India's health minister says homosexuality is a 'disease'

[News_Editor]

India's health minister says homosexuality is a 'disease'

2011-07-05 18:19:40 GMT+7 (ICT)

NEW DELHI (BNO NEWS) -- Indian Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has slammed homosexuality as 'unnatural' and a 'disease', comments which were rejected by the United Nations as prejudice and misconceptions.

Azad was speaking in New Delhi at a conference on HIV/AIDS which was attended by a number of senior government officials, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "The disease of men having sex with men is unnatural and not good for India. We are not able to identify where it is happening as it less reported also," Azad was cited as saying by the Indo-Asian News Service (IANS).

The minister said the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases is a problem, especially among homosexuals. "It is a challenge because in cases of female sex workers we can identify the community and reach out to them. But in cases of men having sex with men, it is becoming difficult," Azad said.

The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) said it rejects prejudice and misconceptions about men who have sex with men and transgender people. "There is no place for stigma and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," said Michel Sidibe, UNAIDS Executive Director. "Consistent with WHO's disease classification, UNAIDS does not regard homosexuality as a disease."

In 2010, the Delhi High Court overturned a law that criminalized consensual adult sexual behavior between men. This stand was also supported by the Government of India in its affidavit filed with the Supreme Court.

According to recent figures released by the National AIDS Control Organization, around 2.5 million people in India are living with HIV. Research shows about 67 percent of men who have sex with men in India are accessing prevention services.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-07-05

[duncanb]

can anyone argue it is not unnatural? It would result (without medical science) in the end of human life on the planet, if it became the norm. Maybe it is not a disease, maybe that is too simplistic, but unnatural. YES

[Ulysses G.]

Somewhere around 10% of the population are born this way. Gay people are a minority, but homosexuality is not unnatural.

[Jingthing]

Somewhere around 10% of the population are born this way. Gay people are a minority, but homosexuality is not unnatural.

Friendly sentiments but to be precise it is still not fully determined by science what percentage of the etiology of homosexuality is nature vs. nurture. Though yes homosexuality is common in many species so there is definitely nature involved as humans are also animals. Also there are different kinds of gay people, for example sometimes parents know from toddlerhood they've got a gay one, and sometimes their child has to break the news to them at 30. Also, it is very clear that lesbian sexuality is quite different than male homosexuality (lots more fluidity among women ... "college lesbianism", men have a much stronger tendency to be set for life). The 10 percent number? Depends on how you define it but there many people both pro-gay and anti-gay now think that the number was inflated for political reasons. (The gay rights movement felt bigger numbers, more power.)

Personally, I agree with more recent evidence that the numbers are more like 2-3 percent naturally in populations. Of course, small numbers, more vulnerability against haters who want us to go away, but we shouldn't be afraid of the truth.

In Thailand among expats, our numbers are definitely over 2-3 percent but that's because Thailand is an attractive country for gay men.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[saraburioz]

I agree with the minister. And I am not homophobic.

[Jingthing]

I agree with the minister. And I am not homophobic.

Lots of people think like you, but I sincerely think you don't know the definition of homophobia, so lets say you ARE homophobic but don't realize it. Some might think your anti-gay sentiments are not welcome on this forum, but my impulse would be to encourage you to express the logic behind thinking homosexuality is a disease. Because I don't think you can prove it, except by religious dogma which is meaningless in a logical discussion. If it's just a matter that you "feel" that way and don't back that up with logic, I don't think there is anything to talk about.

It just occurred to me, are you specifically talking about the idea that homosexuality is a western import is what you agree with? That's much more complicated question which goes into definition of homosexuality, issues of gay identity which is a more modern western thing vs. just preferring sex with the same sex, etc. without a political/social consciousness of what that means (identifying as a gay men vs. just a man who likes to sex it up with men). I don't think the minister is even aware of those issues; he probably thinks men didn't <deleted>> each other before his country got "poisoned" by the west and we KNOW that is basically impossible.

