Changing Times: Will Gay Marriage Be Legal in India?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sravna, would you consider sex with some sort of birth control, i.e. purely for pleasure not for reproduction, a perversion? If not, what acts would you consider perversion?

Thanks ....

Dear Shri Nara,

I use the following interchangeably:

Selfish person ,materialist, perverted mind

Here I am not talking of sexual perversions alone but perverted thinking in general.

 

[amala]

SravnaJi,

I do agree with your general sentiments. Of course 2 people can be friends. Or they can love and marry.

Ravi,

I strongly, strongly disagree with your idea that all of us who are supporting legalising gay marriage as selfish as "Ennaku enna pochchu". Not at all. Please kindly refrain from judging us and our motives. I don't wish to speak for others but I support gay marriage because it is only by a stroke of luck, karma, my punyam, fate or whatever you wish to call it that I am a straight girl. It is such a thin line. I could have easily been a homosexual/lesbian. I empathise with them, heck I could have been one of them. Would i like it if my rights as it were, are denied. Surely not. Do unto others etc... That is my position. If I was like "ennaku enna pochchu", as a straight girl I won't bother about gay rights at all. Why should i?

I really have no idea how you come this conclusion that those of us supporting gay marriage are only thinking of ourself, when its clearly quite the contrary.

 

[C RAVI]

SravnaJi,

I do agree with your general sentiments. Of course 2 people can be friends. Or they can love and marry.

Ravi,

I strongly, strongly disagree with your idea that all of us who are supporting legalising gay marriage as selfish as "Ennaku enna pochchu". Not at all. Please kindly refrain from judging us and our motives. I don't wish to speak for others but I support gay marriage because it is only by a stroke of luck, karma, my punyam, fate or whatever you wish to call it that I am a straight girl. It is such a thin line. I could have easily been a homosexual/lesbian. I empathise with them, heck I could have been one of them. Would i like it if my rights as it were, are denied. Surely not. Do unto others etc... That is my position. If I was like "ennaku enna pochchu", as a straight girl I won't bother about gay rights at all. Why should i?

I really have no idea how you come this conclusion that those of us supporting gay marriage are only thinking of ourself, when its clearly quite the contrary.

Dear Amala,

The members here on this forum who are supporting legalization are not making the whole of our society. Can you accept that, the members here are the wholesome society of INDIA (at least India, as per the thread topic)? Can we really believe that a few members of this Forum are the only people surviving in our Society (INDIA)?

Please make a note that, when I express my opinions and some expressions/captions, its considering the whole real society out there, out of this Cyber World.

My views and opinions are not considering the sentiments and values of each of the debating members here. Yes, I would consider/respect their sentiments, values, belief etc and would refrain from name calling and hurting them.

If you would have read my post clearly with patience, you could have noticed that, I concluded stating, at the end of the day in our society, people who are opposing gay marriage legalization would also end up with 'Enakku Enna Pochchu" and carry on with their life style. And that's the fact too. Because, we can not expect to succeed stalling happenings, that we believe would be harmful for the society in a longer run.

 

[Nara]

....Here I am not talking of sexual perversions alone but perverted thinking in general.

Sravna, you have not answered my question. I would like to know what your opinion is about sexual perversion. Let me repeat my question,

"would you consider sex with some sort of birth control, i.e. purely for pleasure not for reproduction, a perversion? If not, what acts would you consider perversion?"

​

I would very much like to know your view.

Thanks ...

 

[Iyyarooraan]

I have a little doubt whether somebody is opposing gay marriages. Have other marriages, traditional and non-traditional, intercaste, inter-region and international, been stopped. Leave aside the murmurs in the affected group. It is a matter to be decided and claimed by the interested parties. In India there are marriages between man and vazhaimaram, between asses, between arasamaram and veppamaram. Is this time for holding their flag as if they are not capable of? When trans-sexuals are in the mainstream of the society, I think, the question, is redundant. Or, are we just giggling ourselves with the talk?

