The debate over Sec. 377 has started again. The Supreme court has now, acting on a SLP, issued notice to the Government challenging the decision of the Delhi High Court judgment declaring Section 377 unconstitutional so far as it relates to consensual sex between (among) consenting adults.
Earlier, after the Delhi High Court gave its landmark verdict, religious leaders were up (pun intended) in unison criticizing the judgment. This however reinforces my belief that these religious leaders never went to a proper school coz. they really cannot understand legal language. What does Sec. 377 actually say? Let us have a plain reading of the text in the legislation.
377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section
First of all, without going into the homosexuality angle, this section sounds plain ridiculous. What is the order of nature? This sounds like some ancient manuscript where God seemed to be on a hotline with religious leaders and they seemed to ‘know’ what the order of nature exactly is. Wikipedia explains that this section was mainly devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual associations and extends to any unnatural acts. And ANY unnatural acts really meant almost everything else.
The Debate:
I’m just looking at the legal aspect of this section. I’m not going into whether Homosexuality is normal or not normal coz. I’m not sure about this question. But I think I’m sure about the legal aspect of this.
Disease?
The people aggrieved by this decision of the Delhi High Court say, Homo-sexuality is a disease. Even if I agree (though, no scientific research or text book uses the word ‘disease’ for this behaviour), how can you criminalize a disease?
Baba Ramdev (though I respect him for what he’s doing for the health of India) on TV went ahead and compared a Homo-sexuality to a madness saying that a person who is mad thinks he is fine but the entire world around him is mad. Going by his own argument for which though there is no medical proof and it is only his and a few other people’s OPINION, I’d like to ask him – Is madness a crime? Actually, at times, madness is used as an excuse for not being penalised. If what he says is right that such a condition develops because of hormonal imbalances, even then, how can a person be penalised for how his hormones behave?
I’m not even arguing whether it is a disease or not. I’m not technically sound to do that. But just going by common sense, it is clear that you cannot criminalize this behaviour. Why can’t this simple logic be explained to Babaji and that Dharmendra guy in the revealing white robe and that Maulvi on TV with the round cap?
Transexuals?
Again today on TV, I saw Bobby Darling debating with Acharya Dharmendra. How stupid is that? Bobby Darling is not a homosexual but a Transexual. She (not he) believes she is a female but all her physical characteristics are that of a male. And she can remedy this situation by undergoing a sex-change operation. I think she is on her way to do that and is taking artificial hormones to prepare herself for that surgery.
This is the line a lot of us blur. Homosexuals are seen as stereotypically womanly men who speak, dress and behave like women. This is far from the truth. Not all homosexuals (not even a majority) behave, act or speak like a woman. Boman Irani of Dostana is not the typical homosexual. Sanjay Suri in My Brother Nikhil is more like it… A homosexual is just another normal man and you wouldn’t really know the difference unless he (not she) told you. Just like you wouldn’t know if someone was vegetarian or non-vegetarian.
I agree that transsexuals are also affected by this decision but just clubbing the two together and calling Bobby Darling as the icon figure for Homosexuals is way off mark.
On another note, it even seems unfair – pitting Bobby Darling to debate against Acharya Dharmendra who’s almost a champion elocutionist, and has spend his life ferociously debating his point of view.
Most of all, what this does is that it takes this debate to the area of hormonal imbalances rather than personal preferences.
What the opposers of Sec. 377 are actually advocating is freedom to choose whoever (or whatever) you like which may or may not be because of a hormonal imbalance. The point is about freedom to choose – to have preferences. Not about people born in the wrong body. You can be a man and a homosexual. That is the point.
Legally speaking, I don’t really see any debate on the applicability of Section 377. It is an ancient law which is obviously meant to be canned. Why even Acharya Dharmendra said today that “You can do whatever you want in your homes, just don’t bring it in public”. How can he then oppose repealing of Section 377?
————————————————————————————–
I guess, taking a leaf out of this decision, Vijay Mallya today called on the Gujarat Government to repeal prohibition. This was prompted by the death of around 100 people due to consuming locally made poisonous alcohol. Similar logic applies – Equality of All (as in citizens of all states of the country) and the Freedom to choose. I think there is another post waiting to happen soon…
Hi Rakesh!
