
India court legalises gay sex in landmark ruling - abhi3
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45429664
======
vinni2
As 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
The 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?

~~~
jlawson
I think it is worth looking for the rational (that is to say, non-moralistic)
cause. The fact the gays are pressured to act straight across in nearly every
society in such similar and intense ways indicates that there's likely a
common cause.

e.g. If one culture hates dogs and kills them on sight, you might say that
culture has a prejudice against dogs. If 95% of cultures hated dogs and killed
them on sight, you should start to think there is a deeper reason for that
(especially considering how useful dogs can be).

In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's
people trying to have more grandkids.

If your kid is gay, and decides to go off and have gay sex for the rest of
his/her life, he/she won't reproduce. Your gene line ends.

However, if you pressure/shame/tyrannize your gay kid into a reproductive
relationship, your genes replicate into grandkids (who likely won't be gay
themselves). Your gene line continues.

This also applies to brothers, sisters, and other kin. The reproductive
benefit of pressuring a gay relative to act straight is comparable to saving
them from death, since the outcome of 'acting gay' and 'dead' is
evolutionarily similar. (Of course a living gay relative can help other
relatives raise their kids, so it's not identical to being dead. Some have
argued that the "helpful gay uncle" effect would counteract the evolutionary
cost of homosexuality. But the math doesn't work; a childless relative isn't
so much more helpful than a relative with kids that deliberately childless
individuals replicate their genes better than ones who have their own kids.)
This explains why the pressure to act straight is so strong and vicious - it
comes from the same place as the pressure to not die.

So, given a population of people, some who have a gene that makes them
pressure gay kids to act straight, and some who don't, over time the
pressuring gene will spread through the population. And here we are.

And just to ward off the reflexive moralizing and personal attacks: There's no
moral content to our evolutionary history, any more than there's moral content
to a lion eating a baby gazelle alive. Please don't fall for the naturalistic
fallacy and start attacking as though I'm saying natural equals good. Lots of
things that are natural are not good. Understanding the world requires us to
be able to separate rational understanding what is, from a moral judgment of
what we should do. We should be adult enough here to make that distinction.

~~~
phakding
> In the case of gay-shaming, the obvious common cause is evolutionary: It's
> people trying to have more grandkids.

I have to disagree. I don't think people who opposr and hate gay people are
doing it for evolutionary purposes. I haven't met anybody who thinks this guy
is gay which meand he won't be making any kids, so let's hate him. Hate comes
from much more fundamental place than that.

For majority of people it's not "normal" hence different. And for majority
what's different is scary. The same reason why immigrants of different skin
color than majority population are hated.

The same reason applies to extremely short, extremely tall, people with
deformities, person with vitiligo in black/brown countries etc are treated
differently, made fun of.

~~~
yorwba
> I don't think people who opposr and hate gay people are doing it for
> evolutionary purposes. I haven't met anybody who thinks this guy is gay
> which meand he won't be making any kids, so let's hate him.

That's not how evolution works. Unexpected movement on the ground near your
feet doesn't scare you because you have carefully thought about how it will
affect your chances to reproduce, but because the siblings of your ancestors
didn't pay attention, were bitten by snakes and didn't get to reproduce.

------
shubhamjain
Remarkable 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
Are 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_decrimina...](https://old.reddit.com/r/Kerala/comments/9dfskv/sc_decriminalises_homosexuality/e5hje7a/)

------
vivan
Something 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
How 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_Pena...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code)

[2]
[https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Ju...](https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf)
page 442 (labelled 180)

~~~
vivan
According to the BBC:

 _> The court said other aspects of section 377 dealing with unnatural sex
with animals and children would remain in force. _

------
xrisk
Note 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
Wait. Gay sex is legalized, but not marriage.

That's so un-Indian-like

~~~
simias
How 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.

~~~
puranjay
I think OP is joking about the taboo against sex and focus on marriage in
Indian society.

~~~
craftyguy
Considering how many people are in India, tho taboo against sex can't be all
that strong.

------
vijaybritto
Irony 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!

~~~
labster
I'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
I 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
While you make some valid points, none of them are even tangentially related
to irony.

------
wtmt
This 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!

------
sbmthakur
This 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/sec...](https://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-
commentary/section-377-sooner-or-later-the-government-will-have-to-deal-with-
homosexual-lives/)

~~~
thaway123
I 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.

------
Ramesh535
The 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.

------
Cthulhu_
The 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.

~~~
shkkmo
No, "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
Wouldn't that depend entirely if the law was only in criminal law? If so,
decriminalize would remove all of the illegality?

~~~
cknight
Criminal 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.

------
thomasfedb
The 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.

~~~
krylon
In 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
I 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
In 81 homosexuality was taken off the mental illnesses list, that's probably
what you're thinking of.

~~~
simias
Ah that's probably it, thank you.

------
DoofusOfDeath
Stories 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.

------
i_am_nomad
This 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
Umm, 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-t...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-history-of-indias-third-
gender-movement_us_58334db5e4b099512f841fd0)

[2][https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/16/india-
transgende...](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/16/india-transgenders-
third-gender_n_5157966.html?guccounter=1)

~~~
i_am_nomad
Excuse 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.

------
SpikeDad
Interesting. 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
Kavanaugh 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.

------
MarkusAllen
2 gay Indians go into a strip club with an orthodox Jew...

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

------
M_Bakhtiari
I don't think this will last, not even in the west.

~~~
8draco8
What? So you think that gay sex should be illegal?

~~~
EliRivers
Nobody said that. I think the cup of tea I'm drinking won't last, yet I don't
think cups of tea should be illegal.

Edit to update: The cup of did indeed did _not_ last, and is now gone. I still
don't think a cup of tea should be illegal.

~~~
SiempreViernes
The comment that "it won't last" was made in the context of decriminalization,
the implication that something will be illegal again is hard to escape.

~~~
EliRivers
The comment _So you think that gay sex should be illegal?_ was made in the
context of nothing whatsoever. That's the comment I'm shooting down. The
assumption that M_Bakhtiari thinks gay sex should be illegal; it is not
supported in any way by M_Bakhtiari's comment "I don't think this will last,
not even in the west".

------
patrickg_zill
The 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
Consenting adults' rights on anything shouldn't be a matter of debate. It's
none of the debater's business.

~~~
patrickg_zill
It's a societal issue.

~~~
chasing
You 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
The __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.)

~~~
chasing
You seem to be making the argument that you feel you should have some say
about what goes on in other people's bedrooms. My only question was whether
you live up to that ideal by making sure that the people around you are okay
with your sex acts and the people you enjoy them with.

Are they? Have you made sure they're informed so they can judge you properly?

