jf1gp_1 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Why were certain sexual acts deemed illegal?What's illegal about an act? I know this is going to offend many but what about screwing your dog ? is that fine ? The law is open to lot of interpretation and thats what SC said lawmakers should bring in new law. Now sure if their was anything wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I know this is going to offend many but what about screwing your dog ? is that fine ? people are animals?do you have that in your constitution too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jf1gp_1 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 people are animals?do you have that in your constitution too? i dont think it says unnatural sex performed between human , its just says sex against nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 How does one ascertain consent from a dog? :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jf1gp_1 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 How does one ascertain consent from a dog? :dontknow: Well if its your pet , it will come back and play with you after the act. Lawyer can argue anything and dont tell me you dont have such nut jobs in world. all i am saying is law is sketchy and SC wants is it to be rewritten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 i dont think it says unnatural sex performed between human ' date=' its just says sex against nature.[/quote'] It says "man, woman or animal" but what does this have to with dog human sex and its equivalency to homosexuality? Please clarify, and several species are known engage in it so its not against nature. You don't get equivalency just because you put it together in a sentence in a constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 i dont think it says unnatural sex performed between human ' date=' its just says sex against nature.[/quote'] How is it un-natural when it occurs in many species naturally? Chimps, dolphins. birds, all involve in homosexuality in nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Well if its your pet , it will come back and play with you after the act. Lawyer can argue anything and dont tell me you dont have such nut jobs in world. all i am saying is law is sketchy and SC wants is it to be rewritten Nope, consent from a dog will be like consent from a child. It won't apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanjeer Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 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. conservative society means conservative representatives in parliament. Unless parliament legitimizes it, supreme court can't do anything about this. So it starts with the society and it ends with the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jf1gp_1 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 All the above great question hence the need for new law and thats what SC said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 All the above great question hence the need for new law and thats what SC said. no party is going to touch this,the obvious one to fight for it is Congress but they are afraid of losing the minority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Union minister Jairam Ramesh terms Supreme Court verdict on homosexuality as retrograde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger80 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 How does one ascertain consent from a dog? :dontknow: Do we need consent from animals when we eat them , milk them or force them to pull load :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jf1gp_1 Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Union minister Jairam Ramesh terms Supreme Court verdict on homosexuality as retrograde :hysterical: blame the judicial branch which went by the law and not legislature who make it which is you mr jairam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganeshran Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 no party is going to touch this' date='the obvious one to fight for it is Congress but they are afraid of losing the minority vote.[/quote'] lol yeah blame this on minorities too :giggle: chaddis of all colours are opposed to this. Orange chaddi charlatan had to say this http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sec-377-debate-tomorrow-theyll-talk-of-sex-with-animals-says-ramdev/439006-3.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganeshran Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 The remedy' date=' 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.[/quote'] I think everyone agrees that a constitutional amendment is the only long term solution. The problem that it is a difficult political step and till then homosexuals are left vulnerable to legal harassment. The Delhi HC judgement gave them relief in that aspect Do you think BJP would support an amendment. Because this would require a 2/3 majority AFAIK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhunaeh Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 The law is open to lot of interpretation and thats what SC said lawmakers should bring in new law. Now sure if their was anything wrong with that. all i am saying is law is sketchy and SC wants is it to be rewritten All the above great question hence the need for new law and thats what SC said. The law is not sketchy or unclear .It is very clear over what it is criminalizing, but you are, for some reason, confused between people and dogs when it comes to sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboysfan Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 lol yeah blame this on minorities too :giggle: chaddis of all colours are opposed to this. Orange chaddi charlatan had to say this http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sec-377-debate-tomorrow-theyll-talk-of-sex-with-animals-says-ramdev/439006-3.html I am not blaming minorities even though they were part of the petition against the delhi court verdict,I just don't think any party will touch it because its lose- lose situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seedhi Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 I think everyone agrees that a constitutional amendment is the only long term solution. The problem that it is a difficult political step and till then homosexuals are left vulnerable to legal harassment. The Delhi HC judgement gave them relief in that aspect Do you think BJP would support an amendment. Because this would require a 2/3 majority AFAIKI mentioned amending the Constitution as a sufficient avenue to create a basis for the SC to declare portions of Section 377 of the IPC unconstitutional. The Parliament can simply amend Section 377 itself with a simple majority without amending the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Union minister Jairam Ramesh terms Supreme Court verdict on homosexuality as retrograde One of our best politicians who doesn't mind ruffling a few feathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts