Pride Parade 2010

"Let's get one fact straight. We're not" proclaimed a banner. The message was loud and clear - LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders) are here to stay, and the rest of the folk had better accept them soon. It was quite a sight (as it should have been) with folks from various walks of life, and even different nationalities getting together to raise awareness, and just have a fun day out in the city. A lot of curious onlookers gathered around the final destination of the march at Banappa Park, next to Hudson Circle (usually most marches for social issues culminate here). The park (actually a ground) is located just at the start of KG Road at the Hudson Circle signal (road that goes to Majestic bus stand).(Click here for more snaps taken by a friend of mine who was able to make it for the march)

For most of the 'curious' onlookers that I spoke about, this seemed to be the first time they'd encountered people of a different sexual orientation (apart from eunuchs, I'm guessing). So for some of the older folk, whose lives usually involve getting up, going to work, coming back and asking their kids how their day was, have dinner with the family and going to bed, this must've been quite a sight.

As usual, the politicos couldn't be left out, and there was someone from the JD(S) 'extending' support by saying the since Article 377 of the Constitution had been scrapped by the Delhi High Court, this should apply to all of India, etc etc, but it was quite clearly a scripted speech, and though he made the right noises, it was just that: noise. I don't think he meant it whole-heartedly; at least his demeanour didn't portray his willingness to embrace this as a reality. I'm not saying he should broken into song and dance, but the vibes weren't right here. It's just a gut feeling, I could be wrong.

Another aspect that I must comment about was the security. Normally, whenever there's a parade or a march, police permission is required to be sought, and this was no different. However, whatever marches I've seen in the past (for social causes) didn't have a police contingent as strong as the one present outside Banappa Park. Perhaps the strength of the police is determined by the strength of the crowd, so I can't be too critical of them, and what's more, they were doing their jobs. A large number of Police women were also deployed (for obvious reasons), and the way many of them were looking on, it was quite clearly their first 'encounter' of this kind :)

Colourful head gears

Bonjour from Morocco :)

First prize...unanimously

Reminded me of the WWE pimp wrestler The Godfather :D

The sign on her back was the 'emblem' of sorts for the parade

A JD(S) member, trying to gain some mileage

Fancy hair dos

What's a gay event without a little song and dance, eh? :)

Next time, hopefully I'll be able to witness the march as well.

An educated Archbishop

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Cantebury visited Bangalore and took par tin an inter-religious convention meant to spread harmony among the various religious groups in Bangalore (and India). After the meet, a reporter asked him what was his position on gay rights (remember, the Archbishop was a strong supporters of gay Bishops), and pat came the reply "I support gay rights in the civil domain". Now there's an educated clergyman, I thought to myself. And educated indeed he his. Dr. Rowan Williams, aka the Archbishop of Cantebury, is a professor of Theology, but unlike most theologians, isn't someone whose nose is lost between the pages of the books he reads and he seems to have his finger on the pulse of society, and on general science. Most importantly (in my view), he is AGAINST creationism. Wow! This is one cool Christian clergyman. I'm sure it would be a pleasure talking to such people. I only wish there are more of his kind to come.

True, there have been some shocking statements as well (he said England should embrace Sharia law, but since I'm not aware of the facts fully on that issue, I'll refrain from passing comment). However, the position of the top clergyman from the Church of England seems to put him in a direct confrontation with the former Nazi in the Vatican.

Let them be gay and happy...and married

What is the problem with allowing homosexuals get married? Is it because some religious dictionary defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman? Is that it? Some pathetic piece of scribbling made a few thousand years ago should be the guiding rule for us in the 21st century? Would Jesus really have objected to two men (or women) getting it on for each other? Really? From the guy who spent the best part of his life in the company of 12 other men (this is just to make my point, and I explicitly state that it is not to offend anyone)? And for those who say it's not 'natural' and hence an abomination or a sin, click here and read on.

OK, so far everything I've written has turned out to be a question, but I'd surely like to get an answer to them by those who oppose the 'marriage' of individuals of the same sex. Oh, another question, and this is a biggie: is it because they fear that the next step would be that the 'queers' would then want to adopt children (or in the case of lesbians, have children by visiting the nearest sperm bank)? To which I would ask, 'so what?'.

One possible worrying factor could be that the kids growing up would be ridiculed (possibly by immature children of immature parents) because instead of having a mummy and a daddy, they would probably have a daddy and a daddy or a mummy and a mummy. So what? We're already into an era of single parenthood, where there are times when either there isn't a mummy or a daddy, and no reasons are given to the child in case of separation of the parents during infancy or early childhood. How is the case of growing up with only a mummy or only a daddy different from growing up with two mummies or two daddies? Both are cases that are different from the ordinary, yet both are cases that need to be treated with care and nuanced explanations need to be given to the inquisitive children who ask the 'uncomfortable' questions.

If 'marriage' is something that conservatives want to 'conserve' at all costs, then how about settling for something called a civil union. Not all the 'baggage' that comes with a marriage, but certainly those that allow for parenthood. The finer points can be sorted out later.

Now let's dwell a little on the most important aspect of homosexuality: is it a disease as most religious and homophobic people make it out to be? The answer is quite simply no, it is not. At least, medically, it hasn't been established to be a disease, and certainly not something that can be 'cured', either by reading verses from holy books or by 'smoking' the devil out of your body, or with western or eastern medicine. And contrary to popular (or not so popular) opinion, homosexuality isn't something that cropped up in the early 20^th century; it's been around for ages, and was initially ignored or tolerated by the church. However, from around the 12^th century, hostility towards this 'unnatural' behaviour began taking root, and soon legislature was passed banning it (at the behest of the church).

It's important to know that a person doesn't 'decide' to 'become' a homosexual; it's not like they wake up one Saturday morning and after realising that they didn't get a date the previous Friday night, they decide to try their luck with the opposite sex. A person is born with that sexuality and will have to live with it for the rest of his or her life. The odds of 'converting' a homosexual into a heterosexual person are about the same as converting a left handed person into a right handed person: just not possible (and James Bond doing it to a lesbian in Octopussy doesn't count!) . So if religious fanatics want homos to be killed or jailed because they aren't the same as the majority and are termed 'unnatural', so are left handers; I don't hear any noise about asking them to be thrown into prison or sent to treatment for doing things differently from the mainstream.

J K Rowling unleashed upon the world the 'true' sexuality of Dumbledore; didn't that warrant an explanation to children by their parents what it meant? And if a series of books, several hundred pages thick that deals with magic and heresy and mystical serpents (thanks to Her Majesty GS for the correction: 'talking' to 'mystical' serpents) and a whole lot of unbelievable stuff, has a character who is the head of a large organisation (almost an institution) and wears a funny hat and colourful robes and a carries a big wand, who ultimately turns out to be gay, then what about this guy?

All with love of course (and a pinch of salt), so please, don't take offense. And just in case there are those who are worried about my orientation, I'm straight!