Decriminalization of Homosexuality: “Second Independence” or Second Enslavement?


Supreme Court has opined that homosexuality is not unnatural which needs a lot of deliberations. — NH photo

In a country, where even the meat of a particular animal is banned on account of the religious sensitivies of a community we are being told that homosexuality is a human right and freedom of choice!

Dr JAVED JAMIL | Clarion India

IF anyone hoped that sanity would continue to prevail in Indian Constitution on the issue of Homosexuality, their hopes were belied. Finally, the D Day arrived and the Supreme Court bench of 5 judges, in a unanimous judgment, scrapped the Article 377 turning in effect homosexuality legal. As the anticipation was already high, the celebrations followed without wastage of even an iota of second, with the whole media without any noticeable exception turning PINK.

Times of India described it as Second Independence. That brought to my mind the memories of a 15 year old National Seminar on AIDS in which many notable intellectuals participated including Late Kuldeep Nayar and K R Malkani. K R Malkani, the then Vice President of BJP, the notable ideologue of RSS and Editor of its magazine, “Observer” described Times of India as Times of Sodomy referring to a front page article on gay rights published in the paper a few days earlier. Surprisingly, neither the RSS nor the BJP continued with their old stands, and their role in the Supreme Court judgment cannot be ignored.

The truth is that irrespective of almost unanimous position of the overwhelming majority of the schools of almost all the religions (with few insignificant exceptions in Christianity and Hinduism) against homosexuality, none of the religion based organisations played any active role in trying to forestall the inevitable. Even more suprising is the behaviour of the medical fraternity which despite the well-known huge threats to health associated with homosexuality failed to take any stand.

Homosexuality not unnatural

Supreme Court has opined that homosexuality is not unnatural. They need to be asked:

1. Can any Biologist or Anatomist or Physiologist confirm that anus is structurally and functionally made for intercourse?

2. Can any Biologist or Medical Scientist confirm that anus plays any role in reproduction?

3. Sex is the function of reproduction (even if it does not always lead to reproduction) just the way eating is a function of nutrition (even if eating is not always done for nutrition). If somebody tries to eat through nose, ear or anus, will it also become natural?

During hearing, Supreme Court argued that even prostitution and promiscuity are dangerous and the threat of AIDS from these and homosexuality will be reduced if legalised. I had then argued asking a few questions in the process:

That all the three are extremely dangerous; but out of the three, homosexuality is most dangerous. Count the dead among the 40 million deaths due to AIDS, most of them will be prostitutes, or homosexuals or those who came in their contact.

Even if condoms are properly used, the risk reduces by only about 30 pc. The failure of condoms is much higher in rectal sex than in vaginal sex. While vagina is naturally built to receive penis, anus is not and the tears caused lead to higher risks; let anatomists and Physiologists tell that anus is fit to receive penis and penile discharges; why such a blatant violation of human anatomy and physiology?

If there is freedom of choice in having hundred partners with no legal ban on it, why there is no freedom of choice in having more than one wives?

If there is freedom of choice in having sex before 18, why no freedom of choice in marrying before 18?

Why no freedom of choice in driving on the right side of the road and in not using helmets?

Why are human rights of the babies inside wombs forgotten while allowing women to have choices?

Freedom of Choice is a selective concept used by the economic and political forces to further their own interests; only freedom of good choices can be given, not that of dangerous choices. In a country, where even the meat of a particular animal is banned on account of the religious sensitivies of a community we are being told that homosexuality is a human right and freedom of choice.

The argument that consent makes this legal is fallacious. Bribes are given and taken through consent of both. Will it become legal? Hindus cannot marry a second woman even if it is through consent of all. If somebody kills the other due to mutual consent, will it become legal?

Difference between “homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals

Human Rights is the most notable plea in defence of homosexuals. There is a difference between “homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals. The former are unacceptable but the latter should be ensured. Homosexuals need attention: social and medical. They need to be protected from unauthorised punishments by other members of society and they need the psychological support for giving up their addiction so that they can join society as normal people. The right to treatment is of course for every human including even the murderers.

5 stage formula of spreading Evils: Normalization to Institutionalisation to Legalisation to Commercialization to Globalisation

When merchants find market potential in some propensities traditionally regarded as vices, they adopt a time-tested methodology to further their plans. The first step in this methodology is Normalization, by which an impression is generated through surveys that a certain practice is not uncommon among the masses. The arguments in favour of its being “normal” and “natural” are advanced with the help of partners in the media, institutions and non-governmental organisations. The Normalisation is followed by Institutionalisation, a process by which the vice becomes an institution in itself.

