Finally, the law has changed. Congrats to at the activists in India that made it happen! Our hats off to you.
In a landmark ruling Thursday that could usher in an era of greater freedom for gay men and lesbians in India, New Delhi’s highest court decriminalized homosexuality.
“Discrimination is antithesis of equality,” the judges of the Delhi High Court wrote in a 105-page decision that is the first in India to directly guarantee rights for gay people. “It is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual,” the decision said.
Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1861, when British rulers codified a law prohibiting “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” [Link]
Wonder what the chief of the flagships of the Hindu right has to say about this…
Once again, I invite everybody to help themselves to a giant big serving of strawman a la mode from chez rob. He’s got enough to feed the entire commentariat.
First, I said “shacking up” NOT shaadi!
Second, I read the comments where Rob admits to paying for services in what was it, Dubai clubs? I’m not that much of a risk taker.
If he was just saying that to make a point, I can re-consider.
Rob, I have no issues with dark skin, the blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice.
Hit me up on facebook with your stats and bio-data. At the very least we might see eye to ideological eye.
What desh are you from in Desh? Do you like sandesh?
Wow, now you’re threatened by Hindus who are not anti-gay–let’s track the earnings of Hindu women and gays/lesbians over the next few years (not to mention the evil straight male Hindus), and we’ll see how well (1) we do and (2) how well the Arabs do. Shooting fish in a barrel, some would call it.
No, but I am apparently exchanging comments with somebody who cannot read, or at least comprehend what my response was to in both instances. Who brought up Hindus in this discussion? What other communities were mentioned in the thread? At what point were they mentioned? Where did the Arabs come into the picture?
Once again, I commend you on your talent for strawman construction.
OK, the three people in the world who agree with you want to give you an award. Don’t let me stand in the way–in fact, congratulations!!
I also commend you on your refusal to answer inconvenient questions. Evasion AND malicious strawmen? Well, you do belong to the group whose membership you proudly wave around.
Let’s not derail this thread. India is progressing forward and regressing backward simultaneously by recognizing gay rights and de-illegalizing a form of sexuality that has a long and rich history and herstory on the sub-continent, as expressed here
Jai Hind! Jai Bharat Mata and her “saheli”.
Now, let’s see if we can revive polyandry ala Draupadi amongst the urban middle class.
Savita Bhabi hopes so.
Congratulations! I’m so happy it is now legal for me to exist, in Delhi at least.
Let’s not forget that homosexuality is still “against the order of nature” in the rest of India — this ruling only affected the Delhi area but will hopefully open lots of doors. Onward to the next battle!
The ruling is also, no doubt, is thanks to the many (and growing) brave activists, Pride marchers, LGBT people and allies across India. The same court dismissed a similar case in 2004. Score one more for EQUALITY.
Ok, I am in India, and went to bed last night after typing my comment at #20.Some good perspectives, since then 🙂
If Muslim clerics and Christian priests/theologists in India speak against homosexuality, it would come as no surprise to any one.Their statements would be respected by some people, but the practice of homosexuality will not have any adverse impact, unless the media makes it a point to make it a Muslim/Christian Vs Gay issue. The gays would be the losers in such a scenario.And that is the reality I was referring to.And yes, I am not a fan of Indian English media.
Now, lets come to the Hindus.The BJP and VHP can’t speak for Hindus in India.Their voice doesn’t carry the same weight in the media or in the larger Hindu community, compared to the voices of Mullahs among Muslims.The voices that carry a little bit of weight among ordinary Hindus in India are those of Hindu religious leaders who are seen as ‘apolitical’.The Kanchi Acharya, Puttaparthi Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Baba Ramdev, Sundara Chaitanyananda, Mata Amritanandamayi et al.My point was that these acharyas are largely neutral to the issue.
If we look at the political parties, it is clear that the Left in India is in support of the judgement.Apart from MM Joshi from BJP (Joshi, of course always has half-baked opinions due to his gross misinterpretation of Hindutva, but that’s a different matter), no one from BJP or Congress has so far said any thing, to my knowledge.I think the parties are guaging the public opinion before committing to one stand or the other.