If you are ONLY saying the only part of the minister's views that you agree with are that the more modern western concept of gay men identifying as gay as a core part of their self identity, no that is an arguable point of view and not really linked to homophobia. But to be fair, your statement implied you agree with everything he said and I think it's clear that minister isn't nearly sophisticated enough to even consider that more advanced nuance.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jingthing

[astral]

Indian Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has slammed homosexuality as 'unnatural' and a 'disease',

That sounds like something from 100 years ago, not 2011.

[somchai69]

Judging from his name, the minister is a Muslim,

and I understand that the Koran does forbid such acts.

[endure]

Judging from his name, the minister is a Muslim,

and I understand that the Koran does forbid such acts.

So does the Bible. Religious tosh all round.

[jdinasia]

Indian Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad has slammed homosexuality as 'unnatural' and a 'disease',

That sounds like something from 100 years ago, not 2011.

As does Saraburioz's statement .....

India as a country is just moving out of the dark ages as are some people from the West.

UG your numbers are probably correct if you count men who exclusively or predominantly have sex with men.

I am particularly glad to live in a country that had a MoH like Meechai at the right time. He recognized that HIV is a disease (and at the time predominantly in the heterosexual population in Thailand) and realized that by stigmatizing people with the disease or any group of the population that it caused the disease to be untested, under reported, and hidden. Western countries have gone past stigmatizing people with a virus for the most part and Thailand was on board with that pretty early on. (HIV was brought up in the original post --- )

[endure]

can anyone argue it is not unnatural? It would result (without medical science) in the end of human life on the planet, if it became the norm. Maybe it is not a disease, maybe that is too simplistic, but unnatural. YES

It's never been the norm and is never likely to become so and the need to carry an argument to extremes to prove it seems slightly silly. It may not be natural for you but it is for me and many others. I don't understand the problem that people have with something which is never going to affect them. Unless, of course, one day one of your kids turns round and says 'Dad I've got something to tell you...'.

Edited July 5, 2011 by endure

[janverbeem]

Somewhere around 10% of the population are born this way. Gay people are a minority, but homosexuality is not unnatural.

And it seems they all live in Thailand then as I have never seen a Nation where so many people,male and female, are unhappy with their gender.

If you want to judge if it is natural or not,take a look at the animals you see around and how they behave.Those are natural creations of god that are not influenced by other things than nature.

[janverbeem]

I don't understand the problem that people have with something which is never going to affect them. Unless, of course, one day one of your kids turns round and says 'Dad I've got something to tell you...'.

Think you just answered your own question.And yes it affects me,and even more winds me up,when I walk the street and a guy with a skirt asks if I want to go with him.

[endure]

Somewhere around 10% of the population are born this way. Gay people are a minority, but homosexuality is not unnatural.

And it seems they all live in Thailand then as I have never seen a Nation where so many people,male and female, are unhappy with their gender.

If you want to judge if it is natural or not,take a look at the animals you see around and how they behave.Those are natural creations of god that are not influenced by other things than nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[endure]

I don't understand the problem that people have with something which is never going to affect them. Unless, of course, one day one of your kids turns round and says 'Dad I've got something to tell you...'.

Think you just answered your own question.And yes it affects me,and even more winds me up,when I walk the street and a guy with a skirt asks if I want to go with him.

Why? Do you have homosexual children? If a guy with a skirt asks if you want to go with him all you have to do is say 'No thanks' the same way that women have said to men since the beginning of time.

[jdinasia]

Somewhere around 10% of the population are born this way. Gay people are a minority, but homosexuality is not unnatural.

And it seems they all live in Thailand then as I have never seen a Nation where so many people,male and female, are unhappy with their gender.

If you want to judge if it is natural or not,take a look at the animals you see around and how they behave.Those are natural creations of god that are not influenced by other things than nature.

It happens in animals other than humans all the time ... sometimes with lifetime bonding .... quite natural. Those are (imho) natural creations resulting from evolution, just like people are

edit --- It is almost as difficult to defend the idea that lifetime bonding in heterosexual humans is natural

2nd edit --- BTW I don't know many people in Thailand who are unhappy with their gender. I don't get offended when some girl in a skirt propositions me either

Edited July 5, 2011 by jdinasia

[janverbeem]

I don't understand the problem that people have with something which is never going to affect them. Unless, of course, one day one of your kids turns round and says 'Dad I've got something to tell you...'.

