In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Spain have recognized marriages between people of the same sex. Several other countries recognize civil unions with similar legal effect.
An even wider range of countries have laws against discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, in areas like housing and employment. Yet in the world's largest democracy, India, sex between two men remains a crime punishable, according to statute, by imprisonment for life.
India is not, of course, the only nation to retain severe punishments for homosexuality. In some Islamic nations, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, for instance, sodomy is a crime for which the maximum penalty is death. But the retention of such laws is easier to understand in the case of countries that incorporate religious teachings into their criminal law,no matter how much others may regret it , than in a secular democracy like India.
FOREIGN CONCEPT
Anyone who has visited India and seen the sexually explicit temple carvings that are common there will know that the Hindu tradition has a less prudish attitude to sex than Christianity.
India's prohibition of homosexuality dates back to 1861, when the British ruled the subcontinent and imposed Victorian morality upon it. It is ironic, therefore, that Britain has long ago repealed its own similar prohibition, while India retains its law as a colonial relic.
Fortunately, the prohibition of sodomy in India is not enforced. Yet it provides a basis for blackmail and harassment of homosexuals, and has made it more difficult for groups that educate people about HIV and AIDS to carry out their work.
Vikram Seth, the author of A Suitable Boy and other fine novels, recently published an open letter to the government of India calling for a repeal of the law that makes homosexuality a crime. Many other notable Indians signed the letter, while still others, including the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, have given it their support. A legal challenge to the law is currently before the high court in Delhi.
Around the time when India's prohibition of sodomy was enacted, John Stuart Mill was writing his celebrated essay On Liberty, in which he put forward the following principle: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant ... Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
PATERNALISM
Mill's principle is not universally accepted. The distinguished 20th century British philosopher of law, H.L.A. Hart, argued for a partial version of Mill's principle.
Where Mill says that the good of the individual, "either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for state interference, Hart says that the individual's physical good is sufficient warrant, if individuals are likely to neglect their own best interests and the interference with their liberty is slight. For example, the state may require us to wear a seatbelt when driving, or a helmet when riding a motorcycle.
But Hart sharply distinguished such legal paternalism from legal moralism. He rejected the prohibition on moral grounds of actions that do not lead to physical harm. The state may not, on his view, make homosexuality criminal on the grounds that it is immoral.
The problem with this argument is that it is not easy to see why legal paternalism is justified but legal moralism is not.
Defenders of the distinction often claim that the state should be neutral between competing moral ideals, but is such neutrality really possible? If I were a proponent of legal moralism, I would argue that it is, after all, a moral judgment , if a widely shared one -- that the value of riding my motorbike with my hair flowing free is outweighed by the risk of head injuries if I crash.
The stronger objection to the prohibition of homosexuality is to deny the claim that lies at its core: that sexual acts between consenting people of the same sex are immoral. Sometimes it is claimed that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural, and even a perversion of our sexual capacity, which supposedly exists for the purpose of reproduction.
WHAT'S NATURAL?
But we might just as well say that using artificial sweeteners is a "perversion of our sense of taste, which exists so that we can detect nourishing food. We should beware of equating natural with "good."
Does the fact that homosexual acts cannot lead to reproduction make them immoral? That would be a particularly bizarre ground for prohibiting sodomy in a densely populated country like India, which encourages contraception and sterilization.
If a form of sexual activity brings satisfaction to those who take part in it, and harms no one, what can be immoral about it?
The underlying problem with prohibiting homosexual acts, then, is not that the state is using the law to enforce private morality. It is that the law is based on the mistaken view that homosexuality is immoral.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations