India Moves In the Wrong Direction on Gay Rights

India's Supreme Court set aside a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults.

Gay rights in IndiaFry1989My father asked me,"Could you wait until we die? Think about us." His deep fear was that I would publicly identify as an Indian man who is attracted to other men. After years since that conversation, and coming out publicly, of working to explain to my family that being gay is not a medical problem, that I value my own life enough to make thoughtful choices, and that they could not ask me to put their pride above my individual right to love a person of my choice, December 2013 has brought a major setback.

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013, India's Supreme Court set aside a highly lauded 2009 Delhi High Court ruling decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults.

Ironically, at a time when Queen Elizabeth cleared the way for same-sex marriage in the U.K., India chose to uphold Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, dating to 1860 and British rule over India. The section reads: "377. Unnatural offences—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."

The Supreme Court held that the 150-year-old law, criminalizing gay sex, "does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality," setting back hard work by the LGBT community, in particular by extraordinary organizations such as Naz and Humsafar.

Negative reaction has been quick, from the gay community, other non-governmental organizations and from legal analysts. Some senior politicians, including United Progressive Alliance (a coalition of political parties) chairperson Sonia Gandhi, have been vocal in their dissent, offering some promise of a new law decriminalizing homosexuality being passed by the executive.

As a young, gay man, and Indian citizen (living in safety in the U.S.), I am deeply disappointed in the court's decision. India is choosing to move further into the bedroom, and infringing upon individual rights.

We need to understand that India has always valued groups and "society" over the individual. For example, if somebody is playing music very loudly in a bus, it would likely be seen as an aggressive action to request that they wear earphones. In a country where 90 percent of marriages are arranged marriages, romantic relations are seen as a decision made by families, rather than individuals.

The horrific 2012 gang rape of a 23-year-old intern in Delhi highlighted how the concept of individual rights still has a long road ahead to acceptance. After the horrific public sexual assault, a national discussion erupted in the media in which womens' groups had to explain that the victim is not to blame. Sadly, India's great balkanization by religion and caste has created an environment where group rights take precedence over individual ones.

Likewise, LGBT rights are not seen as individual rights in India. Once again, the country is sadly choosing to treat life and liberty, not as being unalienable rights, but instead as matters to be judged based on clout, numbers, and "contribution to the community."

Nitin Rao at vigilUrvi NagraniWhile citizens who take a stand are chastised and asked to not embarrass India, the Indian family and country as a whole have always shoved contentious issues under the carpet. Growing up, not only was sex (or dating) never ever discussed at home, to date, my parents haven't taken a public stand in support of their gay son.

The rest of the country is in similar denial. In 2009, a CNN-IBN poll found that 94 percent of Indians claim to not have a friend or family who is gay or lesbian. Compare that with the U.S., where a CBS poll found that 77 percent of Americans know a friend or family member who is gay.

In Silicon Valley, we often praise entrepreneurs who recognize an idea whose time has come, and take it to market. Today, with concern for their safety, I have the deepest respect for my friends in India, gay and straight, who are choosing to take a public stand against the Indian Supreme Court ruling. These includes the 300 citizens who shared videos and other messages with Tushar Malik (now at the Human Rights Campaign) voicing their support of LGBT rights as part of the "I, Ally" campaign.

They are heroes who may well be supporting an idea before it's time has come by doing the right thing, because it's the right thing, before others give them permission to call it the right thing.

Nitin Bantwal Rao is a TED Fellow. A gay man, he moved to the United States in 2009 for an MBA degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Previously, he helped found Equal India Alliance, a small non-profit led by Tushar Malik, which recorded 300 videos of Indians voicing their support for LGBT rights as part of the ‘I, Ally’ campaign. He lives in San Francisco, and works at a technology startup.

Media Contact Reprint Requests

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Interesting. I had not thought before about the connection between societies having strong caste/class system and collectivist thinking. It certainly is a form of tribalism.

    I wonder how much that comes into play here in the US.

  • mariaroze||

    my friend's mom makes $63 an hour on the computer. She has been out of work for seven months but last month her payment was $18465 just working on the computer for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.cash29.com/

  • RedRaider||

    I think the tribalism is on the left's and the pro-homosexual side, if not just as much as on the right.

    But the reason people who are against the practice of homosexuality in the United States are against it because it is wrong and bad.

  • Thomas O.||

    Hey, as long as those who oppose homosexuality are not actively pushing for its re-criminalization or an absolute ban on even civil unions, they're entitled to their opinion.

