The phrase "legalises gay sex" is surreal and otherworldly to me. We recent fought for marriage in Australia. Shocking to think they were and are still so backwards as to make that headline possible.
There is more history to this. The introduction of the law relating to making gay sex illegal "... dating back to 1861, (that was) introduced during the British rule of India (modelled on the Buggery Act of 1533) criminalised sexual activities "against the order of nature", including homosexual activities"
It is the truth for a lot of countries that were under colonial rule. Colonial powers left their mark behind in so many unfortunate ways that are just too complex for countries to deal with even today. It is simple and lazy to label something "backward".
> It is simple and lazy to label something "backward".
Couldn't agree more. Having said that, I'm not sure the "blame the colonials" is vastly better. For at least 2 reasons:
1) One of the laws the Penal Code replaced required death by stoning as a punishment (unless you were a slave in which case you were just flogged). As poor as the law was, it wasn't really replacing an enlightened legal framework.
2) Post-colonial India didn't exactly rush to replace the law. The first attempt wasn't until 2009, and that was overturned.
The simple truth is that, even supposedly liberal, countries have made these changes disappointingly recently. Personally, I'm glad this is happening but blaming others for the slow progress is somewhat disingenuous.
It is simplistic and lazy to blame the colonials for all the ills of a society too. But the slow progress in fixing something like this is not so much because of a backwards attitude. Nation building takes time. Especially when things around the world are changing fast. There is a long long way to go. And it is definitely going to take a very long time getting there. Especially because there are way too many issues that need the attention of an already strained legal system.
> Colonial powers left their mark behind in so many unfortunate ways that are just too complex for countries to deal with even today.
What does that even mean? They are free countries. No one forced India to hold onto that law. No one forces other countries to hold onto colonial era laws. If they don't change it that's their choice, their decision and their problem in the end. Not that of some long gone boogeyman.
> What does that even mean? They are free countries. No one forced India to hold onto that law. No one forces other countries to hold onto colonial era laws. If they don't change it that's their choice, their decision and their problem in the end. Not that of some long gone boogeyman.
Not so easy. Once you have a law in place you have vested interests who want to oppose any changes to the law. Either you need a dictatorship to make any changes you desire or respect democratic principles. You can't have both. Once a law was codified, albeit in a previous era, that itself becomes an excuse for vested interests to latch onto and demand that the law continue to be in place.
In my opinion, no social norms should be codified as laws as societies change and so do people. That creates more harm than good. This should serve as a lesson to all that laws should be generic in nature and not targeted towards one community/religion/caste/creed (be it either as a benefit or otherwise). This is again a by-product of Colonialism as British crown used personal laws to keep the country divided. Hopefully India fixes that next by codifying the Uniform Civil Code[1].
Since the boogeyman has been "gone", the entire region (not just India) has gone through several wars, a very messy, violent and tumultuous process of nation building. The region is not even used to existing as one nation yet. It takes time. Not making excuses for slow progress. Just trying to make the point that there isn't a magic wand to make everything all nice and shiny. It takes time. And as we see from this supreme court ruling, the intention is good and it is there.
Making a country free doesn't make it immediately free from thoughts and misconceptions that come with a colonial rule. You will still find Indians who assume every white person they see is rich, smart and attractive. For example: YouTube India is full of people viewing 'Foreigner reactions' on Indian content.
Inferiority complex among Indians is sometimes surprising.
It’s a colonial era law that made LGBT “unnatural” in the country of Kamasutra. One of the many gifts the British left behind. Great we finally overcame it. Although we should have fixed it sooner.
In Germany, the infamous §175a StGB that made gay sex illegal was only finally removed in 1994. I think it was practically ignored for some time before that, but that was only 24 years ago.
I thought we had a similar law in France until the 1980's but apparently I was at least partly mistaken:
>Although same-sex sexual activity was a capital crime that often resulted in the death penalty during the Ancien Régime, all sodomy laws were repealed in 1791 during the French Revolution. However, a lesser known indecent exposure law that often targeted homosexuals was introduced in 1960 before being repealed twenty years later.
That's not entirely accurate, because the 175 was changed quite a lot over time. Initially it was jail-for-sex, but then in the late 60s it was changed such that basically the age of consent for gays was 21 (IIRC a notable exception was that if _both_ partners were below 18 then it wasn't punishable anyway -- so only if one was younger than 18 and the other 18-21 it was punishable, which is very weird indeed). Then there was another reform which made it so that >18 having gay sex with <18 was illegal. And then, finally, with the abolishment of 175 in 94 everyone got the same age of consent.
Well, historically, India was comfortable with and accepting of people of all sexualities. The laws that are being overturned were put on the books by the British. So, the backwardness depends on the time scale
In parts of india. It is a big place with a long history. There have been times and places in india where lgbt were persecuted long before colonial rule.
1) Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code
Adultery.—Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
2) 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman.—Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
3) Having consensual sex with someone you promised to marry becomes rape retrospectively if you renege on the promise of marriage
4) And of course - Marital rape is legal. A husband (even an enstranged one) cannot be charged with raping his wife
I've heard that there are a number of US states in which some fairly common sex acts are officially illegal. The difference, of course, is that there is little chance of anyone being prosecuted for those offences in the US, while, if I've understood correctly, the Indian section 377 law was being used in practice.
Virginia § 18.2-345 was only repealed 5 years ago. Oral sex, sex in a car, and cohabitation of unmarried couples were all illegal. It was not necessarily enforced; but, the laws were still on the books.
