How important is it for you,to remain faithful in your marriage?

In a progressive step with far-reaching implications, the state cabinet on Wednesday gave its green signal to amend Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which seeks to protect the pecuniary interests of the ‘other woman’. However, it would need the Centre’s stamp of approval to become a law.

 

According to the amendment proposed by Maharashtra, the definition of the word ‘wife’ under Section 125 needs to be changed to include a woman who was living with a man like his wife for a reasonably long period. This amendment would cover the interests of women involved in polygamous or live-in relationships, say officials. The only catch is that the state has not specified the term ‘reasonably long period’ that a woman needs to stay with a man to be called his wife.

I was wondering whether to laugh or to feel bad about this.I am not trying to overlook the  fact that the law may benefit some ‘other-woman’,’other-man’ or whatever you call it..But on a broader sense,does it sending a message that “It is ok to cheat your spouse”..bcoz afterall it is supported by law and there is nothing technically wrong in having an extra marital affair..Is this what the head of an organized society ought to look upto?

 

We are busy making progressive steps so that we too are named “developed country”..I am not trying to make a mess out of a small thing.I just realize i am an oldie conservative person,because almost all comments in the related article appluad the progressive step..I pray I remain an oldie all my life,because I cannot see my man cheating me..If spouses are bored of each other,why don’t they simply walk out and have a progressive life seperately.Why try to make the web more entanlged?Are you telling me that people compromise for the sake of kids..uh..I don’t agree.Kids today are tomorrow’s adults and they can see things for themselves unless they are deaf dumb and blind..Ployagmy,bigamy other-gamy whatever the hell it is,please stop it and I guess unlike the government who wants to be progressive,we must set standards and not end up in a society where high school going girls are ‘proudly’ pregnant and moms finds condoms on their 13 yr old kids school bags..

 

 

Yet another progressive step…

“Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil should be more progressive,” Health Minister A Ramadoss said on Tuesday, while referring to his Cabinet colleague’s stand against legalizing homosexuality.“I will ask for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s intervention once he returns to India,” Ramadoss said. “World over, people are accepting homosexuality. The home minister should be a lot more sensitive. How can we control physiological feelings of people,” he added.

 

 

 

By being progressive regarding gay rights,I guess they refer to lesbian rights too..Afterll,why should women alone remain unprogressive..and in all,let us have a progressive society where father-son,father-grandson,father-son in law and mother-daughter ,mother-grand daughter etc etc etc have progressive relationships ..

 

 

Aaah..Sorry for overreacting and spoiling your time for having read my rant..I am just feeling bad about it..

 

 

P.S:

Newspapers have lot of tips on how to deal with extramarital affairs and there is no more good way they can help their stressed readers..Initially I thought of linking to them as to point out their bad message..Then I stopped myself as I don’t want to inspire any reader 🙄

Advertisements
    • vinod
    • October 9th, 2008

    The term gay is inclusive of both males and females. Its the same as addressing a bunch of friends from both sexes as “Hi Guys”…..

    I was abt to write what i feel about Polygamy, Sharia law, Article 370 etc……

    on an another note, “moms finds condoms on their 13 yr old kids school bags”….sometimes, its better to find the condom …so that the teen doesnt become “proudly pregnant” 🙂

  1. Hi Nimmy,
    We have to be open to views, even to those we don’t necessarily agree.
    Remember, no politician worth his salt will take a non-populist action. So if they are contemplating or doing something, there is definitely a pressure for that from a section of the society.
    And if that is the way the society is headed, who are you and I to stop that?
    We may be old-fashioned. But the world belongs to the newer generation. Chill.
    Cheers,

  2. Nimmy you have to take a look at some gay blogs to know that they don’t start having random relationships with their relatives, just like we don’t. Gay relationships are just like heterosexual relationships. How they live, who they love is their business, they have a right to live THEIR OWN lives the way they like, they are not hurting anyone.
    Okay here’s a link
    http://samsbloginess.blogspot.com/2008/07/crazy-sam-up-close-personal.html

    And he has said nothing about men cheating their wives?? In fact this will give women extra protection, there have been cases where men have lived with women in live-in relationships for years and then walked out just like that, often she was given this hope that they would eventually be getting married. This law is to protect them. I think it is a good idea.

    Will discuss more on the other points you made later.