There has been a statement from a Congress spokesperson that this matter is between the ‘Govt and the Courts’ and the Congress party has no role.I would say it is a valid position to take because the import of the judgement is still not clear, though one can be sure that gay rights will not be extended to property and adoption matters.But it is possible that if a gay employee wants his company to extend the healthcare benefits to his partner/spouse, the HR departments may have to accept such requests.I broached this matter with a HR Manager friend yesterday and his response was that he doesn’t want to be a pioneer (he works for an MNC), but would implement it if the Govt passes the law.
Now, that is an important aspect.The judgement is not valid,i.e. cops are not bound to be cognizant of this judgement, unless Art 377 is repealed through an Act of Parliament.I have my doubts if enough parties will support the Act in the Parliament session.There are weightier matters such as the budget, economic stimulus package, FDI reforms, price rise, fuel and power shortages, terror threat etc in front of the Parliament that this issue may not get priority unless Sonia and Rahul wish so.And they (any Govt, in fact) will bring it up only as a diversionary tactic if the Govt gets into a soup on any of the ‘weightier’ matters.
Meanwhile, if the media has really noble intentions, they would refrain from unnecessary sensationalism and let the Gays and Lesbians do their thing in private.Straight Indians generally leave gay couples alone as long as they don’t bring the matter of their ‘sexuality’ into conversations, and mistakenly try to flirt/convert straight men.At least in Mumbai, I have seen gays being able to pickup partners at specific bars (specific timings).They even had a magazine devoted to homsexual life style, though it got shut down due to lack of enough advertising support.But homosexuality is accepted very well in Bollywood, mainstream English media, and the fashion industry.
A personal anecdote: I know of a friend who discovered he is gay when he crossed 16, and confessed to his parents.His parents called us home, and asked us if any one of us is also gay.When we all replied in the negative, they took promises from us not to harass him.The guy continued to play cricket with us, went to a good engg college, finished his Engg and then went to the US for higher studies.He was mercilessly beaten up in a US university in the South, several times in fact.He now works in the Gulf and has a steady relationship with some one.On his trips to India, people don’t ask him questions about his sexuality, and he doesn’t go out of his way to advertise his life style.
As some one said in one of the comments, open discussion of sexuality is abhorred in the Indian society – even if it is heterosexual.As long as homosexuals conform to that societal norm and keep their lifestyles private, I doubt if we really need any laws or enactment of special rights.This is my personal opinion, and I feel that just as the gays and lesbians have their rights, I too have a right to protect my sensitivities about open display of sexual preferences.
Its legal all over India as per this – In Kusum Ingots vs Union of India, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had ruled: “An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.”
So for straight folks oral sex and anal sex is now legal. But would consensual husband wife sodomy still be grounds for divorce under Indian Divorce Act 1869 and Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Any Lawyers in the house?
The point is, gay rights are not “special,” it’s just being treated as a normal human being. I’m not gay, but gays deserve equal human rights. No compromise.
Agree with you, Rob.I should not have used the word ‘special’.Thanks for pointing it out.
well, there is a concept called “captive audience” that allows govt to limit otherwise protected speech or behavior/expression. if you put a billboard up of a woman in lingerie the govt may pass laws ordering you to take it down because the offending image is imposed on others for all practical purposes, even though the same image is constitutionally protected if it were in a magazine. (i’m using US first amendment tradition, but since the dehli court referred to US precedents in their ruling,it may be applicable in India).
but the law must be evenly and neutrally applied. you can’t just single out homosexual displays of sexual preference; hetro affection in public gets banned too. also, its not a right. you have no right to a protection of your sensibilities since such a right would restrict the freedom of others, therby underminig the whole system of rights. rather its subject to plebiscite, so you have to convince the rest of society, thru the democratic process, to go along with your sensibilities. and even then, you must prove captive audience status.
sorry for the pedantic post. this is the one topic that makes me pedantic. otherwise i’m pretty glib. or just plain pretty.
