Indian morality progresses - Homosexuality is now legal - A landmark day!

[ballkey]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

and you think pedophilia is consensual?

I am not aware either, but what we are discussing is what WE think about it. And then, whether government has any business directing it.
.

I didn't say that. As greenhorn said, it is not impossible. However, the discussion was about consensual sex between adults in private - and I merely pointed out there are enough morally gray areas in that domain itself.

The Government is not some 3rd party - in a democratic setup, the opinions of the government are reflective of the people's opinion. The price of living in a civil society is to accept some of the society's norms, and submit to certain rules even in private matters, no matter which way one's moral compass swings. We are of-course free to influence and change public opinion, the laws will change if enough people believe in changing it.

Having said that, I think the current Government does have way more priorities than prosecuting gay sex offenders; and the amount of media attention this is getting is ridiculous.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

As I said before, where do we draw the fine line? ( Arnold wants to make Growing drugs legal. Imagine how long it will take for the law to come to India.)
CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Marijuana Legalization | NORML Daily Audio Stash

Marijuana is ganja. I don't know about legalities but I see we are already very open to it's consumption.

[greenhorn]

India is not its courts. Arguably, not even its government. Obviously, its the people.
What I'm worried about is if this will polarize the public strongly (people tend to have stronger opinions on such matters than ones like, say , hunger, poverty,crime, corruption etc.)

This might well be the opportunity elements of the far right have been seeking to rebuild their cause. If such issues could get them in power in so called 'liberal America', it could very well happen in India, and manifest itself as backlash in the polls and then, it would be even worse. Maybe thats why the new government is doing this early in its term.

[tsk1979]

People have a very lofty view of the so called very great Indian culture. They believe that anything which makes them uncomfortable must be an import from the west.
Unfortunately thats not the case.
Subjugation of women, opression of the downtrodden, consumption of narcotics, greed, etc., were there long before the western civilization even existed.
I think this is a progressive step, and I respect the sentiments of those who oppose it, but those of who you think this is a western import please start reading. Education is very important in life. Tomorrow you will have children(or maybe already have). If you lack education your children will also be uneducated, and India will remain an uneducated industry.
If you do not have time to read, you can make a trip to khajuraho, and see those 2000 year old temples, you will see that its not a foreign import.
Those of you who actually want to read, can start with the kamasutra, which is india's export to the west.
Did you hear me say "Export to the west". Well you can close your mouths now. Contrary to popular belief, India has exported a lot of culture to the west.
It did not start with curry in london restaurants.
It started many hundred years ago, when the arabs took zero to the westerners.
All their scientific powress, all the mathematical base is sitting on the Indian system of numbers(popularly called arabic numerals).

As for thinking about legality of ganja and how that is imported from the west, well at lot of "indian religious festivals" consumption of substances like Bhang, which is also a narcotic is encouraged.

And last but not the least, the purpose of the law is not to please individuals.
For example right to equality. Now this law will make many upper class rich people in some backward villages unhappy. How dare the govt say that the serf whose family has been serving us since ages be our equal. Tomorrow govt will make murder legal!!
This is the strawman argument which is being presented.
Homosexuality is being compared with rape, murder and paedophelia.
However secular law has to be objective.
When deeming anything criminal, it has to decide whether that thing is harming anyone.
OF course countries based on religious law are different. They can decree that eating a certain animal is criminal, or not wearing certain type of clothes is illegal and will result in death.
Thankfully, India is still somewhat secular when laws come into mind, and under secular law, all things such are religious beliefs etc., of people have absolutely no meaning.
Homosexuality is a private preference of a person, and is therefore a part of his/her fundamental right to the the Right of equality.
For those who do not know about this right here is the list of fundamental rights
Fundamental Rights in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Any law in India must not violate these fundamental rights.
We have quite a few laws which violate these rights, and 377 was one of them.

