The recent verdict by Delhi High Court on IPC 377 legalizing private consensual homosexual relationship has brought to fore a strong debate over merits and demerits of such a judgment. Gay activists seem to have won this round of battle about legitimacy of homosexuality in a civilized society, but let us objectively analyze if society on the whole has won as well?
The movement of gay-rights is not more than 150 years old and surfaced first in Germany. Till 1973, American Psychiatric Association used to consider homosexuality as a mental disorder. It was only after a round of voting that was won by gay-activists that homosexuality was removed from the list. Several other organizations in the field followed the suit. However the fact remains that no scientific study has ever been able to vindicate why homosexuality was earlier a disorder and now an accepted deviant sexual behavior. The change of status has been merely due to voting and lobbying.
The recent advocacy of gay rights in India is hinged on few critical assumptions – homosexuality is inborn, homosexuality is natural, each individual has right to self-determination, constitution guarantees freedom irrespective of sex (which implies sexual orientation as well) and that private acts of individuals has no adverse bearing on society at large. Some gay-activists have even attempted to give it a saffron color. Hindu Council UK recently issued a statement that Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality. Each of these assumptions demand closer scrutiny.
Assumption 1: Homosexuality is inborn
A myth that was widely circulated to justify homosexuality was that homosexuality is in the genes. However recent scientific researches have failed to prove this. The Gay-gene study conducted in 1993 by Dr Dean Hamer, who was a proclaimed gay-activist of his times, is the basis on which the recent gay-activism has spurted. This study primarily is the reason provided to justify that homosexuality is inborn.
The fact remains that this study itself has been subject to many controversies and has not been proved authentic till date. The study was conducted without a defined control group and condemned even by pro-gay magazines like ‘New York native’. Dr Hamer has never reported his original data till date and efforts to replicate his study have failed without exception. In April 1999, Science Magazine finally discredited the research of Dr Hamer.
Even Dr Hamer, forced by exposure of the fraudulent studies was forced to redefine his conclusions as follows:
- Female homosexuality is not inherited but transferred culturally
- there is not a single master gene can makes people gay
- I donʹt think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay
He was cornered to claim that male homosexuality is 50% genetic and 50% environmental. Now this 50% genetic came from ‘Gay Twin Study’ which has also been discredited long ago.
The Gay-Twin study has been criticized by pro-sodomy magazines for having unrepresentative sample and inconclusive studies. Interestingly the study data showed that step-brothers are more likely to be both gay than twin-brothers!! In summary, no study whatsoever, ever has been able to prove that gays are born. West has long discarded ‘gay is inborn’ as a reason for gay-activism, but the myth still holds sway over most of its supporters in India. A gay-activist Swami Agnivesh recently commented that the sole reason why he supports gay movement is because he believes that gays are born by nature just as left-handed and right-handed people. He even claimed to reverse his stand if one can prove that gays are not born.
Please read the excellent research by Ryan Sorba on this here: http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/
In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.” It stated:
“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
“However, owing to failure of any of these studies to link homosexuality to genetic/inborn factors, it was forced to tactically shy away from its stand. That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”
Please note that this was forced to be changed despite strong homosexual overtones in the document.
Assumption 2: Homosexuality is natural
Proponents of gay movement claim that homosexuality is present in other species as well and they show photos of male animals in gay-like acts. Thus they conclude that homosexuality is normal and natural. This concept was widely propagated by Stanford professor Joan Roughgarden and biologist Petter Bockman.
However there are some glaring loopholes:
First, they can claim that only 1500 species at most show signs of the claimed homosexuality. This is only 0.01% of total species. Now is a trait of only 0.01% of 14 million species of fauna supposed to be representative natural behavior for humans?
Second, humans get into homosexual relation because of attraction to opposite gender and not merely to a body part. This is not the case with animals whose pictures these gay-lovers present. To animals, the same-sex lust is not the driving factor for them to pose in the way they pose in these pictures. They show same kind of attraction to anything else including a piece of red-meat!
Third, should animals be right benchmark for us to model our behaviors? Do we follow them in other aspects as well. Animals do not have developed toilet habits. They do not wash hands after excretion or before food. Should we also follow the same in spirit of being natural? Even things like child-sex, animal sex, incest etc should also demand emulation.
Further, if being natural is logic for homosexuality, even humans are part of nature. small children drinking cleaning fluid is also natural and should be emulated
Assumption 3: Right to self-determination
Many proponents of gay-rights say that what two mutually consensual adults do in privacy of their bedrooms is not a state matter but their personal choice. Hence state should not interfere.
However if homosexuality is to be legalized on grounds of mutual consensus, then it would open a Pandora’s box. By exactly the same line of reasoning, even the following, for example, would demand legal protection:
a. Humans eating dead humans (this does not harm other living humans). Thus hospitals and morgues can run a business out of selling meat of dead patients.
b. One human eating another human after killing him provided the killed human is an adult and gives his consensus to such a death. Proponents of Right of self-determination may consider this to solve problems of drought in many areas. One consenting member of community can kill himself/allow himself to be killed and others can feed on his flesh.
c. Adultery would also demand legalization. If one gets into physical relation with another consenting adult, regardless of his or her marital status, state would have few arguments to control the same.