I don’t understand why a big deal needs to be made out of gay rights. The decriminalization of homosexuality was long due but because of its scandalous nature Homosexuality has begun to get a lot more space in the media than is warranted. India has bigger problems in terms of segregation and discrimination of the basis of region, race and religion that we must not let the media steer the ship of public debate into the bedrooms (please) We Indians on an average have lesser sex than Americans/Europeans and our societies (thankfully) are not as obsessed with body aesthetic and sex. We have much much bigger issues to deal with. My advice to gays in India is keep your activities under the radar, and don’t try to change the mainstream by taking them head on. The Indian mainstream will evolve organically, and accept you in a grudging way, as it has done so many things. Don’t try to take short cuts. Always remember India is not America.
Reading some of the posts:
Yes, the response from Hindutva agencies has been commendably mild/neutral than was expected. It might make one re-evaluate some preconceptions about the ideology.
i dunno. i’d advise them to lean up against the radar. get more leverage that way.
Congratulations to everyone involved in reaching this verdict. It’s a great day for queer rights and human rights in India!
Yeah, that’s true. I was in Desh this past week–I’m not at all clear how to deal with this issue. I’m really humble about it. I have good intentions, but—can’t really effect things.
i’m surprised. you’d think these youngsters would just pick up the kamasutra and learn some new positions.
If it was consensual, no. If it was coerced, well 498A could be evoked.
Don’t you mean under the gaydar?
Congratulations to the LBGT (let’s throw the whole lot in) community of India… a truly historical decision….
Is it me? or does it seem like I’m the only one anticipating and excited at the thought of the SM Intern making an appearance on the thread???
d learn some new positions
Well, once you realize South Asia is ridiculously Puritanical, it’s difficult to leave South-East Asia.
Rob, what does that your reply have to do with the statement?
Anyway, is South East Asia really more open than South Asia with regards sexuality? I thought it would be more or less the same attitudes.
? ,
Are you kidding? The answer is yes!!
In that case, why not apply your advice to those who face “discrimination of the basis of region, race and religion?” An awareness of gay rights, IMO, promotes a culture of inclusiveness, tolerance, and the ability to distinguish personal morality from public law. Coalitions and affinities formed over one cause may well shift to other issues as well. After all a gay individual has other identities too — sex, caste, economic status, religion, and profession. An awareness about hijra culture will lead people to think about socioeconomic status, child trafficking, religious identity, and street sexual violence. Muslim or non-upper castes may face the same discrimination in housing markets as openly gay people might. Moreover, larger numbers of Indians may learn that when the unlikely combination off VHP, Amar Singh, Murli Manohar Joshi, the Catholic Church, the Muslim Personal Law Board are crying themselves hoarse on one side of an issue, one would do well to stand on the opposite side.
which is why I am a captivated audience.
For the women and the men, or just the men? Anyway, give some examples of what you mean, besides the famous Thai sex tourism industry.
Also, India is far more an androngenous, transgendered and cross-gendered place than US, Canada and the European countries I’ve been to.
Some of it is tied to religious traditions also. They get that human beings have both feminine and masculine energies within us simultaneously. The areas where I stayed had a lot of cross dressing and transgendering going on and it was related to religion. This was men transing as women though.
I’ve seen more Indian “androngenous” women than transgendered ones.
Bi Begum, do you look like Karishma Kapoor?seriously? Did you watch her first movie Prem Qaidi?
Didn’t she look like a shemale in it?
no offence
Green, I don’t think I look like KK. However, I can see why the people that said it at the time saw a resemblance. I think it had more to do with what I was wearing and how I wore my hair then, and the light skin and greenish eyes (she wears contacts or not?)
Out of all the Bollywood actresses I think she is one of the most unattractive. I think she’s had plastic surgery that has made her face look odd. I would rather be told I look like Kajol or Madhuri or Ash or the ultimate in beauty – Rekha. Jaya Badhuri Bacchan was also gorgeous when she was young. But alas, I don’t resemble any of them.
Regarding shemale, I know what you mean even though I’ve not seen the movie. I could see the possiblity of that.
(I just google imaged Prem Qaidi and see she was trying to copy Kajol’s famous untouched eyebrow look, with bad results. Some people just can’t pull it off. Fortunately both Kajol and I can!)
Here’s traditional Hindu view on this matter… And here’s the traditional Muslim one…
We report. You decide.
Wish you all happy fourth!
M. Nam
<
blockquote>As long as homosexuals conform to that societal norm and keep their lifestyles private,
“don’t ask, don’t tell”. so progressive!
You mean. We “report”?
United in bigotry!
MoorNam,
interesting articles you bring to the table… while I wouldn’t use either to generalize to the whole Hindu or Muslim community… I did notice some common arguments against homosexuality in the second article which sound very familiar in the U.S.
The argument that always perplexes me the most is the “reproduction theory’ that was mentioned. It boggles my mind that in a world with an already exploding population people are still concerned about the reproduction of mankind. This argument seems faulty in so many ways… first of all, we are OVER-producing offspring at present, and if we really want to keep the earth happy and have water and food and energy resources for everyone, it would really help us to slow down with the populating business.
Second of all, the argument seems to assume that normalizing/accepting homosexuality will suddenly turn everyone gay and no one will be reproducing anymore. This assumes that we would ALL be homosexuals if we could? I think that within an average population, something like a measly 10-15% (this is off the top of my head) of people will be homosexual. That really doesn’t sound threatening to the reproduction of the human race to me. Not to mention, If gay and lesbian couples marry and they want children, there is artificial insemination, surrogate mothers and adoption.
The other conversation is the ‘unnatural’ one. I think enough zoological research has been done to prove that there is evidence of homosexuality among many species of the planet. Sometimes an increase in homosexuality is a response to overpopulation, at other times it is just part of the natural makeup of the population. I recall that the Boston Aquarium has a gay penguin couple amongst it’s penguin population.
Anyways, I’m sure I’m probably mainly preaching to the choir here, but I just don’t understand how such faulty logical can still be used to defend anti-homosexual viewpoints.
Who’s the “we” here? Which demographics are over-producing offspring?
“Who’s the “we” here? Which demographics are over-producing offspring?”
we=humans
What has Lenny Kravitz go to do with the post?
Good decision, but i’m not dry cleaning the flag yet becase last time i checked India had traffic laws too.
Linzi, can you be more specific? There are certain women on this planet who are not re-producing at all. In fact, the statistics for them giving birth are decreasing at an alarming rate. Or do I mean increasing? The number of these childless women are increasing. They are facing menopause without ever having conceived.
The circles that I’m in right now are definetly not amongst the humans that are overpopulating the planet. Some of these women are desperate to have just one child, forget about two. Options like adoption and artificial insemination are being discussed but my hunch is most of them will just remain childless til they die.
They are not infertile, they just can’t find a man they want to settle down with (or who wants to settle down with them) and have just one child.
And then there are the women I know who do not want to have children. And then the women that wanted but are in menopause without having found “the one”.
{On the other hand, there are women who have never found “the one” but they have had children by “many” … LOL!}
But “feminism”, the promise of “you can have it all – money, career, dynamic life, husband, home and kids”, the fact that they were unable to meet men that they could “love” or could “love” them, or men who they felt were their equals (or better in the financial department which some women still seem to want), and the fact that marriage has become almost obsolete in their particular strata of society……these and many other factors are rendering large numbers of certain types of women childless.
I don’t think these people need to be preached to about “over-population”. However, there are folks out there that sure as heck do!
The term world population commonly refers to the total number of living humans on Earth at a given time. As of 4 July 2009 (UTC), the Earth’s population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6.7688 billion.[1] The world population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death around 1400.[2] There were also short term falls at other times due to plague, for example in the mid 17th century.[citation needed] The fastest rates of world population growth (above 1.8%) were seen briefly during the 1950s then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s (see graph). According to population projections, world population will continue to grow until around 2050. The 2008 rate of growth has almost halved since its peak of 2.2% per year, which was reached in 1963. World births have levelled off at about 134-million-per-year, since their peak at 163-million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant. However, deaths are only around 57 million per year, and are expected to increase to 90 million by the year 2050. Since births outnumber deaths, the world’s population is expected to reach about 9 billion by the year 2040.[3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Certain cultural conditions and attitudes regarding sexuality, as well as what one sees around oneself as they are growing up, may cause some people to have 3, 4, 5, or more kids, by 1 OR 2, 3, 4, or 5 different partners.
I agree that people having more than 3 should be encouraged to use birth control or keep their pleasure boxes on lock down!
There are already hundreds if not thousands of programs for that put in place around the world. Some people follow the advice, some don’t. They cannot be forced however, coz that’s a human rights violation and China’s result is dead baby girls and fetus found here and there. (boys are preferred there like India, i guess)
However, for those people who generally have 3 or less children, and especially for those persons who are wise enough to have only the amount of kids they can afford and therefore PLAN their pregnancies like that (they usually end up having only 1, maximum 2 kids), they do not need to be preached to. That would be preaching to the choir.
And for those women out there who’s bio clocks are ticking and really want to have JUST ONE baby before the day they die, for goodness sake, leave them alone!
They are NOT the problem.
(but there are plenty of other people who are, so the focus needs to be on them)
And those are usually the people who’s religions or cultures or un-controlled libidos prevent them from planning a family.
And maybe over-population is a myth. Even in India – cities are crowded as hell but the country side ain’t. There is plenty of space and natural resources on this planet but we are not planning things right nor living congruently with nature.
If it is not a conspiracy myth however, over-population is still not my problem because neither my religion, culture nor libido has required me to have a lot of kids, not even one.
But I do know folk who keep on openin’ up, spreadin’ their seed or takin’ that seed in, and I do my part to at least hint to them about it being 2009 and if they can’t keep it on lock down, at least they can wrap it the hell up!
Regarding the concept of “over-population”, you can do some research into the PLANNED PARENTHOOD ORGANIZATION and it’s historical connection to Eugenics (it’s parent philosophy). And google “black genocide”. The concept and fear of “over-population” was neccessary to spread in order to push the whole agenda.
I’ve been all over the world and there is a lot of space. We are just not utilizing the land and the resources that are abundantly available to us.
We can be the change! My generic desi aunty advice:
Start small. Go vegan. Buy local. Better yet – eat what you can grow yourself. Walk or bike more. Find out if there are any local natural springs in your area and figure out a way to get your drinking water from them for free. Less industry means even more freed space for humans who can live close to nature in yerts.
Have only the amount of kids you can afford and try to keep your sexual partners down to 2 or 3 (i realize thats practically being a virgin in this country… LOL!)
Less is more.
Multiple orgasms does not mean one orgasm with multiple partners but rather consecutive orgasms with one partner.
Book coming soon.
Stay tuned.
That’s legally incorrect:
The Delhi High Court does not have jurisdiction over Punjab (the Punjab and Haryana High Court exercises that jurisdiction).
Apart from precedent value (if a similar case is filed in other High courts or the Supreme Court), the Delhi HC judgment is effective extra territorially as well. A 2004 Indian Supreme Court judgment has made it clear that any determination by a high court as to the constitutionality (or otherwise) of a legislation is applicable to all such jurisdictions where such impugned legislation is applicable. Such determination may only be ignored if it is struck down by a larger bench of the same High Court or by the Supreme Court.
Sorry for the nitpicking, but just clarifying the effect of the judgment.
I’m ambivalent about the whole same-sex deal. I understand that the concept of marriage is an evolving one. But there does seem to be the tired old question within that has not been answered – is gay sex something nature intended? And if so, what is its purpose? And if all it takes are consenting adults why do we need to outlaw incest?
Off on a tangent, reading the coverage of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgender) in India does seem to validate the theory of a hidden agenda. It’s the same talking points you saw/see in NOrth America and Europe. 10 years back, this whole concept didn’t even find its way in any noteworthy print media in India – today its the headlines. New world order indeed!
Ah, nature.
For those who want to see NDTV’s decidedly urban take on the issue, watch today’s We The People show on the High Court Decision. The show should be up in a few hours, but Barkha Dutt fought the good fight gloriously.
The Shankaracharya of the Dwaraka pitha, one of the 4 cardinal mathas established by Adi Shankaracharya, agrees with the Shahi Imam that homosexuality is against [insert favorite religion here]. Baba Ramdev too appeared on India TV yesterday and took the lead in making the same case.
The long dreamt about religious unity comes to India too.
I’d be surprised if any mainstream religious leader in India (or anywhere) came out in favor of homosexuality. While many may remain neutral, as expected, homosexuality is not something that most people, at this point in time anyway, are going to support and advance.
We have to choose our battles. The battle for equal rights and oppurtunities is one thing, but the battle to have our way of life, or “lifestyle”, unanimously accepted and celebrated by one and all is something entirely different.
he he.
Sikh, Christian and the supposedly progressive Arya Samaj mainstream leaders say;
Sikh
Gyani Gurbachan Singh, head priest of the Akal Takth – the highest temporal seat of the Sikh community – said: “We strongly oppose this high court decision. It is against the laws of the nature. We appeal to the Indian government to rethink the issue. We also appeal to the Sikh community to boycott this verdict as it is against the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib.”
Arya Samaj
Ganesh Tripathi, a senior priest of Delhi Arya Samaj Mandir, said: “The Arya Samaj can never accept this. This cannot be applied to Hindu society or our beliefs.”
Christian
“We have no objection or opposition to de-criminalisation of homosexuality because we never considered them criminals. However, we are also clear that we are against legalising it…because what they do is unnatural and against the design and will of God,” said Father Dominic Emmanuel.
KCBC spokesperson Father Stephen Alathara said: “This (homosexuality) is against the Indian culture. We will oppose it and since our country is a democratic one, there is no way that this can be legalised through legislation. The church’s views will have to be sought.”
Me
I think the LGBT community of India should allay their fears and make it clear that they are seeking basic human rights and oppurtunities, not a revolution nor widespread celebration of their “lifestyle”.
Here is an excellent article detailing the harmful impact 377 has had on Indian homosexuals. Page 4820 especially goes into a few documented examples of how 377 has been used by police to extract sex from, harass, and blackmail gay men, and even arrest NGO workers who distribute condoms to gay men.
Illuminati : “I’m ambivalent about the whole same-sex deal. I understand that the concept of marriage is an evolving one. But there does seem to be the tired old question within that has not been answered – is gay sex something nature intended? And if so, what is its purpose? And if all it takes are consenting adults why do we need to outlaw incest?”
What’s the purpose? A good question… I don’t think anyone really knows. But we can ask the same question about so many things about humans, and get the same answer… some have clearer points than others… for example Sickle Cell Anemia inherited from one side can protect against malaria, while inherited rom two can cause a serious illness. Fairer skin is predominant in areas which get less sunlight throughout the year, blue eyes may have originally helped people see better in fire-light caves during cold winters, whereas humans living in sunnier, warmer climates need darker skin tones to protect them from the suns rays.
Other traits of humans are less clear. Some people are born with curly hair and some with straight.. I don’t think if there is any ‘purpose’ for that. Some people, like me, have a lot of moles, while other people don’t. Some children are born inter-sex, others are born with cleft palates or any variety of differences. Some kids are born to like quiet indoor games while others prefer rough and tumble in the outdoors. I have crooked pinkies, I hear that is a genetic trait, as is the ability to curl your tongue, possessing a widow’s peak, etc.
I don’t really question the nature of every reason why humans are the way they are. We are diverse in many ways, and this helps humans survive. Not all of our differences give us an evolutionary advantage, some do in some places, and some are just random occurrences. But without those random occurrences and differences, we, like other living organisms, wouldn’t be able to adapt to a changing environment, pathogens, etc. This diversity is what helps us survive as a species.
I think if you really want to decide if something is “right” or not, I just simply ask myself “does it hurt anyone?”. To me, two consenting adults loving each other doesn’t hurt anyone else.If I am personally uncomfortable with an issue, I can think “well, I’m not personally comfortable, but it doesn’t hurt anyone, so who am I to make their choices for them?
Sikh religious leaders in the Surrey, BC area in Canada made the same ridiculous statements re: homosexuality and Sikhism.
Sikhism was specifically purposed towards equality of caste, religion, creed and even gender – why should sexual orientation be any different ? There are absolutely no writings by any of the Gurus which address or condemn homosexuality. The only thing close that people have ‘interpreted’ are verses related to lust or sexual urges – which is what these people seem to relegate gays and lesbians to – just sexual deviants or those with urges that need to be prayed away.
There is nothing in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib which explicitly singles out same sex relationships and I personally believe the overallteachings on the golden rule and equality trump all other interpretations. Faith is a very personal thing – just like politics, everyone’s belief system is different and not black and white. We have to stop letting religious ‘leaders’ make blanket statements for the entire ‘community’.