BBC: India top court reinstates gay sex ban.

India top court reinstates gay sex ban

"Correspondents say any new legislation is unlikely soon - general elections are due next year".

What a display in lack of courage.

Good to see India asserting its independence from Britain by reinstating two-hundred-year-old British laws that are considered backward even in several third-world countries. Gandhi would be proud.

I particularly like that part about them not persecuting anyone. Telling people they can't have the kind of sex they want with the people they want (and imprisoning them for ten years for it) isn't persecution in the minds of these people?

Way to lead the reactionary way, India.

Well, if gays are having sex in public in large groups I can understand this.

Then ban public sex. No need to discriminate.

You don't need to punish an entire group for the actions of a selective few.

what a stupid fucking law

I'm curious as to what inclinations India would have to pass this law. I can't see the prevalent religious motive at work there.

@Fightingfan:

But the problem would be public sex. Not public gay sex, so yes you would have to ban it for all instead of discriminating...

And it goes against their constitution. PartIII sec. 14, "Equality before law — The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."

Hopefully that doesn't apply to lesbians. That would be a shame.

You're an idiot

Oh yea I did forget about that third sex they supposedly have.

Lesbian sex would be ok in public.

I second that.

how overpopulated is india? if anything they need to ban heterosexual sex.

Thats exactly what they're doing though.

Shame to see them taking a step back.

As usual the primary group campaigning against same sex marriage is a tightly packed crowd of old dudes.

+3

It took me six hours, but I finally see what you did there.

From what I understand the court merely ruled that the law did not violate India's constitution. If it doesn't violate the constitution, it doesn't violate the constitution, and that's what the court would have to say.

Don't be mad at the judges if you don't like the law.

@whipassmt: the problem is the Supreme Court in India is know for judicial activism. The reason they upheld the "constitutionality" of the statute is because plaintiffs failed to show why it's discriminatory. When they should not have to as the law is discriminatory on its face.

But is the law unconstitutional? I would have to defer to the Indian Supreme Court on that matter since they know more about their constitution than I do.

and yet this is the same country that gave us the karma sutra

@whipassmt: The lower court seemed to think so, saying it violated Equal protection (art. 14 of their constitution) and their substantive due process (art 21). I think maybe their privacy clause too but I am not 100% on that. The Supreme Court of India then decided in the opinion that they would defer completely to the discretion of parliament and no one had presented evidence the law is discriminatory. The problem though is it clearly is, the way it's written it is de-facto discrimination as they only target one group with the law.

PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTHAHAHAHA oh man, I laughed way harder at this image than I should have.

@THE_DRUGGIE:

Ah beat me to it. Lol. I was gonna post that image, though I saw it on a different website than the one linked to in this thread.

Confirmed virgin.

Anyway, backwards move on India's part.

Always good to have variation in the world. You guys need to be more respectful of other cultures. Broaden your minds.

Would some slavery be fine for the sake of variety? Don't be silly. You want to discriminate against homosexuals that's your problem, but don't tell me it is good.

and that is that

Preventing an HIV epidemic?

If people like a little slavery in their lives, who am I to judge? No one listens to what I don't like anyway. If you like gay sex, go have some... just not in India apparently...

Slavery wasn't always so bad. In ancient times a person could sell him/herself to be a slave when they could not pay off debts or provide for their families. This could still work in some 3rd world countries with non-existent welfare. At least it beats dying of hunger or becoming a prostitute or something.

good for india

I'm not exactly a proponent of homosexuality and I flat out do not approve of the concept of it. With that said though, I never understood why homosexuality in particular is accused of spreading HIV. What is it about the sexual activities of homosexuals that are different of that of heterosexual as far as pathology is concerned?

Seeing the look on the faces of Indian officials will be priceless if gay rights sweeps across the nation. Not that I'm trumpeting gay rights. It's just interesting to see video of government authorities cringe about various issues no matter what country it is.

homosexuals are more likely to have sex with more people so increasing the risk of a STD short version

Well, if you look at the history of the disease the first ever cases of HIV were reported among gay men. And even today the large majority of new HIV infections in the US are among gay/bisexual people: Link

I'm not seeing the correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity. Why homosexuals in particular would be prone to promiscuous inclinations more than heterosexuals? If there was in reality a correlation between one's sexuality and his susceptibility to promiscuity, I think it would be the other way around since statistically speaking, homosexuals must be finding it somehow harder to find a partner, more than heterosexuals do.

The rate of HIV infections are higher in the gay community but there are far more heterosexual people living with HIV by far on this planet. Drop the whole 'HIV pandemic from gays' thing. It makes you look like an uninformed dink. HIV is not a gay disease. This shit mindset should have been left in the 80's.

Really?

• Overall, an estimated 47,500 people were newly infected with HIV in 2010. (In the US)
• Nearly two-thirds (63%) of all new HIV infections in 2010 occurred among gay/bisexual men (29,800 cases), with a 12% increase from 2008 to 2010.

I'd say it's a pretty "gay" disease. At least in the US.

Yes, a 'gay disease' where the majority of those infected world wide caught it through heterosexual sex. This is even ignoring that you're only looking at half of the gay community; men. What's the HIV infection rate for lesbians? Oh that's right it wouldn't fit your anti gay narrative now would it?

If those statistics are statistically correct and sound then it seems, at least at first sight, that there is a correlation between being gay and the probability of contracting HIV. It wouldn't add up why such a small portion of the population accounts for two thirds of all new HIV cases in a particular year.

Again, that's only the US and its only focusing on men in the gay community. Lesbians are always left out of the discussion. Apparently they aren't gay enough to put into these statistics.

Its all due to the nature of transmission with HIV. Its much easier to contract the virus through semen than it is through vaginal secretions. This coupled with unprotected sex is the main culprit. Anal sex increases the risk of opening up tears in the skin which are the primary points of infection. Then again proper condom usage solves all these problems.

Apparently this 'gay disease' is affecting millions of heteros in Africa. Especially in countries that have stringent anti gay legislation and cultural mindsets as well.