Sex and scripture

I think the religious ‘lobby’ doesnt have a valid reason to justify their stand. And Indians dont give two hoots to the law anyway, so who cares about decriminalization of homosexuality ? All this talk of liberty is for the major news channels to get some footage of gays and lesbians celebrating their new found ‘freedom’ – I am not sure that any gay/lesbian was waiting for this law to be repealed before he/she could start having ‘unnatural’ sex.
Indians in general (including myself !) dont give two hoots about the law anyway, so its not as if they will feel that their ‘freedom to pee in public places’ is being restricted by the law. The most unlawful things happen in the most public manner all across India, so why this fuss over some court judgement ?

The western media will pick on this piece of news because politicians in western cultures play the homosexuality card to win over christian voters. The ‘issue’ of homosexuality isnt a big deal in Hinduism anyway, but I am sure there will be some protectors of ‘Indian tradition’ that will defend the need to dictate how/whether a homosexual should use his body parts in a way that comes ‘naturally’ to him/her !!

By the way, where does Manusmriti stand in comparison to the vedas ? Is this another one of those multiple interpretations of Hinduism that was put out centuries after Hinduism originated ? I know it is ‘credited’ (or discredited rather) for the caste system, but I never really figured out how central it was to Hinduism. If Manusmriti is considered central to Hinduism, then someone needs to ‘officially’ abolish it – most stupidities in Hinduism seem to originate from that one scripture. Please pardon my ignorance !

[Reply]

K Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 am

Hmmm….interesting – the word ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’ in my post showed up as is, but LASBIAN (misspelt intentionally !) was replaced with ******* !!

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pm

R u serious about ‘lesbian’ being censored by Ht Net?! Going to ask’em.
Many things in Manu Smiriti, which was a huge influence on daily Hinduism, are the wrong century for us today. LIke St Paul, who clearly didn’t like women much, Mister Manu takes a dim view of them. Wonder if some pretty girl turned up her nose at him and so he decided to wreak vengeance on womankind? He succeeded, for centuries!
The Constitution is the Smriti for modern India. And any insecure traditionalists who disagree can emigrate to more congenial climes like…Saudi Arabia.
Justices Shah and Muralidhar seriously rock! Shah was CJ of the Madras HIgh Court before he came to Delhi and Murali is a vegetarian Tambrahm who adores hardcore Carnatic music. I uphold him and his lawyer wife Usha as people who sorted their HInduism…kept the good stuff, chucked out the bad, and work for a more inclusive society. Murali when he was a lawyer represented the Safai Karmachari Andolan, they trusted him despite his caste.

[Reply]

hmmm…if hinduism does not sanction it then, why is it depicted so graphically in Khujraho and Konark? just to name to places, i have seen!!!

there it is depicted in all its glory for teh world to see and now you say that, as per men of cloth, it is not sanctioned in Hinduism!!!!

Interesting thought!!!!!

[Reply]

K. Rahul Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm

Example of Khujraho is not proper here. Caves like these were not accessible by all sections of society, were in remote locations along forests, and were made in some particular regimes rather than occurring as a common scene.

Also, there is no relation between Hinduism and some particular places like these, because Hinduism is too diverse for such a conclusion. There are many very diverse ways of worship and some really diverse rituals in different parts of India, and hence there can’t be quick conclusions in this regard.

As such I agree that Hinduism doesn’t call homosexuals criminals. It is too inclusive to say so.

[Reply]

I knew someone would raise this point. It just has to asked, of all the screeching prudes. Most men I know are homophobic. It bugs the hell out of me that they can be so narrow-minded

[Reply]

I speak as a happily married heterosexual woman who grew up with three very good gay friends – both men and women.

Baba Ramdev calls homosexuality a ‘disease’. I wonder what his views are on marital rape, pedophilia, sodomy…..the way in which a man or woman can be abused is endless.

Finally as Indians we have repealed a law which was abused by people in positions of authority. It gives all of us a relief from having to shield perfectly innocent men and women for no other reason than showing their affection in public. In these strife ridden times, is it really so wrong to love and express your love?

