AnuramanSinha, The graphic nature of your description of the sexual act aside, here is a little education on "Natural" in the context of law.
Hitorically, law/society had labelled something "Natural" based on 4 premises! These, and why they fall foul of 377 are detailed below: 1) What is historical in Human Society is Natural: Customary law is derived from this premise. That if it has happened for long, it must be the natural way things are. With regards to homosexuality, Victorian England believed that there is no historical instance of homosexuality and that it wasa modern (or oriental, whose history any way was to be negated) vice. Therefore homosexuality was considered unnatural. However historical research has since proved that from Plato to Tom Daley, history is replete with homosexuals. By the Historical yardstick therefore, homosexuality is natural. 2) What is found in Nature is Natural: Thisis based on the premise that the god created nature works on a god-given moral yardstick and cannot go wrong. A corollary to this was the understanding that certain 'vices' like homosexuality was absent in the fauna, and was a productof perversion of the intelligent human mind. However biological research has now shown that homosexuality is prevalent in animals ranging from tape-worms to elephants and blue whales. Therefore on the yardstick of "Nature equals Natural" homosexuality fails the test of being unnatural. 3) What is expressly prohibited by religion is not Natural: That may actually be so to the religious, and they are welcome to stay within their own burrows! But in a secular country that bases its laws on the fundamental principles of equality, dignity, freedoms, and rights to privacy, those religious principles cannot be allowed to trump these fundamentals of rights available to all citizens. This may be tough shit to the religious minded, but they have to live with the knowledge that this is not the 14th century inquisition. Simply put, their belief of the natural vis-a-vis homosexuality is of no consequence to the law. And finally, 4) Any sexual act that does not lead to procreation is not natural: This was premised on the understanding that sex was for procreation only and not for recreation. Well, we need to test this last one on the yardstick of the last 3. Historical references to recreational sex is well documented, no matter how the religious cringe at this. Natural fauna is also replete with recreational sex that is well documented. And finally, if the yardstick of equality is to be applied, contraception cannot be allowed for heterosexuals while simultaneously criminalising homosexuality. Therefore on this last measure too, homosexualityfails to be unnatural. I hope you get the message! Its not about a penis and a Vagina! Its about Rights, in a secular society, and it is about sexual orientation that is accepted as legit by modern science! ============ Theabove note was written in response to the following comment posted in a legalblog post on the Indian Supreme Court Judgment on Section 377 of the IPC: “Anuraman Sinha December 15, 2013 at 09:44 Its all over discussion about carnal intercourse only,but we need to define “order of nature” in sexual context. What exactly is“order of nature “in sexual context. First of all we need to maintain acontinual process for preserving our species (Human Species) ,and for that an“order of nature “is determined eternally, where an erect penis need topenetrate a vagina to ejaculate semen which finally fertilizes an egg toreproduce an offspring . Secondly for an erection of penis there is certaincarnal behavior of physical contact like touching ,pressing and kissing areanother list for “Order of nature ” in sexual context. Now if this is the “order of nature ” mentioned in ageold Section 377 ,which is surely relevant in our modern day . then the “carnalintercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” must betermed as unnatural offense .”
