• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

a totally uncalled fro beginning

drsundaram

Well-known member
is this a healthy and a step to be allowed to go?
I am sure NOT in my opinion
A wrong move towards bad morals and values
A default call to other states to emulate this " worthy " spirit
God only can prevail wisdom upon

 
Last edited:

prasad1

Well-known member
is this a healthy and a step to be allowed to go?
I am sure NOT in my opinion
A wrong move towards bad morals and values
A default call to other states to emulate this " worthy " spirit
God only can prevail wisdom upon

Ok, It might be against your morals, So what? The country and society has agreed and moved forward.
Is the clerk in the Hotel is supposed to be the moral police?
Who are we to object to 2 people sharing a room? Be it two men, or two women, or a man and women.
If courts allow cohabitation, why should the Hotels oppose it?
Why are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?


The Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy v.D. Patchaiammal held that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the following criteria:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.(b) They must be of legal age to marry.(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time, and in addition, the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’. It also held that if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’.


I am a hotelier, I have no interest in the personal life of my customers, I do not want to police them, as long as they are law-abiding.
 
Last edited:

drsundaram

Well-known member
Ok, It might be against your morals, So what? The country and society has agreed and moved forward.
Is the clerk in the Hotel is supposed to be the moral police?
Who are we to object to 2 people sharing a room? Be it two men, or two women, or a man and women.
If courts allow cohabitation, why should the Hotels oppose it?
Why are you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill?


The Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy v.D. Patchaiammal held that a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the following criteria:

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.(b) They must be of legal age to marry.(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time, and in addition, the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’. It also held that if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’.


I am a hotelier, I have no interest in the personal life of my customers, I do not want to police them, as long as they are law-abiding.
i expected this from you, mr prasad. According to you, court has favoured so shun the "ethics and morals" is your stand. Court also sometime before had consented to "living together" and consesual intimacy etc Courts may say tomorrow a money stolen by a thief belongs to the thief. Respecting the law is one aspect; but why then the higher appeals and seeking reviews are there?. i appreciate your obedience and to Hotels and Courts. I respect more the morality and values shown by our ancestors and the ethics of my land ? i refrain from commenting further to you mr prasad, on this ..
 

prasad1

Well-known member
It is good you expected this from me, at least I am consistent.
I do not want some vigilante justice system like Taliban moral police in India.


Ok, just for the sake of argument, how do you implement your moral values on others?
Again for argument sake, you go to a Hotel with your wife and the clerk at the hotel asks for a marriage certificate or some other proof, and you do not have it on you. So he refuses to rent you the room, how will you feel about that?
Then you go to the police and complain or file a civil suit, what does the clerk do (the hotelier is not going to foot his bill).
 

Follow Tamil Brahmins on Social Media

Top