Jump to content

Supreme court turns down same sex marriage and the right of same sex couples to adopt kids


bharathh

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Khota said:

No he is not. If you recognize homosexual marriage, every other law stays the same. 
 

You didn’t watch the video or understand it. We have one marriage law for all and one for Muslims. We n which law should gay marriage be allowed?

 

10 hours ago, Khota said:

 

Same sex marriage does not affect any other law directly. No laws were changed en masse to accommodate same sex marriage in other countries.

Wife and husband are biological genders defined in marriage, property, succession laws defining widow, widower etc. there is no such clear distinction in gay marriage laws! 
 

10 hours ago, Khota said:

 

He is also not a scientist to explain nonbinary individuals. 
 

He’s reading from a medical journal and has cited it in the argument. He is not claiming to be a scientist 

 

10 hours ago, Khota said:

 

Which part of India constitution is violated if homosexuals do get married. That is what he needs to address which he did not.

 

 


Courts don’t make laws, it’s the job of the legislature. Corts interpret laws if it meets constitutional standards. Let legislators work on Gay marriage law and then then it can be challenged in courts. Of all the priorities the government has, Gay marriage is the least of the issues it wants to tackle based on the sheer numbers it affects. We should stop copying the issues of whites and apply it to our society 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

You didn’t watch the video or understand it. We have one marriage law for all and one for Muslims. We n which law should gay marriage be allowed?

 

 

I watched the video and understood it. Gay marriage should be applicable to Indian Law which vast majority of people relate to.

 

14 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

Wife and husband are biological genders defined in marriage, property, succession laws defining widow, widower etc. there is no such clear distinction in gay marriage laws! 
 

 

That should have no bearing. It is for individual to state whether he is male etc.

Edited by Khota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:


 

He’s reading from a medical journal and has cited it in the argument. He is not claiming to be a scientist 

 


 

If he is citing any reputable journal, that would be full of sympathy for this group. His tone was a mocking one rather than that of sympathy.

 

11 hours ago, coffee_rules said:


Courts don’t make laws, it’s the job of the legislature. Corts interpret laws if it meets constitutional standards. Let legislators work on Gay marriage law and then then it can be challenged in courts. Of all the priorities the government has, Gay marriage is the least of the issues it wants to tackle based on the sheer numbers it affects. We should stop copying the issues of whites and apply it to our society 

We all understand that. If he agrees with the science that there are groups of people who are in this category than Indian Constitution protects them. Court job was to tell the legislature that they should be allowed to marry. Not to make the law. There are so many legal precedence to my statement and not one legal argument from the lawyer. All hot air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the "Criminal" aspect was a step in the right direction. But sadly it won't go any further than that.

 

Neither political parties would want to upset their Fanatical base. Its all about appeasement and "Numbers" game.

 

Having a LGBT friendly laws is always beneficial for the Country's Tourism Industry and economy as a whole. Not to forget the booming Surrogacy and Adoption needs which our country happens to be in the Surplus for.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thoroughly enjoyed this discussion! Appreciate the insights, everyone. 


There might be other people saying the quality of this forum sucks, and there are just 3-4 hindutvas circle jerking each other on every post without any meaningful discussions, but trust me I learn a lot here. 

Jai Hind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BigFish11 said:

 

Thoroughly enjoyed this discussion! Appreciate the insights, everyone. 


There might be other people saying the quality of this forum sucks, and there are just 3-4 hindutvas circle jerking each other on every post without any meaningful discussions, but trust me I learn a lot here. 

Jai Hind

Good . Will help if u contribute :om:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2023 at 7:28 PM, Khota said:

If homosexuality is not a crime, why oppose marriage. What legal reason did they give? 

 

And government has no business appointing judges.

 

That's the crux of the problem. Government doesn't appoint judges in India. It is a Collegium (a club SC judges) who appoint all judges in India.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system

 

It should be the Govt and ratified by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as is done in most countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

That's the crux of the problem. Government doesn't appoint judges in India. It is a Collegium (a club SC judges) who appoint all judges in India.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system

 

It should be the Govt and ratified by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as is done in most countries. 

That really is the bright spot of India that government does not appoint judges. You don't want 5 judges appointed by Congress or 5 by BJP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigFish11 said:

 

Thoroughly enjoyed this discussion! Appreciate the insights, everyone. 


There might be other people saying the quality of this forum sucks, and there are just 3-4 hindutvas circle jerking each other on every post without any meaningful discussions, but trust me I learn a lot here. 

Jai Hind

Part of your statement is true.

I can assure you this forum does not suck and there are many good people here. Moderators are very considerate and will work with you.

There are few posters who do not like dissent and write as if they are carrying out the acts of god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Khota said:

That really is the bright spot of India that government does not appoint judges. You don't want 5 judges appointed by Congress or 5 by BJP.

This is what you said and I quote 

 

And government has no business appointing judges.”

 

You didn’t know Govt doesn’t appoint judges , like goras do. You are saying you don’t like the Goras system? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

This is what you said and I quote 

 

And government has no business appointing judges.”

 

You didn’t know Govt doesn’t appoint judges , like goras do. You are saying you don’t like the Goras system? 

You enjoy twisting words. That was my response to a poster suggesting that government should appoint judges.

 

What I like or dislike is not pertinent to this discussion. The issue here is that Homosexuals have been denied the right to get married. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

That's the crux of the problem. Government doesn't appoint judges in India. It is a Collegium (a club SC judges) who appoint all judges in India.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium_system

 

It should be the Govt and ratified by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as is done in most countries. 

no thanks.we will have a US situation where the the Judges are appointed based on their political leanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cowboysfan said:

no thanks.we will have a US situation where the the Judges are appointed based on their political leanings.

They don't understand that. These guys are drunk with power and think it is ok to have 5 judges with the same viewpoint. Indian system in this case is much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cowboysfan said:

no thanks.we will have a US situation where the the Judges are appointed based on their political leanings.

Every pillar of democracy has people say , except judiciary in India. There is no accountability and right people don’t get selected as judges. Hence there is so much of corruption and nepotism in the appointment of judges. Even with existing system with pliable judges, they were so political in nature, we got emergency under their blessing and the introduction of A370 was done in similar machinations. We have activist judges giving out sentences like Sabarimala or wronguns to Hindus while others are getting a preferential treatment. We have lakhs of cases pending and there is no accountability of the judiciary or say in that department by either legislation or government. 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...