“Homosexuality is criminal offence, Supreme Court rules.”

I am not able to understand how or why any act that is consensual and concerns nobody but those directly involved should face so much prejudice. What could anybody have against homosexuality, that is – if it wasn’t for the interpretation of religion/tradition/culture/family values that they have been given to understand, would they still see homosexuality as a bad thing?

Homosexuality is, like Feminism, a crime against Patriarchy. Homosexuality too reveals gender stereotypes to be not natural but a Patriarchal construct.

Because like feminism, homosexuality too doesn’t fit into the idea of macho, aggressive, male-bonding, controlling men and submissive, obedient women who hate other women and whose sole goal in life is to find a man who would be willing to marry them.

I have been away a lot and extremely busy, but had to share my disappointment with this verdict. Doesn’t equality and the right to freedom and freedom of expression include the right to love, marry or live with a consensual/willing, adult, and uncommitted partner?


If homosexuality is a crime then who is the victim? Isn’t it deep rooted Patriarchy that can make so many of us see marital rape as legal and consensual sex between some adults as illegal?

Homosexuality is criminal offence, Supreme Court rules

Parliament is authorised to remove Section 377, but as long as this provision is there, the court can not legalise this kind of sexual relationship, the SC bench observed.

“It is for the legislature to look into desirability of deleting section 377 of the IPC,” the apex court said.


56 thoughts on ““Homosexuality is criminal offence, Supreme Court rules.”

  1. I am also extremely disappointed, although I can’t say I am surprised. The one saving grace, is that I have seen many friends and acquaintances on social media, criticize the ruling and not a single person has supported it. The winds of change are blowing, and change will happen slowly and surely.


  2. Irrespective of sex, If it’s between two consenting adults then what moral right anyone has to object ? I am highly annoyed to see such prejudices being supported at highest level .


    • So many commenters seem to be of the opinion sex is meant ONLY for procreation and homosexual sex is unnatural because there is no procreation involved. So apparently everyone in the world only has sex when they’re trying to conceive?? 😐


  3. I’m very much surprised to see such a verdict from none other than Supreme Court itself. Though they have said that parliament can enact law to legalize it, it’s unexpected from the apex court to have given a verdict with prejudices.

    Being a bisexual, I feel it’s definitely a regressive step and a verdict that have long-lasting effect in multiple ways in the society.

    I expect people to protest against this verdict and subsequently legalize consensual homosexuality and anal sex.


  4. SC has asked the parliament to take action and accordingly judiciary will give the legal options . Let’s all learn to respect the law and constitution and proper amendments should be passed in parliament . Gay activists should push the politicians instead of courts .


    • The Supreme Court has the responsibility and duty to strike down laws that are against the Constitution that guarantees right to life and equality under the law. That is its prime purpose. Parliament can make stupid laws. But it is the courts who decide if they’re valid or not.


      • This is what the SC has clarified that making laws , amending laws is not their job , they mere implement laws . They are recommending scraping the law that is no more relevent


        • Article 13 of the Constitution specifically lays down the responsibility of the courts to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. This is not subjection. This is the job of the Supreme Court. They have to strike it down. Otherwise who is to protect the common man from the insanity of parliament?!


        • I second Rachna here. The anger should be placed elsewhere. Politicians pushed this to the court because they cannot stand up to delete the section. If the supreme court says it is not a criminal activity even when section 377 exists in the book, it can create wrong precedent for many more future cases.
          So they interpreted the law for us as per the book. But it is really upto the democratic institution to amend or delete it all together.
          They have written that down in the judgement.


  5. All laws which are based on morality are nothing but trash. How can things like homosexuality, adultery and incest be illegal? Who exactly is the victim in such consensual acts between adults? There seems to be a long way to go where people can think logically and with maturity.


  6. ‘Because like feminism, homosexuality too doesn’t fit into the idea of macho, aggressive, male-bonding, controlling men and submissive, obedient women who hate other women and whose sole goal in life is to find a man who would be willing to marry them.’



