Explanation; penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
So from this we can deduct that in our country, someone’s need to satisfy his physical desires, fulfill emotional needs is considered to be a crime. Act of expressing love is reduced to the term carnal intercourse. But it is not the same case with heterosexual relationship. Their expression of love is not termed as just intercourse neither ofcourse it is criminalised. I don’t understand why is it so difficult for us to accept that human beings differ from each other, and these differences are imbibed into the core of individuals. It is just a matter of preference.
The law ciminalises it because according to the lawmakers it is unnatural. But what poves it to be unnatural? The fact that human perpetuation is not possible in homosexual relationship, or that the other way round has been preferred and practiced for years does suffice enough for it to be termed as unnatural and hence a criminal offence. Isn’t this countered with the fact that inspite of it being termed as criminal offence, inspite of the strong social stigma attached to it, it hasn’t c eased to exist even over so many years.
I think, it is a natural urge, and it’s a matter of great shame that in a democratic country like ours it is criminalised. Denying to accept homosexual relationships is denying an individual, fulfillment of his needs of companionship security, freedom and love, all which form a base of human existence.
The discrimination against homosexual relationships operates at two levels. First, the family law regime is based entirely on heterosexual premises. Regulation 2(g) defines family as:
‘Incase of male member, his wife, his children, whether married or unmarried, his dependent parents and his deceased son’s widow and children’
‘In the case of a female member, her husband, her children, whether married or unmarried, her dependent parents, her husband’s dependent parents and her deceased son’s widow and children’
So according to all systems of personal laws marriage can only be between persons of opposite sex.
Secondly, all laws concerning the entitlement to assets upon death of a person are also base exclusively on heterosexual premises confined to the relations by marriage and blood.
Thirdly, because of the moral stigma attached to homosexuality per se, gay men and lesbians are affected by a number of laws that criminalise actions and other objects considered as immoral or scandalous according to the governing ethics of the society.
So a person pursuing a homosexual relationship is denied his/her rights to have a family, his/her entitlement to the deceased spouse’s assets and definitely social acceptance. Well to put it in short I would like to say that his/her sheer existence is denied in the society. What more can one be deprived of.
Well nothing in world is permanent and so is the case with laws. Homosexuality must be decriminalsed. It is important to have law that goes beyond the existing one and redefines the word ‘family’.
Let us all act as matured citizens and fight for the legal and social acceptance of homosexual relationships and accept their companionship as constituting families.
Kinjal sampat
