Is the Repeal of Penal Code 365 & 365A a Move to Legalize Public Sex—Even with Minors?

When ‘Discrimination’ demands Freedom to have Sex (carnal intercourse) against the Order of Nature in Public: A Critical Look at LGBTQIA Demands on Penal Code 365 & 365A. Are LGBTQIA Rights Truly Being Denied? Advocates of “rights” and “freedoms” for the LGBTQIA community frequently claim they face discrimination under Sri Lanka’s existing laws—particularly Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A, which pertain to carnal intercourse against the order of nature and gross indecency. However, these accusations are rarely backed by concrete evidence. The claims are emotional, vague, and often fail to define what specific rights are being denied.

Let us ask plainly:

• What constitutional or civil rights are LGBTQIA individuals denied that are not denied to anyone else?
• Are they refused education, employment, healthcare, or the right to vote?

In reality, LGBTQIA individuals in Sri Lanka have held, and continue to hold, positions of prominence and influence. Many have served as Presidents, Prime Ministers, First Ladies, Foreign Minister, Ministers, MPs and have excelled as business owners, entrepreneurs, bankers, retailers, educationists, entertainers and human rights activists. They participate fully in society—socially, economically, and politically. This does not reflect systemic exclusion or persecution. They have become who they are with the existence of Penal Code 365 & 365A. There is no tangible evidence to prove that Sections 365 and 365A have resulted in systemic persecution or exclusion.

So, what is the real grievance?

If the only complaint is that the law prohibits specific sexual acts—acts which apply to all individuals regardless of identity, including heterosexuals—then the argument is not about rights at all. It is about seeking legal permission for behaviors that most societies, especially in the East, deem immoral or unacceptable.

Such demands cannot be dressed up as human rights claims, because they are not about access to basic needs or protections. They are about redefining morality, eroding child protection, and legitimizing sexual conduct as identity politics—with no clear social benefit to the wider population.

International Definitions and Interpretations

Carnal Intercourse Against the Order of Nature

General Meaning:

The phrase “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” is a legal term traditionally used in many Commonwealth countries’ penal codes to criminalize sexual acts deemed unnatural or immoral by historical or cultural standards. This typically includes anal or oral sex and bestiality (sex with animals)

Legal Origins:

The phrase is largely derived from British law, particularly from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which criminalized “unnatural offences.” Many former British colonies retained similar language in their penal codes.

Gross Indecency

General Meaning:
“Gross indecency” is a broader and more vague legal term historically used to criminalize sexual acts that are considered immoral or indecent but may not fall under specific categories like rape or sodomy.

Legal Origins:

This term was notably used in British law, for example in the Labouchere Amendment (1885) which criminalized “gross indecency” between men, used to prosecute Oscar Wilde.

The term was intended to capture sexual acts that fell short of sodomy but were deemed immoral, including acts committed in private or public.

International Legal Context:

While the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have increasingly advocated for the decriminalization of consensual same-sex sexual acts—framing criminalization as a violation of international human rights, including the right to privacy and freedom from discrimination—these positions primarily reflect Western liberal ideals. Such calls often lack concrete grounding when viewed through the lens of diverse cultural, religious, and social values, particularly in Eastern societies. They tend to focus narrowly on sexual activity itself, disregarding the rich heritage, moral frameworks, and community norms that have strengthened & improved Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A. This raises critical questions about the imposition of universal standards without adequate respect for cultural sovereignty and local societal values.

Understanding Real Discrimination vs. Misusing the Term for Immoral Demands

The public must be able to differentiate between actual discrimination and manipulative misuse of the term. Discrimination is when a woman is denied a job because she is a divorcee. It is when a person with a physical disability is refused employment. It is when a rape victim is shamed and ostracized by society. These are real, tangible forms of injustice that affect an individual’s dignity, survival, and basic human participation.

But demanding the right to engage in public sex, to legalize carnal intercourse against the order of nature, or to challenge laws that protect minors from sexual abuse—as currently covered under Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A—cannot and must not be equated to discrimination. Such demands have nothing to do with denial of access to education, employment, housing, or public services. Rather, they seek legal permission to normalize sexual behaviors that the vast majority of societies—especially in Eastern cultures—deem immoral, indecent, and socially harmful.

Equating laws that uphold public morality and child protection with “discrimination” is a dangerous distortion. It not only devalues the struggles of those who face real oppression, but it also opens the door to undermining legal safeguards against indecency, exploitation, and sexualization of society—including children.

