The funny part is here is that section 377 was introduced by the British during their rule here and we still hold on to that while UK itself has legalised gay rights...I feel that we need to look into our age old laws from time to time and upgrade it to suit the needs of the society and thats what the Delhi high court had done earlier...
Now at least until the parliament does something the police and the religious hardliners will have a field day targetting Gay bars and gay organisations....I could already see it in the manner in which a couple of them spoke on the debate today !

Gay barsx and gay organizations and for that even straightg sex orgies will always be unlawful. Forced sex- straight or gay- will always be unlawful. This is only issue of consensual same sex- gay and lesbian. If there is such sex in private, even now there can be no action as nobody will complain. The same sex attitude may result in handicap if this is disclosed. As a matter of fact, the criminating section in India Penal Code is really of no use. It is better to remove this. Only parliament may do.

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

In fact, there are many sexual deviations. All have personal choice. Only use of force and deception should be unlawful. Any consensual behavior is okay. Law needs amendment. Parliament alone can change law. Hence supreme Court upheld the existing law.

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

In fact, there are many sexual deviations. All have personal choice. Only use of force and deception should be unlawful. Any consensual behavior is okay. Law needs amendment. Parliament alone can change law. Hence supreme Court upheld the existing law.

I see the point of what the Supreme court has said since it is safer and binding for the community itself when it becomes an amendment done by the parliament. I see many politicians today arguing for the amendment so it may happen ..

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

Same sex and marriage are different. The law is on gay sex act and not on gay marriage. This is between men who are not each other's spouse. There is no issue of gay marriage. Gay sex is actually extra maerital. Marital sex is always between a man and woman married to each other.

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

I agree with you on this point. The sexual orientation is a personal choice but it cannot be pronounced a marriage if it is in between a man and another man or woman and woman. To be called married you need two people of different sex and in gay or lesbians I don't see such possibility.

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

I agree with you on this point. The sexual orientation is a personal choice but it cannot be pronounced a marriage if it is in between a man and another man or woman and woman. To be called married you need two people of different sex and in gay or lesbians I don't see such possibility.

actually the section 377 is about 'carnal acts against order of nature'. Definitely gay and lesbian are unlawful. But even carnal acts against order of nature may be between a man and woman. Only straight sex is lawful. Sodomy between a man and woman is also against order of nature.

However this section is superflous. Who will complain when both individuals involved in the 'offence' are consenting. In absence of complaint, there can be no legal action. Hence section 377 should be deleted. However, deletion the section does not mean that the act is allowed by law or is honorable. Law does not come in picture for every offence. Some religious organizations have shown disgust against the court decision. They can convince their followers that gay and lesbian sex is bad. This is really a social or religious issue and not legal. To elucidate further, I should not take eggs or meat on Tuesday. This may be considered bad. But why introduce a section in IPC forbiding eating meat on Tuesday. Incidentally, the local administration orders closure of meat shops on some Jain and Buddhist festivals. This is also disgusting.

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

I agree with you on this point. The sexual orientation is a personal choice but it cannot be pronounced a marriage if it is in between a man and another man or woman and woman. To be called married you need two people of different sex and in gay or lesbians I don't see such possibility.

actually the section 377 is about 'carnal acts against order of nature'. Definitely gay and lesbian are unlawful. But even carnal acts against order of nature may be between a man and woman. Only straight sex is lawful. Sodomy between a man and woman is also against order of nature.

However this section is superflous. Who will complain when both individuals involved in the 'offence' are consenting. In absence of complaint, there can be no legal action. Hence section 377 should be deleted. However, deletion the section does not mean that the act is allowed by law or is honorable. Law does not come in picture for every offence. Some religious organizations have shown disgust against the court decision. They can convince their followers that gay and lesbian sex is bad. This is really a social or religious issue and not legal. To elucidate further, I should not take eggs or meat on Tuesday. This may be considered bad. But why introduce a section in IPC forbiding eating meat on Tuesday. Incidentally, the local administration orders closure of meat shops on some Jain and Buddhist festivals. This is also disgusting.

At the risk of deviating from the topic of the thread, if closure of meat shop is disgusting to accommodate certain religious groups, same is true for allowing so many holidays to government employees is as disgusting. Why should they avail all holidays whether or not they celebrate them but they enjoy paid holidays. Let them take holidays on without pay basis like business establishment who lose their profit, the day they keep their shops shut. And would you mind telling me a reason for keeping wine shops closed on 2nd October- What is the big deal?

It is a good verdict, unnatural sex cannot be termed as marriage, it is impossible, SC have given permission them to live as they wish but to be termed as marriage, then it will simply break the basic value system of marriage as tradition, we are not west even there many are not supporting,

Can you go back in history and say when this value system was started - it actually came into existence with religious beliefs...Gay or same sex relationships have always existed since the time man came into existence and this seen even among animals and plants ! More than anything else it is a personal choice what sexual preference someone wants and the sooner this law gets amended the better ! we cannot penalise and criminalise people just because they dont do what we do or what we expect them to do...

I am accepting points raised by you here, I know even in times of Mahabharata era, gays are there, here honorable court does not interfere into the live of gays and they stay in whatever relationships it is not the matter of concern, but the court says their union can not be termed as marriage, it is not natural as marriage as institution only be done with a man and a woman, not with same sex, they can stay it is not illegal but their union cannot be termed as marriage, if so they slowly, human civilization will cease to exist, marriages can only be done by man and a woman, this is what SC says, and if same sex want to stay united they can nothing illegal it is their right, can their union be termed as marriage, it is impossible. and if it is allowed then there would be catastrophe in society and basic values which are called as marriage would be gone forever. I do not see any bad in this judgment but it seems you are not agreeing with this verdict why?

I agree with you on this point. The sexual orientation is a personal choice but it cannot be pronounced a marriage if it is in between a man and another man or woman and woman. To be called married you need two people of different sex and in gay or lesbians I don't see such possibility.

actually the section 377 is about 'carnal acts against order of nature'. Definitely gay and lesbian are unlawful. But even carnal acts against order of nature may be between a man and woman. Only straight sex is lawful. Sodomy between a man and woman is also against order of nature.

However this section is superflous. Who will complain when both individuals involved in the 'offence' are consenting. In absence of complaint, there can be no legal action. Hence section 377 should be deleted. However, deletion the section does not mean that the act is allowed by law or is honorable. Law does not come in picture for every offence. Some religious organizations have shown disgust against the court decision. They can convince their followers that gay and lesbian sex is bad. This is really a social or religious issue and not legal. To elucidate further, I should not take eggs or meat on Tuesday. This may be considered bad. But why introduce a section in IPC forbiding eating meat on Tuesday. Incidentally, the local administration orders closure of meat shops on some Jain and Buddhist festivals. This is also disgusting.

At the risk of deviating from the topic of the thread, if closure of meat shop is disgusting to accommodate certain religious groups, same is true for allowing so many holidays to government employees is as disgusting. Why should they avail all holidays whether or not they celebrate them but they enjoy paid holidays. Let them take holidays on without pay basis like business establishment who lose their profit, the day they keep their shops shut. And would you mind telling me a reason for keeping wine shops closed on 2nd October- What is the big deal?

I agree with you. There should be holiday only on Independence and Republic day. No Holiday on Mahatma Gandhi birthday. The total leave entitlement could be increased to allow anyone to celebrate whatever festival he likes. It is disgusting that holidays are being increased for birthday of so many celebrities to accommodate various political shades.