Section 377: The Legalization Of Homosexuals

881 Words4 Pages

Lacking precise definition, Section 377 became subject to varied judicial interpretation over the years. Though ostensibly applicable to heterosexuals and homosexuals, Section 377 acted as a complete prohibition on the penetrative sexual acts engaged in by homosexual men, thereby criminalising their sexual expression and identity. Besides, the society too identified the proscribed acts with the homosexual men, and the criminalization had a severe impact on their dignity and self-worth. After the supreme courts verdict against the gay rights, it has given rise to a rage among the public. Personally I am against the verdict of the Supreme Court. One simply cannot announce a person criminal because of his sexuality. Being in a democratic nation a person should be allowed to decide upon his sexuality. One can simply cannot disown someone based upon his or her sexuality. Laws are made for the society not against the society. Nobody chooses to be a homosexual. Why would someone choose an identity, which lead them to be disparaged from the society and rejected by their families. Being gay is not a choice, it is something which just occurs to them. Even if being a homosexual is a choice it should not matter because it is an independent choice and you cannot tell a person whom to …show more content…

In 2009 Delhi High court legalized same sex marriage saying that section 377 violates the fundamental rights of an individual and is against the constitution of India. Constitution is not only a set of rules set to govern the state but an embodiment of values what “We People od India” wanted in it but it is seen that there is something much greater than the constitution which governs the society and they are the various religious institution to which people relate to and are ready to die for it and these religious institution form these ideas and perspectives in the mind of the society and thus the laws like section 377 are able to survive. According to the changing world and to be with the contemporary society, these institution have to understand the necessity of change and should amend their conservative policies and rules which they have laid for the society so that the society as an whole could progress because if these institutions change their conservative approach it will be easier for the state to come up with new sociological reforms without giving arise to any social conflict and maintain the supremacy of the