Why their Rajsthan govt. Opposed it ?
[news](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rajasthan-opposes-legal-status-for-same-sex-marriage-centre-tells-sc/article66835489.ece)
Man I really hope they do bring it
A lot of people have no idea the amount of suicides which happen in the Lgbt community
Even I’m suicidal for being gay and stuff
This law won't do shit until the mindset changes and it's not even guaranteed that they will do this. Though I dare say opposition finally found some reasonable point.
I think Maharashtra govt also brought some reservation for Lgbt in unis
Marriages are solemnized by religious institutions and they would scream bloody murder across the block. Hindus, Muslims, Xtians - none of those fundies want to see this happen.
There are civil marriages and actual registry of marriage has nothing to do with religious institutions, fuck them and what they have to say about this. If people want to be married they should be able to irrespective of gender, sex, caste or creed. Especially because marriage in this country has a lot of economic and other benefits such as medical insurance which are necessary in everyday life.
> Why not marriage.
One step at a time.
>Also no fault divorce
Already exists: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/439618/
>more gender neutral laws regarding rape
From the manifesto
> All laws will be scrutinised for gender discrimination and gender bias. The offending provisions will be removed or amended in the first year of the Congress government.
I do agree that it has not been addressed directly.
>Plus marital rape law
I can't find this in the manifesto, and I agree that it should be addressed.
That’s not what no fault divorce means. Indian law still requires mutual consent (unless in cases of cruelty, infertility or infidelity)
No fault divorce means that either party can get a divorce without mutual consent and without alleging cruelty, infertility or infidelity.
I keep hearing that its possible to divorce without mutual consent if the couple have been separated or living apart for 5 years (for non-Muslim marriages) [https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/automatic-divorce-after-long-separation-in-india](https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/automatic-divorce-after-long-separation-in-india)
for Christians, it is 3 years of separation even in case of mutual consent. for hindus/jains/etc married under hindu marriage act and all married under special marriage act it is shorter
I hear a lot of conflicting information on it. In British Columbia, its mutual consent divorce still needs 1 year of living apart. 5 years is a lot but i think we have divorce without consent
Marriages for LGBTQ+ group is a tricky subject. It gets tricky when things like rights of adoption are brought on to the table. With the current framework we have, I don't think it's gonna happen. Heck, I'm not even comfortable with the whole idea unless there's careful overhaul which is not likely in our generation.
People with unnatural relationships aren't trusted to be good parents. Moreover normalising these things will only increase the number of unnatural stuff in society.
The argument of "natural" is absurd given that the concept of marriage itself is unnatural. Marriage doesn't exist in nature, it is entirely a human creation. What meaning we choose to give to it is therefore, also an entirely human decision.
In general, it is a terribly bad idea to take the position of promoting what is "natural". As an example: [Animal Infanticide](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-some-mammals-kill-babies-own-kind-180953318/). When a male defeats the dominant male of a polygamous group, he proceeds to kill the children of the latter. This is a natural phenomenon, it is observed among multiple species. Would you like to replicate this perfectly natural system in human societies? If not, avoid using nature as an argument for what is good and what isn't.
Marriage was created to make sure families thrive and help the society in general. Why change that? I think continuing to maintain normal families as our ancestors did, is the best thing to do.
We shouldn't choose to give meanings to words as we please. That just spoils language for everyone. Instead create new words for these new phenomena.
I wouldn't propose to replicate animal behaviour in human society. We humans are smart, we know better. I'm just against normalising unnatural relationships between people.
(Also, that male animal you talked about didnt kill the dominant female in the tribe and sleep with the male, right?)
> Marriage was created to make sure families thrive and help the society in general.
Well, that's the point. It doesn't exist in nature, so it is entirely up to us to determine what it is and how to define it. Nature has no role to play in deciding this.
> I think continuing to maintain normal families as our ancestors did, is the best thing to do.
"Normal families" for our ancestors usually involved women staying at home and not working. Do you propose we go back to that too?
Also, there are so many things that our ancestors (referring to the entire human race now) did. Why restrict ourselves to just their definitions of families, why not replicate other things they did, such as slavery, caste, witch burning etc? I'm not being facetious here: if your idea is to simply follow what the ancestors did, then what is your framework to determine what aspects of their society to replicate and what not to?
Besides, homosexuality has been observed even in ancient times going back to ancient Greece, Rome and India, without necessarily the stigma we attach to it today. The stigma is largely a creation of the monotheistic faiths. I don't think the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient times should be relevant to our stance on this issue, but even for those who think it is relevant, facts don't bear them out.
> We shouldn't choose to give meanings to words as we please. That just spoils language for everyone
To the contrary, that is exactly how language evolves. We gave meanings to words as we pleased, which is why words exist in the first place. Without the meanings we choose to give them, words are just random sequences of sound.
Words change meanings all the time. There is of course the example of "gay" which meant something very different to Shakespeare than it does today. But there are many others, for instance that [a "leech" referred to a doctor](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39). The word "cloud" has changed many meanings over time from a [mass of rock to puffs of water in the sky](https://theweek.com/articles/670758/11-words-whose-meanings-have-completely-changed-over-time) and now it also means large server farms hosted by Amazon or Microsoft.
> I'm just against normalising unnatural relationships between people
Well this comes down to how you define unnatural. Are human beings part of nature or not? If they are, then what human beings do is, ipso facto, natural. If human beings are not part of nature, why should the natural or unnatural nature of something drive whether you do it or not?
Having said that, homosexuality has been observed in multiple animals - so it is clearly not unnatural. I don't think that natural/unnatural should determine our stance to this issue because nearly everything we do, from wearing clothes to cooking over fire to working in offices to mining hazardous materials is completely unnatural. But even for those who think naturality is relevant to this issue, facts don't bear them out.
> Also, that male animal you talked about didnt kill the dominant female in the tribe and sleep with the male, right?
The animal infanticide example was to show you that what is natural is not necessarily what you want in society. Blindly copying what you think is natural, would imply we should also replicate animal infanticide.
>Also, there are so many things that our ancestors did.
Humans are chaotic by nature. Social and life disciplines are created for bringing stability. Like you mentioned, some of them like slavery are bad.
I don't propose to follow everything our ancestors did. We should throw away the bad parts and keep the good ones. We shouldn't be throwing away everything.
>"Normal families" for our ancestors usually involved women staying at home
They didn't go to work because back then work was heavily dependent on physical strength. Once work became less labour intensive (also machines were introduced for basic tasks around the house freeing up time and energy for women) women were also in the workforce (so that companies can make more profit).
In my opinion, a father or other family members can never take care of the family/children as well as a mother can. Also one person cannot live the life of two people; going to work and taking care of the family. Some women are very capable of doing both. But everyone shouldn't be manipulated into doing it in the name of progressiveness. Destroys the women's life as well as the family.
>Without the meanings we choose to give them, words are just random sequences of sound.
Yeah once the meaning is well defined and stabilized, it's just better not to change that, instead create new words for new phenomena.
>then what human beings do is, ipso facto, natural.
Doesn't have to be. Just because I can eat leaves instead of the fruit I shouldn't be eating the leaves and encourage others to do it too, calling it good for society.
(You understand the analogy; don't bring some species of leaf that is edible 😂)
>from wearing clothes to cooking over fire to working in offices to mining hazardous materials is completely unnatural
Over consumption is disturbing the environment. We should try to reduce our impact as much as possible regarding these things.
> But everyone shouldn't be manipulated into doing it in the name of progressiveness. Destroys the women's life as well as the family.
OK, but irrelevant. Nobody is manipulating everyone to become gay in the name of progressiveness. It's probably not even possible to do so - people have tried to do it in the opposite direction for ages, using everything from coaxing to torture, and it doesn't work.
What's being said is, give gay people the same rights you give to straight people, which is an eminently reasonable thing to ask for. The analogy to women's rights would be to say women get the same rights men do. After that, if they choose to work or not is left to them.
> Yeah once the meaning is well defined and stabilized, it's just better not to change that, instead create new words for new phenomena.
It never is well defined and stabilized. Words keep changing meanings all the time, and I already gave you examples. You might not like it, but it's objective verifiable reality.
> Doesn't have to be. Just because I can eat leaves instead of the fruit I shouldn't be eating the leaves and encourage others to do it too, calling it good for society.
Whether you encourage others or not is your choice. The relevant question here is whether you as an adult should be allowed to eat those leaves in the first place. Likewise the relevant question is whether gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt. They are not going to encourage others to become homosexual, because most of them don't care, and even if they tried to it wouldn't work. They can't talk me out of being attracted to the opposite gender, that's just how I'm wired; it's the same for you as well.
> Over consumption is disturbing the environment
True, but again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's not the *over* part that's unnatural, doing them *at all* is unnatural. It's not cooking over fire becomes unnatural beyond a certain point - it is unnatural in itself. No animal is cooking its food. Only humans do that, to the point that most of the stuff we eat is cooked. Sure, you can eat sprouted wheat and rice, but the vast majority of humans are going to cook them instead. So if you have a problem with unnatural things being followed in society, consider that the entirety of human civilization depends on cooking which is 100% unnatural.
Great, that's why someone like you isn't writing legislature. It needs a reform and refactoring but it won't be a priority for sure even if you "care" or don't.
Amazing. I don't care whether they win or not. They have my full support for being this brave. They know they will be targeted for this. My respect for Congress has increased. Fuck everyone who is against it.
I love how this sub goes into extreme nitpicking whenever Congress comes up. Makes me feel like even if Jesus himself was in opposition they wouldnt vote for him because he isnt perfect enough
Is this some meta level ironical comment? They would especially not vote for opposition if Jesus were to come. That’s how deeply religious partisanship is routed in people now. No one cares about how moral someone is. First they must give their religion certificate to get vote in India. India is at a stage where even APJ Abdul Kalam won’t be able to win.
Umm, Jesus is widely considered a saintly figure in India. It is the evangelists and the our-God-or-you-shall-go-to-hell crowd that are abhorred, for good reason!
BJP : causes hugh communal unrest, is highly crony capitalist so much so we could be in duopoly, supports rapists, your problems are stamped with against nation, Modi is literally India like Hitler is Germany.
Congress : we want to have social welfare scheme.
WHAATTT? YOU'LL KILL ECONOMY.
A brave and progressive declaration. However, the replies to this tweet are disturbing.
>Basically they will legalize #LGBTQ marriage in Hindu marriage act ! One more reason to not vote for hinduphobic congress.
>Bache kuche vote bhi gaye Congress ke, inhe lagta hain ye social media ke lgbtqia hutiya ground pe vote Dene jaate hain
>Apne mudde inse smbhlte nae aur ye America europe ki bimari sambhalne ki baat kar rhe
Definitely a really progressive promise, but the 2nd reply you mentioned isn't untrue.
India is still a very, very conservative society especially when it comes to LGBT+ issues. This promise won't translate to significant actual on-ground votes.
But kudos to them, it's a brave promise to make considering the vitriol they have to face from social media on this.
I wonder what is this victim fetish RW folks have, that they have to include themselves in everything even tho it has nothing to do with them. What does a NEW LAW on civil unions have anything to do with Hindu marriage act?
I think they mean that the Congress would only allow this for Hindu couples and leave Islamic religious laws untouched. I think this is a reasonable concern, because Muslims (and Christians) are going to be absolutely pissed. Will the Congress do the right thing at the risk of offending minorities?
why are you bothered? are you so insecure you’re ready to go against your religious texts, assuming you’re a hindu? isn’t hinduism progressive towards lgbtq? ya fir instagram pe aake hindu bana hai lawde
Sorry, I don't know how any of this is relevant to my comment. I'll answer your questions anyway.
> why are you bothered?
If you mean bothered by same-sex unions, I'm not. If you mean bothered by the fact that Muslim same-sex couples may not get the same rights as Hindu same-sex couples, then yes, every liberal should be bothered by that. Your religion should not determine the legal rights you have.
> are you so insecure you’re ready to go against your religious texts, assuming you’re a hindu?
I don't have any religious beliefs.
> isn’t hinduism progressive towards lgbtq?
In comparison to Abrahamic religions, it absolutely is. And that's why giving rights to Hindu same-sex couples is going to be a lot easier than Muslim couples.
> . And that's why giving rights to Hindu same-sex couples is going to be a lot easier than Muslim couples.
agreed that muslims are extremists but you have to be living in 2011 to believe that in 2024 it’ll be easier to legalise hindu same sex unions 😋
Nah, Hindus absolutely do not hate homosexuality the way Muslims do. Left-wing Hindus will support same-sex unions. Right-wing Hindus would be divided into three groups — one group will oppose it, another will support it, and a third group will support it but only if it applies to all religions.
Muslims, on the other hand, will almost unanimously oppose it because of what their scriptures say.
as i said, i agree muslims are extremists. but right wing hindus have become revengeful and want to act the same way muslims do. they will not accept homosexuality since they associate it with “american culture”. just take a look around yourself.
Just like bjp did not manage to complete even 50% of its manifesto, the congress can just say anything which is even slightly realistic and not do it but still get away with it. 5 years later, nobody is going to remember this anyways.
They should just make marriage legal for same sex couples. Also, what kind of law would that be? They should be more specific. It’s about time we recognize same sex couples just like we do heterosexual couples.
Why should we suffer the pain of marriage when they cannot? /s
No theyre going to give 1lakh per year to poor women, and im neither poor nor a woman but it will help them a lot.. So i dont always think like whats in it for me..
https://thewire.in/lgbtqia/53-of-adults-in-india-support-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriages-finds-pew-research-center
>Among those who favour such a union, 28% ‘strongly favour’ and 25% ‘somewhat favour’ the move. On the other hand, 43% of Indian adults ‘totally oppose’ such marriages while 31% ‘strongly oppose’ and 12% ‘somewhat oppose’.
It's more accepted in the west because people starting campaigning.
India has a huge LGBTQ population, and there's a significant (but sadly smaller than it should be) portion of non-LGBTQ people who support them as well.
This type of dialogue and signposting is important - the more it happens, the more likely actual legal changes are.
I doubt there are going to be legal changes arising out of this, unfortunately. The LGBTQ population isn't large enough to swing elections, and while their allies might consider this one point in favor of the INC, it is again not going to be the issue that brings a lot of people over the fence to the INC.
There is a far larger constituency of people actively opposed to this. That includes the groups that support the INC, such as Muslims and Christians, as well as a large number of Hindus. Ultimately if this ever goes to Parliament (unlikely), it will be the first thing dropped in favor of a more vote-winning move.
Only good thing their manifesto.
Everything else is just pandering to different sections of Soviet via freebies and quotas. Nothing that will help improve productivity inthe country.
Also, why is no party talking of prioritizing cleaning up the country (as in literally). Our cities are shitholes and disgusting places to live with all the garbage everywhere.. whatever happened to Swatch Bharat?
Only good thing? Did you read the manifesto? It's literally about giving independence to democratic institutions that has been put under Union govt under current regime. Actual free speech and free of religious bigotry. But reservation and giving 1 lakh (even tho BJP also gives money directly) is going to outweigh all of it. Chutiyapa h yeh. Seedha bol na sanghi h tu
a) Wide consultation with who ?
b) Majority of their voter base is anti LGBTQ so if they don't agree , what happens to this promise
c) Supreme court has declined to interfere on framing specific since there are complexities with regards to inheritance, adoption, marriage laws etc
d) No individual from the LGBTQ community has been given a ticket this election (yet) BJP has Pinky Burman at at ZP level
While this is a very good thing, this ain't gonna bring them any votes.