This is truly an amazingly well written post!
This is maybe the best post from you of all that I've read (around a dozen)–very eloquent, as well as, logically meticulous in reasoning.
I particularly liked your argument of how you pointed out that even if homosexuality is a mental disorder, then those suffering from it should be pardoned for precisely the same reason.
Unfortunately, a lot depends upon the interpretation of the law. The section you've pointed out (377) talks only of 'unnatural'–as in whatever, is not natural, and we think with emerging scientific evidence homosexuality won't be considered unnatural. But if I remember correctly, there's some section that also defines what's 'natural'–only that acts that can potentially produce babies! 'cuz in those times producing babies was thought to be the only purpose of intercourse!
Unfortunately, in case of mentally diseased, the patients are not let loose on the streets. If they display any possibility of 'harm to others' or 'self-harm', they've to be remedied! See how, both the kinds of harms are 'open' to interpretation! Also, one of the things that remedying would obviously involve is restraining them from acting in a way considered 'abnormal'.
So unfortunately, depending upon how the judiciary decides to interpret the law, both the lines of argument you pointed out could be countered, and the section reinstated.
Also conventionally, in the medical field, normal is defined as something that's seen at least in 5% of population. Unfortunately/fortunately now, sexual orientation is deemed as a spectrum extending from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual, so define 'normal' and 'abnormal' by that 5% cutoff would also be difficult!
This article comes from a medical website, but I don't think you'll find much difficulty in understanding it. I'd read it about a year back, and was really eye-opening for me!
In my this (very long, which I hope you don't mind) response, I've only tried to point out how for instance afterall, homosexuality may remain banned. Otherwise, personally I'm most in favor of greatest degree of personal liberty as far as it doesn't harm anyone else. Also I don't like arguments about change in population owing to phenomenon 'cuz obviously, it's not binding on an individual to think of human population 200 years from now!
Thanks for the post!
TC.
PS: I can't believe I'm the first to comment on this very popular blog!
PS: I can't believe I'm the first to comment on this very popular blog!
I wasn't *that* excited about being the first to comment. Maybe, blogger was! That's why it duplicated the comment!
@Ketan, Ketan, Ketan & Ketan: Whoa! Popular? Again the definition of Popular is open to interpretation… It could be a blog with more than 5 comments or a blog with at least a 100 comments on each post on an average 🙂 But glad that you think so!
Ok on the serious topic, I didn't find any reference to what is considered 'natural'. Going by your definition, everything a couple does except intercourse could come under the act. That was what I was referring to when I said ridiculousness of the section.
I think as per the law, even sex with a neighbour's wife is also not illegal.
And by self-harm, what's next? I mean, wouldn't wanking be illegal as well then? Whatever they do, if it doesn't really harm others, it shouldn't fall under this section.
And precisely that's why non-consensual acts are still covered under this section.
But yeah, I understand you are playing devil's advocate and it is always better see other arguments but in light of liberty and freedom, the arguments just don't convince me. Unfortunately, the courts will also gauge public opinion as well before taking a judgement but they should remember that common public opinion is not the best way to protect rights of a minority
Rakesh,
One clarification. I've expressed my personal opinion only in last paragraph–talking about greatest degree of personal liberty.
Whatever else I've posted is only speculation and some ground realities from what I remember from my study of forensic medicine.
Did you try reading article, BTW? Only asking 'cuz not sure if you could make out that I'd posted a link.
Again, I'd be sending you a few more links. Be sure to click on them.
Adultery is punishable for the man, not for women! Consent could be taken from the husband, in which case, it would be legal! Also, the nonconsent of the perpetrator's wife does not count! Adultery could also amount to a rape depending on age of the lady, and if or not a valid consent was taken from her. Here (click).
And Rakesh, I just confirmed from my forensic medicine book (which I anyway knew), buccal coitus (fellatio as well as cunniliungus) between even two consenting individuals (including husband and wife), or penetration of any part of a man, woman (except her vulva, i.e., external opening of vagina) or an animal for carnal purpose (sexual pleasure–usually determined by the potential of said act to induce orgasm!) by any body part–are all punishable under section 377 of IPC. I just read of a case–inserting one's penis between someone else's thighs is also punishable! But of course, in this case, there was no consent from the 'passive recipient'. But which only means that had there been a consent, both could've been punished and not just one!
