Section 377 of Indian Penal Code should be abolished

Judges please note: This round is for a rebuttal and a closing statement. Alright, so, I would be rebutting Con's argument paragraph by paragraph and putting most of my remarks, comments, rebuttals in brackets.'Primarily, the first thing I wish to clarify and convey to my learned adversary and voters is that if I show and provide enough reasons for the law to sustain and remain undisturbed, in compliance with the resolution I will win this debate.'Well, let me begin my argument by saying to con, that the question of winning or not winning this debate is not for us to decide, I would advise him to leave that to the judges.‘I have divided my fundamental dissensions into four different sections for the purpose of clarity.’(I see.)'Will cause turmoil in the countryTo start with, I would like to bring to light the fact that India is in reality not a secular country, with different parties, religious cults and communities following different religions and beliefs, taking a move to abolish the law, in a conservative society as which thrives in India, will culminate in unnecessary riots and rampage. '(Con claims India is not a secular country, I would like to know how, and that abolition of 377 would cause unrest, again how?)Also with the ruling party BJP and large sections of religious groups against the abolishment of this law we are in a scenario where the price is too much to pay and the reward insubstantial about which I will be discussing in the upcoming sections. (What is the price? The reward is that we finally legally make way for a liberal society, where we can co-exist in harmony, where being a homosexual wouldn't be viewed as criminal, where you would not be jailed for life for fellatio, or for having anal intercourse, where you get to live in a community where you don't have to hide, I believe that reward, and you would agree, is not so insubstantial at all.)Abolishment of such a law might have had an effect in maybe other more secular countries (for example?) but in India there are hardly any practical purpose that can be attained on abolishment of this law given the cost that the country would be needed to suffer. (Con claims there is no purpose of abolishing the restrictive law and that India would have to pay a cost if we do, but does not again specify the cost or price like he had said above.)Neutrality of the lawThe law was declared in the year 1861 (thank you for mentioning that, exactly we are still being haunted by the colonial nostalgia, their laws still dominate our society, isn't it time that we kick the colonial mindset we've been carrying for so long, this archaic ancient law deserves to abolished) but I challenge my learned adversary to give an account of a homosexual couple living in peace and equality in the society of India before the time of the implementation of the law, I'm afraid my opponent will find this really hard if not impossible, cause law or no law the mentality of the community will be ever the same. (Wrong, I will come up with an argument that homosexuality has always existed in society, law or no law, it will continue to exist and has to be accommodated not condemned or criminalized and the mentality of the society, is that a reason that we can’t grant homosexuals the rights they deserve?)(Isn’t it obvious that if we remove 377, it would be moving in a path, setting the tone for the acceptance of LGBTs. First we have to remove the legal barrier, only then can we come up with suggestions and proposals of instilling awareness that my opponent proposes in the paragraph below.)'Of course a possible argument that my opponent can come up would be the instillation of awareness on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual needs but that would be going away from the domain of this debate since as I earlier mentioned the resolution is only on whether Section 377 of Indian Penal Code be abolished or not. And coming to effects of the law, since its establishment it has made few to no conviction thus negating any claims on it effecting the overall equality of homosexuals, thus abolishing such a law will just be a futile effort on bringing equality to homosexuals in India and the trouble that would have been taken to do so would be tremendous.'(Yet again he talks about trouble, what trouble, please be a little specific sir? Ambiguity won’t win you debates, specificity will)And now I put a question to my opponent to answer, will abolishment of such a law according to your argument lead them, to quote your own words, "live a life like everyone else"?(Is it a rhetorical question? If it is a yes or no question then yes, but I believe Con deserves a good answer.)(Yes, they would be able to live a life like everyone else, because they would not be criminals anymore; they would be as much of a citizen as you and I are, constitutionally, legally, enjoying the freedom and rights that we do, living a life of respect and dignity, not one of agony and denial)Maybe legally Yes, but the scenario will remain as ever it was after the abolishment as before.(I’m afraid you’re mistaken and I’ve already stated why.)'The Long time period and strain that would be involved Abolishing such a law will require a lot of time/effort and with other more important and pressing issues that overrun the current Indian society such as overpopulation, poverty,corruption,education,terrorism,.etc (just like the judiciary of India, Con wants to delay, stall this topic, my question is simple, how do you deal with homoseuxals then? Want to gas them all like Hitler did?) to address with, running after abolishing a law which has significantly no damage or impact on the society, (homosexuals are being affected, so what if the majority is not homosexual, there still is a number that is homosexual and in a democracy, it is a basic principle - that we accomodate minorities, don't discard them, first you claim India is not secular then you say 377 is not doing any harm, later you would argue India is not a democracy, please weigh your statements before making them on public forum such as this) given the few to no reported conviction on the grounds of this law, is just a futile waste of time and energy.''More harm than goodAbolishment of this law will also mean other natural sexual abnormalities such as pedophilia,zoophilia,.etc are very much as legal as homosexuality. (Why can't we first scrap the whole section 377 first which covers very natural occurences as crimes)Well who can argue otherwise? Section 377 of Indian penal code is as such a law which covers an even larger area and abolishing of which will provoke and promote other inhumane activities as stated before.''Conclusion:The argument provided by my adversary to abolish section 377 is only theoretically sound, in reality it has hardly any practical applications on a country like India. (I am not suggesting any Rocket Science, my logic is simple, that 377 has to be abolished, how is that senseless, and I ask for the fourth time how would it shatter the harmony in the country?)Thus making this senseless move to abolish the said law would only tarnish the already feeble unity and harmony in the country.And that would be all. Looking forward to my opponents response :).'(Well, considering that the law stays, doesn’t get abolished, what do you think Con, wouldn’t the homosexual section cause, to put it in your style, ‘trouble’? Wouldn’t they fight for their rights?)(I believe they would, and I would still argue for them, because an unjust law is no law at all.)Before resting my case, Con avoided several question I posed to him like are consenting LGBT individuals having sex – criminals? Is every homosexual naturally defected? Even Catholic church has accepted homosexuality, why can’t the Indian judiciary? How do we accommodate homosexuals? I hope he will anser them.)(That is all, it’s been a pleasure debating with you Sashil. Looking forward to your rebuttal.)