Home
Ramadoss turns gay rights activist
Share
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailMade Popular Aug 9 2008
India :
Add another name to the ever-growing list of pro-gays and crusaders for gay right – our very own Ramadoss. After making India’s premier medical facility a battle ground for petty politicking, Mr. Ramadoss is championing the cause of the gays calling for the removal of Section 377 to decriminalize ‘unnatural sex’. And for what? To fight AIDS. Is there really a direct connection? What does criminalization of ‘unnatural sex’ comes to mean? Actually, it only restricts homosexuality behind the closed doors because the police do not go torch in hand looking into the dark bedrooms to find gays.
Besides, decriminalizing gay activity would not help the cause of AIDS at all because you cannot make them register for checks up. The only thing that works is awareness. The law does not need to be meddled with for homosexuals. Prostitution is a different matter altogether. We might indeed think of making it an activity subject licensing. That would help identifying the vulnerable and the underprivileged, who are prone to contracting AIDS on account of their lack of control over their surroundings.
So far Ramadoss is concerned, he is just trying to sound like a liberal thinking doctor. While the fact remains that he is just a politician with bloated ego and ballooning sense of self-importance. The fellow has no idea what Section 377 of the IPC is about, but ‘it should go’ because it sounds so very liberal and progressive.
Source: Yahoo News
Image: Watblog
Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
RSS 
Yes, Jayashree, you have nowhere said that it affects the position of AIDS, which is Ramadoss’ reason to support the cause of homosexuals. And that is my primary contention in the piece that prevention of AIDS and homosexuality have no primary connection.
When we talk the language of ’rights’ it is important to understand that they do not exist in isolation, and are recognized and enforced by an authority. In case of a State the authority is the lawmaking body. And since the law says it is criminal to indulge in homosexuality openly, there is no question of rights.
And if you want to argue the universality of rights. No such thing as ’universal rights’ exists. Besides, in case of homosexuality, it not a violation of one’s human rights if by general consensus homosexuality is not considered socially acceptable within a territory. So, no question of ’rights’ again.
Yes, let them be comfortable with whichever way they are so far and so long as their being that way does not make others uncomfortable. Homosexuality might not only be repulsive to many but may also offend people’s religious beliefs.
And yes, the primary purpose of sex is and will always be procreation. Pleasure is there to make people do it because if it were not for pleasure we would not so gladly indulge in it. So, pleasure is not the objective but nature’s means to an end.
When we talk the language of ’rights’ it is important to understand that they do not exist in isolation, and are recognized and enforced by an authority. In case of a State the authority is the lawmaking body. And since the law says it is criminal to indulge in homosexuality openly, there is no question of rights.
And if you want to argue the universality of rights. No such thing as ’universal rights’ exists. Besides, in case of homosexuality, it not a violation of one’s human rights if by general consensus homosexuality is not considered socially acceptable within a territory. So, no question of ’rights’ again.
Yes, let them be comfortable with whichever way they are so far and so long as their being that way does not make others uncomfortable. Homosexuality might not only be repulsive to many but may also offend people’s religious beliefs.
And yes, the primary purpose of sex is and will always be procreation. Pleasure is there to make people do it because if it were not for pleasure we would not so gladly indulge in it. So, pleasure is not the objective but nature’s means to an end.
(Local Perspectives)
”..since the law says it is criminal to indulge in homosexuality openly..” This is the only point that I have argued. WHY does the law state that? Why is it considered unnatural when it occurs in nature (in the animal kingdom)?
”..it not a violation of one’s human rights if by general consensus homosexuality is not considered socially acceptable within a territory” This is the same reason people gave when Hitler killed millions of Jews. That it was okay to do it because EVERYbody was doing it. Are you saying that everything is decided by the society? Who is the society? You and I?
”Homosexuality might not only be repulsive to many but may also offend people’s religious beliefs.” Hmm, I wonder if all the gays of this world should ask for heterosexuals to stop being ”openly heterosexual” because they find it repulsive and uncomfortable. And if repulsive things are just kept behind closed doors it becomes acceptable? Oh, of course, you make sense. Let me pass this on to the people who have been beaten, raped, humiliated ’behind closed doors’.
I don’t believe homosexuality hurts anybody’s religious beliefs. If that were the case, all religious people would first declare war against atheists. Aren’t they the biggest threat to religion? Denying the presence of God??? Blasphemous!
”..it not a violation of one’s human rights if by general consensus homosexuality is not considered socially acceptable within a territory” This is the same reason people gave when Hitler killed millions of Jews. That it was okay to do it because EVERYbody was doing it. Are you saying that everything is decided by the society? Who is the society? You and I?
