New Delhi: A day after describing sexual preferences as a “personal” issue, the RSS on Friday said homosexuality was a “psychological” disorder and gay marriages need to be prohibited.
Speaking during the Indian Today conclave on Thursday, Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) joint general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale had said “why should RSS have an opinion on homosexuality? Sexual preferences are personal and private issues. Why should RSS express its views at a public forum?”
He said that gay sex “is not a crime as long as it doesn’t affect the lives of others”.
Hosabale, on Friday, spoke on the issue once and described gay sex as “an immoral act” requiring psychological treatment. “Homosexuality is not a crime, but socially immoral act in our society. No need to punish, but to be treated as a psychological case,” he tweeted.
(Also Read: Ghulam Ali to launch music of ‘Ghar Wapsi’ in Delhi)
The views of the RSS, the ideological mentor of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), came after Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s proposed legislation seeking to decriminalise homosexuality was defeated in the Lok Sabha at the introductory stage last Friday.
BJP members took a lead role in defeating the bill at that time.
The Rashtirya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) on Friday said that homosexuality is not a crime but gay marriage should be prohibited. “Gay marriage is institutionalization of homosexuality. It should be prohibited,” Hosabale said in another tweet.
Taking a jibe at the RSS over its stand on homosexuality, the Congress said on Friday that the RSS should not retract from its assertions on homosexuality in future.
“If at all the RSS does choose to add its voice to the overwhelming pervasive opinion in this country with regard to 377 (homosexuality) then one would expect that having articulated an opposition they should not go back on this,” Congress spokesman Manish Tewari told reporters here.
“In the day and age in which we live, Section 377 and its repeal should really become a fait accompli. We don’t live in 17th or 18th century that we need to be subjected to Victorian era laws,” Tewari added.
“The fact is as to who has a relationship with whom for what purpose the state really should not be interfering or transgressing into those matters,” he added.