  3. Nimmy you have to take a look at some gay blogs to know that they don’t start having random relationships with their relatives, just like we don’t. Gay relationships are just like heterosexual relationships. How they live, who they love is their business, they have a right to live THEIR OWN lives the way they like, they are not hurting anyone.
    Okay here’s a link
    http://samsbloginess.blogspot.com/2008/07/crazy-sam-up-close-personal.html

    And he has said nothing about men cheating their wives?? In fact this will give women extra protection, there have been cases where men have lived with women in live-in relationships for years and then walked out just like that, often she was given this hope that they would eventually be getting married. This law is to protect them. I think it is a good idea.
    My comment does not seem to be getting posted!

    Will discuss more on the other points you made later.

  4. Hey Nimmy,

    I understand your stand against polygamy, but are you against homo-sexuality too? Please clarify.

  5. hey Nimmy,

    thanks for the Bijaya wishes…am wishing you and family a lovely time too.

    As for the law, why are you taking it to mean that it applies only in case a man is already married and is living with another woman?

    There are many people who choose not to get married but live together for years and are completetly faithful to each other. This law will help them, especially the women in such relationships.

    As for gay and lesbian relations, those guys are in love, perhaps they love someone of the same sex, why should it be held as a crime as heinious as rape like it currently is. Beats me.

    As long as both partners are adults and are in the relationship of their own free will it shouldnt matter whether the relation is hetrosexual or homosexual or even bisexual.

    And anyways this is not a choice someone makes concsiously, its inborn and they have no control over it. Why blame them then?

    • nandu
    • October 10th, 2008

    Nimmy,

    Being progressive means accepting others’ viewpoints, however unpalatable they may be to you.

    Gay and lesbian sex, live-in relationships, abortion… these are all related to the freedom of individuals. A democracy should intervene only when it infringes on the freedom of other individuals.

    I applaud this move. I think morality is nothing but a load of …. In fact, I don’t find anything sacrosanct about “legal” marriage- for me, two individuals living together is marriage.

    India should follow the path of the Western democracies in making a liberal civil code applicable to all (yes, that means abolishing the Islamic civil code based on the Sharia, and some of the Hindu and Christian laws). Is some conservative upset? Fine, let them follow their lifestyle: others will follow theirs.

    And please, no sermonising on how this will affect “Indian culture”… Indian culture is based on the concept of live and let live.

  6. Okay I am back with a more informative link ,
    http://beinggayisnotasin.blogspot.com/

    These progressive steps are truly progressive and I don’t know if the law applies to a woman living with a married man, but it is NOT made to nurture extra marital relationships, it is meant to protect women who do choose live-in relationships.

    About high school girls and condoms found in bags, and girls being proudly pregnant at 13.
    Nimmy in backward countries like ours (in rural areas) girls as young as thriteen, are actually married off to men who take them for granted, by thier own parents at the age of thirteen. No condoms for them, they have children and may not even be the only wife of their husbands, also there is violence and poverty to deal with. No school, no playing, no birthdays and treats, no friends etc for them and all this at 13!
    In developed countries if they are sexually active, it is not encouraged (but nobody will stone them, promptly marry them to any available and generally much older man or drown or chop them for being sexually active) but they are encouraged to abstain. They are free to make careers, marry or divorce, keep their babies or give them up for adoption.
    The biggest factor is they are allowed to choose how they wish to live. There are no different society rules for boys and girls, and they are not judged.

    A thirteen year old is a child, and is treated like a child. If her body is growing faster than her and even if she is actually matured and does decide to sleep around, it is her body and her life and nobody else has a right to condemn her. Moral Policing is the worst sin that I see around us.

    • manoj
    • October 10th, 2008

    my son 4.1/2 years old says “i do whatever i like” !!

    • manoj
    • October 10th, 2008

    i have seen elderly women drink in beer pub in bombay with younger men.

    once you marry and having children, i strongly believe it has to be continued till death. this is basics of society.
    but it is one’s option: either to marry, or not to marry. marry a man to man, or vice versa. offsprings, adoption, abortions all are options of individuals.

    i am having close friends whom i haven’t seen for the past 18 years; but in continous contact; may be due to technology advancement.

    • Nimmy
    • October 10th, 2008

    I am keeping queit bcoz i ahve no idea on how to reply to the comments..Pls mind that i am not trying to act moral police or haram police..neither am i interested in minding somebody else’s business…But in my opinion,if individual freedom matters more ,then how and what is the concept of a society..I learned in my lower classes that individuals make a society and i have no idea on how is the ‘privacy of an individual in his/her bedroom ‘ a totally alien stuff unless they are in a ‘Cast Away’ island..

    I am not upto peeping into everbody’s life and look inot what they are doing..But i still stand by what i said that propogating these concepts will inspire people to check out the ‘adventurous’ ..And if none of you have issues with your son or father or daughter or even husband having such relationships,i am sorry i admit that i am an unprogressive woman..By reading gay gay gay in newspapers everyday i am afraid how will i answer my kid “Mom,what is gay,are you gay”.. **faints***

    @Nandu,pls don’t bring religion into this..Also,indian culture is a hypocritical one and good or bad,me being an indian will obviously find emotionally attched to it..It is not my fault i guess..

    I have tried for long to understand homosexuality by reading articles from all viewpoits..from gays,from religious view,and from medical view…I cared not to have a biased view..

    @Pinku,I request you to enlgihten me with a source of refernce explicitly stating that homosexuality is genetic..

    @IHM,i am sorry but i never meant to be moral police,but then again,I still say,it is not individual but people as a whole that matters..Yes,you are right by reffering to our kids getting married early..But are you sure that those progressive girls who conceive and deliver at early stages are not at all affected by these stuff…I neevr knew i was such outdated lady..Again,i request you to not to relate religion into this..You and Nandu imply as if only a certain community has issues with these..

    @Vinod and Salil..I agree..I need to be more progressive..Again ,i was not talking about stoning or beheading gays and ‘other-spouse’ but was talking about not to encourage these stuff..I wonder why some of my dear readers read beween lines and infered that i am against them..

    I am not against them,but i am agianst encouraging them..

    @Manoj,I realize that i have been so old fashioned..I agree with your view that one have the option of marrying or not marrying..But i beg to differ that there is no need for staying in a marriage just for the sake of society..divorce is better than a bad marriage..

    Sorry if i offended anybody,but to me,love and trust in a relationship matters a lot.And i am sorry that i didn’t see the view that this law included that of single man and woman staying together..I was talking about ‘other-women and other-man’..all i was telling is that instead of choosing to reamin the ‘other’ why don’t people walk out of relationships and i find it odd gov is talking for ‘others’..

    • manoj
    • October 10th, 2008

    yeah, if a husband and wife cannot live together, they have to find alternative; divorce should be the ‘last’ option.

    • Milind Kher
    • October 10th, 2008

    Remaining faithful in marriage is something critical for for the marriage to sustain. And on this sustenance depends the unity of the family, as well as financial stability and mental well being.

    Being unfaithful is not just about two people. it affects many others related to them too.

    Being progressive and being promiscuous are not one and the same thing.

  7. When I saw in news channels yesterday’s about legalizing ‘live-in’ relationship yesterday, first thing that came my mind was “Oh…God soon I will find a blog from Nimmy regarding this” 🙂

    In the comments section here there are so many opinions pouring in majority of which is for legalizing not only live-ins but also gays and lesbs….

    Again I don’t know if i support these causes….a difficult decision to make 😦 ..

    • Nimmy
    • October 10th, 2008

    @Milind..I agree with you..I am not against somebody’s sexual preference..But I am against encouraging it as something very normal..

    Arghhhhhhhhhhh..my thoughts are so messed up..I don;t know what to say..I still wonder how is an individual and society different…

    @Arjun 🙂

    • najeeb
    • October 10th, 2008

    well, it seems the only rules that are going to stay are those that protect material properties. Somehow, that shows the direction the humanity is heading towards.

  8. when will world learn to mind their own personal business and not worry about Others Sexual preference .
    Humanity is heading towards right direction .. a direction where the narrow definitions of morality are breaking .

    • najeeb
    • October 11th, 2008

    Raj,

    Are you aiming at me? -:)

    It is true that more and more laws are created or existing ones abolished to protect the private property. The cause of current financial crisis is attirbuted to the de-regulation of certain laws. As we know there was no great nautural calmity in the global scale to trigger such a global crisis. Nor there was a dearth of natural resources. But the crisis happened because of the actions of certains groups to increase their wealth at the cost of others. (You must have read that after AIG was granted a bail out of $85 billion of tax payers money, the top executives took a week off with a bill of almost half a million) So is the world heading in the right direction? Signs indicates it is not. But can be discussed further.

    What exactly are narrow definitions of morality? If my spouse has physical relations with other males, I will not be ready to accept. Most probably, you will do the same. Similarly, my wife will not accept if I have other relationships. Will it be narrow morality? If my teenage girl is pregnant, I doubt if I will be proud. WIll that be narrow morality? If everybody is permitted to have physical relationship with everyone else, will it be counted as a broad morality? There are often discussions about the west looking towards east to re-learn family values. Is it true?

    I have not entered my two neighbours (they are Chinese) houses since I started staying in this apratment. When I was in India, there was not a day in which I did not enter my neighbour’s house. Is the world heading in the right direction?

    • Nimmy
    • October 11th, 2008

    Raj,I am not worried about somebody else’s bedroom busines,but I AM WORRIED about how will it affect the people around me.Maybe it won’t affect,may be it will..Can you say my fear is crap?

    Najeeb,great point..People see only extremes..When i say i don’t agree with legalizing homosexuality,they equate it to the extreme of stoning them or beheading them..Isn’t there something called moderation..

    Nobody defined what morality is..And i don’t know what do people mean by saying that i my morality is narrow minded..

    I have always said “Live and let live”..But that doesn’t mean one can do whatever they want..Freedom of expression or whatever jargon you use it,when one lives in a society,it is of course limited..By freedom of expression,does it mean that i can write whatevre load of crap i want..I believe ,NO..

    • nandu
    • October 11th, 2008

    Nimmy,

    I am sorry, we cannot discuss morality without discussing religion. Because most of our “moral” values are built up based on our religious upbringing.

    For example, you as a Muslim would appreciate that the basis of your morality is the Quran-for me, it was the Hindu religious texts. Marrying more than one person (even though it was allowed in olden days) was considered not ideal: Rama is touted as the ideal of manhood because he refused to remarry. In Islam, a man is allowed to marry up to four wives (don’t start justifying this, now: I’m not questioning it, merely mentioning it)- a custom which I find extremely disgusting. Similarly, up to the very recent past upper caste Hindus in Kerala used to marry their first cousins; in certain areas of Tamil Nadu, girls marry their uncles! I am sure that as a Muslim you find these customs abhorrent.

    That is why I said earlier that I am making myself unpopular. I have a habit of blurting out unpalatable truths.

    No government should try to regulate “morality”, which is an extremely subjective thing-otherwise we’ll all head in the direction of Saudi Arabia.

    I’m sorry if I’m blunt, but that’s the way I am.

    • Nimmy
    • October 11th, 2008

    Nandu, 🙂 Pls don’t say sorry..Afterall,we are not fighting but just sharing ideas..Otherwise,i’ld have to say sorry for all stupids things i say every now and then..

    Polygamy is a disgusting sick idea.I may remain unmarried or remian widow,but never be a co-wife..Simply bcoz i am a muslim,pls don;t think i am a polygamy supporter..I have always told that polygamy is a unavoidable concept,but it maybe the only option as in cases of war.Let us not discuss it here,but i liked the way you said”(don’t start justifying this, now: I’m not questioning it, merely mentioning it)-“..lol…

    But tell me Nandu,if we have no code of conduct,how do we move around freely..I hope you get my point..

    Hmm..I think i agree with you..Morality is different from religion to religion and culture to culture..And again,it is highly subjective..What is moral to me maybe immoral to you..I have seen some people ranting that all woman who don’t wear a hijab is immoral..What a load of crap.I hate such moral police…Err,did i join them in this post 😦

    My intention was not to impose my idea on somebody else..But I find the idea of ‘other-spouse’ and gay-ism an odd some..Excuse me for my thinking..I am yet to grow up and see the wider picture..

    • Milind Kher
    • October 11th, 2008

    @Nimmy,

    I agree with you. Poly gamy is something that in this day and age is simply unacceptable. Rules regulating this need to be very stringent, the way they are in the Islamic Republic Of Iran.

    There, unless a person can satisfy the Islamic High Court that he needs to take one more wife, it is not allowed for him to take one more wife.

    • nandu
    • October 11th, 2008

    Nimmy,

    The struggle of the individual against the society have been there ever since the beginning of civilisation.

    Society imposes norms. Religion imposes morality. Government imposes laws. The truth is that the individual is not bound by anything-it is civilisation which requires these things, to see to it that we coexist as a group. Almost all form of governance are based on some sort of equitable distribution of justice to all. The individual is free to do what he likes as long as he does not encroach on another’s freedom.

