11 ms·
India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling
- thomasfedb 8y agoThe phrase "legalises gay sex" is surreal and otherworldly to me. We recent fought for marriage in Australia. Shocking to think they were and are still so backwards as to make that headline possible.
- Numberwang 8y agoI've seen your politicians. There is plenty of backwards to go around.
- thomasfedb 8y agoAnd we know it, we're not satisfied by any means.
- peterlk 8y agoWell, historically, India was comfortable with and accepting of people of all sexualities. The laws that are being overturned were put on the books by the British. So, the backwardness depends on the time scale
- sandworm101 8y agoIn parts of india. It is a big place with a long history. There have been times and places in india where lgbt were persecuted long before colonial rule.
- yaseer 8y agoIn Tasmania, gay male sexual conduct was illegal until 1997.
- thomasfedb 8y agoBut I was 3 years old then, it's not something I can imagine living with.
- swizzbeats 8y agofag
- arihant 8y agoIt’s a colonial era law that made LGBT “unnatural” in the country of Kamasutra. One of the many gifts the British left behind. Great we finally overcame it. Although we should have fixed it sooner.
- rjay925 8y agoThe phrase is worded such because it was illegal. You do know that sex without marriage is possible, right? How is it that if you are so advanced, that you had to fight for marriage "recently"?, mate!
- bloak 8y agoI've heard that there are a number of US states in which some fairly common sex acts are officially illegal. The difference, of course, is that there is little chance of anyone being prosecuted for those offences in the US, while, if I've understood correctly, the Indian section 377 law was being used in practice.
- 5555624 8y agoVirginia § 18.2-345 was only repealed 5 years ago. Oral sex, sex in a car, and cohabitation of unmarried couples were all illegal. It was not necessarily enforced; but, the laws were still on the books.
- walrus01 8y agoIt's still illegal to own more than six dildos in Texas.
- GLjEI4YbnGD27LB 8y agoNot true since 2004 anymore. And apparently was only against promoting dildos. Source: https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/feb/09/alcee-hastings/florida-democrat-texas-law-says-women-dildos/ https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/feb/09/al...
- walrus01 8y agoWell that's reassuring! I was wrong. But 2004 is rather recent.
- davchana 8y agoYes, the law said anything other that the nature; which often was referenced as blowjob, anal, 69 etc.
- voltooid 8y agoThere is more history to this. The introduction of the law relating to making gay sex illegal "... dating back to 1861, (that was) introduced during the British rule of India (modelled on the Buggery Act of 1533) criminalised sexual activities "against the order of nature", including homosexual activities" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Pena... It is the truth for a lot of countries that were under colonial rule. Colonial powers left their mark behind in so many unfortunate ways that are just too complex for countries to deal with even today. It is simple and lazy to label something "backward".
- lucozade 8y ago> It is simple and lazy to label something "backward". Couldn't agree more. Having said that, I'm not sure the "blame the colonials" is vastly better. For at least 2 reasons: 1) One of the laws the Penal Code replaced required death by stoning as a punishment (unless you were a slave in which case you were just flogged). As poor as the law was, it wasn't really replacing an enlightened legal framework. 2) Post-colonial India didn't exactly rush to replace the law. The first attempt wasn't until 2009, and that was overturned. The simple truth is that, even supposedly liberal, countries have made these changes disappointingly recently. Personally, I'm glad this is happening but blaming others for the slow progress is somewhat disingenuous.
- voltooid 8y agoYou make a good point. It is simplistic and lazy to blame the colonials for all the ills of a society too. But the slow progress in fixing something like this is not so much because of a backwards attitude. Nation building takes time. Especially when things around the world are changing fast. There is a long long way to go. And it is definitely going to take a very long time getting there. Especially because there are way too many issues that need the attention of an already strained legal system.
- sgift 8y ago> Colonial powers left their mark behind in so many unfortunate ways that are just too complex for countries to deal with even today. What does that even mean? They are free countries. No one forced India to hold onto that law. No one forces other countries to hold onto colonial era laws. If they don't change it that's their choice, their decision and their problem in the end. Not that of some long gone boogeyman.
- krylon 8y agoIn Germany, the infamous §175a StGB that made gay sex illegal was only finally removed in 1994. I think it was practically ignored for some time before that, but that was only 24 years ago. And yes, it feels just as unreal to me.
- simias 8y agoI thought we had a similar law in France until the 1980's but apparently I was at least partly mistaken: >Although same-sex sexual activity was a capital crime that often resulted in the death penalty during the Ancien Régime, all sodomy laws were repealed in 1791 during the French Revolution. However, a lesser known indecent exposure law that often targeted homosexuals was introduced in 1960 before being repealed twenty years later. So vive la révolution I guess.
- etiennemarcel 8y agoIn 81 homosexuality was taken off the mental illnesses list, that's probably what you're thinking of.
- simias 8y agoAh that's probably it, thank you.
- blattimwind 8y agoThat's not entirely accurate, because the 175 was changed quite a lot over time. Initially it was jail-for-sex, but then in the late 60s it was changed such that basically the age of consent for gays was 21 (IIRC a notable exception was that if _both_ partners were below 18 then it wasn't punishable anyway -- so only if one was younger than 18 and the other 18-21 it was punishable, which is very weird indeed). Then there was another reform which made it so that >18 having gay sex with <18 was illegal. And then, finally, with the abolishment of 175 in 94 everyone got the same age of consent.
- krylon 8y ago
- abhi3 8y agoWait till you hear about these crimes: 1) Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code Adultery.—Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor. 2) 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.—Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 3) Having consensual sex with someone you promised to marry becomes rape retrospectively if you renege on the promise of marriage 4) And of course - Marital rape is legal. A husband (even an enstranged one) cannot be charged with raping his wife
- yesenadam 8y agoI just looked up when gay sex was legalized in Australia. It varies, but in Tasmania not until 1997. You were saying? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia#Decriminalisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia#Decri...
- xrisk 8y agoNote that same sex marriage is still not legalised! We still have a long way to go before the idea of a same-sex couple becomes commonplace in our society.
- Dawny33 8y agoWait. Gay sex is legalized, but not marriage. That's so un-Indian-like
- oytis 8y agoIt shouldn't be just marriage, it should also be properly arranged by partners' parents.
- pelario 8y agoActually, a more accurate title would be "Gay sex decriminalized in India"
- simias 8y agoHow so? That's generally how these things have progressed in most countries I'm aware of. First you make the simple fact of being homosexual not be illegal. Same-sex marriage often comes much later.
- tobyhinloopen 8y agoSex with a toy is legal, but you can't marry a toy.
- M_Bakhtiari 8y agoI don't think this will last, not even in the west.
- majewsky 8y agoCare to elaborate?
- M_Bakhtiari 8y agoIt's naive to think western liberal cultural change is a one-way street. This is the kind of thing that comes in waves. Just look at the radical transformation of the pre-colonial Kingdom of Buganda into present-day Uganda with its sodomy laws and internet meme pastors, perhaps ironically catalysed by the west, a west that has since flipped the complete opposite direction. It's only a matter of time before the tables turn again. LGBT is at its core a small minority interest. It's an unstable system, it all depends on what the majority population happens to be interested in in this particular century.
- nextstep 8y agoI think you are wrong. There are minor setbacks and reactions to liberalization of society, but ultimately the trend over the past many hundreds of years has been generally toward a more equitable and accepting society almost everywhere in the world. Also, LGBT is definitely not a small minority interest and the more accepting society becomes, the more people realize that these issues are incredibly mainstream.
- gdfasfklshg4 8y agoI think you should study history related to gay rights over the last few centuries. Whilst we are currently in a better situation in many western countries the course of change has been anything but a smooth set of improvements.
- majewsky 8y ago
- vivan 8y agoSomething to note here is that it is not just gay sex that is legalised - the prohibition was on "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" which included straight anal sex as well as oral sex. Of course, these are less important as this was never enforced, but weird to think that these things were technically illegal.
- tomp 8y agoHow about things like bestiality and Pedophilia? (1) Were they "against the order of nature" in the first place, and (2) are only specific practices allowed (The ones you mention) or just everything? Edit: I'm not sure Wikipedia [1] agrees with you. The original law was: > Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life So bestiality seems to have been prohibited initially. The judgement [2] says: > Section 377 of the Penal Code, in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional So I'm not sure it decriminalizes anal and oral heterosexual sex as well. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Pena... [2] https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Ju... page 442 (labelled 180)
- vivan 8y agoAccording to the BBC: >The court said other aspects of section 377 dealing with unnatural sex with animals and children would remain in force.
- windows_tips 8y agoWere they really though? Aren't there numerous artifacts from the region depicting such acts?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nosjwshere 8y agothey need something to curb the population growth. next stop, feminism.
- shubhamjain 8y agoRemarkable decision. Although, this is just a small step of a long road to a culture that understands and accepts the LGBT community, a step nonetheless. It's very fortunate that the democratic structure of India allows courts to make rational, liberal decisions. They are not encumbered by petty politics or vote banks. Living in India is not easy. Every other day you have a reason to astonish over the regressiveness of people around you. Today, I get to have a momentary joy—at least there is something that works.
