmakers are going to stand up in Parliament to change laws on homosexuality if more than half their voters cannot empathise with people of this orientation. 20 years from now, Yes. As of now, Education is the only way forward.

#35
Kerty
August 15, 2008
10:59 AM

My post on AIDS on another thread on DC. Main thrust of the arguments is in the context of AIDS awareness, thus, not relevant to topic here, but it should answer TBS's point. So here it goes...

AIDS has originated out of certain life-styles. It has entered the blood supply of nations only thru participants of such life styles. And now, it is claiming innocent lives as well through contaminated blood supply created by these lifestyles. Until these life-styles are re-evaluated, made to pay the price and abandoned, it defies sense of justice and facing the karma. To find solutions medically would not be enough. Because they do not address the root problems of these lifestyles. It means those life-styles want to be consequence-free and unaccountable and want the price for their sins to be paid by innocent society at large, by spreading their lifestyles even more in the name of AIDS awareness and safe sex. Why should people who have nothing to do with these life-styles pay the price? Why should people who do not want to participate in these lifestyles need safe-sex, AIDS awareness or need to alter their life-styles or be exposed to awareness of other lifestyles? In stead, AIDS awareness campaign has become a platform to promote such lifestyles, make them safer and consequence-free, make them acceptable to society at large, and demand rights and recognition. To me, that is politics of extortion and blackmail hiding behind innocent victims of aids that are produced by these life-styles in the first place. Only education and awareness we need is where safe sex does not mean sex with rubber, but monogomous sex only within marriage, where awareness does not mean slogan of AIDS kills, but certain life-styles kills, not compassion or rights for people who promote/engage in such lifestyles but punishment and banishment of such life-styles. And cost of such awareness campaign and taking care of innocent victims have to be paid from special taxation levied on these life-styles. Make it possible for AIDS victims to file class-action compensatory law-suits on people who promote these lifestyles in their commercial ventures ie arts, books, movies etc. That is the kind of AIDS awareness campaign India needs.

#36
Anamika
August 15, 2008
11:09 AM

Kerty: First of all get some REAL information rather than sick, prejudiced bs on AIDS.

IF as you say, "AIDS has originated out of certain life-styles. It has entered the blood supply of nations only thru participants of such life styles. And now, it is claiming innocent lives as well through contaminated blood supply created by these lifestyles" - please explain why and how such massive cases of AIDS are reported in primarily HETEROSEXUAL AND MONOGAMOUS communities in Africa, Mid-East, Asia and Latin America? And funny just how many MARRIED, MONOGAMOUS, HETEROSEXUAL couples happen to have AIDS in India.

Actually, while we are talking laws, lets start with bringing in a law that allows case action to be brought against people like you who spread lies about AIDS and thus endanger more human beings than any "lifestyle" can.

Your post shows nothing more than your own ignorance and the workings of a prejudiced and diseased mind!

#37
smallsquirrel
August 15, 2008
11:23 AM

anamika... you hit the nail on the head. kerty does not seem to be aware of reality. it's sad and warped.

#38
kerty
August 15, 2008
12:11 PM

'Consensus' is not something one would arrive at by laws or by Taliban-style enforcement or by education campaign. It is mostly unwritten, ingrained in cultural framework, embedded in environment, and people mostly take it for granted - until a small fringe that hitherto remained obscure and underground, aided by ideological crusaders, seek to challenge it and subject the consensus to atomization and anarchy - by feeding it to individualism, and by de-localizing it that removes it from purview of community standards and control. That is when people feel outraged as if somebody is trying to rob the safety net of their wel-being which turns ordinary persons into agitated 'moral police' and proponents into freedom-fighers with loftier rhetorics.