Now where did these laws come from. Well for these you can blame the west. I won't disagree with you.
But for other absurd things being said in this thread, please be aware that the civilization of this country is very very old.
Things happen here which you may not even have heard just because you werent part of that particular culture.
There are societies where the grooms doli goes to girls home.
There are groups of people who do not wear any clothes.
So before thinking everything came from the west, learn about your own culture first. Its much much bigger and richer than you would have imagined, and at the same time it has given birth to the most evil of concepts existing. Its a mix of both good and bad, and for over 2000 years it has grown and assimilated countless traditions, values peoples. This process will never stop, and those who think they can prevent "corruption of culture", you can't, because there is no corruption, its just a continuation of the 2000 year old process(or much older)

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

...and likening homosexuality to incest, bestiality and rape. (Honestly, I have many gay friends and I find this comparison way too sickening to even discuss further, it's just sad and I'd like to leave it at that)

Sam, as the one who bought bestiality to this discussion, It was not aimed at making a comparison. Since it was also covered by article 377, was just checking if its status would be affected as well.

But now that you mention it, I find it interesting that your gay friends found the comparison to zoosexuals sickening. There are folks who might homosexuality and zoosexuality equally revolting, and on the other end, zoosexuals who find themselves offended by your statement. Zoosexuality is legal is several european countries. It would be hypocritical for a group to deny the to others the very dignity they are fighting for.

[pranavt]

Proud to be an Indian. Hope to see other archaic laws being brought out and discussed and evaluated again.

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Sam, as the one who bought bestiality to this discussion, It was not aimed at making a comparison. Since it was also covered by article 377, was just checking if its status would be affected as well.

But now that you mention it, I find it interesting that your gay friends found the comparison to zoosexuals sickening. There are folks who might homosexuality and zoosexuality equally revolting, and on the other end, zoosexuals who find themselves offended by your statement. Zoosexuality is legal is several european countries. It would be hypocritical for a group to deny the to others the very dignity they are fighting for.

Greenie, bestiality is an act. Generally a sexually deviant act. I would not compare it to zoosexuality. However I also do understand that the usage of the two words will depend on interpretation.
My personal interpretation of bestiality and zoosexuality differ. In my opinion the difference between zoosexuality and bestiality is the difference between sex and rape. This is clearly not a topic for discussion on this forum.


If someone chooses to have a long-term emotional and physical relationship with an animal, (what I personally consider as zoosexuality) this is a different matter and needs to be respected on any level. I agree with you. Zoosexuals are socially deviant as are homosexuals. But the number of homosexuals is vast in comparison. Perhaps because gender or not, humans tend to be attracted to other humans more often. But this is not the discussion.

You simply cannot club paedophilia, incest and rape along with homosexuality! Those are crimes committed against somebody. Not a consensual relationship of adults.

You have got to see that difference, regardless of whther you approve or disapprove of homosexuality.

Since it was also covered by article 377, was just checking if its status would be affected as well.

To answer your question, 377 still stands strong. ONLY consensual homosexuality between adults has been accepted due an exceptional judgement by the high court. This exceptional judgement will now stand for future references.

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Even heterosexuals have something to cheer about. A lot which would have been proscribed by the act is now legal

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

To answer your question, 377 still stands strong. ONLY consensual homosexuality between adults has been accepted due an exceptional judgement by the high court. This exceptional judgement will now stand for future references.

Damn, if its just the stuff about homosexuals that has been removed, and that alone, then my earlier post is premature as well. Forget zoosexuals. a lot of stuff between consenting heterosexual couples still remains on the wrong side of the law.

[setuniket]

To clarify what the court has said and what has been approved and what not, here's the part of judgement as well as the actual section.

132.We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises
consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of
Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The provisions of
Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual
penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving
minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age
and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be
able to consent to a sexual act. This clarification will hold till,
of course, Parliament chooses to amend the law to
effectuate the recommendation of the Law Commission of
India in its 172nd Report which we believe removes a great
deal of confusion. Secondly, we clarify that our judgment
will not result in the re-opening of criminal cases involving
Section 377 IPC that have already attained finality.

http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/APS/judgemen...CW74552001.pdf

Section 377

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

So all in all it means that any act by Two Adults(Humans) with consent in private has nothing to do with this section, of course underaged and non-consensual act will be still be governed by Section-377 and other acts(with non-humans) as metioned in the same section.