  7. Whatever and whenever a margin challenges the power centers their is such oppression . it is a strange logic the same laws do not “interfere” in marital rape cases but steps in into a homosexual relationship unabashedly.


  8. I think this is a temporary setback.
    The Supreme Court was represented by just two judges and not a full bench.
    Harish Salve has already remarked on this.
    May be if there had been a full bench, the verdict might have been different.
    In a way they are right perhaps. It is Parliament’s duty to make the law.
    The courts can only interpret the law.
    As long as section 377 is valid, what can a court do unless the law is against the constitution in which case it can strike it down.
    I am not sure if section 377 is an infringement to the constitution.
    That may well be another legal debate.
    The political parties have now been handed over a hot potato just before the election.
    While many politicians may personally be tolerant of homosexuality, they dare not declare it openly for fear of losing votes.
    It is obvious that the majority of people, cutting across religions view homosexuality with disfavour.
    Since the number of votes to be gained by invalidating section 377 is negligible, no party will be eager to take the intitiative in this matter.

    In the meantime, I suppose thousands of gays, who would have liked to come out into the open, will now postpone it indefinitely and will have to tolerate the cruel jokes quoting the old song आदमी हूँ, आदमी से प्यार करता हूँ।

    The police will of course welcome this judgement.
    It gives them scope to harass perfectly good people.
    Baba Ramdev is also probably gloating over this.
    He claims he can cure homosexuality.

    I envisage a delay, but ultimately, common sense will hopefully prevail one day.



    • “It is obvious that the majority of people, cutting across religions view homosexuality with disfavor”

      So true, I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much unity among fanatics of different religions ever before!


    • Exactly, what the activists should push forward is not get a new law made as in the case of new rape laws of the country. This will make decriminalize. As long as it stands in the book, the courts can only interpret. And it is indeed SCs job to stand by the book. Otherwise what validity does the law have?


  9. I read about this ruling yesterday, and was disgusted. This will make it easy for parents/relatives/neighbor’s third cousins to legally harass homosexuals.

    I looked up the Indian constitution’s version of right to freedom, and it comes with this – “some of these rights are subject to security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries, public order, decency or morality”

    right of freedom, subject to morality. Whose morality, exactly? What a joke.


    • Really , right of freedom subject to morality.why do you think its a joke. Many laws rest on morality, without morality there will not be any place left to draw the line.

      For example, suppose you go to a beach. You see people are wearing all sorts of dresses. Now a person gets naked and starts roaming on the beach. How will you handle the situation? Will the person be allowed to do that ?

      Nothing but a common moral standard can provide you with an answer here. So please step back from individual perspective and look from a collective perspective to understand such requirement


      • Nudity comes under the umbrella of decency, not morality.

        There are such things are nude beaches, you know. Perfectly legal to let it all hang out there, and individuals who are offended by nudity know that they need to steer clear of the area. Nobody’s hurt, everyone’s free to do what they want.

        My personal morality holds hypocrisy as highly immoral. Can I get hypocrites arrested? *rolls eyes*. A common moral standard is a pile of fresh n’ steaming bullshit, to put it kindly.

        Morality and Religion should be treated as highly personal, individual things, only then will we be rid of thugs like the myriad Senes and the saffron mafia.


      • A beach is a PUBLIC place. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is their private business and nobody else’s.
        As for morality, where is this ‘collective perspective’ when it comes to dowry, rape, corruption and infanticide? A lot of sexual harassment happens in broad daylight, in public. How do YOU handle that? Why are people allowed to do that? I can’t see any line that has been drawn there.
        Yes, laws do rest on morality, but ONLY when someone’s morality/immorality affects/trespasses upon someone else. By your logic should I go to court against people who eat meat because I’m a vegetarian and I find it immoral?