- throwaway6789 8y agoAre gays getting a bad reputation in India just because of being gay? >I think homosexuality gets a bad rep in Kerala because of all those nasty ammavans (uncles) not-so-subtly molesting young boys at the back of buses and movie theatres. Some reddit users share their experience: https://old.reddit.com/r/Kerala/comments/9dfskv/sc_decriminalises_homosexuality/e5hje7a/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Kerala/comments/9dfskv/sc_decrimina...
- vinni2 8y agoAs a gay Indian this is a great news! but it is one thing to decriminalize it legally and complete different thing for societal acceptance and leading a normal life as gay person in India. For an average gay person in India this doesn’t change much. There is still a long way to go. This law was never a problem for me but my family and relative and neighbors are. But it is a good progress.
- wallace_f 8y agoThe world is so weird. I never understood the motive behind tyrannizing other people. How is that winning at anything other than being an asshole? Why don't people just leave other people alone? Is it so much different to tyrannize a woman for being feminine, or just being attractive? Most of us are instinctively disgusted by that--or at least claim to be?
- madez 8y agoThere are books that are outrageously famous that say that gay people are bad. Many people find these books so convincing that they adopt the books' views as their own.
- rebuilder 8y agoCertain types of social orders depend on strict control of social mores. Hell, arguably all do to some extent - try walking down the street naked and see how that goes...
- wallace_f 8y agoI mean, I guess what I was trying to ask is do people not know or feel that it is wrong to not just leave other people alone if they aren't, themselves, bothering anybody? Why do people reject that? It's literally what freedom and liberty is, and it is the exact opposite of authority and oppression.
- vijaybritto 8y agoSome people feel powerful when they persecute others.
- i_am_nomad 8y agoThis is great, though it also illustrates how much farther India (and other countries) have to go in legal protection of LGBT people. Also, a bit off-topic here, but it also reveals how stupid and hypocritical California's policy is, forbidding travel of state employees to US states that don't grant certain protections to transgender people. You can't go to Oklahoma because they don't have self-selection for bathrooms, but travel to places like India and China is just fine, for some reason.
- moh_maya 8y agoUmm, the Indian Supreme Court legally recognized the "third gender"; quoting from the article [1]: "When the Indian Supreme Court acknowledged that gender is a non-binary form of identity that goes beyond male and female, the victory came as a nice surprise to many." [2]: "India's Supreme Court has recognised transgender people as a third gender, in a landmark ruling that may offer gay people a glimmer of hope. It is the right of every human being to choose their gender," the court said in granting rights to those who identify themselves as neither male nor female. The court ordered the government to provide transgender people with quotas in jobs and education in line with other minorities, as well as key amenities." There are many issues that need to be fixed in India. But there are also many areas where India is far far more progressive than the US, at the very least. And this change has been accompanied by a social movement; should be faster, but change is happening. [1]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-history-of-indias-third-gender-movement_us_58334db5e4b099512f841fd0 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-history-of-indias-t... [2]https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/16/india-transgenders-third-gender_n_5157966.html?guccounter=1 https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/16/india-transgende...
- i_am_nomad 8y agoExcuse me, I wasn't addressing whether or not India protected the rights of transgender people. I was pointing out that until yesterday, gay sex in India was actually _illegal_, yet there was no ban on traveling there for California state employees. Which seems horribly hypocritical and basically an exercise in virtue signaling.
- 8y ago
- Cthulhu_ 8y agoThe headline is weird - instead of legalising, it should say "decriminalises" in my opinion. Someone made it illegal at some point. The headline now seems to indicate "we've made a new law that allows it", but that makes it like it's an exception.
- rebuilder 8y agoDecriminalization AFAIK is a reducement in criminal penalties while not necessarily making the act in question legal, while legalization is an outright removal of the crime status. I'm not sure whether it makes a difference that this legalization hinges on a new supreme court ruling, not legislative action.
- shkkmo 8y agoNo, "decriminalize" means "reduce or eliminate the penalties/enforcement for a criminal act (but it is still against the law)" while "legalize" means "make a criminal act no longer criminal (it is no longer against the law)". Oddly enough, this means that "criminalize" is not the opposite of "decriminalize" but of "legalize".
- jacobush 8y agoWouldn't that depend entirely if the law was only in criminal law? If so, decriminalize would remove all of the illegality?
- cknight 8y agoCriminal law is not a neat container. A crime is simply anything which is defined as being a criminal act within a given piece of legislation. You can "decriminalise" something either by eliminating the entire piece of legislation, or by amending it to remove the criminal act within it. In the case of the latter, that leaves open the option of replacing it with other words that might indicate civil penalties. If that happens, that is still decriminalisation, and would be distinct from legalisation.
- cknight 8y ago
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoStories like this really the limits of the HN community's civility and tolerance for diverse views. I encourage everyone to post and up/down vote according to the best traditions of HN.
