【英语国际】印度的“合法”性行为之争

It isn't every day that Indian men in their sixties openly discuss which sex acts are 'natural' and which ones aren't. But as the appeals against a 2009 Delhi High Court judgment that marked a huge step forward for gay rights proceed before the Supreme Court, that's just what is happening.

The High Court said Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was in violation of the Constitution, and infringed upon equal rights and personal liberty. The statute prohibited people from engaging in 'carnal acts against the order of nature.'

The judgment decriminalized gay sex -- as well as sex acts between heterosexual couples that might have been seen as falling under this definition.

More than two years on, the case is before the Supreme Court, after several religious groups opposed to homosexuality challenged the judgment. Since the phrase 'against the order of nature' isn't defined further, nor are specific acts named, a lot of the discussion before the two-judge bench revolves around which sex acts are prohibited.

So the words 'buggery,' sodomy and so on keep cropping up.

Some of the lawyers who are arguing for the 2009 judgment to be upheld are trying to show, among other things, that the words 'against the order of nature' are so vague that it is impossible to follow the law in a way that is not arbitrary. As a result, the law leads to discrimination and is unconstitutional, they say. They're also likely to argue that what's considered normal or natural changes over time.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the religious groups are arguing that the phrase 'against the order of nature' can be defined with the help of logic and knowledge of the human anatomy.

K. Radhakrishnan, who is representing an organization called Trust God Ministries, told the bench on Wednesday that they should look at what the different parts of the body need to do to sustain life.

'As far as the anus is concerned it is the end of the digestive system and through that waste products are flushed out,' he said.

Similarly, the mouth is used for eating, he told the court.

After the hearing on Thursday, he said in a brief conversation that the mouth can be used for 'uttering words.'

'These two organs are not intended at all for sexual use,' he said. 'If you are putting these organs to that purpose, this is abuse of the body. All these things are ordained by nature.'

So...where does that leave kissing? This is not an act through which food is consumed -- generally speaking. Nor is it necessary to sustain life. Taken to its logical extreme, if the language of Section 377 is interpreted the way Mr. Radhakrishnan is advocating, that would leave kissing beyond the bounds of the law, never mind everything else they're discussing in Courtroom 6.

No wonder Bollywood has until quite recently eschewed kissing in its movies.

Were the judges swayed by the argument? Indians might not find out till Dec. 11, 2013, when Justice G.S. Singhvi, the senior judge on the bench is due to retire. It isn't uncommon for Indian judges to put off controversial judgments until a day or so before they're due to step down. By that time, Justice Singhvi may be more than happy to kiss this case goodbye. Not literally, of course.

一群六十多岁的印度男人公开讨论哪些是“合乎天性”的性行为、哪些则不是的场景可不常见。然而，随著有关团体针对德里高等法院2009年一项标志着同性恋权利取得重大进展的判决上诉到最高法院，这一场景正在印度上演。

德里高等法院在2009年裁定《印度刑法典》（Indian Penal Code）第377条违反了宪法，而且侵犯了平等权利和个人自由。该条法令禁止人们进行“违背自然法则的性行为。”

Manan Vatsyayana/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images2009年10月27日，印度设计师Suneet Varma在印度一次时装周上亲吻演员Amrita Rao。该项裁决使得同性性行为以及异性情侣或夫妻之间可能会被列为违背自然法则的性行为获得了合法地位。

两年多过去后，在一些反对同性恋的宗教团体对这项裁决提出质疑之后，该案件被提交至印度最高法院裁决。由于“违背自然法则”这句话本身并没有详细定义，其具体包括哪些性行为也未一一列出，双方律师的诸多讨论也就围绕着哪些性行为要予以禁止展开。于是，“鸡奸”和肛交等此类词语在讨论中不断出现。

一些为维持德里高等法院2009年裁决进行辩护的律师正努力证明，姑且不论其他事项，仅“违背自然法则”这句话就非常含糊，无法以一种客观的方式来界定这个标准。这些律师认为，如此说来，（原来的）法令造成了歧视并且违反了宪法。他们可能还会提出，关于什么是正常或自然的事物的看法都会随着时间的推移而改变。

与此同时，宗教团体的代理律师则认为，可以借助逻辑和人类解剖学知识来界定“违背自然法则”这句话。

2月29日，一个名为Trust God Ministries的宗教组织的代理律师K.拉德克里希南（K. Radhakrishnan）向法官表示，他们应当了解一下各类人体器官用于维持生命所具备的必要用途。

拉德克里希南说，“就肛门来说，它是人体消化系统的末端，是排出代谢废物的通道。”

他还向法庭表示，同理，嘴巴是用于进食的。在3月1日的听证会结束之后，他在一次简短的聊天中也谈到嘴巴可以用来“说话”。

他说，“这两个器官完全不是用于性行为的，如果你出于这个目的来使用这些器官，那就是滥用身体（器官）。所有这些事情都是自然注定的。”

照此说来，那么接吻属于违背自然法则还是合乎自然法则的行为？通常说来，它并不是用以消化食物的行为，也不是维持生命的必须。如果依据拉德克里希南建议的方式来解释第377条法令，将其中的逻辑推向极端的话，那么接吻也会成为违法行为，更别提律师们正在六号法庭讨论的其他行为了。难怪直到不久前宝莱坞的电影还在回避接吻镜头。

法官们是否会受到该论点的影响？印度民众恐怕要等到2013年12月11日才会知道结果了，届时最高法院的高级法官G. S.辛赫维（G. S. Singhvi）也到了退休之日。在印度，法官们将具有争议的裁决推迟到临近他们退休的前一天左右，这种行为并不在少数。到那时，辛赫维法官或许会万分高兴地与这个案件“吻别”。当然，这只是字面意义上的吻别。