        • I didn’t commented upon homosexuality or whether nudity is equivalent to homosexuality. Thumbelina said no laws can be based on decency/morality so I gave an example.my reply didn’t include any comment upon homesexuality

          second point, I don’t get it. don’t we already have laws against dowry/rape/corruption? whether they are inefficient/not implemented/condoned is a separate point. but the law exists don’t they?

          Yes, laws do rest on morality, but ONLY when someone’s morality/immorality affects/trespasses upon someone else

          laws also rest on morality when it an act can be shown/proven/taken to be detriment to society. in my view, when the law against homosexuality was implemented it was assumed to be to a detriment. Now if the view has changed and is no longer valid, it can and should be changed. Just that SC is not the right medium but parliament.


    • right of freedom, subject to morality. Whose morality, exactly? What a joke

      why do it seems like a joke to you? Ofcourse laws would be bound by the current moral view of the society. otherwise there will be no place to draw the line

      Imagine you go to beach. you see people of all kind , wearing all sort of dressses. Now a person goes naked on the beach? What do you do now? Will you remove that person from the beach. Or you let the person be because it is personal freedom and nobody else is getting hurt?

      You can come to an answer only when you look at it from a group persepective and not an indivudual perspective. And than the moral view of the society do comes in equation


  10. Our constitution clearly outlines the right to life, liberty, and freedom as one of the 6 fundamental rights (the others being free speech, freedom of religion, right against exploitation, etc.). This goes against our constitution because it takes away the liberty to make personal choices that don’t affect anyone else.
    Why is the Supreme Court of India spending precious time messing with the constitution while the country desperately needs the Supreme Court’s help in so many other areas – honor killings, exploitation of the poor, child abuse, marital rape, etc.?


    • Why is the Supreme Court of India spending precious time messing with the constitution while the country desperately needs the Supreme Court’s help in so many other areas – honor killings, exploitation of the poor, child abuse, marital rape, etc.?

      SC doesn’t pick up cases randomly or on whims. It has due to process for that. Delhi high court ruling was challenged in SC and that how it got involved.when was the last time a HC ruling was challenged on honor killing or child abuse?

      What can SC do about marital rape? Nothing. It can at max tell the government to look into the issue and enact law.SC by itself cannot criminalize marital rape. That power is vested with legislation and not judiciary


      • Please don’t misquote me. I never asked SC to pick cases on whim. They did ponder over cases related to honor killings, child abuse and marital rape – if you search the internet, you will find many of these cases. When these cases come to the highest court of the land, they have an opportunity to bring about change for the better. It was in this context that I was speaking.

        Also, the Supreme Court of India has the power of Constitutional Review. It can review and reject parts of the constitution that challenge the fundamental rights of the citizens.


  11. Here is the massively ironic thing though. A lot of the bigots who are for this SC ruling are saying that it’s good because homosexuality goes against Indian values and that it should be outlawed on that basis.

    The reality is that the law which outlaws homosexuality was, and remains, a relic of British colonialism. The reality is that these people who are so concerned with “Indian values” aren’t even defending Indian values to start with–they’re defending what was yet another attempt by the “evil colonizer” to diminish what /they/ thought was immoral. The “Indian values” the bigots of today are defending is nothing but yet another leftover, washed up remainder of imperialism. The same type of imperialism they’re so quick to loudly denounce every Independence day. It would make me laugh if it wasn’t so sad.

    And this ruling, over everything, makes me sad. I think of all those people who are already trapped under multiple layers of guilt and self-hate because who they are goes against what their family and society expects them to be. And now they’re back to being considered criminals too. And for what? Nothing more than being human. It’s sick.

    Although, I would like to say that, when I read over some of the comments sections in the news articles, it was a pleasant surprise to see that a lot of people thought that this was a regressive step. The comments about how regressive it was outnumbered the comments about how it was a good ruling. That gave me some hope that maybe things will change,


  12. I was seriously outraged with the ruling. Apparently the Indian Supreme court wants to “criminalize” homosexuality because it is some kind of threat to society, meanwhile CORRUPTION, MARITAL RAPE, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND POVERTY is not a threat to society?
    It is a gross violation of basic human rights. The Supreme Court has failed Indian citizens in this ruling.


