Islamic Perspectives

Legalising homosexuality would be curse

By striking down the decision of Delhi High Court which had exonerated homosexual relations of being a crime, the apex court has reversed the 2009 decision. It remains a crime as long as Art. 377 remains on the statute. There is a wave of support for such an amendment, which even some top Congress leaders have approved.

Time and again religious scriptures have emphatically asserted that sodomy is a sin deserving punishment and heavenly wrath. The Bible as well as the Qur’an depict what happened to the inhabitants of Sodom. In fact, this word has its roots in the punishment the people of Lot were made to suffer. Hindu scriptures do not have any account of people practicing the deviant form of sexual relationship.

While pitying the people for the general outcry against the the SC verdict, Vikram Seth, the celebrated writer of The Golden Gate (in which he has given a vivid, poetical portrayal of homosexuality), went to the extent of justifying it by asserting that Babarnama has an account of Babar’s fondness for a male. Does this establish the practice as a part of tradition? One man’s deviant behaviour cannot be cited as a norm nor as a tradition.

Champions of human rights go on justifying the sin as an individual’s right and personal freedom. Won’t the rapist and dacoit also claim exoneratation on similar grounds? Only those human rights can claim legal justification for something which are universal as well as natural. Quite often these champions assert that even animals seek sexual gratification in unnatural ways. This again is biologically unsound. Such mating for the purpose of breeding a new specie is neither natural nor universal but a forced practice by misguided human beings or for the sake of scientific experimentation.

Even if we accept the argument proffered to justify the practice we must pause to ponder: does the ultimate goal of human civilization rest in resorting to animal behaviour?

By some unexplained facts of biology, there may be a few persons suffering from some natural disorder -- cripples and mentally challenged persons, for example, the society tries to find ways and means to bring such people into the mainstream by providing treatment and mechanisms to assist them. The society does not fall headlong into repeating their ways and practices.

If mutual consent is a valid justification of an evil practice why do we have laws punishing adultery? Let us scrap them in the name of human rights. In the past, even the practice of Sati was described as a choice made by a person of her own free will. Is the SC going to scrap the restriction on Sati? What is then the justification of laws banning cow slaughter when some groups do not find anything unnatural in it? Why, then, cow slaughter has been included in state directive principles? The argument for imposing such a ban rests on the fact the sentiments of a large number of people must be respected and the law should try to keep them in good humour. In the same vein we may argue that the sentiments of a very large population of the country should be respected vis-à-vis the wishes of a small fraction of deviated groups/individuals.

In an interesting article, Prabhu Joshi exposes the campaign of market and media mafia in justifying homosexuality. It is a trillion dollar business, be it condoms or sex toys or homosexuality. Joshi cites Nobel Laureate Dr Charles Socraides as saying that this is a strategy planned by shrewd marketing tycoons who describe it as a pathological disorder. The scientist claims that out of a thousand cases he treated he could cure 997 (including his own son) who later on lead not only normal lives after marriage but also gave birth to children.