  • entropy_factor||

    gay people don't really bug me, and we certainly should not throw them in jail. However, I think the cultural Marxist agenda is in full swing and I don't think it ends well for anyone.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Please expand on your comment. I'm not sure what you mean by the "cultural Marxist agenda is in full swing".

  • Irish||

    Chris Matthews: There is very little difference between Republicans and Kim Jong Un.

    “The right wing is acting, if not as brutally, certainly as crazily” as the North Korean leader, Matthews asserted, before laying out insults conservative radio personalities have hurled toward House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). According to Matthews, the GOP establishment is “scared to death” that the “right-wing media circus will finger them for destruction the way Kim Jong-un just fingered his own unsuspecting guardian uncle over in Pyongyang.”

    So conservative media is going to have John Boehner shot? Where's the bad news?*

    *This was a joke, for any NSA technicians currently trolling for subversives.

  • ||

    I saw a blip the other day claiming that Matthews was paid 177k last year from unions. The guy is a straight up paid shill.

  • ||

    I should have included a claim that Matthews is just like a NorK propagandist.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    How's the Kimber?

    Shoot it yet?

  • ||

    Oh hey. I got distracted. The kimber is....wow. 1 inch, single hole groups at 20 steps. It is like shooting a K-22. I cant miss with the thing. Functions as smooth as silk.

    I am in love.

    Now I am thinking about building a double-stack 1911 in 38 super.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Name her Vera. ;-)

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I missed the start. Which Kimber did you get?

  • SweatingGin||

    Are you sure it wasn't Ed Schultz?

    Not that I doubt it, but I had caught that about Schultz. It would be even more interesting if it turns out it was both.

  • Virginian||

    Once again, the country is sadly choosing to treat life and liberty, not as being unalienable rights, but instead as matters to be judged based on clout, numbers, and "contribution to the community."

    Good thing we're headed back that way here in the good old USA.

  • RedRaider||

    To engage in any sexual behavior you choose is not an unalienable right. So no unalienable rights are being violated.

  • Thomas O.||

    If the sexual behavior concerns anything other than consenting adults, no, it's not a right. But there's nothing in the Constitution regulating sexual behavior. And especially after Lawrence v. Texas, there shouldn't be.

  • RedRaider||

    That's not true. Prostitution is between consenting adults, yet it's illegal. And homosexuality is bad for the same reasons. It destabilizes society by disrupting the core unit of the society, the family based on the marriage between a man and a woman, and spreads diseases.

  • Thomas O.||

    Prostitution shouldn't be outlawed, either. One adult has the funds, the other adult consents to the sexual activity upon payment for services rendered. No one's hurt.

    And I agree that families are the bedrock of civilized society... HOWEVER, families don't have to be strictly one-man-one-woman anymore. You can instill positive values, discipline and education, and provide plenty of love and support with two moms or two dads. Any detriment to society would stem from hatred, bullies and skewed justice that turns a blind eye to abuse. The problem doesn't stem from the sexual attraction itself.

    As for diseases, this may come as a shock to you, but gay men don't hold the monopoly on buttsex. If you're gonna promote abstinence, do it within a gender-neutral disease-risk concept, not because your special book says so.

  • RedRaider||

    "And I agree that families are the bedrock of civilized society... HOWEVER, families don't have to be strictly one-man-one-woman anymore."

    Yes it does.

    "You can instill positive values, discipline and education, and provide plenty of love and support with two moms or two dads."

    No you can't. Homosexuality is an inherently negative vice. It has NO purpose other than for gratuitous self gratification, devoid of any character building qualities because for it to be approved, you have to inherently say the only values are what makes you feel good and no lessons on self control or discipline. NONE. If you like it, you should be allowed to do it, whatever it is because as long as you like it, that's ALL THAT MATTERS. That is bad.

  • Thomas O.||

    Gay people are devoid of discipline and have a one-track mind, eh? Generalize much?

    Besides, what's wrong with doing what makes you feel good, as long as you're keeping it private and not hurting or offending others? Sounds a lot like self-control and discipline to me.

  • R C Dean||

    Aren't Indians oppressed brown people whose culture we are not allowed to criticize?

    Naturally, Indians are allowed to do so, although, oddly, using Western "white male" concepts (like freedom, privacy, and equality before the law) to do is generally verboten and a sign of false consciousness, so I'm not sure how to square that circle.

    Regardless, shouldn't the non-Indian critics check their privilege and STFU?

  • ||

    Entertainingly the Indian Supreme Court argued essentially that in overturning the Delhi High Court ruling. They argued the Delhi High Court relied on too many foreign concepts of liberty which didn't make sense in an Indian cultural context.

    Of course to justify "legislating morality" the Supreme Court cited the Scalia/Thomas dissent for Lawrence v. Texas. Which makes their contention somewhat comical comical.

  • Spokker||

    I believe that cultures that respect individual liberty are superior to cultures such as the one practiced in India.

    Am I one of the bad libertarians that Reason wants to hide away somewhere?

  • RedRaider||

    Your idea of respecting individual liberty would only lead to chaos. Under your idea of it, no one could tell no one else what to do or not to do. From bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy to people driving 200 mph on the highway, disregarding any traffic law or any other law since what is right and what is wrong would be based on each person's personal viewpoint and opinion. That would render it impossible to have any form of government since each individual would be their own government. You have no standard.

  • Thomas O.||

    We have a standard. It's protecting life, liberty and property. It's the idea of not enacting frivolous laws that "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Jefferson said. We need traffic laws to keep people safe in public. We DON'T need laws regulating sexual conduct, unless it's two naked people getting it on in public. What two consenting adults do in private and away from view is not ANY government's business.

  • RedRaider||

    "We DON'T need laws regulating sexual conduct, unless it's two naked people getting it on in public. What two consenting adults do in private and away from view is not ANY government's business."

    It sure is the governments business. Do we not have marriage license laws maintained by the government? And have we not had them nearly since the founding of the country, at least for over one hundred years? That is because it's crucial that the foundation of society, the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, is protected. Without it, the country dies. You need not look any further than what is happening in Japan and some European countries to see that THEY ARE DIEING because the families are dieing. That is why the government has a vested interest in what consenting adults do in this area.

  • Thomas O.||

    Are families just dying? Is there some hidden disease rendering all wombs infertile? Or is it you think the "wrong kind of people" are not feeling the urge to procreate? Last I checked, women are still pushing out babies. Japan is a special case; the younger generations are just going asexual at an alarming rate. The government should just have a vested interest in maintaining the rule of law protecting life, LIBERTY, and property... and ensuring that children are raised in safe environments (and yes, those can be in families with same-sex parents). There's no danger of the human race becoming extinct, especially not due to lack of babies being conceived. I thought we were worried about overpopulating the world in the first place.

  • RedRaider||

    You think unless anyone is allowed to do whatever they feel like doing, whatever it is, without any limits whatsoever, they don't have liberty. That is a dangerous philosophy. You believe that unless each person is not allowed to set their own personal morals, there is no liberty. And you try to use the First Amendment as cover for it.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, that NOT what the WRITERS of the First Amendment intended. The writers of the First Amendment, or the rest of the Constitution, and who were Christians, wrote the Constitution with the expectation that each person would govern themselves according to the principles of Christianity. They did NOT write it as a BLANK CHECK to FILL IN THE BLANK WITH PERMISSION to engage in any behavior that strikes your fancy. The principles of liberty in Christianity is the freedom to do right according to what the Bible says. That is just the way it is. NOT a blank check to do whatever you want. THAT is the standard. You have no standard. If each person does what he believes is right independent of what anyone else believes is right or wrong is chaos and anarchy. That is what you are proposing.

  • Thomas O.||

    Actions that violate life, liberty and property are WRONG. THAT'S the standard. I want thieves, murderers, kidnappers and rapists locked up just as much as you do because they forcefully took away the life, liberty and property of others. I don't want naked people getting it on in the streets, that's not "in private". But we should be free to do whatever else. If you can't handle that, move to a theocracy. Plenty of those in the rest of the world.

    And guess what... there's NO mention of Christianity in the First Amendment, just religion. That means you have to respect the rights of those who may go to a church that doesn't believe in Jesus and states homosexuality and gay marriage are just fine and dandy. Maybe the Founding Fathers intended that at first. (Some of them were Deists, not Christians, by the way.) But if they wanted everyone to follow Christianity, they should've explicitly stated that in the Bill of Rights. Too bad, so sad.

  • Lyle||

    India is at liberty to not respect gay rights. Liberty means accepting different cultures and different forms of government.

    Look, Syria can be despotic, be run by Assad or al Qaeda, and hate gays all it wants to. What's it your business? Oh, they don't respect peoples' rights... well, that's their choice. Might makes right beeatches.

    Gay Indians you're more than welcome to immigrate to the U.S. We'll welcome you inside of us. One of your own is governor of Louisiana and New Orleans hosts a great big gay bash called Southern Decadence. Come one, come all.