Now I'll tell you of two general ideas I've formed about interpretation of law in India. First, marriage is mainly taken to have only one goal–producing babies! This I was shocked to learn during my course. But if you'll see not just section 377, but also the various clauses related to divorce, that's the only thing that'll come through. This also partly had made unnatural sexual acts offensive in the eyes of those framing the laws (that one can't produce babies through that act and yet derive pleasure, which would discourage couples from the possibly most pious goal of producing babies!). Plus, the fact that they're partly also based in religious decrees.
Second, law is interpreted in very 'discretionary' fashion–simple example–caste-based reservation has been upheld by the highest courts…
…I again repeat, none of above is what I approve of, but seemingly, the status quo vis-a-vis the interpretation of these laws
What has preserved some semblance of sense in those laws is that they're noncognizable, which simply means that a lady and her husband can indulge in buccal coitus as long as their neighbor and some judge in the closest judicial court don't object, and can't be arrested by police! But if the neighbor reports, and the judge objects, then they can be awarded rigorous imprisonment of upon 10 years and fine!
I think one of the reasons why this ruling has created such a stir is 'cuz people are taking it as a next step to legalization of same-sex marriage, but if one were to know and consider how much the current Indian (legal) view of marriage is steeped in producing babies and deriving carnal pleasure in 'natural' manner as ends, accepting homosexuality as a norm would seem like a distant pipe dream.
If you have friends/relatives practicing law in India, and if possible, do please ask them what they think would be the view taken by higher courts in these matters (including legalization of same-sex marriage), and do a post on that. That'd help the readers a lot.
And has your blog suddenly become unpopular only because I commented? No one else has commented up till now! I just hope people don't mistake our camaraderie! We must argue more aggressively. 😉
Nice discussing things with you!
TC.
And yes, masturbating if one has access to 'natural' form of sexual pleasure, though identified as a sexual perversion, is not punishable. But doing so in public is (sections 290, 291)!
Also, if a man only masturbates and doesn't penetrate his wife in 'natural' manner, she can file for divorce (and in at least one case, divorce was granted precisely on the same grounds)!
Wife indulging in adultery can't be punished (as I anyway said before), but automatically gets deprived of monetary benefits from the husband.
We are such judgmental fool i think sometimes Rakesh. A great post, and I agree wholeheartedly to everything. The sad bit is that gays, and more so transsexuals, are the minority, if I may say the word, the exception, the different ones and they have to fight for approval from a moronic society, that is the world today. It is a hard tough fight, and they have to be strong, people like you and me, who understand, can do our bit by spreading awareness and tolerance. You have done a great job with this post!
Rakesh! What a fantastic post! I agree with you totally! I was watching a debate on NDTV just before reading this and all the arguments that I had going on, in my head – was there in your post!
I think as a lot of people have been arguing morality and religious beliefs need to be kept out of law. As any other minority that is given the equal status under the Indian Constitution, the LGBT community is just another minority – they just happen to be a sexual minority, and they should be given the same status.
@Ketan: Thanks for those explanations… I really thought adultery was not a legal offense. *Not that I plan to break the law though* he he… But from a woman's point of view, isn't this law ridiculous as well? I mean, consent means consent of the husband and not of the wife?
But was relieved to read about noncognizable.
Yeah, I do understand that people are opposing it because it seems to be the next step in legalising gay marraiges but at least this might stop people from being harrassed in the name of law. For instance, everyone in Gujarat knows that people drink alcohol but the biggest problem is harrassment by the police and that is why people want prohibition to be removed.
Further, I guess, the courts should consider that there haven't been any prosecutions under 377 against gays for a long long time even though gays do exist in the country. So it appears that the law is either ineffective or obsolete.
I guess, this is agressive enough 🙂 lol…
I wholeheartedly agree with you…Very well explained..
Ppl who think its a crime are publicity seekers masquerading as guardians of public morality..
