I did not know how to react to the news item when I read it first.
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court on Thursday struck down the provision of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalised consensual sexual acts of adults in private, holding that it violated the fundamental right of life and liberty and the right to equality as guaranteed in the Constitution.
So Indian law dictates terms on who you should sleep with? So gays were not even allowed to have sex in India? India really needs substantive social reforms ahead of any economic reforms I guess.
Well, this is a small but important step in the direction of gay rights. I am not sure, how many more light years away India is from legalizing Gay Marriages? I was really curious if any other country’s law punishes your sex life unless you are under contractual agreement of matrimony and found this.
I believe law needs to draw a clear line between crime and sin. Sin is perceived social, religious or ethical misbehavior, crime is violation of human rights. As long as there is no violation of human rights involved, it can not be a crime.
Ask any Hindu why he is vegetarian and he will say killing animals and eating meat is cruelty. He will brag about his compassion and feelings for animals. The overly sentimental one will even go to an extent of saying if you can not give someone a life at least don’t take it away.
It is very easy to debunk a blind follower of faith, but real need is to expose the pseudo rationalists. They spent all their wits to devise rationale behind prescription of religious ethic. They don’t reach the conclusion based on rationale, they know the conclusion and then they design the logic to suit the end result.
If I confront such a counterfeit rationalist, a typical conversation will go like this,
“Why are you vegetarian?”
“Because I don’t want to kill someone to fill my stomach.”
“Are you religious?”
“Not much. I go to temple once in a while.”
“Are you vegetarian because your religion prescribes that as a moral practice?”
He will be completely taken aback and say,”No. No way man. I am vegetarian because I am not cruel.”
How emphatically he wants to pretend that he is a rationalist! What a phoney scum!
The conversation continues ..
“So I suppose you think animals have life, plants don’t?”
“Err…no, not like that. But you have to eat something to survive.”
“Why not eat only fruits and milk? That doesn’t kill any life.”
“I think so. But that is too idealist. I want to be little practical.”
“So you want to be practical and by that you mean you are okay to except your ‘cruelty rule’ to an extent you don’t violate the religious ethic. In short, you want to conform to religious prescription.”
“Not exactly. I believe in the logic behind it.”
“I am eating beef. The cow is already dead, I take the onus of the sin. Can you take a spoonful from my plate?”
“When you don’t follow certain things religiously, on rare occasions you make an exception. Can you not even take a byte of beef just to prove a point?”
At this point the rational face of the hypocrite will crack wide open and he’ll burst into something like,” Look it’s a matter of my faith. Let’s not argue. You’re hurting my beliefs.”
“That’s fine. All I wanted to hear was it’s a matter of your faith. You denied that in the beginning. The attempt to find rationale behind something you follow dogmatically is a mere hypocrisy. Enjoy your faith. Amen!”