Think you just answered your own question.And yes it affects me,and even more winds me up,when I walk the street and a guy with a skirt asks if I want to go with him.

Why? Do you have homosexual children? If a guy with a skirt asks if you want to go with him all you have to do is say 'No thanks' the same way that women have said to men since the beginning of time.

No I don't have homosexual children,my reply was because you let shine out that it shouldn't be an issue as long as it doesn't happen in own ranks,which you can not predict.

Oh and thank you for the link to the article,it was an interesting read.Did you notice that all the animals mentioned,other than the monkeys,are know to have no brain cells.So difficult to say they are homosexual on purpose.

[saraburioz]

I agree with the minister. And I am not homophobic.

Lots of people think like you, but I sincerely think you don't know the definition of homophobia, so lets say you ARE homophobic but don't realize it. Some might think your anti-gay sentiments are not welcome on this forum, but my impulse would be to encourage you to express the logic behind thinking homosexuality is a disease. Because I don't think you can prove it, except by religious dogma which is meaningless in a logical discussion. If it's just a matter that you "feel" that way and don't back that up with logic, I don't think there is anything to talk about.

It just occurred to me, are you specifically talking about the idea that homosexuality is a western import is what you agree with? That's much more complicated question which goes into definition of homosexuality, issues of gay identity which is a more modern western thing vs. just preferring sex with the same sex, etc. without a political/social consciousness of what that means (identifying as a gay men vs. just a man who likes to sex it up with men). I don't think the minister is even aware of those issues; he probably thinks men didn't <deleted>> each other before his country got "poisoned" by the west and we KNOW that is basically impossible.

If you are ONLY saying the only part of the minister's views that you agree with are that the more modern western concept of gay men identifying as gay as a core part of their self identity, no that is an arguable point of view and not really linked to homophobia. But to be fair, your statement implied you agree with everything he said and I think it's clear that minister isn't nearly sophisticated enough to even consider that more advanced nuance.

I think you have too much time on your hands.

What anti-gay sentiments? I assure you I'm not anti-gay.

I believe it is a mental disorder, that's all.

[Scott]

Just a reminder: Keep the discussion civil.

[jdinasia]

I think you have too much time on your hands.

What anti-gay sentiments? I assure you I'm not anti-gay.

I believe it is a mental disorder, that's all.

And all current major medical and psychological associations say that you are wrong ....Alcoholism is both a mental and physical disease homosexuality is not classified as either. Flat-Earthers are still out there too but just believing something doesn't make it true

[janverbeem]

I wanted to post another reply,but what sense does it make if reply's are removed faster than they can be posted by the gay board if they are not to their likeness.And both my reply's were in a civil manner

[endure]

I don't understand the problem that people have with something which is never going to affect them. Unless, of course, one day one of your kids turns round and says 'Dad I've got something to tell you...'.

Think you just answered your own question.And yes it affects me,and even more winds me up,when I walk the street and a guy with a skirt asks if I want to go with him.

Why? Do you have homosexual children? If a guy with a skirt asks if you want to go with him all you have to do is say 'No thanks' the same way that women have said to men since the beginning of time.

No I don't have homosexual children,my reply was because you let shine out that it shouldn't be an issue as long as it doesn't happen in own ranks,which you can not predict.

Oh and thank you for the link to the article,it was an interesting read.Did you notice that all the animals mentioned,other than the monkeys,are know to have no brain cells.So difficult to say they are homosexual on purpose.

What I was trying to point out, obviously very badly, is the fact that I'm homosexual has no effect whatever on you so I don't understand why you have problems with it. I mentioned the possibility of homosexual children in order to point out that we aren't some sort of sub-species of humanity. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have heterosexuals as parents.

It was you who claimed that the animal kingdom is a 'natural creation of God' and we ought to look at how those animals behave. I've pointed you to an article that tells us how they do behave. Many of them behave homosexually so if you have any problems with that complain to God. I'm sure he'll sort it out for you.

[janverbeem]

No I don't have homosexual children,my reply was because you let shine out that it shouldn't be an issue as long as it doesn't happen in own ranks,which you can not predict.