    However, this border between what is acceptable socially and what is not can be very hazy sometimes. This judgement is highly subjective, and that is why the debate rages.

    Whenever I see social behaviour which makes me uneasy, I ask myself these questions:

    Is the person harming me or anybody?

    If not, then why am I upset? Which of my values does he disregard?

    Why is this particular value important to me? Is it because of some valid reason, or is it a hangover of my societal or religious background?

    Ninety percent of the time, I have discovered the demon inside myself. Still the behaviour remains unacceptable-but now I know that it is because of me, not some unimpeachable moral code.

    • manoj
    • October 12th, 2008

    there is code of conduct in evey nation with some law for the sustenance of society.

    i think thats good enough. religion as usual play a combined role.

    check out what is misiar marriage in islam.

    one time hezbollah enacted a law within themself to prevent homosexuality; a sort of contract marriage.

    Tamil tigers ask their male and female comrades to use condoms in intimate relationships.

    I have seen at least a ship with a one lady and rest as men.

    it all depends on the need and society finds a way out for justying it and restricting it.

    • manoj
    • October 12th, 2008

    Nandu,
    marriage between cousins are very much allowed to muslims.
    in kerala, the eldest brother was only allowed to marry for nampoothiris.
    apphan nampoothiri is supposed to live in the outhouse. he hangs around and end up with sammantham.
    in kerala, ezhavar brothers used to marry one lady.
    these were in existence within the past 75 years.

    anyway, we have progressed very much from these.

    • lallopallo
    • October 12th, 2008

    Nimmy, you implied somewhere in the comments that there is no proof of homosexuality being genetic. Well, I have also read quite a bit on it and my understanding is ( you can google it a bit), that broadly speaking, research till now suggests that it’s a combination of inborn sexuality and environmental factors, with former being proven more dominant ( According to American Psychatric Association). So, by ridiculing them or not giving them equal rights, we will be doing gross injustice. Also, even if it’s proved that it’s the environmental factors during childhood and early adoloscence ( for instance,forced or consensual experiences in boys hostels etc) which makes a person gay or lesbian, it’s still not justified to deny them rights or legal status..I mean how can we deem them responsible for events which they had little control of?
    I also dont understand what you mean by “homosexuality should not be encouraged”..ofcourse nobody is encouraging it by saying let’s make more gays and lesbians!
    They are just asking to be treated as normal human beings with equal rights as anybody else.. they should not be persecuted for something for which they , most likely, didnt have any choice to begin with..and also as long as they dont infringe on other people’s freedom ( for instance gays hitting at straight men), their sexual preference should not be anybody’s business..and certainly not of state’s..

    • Milind Kher
    • October 12th, 2008

    Even if we do not get into the religious view of homosexuality, there is a grave medical danger to it.

    AIDS is the highest amongst homosexuals, and no appeals to people to wear condoms can be a guarantee, because so many just blatantly disregard it.

    For homosexuals to be treated as normal people, we will need to establish that this is a predisposition genetically programmed.

    If not, it will need to be treated as a perversion

    • **smiles**
    • October 12th, 2008

    (3 more days for my exams to start ..but couldnt stop myself from writing this.was in a hurry when i wrote this..sorry for any grammatical mistakes made)

    Homosexuality -genetic?! ** bursts out laughing**

    i have been reading the comments and it really suprises me how so many of you take this theory as a confirmed fact already!

    The theory of organic evolution(not the whole of it.am referring to the ape-to-man part and the like) hasnt been proved yet (still remains a “theory”) and people are off to declaring homosexuality as genetic though it has been clearly stated by the american psychiatric association that no biological etiology(cause) has been found associated with this psychological state of mind.

    let me just list out “a few”(ther r many actually..no time here pple) points for you guys to ponder over- lets call it the scientific enlighment 🙂

    # that which is genetically determined cannot be changed naturally(without major medical intervention ofcourse) .like the colour of the skin ,colour of eyes , etc

    but how is that ” the sexual orientation” can be changed from homosexual to heterosexual just by REPARATIVE THERAPY!!? (for those who dont know what that is – its just like counselling )

    read the folllowing extract-

    dr.robert spitzer(top american psychiatrist)in his structured analysis of homosexuals who claimed to have changed their orientation through “reparative therapy”, he concluded that the therapy had been genuinely effective: that “almost all of the participants reported substantial changes in the core aspects of sexual orientation, not merely overt behaviour”. Against critics who say that attempts to change sexual orientation can cause emotional harm to homosexuals, he notes: “For the participants in our study, there was no evidence of harm”.

    # why hasnt this so called “genetic variation” been eliminated during the course of evolution (since it doesnt benefit the human race as gays dont procreate)instead the numbers have been rising to an alarming level which has never been recorded to be so high in the entire human history!

    # Why is the gay population suddenly on the rise.?

    Are you people tellin gme that the present immorality that we see in the society has nothing to contribute to it?
    what about the media,liberal laws …etc..dont they too contribute?
    years back when younsters watched amitab bachan smoke they wanted to do it too

    Today when youngsters learn their favourite stars (keanu reeves??) are involved in gay relationships , they want to try it too..

    See the connection???

    and once they are in it , they feel and justify their actions saying they were born into it!

    # now lets just say “homosexuality” is genetic (for the sake of argument).
    [but pls bear in mind people that expression of a particular character depends not only on the genes but also on its environment. i.e, genes+ environmental influence = expression of character]

    And its evident that “homosexuality” has not been of any benefit for mankind instead has only done harm ,harm and harm

    .. ….gays clearly account for >50% of the population with AIDs alone (increase risk in transmission of disease lies with other STDs/sexually transmitted diseases too)

    ….they dont procreate (not good for the human race in the long run )

    …….influence youngsters to experiment their dirty habits

    …..young boys get kidnapped to be used as a passive partners ( technically its rape!)..we already have enough girls to be protected from sexual harrasment and now add boys to the list too??!

    …….and sooo many more!!

    the society will be more insecure, unhealthy, unsafe place to live.

    The laws must be made more strict in favour of the majority of the human race.if drugs/substances of abuse can be banned ,why leave out homosexuality? why the double standards.?

    For those of you who dont have a problem with homosexuality shouldnt have a prob with your kids smoking weed ,injecting heroine etc..? but none of you would agree with that.ha!
    Dont you see both of these evils harm the society?shouldnt they be dealt with equally?

    Sexual perversions are to be dealt with at the hospitals and not at the law-makers office

    People …we need to HELP our homosexual bros n sisters get back to normal . and there are only 3 ways to solve this problem – enforcing laws that are strict, religion and the reparative therapy at the hospitals(or even counsellors for that matter)

    • **smiles**
    • October 12th, 2008

    ” Dr Robert Spitzer”………….this is the same Spitzer whose reforming zeal helped delete homosexuality from the AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION’s manual of mental disorders back in 1973. Now he has published a detailed review of “200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual orientation”.

    • Nimmy
    • October 12th, 2008

    Smiles..Welcome 🙂

    Wow,that was a great enlightening comment..Thansk you so much..As a medical student,I can trust your words..Also will refer more into the issues through google Guru 🙂

    I hope almost all questions rasied have been addressed..And I still stand by what i said..Implementing law in favour of them is not just allowing them to have sodomy in their bedroom,but will create ripples outside bedrooms too..

    • Vineeth
    • October 12th, 2008

    Hi all,
    Was going through the post with gusto for the past few days, unable to comment as within me i still have not framed my opinion on this subject.
    One thing we all agree are the rights the homosexual brothers/sisters of ours should not be denied in the society.

    But at the same time, i don’t know about other countries, but in India, say if i find out that my cousin is gay, matter of fact is it will completely affect the way i see him from then and i am sure i would be a bit perturbed if my kids are with him.

    May be i am completely wrong here in thinking this way. But having this out in the open in a society where, we once grow up without hearing all these as akid is really head turning.

    Another point which was going through my mind about the freedom in a society, we have as humans, and what defines the limits for it is, if we take species as a whole – nature has created a particular pattern like in humans we have the two sexes – male and female and to continue the race they need to be together, but say if i take an amoeba, it just splits ,voila one becomes two, so shouldn’t we see and try to understand the pattern, natural has in place and be in harmony with it?

    • manoj
    • October 12th, 2008

    Milind, Smile,Vineeth

    Thanks for your valuable comments

  9. Hey Nimmy,

    1. I did not mean that Islam has a monopoly over suppression of women, Hindus hold mass marriages of children not even in their teens, in Rajasthan with our politicians blessing the illegal ceremonies. All religions are patriarchal, and all religions are ruled less by their texts, more by the local social customs.