Thre's also another argument doing the rounds- If gay sex can be permitted, then prostitution too "deserves to be legalized" since it could be as much "a consensual act between two adults in a private place"
@GM: Yeah GM and as I mentioned earlier, common public opinion is not the best way to protect the rights of a minority. The courts are entrusted to do this job.
@Smitha: Yeah, I guess law cannot define morality. The morality of every person is different from another. Or else, issues like vegetarianism, going to the temple etc. might also fall under law.
@Swats: I think under law, sexual acts between two consenting adults in private is not an offense. I remember this from the time when Tehelka did a scam and our defence personnel were caught taking favours in form of call girls but the discussion was that these can't be charged under any section of the IPC. But I'm not sure about this.
I understand this is also a cause of concern and thus an argument for Sec. 377. I'm unsure about this right now though.
@Rakesh:
Yes, that was aggressive enough, and it hurt. Just in case you couldn't make out the links I'd posted, look at my comments in the comments' page.
@Smitha and Rakesh:
I find it very unfortunate that the meaning of word 'morality' has been twisted by the mediapersons so much! They love the word 'moral brigade' 'cuz it sounds cool, but forget in the process, that they're not satirizing the brigade as much as 'morality' itself. Morality is hardly about what clothes to wear, or what kind of music to listen to, or what festivals to celebrate.
It runs much deeper. Deciding whether to drop a coin in a beggar's bowl, eating nonveg constitutes cruelty or not (and not whether it is against one's 'culture', which is anyway very loosely defined), or whether to speak the truth or lie in a given situation, or if two friends ask for the same thing who to give that thing to, or whether to work an hour longer at your workplace with which you've contractual (and hence, moral) obligations to maximize their profits or instead go home to be with spouse and the children towards whom you have a an unwritten but moral obligation to maximize their pleasure.
Morality could also involve deciding between taking a public transport or instead, one's bike or car, which would be much more fun, but would pollute the environment and harm others and also despite future generations of precious fuel–which we don't have a moral right to.
I'm only trying to point out that what one wears has hardly any moral implications! It doesn't fall in the domain of morality, maybe etiquette. But yes, it may become a moral issue in a very twisted way.
Like someone wearing cleavage-revealing dresses only to impress the boss to get a promotions would (according to me) be immoral 'cuz it'd amount to using 'unfair' means–not everyone has a cleavage to speak of(!) and that's not the accepted basis to get a promotion, which would be showing efficiency in one's given role and best further the organization's goals. Of course, giving a promotion on that basis would also be immoral–for depriving someone else more deserving of promotion for merely not having a (good) cleavage (to show)! Almost similar issues guide the morality of homosexuality.
Prostitution, if one's to apply strictest moral principles, should be legal. But in practicality, it entails immense exploitation of the workers.
Rakesh, if you'd have read my post–'My morality' you'd understand my views better.
TC.
Hey Rakesh… I tend to feel that gays need to be given space…
however what I have learnt is in Section 377 a lot of things are related to child abuse… !!
one of the other things that needs to be attended…
I understand adult gays making their choice… but a lot of gays indulge in child abuse… which needs to be taken ultra care of….
Bhai, Enough has been said and written about this. Your post though was from a different perspective and makes sense as well. Forget about law, judgment, offense or not, legalization n criminalization. Simple thing: What is wrong if two people of same sex find each other attractive and indulge in sex? If moralists think they can argue upon it; agree. fine.. Lets debate. I can for a moment argue if they give some logic behind their reasoning. But, what is the point in telling them something if to begin with they r not think logically.
I am not trying to say that your post doesn't serve any purpose. Of course it does and nicely commented and discussed.What I am saying is it is absolute waste of time to argue with them. Lets law take its course. If they have problem, let them (Acharya or Ramdev or whoever) file a repeal and things will be discussed.
And at times, I really pity them for their IQ level.
Drifting from the main argument, I too have gone into many mindless debates on this and other such laws. And I have been surprised many times that well educated people too sometimes have responded like an immature and illogical being which made me think; This is not about education after all.
@Ketan: Yeah I know, Morality is totally different from person to person and precisely why that cannot be the law of the land.
@Dhiren: The High court has kept this law for unconsensual acts and those involving minors. It hasn't been removed for those.