[Reply]

I know gay couples who have been in a loyal, steady, committed relationship for years, pay their taxes, keep a nice house, look after the poor and tend to sick animals, love dance and music. They are decent, self-respecting and respectful people. They are an example to hetero men and women. Just because they’re wired to like men instead of men as their sexual preference, they’re ‘criminals’? It’s too sick.
‘In-your-face’ gay love is not an edifying sight however just the same as in-your-face straight love.
btw, how come no one objects to those Jain monks walking around unclad? Isn’t that in-your-face nudism and a horrifying sight for the un-prepared child mind?
As for the Sufis we venerate so much…
As for Babar, the first Mughal, he was bisexual, like lots of Muslim kings were bi. Babar had the hugest crush on a ‘peach-cheeked’ boy called Bauhari and wrote maudlin poems about B’s ‘fairy face’. I forget if it’s in his own dairy, the Babur Nama, or in the Humayun Nama written by Babur’s own daughter Gulbadan Begum at Humayun’s wish. Writing this in office, shall chk at home later.

[Reply]

Jaya Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Hi Renuka,

Your comment on the Nude jain monks is interesting and apt.

Let me try to explain that a bit.

The reason they are unclad because they have renounced the world, even the clothes, so that they do not have to think and worry , from where their next lioncloth or money will come. Basically renounciation of all worldly attachements.

Now, the concept is very beautiful and thoughtful and holds lots of gravity. But the way people(read the monks) have taken it nowsadays is:

They live in the cities. Flaunt their nakedness. Having heaters and other stuff in their roorms to keep them warm during winters. Always have few female disciples travelling with them. Always asking their followers to donate huge sums of money for the trusts created in their names and the temples built in their names.

what they were supposed to do , as per scriptures was:

live in isolated places, mediate , leave all worldly posessions ( renounciation of lioncloth is the last leg of renounciation of worldy pleasures).

but like everything else, even monks are businessman these days!!

It is a pity, they supposedly leave their familys and family responsibilities to go search for god and attain moksha but then get involved in getting name, fame and recognistion and accumulating worldly possesions and attaining moksha is the last thing on their minds!!!!

[Reply]

K. Rahul Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

Nudity can be moral or immoral depending on the mind. Not only the mind of the one who watches, but the one who shows too.

Examples of Jain monks, or Sadhus are not in place if we object to their practice and customs. Some people shun clothes to “preserve” and some people to “flaunt”. Gandhi ji left much of clothes not to show off his skin, while our Western inspired young generation prefers lesser clothes to be able to show how nice skin one has got. And then we have a oft-repeated phrase, “I wear what in I am comfortable”!

Example of Babar was really informative. I never knew that he was one such. This is why I read Renuka Amazing width and depth of knowledge and awareness…

[Reply]

Narayanan Raghunathan Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Please encourage your kids to be normal and Gay!
Why not encourage incestous gay also !

Is your hubby ready to receieve his son ?

On your marks get set go!!

Best Wishes

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 30th, 2009 at 12:35 am

i understand your concern but a little compassion for people’s genuine predicaments?

[Reply]

MissBigThinker Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 1:44 pm

I think it is not about saying that we ought to teach and encourage our children to have same sex preferance. But it is about not shunning and tolerating those who have made the choice for themselves. It’s about not treating others as outcast due to their sexual orientation or sexual preference.

People treat transvestites as vermins or disease with arms and legs. But we let child molesters, rapists and paedophile run loose. How fair is that?

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 10:25 am

you said it!

Shyam Reply:
July 5th, 2012 at 2:51 am

To be fair, it’s not only about “not shunning” those who have made a “choice” (curious choice of words, some, including homosexuals, will disagree that there is any “choice” in this matter). These people are promoting their way of life and trying to bring mainstream legitimacy to it. They want us to think it is normal. There is no way this is normal. We can treat them as people with an illness and show compassion, but that’s not the same as admitting their way of life into the definition of “normal” or “healthy”.

I’m not sure which country you live in, but in the USA paedomaniacs and rapists are punished when discovered AFAICT. Transvestites vs child molesters is not a fair comparison to transvestites.

Frankly, I do not see why one needs validation from scriptures written centuries ago, to be able to allow a human being to be free and happy when he is not bothering anyone else! Scriptures have allowed marital rape, female foeticide, and child marriage to be justified and that in my opinion, should put them in their place! Morality changes with time. The scriptures record what was considered moral in their time. One should not be bound by the dictates of some people’s views from so long ago! The scriptures have their place and are of definite value as guiding tools, but they cannot be used to shut one’s eyes to any kind of change in thinking!

On the subject of the decision, I just hope that now that the authorities are deciding to move out of the bedroom where they are not needed, where there is consent, they should enter where they need to and criminalize marital rape!

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

I totally agree that morality changes with time and scripture reflects the morality of their time. What freaks me out is that while we all feel bad about little boys being sodomized, don’t we think that little girls are children too…yet, they’re sold or married to much older men…God, I want to run out and burn ALL scripture, when I think of what they’ve done to women in the name of “God”.

[Reply]

K. Rahul Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

What they have done to women in the name of “God” is past. We are a free nation now, and our laws listen to us, rather than being the words out of mouths of some individuals.

I found this example of “marital rape” coming up many times in a number of comments. I don’t know how is it coming up here w.r.t. this article! And I also don’t know if any religion would justify or promote this “marital rape”. It happens because of the social-economic condition of our society, and religion is nowhere to be blamed for this.

When little girls are sodomized, they are done more because they are female, rather than they are young. For example, a pervert who goes on chasing young boys won’t go on chasing young girls just like that! So I think this comparison is not apt!

[Reply]

Narayanan Raghunathan Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

Renuka You All knowing brave lady Please burn a quran in public with publicity !!

You d love the responses ~

But If you burn the Hindu scriptures nobody will note you ~

Thank You Rahul for little honesty here!

[Reply]

Religion is man’s attempt to formulate meaning into existence or to infuse existence with meaning and order. All religions stand on a backbone of moral or social behavioural codes. Scriptures lie behind all these codes and have claimed absolute authorship.
The practical point here , without getting into the territory of Scripture as the revealed and only word on life and living , and by whom, is that ideas were formulated for the development of a healthy and happy society. Where the oppressive nature of people who appropriated its powers prevailed, all sorts of evils arose. And needless to say, interpolations.

In Vedic thought, human existence aspires to four arthas or aims – kaama , aartha dharma and moksha.
Kaama of course, means more than the sexual urge, but the sexual urge is the thesis of material development or acquisitiveness.

It’s antithesis is moksha or freedom from desire. However, as one progresses through contraries ( as William Blake said), desire and gratification are superseded by the man who aspires for true self hood. Hence, the great kings of Bharatavarsha who walked away into the forest etc as a natural progression to the ultimate aim of life.

To demonstrate the above stated proposition there is a telling tale. An ascetic disgruntled with the excess activity of ashram life broke off with his guru seeking a more meditative existence.
Sitting under a tree in a loin cloth he begin contemplating or ‘uncontemplating’ – or some such meditative technique. As rats nibbled away at his loin cloth, he sought a solution to the rodent problem and was advised to get a cat. The cat needed to be fed so he had to get a cow;the cow required a field so he appropriated some land and the land and cow had to be tended to for so he acquired a wife—all for the sake of the loincloth

This story is a commonly quoted on the subject of renunciation and it being only possible when one is good and ready.
What does all this have to do with homosexuality?

The point I am trying to make here is that as all sexual engagements are considered a detriment to the aim of being free—which is also the aim of the scriptures, which encased sex into the idea of serving for procreation.
Sexual abstinence is a principle that must be correctly understood—if it were properly understood – “there may not be so many distorted psyches—victims sacrificed to the general development of mankind.”
The goal is moksha is not for everyone—there are other steps on the way and the idea to look down or consider oneself on anything but the common rung of humanity is not something a God- centric man or woman is prone to do . Tolerance ,understanding and empathy are pre -requisites to ascent .
But ask a member of the clergy who has chosen the aim of moksha as her aim and she is bound to speak in that language.

Stating the aim of scripture is not narrowness—expecting that everyone at one time can follow it, is.

As regards the depictions on temple walls I have speculated that they are there as matters of fact–to show the distractions of the world—as tests even – ( is one titillated or does one look at it all as inconsequential)
Perhaps that is why they are on the exterior— the façade.
When one goes in to the sanctum sanctorum one leaves them behind .

Sorry for being so long winded — it is a complex subject.

