The fight to legalize homosexual sex in India has brought out homophobic sentiments in the government. The government of India is functioning under the misguided belief that the spread of HIV/AIDS in India is due to gay sex. The high court in Delhi took up the task of calling out the government.
Via Times of India.
Irritated by the government's contradictory and unscientific stand on the issue of homosexuality, the Delhi High Court on Monday told the government that the homosexual trait in a human being cannot be termed as a "disease" and objected to the contention that if legalised, homosexuality would bring "devastation" to society."Show us one report which says that it is a disease. A WHO paper says that it is not a disease but you are describing it as a disease. It is an accepted fact that it is a main vehicle that causes (AIDS) disease but it is not a disease in itself," a Bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah remarked in response to Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra's harping on the point that homosexuality was a disease that is responsible for the spread of AIDS in the country.
Yikes. Isn't it true that when something is legalized the potential for ensuring safety increases? If homosexuality is kept illegal in India their fear of "high risk" behaviors continue underground, only riskier because people lack access to health care needs or protection of the law if they are sexually violated.
Furthermore, it has also been proven that one of the main reasons HIV/AIDS is on the rise in India is because of infidelity on behalf of men. Why not penalize men for engaging in dangerous sexual behaviors as opposed to outlawing the ability for two consenting adults to have safe sex. Queer rights activists in India continue to fight for the decriminalization of gay sex, but it is looking like an uphill battle given homophobic attitudes on behalf of the government.
Continuing with its opposition the government described homosexuality as "a most indecent behaviour" in society, pointing out that homosexuals comprise just 0.3% of the population and the interest of rest 99.7% population "cannot be compromised" just to accommodate their rights."Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country," Malhotra said arguing that an amendment in section 377 would mean subsequent tinkering around with marriage and divorce laws of each community as all have sodomy as a ground for divorce. The ASG claimed even section 375, which pertains to rape, would need an amendment to change definition of "consent" if homosexuality was legalised.
Apparently it is decent and moral to deny an entire segment of the population basic human rights. I am truly appalled at this archaic thinking.
Thanks to Grishma for the link.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Delhi High Court reprimands Indian government for calling homosexuality a "disease.".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9968
This is a huge step forward. I applaud the court's statement.
The unfolding drama of the legal challenges to India's sodomy law is fascinating. For those without a scorecard, the Dehli High Court is analogous to a state supreme court here in the U.S. The critical statements reported here are from arguments in the case the High Court will decide in the near future. Presumably the case will finally be decided by the Supreme Court of India.
Well, nobody really appreciates actual solutions to problems. Singling out an easily marginalized segment of society and putting the entirety of the blame on them for a social problem in which everyone is implicated doesn't solve the problem, but it makes everyone feel better, and isn't perception so much more important than reality? People appreciate perception. Nobody gets thanked for improving reality.
What's really annoying is that gay sex was made illegal by the British Empire when they colonized India.
I am truly appalled at this archaic thinking.
Samhita, I agree with the overall sentiment of this post on a very important subject. However, the wrong, hypocritical and stupid antihomosexual ideas that you criticize are anything but archaic. Applying such narratives of "progress" always has problems and are even more objectionable when used as a way of criticizing "non-Western" (to use a somewhat specious category) cultures/societies/governments.
Especially in light of Lauren's comment above.
Buster I completely agree, and I would use the same adjective if I were to describe similar fights in the West. Sorry I didn't spell it out in this post but if you look at my older writer I have done so over and over and over. to the point where it felt I might weight the post down by always having to refer to the problematic nature of East-West, archaic-progressive...
My bad probably tho.
"Why not penalize men for engaging in dangerous sexual behaviors as opposed to outlawing the ability for two consenting adults to have safe sex."
What is this supposed to mean?
I think that the very fact that homosexuality is illegal in India creates a hostile environment for two consenting adults - forcing them into marriages that they don't want to be in, and then they cheat. I'm not condoning infidelity, but when considering the consequences (of being out in India)... And I'm sure that they don't have comprehensive sex education (nor do we have it in America), so they probably don't have access to safer sex supplies. Should we provide them access, or "penalize" them? Seems like you skipped a step in logic on that one...
Also, there exist men who have sex with men, but do not identify as gay or bisexual, but as straight. It is the most efficient mode of transmission for HIV, but it has nothing to do with one's sexuality, but instead one's sexual behavior.
It seems like a chicken vs. egg thing - do you need to decriminalize homosexuality before you can begin outreach to those who may be engaging in unprotected sex? In terms of the needle exchange movement, those people didn't wait for paraphernalia laws to be lifted before they passed out clean needles to intravenous drug users. Now that these programs have been shown to decrease HIV prevention, these laws are being reconsidered.
All this being said, (and before I ramble on any longer), I do want to say how thrilled I am at this court's decision. It is an important step forward in terms of human rights as well as addressing the HIV epidemic, even if it's not where we want to be.
Next essential difficulty that girls russian dating agency may run into by travelling abroad is of course - relationship with their appointed spouses. According to the data russian dating tours great amount of the guys, wishing to marry Russian women are about forty years and still unable to purchase a dwelling or to succeed in life free russian dating site. They predominantly consider that the ladies from such economically poor country will not have big expectations and therefore will be perfect for the family. Shocking is the fact that ever more criminal events, which occur in America, Pretty Russian girls as well as in other countries are connected with the abuse of the foreign wives. Part russian dating service of them are bashed up or even killed. Such cases about unsuccessful marriage become often printed in the newspapers abroad by such countries, like America, and in russian dating agency. Recently, Washington, D. C admitted a law, in compliance with which agencies russian dating are obliged to inform potential outland women of the former convictions or unsuccessful experiences with foreign wives of the probable husband, whom the russian dating ladies is about to wed. This is made, as the measure of prevention of the criminal cases, occurred with such scaring regularity.
the federal cigarette Viagra brand tax will increase by 62 cents to a total of $1.01 per pack, to fund the expansion of the State Viagra store
Health Insurance
cheap free pill Viagra Children's Program that was signed into law earlier this yearDownload music rrrr
Download software