Section 377

[rageaddict]

I made the point a few pages back where decriminalising does not imply legalising. It just means what it does, not a crime.
actually, both the father and the mullah had no idea what the ruling meant. they had somehow thought that the ruling would allow gays to get married with each other. whenever thapar asked what they thought about the ruling, they first nodded in disapprovement and then that there religious institution won't allow homosexual marriages.

For starters how to prove animal has given consent ?
hmm, i don't know. maybe you can train a monkey to have sex with you, right? teach it some sign languages in agreement? obviously, there's a language barrier so maybe no.

Child pr0n involves ppl below the age of consent that even if they do agree are not in a legal position to do so.
in some countries, the age of consent is 13 years. so if a 13 year old girl and a 40 year old man engage in consensual sex in that country, won't it be legal?

it still does leave out incest. my only logic on homosexuality is that there adults and they can do whatever they want in agreement among them. i just raised the issue of beastility for the heck of it but there are loop holes in child porn and there's the case of incest. the govt may have decriminalized anal sex but it has laid a foundation for possibility of legalizing other immoral behavior. the next battle for the gay community would be to legalize gay marriages. it think if they legalize this then the next thing you know, we'll all be fu$king dogs.

 

[vebk]

blr_p has hit the nail on the head as far as the "why not legalize bestiality, child pornography" argument goes - it's about consent. Just as how consensual intercourse is perfectly legal, but rape is a criminal offense - the difference being solely of consent. Animals cannot give consent (sign languages etc. don't count) - because we don't consider them to have the intelligence to give consent. Similarly children don't have the intellectual maturity to give consent. Therefore having sex with a girl below 16 with or without her 'consent' is considered rape (technically called statutory rape because although 'consent' may be there, it's no consent in law).

And as far as other countries having the age of consent at 13, well that's the prerogative of every nation and society to determine what age they consider a person to be intellectually / emotionally mature to be sexually active. There's no rule handed down by god for us to follow. And there have been cultures in our global history where it was considered quite normal for children to have sex in a playful manner.

Incest - well wow, that's a whole new topic. It's one of those extremely few cultural aspects that is almost universal in the world. And the theories as to why we abhorr incest are many - from the theory that it's economically sound to marry into another family, to the theory that children who grow up together get some kind of instinctive sexual repulsion towards each other, to the theory that genetic evolution is against incestual relationships (or at least incest repeatedly generation after generation). In other words, we don't have an answer. We have a lot of theories.

On that note, technically I don't think there is anything legally prohibiting two adults from have consensual sex even if it amounts to incest. But they are prohibited from getting married. For better or for worse, there isn't a distinguishable or significant group that's pushing for legalization of incestuous marriages.

 

[blr_p]

hmm, i don't know. maybe you can train a monkey to have sex with you, right? teach it some sign languages in agreement? obviously, there's a language barrier so maybe no.

Neither do i, also is the relationship on an equal ground ?

Could a doctor take advantage of his patient ?

What about with mentally ill people ?


in some countries, the age of consent is 13 years. so if a 13 year old girl and a 40 year old man engage in consensual sex in that country, won't it be legal?

Here's a list

In many places even tho the age is as low as 12, its still illegal for an adult to take part with a minor. There is still a higher age before they can marry.

it still does leave out incest. my only logic on homosexuality is that there adults and they can do whatever they want in agreement among them. i just raised the issue of beastility for the heck of it but there are loop holes in child porn and there's the case of incest. the govt may have decriminalized anal sex but it has laid a foundation for possibility of legalizing other immoral behavior.


Can you explain what you think that foundation is ?


the next battle for the gay community would be to legalize gay marriages. it think if they legalize this then the next thing you know, we'll all be fu$king dogs.

Look at countries that decriminialised 30+ yrs before us. Do you see this sort of behaviour there ?

