RIGHT ATTITUDE to TRANS- and HOMOSEXUALITY

INTRODUCTION

In December last year, the Supreme Court of India gave a ruling that affirmed the constitutional validity of the Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code by which indulgence in homosexual activities is criminal and punishable up to life imprisonment, and thus it quashed a Delhi High Court ruling that decriminalised gay sex in 2009. Not only did the ruling stun the LGBT* community and human rights activists, it also startled all the sensible humans that love life and wish the planet Earth to be a better place to live for all good humans. They got shocked further by another piece of news that followed the former and said Nigeria had banned same-sex marriages (i.e. relationships in which partners of the same sex engage in sex ) and introduced a law by which Nigerian homosexuals, if found guilty of having engaged in such relationships, would have to serve a sentence of fifteen years of penal servitude.

Life imprisonment?! Fifteen years of penal servitude?! But what for? Not for stealing! Not for rape! And not for committing grisly homicide!

Nigeria is in Africa that is, as we all know, a continent of far backward civilisations. But India happens to be a nuclear power, and not only does she deserve to pride herself on having made supercomputers long since and sending numerous satellites into space, she can also boast of a successful lunar mission. In fact, the ruling at issue took us unawares and brought home to us the bitter fact that the world's largest democracy still hadn't revoked the draconian law, an ugly legacy of the past British rule although Brits had long before got rid of such things. The Supreme Court had justifiably pointed out that India should , if she wanted to decriminalise homosexuality, do away with the Section 377 of the IPC through a parliamentary enactment, but as long as it was existent, gay sex cannot but be treated as an offence, and thus it gave a kick-start to an old debate. The Govt of India and the ruling party sided with the gay community and promised to revoke the controversial piece of legislation while the BJP, the main Opposition party in India, Hindutvaites (i.e. the Hindu fundamentalists), the orthodox Islamic and Christian organisations, and even some professed secularists and rationalists took a stand against the governmental position. This debate moved me, a humble seeker after the truth, and an advocate of the principle of healthy and meaningful living, to review my own stand on the LGBT question. This discourse is an outcome of that review and aimed at finding what I view as the right attitude to human sexual orientation.

*Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender

WHY do we need the RIGHT ATTITUDE towards SEXUALITY ?

The question matters much because no two humans see eye to eye with each other on all issues. And the conflict of their views often leads to heated arguments followed by fighting, rioting, etc.The right attitude to an issue is supposed to rid the humanity of lots of unwanted incidents and many a bloodbath. Viewed from humanitarian viewpoint, we have to distinguish between the right attitude and the wrong attitude towards sexuality and choose the right one in order to save lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals from persecution, ill-treatment, humiliation, and consequent agony leading to suicides of many innocent humans, if I'm not wrong to take them for innocent. Another most important point is the right attitude to sexuality fits in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living.

The next most important question is, what is meant by the RIGHT ATTITUDE towards sexuality ?

By the right attitude in question, I mean the attitude that's right, both scientifically and socially. You may find either of the terms ' scientifically ' or ' socially ' redundant and wonder whether there's anything that's right scientifically but not socially. I must admit I can't remember anything I've ever known which is right and good scientifically but unfriendly socially. Nevertheless, someone might also argue that the terms ' scientifically ' and ' socially 'aren't synonymous, and that an opinion that might appear right from the scientific perspective might not be so if viewed from the social perspective and might, if forced on people, give rise to severe reaction and social unrest. For example, many Indians including the Indian President are used to wearing holy threads that testify to their belief in varnashram , a variety of Vedic racism, which is certainly untrue, scientifically, and unbecoming of a civilised people. But it'd be injudicious to force people to abandon their belief and throw away their holy threads. Belief in God, the Almighty, or gods, or religions doesn't seem to be approved of by science, but it doesn't seem right to ban idolatry or ridiculous religious practices. On these grounds I should prefer using the expression in question in the definition of the right attitude at issue

the RIGHT ATTITUDE, as I view it, to SEXUALITY

Last year, I received a message from a guy that frankly confessed to being attracted, sexually, to men alone and asked me to make known my attitude towards gayness. In my reply I said my viewpoint is not moral. I view it from the rational point of view. Human sexual orientation, as I view it, is not uniform. Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. It's a natural aberration and does no harm nor any good to any individuals or society. The gay are quite normal humans in all respects other than being gay and don't deserve to be looked on with disrespect or scorn.

My reply seemed to have pleased him. Nevertheless, that, of course, is no proof of the correctness of my stance on this question. The right attitude towards our sexuality must be scientifically right. At this juncture, I must make it clear that I'm not a learned man nor an expert. I'm a humble guy with no specialisation in any subjects. My views might be right outright, or they might be plain wrong. I wouldn't ask you to accept them unquestioningly. But do they appear wrong? Well, let me argue for them.

I know of no sensible humans that would deny the fact that human sexual orientation is non-uniform. The very existence of gay people is an incontestable evidence of the truth of this view of mine, isn't it? The gay and the straight are, as I view it, natural opposites just as are flowering plants and non-flowering plants (e.g. ferns), vertebrates and invertebrates (e.g. bees, butterflies, etc), cold-blooded animals (e.g. frogs, fishes, reptiles, etc), and warm-blooded animals (e.g. man), the mammalian (e.g. man) and the non-mammalian (e.g. birds), etc, etc.

Nature itself symbolises diversity. I think you won't be wrong to believe diversity expresses the essence of nature. There are the bipedal, the quadrupedal, and the footless (e.g. snakes, fishes, etc). You can see land animals, aquatic animals, and amphibians (e.g. frogs, salamanders, etc), too. You can also see the winged, the wingless, and winged-but-nonflying creatures (e.g. emus), can't you? You've heard of the oviparous* (e.g. birds), the viviparous* (e.g. man), and the ovoviviparous* (e.g.the yellow anaconda), as well. You must know of the asexual (e.g. ferns, fungi, algae, etc), the sexual, and the bisexual (e.g. jackfruits, landsnails, etc). You must also know of honeybees that are capable of reproducing both sexually and parthenogenetically**. Just as not all of us are straight, not all of us are monogamous. Monogamy is as much a reality as bigamy, polygamy, and polyandry are, as I see it. A polygamous guy, like a polyandrous lady, seeks sexual gratification in multiple liaisons whereas the monogamist won't seek for another partner if they've got one already.

In the light of all those natural beings and phenomena, both homosexuality and bisexuality appear as natural as heterosexuality, don't they? To my way of thinking, the nonexistence of the gay and the bi alongside the straight appears unnatural and a remote likelihood.

A bisexual guy is like a snail that possesses both male and female sex organs and plays both the male and the female during copulation. The shelled creature inserts its phallus into the vagina of its partner and receives the latter's into its own vagina. The bi guy behaves like a man opposite a woman while opposite his gay partner he behaves either like a man or like a woman or like both a man and a woman.

Right-handedness suggests left-handedness and both-handedness too. Sourav, a former cricketer and Indian captain, is a left-hander. He used to bat and bowl with his left hand. But Sachin, the former Indian cricket legend, was a right-handed batsman and bowler. But Sachin cannot use his right hand to write. And he is used to eating with his both hands. Which category does Sachin belong to? You cannot say Sachin is left-handed as he was a right-handed batsman. You cannot say Sachin is right-handed as he cannot write with his right hand. Nor can you say Sachin is both-handed, I reckon. Has Sourav's left-handedness or Sachin's being a left-handed writer ever caused any harm to Sourav or Sachin or anyone else on earth? Or, should it be a concern of yours or the state or society? Both these questions and the one of whether gayness is harmful seem to have the same single-word answer.

I've heard many geneticists hold the view that homosexuality might have genetic origin. Many experts opine that our sexual orientation does not depend on our choice. If such be the case, you cannot claim it to be unnatural, as I see it.

Further, being genetic and independent of our choice, gayness can't be infectious, that is the straight cannot turn gay in the company of the gay. Thus, I can't see there are any grounds for the complaint or apprehension that the gay might corrupt the straight.

From the foregoing, it seems to follow that gayness is a harmless natural aberration, doesn't it? It is as natural as straightness and as harmless as left-handedness or a fair-complexioned daughter of a dark mother.

You must have heard of John Maynard Keynes, a former front-rank economist, who was a bi. You might have heard of Rituparno Ghosh, a famous former film genius of Bengal, who was considered an icon of the LGBT community in India was a homo himself and, during the last several years of his life, lived a transsexual. Ms Johanna Sigurdardottir, a former Prime Minister of Iceland, is the first openly gay head of a state in modern times. And Ms Tammy Baldwin is the first openly gay US Senator (a Democrat from Wisconsin in the USA). You're likely to come across, in today's world, many an educated and talented man or woman who is not straight, and who would prove to you that the gay are quite normal humans except for the fact that they're gay.

*The oviparous (e.g. birds) lay eggs while the viviparous (e.g. man) give birth to their young. The embryo of a viviparous animal develops inside a placenta in the womb of its female parent and receives the needed nutrition during the gestation period from the mother's body while that of a creature of the former category develops inside the egg and outside its parent's body and obtains the needed nutrition for development from the content of the egg. The ovoviviparous embryo also develops inside the egg and obtains the necessary nourishment from the egg-content, not from its parent's body, but the egg is held by the parent inside its body throughout the incubation period. Very intriguing, isn't it?