”Homosexuality might not only be repulsive to many but may also offend people’s religious beliefs.” Hmm, I wonder if all the gays of this world should ask for heterosexuals to stop being ”openly heterosexual” because they find it repulsive and uncomfortable. And if repulsive things are just kept behind closed doors it becomes acceptable? Oh, of course, you make sense. Let me pass this on to the people who have been beaten, raped, humiliated ’behind closed doors’.
I don’t believe homosexuality hurts anybody’s religious beliefs. If that were the case, all religious people would first declare war against atheists. Aren’t they the biggest threat to religion? Denying the presence of God??? Blasphemous!
(Local Perspectives)
Cannibalism is practiced in animal kingdom. Even there it is a deviance and not the norm. Same for homosexuality.
Extend it a little and you’ll see that all legitimate executions are based on a collective judgment. Agreed, some of such actions could indeed be inhuman. But what is humane and what is brutal and barbarian is decided by the society from time to time. Call it social evolution.
One can’t be openly ’heterosexual’ either. That would amount to indecent exposure and the person be prosecuted. So, heterosexuals and homosexuals are on the same plain in this regard.
No religion has ever prescribed that everyone should believe in God. The way of religion is from darkness to light. Besides, it’s about what hurts the religious sentiments and not about what ’should’ hurt them. We can’t dictate what should hurt one’s religious beliefs.
Furthermore, God has got nothing to do with religion. One may still be religious without believing in God. Buddhism does not believe in the concept of God, but only in the doctrine of ’karma’.
Extend it a little and you’ll see that all legitimate executions are based on a collective judgment. Agreed, some of such actions could indeed be inhuman. But what is humane and what is brutal and barbarian is decided by the society from time to time. Call it social evolution.
One can’t be openly ’heterosexual’ either. That would amount to indecent exposure and the person be prosecuted. So, heterosexuals and homosexuals are on the same plain in this regard.
No religion has ever prescribed that everyone should believe in God. The way of religion is from darkness to light. Besides, it’s about what hurts the religious sentiments and not about what ’should’ hurt them. We can’t dictate what should hurt one’s religious beliefs.
Furthermore, God has got nothing to do with religion. One may still be religious without believing in God. Buddhism does not believe in the concept of God, but only in the doctrine of ’karma’.
(Local Perspectives)
Cannibalism is practised by humans in certain cultures too, where it is not considered as a deviance. I never denied that all laws are made by consensus, only pointed out that consensus does not justify a decision. And social evolution is brought about by the society, which is us, right?
Heteros and homos are not on the same plane because just to be homosexual is considered an aberration by many. That seems to be the whole point of your comments.
You’ve put so nicely what religion is. When you say it’s about what hurts the religious sentiments I wonder, yet again, how a person’s sexual preference hurts anyone’s religious sentiments. But since you say we can’t dictate what should hurt such sentiments, I shall say no more about it. I fear the next few words I have to say on the topic may hurt someone’s sentiments, and that’s the last thing I wish to do.
Your point about being ’religious without believing in God’ struck me. I am reminded of an atheist friend trying to convince me of the same. So that, and what you say about Buddhism, I accept completely.
This has been interesting, Mr. HemRaj. Peace!
Heteros and homos are not on the same plane because just to be homosexual is considered an aberration by many. That seems to be the whole point of your comments.
You’ve put so nicely what religion is. When you say it’s about what hurts the religious sentiments I wonder, yet again, how a person’s sexual preference hurts anyone’s religious sentiments. But since you say we can’t dictate what should hurt such sentiments, I shall say no more about it. I fear the next few words I have to say on the topic may hurt someone’s sentiments, and that’s the last thing I wish to do.
Your point about being ’religious without believing in God’ struck me. I am reminded of an atheist friend trying to convince me of the same. So that, and what you say about Buddhism, I accept completely.
This has been interesting, Mr. HemRaj. Peace!
(Local Perspectives)
Dear Jayashree,
Personally, I do not believe that anyone deserves to be looked down upon simply because he chooses to be someone that the majority of people are not. He or she must be allowed his or her preferences and moral judgments not be passed.
But it’s actually not that simple. Societies and groups are formed on the basis of certain commonalities, and if one does not fit in, he is cast out.
Most of the societies look upon themselves as a group of heterosexuals, which is why they consider homosexuals as outsides, and in some extreme cases see them as some sort of ’traitors’.
Now, such people who go to the extent of torturing someone in anyway simply because he happens to be a homosexual must be properly dealt with.
And yes, I don’t think homosexuals should be likened with criminals. And that far I agree with you.
However, Section 377, in operation, does not achieve anything more than preventing sexual activity between gays in public, which is not permissible even for heterosexual couples. So, it does not really make much difference.
