Section 377 of Indian Penal Code should be abolished
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal & Closing Statements
Will wait for Pro to submit his BOP.
Looking forward to having a good debate :)
-Regardless of who instigates the debate, none of the contenders can decide who has the BoP in most cases. BoP is on the person who makes a claim. In this case, Con in the comments section has made a pretty clear, strong, and positive claim that homosexuality is “against the order of nature”, therefore my point is: The BoP can be and is on Con as well. However, while I am not obligated to, I am also willing to share the BoP.
Section 377: Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offense described in this section.
The ambit of Section 377, which was devised to criminalize and prevent homosexual sex extends to any sexual union involving penile insertion. Thus, even consensual heterosexual acts such as fellatio and anal penetration may be punishable under this law.
 "Sodomy Laws Around the World". 2007-04-24. [Retrieved 1/6/14]
 "Indian Penal Code". District Court Allahabad. [Retrieved 1/6/14]
Just take a minute to re-read the law. Life imprisonment or imprisonment for up-to 10 years for being a homosexual, something that is not UNNATURAL and not a crime at all, in fact it is as NATURAL as being a heterosexual.
My argument will be concise. Featuring 5 points –
1. Tackling the unnatural claim
2. 377 no place for a liberal country
3. Society’s tolerance
4. Religious dilemma
Who is my opponent or the homosapien species to decide what is natural or what is unnatural?
Homosexuality is not a defect, disease or disorder, it is natural and not only does it exists in human beings, ‘but there are more than 20 species, other than humans, that are known to exhibit homosexual behaviour’. 
Something that is naturally found even in animals since time immemorial is being termed as unnatural in a so called liberal 21st century.
Also how is heterosexual fellatio and anal intercourse unnatural? Talking to the conservatives who like to quote scriptures to criticize homosexuality, if you see the Konark scriptures and temples around India, they show heterosexual and homosexual figures and sculptures carved in temples and these temples are listed as National Heritage sites, even in our history these things existed, how they can suddenly be viewed with such hostility is strange.
And coming back to BoP, I am afraid all of it now lies on Con.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org...
I think all those who support 377’s existence only wear a tag of liberalism but deep down they are conservatives, using tradition to cage and make a forward thinking society prisoner.
With the BJP coming in power I am afraid the RSS obligation would stop them from repealing 377. However, Mr. Modi who is the youth’s champion and credits his victory to the 12 crore first time voters should also realize that out of these 12 crore, most support the abolition of 377.
I also believe that 377 is a farce, there has not been a single arrest from the 20 years, it’s just being used as a deterrent, but my question is why? Why do they need to create a social taboo regarding homosexuals, why are they making a major section of the society live in denial and agony? Why can’t they live a life like everyone else?
We take pride in ourselves and in our Constitution, believing that in India, each and every citizen has equal rights. Part III of our Constitution guarantees us these Fundamental Rights, regardless of caste, creed, sex, class etc. So why then is a particular section of society proscribed from these privileges?
Are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected? Is it a phenotypic or a genotypic condition?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which India has ratified, grants all human beings the Right to marriage and to start a family. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees us Right to Equality. So are LGBT citizens not human beings? And if they are, are they inferior to the heterosexual citizens of India?
Talking about religion and spirituality, I would like to limit myself to just one paragraph.
Pope Francis, the Holy Father of all the Catholics on the plant said, “If a person is gay, and seeks the lord who am I to judge him?”
Even a stern and staunch institution like the Catholic church has accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary, why can’t the Indian legislators?
To all the homosexuals, I would just say, ‘be yourself’, if you don’t come out openly and try to blend in or hide your sexual orientation, that is unnatural.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Resolution: Section 377 of Indian Penal Code should be abolished
Judges please note: This round is for a rebuttal and a closing statement.
Alright, so, I would be rebutting Con's argument paragraph by paragraph and putting most of my remarks, comments, rebuttals in brackets.
'Primarily, the first thing I wish to clarify and convey to my learned adversary and voters is that if I show and provide enough reasons for the law to sustain and remain undisturbed, in compliance with the resolution I will win this debate.'
Well, let me begin my argument by saying to con, that the question of winning or not winning this debate is not for us to decide, I would advise him to leave that to the judges.
‘I have divided my fundamental dissensions into four different sections for the purpose of clarity.’
'Will cause turmoil in the country
To start with, I would like to bring to light the fact that India is in reality not a secular country, with different parties, religious cults and communities following different religions and beliefs, taking a move to abolish the law, in a conservative society as which thrives in India, will culminate in unnecessary riots and rampage. '
(Con claims India is not a secular country, I would like to know how, and that abolition of 377 would cause unrest, again how?)
Also with the ruling party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment of this law we are in a scenario where the price is too much to pay and the reward insubstantial about which I will be discussing in the upcoming sections.
(What is the price? The reward is that we finally legally make way for a liberal society, where we can co-exist in harmony, where being a homosexual wouldn't be viewed as criminal, where you would not be jailed for life for fellatio, or for having anal intercourse, where you get to live in a community where you don't have to hide, I believe that reward, and you would agree, is not so insubstantial at all.)
Abolishment of such a law might have had an effect in maybe other more secular countries (for example?) but in India there are hardly any practical purpose that can be attained on abolishment of this law given the cost that the country would be needed to suffer.
(Con claims there is no purpose of abolishing the restrictive law and that India would have to pay a cost if we do, but does not again specify the cost or price like he had said above.)
Neutrality of the law
The law was declared in the year 1861 (thank you for mentioning that, exactly we are still being haunted by the colonial nostalgia, their laws still dominate our society, isn't it time that we kick the colonial mindset we've been carrying for so long, this archaic ancient law deserves to abolished) but I challenge my learned adversary to give an account of a homosexual couple living in peace and equality in the society of India before the time of the implementation of the law, I'm afraid my opponent will find this really hard if not impossible, cause law or no law the mentality of the community will be ever the same.
(Wrong, I will come up with an argument that homosexuality has always existed in society, law or no law, it will continue to exist and has to be accommodated not condemned or criminalized and the mentality of the society, is that a reason that we can’t grant homosexuals the rights they deserve?)
(Isn’t it obvious that if we remove 377, it would be moving in a path, setting the tone for the acceptance of LGBTs. First we have to remove the legal barrier, only then can we come up with suggestions and proposals of instilling awareness that my opponent proposes in the paragraph below.)
'Of course a possible argument that my opponent can come up would be the instillation of awareness on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual needs but that would be going away from the domain of this debate since as I earlier mentioned the resolution is only on whether Section 377 of Indian Penal Code be abolished or not. And coming to effects of the law, since its establishment it has made few to no conviction thus negating any claims on it effecting the overall equality of homosexuals, thus abolishing such a law will just be a futile effort on bringing equality to homosexuals in India and the trouble that would have been taken to do so would be tremendous.'
(Yet again he talks about trouble, what trouble, please be a little specific sir? Ambiguity won’t win you debates, specificity will)
And now I put a question to my opponent to answer, will abolishment of such a law according to your argument lead them, to quote your own words, "live a life like everyone else"?
(Is it a rhetorical question? If it is a yes or no question then yes, but I believe Con deserves a good answer.)
(Yes, they would be able to live a life like everyone else, because they would not be criminals anymore; they would be as much of a citizen as you and I are, constitutionally, legally, enjoying the freedom and rights that we do, living a life of respect and dignity, not one of agony and denial)
Maybe legally Yes, but the scenario will remain as ever it was after the abolishment as before.
(I’m afraid you’re mistaken and I’ve already stated why.)
'The Long time period and strain that would be involved Abolishing such a law will require a lot of time/effort and with other more important and pressing issues that overrun the current Indian society such as overpopulation, poverty,corruption,education,terrorism,.etc (just like the judiciary of India, Con wants to delay, stall this topic, my question is simple, how do you deal with homoseuxals then? Want to gas them all like Hitler did?) to address with, running after abolishing a law which has significantly no damage or impact on the society, (homosexuals are being affected, so what if the majority is not homosexual, there still is a number that is homosexual and in a democracy, it is a basic principle - that we accomodate minorities, don't discard them, first you claim India is not secular then you say 377 is not doing any harm, later you would argue India is not a democracy, please weigh your statements before making them on public forum such as this) given the few to no reported conviction on the grounds of this law, is just a futile waste of time and energy.'
'More harm than good
Abolishment of this law will also mean other natural sexual abnormalities such as pedophilia,zoophilia,.etc are very much as legal as homosexuality. (Why can't we first scrap the whole section 377 first which covers very natural occurences as crimes)Well who can argue otherwise? Section 377 of Indian penal code is as such a law which covers an even larger area and abolishing of which will provoke and promote other inhumane activities as stated before.'
The argument provided by my adversary to abolish section 377 is only theoretically sound, in reality it has hardly any practical applications on a country like India. (I am not suggesting any Rocket Science, my logic is simple, that 377 has to be abolished, how is that senseless, and I ask for the fourth time how would it shatter the harmony in the country?)Thus making this senseless move to abolish the said law would only tarnish the already feeble unity and harmony in the country.
And that would be all. Looking forward to my opponents response :).'
(Well, considering that the law stays, doesn’t get abolished, what do you think Con, wouldn’t the homosexual section cause, to put it in your style, ‘trouble’? Wouldn’t they fight for their rights?)
(I believe they would, and I would still argue for them, because an unjust law is no law at all.)
Before resting my case, Con avoided several question I posed to him like are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected? Even Catholic church has accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary? How do we accommodate homosexuals? I hope he will anser them.)
(That is all, it’s been a pleasure debating with you Sashil. Looking forward to your rebuttal.)
Well, let me begin my argument by saying to con, that the question of
It’s just being used as a deterrent,
Talking about religion and spirituality, I would like to limit myself to
Large communities and Major religious leaders are against the abolishment in India. It is fallacious to presume that the opinion of Pope Francis
and that abolition of 377 would cause unrest, again how?
(Also with the ruling party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment of this law we are in a scenario where the price
Con claims there is no purpose of abolishing the restrictive law and that India would have to pay a cost if we do, but does not again specify the
thank you for mentioning that, exactly we are still being haunted by the colonial nostalgia, their laws still dominate our society, isn't it time that we kick the colonial mindset we've been carrying for so long
Wrong, I will come up with an argument that homosexuality has always existed in society, law or no law,
Yes, they would be able to live a life like everyone else, because they
Well, considering that the law stays, doesn’t get abolished, what do you think Con, wouldn’t the homosexual section cause, to put it in your
how is that senseless
Though PRO's has made good arguments on the given resolution it is deeply flawed in one facet.Yes LGBTs deserve to be treated equally by the society but abolishing a law that never has been used or
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD Comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.