Response against abolition of section 377A, an emotional one. Govt’s role is to be logical and not pandering to emotions however strong

Response against abolition of section 377A, an emotional one. Govt’s role is to be logical and not pandering to emotions however strong

According to an on going Yahoo poll, it would appear that a majority of those surveyed do not think that more restrictions should be imposed on people smoking in their own homes. Smoking has proven scientifically to be harmful to health. Not just to the smoker but also to others around them through the inhalation of second hand smoke.

That said, I believe that most people, even those who don’t smoke believe in the sanctity of the home. Your home is your sanctuary – your space to do what you want. How can someone else regulate whether or not you choose to smoke within the confines of your own space?

Now, let us transfer the same logical reasoning to the hotly debated section 377A. Religious groups such as churches have opposed its repeal. This opposition is done under the guise of morality and family values. It is not opposed based on logic because logically, the repeal of section 377A will do nothing to eradicate homosexuality. No one has ever been prosecuted under section 377A and the government has implied many a time that it will not be so doing. Section 377A also does not penalise lesbian sex. So, in my opinion, keeping section 377A serves no purpose apart from to appease the emotions of some vocal people. Should the government be logical or emotional? For me, this is a rhetorical question but I leave it to the reader to decide.

Moving on, if we can accept that people should be allowed to smoke in their homes, why can’t we accept that people can engage in whatever sex they choose to with other consenting adults? In fact, smoking is worse because it is actually proven to be adverse to the health of not just the smoker but to other innocent bystanders or passers by as well. Sex acts (homosexual or otherwise) between consenting adults behind the privacy of closed doors does no physical harm to anyone. Proponents to retention will argue that it affects the moral health of society. Morality however is subjective. Proponents of the retention of section 377A will not even realise that any kind of sex is happening at all behind closed doors. Why then the need for section 377A to remain intact?

The whole reasoning behind the sanctity of the home is the issue of one’s right to privacy. So much so that we can even accept breathing in harmful second hand smoke to preserve this right. Why then can we not give homosexuals the same right to engage in something that is private and non harmful?

At the end of the day, the response against the abolition of section 377A is an emotional one. No matter how strong that emotion is, it is not logical. The government’s role is to be logical. As such, it should not be pandering to emotions however strong.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments