These arguments made in favor of Section 377 are appalling
What's the story
The sane minds of India are rallying together to make Section 377 a thing of the past. But the arguments being given by supporters of the archaic law shows it won't be an easy battle.
For example, a VHP member Abhishek Mishra tweeted LGBT community will rise in numbers if Section 377 is scrapped.
Another one argued national security may be compromised.
The rule
Section 377 doesn't let bedroom be a private space
Introduced in British rule in 1861, Section 377 of IPC criminalizes sexual activity against 'order of nature'. This includes homosexual, anal, oral sex and penile penetration of "artificial orifices".
People found 'committing the crime' can be jailed for life, ten years or will have to pay a fine.
In other words, this section dictates what consenting adults can and cannot do in their bedrooms.
Why, why , why!
Abhishek Mishra's arguments to defend archaic law is headache inducing
In the past, supporters (read those who refuse to grow up) of Section 377 argued homosexuality was against Hindutva and said abolishing it may even give rise to paedophiles. Now, Abhishek Mishra has given another gem of a comment.
According to Mishra, scrapping 377 will 'increase LGBT community and unbalance the society's structure'.
First of all, where do you get such ideas from?
Quote
"What if they want to have sex with animals?"
Further, showing the capability of his peanut-sized brain, Mishra wrote, "Scrapping #Section377 means giving Licence to perform Unnatural Behavior by mentally sick people. After this, if people want Right to sex with Animals then what we should do?"
Twitter Post
Here is what Mishra tweeted
If Sex with Animals is Unnatural and it comes under crime then how relation between same gender in humans can be treated as Natural ? #Section377
— Abhishek Mishra (@Abhishek_Mshra) July 10, 2018
Details
Sadly, Mishra isn't the only one, there are others too
Mishra isn't the only one whose hatred for homosexuals trumps logic, there are many on Twitter who want Section 377 to stay. Mostly, because they have little idea how gender orientation works.
In court, Kumar Koushal, whose arguments re-criminalized Section 377 in 2013, argued: "Decriminalizing #Section377 would endanger national security".
He argued soldiers may indulge in 'homosexuality activities' on the border.
The arguments
Mouth is for eating, not sex, respondents tell court
While defending Section 377, respondents told the Supreme Court today that the mouth was for eating and not sex.
"Mouth is an organ to eat and anus is an organ for excretion. These are not sexual organs. Therefore, such acts are against biology and against the order of nature," the respondents reportedly argued.
They said only the parliament should bring a change in IPC.
Do you know?
It's high time consenting adults of India get freedom
While the petitioners are debating on lines of human rights, the arguments of the respondents just show they don't wish to get out of their well. With everyone eyeing Supreme Court, we sincerely hope the apex court creates history.