There\'s nothing great,nothing noble than sex between two consensual persons irrespective of being same or opposite (LGBT)sex or being married or unmarried. No third person shouldn\'t have the moral right to interfere this sex based on mutual consent. This interference should be viewed as most immoral and illegal. May I request the Honourable Court not to waste its precious time on this unconcerned issue instead to concentrate on pressing issues viz corruptions,rape-murder,illegal uprooting the vast rural masses from their own land in the name of development, various kind of trafficking etc? Now it is the time of thinking of throwing away the system of marriage that was emerged from the right of personal property. Therefore it\'s a non-issue to me on the question of moral or immoral for a sex performed after the consent from the woman who the man pledges to marry in future but afterward when the man backtracks the woman becomes dejected and feels she has been deceived. The whole problem evolves from the male chauvinistic viewpoint that keeps the womanhood under its dominance.In the era of woman emancipation, an independent self esteemed woman should not sacrifice her dignity for mere a pledge of age old rotten conception of marriage and thus metamorphosing herself as a mere commodity.
There's a reason for calling this act as immora1. Whatever might be the outcome of this act, for example - Girr1 getting prreggnant and then getting deserted by the bb0y, OR PParrents not agreeing and hence marriage not taking place, OR BB0y fi1ming the act and se11ing the c1ip / distributing it to his friends, OR ggir1 accusing the bb0y of rrraappee once this act comes to light, etc., OR Both ggir1 and bb0y getting married to live happily ever after ---- Ultimately most of these outcomes are not good, either to the ggir1 or to the bb0y, except for one, where the c0uple lives happily ever after. Hence, the society has termed it as immora1 so that the ggir1 and bb0y do not even consider performing this act, thus keeping themselves out of tr0uble :-)
Adultery is immoral in love. Lying about one's past is immoral. But how can premarital physical relation be immoral? Cannot understand how the court reached this decision. In modern society, what is lacking loyalty. Being loyal and honest in a relationship matters. The court is probably being guided by our indian virtue of being virgin untill marriage. And this, in our society, applies to women only!! If a boy and a girl enters into physical relationship, it is a decision taken by 2 adults who should consider and prepare for consequences in future. But there is nothing immoral in it if both of them are honest towards the relationship.
I basically have a problem with the term used by the judge in this case, 'IMMORAL'. For one, the learned judge might be old school and totally out of sync with current living patterns. In the same context, I do not agree with any girl calling such a relationship rape, since all that happened was consensual. Nobody forced it on her. she was completely aware of everything that happened as a result such a relationship. If she believed the male in this case, she knew what she was doing. And just bcos the male does not wish to continue in that relationship, calling it rape might not be entirely right. These type of cases should be judged at the same level as a marriage discord case, if needed, not something as demeaning as rape. Its not fair to the male. Its a social issue and should be handled thus, not by a judge, who goes by his beliefs than the law manual. Point to ponder ???