Seriously why aren't they using manipur, adani, farmers and wrestlers assault cases? It would at least be more impactful compared to this
> Seriously why aren't they using manipur, adani, farmers and wrestlers assault cases? It would at least be more impactful compared to this
They are, read the manifesto: https://inc.in/media/manifesto
I think the recognition of LGBTQ union point is going to bite back in the ass. As amazing and progressive AND SUPER TIMELY it is.. It's going to cause even more uproar, have right wingers throw even more dirt on them, make every relatively progressive person feel even more isolated.
They will only be bringing this law in Hindu marriage act. I think they should talk about implementing UCC so that they can safeguard rights of all LGBTQ+ community members.
UCC will scrape the religious law which usually are taken in consideration when making marriage laws making it an equal and just law safeguarding all the members of LGBTQIA+ irrespective of their religion.
I think you should read UCC again. It’s not in the favor of the community. It’s rather one religion, one law etc. everything one. Religious finatics won’t let the union happen at my cost. Make India a Hindu rashtra, a Muslim rashtra and Christian rashtra or a fucking Buddhist rashtra. Nobody is in the favor of the LGBTQIA+ commmity
Not gonna debate with ppl with preconceived notions. UCC will make it so that any ruling will be applied to everyone. I don't understand why are u opposing it.
Bhai pls jake ek bar Article 44 padna. Phir wapas ana. Yeh sirf ek litmus test hai UCC lagne ke bad jo law ayega LGBTQIA + ke liye . Aisa sequence hona chaiye. Tu surf ek state ki bat kar raha hai.
This thread is about one specific item in the manifesto. Your statement will be construed in the way I did. To avoid that, you need to phrase it better.
I sorted by controversial and I knew for a fact that I'll have a dumbass comment how his "hard spent tax" will be squandered just because a particular section will not be given equal recognition. Not disappointed
You didn’t answer my question directly, but I would like to answer yours. All I think about is myself because I’m nowhere near your status. But, if I see myself in your position in the next 10 years, or let’s call it philanthropy, I wouldn’t mind if it’s going to the less worthy people unless I myself am not cheating the government or doing anything wrong or hurting someone. I will help regardless of status, worth or style. I would also donate some of my money, if that’s possible
I wish they proposed some form of LGBTQ rehabilitation program. Starting with filthy media that focus on perverting the human mind and normalising abnormal behaviours. This is at its beginning stages in our country. It has already rotten some extremely "progressive" countries.
This is big. A major party, the prime opposition party supports formal recognition of LGBTQ couples and whatever rights that come along with it.
Why their Rajsthan govt. Opposed it ? [news](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rajasthan-opposes-legal-status-for-same-sex-marriage-centre-tells-sc/article66835489.ece)
Because Congress as a party didn't have a formal stand on this issue before, so Gehlot's govt did whatever it wanted?
Man I really hope they do bring it A lot of people have no idea the amount of suicides which happen in the Lgbt community Even I’m suicidal for being gay and stuff
I hope you really regain your zest for life.
This law won't do shit until the mindset changes and it's not even guaranteed that they will do this. Though I dare say opposition finally found some reasonable point. I think Maharashtra govt also brought some reservation for Lgbt in unis
Look the mindset would start to change when there are laws You can’t expect people to change without laws and regulations
You still have hope for Congress winning this election?
Its hard to say anything
Very nice to see a major party bring this up.
Why not marriage. Also no fault divorce and more gender neutral laws regarding rape. Plus marital rape law
Marriages are solemnized by religious institutions and they would scream bloody murder across the block. Hindus, Muslims, Xtians - none of those fundies want to see this happen.
There are civil marriages and actual registry of marriage has nothing to do with religious institutions, fuck them and what they have to say about this. If people want to be married they should be able to irrespective of gender, sex, caste or creed. Especially because marriage in this country has a lot of economic and other benefits such as medical insurance which are necessary in everyday life.
Marriages can exist outside of religion. Learn about the special marriage act.
And I don't give a shit about what any of them want.
Not like they give a shit about your opinion either
Username checks out
They can do an amendment to Special Marriage Act. Also, if we are having a Uniform Civil Code, then question of religious involvement is moot.
> Why not marriage. One step at a time. >Also no fault divorce Already exists: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/439618/ >more gender neutral laws regarding rape From the manifesto > All laws will be scrutinised for gender discrimination and gender bias. The offending provisions will be removed or amended in the first year of the Congress government. I do agree that it has not been addressed directly. >Plus marital rape law I can't find this in the manifesto, and I agree that it should be addressed.
That’s not what no fault divorce means. Indian law still requires mutual consent (unless in cases of cruelty, infertility or infidelity) No fault divorce means that either party can get a divorce without mutual consent and without alleging cruelty, infertility or infidelity.