Similarly, consensual physical relation between close family members, may also deserve state protection.
e. Consumption of narcotics in private circulation may also open up exactly on same set of argument of self-determination
Assumption 4: Right to freedom
The Court has upheld that Right to freedom irrespective of sex implies ‘irrespective of sexual orientation’ as well. The critical point is that if such open-ended interpretations are to be made of each word of constitution, this may again open a host of such issues which may be difficult to answer. The point to be considered is that was sexual orientation in minds of designers of constitution when they inserted this clause of freedom in the document. And has any new scientific evidence come up to force expansion of the meaning of this word. The judgment only gives reference to other court judgments in other countries but has provided support of no scientific study that can prove that sexual orientation is as birth-based as sex or caste.
In fact reversal of homosexuality is a common phenomenon which proves beyond doubt that homosexuality is not even a stable trait, even if unnatural. No scientific study has been able to justify why homosexuality should not be considered a mental disorder. The references to documents of Psychiatric and Psychological Association are of little use because in these associations, such matters are decided by voting and lobbying and not after scientific analysis.
Thus every other patient of mental hospital may demand freedom under open-ended interpretation of constitution.
Assumption 5: Society is safe
A logic given by court is that legalizing homosexuality will help bring AIDS treatment to homosexual patients. This is akin to supplying a pyromaniac with petrol and match-stick and then promising that pain-killers will be supplied to those who get burned.
For two critical points need to be noted in this regard. First is that there is no reliable cure for HIV/AIDS till date. So even if homosexuals are suffering from AIDS, you cannot help them get rid of it permanently.
And second most critical point is thet homosexuality is the greatest culprit for beginning and propagation of HIV/AIDS till today. MSM (male making sex to male) accounts for 49% of HIV patients in America and anal-sex which is the only option for MSM is the main villain. Further monogamy is practically non-existent among homosexuals (some studies have reported that homosexuals change upto 80 partners in a year) by very nature of source of their sexual cravings. The Family Research Council report on lifestyle comparison of homosexuals and heterosexuals compiles results of several surveys and researches worldwide in this regard. Read more on it at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
Legalizing homosexuality seems to bring right of self-determination to certain deviants at risk of infecting the entire society with HIV/AIDS. No one can stop homosexuals from being bisexuals as well under the same set of laws and hence propagate HIV/AIDS and other STD to less vulnerable sections of the society.
To quote from from Current Medical Diagnosis & Treatment 2009, Forty-Eighth Edition, Chapter 31 on HIV Infection & AIDS:
“At the end of 2005, there were approximately 421,873 persons in the United States living with AIDS. Of those, 77% are men, of whom 59% were exposed through male-to-male sexual contact, 20% were exposed through injection drug use, 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact, and 8% were exposed through male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.”
Assumption 6: Gay-ism is part of Hinduism
A new hoax being circulated is that Gay-ism is acceptable under Hinduism. This was recently started by Hindu Council, UK whose secretary Anil Bhanot claimed that Hindus know of a technique of producing homosexuals. When challenged to provide evidence of the same, he was at loss. The fact remains that there is no approval of homosexuality in Hinduism. Some verses of Manusmriti which are not considered authentic by scholars do seem to mention severe punishment for homosexuals. Apart from that, Hindu scriptures only recognize heterosexual relationships. Even heterosexual relations are condemned if they involve any kind of immorality or use of force or fraud. Hindu Council was cornered to admit that if they support homosexuality, they will have no explanation for condemnation of Sati, Devdaasi or untouchability. At this point, they exited the debate. Because no dharmashastra or Vedas support any idea even remotely in favor of homosexuality.
The trend for gay-support may be fashionable and invite lot of media attention. But not much comes in support of it in terms of any new scientific studies or arguments that can justify why it is not a threat for society overall. The trends for HIV/AIDS as published by WHO, Harrison and CMDT only make homosexuality appear an even more dangerous tendency than ever thought before.
The foundations of any sensible culture are rationalism, scientific temper and greater interest of the general public. Even 19(5) (6) clauses of Right to Freedom in Constitution of India mentions interests of general public to be supreme.
Thus, unless proven that homosexuality is completely safe and harmless for public at large, or that homosexuality is an inborn trait that people can do little about, any legalization of homosexuality will victimize rest of the population. And that seems clearly impossible till the menace of HIV/AIDS and other STD exist for whom homosexuality is biggest culprit.
I have not yet discussed the morality issue at all, and queer situations where legal backing of homosexual tendencies makes women unsafe even among women and men among men. After all what drives a homosexual, in absence of any birth-related or physiological factor, is only lust and that can manifest in any situation in any manner.
In summary, the gay-activists including court should first give convincing explanations and evidences to prove that legalization of homosexuality will have completely no repercussions on general public at all. Only then can we look forward to a gay-India. Or else we are giving legal blessings to ‘sex terrorism’ as if ‘jehadi terrorism’ was not enough for us!