 

[sravna]

Folks,

Here's the sum up of my position on the issue:

People are born with certain qualities. This may or may not manifest and this depends on the circumstances in which a person is born and brought up. The innate qualities when they manifest may not always be in concordance with the long term welfare of the society. So there is a basic necessity to check them.

Proponents of gay marriage in this forum unanimously pointed out "What about the sentiments of the person in question? Is he responsible for his innate qualities?". I agree. Is it not then logical that the society should take that responsibility to develop countering ways so that such behaviors do not spread or take roots. If the person who is affected is not allowed to express his proclivities, it should be understood that it is so only because the larger interest of society is given preference.

Now the million dollar question. Can homosexuality be accepted in the society without harming it? Before proceeding further let me give below the continuum where different sexual preferences, in my opinion, stand:

deviants----------------normal---------------sexual feelings never predominant

Homosexual behaviour I would say goes with the left extreme, among the deviants and true love the right extreme. Just as the right extreme are very content and under self control all the time, the left extreme may be considered to be opposite in nature.

Here I sense the danger. Homosexual people are not to be curbed for their sexual behavior alone but because they represent the general category of people who are oriented towards selfishness and materialism. So approving this behavior is like undermining a bastion that was responsible for curbing the mean desires. If one bastion can fall, so can the rest, which have been maintaining order and harmony in the society.

 

[sravna]

Sravna, you have not answered my question. I would like to know what your opinion is about sexual perversion. Let me repeat my question,

"would you consider sex with some sort of birth control, i.e. purely for pleasure not for reproduction, a perversion? If not, what acts would you consider perversion?"

​

I would very much like to know your view.

Thanks ...

Dear Shri Nara,

I will answer your question tomorrow. I will be away from my computer. Any way look at my latest post and see if it addresses your query.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

I will answer your question tomorrow. I will be away from my computer. Any way look at my latest post and see if it addresses your query.

No it does not, I will wait for your answer tomorrow. Please be as direct and to the point as you can. I don't want long winded explanations. I just want to know where you stand.

Thanks ...

 

[sravna]

Sravna, you have not answered my question. I would like to know what your opinion is about sexual perversion. Let me repeat my question,

"would you consider sex with some sort of birth control, i.e. purely for pleasure not for reproduction, a perversion? If not, what acts would you consider perversion?"

​

I would very much like to know your view.

Thanks ...

Dear Shri Nara,

My answer is the same. Any selfishness leads to perversion. Pleasure is something selfish. So if you seek pleasure alone, the answer is yes.

 

[renuka]

Folks,

Here's the sum up of my position on the issue:

People are born with certain qualities. This may or may not manifest and this depends on the circumstances in which a person is born and brought up. The innate qualities when they manifest may not always be in concordance with the long term welfare of the society. So there is a basic necessity to check them.

Proponents of gay marriage in this forum unanimously pointed out "What about the sentiments of the person in question? Is he responsible for his innate qualities?". I agree. Is it not then logical that the society should take that responsibility to develop countering ways so that such behaviors do not spread or take roots. If the person who is affected is not allowed to express his proclivities, it should be understood that it is so only because the larger interest of society is given preference.

Now the million dollar question. Can homosexuality be accepted in the society without harming it? Before proceeding further let me give below the continuum where different sexual preferences, in my opinion, stand:

deviants----------------normal---------------------no sexual interest

Homosexual behaviour I would say goes with the left extreme, among the deviants and true love the right extreme. Just as the right extreme are very content and under self control all the time, the left extreme may be considered to be opposite in nature.

Here I sense the danger. Homosexual people are not to be curbed for their sexual behavior alone but because they represent the general category of people who are oriented towards selfishness and materialism. So approving this behavior is like undermining a bastion that was responsible for curbing the mean desires. If one bastion can fall, so can the rest, which have been maintaining order and harmony in the society.

Dear Sravna,

You stated No sexual interest as the extreme right. No sexual interest can mean lots of things..eg low or absent libido due to hormonal imbalance,unable to have sex due to impotency or frigidity.
What exactly do you mean here?
And why do you say that true love is extreme right? which guy sits at home and does pooja to his wife and not touch her unless he is a closet gay.

