Oh! for God’s sake!..

I wasn’t suprised however to read the other statements by the other swamis. That is more in keeping with the broad-vision-liberal-spirit-detached-sage viewpoint.

Taken from Shiva’s provided link in comment # 37… Swami Pragyanand, for example, said, “Gay marriages do not fit with our culture and heritage. All those people who are raising demand for approving such marriages in India are doing so under the influence of the West. Sanatana Dharma has no place for such marriages, and we do not even discuss it.” WE DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS IT.

There seems to be some selective quoting going on here. The other two gurus quoted on the site endorsed the idea of gay marriage and said hinduism has no objections against homosexuality:

Nepali Baba: “So if they choose to live in a particular way out of the consent of two grown up people, how can we stop them?”

Pandit Shailendra: “Whatever is done openly does invite criticism for some time but ultimately gains acceptance. Why not give them the liberty to live in their own way, if they are going to do it anyway?”

That seems like 2/3 in favor, which is remarkable, considering these are religious leaders, who are expected to be conservative.

Swami Pragyanand, for example, said, “Gay marriages do not fit with our culture and heritage. All those people who are raising demand for approving such marriages in India are doing so under the influence of the West. Sanatana Dharma has no place for such marriages, and we do not even discuss it.”

WE DO NOT EVEN DISCUSS IT.

So…….. end of conversation?

This seems to be the general attitude towards sexuality and all other kinds of issues like, as mentioned above, child abuse and AIDS, and a host of other “taboo” topics in India.

Navaratan Kurma has discussed this “culture of denial” on his blog.

My point is, when even HETEROSEXUALITY is largely a taboo subject, then OF COURSE, homosexuality will “not even be discussed”.

That being said, I have noticed that there is alot of borderline male-male touching going on in India which seems to be accepted.

I’m not talking about just the hand-holding in the streets. Rather, I’m talking about the holding of something else that happens so quickly between two male friends greeting each other on the streets of Uttar Pradesh that if one wasn’t looking for it, they would miss it. But it is very much there.

Several male UPites have relayed to me the same-sex sexual experiences of their youth and have all clarified that they were not gay but were doing it to release sexual tension in a culture which forbade them to openly have girlfriends and in an area of India where girls were hard to get. They said it was very common.

Something anecdotal;

When ISKCON of Mayapur, West Bengal was having an epidemic of older boy on younger boy sexual abuse in their gurukula (boarding school), a teacher told me that when they were informing local parents about it, several of the parents’ attitude was, “he will do this until he gets married. After that, no more problem.”

Perhaps the parents were not aware of the psychological damage sexual abuse of older boys on younger boys can do to the victims, or perhaps they thought the abuse was simply “touching” or other non-penetrative acts. I don’t know.

What I do know is that some things that are considered “abuse” in America are not considered abuse in North India, such as playing with a little boy’s penis and teasing him, “yeh kya hai?”

A friend of mine’s son had several such experiences and I know she had a tough time deciding what to do about it. She was always telling him that his lingam was a private part and no one should touch it, but then, every once in a while a “well meaning” shop keeper would tease him in the way which I described above, right out in the open, in front of everyone, which is very common in that area. So you can understand her predicament.

interesting that you mentioned it… i have heard this view in the context of hinduism before to explain homosexual union as well. thanks for the book reference.

I’m tired of leftie self-bashing…it’s almost as if having a right-winger on board for a cause makes this more rational. But I guess it’s good to have supporters from all areas of the political spectrum.

Seth’s gay? I didn’t know that…I hope he’s got a nice bf he looks kinda lonely and threadbare with his thinning head of hair and impoverished-despite-hefty-paycheck writer’s look

It’s sad that just as people are beginning to speak out more against unfair laws like 377 there’s a counter movement by people in my own generation who see themselves as being true to their own culture/religion by supporting homophobia.

Recently in a Criminal law lecture (and I live in NZ) where we were discussing the unfairness of rape for women being termed rape but only being legally defined as sexual violation if men get raped…someone put their hand up and enquired about the ‘crime’ of sodomy.

The sad thing was that this someone was head boy of his (multicultural, diverse) school and is a genuine, nice, popular, sincere guy. But homophobia has got to go.

The Hindu Council UK

In December 2004 Rajiv Malik of Hinduism Today interviewed Hindu preceptors who had gathered for an Ardh Kumbh. You can read about their views here (It’s one of the six things they have talked about).

Where do you think the ‘shame’ factor came from?

Here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia article.

In ancient India, homosexuality seems to have been largely unheard of, to the extent that ancient texts don’t even feel the need to mention it specifically, however, it has become a taboo mainly because of Victorian morality and the Abrahamic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, which consider homosexuality a fundamental sin. In addition, the Indian justice system still retains the old British law that homosexual intercourse is ‘illegal’.

Bondyopadhyay (no typo?) states: “It provides the impunity to a venal police to extort money, blackmail, indulge in violence, and extract other favors, including sexual favors, by dangling this law on homosexual males and hijras, a traditional social group of transvestites and transsexual persons. It impedes sexual health promotion activities like HIV/AIDS Interventions amongst same sex attracted males. It discourages reporting of male rape, and therefore encourages such rape, often by police. In sum, it disrupts the social existence of all same sex attracted persons, erodes their dignity and self respect, and reduces them to a sub-human level of existence.”

This seems fallacious. If there have been hardly any cases of prosecution, the victims need not get coerced by the police and can challenge them to prosecute. Police brutality will occur nonetheless. By targeting gays and hijras, the police know that they can get away scott free because Indian society, for whatever perverted reason, frowns upon gays and hijras and they rarely stand up for their rights because of the shame factor.

The absence of this law does not mean society will immediately embrace them or respect them or even care about them. The police atrocities will continue because of the shame factor, not the legal justification. And the ‘shame’ factor has scant little to do with the existence of the law.

Are the petitioners contending that striking off the law will allow gay organizations to spring up by the dozen with the legal threat removed? As far as I am aware, there are Indian gay support organizations who operate quite openly and with no fear of law. No one has dared prosectute them.

How does it discourage report of male rape? The victim if at all has a two pronged claim to justice if raped. The against consent act, and the ‘unnatural’ part, so the egregiousness is all the more serious.

I think the problem of acceptance of gays and transsexuals is significantly more serious than the existence of this antiquated law. If activists claim that removing the law would be a small first step, I agree. But by portraying it as a horrible thing hanging like a noose over the heads of gays and hijras it does not seem authentic.