**A most curious natural phenomenon is this parthenogenesis in which a queen bee dispenses with the need for mating with a drone and lays unfertilised eggs which develop into young bees.

genetic basis of sexuality

' The first major study ', according to the Council for Responsible Genetics ( CRG ), ' linking male homosexuality to family inheritance was published in 1986. '¹ Researchers James Weinrich and Richard Pillard who made this study claimed to have found the proof of the existence of ' a significant familial component to male homosexuality. '¹ It was followed by another study conducted in 1993 by researchers Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institute of Health, in which the researchers ' claimed to have discovered a gene for homosexuality. '² On the basis of this study, Time magazine carried an article titled ' Born Gay : scientists Discover a Genetic Link '². All these findings were once taken for proofs of the genetic basis of homosexuality, hence of human sexual orientation. Nevertheless, Later researchers found these studies to be seriously flawed. And in 1999, researchers George Rice, George Ebers, and their colleagues at the university of Western Ontario conducted a study, known as ' the largest study of its kind ' till then, failed to find the gay gene in question.² On the basis of these studies, the researchers at the CRG dismissed the view that ' we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. '³ They’re of the opinion that ' [o]ur sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences, ' and ' conclusive proof of a link between this [i.e. sexual orientation] and their genes has yet to be found. '³ They said all this in 2006.

From the above, it's clear how the experts affiliated with the CRG view our sexuality. Nevertheless, we mustn't miss the point that the absence of a ' conclusive proof ' of the genetic origin of human sexuality doesn't rule out the possibility of the existence of such a thing, nor does the fact that a guy's ' sexual expression can change over time ' prove that our sexuality can't be genetic. Genes undergo change. Mutation is a natural phenomenon and does take place in a being's lifetime.

Let's now take note of the views of some other experts who do not wholly see eye to eye with the CRG experts.

both Genetic and Environmental factors shape sexuality

In 2008 the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior carried the findings of what is known as ' the world's largest study of twins ', which was conducted by researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences (London) and Karolinska Institutet (Stockholm). By these findings, ' genetics and environmental factors are important determinants of homosexual behavior '⁴. Explaining the findings, the study co-author and a leading scientist on sexuality Dr Qazi Rahman said, ' This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single " gay gene " or a single environmental variable which could be used to " select out " homosexuality ― the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. '⁴ Dr Rahman added that he was of the opinion that heterosexuality was ' also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. '⁴ ' Overall, genetics accounted ', explained Dr Rahman, ' for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behavior [i.e. the fact that some men have got no same-sex partners as against one or more such partners of some other men] and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, we become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway. '⁴

The study also showed, according to the reviewer John M. Grohol, Psy.D., that ' genetics explained roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behavior [of women], non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent, ' and that ' heredity had roughly the same influence as shared environmental factors in women, whereas the latter had no impact on sexual behavior in men. '⁴ Nevertheless, the researchers did not claim their study to be ' without its limitations '. Hence, its findings are not to be reckoned conclusive.

SEXUALITY is rooted in human BIOLOGY.

In 2011, the Huffington Post carried an article titled Talk Nerdy To Me : The Gay Brain, in which the author strongly stood for his view that ' homosexuality is innate ' and referred to studies that showed differences in brain anatomy and physiology between the gay and the straight in support of this view which he'd like to view as a ' theory '. The author claimed that the study by Ivanka Savik, a Swedish researcher, showed that ' lesbian brains look more like those of straight men ' in regions ' involved in emotion, mood, anxiety, and aggressiveness ', and that ' gay men's brains look more like those of straight women.'⁵' One major difference seen is that of a slight asymmetry in the brains of straight men and gay women, wherein the hemisphere is larger. In the brains of straight women and gay men, the cortices are largely symmetrical, ' writes the author.⁵

' Savik demonstrated ', further writes the author to inform us about it, ' that in straight women and gay men, the amygdala [i.e. the region (in the human brain) ' where frightening and other highly emotional memories are encoded '] had stronger connections to regions involved in fear and anxiety processing, whereas in straight men and gay women, the amygdala fed mostly into fight-or-flight areas. '⁵

The author claims ' many researchers agree that homosexuality does appear to have a genetic foundation ' and argues that ' many published studies have shown higher concordance rates in monozygotic (MZ) twins [identical twins sharing the same DNA] than in dizygotic (DZ) twins. '⁵ ' Although concordance rates of homosexuality are significantly higher in MZ twins, they are not 100%. ⁵ The reason for this, according to the author, is the fact that ' gene expression and activity may vary among them due to environmental and epigenetic factors. '⁵

The author has brought to our notice the case of ' a group of boys ' that were given ' female genitalia ' through a ' gender reassignment surgery in infancy ' and ' raised as girls ', all of whom ' grew up to be attracted to women '.⁵ The author has justifiably raised this question : ' if societal influence can " turn you gay, " ... shouldn't it have turned these gender-reassigned girls straight? '⁵The author also seems justified to observe, ' Even though biologists have yet to discover a gay gene, from a scientific perspective, genetic, hormonal, and structural-anatomical data show that homosexuality is definitely rooted in our biology. '⁵

It is to be noted in this regard that The American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The National Association of Social Workers also confirm the fact that ' the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents ', and the fact that ' the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual. '⁶

homosexuality : a normal expression of sexuality

In 2010, in a lawsuit (No. 10-16696), The American Psychological association and The American Psychiatric Association along with two other organisations appeared as the amici curiae and issued a brief in which they stated that they view sexual orientation as ' distinct from other components [i.e. biological sex, gender identity, and social gender role] of sex and sexuality ‘⁷. ' For decades ', they added, ' the consensus of mental health professionals and researchers has been that homosexuality and bisexuality are normal expression of human sexuality and pose no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships ‘⁷.