@Vee: I think you're right. Whatever we tell them, they're not gonna agree coz. they're just not geared to see another person's point of view. Why, even I was like that when in college. I at times, knew I was wrong but just argued for the sake of it. But I grew up. Looks like they haven't 🙂
Interesting… I think people should be allowed a choice in their lifestyle as long as it does not hurt others in the process… Anyway, buggery/sodomy can be a criminal offence in my country… even among consenting adults (especially when one party chickens out and lodges a police report).
Brilliant post Rakesh, reminds me of the detailed post you wrote where you explained how unlikely the Thrid Front was to come to power. I agree with everything, and it also made me think of this issue a little more seriously…
It is ridiculous and outrageous that any government should have any say in what two consenting adults are doing, if they are hurting nobody.
Brilliant post Rakesh, reminds me of the detailed post you wrote where you explained how unlikely the Thrid Front was to come to power. I agree with everything, and it also made me think of this issue a little more seriously…
It is ridiculous and outrageous that any government should have any say in what two consenting adults are doing, if they are hurting nobody.
Agree….how can a person be penalised for how his hormones behave??? Trust me Long way to go …
Rakesh, Brilliant post! You didn't leave anything left to comment. I was nodding through the entire post.
People do stereotype anyone "different" into homosexual category. There are so many with abnormal chromosomes like extra X and Y and they are not homosexuals. They are transgender and there are other terms depending on their chromosomal makeup.
Why should anyone have a say on what two consenting adults are doing behind the closed doors unless it is actually affecting/harming others.
All of it comes down to 'culture' 🙂 Each country has a different set of mentalities. And it takes ages to change mentalities, hence the laws.
Keshi.
Rakesh, this is a very well written account! Appreciate the clarity of thought here!
I find it ridiculous that people have all the time to dissect other peoples' sexual orientation, at a time when they should focus on larger and relevant issues such as good governance, technological advancement, health, infrastructure, financial well being and so on, just to name a few!
I'm not sure how, as some people emphatically state, that homosexuality will lead the society to moral ruins, any more than the existence of immoral and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats!
I find no meaning in condemning same sex relationships and believe that they are a very personal choice for individuals to make!
Quite like the hooch tragedy that has happened in Gujarat owing to some bungling idiots falling prey to spurious alcohol! I mean, if one must indulge in drinking, why not choose a decent brand 😉 Hic!
@Terra: Yours is a Muslim country right – Obviously it has to be the law… I remember there was such a hue and cry when Playboy was launched in Malaysia. Is it still published?
@IHM: Yeah, I guess, the govt. has more serious issues to look at as Rakesh said above.
@Lubna: Exactly 🙂
@Solilo: Yeah, this line is blurred by most especially because of media, the movies etc. where there isn't really a difference
@Keshi: I agree Keshi but that's the point. How can culture be law of the land, especially when India is a melting pot of so many cultures…
@Rakesh: I like what you say – Amazing how people think homosexuality will lead to moral ruin more than the existance of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats… These are far bigger problems than looking into people's bedrooms.
Nice post, and strong arguments.
I would be extremely surprised if the SC overturns the HC judgement, primarily because even the religious leaders are in agreement on the fact that people should not be 'criminalized' for this 'offense/disease/abnormality'. Infact, the idiot astrologer who filed the SLP himself doesnt want homosexuals to be put in jail. Don't know whether you saw The Big Fight on NDTV, but he is one of the most confused human beings I have seen/heard in my life.
On another note, haven't read the 105-page long judgement yet, but intend to. Have heard it is beautifully worded, and shares and draws inspiration from Nehru's vision of equality for all in a plural and diverse India.
"First of all, without going into the homosexuality angle, this section sounds plain ridiculous. What is the order of nature? This sounds like some ancient manuscript where God seemed to be on a hotline with religious leaders and they seemed to ‘know’ what the order of nature exactly is."
This has been the most delicious part of the entire post – which I agree with Ketan, is one of your very best!
Indeed, how some people can claim to know what the 'order' of Nature is has always been totally beyond me! And then that oh-so-hated term "Indian culture", which is again beyond me! I mean, if I make a choice to sell my body for money to feed myself, it could be seen at the max within the realm of the Indian economy. What on earth does culture or morals have to do with it? Similarly, if I am a lesbian, it could be seen within the realm of genetic structure or chromosome studies, that's all.