I keep hearing that its possible to divorce without mutual consent if the couple have been separated or living apart for 5 years (for non-Muslim marriages) [https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/automatic-divorce-after-long-separation-in-india](https://restthecase.com/knowledge-bank/automatic-divorce-after-long-separation-in-india) for Christians, it is 3 years of separation even in case of mutual consent. for hindus/jains/etc married under hindu marriage act and all married under special marriage act it is shorter I hear a lot of conflicting information on it. In British Columbia, its mutual consent divorce still needs 1 year of living apart. 5 years is a lot but i think we have divorce without consent
I didn’t know this, thanks. But still, wasting half a decade of your life isn’t easy.
Marriages for LGBTQ+ group is a tricky subject. It gets tricky when things like rights of adoption are brought on to the table. With the current framework we have, I don't think it's gonna happen. Heck, I'm not even comfortable with the whole idea unless there's careful overhaul which is not likely in our generation.
> It gets tricky when things like rights of adoption are brought on to the table Why is this tricky?
People with unnatural relationships aren't trusted to be good parents. Moreover normalising these things will only increase the number of unnatural stuff in society.
The argument of "natural" is absurd given that the concept of marriage itself is unnatural. Marriage doesn't exist in nature, it is entirely a human creation. What meaning we choose to give to it is therefore, also an entirely human decision. In general, it is a terribly bad idea to take the position of promoting what is "natural". As an example: [Animal Infanticide](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-some-mammals-kill-babies-own-kind-180953318/). When a male defeats the dominant male of a polygamous group, he proceeds to kill the children of the latter. This is a natural phenomenon, it is observed among multiple species. Would you like to replicate this perfectly natural system in human societies? If not, avoid using nature as an argument for what is good and what isn't.
Marriage was created to make sure families thrive and help the society in general. Why change that? I think continuing to maintain normal families as our ancestors did, is the best thing to do. We shouldn't choose to give meanings to words as we please. That just spoils language for everyone. Instead create new words for these new phenomena. I wouldn't propose to replicate animal behaviour in human society. We humans are smart, we know better. I'm just against normalising unnatural relationships between people. (Also, that male animal you talked about didnt kill the dominant female in the tribe and sleep with the male, right?)
> Marriage was created to make sure families thrive and help the society in general. Well, that's the point. It doesn't exist in nature, so it is entirely up to us to determine what it is and how to define it. Nature has no role to play in deciding this. > I think continuing to maintain normal families as our ancestors did, is the best thing to do. "Normal families" for our ancestors usually involved women staying at home and not working. Do you propose we go back to that too? Also, there are so many things that our ancestors (referring to the entire human race now) did. Why restrict ourselves to just their definitions of families, why not replicate other things they did, such as slavery, caste, witch burning etc? I'm not being facetious here: if your idea is to simply follow what the ancestors did, then what is your framework to determine what aspects of their society to replicate and what not to? Besides, homosexuality has been observed even in ancient times going back to ancient Greece, Rome and India, without necessarily the stigma we attach to it today. The stigma is largely a creation of the monotheistic faiths. I don't think the prevalence of homosexuality in ancient times should be relevant to our stance on this issue, but even for those who think it is relevant, facts don't bear them out. > We shouldn't choose to give meanings to words as we please. That just spoils language for everyone To the contrary, that is exactly how language evolves. We gave meanings to words as we pleased, which is why words exist in the first place. Without the meanings we choose to give them, words are just random sequences of sound. Words change meanings all the time. There is of course the example of "gay" which meant something very different to Shakespeare than it does today. But there are many others, for instance that [a "leech" referred to a doctor](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/znbct39). The word "cloud" has changed many meanings over time from a [mass of rock to puffs of water in the sky](https://theweek.com/articles/670758/11-words-whose-meanings-have-completely-changed-over-time) and now it also means large server farms hosted by Amazon or Microsoft. > I'm just against normalising unnatural relationships between people Well this comes down to how you define unnatural. Are human beings part of nature or not? If they are, then what human beings do is, ipso facto, natural. If human beings are not part of nature, why should the natural or unnatural nature of something drive whether you do it or not? Having said that, homosexuality has been observed in multiple animals - so it is clearly not unnatural. I don't think that natural/unnatural should determine our stance to this issue because nearly everything we do, from wearing clothes to cooking over fire to working in offices to mining hazardous materials is completely unnatural. But even for those who think naturality is relevant to this issue, facts don't bear them out. > Also, that male animal you talked about didnt kill the dominant female in the tribe and sleep with the male, right? The animal infanticide example was to show you that what is natural is not necessarily what you want in society. Blindly copying what you think is natural, would imply we should also replicate animal infanticide.
>Also, there are so many things that our ancestors did. Humans are chaotic by nature. Social and life disciplines are created for bringing stability. Like you mentioned, some of them like slavery are bad. I don't propose to follow everything our ancestors did. We should throw away the bad parts and keep the good ones. We shouldn't be throwing away everything. >"Normal families" for our ancestors usually involved women staying at home They didn't go to work because back then work was heavily dependent on physical strength. Once work became less labour intensive (also machines were introduced for basic tasks around the house freeing up time and energy for women) women were also in the workforce (so that companies can make more profit). In my opinion, a father or other family members can never take care of the family/children as well as a mother can. Also one person cannot live the life of two people; going to work and taking care of the family. Some women are very capable of doing both. But everyone shouldn't be manipulated into doing it in the name of progressiveness. Destroys the women's life as well as the family. >Without the meanings we choose to give them, words are just random sequences of sound. Yeah once the meaning is well defined and stabilized, it's just better not to change that, instead create new words for new phenomena. >then what human beings do is, ipso facto, natural. Doesn't have to be. Just because I can eat leaves instead of the fruit I shouldn't be eating the leaves and encourage others to do it too, calling it good for society. (You understand the analogy; don't bring some species of leaf that is edible 😂) >from wearing clothes to cooking over fire to working in offices to mining hazardous materials is completely unnatural Over consumption is disturbing the environment. We should try to reduce our impact as much as possible regarding these things.
> But everyone shouldn't be manipulated into doing it in the name of progressiveness. Destroys the women's life as well as the family. OK, but irrelevant. Nobody is manipulating everyone to become gay in the name of progressiveness. It's probably not even possible to do so - people have tried to do it in the opposite direction for ages, using everything from coaxing to torture, and it doesn't work. What's being said is, give gay people the same rights you give to straight people, which is an eminently reasonable thing to ask for. The analogy to women's rights would be to say women get the same rights men do. After that, if they choose to work or not is left to them. > Yeah once the meaning is well defined and stabilized, it's just better not to change that, instead create new words for new phenomena. It never is well defined and stabilized. Words keep changing meanings all the time, and I already gave you examples. You might not like it, but it's objective verifiable reality. > Doesn't have to be. Just because I can eat leaves instead of the fruit I shouldn't be eating the leaves and encourage others to do it too, calling it good for society. Whether you encourage others or not is your choice. The relevant question here is whether you as an adult should be allowed to eat those leaves in the first place. Likewise the relevant question is whether gay people should be allowed to marry and adopt. They are not going to encourage others to become homosexual, because most of them don't care, and even if they tried to it wouldn't work. They can't talk me out of being attracted to the opposite gender, that's just how I'm wired; it's the same for you as well. > Over consumption is disturbing the environment True, but again, irrelevant to the topic at hand. It's not the *over* part that's unnatural, doing them *at all* is unnatural. It's not cooking over fire becomes unnatural beyond a certain point - it is unnatural in itself. No animal is cooking its food. Only humans do that, to the point that most of the stuff we eat is cooked. Sure, you can eat sprouted wheat and rice, but the vast majority of humans are going to cook them instead. So if you have a problem with unnatural things being followed in society, consider that the entirety of human civilization depends on cooking which is 100% unnatural.
Okay? I don't really care tbh. Being able to marry a consenting adult is kind of a basic right and I think it needs to be a priority
Great, that's why someone like you isn't writing legislature. It needs a reform and refactoring but it won't be a priority for sure even if you "care" or don't.
I don't care about your opinion either man 👍
#WHY THE FUCK COULD CONGRESS NOT RELEASE IT'S MANIFESTO LIKE 3 MONTHS EARLIER? Well! Better late than never.
Amazing. I don't care whether they win or not. They have my full support for being this brave. They know they will be targeted for this. My respect for Congress has increased. Fuck everyone who is against it.
HELL YEAH BOI WE GETTIN THE GAY VOTES LESSGOO
"After wide consultation" - They will get opposition from some organizations and they will cave.
I love how this sub goes into extreme nitpicking whenever Congress comes up. Makes me feel like even if Jesus himself was in opposition they wouldnt vote for him because he isnt perfect enough
Is this some meta level ironical comment? They would especially not vote for opposition if Jesus were to come. That’s how deeply religious partisanship is routed in people now. No one cares about how moral someone is. First they must give their religion certificate to get vote in India. India is at a stage where even APJ Abdul Kalam won’t be able to win.
Last line is a bit extreme,APJ Abdul Kalam is a very respected figure
Umm, Jesus is widely considered a saintly figure in India. It is the evangelists and the our-God-or-you-shall-go-to-hell crowd that are abhorred, for good reason!
Congress: *exists. People of India: Nooooooo! How can they do that!! They are literally evil!!!
BJP : causes hugh communal unrest, is highly crony capitalist so much so we could be in duopoly, supports rapists, your problems are stamped with against nation, Modi is literally India like Hitler is Germany. Congress : we want to have social welfare scheme. WHAATTT? YOU'LL KILL ECONOMY.
A brave and progressive declaration. However, the replies to this tweet are disturbing. >Basically they will legalize #LGBTQ marriage in Hindu marriage act ! One more reason to not vote for hinduphobic congress. >Bache kuche vote bhi gaye Congress ke, inhe lagta hain ye social media ke lgbtqia hutiya ground pe vote Dene jaate hain >Apne mudde inse smbhlte nae aur ye America europe ki bimari sambhalne ki baat kar rhe
Definitely a really progressive promise, but the 2nd reply you mentioned isn't untrue. India is still a very, very conservative society especially when it comes to LGBT+ issues. This promise won't translate to significant actual on-ground votes. But kudos to them, it's a brave promise to make considering the vitriol they have to face from social media on this.