Advocacy groups and organisations and communities specifically aimed at defending and popularising the vices are floated. Institutionalisation leads to a demand of Legalisation. Political and social movements are organised to pressurise the lawmaking and law-enforcing institutions to accept the vice as legal and to decriminalise any activities associated with that vice. Once this is achieved, the stage is set for the large scale commercialisation. Anyone opposing the new development is hounded by the media and the NGOs; critics are brutally forced into silence. The whole methodology of course involves lots of funds; once the commercialisation is set into process, huge money starts flowing. This is accompanied with massive popularisation and glorification. People start taking the vice as a sign of high living. More and more people start succumbing with the growth of market.

Separate Gays and Lesbians from LGBT

One strategic step taken by the market sponsored institutions supporting gay rights was clubbing them with eunuchs and transgenders. The truth is that eunuchs and transgenders need to be given a separate place away from gays and lesbians. Eunuchs (Overwhelimg majority) in particular are the victims of forced surgical removals of their testes in children under extremely inhuman conditions. By bringing them along with them, gay activists have increased their social power. With market forces fully behind them, their job became quite easy.

Most Dangerous of all Sexual Practices from Medical Point of View

*  Reduces Life Expectancy by more than 20 years

*  Majority of 4 crore deaths due to HIV/AIDS either Gays or Prostitutes or those who came into their contact

*  If all humans become gay, within 50 years there will be negligible population of human beings on earth and no human being left within 80-100 years

Natural Vs Human

The demoniac march of the commercialised sex has necessitated that all perversions must be considered “normal and natural” behaviour and any stigma associated with them should be struck with a fatal blow. The chiefs of homosexual net and their marshals have been advancing the nonsense argument that relations between two persons belong­ing to the same sex are natural as a sizeable percentage of human population has such propensities. The commercial convenience makes them forget that “natural” and “human” are not synonymous.

The natural phenomena are essentially good for mankind; these defend humans against death, disease and destruction because they are aimed at the common rather than the individual good. Even when they seem to be destructive (natural tragedies), they are the manifestations of an effort on the part of the Nature to bring back the harmony that has somehow been dis­turbed.

The natural tragedies are therefore aimed at averting bigger tragedies in the future. The human tendencies, on the other hand, are generally the result of self-gratification and tend to disturb the natural equilibrium. It is the human (not natu­ral) weaknesses that have given rise to crimes, diseases and abnormal acts including sexual perversions. If homosex­ual proclivities are accepted as natural, murderous instincts and tendencies to rape, steal or impinge upon others’ rights must also be regarded natural. And if the latter deserve outright condemnation, reform and punishment, the former also require the same treatment.

Threat to Life

Homosexuality, particularly man to man, is the most unhealthy and unhygienic of all forms of sexual relations, as it carries the highest risk in spreading infections. Syphilis, Gonorrhoea and AIDS – all have started in homosexuals and spread later to heterosexuals.  It is needless to say that the rise in the demand of legalizing homosexuality in the world has intensified with the rising fortunes of gay market. It is already a big market in western countries. The truth is that Sex market as a whole is the largest growing market, and gay market is the largest growing sex market. A report on gay tourism says:

“..They claim since same-sex marriage has been legalized in British Columbia in 2003, Whistler has been the ideal place to get married. They even advertise their own wedding planners, called “Two Dears and a Queer”. And nothing is complete without a full advertisement to honeymooners as well, som after having the wedding, the couple as well as guests can stay to celebrate. Whistler then becomes a one-place stop for every wedding need, and they have event planners and organizers to prepare everything for you, enabling visitors to just be there to escape and have a fun relaxing time. It’s an extremely clever marketing scheme: since the queer community comes here for two main reasons, to visit Whistler or to get married, why not get everything done at one spot?”

In short, according to a commentator, “The US has made a billion dollar industry off of homosexual media – HBO shows, movies, books, magazines. Like most things in the US anything that has the potential to generate profit will be considered.”

 But that does not make homosexuality acceptable because it has huge effects on the longevity as well as the quality of life. Obviously, homosexuality is a threat to the whole mankind, and it is the biggest threat to the life of homosexuals themselves. In India, HIV prevalence, according to NACO surveys, is almost 8 times more than normal population. If legalising it helps anyone it is the market. Hardly any gays are punished by the court in India. Legalising helps the big market bosses to float companies. Gay literature, gay clubs and gay porn will mushroom with the result that more and more people will fall victim to homosexuality. To argue that it will help in the control of AIDS is absolutely nonsense. A little change in the law that ensures care of gay of HIV patients would have sufficed for that. AIDS cannot be controlled unless there is an effective campaign against prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and promiscuity.

The following arguments are being given in support of homosexuality:

1. That it exists since antiquity: a fallacious argument because all sins and crimes exist in human society since ancient times. On the contrary, it is right time to try to reduce them rather than glorify them if we want to prove ourselves progressive.

2. That it is nonsense to object if it is between two consenting adult individuals (as if consent makes every act right or legal.)

3. That legalizing homosexuality would mean acceptance of right to life. In fact he exact opposite is true. If institutionalized, it threatens the whole human species; it is a threat to life of those who practice it as well as others who come in their sexual contact.

4. That it is based on the principle of Freedom of Choice: Freedom of Choice is understandable only if it is the freedom of good choices. Freedom of dangerous choices and death cannot be given to the people.

5. That it is a born problem; as if all the congenital diseases are left without treatment.

Normal hygienic and healthy behaviours are important components of civilisation. Perversions cannot be but the antidote of civilisation. The perversions that threaten the lives of individuals and peaceful survival of the most notable natural institution of family cannot be described anything but barbarism at its worst. What can then be said of the “Civilised World” that safeguards, promotes and commercialises the Sexual perversion of the most abominable kind and the most life threatening — the Homosexuality?

The attempt to legalise Homosexuality is nothing but the continuation of the same series of worldwide strategies of “development” in which human susceptibilities are first normalised, then institutionalised, then legalised and then commercialised. Once given a legal and social sanction, it is glorified in the media as a victory of “Freedom of Choice” and “Human Rights” and then with all the obstacles removed it is commercialized at huge level.

But the truth remains that the economics of homosexuality cannot cover for the menace, which homosexuality is. The attempts to legalise homosexuality are shocking. This is like legalising murders, terrorism and rapes. Homosexuality is in fact much more dangerous than any of these, as it has led, leads to and can lead to a much bigger loss of life.

By legalising gay marriages, homosexuality is being sought to be institutionalised. Otherwise what can explain why on the one hand marriages in general are being discouraged and on the other hand gay marriages are being aggressively promoted? This is surely aimed at boosting the population of gays. The children growing in the company of their gay “parents” will have bigger chances of succumbing to homosexual tendencies than the normal population. Moreover, these “parents” cannot be a replacement of natural parents. Their love for their “children” is not natural. The affection between parents and children can never be as fruitful as between the natural parents and children; and the probability of child abuse will surely be much greater.

To say that homosexuality is natural is like saying criminal tendencies are natural. These are not natural but human aberrations of most dangerous kind. Such aberrations are present in notorious criminals also. Can the crimes be legalized to help them? Can they be given protection by the law on the ground of not discriminating against persons? Even otherwise, homosexuality is a relationship that does not produce any progeny. So genes if any related to hardcore unadulterated homosexuality cannot be transmitted. Even if it is accepted as natural, it remains an anomaly like many other congenital diseases. The anomalies and diseases need treatment and counselling rather than acceptance and encouragement.

“Homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals

There is a difference between “homosexual rights” of humans and “human rights” of homosexuals. The former are unacceptable but the latter should be ensured. Homosexuals need attention: social and medical. They need to be protected from unauthorised punishments by other members of society and they need the psychological support for giving up their habit so that they can join society as normal people. Once there is an effective ban on homosexuality and its commercialisation and institutionalisation, not only new homosexuals will not be produced in as many numbers but the already addicted ones will also find it easier to give up. It should remain a crime for those who want to sustain their habit; but those who want an escape route should be helped. The right to treatment is of course for every human including even the murderers.

Facts and Statistics about Homosexuals

Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals by Frank Joseph, M.D. has collected the following statistics:

* One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners,

* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all Gonorrhoea cases, 60% of all Syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. 

* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of Syphilis, Gonorrhoea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), Tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus. 

 * Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and raising violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population. Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne. 

* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79. Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident.

Legalisation popularises homosexuality

The statistics are truly alarming. The legalization of gay marriages, the gay pornography and gay associations are playing havoc with the sexual preferences of the people with the result that increasingly greater numbers of people are succumbing to provocations.

The argument that if there is consent between two adult individuals, what objections can others have to their homosexual liaisons is also fallacious. If consent is the only reason for deciding the criminality or non-criminality of an act, why is bribery by consent a criminal offence? It is well known that in many countries including India, bribe even for genuine reasons is arranged by consent of two or more individuals. 

Similarly, why is sex determination test of foetus a crime if it takes place between the consent of a woman/couple and a radiologist? And suicide too is a crime though it is an individual’s own choice. If there is consent between two individuals about one helping the other in choosing death, is it not a crime? In Hindu community, according to the current Indian laws, if a man marries another woman with the consent of his wife, why does it constitute crime?

Discrimination between good and bad essential

The human rights organisations and other advocates base their campaign in favour of gay rights on the ground of discrimination. This is indeed a fascinating logic. Unfortunately for the activists though, it is equally foolish. The whole fabric of moral and legal institutions is woven around ‘discrimination’. Good and bad cannot be put on the same table. There has to be discrimination between good and bad acts, and between good and bad people.

