Indianexpress.com : comments : The right to choose

The right to choose

Section 377 IPC was enacted in 1860 by British colonial rulers in the heyday of Victorian morality. It punishes inter alia sexual intercourses between same sex persons with life imprisonment or rigorous or simple imprisonment up to 10 years. After 1967, homosexual acts between two consenting ad ....Read more

Comments

Post comment

4 Comments |

Ignorable exceptionBy: G.K | Friday , 17 Jul '09 20:27:55 PM Reply | Forward Indian society has traditionally ignored these LGTBs are exceptions. We have many examples to this view. From this perspective, quashing a law that punishes LGTBs is welcome because it did not ignore the exceptions but chose them and despise them. However I have one thing to point out at Shri. Sorabjee's view -- "If one subscribes to the regressive notion that the sole aim of sexual intercourse must be for procreation, then an absurd consequence will be that oral sex between husband and wife would be punishable under Section 377". Oral sex, foreplay between husband and wife still comes under the limit described for procreation, something like fun-at-work. A bicyclist if crosses an yellow line in the road median violates the law however the same bicyclist if rides within the yellow line limit but does some gymnastics without creating trouble to other riders cannot be said as violating the traffic rule. Shri Sorabjee's equates this a violation.

ABERRATION SKEWEDBy: G YAGNESWARAN | Monday , 6 Jul '09 7:02:10 AM Reply | Forward Mr. Sorabjee would do well to introspect on where form the personal liberty comes from. He is grossly wrong if he thinks solely from the narrow confines of the legal system. He argues like a petty lawyer and goes on to question as to who has the authority to define what is natural and unnatural? The answer is there for all of us to see. Look at the behavior of living beings other than humans. The author has used funny words like sex orientation and the regular staple of words the so called liberals use like regressive and self appointed guardians of morality which in the course of time has become more ornamental.

A flawed democracy ?By: Dr.G.Srinivasan | Monday , 6 Jul '09 6:16:51 AM Reply | Forward The right to choose should be honoured at all places and all instances not only in matters related to sex. I had been an advocate of democratic practices where peoples opinion matters most. The instances are in choosing the type of democracy/ dictatorship/any other system , the approval for the constitution , the election of the PM/President/ , casting votes on any other important matters concerning the nation /referendums. I think these are as important as if not more important than choosing which they claim is they are made that way.Which one is the priority imposing the representative form of government on the people " A slavish copying of the British constitution and imposing it on the people without a referendum" or respecting the right to choose for gays who hardly form 1%?

ABERRATINBy: G YAGNESWARAN | Sunday , 5 Jul '09 21:33:47 PM Reply | Forward It is really shocking and outrageous to read an article written so casually from a legal luminary like Sorabjee. It will be act of utter self delusion if he means that what is happening in the privacy of bedroom will not have any affect whatsoever outside. On one hand he proclaims that gay culture is not advocated but in the same breath goes to defend the “personal liberty” of gays cannot be violated for their “alleged unnatural” acts. For the sake of argument how about sex between two consenting adults but blood related.