[Reply]

K. Rahul Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Amazing writing here… Great that I read….

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Nirguna, just recalled: that is exactly the theory of Devangana Desai (I think) about Khajuraho…to ‘test’ the eye on the surface…in a Vaishnava temple in Pushkar, they have big distorting mirrors as you enter. You go past them to the sanctum…v. symbolic!

[Reply]

Nirguna Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am

Thanks Renuka for this information. Temples surely, as you saw in Thriuvanthapuram, are still locus standi sort of places– gathering places even,where outer questions may find inner answers. Their sense and sensibilities are always relevant and in very individual ways too.

[Reply]

SM Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:46 am

Nirguna,
I have been following your writing in your comments here and there. They are profound but at the same time easy to follow and understand. Please let me know if you have a blog somewhere…

[Reply]

Nirguna Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 9:24 am

Thanks SM,
No blog. I engage in enough ‘ vanity publishing’ right here on Renuka’s page. I do believe Renuka doesn’t mind and we may continue to meet here?

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Renuka is honoured and delighted and keeps asking you to tell more!

Narayanan Raghunathan Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:25 pm

Thank you Nirguna for this honesty and clarification ~

[Reply]

kaama, krosdha, moha…

[Reply]

yikes, my typos r something whn in a hurry…’krodha’, of course. sorry!

[Reply]

Justice Murali and Shah rock ? I am not sure. They did have a ‘common’ sense of knocking down a 150 year old archaic, barbaric law. It speaks volumes. If Murali is Tambram, Justice Ajit Shah is a strict Jaini. His father was a High Court Judge on then Bombay bench. He comes from a very strict orthodox Jain family. Justice has come a long way in India. Equal rights have been restored. In doing so they have not followed any religious scriptures. Just the constitution of India. My views on this subject are straight but I am glad India is evolving. After all religious scriptures were not written by God. They were written by so called wise men in clothes.

[Reply]

that’s really interesting, that two judges from two of the supposedly most orthodox ancient communities in India took such a modern view of the issue.

[Reply]

Dear Renuka,
I am a Tambrahm brought up in a very orthodox family. This is a tough world even for normal people. But for people who are different to survive is so difficult. Homosexuals do not choose to behave the way they do, God has made them that way. And when the scriptures say I am present you he is in them also. I am glad that the community will not be troubled by the law enforcers by using Article 377 on them.

But ask me a hypothetical question like being a mother if I know one my children is not normal what would I do, I am scared. To be honest, I will not hate my child but I fear how he will cope up with social censure…. Did I make a politically incorrect statement.

[Reply]

No you didn’t, it is natural to worry anyway about anyone dear and more so about someone outside the ‘norm’. It IS a social, religious and/or ‘handicap’ in many socities, even so-called ‘modern’ ones…any parent would worry. People worry and feel bad even if a child catches a cold or fever or has to start wearing specs. As you rightly say, it’s tough enough even for a person within the ‘norm’. Except, we have to expand our concepts to include different kinds of ‘normal’. I think it is the same as with religion, that there are different ways to approach ‘God’. Just so, we could learn to think that there are different bio-socio-sexual routes to selfhood, which are honourable ways of being. Civil society has to have honourable spaces beyond the template of hetero huband-wife-2 kids trying to get into an IIT or IIM, malling madly and watching cricket endlessly while drinking beer and eating kurkure. If that’s the ONLY kind of ‘normal’….
FYI, I am a freak anyway for many people in Delhi because I’m bored by cricket, like classical arts and…no prizes for guessing, write on religion. I’ve had people here actually ask me, “How come you’re so REGULAR?”
What’s ‘regular’? Someone tell me what’s ‘regular’!
Here’s someone else’s ‘regular’…sorry Latha, didn’t mean to get so carried away but I got to thinking about ‘regular’ and…:
http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/24/stories/2007012404621300.htm

[Reply]

Jaya Reply:
July 6th, 2009 at 11:06 am

Hi Renuka,

you are labelled a freak beacuse people are not able to pigeonhole you.

We live in a society which is more orthodox then of any earlier era. We have zero tolerance level. Whoever does not conform to “Hum 2- Hamare 2 ( a girl and a boy)” including the images as described by you above is labelled a freak.

I have come across people, who do not know what to talk and how to treat you , once they realised that you are not one of the pigeaonholed species!!!

