Setback for Same Sex Marriages. - Page 2

Originally posted by: Sutapasima

I have no idea so want to know if this same sex marriages that the Judiciary was discussing … was it covering all religions ?
I want to know if the couples would have to go for exclusive court marriages, right ? As of today, no Pandit ji , or Qazi or Pastor would be ready to solemnise same sex marriage .. or is it ?
I agree if the law was passed, life would be easier for such couples.

Sutapasima and NimbuMirchi, there is already a topic for discussion of the need for civil vs. religious marriage equality. It's easy to miss under all the pinned topics that lost interest long ago.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/debate-mansion/5325704/should-indias-religious-marriage-laws-include-same-sex-queer-couples

Originally posted by: LizzieBennet

Waiting for society's mindset to change should not be the prerequisite for lawmaking.

...

Who's to say legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't have gone a long way in influencing society's mindset toward such marriages?

I say emphatically that legal recognition would help society to evolve to accept equality.

In the U.S.A., anti-miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967, but it took about 50 years for the idea that marriage shouldn't be restricted by race to be espoused by more than half the population.

Marriage equality in the U.S.A. began in the state of Massachusetts in late 2003, and shortly after a majority of the country's population supported the idea, it became the law nationwide.

India urgently needs the courts to tell the legislature that the current laws are unconstitutional and shall not be enforced to the exclusion of sexual/gender minorities. We can't sit around waiting for societal acceptance while rights are already overdue.

Originally posted by: LizzieBennet

A few years ago divorce was still frowned upon in Indian society but now it is accepted widely.

False. India still has one of the lowest divorce rates in the world - not because marriages are happy but because of the stigma of divorce for women.

Originally posted by: la_Reine

Times have changed now. Society is more accepting of homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages.

You can see the decline rate of marriages over the years, and how divorces are increasing. Homosexual couples tend to be happier and more satisfied.

I don't find your joke funny or in good taste. Same-sex or non-binary couples face death threats, corrective rape, eviction, denial of benefits including the right to be at a partner's deathbed or funeral, beatings etc. just for being visible. Other than inter-caste or inter-faith, which heterosexual couples experience any of that?

The right to divorce is an extension of the right to marry. Divorce is a remedy to unhappy marriages, not a symptom. Same-sex and non-binary couples shouldn't have to justify their marriages by proving that they are happy or permanent.

Originally posted by: la_Reine

Times have changed now. Society is more accepting of homosexual marriages than heterosexual marriages.😆

You can see the decline rate of marriages over the years, and how divorces are increasing. Homosexual couples tend to be happier and more satisfied.

I think chances of differences arising between any two persons is the same … be it heterosexual couple or LGBTQA+ couple … divorce rates will remain same on both I feel and both suffer consequences equally .

Originally posted by: Sutapasima

I think chances of differences arising between any two persons is the same … be it heterosexual couple or LGBTQA+ couple … divorce rates will remain same on both I feel and both suffer consequences equally .

Anything can happen. But I just feel that same sex understand each other and their needs better. As women, we know what other womens needs are. Men and women have different needs from a relationship and differet ways of showing it.

Originally posted by: la_Reine

Anything can happen. But I just feel that same sex understand each other and their needs better. As women, we know what other womens needs are. Men and women have different needs from a relationship and differet ways of showing it.

Mostly it’s that case of opposites attract in nature … men and women have become wired differently due the selection of the fittest by evolution … over millions of years . .. nothing has happened without reason . Evolution feels this nature of men and women is the best .., may be more changes are already coming which we are not aware of .

Real science is evidence-based. Claims that "evolution feels ... is best" and "nothing has happened without reason" are not scientific. Evolution doesn't have feelings like a god that can be invoked to justify our prejudices. Evolution doesn't happen for a purpose or with a goal to reach. Species don't evolve to be best; they just mutate so that many variations co-exist at any given time, and some of those variations die out, leaving us with whatever we observe.

Instead of "men and women ... wired differently" in your imagination, diversity of gender identity and sexual orientation is the reality that we observe. LGBTQ+ diversity hasn't died out.

Is there any animal species without homosexual behaviour? Nature evidently tolerates it. Perhaps species without it get eliminated.

Variation can be eliminated by genetic drift (the majority crowds out the minority by probability) as well as by natural selection (whoever performs worst in an environment dies without progeny). Both of these processes sometimes eliminate the fittest individuals from a population along with the least fit. "Survival of the fittest" isn't reality, but it's a feel-good phrase to oversimplify natural selection and evolution because "non-survival of the least fit" sounds like justification of genocide.

There are problem-solving tests on which performance by men and women is statistically different, and these results may be due to differences in the brain. However, this does not mean that men and women belong in different spheres of activity, or that "opposites attract" is a rule of psychology.

