Coming Together For Continuing Bigotry?
by: Murli Natrajan on July 28th, 2009 | 4 Comments »
It was bound to happen. Religious “leaders” (the quotes are meant to highlight the fact that the existence of “leaders” depends entirely upon the legitimacy and consent they enjoy or don’t among their so-called followers) from the major religions in India – Hinduism, Islam and Christianity – decried the recent court ruling decriminalizing LGBT sex (article 377, or 377 for short; see my earlier blog). Over the last couple weeks these “leaders” (who are usually busy fighting with each other in India) came together on this platform of opposition to 377 using any or all of four arguments that I am sure many of us have heard before in other spaces, other times. At the heart of each of their objections was the attempt to label LGBT sex-act as:
A) “unnatural” and then offer “cure” it through psychological/ psychiatric/yogic counseling, or
B) “immoral” and then expound on what was considered “sinful” in the scriptures and how to repent or transform / cleanse the soul from this sin, or
C) “illegal” and then launch a social protest to force the state to succumb to the will of the bigoted minority (or at times even majority – for why must we assume that bigotry only is the preserve of the few?), or
D) “foreign” and attempt to purify and distill out something called “traditional” or “homegrown” culture that was rid of the stain of the usual culprits – either the vague and homogenized “West/ern” or “modern/ity.”
Some interesting quotes that were reported in the media include:
Rt Rev Abraham Mar Paulos Episcopa, Head of Marthoma Syrian Church of Malabar diocesan “It (homosexuality) is not at all acceptable and agreeable. It is against the tenets of bible. Man and Woman were created in God’s own image. Homosexuality is against the society.”
Deputy Vice Chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband Maulana Abdul Khalik Madrasi, from the leading Islamic seminary Darul Uloom Deoband opposed 377 by saying “Homosexuality is offence under Shariat Law and haram (prohibited) in Islam.”
Interestingly, Hindu “leaders” do not fall back on the scriptures for opposing 377. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP or the World Hindu Council which is a leading self-styled representative of many Hindus) opposed the ruling on 377 thus: “It is against the culture and family system in India. It will result in spread of number of diseases.” I came across only one rightwing Hindu group at this site that talks boldly about it without citing any evidence from the Hindu scriptures but simply stating that, “According to Hindu Dharma, homosexuality is improper.”
Given the otherwise marginalized and second-class citizenship of Muslims and Christians in an India that has witnessed regular violence against religious minorities by right-wing Hindu organizations, this coming-together on a platform against progressive rulings (that are anyway quite rare anywhere) can be granted to have a strange charming quality. Nevertheless, we can still see the unequal and unstable nature of this coming-together in the fact that:
1. Muslim and Christian leaders fall back on their scripture to justify their position against LGBT sex –> thus giving truth to the stereotype that Muslims and Christians in India are somehow more conservative, traditional or caught up with anti-modern age-old religious-based thinking.
2. Hindu leadership make up for their own lack of confidence in their scriptures as a support for them on this issue and hence take the super-confident ultra-nationalistic position of speaking for an entire nation (national values or Indian values are at stake for them here) and its so-called national culture and of course, the national family.
There are of course many individual Christians, Muslims and Hindus who have extended their support for the court ruling and are actively involved in LGBT rights as LGBT persons or straight allies. There are also some groups/organizations which may have Christian, Muslim or Hindu members and which are supportive of progressive politics on this issue. Sometimes, we also see particular Christian and Muslim “leaders” saying that whereas they are alright with the legalization of LGBT sex (i.e., the act is not illegal and that is OK), they are nevertheless convinced that it is unnatural and immoral and so on. This at least has the merit of not imposing their will on all through the state machinery.
In such a context it is useful to see what Hindu scriptures have to say (or don’t) on homosexuality. The best popularly available compilation of the words of some other Hindu “leaders”, this time progressive, is available at the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association website (yes, such a site exists!!). There you will read about Swami Bodhananda who conducted the first Hindu gay marriage in India (at least one that was publicly documented in recent times). See the beautiful photograph of Michael Tarr marrying Aditya Advani with Agni (fire god) as their witness. And of course, the work of Ruth Vanita on the matter of Hinduism and homosexuality is the best scholarly statement yet on this subject. See synopsis here
Another progressive Hindu “leader”, Swami Agnivesh (will write more on him soon – but he is one of the few who is actively engaged in a number of social movements for equity and justice, and also commands the respect of a wide range of people from many religions and secularists) – he is one of the main signatories on this open letter to the Indian government seeking the repeal of article 377
In the US, one of the most progressive Hindu groups is Navya Shastra (roughly, new scriptures) which operates out of Troy, Michigan. They urged the Indian government (which is in a position to legislatively overrule the court ruling) to stand firm and not be swayed by the protesting religious right. Read more at the newspaper India West
Finally, just to alert readers that there is a groundswell of support from teachers in India supporting the decriminalizing of LGBT sex, see their open letter.
Peace
[...] is in a position to legislatively overrule the court ruling) to … Originally posted here: Tikkun Daily Blog » Blog Archive » Coming Together For Continuing … Tags: court, court-ruling, Hindu Shastra, legislatively-overrule, michigan-, most, navya, [...]
