Sexual Autonomy

Indonesia Seems Set to Ban Gay Sex

World's fourth largest country -- and largest Muslim country -- had long been seen as tolerant on such matters, but that has been changing.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Washington Post (Vincent Bevins) reports on the plan, which would also outlaw extramarital sex:

Prodded by religious conservatives, Indonesia is moving toward outlawing gay sex — and even sex outside marriage — in a jarring change for a country long seen as a bastion of tolerance in the Islamic world….

Ichsan Soelistio, a member of a special commission in the Indonesian House of Representatives working to update the country's criminal code, said the body has reached consensus to include laws outlawing extramarital sex as well as gay sex, and is likely to do so soon but with some limitations.

"More-conservative elements want full criminalization, which we reject," Soelistio, a member of Indonesia's largest political party, said in an interview this week. "But we have agreed to accept a law which allows prosecution of sex outside marriage and homosexual sex, but only if one of the sexual partners or their family members report the crime to police." …

"That is not protection," said Lini, an Indonesian LGBT activist. "LGBT Indonesians are often rejected by their families or the victims of violence within the family. Allowing their parents to throw them in jail legally is the opposite of helping." …

She said she has been shocked by how quickly political sentiment has shifted on the issue: "Six months ago, I would have thought it very unlikely a law like this would actually be passed. Now we have little reason to feel optimistic."

Advertisement

NEXT: The FDA Is Still Trying to Ban Kratom, a Potential Solution to the Opioid Epidemic

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.

  1. God/Allah/YHWH must be one uptight sombitch if all he/she/ze thinks about is sex.

  2. There are two phases to LGBT. One is whether the people of the country are ready to live and let live. In 2003 an attempt to pass a law to criminalize homosexuality failed. People apparently wanted them to be able to live their lives without harassment.

    But it’s possible that the LGBT movement then switched to phase 2, which in the United States has been to attack, demonize and try to destroy those who have any reservations about LGBT, or who are unwilling to declare that lifestyle to be entirely normal, or who disagree that children should be encouraged to choose a gender identity at variance with their biology if they show some confusion on this question, and to declare as immoral the dominant religion if it is unwilling to change.

    This recent law in Indonesia may be a backlash showing that the Indonesians are not yet ready for phase 2, and that the dominant religion (87% Islam) is not as willing to accommodate them.

    1. Funny, this ‘phases’ talk sounds like the same apocalyptic canard I’ve heard about Muslims. Which echoes similar stuff about Jews back in the day.

      The true hits never go out of style!

      1. Soon, Indonesia will be just as backwards as swood’s friend, Russia.

        With any luck for swood, he can bring ‘MURIKA in line with those enlightened countries.

        1. The beauty is that however regressive they make themselves, it’ll all be better than the world of swood’s dark gay counterfactual.

      2. My observation is that they may be moving too fast for the Indonesians. It’s probably true. Why else would such a law fail in 2003 but pass now? Furthermore, one can support the right of people to live their lives as they wish without supporting the tactic of attacking, demonizing and destroying those who don’t change their minds as quickly as is demanded.

        1. Your ridiculous observation about the oppressive ‘phases’ of the LGBT movement is some bad craziness. It’s half-baked paranoia about a subgroup that would be quite at home in the Protocols or that chart about what Muslims do depending on their percentage of the population.

          The ‘demonize this smaller group lest the demonize us’ does not have a good history. Using it to rationalize Indonesia’s criminalizing people’s identity is something you should check yourself about.

          1. I wasn’t rationalizing anything. It’s simply the case that people who are happy to let the LGBT crowd live their lives in peace find themselves being attacked for failing to affirm those groups, they take steps to respond. Isn’t this how people explain the election of Donald Trump?

            1. ‘Taken steps to respond.’

              What the hell is wrong with you?

              1. ‘Taken steps to respond.’

                What the hell is wrong with you?

                Sorry, I don’t follow. I am talking about people holding traditional moral values, described by the majority in Obergefell as follows:

                Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here.

                When decent and honorable people suddenly find themselves attacked and compared to Nazis, then they often take steps to respond and defend their beliefs. And sometimes they will do this by electing politicians who affirm the traditional values that they think are proper. Do you have an issue with this?

                Do you disagree that there are decent and honorable people who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong?

                1. You know, Pol Pot was just taking steps to respond to what he perceived as persecution.

                  Funny you would try and switch the arena. We’re not talking about marriage, we’re talking about sex.
                  It’s an awful, oppressive law, and your cold characterization in service of some debating point diminishes you.

