“Oppressive heterosexual institution!”

Says Ashok Row Kavi, a homosexual rights activist in response to his views on the institution of marriage.

I remain amazed with folks who believe or rather want to believe that acceptance of homosexual behavior does not do human society harm. What could be their basis for such reasoning?

1. Couples are after all consenting adults

** What would be proponents’ views on consenting incest?

2. Such unions do not do anybody else any harm. Indeed, homosexuals are gentle and generally loving people

** No human union exists within a shell of it’s own unless the couple plan on living in a forest isolated from all human settlement. Man is a social animal and needs other human beings to remain healthy and sane. That is precisely why homosexuals want the right to marriage. They think it legitimises their unnatural ‘union’ and brings them social acceptance. So, what the homosexual does affects society ie other folks, adversely.

3. So what if they cannot reproduce, they can adopt

** They must be denied this right. I believe that if a human being willingly forgoes his right to pro-create not because of disease or the lack of a spouse, but because he believes he naturally cannot due to choices he has made in life, then this person cares little for what it takes to give birth and rear an offspring. How can he really bring up a child but as a pet in the house? The fruit of heterosexual union must be denied to those who deny themselves such a union as not natural to them.

4. Getting married satisfies their human need for formal union. So we must accept it

** I ask again. Will these sympathisers and proponents of homosexual rights, agree with marriage between a brother and sister, between a son and mother, between a daughter and father? If this thought seems unbearable and certainly unspeakable today, let these rights-men know that this is the reality their logic leads to. We may not even stop at incest. Why not bestiality itself? After all, some of our ancient texts allude to ‘unions’ between a woman and a horse?

So let’s think about all this for a while.

Now coming back to Ashok Row Kavi’s tirade against ‘marriages’, he is naturally right. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It has no place for quirks. A homosexual should detest such a heterosexual institution as oppressive. I should not imagine otherwise.

They also say Kavi campaigns for HIV and AIDS awareness. 


Times of India 10th may ’09

Homosexuality in India


Rahul says:

Dear Palahalli,

Please think about what you are saying first. In the first response, one may ask why consenting incest is relevant, when the involved are not “consenting adults”

Also I am afraid you are unclear on how the homosexual affects rest of the society adversely. And if the people are merely disturbed, that should be their problem. Calling homosexual people insane in convenient, but certainly a lie.

The third point considers homosexuality as a choice in life, while it is being understood world over more as a ingrained nature of the person. One does not choose to be homosexual, he is born so. Even if that argument is to be ignored, the person who is choosing to spend his life with another of his/her own gender still has parenthood in him and should be able to adopt and take care of children. The form of sexual union should not affect this decision. Considering how many children are not taken care of world over, this call to adopt should be welcomed.
The sweeping generalizations made in your article are only compounded by the intolerance of the choice of your words, like quirks. Please rethink before you submit your response to this comment.

Actually I find this a bit surprising considering you are a proponent of the true secularism as defined by the BJP and condemn the excesses of abrahamic religions world wide. Persecution of homosexuals is a continued policy of the abrahamic religions and hinduism is considered relatively tolerant. But your article is intolerant and akin to hate speech.

Taking back the part about true secularism, I believe you are a person who stands for hindus. And am still surprised at your negative attitude towards homosexuals.

Pala S responds:

Thanks for your comment Rahul. Maybe I must clarify further –

1. But first, let me ask you if you are fine with incest if it involves consenting adults? More, and this is the crux; what would your position be on a marriage between such consenting adults? Going by the homosexual logic, you should not have a problem, correct? If you are fine with such a marriage and without in the least wanting to offend you, would you be fine to marry off your daughter to a son born of such “parentage”?

2. I have not called homosexuals insane. I have called their relationships unnatural. I have also clearly said why I find it unnatural. Any living species that cannot procreate or rather chooses not to procreate is unnatural for the sole reason that that “living” species chooses to die by its own decision. If you say suicide is natural.. then you might have a case for homosexual marriages. But then, human society cannot allow for all things natural to humans. There would be chaos, don’t you think? Imagine an alcoholic. Imagine an impulsive killer. Homosexuality, if legitimized by acceptance of such marriages, will harm society and ruin its balance. Like I said earlier…what about incest? Why not incest?

3. Choice of life. Well, how does a compulsive drunk get over drinking? Through will. How does a kleptomaniac get over compulsive stealing? By getting help and through will. How does a person who compulsively feels the need to fondle passersby stop himself? Many such conditions, harmful and harmless, can be explained in the manner you have homosexuality. I agree with all of it. The question is, do we tolerate and allow for all such behavior? More, do we legitimize them just because they are natural in some people?

I cannot understand “parenthood” in people who admit that their sexual choices, even if natural to them and particularly if natural to them, cannot bring forth offspring. It’s like keeping a pet dog. Why would I adopt a pet dog if I could produce one myself? I cannot do this and hence I “adopt” one. Huge difference from the manner heterosexuals harness their parenthood.

4. I’m asking several questions. I’m not generalizing. If I use “quirk” it’s in the same manner I use “drunk”. It’s quite harmless and helps carry my point.

5. Well, Hinduism cannot be made to shelter everything under the sun. Of course you seek legitimization. Elsewhere I have asked why not bestiality? Hinduism depicts it on some famous Temples. Certainly a case can be made to legitimize bestiality, don’t you think? So, why not? Hinduism may tolerate as it tolerates aberrations …but I don’t see it legitimizing such behavior.

Let me know what you think.

