Indianexpress.com : comments : The non-enforceable Section 377

The non-enforceable Section 377

New Delhi: I wonder whether those who get uptight about Section 377 of IPC have bothered to read it. This is what it says, titled as "unnatural offences" - "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, o ....Read more

Comments

Post comment

5 Comments |

Dr.By: AMM | Saturday , 11 Jul '09 15:55:49 PM Reply | Forward If Section 377 of IPC defines unnatural offences as "Whoever ...... against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, ..... described in this section." Pray, what is "the order of nature" ? Current understanding of human behaviour and ethics has taught us that nature cannot give us any clues as to how to behave. We are our own masters as to how to behave. Human sexuality has long been separated from procreation alone. It is now more for recreation and fellowship than for procreation.

have you ever heard of "logic"?By: R. Jain | Saturday , 11 Jul '09 12:17:51 PM Reply | Forward Manchanda, you need to use some logic if you want to argue your case. Your statement "Similar arguments can be raised about the right to die, committing Sati, child marriages, gender-detection tests, domestic violence, dowry abolition et el. Should all offences like these be legitimised?" does not make any sense. In most of the cases your cite (I will exclude "right to die" and "gender detection tests"), there are two parties involved and one party is offending the other in an egregious manner. But, that is not the case with two homosexuals who are doing something with their own bodies, in the privacy of their bedrooms, with mutual consent. Your attempt to equate the two shows your complete ignorance or you think people are foolish enough to fall for your false logic.

AdvocateBy: Karam Komireddy | Saturday , 11 Jul '09 10:34:17 AM Reply | Forward Bibek Debroy has missed the plot totally. I am surprised that his essay found space in the column section of the reputed Indian Express. First, Mr. Debroy appreciate that all laws in the IPC need not be enforceable. Just because, Mr. Debroy, upon research did not trace a single case of unnatural sex involiving an animal is no ground for section 377 to be declared redundant. I am for the decriminalisation of consensual sex between a couple of the same gender but not for repealing section 377, in is entirety, as Mr. Debroy suggests.

Homosexual ActsBy: SRGM | Saturday , 11 Jul '09 6:22:30 AM Reply | Forward Sodomy is never consensual. It is always perpetrated by bullies on tender victims making this act prevalent among students, in hostels, prisons and even in the defence establishments. In some it is a sickness. Sec 377 is an empty rhetoric of harsh threats. A combination of conselling, psychiartic treatment and enforceable laws may mitigate this malady.

Gay rights!By: J.M.Manchanda | Friday , 10 Jul '09 20:51:26 PM Reply | Forward The entire gay debate is becoming bizarre. It seems the whole civil society is focussed on protecting the so-called rights of homosexuals indulging in sex with mutual consent. The argument that this section should be repealed because it is non-enforceable and in the absenxe of consensus about it is questionable. Similar arguments can be raised about the right to die, committing Sati, child marriages, gender-detection tests, domestic violence, dowry abolition et el. Should all offences like these be legitimised? It has become fashionable to to take part in gay parades-it's the 'in' thing. If there are people with different sexual orientation, the reasons may be investigated and counselling done. However, the argument that it should be legitimised in the name of tolerance is as bad as celebrating it on streets. At best, the govt. may revise the punishments prescribed if they are considered very harsh.