Ok what about the celibate eg a Brahmachari Sanyas.I guess you would place them in extreme right too?
Ok Sravna you have put Normal as the median and deviants and no sexual interest as either end of the spectrum.So that means you have classified them as abnormal isnt it?

Can you clarify here?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

You stated No sexual interest as the extreme right. No sexual interest can mean lots of things..eg low or absent libido due to hormonal imbalance,unable to have sex due to impotency or frigidity.
What exactly do you mean here?
And why do you say that true love is extreme right? which guy sits at home and does pooja to his wife and not touch her unless he is a closet gay.

Ok what about the celibate eg a Brahmachari Sanyas.I guess you would place them in extreme right too?
Ok Sravna you have put Normal as the median and deviants and no sexual interest as either end of the spectrum.So that means you have classified them as abnormal isnt it?

Can you clarify here?

Dear Renuka,

Ok there is need for some clarification. By no sexual interest I mean the state of having subdued that interest. I should have mentioned it as no predominance. of sexual feelings. Feelings towards a partner normally is mixed with sexual and love feelings. But in the left extreme it is sexual feelings or one that largely predominates or in other words for such a person sex is overwhelming. But in the right extreme love is the factor that is in control and cannot be overwhelmed by sex. So that doesn't mean the guy cannot have sex. But his love has control over it.

The left side of the curve can be taken to be abnormal and the right supernormal because the right is about good qualities.

 

[Nara]

deviants----------------normal---------------------no sexual interest

sravna, I think you are not fully grasping what "deviant" means. A deviant is one who deviates from what is widely accepted as "normal". In India, driving on the left side of the road is normal and therefore, anyone who insists on driving on the right side of the road is a deviant.

If we take sexual behavior, there was a time when most couples had many children, 4 or 5 at least. Now, even from my generation, it is hard to find a middle class family with more than 2 kids. This, I assure you is not because they are doing it less now, but because they are doing it for pleasure and preventing pregnancy using some sort of birth control.

All of these people don't see anything wrong with this, it is considered "normal". To you on the other hand, any sex not intended for procreation is a perversion. This makes your stance abnormal, i.e. deviant. So, the above diagram you have shown, one in which "no sexual interest" as the opposite of what you say is "deviant" is absurd -- "no sexual interest" is as deviant as one can get.

Recent polling in the U.S. shows 53% support for Gay marriage, a clear absolute majority. This clearly shows homosexual behavior is not viewed as deviant in the U.S.

An unscientific poll conducted in India a year ago showed 31% support for Gay marriage with 69% opposed. This poll only represents mobile social network users, if that, who are probably predominantly young people. At least in this group, homosexual conduct is not seen as deviant, a conduct that is supported by 1/3rd of the group can hardly be deviant. Just one year prior to this poll homosexuality was illegal in India. Give it another 4 or 5 years, with more young people coming of age, and more old people kicking the bucket, the support is sure to rise and even cross 50%. Give it another 20 years or so, then, a day will come when opposition to Gay marriage will be viewed deviant.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, I think you are not fully grasping what "deviant" means. A deviant is one who deviates from what is widely accepted as "normal". In India, driving on the left side of the road is normal and therefore, anyone who insists on driving on the right side of the road is a deviant.

If we take sexual behavior, there was a time when most couples had many children, 4 or 5 at least. Now, even from my generation, it is hard to find a middle class family with more than 2 kids. This, I assure you is not because they are doing it less now, but because they are doing it for pleasure and preventing pregnancy using some sort of birth control.

All of these people don't see anything wrong with this, it is considered "normal". To you on the other hand, any sex not intended for procreation is a perversion. This makes your stance abnormal, i.e. deviant. So, the above diagram you have shown, one in which "no sexual interest" as the opposite of what you say is "deviant" is absurd -- "no sexual interest" is as deviant as one can get.

Recent polling in the U.S. shows 53% support for Gay marriage, a clear absolute majority. This clearly shows homosexual behavior is not viewed as deviant in the U.S.

An unscientific poll conducted in India a year ago showed 31% support for Gay marriage with 69% opposed. This poll only represents mobile social network users, if that, who are probably predominantly young people. At least in this group, homosexual conduct is not seen as deviant, a conduct that is supported by 1/3rd of the group can hardly be deviant. Just one year prior to this poll homosexuality was illegal in India. Give it another 4 or 5 years, with more young people coming of age, and more old people kicking the bucket, the support is sure to rise and even cross 50%. Give it another 20 years or so, then, a day will come when opposition to Gay marriage will be viewed deviant.

Cheers!

The arguments and statistics you give is exactly my concern. That the deviant becomes the norm. Let me ask you, if a society is full of uncaring and unkind people is that norm acceptable to you? The more pertinent question is therefore not, what is the norm but what should be the norm or what should not be the norm. It is thus the role of the society to take care of this issue in its larger interest.

 

[ShivKC]

i think, before going in detail about gay marriage or gay civil union, one needs to get clear what the definition of the word "marriage" means.

What marriage means?

1) A commitment to LOVE & reproduce.
2) if no progeny, should we dissolve marriage
3) how do we accommodate polygamy/polyandry in to the definitions of of the legal term MARRIAGE 'defined by our colonial law givers?
4) how about getting married to donkey, vazhai maram, arasa maram etc... is it not a marriage? i dont care what the west says, but why not we legalize it too?
5) should we confine sex as the primary factor to define the term marriage
6) if love alone is the parameter, then why ban 'Child marriage'?


with all these confusions, can we uni vocally define what marriage is, in the absence of custom/tradition/god/scripture/culture?

so, better define what MARRIAGE means, and then take on with the discussion, who n all could be accommodated.

 

[ShivKC]

Let me ask you, if a society is full of uncaring and unkind people is that norm acceptable to you? The more pertinent question is therefore not, what is the norm but what should be the norm or what should not be the norm. It is thus the role of the society to take care of this issue in its larger interest.

Good thought.. I would add here.. Who should define that norm?

here comes the scripture and god.. which is the real confrontation with the atheists..

now,the atheists would be quick to turn the gun and say 'its the people, society and democracy would decide that rule!".. but then, I would ask them, that, if in a nearby remote island of tribes, that killing 1 man a day, is the norm, and to roast the meat and dine out is the norm of the culture... whats the say of atheists there?

 

[Nara]

The arguments and statistics you give is exactly my concern. That the deviant becomes the norm. Let me ask you, if a society is full of uncaring and unkind people is that norm acceptable to you? The more pertinent question is therefore not, what is the norm but what should be the norm or what should not be the norm. It is thus the role of the society to take care of this issue in its larger interest.

sravna, herein lies the difference between us.

You seem to think you know what is best for the society, you have all the answers, you know what should be the norm. I, on the other hand, think all we need to do is free the society from the yoke of religion and the superstitious beliefs it spawns, then, people will be free to choose the "what should be" in a loving and just environment.

If we take an unbiased look at world history, it is the old societies that were full of uncaring and unloving people. Even today, it is the people motivated by some imagined "what should be" who want to impose their "what should be" on the rest.

As time passes on, even more people will care and love everyone and they themselves will figure out "what should be" and fashion a more loving and just society for all, including the deviant ones -- with views like what you express you may find yourself one of the deviants someday.

Let me end with a nice quotation from a sermon attributed to the Unitarian minister Theodore Parker in 1853, one that was paraphrased by two prominent people, one a real apostle of peace MLK, and the other a pretender, who was ironically awarded the Nobel Peace prize, Obama:

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eyes reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.”

​

Cheers!

 

[ShivKC]

There are people who can be allowed to be free to choose themselves "what should be" in a loving and just environment.


first of all, why one or a society, would want it to be in a LOVING & JUST environment? its a free environment and society right, and my community also deserves equal right.. if one could choose LOVE as basis, why not I choose 'Hatred&Greed' as the motto of my community, which my community has chosen it freely, without any ones influence. the others, shouldnt be having problem with my choice of HATRED as motto, right?

why cant they choose to be a selfish and unbiased environment of their own way, like animals, and say, let the powerful survive and rest die. Are we going to watch that in a silent way, and accommodate it, just because we believe in LOVE ?

why cant we leave Srilanka the way they want to be, instead of calling for war crimes? Rajabakshe was doing it out of love for his country right?

why not we allow cannibalim, if a society has it own norms and culture esp, out of love, to satisfy their dining need? may be one can kill and eat the flesh of next door boy and out of love for his own families dietary need.., a primary love and concern indeed?

why one need to strike Osama, after all , he also loves his afgan folks, and his love towards them is true also.. why bother him?.


isnt there a confusion here... when we give a chance for ourselves to set the rules?