One can say that a norm/consensus currently exists that sex without consent is a bad thing, even though, in most cases, it may not bring any physical harm or injury. It has been outlawed because in a cultural think, it is deemed to be such a terrible thing and so we can't have that. In a march of sexual liberation/empowerment, it is probably a last frontier that may remain on the fringe for a while as mere 'role play' while sexual culture is busy dealing with immediate and more pressing challenges/taboos to iconoclast. But it can gain tolerance and acceptance once sexual culture gains mainstream and maturity, where sex without consent is no more than a one more sexual life-style, one more variation in its mosaic of sexual permutations, unjustly outlawed by draconian and outdated laws - and not being able to participate or enjoy it is merely a mental conditioning and individual preference, to be cured by awareness parades and education. I know it sounds outragious - but this is how incremental erosion of consensus works - they create slippery slopes with a set of arguments, and once a set of arguments win the battle, the same arguments can be used by the rest in the spectrum to open the flood-gates while no one would know how to plug it because their ideas and arguments would have lost the favor of political mainstream by than. The idea of having child-sex may sound offensive, but just a generation ago in India, age of marriage for many was 13-14 - it was very much part of cultural conditioning and society had come to embrace it, rather than reject it. There were no schools to indoctrinate people, nor laws, police or Taliban to enforce these things. Indian culture has never needed government laws or Talibans to create consensus or enforce consensus, yet majority of life confirms to some values, norms and idosyncracies that are uniquely Indian - and they irk our leftists to no end, so much so they would go to any length, even if they have to embrace sodomy and pornographic life-styles.

#39
commonsense
August 15, 2008
01:01 PM

Kerty:

""AIDS has originated out of certain life-styles....""

The very first sentence is non-factual, prejudiced drivel. Not surprising that the rest is more of the same.

Kerty, if your goal here is to get attention, and that goal justifies the means, you are certainly succeeding.

#40
commonsense
August 15, 2008
01:03 PM

Anamika to Kerty:

""Actually, while we are talking laws, lets start with bringing in a law that allows case action to be brought against people like you who spread lies about AIDS and thus endanger more human beings than any "lifestyle" can.""

A good starting point. Anyone with a modicum of commonsense would agree to this.

#41
Kartikeya
URL
August 15, 2008
09:46 PM

Kerty.. thats my point - the science today suggests that being gay is not a lifestyle choice like the other "deviances" that you mentioned.

All the stuff that you refer to - underage sex, rape, etc. would still be a crime even in a homosexual situation.

You're confusing choice and preference here. Rape etc are not "preferences".

#42
Aaman
URL
August 15, 2008
10:39 PM

Sakshi,

Hope you'll write about the march as it goes today.

#43
Chandra
August 16, 2008
12:04 AM

Kartik

The whole idea that homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle choice has its own problems. I am sure you are aware of the failed gene therapies of the mid 20th century.

#44
kerty
August 16, 2008
12:58 AM

Kartikeya

Incest, pedophilia, rape etc are not preferences, not yet. But they can become an acquired orientation. Mental conditioning can be acquired to engage in them.

In a sexual anarchy, there can not remain iron-clad black and white, clear cut demarcations - all lines eventually have to get blurred - lines between biological and acquired conditioning, between choice and preference, between consentual and non-consentual, between children, youth and old, humans and animals, between and within genders, within family(incest) and outside family - arguments and activism would be identical to chip away at any taboo, and once a successful precedent of overthrowing a taboo is set, rest would follow in due course. Like marijuana has become a gateway drug for ushering high octane drug culture, homosexuality has been made into a gateway lifestyle to lead in highly sexual culture and lifestyles.

Having laws against something is of no consequence. One can pass all kind of laws but sheer volume of caseload unleashed by sexual individualism can overwhelm any system of laws and enforcement(ie. There are laws against prostitution and porn too but no amount of law enforcement can ever be adequate to effectively deal with them, and enforcement would have to resign to high priority crimes rather than go after sexual dalliance of billion individuals) - one can see the ineffectiveness of most advanced legal system of America in its futile dealing with proliferation of sexual lifestyles.

