Supreme Court rules gay sex is criminal offence - Page 3

Originally posted by: kavyasam

and if they can find same sex couples among the numerous Khujaraho sculptures will it be considered as part of Indian culture?

 

what a sad state we are in. Instead of discriminating against gay,  let us worry about the real illegal and Immoral activities plaguing the country.  

 

 

Finally BJP has come out :

"We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported," Rajnath Singh said.

"It is a flawed assumption that ratifying homosexuality is equal to being progressive and broad-minded. The present discourse has been largely generated by a niche of the elite, which reflects the Bharat-India divide," a source said, ignoring questions on the harassment homosexuals go through in many towns and villages.

Today I am extremely proud of myself that I had never shown the slightest inclination towards the BJP or any of the right wing parties, even when most people around me were turning overt or covert supporters of whom they consider to be their saviours. I may have issues with Congress and Communists, but they are any day the lesser of two evils when compared to the Right Wing.

The issues that Western/Australian liberals/ LGBT community faces is very different from that of India. In the West the conservatives deny LGBT the right to marry, but here the conservatives, who endorse 377, want to criminalize you for being who you are. They deny LGBT the right to exist. You may be a conservative, you may have traditional views on relationships and marriage, you may even find homosexual relationships irksome. But when you want homosexuals or trans or bi's to be put behind bars or punished for life; when you want people to suffer because they don't conform with your world views and religious ethics, you are no longer a mere conservative nor are you expressing a 'different' cultural opinion. You are a human rights abuser and an asshole. And such people do not deserve to be in position of power, irrespective of how much development they can bring to the country's economy. 377 is not just a homosexual's problem - it is a humanitarian problem. There can never be any two opinions on it, any more than there could be two opinions on Apartheid or universal suffrage or slavery. Certain things are not negotiable nor can they be shrugged off as cultural idiosyncrasies. Human rights is one of them. I am prepared to live in a poor India, but not in one that doesn't understand or appreciate people's right to life and liberty without exception.
Edited by Rehanism - 10 years ago

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Finally BJP has come out :

"We will state (at an all-party meeting if it is called) that we support Section 377 because we believe that homosexuality is an unnatural act and cannot be supported," Rajnath Singh said.

"It is a flawed assumption that ratifying homosexuality is equal to being progressive and broad-minded. The present discourse has been largely generated by a niche of the elite, which reflects the Bharat-India divide," a source said, ignoring questions on the harassment homosexuals go through in many towns and villages.

Today I am extremely proud of myself that I had never shown the slightest inclination towards the BJP or any of the right wing parties, even when most people around me were turning overt or covert supporters of whom they consider to be their saviours. I may have issues with Congress and Communists, but they are any day the lesser of two evils when compared to the Right Wing.

The issues that Western/Australian liberals/ LGBT community faces is very different from that of India. In the West the conservatives deny LGBT the right to marry, but here the conservatives, who endorse 377, want to criminalize you for being who you are. They deny LGBT the right to exist. You may be a conservative, you may have traditional views on relationships and marriage, you may even find homosexual relationships irksome. But when you want homosexuals or trans or bi's to be put behind bars or punished for life; when you want people to suffer because they don't conform with your world views and religious ethics, you are no longer a mere conservative nor are you expressing a 'different' cultural opinion. You are a human rights abuser and an asshole. And such people do not deserve to be in position of power, irrespective of how much development they can bring to the country's economy. 377 is not just a homosexual's problem - it is a humanitarian problem. There can never be any two opinions on it, any more than there could be two opinions on Apartheid or universal suffrage or slavery. Certain things are not negotiable nor can they be shrugged off as cultural idiosyncrasies. Human rights is one of them. I am prepared to live in a poor India, but not in one that doesn't understand or appreciate people's right to life and liberty without exception.

Originally posted by: jason-derulo

And how would u define it going against nature ? if homos were meant to be then imma sure my bio test wont stress so much on the sperm meets egg concept 

what is the good thing in the spread of homos ? its like  a fashion thats trending ! soon incest might as well replce it 

come on now folks , above aint a wild imagination ... people after all should be free to choose their mates even if they came out of UR womb . right ? rigth ? 😊

Originally posted by: Rehanism

Finally BJP has come out :

Thats one way to put it.

Aside from what Supreme Court ruled and whether politicians will remove that part from the constitution; I think the LGBT community themselves are not helping their cause any by the way they go about their protests or rallies to champion the cause of the LGBT community.

The population is naturally divided into 3 parts. There are those who support LGBT community, which currently is an elite niche community and doesn't have the numbers. There are those who strongly oppose LGBT community, many of them belonging to religious fundamentalist group and as such have good influence. But a large number will obviously be undecided. They might have some prejudice but they won't have made up their mind about seeing any LGBT person behind bars. The LGBT community should try and win their support. They are the majority and if they accept them, then no Supreme Court, no legislator can stop the law from being removed from the constitution.

But their approach so far is almost targeted towards the elite niche community most of whom are anyways supportive of their cause, and those who don't, doesn't really matter. Their dressing, their actions, their gestures, their slogans, they are only going to be acceptable to that niche elite segment.
The vast majority who doesn't have an opinion yet, will not really form a positive opinion by the way the LGBT community goes about trying to garner support at present. Because most of the average people are getting aware of the LGBT community through 5 mins snippets that they get to see of such rallies shown on TV. And if during that 5 mins they see them dressed up weirdly, making weird gestures, an average person will find it repulsive. If a person has already heard that they are freaks, when they see such things, it will only reinforce the idea that yes they are freaks. There might be shock value in it, but it certainly won't win over anyone to their side.

They will do much better to dress sensibly, being decent in their behaviour and comments. That way, those who have heard that they are freaks will have a chance to reevaluate any image they might have had formed about LGBTs and reassess their opinion in the light that it's just another normal person they are seeing not someone special or out of the ordinary. Because that's what is needed, to get accepted as just another normal human being.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

^^I read the news in detail in the newspaper this morning, and from what it appears, the Naz Foundation was unable to prove the claim of sexuality being a fundamental right. According to the SC panel of judges, there is no provision of "not discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation" in the Constitution, and hence, the law could not be termed unconstitutional. 😕

I don't think the Constitution specifies non-discrimination on the basis of eye or hair colour as well. So will it be ok to criminalize people with blue eyes or pink hair? I think it should have been a matter of common sense - which the Delhi HC used, by broadening the definition of the word 'sex' (as a ground against discrimination in the Constitution) to include both biological gender as well as sexual orientation. Its absurd that the apex court of the self-proclaimed World's largest Democracy in 21st century makes such an observation. Because 377 not only criminalizes homosexuality but any other sexual intercourse than penile-vaginal reproductive sex. Which means that you may be sentenced to life in prison for sucking a rooster or licking a kitten. This imposes a ridiculously orthodox and puritanical view of human sexuality that views sex for pleasure as a capital offense.

377 derives its aboriginal justification from the Abrahamic story of Sodom where god wipes out cities because people started practicing oral and anal sex. Its a product of the orthodox Christian dogma that so called 'unnatural sex' might bring forth god's judgement upon their lands. This law never had any rational or secular basis. Otherwise one is at loss to understand why would anyone, even if s/he considers homosexuality to be a disease, treat it as a crime worthy of punishment more grave than most other crimes and equivalent to that of murder. Therefore it was obvious to expect from the country's judiciary to understand the absurdity of the idea and read it down as a primitive and violative aspect of the penal code.
Edited by Rehanism - 10 years ago

the supreme court is here to enforce the laws and constitution as written. If you have a problem with the law, it is high time you elect someone who is going to change the laws according to your thnking.

good!

JAI SHREE RAM!

Swapna became the first transgender to take the Tamil Nadu State Civil Service Exam.. Is she a criminal?