If anything its caused a lot of the paedo's from there to come try their luck in Asia as the laws here are not always as rigourously enforced compared to their home countries

 

[blr_p]

The judgment helps validation of homosexual identity'
Deccan Herald
The Inquirer
Jul 23 2009

Sudhir Kakar, a leading figure in the fields of psychoanalysis, cultural psychology and psychology of religion has produced 16 works of non-fiction and four novels. Considered one of the country’s leading contemporary thinkers, Dr Kakar who lives in Goa spoke to Devika Sequeira of Deccan Herald about the significance of the Delhi high court ruling on Section 377 of the CrPc.

How would you define homosexuality?
I think one basic distinction we need to make is between the same sex relationships and homosexuality. Same sex relationships can and do take place out of adolescent curiosity and in boarding schools, prisons or other places where partners of the opposite sex are not available. Homosexuality is an exclusive preference for a partner of the same sex. A self-definition as a homosexual is relatively new, first observed in the 19th century in the West. Same sex encounters and relationships have been observed and commented upon in most ancient societies, such as Greece and our own. My estimate is that if five to seven per cent of our population is homosexual, the percentage that has had same sex encounters will be well over 30 per cent.

Quite apart from decriminalising gay sex, how significant is the court ruling for the gay movement in India? Could it lead to a more assertive ‘coming out?’
The judgment is of enormous significance for those still struggling with their sexual identity, a vastly greater number than those who have accepted their homosexuality and constitute the gay movement. The phrase ‘coming out’ refers to the public acknowledgment of one’s homosexuality, but there is an analogous internal ‘coming out,’ a sort of self-realisation that one is a homosexual.

My identity does not take place in a vacuum but needs my culture’s validation: not only my inner assertion, ‘I am this,’ but the culture’s ‘Yes, you are that.’ The court judgment makes it possible for our society to begin the process of validating homosexual identity, ie ‘You are a homosexual, not a criminal.’

Millions of men and women can now ask themselves ‘Who am I?’ rather than the much more painful ‘What is wrong with me?’ If this process lessens the emotional pain of millions which led to suicidal tendencies and substance abuse in hundreds of thousands, then it would have served its purpose. It is a signal to the homosexuals that they too can safely search for love and intimacy, a search that animates the rest of us.

How do you respond to the extreme view often put out that homosexuality is against the order of nature?
Sexuality, like everything else human, partakes not only of nature but also of culture. We do not eat, sleep, work or whatever else, naturally. Any one who fasts, because of his religious convictions or for other reasons, is going against the ‘order of nature.’ If by order of nature, it is meant that homosexuals do not procreate, then celibate Catholic priests and nuns, ascetic yogis and sadhvis, by refusing to procreate are also going against the order of nature and are equally culpable.

I read an essay of yours recently where you talk of India’s tradition of ‘benign neglect’ of alternate sexualities. Now that the issue is out in the open we can no longer be in denial about homosexuality in India...

In general, India has had a tradition of ‘benign neglect’ of alternate sexualities, a tradition that is very much a part of the Indian mind. The Indian tradition of indifference or deliberate ignorance, is also incompatible with the model of the Western gay movement which, like many Western imports finds many consumers in our major cities and which insists on the politics of a gay identity, of a proud or at least defiant assertion of homosexual identity that forces the rest of the society to confront the issue publicly. On the one hand, this assertion is valuable in repealing archaic laws. On the other, if it becomes too flamboyant, there is a danger, like the negative impact of the bra-burning activists on feminism in the West, of harming the gay cause.

Publicly there is a degree of discomfort too, with having to openly debate matters of a sexual nature...

One of the biggest benefits (of the court verdict) will be our society’s increased engagement with understanding the issue. We will employ more curiosity and reasoning rather than indulging in scare tactics or prejudice. We will look at homosexuality across cultures and in history to see how it was viewed at other times and other places and that the views of contemporary religious right — Christian, Muslim and Hindu — are only one way of looking at it. We will see that two of the most successful and creative civilisations of the past, ancient Greece and classical India, were much more tolerant but also that the tolerance was not unrestricted.

Here, I think the gay movement needs to be aware that tolerance is not approval. No major civilisation has approved of homosexuality, except ancient Greece. In ancient India, homosexual activity itself was ignored or stigmatised as inferior but never actively persecuted. In the dharmashastras, male homoerotic activity is punished, albeit mildly: a ritual bath or the payment of a small fine was often sufficient atonement. Moreover, the active partner in the sexual activity was not considered homosexual, only the passive one was stigmatised.

 

[warthog]

blrp i was reading a news article which the the judge who ruled in favour was a gay activist and had filed a pil
Gay sex ruling: HC judge accused of judicial impropriety - India - NEWS - The Times of India


confilt of interest AKA the verdict is NULL AND VOID!

also svk about right to bear arms,it is expanind the public rights.THe SC's cant just say no.It will be hypocrtical.The SC can only declare a act null and void if it conflicts with fundamental rights.
If the govt adds jury trials in fundamental rights the SC cannot say no even if the jury can nullify the law
see jury nullification

 

[warthog]

looks like the judgment may be revoked
conflict of interest
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/Gay-sex-ruling-HC-judge-accused-of-judicial-impropriety/articleshow/4810500.cms

lmao

also vebK you are wrong on that.If the govt adds a amendment to enlarge fundamental rights the SC cant revoke it.It goes against the spirit of the judiciary and Constitution.The job of judiciary is to protect the constitution.Adding right to bear arms or jury trials or state rights only strengthens the fundamental rights and constitution.talk to any law student about the limits of the SC.

also read this
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves

thomas jefferson

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Abraham Lincoln

 

---

[tech_enthu]

Constitution is not sacrosanct; it can be changed to suit time and place and public mood. If we become an islamic republic(?), constitution is thrown to the winds!

 

[warthog]

yes the constitution is a living document,it evolves but no matter what the evolution is any law which violates the fundamental rights are null and void but that does not mean the judiciary can ban laws,acts left and right and cannot be changed on the public mood.THat happens in a democracy which is tryanny of majority.We are a democratic REPUBLIC aka rights of minority is also respected.look at POTA,MCOCA,IT ACT,armed forces act,chhattisgarh public security act.They all violate fundamental right but is the SC voiding it?.Also vebk said that if the SC thinks right to bear arms is against the constitution it will be null and void.this is stupidity as this is a right which is being expanded.anyways see my link.THe judge who gave the ruling had a conflict of interest.If any one challenges the verdict on the basis of conflict on interest i am sure it will be stayed.

 

[vebk]

I think warthog should be made the next Chief Justice of India given that he knows everything about everything and is now, among everything else, a Constitutional expert as well.... Because quoting two quotes from Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln is what it takes to become an expert on the Indian Constitution.

And I don't know which post of mine you are quoting, but I think you have either misunderstood it or misquoted it. My point is that the legislature can pass what it wants, but in the end if it's constitutional validity is challenged, and the Supreme Court finds (on the basis of the arguments and material posed before it - not on their own whims and fancies as you so callously suggest) that such law is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, then the law falls, and will be null and void at least to the extent that it violates the basic structure.

Here's an introduction to the basic structure doctrine, and there's tons more to read if you are interested:
Basic structure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw you tend to see things in a very black and white manner. Right to bear arms may be 'expanding' fundamental rights to you, but to others it may be against Article 21 (Right to Life) in which case it violates fundamental rights. Just because you support one side of the argument doesn't make the rest of the world support it to.

As for conflict of interest, we'll see. It's an interesting point that's been brought up, and it may be that the courts hold that it's a useless allegation, or it may (to your joy) hold that some other bench decide it. And whether that bench passes a similar judgment or not would remain to be seen.

 

[warthog]

it depends on the point of view.FOr me article 21 aka right to life is compatible with right to bear arms as i am using weapons for self defense but your attitude is just like a bully.What stalin said"political power comes out from a barrel of a gun".Even Gandhi,bal gangadar tilak wanted this.It was known as amendment 438.sadly it wasnt passed with right against unreasonable search and seizure and many other rights.WE have a watered down fundamental rights and the SC is forced to expand it for the sake of civil liberties.Out politicans would rather want to remove Part III of the Constitution if they have their way.anyways we are discussing about art 377.After 6-8 weeks when the govt presents its view we would know the aftermath.