Initially for me, it was difficult to adjust and pretty embarassing but now, i just smile and sometimes wink and then you should see the expression on the other person’s face!!! some of them cannot run fast enough to leave the room!!!!

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

Hey, good for you! Hurray for non-pigeons

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

I have to add here that a “regular” friend sounded pretty hurt after reading my blog: “Oh, so because I’m ‘normal’, does Renuka think I’m boring?” she thought, and thought enough to actually tell me! No way I think Regular is boring, sweetie. It’s comfortable and cosy, it’s lovely in how it makes a splendid fortress to shelter in. All we’re saying and I know you think this too, is, please can we not insist that Regular should also be a bonecrushing roadroller for anyone ‘different’?

That should hv read, “How come you’re so regular DESPITE…’

[Reply]

I agree with you if you demand that “law” should be gender-neutral. But religion is made for an ideal to be set in front of us. Exceptions can’t be made rules. Homosexuals are exceptions. They should be given all respect and human rights, but it is not that we should promote homosexual behaviour in general.

You say, /How does it matter if it’s between two consenting adults?/

A person consents to getting murdered by another adult. Still, it is crime in the eyes of law. Any disputes? So “consent” doesn’t justify any act in general.

You say, /And hetero men – with due apologies to the ‘good guys’ – can be pretty obnoxious, seen from a regular woman’s perspective./

This is true at times , but is not part of the argument. Marriage at tomes is pretty obnoxious for us, since it kills the ‘freedom’. But do we stop marrying at all? Here, law may give us the right to not to marry and still enjoy a sexual relationship with others, but here is the difference between law and religion. Law is hard like rock, religion has moral in it. Law is made to “protect” us. Religion is there to “improve” us and take us at higher levels.

You say, /Religion, as quoted above, took those views, I think, to hold up the ‘ideal’ relationship structured long ago as a unit of society./

True, I agree with you. But I don;t know when it comes to ‘fundamental human relaitonships’, how time has changed. Still we are all human beings…

Anyways, I support this ruling of the HC because it doesn’t discriminates based on gender. But I won’t promote homosexuality in general or glorofy it in anyway, because I think it is an “exception” not what “nature” wanted to make us like.

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 9:43 pm

well, it’s your frank opinion and at least you have no hostility

[Reply]

The Delhi High Court has ruled that homosexual sex among consenting adults is not a crime .
The current law bans “sex against the order of nature“, and is widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex .
Maybe time to have a ruling on pre-marital sex as well……Me and my girlfriend were hauled to the local police station a few years back for sitting in Elliots beach in Chennai around 9pm.We werent even necking……just chatting

[Reply]

On Eli Beach?! You’re kidding, Raj?! Surely that was a freak incident….I’ve seen hundreds of couples necking madly on Breezy Beach (Thiruvanmiyur) and the cops just ignored them, like the folks just ignored them…and the police cruise car that goes around just drove past quietly…I am so startled to read this. As for Marina Beach, always see major romancing there and the fublic (as we say in Tamil, like we say fetrol fumf or ferfect), simply not bothering, ya.

[Reply]

Raj Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

yeah….heard that things are totally different in madras now……incidentally i dont think that theres any ban on pre marital sex in the IPC.
This ruling by the Delhi High court is good for homosexuals that they can atleast lead their lives knowing that they arent committing a crime everytime they give into what is for them a very natural urge.

[Reply]

Dear Renuka,
A thought just came to me while seeing the blog. I wonder what it is that determines an individual’s sexual orientation. Is it inborn or is it because of certain experiences. To elaborate would a child/adolescent who has been abused by the same sex will have homosexual tendencies. I am a paranoid mother, I hope this law doesn’t encourage homosexual’s to abuse children. The abuse stories that came from the church has opened a pandora’s box. The abuse by pedophiles makes me think we are truly in a Kaliyug . A world where uncles,aunts, grandparents, in-laws, parents even are threats. What is the world coming to. When will we and our children live without fear.

Homosexuals forgive me, I am sure even so called normal people abuse. Renuka, tell me what prompts an individual to abuse another . Why do men rape ? Why people have lost their innate goodness? When I learnt Sudarshan Kriya, the teacher said we should be in touch with our real self i.e. the child in ourselves. What turns people into monsters ?

