India gays win landmark ruling decriminalizing homosexual sex

[XOX]

Finally, India would get rid of the British negative influence (or Christian influence) law that criminalized homosexual sex.

This is a landmark victory.

Read the news.

India gays win landmark ruling decriminalizing homosexual sex

Hinduism does not condemn gay people: UK Hindu Council

India media hails gay sex ruling

US gay activists welcome Delhi HC decision as "historic"

Indian gays celebrate after judge repeals anti-sex law

India's ruling against 'sodomy' laws is first step to equality

New Delhi court overturns gay sex ban

Bollywood’s poster girl for gay rights tells her own story of love,... (Miss India for gay rights would put anti-gay ex-Miss California to shame.)

The repeal of 377 is an important victory. The world sucks a little less today.

Update:

As there are some who try to deny the fact that it is totally a British import law with Christian influence, I would put the Human Rights Watch report the Origins of "Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism here.

As someone pointed it out the report is a big long and take time to read. I would post a shorter version of Sodomy Law 101 here: Sodomy Laws and Sodomy Law Reform.


News update (on 13 July 2009)

Challenge to India gay sex ruling

Quote:

"The ruling was widely and visibly welcomed by India's gay community who said it would protect them from harassment and persecution.
But religious groups from the Hindu, Muslim and Christian communities have come out in strongly opposition."

[Matt]

From the 7th Sura in which Al-Araf is the writer, verses 80-84.

"80 We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?
81 For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.
82 And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"
83 But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.
84 And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!"

Now I want you to pay particular attention to verse 81 and the wording of verse 81.

"For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."

It may be a bit cloudy in the Christian view of Sodom and Gomorrah, but the Islamic view is not cloudy in the slightest. The reason why these people have transgressed their bounds is because they would rather practice their lusts with men than with women.

Really though, it doesn't matter what our views on Islam are if we're not Muslim. Why not check out the majority of Islamic countries and check out their stance on homosexuality and gay rights? I think we might find a popular Islamic view with that.

[Randi]

Perhaps the Christian writers interpreted the situation differently; otherwise, the language might not have been so cloudy (such as using the gender-neutral words describing the crowd). Further, the discussion in Judges still makes me wonder what was meant.
I appreciate the citation of the Sutra. I'm not as familiar with the Quran as I'd like to be.

When I was living in Morocco, I found a very open public opinion towards homosexuality. While it's illegal and frowned upon by the more traditional crowd, many from the younger generation are indifferent. It's sort of like how the GLBT community was looked at during the 90's in America.
I can't say what it's like in more traditional Muslim societies, like in the Middle East, but westernized societies seem to be more open to it.

However, the whole reason I brought it up was because there was a major Christian influence in Islam, which begs the question of its influence over the Indian laws against homosexuality.

[Matt]

In case if you would like to be able to look up more of the Quran (I think I change the spelling of that every single time I use it):
http://community.al-quran.info/

How long did you live in Morocco? I've only ever lived in the United States. At some point I would like to live in another country, but I don't know when that will be.

What I find interesting is taking your points on Sodom and Gomorrah under the possible Christian writers' understanding of it, and then comparing it to the Islamic view of the same situation. I think the Bible itself can be shown to not be all that against homosexuality when it gets to the New Testament (because it gets rid of the old covenant, which is where the Leviticus passages come into play, and Romans 1:26-27 could be talking about going against their natural preference or just talking about idolatry because the orgies that are talked of were ways to worship some Roman/Pagan gods), but I'm not sure of the Quran. I haven't done as much research into the Quran as I would have liked, but I'm wondering if any of the loopholes or unclear wordings in the Bible have been transferred into the Quran or "fixed" in such a way as to make sure that homosexuality is against Islamic beliefs.

I like you, you're interesting. Friended!

[XOX]

Do check your source. 377 was for India, a law imported from the time under British rule and it was a rule under Christian influence.

As I do think this is day for celebration, I would try to save your time and let you read the report by Human Rights Watch "The Origins of "Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism".

Don't try to shift the blame where it doesn't belong and try to defend the Christian/British dirty past.

[Matt]

I'm not saying that the British didn't make the law. What I'm saying is that this law wasn't abolished from the books when India gained it's independence for a reason, and it's not because of the Christian influence. It's because the major religions in India also have passages that many take as a negative outlook on homosexuality. Your apparent belief that Christians are the sole instigators of discrimination against homosexuality is ridiculous.

[XOX]

Read the news links.

This law, and other law that decriminalized homosexuality, were imposed on countries that did not criminalized homosexuality before. It is a foreign import from Britain. It is not so ridiculous if you look at the affords for people to try and repeal these laws. These laws would not exist without the British (Christian) influence.

