Supreme court pronounces Gay Sex as illegal...

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.

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

Exactly! With changing times one has to view such issues with a more open mind and tolerance! There once was a time when such unions existed but to accept them openly would mean severe reprisals including being shunned from society etc. But now at least people coming forward openly and accepting themselves for what they are. And as long as they are not indulging in antisocial activities, what does it matter what type of sex they prefer? And who are we to define that what they do is unnatural? From ancient times, such relationships exist, ancient scriptures are testimony to this fact, and during those days, such relationships were accepted as naturally as was the union of man and woman, so why are we questioning that and labelling them as criminals?

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

Exactly! With changing times one has to view such issues with a more open mind and tolerance! There once was a time when such unions existed but to accept them openly would mean severe reprisals including being shunned from society etc. But now at least people coming forward openly and accepting themselves for what they are. And as long as they are not indulging in antisocial activities, what does it matter what type of sex they prefer? And who are we to define that what they do is unnatural? From ancient times, such relationships exist, ancient scriptures are testimony to this fact, and during those days, such relationships were accepted as naturally as was the union of man and woman, so why are we questioning that and labelling them as criminals?

It is a retrograde decision of the court and reflects a medieval mindset completely out of sync with modern civilized practices!!

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

Exactly! With changing times one has to view such issues with a more open mind and tolerance! There once was a time when such unions existed but to accept them openly would mean severe reprisals including being shunned from society etc. But now at least people coming forward openly and accepting themselves for what they are. And as long as they are not indulging in antisocial activities, what does it matter what type of sex they prefer? And who are we to define that what they do is unnatural? From ancient times, such relationships exist, ancient scriptures are testimony to this fact, and during those days, such relationships were accepted as naturally as was the union of man and woman, so why are we questioning that and labelling them as criminals?

It is a retrograde decision of the court and reflects a medieval mindset completely out of sync with modern civilized practices!!

I think it is really another kind of Talibanism. First we had these khap panchayats which still carry unabetted and now this! Next they will start dictating whether one should breathe or not! :blink:

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

Exactly! With changing times one has to view such issues with a more open mind and tolerance! There once was a time when such unions existed but to accept them openly would mean severe reprisals including being shunned from society etc. But now at least people coming forward openly and accepting themselves for what they are. And as long as they are not indulging in antisocial activities, what does it matter what type of sex they prefer? And who are we to define that what they do is unnatural? From ancient times, such relationships exist, ancient scriptures are testimony to this fact, and during those days, such relationships were accepted as naturally as was the union of man and woman, so why are we questioning that and labelling them as criminals?

It is a retrograde decision of the court and reflects a medieval mindset completely out of sync with modern civilized practices!!

I think it is really another kind of Talibanism. First we had these khap panchayats which still carry unabetted and now this! Next they will start dictating whether one should breathe or not! :blink:

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

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?

Here marriage is not at all an issue, it is the criminalisation of gay rights.When a court says that it is illegal it becomes a crime and this is not right since you are intruding on someone elses private life and taking away their rights to live life the way they want. Further than that there are other implications like the backlash that such a judgment can have by the extremists who in fact filed a petetion aganist the judgment given by the Delhi High court. One more issue is that hard liners will rake up many more such issues and do we want to go back in times or move forward ?

absolutely, the court is calling gay sex as illegal, I think we cannot criticize apex court's verdict, but in US citizens are criticizing SC's verdict, it is interfering personal relationships of citizens, now the total number of contries who are calling as gay to be illegal is 77

Honorable SC opposes rule and advised govt. to frame the rule, so in a way court has seen that existing laws are treating gay sex as not legal, and advised govt to frame new law under article 377, Sonia Gandhi supports framing rules, and many members of congress party are out in news channels expressing their open support to frame rules in support of gay sex :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy:

This is an issue that was being debated since almost a decade and earlier Delhi high court had struck down section 377 saying that it restricts individuals freedom. But now this judgent is a huge setback for the gay community of India.
The supreme court has put the onus on parliament to decide whether they want to water down section 377...
{Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is a piece of legislation in India introduced during British rule of India that criminalises sexual activity "against the order of nature." The section was read down to decriminalise same-sex behaviour among consenting adults in a historic judgement by the High Court of Delhi on 2 July 2009. Section 377 continues to apply in the case of sex involving minors and coercive sex.}

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/supreme-court-sets-aside-delhi-hc-judgment-decriminalising-homosexuality/article1-1161395.aspx

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

This is right. That is why Section 377 of The I.P.C. needs be deleted. This is su8perflous. When anything goes between consenting individuals, there will be no complaint and hence no interference by law. But Supreme Court has merely ruled that this section is constitutional. It is for parliament to amend I.P.C..

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

This is right. That is why Section 377 of The I.P.C. needs be deleted. This is su8perflous. When anything goes between consenting individuals, there will be no complaint and hence no interference by law. But Supreme Court has merely ruled that this section is constitutional. It is for parliament to amend I.P.C..

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

This is right. That is why Section 377 of The I.P.C. needs be deleted. This is su8perflous. When anything goes between consenting individuals, there will be no complaint and hence no interference by law. But Supreme Court has merely ruled that this section is constitutional. It is for parliament to amend I.P.C..

The Indian Penal Code was originally drafted during the British era and while we were being ruled by them so most of the rules made were obviously to more benefit to the British than to Indians! Even after more than 6 decades of independence, the same old code is being used, isn't it time now to amend them to really reflect OUR society's needs and stipulations? I am deviating a little form the topic, but several tribes that were declared as being criminals by law by the British are still registered as criminals! It is high time now to amend or delete all such laws including section 377!

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

This is right. That is why Section 377 of The I.P.C. needs be deleted. This is su8perflous. When anything goes between consenting individuals, there will be no complaint and hence no interference by law. But Supreme Court has merely ruled that this section is constitutional. It is for parliament to amend I.P.C..

The Indian Penal Code was originally drafted during the British era and while we were being ruled by them so most of the rules made were obviously to more benefit to the British than to Indians! Even after more than 6 decades of independence, the same old code is being used, isn't it time now to amend them to really reflect OUR society's needs and stipulations? I am deviating a little form the topic, but several tribes that were declared as being criminals by law by the British are still registered as criminals! It is high time now to amend or delete all such laws including section 377!

Very true ! I am sure there are many such age old laws that need to be upgraded according to present needs..Article 377 at least is getting some positive response from the pliticians because of the media attention ...

Supreme court can say what they think on legal basis but they cannot stop people from doing what they do within the four walls of their homes. No, I am not a gay but would not want to interfere in people's personal matters, as long as they are not playing with a child or someone against their will.j

Matters that happen in privacy or within the confines of a home are purely personal. Closed room gambling is going unabated. The law should interfere only when such matters are done in public which is likely to damage the societal values and influence the members of the society.

This is right. That is why Section 377 of The I.P.C. needs be deleted. This is su8perflous. When anything goes between consenting individuals, there will be no complaint and hence no interference by law. But Supreme Court has merely ruled that this section is constitutional. It is for parliament to amend I.P.C..

The Indian Penal Code was originally drafted during the British era and while we were being ruled by them so most of the rules made were obviously to more benefit to the British than to Indians! Even after more than 6 decades of independence, the same old code is being used, isn't it time now to amend them to really reflect OUR society's needs and stipulations? I am deviating a little form the topic, but several tribes that were declared as being criminals by law by the British are still registered as criminals! It is high time now to amend or delete all such laws including section 377!