However, having said that, I would still insist that society does reserve the right to collectively decided what is acceptable and when. So, let the consensus work itself out, which it eventually will.
So, I don’t think I would keep arguing for the heck of it. :):):)
Personally, I do not believe that anyone deserves to be looked down upon simply because he chooses to be someone that the majority of people are not. He or she must be allowed his or her preferences and moral judgments not be passed.
But it’s actually not that simple. Societies and groups are formed on the basis of certain commonalities, and if one does not fit in, he is cast out.
Most of the societies look upon themselves as a group of heterosexuals, which is why they consider homosexuals as outsides, and in some extreme cases see them as some sort of ’traitors’.
Now, such people who go to the extent of torturing someone in anyway simply because he happens to be a homosexual must be properly dealt with.
And yes, I don’t think homosexuals should be likened with criminals. And that far I agree with you.
However, Section 377, in operation, does not achieve anything more than preventing sexual activity between gays in public, which is not permissible even for heterosexual couples. So, it does not really make much difference.
However, having said that, I would still insist that society does reserve the right to collectively decided what is acceptable and when. So, let the consensus work itself out, which it eventually will.
So, I don’t think I would keep arguing for the heck of it. :):):)
(Local Perspectives)
Sigh, I wanted to end it and not comment or think of it anymore and yet...sigh sigh.
Yes. It’s hard for anyone to go against the society. And it has nothing to do with sex, either. Go for a job interview with a tattoo on your cheek and you’ll get rejected. Say you love black amongst girls who like pink, and you’ll be rejected. The society seems to survive on strange and unspoken rules to kick out those that do not belong to the ’normal’ population. In this case, at least, the whole is greater than its parts.
Section 377 makes a difference because it is not about JUST about indecent exposure. Such a law would talk about indecent exposure without referring to a person’s sex, or sexual preference. And since such a law does exist (though I can’t quote it) section 377 is redundant OR is actually a law about completely something else.
And it’s not possible to hit upon a consensus because society will remain divided on this issue, and many others. And since the society hasn’t arrived on one, that law perhaps needs to be made invalid or rephrased.
I wouldn’t argue just for the heck of it, either. I’m way too lazy for that!
PS: And nothing is ever simple, or is it?
Yes. It’s hard for anyone to go against the society. And it has nothing to do with sex, either. Go for a job interview with a tattoo on your cheek and you’ll get rejected. Say you love black amongst girls who like pink, and you’ll be rejected. The society seems to survive on strange and unspoken rules to kick out those that do not belong to the ’normal’ population. In this case, at least, the whole is greater than its parts.
Section 377 makes a difference because it is not about JUST about indecent exposure. Such a law would talk about indecent exposure without referring to a person’s sex, or sexual preference. And since such a law does exist (though I can’t quote it) section 377 is redundant OR is actually a law about completely something else.
And it’s not possible to hit upon a consensus because society will remain divided on this issue, and many others. And since the society hasn’t arrived on one, that law perhaps needs to be made invalid or rephrased.
I wouldn’t argue just for the heck of it, either. I’m way too lazy for that!
PS: And nothing is ever simple, or is it?
(Local Perspectives)
Now, that’s indeed interesting...:):):)
I think we were writing at the same time and posted the last two comments simultaneously.
Wonderful!!!:):):)
I think we were writing at the same time and posted the last two comments simultaneously.
Wonderful!!!:):):)
(Local Perspectives)
Ohh...and I forgot to say ’Thank you’ for such a wonderful discussion.
Thanks, Jayashree.
Thanks, Jayashree.
(Local Perspectives)
Add your Comment
And in what manner is it disgusting? Religious literature and medical books tell that it is not the right way to do it.
Apart from this very liberal outlook of allowing people to do whatever they wish so long as they do no harm to others, there is no great argument going for homosexuality.
So, you might say that it is not in step with our liberal times, but calling it ’hilarious’ or ’disgusting’ is just a little too much because it is neither by any stretch of imagination.
But even that is not the point. The only point is whether removing Section 377 would really help control AIDS or not? The two things don’t seem to have a connection. Or am I missing something?
What do you propose is the ’right’ way, and the ’right way’ to do what? And why is religion always dragged into the discussion when homosexuality is the topic? Do all the holy books of this world insist sex is only for procreation? Does pleasure have nothing to do with it?
Also, a liberal view of homosexuality is not about letting people do ’whatever they wish’. It is about allowing a person to be comfortable the way he/she is, and not be ashamed of the way they are born or choose to carry out their desires (you’ve already said it doesn’t harm anyone else).
I don’t believe removal of Section 377 would help in control of AIDS. If that were the case, we would only find homosexuals suffering from the disease. If you read through my previous comment once more you would, perhaps, realise that I did not claim there is a connection between the two.