They agreed that scientists have yet to reach a ' consensus ' on the exact factors that determine human sexuality. Nevertheless, ' [c]urrent scientific and professional understanding ', they observed, ' is that the core feelings and attractions which form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence without any necessary prior sexual experience. '⁸ ' Most gay men ', they further observed, ' and lesbian women do not experience their sexual orientation as the result of a voluntary choice '⁸. They also said, ' Research and the clinical experience of amici's members also indicate that once established, sexual orientation is resistant to change. '⁸ They've unequivocally expressed their outright opposition to any ' clinical interventions ' aimed at changing sexual orientation and pointed out the fact that ' [n]o scientifically adequate research has shown that such interventions are effective or safe. '⁸

The amici also made some more significant observations of which the following appear relevant to this discourse.

' Gay men and lesbians Form Stable, Committed Relationships That are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships in Essential Aspects. '⁹

' Many Same-Sex Couples Are Currently Raising Children. '¹⁰

' There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adgusted. '¹¹

' The Children of Same-Sex Couples Will Benefit If Their Parents Are Allowed to Marry. '¹²

And the amici have concluded their brief with this CONCLUSION : ' There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage. '¹³

It seems obvious that the experts affiliated with The American Psychological Association and The American Psychiatric Association are all for recognising the gay marriage. This is another point on which I outright disagree with them.

Is homosexuality a DISORDER ? Is there a CURE for it ?

As I view it, the USA is the most advanced civilisation. But are American really so much civilised as they ought to be, I wonder. One reason I raise this question is the fact that many Americans still view homosexuality as sinful while many others view it as a despicable disorder and do, in the name of curing it, such things that cause serious emotional distress and unbearable agony to the gay and the bi, consequent on which many of them are forced to have recourse to suicide in order to get rid of all this.

Nevertheless, good Americans have also formed a coalition of thirteen organisations that include the American Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association,The National Association of Social Workers, etc, which in the recent past published a booklet titled Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation & Youth, a Primer meant for principals, teachers, students, and all other sensible people, which was aimed at making known to them some relevant and basic facts about human sexuality and thus dispelling many a popular misconception and misbelief, bringing home to them why they ought to create a safe and supportive environment at school and home for the gay, bi, and lesbian students of america so that they can also enjoy, like their straight brothers, sisters, and friends, equal opportunity to learn and grow up.

The Primer says : ' Like most heterosexual youths, most lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths are healthy individuals who have significant attachments to and make contributions to their families, peers, schools, and religious institutions. '¹⁴ It also points to the ' prejudice, discrimination, and violence in society and, in some cases, in their own families, schools, and communities ' the gay, lesbian, and bi youths have to experience, which adversely affect their ' health, mental health, and education '¹⁴.

The Primer further says ; ' The promotion in schools of efforts to change sexual orientation by therapy or through religious ministries seems likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear for these youth. One result of isolation and lack of support experienced by some lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is higher rates of emotional distress, suicide attempts, and risky sexual behavior and substance use. ^’14

The Primer also reads : ' The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, ... and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be " cured ." '¹⁵ The Primer informs us that the American Psychiatric Association, in its 2000 position statement on ' reparative ' therapy, states that ' [p]sychotherapeutic modalities to convert or " repair " homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable, ' and warns that the ' potential risks of reparative therapy are great including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. '¹⁵

We are also informed that the American Psychological Association has, in its 1997 Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, stated that ' the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation ' and that according to the National Association of Social Workers, the ' [s]ocial stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people ' is the principal reason a section of them seek to get their sexuality changed through some therapy, but the available data do not ' demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective '¹⁵.

From the foregoing, it ought now to be clear as day that not only do the recognised experts unequivocally disapprove of the view that homo- or bisexuality is a sort of ' disorder ', they're also outright opposed to any attempts or therapies meant to change it. In this connection, I should like to bring it to your notice that the WHO experts also disapprove of the view that homosexuality is a ' disorder '. If you refer to the WHO document F66 Psychological and behavioural dosorders associated with sexual development and orientation , you'll find this ' Note : Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder. '

And what is TRANSSEXUALITY ?

The transsexuality that appears very amusing and intriguing to the heterosexual isn't in itself a kind of sexual orientation. It's defined as the state of a person's gender identity not matching their biological sex. A born-male tranny loves to think he's a woman and derives pleasure from dressing like women and sporting womanly make-up and thus fooling people around himself into taking him for a woman. And a born-female tranny does the exact opposite of this. A tranny may behave like a gay, a bi, or a lesbian.

Some people prefer the terms ' transsexualism ' and ' transgenderism ' to ' transsexuality '. Nevertheless, there're some that think these terms aren't exactly synonymous.

