Changing Times: Will Gay Marriage Be Legal in India?

[C RAVI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I think before going that far, I want to ask how many of you are comfortable with the thought of

one woman marrying two men

Dr.Barani,

Very interesting thought to question. In my opinion there is nothing wrong in it, if those two men can share love/sex/financial expenses/emotional fulfillment etc.etc with that single wife in true spirit. That single wife can also have the satisfaction of fulfilling her different requirements..

You see, we can not expect a single husband in real life to be same as film hero, who can sing, dance, fight with all tricks and tactics, love like romeo.etc..etc. So having two husband can some what make that single wife happy to enjoy different personalities. It's not only the personalities with which she can feel happy and proud of herself but all other benifits that she would be accomplishing mostly. And the two husbands need not to get burdened too much to fillfill her needs as they would be sharing all between them to offer to her, physically, mentally and financially.

 

[renuka]

I think before going that far, I want to ask how many of you are comfortable with the thought of

one woman marrying two men

Dear Dr Barani,

I feel its ok polyandry and polygamy..Scroll back and read what i wrote to ShivKC about my opinion on Polygamy and Polyandry.

 

[renuka]

Dear Ravi,

I see that besides Sravna you have similar opinions with Haridas sir too.
Good yaar you have Dost(ana).

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Dr Barani,

I feel its ok polyandry and polygamy..Scroll back and read what i wrote to ShivKC about my opinion on Polygamy and Polyandry.

Dear Renuka,

Yes, you are right on this from the begining on polyandry and polygamy. If polyandry and polygamy are practiced without secrecy and its been legalized, what's the issue? It is just a matter of how society accepts it. Well, that's what the time has proved all the while. The evolution of society in course of time will and has to accept the form of social setup under legalization.

 

[subbudu1]

I think before going that far, I want to ask how many of you are comfortable with the thought of

one woman marrying two men

If the people concerned dont have a problem who are we to comment! Things like this are to be examined case by case. If homosexual mariage, divorce and remarriage etc can be allowed voluntary polygamy polyandry should also be in.
Individual should be conscious of the impact of their decisions on their family , children and whether it is really a good thing in the long run for the society. That responsibility should drive decisions!

 

[DrBarani]

Dear Dr Barani,

I feel its ok polyandry and polygamy..Scroll back and read what i wrote to ShivKC about my opinion on Polygamy and Polyandry.

I will admit, I was trying to trap people into taking controversial positions so that I can come back and pull the rug under them!

The point about "one woman marrying two men" was this -

Draupati married five men.

Lord Krishna married 100 women.

Many of the Hindu Gods married two goddesses.

-Lord Muruga married Valli and Deyvanai
-Lord Ganesha married Siddi and Buddi
-Lord Parameshar married Parvati and Gangadevi
-Lord Vishnu married Sridevi and Bhoodevi

and so on. These are high examples in Hinduism. So, how can anyone claim only Lord SriRama is the example for India? His father Dasharatha married four women... Oh well, the list is very long on the side of poly-marriage.

Just trying to provoke the thoughts. Not taking sides. I am not an expert in this subject matter!

 

[C RAVI]

Dr Barani,

In my opinion, you should also have asked as how many men would like to share one wife?

For women marrying two men, I have expressed my opinion in my post #201 with some reasoning, considering legalization of it too. It would be now interesting to note, how many men would he interested to share a single wife, under legal marriage? (Illegaly, things are happening).

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Yes, you are right on this from the begining on polyandry and polygamy. If polyandry and polygamy are practiced without secrecy and its been legalized, what's the issue? It is just a matter of how society accepts it. Well, that's what the time has proved all the while. The evolution of society in course of time will and has to accept the form of social setup under legalization.

Dear Ravi,

Society doesnt have to evolve to accept Polygamy and Polyandry.Its nothing new to our society.
Polygamy was even practiced by the Rishis and Polyandry we had seen two examples in our Purana;

1)When the Pracetas, the ten sons of Pracinabarhi, entered the sea to execute austerities, the planet earth was neglected because of the absence of a king. Naturally many weeds and unnecessary trees grew, and no food grains were produced. Indeed, all the land became like a forest. When the ten Pracetas came out of the sea and saw the entire world full of trees, they were very angry with the trees and decided to destroy them all to rectify the situation. Thus the Pracetas created wind and fire to burn the trees to ashes. Soma, however, the king of the moon and the king of all vegetation, forbade the Pracetas to destroy the trees, since the trees are the source of fruit and flowers for all living beings. Just to satisfy the Pracetas, Soma gave them a beautiful girl born of Pramloca Apsara. By the semen of all the Pracetas, Daksa was born of that girl.[SIZE=-2]

