Decriminalising homosexuality in India by scrapping Section 377 of IPC is still a matter of debate. It became quite popular when the Supreme Court of India quashed the High Courts judgement to decriminalise homosexuality. LGBT community criticised the decision. There are many reasons given for in favour of LGBT community and against them too. But none of the reason is guided by rationality. Reasons of supporters of homosexuality are mainly emotional rhetoric. And the reasons given by anti-homosexuality are driven by hate.
When any company set up a manufacturing plant it thinks it through like its social, environmental impacts. What would be the ‘possible’ impacts? You would agree on this that possibilities are uncertain. Possibilities could be positive or it could be negative, it depends on what side you are standing. This article talks about the possible impacts of homosexuality using its initial chronology and parallel logic, and comparing it with “incest”.
Homosexuality first appeared in the public domain when Henry Gerber founded the ‘Society for Human Rights (1924)’, the first documented gay rights organisation in the United States. The society was chartered by the State of Illinois and published Friendship and Freedom, the first U.S. publication for homosexuals. The Society soon disbands due to political pressures. After this Radclyffe Hall’s lesbian novel, The Well of Loneliness was published. As a result, homosexuality became a topic of public conversation in both the United States and England.
On the incest side, we have Forbidden by Tabitha Suzuka, Flowers in the Attic by V. C. Andrews, Game of Thrones by G R R Martin. There are films too like Spanking the Monkey (1994), The Quite (2005), Beautiful Kate (2009) and there are many others.
Supporters of homosexuality expect the society and the state to accept their state on the basis of human rights. It is true that two consenting males are humans and are entitled to some rights so as a mother and son or a father and a daughter. It is true that two consenting females are humans and are entitled to some rights so as a brother and sister. The basic conclusion that can be derived is that the argument of human rights will build confidence in consenting intra-family lovers as is seems valid in their case too.
If the homosexuality can be proved perfectly normal and only a taboo due to certain religious dogmas, on contrary incest too can be proved perfectly normal and only a dogma on the basis of ‘Westermarck Effect.’ The way homosexuality can be proved psychologically sound incest can be too. The journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin published the results of a study by R. Chris Fraley and Michael J. Marks, which has received some almost-mainstream media attention. The study indicates that we are sexually attracted to our close relatives on a physical basis.
“In a series of experiments where subjects viewed photographs of their opposite-sex parent or a photo morphed with their own face, researchers found that people are turned on by photographs of people who resemble their close genetic counterparts.
“People appear to be drawn to others who resemble their kin or themselves,” said psychologist R. Chris Fraley of the University of Illinois, lead author of the study published July 20 in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. “It is possible, therefore, as Freud suggested, that incest taboos exist to counter this primitive tendency.”
Let’s say the possible term that can be used for legalising incest marriage would be ‘full marriage equality.’ It would be a broad term, a kind of theory which can prove that the ‘right’ to whom we marry was weak but it has gained importance. The US has always been the land of birthing such deviant mindsets and nurturing it further. There was a time in the US when interracial marriages were banned but the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which is good. Another case is Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. The Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. And now the US Supreme Court has decriminalised homosexual marriages. And it can be felt that US Supreme Court would be the first one to legalise incest marriages. Although interracial marriages are good as it helps to produce ‘genetic diversity.’ But it has would lead to a situation, a principle of ‘precedent’ which are subsequent cases with similar issues or facts through which court can be persuaded to decriminalise incest marriages on the basis of rights.
In this course of events, it won’t be surprising to see if a couple stand against the state to fight against the consensual incest, in the name of equal rights, right to love, privacy and all those stupid arguments that homosexuals use to justify their self-serving, socially deviant and destructive behaviour. Especially in the US and as the days will pass it will come to India too. Many Indians will accept this too, just because Americans and British are doing it. Some Indians don’t have brains to debate so they copy west blindly and use their social development as their arguments like in case of homosexuality. If US court allows homosexuality then our court must do it too.
Your stand may differ but try to acknowledge this possibility honestly, just once. Unburden yourself from your personal biases and think about the greater good. As far as rights are concerned, laymen don’t know that the rights are not unlimited. They come with certain reasonable restrictions. Try to understand this side too.
Do not forget that you are responsible for shaping this society we live in and it is also true that you have the right to disagree with this article.
Rest depends on you.