Re: [IAC#RG] Definition of "Hindu"

Well, we seem to have a fundamental disconnect on what marriage is.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

If Muslim Personal Law is better than Christian Personal Law then more Christian's will convert to Islam than the other way around. every religion is guaranteed the fundamental right to propagate itself and personal law is one of the components of that propagation process.

I disagree with the whole "personal law" business. People must be equal under law. The idea of separate laws for separate people and conversions to take advantage across them is something that further highlights differences and creates a sense of opportunist exploitation of religion on one hand, while it adds to inter religion rivalry. This, in my belief is not so good for the country.

Laws cannot be the same for everyone till the Constitution is radically amended.

Agree. 

2. There should be separation of religion and state and complete freedom to practice the religion of choice or invent new religions and this should not be the business of the state.

Its already there except for a few token things like Haj subsidy - which is balanced out by Mansarovar Yatra and administration of Hindu shrines by State to protect the interests of devotees against unscrupulous vested interests who were raiding the temple coffers like it is their private Bank.

Yeah, well. that's what I said. Separation. No "except". There is no reason why pilgrimmage must be sponsored by the state - particularly when it usually aids those who can afford trips. But the afford part of it is irrelevant too. A state that cannot guarantee availability of basic needs for all has no business sponsoring luxuries. The addition of religion to the mess makes it worse. What about other religions in India? Or are only major religions entitiled to this? What about some guy who adopts a foreign religion? Will the state sponsor his trip to that country? Important question, because I am a follower of Dio Spaghetto - the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do I get a trip to Italy? Why not? Is the religion of some more important? Why should the state get into all this at all, when it cannot do its fundamental job well?

 

3. Similarly, there should be separation of state and marriage. The state may record marriage, but beyond very basic rules (like "no kids" or "no domestic abuse or rape" or "if there is no specification in the marriage contract, an exclusive relationship will be assumed" etc - can be drafted by wise people) the state should stay out of the nature of the union.

The State MUST COMPLETELY interfere in marriage through Laws. The laws are not only for marriage but also for DIVORCE and protection of Child interests and Child welfare (which is paramount) and things like return of dowry and streedhan.

Obviously, and it ought not to be rocket science to figure out these things and formulate laws that go with the idea of the contract marriage.

 

An important component of these laws is forcing a woman who has abandoned the marriage to return to her husband for purposes of SEX (restitution of conjugal rights).

Forced sex is rape. This law treats the woman as property and is inherently INSULTING. Also, this idea of restitution of conjugal rights doesn't seem to be interested in returning men to take on their responsibilities in the marriage. Sexual or otherwise. If we are guaranteed equality in law, then this is not acceptable. A woman is not a scooter to be parked with the owner whether she wants to or not.

 

The Law recognises that there are phases of ups and downs in every marriage and Sex is the medicine to keep the ship of marriage afloat through all the misunderstandings and interference from family and well wishers.

It is not the business of law to make generalizations on the nature of marriage or to force only one side to act against its view of its best interest. We have counsellors, social workers, village elders, etc for that. The law needs to decide if women are independent citizens of the country or marriage strips them of right to move freely in the country.

 

If the parties do not want to get married under their personal laws with all the priests and mumbo jumbos they can get married under Brahmo Samaj rites (I can carry out such ceremony for anyone interested) which can be over in 10 minutes and is perfectly valid in law.

Yawn. Not interested. 

 
No such thing as Bisexual / Homosexual MARRIAGE.

Why not? 

If marriage is reduced to a contract, then it will be ENFORCED in law as a contract which would greatly go against the Females as the parties would be dead by the time the final judgment emerges.

Good point. Better safeguards needed.

Vidyut