Go Back   Team-BHP > Around the Corner > Shifting gears


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th July 2009, 23:31   #286
Senior - BHPian
 
greenhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TN-14
Posts: 6,709
Thanked: 1,075 Times
Default

Not for me alone to decide ...
or you alone for that matter.
Ideally, a Society as a whole should

Last edited by greenhorn : 16th July 2009 at 23:33.
greenhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2009, 23:34   #287
BHPian
 
Knight Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 267
Thanked: 11 Times
Default

What will happen to the institution of marriage that has been followed for so many years? I do not have anything against anyone, But being an 'Indian' I guess it will take some time for all this to sink in.
Knight Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2009, 23:37   #288
BHPian
 
setuniket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Noida|Delhi
Posts: 114
Thanked: 7 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
Because it would not be for any one of us to decide that.
At least as far as our nation is concerned, it would be the job of our democratically elected government
And as far as our Respective religions are concerned, it would be upto their holy books and spiritual leaders.
and i dont think that its does any good to let either party interfere in the working of the other
Will the parliament decide what does two people do in their bedrooms?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prince_pervez View Post
Correct sirji but look at this statement:

'We are a democratic contry and when a law is passed we believe its the voice of the majority.'

This is ruling is definitely not of the majority. Hypothetically, if we were to conduct a plebisite/poll all over India, do you really think people who support Gay marriages and things related to that, will out number the ones who are against it ? In India ? Come on think of it.
This is surely not a voice of the majority, in my 'democratic' country.
And don't anyone dare tell anyone here, who belongs to where, and where should one go. People of every community and class have made their sacrifices, for a free India. This is no ones property alone.
Disagree, If a law is passed with respect to only 'majority'. But then isn't the same law applicable to each and every resident of India. Irrespective of the fact that he/she comes from the Minority community. So why shouldn't the law be in such a way that none of the Individual's rights are being violated. That's the thing which this ruling does.

Laws although are made by representative of majority but not necessarily be right, thats why we have courts because our constitution which is supreme is based on 'equality'


Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
I believe that we've been strong armed into this by international pressure that the judges and politicians have no other option but to submit. I have strong doubts if this would ever survive a national referendum or something like that , if there ever was one.

While I will have to comply with the ruling made by an unelected judge(s), I will respect and willingly accept only the laws made by a democratically elected Legislature, preferably one I've voted for.
International pressure had this been the reason, our politicians would have gladly sold off our country to the same western countries. I never knew we need National referendum to decide whether a citizen has a right choose his sexual orientation or not!
setuniket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2009, 23:51   #289
Senior - BHPian
 
greenhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TN-14
Posts: 6,709
Thanked: 1,075 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by setuniket View Post
Will the parliament decide what does two people do in their bedrooms?
they poke their noses into a lot more trivial affairs, why not this. If parliament can choose how many wives I can have, it might as well choose what i can do with them. Not that i agree though, but for the sake of argument, I think it is well within its rights. Whether it would be enforceable is another story.

Another question. Where do we draw the line then, where this authority stops? why stop at two people. or a bedroom?

Is the fact that it does not affect anyone else really a valid argument? If i were to, say , borrow a CD from you, and make a personal copy and give it back to you? Assuming that i was never going to buy the CD anyway-though it violates the license- what happens does not affect anyone - not you , not the record company, not anyone else if i were to keep it under wraps , no one would know, and no one would care . And yet it is illegal. Does that mean that the government is infringing on what you can do with your CD.


Quote:
International pressure had this been the reason, our politicians would have gladly sold off our country to the same western countries.
At the risk of going further offtopic
Quote:
I never knew we need National referendum to decide whether a citizen has a right choose his sexual orientation or not!
I would say it would be a better measure of what India thinks than the decision of a court.

Last edited by greenhorn : 17th July 2009 at 00:02.
greenhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th July 2009, 23:55   #290
Senior - BHPian
 
aaggoswami's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Vadodara
Posts: 4,628
Thanked: 1,318 Times
Default

I would say that as long as gay humans dont cross the limit, its fine. But they are proud of what they are, why cant they be ? They can express themselves with different shades of clothes, etc. but not get in physical touch with others in public.

About what women experience, I respect them for their tolerance virtue. But when I am approached by a gay, its quite un-natural for me. I am not into their category and I dont like to be with them if they are really expressive in public. Recently met a gay human and he was quite normal till some time, then was a bit odd in his behavior, but then he never tried to get in physical touch with me. Nothing wrong, he was not very expressive about his thoughts and followings.

I believe that rather than getting into these topics, we, as a nation have much much larger and moral issues to be coped up with. We must concentrate on solutions to those problems.
aaggoswami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 00:09   #291
BHPian
 
singh_dfi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Delhi
Posts: 26
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aaggoswami View Post
I would say that as long as gay humans dont cross the limit, its fine.
What limit would that be sir ?
singh_dfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 04:51   #292
Senior - BHPian
 
spadival's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,770
Thanked: 15 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatienceWins View Post
It should not be accepted, socially or legally.
Sorry, but it has been accepted both socially (a long time ago) and now legally in India.

Last edited by Samurai : 17th July 2009 at 08:11. Reason: do not instigate
spadival is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 08:41   #293
BHPian
 
setuniket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Noida|Delhi
Posts: 114
Thanked: 7 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
they poke their noses into a lot more trivial affairs, why not this.
That still doesnt justify, politicians will always poke their noses where they can gain maximum mileage. Thats the reason we have the police reforms and Uniform civil code pending since years. Despite being mutiple recommendations and orders from the Supreme court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
If parliament can choose how many wives I can have, it might as well choose what i can do with them. Not that i agree though, but for the sake of argument, I think it is well within its rights. Whether it would be enforceable is another story.
Its because we live in society with a civil code which was drafted and passed by the same parliament, decides the number of wives based on your religion. Nowhere the civil and criminal law(except for sec 377 IPC) says that homosexuality is criminal/wrong. The civil code is devised because we live in a society, to maintain the harmony in the society the members are expected to behave in manner which doesnt disturb the peace of the society. So is that fact that the members are expected to show tolerance towards people who dont have the same behaviour as the majority in the same society. The ruling nowhere allows homosexuals to behave inapproriately as it has been the case with heterosexuals. Both are equal in terms of the criminal law and face the same punishment.


How does the act of two consenting adults in in a room effect other memebers of society?

It does and it doesnt, it does if the members of society chose to poke into bedroom of the other and doesnt if we accept people as they are(in terms of orientation).

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
Another question. Where do we draw the line then, where this authority stops? why stop at two people. or a bedroom?
Stop at the same bedroom and two people, because outside that world there are set of rules, rules of behaviour, any deviation means facing civil and criminal action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
Is the fact that it does not affect anyone else really a valid argument? If i were to, say , borrow a CD from you, and make a personal copy and give it back to you? Assuming that i was never going to buy the CD anyway-though it violates the license- what happens does not affect anyone - not you , not the record company, not anyone else if i were to keep it under wraps , no one would know, and no one would care . And yet it is illegal. Does that mean that the government is infringing on what you can do with your CD.
Taking the same illustration, If the contents of the CD is copied and used, you have caused damage to the licence holder by not paying his dues, which is illegal and police may raid you place and might arrest/fine you. Why because it has caused monetary damage to the licence holder. I fail to understand how does homosexuality 'damage' the society or it members when this has been there since ages. Does it spread like a virus and suddenly all men/women become homosexual. No it doesnt..!

Its legal now to make sure that we as a country are able to fight with our own prejudices and beliefs(which has been superimposed on us) and live in an equal society, so that we as the members of society are able to fight a dreaded virus like HIV which is ready to swallow the youth of this country.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
Purely OT, so I will refrain from commenting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhorn View Post
I would say it would be a better measure of what India thinks than the decision of a court.
Lets not forget that judges are not imported from any other country, they belong to this country and live within this society. They are here to judge whats wrong and right on the basis of our constitution which is made by 'us' by the leaders of this country. The courts decide everthing on the principles laid down by the same constitution, arent we indirectly making the judgement in that case.
setuniket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 10:03   #294
Senior - BHPian
 
greenhorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: TN-14
Posts: 6,709
Thanked: 1,075 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by setuniket View Post
Taking the same illustration, If the contents of the CD is copied and used, you have caused damage to the licence holder by not paying his dues, which is illegal and police may raid you place and might arrest/fine you. Why because it has caused monetary damage to the licence holder. I fail to understand how does homosexuality 'damage' the society or it members when this has been there since ages. Does it spread like a virus and suddenly all men/women become homosexual. No it doesnt..!
Yet to be proved that it causes monetary damage. If I will not be buying your CD anyway, i fail to see how it will affect you. My point is , there can be victimless crimes
Quote:
Lets not forget that judges are not imported from any other country, they belong to this country and live within this society. They are here to judge whats wrong and right on the basis of our constitution which is made by 'us' by the leaders of this country. The courts decide everthing on the principles laid down by the same constitution, arent we indirectly making the judgement in that case.
I think a politician would be more in touch with the grassroots and people of this country, than a judge. There have been Instances where judges have acted out of touch with reality, and other cases where they have imported controversial international laws into India. To decide what is right or wrong, they have to interpret existing laws, and there is a lot of leeway in that.
I really don't want to get into the whole judicial activism debate. You probably know more about it than I do.
greenhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 10:19   #295
Team-BHP Support
 
bblost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 9,551
Thanked: 6,309 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by setuniket View Post
Will the parliament decide what does two people do in their bedrooms?
Hey that would be super.
Something like the news about Taliban saying a wife better give it to the husband else he is within rights to hit her.