  13. I suppose you are just as angry at the Maharashtra anti-superstition bill, that is set to pass today.

    Millions of people in Maharashtra are set to lose their right to worship before an un-elected “Maharashtra anti superstition authority”.

    As usual, the media and elites like you are very selective about whose freedom to protect.


    • Spirituality, religion and right to worship are different and blindly believing in superstitions is different..for example going to temple and praying is “right to worship”, forcing women in fire almond with their husband’s dead bodies, or killing girl child is superstition..so anti superstition bill is not taking away anybody’s right to worship


    • And somebody would pass an Anti-Ignorance Bill and I’d sure be angry. I love ignorance and choose to enshrine it. Anyway Thanks for informing about this. I did not know about this bill.

      And this Hetrosexuality thing, way too over rated. Also the guy being taller than the girl, and older and richer and one degree more than her. So what if people pair in the way it suits their taste. And so what if they choose to not pair up at all and play the field until they choose to do so.


    • Yes. Because a law against exploiting the religious nature of people with the pretense of “magical cures”, and encouraging people to commit acts of negligence and inhumanity for the sake of some “higher blessing” is an infringement of someone’s right to worship. Funny how the right of people to get justice for being hoodwinked by these fake-babus is not something that you’re concerned with.

      All in all, I give this attempt of yours to derail the conversation an F. Please come back with something where you’re actually aware of the details rather than just the title or a headline you skimmed over.


  14. Oh! What beautiful justice system we have! Where you can legally rape your partner if you are in a heterosexual marriage, but a concentual sex with someone is illegal!


  15. What is the big deal here? Court just said the law stands as it has been legislated. If any changes are needed , people can go to their elected representatives and ask them to bring the process forward for legal change.

    The argument that it is between two consenting adults is a no man argument. There are many other laws which impinge upon this freedom like monogamy, prostitution,euthanasia,use of drugs, right to suicide etc which can be between consenting adults or an individual adult. But they stand as such without any legal backlash.

    And seriously what has homosexuality got to do with patriarchy? It’s not like all or any matriarchal society is the biggest supporter of homo sexuality


    • “There are many other laws which impinge upon this freedom like monogamy, prostitution,euthanasia,use of drugs, right to suicide etc which can be between consenting adults or an individual adult.”

      Polygamy is not a criminal offence under the law, if it is a heterosexual relationship. Nobody with more than one lover, wherein all parties have consented, will ever be criminalized or come under legal recourse if they have consenting relationships with more than one person. Marrying, or attempting to in any way obtain legal recognition, for those relationships is not permitted under the law.

      The difference between this and homosexuality is that the simple act of being in a homosexual relationship is grounds for someone to be deemed a criminal. There is no similar grounds for someone in a consenting polygamous relationship (key word here being CONSENTING). It is illegal for that union to be recognized, but not for it to simply exist, as is the case with homosexuality.

      As for prostitution, you’re quite right. If the participants are two consenting adults, the resulting act shouldn’t be illegal at all. But it is illegal for two reasons. The first is the fact that societal and moral viewpoints have deemed anyone who wants sex out of the bounds of a socially acceptable relationship as someone less than worthy. The second is the fact that due to India’s particularly patriarchal culture, sex work in general is very exploitative. Even if a person were to enter the trade willingly, there is no guarantee that every act they do will be willing. Just because they’re willing to do a job doesn’t mean that they would want to do it every time. But, there are many parts of the world where prostitution is legal, and many sex workers who were not coerced into the trade at all.

      “And seriously what has homosexuality got to do with patriarchy?”

      Patriarchy reinforces strict gender roles. It reinforces the idea that men need to be one way, and women need to be another, and that relationships can only exist based on this view.