#45
smallsquirrel
August 16, 2008
08:02 AM

I think kerty is inching dangerously close to hate speech against homosexuality; if he hasn't already crossed the line, he's almost there

#46
commonsense
August 16, 2008
09:33 AM

SS,

that and desperate for attention

#47
Joe A
August 16, 2008
09:50 AM

That's an interesting chain of exchange there.

@Kerty: When you throw incest, pedophilia and rape in the same group as homosexuality, you expose an ignorance of a level that's beyond repair. Did you even know that an overwhelming majority of those cases occur among heterosexuals? You, like sooo many clueless people, seem to subscribe to the flawed notion that people can be conditioned to change their sexual orientation. Do you honestly believe that millions of people, in every country, of every shape and form, are voluntarily suffering persecution just to legitimize a fad?? Homosexuality is as old as society, assuring basic human rights for everyone is what's new. Don't make us sound like the byproduct something recent.

All this doomsday balderdash about sexual anarchy, juxtaposing the word 'homosexuality' to every possible ill you can dream up, only makes you sound like an uneducated alarmist. There still exist people who wish slavery were never abolished, that women should never have been seen as equal, but thankfully they have been left to mutter to themselves on the fringes. What is socially accepted needs to change as society progresses and previous inadequacies and injustices reveal themselves; else we'll all forever remain bonded labour in a feudal India, still burning our women.

Like dear ol' J.S. Mill said:
The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.

Don't mistake freedom to express one's sexuality with 'free sex', I know you're having trouble with it :|

#48
commonsense
August 16, 2008
10:18 AM

Joe A,

The fact that Kerty's so-called views on this issue is, as you say "beyond repair", is beyond doubt. Not for me to say, but I do think it is best to simply ignore him after having done our best for other interested bystanders. He can be the official mascot of the raving fringe dwellers who are still wringing their hands over women being "allowed" to work, "allowed" to enter the universities, the dissolution of the caste system, the abolition of slavery etc. etc. On the other hand, given that his so-called views on homosexuality are not quite yet on the fringes, it is good that he comes out with his imbecile, inane rants. He might even convince those who have not made up their minds about this, to support reason and rationality rather than perverted merchants of moral panics and so-called thekedaar of the so-called "moral majority". The old adage about the moral majority being neither, still applies.

#49
kerty
August 16, 2008
11:18 AM

Joe.

"When you throw incest, pedophilia and rape in the same group as homosexuality, you expose an ignorance of a level that's beyond repair."

In a highly sexual culture, one can not have one and not the others - it does not matter if some of them are outlawed. Once you open the door, all combinations and permutations move in. That is why Homosexuality can become a gateway to sexual anarchy.

"seem to subscribe to the flawed notion that people can be conditioned to change their sexual orientation"

It is not a flawed notion. Sexual preferences and orientation can be acquired with and exposure and experimentation.

"Homosexuality is as old as society, assuring basic human rights for everyone is what's new."

And they never held parades. They kept their sexual preferences private and personal. They existed within confines of family-oriented community-centric cultures where they blended their self-interests with those of the family and community they lived in. What is new is that now they are being used to sabotage them.

We are all for human rights but those rights have to be based on some common values and common interests - one can not chop humans into tiny fragments based on some lowest denominators and than invent rights for each fragments and clothe the agitation in some lofty rhetorics of freedom, diversity, tolerance etc.

That you have linked sexual rights and freedoms to progressiveness, empowerment, women's welfare, individual freedom, human rights, removing injustices, slavery and feudalism etc only confirm that the crusade is larger than rights of only certain sexual freedoms - and that same set of arguments can be used to legitimize any sexual lifestyle no matter how extreme they may be, and any attempt to confine any sexual lifestyle can only make the whole sexual culture so insecure they would feel their own sexual lifestyle is at risk - thus making proliferation of latest sexual fad to be a bench mark of tolerance and freedom. These are observations based on debates that have taken place in some of the countries that have gone thru these phases.