As this is not a debate thread. I would suggest you read the report first. The law was repealed in other countries too, not without some difficulties. What I tried to say is, this law should not be in the book in the first place if not for the British rule and christian influence. It would part of history. And if you don't like it, it is fine with me. But don't argue from ignorance.

[Matt]

I'm not reading a 66 page report. I have too much to read right now as it is.

I think we're just misunderstanding each other here.

"What I tried to say is, this law should not be in the book in the first place if not for the British rule and christian influence."

Which I'm not disagreeing with. What I am disagreeing with is your claim that getting rid of this was getting rid of solely British/Christian influences, when there were people in India not for the repeal of Section 377. These people were Muslim and Hindus and were arguing based on THEIR religious faith. What does this mean? It means that it was not Britain or Christianity that was keeping this law in place, but Indian people themselves.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Govt-mulls-repeal-of-law-a...
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Muslim-lead...
http://www.realcourage.org/2009/07/muslim-leaders-seek-criminalizat...
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/religious-leaders-oppose-repeal-o...
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_religious-leaders-oppose-repea...
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Religious-leaders-oppose-re...
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/10582/religious-leaders-oppose-...


Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not trying to argue with you on whether or not Britain (with their Christian influence) made that law, because that is truth. What I'm saying is that India has been independent of Britain for quite a few years now and that law has been in place for all of those years with Muslims and Hindus supporting that law based on their religious views. There were people saying that homosexuality was not acceptable in Indian society, and the people that I'm thinking of were not Christians or British.

Whether or not that law would have been made under Indian rule if Britain had never controlled it, we can not say. What we can say is that Britain made the law and even after the independence of India the law was kept for close to 62 years. During those 62 years it was supported by Hindus and Muslims alike.

Anyway, it's a great thing to have happened and I don't want to ruin your thread further. So let me say that I'm happy that the people of India repealed Section 377 while facing their Islamic and Hindi opposition.

[XOX]

//I'm not reading a 66 page report. I have too much to read right now as it is.//

That's fine. Take your time. I could wait.

Saying this or that religion also did bad stuff would not excuse this law in India.

This is a victory. Let's enjoy this for while. You might also look at Singapore. It is also fighting the very same 377 in their law book.

But for now. It is victory in India. It would not think I would ruin anything by putting the blame in all the right places.

[Matt]

"Saying this or that religion also did bad stuff would not excuse this law in India."

It's the carrying out of the original bad thing. It was clearly in the hearts of some Indians to have Section 377, as every single one of the links I posted point to.

"You might also look at Singapore. It is also fighting the very same 377 in their law book."

Well, let's hope the same thing happens there. :)

(I always feel the need to put smiley faces in my posts towards you, because we have such conflicting personalities. It's hard to show that I'm not trying to be mean or a jerk towards you. We just see things very differently a lot of the time. Of course, I think we should see things the same here. I am pointing my fingers at religious leaders basing their defense of discriminatory laws on their religious ideology)

[XOX]

//It's the carrying out of the original bad thing. //

Just so that you know. Cultural prejudice against homosexuality might never turned it into law. I would take China for example, it never had any law that make homosexuality illegal, although there might be cultural prejudice against some of gays (long story). Therefore, while not saying that there were no opposition from other religion in the repealing process, the law would not have existed without the British Christian influence.


//Well, let's hope the same thing happens there. :)//

That is a whole level of sucks in Singapore. This time, the opposition are Christians.

//(I always feel the need to put smiley faces in my posts towards you, because we have such conflicting personalities. It's hard to show that I'm not trying to be mean or a jerk towards you. //

Never cross my mind that you are mean or a jerk.

[Matt]

http://www.utopia-asia.com/chinlaw.htm
There may not have been any law specifically against homosexuality, but they left it wide open with their sodomy laws.

Again, I don't think that we can say without a doubt that there would not have been any laws against it. We can't say that there would have been either. All that we can say is what happened.

[XOX]

/There may not have been any law specifically against homosexuality, but they left it wide open with their sodomy laws.//

No sodomy law. If there is a law that ban homosexual sex, it wouldn't be linked to any religion anyway. It is very unlikely to have law against homosexuality, as China has never criminalized homosexual sex before, and not likely to do so now. Additional information, gay bashing is rare in China, and the government is quite indifferent to issue of homosexuality.

It might surprised you, but same sex marriage was being tabled to the Chinese government. Look up Li Yinhe if you like to know more about this.

China had recently (on April 20 2001) removed homosexuality from its mental disease list. Oh, and yes, it has no problem with transgender marriage, which is a surprise even to me.

The discussion in China on homosexuality is much more rational, as there is no religious objection to the practice of homosexuality. There is a different set of problems with gays and lesbians being pressured into marriage to the opposition sex, with the sole reason of having a child under the current one child policy.

Like I said, a whole set of problems that could be dealed with rationally, without the emotional charged objection from the religious freaks that you see in other part of the world.