Do not miss these:
About Agniveer
A very educative write-up about gay movement and also takes a correct stand as regards the Indian/Hindu view point on this controversial
topic.It should be acceptable by all right thinking people that the Vedas are the real authentic source to resolve problems in case of any
doubts. It is why that Yogacharya Ramdevji has also firmly rejected homosexuality and stated that it is a mental or psychological problem.It
is unfortunate that Western influence is invading our social set-up and most of people belonging to upper srata of society are fighting to
get recognition to their un-ethical relationship(s). It augurs well that the voice against the High court judgement is becoming louder and the
Indian Supreme Court will uphold the basics of Indian culture/ noble traditions.on merits of natural or un-natural acts itself.
B.D.UKHUL,
Secretary, BRAHMASHA INDIA VEDIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION,
Janakpuri, New Delhi- 110058..
Thanks for considering this topic worthy of your attention. Please understand why Krishna did not send Shikhandi to jail: Please read http://devdutt.com/on-krishnas-chariot-stands-shi…
Why always bring down the manusmriti ? it's smriti created by manu and that's all ! This book has no authority in the Sanathana Dharma. Let's forget this book.
Focus only on Vedas, Upanishad and Bhagavad Gîta ! Sanathana Dharma respect everyone !
I refer only to unadulterated portion of manusmriti. Entire manusmriti is not useless. But yes, around 60% is later day interpolation. Reject this and in rest you have indeed pearls of wisdom. Dr Surendra Kumar has written a treatise that analyses and purges out interpolated verses.
Dear Agniveerji
Section 377 of IPC was enacted by British and is only 150 years old. This ban and criminalisation of homosexuality was born out of Judeo-Christian biblical ethos(Islam incidentally prescribes death penalty for gays ). Today, this criminalisation has been rejected in Europe/USA
.
What I want to say is that there is Hindus have civilisational experience of 1000s of years. Hindus and hinduism never encouraged this kind of thing. But also these gays, lesbians etc were not hounded. This was a pretty mature approach and consistent with modern concept of human rights. Delhi High Court merely adopted this mature approach and merely allowed gay/lesbian sex between two consenting adults in private. Delhi High Court did not force anyone to be Gay/Lesbian not allowed people advocating or preaching in its favour. I have read the 105-page decision of the Court and find it well-reasoned. I think u too should go through it in full.
The issue is not whether it is psychiatrist disorder or not. Issue is decriminalising and adopting a humane approach.
REGARDS
Namaste, I agree with your observation on victimization. I have gone through the entire document of High Court Judgment in detail. But there are some glaring loopholes:
a. It fails to acknowledge that this act leads to increased spread of HIV/AIDS. While the court agrees that these people have highest incidence of HIV/AIDS, it refuses to understand that its their stupid way of love making and lack of monogamy in them that is the prime cause. Also there is no cure for AIDS. So even by giving them AIDS treatment, you are not helping the cause of AIDS prevention in any manner.
b. In any case, victimization of homosexuals has nothing to do with law prohibiting anal sex. Victimization is a social phenomenon and prohibition is a legal matter. No one has stopped homosexuals from receiving AIDS treatment. Even a criminal is given treatment for his disease. One is socially victimized for even incest. By same logic, then incest also should be legalized.
c. The point is that in any case any act in privacy with mutual consent renders application of any law ineffective. Even the court admitted that hardly anyone has been caught for homosexuality in privacy even though the law exists. So the law is redundant in first place. The reason why people were calling for repeal of this law was to move a step ahead towards legitimization of this stupid act. By repealing this law, court has only emboldened those who want to promote and glamorize it.
d. Existence of this law was merely a deterrent to such stupid acts. it sent a clear message that society finds it unacceptable. Neither has the law been applied ever nor can it be applied because private affairs of consenting individuals can never become issue of law even if law exists. So now nothing will change even after repeal, except that the message of deterrence is gone and glamorization of sex-perversion will begin. And it will open a Pandora's box. Next would come, incest, sapinda marriage, bigamy, polygamy and then even consensual murder. The same logic would be applied for every other act of perversion.
I can understand that in today's era when morality is becoming a subject to be understood by only a few, even incest etc may be perfectly fine for court and others. But even then a better approach would have been to also study the impact of homosexuality on spread of HIV/AIDS, compare with options available to modern medicine to treat AIDS and then decide its impact on overall society. Homosexuality has caused revival of new variants of some extinct sexual diseases as well that are even difficult to cure. Under such situation, permission of court to allow such a risky practice is full of acute short-sightedness.
All the data presented in the peer-reviewed journals accepted in the world, the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Pediatrics Association… I can quote a bunch of *science* associations unconditionally state that homosexuality is not a disease. They may not be sure of the origins of it, but they unequivocally proclaim that it is not a disease. If you do not want to take the *scientific* data into consideration, I cannot argue with that. (The lawyers in the Prop. 8 trial in California, US argued on the same lines – but were royally screwed by the defendants of the lawsuit. The opponents of same sex marriage could not even produce a couple of scientific experts to argue in their favor – while there is a ton of evidence on the contrary.)