Interpretation Variability:

Different countries interpret “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” differently. In some jurisdictions, it may apply broadly to all non-penile-vaginal sexual acts, while others specify acts like anal sex or bestiality.

Despite no verifiable evidence of discrimination, there is a concerted push by advocacy groups to demand the rewriting of Penal Code Section 365 and the complete repeal of Section 365A. Yet, both these sections do not deal with discrimination; they specifically address carnal intercourse against the order of nature and gross indecency.

Are we to accept that consensual acts labeled as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” are themselves discrimination against the LGBTQIA community?

Are we to presume that acts deemed “grossly indecent” fall under discrimination claims?

If so, where do we draw the line between private conduct and public order?

Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A exist not to target any community, but to protect public morality and vulnerable groups—especially children. These laws are designed to prohibit carnal intercourse deemed unnatural and acts of gross indecency, particularly where they could involve or be committed in the presence of minors.

So, we must ask:

Are we now to believe that protecting children from exposure to or involvement in same-sex carnal acts or gross indecency is a form of “discrimination” against the LGBTQIA community?
How can legal safeguards intended to shield minors from sexual exploitation be reframed as an infringement on adult sexual freedoms?

This inversion of logic leads us to a disturbing reality:
The real discrimination is being committed against Sri Lanka’s 6.1 million children.

Does the Human Rights Commission & the many children’s activists who were intervening petitioners in favor of repealing 365A care about the child?

By attempting to repeal or weaken Sections 365 and 365A under the guise of promoting “rights,” these advocacy campaigns are in fact dismantling critical legal protections that exist to prevent same-sex sexual abuse of minors. This is not progress—it is regression wrapped in a human rights slogan.

Child protection is not negotiable. No advocacy—no matter how global, well-funded, or politically supported or threatened with denying loans/aid or trade concessions—should be allowed to compromise the safety, dignity, and future of children. If the demand for so-called “rights” comes at the cost of a child’s protection, it ceases to be a right—it becomes a threat.

If these sections are repealed or rewritten, does that imply permission or acceptance of public sexual acts or indecent behavior in public spaces? Should society tolerate sexual acts—consensual or otherwise—in public areas simply because a particular community demands it and a bunch of diplomats, foreign funded organizations & individuals & media are promoting it? What about the impact on families, children, and the general public who expect laws to uphold decency & morals?

Are these legal provisions being mischaracterized by advocacy groups as discriminatory, when in reality they regulate behavior deemed unacceptable by societal standards? Could the real issue be about redefining morality & spreading immorality & destroying our society & individuals rather than addressing discrimination?

Furthermore, can we deduce that some demands from within this community effectively push for normalization of sexual acts with minors, considering the language of these sections?

In the 1980s, Sri Lanka became infamous as a “beach boys’ paradise” where young boys were exploited by foreign pedophiles. Has the country forgotten this shameful chapter? Are we prepared to repeat history by removing the very legal protections that were strengthened in the 1990s and 2006 to prevent such abuse?

Repealing these laws under international pressure:

• Invites paedophilia under the cloak of “consensual behavior.”
• Normalizes public sex actsand gross indecency in spaces shared by families, children, and religious communities.
• Undermines Sri Lanka’s moral fabric, cultural values, and legal sovereignty.

 

Final Questions for Society

• Should laws protecting children and public morality be repealed because a few NGOs, foreign diplomats, or funded media campaigns demand it?
• Are we willing to tolerate public sexual acts or paedophilic interpretations of “freedom” simply because they are masked as rights?
• Who speaks for the majority? Who defends the child?

Any attempt to rewrite or repeal Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A must begin with a fundamental question:
Are we protecting human dignity, or undermining it?

If the cost of legal reform is the erosion of morality, decency, and child protection, then it is not reform at all—it is societal sabotage. Let us not trade our children’s innocence for Western-imposed ideologies cloaked in the language of rights. Let us not call immorality “progress.”

In conclusion, before repealing or amending laws, it is vital to thoroughly examine the actual nature of the claims, the evidence presented, and the broader societal consequences. Without clear distinctions between legitimate rights and conduct regulations, the debate risks endorsing actions that undermine both social order and child protection.

“We call upon lawmakers, civil society, religious heads and every concerned citizen to stand firm in defense of Sri Lanka’s moral values, legal sovereignty, and child protection. Let us not bow to ideological coercion. Let us protect what truly matters.”

 

Shenali D Waduge