NIDA FATIMA | Caravan Daily
SO the Supreme Court of India has struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code today, making same sex relationships a non offence. The rank and file of LGBT community and their non-LGBT supporters have reasons to cheer. For them this is a huge victory indeed. So is it for those who jumped on the ‘gay sex rights’ boat at the last moment.
In recent times supporting gay sex has become a certificate of liberalism and broadmindedness much the same way as opposing polygamy has been for a long time. Interestingly, the two approaches more often than not find home inside the same head. I wonder how the conflicting opinions manage to survive in the same skull. How is it that the owners of such heads don’t go insane hosting, nurturing and supporting conflicting ideals and still pretend to be logical and sane? It’s quite a feat, I must say.
So what is it that they say to each other? “Husband dear, sleep with all the men you want to. Just don’t touch a woman and don’t even think of giving her respectable rights. That will make you a misogynist and a feminist like me won’t tolerate a misogynist for my husband!”
I for one am not for taking any kind of extramarital/pre marital liaison in my stride. I am all for making heterosexual relationships outside of marriage a criminal offence. Nor do I think highly of polygamy except that it is way better than an extramarital hook up where at least one woman (if not both) is been taken for a ride.
Coming back to the issue of the debate, gay right supporters have often based their argument on the right to love unconditionally. ‘What part of love do you not understand?’ read a poster at an LGBT rally. That question was clearly posed to narrow-minded bigots like me who even in these enlightened times look at gay sex with revulsion.
I am a mother, wife, daughter, sister, wife, friend, niece, aunt, granddaughter and a lot more. I think I know more about love than most people. I have experienced love it in all its hues and colours. I understand love at atomic level. There is no part of love that I don’t understand. What I also understand is that love and lust are two different things. Equating love with lust is a great disservice to the former.
The moment love and lust become one and the same is the moment human beings lose their right to distinction among species. This argument, however, is only partially correct. As far as homosexual relationship is concerned it is not witnessed even in lesser animals. So where love-lust equating homosexual end up among the creations cannot be ascertained.
Well, now that gay sex has been legalised, where do we go from here? Legalisation of incest perhaps will be the next big fight that people will take to streets for. Why should father-daughter, sister-brother or mother-son relationship be limited by obsolete values!
My advice to the girls holding the poster that asks ‘What part of love do you not understand’ is to preserve it. It will come handy soon. What logic and reason could stand in the way of legalisation of incest between consenting parties when none has been able to convincingly counter legalisation of gay sex? We live in truly extraordinary times!