 

[subbudu1]

Here is my view - We should all hope to build a hardworking society.

Sometimes people during their lesiure do different things. It is not about what is right or wrong with what they do. People should not have the time to waste their minds in trivialiy. Is a person who works very very hard occassionally has sex( with same gender) more useful to society or a person who wastes his time on porn and does not do much hardwork in life( inspite of being a straight person)?

Once there is mental and physical discipline in society human activity becomes productive. If we achieve this state , then let us discuss whether homosex is wrong or right or if it can be curbed in the first place.

My conclusion- There is is not enough evidence on the purpose of sex, as society is hardly disciplined in other matters. Be it america or India, half the world dont show discipline at all in life even with regard to other matters. So why discuss a trivial concern like homosex, when there is rape, murder, laziness in work, wife beating and cheating etc etc etc. It should be among the last things we discuss about life. Till then let gay do what they do , you straight folks please work hard in life. Dont worry about the gay atleast many of them are useful to society in other ways.

If the gays want their activities to be legalized, so be it. Let us allow legalization but protect the rights of the straight. There is a concern here, as I am informed that there are hostel , churches and ashrams ( some extremely famous ones) in India where homosexuals abuse the juniors or vulnerable in their vicinity. Knowing the situation of rights abuse in India , this can be a serious concern just like the usual rape and other forms of sexual abuse and indoctrination. In this case opportunities are far more in male dominated organizations especially student hostels, millitary and other organizations( where there is some kind of hierarchy and social pressure).

 

[Yamaka]

"My conclusion- There is is not enough evidence on the purpose of sex, as society is hardly disciplined in other matters. Be it america or India, half the world dont show discipline at all in life even with regard to other matters. So why discuss a trivial concern like homosex, when there is rape, murder, laziness in work, wife beating and cheating etc etc etc. It should be among the last things we discuss about life. Till then let gay do what they do , you straight folks please work hard in life. Dont worry about the gay atleast many of them are useful to society in other ways."--Subbudu wrote.

1. To me, the purpose of sex is obvious. But, the whole issue of human sexuality is not fully understood.

For example, I am a heterosexual male, with grown-up kids. I am eager to see movies showing the complexities of Lesbians (Hindi "Fire" and "Sancharram" in Malayalam & others), while I don't want to see two kissing males! I just can't rationalize my own reactions.

2. What's discipline, anyway? People act according to their Free Will.. The question is whether some one is intruding into the Rights of other people..

3. For Gays, it is not a trivial concern. They want their marriage to another person be legalized, and the NY State said recently, "Yes". Gays have been fighting for this for quite sometime.

Now the US federal law upholding "Doctrine of Marriage Act" is in sharp contrast to this new law passed by NY legalizing the Gay Marriage.

President Obama wants to challenge the DOMA as unconstitutional on the grounds of it violating the Equal Rights and Civil Rights of Individuals...His contention is whatever legal rights heterosexuals have must be given to the homosexuals and transgenders, as a matter of law.

The fight now moves on to other laws of the land.

Wait & watch.

 

[renuka]

i think, before going in detail about gay marriage or gay civil union, one needs to get clear what the definition of the word "marriage" means.

What marriage means?

1) A commitment to LOVE & reproduce.
2) if no progeny, should we dissolve marriage
3) how do we accommodate polygamy/polyandry in to the definitions of of the legal term MARRIAGE 'defined by our colonial law givers?
4) how about getting married to donkey, vazhai maram, arasa maram etc... is it not a marriage? i dont care what the west says, but why not we legalize it too?
5) should we confine sex as the primary factor to define the term marriage
6) if love alone is the parameter, then why ban 'Child marriage'?


with all these confusions, can we uni vocally define what marriage is, in the absence of custom/tradition/god/scripture/culture?

so, better define what MARRIAGE means, and then take on with the discussion, who n all could be accommodated.

Definition of marriage to me I feel is like the Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti Syndrome.
We can call it in many names
Let me give my interpretation to all your questions:

1)A commitment to Love.Reproduce we cant really commit cos we dont know our Takdir if we can actually reproduce due to various reasons..medical or non medical.

2)No need to dissolve marriage if no progeny.Mostly man call it the quits if the woman is found to be infertile but if a guy is shooting blanks most of the while the woman just stays quietly and sometimes even takes the blame to avoid her husband being blamed.

3)Polygamy/Polyandry is interesting.I will give you an example.See out here we have only 1 company that supplies one particular type of medication and since there is no competitor,the company slacks in service sometimes cos they take the customer for granted.So same way with marriage sometimes husband and wife take each other for granted.
With Polygamy/Polyandry so each one of us will be at peak to face competition so its healthy competition I feel.

I used to wonder if a woman has 2 husbands and one dies.Is she still considered a sumangali?

4)Marrying a donkey/tree is not fair becos animals and trees havent given consent.So thats violating the basic rights of animals and plants.
None of us speak "Donkey" or "Tree".
Just like some communities before they slaughter a goat for a sacrifice they sprinkle Haldi water on its face and goat moves its head as a reflex and thats taken as consent...totally unfair!

5)Sex cannot be defined as the primary factor to define marriage.Sex alone doesnt hold the fabric of marriage.When there is love, sex is just an extension of it.When love is absent in a marriage sex is merely a physical act.

6)Children have no idea what marriage is about and once again there is no consent.So technically it should be banned.

 

[renuka]

If we carefully read the shloka below it talks only about Kama,Krodha and Lobha being the 3 gated way to destruction of oneself.
Even in straight relationships there is still some amount of Kama(desire) and so as in Gay relationships.
So all types of Kama have to be given up eventually, so I dont think Heterosexual type of Kama is superior to Homosexual type of Kama.
Kama is Kama and if one gives it up along with Krodha and Lobha.One can get elevated spiritually.

None of the Masters have spoken a word so far (as I know off) about Homosexuality.All just talk about Kama,Krodha,Lobha,Moha,Mada &Matsarya as the 6 enemies.
They didnt specify the origin of these 6 enemies.
I feel Hinduism is a religion that takes into the account every type of difference seen in humanity and its only we humans that make Hinduism Judgemental.

त्रिविधं नरकस्येदं द्वारं नाशनमात्मनः ।कामः क्रोधस्तथा लोभस्तस्मादेतत्त्रयं त्यजेत् ॥१६- २१॥trividhaṁ narakasyedaṁ dvāraṁ nāśanam ātmanaḥ
kāmaḥ krodhas tathā lobhas tasmād etat trayaṁ tyajet 16.21

Three kinds of hell, the destructive gates of atma (Jeevatma) are lust, anger, and greed, and therefore one must give up these three.



​

 

[sravna]

sravna, herein lies the difference between us.

You seem to think you know what is best for the society, you have all the answers, you know what should be the norm. I, on the other hand, think all we need to do is free the society from the yoke of religion and the superstitious beliefs it spawns, then, people will be free to choose the "what should be" in a loving and just environment.

If we take an unbiased look at world history, it is the old societies that were full of uncaring and unloving people. Even today, it is the people motivated by some imagined "what should be" who want to impose their "what should be" on the rest.

As time passes on, even more people will care and love everyone and they themselves will figure out "what should be" and fashion a more loving and just society for all, including the deviant ones -- with views like what you express you may find yourself one of the deviants someday.

Let me end with a nice quotation from a sermon attributed to the Unitarian minister Theodore Parker in 1853, one that was paraphrased by two prominent people, one a real apostle of peace MLK, and the other a pretender, who was ironically awarded the Nobel Peace prize, Obama:

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eyes reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice.”

