This country is going to the cats, dogs, chickens...

On July 2, 2009, the High Court of New Delhi created history of sorts when it overturned a 148 year old law which criminalized what it referred to as an act of "unnatural sex". Over the past century, various courts had interpreted the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code differently. Initially it was used only to prosecute coitus per anus (anal intercourse), but later coitus per os (oral sex) and mutual masturbation were also included within the definition of the said act.

The court has held the law as a violation of several articles of our Constitution - Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (right to non discrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty). The court has virtually rejected every argument put up by the religious anti-gay groups as well as the government . The judges have said that, "There is almost unanimous medical and psychiatric opinion that homosexuality is not a disease or a disorder and is just another expression of human sexuality". The court has also rubbished the public morality argument put forward in favour of retention of the law, saying "Popular morality, as distinct from a constitutional morality derived from constitutional values, is based on shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong. If there is any type of 'morality' that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be 'constitutional' morality and not public morality".

The court has also extended constitutional protections of equality and non discrimination to the LGBT population by holding that, "The purpose underlying the fundamental right against sex discrimination is to prevent behaviour that treats people differently for reason of not being in conformity with generalization concerning 'normal' or 'natural' gender roles..... We hold that sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not permitted by Article 15". The court also made a fascinating observation about the concept of fundamental rights in general, "Fundamental human rights belong to individuals simply by virtue of their humanity... A Bill of Rights does not 'confer' fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection".

Quite surprisingly, this judgment has done the unthinkable - uniting all religious activists! Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain and Buddhist leaders have variously called homosexuality as "unnatural", "un Manly", "un Godly", "un Indian", "sin" etc and have asked the government to appeal against the verdict.

A Hindu astrologer Sushil Kumar Kaushal has appealed to the Supreme Court and has said primarily two things - "even animals don't indulge in gay sex", and "tomorrow people might start demanding sex with animals". Baba Ramdev has also appealed calling homosexuality as a disease which can be cured by yoga.

Well the first argument of Sushil Kumar is clearly wrong. There exists tonnes and tonnes of documentation regarding existence of homosexuality in animals. Now we are certainly not arresting gay animals, are we??

Baba Ramdev's understanding of homosexuality is also rather juvenile. Medical practitioners all over the world working in the fields of pyschiatry and psychology have concluded that homosexuality is not a disease. Even so, let us assume jor a second that it is a disease. If so, then tell me, which country criminalizes diseases??

Coming to Sushil Kumar's second argument now. Gays will protest a comparison with zoophilia (bestiality) by saying that "animals can't consent to sex". Similarly, a minor's consent is not a legally valid consent and hence an act of homosexuality is differed from an act of bestiality or paedophilia on that count.

There is, however, one more counter to Suresh's second argument. Gay sex is seen as unnatural by many, because of the "inappropriate usage of human organs". Similarly bestiality is a non-conformist sexual behaviour which involves crossing the species barrier and is therefore seen as unnatural (in the biblical times, "natural" meant "customary" and "unnatural" meant "uncustomary"). Lets not take sides over whether an act of gay sex is unnatural or not. Rather, lets ask ourselves, "are we all behaving in a truly natural way?".

If we truly look at the definition of the "natural", I think we all are "unnatural". Starting with clothes to ear rings, cars, aeroplanes,... everything is unnatural. Marriage itself is an unnatural construct imposed by the society, invented to maintain a certain sense of order amongst its members. It is often argued, that non vegetarianism is unnatural. The human body is simply not suited to eat cats, dogs, chickens, etc.

I can hold an opinion that eating cats, dogs, chickens etc is just another form of perverted behavior as is having sex with them. Probably even worse, since the former involves rearing the animals in a closed cage right from their birth to their death! (Nature didn't intend us to captivate the animals, did it?? If you have the balls, why not go hunt them in the wild yourself??) But to make a law out of my beliefs, violating the fundamental rights of millions of people, would be an act of injustice and inhumanity (by the way, the concepts of justice and equality are also unnatural -- in the real natural world, it is "survival of the fittest")

The truth of the matter is, that the entire human civilization is "unnatural". Homosexual relations as a sexual / psychological orientation are just about as unnatural as heterosexual relations (marriages) are. And about religious people opposing homosexuality, well weren't they the same people burning the heretics, widows, witches, and raping and killing - all in the name of God?

I had only dreamt of the day when religions of the world could unite and stop fighting. Seeing that happening now, and realizing how dangerous this union can actually be, I am only able to conclude - this country is going to the cats, dogs, and chickens!!