Subscribe to Desicritics
Married and Gay
Harish C
If you are against gay marriage, don't have one! Why is it that this edict seems so hard for the detractors to digest. More so from the circles of religion; various sects who are at loggerheads for matters of faith seem to have a unanimous opinion regarding same-sex marriages: BAN THEM (or in an Indian context, KEEP THEM BANNED)
It is the opposition from religion (or leaders thereof) that seems to be most vehement. Their grounds is that marriage is an institution fostered and interlinked to religion. Therefore, they juxtapose that the various modalities of marriage should be under their purvey. To lower my stoic stance for a while; RUBBISH!
Marriage has never been and never will be the monopoly of religion and it is essentially a social extension of the ritual of mating which gained social and emotional status. It has predated verifiable history of religions world over. Indeed, it has been mentioned in various religious texts from Manusmriti to the Vedas. It is true that they do not condone it or encourage it but neither do they condemn it. If they had the generosity of spirit to do that then why can't the modern day apostles of religion?So it comes to pass that religion has no holds over same-sex marriage. Then why the ban? Especially in the Constitution.
The validity of the ban is shaky as it is the article in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which classifies it as illegal:
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 a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Clear enough, but what makes this lose its credibility is the fact that
a. It was passed in the 1860s by the British
b. England has long since given up its homophobic laws and have legalized same-sex marriages
Ultimately, it is the premise that marriage and its legalities are under the framework of the state. If the state decrees that it is legal, it is. It is heartening to note that no other than our health minister has taken the first step in proclaiming support for the same. Now its left to be seen how far this progresses before its derailed by the collective paranoia of the troika of religion-politics-bureaucracy.
Yes, let's open our minds a little and let marriage be what it is supposed to be: An agreement between two people to be loyal and faithful to each other for the rest of their lives.
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2008
02:52 PM
(stands up and applauds wildly)
bob
August 28, 2008
03:04 PM
why stop with Section 377
How much of the modern Indian criminal code is a remnant the british colonial period? perhaps it ALL needs to be overhauled.
commonsense
August 28, 2008
10:15 PM
Love that opening sentence!!
""If you are against gay marriage, don't have one!""
Yes!!
kerty
August 29, 2008
02:03 AM
The list keeps growing -
Disrespect to religion,
Contempt for marraige and family,
Spreading sexual lifestyles that kill and victimize
Showing contempt for laws of the land
I wonder why society does not embrace them with open arms.
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
02:06 AM
#1
Thank you.
(stands up and takes a bow
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
02:07 AM
#2
Bob
Yes Bob, I definitely am with you on that. I do not have any expertise on this plus it would be beyond the scope of my understanding to comment on the changes needed.
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
02:08 AM
#3
Commonsense
Exactly! To draw an analogy, you are a vegetarian, do not eat meat! Why ostracize people who do?
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
02:15 AM
#4
Kerty
- Disrespect to religion
I am sorry, I do not disrespect any religion. My views are against the organized religious zealots who term homosexuality as against nature and try to find passages/tomes that confuse laymen into believing that it is against religion and/or god
- Contempt for marriage and family
Contempt for the two greatest institutions? NO
Contempt for narrow-mindedness and bigotry which tries to restrict these institutions into the frame work defined by them.
Spreading sexual lifestyles that kill and victimize
-Homosexuality does not spread disease. Not more than unsafe sex! It is not the sexuality and sexual preferences that kill...its ignorance of safety and perverseness that does! On a lighter note: "Life is a sexually transmitted disease!"
Showing contempt for laws of the land
- Laws of the land are sacred but at their root are mortals who create them. Do you follow archaic practices in Manusmriti? No.. DO you plan to follow the chatur-shrama way and spend last years of your life in the forest? No.. SO aren't you showing contempt for the laws of the land? Now you will say that those are outdated and ancient and needs to be changed. EXACTLY MY POINT!
I wonder why society does not embrace them with open arms.
kerty
August 29, 2008
02:22 AM
#7
Would you ostracize people who do not like to be associated with Gays or live among Gays or gays living among them?
Would you ostracize people who would like to punish the criminals who break laws of the land?
Would you ostracise people who would like to punish people who seek to bring harm to society?
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
03:18 AM
#9
Kerty
- Would you ostracize people who do not like to be associated with Gays or live among Gays or gays living among them?
NO..I would not. Its their prerogative to decide where they want to live BUT though they can decide where they want to live they cannot decide who can live there.
- Would you ostracize people who would like to punish the criminals who break laws of the land?
That's a loaded question. When the law is flawed, the definition of criminal is hazy
- Would you ostracise people who would like to punish people who seek to bring harm to society?
1. Leave out the gay part here; I WOULD ostracize anyone who seeks to PUNISH people on their own because thats vigilante justice and uncivilized
2. I do not think that anyone would term the gay community as one bringing harm to the society! Thats plain bigotry for you!
Chaitanya S
August 29, 2008
08:44 AM
Hmmmm...Todays India talks about gay marriages and tomorrows India will talk about gay dowry deaths and gay divorce cases....The oft criticized IPC will be a shadow of it's present self by then....Ah the winds of change are upon us :-)
PS Comparing the IPC to the Manusmriti is like comparing apples with soccer balls.
Harish
URL
August 29, 2008
08:58 AM
#11
Chaitanya
- Hmmmm...Todays India talks about gay marriages and tomorrows India will talk about gay dowry deaths and gay divorce cases....
That is a ridiculous conjecture Chaitanya. I don't think I should reply to it.
- The oft criticized IPC will be a shadow of it's present self by then....Ah the winds of change are upon us :-)
Why would it be a shadow? Just because its laws are ratified and made more rational? Or do you think that its edicts are carved in stone and should never be changed? That is rubbish...Amending the OSA and implementing RTI was a change...did it make the Constitution a shadow or did it make it more strong and transparent?
- PS Comparing the IPC to the Manusmriti is like comparing apples with soccer balls.
I never compared IPC to Manusmriti. But would anyway like to point out that in that era it was comparable to IPC. And yes, it had to change. I am sure, eons from now, a Chaitanya would respond to a blog post saying "Comparing IPC to what we have now is like..." :-)
commonsense
August 29, 2008
08:59 AM
Chaitanya:
""Hmmmm...Todays India talks about gay marriages and tomorrows India will talk about gay dowry deaths and gay divorce cases....The oft criticized IPC will be a shadow of it's present self by then....Ah the winds of change are upon us :-)""
No doubt this is what the rednecks felt when the laws forbidding the marriage of blacks and white were finally repealed in the US, with Virginia ("Virginia is for lovers"). Ah, no society can resist the winds of change!
commonsense
August 29, 2008
09:00 AM
Chaitanya:
""Hmmmm...Todays India talks about gay marriages and tomorrows India will talk about gay dowry deaths and gay divorce cases....The oft criticized IPC will be a shadow of it's present self by then....Ah the winds of change are upon us :-)""
No doubt this is what the rednecks felt when the laws forbidding the marriage of blacks and white were finally repealed in the US, with Virginia being the last state("Virginia is for lovers"). Ah, no society can resist the winds of change!
Add your comment
(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8167)