[Reply]

Narayanan Raghunathan Reply:
July 26th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

I agree with you sister ~

We are coming to the end of Kali

Surely A great Revelation is Awaiting at our door steps ~

[Reply]

An abused child will likely abuse other children – regardless of their sex ( as a noun)

As child abuse prevention is my field, I have learnt that confusing homosexuality with paedophilia is a common misunderstanding.

A google search will reveal more on this subject.

for eg: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

From a Doctor friend , based in the US, who does work with AIDS patients in Mumbai and Bangalore, I learnt that many ’straight’ men in India have same sex relationships as they are more easily available.

[Reply]

renuka Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:26 am

This is very interesting! Today I learnt that many Pakistani bloggers are calling us a nation of (expletives deleted) because our media celebrated the gay judgment. Our (tolerant) conclusion was that this is part and parcel of the anti-liberal stand…and more than a little ironic, given the famous reputation for same-sex affinity/practice of the sub-continental north-west’s tightly segregated traditional societies. I mean, there are jokes about them from colonial days, still doing the rounds and there’s no news of anything but a roll-back to more medievalism out there. So strange to think it’s a couple of hours or less flying time from Delhi…it’s not easy being Indian, with our own messes to unmake —and to be surrounded by so many covetous, unhappy, angry people….well, at least we got a route map or marg darshan….if only they’d get a life and leave us alone…we got our own nutters to deal with, enough already.

[Reply]

shan Reply:
July 16th, 2010 at 1:10 am

@Renuka, also today google released that pakistan has the highest hit for sites contain abnormal sex, like horse sex, child sex the others I find it to distasteful to express.

[Reply]

shan Reply:
July 16th, 2010 at 1:12 am

Is it more easily available of their’s is a fluid sexuality., Ie bisexual

[Reply]

Renuka, as a gay man living in Mumbai, I have very little to complain, pre- or post- Delhi HC judgement. If one is fair, then there is not much to complain in the way Indians handle gay people. I have faced overt hostility for being gay not in India, but in the west.

So does this judgement mean nothing? Not at all! Its fantastic!! Suddenly it allows me to be unconcerned about my sexuality, suddenly being gay is less festering, and consequently, less important. Does that make sense? After all, I’m a sum-total (and some more) of all the little and big things that make me Partho. Same for Renuka. Same for everybody else.

The whole natural – unnatural conversation is bogus. Period.

I am worried about something else. I’m not sure if this suddenly-liberated gay populace will not blow it (pardon the pun). The last thing that we Indians need is public expression of ones sexuality (straight or bent). It is alien to our world-view. I know of gay men being invited to traditional functions by families along with their ‘friend’. Everyone knew what the ‘friend’ was, yet, as long as it was discreet, no one had any problem. Yes, to a certain kind of sensibility this would appear to be hypocritical. Maybe it is, perhaps we need to figure this one out – and that can happen if we discuss and debate.

However, in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, I am worried that the western form of gay-militarism will start showing its hysteric face. I would much rather have us deal with sexuality our own way. I wish and hope that gay people like myself would see themselves as part of the society as much as anybody else and do that which is appropriate. True, we do not have many answers; we have not travelled the paths many in the other countries have. But we can learn. And we must do this not by alienating the country, but by being patient and wise. And by being inclusive.

Finally, I would like people to understand and if possible, appreciate, the differences between straight and gay and bisexuals and transexuals and transgenders. Lumping all these myriad forms of sexualities is being simplistic.

[Reply]

Thank you, Partho, for sharing, it is an honour for our blog community that so many of us feel comfortable enough to speak frankly here about our deepest thought and feelings. You make a very important point about not being ‘in your face’ and startling society needlessly.
A spontaneous public display of affection like holding hands or a hug or kiss is one thing and no one should feel outraged by it, ideally. Couples necking quietly in a beach or park is also nobody’s business, we should understand that they have nowhere else to go and take a kind view of their predicament. People in love themselves could meet the situation halfway and not compel attention with their antics..
Net-net, it’s a matter of degree and discretion. My view of it is indulgent, I’d rather see people expressing love than hatred and cruelty, ‘,,,And I think to myself, it’s a wonderful world’ …like the song goes.

