In my view not all desires are desirable even if they are consensual. And society as we know it will degenerate into gradual lawlessness if all consensual desires are validated. Agree that homosexuality is not a new thing it must be as ancient as time itself but for whatever reason it wasnt socially acceptable one does not hear of homosexual harems being encouraged or validated even in the middle east or in asia.

In my opinion homosexuality is an unnatural act of sex, and I would urge such people to talk to their families, talk to a mentor if they have any, about their desires and preferences, before climbing on to the bandwagon of “gay pride”

If an adult chooses to have multiple sex partners by way of *consensual* sex – whether be it between the same sex or the opposite or both, what gives others the right to say no and punish them for it? Others, of course can have an opinion but that is just that, an opinion.

It is absolutely disgraceful for a country, a so-called Buddhist country at that, to punish men and women who engage in consensual sex between the same sex. After all, when Buddha said to spread meththa to all beings, he did NOT say “May all beings except homesexuals be well and happy”, did he?

This is not about emulating what the big-bully nations do. It is about acknowledging the inner, natural feelings of our own fellow brothers and sisters and taking measures to rectify the situation that causes tremendous despair to them. If someone asked me to suppress my sexual attraction to women it would cause a lot of mental pressure in me. It is the same for homesexuals, to ask someone to bottle up one’s sexuality is horrible.

You do bring the topic of ‘Norms of morality’. Norms of morality were/are never complete and is very subjective. It was OK for kings to have a harem, it was OK for men in middle-eastern countries to have more than 1 wife, in Sri lanka it was OK for 1 lady to be married to 2 men at the same time and those 2 men to be brothers (‘eka gei kaema’). In my honest opinion, when deciding what morality is, we should be guided by compassion and sensitivity and never only on the practise of ‘if it was good for our forefathers then it must be good for us too’.

Dilkusha, please correct me if I am wrong, but in your last para you imply homosexuality is an imperfection. Which monk, rabbi, president or teacher has the authority to say that this particular human trait is an imperfection and on what grounds? Homosexuality is not a new thing; in the past homosexuals probably did not come out due to the tremendous amount of social pressure they would have had to endure had they come out in the open. Even now it is rare for them to come out in SL. Sri lanka could do better.

If an adult chooses to have multiple sex partners by way of consensual sex – whether be it between the same sex or the opposite or both, what gives others the right to say no and punish them for it? Others, of course can have an opinion but that is just that, an opinion.

It is absolutely disgraceful for a country and that too, a so-called Buddhist country at that, to punish men and women who engage in consensual sex between the same sex. After all, when Buddha said to spread meththa to all beings, he did NOT say “May all beings except homesexuals be well and happy”, did he?

This is not about emulating what the big-bully nations do. It is about acknowledging the inner natural feelings of our own fellow brothers and sisters and taking measures to rectify the situation that causes tremendous despair to them.

You do bring the topic of norms of morality. Norms of morality were/are never complete and is very subjective. It was OK for kings to have a harem, it was OK for men in middle-eastern countries to have more than 1 wife, in Sri lanka it was OK for 1 lady to be married to 2 men at the same time and those 2 men to be brothers (‘eka gei kaema’). In my honest opinion, when deciding what morality is, we should be guided by compassion and sensitivity never only on the practise: if it was good for our forefathers then it must be good for us too.

Dilkusha, please correct me if I am wrong, but in your last para you imply homosexuality is an imperfection. Who has the right to say this is human perfection and this isn’t human perfection? Which monk, rabbi, president or teacher has the authority to say that this particular human trait is an imperfection?

It is true that India has de-criminalised homesexuality however I am wary of following big democracies. The USA said they must smoke terrorists out of every cave and that gives them licence to invade other countries and kill, and other nations on the pretext of emulating them constitutionalise the licence to kill. Big brothers are not always trendsetters.

However, I am all for equal rights in this sense, the right to be heard, to secure a job and work without verbal or physical harrassment, the right of choice to live the way one desires without infringing on otherpeoples space or liberty etc. In my belief every single personhas some imperfection in behaviour and cannot pretend they are more moral than others, and look down on our fellow travellers with disdain. The right of choice is worth dying for. At the same time I dont want to fall into the trap of “chronological snobbery” meaning the thinking that what stood good at an earlier time is inherantly inferior when compared to the present and that for eg. the norms of morality have to evolve.