Rahul replies:

Dear Palahalli,

Since the topic of incest seems to so pertinent to you, I will tell you what I think about it. Incestuous relations actually did happen in this country, cousins have married since the time of mahabaratha. It is not understood that these relationships are likely to cause

1) genetic defects and birth defects in the offspring

2) psychological damage

In the light of these revelations, it is understood now that these relationships are not ideal and that relationships between relatives is to be discouraged.

India still is holding on to its incestuous practices and incestuous marriages continue to happen legitimately. Personally, I feel that these sort of marriages and relationships ought to be discouraged. While homosexuality, is not harmful to either involved, is completely voluntary, and hence acceptable to me. If you are still keen on incestuous relationships, the (Pala S – Message is truncated at this point)

Regarding the naturalness of the relationship, these sort of relationships are known to have existed in nature for a long time and are known to exist in several species. Is that not natural.

Now, whether we should tolerate or not and legitimise or not. What would not tolerating mean, it would mean that you would not allow for people, men and men and women and women to come together in their personal spheres? thats absurd. You and I have no choice but to “let” people get together. As far is legitimizing is concerned, that can mean two things – one as a religious marriage and as a legal marriage. A religious marriage you can not legitimize because you are not the custodian or the spokesperson of God. And a legal marriage, that is in our control. This means that they would have divorces, alimony, adoptions, etc. I feel we should grant that because they feel their urge towards the same gender naturally, and there is no reason for us to ask them to keep their desires to themselves and no reason why they should not live like a normal couple because of no fault of theirs.

Now comparisons to kleptomaniacs, public fondlers, etc. are not correct because none of these people steal or fondle with permission of the other involved. A homosexual relationship is acceptable if it is voluntary, not otherwise.

Again, it is not that they can not reproduce with the opposite gender. It is that they do not feel the sexual urge to. The same way, that you and I do not feel the sexual urge towards a male, they do not feel towards a female. But some of them like other humans would like to take care of children and bring them up. If the homosexuality was transferable by exposure to it, it might be a cause of concern, but like heterosexuality, homosexuality is an ingrained choice which can not be changed. The child will be heterosexual if he is heterosexual.

Quirk would be considered a rude thing to say to someone, who behaves naturally the way he does. The fact that you find it weird gives you no reason to insult the way of life of another.

Bestiality, I do not know much about. I would rather stick to the topic. In bestiality, it might not be possible to establish consent. There certainly may not be a match of genital organs. And there is still a possibility of a hybrid offspring. So very different, and I do not know much about what makes one bestial.

Palahalli, if one day the world called your most natural mannerism weird and wanted to deny you other rights and discriminate against you because of it. You might begin to feel what the homosexuals feel through their lives. It would be best if we let them live their life the way they do and welcome them to live normally like all others. Thats my submission.

Pala S responds:

Incest and bestiality too, is very pertinent when debating the legitimization of homosexuality through marriage. Please remember, we are debating legitimization through marriage; that is, using a societal and legal instrument in order to gain acceptance in society.

I can only partially agree with you on “incest”. First, what is incest? It differs from society to society. Uncle-niece is not uncommon in South India. cousins derived from sister-brother parents are less so..but still can marry. Speaking about genetic fault lines, how does one say it is limited to only such “incestual” relationships? Empirical data will prove me right. To me, incest means within the immediate family. Mother-son, sister-brother etc. My point is, would you support such marriage if the couple is consenting adults? They might even provide evidence of genetic compatibility.

Relationships do not become natural just because the actors are natural. Would you accept brother-sister in-laws for your daughter? How about an adopted son of a human mother and an Alsatian (German shepherd) father?

How do you still say homosexuality is not harmful? We are already debating the possibility of incest and bestial marriages aren’t we? When these become issues of “right” and “free-choice”…like they have wrt homosexuality, how would you oppose? You cannot oppose.

To me “not-tolerating” means a denial of legitimacy through legal or social means. The fine distinction you make between religious and legal marriages is untenable. Religious marriages that have not been registered still are legal. A couple cannot just separate without divorce. A spouse can drag the other to court still. So, no difference. I wish you would address the points on adoption by homosexual ‘parents’ I raised. How is this any different from keeping a pet dog? (Stuart Little comes to mind and so does depravity)

I note you have not commented on alcoholics. Natural urge for alcohol. Do no harm to others. Would you tolerate them in the name of nature? Why not?

Rahul, procreation is the most basic instinct in all species. Any departure from this instinct rebels against nature’s most basic law of survival. Man and woman have evolved or been created for a specific purpose. Look at it religiously or through science, one cannot get away from this simple fact. If the point is about “urges” then please agree that the possibilities are endless.

You are asking those struggling against their homosexual urges, not to struggle but to give in. I think this is very wrong. Man always struggles against bad deals handed by nature..to survive. By telling them to accept such a rotten deal as done, we are in fact saying to all those with any urge toward homosexuality at all; to accept that condition as legitimate and forgo normal life.

Bestiality is a part and parcel of the topic. If not, why not? Can human beings not communicate with their dogs? Can dogs not understand their human masters? As for genitals, well, that can be arranged too through appropriate surgery. After all, those Temples do depict such scenes. But what have all these arguments to do when faced with a ‘natural urge”? We must allow man and dog to marry legitimately, correct? Liberal man knows all and knows best. Nothing seems impossible or beyond possible for him. He can change nature or play with nature’s laws at will.

So, homosexuality is simply as naturally acceptable as incest and bestiality. Agreed?

%d bloggers like this: