TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

In December 2013, homosexual sex was made illegal in India. Do you think this decision is right or wrong. Why was the decision made?

These links have given me insite into the issue, and if you are unaware of what is happening may help you as well..
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bjp-backs-section-377-says-western-culture-cannot-be-brought-to-india/439673-3.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gay-sex-illegal-in-india-again-full-text-of-the-sc-judgement/439052-3.html
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bjp-backs-section-377-says-western-culture-cannot-be-brought-to-india/439673-3.html

Share:
  • Feb 7 2014: Not talking about this Topic,

    I see people saying that its an individual (adults) freedom to have sex with anyone they like and if both adults agree. Does it mean that even incest relation is ok for them. Would they accept , if 2 adults (father, daughter etc) can have sex as long as they are adult?.

    If a law is passed in favor of all those who seeks laws in favor of them, then the nation would be doomed and its heritage lost.

    This is just my opinion.
    • Feb 7 2014: So you mean to say that only reason people are not practicing incest is because its illegal??
      Values cannot be imposed it has to bloom from inside.
      And to emphasize the point "law should never decide what can be and cannot be done in the bedroom between two consensual adults"
      • Feb 7 2014: You have misunderstood my reply. I never said " that only reason people are not practicing incest is because its illegal??".

        I said,
        I see people saying that its an individual (adults) freedom to have sex with anyone they like and if both adults agree.

        I am asking:
        Does it mean that even incest relation is ok for them. Would they accept , if 2 adults (father, daughter etc) can have sex as long as they are adult?.
        • Timo X

          • 0
          Feb 9 2014: "I see people saying that its an individual (adults) freedom to have sex with anyone they like and if both adults agree. Does it mean that even incest relation is ok for them."
          Who finds what okay is totally and completely irrelevant when it comes to limiting people's freedoms. I may disapprove of people eating ice cream, but that does not give me the right to stop other people from doing so. Similarly, I may disapprove of your sexual practices, but that alone does not give me the right to prohibit them. So let's put the burden of proof where it belongs eh? Why do you think that you have any right to interfere with what two consenting adults are doing in private? Why do you think your opinion on it should matter at all?
    • thumb
      Feb 8 2014: Sex is a private practice in societies. Sexual orientation should in all fairness should also be a private choice. I find absolutely no reason to discriminate people in work, social interactions or life on the basis of a personal preference.
      Things however start to get problematic when sex as a private practice result in social incongruousness. For example sex produces children and they are hardly anything private as far as society is concerned so comes of the question of legal heir-ship or family hierarchy. Society sanctions, to varying degrees, moral appropriateness of selecting sexual partners be it of the same or different sex.
      Till the time the society is in full understanding of the consequences of freedom of choice in participating in sexual practices in human societies, it may not be wise to jump start a movement on popular demand.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2014: Your opinion is based on a slippery slope. If one is to legalizes homosexual marriage it does not mean the legalization of incest. Similar to the fact that legalizing weed doesn't mean that you should legalize meth.
      And by the way it is quite clear that the legalization of gay marriage is not even close to laws being passed "in favor of all those who seeks laws in favor of them".
      • Feb 9 2014: From
        Timo X:
        ======
        Why do you think that you have any right to interfere with what two consenting adults are doing in private
        ==========
        I never think like that. I am just saying:
        Individuals Action decide the Nation's Fate and how it is looked upon by other nations. So the nation has the right to limit individual's freedom on certain cases for the benifit of majority of the individuals and the nation as a whole.


        Zman Kietilipooskie
        If one is to legalizes homosexual marriage it does not mean the legalization of incest.
        ==
        a)If one segment asks for legalization of one thing,
        b)Then the other segment may ask for legalization of another thing, quoting the above law (a) and so legalization of gay marriage is very very close to laws being passed "in favor of all those who seeks laws in favor of them.

