How homosexual act is against nature, sc asks anti-gay group

1. Bze certain form of s*xual behavior that is not considered natural are acts " against nature'.
2. Bze equating IVF with "against nature" is not required because 'acts of nature' procrastinates and IVF is giving birth as in nature's gift for continuity of race / color / humans. Homos*xuality leads ot fulfilling pleasure vis-à-vis IVF which is continuity of nature per se.
3. Bze from the anus which is the final orifice through which stool passes out of the body if used for fulfiling particular acts of s*xual pleasure / used for fulfilling s*xual orientation of few  class of people then s*xually transmitted diseases involving the anorectal area or bowel disease such as Anal fissure / Anal abscess / Anal fistula / Hemorrhoids which are not natural acts of nature develops and painful medication / surgery just to fulfill - giving rights to certain segment of class of people is against the very "acts of nature". Nature does not say that a male should ought to have these diseases even without getting involved into anal intercourse (homos*xuality).
4. Bze. by not impeding Armed Forces to challenge D HC verdict Hon'ble SC may have erred placing reference on the middle Assyrian Law Codes (1075 BC) which states; If a man have intercourse with his brother-in-arms, they shall turn him into a eunuch. This is the earliest known law condemning the act of male-to-male intercourse in the military.


Those are some of my quick thoughts - It is good academic discussion :-) 

Why eminent legal brains are confused between what is a crime and what is against the order of nature? The two need not be synonymous just because one of the words/ or phrases rather appear in IPC.

What is against order of nature need not be a crime. And what is defined as a crime need not necessarily against the order of nature. Rape is a crime. But I cannot say that it is against the order of nature. A male overpowering an unwilling female is perfectly in the order of nature in pursuance of its goal of propagation of the species, just as a tiger violently killing a deer just for its own survival and survival of the tiger species.

The Delhi High Court pronounced that two individuals engaged in a homos*xual relationship had committed no crime and hence acquitted them. If the court had said that their relationship was not against the order of nature, it should be challenged.

I am surprised at the question of Justice Mukhopadhyaya:

"Are surrogate mothers and test tube baby also against the order of the nature," the bench observed while asking Saran, appearing for Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Right, to explain it.

I emphatically say that they are not against the order of nature. Fertilization, pregnancy and child-birth are perfectly in the scheme of things of the nature. Sometimes nature fails in its objective. Then the measures listed by Justice Mukhopadhyaya are just to assist  nature  in its objective. All know that nature itself tries to cure diseases and often even successfully cures diseases. But sometimes nature is not able to do that. Then one resorts to treatments, which may need medicines, surgery etc. We cannot ban them. Nor can we say it is against the scheme of nature. Contraception and abortion are against the order of nature. That is the reason for the objections of Christianity to such measures. But they have been made legal by legislation, in the larger interests of population control and welfare of humanity.

There was a film titled “Blue Denim” in the early sixties. It was the story of a mother and her son in his early teens. The mother was worried because the son was not showing interest in the opposite s*x. She introduces her neighbor’s daughter around the same age to her son and actively encourages their relationship. In due course their relationship grows resulting in s*xual relationship. The girl’s parents sue the boy’s mother. The boy’s mother pleaded not guilty and gave the reasons for what she did. But the court did not accept her pleas and awarded her punishment. What is the moral of the story? Is it that homos*xuality is normal and children should be left to their preferences, no, not at all?  The court sympathized with the mother in her predicament. But they were against achieving one’s own good at the cost of others.

There are many, particularly in the urban population, who want to be modern and argue that homos*xuality is a normal behavior and only the preferences are different. I ask them would they like their son or daughter to be like the boy in Blue Denim and leave it as their child’s preference.

If two consenting adults are gays or lesbians, no third party, except their heteros*xual spouses, if any, has any business to complain. But there is only a thin line between consent and coercion. This is in hetero-s*xual relationships also. If a complaint comes it must be properly investigated.

In any case, homos*xual relationships should not be encouraged and any third party involved should be punished. Promoting and abetting homos*xuality should be an offence. The Section concerning homos*xuality in IPC should be repealed.

@ Dr. Ramani

Ah ha ........

Very well said

in nature, we never seen that two male or two female animals doing s*x. but the opposite s*x animals do s*x .

human  also followed this in practise. in that sense it is against the nature.

but the human society impose restriction so much on natural s*x that people comple to go on unnatural s*x like gay or lesbianism.

first of all, if one wants to do s*x, normally he has to go on marriage. for this, the person has to cross the age limit of 18, whereas s*x appears on a human body in the age of 13/14. after marriage further the liberty on s*x restricted by various laws, which known to all concerned.

secondly, the nature do not tell anybody not to go on s*x without marriage. it is a allowed practice that any male and female may do s*x without going through any solemnization. but the society impose restriction on it. as a result a heavy burdain & restriction imposed over the natural process on s*x.

it is natural rocess that people do s*x freely among the community. but the society not allowing it in the name of morality; religion etc.

first of all the society create a barrier on normal process of dibursing the s*x and thereafter crying "why it is so?" better to ask 'why it will not be so?'

i feel, - gay; lesbian; s*x with animals; going to prossquater; -  all these are by product of stoping  the natural process of s*x. IT IS THE REVANGE OF NATURE.