The true causes of transsexualism, like the true causes of gayness, are not conclusively known to date. Some researchers support the view that like gayness, it might also have a genetic foundation. A kind of therapy known as Sex Reassignment Therapy ( it's an umbrella term for all therapies, such as hormone replacement therapy, sex reassignment surgery, etc) meant to cure transsexualism is available, and many trannies go through it in order to get rid of this abnormality, which appears as natural as gayness.

references:

¹ It Runs In the Family; Brief on Sexual Orientation and Genetic Determinism

² Searching for the Gay Gene; ibid

³ Conclusion; ibid

⁴Genetics and Environment Shape Sexual Orientation By Rick Nauert Ph D Senior News Editor

Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on June 30, 2008

⁵Talk Nerdy To Me : The GayBrain

⁶BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, … ( Case No. S 147999 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

⁷ARGUMENT II. A. Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality. BRIEF OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, ... AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES

⁸ARGUMENT II.B. Sexual Orientation Is Generally Not Chosen And Is Resistant To Change. (ibid)

⁹ARGUMENT III.A. (ibid)

¹⁰ARGUMENT IV.A. (ibid)

¹¹ARGUMENT IV.B. (ibid)

¹²ARGUMENT IV.C. (ibid)

¹³CONCLUSION (ibid)

¹⁴Sexual Orientation Development; Just the Factsabout Sexual Orientation & Youth

¹⁵Efforts to Change Sexual Orientation ThroughTherapy; Just the Facts about …

Is homosexuality NORMAL ?

We've seen some psychologists and psychiatrists have used the term ' normal '* to describe homo- and bisexuality. Their views on this point seem to be resting on their observation of some facts such as the fact that the gay and the bi are also capable of ' leading a happy, healthy, and productive life ', and functioning ' well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships '; the fact that ' Gay Men and Lesbians [ Can ] Form Stable, Committed Relationships That Are Equivalent to Heterosexual Relationships in Essential Aspects ', etc. The left-handed are as much capable of ' leading a happy, healthy, and productive life ' as the right-handed. On these grounds, if left-handedness was viewed as as normal as right-handedness, no one should take exception to it. But is it right to view barrenness and sterility as normal on such grounds? There's no reason a heterosexual couple of a barren woman and a sterile-but-virile man shouldn't be able to lead ' a happy, healthy, and productive life ' just as a gay couple should. But barrenness, like sterility, is a defect and a barren woman, like a sterile guy, seeks a medical cure for it. On the other hand, no heterosexual fertile women of sane and sound mind have ever been heard to have wished to turn barren. Viewing homosexuality as ' normal expression ' of sexuality is viewing sodomy ( or anal sex) as normal, which amounts to taking the anus for an organ meant for sex. But the anus is of course not meant for sex ( it doesn't have the clitoris, you know ) just as the vagina isn't for defecation.

From my viewpoint, homosexuality is an aberration, but it's a natural aberration.

*See the ARGUMENT II. A. Homosexuality Is A Normal Expression of Human Sexuality. BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696

the LEGALISATION of same-sex marriages : Is it a SENSIBLE idea ?

We've also seen some experts stand for the legal recognition of the so-called gay marriage. ( See the section homosexuality : a normal expression of sexuality of this discourse. ) Their main arguments for this stance are as follows.

1. The view that non-heterosexual parents are ' Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents ' is unfounded, scientifically. ( See the ARGUMENT IV. B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 . )

2. The view that ' Children ' raised by the gay and lesbian are ' Less Psychologically Healthy and Well-Adjusted ' has got no scientific foundation. ( ARGUMENT IV. B.; ibid )

3. ' The Children of Same-sex Couples Will Benefit If Their Parents Are Allowed to marry. ' ( ARGUMENT IV. C. ( ibid) )

The main limitation of these arguments is that by similar arguments, you may claim that any pairs or groups, such as a brother and sister, a mother and son, or even a mother-and-daughter duo, or a mother-and-daughter-and-son trio ought to be recognised as married. There's no scientific basis for the view that a pair of a bro and sister or a trio of a mother, daughter, and son cannot make as much ' Fit or Capable ' parents as the gay or the straight are able to do or the view that children brought up by such pairs or groups are less ' Healthy and Well-Adjusted ', psychologically or otherwise. There's no scientific basis either for the view that children brought up by paid non-parents at children's homes or unmarried Norwegian foster parents that are paid by the state for this job are less ' Healthy and Well-Adjusted ', psychologically or otherwise. I also believe that the view that children borne and brought up by single moms are less ' Healthy and Well-Adjusted ', psychologically or otherwise, is without any scientific foundation.

Further, if you recognise the gay duo or trio as married, there's no reason you shouldn't recognise the heterosexual polygamous and polyandrous relationships. And with the recognition of marriages of any pairs or groups, be they gay or bi or straight, the distinction between true marriages and travesties, hence the distinction between marriages and non-marital relationships just disappears just as with the recognition of born-out-of-wedlock children as legitimate children, the distinction between extramarital births and births to married women has disappeared.

As I view it, advocates of the legalisation of travesties of same-sex marriages seem to have no understanding of the basic features of marriage and the basic conditions a relationship, in order to be reckoned a marriage, must meet. They're advised to take note of the following points.

1. Matrimony ( the patriarchal monogamian institution ) was introduced by a lot of heterosexual men.

2. Matrimony was primarily meant to serve an exclusively masculine interest, namely, the procreation of a male child of undisputed paternity.

3. By laws of nature, it's not in the hands of men to ensure the paternity of a child borne by a free woman. Men were unable to know for sure who the actual father of a kid was as long as the mother of the kid was free to have access to more than one man.

4. Men that introduced matrimony wanted to be sure of the paternity of their kids.

5. In order to ensure the paternity of their children, men had no other option than to imprison women.

6. Matrimony symbolises the imprisonment of the woman. ( See my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY . )

7. Men are pitifully lacking in the capacity to be equal to the task of discharging their matrimonial duties and obligations. ( In my discourse A search for a true LION of a MAN , I've dealt with this issue in detail. )

8. Women have got nothing meaningful to gain from matrimony, a basically anti-feminine institution . ( Interested readers may like the relevant section of my essayA Treatise on MARRIAGE, MORALITY, and SEX , which contains a detailed discussion on this issue. )

9. It is, by laws of nature, in a woman's hands to ensure the paternity of her kids. A woman that loves to engage in multiple liaisons can make sure that the guy of her choice would be the biological father of the baby she wishes to conceive.

In the light of the above points, if I'm not mistaken, I feel we should agree on the point that matrimony is in itself a heterosexual institution and the point that it's unbecoming to a civilised man or woman to indulge in the luxury of matrimony, a silly, useless, and senseless luxury, as I see it. The gay marriage is a silly idea, I don't think it becomes as advanced a civilisation as the USA to recognise travesties such as gay marriages. I view such things as silly travesties simply because they do not serve any meaningful purpose in the life of an individual or the society. I do not know by what definition of marriage, the gay marriage deserves to be recognised as a marriage. Moreover, they do not fit in with the principle of healthy and meaningful living. I'm afraid to say.

' The Institution of Marriage Offers Social, Psychological, and Health Benefits That Are Denied to Same-Sex Couples. ' ( ARGUMENT III. B.; BRIEF of the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES in the lawsuit No. 10-16696 )

As I view it, this is another instance of a silly sophism devised by those pro-marriage and pro-gay-marriage American experts. The point missed is it entirely lies in the hands of their Congress to allow the not-legally-wed Americans to have access to ' economic and social benefits ' and ' Health Benefits ' that the ' legally wed spouses ' have been granted access to. The fact that the not-legally-wed in America still don't have access to these benefits just reflects, to my way of thinking, the US Congress's gross apathy and callousness, unbefitting for a civilised nation, towards them.

I feel civilised people oughtn't to allow it to go unnoticed that the luxury of matrimony is far viler and ' far more obnoxious that your addiction to drinking '. ( one of my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY ) If you spent your hard-earned money on alcohol and went without food and medicine, you sure wouldn't live long. In that case, you'd pay the due price for your own folly. But in marriages, it happens to be a lot of innocent humans ( i.e. your wife and children ) who suffer for no faults of theirs but for all faults, failings, and misdeeds of someone else's. A most glaring example of this is the moving story of a brother and sister, both in their teens, who have stopped attending school because their father, accused of serious economic offences, and taken in custody by the law, has stopped providing for them. The two helpless kids have withdrawn into themselves and lead a life of a recluse and pass days, day in, day out, within the four walls of their flat. It passes my comprehension how the legalisation of the travesty that is gay marriage would put a stop to the agony and hardship of innocent kids like the innocent siblings of this story.

I would advise sensible Americans to spare some thoughts for what I view as the mightiest argument against the institution of matrimony.

One of the two great big lies matrimony is resting on is a man is a lion of a man. I call the guy that has the capacity to make a worthy hubby a lion of a man. ( For an elaboration of this point, please see my essay A search for a true LION of a MAN . ) But, as I view it, man is a social being, and an individual is an insignificant member of the society. The human individual himself or herself is equally dependent on social succour and support for their own existence and survival. The numerous welfare projects and programmes ( e.g. free elementary and secondary education in America, National School Lunch Program, Public Housing Program, Children Health Insurance Program, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc, etc ) currently in operation in the USA incontestably prove this view of mine. The capacity of an individual human, either male or female, is, the way I see it, too limited and insignificant to make them equal to the big task of discharging their matrimonial duties and obligations properly and fully. This single argument alone is, as I view it, strong enough to discard outright the time-honoured institution of matrimony. I view it as the mightiest argument against the institution of matrimony, and I think sensible humans oughtn't to pretend not to be aware of it.

silly SOPHISMS against the gay sex

Intriguingly, I ran across some professed rationalists that are dead opposed to the gay sex and strongly disapprove of any proposals to decriminalise it. One* of them advanced the following arguments to defend their stance.

1. A woman's vagina, unlike a man's anus, secretes a kind of lubricant that makes vaginal intercourse easier and pleasant.

2. Anal sex is not good for health and highly increases the risk of contracting STDs including AIDS.

3. Anal sex is perversion.

[*Mr Biplab Das of Bankura Rationalist, who also referred to the following link in support of his views : How healthy is it to enter from the rear gate ? ( an essay by Dr Neha Gupta, The Calcutta Medical & Research Institute ]

What follows is an edited version of the arguments with which I responded to these silly objections to the anal sex.

Vaginal lubricants and fear of STDs matter less in our age of condoms and plentiful natural and synthetic lubricants. And unprotected vaginal sex doesn't seem to be much less risky than unprotected anal sex. The point is we have no rights, according to the civilised values of the present century, to violate a person's rightful rights. As heterosexuals are entitled to relish their heterosexuality, homosexuals are also entitled to relish homosexuality, aren't they? Homosexuality may be bad for their health, but that ought to be a concern of theirs, not of heterosexuals', as I view it, oughtn't it? The question that remains unanswered to date is, are heterosexuals right to force their likes and dislikes on homosexuals?Smoking is injurious to your health. The sunlight that contains UV radiation is also injurious to your health. There are many life-saving drugs that have harmful side-effects. So many foods, e.g. eggs, animal flesh, junk foods, are considered not good for health. The beautiful luscious breasts of a young lady may cause fatal breast cancer. and our prostate glands secrete a kind of hormone that is the source of prostate cancer. The large number of dowry deaths and other cases of domestic violence show that the institution of matrimony isn't so innocent as it appears to be. This list would just keep growing if you justify the banning or prohibition of something just because it's not wholly good.

Perversion, by definition, is the ' behaviour that most people think is not normal or acceptable, ... ' ( OALD, 8th ed ) Obviously, in order to know what is a perversion and what isn't, we have to count popular votes. But votes are not logic and saying goodbye to logic in order to settle a dispute is unbecoming, I'm afraid to say, to a rationalist. And this obviously irrational policy is unlikely, as I see it, to help. By popular votes, unbelief in god, gods, ghosts, idolatry, religions, nonsensical rituals, etc, etc as well as unbelief in astrology, palmistry, ayurved, homoeopathy, acupuncture, etc, etc should fall in the category of perversions. And not only that, any new idea, fashion, artistic creation, any new method, technique, or theory, in short anything new might be reckoned a perversion. Thus, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Karl Marx, etc along with so many other great figures whose works and thoughts helped civilisation advance a great deal were all perverts.

' Everything that the gay and nongay couples enjoy in their bedroom can't be left up to them in the name of privacy. '

This is another instance of silly sophisms those pseudo-rationalists are used to make use of to support their stand. It's obvious that not only do those stupid idiots have no respect for your privacy, they don't have any respect, either, for your freedom to do or enjoy anything without their permission. They believe they've got the authority to make you follow their dictates. They'd make you keep your bedroom's windows open all the time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to allow their rationalist policemen to peep into your bedroom whenever they like. And what if you engage in any activities they view as perversions inside your windowless toilet room? Would they replace the concrete walls of your toilet with glass walls? And how would they prevent women from engaging in perverse practices? Would they really make girls empty their bowels and pass water in the open in this twenty-first century, I wonder.

' Like watching porn and voyeurism etc ..., practicing anal sex is also perversion. ... Putting a check on such unnatural practices is necessary not only from social point of view but also from health point ! '

Do they really know what the term ' society ' means, I wonder.

Viewed from social viewpoint, gay sex, like extramarital sex, polygamy, polyandry, etc, does not affect the just interest of society or the state, as I view it. Society needs doctors, nurses, engineers, lawyers, teachers, traders, workers, etc, etc, and the state needs able men to man the army, navy, air force, the police force, etc just as a factory owner needs skilled men to man his factory. Neither the society nor the state need know whether a doctor or a soldier or a policeman is gay or straight or whether they were born to married parents or unmarried parents just like a factory owner that need not care about whether his workers are straight or gay or illegitimate. If it mattered much whether a doctor or the army Gen. or the naval Adm. was born in wedlock or out of wedlock, the society would never approve of feminine freedom because a free woman is free to engage in multiple liaisons. And it's a fact that not all women, are chaste or, as not all men are, monogamous, and it's also a fact that so many free women love to indulge in extramarital sex and bear love children.

I can recall right now that an American lady once remarked that she held the view that marriage was ' not a padlock on a woman's vagina ', and the view that married women were ' as free to sleep around as anyone else '. Another woman condemned my view that ' feminine freedom is incompatible with matrimony ' ( see my THESES on the INSTITUTION of MATRIMONY ) as old fashioned and said it amounted to viewing marriage as a ' chastity belt '.

The true situation in the USA and the EU is reflected by the fact that extramarital births in both of them are on the rise. In the USA they went up from 18.4 per cent ( of all live births ) in 1980 to 40.6 per cent in 2008 ( Table 1334. Births to Unmarried Women by Country : 1980 to 2008; US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States : 2011 ) According to an EU publication, ' extra-marital births accounted for the majority of live births in Estonia ( 59.7 % in 2011 ), Slovenia ( 56.8 % ), Bulgaria ( 56.1 % ) and Sweden ( 54.3 % ), as well as in France in 2010 ( 55.0 % ). An even higher proportion of live births outside of marriage was registered in Iceland ( 65.0 % in 2011 ). ' ( Marriage and divorce statistics, European Commission eurostat )

The USA is still a super power and ahead of all other countries and has kept advancing. And the EU states are all developed states. It's not to be overlooked that both prostitution and the institution of matrimony are as old as civilisation, and that gay sex is far older than around three-thousand-five-hundred-year-old civilisation. With ladies of pleasure, sluts, the gay, the bi, and trannies, civilisation has journeyed through so many years and advanced as well. All these facts clearly show that neither extramarital sex nor gay sex harms society or the state. If it were otherwise, the world human civilisation, as I view it, would have no future. The reasons are simple. In order to check illicit heterosexual sex, you have to rob all women of freedom to step out of their homes and place them under constant surveillance*. ( Would any sensible women of the 21st century consent to such things? ) But how would you prevent gay sex? It's not written on a human's face whether they're gay, bi, lesbian, or straight. For this reason, it's just impossible to keep watch on them, as I view it.

I once heard a homophobe staunchly stand for penalising gay sex claiming that the decriminalisation of such things would encourage many a woman to mate with bulls or dogs. In reply to such stuff, I'd say as the paraphiliac, like the gay or the straight, bear no distinctive sign or symbol, it's not practically possible to prevent such things unless you intrude on their privacy and make them sleep and relieve themselves in the open. And as such perversions, like the gay sex, cause no harm to society or the state, I'd advise you not to bother worrying over such things.

[*As I view it, it's not a sensible idea to restrict men's freedom of movement thus. If you made men stay at home under surveillance and replaced men in the armed forces with female fighters and policemen with policewomen, it would mean no defence, hence the non-existence of your state, and the total collapse of law and order in the society. I don't think any sensible men or women would dare to stand for such silly stuff.]

Mr Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, once reportedly remarked, ' [A]s men and women of conscience, we reject discrimination in general and in particular discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. ' The UN Secretary General reportedly said this in a speech marking the Human Rights Day of 2010. ( See UN issues first report on human rights of gay and lesbian people; UN News Centre . )

The above citation reflects the UN attitude to the LGBT community. It is obvious that the United Nations view with outright disapproval all sorts of ' discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. ' Viewing gay sex as criminal while you view heterosexual activities as innocent is plain discriminatory, isn't it?

The UN OHCHR* published a booklet, titled BORN FREE AND EQUAL, in 2012 in which the then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights appealed to all the UN Member States to revoke laws that criminalise same-sex relationships and introduce new laws to criminalise the discriminatory treatment and persecution of the gay or trannies. This booklet recommends FIVE STEPS for this purpose, the salient points of which are as follows.

' 1. Protect people from homophobic and transphobic violence. ...

2. Prevent the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of LGBT persons in detention by prohibiting and punishing such acts and ensuring that victims are provided with redress. ...

3. Repeal laws criminalizing homosexuality, including all laws that prohibit private sexual conduct between consenting adults of the same sex. ...

4. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Enact comprehensive laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited grounds of discrimination. ...

5. Safeguard freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly for LGBT and intersex people. ... ' ( FIVE STEPS, SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS; BORN FREE AND EQUAL )

[* Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights ]

The FIVE STEPS cited above are ' FIVE CORE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF [ THE UN MEMBER ] STATES WITH RESPECT TO PROTECTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF LGBT PERSONS '.

' The obligations that States have to protect LGBT persons from violations of their human rights are already well established and are binding on all United Nations Member States. ' ( CONCLUSION, BORN FREE AND EQUAL )

It's obvious from the above that the United Nations recognise and respect the gay, the bi, the lesbian, and the transgender as humans and want us to treat them as much free and equal as we, the straight, are. Such an attitude leaves no room for any discrimination against them, and the United Nations do want the Member States to make laws that would penalise such acts. It's also as clear as day that the United Nations outright disapprove of treating gay sex as criminal and want the Member States to repeal the laws that criminalise it. The United Nations also want us to respect their freedom to speak and write as well as their freedom to associate and assemble together peacefully.

[ conclusion ]

Homophobia or transphobia has got no scientific basis. Homosexuals or transsexuals are neither psychopathic nor criminal. A homo, a lesbian, or a tranny may be as much good or bad as any heterosexuals are. A human's sexuality has got little to do with their goodness or badness. Discrimination or mistreatment on the basis of sexuality or gender identity is irrational and indefensible.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. It's an aberration but a natural aberration, like transsexuality, and like transsexuality, does no good nor any harm to society or the state. It's not a disorder. And there's no cure for this abnormality. But transsexuality is curable.

Homos, lesbians, and trannies are quite normal humans in all other respects and don't deserve to be disrespected. They're not perfect humans. But then no heterosexuals are perfect either. Heterosexuals do not have any right to force their whims, their likes and dislikes, and their taste and distaste on homosexuals or transsexuals.