Section 377

  • Thread starter Thread starter warthog
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 784
  • Views Views 102,994
warthog, amish et al:

The problem is exactly what you guys are showing us. Gay people are people, not animals. They don't want to be treated as achoots (untouchables). As for the myth that gay people are 'oversexed' and will start humping every guy/woman (as the case may be) that they come across, it is what it is - a myth. Unfortunately, another image commonly portrayed as the gay stereotype is what misleads people who are otherwise very sensible and well-meaning. And those !@#holes in the fashion industry don't help either.

IMHO there is no reason for a gay man to act flamboyant or effeminate etc. - it's just that the only subculture that accepts them openly somehow has got that trend. I have come across gay men who are more 'macho' and manly then most of us here on this forum. I have also come across gay couples who are in loving monogamous relationships. None of them tried to hump me. In fact none of them acted in any manner different from any heterosexual person.

The other myth that often gets perpetuated (hint hint - conspiracy theorists) is that the gay 'movement' is some kind of organized global conspiracy to pervert, seduce and exploit our children, or that it is some kind of organized and deliberate effort of the 'west' to pervert the 'east.' Well, interestingly enough, more people in countries like the U.S. are against homosexuality than in India. And to think that it's 2009 and we still can't get a global consensus on environmental issues, that we still haven't been able to eradicate poverty, war and exploitation, but somehow a bunch of people spread across the world bent on some purported cultural revolution can organize themselves in such a deliberate manner is naive and unrealistic.

All said and done, I am writing this post with the honest and sincere effort to explain to you guys that you need to look beyond the stereotype (not just on this issue but in life generally). I am NOT interested in you dissecting my post line by line and spreading hate. I am NOT interested in arguing on this topic with you. If you feel there's something worthwhile thinking about from my post, then great. If not, please don't hit the 'quote' or 'post reply' button.

In the words of Metallica (and many before them): "Arrogance and Ignorance go hand in hand."
 
i have to post something again here :Pi have a friend who i am sure is still in the closet. i have never felt uncomfortable around him... he is as normal as any other friend i have except that girls are very comfortable around him...
 
1. Homosexual act between consenting adults done in private should not attract criminal punishment.2. Coercion by inducement, force, blackmail, authority - such cases must be trated like rape and punished.3. Involvement of minors by adults (large no. such cases are known) must be punishable.4. Public display of affection and action must be punishable.5. Demand of rights like civil/religious marriage, adoption of children, property rights are not be encouraged.6. As long as they form a tiny minority society will not come to any harm. But there will be social problems if they exceed a critical size, (about 10%)7. Throwing a person in jail for an act done in private which does not harm the individuals involved or the society is not correct; that portion of the act must be amended.
 
Those bastards,THey have destroyed the family and culture as we know it.
I hope shiv sena does some rukus.

homos=evil to this country and this planet.they should be sent to psychiatric evaluation.There is no excuse for legalizing or even recognizing it.:madness:

This type of blatant prejudice and intolerance is what is destroying
the family value rather than two adults doing what they want
consensually.

----------

so its safe to say that we legalize all vices:|

what vices are we talking about here. is homophobia one of those?
then I agree it should be banned.

----------

1. Homosexual act between consenting adults done in private should not attract criminal punishment.
2. Coercion by inducement, force, blackmail, authority - such cases must be trated like rape and punished.
3. Involvement of minors by adults (large no. such cases are known) must be punishable.
4. Public display of affection and action must be punishable.
5. Demand of rights like civil/religious marriage, adoption of children, property rights are not be encouraged.
6. As long as they form a tiny minority society will not come to any harm. But there will be social problems if they exceed a critical size, (about 10%)
7. Throwing a person in jail for an act done in private which does not harm the individuals involved or the society is not correct; that portion of the act must be amended.


You know some years back these same objections were raised
regarding inter-caste marriages too. You need to be more tolerant.
 
1. Homosexual act between consenting adults done in private should not attract criminal punishment.
2. Coercion by inducement, force, blackmail, authority - such cases must be trated like rape and punished.
3. Involvement of minors by adults (large no. such cases are known) must be punishable.
4. Public display of affection and action must be punishable.
5. Demand of rights like civil/religious marriage, adoption of children, property rights are not be encouraged.
6. As long as they form a tiny minority society will not come to any harm. But there will be social problems if they exceed a critical size, (about 10%)
7. Throwing a person in jail for an act done in private which does not harm the individuals involved or the society is not correct; that portion of the act must be amended.
1) Agreed .
2) They are , the word consensual is mentioned .
3) Child Abuse (whether straight/gay) is already punishable
4) It is , for both kinds of people
5) I wouldnt get into debates of marriage et al but Why not property rights ? What difference does it make ? BTW the same behaviour was suggested for black people in the sub 1950's
6) How do you suggest the 'critical size' is maintained , you would have to use coercion for that .