        These are just my opinions, I may be wrong.
        • Timo X

          • 0
          Feb 9 2014: You posit 'the Nation' as a separate ontological entity, but it isn't. A nation is a collection of individuals, not a thing in itself. Such a collective may choose to limit the freedoms of its members through (assumed) mutual consent. E.g. we prohibit killing someone because we do not want to be killed by someone else. However, the power of this collective is not unlimited: it can only prohibit actions that cause harm. Exactly which actions cause harm is naturally up for debate, but the burden of proof must always lie with those who wish to prohibit, lest the individuals in the collective would be better off outside it than in.

          It readily follows that every adult (or pair of consenting adults) is free to do anything that doesn't cause harm. The 'Nation' does not have a right to prohibit their actions unless it (or more accurate: they, since the nation is simply a collection of individuals) proofs beyond reasonable doubt that their actions are harmful.
    • Feb 12 2014: Prakar, I feel the same as you.
      Somewhere in the last 35 years, America has lost it's moral values.

      The media sells "consenting adults" as an advertisement for misbehavior.
      The Pope hides his priest's child molestations from the United Nations.
      The Government is run by Corporate CEO's who pay bribes to congress.
      The Richest pay no taxes, down from 92% only 35 years ago.

      I do not condone queer behaviors of both men and women.
      They are the new wreckers of humanity in America.

      Religious Community's no longer worship God before money,
      the die has been cast, and the Devil won.

      I wait for the ultimate product to appear on retail shelves.
      Butt-plugs for children.
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2014: Hi frank how are homosexuals wrecking America. I guess you mean the USA, or do you include Canada, Mexico, Bolivia etc.

        Are they killing more people?

        Polluting more?

        More vandalism?

        Or does their existence just push your emotional buttons?
        • Feb 13 2014: Obey, Yup, it just pushes my emotional buttons.
          I despise such acts. I live in a narrow lens.

          You and yours can live as you choose. You have that freedom.
          Mine, my freedom? It allows me to abhor such.
          I continue to be friendly upon encounters, but deep inside, ugh.

          I believe that small children are at risk, and eventually someone
          will step over that line. Without a moral backbone to stop them.
          Injuries will wreck lives.

          Here is what can happen, because of overuse of Dope and Alcohol --
          I've lost 2 son-in-laws, overdosed, now dead, and almost 2 daughters.
          I've lost 2 of the grandchildren, now incarcerated. One daughter did
          change and become responsible, and is now happy, although her health
          has failed. One son and 2 grandchildren succeeded. My other daughter
          remains in the world of Dope.

          The Freedoms being fought for today are headed in the wrong
          direction. We should be trying to fabricate governments to return
          our taxes in services. Instead we are focused on our genitals,
          and our personal pleasures named Dope and Alcohol.

          I grew up in a different world. Before bizarre behavior was allowed
          and before Dope was available in our societies, and when overuse
          of Alcohol was looked upon with distain.

          I can still recall as a small boy, watching as the "only" drunk in our town
          staggered from 'Lonnie's Tavern' and weaved his way down the side-
          walk.

          It is interesting to watch the changes our once proud America has had
          to make to accommodate these oddities.

          Unless you were there, you cannot understand what once was...
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2014: Sorry to hear about the impacts of drugs and alcohol on families.

        I'm not sure banning them is the best way, but ignoring the health and psychological impacts. Just like gambling, drinking and drugs, and fast food, and sex, give us pleasure in the short term but may cost is in the long term of we overdo it, or get addicted.

        It's quite complex. I don't have the answer but guess it lies somewhere being personal responsibility, family or community ties and support, and rebalancing perceptions of alcohol and drugs,.

        I'm don't see homosexuality as part of the same exact dynamic.

        I see it more similar to gender or race equality. As the freedom to express your god given sexuality.

        You didn't explain how you think homosexuals are destroying America. And you seem to bundle it in with drug and alcohol issues.

        I guess in the past minority races knew there place too. Women knew their place. homosexuals knew their place.. all this equality stuff.

        My grand father was a monarchist. He fought the Japanese for king and country. Things have changed. About half of Australians prefer a republic, funding monarchy anti democratic and archaic institutions.

        To me gender, race, and sexual orientation acceptance and equality has been a positive shift.

        we are not all the idealised 1950s white protestant bible believing sexist and racist and homophobic model.

