Dr. Mohana Krishnaswamy wrote an article in The Hindu today reiterating her support for the supreme court’s judgement regarding the criminalization of homosexuality in India. I hold your hand through the article and read it with you.
Original article here: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/it-is-nurture-against-nature/article5488001.ece
As a paramedical person by qualification and mediaperson for many years, I expressed my opposition to “decriminalising homosexuality” in my article in the Open Page of The Hindu dated October 29, 2006 and I feel gratified by the Supreme Court judgment now. Since the Government of India has filed a review petition, I am impelled to expand on my views again.
This is great, so we know immediately where she stands, and what we are dealing with.
When Charles Darwin published in 1859 his groundbreaking theory of ‘Natural Selection’, through which he explained how certain biological traits become common in a population, few people recognised it as a key mechanism of evolution. One of the intriguing consequences that arose thereafter was a phenomenon Darwin referred to as ‘Artificial Selection’ — the centuries-old process of selectively breeding domestic animals or plants to magnify desirable traits. This he explained was the same mechanism as Natural Selection, only that it was accelerated by human intervention.
This is great, because after telling us that she is on the wrong side of this issue, she hits us with science. Science! Just shut up, she has science.
In 1865, Darwin’s half-cousin Sir Francis Galton suggested that one could apply the principle of Artificial Selection to humans just as one does in domestic animals, thereby exaggerating desirable human traits over several generations. This scientific philosophy came to be known as Eugenics, and over the subsequent years its insights gained popularity in some countries. In an effort to curtail the genetic pollution created by inferior genes, some governments even enacted laws authorising forcible sterilisation of the insane or feebleminded as well as individuals with criminal or promiscuous inclinations.
Anything that starts with this is clearly leading to something amazing.
If Hitler erred in correcting the human population by inhuman methods of eugenics, the idea of encouraging homosexuality, giving it a stamp of recognition by decriminalising the behaviour, is the other extreme of absurdity. The more non-standard practices are popularised, the more the danger of their proliferating as a standard practice. Section 377 of the IPC does not criminalise a particular group. It is against certain acts which if committed would be termed an offence. Regardless of gender identity and orientation, such a law helps in keeping improper, unethical and unnatural sexual conduct under control.
Like rape, sexual violence and victim blaming. AM I RIGHT GUYS?
While there is a figment of truth when one says homosexual tendencies are hereditary and carried in genes and hence such people are helpless about their sexual orientation, it is also true that it is not known for sure that a particular type of gene causes this. For example, if one particular gene carries the characteristic of passing black urine, there is no gene identified to pinpoint and say that it is responsible for a homosexual behavioural pattern.
While there is a figment of truth when one says they are a ‘a paramedical person by qualification’, you’d think they read a scientific publication in a while, try to keep abreast of how genetic studies work. For example, when someone believes that there is only one gene that is responsible for something that is complex enough to be described as a ‘behavioral pattern’, you begin to wonder if you must pinpoint and ask if they are really about science.
It is also a proven fact that our life experiences and environments have an influence on how our genetic code behaves. Scientists no longer say ‘Nature versus Nurture’, as it is clear that these two are not in conflict, but in collaboration. A better phrase is ‘Nature via Nurture’, the combination that makes you, ‘YOU’. A person’s genes are entirely in place at conception, but all of them do not start working from the word go.
For instance, I probably don’t have the genes to have a rage stroke, but after the life experience of reading this article, it is clear that the world and my genes are working in collaboration and not in conflict, for me to internally bleed to death. It is the combination of these that makes me ‘ME’.
Some countries believe that terrorism and suicidal tendencies are attributed to genes. But do their laws let those criminal actions go unpunished by saying, “Oh! Can’t blame the act of terror on him as he carries a gene which makes him do it”
This is my favorite excerpt from the article. As I think about the countries that attribute terrorism and suicidal tendencies (for the first time in history, spoken about in the same sentence) to genes (like all bad things, plus life experiences, of course). DON’T YOU KNOW TERRORISTS AND HOMOSEXUALS ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, KILLING PEOPLE AND CAUSING STRIFE? You guys, go read a scientific journal before you come argue with this sensible, perfectly articulated, astute paragraph.
When natural measures are repressed, they gave birth to unnatural measures. Promoting unnatural means would by no way make it natural; at most it will make it popular. By doing away with Section 377, marriage as an institution will be on the rocks.
Makes sense. Honestly, nowadays the only thing that keeps’ marriage as an institution’ away from any rocks, is marital rape. Marriage rocks!
In the name of freedom, unnatural sexual practices will gain popularity. The risk factor of people with homosexual and bisexual tendencies exploiting a natural partner into unnatural behaviour will increase.
Yes, all homosexuals are on a mission, and they must be stopped. Stop bombing our world, and converting us to homosexuality. Don’t be the life experience that nurtures our natures. You must be stopped. Also you guys, rape– very natural sexual practice. Commonly favored in natural, blessed heterosexual partnerships with no exploitation.
As it is a proven fact that people exhibiting homosexual behaviour are prone to AIDS, keeping Section 377 valid will help reduce that risk.
If criminalising the behaviour makes the LGBT community hesitate to come forward to communicate with anti-AIDS authorities, decriminalising it would by and large contribute to encouraging the decease, causing behaviour.
Unlike heterosexuals, AM I RIGHT? AIDS is a homosexually transmitted disease(or ‘decease’, as the article would like to call it). An HSTD, unlike other STDs. If criminalizing homosexuality makes people afraid to admit to being homosexual while trying to seek help for their health, decriminalizing it would by and large help us smoke them out or let them all die awful deaths with no medical help. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW IS FOR.
Just because there are a few people with six fingers, instead of five, we can’t say having six fingers is natural. It will remain unnatural. While it is agreed that a natural abnormality should not be condemned and should be accepted as part of nature, it cannot be allowed to be deemed normality.
Hrithik Roshan eats people like her as part of a healthy breakfast. Funny guy.
One can argue that even the government’s population control programme can be deemed to be against nature because it impedes procreation which is in accordance with nature. But since it is the responsibility of a society to take the macro interest of its future into consideration rather than the micro, population control policies are justly deemed fair and equitable.
Criminalizing people who are alive and living their lives is the same as making sure our sperm and ova don’t touch. It is the responsibility of the society to take the macro interest of its future into consideration and make sure that people whose lives don’t affect the lives of others are made impossible.
It is the prime responsibility of a nation to help steer its intelligence by making it aware of the prevalent desirable and undesirable human traits, by giving a direction to the behavioural patterns of a critical mass, by helping it reduce if not eliminate undesirable traits over several generations, for the propagation of the most evolved species on earth — the humans.
Yeah, anyone who says humans are the most evolved species is obviously a very good evolutionary biologist who really knows their stuff, you know? Nothing says ‘I have scientific backing’ like brandishing blanket statements. But all this said, I’m very interested in trying to find the rape gene, or as this article would like to say ‘the gene responsible for rapist behavior’, and then maybe we can finally criminalize that, and ‘give direction to the behavioral patterns of a critical mass’.
Again, find the original article here: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-openpage/it-is-nurture-against-nature/article5488001.ece
To check if you’re having a rage stroke, here’s this:
P.S: I hop off my satirical high horse to say that the original article article was an exercise in inhumanity, and while it feels like we must be tired of the ‘educated and elite’ of our society constantly choosing to be ignorant, it creeps up on us every day. And every time, it maddens and saddens.