My argument on the cause of AIDS is frivolous, huh? Okay, here goes – AIDS is caused by unprotected sex. Protect yourself, rather not have sex with multiple partners – no scientific journal has said that homosexuality is a cause of AIDS.
No scientific data "in favor" of homosexuality? Man, this gets easier and easier! It can be said that there is not much scientific data of the contrary. Refer to any of teh recent journals on psychology/psychiatry – you can see that the scientific world does not consider homosexuality as an affliction.
"Preconceived notion"??? So, are you trying to say that the history of discrimination against homosexuals is preconceived? Not real? Please refer to the multiple cases (Eg.: Shephard case) in American history. In that way, India had been quite tolerant till the Victorian law was introduced. Anyways, this discrimination is not "preconceived" – gay people are discriminated in the society even today. Can they marry? Can they live openly as gay? No! If that is not discrimination, I do not know what is! Please do let me know…
Your next point that a "stable homosexual" population does not exist is unscientific. Equating homosexuality to "smoking"! I don't see a point in arguing with you.
And finally you ask for "scientific data" that differentiates homosexuality and addiction. Any of the aforementioned organisations, and any of the latest psychological journals state that homosexuality is not a disease, or an addiction – what more proof can one provide! Well, let me ask you – is heterosexuality an addiction? If it is, well, then so is homosexuality!
Uncontrolled sex with either male or female is an addiction. In case of same sex, it is also unnatural and disease promoting. No breakthrough in scientific research has caused changed in stand regarding homosexuality. It is merely an opinion change with assumption that all should be free to do what they want. Science (am not sure about so called so-called 'scientific community' though) is certain that this trait is disease enhancing.
First of all, I do not agree with most of the arguments you have. Each of them has glaring loopholes. It has been proved repeatedly in history that homosexual population has been discriminated against, just like any minority in the society, and they lack the political power to bring about substantial change. Your main point that "lobbying" forced the American Psychiatric Association to change its stance has no substance! In fact, there are a lot of right conservative people in the US, who have a strong political lobbying power – it was the stance of science that stood up against religious right at that point. Each of your points can be similarly refuted. AIDS is not spread by homosexuality! AIDS is spread by promiscuity, and unprotected sex with multiple partners – homosexual or heterosexual. With social acceptance, homosexual relationships gain support, and promiscuity is diminished. I do not want to go into details of all the issues you have misrepresented here. I am not sure if someone who has preconceived notions, and unable to accept scientific data, would understand these points.
I only implied that there is no data to prove that homosexuality is not a disease. It all depends on definitions chosen.
Also my argument is based on AIDS data with regards to anal sex and monogamy trends in homosexuals.
Your argument on cause of AIDS spread is frivolous. Explosion does not happen by making bombs but by detonating them. So govt should allow bomb making legally and punish only those who detonate them!
Problem is that there is no scientific data in favor of homosexuality, there is only preconceived notion that they have been victimized in history and hence they should be promoted now!
Also a big problem is that a stable homosexual population does not exist. Because the tendency changes in same way as smoking habit changes. Its nothing more than that – a bad addictive habit. So more than 50% of homos are actually bisexuals, and a large number show shifting tendencies from straight to homo throughout in life.
Kindly furnish scientific data that differentiates homosexuality from addiction. The genetic and inborn gay theory has been long debunked by homosexuals themselves. Now they are fighting for right for self-determination!
If one were to argue on pure scientific basis your argument has no grounds. What I find more sinister is your selective quoting of the America Psychiatric Associations' assessment of homosexuality. In fact you even tend to imply that psychiatrists are sympathizing with homosexuals at the expense of the credibility of their scientific observation. The APA clearly says that homosexuality is not a choice (a statement you conveniently ignore). It also says that sexual orientation (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is complex. However there have been a number of other studies that have established a strong connection between genetics and homosexuality which again you ignore because they refute your argument. Here are some of the references [1. Arch Sex Behav (2009) 38:393–399 2. NATURE ,VOL 404, 30 MARCH 2000 ] .I could furnish you tons of more peer-reviewed scientific publications which all tend to favor the genetic causes of homosexuality. So at least your first argument that homosexuaility is not inborn can be completely and convincingly refuted by science.
As to your argument that 1500 species comprise only a minute fraction of all the species doesn't matter because what these other examples prove is that homosexuality is not a social phenomenon but a phenomenon of nature. The fact that a particular trait is not universal doesn't make it non-natural. All plants do not have green leaves but that doesn't make plants which don't, unnatural. There are plants which eat insects unlike most other plants but that doesn't make them unnatural. In other words universality of a trait is not considered a necessity to be considered natural (at least amongst scientists).
But then again you would rather believe in religion than science so I'm not sure whether all these arguments are falling on deaf ears.
Now coming to extreme unrealistic examples of what the future holds for us if homosexuality is permitted. Firstly, human eating dead human cannot be consensual. Your second example doesn't make much sense but one strong difference between this and homosexuality is that the former involves physical harm while the latter doesn't. Adultery involves a breach of commitment that homosexuality doesn't. As far as I know there has been no psychological study which claims that incest is inborn. In other words unlike homosexuality it is a choice and hence the comparison is irrelevant. As far as narcotics consumption is concerned there is some scientific data which suggests that it is unhealthy for the consumer while no scientific data suggests that homosexuality is unhealthy for homosexuals. In fact APA studies show that suppressing one's natural homosexuality cause more psychological damage and leads one to depression.
Sexual orientation may not have been in the mind of the framers of the constitution but the court has the right to interpret the declaration of freedom in the context of evolving scientific knowledge. Secondly only an idiot would identify caste as an immutable or in-born characteristic. Caste is just a social designation, not a human trait. I am not sure on what scientific basis you make the statement that reversion of homosexuality is a common phenomenon. Can you point out to any peer-reviewed publication which supports this assertion? But then you seem to be one of those people who have more faith in NARTH than in APA.
Your assertion that homosexuality is responsible for the spread of AIDS puts the cart before the horse. It is not homosexuality but having unsafe sex that spread AIDS. It is true that one is more vulnerable to HIV transmission through anal sex but having vaginal sex with an HIV infected person is also known to be equally risky. The bottom line is lack of sexual education and keeping sex and sexuality a taboo is the main culprit in the spread of AIDS and this is an accepted theory of WHO.
I don't know which idiot said that Hindus know of a technique of producing homosexuals but just because there are some blabber-mouths spouting nonsense doesn't mean that there is no mention of homosexuality in Hinduism. Also the harsh punishment that you are talking about in Manusmriti involves taking bath in cold water which to me doesn't seem the harshest form of punishment that Manu could come up with. Furthermore if you read Manusmriti thoroughly you'll see that it is quite dogmatic and regressive, particularly when it comes to status of women. Even then Manusmiriti goes on to dictate that siblings of the homosexual would be responsible for his living since he wouldn't be inheriting property. Besides Srimadbhagvad talks about homosexuals in its reference to "tritiya prakriti" and does so with a lot of reverence.
1. APA changed its stand in 2008 to admit that there is no genetic link of homosexuality. Even though it has a pro-homosexual stand. No scientific study has confirmed genetic basis for homosexuality. At best they say that they do not know the cause – and hence they conclude that they do not know. Some studies did attempt proving genetic link till early 2000s but by end of the decade, none stand the acceptance of the scientific community. At best, it remains a puzzle for them.
2. Many studies to prove genetic link have been debunked and even the homosexual lobbies these days refuse to accept that they are born that way. None explain why it is a shifting tendency in many and why nearly half of them are actually bisexual. That is why no scientific body, even though it is pro-gay does not cite it to be related to birth. These days, many find it offensive if you say that gays were born that way.
3. As for species, the way homosexuality is defined for non-humans is itself very frivolous. For the rare species that are claimed to have homosexuality, merely close interaction of two members of same gender is considered sign of homosexuality. They conveniently forget that sexual attraction is a much more complicated phenomenon for those with large cerebrums – humans.
4. As for other examples quoted, medical literature is full of details of how homosexual acts cause wider spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD. It is more dangerous than incest in that way! Refer Harrison and CMDT and you would find that anal sex is 30 times more risky.
5. There are plethora of examples where reversal of homosexual tendencies have taken place. Refer the works of Ryan Sorba where he has compiled many such examples.
6. Manu smriti available today is a much adulterated book. If you remove those shlokas that can easily proven to be adulterated by being out of context, you will find nothing wrong with Manu Smriti. read the research book by Dr Surendra kumar available from vedicbooks.com where he analyzes all shlokas for their veracity.
7. Tritiya Prakriti refers to hermaphrodites who are born that way, and hence not looked down in society.
8. Most people confuse between hermaphrodites and homosexuals. Hermaphrodites have defective or incomplete growth of glands and organs that is medically observable. Homosexuals are perfectly ok biologically and are perfectly fit for heterosexual reproduction. But they decide to be homosexual. No medical test can predict if one is homo or straight. But hermaphrodites can be easily tested out. vedic culture revers each human and there is no reason for discriminating against hermaphrodites because they were born that way.
1 and 2. Once again while I referred you to scientific publications to support my point, you don't quote any peer-reviewed scientific publication to support your argument. So I don't want to waste time refuting unsubstantiated claims. I am a scientist and hence it would require more than rhetoric to convince me. Provide me with references and then we'll talk about it.
3. To refute the baseless argument that you make I am providing you with a reference which clearly demonstrates the wide range of sexual interaction and bonding that has been studied in numerous species. You are wrong in stating that homosexuality in these species has been defined by "merely close interaction." Here's the reference " Trends in Ecology and Evolution Vol.24 No.8, pg 439 ". This is again a peer-reviewed journal publication with a pretty decent impact factor and hence bears scientific merit. Sexual attraction may be influenced by physiology but that's not the point. The point is that homosexuality is natural.
4. Once again please provide references of the so-called scientific literature you are quoting.
5. Ryan Sorba is a recent graduate from a third tier college, Cal-State San-Bernandino who is a conservative Christian activist. He is not a scientist. If I have to choose between peer-reviwed works of scientists with Ph.D. degree from reputed schools like Harvard and Stanford and a book written by a recent college graduate whose political views are well known, I would have no hesitation in choosing the former.
6. Is there any evidence that Dr. Surendra Kumar's interpretation of Manusmriti has been widely accepted by all Vedic Scholars? Sanskrit literature is so arcane that anyone can interpret them the way they want to. That doesn't conclusively prove anything. So I will rather go by what is widely accepted.
7. The three genders were not determined by physical characteristics alone but rather by an assessment of the entire being that includes the gross (physical) body, the subtle (psychological) body, and a unique consideration based upon social interaction (procreative status). The term prakriti or nature, however, implies both aspects together as one intricately woven and cohesive unit. Tritiya prakriti does not only refer to hermaphrodites but they also fall under the same category. People of third sex have been broken down into several sub-categories by Kama Sutra and they include gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexuals as well.
8. How many times do I have to repeat myself? The APA explicitly states that homosexuality is not a choice.
1. Which peer reviewed concluded that homosexuality is inborn or genetic? If that be so why APA changed its stand? APA states that homosexuality is not a choice because it failed to find a statistically significant factor so far that would be change determinant. This speaks of problems in their testing strategy. But no scientific community agrees to genetic theory as being proposed by you.
2. If you are not convinced, that is your problem. If you choose to ignore medical data or interpret it differently, that again is your problem. I am not here to convince you or anyone else. I am merely putting the facts and analysis in my personal blog.
3. Please do not force anyone to believe that publication in peer-reviewed journal implies final stamp of authenticity. In matters of health, medicine, biology, researches keep changing and keep being criticized by other experts.
4. No study ever can or has concluded that homosexuality is natural. They at best state failure to find any observable reason.
5. Ryan is a graduate but the text he has written refers to works of greater experts. he has simply compiled facts and I admire his capabilities.
6. to talk of more educated ones, many scientists, PhDs etc also vehemently oppose homoseuxality and the theories you want others to believe. Even NARTH refers to texts of these experts. Kindly do a search and you would find several peer reviewed evidences in contrary as well. Further the fact that homosexuality was removed from list of mental disease by voting, and not due to any breakthrough new scientific discovery implies that there were a significant number of doctors and experts who believed that homosexuality is not normal. We are debating opinions here and not facts. The fact is that gay-gene research has been found to be spurious and is condemned by homosexual lobbies!
7. Dr Surendra Kumar's book is extremely logical. On one hand you claim to be scientist and on other hand you prefer to go by widely accepted belief without even scrutinizing the book. it amply describes your scientific temper. And rejecting that, you want to quote Kama Sutra as an example. Thats interesting! Because its quite known that Kama Sutra is unscientific.
8. APA also smartly repealed its previous stand that homosexuality is inborn. It also made its choice through vote and not through any breakthrough peer-reviewed discovery. Psychology largely is a field of opinions and extrapolations. In fact that is true for most branches of so-called modern science except those aspects which can be clearly detected. Thus it gives interesting opportunities to so called PhDs and experts to twist the conclusions the way they want. And that is why hardly any peer reviewed research is devoid of criticism and counter-research.
Anyways, as I said, I am not here to debate or convince you. This is a personal blog, and modern society gives me the rights to express myself freely.
whatever the rank of Kama Sutra on the scale of scientific rigor, I am eternally grateful for its practical wisdom which furthers Hygiene and Nourishment and which even we overstimulated, arrogant ADD westerners can find engaging. Becoming thus enchanted, Kama Sutra imparted to me slowly an appreciation for a more mature mode of reflection than commonly permitted we busy moderns, apparently regardless to how highly educated and distinguished may we be.
Kama Sutra (I am only familiar with Danielou’s translation into english) indeed discusses, with neither approbation nor harsh injunction, lesbians and gay men ( hairdressers, even then:-D) who are devoted to one another as a couple and also men who prostitute themselves to other, older men and specifically mentions that sometimes they grow out of this phase and take a wife.
Also that at weddings, the presence of a male transvestite prostitute brings good luck. Just a reminder to check your guest list in case you are planning to git hitched anytime soon, Sam, and if such is the case, please accept my hearty congratulations and best wishes.
Agniveer, thank you for maintaining this website and may all be healthy and know joy.
over a year ago, i watched an internet video Q&A with a wise woman who explained in her way that from the bliss of love, all beings incarnate and develop due to their personal karma along through various stages of fixation on 1. self ( as a child loves being the center of attention) 2. friends of their own gender 3.commencing to notice the complementary gender 4. finally, seeing the spirit of love in all universally. This normal and inevitable progression can play out over the course of many lives, so it is understood that regardless of chronological age, one’s orientation of affection can exist at any stage, supposing that the previous stages form a basis for present and future state
I wish I could remember the name of this considerate teacher who has given a profound answer brimming with compassion for all suffering beings. That her answer was widely misinterpreted and she was attacked in the comment section only follows the normal course of things. Whether habitual perverts wish it or not, anal intercourse confuses the normal paths of circulation, according to Ayurveda, contributing to fear, over sensitivity and wasting, among other things.
Now please do not misconstrue this message as intolerant. I am a great enjoyer of Tchaikovsky’s music and Homer’s epic and some of Broadway, among the artistic accomplishments commonly attributed to a velvet sash. These folks without children had more time and resources to attend their craft and I salute their achievements and hope that these great works, so enriching to our lives, and the attendant fame serve to console their mothers who mostly would’ve preferred grandchildren.
Faced with the prospect of reincarnation, blessed be the name of the Lord, may all know health and a true home and the end of suffering.
A narration attributed to Hasan ibn Arfah reports:
“ Nabi (Sallallaahu Álayhi Wasallam) said, ‘Seven persons are such that Allah will not look at them on the Day of Qiyaamat nor will He purify them nor will He include them among the learned and Allah will enter them into Jahannam. They will enter Jahannam first except for those who repent. As those who repent Allah will accept their repentance.
1. A person who masturbates.
2. A person who performs the act of sodomy.
3. The person upon whom the act of sodomy is performed.
4. A perpetual drunkard.
5. The person who hits his parents so much that they appeal for help.
6. The person who harms his neighbors so much so that they curse him.
7. The person who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife.
reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_masturbation
Great list, confirmtohell…
How about self-proclaimed prophets who sexually force their way into a 9 year old? Do you have any proof that the prophet did not perform sodomy on Ayesha? If not, maybe both of them are in hell now
@KalBhairav.
Why brother you regretting you have already committed that.
Dont take it personal meant as friendly question. sorry if you take it heart for this below?
What proof you have that your previous generations haven’t committed sodomy?
@confirmtohell:
Bro..firstly you are assuming too much if you think I accept your list or even the existence of the Quranic Allah/judgement day, etc. If your only proof of the veracity of the Quran is the Quran itself, it is called circular reasoning and it is fallacious.
Maybe ALL religions are guilty of engaging in this…but I need to know why YOUR belief is correct with MY belief is wrong?
So, back to basics…how do you know your prophet did not sodomize a 9 year old?
@KalBhairav,
Back to basics
if you are so confident to ponder on others to prove their sodomy, why not you have confident to ask urself to proof your previous generations never committed sodomy.
Answer is simple you have lost trust.
Hell, what a list?? Now, Allah seems to be operating from everybody’s bedrooms and toilets to keep tabs on the ACTS
I think, on judgement day, there will be a lot of GOTCHA moments,where Allah will get hold of someone and say that on 12.1.1998, I caught you mast’ating. On 13.10.2001, I caught you watching an d replicating Brokeback Mountain in your bedroom and so on…Even Allah’s own energy levels will not be enough to track these on judgement day 
@womenstatus
well said..
@womenstatus/confirmtohell:
So, sodomy (this includes every position other than the plain old missionary position, right?) is punished by Allah.
I probably have to confess some of my ancestors may have engaged in this
Shucks…are they burning in hell now? (Didnt I say already that the list you provided is trash?).
Now that I have answered this please let me know how you know Mohammed entered Ayesha only in the missionary position that too when she was 9 years old
Memo to self: In internet debates where it is rare to have a good intellectual discussion, refrain from arguing with a pig…You get dirty…the pig loves it.
the burden of proof is on Muhammad than anybody else.
Al Hadis, Vol. 1, p. 579, No. 42, Ayesha reported, “Zaid-b-Haresah came to Medina while the Messenger of Allah was in my house. When he came to the door, the Prophet stood up with nothing on… and embraced and kissed him.” Attested by Tirmizi
indian Agnstic:,U have come up with a gem.That’s called a “triple play.” Now why would a disrobed man hug aother man while the disrobed man was already with his wife in his bedroom. The question here is whether Muhammad confessed this ACT to Allah and whether Allah accepted the apology.
Namaste Rushmore
actually there’s an explicit mention in Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi
Zahir, who used to say, “The prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest.”
although this is taken on authority of father zakaria butros. wish i had an online link, will try now
Muhammad’s Cross dressing is well recorded by the way
Bukhari 2442
The revelation does not come to me when I am in the GARMENT of any woman except ‘A’isha
http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari20.html
@Indian Agnostic.
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=006&translator=2&start=0&number=2442
2442
Aswad reported: I and Masruq went to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and asked. her if the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) embraced (his wives) while fasting. She said: Yes; but he had the greatest control over his desire among you: or he was one of those who had control over his desire. It is further narrated on the authority of Aswad and Masruq that they went to the Mother of the Believers and they asked her.
Namaste @huh
So what is the conclusion other than that Islamic Sahih Hadith have many versions in the market contradicting each other?