  • R C Dean||

    We'll welcome you inside of us.

    Freudian slip much, Lyle?

    Personally, I'm not planning to welcome anyone inside of me. I just don't swing that way. NTTAWWT.

  • Lyle||

    No Freudian slip man. To each their own. America is a free country. Swing your thing whichever way you like.

  • Thomas O.||

    And I'm guessing the "come one, come all" was pun intended. ;P

  • Irish||

    India is at liberty to not respect gay rights. Liberty means accepting different cultures and different forms of government.

    You're mistaking collective liberty with individual liberty. I think individual liberty is important. If a collective group decides to deny individuals freedom, that is a terrible infringement and an attack on human rights.

    Example: Scotland prior to the unification of Great Britain had 'collective liberty' which resulted in the Scottish government hanging apostates and assaulting anyone who didn't adhere to Scottish religious beliefs. Scotland lost collective liberty when they unified with England, but gained individual liberty because they were now governed by British laws that didn't allow for the horrible practices of the Scottish Kirk.

    As a result, actual Scottish people were made much better off even though Scotland lost political autonomy.

  • Lyle||

    I hear you man, but it's the collective that ultimately upholds and protects the individual's liberty, because it's the collective that has the power to destroy the individual's liberty.

    How did slavery in the United States end for example?

  • Spokker||

    India has to deal with this problem itself, lest we want to go in there and tell them what to do. However, their culture, including the caste system, is going to make it much more difficult to enact any change.

  • KalkiDas||

    Individuals only have rights, not groups. There is no such thing as "gay" right. You either have individual rights, or you don't. If some person is being deprived of those rights, then that is a violation of individual rights. I'm surprised that I have to say this here.

  • Thomas O.||

    If groups don't have rights (or aren't supposed to), then we're gonna need a LOT of help getting the Citizens United toothpaste back into the tube.

  • KalkiDas||

    Individuals only have rights, not groups. There is no such thing as "gay" right. You either have individual rights, or you don't. If some person is being deprived of those rights, then that is a violation of individual rights. I'm surprised that I have to say this here.

  • KalkiDas||

    damnit, injured my pronator muscle last night doing pull-ups and now the lousy joint is making me trigger submit finger.

  • Pinky||

    I think you didn't need to say it here.

  • Spokker||

    Reason is trying to portray a kindler gentler libertarian, one that isn't an autistic white racist shitlord (I happen to be an autistic Mexican racist shitlord). So they feel obliged to deal in those terms rather the super specific terms we care for.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    In reality, people who are offended by something (not just the Gay Community) will eventually join arms to defeat whatever it is that offends them by whatever methods they deem best, legal or illegal. This is an historical fact. In any event, I suspect that by the time everyone gets their rights, no one will have any rights at all.

  • RedRaider||

    "In reality, people who are offended by something (not just the Gay Community) will eventually join arms to defeat whatever it is that offends them"

    That is the liberal definition of right and wrong, a subjective standard based purely on whether it offends you or not. That is a flawed standard that you are establishing in your statement, therefore, not true.

    The people who are against the practice of homosexuality are against it not just because it is offensive but because it is inherently wrong, whether it offends you or not. The practice of homosexuality has been puffed up to be something it is not. It is not equivalent to gender or race, as the activists for it act like it is. In other words, the whole homosexual movement is nothing more than an act, drama, devoid of any fundamental principle other than just because it feels good.

  • RishJoMo||

    Man can we roll that beautiful bean footage or what?

    www.Anon-Go.tk

  • Raghu||

    I don't see the connection Nitin is trying to make between caste and individual rights. Caste in India is more akin to ethnicity in the United States, except with a (pseudo-) religious background. Officially, the government of India does not recognize caste as a factor in legislative or judicial matters. Caste system is perpetuated by Indians who identify with a caste because it is how they were brought up. And people seem to be fine with that as long as politicians aren't politicizing caste as an election year issue. For them, caste is as natural and as defining a feature in identity as one's language, religion, gender, etc. Just because one has a religion, an ethnicity, etc, it does not follow that one cannot be made to understand the wisdom of a government leaving people alone. The same, I would argue, is true of caste.

  • Raghu||

    Ancient Hindu texts which upheld a caste system, and which also upheld hereditary monarchies run by "philosopher-kings" as a desirable form of government, did not direct rulers to punish people for non-aggressive behaviors that were deemed sinful. At least, I can say this with a fair degree of certainty considering that ancient Hindu literature is a hobby of mine. The mentality of the Supreme Court does not seem rooted in ancient tradition, but in their own narrow-minded attitudes, untempered by a desire to protect individual rights. It should be remembered that India's government only officially respects principles like individual rights. In practice, there are many heavy-handed laws that restrict journalists from criticizing the government, restrict the practice of religion, and control the transfer of wealth. Against that context, the decision to criminalize homosexuality is hardly surprising, and it substantiates Hayek's view that a society that fails to respect economic freedom will ultimately fail to respect individual freedom also.

  • RedRaider||

    "Ancient Hindu texts which upheld a caste system, and which also upheld hereditary monarchies run by "philosopher-kings" as a desirable form of government, did not direct rulers to punish people for non-aggressive behaviors that were deemed sinful....In their own narrow-minded attitudes"

    You are being narrow-minded by refusing to see their view and thank goodness they are not following the ancient texts. Besides, FACE IT, you don't care about the ancient texts. If the ancient texts said that those who practice homosexuality were to be punished, YOU WOULD SCOFF AT IT and call it backwards. That is what is happening in the United States. The ancient texts of the Bible says it is a sin and an abomination to engage in homosexual behavior, yet are those who practice homosexuality respectful of that? NO. The bottom line is that you will scoff at the things that say the practice of homosexuality is wrong, calling it homophobic, hateful, any number of names. But if it supports your behavior you are going to trumpet your praises for it.

  • Thomas O.||

    The Constitution of the United States trumps all ancient texts. And thanks to the First Amendment, it trumps the Bible too. Yes, a moral society is important to reinforcing our law of the land. But that also pertains to those morals that involve lying and stealing. In that context, most of our government is amoral already. You could even factor in gluttony with all the spending ourselves into debt of unprecedented levels.

  • LIFE.time.opertunity||

  • gmo2ashes||

    How is this legislation a "Move In the Wrong Direction?"

    Any man or woman who can still think clearly sees that it moves AWAY from abnormality and sexual deviancy.

    Consider how "gay marriage" has affected Massachusetts.

    http://www.massresistance.org/.....index.html

    Soon after same-sex marriage was legalized in MA, the state began distributing homosexual literature to schools to teach impressionable young kids the virtues of sexual depravity. Since gay marriage was imposed on MA society, homosexuality among teens has increased over 50%, STDs have gone through the roof, and clinics were formed to enable CHILDREN to undergo surgical operations to change their gender.

    The goal of same-sex marriage doesn't stop there - this perversity continues forward to inculcate a wider public acceptance of pedophilia, bestiality and ultimately the destruction of morality and the concept of family.

    Hooray for India (and Russia too).

  • RedRaider||

    RIGHT ON!

  • Thomas O.||

    As long as the pro-gay activists are in the same party as the animal rights activists, you're not gonna see any kind of a push for legalized bestiality anytime soon.

  • RedRaider||

    "India Moves In the Wrong Direction on Gay Rights"

    Wrong according to who and what standard?

    "After years of working to explain to my family that being gay is not a medical problem,"

    It is a medical problem. GREAT! A sick person diagnosing themselves. Do we let someone with schizophrenia diagnose themselves? Do we let a person with depression diagnose themselves? No and no. Yet doctors are letting these sexually confused and disoriented people diagnose themselves and then accepting their diagnosis. It is a obviously a chemical imbalance in the brain just like schizophrenia, depression or bi-polar syndrome. There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that it is not a medical issue. ZERO. Yet the left puts on the air of the ones who are the believers and maintainers of science.

    "The rest of the country is in similar denial. In 2009, a CNN-IBN poll found that 94 percent of Indians claim to not have a friend or family who is gay or lesbian."

    Irrelevant. According to this logic, because you know someone who is bi-polar, depressed, or any other mental illness, because they know someone with a mental illness does not mean the person with the mental illness has a mental illness.

  • Thomas O.||

    It's a behavioral aberration, for sure, but it's NOT a medical problem. Sexual attraction to the same sex doesn't have the potential to cause direct harm to anyone, unlike a lot of mental disorders out there. Homosexuality doesn't impair the individual's ability or potential to be a positive contributor to society, unlike Down's Syndrome or the like. And don't even think about playing the "unable to propagate" card, unless you want to run afoul of infertile couples or single parents. We're not outlawing those things anytime soon. And I would hate to live in a society that did.

  • RedRaider||

    "The rest of the country is in similar denial. In 2009, a CNN-IBN poll found that 94 percent of Indians claim to not have a friend or family who is gay or lesbian."

