Delhi High Court legalizes homosexuality!

Are you agree with the Court's Decision?

  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nishantrathi82

New member
Few days back we saw that Delhi high court legalizes Homosexuality, earlier it was illegal in India but after this decision India has become 127th courty to make it legal.
What you guys think about the decision?
Isit the correct one?
Or its against out traditions and culture?
 
Desh key kuchh logon ney hamari sanskriti ko khatm kareny mey pura jor laga rakha hai

Bhai yea to or pata nahi kya kya legalise karengey jabtak hamari sanskriti ko khatam nahi ker dengey. Yea sabhee log videshiyeo kee kathputli hai jo is desh ko unhee desho kee line mein khada kerna chahtey hai jinkee koi sanskriti hee nahi hai.
 
What has this got to do with our culture and traditions? Not that it should matter, but is there any religious scripture which bans homosexuality? It was a law that Britishers came up with- god knows why- probably to just embarass some political prisoners. So are we now upholding colonial laws from british era as guardians of our culture? The law criminalized sexual intercourse against the "law of nature"- who the hell is supposed to find who is doing whom in what nature? Forget homos, even heteros don't do it in the neighbourhood park even if it is with the "law of nature".
 
Here is a piece on why the court decision should be respected.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/its-about-all-of-us/484966/0

Excerpt:

"Many will, doubtless, latch on to the judgment as offending something called our tradition or our values. But to interpret it this way would be a mistake. What the court says is this. Under our constitutional scheme, no person ought to be targeted or discriminated against for simply being who they are. If we give up this value, we give up everything all of us cherish: both our liberty and our right to be treated equally. This judgment is defending our values. Simply put, the judgment says that the state has no presumptive right to regulate private acts between consenting adults. It protects privacy. That is our value. The judgment says that individuals should not feel so stigmatised that they are unable to seek medical help. That is our value.
.
.
The essence of toleration is that each one of us can be safe from the fear of stigma, discrimination, persecution, only when all of us are safe; otherwise what we get is a counterfeit toleration. So let it be clear: this judgment is not about a minority, not about valorising a lifestyle, it is about the values that made us who we are as a nation. Neither the detractors of this judgment, nor its defenders for that matter, should forget the fact that it is in the name of a genuine common morality that this decision can be defended. "
 
kapil.dalal said:
Here is a piece on why the court decision should be respected.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/its-about-all-of-us/484966/0

Excerpt:

"Many will, doubtless, latch on to the judgment as offending something called our tradition or our values. But to interpret it this way would be a mistake. What the court says is this. Under our constitutional scheme, no person ought to be targeted or discriminated against for simply being who they are. If we give up this value, we give up everything all of us cherish: both our liberty and our right to be treated equally. This judgment is defending our values. Simply put, the judgment says that the state has no presumptive right to regulate private acts between consenting adults. It protects privacy. That is our value. The judgment says that individuals should not feel so stigmatised that they are unable to seek medical help. That is our value.
.
.
The essence of toleration is that each one of us can be safe from the fear of stigma, discrimination, persecution, only when all of us are safe; otherwise what we get is a counterfeit toleration. So let it be clear: this judgment is not about a minority, not about valorising a lifestyle, it is about the values that made us who we are as a nation. Neither the detractors of this judgment, nor its defenders for that matter, should forget the fact that it is in the name of a genuine common morality that this decision can be defended. "
Click to expand...

I laughed out loud over the words in red for a while regarding this issue.( on their existence in real)

Next time High court bench shall be legalising the divorce/ailmoney for same sex couples. Divorce lawyers got a new avenue.
 
Samarkadian said:
I laughed out loud over the words in red for a while regarding this issue.( on their existence in real)

Next time High court bench shall be legalising the divorce/ailmoney for same sex couples. Divorce lawyers got a new avenue.
Click to expand...

I couldn't quite get the funny bit. The context of the bit you have highlighted in red has been explained in the article- which is that both pro/anti homosexuality parties should still respect the common morality of privacy, liberty and equality that the court has ruled in favor of.