        There are probably as many gay people as there are left handed people. Again I recall my grandparents giving my poor lefty brother a hard time forcing him to act right handed.

        I respect your right to have different views, even though we disagree. I would just ask you to feel some empathy for people who through no fault of their own are done sex attracted, or some other minority.

        why despise people for being gay, or different from what you consider normal?
        • Feb 14 2014: Obey, I thought you understood,
          I am bigoted against people you want to label gay.
          I call them as I did back in the day. Queers and Dykes.

          There is no law that says I have to shut down my feelings.
          Love it or leave it. Forget that.

          Yes, I bundle poor moral conduct with Dope and Alcohol, and label it
          "Bad Conduct".
          Yes, I fear that taken one step beyond, small children will be put at risk.
          ===
          We in today's news find the POPE ignoring the United Nation's studies.
          A practice of ignorance POPE's used during the Inquisition, not long ago.
          ===
          Seems I could lay this primitive practice, of loving Butt Holes and licking
          of genitals, to Dogs or Monkeys, or other animals who do so because
          they can. I would, but some humans decided to play and brought us
          those deadly HIV-AIDs.

          Remember when San Francisco shut down the Bath Houses?
          ===
          A September 2010 report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared : "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men represent
          approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely
          affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have
          been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, men who have sex
          with men accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the
          United States. In August of 2009, An official with the Centers for Disease
          Control and Prevention announced their estimate Monday that in the United
          States AIDS is fifty times (50 times) more prevalent among men who have sex
          with men than the rest of the population.
          ===
          Obey, You can continue to defend to your heart's content. But I will tell you;
          I have witnessed HIV-AID's terrible tortures to a homosexual employee, during
          his last two years of life, back in 1985 in Santa Barbara.

          Be well.
      • thumb
        Feb 17 2014: Hi frank, I guess if we drive a car or go to work we are more likely to get injured in a car crash and catch the flu.

        if we have hetero sexual sex we are more likely to get a sexually transmitted disease.

        If you kiss someone on the mouth you are more likely to transmit disease.

        If we play sport we are more likely to get injuries.

        If we eat fast food we are more likely to get diabetes or heart disease.

        why the special bigotry for gay sex, and not all the other human behaviors that increase health risks.

        those darn tv watchers destroying society by being so sedentary and getting more heart attacks.

        I watched a family member die from skin cancer. To much sun, but I'm not bigoted against sun bathers.

        I even feel sorry for people who god made attracted to children the same way I'm attracted to women. Imagine having a sexual orientation and never being able to follow through through no fault of your own.

        I guess hate And be judgemental is the easy road sometimes. There have been times I've drunk to much, rate to much,, played a contact sport, and slept with the wrong person at the wrong time, mostly when I was young and dumb. But I guess I have empathy for those suffering the human condition even if their sexual orientation differs from mine. s.

        Having said that, those who knowingly have unsafe sex or get hooked on cigarettes have to accept the consequences, but humans are human.

        I thought the leading theories on the transmission from stores apes to human was from blood associated with meat not sex with animals.

        I guess sexually active heterosexuals are at greater risk of herpes , hpv, hiv, etc than those not sexually active. Therefore heterosexualsex is bad conduct.
        • Feb 17 2014: Obey,
          We've beat this topic to death.
          You apparently like what you do.

          I see my warning was ignored. I expected nothing else.
          I wish you a safe journey through the life you choose.
          Good bye.
    • thumb
      Feb 12 2014: How about if we refine the statement to unrelated consenting adults.

      why does it bother you if two same sex people are involved in a sexual relationship?

      I suggest equality and freedom are good starting points and we only wind this back where there is unacceptable risk of harm.

      e.g. let all people, homosexuals, women, drive cars, but draw the line where not physically or mentally capable enough not to be an unreasonable risk. So limit children, or blind people, our drug affected people.

      I've yet to hear a compelling case that homosexual sex is aunreasonably damaging than hetero sexual sex.

      If we wait till all the facts are available, there will never be change.

      Actually in this case there are plenty societies that don't criminalise homosexual sex, and three are generally countries I'd rather live in than the ones that make it illegal.

      should India be concerned they are aligned with many countries with horrendous human rights.

      it's up to Indians, but I suggest human rights would ideally trump the majority political view.
      • Feb 13 2014: How about if we refine the statement to unrelated consenting adults.
        ===========
        First it was ok for you that 2 conenting aduts having sex is their freedom. Now after a minor discussion, you are putting a clause : UNrelated consenting adults.

        If on a small discussion among a few individuals, one can put a clause to their previous thoughts, Think the responsibility that a nation and its legal arm has against its citizens.

        Again I am repeating If a law is passed in favor of all those who seeks laws in favor of them, then the nation would be doomed and its heritage lost.

        Guns and various other weapons of mass destruction are produced with good intention, but are they really being used for good intentions., Is the nation more peaceful because of these?

        If a law has been passed against any of the above production while they are on paper itself and the papers destroyed, then the same Free stinkers would have raised their voices against the nation saying that its the Individual's freedom.

        So, you cant pass a law in favor of all those who seeks laws in favor of them, then the nation would be doomed and its heritage lost. There are chances that it May lead to irreversible damage like what guns are doing to the world.
  • Feb 6 2014: Hey fritzie and greg, I actually live in the UK and I am studying this topic as an external project qualification to help me get into university. I have been looking at how the western culture has been affecting the Indian. In one of the news stories it was interesting to read that a man said that it was the western culture corrupting the minds of indian youths, and that they would not allow for this western culture to enter India. Personally, I think it is wrong. I believe that being homosexual is nature not nurture. I can only imagine that coming out as gay for many is a terrifying thing and many will shy away from it for years. I feel so sorry for Indian people who are trapped in a different body all there lives - they wont be happy or add to society for any real purpose if they are not living the life they want or have been given. And with the rise in technology and scientific research there are new ways that gay couples can have children. So really what harm is this causing?? Homosexuality is natural, just like a Lejan said - it is illogical to put it into a legal frame work. Many may argue against me - I am interested to hear your views.
  • Feb 5 2014: Governments need to focus on things other than controlling what consenting adults are allowed to do. Interesting that they view it as western cultures fault, have they identified a correlation between knowledge of western culture and homosexuality?
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2014: I didn't know about that, so thank you for this information!

    As homosexuality is natural in its occurrence, it is illogical to put it into a legal framework, which then can only return discrimination.

    So why not prosecuting color blindness or synaesthesia as well? Because if a legal system has to turn nuts for whatever reason, it should do so at least consequently ... ;o)
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2014: Hi, Lejan~:)
      I'm still on my way to exploring and learning more about homosexuality. But please allow me to ask a question, don't you think homosexuality could spawn the terrifying disease "HIV" ?
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2014: Yes, Yoka, it could and does an this in exactly the same way as heterosexuality.

        HIV is transferred via blood, sperm and vaginal fluid and whenever any of those fluids finds an entrance into another system. The gender therefore is irrelevant for infection.
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2014: The reason why we observe higher HIV infection rates among homosexuals is not because of their homosexuality, but because of the higher risks involved of the way they have intercourse.

        This group effects mainly homosexual males, by the fact, that anal sex naturally increases the risks of very fine injuries of tissue and capillary blood vessels, by which HIV finds its way more easy across.

        Therefore it is important to interpret those statistics carefully within the given context and by the given facts and not to demonize or to discriminate people by their sexual orientation!

        For both, heterosexuals and homosexuals, protection is key to stop this disease from spreading.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2014: I respect people who have different sexual orientations from normal people do and agree they could have their freedom to STAY with whom they like. Maybe the problem is if people can't assure enough medical protections or spread effective education all over the country, people may have to lean toward some policies to restrict what they can control to protect most people's health from being infected, which may cause some people's natural feelings suffer.
        • thumb
          Feb 13 2014: Hi yoka, I guess you mean majority or hetero sexuals, rather than normal. Unless you suggest being gay, is abnormal.

          Being gay is not exactly abnormal, it's normal part of the human population. Just like being left handed or having blue eyes is a minority trait.
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2014: I note Uganda is looking at even more draconian laws.

    life imprisonment for being homosexual.

    and not reporting homosexuals being a crime.

    I wonder if this is not just looking for scapegoats, to distract, or find a group to blame for social and economic ills
  • thumb
    Feb 13 2014: Brendan asked me to send this link to you. Sorry it's off-topic:

    Discovery of Quantum Vibrations in “Microtubules” Inside Brain Neurons Corroborates Controversial 20-Year-Old Theory of Consciousness -
    See more at:
    http://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/discovery-of-quantum-vibrations-in-microtubules-inside-brain-neurons-corroborates-controversial-20-year-old-theory-of-consciousness#sthash.bcT5ZQFM.dpuf
  • thumb
    Feb 13 2014: I shall recall one personal experience here. Sorry if it is off-topic.
    Just a week ago I was required to testify as a witness in a law suit before a high court judge. When I stood on the docks the court clerk came along, asked my name and then produced a book covered with red cloth and asked me to place my hand on it and take an oath of telling the truth and only the truth.
    I asked the judge if it is necessary to take that oath by holding that religious book. The Judge said : No.
    I took the oath without touching the book.
    Later on, I was told that it is even not necessary to address the judge as 'my lord'.
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2014: What constitutes denial of a marriage license for a heterosexual couple?

    Underage without parental consent

    Married to someone else.

    Missing documentation.

    Lack of money for the fees, take cash they don't all take checks or credit cards.

    Blood relative.

    What's the difference?

    Why do we want the gov. to have the jurisdiction to tell legal consenting adults with money what decisions they can and can't make for themselves when they're not doing anything harmful to another human being?

    Just seems to me that this is a choice I don't want anyone to ever be able to make for me considering I'm a working, tax paying adult.
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2014: Another interesting aspect of this debate is the mention of ‘nature’. Some commenters argue that homosexuality is natural and hence should be upheld. I find a great weakness in this line of argument. Purely based on facts and evidence, there are many ‘natural’ things that a modern/liberal society can not allow as a matter of right or as a law. I shall save space and time here by not mentioning such natural things here unless asked for. So mere naturality does not seem to me any convincing argument.

    Adult consent in sex is a vexed issue. It requires a ‘defined’ biological age and it seems that that age is progressively getting younger despite wide variation of opinion from culture to culture. Likewise the idea of harm is largely subjective. Mere absence of physical harm during sex is a very narrow way of looking at it.

    I am personally against discriminating people on the basis of their sexual orientation/preference. But I disagree that my personal opinion constitutes a right for a given sexual practice in public such as gay marriage. A right of that kind needs to be determined by societies/cultures/countries in their own ways independently. I don’t see a global human value involved in such right at all.

    The author mentions few links on this question and all those links are basically mainstream media. It may not be wise to form any opinion on an issue like this based on news value.
    • thumb
      Feb 12 2014: Hi pm, maybe I can help illuminate the natural argument.

      it's not made to excuse all natural urges as okay. It may be a natural urge to kill someone when angry, or pedophiles may be attracted to children but that does not make sex between adults and young children acceptable.

      in regards to homosexuality, it is contrasting only with acceptable forms of heterosexuality. if the only difference is the sex of the participants, what's the ethical difference.

      Also it's pointing out it's not a trivial lifestyle choice like choosing a flavour of ice cream. It's a basic part of the human experience. Why deny homosexuals this.

      What if we said it's illegal for all hetero sexual people to have sex. Deny them this basic human experience. Just because the majority wanted this. Just make babies via artificial insemination.

      There would be outrage denying people this basic human experience.

      What about banning a particular race from having sex. Outrageous to deny them this natural expression of their humanity.

      What if we banned people over45 from having sex. Unacceptable.

      So why is out okay to ban homosexuals this basic human experience.

      Actually we permit people to smoke and drink, which are life style choices, and which doe cause harm, yet homosexual sex, that causes no more harm than hetero sexual sex is illegal.
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2014: Dear Obey,
        Decriminalization of homosexual sex and upholding homosexual right of marriage in terms of law are two very different issues, won't you agree?
        Law or constitution cannot understand love. Love in any form should be decriminalized and I think even the law-makers and legislators understand that. They are just helpless, I guess.
        From my little experience of running a small team with discipline, I realized how difficult it is to have rules without cutting down on individual freedom. When I read article 16 of UDHR, I cannot but feel amused. UN does not have to run a country. In India, we are yet to satisfactorily handle heterosexual marriage (under-age marriage, forced marriage, dowry, honor-killing and what not) and talk of homosexual marriage seems too much of an adventure to me.
        • thumb
          Feb 13 2014: Dear pm, I'm just commenting on homosexual sex being illegal.

          although my starting point for marriage is equality whatever your age, sexuality, race within limits. I suggest there is an argument against child marriage, or arranged marriages.

          I take your point that this is in the context of a whole lot of otherissues perhaps impacting more people in worse ways.

          it may not be a to priority, but in principle based on human rights and minimising harm trying to improve the human condition I suggest there is a compelling case for sex to be legal for homosexuals wherever it is reasonable for heterosexuals.

          if people don't like homosexual sex, they don't have to have it.

          My starting point is freedom. But recognise human societies need laws.

          Hopefully these laws can be updated as society evolves to reduce racism, sexism, child abuse, religious intolerance , homophobia etc
  • thumb
    Feb 12 2014: I think that this discussion has taken a turn into a debate based on ‘assumed’ statements rather than facts. I have already explained to the author that her question runs the risk of making unaware people think as if homosexuality was legal in India prior to Supreme Court’s verdict of 2013. That is simply incorrect. Since independence homosexuality has remained illegal in India as per section 377 IPC. Here is a factual reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code

    So, it appears that Supreme Court has nothing to do with the homosexuality issue as a moral or social imperative; rather it is the responsibility of the legislators.

    It is interesting that ‘Nation’ gets mentioned in this debate and it is described as a collection of people. Is facebook a ‘Nation’? Moreover, I personally feel concept of nationality is outdated and nation is just an imaginary entity. I feel geo-political statehood (which we loosely call as a country) is what can be objectively discussed.

    Each country’s constitution has unique history, cultural-religious underpinning and political basis. Also the present political state of the world is that of anarchy, in the sense that (technically) no country has ascendancy over another. That understood, how a country will fashion its constitution is that country’s business. No amount of moral or liberal elitism can change that reality.

    [cont.]
    • thumb
      Feb 13 2014: Hi pm, I think I understand the legal constitutional subtleties.

      fyi my recall is most Australian states only decriminalised homosexual sex in the 1970"s. And some states are only now expunging the convictions.

      and we only gave the indigenous people the right to vote 50 years ago. Women the vote 100 years ago. And all white men other than select groups only got the vote a few decades before this. Catholics banned from parliament etc, and our head of state is head of the church of England, not voted in, so we are behind India in that regards.

      India is one of the great democracies, The largest in fact, just 60 years old post a colonial period, and1000"s of years of civilisation, not without it's challenges and issues.

      I guess the concern is the direction seems against human rights. Wrong direction based on religious bigotry I guess.

      hopefully just a hiccup, but sad when independence from western imperialism is linked to shifts away from human rights, as per Russia and new anti gay laws.
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2014: Honestly Ob, I don't buy the stupid slogan of the Hindu fundamentalist section of Indian population, the slogan that western culture is corrupting our culture through homosexuality rights. It is absurd. First because, the western culture is NOT fully settled about the homosexuality issue as yet, secondly because homosexuals were always in India, right or no right. It may take some courage to admit those simple facts.
        I am more than sure that Indian democracy will decriminalize homosexuality sooner than later - it's just that life's priorities here in India are very different from what are those in the West.
        I personally do not even believe in the institution of marriage. But I appreciate that the State should have some normative control over such relationship by way of registering those and recognizing such relationship. It all depends on how badly the country needs to do that. If half of the population demand gay marriage then be it. Why not?
        But I am against value judging a culture's wisdom in realizing a right as part of human life. Every culture should be allowed to settle it through its own experience and necessity.
        I have at least two gay friends, one of them is quite well placed in the society happily living with another man, none of them are closet gays and despite section 377 none of them have been punished ever. Yes they can not register themselves as married couple in Government records but it looks like they are in no great hurry either.
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2014: A lot of your points make sense to me.

          probably just a few small differences. In principle I would hope human rights don't depend on majority support. But in practice, that may be the case, if requiring a constitutional change or referendum.

          Also I think arguments can be made for human rights and against some cultural positions if you base the argument on reducing harm, and improving the human condition e.g. I think an argument can be made against cultural practices such as genital mutilation of children, using women as property, the death penalty etc.

          these arguments may not get much traction due to cultural programming, but there is perhaps some long term benefit to challenging the status quo.

          And unfortunately it is up to every society to decide how it wants to be.

          I think of south Africa with apartheid. We couldn't change it from the outside but could offer some support. I think it is fine to object to apartheid or other similar practices

          but it's a fine line sometimes. Push to hard and it can lead to a reaction entrenching positions.

          So some pressure, some exposure to human rights perspective is good. But ultimately it is up to the locals.
  • Feb 12 2014: The Decision was right.
    I have no idea why the Decision was made.
    I don't think that I care.
    They did get it right.

    Those of you who think otherwise,
    I can have no discourse with you.

    I attribute such activity to those
    10,000 A-bomb tests. lol
  • Feb 10 2014: I never posted that 'the Nation' as a separate ontological entity,
    I posted : Individuals Action decide the Nation's Fate . Which means a nation is a collection of individuals and their actions decides the Nation's fate.

    Exactly which actions cause harm is naturally up for debate, but the burden of proof must always lie with those who wish to prohibit, - I agree with this., But there are some cases where the results of an action will be irreversible.

    You said: The 'Nation' does not have a right to prohibit their actions unless it (or more accurate: they, since the nation is simply a collection of individuals) proofs beyond reasonable doubt that their actions are harmful.

    Letting everyone to act on their own and then prooving after checking the results may lead to irreversible damage.
  • thumb
    Feb 8 2014: Homosexual sex is also known as sodomy. Sodomy is generally anal sex, oral sex or sexual activity between a person and a non-human animal (bestiality), but may also include any non-procreative sexual activity. Originally, the term sodomy was usually restricted to anal sex, and is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Sodomy laws in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well. Sodomy is now better known as deviant sexual intercourse.

    Reasons for passing laws either for or against usually fall into two categories 1) Religious belief and more to the point 2) political pressure and the danger of losing political favor. It should be noted that many laws were passed by religious leaders for medical reasons .. the rabbis found that pork if not properly prepared carried trichinosis and forbade followers to consume pork. Bottom dwellers (the seas trash collectors) and unclean fish (without scales) like sharks have high mercury content and other heavy metals. These rules are also written into the Qur'an.

    Since sodomy is defined as both human to human and human to animal (bestiality) it may well be that the politicians saw the Hindu and Qur'an laws abused and perhaps even medical considerations were discussed.

    Those in favor and those against usually argue from emotion. The exact wording of this ruling should be examined to see what the logic for passing such a law was.

    The good thing I see here is that the legislature of India has came together on a issue. The Indian political structure is devised of many parties and seldom finds common ground. This decision should be evaluated (whither you agree or not) to see what brought them together. This could be important in presenting further legislation.

    The decision of right or wrong as you asked is personal and much debated ... however the question of why is valid and important.

    Bob.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: Anna, as Pabitra explains that you have misinterpreted the ruling, you might want to go back and edit the claim with which you open your thread so as not to mislead people.

    According to Pabitra's explanation on reviewing the court's decision, the ruling says only that making such a law would not be in violation of the constitution- that making a decision on the issue is a Legislative rather than Judicial matter.
  • thumb
    Feb 7 2014: I think the framing of the question by the author is not factually correct. The fact is in December 2013 Supreme Court of India passed a judgement in favor the constitutionality of article 377 IPC that penalizes penile non vaginal sex ruling out a High Court judgement that previously stated the section 377 IPC as unconstitutional. It needs to be understood that courts decide the constitutionality of any article in relation to other articles enshrined in the constitution without heed to public morality.
    The last paragraph of the judgement reads as:
    While parting with the case, we would like to make it clear that this Court has merely pronounced on the correctness of the view taken by the Delhi High Court on the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC and found that the said section does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Notwithstanding this verdict, the competent legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting Section 377 IPC from the statute book or amend the same as per the suggestion made by the Attorney General.

    The complete judgement is available here: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-judgement-on-homosexuality-full-text-457551

    It is up to the legislators to decide about the homosexuality issue and amend the constitution in a suitable manner. While doing that Indian public is expected to consider the historicity of the constitution, the cultural ethos and the majority opinion just like deciding abortion laws in some countries and gun laws in some other country.

    It is simply not a question of a personal opinion about it.

    As far as idea of sex homosexuality is neither historically unknown nor unheard of. The law comes into force only when it is pressed or abused as a right.
  • Feb 7 2014: I don't see how its the public's or government's business what private citizens do in bed so long as its between consenting adults. Live and let live--as long as its not harming you, stay out of it.

    Besides, starting to repress any minority makes for a bad precedent.
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: Anna, since you have raised this issue before, why not begin to share your point of view as well?
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2014: I think it's wrong. Homosexuality does not hurt anybody, so why outlaw it?

    Why are you interested in this issue, Anna, do you live in India? Where do you live?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 9 2014: Hello....again....
      Simply put your glorification of the woman and your hate for the male has clouded your judgement.... Nobody is perfect and both males and females. Try looking up females against homosexuality and see what comes up.
    • Feb 10 2014: How can you ask anything to nature, when you, me and everyone are nature? . You are talking as if nature is seperate from you and Men+Nature acts against you
      • Comment deleted

        • Feb 12 2014: You Posted:
          Humans are the best at making up unrealistic scenario that make no seance .
          Be Well!
          ===
          What is that unrealistic scenario that make no seance . If humans are best at making up unrealistic scenario that make no seance , how come you one among the human found that unrealistic scenario that make no seance .
          ===
          I never said you can't ask something from a force that has no need for ears but just a straight forward drive for perfection.

          My response was to your post:
          If you asked nature or men , nature and man would say yes,
          How could you ask anything to nature , if You, me and all are nature. Why are you thinking that nature is seperate from you, when you are nature.


          ================
          Again from your post (repeating)
          you can't ask something from a force that has no need for ears but just a straight forward drive for perfection.
          Why are you thinking that force ( i think again you are referring to nature,) is seperate from you.
          You contradict yourself in these 2 posts of yours:

          1) If you asked nature or men , nature and man would say yes, ban it
          2) you can't ask something from a force that has no need for ears but just a straight forward drive for perfection.
      • Comment deleted

  • Feb 5 2014: I'd call it primitive
  • Feb 5 2014: Disclosure: I didn't open any of the links but want to give you my opinion. If the state has the authority to make prostitution illegal which is understood as heterosexual why is it wrong to do the same for the homosexual? Is the reason paid heterosexual sex illegal because the women are 2nd class citizens in the eyes of the state?

    I look forward to the day the ACLU defends a prostitutes constitutional right to be heterosexual before the elder supreme court justices. With Justice John Roberts giving the deciding opinion.
    • thumb
      Feb 13 2014: 2 wrongs make a right?

      to be fair let's ban all types of sex whether with yourself out others.

      Nasty business.
      • Feb 13 2014: Why would you be fair if you are banning it? Is homosexual sex nasty business.? I thought that's why marriage was invented. :)))))
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2014: Hi dino, I was being ironic, but perhaps not to obvious about it.

          I guess the state can make any laws it wants within any constitutional limits.

          And we can object to those we disagree. with.

          to suggest making all sex illegal was really just to point out the double standards. Having said that I accept that it's not any thing goes. There are good arguments for prohibiting some forms of sexual behavior, eg rape, incest etc.

          the prostitution question is also not clear cut off it involves children or force etc.