Legal morality is not equal to public morality, it will take decades to people to adjust to this and till then all will blame goras.(west)

Although it will very very difficult for people to digest this judgement, as we see the response, with the kind of media shouting around, this issue will surely not die soon.

PS: The above pdf is the actual judegement, makes an interesting read.

[Sam Kapasi]

the guarantee of human dignity forms part of our (Indian) constitutional culture

Indeed an incredible read. A complete eye-opener. Thanks for posting this.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by devarshi84

I always wanted to eat chocolates as a child like every other child, But my mom made sure I didnt have any coz she knew I suffered a lot from cold and cough.

What does chocolate have to do with cough & cold other than the fact that chocolates are good cough remedy?

[pranavt]

Originally Posted by carboy

What does chocolate have to do with cough & cold other than the fact that chocolates are good cough remedy?

The fact that people will believe blindly, whatever they're told. Ignorance is bliss.

[Sam Kapasi]

FOr those who insist that homosexuality is simply a case of Indians aping the west, here's a suitable quote, from a learned man.

Our attention was also drawn to a statement of the Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of India at the PeriodicReview before the United Nations Human Rights Council that Indian society was accepting of sexual differences. In response to a question from the delegate from Sweden on the state of homosexual rights in India, he stated:

Proving, quite simply that homosexuality existed in India and it was not a crime. It was the west (Britain, in this case) that defined it as "buggery" and declared it to be an criminal offence.
Lord Macaulay then placed this section 377 on India, making homosexuality a criminal offence.

THEREFORE, by following this law till today, we would be blindly following the west, the British Raj! How's that then?

We are a country that wrote tales and scriptures that included human sexuality, a country with tales of voluptuous Apsaras and beautiful Gopis - a country that created the Kama Sutra and Khajuraho.

A country that is now so deeply embedded in archaic British morality and their Victorian and Edwardian philosophies that were forced so hard upon us that today sex and sexuality is no longer a healthy topic anywhere in India.

And we talk of aping the west?

[Sam Kapasi]

Originally Posted by Sam Kapasi

To answer your question, 377 still stands strong. ONLY consensual homosexuality between adults has been accepted due an exceptional judgement by the high court. This exceptional judgement will now stand for future references.

Originally Posted by greenhorn

Damn, if its just the stuff about homosexuals that has been removed, and that alone, then my earlier post is premature as well. Forget zoosexuals. a lot of stuff between consenting heterosexual couples still remains on the wrong side of the law.

I quote the declaration of the Chief Justice S Muralidhar, J..

We declare that Section 377 IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

I interpret this as - all of section 377 is violative of articles 21, 14 and 15.
EXCEPT FOR:

The provisions of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. By 'adult' we mean everyone who is 18 years of age and above. A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act.

I interpret that section 377 will continue to govern issues of sex with minors and child-abuse.

Non consensual sex between adults is rape, and that is handled by section 375 and 376, which are not discussed in the judgement.

I now realise that the Chief Justice has not addressed Homosexuality in particular, but in fact addressed Section 377 as a whole.

Given the above, I think greenhorn - all consensual sexual acts between two adults, regardless of gender or sexual orientation would then be legal. So your statement was right in the first place.

The stuff between consenting heterosexual couples does not remain on the wrong side of the law, simply because it does not matter that it is against the "law of nature" anymore.

However Greenhorn, to answer your question about zoosexuals:

I quote

In the light of the change affected by us in section 375 (definition of rape), we are of the opinion that section 377 deserves to be deleted... (as) the only content left in section 377 is having voluntary carnal intercourse with any animal. We may leave such persons to their just desserts.

Ah well... They're definitely not getting any Tiramisu from the court of law.

[greenhorn]

So all three groups get to live happily ever after.

And about the last part, I agree with the Chief Justice. Its better to let sleeping dogs lie