Whither 377?

We should not look into our "books" of yore to find answers to questions of today. The books can tell us whether there was an obvious resentment or endorsement in the society on the question of homosexuality. As the author has presented through his arguments, one would like to believe that there was no obvious resentment but many instances that can be construed as indirect endorsement. Having said that, we must also consider that the LGBT issue probably did not feature as a major question in the ancient society for it to merit serious discussion.

The writer raises an important point when he argues that marriage as per Indian philosophy is not merely a joining of two physical beings but also that of two spiritual beings. The importance of this is verily seen in the Puranic narratives where the Gods through their many incarnations are always together with the same spiritual counterpart. This points to the transcendental relationship that the Indian philosophy ascribes to the institution of marriage. Cliched as it may sound in the modern day context, but marriage was never meant to be merely a socially approved instrument for procreation in the Indian psyche. The spiritual union aspect of marriage cannot be emphasized enough. I find this to be a compelling argument.

So, if a question were to be raised as to the spiritual value of a same gender marriage, I feel, the Indian philosophical bend will not find itself in opposition to that.

But that is a question for a later time.

What we are discussing is whether intercourse between two individuals of the same gender should be considered a punishable offense? I am afraid, this is a question not suited to be answered through spiritual arguments. The question is, what business does the state have in the private affairs of two individuals of consenting age? The answer to that to my mind is NONE. Section 377 speaks of "unnatural offenses". What constitutes unnatural? If a heterosexual couple indulge in each other using certain toys for intercourse, surely that would be unnatural. If someone were to film them in the act, are they to be prosecuted as well? Or should the individual filming them be punished for invading their privacy?

To my mind, 377 is reflective of a largely uninformed and hugely ignorant nineteenth century British society that has no resonance today. There is no reason why we should exert ourselves to prove whether our books provide for or hold moot the misinformed inhibitions of a dogmatic social structure that existed in a setting far unlike our's. Let's be objective and say that 377 serves no practical purpose and needs to go.

The other question of societal approval of homosexuality is self defeating. Why should someone's sexual preference beg the approval of society? Why should the society, as undefined and amorphous as it is, be given this power to accept or reject one of the most private and personal behavior of an individual? To vest society with this power is to accept that our personal choices are eligible for societal scrutiny.