Namaste @huh
That was bewlvi’s reference number. muhsin khan’s hadit reference is Volume 3, Book 47, Number 755:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/047.sbt.html#003.047.755
he has cleverly translated it as
“Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.”
even then it;s too bad that Allah needs aisha’s bed to make his divine revelations..huh?
@huh
you mauy also enjoy this one
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/abudawud/009.sat.html#009.1665
Book 9, Number 1665:
Narrated Buhaysah al-Fazariyyah:
My father sought permission from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). (When permission was granted and he came near him) he lifted his shirt, and began to kiss him and embrace him (out of love for him). He asked: Apostle of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He replied: Water. He again asked: Prophet of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He replied: Salt. He again asked: Prophet of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He said: To do good is better for you.
you hate idolaters but not a man kissing you prophets bare naked chest? something fishy indeed
Indian Agnostic, now I know where California’s adult movie industry has drawn inspiration from. And no wonder low lives like Snoop Dog, rap artists & convicts in American prisons switch to the desert cult.
@KalBhairav.
oh iz it so guess your ancestors have committed sodomy. If you can
then you are god for me then.
prove it to me i bow to you
http://www.beautifulislam.net/sex/homosexuality_islam2.htm
@IA
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=24&translator=1&start=0&number=574
574
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abu Aufa : Whenever a person came to the Prophet with his alms, the Prophet would say, “O Allah! Send your Blessings upon so and so.” My father went to the Prophet with his alms and the Prophet said, “O Allah! Send your blessings upon the offspring of Abu Aufa.”
missing numbers :p
Book 9, Number 1661:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A beggar has the right though he may be riding (a horse).
Book 9, Number 1663:
Narrated Umm Bujayd:
She took the oath of allegiance to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and said to him: Apostle of Allah, a poor man stands at my door, but I find nothing to give him. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said to her: If you do not find anything to give him, put something in his hand, even though it should be a burnt hoof.
Book 9, Number 1665:
Narrated Buhaysah al-Fazariyyah:
My father sought permission from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). (When permission was granted and he came near him) he lifted his shirt, and began to kiss him and embrace him (out of love for him). He asked: Apostle of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He replied: Water. He again asked: Prophet of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He replied: Salt. He again asked: Prophet of Allah, what is the thing which it is unlawful to refuse? He said: To do good is better for you.
@ IA and other hindus..
I havent seen a single Hindu scholar to have come for a debate in Public…only on the net will not help..please fortify your scholars..and give them enough courage to debate with Muslim scholars in Public..like in big open grounds infront of a 100000 gathering..I have never seen such a thing..
Why???
After such thing not been done ever..please keep quite and eat your frustrations with in…yourself ofcourse.
One Dr. Harish Chandra of Arya Samaj ..came for a debate in Kolkata – Kalakunj..became wordless..and not only that..he mentioned ” Allah in the ved ” on the stage..the video is available on youtube..
Doing all these on the internet–agniveer website..only helps us to make the literate hindus about your impotency…
Sorry state…I empathise..
It does not need a grand stage,lights, cameras and 10K people to call out a cult which is a hoax. You need some burnol
@Terrorist Arshad Ali
First of all let us know what are your views on apostasy, what does Islam say about an apostate (of Islam) preaching his new religion?
Your reply will either attest the title I gave you or the defeat of your Ustaad Mullah Zakir Naik
Ask terrorist Zakir Naik how many times he hid himself in his rat hole when we challenged him for open debate.
Namaste Arshad Ali
As brother Rishmore highlighted, the Wahabbi dawagandists have laid down a condition that that unless you make it a circus show with 10,000 audiences they wont come for a debate.They want semi-literate crowds to clap like baboons when their 2+2=Islam kind of statements are made.
These idiots don;t even understand the differnce between a lecture,dialogue and debate.The ex-MBBS Zakir Naik video lecture at Oxford is sold as a debate, same goes for the idiot in kolkatta who invited the unsuspecting for an interfaith dialogue but instead tried to turn it into a debate.
But don;t you worry, at a personal level, i have posted few articles and soon i will post videos puncturing your so called champions.
just wait and watch…it’s just the beginning.Grab your popcorn as the first video response is coming out soon
PS: why don’t you write to zakir naik to accept the challenge of the arya pratinidhi sabha which has been continuously evaded by IRF.
Indian Agnostic, don’t you know. The doctor has gone fishing. Many Western countries have banned Zakir Naik from entering their shores. Peace TV’s own audience are now begiining to tire with reruns. He is in some desert land repeating the same lie for the 800th time. The ability of the likes of Zakir, Bilal etc is to repeat without compunctions what has been exposed a lie and have the audience clap. After reading Ali Sina’s exposure on Zakir, I sat through a rerun of the same debate on peace tv (zakir and Dr.Campbell). Dr.Campbell showed images based evidence of embryonic growth stages and calls out the bluff of using Dr.Moore as a refernece,as, Dr.Moore’s book contradicts the Quranic stages of embryonic development. But Zakir, like a stand up comedian, comes and repeats what has already been shown as a lie and the audiance claps. It teally was comparable to watching Sinfeld, from there on….