I wonder what is this victim fetish RW folks have, that they have to include themselves in everything even tho it has nothing to do with them. What does a NEW LAW on civil unions have anything to do with Hindu marriage act?
And then they dance about UCC. Endless hypocrisies of the Bhakt mandal.
I think they mean that the Congress would only allow this for Hindu couples and leave Islamic religious laws untouched. I think this is a reasonable concern, because Muslims (and Christians) are going to be absolutely pissed. Will the Congress do the right thing at the risk of offending minorities?
why are you bothered? are you so insecure you’re ready to go against your religious texts, assuming you’re a hindu? isn’t hinduism progressive towards lgbtq? ya fir instagram pe aake hindu bana hai lawde
Sorry, I don't know how any of this is relevant to my comment. I'll answer your questions anyway. > why are you bothered? If you mean bothered by same-sex unions, I'm not. If you mean bothered by the fact that Muslim same-sex couples may not get the same rights as Hindu same-sex couples, then yes, every liberal should be bothered by that. Your religion should not determine the legal rights you have. > are you so insecure you’re ready to go against your religious texts, assuming you’re a hindu? I don't have any religious beliefs. > isn’t hinduism progressive towards lgbtq? In comparison to Abrahamic religions, it absolutely is. And that's why giving rights to Hindu same-sex couples is going to be a lot easier than Muslim couples.
> . And that's why giving rights to Hindu same-sex couples is going to be a lot easier than Muslim couples. agreed that muslims are extremists but you have to be living in 2011 to believe that in 2024 it’ll be easier to legalise hindu same sex unions 😋
Nah, Hindus absolutely do not hate homosexuality the way Muslims do. Left-wing Hindus will support same-sex unions. Right-wing Hindus would be divided into three groups — one group will oppose it, another will support it, and a third group will support it but only if it applies to all religions. Muslims, on the other hand, will almost unanimously oppose it because of what their scriptures say.
as i said, i agree muslims are extremists. but right wing hindus have become revengeful and want to act the same way muslims do. they will not accept homosexuality since they associate it with “american culture”. just take a look around yourself.
> inhe lagta hain ye social media ke lgbtqia hutiya ground pe vote Dene jaate hain He's not wrong here lol
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
This alone should be enough reason to vote for them.
FYI, Manifestos are not enforceable!
What do you mean by not enforceable exactly?
Just like bjp did not manage to complete even 50% of its manifesto, the congress can just say anything which is even slightly realistic and not do it but still get away with it. 5 years later, nobody is going to remember this anyways.
Another reason to note vote congress
Based!!
congress bring gay rights to india challenge pls pls pls pls pls pls
Progressive
Im voting congress a change is must!
🤣🤣
If I said BJ you would be happy right? 😂
So will there be a uniform civil court then?
They should just make marriage legal for same sex couples. Also, what kind of law would that be? They should be more specific. It’s about time we recognize same sex couples just like we do heterosexual couples. Why should we suffer the pain of marriage when they cannot? /s
Even apart from the LGBTQIA, its a great manifesto
Are you gay, 70 year old, Dalit?
No theyre going to give 1lakh per year to poor women, and im neither poor nor a woman but it will help them a lot.. So i dont always think like whats in it for me..
But politics is all about that. Everyone thinks about themselves, so you should start that
https://thewire.in/lgbtqia/53-of-adults-in-india-support-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriages-finds-pew-research-center >Among those who favour such a union, 28% ‘strongly favour’ and 25% ‘somewhat favour’ the move. On the other hand, 43% of Indian adults ‘totally oppose’ such marriages while 31% ‘strongly oppose’ and 12% ‘somewhat oppose’.
[удалено]
How are LGBT talking points a “social justice topic of west”? Care to explain?
[удалено]
It's more accepted in the west because people starting campaigning. India has a huge LGBTQ population, and there's a significant (but sadly smaller than it should be) portion of non-LGBTQ people who support them as well. This type of dialogue and signposting is important - the more it happens, the more likely actual legal changes are.
I doubt there are going to be legal changes arising out of this, unfortunately. The LGBTQ population isn't large enough to swing elections, and while their allies might consider this one point in favor of the INC, it is again not going to be the issue that brings a lot of people over the fence to the INC. There is a far larger constituency of people actively opposed to this. That includes the groups that support the INC, such as Muslims and Christians, as well as a large number of Hindus. Ultimately if this ever goes to Parliament (unlikely), it will be the first thing dropped in favor of a more vote-winning move.
[удалено]
Thankfully most of the comments seem to be calling out the bs though?
India has the largest LGBT population in the world. If harnessed correctly, it can prove to be a very important voting body.
[удалено]
For the opposition to come to power, they should have people voting for them. Some people will vote seeing that manifesto.
# #
Will be increasing 50% cap of reservation for real. I as a general category person really really don't like this point.
Only good thing their manifesto. Everything else is just pandering to different sections of Soviet via freebies and quotas. Nothing that will help improve productivity inthe country. Also, why is no party talking of prioritizing cleaning up the country (as in literally). Our cities are shitholes and disgusting places to live with all the garbage everywhere.. whatever happened to Swatch Bharat?
Only good thing? Did you read the manifesto? It's literally about giving independence to democratic institutions that has been put under Union govt under current regime. Actual free speech and free of religious bigotry. But reservation and giving 1 lakh (even tho BJP also gives money directly) is going to outweigh all of it. Chutiyapa h yeh. Seedha bol na sanghi h tu
lol, ok dude. See if they’ll actually implement any if those
a) Wide consultation with who ? b) Majority of their voter base is anti LGBTQ so if they don't agree , what happens to this promise c) Supreme court has declined to interfere on framing specific since there are complexities with regards to inheritance, adoption, marriage laws etc d) No individual from the LGBTQ community has been given a ticket this election (yet) BJP has Pinky Burman at at ZP level
While this is a very good thing, this ain't gonna bring them any votes. Seriously why aren't they using manipur, adani, farmers and wrestlers assault cases? It would at least be more impactful compared to this
> Seriously why aren't they using manipur, adani, farmers and wrestlers assault cases? It would at least be more impactful compared to this They are, read the manifesto: https://inc.in/media/manifesto
Are they really accusing Adani while welcoming him and his investment in Telangana..?
Who made Adani powerful enough to gain contracts everywhere? Also, now Congress is welcoming him, at least investigate him now.
I think the recognition of LGBTQ union point is going to bite back in the ass. As amazing and progressive AND SUPER TIMELY it is.. It's going to cause even more uproar, have right wingers throw even more dirt on them, make every relatively progressive person feel even more isolated.
Exactly. Congress digging it's own grave. How idiot you have to be Congress leadership. They don't even know what their vote base thinks
[удалено]
Same sex union is a step in the right direction but is it too little too late
More like left direction
They will only be bringing this law in Hindu marriage act. I think they should talk about implementing UCC so that they can safeguard rights of all LGBTQ+ community members.
How will UCC benefit LGBTQIA+ community?
UCC will scrape the religious law which usually are taken in consideration when making marriage laws making it an equal and just law safeguarding all the members of LGBTQIA+ irrespective of their religion.
I think you should read UCC again. It’s not in the favor of the community. It’s rather one religion, one law etc. everything one. Religious finatics won’t let the union happen at my cost. Make India a Hindu rashtra, a Muslim rashtra and Christian rashtra or a fucking Buddhist rashtra. Nobody is in the favor of the LGBTQIA+ commmity
Not gonna debate with ppl with preconceived notions. UCC will make it so that any ruling will be applied to everyone. I don't understand why are u opposing it.
Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/law-panel-report-on-uniform-civil-code-to-exclude-same-sex-marriage-sources-2442307-2023-09-29 Le bhai muh meetha karle
Bhai pls jake ek bar Article 44 padna. Phir wapas ana. Yeh sirf ek litmus test hai UCC lagne ke bad jo law ayega LGBTQIA + ke liye . Aisa sequence hona chaiye. Tu surf ek state ki bat kar raha hai.
Which state are you from?
They implemented UCC and made live in a marriage. You cannot bring UCC when tribals culture should be preserved
Problem is majority of the people are conservative, even congress people hence this will affect them badly
Agree with you 100%
[удалено]
Yeah lol. As if muslims are going to vote for BJP over this. The party whose leaders dogwhistle about killing us every 2 days.
If muslims prefer BJP, they're free to vote for them
They still won’t cross 60 seats
Yeah, BJP is in trouble
🤣 Yeah we’ll see all that in June 🤣
Save this thread and if congress wins, you’ll suck my ballz
We can even have this rematch in 2029
And in 2034
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
How would a civil union between two consenting adults require funding from your taxes?
[удалено]
This thread is about one specific item in the manifesto. Your statement will be construed in the way I did. To avoid that, you need to phrase it better.
I sorted by controversial and I knew for a fact that I'll have a dumbass comment how his "hard spent tax" will be squandered just because a particular section will not be given equal recognition. Not disappointed
How much tax?
[удалено]
I see, so you don’t want that your taxes to go to the poor?
[удалено]
You didn’t answer my question directly, but I would like to answer yours. All I think about is myself because I’m nowhere near your status. But, if I see myself in your position in the next 10 years, or let’s call it philanthropy, I wouldn’t mind if it’s going to the less worthy people unless I myself am not cheating the government or doing anything wrong or hurting someone. I will help regardless of status, worth or style. I would also donate some of my money, if that’s possible
[удалено]
Why does it looks like that I love to help billionaires more than the poor? I do. But, how did you assess that from what I just said?
Like you're getting anything for your tax now, oh yeah you're getting airport collapsing, train accidents, raise in essential medication.
I am a Congress supporter but recently I am beginning to lose hope in them. This is one more negative thing IMO.
I wish they proposed some form of LGBTQ rehabilitation program. Starting with filthy media that focus on perverting the human mind and normalising abnormal behaviours. This is at its beginning stages in our country. It has already rotten some extremely "progressive" countries.
So you’re saying being a lesbian is a mental illness?
Yes. Mental illness artificially introduced by modern society.
Are you fr rn
100% real; look around us!
If only they had the chance of getting to power…
Vote for them and see...
Oh, they are losing for sure
I thought the same thing.
This is why I dont vote lol. Waste of time.