How can law breakers and law abiding citizens be placed in equal footing?  How can murderers and common men be treated equally? Even the patients infected with communicable diseases are kept away from the public. How can then people with abnormal sexual behaviours threatening the life and peace of mankind be given the same treatment as given to the normal people who contribute to the health functioning of the humanity. Putting normal with the abnormal will in effect be a discrimination against the normal. Discrimination on the ground of acceptability or unacceptability of behaviours and acts is the essence of equality.

There is a need to define crime. Obviously evilness of an act neither depends on the time or place nor on the consent or choice. Evilness depends on the impact of an act on individual/individuals, family and society. The criminality of an act is proportional to the amount of damage to others. Unfortunately, in today’s world controlled by economics, certain acts are accepted even if they have huge damaging effects, especially if the effects are not instant and dramatic.

Homosexuality (and promiscuity of all kinds) has huge damaging effects on (1) the individuals involved (the life expectancy of individuals is considerably shortened, there are a number of physical, mental and social problems); (2) the survival of human species if large sections of people choose to adopt it; (3) rest of mankind if gays are also promiscuous (which they are more often than not); and (4) on the lives of the children they choose to adopt exposing them to an unnatural parenthood and parents’ sexual preferences.

Homosexuality needs to be treated at par with drug addiction. Those that choose to get out of this addiction can be de-addicted through rehabilitation centres. The first time caught gays can also be shifted to asylums, and the punishment can be increased in subsequent repetitions. The people who commercialise or institutionalise homosexuality must be severely punished.

Out of all forms of unhealthy sexual practices, homosexuality is the unhealthiest and has been the cause of the beginning of the epidemics of both Syphilis and HIV/AIDS. Here are excerpts from a report on the impact of homosexuality on health:

“Early reports in the 1980’s suggested that male homosexuals had an average life expectancy of less than 50 years – more than 20 years less than the overall male population. With the push for “safe” sex and improved treatments for AIDS, one would expect that the life expectancy might have increased since then. However, a Canadian study in 1997 found that male homosexuals have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the general male population (based upon a prevalence of 3% of the male population). Using several different measures, including life expectancy determined from obituaries, two large random sexuality surveys (in the USA and Great Britain), and a survey of those never married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, indicated an average age of death of less than 50 years old .

“A third study, published in 2002, found that the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 years, while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 years. This latter study put the average life expectancy of male homosexuals nearly 30 years less than the general male population. Another study showed that, on average, ever-married men outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered by 23 years in Denmark (74 yr. v. 51 yr.), and 25 years in Norway (77 yr. v. 52 yr.) Ever-married women outlived the ever-homosexually-partnered in Denmark by 22 years (78 yr. v. 56 yr.), and in Norway by almost 25 years (81 yr. v. 56 yr.). How does the average homosexual lifespan compare to the average life expectancy of smokers? On average, a lifetime smoker can expect the smoking lifestyle to reduce his life expectancy by only 10 years. However, smoking is vigorously condemned by the medical community and press, although it reduces life expectancy by less than half of that caused by a gay lifestyle.”

It is to be noted that sexual demeanours have a much larger depressing effect on life expectancy than other evils like smoking, drinking and gambling. This is because sex related problems affect foetuses and men and women of younger age groups. “Sexual Revolution” is killing either foetuses and infants or the young people of 20-45 years in such big numbers that it is bound to reduce life expectancy by 20-40 years.

When only a few countries, mostly Western, have legalised homosexuality, it is nothing less than intriguing why a country like India, which is a multireligious society with more than 95 pc rejecting homosexuality, the journey to legalisation has been quick. This shows how much the Market forces have captured the functioning of the political, social and legal institutions of the country. Unless the 95 per cent recalise the threat and organise themselves, the commercialisation of vices with dangerous impact on life, healthiness of life, peace of life and family system. They have to realise that strong Family System is the natural wall of safety. If they let it be crossed, sociade and cultural fabric will bestroyed. 


Dr Javed Jamil is an eminent Islamic scholar and author.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:




More like this

‘Date with Destiny’ to ‘Tryst with Destiny’ – How Nehru Changed His First I-Day Speech

NEW DELHI - After the BJP on Saturday blamed India's...

Karnataka: Nehru, Tipu Sultan in Political Crossfire over I-Day Celebrations

BENGALURU - Ahead of the 75th Independence Day celebrations on...

Congress Insiders Non-Committal on Nitish Becoming Oppn’s PM Face

NEW DELHI - Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, after switching...

Imran Khan All Praise for India’s Foreign Policy

LAHORE - Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has once...