      Homosexuality dismantles gender roles. It is a relationship between two people who have little to no differences between them due to gender. It throws patriarchy for a loop (which is also the reason why so many stereotypes against gay and lesbian individuals exist). It flies directly in the face of an ideology that tries very hard to put people and their relationships into specific boxes, when the reality is that no person and no relationship can ever be defined as strictly as patriarchy desires them to be.

      As for “all or any matriarchal society”–well, for starters, the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy. You will probably deny that this was your implication, but it’s clear what you seem to believe. And secondly, kindly name one matriarchal society that exists in this world, where men are treated as second-class citizens to the same extent that women are. One that exists today.


      • Marrying, or attempting to in any way obtain legal recognition, for those relationships is not permitted under the law.

        That is what I am pointing out. Why is this illegal if between consenting adults?

        The exploitation argument against prostitution is a very valid one of which I am ver aware of. I also know of many countries where it is tightly regulated and permitted. But it still should not be completely illegal

        Euthanasia also remains in legal doldrums

        Patriarchy reinforces gender role. But that can’t be valid reason for homosexuality. Patriachy gender roles can also be between consenting adults. What I am saying patriarchy can’t be arguement for homosexuality.

        There are no matriarchal societies. But there are women right.? Are they all on side of homosexuality? All I am saying is blaming patriarchy for homosexuality is just scape goating. One has nothing to do with another.


        • I dont think polygamy and homosexuality can be compared in india , there are any number of polygamous couples in India, some of our prominent stars make a habit of it, and no one has gone to jail for it. it’s not criminalized, sure you cant get a marriage certificate with 2 wives but no one will throw you in jail for marrying / cohabiting with 2 or 10. thats where homosexuality differs, no one is asking to legalize gay /lesbian marriage ( yet ) all they are asking is not to throw them in jail if they are homosexual.
          making this criminal is a grave infringement on individual right, but then again what individual , in india we dont tolerate too much individuality , much prefer everyone follows the herd like demented sheep..


        • “That is what I am pointing out. Why is this illegal if between consenting adults?”

          And what I’m saying is that you can’t compare the lack of legal recognition for polygamous unions with the complete criminalization for homosexuality. It is not illegal to engage in (again, heterosexual) polygamous behaviour. You will never have the police come knocking on your door for having more than one boyfriend or girlfriend. You will never have the law enforcement overtake the bar you’re at under the premise that your relationship is criminal. Your right to have as many (heterosexual) relationships as you want is respected. You are not called a criminal for the simple act of have two relationships at the same time. Homosexuals are criminalized for just being in a relationship, nevermind trying to find legal recognition for it. You will be punished if you try to register two marriages to two different people at the same time. But you will not be punished for just being with two different people at the same time. With homosexuality, you run the risk of being punished for just being with another person. And there’s the difference.

          “Patriachy gender roles can also be between consenting adults. What I am saying patriarchy can’t be arguement for homosexuality.”

          If patriarchal gender roles are between consenting adults, then once again, that goes against patriarchy, because it implies that the opposite is also true. That two consenting adults can CHOOSE to disregard patriarchal gender roles if they so wish. Patriarchy exists on the premise that it is not a choice, but a law. There is no choice involved in patriarchy, and there are consequences for those who exercise their right to choice, whatever that choice may be.

          “There are no matriarchal societies. But there are women right.? Are they all on side of homosexuality? All I am saying is blaming patriarchy for homosexuality is just scape goating. One has nothing to do with another.”

          Patriarchy is not the efforts of four or five men, but an institutionalized system that has been put in place over a few thousand years. A system that is perpetuated and followed by both men and women. A system that is immensely entrenched in human consciousness and thought, to the point where it transcends merely the oppression of women, but finds itself in many, many different areas of oppression as well.

