Today a very important and much awaited verdict came from the Supreme Court of India.
It is about the legality of homosexuality in India. It was illegal in India. Five years back, a high court of one state of India hold that homosexuality is private issue between two adults, so state has nothing to do with it. High court also ruled that banning any form of sexual behavior is very much against the freedom of choice, which is one of the basic premises on the constitution of the India. And, homosexuality became legal in India just five years back.
But, in today’s verdict, the apex court set aside the ruling of the High court and again banned and hold homosexuality as illegal.
Details of the decision are yet to come. The only thing that judges said verbally in the court that they would not hold homosexuality legal. But, the parliament may come up with a new law supporting it if members want. But, that requires 2/3 majority.
Almost every intellectual, critic, journalist and news anchor is criticizing Supreme Court for its verdict, but i am satisfied.
Is there any convincing argument that this is not the case? Or are there legitimate grounds for making it a matter for the State to be involved with in India?
I imagine India probably has a completely different conception of the State’s role than the U.S.- maybe they think preserving the moral order or some such is part of the duty of the State.
There is a section in the constitution of India that criminalises all sexual activities against the order or the natrue, and that includes homosexuality too.
And, there is also a section in the contitution that says that every citizen of the India is free to adopt his own belif, system and life style.
These two sections are somewhat contradictory.
The high court said in its verdict five years ago that former law is against the later, thus hold that null and void.
But, the apex court says that it is not. If the country wants to decriminalise homosexuality, the parliament should come delete the former law from the constitution. Till then, they would have go by it.
The court is asking the parliament to define whether homosexuality is against the order of the nature or not.
That is precisely the apex court is asking. It is saying that it it not the job of the court to make law. It is the duty of the parliament to decide what is right or wrong according to majority of the country because the people use to send their representatives in the parliament, not in the court.
Court is saying that make the law and we will interpret it. And, homosexuality is criminal by the existing laws so far. If the people of the country want to decriminalise it, then the right platform is parliament, not the court.
Thinking about the concern of the Indians is the duty of the parliament. As far as the courts are concerned, they are restricted only to the interpretation. Amendment is not in their jurisdiction.
Homosexuality is wrong God says so apparently. End of story. /thread.
On a more serious note about time. I can now soon chose to have sex with men in India, hell I wont but hell I could, life makes sense again. Fuck me, and that is the point if you want to.
i think it’s incumbent upon those opposed to legalizing homosexuality in India to demonstrate a real, tangible harm that homosexuality does to that society. Simply saying it runs against the order of nature doesn’t actually mean anything, since the “order of nature” can be defined any way one likes. An environmentalist might just as easily say that cutting down trees or paving the ground goes against the order of nature. i think this episode in India’s courts demonstrates pretty well that the order of nature clause is not a real basis for legislation, rather a loophole that allows the state to get away with outlawing whatever they feel like regardless of the harm (or lack thereof) being perpetrated upon society.
Perhaps there are false beliefs involved - for instance that homosexuality is a disease or meme that can spread and infect the whole population, making the birth rate drop to nothing and allowing the Chinese to take over.
It has nothing to do with the God/religion, but nature only.
Contrary to the general perception, the roots of homosexuality goes down up to the ancient Hindu religious scriptures.
There was a complete homosexual community, that is considered somewhat better (or even angels) than humans, in the name of Kinnars. They all had brests and penises, not vagina. But, their face loook, appearance, body tone and attitude were feminine, not male. They did not have beard and hair on chests and others parts of the body. And, anal sex was natural and only alternate avialable for them.
And, even this argument was given by the homosexual activists in the court in their support.
But, court denied it. So actually, the verdict of the court in against relgions according to the Hindu mythology.
If anyone has any doubt about this, he should visit to Ajanta Caves, where all types of the sex (including homosexuality and even Zoophilla) is carved on the stones. it is supposed to be more than one thousand years old at least.
The root question is what is more useful and important for society; liberty ( or even conservatism) or welfare!
At the end of the day, the society would have to choose one of those. You cannot have both all the times.
Every individualistic demand may not be useful to the society as a whole. Because, sometimes welfare demands liberty and sometimes restrictions too. That depends on the demand and stiuation.
