04-06-2010, 09:49 AM
[quote name='Bharatvarsh2' date='03 April 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1270306138' post='105616']
Good decision.
In general Hindu society from what I know did not approve of it or place it on par with heterosexual relationships but they didn't kill or persecute them either. The current laws criminalizing it were from under Brit rule.
On the question of marriage I support privatization of all marriage, the people concerned can write up their own marriage contracts instead of letting the anti male family courts railroad men. So things like child support etc in case of divorce can be decided by a contract before the marriage takes place.
So if two gays want to have a private ceremony and call it "marriage" who cares, the society at large won't recognize it as marriage.
Gay's in general are obsessed with their sexuality & try to make it the focal point of their entire identity.
As I mentioned once it was in Canada I believe that a gay couple actually sued and won agains a private wedding photo business who said that they dont take photos of gay weddings. They are not happy to have their so called "wedding" but want to impose it on private businesses.
And if you have been to a so called gay neighborhood you see what I can only term as degenerate behavior (i.e male gays not lesbians) where you can guess that they are doing the hanky panky in public washrooms or parks. Male gays are very promiscous and hence the astronomically higher HIV rates among them compared to heterosexuals.
Their politics also tend to be very leftist/socialist, even in India they are big Congress supporters despite the fact that the Islamist allies of Congress would love to stone them to death. They are also just as intolerant as any xtian fundie if anyone questions the establishment version of homosexuality being innate or states facts about their high HIV rates etc.
Here is an example:
The concept of time preference mentioned above is explained here briefly:
[/quote]
You seem to be not very friendly towards homosexuality (you call them promiscous and degenerate behavaiour) but nevertheless you think a good decision by the court. If gays can privately marry should they be married in hindu temples?
Good decision.
In general Hindu society from what I know did not approve of it or place it on par with heterosexual relationships but they didn't kill or persecute them either. The current laws criminalizing it were from under Brit rule.
On the question of marriage I support privatization of all marriage, the people concerned can write up their own marriage contracts instead of letting the anti male family courts railroad men. So things like child support etc in case of divorce can be decided by a contract before the marriage takes place.
So if two gays want to have a private ceremony and call it "marriage" who cares, the society at large won't recognize it as marriage.
Gay's in general are obsessed with their sexuality & try to make it the focal point of their entire identity.
As I mentioned once it was in Canada I believe that a gay couple actually sued and won agains a private wedding photo business who said that they dont take photos of gay weddings. They are not happy to have their so called "wedding" but want to impose it on private businesses.
And if you have been to a so called gay neighborhood you see what I can only term as degenerate behavior (i.e male gays not lesbians) where you can guess that they are doing the hanky panky in public washrooms or parks. Male gays are very promiscous and hence the astronomically higher HIV rates among them compared to heterosexuals.
Their politics also tend to be very leftist/socialist, even in India they are big Congress supporters despite the fact that the Islamist allies of Congress would love to stone them to death. They are also just as intolerant as any xtian fundie if anyone questions the establishment version of homosexuality being innate or states facts about their high HIV rates etc.
Here is an example:
The concept of time preference mentioned above is explained here briefly:
[/quote]
You seem to be not very friendly towards homosexuality (you call them promiscous and degenerate behavaiour) but nevertheless you think a good decision by the court. If gays can privately marry should they be married in hindu temples?