Regarding 377A, exchange of viewpoints with a friend via email

September 17, 2018

My exchange of views, via email, with a friend regarding 377A, vis-à-vis my comment posted on 14 Sep 2018 in theonlinecitizen website under article captioned: “Churches want 377A to remain in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage” –

Email from friend dated 15 Sep 2018:

Richard,

I do not use the bible as any argument for the 377 repeal or otherwise.  But personally if certain individuals want to maintain a different lifestyle without hurting others it is perfectly OK as part of the community.  But if their practice promotes more medical problems (it is medically a fact that at least for males, even with regular partners, the chances of extra health issues will be higher) then the rest of society have to shoulder the cost.   But the fact that it increases medical burden, it is already not acceptable.  Can we support a case of people hurting themselves intentionally and others will have to pay for their folly.  Whether the 377 is enforced or not is academic as long as the practice is not sustainable.

Furthermore, Based on the trends in other parts of the world, once the door is open, the flood gate is open for more issues.  Am I too conservative to say that traditional marriage of man and woman should be not tampered with.  If 2 partners wish to seek protection of the law (in the case of alimony and asset entitlement)  like man and wife, they can still sign on such thing like “prenuptials”.

The other problem is adoption of children.  It will raise a lot of questions like opening a can of worms.  I feel the wave of LGBT activism is a result of decay in society in the West.  India probably was under pressure from the West when it made its decision.  Similarly Taiwan   Otherwise, I think Asian societies will not normally accept that trend

IMHO, gays should need treatment from young as a medical condition.  W should not astracise them.  We should have the compassion to empathise with them.  I have gay relatives including a brother.  I am therefore not insulated from it.

My reply to friend dated 15 Sep 2018:

[name redacted], tks for the feedback.

If I were asked for a synopsis of my position re 377A or concerns re LGBT, vis-à-vis your comments, it might read as follows:

First, 377A is discriminatory; for this reason alone it has no legal validity to remain as a legal enactment; if homosexuality is OK for women, why should it be an act of criminality for men?

I agree with you on your pointer: “But personally if certain individuals want to maintain a different lifestyle without hurting others it is perfectly OK as part of the community.”

Your concern: “But if their practice promotes more medical problems (it is medically a fact that at least for males, even with regular partners, the chances of extra health issues will be higher) then the rest of society have to shoulder the cost. But the fact that it increases medical burden, it is already not acceptable.” This point is debatable. I would need hard statistics to show this is the case; and by hard statistics, I would want figures covering each country where homosexuality [for both men and women] is freely allowed, free of legal constraint or prohibition. One huge social problem of the human species is alcoholism; if my memory serves [read this somewhere some time ago]; yet alcohol is freely available for sale, except to those below 18 yrs [?] of age. Why is alcohol not banned completely [it is banned in some Muslim countries] – since alcohol may result in an increase in medical costs for the community as a whole? The argument one can offer here is that, like most other things in life, we have to allow people the freedom of choice; by practicing with care and moderation, maybe no one would get hurt. We cannot assume that homosexuality can never be practiced with due care and concern – for the practitioners and for others.

The reluctance of enforcing 377A is the fear of repercussions that may ensue, including of course, public criticism on some of the points I have already raised: unfair discrimination [illegal, from my standpoint] against one group when there is another group involved. If two men have a romantic relationship, it is their prerogative; and there is no reason – of a generic nature – that such a relationship would be harmful to outsiders. Increase in medical costs? That’s highly debatable.

Your other concerns: “Furthermore, Based on the trends in other parts of the world, once the door is open, the flood gate is open for more issues.  Am I too conservative to say that traditional marriage of man and woman should be not tampered with.  If 2 partners wish to seek protection of the law (in the case of alimony and asset entitlement)  like man and wife, they can still sign on such thing like “prenuptials”.  Of course, no one is prohibited from participating in a man/woman marriage or relationship, provided they act in accordance with the laws of the land. Notwithstanding homosexuality, heterosexuals are free to continue with the traditional marriage practice; and whether sanctimonious or not, the divorce rates for traditional marriages have gone up considerably, where, in some places, the rate of divorce is one in two marriages.

A person’s sexual orientation, according to scientific research, is tied to the person’s genetic constitution, and decided, as it were, from the time he was born. Hence, seeking medical counseling may not be of much help. The exceptions are those who may decide to undergo a sex change to make things look normal or “legal.”

A short note re the Bible – my view is, it is a “book” of filth and chock-full of myths.

“…W should not astracise them.  We should have the compassion to empathise with them.  I have gay relatives including a brother.  I am therefore not insulated from it.” I am in agreement with you – 100%.