          As such, even if women are homophobic, it does not remove the blame from patriarchy. They are still falling in line with the beliefs of patriarchy, which is a system of oppression. You can’t equate an entire system of oppression that is designed for the sole purpose of subjugating women with a few women in this world who are homophobic. Homophobia is, by and large, a product of patriarchy. The women who are homophobic are holding patriarchal beliefs. So yes, it seems perfectly acceptable to me that patriarchy needs to be blamed for homosexuality. Zero scapegoating here, I’m afraid.

          It’s also important to note that these homophobic women are the same women who will argue until they are blue in the face that women need to stay at home and cook for their husbands, that modern women are a disgrace to society, that men need to be in charge while women meekly follow. All of these are patriarchal beliefs, and all of these are often held in tandem. Oppression, unfortunately, is intertwined. They do not separate based on who they subjugate.


  16. 2 Garlands exchanged and now a man can do an officially sanctioned rape , What happens with 4 four walls ,its nobody’s business NO Punishment , Enjoy the rape party everyday.OK , Get it.

    2 Adults with consent and mutual love , Gay/Lesbian doing anything within 4 walls , Punish them.. Its illegal…

    Enjoy our society…Against Constitution … and with some old british law…and though culture has no role here but our culture respected Shikandi very well


    • Do you see how hard it can be to change laws once put in even if you believe they are totally obsolete or wrong in first place? Lot of effort goes into changing laws especially related to society view. Therefore some laws needs extreme caution to be exercised before being impelemented.That is why the law against marital rape is not going forward anytime soon.

      Because even if you leave the opponents of the bill out, even the supporters of the bill believe in the need to implement check and safeguards. Because they also realize that if the law is passed without safeguards, it could be huge struggle to change it or reverse it if needed in future. Today you are clamouring for the law to be passed, tommorow you might be asking for reversal. But it is a slow and ardous process either way


  17. We indians need to repeat constantly to ourself
    ‘ MIND our own business’
    ‘ Dont judge others based on some vague morals’
    ‘ everyone has a choice’
    ‘ RESPECT EVERYONE – young and old and their choices’
    Id suggest starting this in kindergarten itself.


  18. Meenakshi Lekhi, a Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson and Supreme Court lawyer, said: “We welcome the decision of the court because it is important that Section 377 remains. It is not only women who can be exploited and harassed but men also get exploited so there is a need for a law to protect men too.
    “If there is a law to protect women, how can there not be a law to protect men? What happens between people inside their homes is not being questioned but if there is a victim then the complaint should be addressed. Delhi has seen incidents where homosexuals have been attacked and killed. In 2004, two homosexual men were murdered in Delhi, so this law is needed so men are not harassed,” said Lekhi.


  19. The consolation is the outrage – expressed not only on the social media but also on prime news channels. That discussions and debates are happening – on an issue like this – in a country like India – in itself is a mark of progress in our mind set. So what if a couple of judges struck it down. It was surprising to see partiles like BJP refraining to openly supporting the judgement and instead calling for a debate. So now atleast the course is set – for a DEBATE!!!! So yes – even though the judgement is regressive – from a democratic perspective – we’re on the right track. So now there will be a debate and hopefully the laws / constitution amended.


    • “The consolation is the outrage”

      Yes. This is what strikes me as so different from the time homosexuality was decriminalized. Everyone was up in arms about how this meant a degradation in societal values. I guess five years later, and the world having not blown up, brought a change of heart for many.