​

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

If people decide for themselves what should be the norm, do you mean the ablest of them would be doing it or would that be done by vote? Norms have to be laid down with the view that people follow them. How different is this from the way principles were laid by by some very able people which are meant to be followed by the society? The society anyway needs a standard and this was what was done .

And who said that brahminism or spiritualism whatever you may call it doesn't promote compassion, love etc. If any philosophy even in principle is contrary to these values it is the modern day materialism. If brahminism erred, it is in practice and that is something which can be rectified and in fact has been addressed to a large extent.

 

[sravna]

ShivKC,

My replies:

What marriage means?

1) A commitment to LOVE & reproduce.

Definitely

2) if no progeny, should we dissolve marriage

Definitely not

3) how do we accommodate polygamy/polyandry in to the definitions of of the legal term MARRIAGE 'defined by our colonial law givers?

They dilute the relationship. I would not prefer them to be valid

4) how about getting married to donkey, vazhai maram, arasa maram etc... is it not a marriage? i dont care what the west says, but why not we legalize it too?

These types are symbolic

5) should we confine sex as the primary factor to define the term marriage

Definitely not

6) if love alone is the parameter, then why ban 'Child marriage'?

Sex is also a factor but love should be the prevailing factor

 

[Iyyarooraan]

[FONT=&quot]Sravana sir,
Sorry to interrupt. Marriage is a commitment to co-live whether one may get progeny, or not. In the coming days getting progeny would not be a factor. There is also a big business of adoption. Besides love which would not be hundred percent constant throughout, it is rather an opportunity for companionship and an arrangement for sharing emotions. Men, and women too, have basic instincts not to be left alone. People curse crowded trains and buses who would not want to travel in an empty bus or train. Also, another basic instinct common to all human beings is fear. To be with another in close is actually to ward off imagined threats. Gay marriages or whatever, there are still grown up girls who would not sleep without stuffed or soft toys. There is also strain of economic compulsions to better one’s life to pull on like a yoked bulls. [/FONT]

 

[Nara]

...If people decide for themselves what should be the norm, do you mean the ablest of them would be doing it or would that be done by vote? Norms have to be laid down with the view that people follow them.

sravna, it is undeniable that what is normal behavior and what is deviant never remained unchanged. In ancient Greece homosexual relationship between an adult and young boys in their teens was common and normal. Among the north African Siwan tribe, men were expected to carry on homosexual conduct, and anyone who wishes sexual pleasures only from the opposite sex was considered deviant. For more on this and a long analysis of the nature of conformity and deviance click here.

Even here in India, within the Hindu fold homosexuality was not seen as a great sin. All that Manu says is, take a dip in the nearby pond with your clothes on and you are good to go. Next time you visit a temple take a close look at some of the figurines and you are very likely to see some sort of homosexual act depicted, or at the very least what you may consider deviant or perverted act. Look at this article for even more details -- fair warning, contains a picture of a sculpture showing explicit sexual act (let us see how many refrain from clicking ).

You know, it was the British who brought their Victorian prudishness and made laws making homosexuality illegal. On the one hand the RSS and Hindutva never miss a chance to blame Macaulay for ruining the "wonderful" educational system that prevailed in India before the British, one that kept most of the population illiterate and ignorant, and on the other hand are outraged when the Delhi HC overturned the anachronistic British cobweb of a law, one that outlawed homosexuality. What strange world we live in, one in which we get to pretend we are all so upright when in fact we are just uptight.

There have been many great thinkers (Socrates), warriors (Alexander), scientists (Alan Turing), artists, even gods (Shiva and Vishnu) who were homosexuals. The gays had it good in the old days, but these organized religions have turned them into deviants and persecuted them. Alan Turing, one who is credited with coming up with the idea of digital computers, was literally driven to suicide by the hate of the so called normals.

What is normal behavior is driven by the established power. It does not come from one immutable true wisdom that can give it the seal of "what should be".

And who said that brahminism or spiritualism whatever you may call it doesn't promote compassion, love etc.

I say it, and so do a whole lot of social thinkers and reformers.

Cheers!