"Don't mistake freedom to express one's sexuality with 'free sex'"

It would falls within 'free sex' as long as sexual variety is trying to be free from accountability for harm it brings to rest of society, seeking to be free from consequences. I know leftists are counting on sexual culture to explode sexual malpractices and sexual abuses within cultural and social framework so leftists can create compelling propaganda around them and liberate and empower us from our society with manufactured self-righteousness. No it is not free. It comes with huge costs and it boils down to who pays.

#50
Joe A
August 16, 2008
10:50 PM

How was the parade??

Very curious to know if it all went as planned. Please post links to any news or pictures you have.

Cheers,

#51
commonsense
August 17, 2008
04:41 PM

Joe,

I heard it went off quite well. Believe it or not, even Kerty showed up and cheered!!

#52
Joe A.
August 19, 2008
10:00 AM

Yay!

Looks like some celebrities also showed up, huh? Congratulations and thanks everyone who made this happen.

Wish you even more success next year.

---

There's this illusion that homosexuals have sex and heterosexuals fall in love. ~Boy George

#53
commonsense
December 13, 2008
11:16 AM

Kerty: (holding forth on homosexuality as a "choice")

""Sexual preferences and orientation can be acquired with and exposure and experimentation.""

If so, when did you acquire your heterosexual orientation? Was it after intense experimentation with homosexuality and other forms before you compared and settled on smug heterosexuality? How exactly did you decide on heterosexuality as your preferred sexual orientation? Was it a tough call?

#54
kerty
December 14, 2008
03:00 AM

CS

Heterosexuality is not an orientation. It is a biological and natural condition.

#55
commonsense
December 14, 2008
08:42 AM

Kerty:

"Heterosexuality is not an orientation."

Unlike you, I don't think they are disoriented. So, when and how did you make your choice?

#56
Morris
December 14, 2008
02:22 PM

kerty I beg to differ

"Sexual preferences and orientation can be acquired with and exposure and experimentation."

Perhaps. But not all sexual orientaion is because of exposure and experimentation. There is something different in physiology of homosexuals. It is too biological. If heterosexuality is biological and natural then it will not be permanently lost by some exposure and experiments. No matter how hard they try homosexuals cannot revert back to this natural condition i.e. heterosexuality because they never were there. Their biological and natural condion is homosexuality. In some rare cases if it is aquired by exposure etc. these folks have been able to get back to their natural condition i.e. hetrosexulaity.

#57
Achala Sinha
URL
December 14, 2008
02:53 PM

"Unlike you, I don't think they are disoriented. So, when and how did you make your choice?"


Commonsense:

So you are actually trying to tell us that your homosexuality was a birth defect? Why dont you tell us more about it.

#58
commonsense
December 14, 2008
03:13 PM

Sinha:

"Commonsense:

So you are actually trying to tell us that your homosexuality was a birth defect? Why dont you tell us more about it."

Do you want to hear about the alleged birth defect or about my homosexuality? The former is boring since nobody want to hear about defects. The latter is infinitely more racy. how about we get together in person? where can we meet?

#59
Bhupinder Ghamar
URL
December 14, 2008
03:24 PM

"Do you want to hear about the alleged birth defect or about my homosexuality? The former is boring since nobody want to hear about defects. The latter is infinitely more racy. how about we get together in person? where can we meet?"

Commonsense:

There are many other people here that would like to learn about your homosexuality. Could you please share it with everyone here rather than personally meetup with Achala and share it only with her?

#60
kerty
December 14, 2008
04:28 PM

Morris

"If heterosexuality is biological and natural then it will not be permanently lost by some exposure and experiments. No matter how hard they try homosexuals cannot revert back to this natural condition i.e. heterosexuality because they never were there. Their biological and natural condion is homosexuality."

Sexual orientation, once acquired, creates strong sexual preferences and pursuits that often preclude usual, normal or natural sex. It can fill the complete spectrum with variations of the combination and permutations - so one can find sizable adherents and exceptions within every variation found along the spectrum.