I am sure the headaches would stop.
bblost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 10:34   #296
Team-BHP Support
 
tsk1979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New Delhi
Posts: 22,850
Thanked: 15,406 Times
Default

The purpose of the law is to uphold the constitution, not morality or societial customs.
If the purpose of the law was to support what was acceptable socially, then it would pass judgements in favor of child marriage(in many societies its a centuries old custom), dowry(ditto) and even Sati.
We may call them social "ills", but those who practice them think of them as pillars of the society.
But law has always struck such things down.
So when looking from a legal point of view things like religion faith etc., have no view.
Infact in logical arguments, faith or beliefs have no place.
you cannot argue against faith. Even on this thread there is so much argument. Such argument has continued since the middle ages when scientists were hanged for saying Earth is not the center of the universe, or when free thinking women were burnt as witches.
Was that wrong or was that right? It was neither. It was just faith. Those who did all that believed that they were right. they had "faith" they were right.
Same is the case here. Those who believe homosexuality is a crime and a disease and it should be cured have faith. They cite several psychologists, and unsurprisingly its very easy to quote only those "qualified" professionals which support their cause, while not quoting those wh oppose their cause.
So those who feel its a crime etc., I will not argue in your faith. I will just gloat over the fact that in this country its still possible for law to rise above faith and religion!
tsk1979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 15:44   #297
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: goa
Posts: 979
Thanked: 43 Times
Default

I have personally found the judgment of the Delhi High Court to be one of those path-breaking judgments, which they will be citing in the next few decades. It only decriminalises private, adult, consensual homosexual acts. It is, unusually amongst recent judgments, clear and precise.
It has brought such a refreshing dose of common sense and plain simple humanity to this country. I know many gay people, and have always felt that whatever sexual orientation they have, it's not the business of the police.
There is much more child abuse involving hetero-sexuals than gays, any statistical analysis will reveal this.

Last edited by filcord : 17th July 2009 at 15:49.
filcord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 18:58   #298
BHPian
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chennai
Posts: 399
Thanked: 3 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 View Post
The purpose of the law is to uphold the constitution, not morality or societial customs.
If the purpose of the law was to support what was acceptable socially, then it would pass judgements in favor of child marriage(in many societies its a centuries old custom), dowry(ditto) and even Sati.
We may call them social "ills", but those who practice them think of them as pillars of the society.
But law has always struck such things down.
So when looking from a legal point of view things like religion faith etc., have no view.
Infact in logical arguments, faith or beliefs have no place.
Beg to differ here. The constitution is not a document handed down from the Gods - it is drafted by wise people, to codify the responsibilities of the government. These responsibilities are largely interpreted based on prevailing societal customs and behavior.

Personal law in India is pretty much tied to religion - I'm sure you would know about separate personal laws for Hindus, Muslims etc. I guess there are some non-religious marriage/inheritance laws, but hey I'm not a lawyer.
Not that I necessarily agree completely with this state of affairs; but in a democracy, the law gets routinely updated by the will of its people(read opinion makers - including media, govt, religious heads etc).
ballkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 20:48   #299
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 218
Thanked: 12 Times
Default

folks, its perfectly okay to have mild, strong or extreme opinions about something. but what is not okay is to expect everybody to subscribe to that opinion. how do we conclude homosexuality is inhuman / immoral / pagan / unsafe / bla / bla / bla? by reading something somebody wrote ages ago? how about banning ALL anal intercourse then?
the government's role is to regulate social interaction. NOT to personal freedom and free will. if two consenting adults of the same sex decide to get their freak on, let them. why in blazes should they be thrown into prison and ostracized?

to clarify, I personally do not like to be groped by another guy. a person who tried to do it once ended up with a broken wrist.

as Greenhorn said, there there can be victimless crimes. in my opinion, something is a crime only if there is a victim. so as long as a person's sexual orientation does not expressly bother anybody, we have no business being all righteous about it. IF however somebody is directly inconvenienced by some groping homo, it should be prosecuted under "Invasion of Privacy" but certainly not some "Gay act".

if I remember my social studies right, our constitution considers everybody equal irrespective of caste, creed, color, gender, religion and maybe other things. is "sexual orientation" in that list? if not, why? that would truly be worth celebration.
blacmagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th July 2009, 20:57   #300
Team-BHP Support
 
aah78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC / BOM
Posts: 3,562
Thanked: 1,536 Times
Arrow legal, moral, ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Rider View Post
But being an 'Indian' I guess it will take some time for all this to sink in.
America's having a similar debate and people here are as widely divided on this issue as Indians - so this is a sort of a global matter.

I say, Live and let live.
aah78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pathetic service experience at Landmark Honda, Ahmedabad rockporiom Indian Car Dealerships 4 16th June 2015 00:58
Hyderabad-Salem:Diversion Landmark? ranjitp1 Route / Travel Queries 32 21st June 2012 16:02
Game Changers - Landmark events in the Indian Automotive Scene amit_2025 The Indian Car Scene 71 12th February 2012 06:38
Panel for landmark changes in Motor Vehicle Act vbraju Street Experiences 2 2nd January 2011 13:04
A Landmark Shift in Bajaj's Advertising??? vasudeva Motorbikes 12 31st July 2009 07:05


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 11:19.

Copyright 2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks