LGBT sex being seen as a penal offence has come about through the influence of the Church. It is unscientific to be hung up on phenomena such as homosexuality. If a man is born with a different sexual orientation, it is neither a sin nor his fault. They deserve sympathy and constitutional protection. A close reading of the Supreme Court verdict shows that it has by no means deemed gay sex wrong; it has only deferred to the government to make a law in favour of the LGBT.
Clarance Miranda, Thiruvananthapuram
Section 377 was brought in 150 years ago in consonance with the patriarchal family set-up. Lawmakers then termed any sexual activity beyond the man-woman relationship as “unnatural” and saw it as a worthless pursuit of pleasure that only results in the wastage of god-given energy meant exclusively for the creation of progeny. But the world today, including India, is not what it was. We need fair and practical laws that do not infringe on anyone’s rights. Section 377 appears to be totally unwelcome. Now that the ball is in the legislators’ domain, political leaders must step in, do the needful and deem 377 to be the “nonsense” that it is.
Victor Frank A., Chennai
Just because some people are accustomed to breathing through the mouth as against the nature-prescribed process of nasal inhalation, should we pass a law deeming the former practice illegal? Homosexuality is an exclusively private preference; why such a hue and cry over something so insignificant? We can do without breaking our heads over this when there are several other serious issues that need resolution on a priority basis.
Sivamani Vasudevan, Chennai
Ingesting food via the mouth is common and natural. If someone wishes to eat through the nose, it must be called unnatural as such a practice is a health hazard to the person. If this person insists that this risky mode of ingestion is a personal matter, he or she may independently go ahead and persist with it. But they cannot demand the constitution of a law to legalise the act. The Supreme Court’s verdict is a welcome move that supports the laws of nature.
Zakaria Sultan, Riyadh
Homosexuality is a perversion. Becoming more perverted and deviated from nature is no sign of progress; putting the legal foot down on such aberrations is not regressive. Permission to conduct such abhorrent behaviour cannot be claimed as a fundamental right; it does not even fall under the directive principles of state policy. It is a pity that such an indecent issue should have come up before the Supreme Court. As it is, all the TV shows and debates are nauseating.
S.V. Krishna, Visakhapatnam
It is quite ironical for the apex court, which has always played its primary role of final arbiter with great efficiency and left no stone unturned to protect the larger public interest, to have displayed such circumspection with regard to LGBT rights. Countries around the world are taking steps to legalise gay marriages. We, as a purportedly progressive and modern society, must not lag behind. We must initiate measures which hold the key to enabling the LGBT community to enjoy a dignified life.
M. Jeyaram, Sholavandan
Criticising the Supreme Court verdict or getting disheartened is not going to help the LGBT community. It is now for the legislature to thresh out the issue and provide the “deviants” legal protection by bringing about the required changes in the law. No one is against assuring a group of its rights; most people, though, are worried that none are lured into practising the abnormality as a fashion statement. However, the media’s severe resentment for the verdict causes one to suspect their secret affiliation to the aberration.
A. Thirugnanasambantham, Coimbatore