[Reply]

shan Reply:
July 16th, 2010 at 1:07 am

Am I wrong in saying being gay is becoming trendy in India, kind of a aping the west, just a thought. Personally I forward to the day when all the menfolks turned gay except me and all the women remaining hetero

[Reply]

Dear Renuka,
Obviously your take on Sec.377 would evoke mixed reception. Many would agree with it: but others would find it detestable. The Delhi judgement puts the individual’s freedom of choice on a high pedestal, as indeed mandated by the Constitution. But then the dispute over it is bound to go on loud and long. Our ancients had a saying that fits here: Loko Bhinna Ruchi ( Tastes differ.)

There was in fact a story going round in the UK when homosexuality was taken off the crime statutes there. Soon after, a well-settled,wealthy Englishman, happily married and with a wide circle of close friends shocked them all by declaring his firm resolve to migrate to Australia. When pressed for a reason his grumpy response was ” Look, till some time back you could be jailed for a same sex alliance. Now it has been made legal. I want to quit before they damn well make it obligatory.

[Reply]

koundinya Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am

O tempora! O mores!

[Reply]

Partho you have a handle on the Indian psyche.Especially at this time of reactionary Hinduism al la Ram Sevaks , Bajrang Dal and their anti- western tirades, it would be counter productive to have Gay Pride parades and in your face kind of displays that gays in the West produce as their brand of reactionsim.

Most of the time, we are reacting and not truly acting at all, and even mechanically so, to circumstances and false ideas of what matters.

I think people like Baba Ramdev who is doing so much for people’s health by introducing yoga back to India, should be content to reach people with positive messages, pro actively, instead of bemoaning western attitudes and influences. I believe he has challenged this judgement?

To promote all the great aspects of the traditions and culture of our country( which Renuka does so well in this blog) and which speak for themselves ,improve our ethical values and develop more empathy towards each other is unquestionably, the required call to action. This should be motivational enough to foster National pride without resort to burning shops selling valentine day cards and other such ‘western -influence’ whipping boy gimmicks by the self appointed moral police (in the name of Hinduism).

To harp on ‘foreign influences’ and milk this as yet another issue for vote- garnering, rabble -rousing politics whilst the real issues of abuse of women and children, the poor, the environment, etc etc are consigned to the back burner, is exploitive and self serving.

[Reply]

India allows anyone and everyone .All the persecuted of the world have found safe abode in India be it early jews to early chrstian to zorashtrians anybody and everyboyd.. I guess even Gays are oke nobobd bothers them.. I am not sure how cause fo hijra-community got wedded with gay pride..

This verdict is basically in your face judgement I am sure nobody stops anyone from taking rear route (pun intended)

Religious community should understand one thing if somebody is sinnign God will take care of it there is no need of fuming and frothing against them..

..

[Reply]

HA ha . . . . . .
the last line has hit the nail in the head:
what the hell do they do about gay pilgrims?

[Reply]

Discussion or no discussion,Sex is natural both for the man and the woman.There is no limit to the pleasure in its natural form so why deviate.The more you have it the more you enjoy it and more you want it in variations.
A discussion to share your experience will add to your knowledge and pleasure.

[Reply]

There is a biological basis for sexual orientation , it probably has to do with exposure to hormones during embryogenesis. Also autopsy studied on AIDS paients have shown a part of the brain known as amygdala is larger than average. That bit only we know , lot needs to be known , but certainly gay people have been geniuses. There is a saying , jewish , homosexual and genius go together.

[Reply]

you gotta point maybe…anyone out there know?

[Reply]

Renuka,

All of us have limitations by virtue of being a man, woman, poor, rich – anything is a gift and anything is a curse- it’s the way we look at it. I agree with Partho that discretion is the key to peace. Screaming for rights- women’s rights, gay rights or any rights for that matter sounds militant and abrasive.

As for concerned mothers about their childrens’ orientations- there is only one thing that I feel deeply- for a child parents’ approval is paramount. If as a parent, we can convey complete acceptance to our child, i think the child will go out ready to conquer- acceptance could be of a child’s ailment, handicap, shortcoming, choice of spouse, choice of life, choice of career-anything.. As parents if we have the courage to accept them the way they are, that should do the trick..

[Reply]