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Excerpted from various sources, including text and Purports of HDG
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
[/SIZE]
2) and then only Draupadi.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

Society doesnt have to evolve to accept Polygamy and Polyandry.Its nothing new to our society.
Polygamy was even practiced by the Rishis and Polyandry we had seen two examples in our Purana;

1)When the Pracetas, the ten sons of Pracinabarhi, entered the sea to execute austerities, the planet earth was neglected because of the absence of a king. Naturally many weeds and unnecessary trees grew, and no food grains were produced. Indeed, all the land became like a forest. When the ten Pracetas came out of the sea and saw the entire world full of trees, they were very angry with the trees and decided to destroy them all to rectify the situation. Thus the Pracetas created wind and fire to burn the trees to ashes. Soma, however, the king of the moon and the king of all vegetation, forbade the Pracetas to destroy the trees, since the trees are the source of fruit and flowers for all living beings. Just to satisfy the Pracetas, Soma gave them a beautiful girl born of Pramloca Apsara. By the semen of all the Pracetas, Daksa was born of that girl.[SIZE=-2]

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Excerpted from various sources, including text and Purports of HDG
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
[/SIZE]
2) and then only Draupadi.

Dear Renuka,

You are right in highlighting the historic existance of polyandry/polygamy, during those pouranic periode.

In a legalized society with certain norms, that we are living in, got nothing to do with those times of rishi, king, apsara marriages.

So, considering today's legalized society with specific norms, was my post #204

 

[renuka]

I will admit, I was trying to trap people into taking controversial positions so that I can come back and pull the rug under them!

The point about "one woman marrying two men" was this -

Draupati married five men.

Lord Krishna married 100 women.

Many of the Hindu Gods married two goddesses.

-Lord Muruga married Valli and Deyvanai
-Lord Ganesha married Siddi and Buddi
-Lord Parameshar married Parvati and Gangadevi
-Lord Vishnu married Sridevi and Bhoodevi

and so on. These are high examples in Hinduism. So, how can anyone claim only Lord SriRama is the example for India? His father Dasharatha married four women... Oh well, the list is very long on the side of poly-marriage.

Just trying to provoke the thoughts. Not taking sides. I am not an expert in this subject matter!

Dear Dr Barani,

Dont worry here we have no controversial situations most of us are a controversy ourselves.So welcome aboard Doc!!!

 

[C RAVI]

I will admit, I was trying to trap people into taking controversial positions so that I can come back and pull the rug under them!

The point about "one woman marrying two men" was this -

Draupati married five men.

Lord Krishna married 100 women.

Many of the Hindu Gods married two goddesses.

-Lord Muruga married Valli and Deyvanai
-Lord Ganesha married Siddi and Buddi
-Lord Parameshar married Parvati and Gangadevi
-Lord Vishnu married Sridevi and Bhoodevi

and so on. These are high examples in Hinduism. So, how can anyone claim only Lord SriRama is the example for India? His father Dasharatha married four women... Oh well, the list is very long on the side of poly-marriage.

Just trying to provoke the thoughts. Not taking sides. I am not an expert in this subject matter!

Dr.Barani,

Thank you to have thought of such stimulations

Among the Hindu Gods & Goddess you have listed, only Gods have married multiple Goddess. It's similar to the Islamic social cumminity. But, in Indian society, The Hindu Marriage Act was framed such a way, that allows Hindu society to practice only "One husband-One Wife" legally in a wedlock. Couple of years before many Muslim women in India gathered to protest, to claim "The Hindu Marriage Act" to be applied to their Islamic society too, in India, being citizens of India.

Coming to the point...

I am wondering, why not a single Goddess been found having married two Gods? (exception to Draupathi)

Just to analysize and share ideas, just like you without taking any sides, I too want to explore the following

1) What would be the acceptance level among Hindu women to share 1 man as their husband in a legal wedlock? (I have expressed my vies in the favor, in my post #201)
2) What would be the acceptance level among men to share 1 women as a wife in a legal wedlock?
2) What can be the possiblities of a "group marriage" - 3 or 2 Men marrying 3 or 2 Women as a group?

If all the above categories of marriages are legalized, what can be the issue in the society? We neither gonna be judgemental nor gonna be changing our choice just for others.

 

[DrBarani]

Dr.Barani,

Thank you to have thought of such stimulations

Among the Hindu Gods & Goddess you have listed, only Gods have married multiple Goddess. It's similar to the Islamic social cumminity. But, in Indian society, The Hindu Marriage Act was framed such a way, that allows Hindu society to practice only "One husband-One Wife" legally in a wedlock. Couple of years before many Muslim women in India gathered to protest, to claim "The Hindu Marriage Act" to be applied to their Islamic society too, in India, being citizens of India.

Coming to the point...

I am wondering, why not a single Goddess been found having married two Gods? (exception to Draupathi)

Just to analysize and share ideas, just like you without taking any sides, I too want to explore the following

1) What would be the acceptance level among Hindu women to share 1 man as their husband in a legal wedlock? (I have expressed my vies in the favor, in my post #201)
2) What would be the acceptance level among men to share 1 women as a wife in a legal wedlock?
2) What can be the possiblities of a "group marriage" - 3 or 2 Men marrying 3 or 2 Women as a group?

If all the above categories of marriages are legalized, what can be the issue in the society? We neither gonna be judgemental nor gonna be changing our choice just for others.

Historically, Men dominated in managing religious affairs and they ended up writing much of religious history. Therefore, their bias shows up - they can marry many women but women aren't allowed to do the same!

I think there will be no impact from government getting out of marriage business and letting adults choose what they want to. In terms of population pyramid it might make no difference, since a woman is only capable of producing certain number of offsprints, regardless of who their fathers are.

But then again, let me emphatically say I am not a subject matter expert in sociology! I am merely an observer here and infrequently throwing a monkey wrench (as if there aren't any!).

 

[renuka]

Doesnt our debate keep getting nicer and nicer.
Ravi..sorry for trespassing but i would like to give my opinion to your questions;

Ok you said:

1) What would be the acceptance level among Hindu women to share 1 man as their husband in a legal wedlock? (I have express my vies in the favor, in my post #201)
2) What would be the acceptance level among men to share 1 women as a wife in a legal wedlock?
2) What can be the possiblities of a "group marriage" - 3 or 2 Men marrying 3 or 2 Women as a group?

For Q 1 and 2 we will have to do a survey like how Durex does its annual Global survey.But beware it might not go too well with traditional Akkas and Annachis who might bring broom and slippers to hit anyone taking this survey.
So I guess to get this survey done dont go house to house may be like a Talk Show we can bring this up but make sure security is tight.

2)Group marriage is there such a rite? and 1 important Q is you could help me out..just say a woman has 2 husbands and 1 dies.Is she still considered a Sumangali or a Half Sumangali.
See in Mahabharat Draupadi died before the Pandavas so this topic never came up.Can I have your opinion Ravi?

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Renuka,

I want to address your different posts after I raised incest.

The dictionary gives the following meaning for 'incest':
"Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom".
"The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative"

So, mere marriage among relations is not what I meant.


On a lighter vein, I want to respond to your call, "Raa Raa Sarasaku Raara...." by saying that Malaysia is too far. I am sure you take it as a wit.

Lastly, yeh kya aapne hum,Sravna aur Ravi ko Dostana banaa diya? Nahin. Nahin. Hum hamesha sirf dhost hain. Aur maine socha ki aap bhee hamaree dosti hai, nahin?
(What is this, you have made a 'Dostana' of Shri.Sravna, Shri.Ravi and me? No. No. We are always just friends. And I thought you are also our friend. Aren't you?)

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

I want to address your different posts after I raised incest.

The dictionary gives the following meaning for 'incest':
"Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom".
"The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative"

So, mere marriage among relations is not what I meant.


On a lighter vein, I want to respond to your call, "Raa Raa Sarasaku Raara...." by saying that Malaysia is too far. I am sure you take it as a wit.

Lastly, yeh kya aapne hum,Sravna aur Ravi ko Dostana banaa diya? Nahin. Nahin. Hum hamesha sirf dhost hain. Aur maine socha ki aap bhee hamaree dosti hai, nahin?
(What is this, you have made a 'Dostana' of Shri.Sravna, Shri.Ravi and me? No. No. We are always just friends. And I thought you are also our friend. Aren't you?)

Ya we are all friends only..
So I dedicate this song to all of you.

YouTube - ‪Song: Yeh Dosti Hum Nahin Todenge Film: Sholay (1975) with Sinhala Subtitles‬‏

 

[C RAVI]

Renuka,

Lastly, yeh kya aapne hum,Sravna aur Ravi ko Dostana banaa diya? Nahin. Nahin. Hum hamesha sirf dhost hain. Aur maine socha ki aap bhee hamaree dosti hai, nahin?
(What is this, you have made a 'Dostana' of Shri.Sravna, Shri.Ravi and me? No. No. We are always just friends. And I thought you are also our friend. Aren't you?)