      I’m glad that people are angry about it. I’m glad that people are debating about it, that they’re waking up about it. It’s the only thing that is good about the whole issue, the fact that a debate has been thrust forth, and that people are forced to discuss it (publicly!) now. I think that’s great, and I hope that it means more open discourse for things like this in the future. 🙂


  20. I have posted multiple times on this particualr article so I am now going to post one last time

    I am not saying polygamy is same as homosexuality or is equivalent. What i am saying is that the arguement ‘that it is between 2/3 consenting adults’ is not enough arguement for laws to be framed/repealed. Many laws goes against this ideology but are accepted in order to prevent exploitation/abuse/misue etc. Homosexuality has also been (unfortunately/fortunately) made part of it

    Supreme court did what it is supposed to do. It cannot repeal this law like it cannot repeal many other laws. It is for the parliament to repeal the law. It is for the chosen representatives of the people to bring this in parliament and vote on it. SC shouldn’t have been involved in this. All I hear is this politician saying the law should be changed, that politican saying law should be changed.
    If everybody wants the law to be changed , why hasnt the bill cleared in parliamant? HC order came in 2009; 4 years have passed by with govt sitting on it. People need to take it to parliament and not blame supreme court


  21. Let’s not be too pessimistic here. Yes, it was deeply disappointing to read about the SC ruling yesterday. But what this verdict has done is to (hopefully) open up a national debate on an issue that has been swept under the carpet for a long time. The discussion will be acrimonious and will not make sense most of the time (like Mr Sumit’s comparison of the homosexuality ruling with the Anti-Superstition bill which does not make sense in either context). But the very fact that we are having a public discussion on this is, to me, a positive sign

    The people who support banning homosexuality only have to look at the company they keep to understand how far they have fallen. They are on the same side as the Republicans and their supporters who compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia and who blamed gays for Hurricane Katrina…man, they are wackos. They are on the same side as Mr.Ahmadinejad who once claimed that there were zero gay people in Iran. He gives wackos a bad name. Then we have our homegrown homophobes who claim that homosexuality is an unnatural disease that needs to be cured or that it is against family values yada yada yada. You should know you are doing something wrong when the people who are on the same side as you in an argument are considered bat-shit crazy.

    Rahul Gandhi has ostensibly voiced his opinion against this SC ruling by saying that homosexuality is an individual’s “personal choice”. While his support would probably be appreciated, his wording would not. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality is.


    Calling gay people as “unnatural” is missing the point. This is how nature has made them. What seems unnatural to us is extremely natural to them. I imagine heterosexuality would seem just as unnatural to them…but I don’t see any LGBT groups filing petitions to ban heterosexual sex.

    “family values”…yeah, right! A country where marital rape is not illegal, where child marriages are still practiced, where marrying off girls at 16 is given as the solution for rape has no business raising the bogey of “family values” simply in order to violate other people’s rights. In any case how does homosexuality impact heterosexual “family values”? Are our “family values” really that fragile?

    It’s understandable that people might find “gay sex” objectionable or distasteful. But just because something is objectionable or distasteful to them does not mean that they can violate other people’s individual rights simply to satisfy their own prejudices. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else’s business. Somehow, this seems to be a very hard message to get across. But at least there is some open discussion happening in the public domain. It’s up to us to keep this conversation going.


  22. I think homosexuality has largely been a very closeted (and even feared) concept among the masses itself, and people really need to be made aware of the facts about it before making value judgements on homosexuals and gay sex on the whole.
    Having said that, while browsing through new channels looking for updates on this, I actually noticed one more thing…
    Most English new channels are still reporting/debating/discussing the issue, but there is hardly any or even no mention of it on hindi or regional news channels. Sort of reflects that media has a very clear agenda about this as well.
    Spreading awareness and scope for debate and discussion on this issue I feel is far more important among the masses who are the audiences of Hindi News channels, but of course, media is very clear about the fact that it’ll only be driven by TRPs and the graver issues can be left to the so-called ‘elite’ opinion leaders of English news channels.


  23. Pingback: Equality: I can see that milestone… something like 1093758292838 km away. | Memoirs of a young civilian

  24. Pingback: “If I was born somewhere else, sometime later, in a more liberal family, in a more equal world.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  25. Pingback: And what would have happened if this man had declared that he was gay and hence would not marry a woman? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  26. Pingback: ‘Both families arrived at a compromise and she decided to continue to live with her gay husband.’ | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s