India decriminalizes homosexual sex

[Hash]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[John Dibble]

A good step for liberty in India.

[Sbane]

I wonder when arranged gay marriages will start.

[minionofmidas]

Interesting. Didn't know there was a court case underway.

Didn't know the Indian SC was in the habit of delivering rulings of that type, either.

[Sbane]

Interesting. Didn't know there was a court case underway.

Didn't know the Indian SC was in the habit of delivering rulings of that type, either.

Is there anything equivalent to ballot initiatives in India? As far as I know there is none. I ask because I wonder how gay marriage would be legalized in the future. I would think the SC would have to make the decision? Also marriage laws vary by religion in India so that should be...interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A good step for liberty in India.

[afleitch]

Now sort out the caste system.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This is good to hear. Hopefully similar developments will soon follow elsewhere.

[Sbane]

Now sort out the caste system.

In the legal system? There are no laws that discriminate against lower caste people and on the other hand they get a lot of benefit in terms of reserved government jobs, college seats etc. Changing the attitude of people is what is needed and that is a much more complicated task (though closely related with increasing education levels). Also note that this is just a court ruling and its not as if the population got any less homophobic. Rather there could be a backlash.....

[phk]

The Muslims will sure be pleased about this.

[Sbane]

The Muslims will sure be pleased about this.

Some Imam already condemned this. But to be fair so did the highest Catholic official in India.

http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=4582534&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/ndtv/general/ndtv.php&homeurl=http://publication.samachar.com&nextids=4584745

[Franzl]

It's not like it was different in the U.S.. Socal Conservatives surely opposed legalization of homosexuality before most states had done it. (I mean, it even took a Supreme Court ruling to convince some states).

It's always that way, regardless of the issue at hand. Some people are going to oppose it. Lots of people opposed civil rights in the 60s, for example, but only a very tiny fraction would support returning to the old days in that respect. It's turned into a non-issue, the same way that India won't be upset about this in a couple of years.

[Hash]

Interesting. Didn't know there was a court case underway.

Didn't know the Indian SC was in the habit of delivering rulings of that type, either.

Is there anything equivalent to ballot initiatives in India? As far as I know there is none. I ask because I wonder how gay marriage would be legalized in the future. I would think the SC would have to make the decision? Also marriage laws vary by religion in India so that should be...interesting.

I suspect gay marriage in India would be brought down extremely brutally in India.

[Sbane]

Interesting. Didn't know there was a court case underway.

Didn't know the Indian SC was in the habit of delivering rulings of that type, either.

Is there anything equivalent to ballot initiatives in India? As far as I know there is none. I ask because I wonder how gay marriage would be legalized in the future. I would think the SC would have to make the decision? Also marriage laws vary by religion in India so that should be...interesting.

I suspect gay marriage in India would be brought down extremely brutally in India.

Yes that might be the case in today's society. But say 20 years from now I wonder how gay marriage would be legalized exactly. I am guessing it would be through the court system, but India has separate family law for different religions so I am not sure how that would work it. It could even be the case that Christians and Jews, who are extremely urbanized and liberal, could have gay marriage before Hindus and especially Muslims. Not sure if that's how it would work though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

[Franzl]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

[Magic 8-Ball]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

No.  What in the world gives you that idea?

[Franzl]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

No.  What in the world gives you that idea?

He seems to have lots of strange ideas...

[Antonio the Sixth]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

That's why I used the word "if".

[Franzl]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

That's why I used the word "if".

Well sure, you'll always find a couple of people who'll support anything, right?

Just as you'll find a considerable amount of people that voted for Le Pen in 2002.

Does that mean I should say "if some French fascists could pass a law that kills every immigrant, they would do it"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

That's why I used the word "if".

Well sure, you'll always find a couple of people who'll support anything, right?

Just as you'll find a considerable amount of people that voted for Le Pen in 2002.

Does that mean I should say "if some French fascists could pass a law that kills every immigrant, they would do it"?

Yes, you should. What I meant is that there are dangerous reactionnaries in every country. Obviously that's not the same in Europe or in USA than in less developped countries, but look at the french and italian laws against immigration, and you will see that's not so far from your statement.

[Magic 8-Ball]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

That's why I used the word "if".

Well sure, you'll always find a couple of people who'll support anything, right?

Just as you'll find a considerable amount of people that voted for Le Pen in 2002.

Does that mean I should say "if some French fascists could pass a law that kills every immigrant, they would do it"?

Yes, you should. What I meant is that there are dangerous reactionnaries in every country. Obviously that's not the same in Europe or in USA than in less developped countries, but look at the french and italian laws against immigration, and you will see that's not so far from your statement.

How so?  Are you equating tougher standards for immigration with murder, or are you actually arguing that there are members of the French and Italian Parliaments who support the physical harm of immigrants?  The former makes no sense at all, and I'd like names if it's the latter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If some american religious-conservatives could pass a law that sentences to death any person who had homosexual sex, they would do it. Because they are crazy, as were the men who killed this doctor who practised abortions in Kansas.

You'd never find anywhere near a majority for that anywhere in the U.S..

That's why I used the word "if".

Well sure, you'll always find a couple of people who'll support anything, right?

Just as you'll find a considerable amount of people that voted for Le Pen in 2002.

Does that mean I should say "if some French fascists could pass a law that kills every immigrant, they would do it"?

Yes, you should. What I meant is that there are dangerous reactionnaries in every country. Obviously that's not the same in Europe or in USA than in less developped countries, but look at the french and italian laws against immigration, and you will see that's not so far from your statement.

How so?  Are you equating tougher standards for immigration with murder, or are you actually arguing that there are members of the French and Italian Parliaments who support the physical harm of immigrants?  The former makes no sense at all, and I'd like names if it's the latter.

"Tougher standards for immigration" is a soft euphemism for arbitrarily arresting people that work in french enterprises, attend french schools, have a french life, destroying families, and send back people to starv or to be killed in "their" country.

That's not because you don't kill them that it's tolerable in democratic countries.

[Hash]

Oy vey, fail thread. Yay.

[minionofmidas]

Is there anything equivalent to ballot initiatives in India? As far as I know there is none.

'Deed not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Isn't family law for Hindus theoretically based on a British-created Civil Code (except frequently ignored - minimum marriage age according to the thing is 18 which in many districts is actually higher than the median age of girls at marriage; polygamy is illegal but persists in some regions among some communities - and never existed in the first place most everywhere else, etc) while Muslims and Christians can basically use their religious laws (with a few exceptions)?
If so, one would expect Hindu gay marriage to be legal before Christian gay marriage.

Anyways, I wonder which side pays the dowry in an arranged gay marriage.