#61
Morris
December 14, 2008
05:26 PM

kery

I do not believe aquired sexual preference provides sufficient explation for failure of parents using all sorts of means including physical punishment and therapists using all kind of professional techniques to deviate these folks from their so called chosen preference. Because biological preference is too strong. I knew of a father who told me about his young son and his failure to get him change his preference. I don't think this young lad had enough time to experiment much.

Furthermore, researchers are finding some slight difference in physiology of the brain of such person. Don't ask me to quote any reference because I do not have any. But I do recall reading some thing like that recently. But even before that I sincerely believed that these folks can't help it. That is the way they are. Perhaps you are equally sincere about your belief and we will not get too far on this subject. But suffice is to say that you are now in minority. If you were not then why would we have a lagislation using the term 'sexual orientation'? For you there is only one orientation. I am somewhat surprised with your views on this subject.

#62
Morris
December 14, 2008
08:13 PM

kerty, I just noticed this. Very sorry for incorrectly spelling your name.

#63
commonsense
December 14, 2008
08:48 PM

Bhupinder:

"There are many other people here that would like to learn about your homosexuality. Could you please share it with everyone here rather than personally meetup with Achala and share it only with her?"

naah...kerty will throw up and that sure won't be a pretty sight on this site!

#64
commonsense
December 14, 2008
08:50 PM

Morris to Kerty:

"For you there is only one orientation. I am somewhat surprised with your views on this subject."

and i'm surprised that morris is surprised at kerty's views on this subject!

#65
commonsense
December 14, 2008
09:12 PM

apnee (queer) ajaadi ko hum
hargiz metaa saktey nahin
sar jhuka saktey hain lekin
sar kataa saktey nahin

#66
commonsense
December 14, 2008
09:14 PM

a lot of studies show that folks who are really hostile to gays are the ones who really are actually gay (J. Edgar Hoover etc. etc.). i wouldn't be too surprised if during the next pride march kerty leads it with a banner that reads "garv sey kaho ham gandu hain!"

#67
kerty
December 14, 2008
09:23 PM

Morris

Outlawing and punishing sexual deviancy is not anything new, as sexual culture that rides on it can create dysfunctions within social institutions. It has been outlawed because it is not considered as a birth defect, but a crime against nature and crime against society. And that has been thruout history and across cultural and religious spectrums. Leftist agenda have mainstreamed the cultural terrorism as its agenda depends on mixing up and obfuscating jehadis and moslems, missionaries and xians, gays and transgendered, maoists and poors etc, and have them give cover and alibi to their counter part.

#68
Morris
December 14, 2008
10:12 PM

kerty

You lost me. What are you suggesting? Is it a birth defect? I only pointed out punishment to argue against your belief that it is aquired. If it is aquired it cannot be that hard to change. That was the point I was making. I am not sure what you are saying when you brought leftists in there and left me confused.

Did you just see 60 minutes? Congressman Barny Frank realized at the age of 13 problem with his sexual orientation. I am sure he did not have too many opportunities to experiment at that age. You know that he is gay. Please, you are a very intellegent person, rethink it is not very complicated. Sexual urge is a very very strong urge and most of us men could not stand even a thought of having relationship with another man. I find it difficult to understand any kind of experimentation will make any man exclusively homosexual. I can visualize bisexuality.

#69
kerty
December 14, 2008
11:15 PM

Morris


"You lost me. What are you suggesting?"

There is not ambiguity in my posts. It clearly states that it is an orientation. You are lost because you are trying to make sexual deviancy into something innate, biological and genetic.

"If it is acquired it cannot be that hard to change. That was the point I was making."

That is because these people do not want to change. Jehadis can also change and live like other moslems. But they do not want to. They have agenda. They have acquired ideological orientation. Therefore, they rather would die for their orientation but they would not change. I make a distinction between Jehadi and moslem. Similarly, I make a distinction between gay agenda and transgendered. Former is a lifestyle born of orientation, and its agenda is cultural war/terrorism. Never mind, if the context of gay agenda within leftist agenda does not make sense to you. You can do your own research at your own leisure.

That Barny Frank and his lover were running a male prostitution ring from their home. Did that come with his biology too? Another senator was recently caught soliciting a stranger inside the airport toilet. That must be some nature's call. Gays have developed their own code language to hook up with total strangers at public places like truck stops, rest areas, public toilets, bars, clubs, theaters, porn shops, gloryholes, internet. Having owned a pub, restaurant, motel, 24hr gas stations, I am no stranger to their life-style and not the least confused about its full range. But don't take my word for it. Or what leftist media tells about Gay movement.

#70
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:36 AM

Kerty:

"Leftist agenda have mainstreamed the cultural terrorism as its agenda depends on mixing up and obfuscating jehadis and moslems, missionaries and xians, gays and transgendered, maoists and poors etc, and have them give cover and alibi to their counter part.""

funny, except that it is not. it is all a package deal here; don't miss the lumping together of a wide variety of "the axis of evil".

not a psycho-analyst me, but can anyone else detect strong latent sexual desires and longings here??

#71
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:47 AM

Kerty:

"It has been outlawed because it is not considered as a birth defect, but a crime against nature and crime against society"

sad that such people who commit crime against basic commonsense and intelligence are still at large in society. it takes all kinds to make up the world I guess!

#72
Morris
December 15, 2008
01:54 PM

kerty

I do not believe it! You compare jihadis with with homosexuals. Then you bring leftists in there. Dick Chaney's daughter did not grow up in a leftist's house. That is for sure. Most of the time you sound quite logical. I think this time you are not coming any where close.

You compleltely ignored the point I raised about Barny Frank. Are you suggesting that he was brain washed at the early age of 13 or perhaps aquired his orientation by experiments by that age? That was my point.

So he was ivolved in a male prostitution ring. These folks did not have much choice when society's attitude used to force them in hiding. They have to satisfy their not so normal urge some how. Even those with normal urge get into this kind of clandestine activities any way. Fortunately people are changing. I do not believe you represent a norm any more. What can I say? No more arguments. Each on his own. Wish you well.

#73
kerty
December 15, 2008
07:10 PM

Morris

Since you have hard time understanding it, I tried to explain it with an analogy of Jehadis. To get deeper into politics of gay agenda and Left will be even more bewildering for you, and perhaps beyond the scope of this dated thread.

"Are you suggesting that he was brain washed at the early age of 13 or perhaps aquired his orientation by experiments by that age? That was my point."

That is the age when teens begin to open up to sexual ideas and available pool of hip and happening sexual ideas in the public domain become their primary source. It might just be a book, or a movie, or a friend or a situation that might lead them on to something. They are naturally curious about new ideas and things and open to try something out. They are willing to be exposed to something that is different, that which makes them curious. Experiment merely means exposure, willingness to be exposed to something. It does not mean a 13yo Frankie went out and tried out everything. It merely means that a person was willing to expose himself to a sexual idea, and was willing to try it out, and once he tried it out, he stayed with it for whatever reasons. Example: Some teens who start out early with masturbation often get hooked on it thru out adult life, even after marriage, and some of them enjoy it so much more than other sexual activities. It does not matter if the kid in question is Barney frank or is Dick Chaney's daughter. Once sexual ideas become part of the pool that occupy the public domain, who will be infected with what ideas would be as good as roll of dice.

"So he was involved in a male prostitution ring. These folks did not have much choice when society's attitude used to force them in hiding"

You are talking about USA. You think gays in USA do not have choices to have sex, therefore they are forced to seek male hookers? My friend. Hooking up with strangers is a way of life, a sexual preference, a hip lifestyle. And they are certainly not in hiding. They may have their own places and set ups where they do it openly, but they are certainly not in hiding. They have injected their hook-up culture in teen-dating scene as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13blow.html?_r=1&em
Now they want to inject similar anarchy within institutions of marriage and family as well.

"I do not believe you represent a norm any more."

Some things should never change. Some things will never change. I have no doubt who will win this cultural war.

#74
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:32 PM

Kerty:

""Since you have hard time understanding it, I tried to explain it with an analogy of Jehadis.""

ha ha ha! funny beyond words, beyond laughter, beyond tears!!! what a sad specimen of humanity we have on display here.

#75
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:39 PM

Kerty:

""Example: Some teens who start out early with masturbation often get hooked on it thru out adult life, even after marriage, and some of them enjoy it so much more than other sexual activities."'

oh me oh my! a masturbation cop now! kerty, what's the problem here? you don't like hair on the palm? Any clue why Bates College in Maine does not have an M.A. program? Because the graduates would be called "Master Bates". And Masturbatory Cop Kerty would have a tougher time rounding them up. What is the world coming too?? People masturbating "even after marriage". Tsk, tsk, surely the end of the world as we know it!

#76
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:43 PM

Kerty,

have you thought of running a sex clinic, perhaps in Karol Bagh, Delhi? "Dr. Jhandoo's Clinic. kamjori ka ilaaj bijlee ki dwaraaa"!! You certainly seem to have the last word on everything, including sex! great going my friend.

#77
commonsense
December 15, 2008
07:51 PM

Morris:

""Each on his own.""

not really if prophet kerty had his way: it should be as he see's it, each not on his/her own, but each on his (kerty's) way. i thought he was just a self-appointed thekedaar for the nation, religion, culture etc. but now he seems to have appointed himself the contractor-in-chief for nature and sex too!! Hubris is never in short supply for sure.

#78
commonsense
December 15, 2008
08:28 PM

Kerty:

"To get deeper into politics of gay agenda..."

pretty suggestive..."deeper", as Freud said, "a pipe is not a pipe"...how deep is deep and what kind of deep are we talking about?

#79
commonsense
December 15, 2008
08:35 PM

Kerty:

""Having owned a pub, restaurant, motel, 24hr gas stations, I am no stranger to their life-style and not the least confused about its full range.""

Wow! Now we are getting somewhere! Hopefully more graphic details about this confession. Perhaps a youtube clip. how close were you to "their lifestyle", for instance. did you get really "close" to it in the motel, gas station or just the pub after a lot of beer. reveal all. nobody, except you, will judge you!

#80
commonsense
December 15, 2008
08:40 PM

Kerty:

""I am no stranger to their life-style and not the least confused about its full range.""

Wow! Tell us more about your adventures. The full range! We can understand how you decided that you were not gay, and no, we have nothing against non-gays or gays. How much of a non-stranger were you? So did you try it out and decided that was not how you would prefer to get off??!

#81
commonsense
December 15, 2008
08:49 PM

Kerty:

""It merely means that a person was willing to expose himself to a sexual idea, and was willing to try it out, and once he tried it out, he stayed with it for whatever reasons."

all jokes aside, i agree. it's best not to try any sexual ideas at all, unless it leads to the production of babies, the maintenance of tradition, hierarchy, and the prevention of "sexual anarcy" that will surely destroy society as we know it. what a nightmarish scenario. (nightfallish scenario?)

#82
Morris
December 15, 2008
10:17 PM

Hey CS, There is no need to get worked up about kerty's view on the subject. I must say I am surprised about the strength of his convicion. There is no if but or any doubt about it. I guess it must be the religion. But I am sure he is harmless.

#83
commonsense
December 15, 2008
10:24 PM

not to worry morris, contrary to what you might think, i am not worked up! (imagine what it must be like when I AM worked up!!!). to say that sex is a complex issue, is to simplify it quit a bit, to say the least. but then, he does have a viewpoint that I need to respect which I do; but it would be nice for him to expand a bit more on it...perhaps not! he is harmless indeed, because, as you point out, he is in a minority, whether he likes it or not.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8094)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!