SC declares gandu's unconstitutional.

[GpeL]

Ok there you have it.. you cannot be legally a gandu anymore.. you will be not only illegal you will be unconstitutional..

Comments.. article 377.. todays top news. Judgement and its disection if applicable and interest (i.le only if asked) in a few hours.. SC judment wil be a tough transalge to mom and pop language.. and then even more difficult to rape it.

[swami]

Wonder what will happen to one of our senior gay member,ab toh alag subforum hi demand karega woh

[kalidas]

I read somewhere that Baba Ramdev thinks Homosexuality is an affliction. He knows yoga poses that can cure homosexuality.

[GpeL]

Inqlaab jindaabaad.. inqlaab jindaabad.. dunyaa ke ganduooon ek ho...

Hum se jo takraayegaa.. gandoo ho jaayegaa..

[sanjayt]

SC didn't exactly say that homosexuality is illegal. Delhi High Court had ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional. SC reversed that judgment. Which means that the law as currently on the books will be applicable.

I'm thinking here ... Roe v. Wade, and not a federal law passed by Congressmen/Senators, is used as the basis for the legality of abortion. So if SC had ruled that 377 was unconstitutional, then I think it would mean that we are using a court judgment as the basis for the legality of homosexual sex.

Parliament can amend 377. Congress may not do it now because elections are round the corner. The Bharatiya Samskriti brigade will start screaming at the top of their lungs.

Which reminds me ... I saw some people screaming on TV while arguing about this.

[GpeL]

Originally Posted by Supreme Court

It is difficult to prepare a list of acts which would be covered by the section. Nonetheless in light of the plain meaning and legislative history of the section, we hold that Section 377 IPC would apply irrespective of age and consent. It is relevant to mention here that the Section 377 IPC does not criminalize a particular people or identity or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitute an offence. Such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identity and orientation

Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of nature constitute different classes and the people falling in the later category cannot claim that Section 377 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification. What Section 377 does is merely to define the particular offence and prescribe punishment for the same

SanjayT would you like to reconsider your stance? (see red)

Btw just curious.. not that it matters and you need not tell.. from your posts you come across as of the fairer gender.. how correct am I?

[GpeL]

Sorry I confess I spend inordinate amount of time pondering the meanings of such complex utterances. Can't help it.. cannot do much while waiting for repair.. boredom kills me one cell at a time.. so you are obliged to grin and bear it..

[sanjayt]

Originally Posted by GpeL

.. from your posts you come across as of the fairer gender.. how correct am I?

Man, whatever gave you that idea? Never mind. Incorrect. An X chromosome and a Y chromosome. Are we clear?

[GpeL]

Your softish style.. i.e most gents here are errr.. rowdys.. so you are that cultured representative for our crowd.. good. But another good thing is now I can call you gandu (of course pyaar se)!!

[echarcha]

Chalo India me Supreme Court ke paas to kuch sense bacha hain.. This fucking gay lobby is out to fuck up everything ...

[echarcha]

I am all for the judgement ...


Here is the judgement in summary:





For more details visit this link

[GpeL]

Kyon tennu ki? uski gand hai vo maraa rahaa hai tere ko kyon dard ho riyaa hai? hain?

Abe tu hai kidhar? PM kar.. gadhe.

[badriprasad]

Just kidding ...

Originally Posted by GpeL

SanjayT Btw just curious.. not that it matters and you need not tell.. from your posts you come across as of the fairer gender.. how correct am I?

Gpelji ... you must say sorry because above line of questioning is uncalled for, not in good taste and ungentlemanly. You could have asked her in a private message? Doesn't Sanja Y. T. have a right to privacy?

I have known her gender for months. Unlike you, I am too much of a decent gentleman to mention it to her in an open forum. You must apologise to her.

How did I find out, you must be wondering? I am too much of a gentleman to discuss this in an open forum but you will notice Sanja's writing style become bit sluggish, bit irritating, bit exaggerated every 26 or 27 days. This way of her confused state of mind lasts about 4 or 5 days.

Wait for this weekend ... check her posts starting from around Dec 16th ... delay of a day or two is normal. I did get worried in September when her confusion was delayed by as much as 10 days ...

Check her past posts between November 20 to 25, and 15 to 19 of October ...




edit/add ...

Sister Sanja y t ... On behalf of moderators ... I offer you our sincere apologies. Gpelji has been away from site for some time. He doesn't know that we don't talk like that to our female members no more. I have warned him in the post above and reminded him of our obligations and that he must behave and apologise to you. Feel free to contact Swamiji if Gpel continues to harass you just cause you are a woman. Once again ... sorry.



.

[echarcha]

Whatever the case, but Supreme Court is correct in declaring that the Legislature should make changes to a law and then let the Supreme Court express opinion or take a decision if it is unconstitutional.

I really dont care if homos want to be homos, but to get the law changed, go via the legislature. If Supreme Court or any other lower court changes or declares something unconstitutional then it will be 'judicial activism' or 'legislating from the bench'.

What all the newspapers and LGBT folks are harping on is the 'sentiment' behind this reversal without providing an argument to what the Supreme Court has actually given in their judgement.

You should read the points raised by SC as per the images put up a few posts ago.

[badriprasad]

High Court in Australia strikes down gay marriage law ...

THE High Court has unanimously struck down the ACT's gay marriage laws.

The decision will mean that about two dozen week-old marriages have no legal effect.

The ACT Marriage Equality (Same Sex) laws passed the territory's legislative assembly in October, but only came into effect last month and couples were required to provide four weeks' notice before conducting wedding ceremonies.

As of today, about 20 couples have been married to date under the ACT's laws, with the first ceremonies conducted on Saturday.

Had the nation's top court upheld the ACT's gay marriage legislation it would have opened the door to similar laws being passed across the country, pressuring the government to make it legal at a national level.


Link for further read ...