- vijaybritto 8y agoIrony is that a British news outlet is posting about it when they were the ones who introduced that law in India before 157 years!! Anyway, a great step in the right direction!
- robjan 8y agoThe people who made those laws are long dead
- vijaybritto 8y agoYes. Not blaming any Brit now. Just pointing out
- labster 8y agoI'm pretty sure that this is not an example of irony. There's no unexpected or ambiguous element in the British covering news in India, as they have had an interest in the subcontinent since 1600.
- nnain 8y agoI think the OPs point was that out of 1000s of other news channels writing about it, a BBC link will come up on HN. Last week BBC posted a story titled, "Rocket woman: How to cook curry and get a spacecraft into Mars orbit", about women scientists in Indian Space Research Orginisation. That's how ridiculously biased and condescending they continue to be. And that's why many of us get irritated by their news.
- labster 8y agoWhile you make some valid points, none of them are even tangentially related to irony.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Ensorceled 8y ago
- patrickg_zill 8y agoThe concept of only a few deciding on societal mores, which we also saw in the US, should be seen as a real problem, even if you agree with the position of the "black-robed tyrants"... A vigorous debate in society, which should have occurred, has been short-circuited.
- ashleyn 8y agoConsenting adults' rights on anything shouldn't be a matter of debate. It's none of the debater's business.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoIt's a societal issue.
- kerbalspacepro 8y agoI agree it's a societal issue: does your society rob individuals of their most basic rights or is your society ready to sacrifice and beat people into submission?
- chasing 8y agoYou require society's permission for every sex act you participate in? Just curious how you go about that. Do you knock on the doors of all of your neighbors so you can explain in detail your sexual plans and get their approval? Do you have them sign something or is verbal approval enough? I'm a part of society. Do I get a say in how you pursue your sex life? In that case: I completely don't approve. I'd simply prefer if you never had sex. Because it's just my belief. And if you don't support my belief, you're intolerant. Anyway. Sounds cumbersome for what should simply be a private act between two consenting adults.
- patrickg_zill 8y agoThe __actual__ reality, not the theory, is that every single society that has ever existed, that we have records of, has regulated (in some form) both male and female sexuality, including sexual behavior with whom and when. (Whether there has been a lot of hypocrisy about it or not, is not relevant.)
- sbmthakur 8y agoThis is a welcome step. It was good to see the Government not being a road-block in this case[1]. Hopefully, future decisions which make life easier for LGBT folks will be taken in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies instead of courtrooms. 1. https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/section-377-sooner-or-later-the-government-will-have-to-deal-with-homosexual-lives/ https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/sec...
- thaway123 8y agoI think Government cannot do anything here. Few months back, Supreme court recognise Privacy has a fundamental right and said privacy and protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of the fundamental rights under Article 14, 15 and 21. This case was just a formality. Any thing done by govt against LGBT will going to be struck down by the court unless they decided to change the Article 14, 15 and 21. In that case they will need 2/3 votes in both houses and president sign.
- rebel77 8y agoI'd like to genuinely ask HN community why they recognize this as a good thing. I mean why would they criminalize sex with animals. If one wants to have sex with a goat, why not?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- MarkusAllen 8y ago2 gay Indians go into a strip club with an orthodox Jew...
- dang 8y agoPlease don't do this here.
- rebel77 8y agoI ask a genuine questions and HN moderators immediately hides the comment. I can't ask questions here anymore? I wanted to know how people rationalize that this okay?
- SpikeDad 8y agoInteresting. Once Kavanaugh gets on the Supreme Court I could easily foresee the US making gay sex a criminal offense. The world is upside down.
- actuallyalys 8y agoKavanaugh wouldn't be great for gay rights, obviously, but fortunately, even if he supported overturning Lawrence v. Texas, Roberts would be unlikely to. It's possible Trump will have another opportunity to appoint a justice to replace someone on the liberal wing, and that might mean there would be enough votes to overturn Lawrence v. Texas. Even overturning Lawrence v. Texas wouldn't make gay sex illegal everywhere in the U.S., just in states with lingering sodomy laws.
- wtmt 8y agoThis is a big deal, though it might seem like nothing has changed on the ground (as one commenter here has put it). It may take longer for society to accept it, depending on the city/town/village, but there is now a strong legal basis for not being harassed by the police. I don't see the current central government doing anything in terms of legislation on gay marriage or related aspects, but we will get there. There's a long way to go to ensure that LGBTQIA people are also treated as humans, but it was also long overdue to get such a landmark judgment, and by no less than a constitutional bench!
- Ramesh535 8y agoThe judicary is independent from the government. That's why inspite of the current ruling party BJP being so outspokennly against LGBT, it got legalized. Thanks to the judicary department.