Sri Haridasa Siva,

You are right and my intuition can never go wrong, mostly..

As you said, we all are friends here. Whether we agree or don't agree with some one's post doesn't mean that we are into groupism.

Personally I hate such an idea. That's why I kept mum and ignored other posts claiming Dostana, between Me, You and Sri Sravna.

As I have stated in my posts in another thread, couple of days before, "Expression of true self/views/opinions should not be hindered by friendship. If it hinders than, both the views and friendship would be hypocritical" POV's can not be expected to be same between humans on all discussions/subject, situations and circumstances.

Off course, we can't stop other's way of thinking. It is better to be calm and patient. Things will fall in place in a right order sooner or later.

 

[renuka]

Sri Haridasa Siva,

You are right and my intuition can never go wrong, mostly..

As you said, we all are friends here. Whether we agree or don't agree with some one's post doesn't mean that we are into groupism.

Personally I hate such an idea. That's why I kept mum and ignored other posts claiming Dostana, between Me, You and Sri Sravna.

As I have stated in my posts in another thread, couple of days before, "Expression of true self/views/opinions should not be hindered by friendship. If it hinders than, both the views and friendship would be hypocritical" POV's can not be expected to be same between humans on all discussions/subject, situations and circumstances.

Off course, we can't stop other's way of thinking. It is better to be calm and patient. Things will fall in place in a right order sooner or later.

Hey Ravi, why these days you are such a serious guy.Those good old days back in 2009 you used to be a real jovial guy.
You can address me directly if you are not too pleased with any post and its just fun to keep teasing each other sometimes others wise it will get boring with all heavy duty debates.

take care
renu

 

[C RAVI]

Doesnt our debate keep getting nicer and nicer.
Ravi..sorry for trespassing but i would like to give my opinion to your questions;

Ok you said:

For Q 1 and 2 we will have to do a survey like how Durex does its annual Global survey.But beware it might not go too well with traditional Akkas and Annachis who might bring broom and slippers to hit anyone taking this survey.
So I guess to get this survey done dont go house to house may be like a Talk Show we can bring this up but make sure security is tight.

2)Group marriage is there such a rite? and 1 important Q is you could help me out..just say a woman has 2 husbands and 1 dies.Is she still considered a Sumangali or a Half Sumangali.
See in Mahabharat Draupadi died before the Pandavas so this topic never came up.Can I have your opinion Ravi?

Dear Renuka,

My views, as you have requested, to have fun

1) Instead to getting down on rouds, taking survey door to door and getting beaten up with brooms and slippers, can we take a survey among all existing members of this Forum?

2) Regarding Sumnagli Status of a woman who got married with two men, here are my views -

I) Assuming a Woman is married to A and B

* If a women had true emotional love and affection with only A - She will be emotionally feeling herself as a Widow, when A dies and B survives
* If a women had true emotional love and affection with B and A dies - She will still be feeling hereself as a Sumangli.
* If a women have true emotional love and affection with both A and B and either one of them die - She will be struggling within herself to know whether she is a Sumangli or Amangli
* If a women had true emotional love and affection with both A and B and both A & B die at a same time together - She will be having a absolute realization with clarity that she is Amangali.
* If a women never ever had true emotional love and affection with both A and B and both survive or die togehter - She would not feel anything. Neither Sumangli nor Amangli

All the above are in terms of personal realization and acceptance of a Woman in question who married Two men. Socially, legally I don't want to squeeze my brain to find out the right status of such women in terms of Sumangli or Amangli. Socially and legally it seems to be too complicated to me and may require years to form my opinion as how the "Indian Marriage Act" should be framed, considering the Doctrine of Civil Right together and how the society, outside the legal frame, should consider.

II) Assuming a women is married to A, B, C, D, E; similar to Draupathi.

- Such women personally would have no realization of Sumangli or Amangli, similar to a glorified prostitute (Draupathi's period was totally different and such was the only case. So am not considering Draupathi as a glorified prostitute-she was married with 5 men who were brothers/sons of a single mother).

Legally and socially its too complicated for me to think her sumangli/amangli status. The same goes as I have expressed above, in this regard.

 

[C RAVI]

Hey Ravi, why these days you are such a serious guy.Those good old days back in 2009 you used to be a real jovial guy.
You can address me directly if you are not too pleased with any post and its just fun to keep teasing each other sometimes others wise it will get boring with all heavy duty debates.

take care
renu

Dear Renuka,

I am not at all serious now a days, as you are feeling due to my post #216. I am same as ever before.

I was just being firm and straight to the point. Nothing else.

I did't feel like telling you directly because, you are not a kid, to be informed and I did'nt bother much too, because I did'nt take it seriously and wanted to take it as a sort of your fun.

But since Sri Haridas Siva also could have some thing to highlight on this, I expressed my views in my post #216 to clear the air for all the members in common, in this Forum. So that, in future, we can expect from any member, having no feeling of considering a set of like minded people as an exclusive group, separating themselves from others.

 

[Brahin]

Nice Joke:

So I'm at work yesterday and the mailclerk starts handing out letters from upper management. At this point, I'm thinking "Oh crap, how am I gonna tell my family I got laid off?" Fortunately, I'm only 29 years old. You'll understand when you read the letter.
Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown of economy, Management has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 40 years of age and above on early retirement. This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).
Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to management to be eligible for the SHAFT scheme (Special Help After Forced Termination). Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW programme (Scheme Covering Retired Early Workers). A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as Management deems appropriate.
Persons who have been RAPED can only get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).
Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by Management.
Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. Management has always prided itself on the amount of SHIT it gives employees. Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring to the attention of your Manager. They have been trained to give you all the SHIT you can get.
Great, as if I didn't get enough shit alread

 

[subbudu1]

Dr Barani,

In my opinion, you should also have asked as how many men would like to share one wife?

For women marrying two men, I have expressed my opinion in my post #201 with some reasoning, considering legalization of it too. It would be now interesting to note, how many men would he interested to share a single wife, under legal marriage? (Illegaly, things are happening).

It is my notice that in the last five years or so most of the deliveries have led to females being born among the middle class educated atleast among TB.

I might be wrong but if this is correct then it is going to be a real competition for men and we might see a return to polygamy society? I dont know statistics but may be our gynaecs here can throw light! Any idea Renu

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Chalo. Hum bhee chutkula kahenge....

Agar mein (J.Abraham), Shri.Ravi (Abishek B) aur Shri.Sravna (Sunny Deol) dostana ban jaate, tab Priyanka Chopra kaun hogi??

 

[kunjuppu]

Chalo. Hum bhee chutkula kahenge....

Agar mein (J.Abraham), Shri.Ravi (Abishek B) aur Shri.Sravna (Sunny Deol) dostana ban jaate, tab Priyanka Chopra kaun hogi??

i confess that i do not know hindi, but even i can see something wrong here.

i do watch bollywood movies and am fairly familiar with the actors and how they look.

in order of handsomeness and acting skills: i rank john abraham, abhishek & sunny deol - in that order.

now, siva has appropriated john persona for himeself not sure about ravi, but if i were sravana, i would definitely consider being considered a 'deol' an insult

maybe siva should be more 'umble and take on the deol garb. look at the fringe benefit - you get hema malaini to be your step mom

who is piggy chops? no brainers here.

ofcourse we have only one lady among this group - the doctor from m'sia dr priyanka karthikeyan

 

[C RAVI]

Chalo. Hum bhee chutkula kahenge....

Agar mein (J.Abraham), Shri.Ravi (Abishek B) aur Shri.Sravna (Sunny Deol) dostana ban jaate, tab Priyanka Chopra kaun hogi??

Janaab!!!!!!!!! Apne tho kamaal kar diya....

Maey -Abhishek Bachchan, Aap -John Abraham, aur Shri Sravna -Sunny Deol (Ek dham 1st class comparison)???? Bahuth Khoob..

Priyanka Chopra vohi ladki hogi go yahaan pe Kunwari Hai. Aur woh usiki hee jodi banegi jisey woh yahaan jawaan samjhi hai....LOLZ..

Translation -

Me- Abhishek Bachchan, You- John Abraham, and Srhi Sravana- Sunny Deol ( absolutely 1st class comparison)??? Wonderfull...

Priyanka Chopra will be the only one who is a spinster here. And she would pair herself with one whom she considers youngest...LOLZ..

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Telugu ke baad, abhi Hindi ki baari shuru ho gayi?

Believe me. I just put one face to each one of us. So, Shri.Sravna does not have to feel bad. I don't bother about physical appearance anyway. But the option of Sunny Deol does sound good going by Hema Malini option. Abhi bhee voh jawaanee hai!