Yes, if I lie, kill someone, rape someone, rob someone of what is rightfully theirs, indulge in dishonesty or treachery, cheat my innocent spouse, discriminate against another human – that may be seen in a moral or ethical context. Again, religion does not come into picture here. Even without religion, it would still be wrong to do all these, wouldn't it? Funnily, I have never seen the religious folks go ballistic when the above things happen multiple times every second in the "Indian culture"
I firmly believe if someone is good only if he/she fears punishment from God or hopes for rewards from God, then he/she is a sorry person indeed!
Coming back to the topic, it is unfortunate to be so intolerant as to deem anyone 'different' from ourselves as criminals, no less! What next, kill all blue-eyed and blonde people coz Indians have black/brown eyes and hair? Gather up all left-handers and throw them in jail coz 90% of India is right-handed?
As for homosexual couples not being able to have babies, how are they worse than those who kill their babies because they are girls or have 10 of them and then leave them on the streets to beg (or be kidnapped/get raped) or sell them? With a billion-plus population being the root of all evil in India, wouldn't we be happy with some who do not reproduce but adopt the unwanted?
Hmmm… Malaysia is supposedly secular but we do have the Syariah court as well – governing certain Muslim issues. The Playboy issue was Indonesian, I think… Malaysian just read the US versions they hide under their beds 😉
@Surbhi -> Amazing comment. I can almost feel the rage, and I share the anger with you – against religion, against intolerance, against the hollow words of 'culture' and 'indian morality'.
@Surbhi,
I really liked your pointing out how religious leaders are not bothered about people indulging in truly immoral acts like, rape, murder, asking for bribe, unfairly discriminating in giving jobs, putting people's lives at risk by sloppy construction/inadequate safety measures, in fact sometimes, they even indulge in them! <—- (this is a link; click!)
And thanks Surbhi, for (presumably) reading my comments. I wasn't sure if anyone other than Rakesh read my smart-ass comments!
@Rakesh:
I was merely trying to illustrate a few subtle issues with morality, but in retrospect, feel went overboarad with my flow (of thoughts ??). And sorry about that.
But then I was not trying to imply at all that law doesn't have anything to do with morality. In fact, under ideal conditions, law has to base itself entirely in morality. Killing and hurting someone are, for instance, first immoral acts, and then, illegal.
That's why we find some laws based in religion 'cuz in fact in the past (when most of the present laws were framed), morality and religion were one and the same! Except for some very few select philosophers of the yore, no one had expended efforts to systematically study morality.
The only problem is law is well-defined, and for above reasons, morality is not! But at the heart of law is basic morality.
TC.
@Reb: Too bad I missed that program – the confused guy and he says Homosexuals are confused… 😛
@Surbhi: As reb says, love the passion in your comment and the rage against intolerance. Exactly, that would be just like what the Nazis did during the time of Hitler. We ought to take a step forward rather than go in that direction.
@Ketan: I appreciate your comments, no matter how elaborate they are. This is a very interesting side to not only this issue but a lot more – "Morality" vs. "Law of the Land". I understand what you're saying but that's precisely why Law has to take care of any Minority because usually whatever is not adopted by the majority is deemed immoral.
I am late here and its been my loss.
WHat a brilliant post Rakesh!
I too will say that I was just nodding my head in agreement with each line
What is the order of nature? This sounds like some ancient manuscript where God seemed to be on a hotline with religious leaders and they seemed to ‘know’ what the order of nature exactly is.
brilliantly said!
Most of all, what this does is that it takes this debate to the area of hormonal imbalances rather than personal preferences.
yes! true again..
you are right on target!
the latter part is what the whole issue is all about.
Baba Ramndev seems to be off his rocker or some such thing..I mean this is just juvenile in the extreme..to call it a disease??
but that's precisely why Law has to take care of any Minority because usually whatever is not adopted by the majority is deemed immoral.
could I agree anymore with you on this one?
and yes Rakesh..hoping that you will do a post on the prohibition drama too:)
PS-I too LOVED Surbhi's comment and the passion in it.
way to go go girl!
This is the line a lot of us blur. Homosexuals are seen as stereotypically womanly men who speak, dress and behave like women. This is far from the truth.
THANK YOU for making this clear!!!..coz the number of times I have explained this to people now makes want to bang my head on the nearest wall.
Answered most of my questions, this post…good one. thanks Rakesh
**How can culture be law of the land, especially when India is a melting pot of so many cultures…
unfortunately thats how it works in countries like India and SL…culture becomes the LAW. But it shouldnt.
Keshi.
@Indy (Gillu): Tks 🙂 I hope the Supreme court doesn't overturn this decision.
PS – And go easy on the walls 😛
@Sindhu: Tks 🙂
@Keshi: Yeah, Unfortunately so. But this judgment shows times are changing 🙂
Brilliant,Rakesh! I agree verba atim with what you've said here. I.personally felt it was a remarkable step forward when the High court gave it s verdict but instantly I knew there would be hiccups thanks to a lot of hypocrites and narrow-minded factions prevalent in our country.It will take a while till everyone comes on board in consensus with this ruling.
"What is the order of nature? This sounds like some ancient manuscript where God seemed to be on a hotline with religious leaders and they seemed to ‘know’ what the order of nature exactly is."…classic,Rakesh.
Glad I came by your blog through Sindhu,else I would have missed out on such a treat of a read!
Excellent post, Rakesh and some very interesting comments.
The matter relating to homosexuality (including the cunnilingus/fellatio bit that Ketan mentioned) is actually quite simple: these are all "victimless' crimes. There is no victim. It is between consenting adults.If there is no victim, how is this a crime? And why should any 'free' and 'democratic' society have a problem with what two consenting adults choose to do in private?
Finally, it is not about morality, religion or disease. It is about the freedom to choose. And that is why I am a staunch advocate of the freedom to choose….because if it is homosexuality today, it could be anything tomorrow – an inter-religious marriage, for example. Creating "victimless' crimes is just another handle for the state (goaded by pressure groups) to beat the citizens with.
@Ketan: You're right about marriage being seen as only a means of procreation. That is why some radical Islamic clerics and the Catholic Church frown upon contraception – the logic being that sex for pleasure (as opposed to sex for babies) is a 'sin'.
Cheers,
Quirky Indian
@Deeps: Yeah, I agree it'll take time and yes, it is good to see a start.
@QI: Yeah, I remember the term 'victimless' crimes from another of your posts or comments.
And they frown because they've never had that pleasure I guess. Imagine all those pent-up hormones and feelings, no wonder they're so angry!
Rakesh, Congrats on being Blogadda's spicy picks! This post of yours totally totally deserves it!
"This sounds like some ancient manuscript where God seemed to be on a hotline with religious leaders and they seemed to ‘know’ what the order of nature exactly is." TOO TRUE THIS.
And hey ppl gotta leave Bobby darling alone, really. But the problem is..he himself is game on for it. Sighhh…
Kool debate. I liked !!
This is truly an amazingly well written post!
@Smitha: Tks 🙂 Tks to Indy actually 🙂
@Anand: Yeah, she seems to be quite enjoying the attention!
Hey i did see this header and I thought to myself what a fantastic picture it is… !!!
it is really sooper… I havent bought D-60 but have used it… 😉 Thanks to good friends…
nice article
i have written few articles on this.
http://realityviews.blogspot.com/2009/07/india-delhi-high-court-declares-gay-sex.html
A piece of incisive writing. Well done.
brilliant written post and some of the best comments i have ever read on a post…
u know there is one more thing i always wonder…. why is that when we talk of homosexuals or sec 377 we always talk of gays and never of lesbians???
is it because its easier to stereotype a female like man?
@Dhiren: It is a wonderful camera, and recently, I went for a training session on SLRs. So hopefully, more interesting pics will come 🙂
@SM: Welcome and Tks!
@Shail: Thanks!
@Monika: I guess its only because the word 'gay' is short and easy – 'lesbians' also has a difficult spelling 😛 Ok on a serious note, I think 'Gay' is a unisex connotation – it can be used for men as well as women. I'm not sure though