Note: Previously posted on Desicritcs.org
What I really, absolutely don't get is how or why people consider homosexuality
1. immoral
2. unnatural
3. criminal
Looking at it as a rational human being, I see two adults who love each other enough to want to spend their life together and, of course, have sexual relations with each other. They are not harming anyone. They are not imposing their views and choices on anyone. What they do in the confines of their homes is, and should be, none of our business. No one peeks into a heterosexual couple's bedroom to see what they are doing, do they? Then why do some people consider it their right to poke their noses into a homosexual couple's business?
Is it unnatural? If yes, how? People wouldn't do something, which obviously generates so much hate in many others, if it weren't somewhere a part of their nature, their being. I fail to understand what is so unnatural about feeling sexually attracted to another person of the same sex. It can happen. Who can understand exactly how a human mind works? Why do we like certain people enough to be ready to have sexual relations with them, while we wouldn't even imagine it with some others? If the opposite sex was the only thing that mattered in sexual relationships, there wouldn't be so many dating and match making sites out there, right?
I have a lot to say on the topic but my words usually get lost in the outrage I feel when I see people being so intolerant about something that doesn't even affect them in any tangible or intangible way. Yes, some would say it weakens the moral fiber of our society. What moral fiber? The moral fiber that allows people to kill girl children just because they are girls? The same moral fiber that advises a victim of molestation to "be more careful" instead of punishing the perpetrator? Or the moral fiber that binds the society into inaction and silence when they see a woman being harassed on roads and other public places? Or maybe they mean the moral fiber that bound a certain class of people in the category of untouchables for generations? No, really. PLEASE explain it to me.
I read this article in The Times of India. This is the pits of civilization - people barging into other people's homes. Even if the door was open, it didn't mean an open invitation to come in and invade the privacy of the person living there. There are so many things wrong here. Students thinking they can play moral police. The University's administration even entertaining the students’ attempt to bring Dr. Siras' homosexuality to light. The administration questioning and suspending him. The local TV channel making "news" out of this. (Is this "news"?? I shudder at what's considered news these days. But that is material for another post). What saddens me the most is that Dr. Siras is leaving without disputing the administration's decision. I think he should have stood up to them, but then I have not lived his life. Who knows what else he had to undergo? The humiliation this incident alone must have generated must be crippling.
Then I found a link to this article under the above mentioned article. Really? Decriminalizing homosexuality means (I quote) approval of "one more way of largescale sexual exploitation of children" ??! How does one make THAT leap of conclusion? I fail to understand. When I see such ignorant remarks my mind just stops functioning and I am reduced to a sputtering, blubbering mess.
In my opinion, unless the human race learns tolerance, it won't be progressing very far. People from different religions will kill each other, heterosexuals will kill the homosexuals, young will kill the old and countries will wipe out each other. Maybe we SHOULD let that happen. Then we can start from scratch and hope that the next "batch" of humans has more sense and tolerance.
The problem is that when people hear the word homosexual, the immediate picture is that of what goes on in the said couples' bedroom?
ReplyDeleteThat single point in my opinion is what is the problem with the majority.
On the same level, we go.. 'aww..' whenever we see a young heterosexual couple on the road. I believe we might be subconsciously reminiscing our younger days and what we generally associate with endearment as opposed to perversion, which unfortunately is the mental picture in the majority of minds when dealing homosexuality.
At some level, i believe it might be similar to a sensitive vegetarian's reaction at the sight of raw meat. Perversion and nausea. But the fact is that people consume meat and we have to come to terms with it.
We perhaps need more marinating in the sea of maturity for the majority society to come to terms with this fact of life.
The article you linked to is just disturbing. The question is if the students had done the same to a heterosexual professor, wouldn't the university have suspended the students instead, for invading his/her privacy? Atleast educational institutions should act differently!
ReplyDeleteDo you consider pederasty unnatural, immoral or criminal? In many cultures around the world even today and certainly in ancient greek culture it was highly encouraged and practised. So if you hold that practise under a microscope of western, so called liberal thought it would appear at the very least criminal right? But what about the cultures where a 14 year old is considered fully grown adult.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm trying to say is what is criminal, unnatural and immoral in one culture isn't necessarily in another. Does that mean those inhabiting "other" cultures are always irrational?
Dee
Unmana, I think many people are scared or intolerant of anything deviating from what they think is "normal".
ReplyDeleteLife, you are right. People associate homosexuals just with their sexual choices and ignore the rest of the relationship which is just like any other romantic relationship. Like we say "Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" I also think "vulgarity lies in the mind of the beholder".
ReplyDeleteSoul, EXACTLY!! The reaction would have been different towards a heterosexual faculty member. Or would it? We Indians tend to see any kind of sexual activity, that hasn't been sanctioned in the form of a marriage, as immoral. Maybe the students wouldn't have been so intent on catching him in the act then. Who knows. I just think this was an act of intolerance where the intolerance was compounded by the "victim's" sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteDee, first of all no matter what the culture, any such act involving a minor (based on what the age of maturity in that culture is) would definitely be a crime. But I also think that some practices have been cloaked in the guise of culture just to make excuses for people's behavior. Just the fact that they have been cultural practices for a long time is not a proof that they are fair or moral practices. What would you say about the practice of female circumcision (Female Genital Mutilation)? It is a long standing cultural practice but it is barbaric. Certain customs are best discarded. I was talking about a relationship between two consenting adults. Homosexuality does not harm anyone. The two people in the relationship are in it because they want to be and whatever they do does not affect anyone else in any way. On the other hand, the younger "partner" in the practice of pederasty might not be a willing participant. In that case it IS wrong.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question - "what is criminal, unnatural and immoral in one culture isn't necessarily in another. Does that mean those inhabiting "other" cultures are always irrational?" my answer is - there are always some basic human values, no matter what the culture. They should not be violated. But your question is, in a way, also the point of my post. Just because something seems an alien concept to us (like homosexuality) we should not shut our minds to it.
When you say minor you mean the western cut off for that determination right? In many traditional cultures around the world a 14 year old for e.g. is not considered a minor. So if she were to have consensual sex with a 19 year old no statutory rape suit here!!!
ReplyDeleteBut in the U.S. the same situation mean the 19 year old (man or woman) would be slapped with a statutory rape despite the act being proved consensual.
So it is definitely more complexed and nuanced then simply "irrational".
Dee
Dee, no I mean whatever the age of maturity is in that particular culture. So if it is 14 in that culture then so be it.
ReplyDeleteDee - even if such topics are more complex and nuanced, it shouldn't stop us from keeping an open mind.
ReplyDeleteJust curious though - what ARE you trying to say? That people are right in judging homosexuals? Or they aren't? And what do you think I think? Your comments make it look like you think I am against homosexuality.