First, This change will only be inacted onto Hindu Marriage Act. Other religions have their own marriage laws. Second,The mantras that say marriage between two gender, the kanyadaan process will not be applicable. Then how it can be marriage. Third, in this world, apart from logical reasoning, there is moral reasoning, social reasoning. That must be looked into too. Fourth, the logical thing is to create a whole new section, despite of any religion. It can't be called marriage, because it happens between two genders. Use a different word, different way of permission that allows LGBTQ+ to be together.
No. It won't be enacted into the Hindu Marriage Act. It will be incorporated through the special marriage act which is a non-religious act. Under that act only registration is necessary for solemnising the marriage. So, the religious requirements of a Hindu marriage can be done away with if someone gets married under the special marriage act.
Agree. Let them marry but no need for such confusion over genders. Also, I don’t think CJI meant to support this kind of confusion. It’s being taken out of context.
Bcs lesbians or gays are not gender connotation... It denotes a persons sexual preference. Only persons of unidentified gender are often referred to as the third gender. They do are considered of a third gender other than eng a man or a woman.
I did not go through the whole video, but looking at the thumbnail feel like you're trying to imply that the judges are trying to impose the law on us. If that is the case then I would not have expected that from an educated guy like you. Just going to buy them yet aspect of your living in 2023 and 1950 is my argument against you criticizing judges. We should all walk along with time and not live in old custom and traditions because of fear of a change which is correct but we do not have understanding of it.
The initial 'I did not go through the whole video' trivialises your whole comment don't you think? . I would suggest you watch the video fully once, then reasses your comment and let me know your thoughts. Looking forward to having a meaningful exchange after that.
Chime in with your point of view on the Issue. Do you agree with me? Or do you have a opposite viewpoint. Let's discuss
Was waiting for this❤
First, This change will only be inacted onto Hindu Marriage Act. Other religions have their own marriage laws.
Second,The mantras that say marriage between two gender, the kanyadaan process will not be applicable. Then how it can be marriage.
Third, in this world, apart from logical reasoning, there is moral reasoning, social reasoning. That must be looked into too.
Fourth, the logical thing is to create a whole new section, despite of any religion. It can't be called marriage, because it happens between two genders. Use a different word, different way of permission that allows LGBTQ+ to be together.
No. It won't be enacted into the Hindu Marriage Act. It will be incorporated through the special marriage act which is a non-religious act. Under that act only registration is necessary for solemnising the marriage. So, the religious requirements of a Hindu marriage can be done away with if someone gets married under the special marriage act.
This shows that you are not even aware what's going on in the court.
Abstain yourself from giving your opinions when you don't even know the petition.
As usual, excellent presentation❤
Thank you ❤️
🙏
Exactly my point
Fully agree
Agree. Let them marry but no need for such confusion over genders. Also, I don’t think CJI meant to support this kind of confusion. It’s being taken out of context.
Why we can not give LGBTQ community another gender whitout giving them male or female gender.
Bcs lesbians or gays are not gender connotation... It denotes a persons sexual preference. Only persons of unidentified gender are often referred to as the third gender. They do are considered of a third gender other than eng a man or a woman.
@@Lawveit Ok
transsexual is not exactly same as transgender
True...
I did not go through the whole video, but looking at the thumbnail feel like you're trying to imply that the judges are trying to impose the law on us. If that is the case then I would not have expected that from an educated guy like you. Just going to buy them yet aspect of your living in 2023 and 1950 is my argument against you criticizing judges. We should all walk along with time and not live in old custom and traditions because of fear of a change which is correct but we do not have understanding of it.
The initial 'I did not go through the whole video' trivialises your whole comment don't you think?
.
I would suggest you watch the video fully once, then reasses your comment and let me know your thoughts. Looking forward to having a meaningful exchange after that.
@@Lawveit Agree.. you were speaking sense
Who cares to listen 😂😂😂