Debates about the Economy, Politics, Religion, and everything under the sun

[heidi2521]

^So that they cannot be threatened with conviction/prosecuted because of it? Even if it hasn't been used in significant amounts there is still a risk of the law being used to convict LGBT people.

 

[Skud]

^So that they cannot be threatened with conviction/prosecuted because of it? Even if it hasn't been used in significant amounts there is still a risk of the law being used to convict LGBT people.

Risk is perceived, not quantified. As already told just 200 people were prosecuted in 150 years, and not a single instance of prosecution for consensual sex.

And going by this "being different" theory, even rapists can claim they are different and should not be prosecuted/punished for being different. Should we agree with that?

 

[whitestar_999]

^^the point is not no. of persons prosecuted or lack of consent.modified definition of rape includes all which is there in section 377+many extra definitions so there is no reason to use section 377 except for threatening LGBTs.it is the intent of this section which is under question not how many were prosecuted.it is a matter of principle that courts/govt should stay out of what happens between 2 consenting adults in privacy of their home.

 

[Extreme Gamer]

^So that they cannot be threatened with conviction/prosecuted because of it? Even if it hasn't been used in significant amounts there is still a risk of the law being used to convict LGBT people.

The supreme court only said that the High Court can't strike down the law because it doesn't violate the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution. They did say the parliament can change the law- indicating that they support LGBT rights.

It's like beating up a thief in public. As a normal citizen you're not allowed to do that. But cops can interrogate thieves and get them prosecuted.

 

[Skud]

^^the point is not no. of persons prosecuted or lack of consent.modified definition of rape includes all which is there in section 377+many extra definitions so there is no reason to use section 377 except for threatening LGBTs.it is the intent of this section which is under question not how many were prosecuted.it is a matter of principle that courts/govt should stay out of what happens between 2 consenting adults in privacy of their home.

Section 377 doesn't say anything specific about LGBT, it applies to straight people also.

"Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".

Some samples:-

What does Section 377 of IPC criminalize? - The Times of India

In a 1934 case, the Lahore high court in Khanu vs Emperor had held that "carnal intercourse with a bullock through nose is an unnatural offence punishable under Section 377 of Indian Penal Code".

The apex court also cited a case dealt by Gujarat High Court in 1968, where two men first unsuccessfully attempted to sodomize a boy and then forced him to perform oral sex and ejaculated in the boy's mouth.

In the 1992 judgment of the Orissa high court in the case 'Calvin Francis vs Orissa', the man was found to have inserted his genital into the mouth of a six-year-old girl. The HC had ruled that the "act complained of was punishable under Section 377".

Also it is not possible to define every sexual act even in the modified definition of rape, hence the term "against the order of nature" which is somewhat vague, is applied to cover everything:-

A bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya scanned through judgments from 1925 till date and failed to find any uniform norm to classify what constituted the core of Section 377.

It noticed that in all these cases, there was absence of 'consent' and the sexual act was forced on the victim. "In our opinion, the acts which fall within the ambit of the section can only be determined with reference to the act itself and the circumstances in which it is executed," the bench said.

"All the aforementioned cases refer to non-consensual and markedly coercive situations and the keenness of the court in bringing justice to the victims who were either women or children cannot be discounted while analyzing the manner in which the section has been interpreted. We are apprehensive of whether the court would rule similarly in a case of proved consensual intercourse between adults. Hence, it is difficult to prepare a list of acts which would be covered by the section," it said.

One option is to add the "against the order of nature" or "abnormal" sort of word in the modified definition of rape but that will be actually beating the very purpose of amendment of Section 377.


Finally:-

Amend Section 377 immediately, MP minister charged with sodomy says - The Times of India

Now we can see who will be actually benefiting from the decriminalization of the act. But yeah, intercourse with a bullock through nose is completely natural/normal and markedly different too.

 

[whitestar_999]

technically supreme court is right & it should be parliament to amend the law but the issue with this view is that SC has given several judgements in recent years crossing the boundary between parliament & judiciary but this time they chose not to because of the controversial nature of issue.

@skud,read the posts in full context not bits & pieces.no one is saying that complete removal of section 377 is must for legalizing LGBTs but just a modification which add something like "except for those acts between 2 consenting adults in privacy of their home" & 2 consenting adults mean humans.

 

[Skud]

The supreme court only said that the High Court can't strike down the law because it doesn't violate the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution. They did say the parliament can change the law- indicating that they support LGBT rights.

It's like beating up a thief in public. As a normal citizen you're not allowed to do that. But cops can interrogate thieves and get them prosecuted.

This. And people fail to understand that or are just plain retarded.

technically supreme court is right & it should be parliament to amend the law but the issue with this view is that SC has given several judgements in recent years crossing the boundary between parliament & judiciary but this time they chose not to because of the controversial nature of issue.

@skud,read the posts in full context not bits & pieces.no one is saying that complete removal of section 377 is must for legalizing LGBTs but just a modification which add something like "except for those acts between 2 consenting adults in privacy of their home" & 2 consenting adults mean humans.

And apparently that is not what Delhi HC has ordered and that is not what activists have sought in this particular case. Their point was Section 377 criminalizes against LGBT violating their fundamental rights, which it does not. It applies to everybody including straight people, so why the fuss? Haven't we learn anything about this "consent" thing in all the rape cases over the years?

 

[Extreme Gamer]

This. And people fail to understand that or are just plain retarded.

Blame the media. Those politicians shooting off their mouths didn't read the SC verdict themselves.

Such ****s.

Except Subramaniam Swamy perhaps. His reasons for supporting the verdict do have more ulterior motives, but the legal argument is sound.

Sexual freedom to LGBTs should also mean sexual freedom to straight people. Section 377, the way it is worded now, has to go.

 

[Skud]

^^More freedom for rapists.