----------

tomorrow, if ur brother turns gay wud you or ur family members be OK with it?
when u come to know first time, wud u accept it without RAISING ur eyebrows?
wud u accept it AS IS, without trying to make him think again even for once?
wud u HELP him by trying to convince ur family/parents, that what he is doing is right, nothing wrong in it and his choice.
wud u allow his husband/wife (whatever u call him) to sleep with him in the room very next to you i.e in ur house forever?
wud u accept if they both hug and kiss each other at dining table when u r eating?
wud u accept if they adopts a child?

giving answer is ur choice. but if u do answer then give honest answer.

if u answer YES, then ok cool. but if u answer NO to one question then why shud ur brother NOT have those rights if as per u whole world shud have those rights?
Why dont you answer the question ? I presume you would try to convince him to see a counsellor , become straight etc. but what if he doesnt budge ? What would YOU do ?

My answer would be the same as blr_p

----------

Oh and all those who are incessantly blabbing about western ideas , homosexuality has been decriminalized in China
 
Huh, I dont have to answer. Because my answer is known to everyone already as I am opposing this.I am not against these people. I am against spoiling and corrupting culture. I already said whatever they want to do, they can already do. As someone has already said that noone has been punished under 377. But I am worried that this is not going to stop. More demands wud come one by one.One does not consider what impact it will cause to parents/sisters/other brothers. How much wud they go through mentally? Indian culture still believes in joint family. People can not live in such environment. Once this law is scrapped, they wud demand a new law to be made, that family HAS to accept them and any opposition to this wud be punishable. etc etc.And if you think, u have slight hesitation in answering the previous questions as YES that means, even though u favour it, u still have some reservations.
 


When did I have any reservations ? You are the one shirking away from a clear answer ? You oppose it , but what would you do ? Force him ?
 
No. I wud try to convince him not to do that. Might even beg. Might even end up in huge quarrel with him. But even after that if he insists, either I wud leave house or ask him to leave (actually parents wud ask him [pls dont counter saying i am depending on parents]). Inshort wont stay with THEM (the two). He has equal rights in house but I have RIGHT too, to decide with whom shud I be staying.I am trying not to argue further, because its difference in BASE of the thinking which wont change.I consider religion, family and Indian culture first and the consequences based on that. You are considering individual rights based on science and by putting western culture as example.PS. You here does not mean any individual. But in general.
 
I just want to put another point here. I don't know if this post borders on the vulgar, but per Section 377, all types of 'unnatural' sex was prohibited. And unnatural also includes anal sex between two people of the opposite genders. So there you go. This rule definitely needed a relook.
 
Just wanted to add a couple of other points.


[*] 99.9% of the people debating the issue on either side including the journalists and fundamentalists and cultural preservationists DON'T even read the judgment. Read it (link below) then judge for yourself.
[*] I am surprised, warthog, given your 'worries' and 'concerns' of the world, how you can rely on what the media is reporting, and not want to read the judgment for yourself before condemning not just a whole class of people but a judicial decision.
[*] The High court has rightly pointed out that this is an issue of dignity and privacy (Article 21) and a group of people can only be discriminated against if there is some valid need for categorization. (Articles 14 and 15).
[*] It's hypocritical to say that privacy is a fundamental right so far as we should be given the right to bear arms, that the internet not be censored, that biometric ID cards will lead to a police state, and yet in one fell swoop deny the right to privacy to people for one of the most intimate and private aspects of their life - their sexuality.
[*] This law was made by a group of white Christians in the 19th Century. Are we saying they defined and diagnosed out cultural/social problems better than we can today?
[*] S. 377 talks of sexual (carnal) intercourse that is "against the order of nature." Guess what? These things are also criminalized by this section - oral sex, anal sex, in fact sex of any kind for pleasure because the foundation of this law is the Christian ideology that sex is only for procreation and having it for fun is a sin.
[*] If we go with the ideology that sex of any kind fr pleasure is bad, then pornography should also be criminal, and the homophobes here should have no issue with banning of sites like Savita Bhabhi. In fact, they should have no problem that having accessed those kinds of sites, the police can just arrest them and then torture, molest and rape them and the rest of society then spits on them. Because that is how gay people are treated under s. 377.
[*] We need to understand very clearly that sin is one thing and criminal offences are another thing. The second we blur the line between the two, we head towards a religious totalitarian state.
[*] The same bigotry, hate and prejudice was observed when women fought for their civil rights and when black people fought for their civil rights. In America, Black people were also thought of (and many people still think this in the U.S. as well as India) as animals and "unnatural" and being below human.
[*] There is no such thing as "an Indian Culture" - "Indian Culture" means a different thing to a farmer in rural madhya pradesh, it means a different thing to a technology consultant in Guragon, it means a different thing to a child bride in Rajasthan and it means a different thing to a rich south delhi social butterfly. Culture is flux, dynamic and constantly changing. If we think we have the same culture as of vedic times (or even as of a 100 years ago) you are totally deluded.
[/list]
I highly recommend reading the judgment before making further speeches of hate, prejudice and bigotry. Perhaps it will change your mind. Most probably not. But for anyone who is interested, go to Delhi High Court - Judgment Information System click on "Judgment Date" Select "02 July 2009" and press submit. The case name is "NAZ FOUNDATION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS" (sorry, not screaming, just copy paste :p )
 

Back