Comments on: Will court ruling on gay sex change perceptions?

By: Aamir

Aamir — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:55:19 +0000

Its unnatural for sure, no doubt about that and I am really sorry to say that people come up with lots of logics, justifications & rational without thinking for a moment that the act which is not even practticed by animals (i know none like this) is being promoted by our fellow humans in the name of freedom & rights………… Come on, we can\’t fight & challenge nature, its something which should be discouraged very loudly and clearly

By: Jack Blade

Jack Blade — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:16:01 +0000

Homosexual relations are unnatural and should be banned just as relations with animals and pedophilia is illegal! There is no redeeming quality from sodomy! No procreation just the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B and C as well as herpes and a host of other diseases! The anatomy is damaged as a result of this deviant vice as well! Just say no!

By: gs

gs — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:24:32 +0000

Most sexually caused immune deficiencies can be traced to unnatural sex- the human body is not designed to be homosexual like some other species ( hydra, paramoecium etc for eg)It is abnormal for people to have homosexual tendencies- they need to be counselled. Court ruling will not change this.

By: adbul azeem

adbul azeem — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:58:54 +0000

It is not about the conservative indians thinking, its about homosex (which is unnatural), here we are simple using/following the fulyd’s theory, which tells that if ur doing sin and join the people (who is doing sin) then the sin wont be remains as sin. I want to ask how any body decision will make Sin as a good thing. If 90% of people wants to make sins as good thing it wont become. this thing we stood understand. And we have to fight against these type of verdicts.

By: sudeshna

sudeshna — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:57:16 +0000

Let people who question gays and lesbians concentrate on more serious issues like child trafficking, rape and other forms of sexual exploitation. I don’t understand why a big deal is made out of this and why on earth should any one of us decide on what is natural or unnatural or for that matter give out guidelines on how should you behave in your bedroom.
Hail the HC decision and with time I personally think the taboo factor will simply become non existent.

By: Kalyani

Kalyani — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:21:35 +0000

LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender) are considered as taboo in this country. Many people ever knew that they do exist. Thanks to the judgment, as it has brought lot of awareness among the people about LGBT.

LGBT’s are cornered by the heterosexual patriarchy and are considered as sinners as they are against order of nature. I believe that “LOVE SEES NO GENDER” and people should respect their feelings and accept them. I know that it will take a long time for people to change their views in accepting them and considering them as they are.

I believe that everyone has got their own life and freedom in this country. This was really an over pending decision from Delhi High court. I truly believe that people are different and their preferences are! They have struggled hard for 8 years to get their rights. I want to wish each and every person who has contributed in this struggle. Let us all join hands in celebrating this event and respecting each other mutually!!!

By: Reddin

Reddin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:28:09 +0000

^ Cheri wins.

By: Cheri

Cheri — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:50:46 +0000

The role of the democratic state and its instruments is not to create or modify public opinion. Rather, it is to ensure that biases which prevent the fullest development of citizens do not creep into public policy.

In the constitutional scheme of the Republic of India, it means that biases of a section of society, however large that section is, must not be made public law, if the enforcement of that law impedes upon the rights and the dignity of another section of society, however minuscule that section is.

In that context, the question whether or not the Delhi High Court’s ruling changes public perceptions is misplaced.

And that is what the judgment says:

“Thus popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights under Article 21.
“Popular morality, as distinct from a constitutional morality derived from constitutional values, is based on shifting and subjecting notions of right and wrong.
“If there is any type of ‘morality’ that can pass the test of compelling state interest, it must be ‘constitutional’ morality and not public morality.” (Para 79)

The judgment is one of the most liberal readings of the
constitutional guarantees of life and equality. It expands the meaning of “sex” as not merely gender as defined by anatomy, but as gender which is socially constructed:

“The purpose underlying the fundamental right
against sex discrimination is to prevent behaviour that treats people differently for reason of not being in conformity with generalization concerning ‘normal’ or ‘natural’ gender roles.
“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is
itself grounded in stereotypical judgments and generalization about the conduct of either sex.” (Para 99)

And, in one of its finest lines, the judgment says:

“A Bill of Rights does not ‘confer’ fundamental human rights. It confirms their existence and accords them protection.” (Para 123)

Solidarity !

By: Rakesh Pandey

Rakesh Pandey — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:54:50 +0000

Good

By: goldfinger

goldfinger — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:17:24 +0000

The views of a few black-robed men inside a court room will in no way change the perception of the majority of people. Gay sex is after all, even anatomically speaking, unnatural (whether done in privacy or in public).