To have Us, you need to have Them
A review of a book on the history of the gay movement in the United States reminded me of another book (Aids Sutra) I had read a long time back about the LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transvestite community). It had contributions from a wide variety of writers and was a good read, did a lot to throw light upon the various sub groups that form the LGBT community. The only thing they have in common is the violent reaction they faced when they come out of the closet.
Last year, or was it the year before, we had a lot of brouhaha over the repealing of Article 377 by the Delhi High Court. Suddenly, you had the entire political community en masse crossing ideological borders and coming together to save India from aping the West it seems. The wannabe politicians who would today be yoga gurus, random community leaders weighed in with their bit of nonsense and suddenly it was as if repealing the law was the worst thing that could happen to India after the Emergency.
So what is it about the community that gets everyone's goat? Why is it that all religions of the world, without exception do not accept them as part of the mainstream.
At the heart of the issue, I would assume is power. Religion is about power and power needs the masses/subjects to always remain under the thumb of the ruler/priests/king. This strong sense of equilibrium if broken can lead to uncertainty and that comes in the way of absolute power.
Sex and by extension sexuality is natural and the underlying fact that sex can be solely about pleasure should not forgotten, and, if consensual, should not be the subject of any laws. The book states how, "the contraceptive pill separated sex and reproduction for heterosexuals, so that for them, sex became what it had always been for homosexuals—a joyous and exuberant end in itself. Straight people were no longer so inclined to tut—they were doing it themselves. The gradual expansion of straight sexuality—its de-Puritanization, so to speak—brought with it greater tolerance for gay sexuality, as the two converged." That I would agree with but sometime post that the author goes on to say, "their role is to show that monogamy, and gender boundaries, and ideas like marriage throttle the free libidinal impulses of humanity. So instead of arguing for the right to get married, gay people should have been arguing for the abolition of marriage, monogamy, and much more besides."
And that is where I like to think the author has lost the plot. He makes homosexuality seem like a phase, a la flower power. Why is it that homosexuals cannot want what is considered normal by the straight community? Do their sexual choice being different from the majority have to limit their various other choices in life too? This where the basic tenets of democracy have a major role to play. You see democracy is not about the needs and wants of the majority. It is not about 51% and 49%, not even about 99.99%. It is about being part of that 0.01% and still having the freedom to express your views and act on them uninhibited.
And that is where an independent judiciary as a force to counter the majoritarian view is extremely important. Constitutional morality should outweigh public morality. The Constitution and the laws based on it are, however, old and need a revisit. Sometimes the most patriotic thing you can do is criticize. That is the very ideal of a democracy. Dissent should not be confused with heresy.
Last year, or was it the year before, we had a lot of brouhaha over the repealing of Article 377 by the Delhi High Court. Suddenly, you had the entire political community en masse crossing ideological borders and coming together to save India from aping the West it seems. The wannabe politicians who would today be yoga gurus, random community leaders weighed in with their bit of nonsense and suddenly it was as if repealing the law was the worst thing that could happen to India after the Emergency.
So what is it about the community that gets everyone's goat? Why is it that all religions of the world, without exception do not accept them as part of the mainstream.
At the heart of the issue, I would assume is power. Religion is about power and power needs the masses/subjects to always remain under the thumb of the ruler/priests/king. This strong sense of equilibrium if broken can lead to uncertainty and that comes in the way of absolute power.
Sex and by extension sexuality is natural and the underlying fact that sex can be solely about pleasure should not forgotten, and, if consensual, should not be the subject of any laws. The book states how, "the contraceptive pill separated sex and reproduction for heterosexuals, so that for them, sex became what it had always been for homosexuals—a joyous and exuberant end in itself. Straight people were no longer so inclined to tut—they were doing it themselves. The gradual expansion of straight sexuality—its de-Puritanization, so to speak—brought with it greater tolerance for gay sexuality, as the two converged." That I would agree with but sometime post that the author goes on to say, "their role is to show that monogamy, and gender boundaries, and ideas like marriage throttle the free libidinal impulses of humanity. So instead of arguing for the right to get married, gay people should have been arguing for the abolition of marriage, monogamy, and much more besides."
And that is where I like to think the author has lost the plot. He makes homosexuality seem like a phase, a la flower power. Why is it that homosexuals cannot want what is considered normal by the straight community? Do their sexual choice being different from the majority have to limit their various other choices in life too? This where the basic tenets of democracy have a major role to play. You see democracy is not about the needs and wants of the majority. It is not about 51% and 49%, not even about 99.99%. It is about being part of that 0.01% and still having the freedom to express your views and act on them uninhibited. And that is where an independent judiciary as a force to counter the majoritarian view is extremely important. Constitutional morality should outweigh public morality. The Constitution and the laws based on it are, however, old and need a revisit. Sometimes the most patriotic thing you can do is criticize. That is the very ideal of a democracy. Dissent should not be confused with heresy.
Comments
Post a Comment