Humans are both individuals and social animals. How we come together to exploit and support each other's strengths, or to exploit and compensate for each other's deficiencies, is more complex than sexual or marital interactions.

Originally posted by: la_Reine

Anything can happen. But I just feel that same sex understand each other and their needs better. As women, we know what other womens needs are. Men and women have different needs from a relationship and differet ways of showing it.

I agree dear, same sex will understand eachother’s problems better .
I think within a family this same sex understanding is available between female relatives and male relatives, in joint families and living together.

As Marco Del Giudice says, “researchers often stress the risk of overestimating gender differences, but the converse is just as true. Pretending that gender differences are smaller than they are deprives people of a very important piece of knowledge about themselves and others.”

“For countless generations men have shaped women, women have shaped men, and here we are – the product of this amazing, complicated history. If we understand this, our judgment becomes broader and less superficial, whether we like the way we are or would like to change it.”

I absolutely love the differences between men and women and all the interactions . I also fully believe in survival of the fittest which is natural selection by nature ever since living things appeared on this earth. Life is beautiful …

Well said 👏👍🏼

Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour

Is there any animal species without homosexual behaviour?

Same-sex behavior such as courtship, pair-bonding, parental activities etc., may have been documented in hundreds of species of animals but homosexual orientation, mainly an anthropocentric concept, is not observed and any argument based on that hypothesis is but a human interpretation of such behavior; here I am discounting a small percentage of domesticated Rams. Animals, in general, have no motivation in engaging in same-sex behavior over a period of time as that doesn't result in offspring. Their primal instinct is to reproduce and pass along their genes to the next generation.

Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour

Perhaps species without it get eliminated.

I can see that you have used qualifying language by adding "perhaps" but I would still like to pose the question: how?

Originally posted by: BrhannadaArmour

It's good that you're finding reading material about the subject to educate yourself. Open your mind and you'll notice that what I wrote above acknowledges and goes beyond the simplified versions that you get in Scientific American and BBC. That's because I'm a scientist who reads and reviews actual scientific literature.

This is not the place to teach you a university-level subject all at once...

I am sure you realize that the above is an appeal to authority (Person A claims that X is true.Person A is an expert; unverified on these forums but for the sake of argument taken at face value. Therefore, X is true.)

Love seeing a good debate so, hopefully, arguments will continue.

P.S: on paper, I don't see any participant opposing equal rights and equal protection for all.

We are getting farther off the topic defined by the misleading headline that Sutapasima refused to change. (A court reserving judgment and taking time to write opinions is not a "setback" and the marriage equality rights in question are not limited to same-sex couples.) I guess tangents are inevitable when a topic remains pinned past its time.

One definition of sexual orientation is whom one imagines while masturbating, rather than whom one chooses as a mate. Non-human animals do masturbate, but until we have methods to determine the objects of their contemplation and categorize them as male/female/nonbinary, we can't say that any sexual orientation by this definition exists in non-human animals. We can only infer sexual orientation from sexual behaviour.

When female Japanese macaques have sex with each other only during the mating season, only monogamously, ignoring interested males, isn't homosexual orientation the simplest explanation?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Animals, in general, have no motivation in engaging in same-sex behavior over a period of time as that doesn't result in offspring. Their primal instinct is to reproduce and pass along their genes to the next generation.

On what basis do you assume an instinct to reproduce? Unless animals are aware that offspring are a consequence of opposite-sex mating while fertile, we can't equate instinct to mate with instinct to reproduce. It seems more straightforward that animal instinct is to seek sexual pleasure. Pleasure is an easily learned motivation.

Genes are shared by relatives. The selfish gene succeeds through probability, not through each and every animal being fecund. Animals can afford to be homosexually oriented as long as they raise the next generation of genetic relatives (nieces and nephews) to reproductive success.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I can see that you have used qualifying language by adding "perhaps" but I would still like to pose the question: how?

I was just acknowledging the possibility that our inability to find animal species without homosexual behaviour might mean that such species are eliminated. There's no evidence that any exclusively heterosexual species ever existed even briefly, so I don't know how they would come into existence (a prerequisite to elimination). How would animals evolve to avoid same-sex mating partners?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I am sure you realize that the above is an appeal to authority (Person A claims that X is true.Person A is an expert; unverified on these forums but for the sake of argument taken at face value. Therefore, X is true.)

I never said I'm an expert, let alone that a statement is true because I'm the one saying it. In response to DT member Sutapasima's insults (live on imaginations ... enjoying fools paradise) directed at me, I informed her that I am literate at a higher level than the educational material she implied I wouldn't read, and this is not the place to teach a university-level subject.