    Irrelevant. According to this logic, because you know someone who is bi-polar, depressed, or any other mental illness, because they know someone with a mental illness does not mean the person with the mental illness DOES NOT have a mental illness.

  • RedRaider||

    "India's Supreme Court set aside a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults."

    You are being disingenuous. You want PUBLIC approval of acceptance of the behavior. First you activists claim it is a private matter, and once you have the acceptance of that, you push for public acceptance until you get acceptance and approval to the point of saying you have the right to get married. WRONG! It is not a matter of privacy as you claim.

  • Thomas O.||

    Well, that's where I feel the gay-rights militants overstep their bounds. The push for acceptance should only be limited to anti-bullying efforts. No kid should be treated like crap just because his/her parents are both men or both women. No business should be forced to provide a service to anyone. You want freedom of speech/expression for your beliefs, don't be pushing for official curtailing of that freedom of speech/expression for those you hate.

  • RedRaider||

    If you agree that it is ok to engage in that behavior, then you cannot say it is wrong to institutionalize it through government sanctioned marriage. You can't go half way and not go all the way.

  • Thomas O.||

    If it makes you feel better to call them "civil unions", and you don't want marriage redefined, that's OK with me. Just remember, your definition of marriage can be set in stone... with the right wording, the LEGAL definition of marriage is subject to change.

  • RedRaider||

    There should not be any recognized union at all. It is only a recreational behavior, THAT IS ALL it is. That is no basis to give it ANY semblance of marriage. It isn't anymore different than if two people wanted to have a civil union or marriage because they both like to bowl, or fly remote airplanes, or ANY OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY.

  • RedRaider||

    And people who wanted to get married or have a civil union over liking to play golf would be safer than homosexual behavior, which is rife with disease, even if it is monogamous, which the vast majority are not.

  • RedRaider||

    "They are heroes who may well be supporting an idea before it's time has come by doing the right thing, because it's the right thing, before others give them permission to call it the right thing."

    That is based on the false assumption that you know what the right thing is.

  • RedRaider||

    "They are heroes who may well be supporting an idea before it's time has come by doing the right thing, because it's the right thing, before others give them permission to call it the right thing."

    That is based on the false assumption that you know what the right thing is. In other words, because you think it's the right thing, doesn't mean it is.

  • Thomas O.||

    And just because you think it's the wrong thing, doesn't mean it should be illegal.

  • RedRaider||

    Yes it does because it is wrong for society and detrimental to society. And I have more to back me up that this is morally wrong than the homosexual activist say it is right.

  • Thomas O.||

    Well, you lose all your religion-based backup, because First Amendment.

    And the disease thing is a moot point, because a) heterosexual couples practice sodomy as well, and b) if same-sex couples are TRULY committed to each other and their kids, they'll be monogamous and not sleep around. Yes, some same-sex couples are sexually open, but that's an individual matter to be settled by court, NOT an excuse to institute blanket bans on activity that directly harms NO ONE.

  • RedRaider||

    It does. It harms the health of those who practice homosexuality and even if it did not "directly" harm someone, it still causes harm to society on the whole which is more detrimental for everyone than if it was directly harming. And since it harms the health of those who practice homosexuality, it harms the health of the society.

    "if same-sex couples are TRULY committed to each other and their kids,"

    They can't have kids, so this is inherently dysfunctional and if they adopt other people's kids, they teach those kids to be dysfunctional, therefore it creates an increase in dysfunctional family units. And the "truly committed" part is a VERY BIG "IF".

  • Thomas O.||

    Well, I'm just glad that a) you're not dictator of the USA, and b) there's millions of gay couples with kids proving you wrong.

  • RedRaider||

    "And the disease thing is a moot point, because a) heterosexual couples practice sodomy as well"

    Not as a standard practice. That makes your point that that is moot, moot.

  • Thomas O.||

    Not a moot point because you missed the point.

    Are you saying there should be only one sanctioned way to have sexual relations? That's very un-American (and very boring to boot). I'd hate to think of how you'd go about legitimately enforcing that.

  • RedRaider||

    "India's Supreme Court set aside a 2009 Delhi High Court ruling decriminalizing private sexual acts between consenting adults."

    By the way, when you decriminalize something, you make it legal. So I think you are trying to say that the Supreme Court is criminalizing the practice of homosexuality instead of decriminalizing.

  • Paul.||

    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."

    Life imprisonment and a $250 fine!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement