Jump to content

Supreme Court pronounces gay sex illegal

Stuge

By Stuge
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

ganeshran Apprentice

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
I can't understand what everyone is blaming the SC. It has a valid point.
It goes against the fundamental right to equality. Delhi HC had used this justification while setting aside 377. The SC could have upheld Delhi HC while at the same time instructing the government to move an amendment. It has been 4 years since the Delhi HC order. Consenting adults should not have to go to prison for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Me thinks the SC is putting the government in a tough spot for its recent comments on judicial activism. Congress should move an amendment but they are more likely to play it safe in an election year while people's rights are violated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
beetle Rising Star

beetle

Posted
Posted
It goes against the fundamental right to equality. Delhi HC had used this justification while setting aside 377. The SC could have upheld Delhi HC while at the same time instructing the government to move an amendment. It has been 4 years since the Delhi HC order. Consenting adults should not have to go to prison for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Me thinks the SC is putting the government in a tough spot for its recent comments on judicial activism. Congress should move an amendment but they are more likely to play it safe in an election year while people's rights are violated
+100
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raghav_12 Newbie

Raghav_12

Posted
Posted

Nothing can be defended in this country on constitutional right of equality. There have been so many laws, rules which have been created in direct contradiction of this fundamental right of equality and SC have not objected on anyone of those. Now SC decided not to be selective and went strictly by rule book. It's on parliament to decriminalize homosexuality and SC has rightly worked within the ambit of it's powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seedhi Newbie

seedhi

Posted
Posted
It goes against the fundamental right to equality. Delhi HC had used this justification while setting aside 377. The SC could have upheld Delhi HC while at the same time instructing the government to move an amendment. It has been 4 years since the Delhi HC order. Consenting adults should not have to go to prison for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Me thinks the SC is putting the government in a tough spot for its recent comments on judicial activism. Congress should move an amendment but they are more likely to play it safe in an election year while people's rights are violated
That is simply a flawed argument. There are many things that adults are banned from doing even consensually. For example, doing drugs is illegal. Taking and giving dowry, even by consent is illegal. Sex selective fertilization (not abortion, but just fertilization) is illegal. The SC judgment is correct, it is the job of the parliament to legislate. This is a social issue more than anything else, and the people's representatives are the best judge of what the wider society is comfortable with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raghav_12 Newbie

Raghav_12

Posted
Posted
That is simply a flawed argument. There are many things that adults are banned from doing even consensually. For example, doing drugs is illegal. Taking and giving dowry, even by consent is illegal. Sex selective fertilization (not abortion, but just fertilization) is illegal. The SC judgment is correct, it is the job of the parliament to legislate. This is a social issue more than anything else, and the people's representatives are the best judge of what the wider society is comfortable with.
I agree. SC forming or changing laws, undermines democracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hhunaeh Newbie

hhunaeh

Posted
Posted

Aren't basic human rights to be protected by the supreme court? Since when did we start voting on basic human rights? people's representatives and wider society will now decide on an individual's sexuality? Individual sexuality is not a social issue, it's a personal/private issue. It is not open to a vote by the country's majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ganeshran Apprentice

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
That is simply a flawed argument. There are many things that adults are banned from doing even consensually. For example' date=' doing drugs is illegal. Taking and giving dowry, even by consent is illegal. Sex selective fertilization (not abortion, but just fertilization) is illegal. [/quote'] erm what? I was talking about sexual relations between consenting adults. How did you extrapolate that to every other issue? Of course there are plenty of illegal acts involve consenting adults. Straight people have the right to have sex as long as they are adults and consent. Gay people not being accorded the same rights amounts to discrimination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zanjeer Newbie

Zanjeer

Posted
Posted

Lot of western countries are against this. I don't how a conservative country like India can legitimize it right away just because media is screaming and crying about this. Unless people in India are ok with it, I don't think legitimizing it would bring in any change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zap_Brannigan Newbie

Zap_Brannigan

Posted
Posted
Lot of western countries are against this. I don't how a conservative country like India can legitimize it right away just because media is screaming and crying about this. Unless people in India are ok with it' date=' I don't think legitimizing it would bring in any change.[/quote'] 20 years ago People of India werent comfortable with giving a voice to Indian women or getting married without a dowry. 30 years ago, people of India would look down upon SC and ST. Even now they are not comfortable with another religion or people marrying into another religion. I wouldnt go by the words of the majority. These are the same majority that breed like rabbits when they cant even afford to feed themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seedhi Newbie

seedhi

Posted
Posted
erm what? I was talking about sexual relations between consenting adults. How did you extrapolate that to every other issue? Of course there are plenty of illegal acts involve consenting adults. Straight people have the right to have sex as long as they are adults and consent. Gay people not being accorded the same rights amounts to discrimination.
There is no classification of people as straight or gay under Indian jurisprudence. So this question of discrimination does not arise. It is about particular sexual acts being illegal. Just like there is no basis for saying that the IPC discriminates against cocaine-addicts as compared to nicotine-addicts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trichromatic Mentor

Trichromatic

Posted
Posted
Lot of western countries are against this. I don't how a conservative country like India can legitimize it right away just because media is screaming and crying about this. Unless people in India are ok with it' date=' I don't think legitimizing it would bring in any change.[/quote'] which western country would put you in the jail for this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ganeshran Apprentice

ganeshran

Posted
Posted
There is no classification of people as straight or gay under Indian jurisprudence. So this question of discrimination does not arise. It is about particular sexual acts being illegal. Just like there is no basis for saying that the IPC discriminates against cocaine-addicts as compared to nicotine-addicts.
This is a circular argument. The merit of the accusation of discrimination done by the Indian constitution cannot be decided based on the parameters set by the Indian constitution itself. It is like saying that every word in a religious book is true because the religious book itself says so. It is a discriminatory law because scientific evidence tells us that one's sexuality is not a matter of choice and by common sense that the state has no business deciding on the legality of consensual sex between two aduls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
seedhi Newbie

seedhi

Posted
Posted
This is a circular argument. The merit of the accusation of discrimination done by the Indian constitution cannot be decided based on the parameters set by the Indian constitution itself. It is like saying that every word in a religious book is true because the religious book itself says so. It is a discriminatory law because scientific evidence tells us that one's sexuality is not a matter of choice and by common sense that the state has no business deciding on the legality of consensual sex between two aduls.
The remedy, then, is to amend the Constitution which can be done only by the Parliament. The Supreme Court can only base its rulings on the (interpretation of the) Constitution. Therefore, quite correctly it has left the job to the legislature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hhunaeh Newbie

hhunaeh

Posted
Posted
There is no classification of people as straight or gay under Indian jurisprudence. So this question of discrimination does not arise. It is about particular sexual acts being illegal. Just like there is no basis for saying that the IPC discriminates against cocaine-addicts as compared to nicotine-addicts.
Why were certain sexual acts deemed illegal?What's illegal about an act?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...