                  1. Many decent and honorable people believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

                    1. Wrong and ‘would put a criminal sanction on’ are two different things.

                    2. Wrong and ‘would put a criminal sanction on’ are two different things.

                      I clearly said that I was talking about people who just want to live and let live.

                      It’s simply the case that people who are happy to let the LGBT crowd live their lives in peace find themselves being attacked for failing to affirm those groups?

                      These are people characterized by the Supreme Court as decent and honorable but, because they won’t say that they approve of same-sex marriage, they are attacked and bullied. Who is being oppressed here? Why can’t people just learn to accept diversity of belief and stop demanding that everyone else adopt their beliefs?

                    3. I clearly said that I was talking about people who just want to live and let live.

                      I thought you were talking about Republicans, conservatives, Christians, and advocates of “traditional values” — you know, the very tolerant people.

                      (People are entitled to believe as they wish. They are not entitled to use religion as a cloak to avoid being labeled as bigots if they act in a bigoted manner; are not entitled to have superstition-based arguments treated with respect in reasoned debate among adults; and are not excused by magical pixie dust if they attempt to use government to enforce stale bigotry.)

                    4. They are not entitled to use religion as a cloak to avoid being labeled as bigots if they act in a bigoted manner

                      You call them bigots if they decline to affirm same-sex marriage but the Supreme Court calls their beliefs decent and honorable. How do you explain that discrepancy?

                    5. Is somebody who holds this belief bigoted: “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Barak Obama, 2008.

                      How about this belief: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” Hillary Clinton, 2000.

                      How about those who in 1996 signed or voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

                      What does ‘bigot’ mean?

                    6. Swood, your scenario is good people who want to live and let live being pushed to the brink by gay persecution and ‘taking steps.’

                      Your fuzzy bewilderment that you’ve somehow stumbled into justifying what? really shows how informed goodness plus a persecution narrative can be used to rationalize just about any moral horrorshow you want.

                    7. Your fuzzy bewilderment that you’ve somehow stumbled into justifying what? really shows how informed goodness plus a persecution narrative can be used to rationalize just about any moral horrorshow you want.

                      Do you include in the category “moral horrowshow” the actions of a baker who doesn’t want to participate in a same-sex wedding but is willing to direct the customer to a different baker who will give comparable service?

                      Does your “moral horrorshow” reference the same people the Supreme Court called “decent and honorable”? How can both these things be true?

                    8. You keep trying to pivot by talking about stuff other than the topic at hand. You know, the one you were whitewashing above by ‘observing’ that ‘Indonesia just wasn’t ready’ and ‘took measures.’

                      But all that does is underscore your lack of perspective as you attempt to morally analogize criminalizing homosexuality with public accommodation laws.

                    9. How about “wrong” and “I’ll vote for that bastard Donald Trump rather than a Democrat, for attacking my culture, my way of life, and my religious and free speech rights”?

                      That’s not all /that/ far from criminalizing sexual acts — possibly as little as an election or so away if a trend continued (I don’t expect it to).

                      People on the Right were well aware of Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell; and aware of the exchange in oral arguments between Justice Alito and Solicitor General Verrilli about the possibility that a church could lose its tax exempt status for not recognizing same sex marriage; and they are aware of the various cases in which small businesses have been penalized for refusing to celebrate same sex weddings.

                      That’s an issue one should recognize whether or not one accepts the changes in law and attitudes about sexual matters in the country (I write this as a person who voted in favor of same-sex marriage in Maryland in 2012). Swood’s general point is one that deserves better discussion than it is getting. Sarcastro seems distracted by unfortunate wording in Swood’s original post.

                    10. If swood wants to cry about Christians being called bigots by people they want to exclude from their businesses, there are lots. And lots. And lots of threads for that.

                      But this is a thread about Indonesia criminalizing gay sex. And he starts out talking about exactly that topic. And never really actually changes topics, but rather keeps layering the analogies.
                      So even as he tries to clumsily backpedal he’s stuck with this thesis that if you think criminalizing gay sex is bad, you must hate all people who disagree with you on gay marriage.

                      Trying to bootstrap your way into persecution by conflating hating a concept with hating someone who hews to said concept is dumb. Doing it to ‘understand’ Indonesia’s policy is unbelievable.

        2. My observation is that they may be moving too fast for the Indonesians.

          Sounds much like Mississippi and Alabama in the 1950s and ’60s.

          Or, as conservatives describe it, “the good old days.”

        3. Why else would such a law fail in 2003 but pass now?

          Because Indonesia’s Muslims have been getting more fundie for at least two decades. Malaysians, too.

    2. and to declare as immoral the dominant religion if it is unwilling to change

      The horror . . . perceiving that superstition is immoral if it precipitates gay-bashing!

      At a libertarian site, no less.

    3. If you believe in live and let live, then why would you force your belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman on others? No one is forcing you to believe otherwise. If you think same sex marriage is illegitimate, dishonorable, or sinful, that is your own concern. The government gives tax breaks to satanist, that doesn’t mean the government endorses satanism.

      Your argument implies government decides what makes marriage honorable or dishonorable. The state has no interest there.

      You can list off all sorts of other things, polygamy, incest, beastiality… all these things have a rational basis for state involvement, which is the well-being of the actors, stemming for issues such as coercion and sexual abuse of animals. I haven’t seen, and would not expect to see, individuals bringing cases that their well-being is comprised by laws against such practices, to an extent beyond the potential harm.

      As far as I’m concerned, the government only has an interest in ensuring equal access of citizens to participate in government supported institutions, not making judgements of worthiness.

      I would suspect Indonesia’s problem is that the islamists see the government as getting into the business of morality, and Islam needs to stake its claim. Hopefully they can get past that.

      1. I see now there is a precise legal definition of “legitimate”, which could be misinterpreted above. The sense intended was the ye olde notion of “illegitimate child”, as opposed to legal recognition. Sorry for what must be a jarring error for any lawyerly readers. However ironically, I believe this is precisely the overall point, that legal legitimacy should not be equated with moral legitimacy.

      2. Therefore, I would assume the Masterpiece baker would have a right to not sell Birthday cakes to celebrate a bastard child.

      3. And if he wanted to put a sign out front, “no birthday cakes for bastard children”, who could argue with that. It’s a free country, as they say.

      4. And I apologize if my self-acknowledged, excessive rhetoric fills anyone with rage. I know I try too hard, I’m sorry.

  3. Political Islam is awful. Just like Scientific Socialism.

  4. Must be fake news. I am repeatedly assured Islam is good.

    1. It’s superstition, much like any other organized flavor.

      1. So, you’re an Anarchist then?

        1. I’d be an anarchist if it weren’t for all the other people.

        2. How does preferring reason to superstition relate to anarchy?

          1. Bigger crowds, earlier, at beaches, parks, and farmer’s markets on Sunday mornings.

        3. How does preferring reason to superstition relate to anarchy?

    2. Telling you can’t see the difference between ‘Islam isn’t evil’ and ‘Islam is good.’

    3. Islam is at least as good as Christianity, anyway. As if the Family Research Council isn’t reading this saying, “Awwww, no fair!”

      Ever quote Leviticus, Bob?

      1. Sure.

        19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
        Leviticus 24

      2. Islam is at least as good as Christianity, anyway

        lol

        1. Present tense that’s a bit overstated.
          Sum over histories, it’s a valid argument.

  5. “But we have agreed to accept a law which allows prosecution of sex outside marriage and homosexual sex, but only if one of the sexual partners or their family members report the crime to police.”

    So it’s only a crime if someone reports the crime? WTF. So is having unreported gay sex still an inchoate offense because the perpetrators took a substantial step towards committing the crime of gay sex? Do we then call that offense “attempted gay sex” even though the gay sex occurred?

  6. Has CNN asked Kim Jong-un’s sister what she thinks about gay sex?

    1. Not sure but I think the incest line of questioning would reveal better results.

  7. Does this imply that if there are no living family members, that consensual gay sex would be de facto legal? I’m not advocating anything here…just pointing out some unintended consequences.

    1. It also says the sexual partner can report. Which raises the question, if one participant in the gay sex reports the other for gay sex, is he also by consequence reporting his own gay sex? Is the report specific to the person or the act of gay sex in general?

      1. I suppose this is an awkward way of saying that if you’re the victim of homosexual rape, you can report it without being prosecuted too. At least that’s my guess.

  8. Seems like we need more Indonesian immigrants.

    /s ?

  9. In U.S. recreational sex is actively banned and criminalized, police constantly run various sting operations making men’s life miserable.
    why it is better then ban on gay sex or sex outside of marriage?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.