Before having a legalised divorce, there first needs to be a legal marriage between gays. Which is not the case in India as far as I know. At least no one has gone to the court seeking a legal opinion on the issue. Plus, this term 'legalising' is a red-herring. The court has not legalised anything, it has struck down a provision of an archaic British era penal code as it was not consistent with the values espoused in the constitution.
 
Now the people can sing in unison:
"Aadmi hoon Aadmi se pyar karta hoon"
:thappad:rock
Now somebody may like to throw light as to who will go to the house of whom after marriage........ :confused::confused:
Maa - baap bichare pota - poti ki chahat me hi mar jayenge:mad:
 
Haven't we then legalized 'Sodomy'?...

...Hmmm, let me start off by saying - I myself am opposed to the decision (as the thread asks the question) and have voted against here...

and Here's why (again based on my personal viewpoint):
Section 377; What most people recognize as something related to gay rights only is not just about Homosexuality....that is, this section/article does not just simply deal with the gay issues ONLY...
In fact Section 377, which banned gay relations, also used to be invoked to protect minors against sexual abuse!...

So frankly; for one, any of those (so called human rights activists) or individuals that think that the recent Delhi High Court ruling (that virtually finished off Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code) was simply a fight between those who wanted to protect gay rights and those opposed to it, are absolutely no clue what the 'other' related issues are affected by this and what this scrapping also entails...

The irony of this whole recent business is that it is giving a false sense of triumph to those who believe that it was a victory for the gays...
The fact of the matter like I just pointed out; is that the case had nothing to do with gay rights alone...

There is an example of a case in some newspaper where apparently Justice JN Saldanha once used the Section to give justice to a 10-year-old victim of sexual abuse and award a 10-year jail term and a fine of Rs 25 lakh to a godman.... (and there would be more such examples and cases if one was to look far enough!)

It is really sad to see even the ones (the powers to be) who should have seen and considered the real reasoning behind the issues are simply jumping into the bandwagon and are (having made to) jump up and down defending it with all their might, trying to be 'in' with the times and look like some 'messiahs' of human right's when the debate is actually much deeper and critical than that......
 
aryasatyadev said:
Now the people can sing in unison:
"Aadmi hoon Aadmi se pyar karta hoon"
:thappad:rock
Now somebody may like to throw light as to who will go to the house of whom after marriage........ :confused::confused:
Maa - baap bichare pota - poti ki chahat me hi mar jayenge:mad:
Click to expand...


I am completely against this homosexuallity thing.

Arya sahab, aapne bilkul sahi kaha hai........bina family k India is nothing. And this so called INDIA without its family culture will stand nowhere.

In today's world i think Human being think they are the only community in this world who can change the laws of nature. Now can i ask one thing, if you have seen any animal except Monkey doing homo sex?( Monkey are our ancestors.)

Simply because they are following the law of nature. Why can't we?

If it is because of deficiencies in Sex ratio......then their are other options.
 
akshaymalik84 said:
I am completely against this homosexuallity thing.
Now can i ask one thing, if you have seen any animal except Monkey doing homo sex?( Monkey are our ancestors.)

Simply because they are following the law of nature. Why can't we?
Click to expand...

A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[2][3

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that Same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[7]

HEre is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_animals
 
Akshay bhai, in hindsight I think it is a good move, now that we are killing our unborn daughters...... somewhere our sons and brothers should find solace..... :o:o
 
shailendra said:


So frankly; for one, any of those (so called human rights activists) or individuals that think that the recent Delhi High Court ruling (that virtually finished off Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code) was simply a fight between those who wanted to protect gay rights and those opposed to it, are absolutely no clue what the 'other' related issues are affected by this and what this scrapping also entails...

Click to expand...

377 is not finished off. Its still there. The only part that is now taken out (only in New Delhi) by the Delhi High Court is the punishment for unnatural sex between 2 consenting adults. The child abuse provisions etc are still there.
The criminalization of unnatural sex was used by police to harass gays as this article shows:

http://indiauncut.com/iublog/article/the-matunga-racket/
 
shailendra said:
...Hmmm, let me start off by saying - I myself am opposed to the decision (as the thread asks the question) and have voted against here...

and Here's why (again based on my personal viewpoint):
Section 377; What most people recognize as something related to gay rights only is not just about Homosexuality....that is, this section/article does not just simply deal with the gay issues ONLY...
In fact Section 377, which banned gay relations, also used to be invoked to protect minors against sexual abuse!...

So frankly; for one, any of those (so called human rights activists) or individuals that think that the recent Delhi High Court ruling (that virtually finished off Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code) was simply a fight between those who wanted to protect gay rights and those opposed to it, are absolutely no clue what the 'other' related issues are affected by this and what this scrapping also entails...

The irony of this whole recent business is that it is giving a false sense of triumph to those who believe that it was a victory for the gays...
The fact of the matter like I just pointed out; is that the case had nothing to do with gay rights alone...

There is an example of a case in some newspaper where apparently Justice JN Saldanha once used the Section to give justice to a 10-year-old victim of sexual abuse and award a 10-year jail term and a fine of Rs 25 lakh to a godman.... (and there would be more such examples and cases if one was to look far enough!)

It is really sad to see even the ones (the powers to be) who should have seen and considered the real reasoning behind the issues are simply jumping into the bandwagon and are (having made to) jump up and down defending it with all their might, trying to be 'in' with the times and look like some 'messiahs' of human right's when the debate is actually much deeper and critical than that......
Click to expand...

Well, you don't ban heterosexual acts because rape is there. So how can you justify banning homosexual acts because of sodomy? Both are crimes based on sexual violence. And there needs to be a law that punishes the crime rather than the non-criminal version of the act. As has been pointed out here, the law against the crime is still there.
 
Court's decision is wrong... Homosexuality should be banned.... ab culture ka to pata ni but ek funny case jaroor hai ki "2 gays agar ek bache ko adopt kar le, to wo bacha apni maa ke naam me kya likhega.... n wats abt maa ka doodh jiski kasam Dharmendra ne filmo me bahut khayi hai.... "
 
kapil.dalal said:
Well, you don't ban heterosexual acts because rape is there. So how can you justify banning homosexual acts because of sodomy? Both are crimes based on sexual violence. And there needs to be a law that punishes the crime rather than the non-criminal version of the act. As has been pointed out here, the law against the crime is still there.
Click to expand...

You are correct.
this decision only justify homosexual acts(by adults only) with mutual consent in Delhi only and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
...So this 150 yr old section has not been scrapped?

...Hmmm, I am still not convinced; (and of course don't mind the opposing views to be discussed here completely also) :rolleyes:

I still think if the whole argument is based on 'consensual' part... and if courts are really trying to be fair across the board and approve everything that is consensual, then why ban Sati, mercy killings or suicides???...

You see then each of these things can be very well be justified (just like the "I don't care what one does in the bedroom!")... haven't these socially-related issues also long been argued to be based on one's personal choice only!?!...

Lastly; if like some of you pointed out - the whole excercise is to prevent the undue criminalization by the police, and how the police have been harassing gays; well, just like all the other things that these protectors, enforcers of the society have not been doing - if anything, it is police who need reforms!!!
[Although if they do bash-up, throw in jails those special sleazy, seedy characters when caught at public places, endulging in all the wrong reasons; then so be it!] :cool:

...and on a lighter note: "how can you justify banning homosexual acts because of sodomy?" is really a moot point, ain't it... well uh...cause look- the two acts are not mutually exclusive now, are they??? :D:D:D Just kiddin', Kapil
 
Last edited:
Nishantrathi82 said:
Few days back we saw that Delhi high court legalizes Homosexuality, earlier it was illegal in India but after this decision India has become 127th courty to make it legal.
What you guys think about the decision?
Isit the correct one?
Or its against out traditions and culture?
Click to expand...

Against it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aryasatyadev said:
Akshay bhai, in hindsight I think it is a good move, now that we are killing our unborn daughters...... somewhere our sons and brothers should find solace..... :o:o
Click to expand...


hahahahaha:o:o......Agreed Arya ji, May be it can help in Controlling Population also......More are the homosexuals less will be the Population.....Govt. should encourage people to become Homo's:D

I would like to change my Vote here......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top