Oh and thank you for the link to the article,it was an interesting read.Did you notice that all the animals mentioned,other than the monkeys,are know to have no brain cells.So difficult to say they are homosexual on purpose.

What I was trying to point out, obviously very badly, is the fact that I'm homosexual has no effect whatever on you so I don't understand why you have problems with it. I mentioned the possibility of homosexual children in order to point out that we aren't some sort of sub-species of humanity. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals have heterosexuals as parents.

It was you who claimed that the animal kingdom is a 'natural creation of God' and we ought to look at how those animals behave. I've pointed you to an article that tells us how they do behave. Many of them behave homosexually so if you have any problems with that complain to God. I'm sure he'll sort it out for you.

Just tell me how an animal with no braincells,as all but one in the article are,can make a difference between male and female.Next you gonne tell us that worms are bisexual.

[saraburioz]

I think you have too much time on your hands.

What anti-gay sentiments? I assure you I'm not anti-gay.

I believe it is a mental disorder, that's all.

And all current major medical and psychological associations say that you are wrong ....Alcoholism is both a mental and physical disease homosexuality is not classified as either. Flat-Earthers are still out there too but just believing something doesn't make it true

Actually, there are a lot of similarities.

I t was only in 1986 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), due to pressure by gay polictical groups.There are still many doctors that think otherwise.

Alcoholism too - many top psychiatrists believe it is a disease and many don't.

Unfortunately, those who don't get accused of being 'homophobic' etc and not politically correct and like someone else says, even get their views removed.

[endure]

It was you who claimed that the animal kingdom is a 'natural creation of God' and we ought to look at how those animals behave. I've pointed you to an article that tells us how they do behave. Many of them behave homosexually so if you have any problems with that complain to God. I'm sure he'll sort it out for you.

Just tell me how an animal with no braincells,as all but one in the article are,can make a difference between male and female.Next you gonne tell us that worms are bisexual.

As I said it was YOU who claimed that the God-created animal kingdom (all of it - not just the species that support your argument) shows us what is 'natural' behaviour. Just one more quote from the article and I'm done. I don't argue with God-botherers. We have no common reference:

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.["

[jdinasia]

I think you have too much time on your hands.

What anti-gay sentiments? I assure you I'm not anti-gay.

I believe it is a mental disorder, that's all.

And all current major medical and psychological associations say that you are wrong ....Alcoholism is both a mental and physical disease homosexuality is not classified as either. Flat-Earthers are still out there too but just believing something doesn't make it true

Actually, there are a lot of similarities.

I t was only in 1986 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), due to pressure by gay polictical groups.There are still many doctors that think otherwise.

Alcoholism too - many top psychiatrists believe it is a disease and many don't.

Unfortunately, those who don't get accused of being 'homophobic' etc and not politically correct and like someone else says, even get their views removed.

Not a fact in there ... the APA removed homosexuality in 1973. The Stonewall riots were in 1969, and there certainly was not much of an organized "gay community" by 1973. Please help me out some by pointing out which "gay political groups" existed pre-1973 for long enough to change the minds of the medical community.

There may be a few Dr's out there still that think it is an illness, but not many. Most of those that would say it is an illness would not say that people who are comfortable with their sexuality are mentally ill. There are still some psychiatrists out there that will try and help people who are not comfortable with their sexuality try and change. They are generally called "quacks" as all modern research shows that this type of therapy only creates more issues.

BTW --- you are aware that 1973 was 38 years ago ... aren't you?

[saraburioz]

I think you have too much time on your hands.

What anti-gay sentiments? I assure you I'm not anti-gay.

I believe it is a mental disorder, that's all.

And all current major medical and psychological associations say that you are wrong ....Alcoholism is both a mental and physical disease homosexuality is not classified as either. Flat-Earthers are still out there too but just believing something doesn't make it true

Actually, there are a lot of similarities.

I t was only in 1986 that the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), due to pressure by gay polictical groups.There are still many doctors that think otherwise.

Alcoholism too - many top psychiatrists believe it is a disease and many don't.

Unfortunately, those who don't get accused of being 'homophobic' etc and not politically correct and like someone else says, even get their views removed.

