In a “wildly” convoluted essay, Firdous contends that maybe allowing homosexuals their rights will lead to the destruction of the world as we know it. Never being the one for open letters, I’ll just use this as feedstock for sarcasm.
The building of a society is based upon the cardinal principle of collective good (always) getting precedence over individual interests; restraint and consideration have been the guiding principles. Tamper a little with the principle of collective good and the edifice of the entire society will come down crashing(…) “gay sex is highly immoral and against social order” gels fully well with the traditions of our society, being practised by the majority.
Whoa, whoa. Easy there, Firdous. It’s a big leap from allowing individualism to the violent demise of society. Firstly, where can I find this cardinal principle? In “Das Kapital”? It does sound suspiciously close to some of the principles of communism. The thing about collective good is that there is no one good thing that makes everyone happy. It may make the majority happy but never everyone. So if you’re talking about the happiness of the majority at the cost of the good for the minority, it is hugely problematic.
Racism hasn’t quite completely disappeared. But slavery has been abolished in the US, at least legally. Slavery catered the collective good of many white households but ignored the rights of the African immigrants. This explains the discomfort and violent retribution many African leaders had to endure to win the rights to equality. For African-Americans they had to more than just tamper with the principle of “collective good” to get to where they are now. I hope you won’t resent them for it.
Modernity also can prove to be regressive in case restraint is allowed to melt away under the heat of wild behaviour.
Just so we’re clear here. Firdaus is saying that you can be regressive while pursuing modernity. For instance, it was considered wild behaviour for women to leave their homes and work in a modern work place. I am quite sure a few heads exploded in flames out of sheer indignation when women became CEOs and successful entrepreneurs. I am waiting for that “girls gone wild in the workplace” film.
Courts are meant solely to deliver justice and interpret the law and not to set new moral standards.
You might think, ‘Wait he wants the exact same thing as we want. No moral policing.’ But read between the lines. What he actually means is, “Courts are meant solely to deliver justice and interpret the law as long as it protects majority rights.”
The fast erosion of value systems in West should not be a compelling reason for the judges to set new standards of social behaviour in our society. Why does the West have to be imitated in every sense? They have their own moral standards and we follow our own. On the contrary, the societal crises and moral debauchery that the West is faced with today should have made us wise not to fallow blindly the creeds of ill-perceived modernity. The United States presently is faced with deep social unrest…”share of Americans born out of wedlock is now at 40% and rising.”
The age old “homosexuality is a western import” story. While we may have many great things going for us because of our value system, I can assure you that many of our societal ills are not western imports. Death by dowry, is a good example. Female foeticide is another. The social unrest prevailing in the US is a complex matter that involves more than just the presence of “bastard” kids in the society. It is easy to point to the US and rejoice in their misery while letting their present situation be a cautionary tale. But I am confident that the 40% of Americans born out of wedlock were created by straight, well-meaning individuals and not homosexuals. Many countries in Europe are well-functioning and protect the rights of all its citizens and provide economic justice to them all. Take a look at countries like Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, etc. where the children born out of wedlock (I know a few) have not wreaked havoc on them. Belgium recently swore in a gay Prime Minister. I need not tell you that Belgium is an economy in much better shape than the US or India. Iceland’s economic collapse was brought on by a heterosexual prime minister. Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, a lesbian prime minister was then sworn in and she’s working on reviving its national economy. Her government banned strip clubs, something that should resonate with your values.
If homosexuality is decriminalised … this may eventually lead to complete moral waywardness. If the courts do not properly define that the decriminalisation of homosexuality … it will cause further erosion of the family structure. Decriminalisation of homosexuality is laden with the risk of providing social sanctity to a fully barren and abnormal attitude.
Homosexuals are just like heterosexuals. They love to read, watch films, eat out, speak on the phone, pray to a god of their choice, enjoy sex, get angry, feel happy, work hard, travel, pretty much just about everything. They have brothers and mothers and cousins and boyfriends and girlfriends and fathers and sisters. Just like a regular family. They may not be able to produce children biologically the way heterosexuals do. But I hear heterosexuals have trouble conceiving all the time. They try artificial insemination, IVF, surrogate parenthood and other forms of assisted reproductive technology. Children born out of such methods live normal lives causing no threat to family structure. Homosexuality is well documented in nearly 500 species by conservative estimates. Homophobia is found only in one. That should be a good indicator of which attitude is abnormal.
Sex only defining a relationship between a man and man or woman and woman annuls the concept of collective good. Individual gratification has no value in comparison to the overall welfare of the society. A few individuals cannot be allowed to tarnish the ethical behaviour of the society. Homosexual unions demanding the sanctity of marriage will turn the society’s equilibrium topsy-turvy. Marriage is a sacred institution; it bestows some privileges but at the same time demands a few responsibilities. Survival of the human race is solely dependent upon the institution of marriage. Individuals keen to have sexual fulfilment without the responsibility of reproducing is not only lustful but also highly individualistic behaviour.
India is the second most populous country in the world. This places a huge burden on our country’s economy and natural resource. Please feel assured that in this race to ensure the survival of homo sapiens, we have overtaken the United States by a wide margin and continue to close in on our arch-rival and nemesis-China. And most of these children were born within wedlock. So is marriage the culprit for our current “population problem” (if you acknowledge it as such)? Perhaps, so.
Okay, I was being flippant about supposed sanctity of marriage. If marriage is indeed a privilege (quite a few heterosexual friends will disagree vehemently) then everyone has a right to it. Even in a marriage, couples do not just have sex with the sole purpose of reproduction. To imply so, is naïve. The few individuals who do tarnish the supposedly ethical behaviour of society are those who beat their wife and kids, sell their daughters to pay for a month’s alcohol, send the wives home for not bringing enough dowry, sexually abuse their wards, torture their sons’ wives for not bearing male progeny. Proponents of cultural hegemony always imply that social order is a zero-sum game. That for homosexuals to be happy is to cause heterosexuals to suffer. The truth is that criminalising homosexuality will not cause the desired deterrence in “deviant” behaviour. The assumption here is fewer people will “choose” to be gay. Why not let homosexuals simply marry other homosexuals? How many straight women would want to marry gay men? I’ll let you mull that over.
Now, I hope you won’t mind as I indulge in some selfish individual gratification by means of a delicious sandwich, which has no bearing on the overall welfare of the society.