Nothing worthwhile happens without a lot of work. Judaism has joined the 21st century (which from our perspective is actually almost the 59th — the Jew year 5800 is Sept 19, 2039). Gays are beginning to integrate into mainstream synagogues an temples. The struggle is worth it.
Is heterosexual society under siege?
Joseph M. Cachia, Vittoriosa.
Gay communities both in Malta and worldwide organise festivals which also cater for ‘straight’ people.
The main opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, Evarist Bartolo, referred to his participation and to that of other MPs in the Gay Parade that was held a few days ago. Besides participating in this manifestation, Mr Bartolo felt that he had to refer to this participation in Parliament. Furthermore, as had been reported in the papers, Mr Bartolo said that this showed there was a trend of acceptance and he encouraged the Gay Rights Movement for their exemplary work, while appealing for more public support.
I understand that as an individual citizen, Mr Bartolo has all the right to associate himself with and support whichever society or movement he desires. However, I believe, that as a person who enjoys a certain public reputation of integrity and calibre (even politically), Mr Bartolo may be misinterpreted and misunderstood.
I would like to make it clear from the start that I do not have anything against homosexuals (and I strongly believe that I have no right to) although I would not like to be associated with this movement, as I do not see any reason for its existence. I am sure that the majority of homosexuals are good people who want to be left alone – and this is a rightful claim.
However, I believe that that is where the whole issue should end.
Why should the individual sexual orientation of anybody be publicly flaunted, manifested and celebrated? Should heterosexuals also go out and celebrate their personal sexual orientation? Cannot we realise that the privacy, intimacy and love in the sexual act, of whatever orientation, are being publicly ridiculed? Once robbed of its privacy, intimacy, sentiment and affection, what value is left in the sexual act?
Gay activists (I don’t know why they should be activists and not simply pacifists enjoying their sexual orientation) pretend that they are seeking ‘tolerance’ and ‘equality’, but privately they admit that their hidden agenda is to reshape society in their own image. They do not care how much harm they do.
“Heterosexual hegemony is being eroded”, writes Gary Kinsman (The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada), while Allen Young, a pioneer of the Gay Liberation Movement, says that, “In a free society, everyone will be gay”.
Gays have waged their war with impunity by asserting ‘victim’ status. Straights (heterosexuals) cannot even defend their sexual orientation for fear of ‘homophobia’ (discrimination against homosexuality) or ‘sexism’. These days, anyone who does not want to be gay is ‘homophobic’.
Why have ‘straights’ passively endured this attack? Only for fear of being accused of discrimination or of sexual harassment. As heterosexuals, we cannot explore our sexuality because homosexuals may be ‘uncomfortable’.
This has led to the demoralisation of society. We cannot celebrate men as masculine and women as feminine. We do not celebrate heterosexual love, the greatest gift that life offers us. This daily denial of our sexual identity amounts to persecution. It used to be ‘live and let live’. Now gay and feminist activists will not let us live.
Rejecting the homosexual model is not ‘intolerance’ or ‘hatred’. It is defending our natural birthright, and our families.
Dear Joseph,
Thank you for your comment on my post. I am glad that you bring up such points clearly and boldly, and I hope you accept my responses in the spirit of continued dialog. I will restrict myself to two comments as a response.
1. Your wrote: “Why should the individual sexual orientation of anybody be publicly flaunted, manifested and celebrated? Should heterosexuals also go out and celebrate their personal sexual orientation?” Although I happen to be of the opinion that free expression whenever sought to be curbed always leads to some horror or the other, I will leave that aside for this post. I think your question could be fairly easily answered in the case of LGBT sex and the public discourse around it. Over the last 2 centuries there has been a systematic attention that has been given by the medical profession including psychiatry, organized religion and governments to what has been called “abnormal” or “unnatural” or “illegal” sexual activity. It is this forced and powerful attention on LGBT sex that is the root cause of the response over the last 3 decades or so all over the world for LGBT activists to “come out”. One cannot forget how we have come to this current situation. I will use an analogy to race here (only with caution) to illuminate this further. Many of my students ask me: “Why is there a separate and openly Black television show called BET? Why is there no white show?” The answer that makes them deeply reflective and actually leads to good student research is how much of what passes as “normal or default television” is indeed “white television”. The lesson here is that “normal” people do not need to wear their identities on their sleeves (although they do engage in this from time to time); the reason is that society wears their identity on its normal sleeve (so to speak). Hope this is some reasonable response to your comment.
2. You write: “Rejecting the homosexual model is not ‘intolerance’ or ‘hatred’. It is defending our natural birthright, and our families.” But, what is “natural” birthright? And why must it be predicated on rejecting something called the “homosexual model”? Who made this a model? For whom? The quotes that you quote (Kinsman and Young) are of course, welcome to their opinions. But as far as I know, the LGBT rights movement does not have any agenda to make all of society LGBT. This is a right-wing scare tactic used all over the world (with many Asian, African and Latin American societies adding on a — “it is western” argument on top of it — remember Ahmadinejad’s statement that there were not gays in his country?) Further, I am interested in how this is not intolerance? Indeed, I would argue that only a particularly patriarchal view of family (which is also underlain by a homophobia) propels this view. I will write more on blog on this issue.