 

[Anorion]

Ok that came out wrong, ardhanareshwara is a hermaphrodite

BTW, can you please quote source with proper texts and sanskrit where one of Krishna's wives was a eunuch?

Donno why you need everything historic written in sanskrit. In Salar Jung museum, Hyderabad, there is a beautiful tapestry with Lord Krishna in a garden with the gopikas. Go look at the painting for a while, take your time observing the body language of each of the gopikas. Spotted one eunuch, maybe you can find more than one.

Bullock through the nose? Woah
I mean woah

These gay rights activists are better off fighting for general people rights that would help everyone, not just the LGBT community
One example is co-habitation rights, for non married couples. Or right to property, beget children through fertilisation techniques, adopt if they choose and say insurance policies. Sure there are more important issues for gay people than bedroom rodeo

Yoga can apparently cure cancer and aids as well, so basically deep breathing and excercises can sort out anything

 

[Skud]

You make me laugh over that deep breathing and exercise part.

 

[whitestar_999]

@skud,why are you insisting on connection between rape & section 377?in SC's own words "less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing offence under Section 377".you make it seem like if section 377 is removed thousands of rapists will go scot-free.

 

[Skud]

@skud,why are you insisting on connection between rape & section 377?in SC's own words "less than 200 persons have been prosecuted for committing offence under Section 377".you make it seem like if section 377 is removed thousands of rapists will go scot-free.

Guess I have already explained. Please read my previous posts. Every law/act acts as a deterrent, and judging by the numbers this is a highly successful one. Why change for the sake of 10% people for their imaginary fear of harassment, potentially endangering the other 90%?

 

[whitestar_999]

amendment/removal of section 377 is not a question of "if" but "when".it may take 6 months,a year or more but in the end it will get amended.as for success if you think (200/150)=1.33 persons prosecuted per year is "success" in a country where official figures for rape are 20000+ per year then i guess there is no point in continuing this with you.

P.S.it is not the law as much but the implementation of law that acts as deterrent.same laws didn't stopped manu sharma from shooting jessica lal in a public place in front of many witnesses & even get away with it until done in by widespread public outrage & neither will it stop future rapists considering poor conviction rates in rape crimes because of poor police investigation & overworked courts.

 

[Skud]

amendment/removal of section 377 is not a question of "if" but "when".it may take 6 months,a year or more but in the end it will get amended.as for success if you think (200/150)=1.33 persons prosecuted per year is "success" in a country where official figures for rape are 20000+ per year then i guess there is no point in continuing this with you.

P.S.it is not the law as much but the implementation of law that acts as deterrent.same laws didn't stopped manu sharma from shooting jessica lal in a public place in front of many witnesses & even get away with it until done in by widespread public outrage & neither will it stop future rapists considering poor conviction rates in rape crimes because of poor police investigation & overworked courts.

Funny you are continuously contradicting yourself.

If the law is not going to stop discrimination against LGBT (by your own submission), what's the point of amending it.

 

[whitestar_999]

i can say the same thing:if the law is not going to help 90% of the people why not change it for the sake of rest 10%.anyway i can clearly see there is no point in continuing this with you.consider this the end of discussion from my side & whenever section 377 is amended by parliament/court in future do read about editorials praising the decision in papers like hindu & times of india.

 

[Faun]

And I don't understand what's the need of legalizing it? Not that LGBT people are waiting to engage in their sexual acts after the law will be amended, they are already doing whatever they want.

It's more to do with acceptance and a place in society. There is always a fear of persecution which needs to go. It's like they are doing something wrong, unlawful.

Your argument is like it's ok to run past the red light unless someone catches you.

You know everyone intelligent enough is doing this but don't get caught, otherwise you face a tribulation and be accused of moral turpitude by society.

 

[Skud]

It's more to do with acceptance and a place in society. There is always a fear of persecution which needs to go. It's like they are doing something wrong, unlawful.

Your argument is like it's ok to run past the red light unless someone catches you.

You know everyone intelligent enough is doing this but don't get caught, otherwise you face a tribulation and be accused of moral turpitude by society.

Don't think just changing the law will make them acceptable to the society, if they are already not accepting them. In any case, the act in question just prohibits certain actions, and is not at all directed to any particular person/community/group, so the question of human rights violation simply doesn't arise. Now straight couples performing those actions are least bothered from what I can see, although they are equally susceptible to prosecution under the act. Why only the LGBT are making a noise over it? Even after the law is amended, LGBT couples can be harassed under other existing laws, if the society so wants.

Running past red light is definitely wrong btw, whether someone catches you or not is immaterial.

 

[Anorion]

Yep, Skud's arguments seem sensible
The act does not seem to be used to prosecute the LGBT community
If it goes away, under what section will the examples he gave tried under? The fallout of repealing would be decriminalising bestiality, without even the advantage of making the LGBT community more acceptable. The wording of the modified section would in any case be similar to the current section

 

[skeletor]

Guess I have already explained. Please read my previous posts. Every law/act acts as a deterrent, and judging by the numbers this is a highly successful one. Why change for the sake of 10% people for their imaginary fear of harassment, potentially endangering the other 90%?

Dunno but I think regardless of what 377 says, a rape remains a rape. Doesn't matter how the intercourse was performed. If there was no consent, it is a rape.

What I think 377 does is, it also criminalises certain sex practices, example, the popular one which doesn't lead to pregnancy, because it is against the order of nature.

Am I wrong?

Yep, Skud's arguments seem sensible
The act does not seem to be used to prosecute the LGBT community
If it goes away, under what section will the examples he gave tried under? The fallout of repealing would be decriminalising bestiality, without even the advantage of making the LGBT community more acceptable. The wording of the modified section would in any case be similar to the current section

We can come up with a new law against bestiality.