Not a fact in there ... the APA removed homosexuality in 1973. The Stonewall riots were in 1969, and there certainly was not much of an organized "gay community" by 1973. Please help me out some by pointing out which "gay political groups" existed pre-1973 for long enough to change the minds of the medical community.

There may be a few Dr's out there still that think it is an illness, but not many. Most of those that would say it is an illness would not say that people who are comfortable with their sexuality are mentally ill. There are still some psychiatrists out there that will try and help people who are not comfortable with their sexuality try and change. They are generally called "quacks" as all modern research shows that this type of therapy only creates more issues.

BTW --- you are aware that 1973 was 38 years ago ... aren't you?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Subsequently, a new diagnosis, ego-dystonic homosexuality, was created for the DSM's third edition in 1980. Ego dystonic homosexuality was indicated by: (1) a persistent lack of heterosexual arousal, which the patient experienced as interfering with initiation or maintenance of wanted heterosexual relationships, and (2) persistent distress from a sustained pattern of unwanted homosexual arousal.

This new diagnostic category, however, was criticized by mental health professionals on numerous grounds. It was viewed by many as a political compromise to appease those psychiatrists – mainly psychoanalysts – who still considered homosexuality a pathology. Others questioned the appropriateness of having a separate diagnosis that described the content of an individual's dysphoria. They argued that the psychological problems related to ego-dystonic homosexuality could be treated as well by other general diagnostic categories, and that the existence of the diagnosis perpetuated antigay stigma.

Moreover, widespread prejudice against homosexuality in the United States meant that many people who are homosexual go through an initial phase in which their homosexuality could be considered ego dystonic. According to the American Psychiatric Association, "Fears and misunderstandings about homosexuality are widespread.... [and] present daunting challenges to the development and maintenance of a positive self-image in gay, lesbian and bisexual persons and often to their families as well."

In 1986, the diagnosis was removed entirely from the DSM. The only vestige of ego dystonic homosexuality in the revised DSM-III occurred under Sexual Disorders Not Otherwise Specified, which included persistent and marked distress about one's sexual orientation (American Psychiatric Association, 1987; see Bayer, 1987, for an account of the events leading up to the 1973 and 1986 decisions).

You do realise that 1986 was only 25 years ago?

[jdinasia]

It was you who claimed that the animal kingdom is a 'natural creation of God' and we ought to look at how those animals behave. I've pointed you to an article that tells us how they do behave. Many of them behave homosexually so if you have any problems with that complain to God. I'm sure he'll sort it out for you.

Just tell me how an animal with no braincells,as all but one in the article are,can make a difference between male and female.Next you gonne tell us that worms are bisexual.

As I said it was YOU who claimed that the God-created animal kingdom (all of it - not just the species that support your argument) shows us what is 'natural' behaviour. Just one more quote from the article and I'm done. I don't argue with God-botherers. We have no common reference:

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.["

I think these mammals have brain cells

4.2 Mammals

4.2.1 Amazon Dolphin

4.2.2 American Bison

4.2.3 Bonobo and other apes

4.2.4 Bottlenose dolphins

4.2.5 Elephants

4.2.6 Giraffes

4.2.7 Humans

4.2.8 Monkeys

4.2.9 Japanese macaque

4.2.10 Lions

4.2.11 Polecat

4.2.12 Sheep

4.2.13 Spotted Hyena

Black swans

Black Swans, Cygnus atratus

An estimated one-quarter of all black swans pairings are homosexual and they steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs.[34][35] More of their cygnets survive to adulthood than those of different-sex pairs, possibly due to their superior ability to defend large portions of land. The same reasoning has been applied to male flamingo pairs raising chicks.[36][37]

[edit]

Let's hear it for the Black Swans too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

[janverbeem]

^ I don't want to sound rude or anything,but If you take in consideration the pedofiles caught,how many percent of them are gay?I mean male pedo's going for male children or females going for female children.We all know it is the majority of them.So how many years more before they are also classified as not ill.

[Jingthing]

OK. I'm not a mod, but it turns out I was optimistic that this could possibly be a civil discussion. I propose as the OP author the thread be closed. Sorry folks for the mistake of encouraging the first anti-gay poster to explain himself rationally. It's simply not possible to have a calm rational discussion between gays and homophobes.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Jingthing