I think the author has veiled his argument behind an example which will fetch instant sympathy... that of the shiv sena. coming to the point... most gays wouldn't be harassed by a policeman or anybody for that matter unless they give enough indications of getting 'physical' with a partner of the same sex. That's the only conceivable way of knowing the person is gay. Another veiled argument is that of bringing hijras into the mainstream... well my friend why are you equating gays with them... good attempt to garner sympathy yet again! For solving STDs, one doesn't need to divulge his/her sexual preferences. I haven't seen clinics discriminating against people with alternate orientations of sex. Understand the argument against repealing the act... nobody denies the right to have an aternate orientation... the argument is against legalizing it. If its as normal a genetic make up, then i studied in biology that criminals are made up of a genetic variation too! Do we legalize it then? Have your own sexual preference... doesn't need a state endorsement. And, by the way... is sexual intercourse the only need of a gay person? Doesn't the law ban the sex part alone?