    2. Polygamy is abhorrent to any wife. I wrote about how it can be prevented in my post on prenuptial agreements (and I had linked your post to the article).

    http://lifeofanindianhomemaker.blogspot.com/2008/08/pre-nuptial-contracts-in-india.htm

    3.When I talk about Moral Police the one’s I have in mind are the only ones who are making news regularly – our dear Bajrang Dal, MNS & Shiv Sena. My blog is full of my special fondness for them 🙂

    4. Islam empowers women in many ways, but our social customs suppress this freedom that women have been given by the religion.
    It is unfortunate that ignorance and selfish motives make the society follow only what suits them. We should make every effort to make women know that they do have some rights.
    Love & appreciate your effort in that direction 🙂

    – IHM

    • Amit
    • October 12th, 2008

    AIDS is the highest amongst homosexuals, and no appeals to people to wear condoms can be a guarantee, because so many just blatantly disregard it.

    Milind, would you like to back up your statement with some data? This is a common fear tactic (that gays are spreading AIDS) used, when in reality, it’s heterosexual relationships too (men visiting prostitutes, then having sex with their wives) that contribute to spread of AIDS. You’ll be hard-pressed to find any credible data that backs up your claim. The issue is unprotected and unsafe sex – whether heterosexual or homosexual – rather than any kind of partner preference.

    Let’s leave religion out of this – religions mandate a lot of things which we today realize are not suitable for our society, and don’t follow. The simple thing is that what two consensual adults do in their bedroom is none of our business. We may or may not like it, but it’s unjust to legislate based on our dislike of a certain practice. Next, there will be a law saying “missionary position” is the only valid and lawful position and rest all are unlawful.

    • Amit
    • October 13th, 2008

    But at the same time, i don’t know about other countries, but in India, say if i find out that my cousin is gay, matter of fact is it will completely affect the way i see him from then and i am sure i would be a bit perturbed if my kids are with him.

    Vineeth, would you feel comfortable leaving your daughter with a heterosexual uncle? If yes, why? The same logic is at work here.

    Regarding nature and male/female, so what do you think society should do about eunuchs? Banish them? Kill those babies after they are born? BTW, if nature is everything, then it also includes gays and eunuchs. How can you separate them from “nature” and just include heterosexuals?

    • Milind Kher
    • October 13th, 2008

    Amit,

    Read the Journal Of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 1990.

    You will find that the incidence of Kaposi’s Sarcoma, an AIDS related disease is much higher in homosexuals and bisexuals.

    This is not just an arbitrary bogey.

    • Nimmy
    • October 13th, 2008

    Yeah,I know IHM,I am sorry i was in bad mood when i wrote that comment..sorry to hurt you in any way..

    By saying “don’t bring religion into this”.I mean all religions..Christianity and Islam views them as sinners,Majority of Hinuds are not in favour of them(sorry i don’t know if hinduism as such refers to this ) so i was trying to see things standing outside the religious outfit..But then again,as Nandu said,our thoughts are closely binded to out religion and culture..My point was simple,I just don’t want my kid to ‘experiment’ and finally fall into the web simply bcoz he/she hears it every now and then..But i know i am not completely right..But deep inside i still feel i am ot wrong either..

    @Amit,you make any valid points..I will not leave my baby girl alone with adult uncle or whoever,even though he maybe hetrosexual.so there is no point in shouting against homosexuals..What a sick world.. 😦

    • nandu
    • October 13th, 2008

    In a free society, people should be allowed to follow their preferences, even if it is detrimental to them-provided they are aware of the consequences.

    Smoking causes lung cancer-but people should be allowed to smoke provided they are aware of this danger. Similarly, even if homosexuality is the main cause of AIDS, people should be allowed to do it provided they are aware of the danger. Anything is allowed between consenting adults.

    Nimmy, Milind and other guardians of morality, I stand on the side of the freedom of the individual. I totally reject your concept of state regulated “morality”: indeed, I reject the concept of an objective morality at all.

    You don’t like homosexuality? Fine. Nobody’s asking you to do it. But others who like it will do-and I am on their side.

    • Amit
    • October 14th, 2008

    Milind, it’s 2008 – and you’re going to go by data that’s almost 20 years old? How about using some current data?

    • Milind Kher
    • October 14th, 2008

    Amit,

    If the data is old, it doesn’t make it invalid. Nevertheless, I will give you some new data too.

    Nandu,

    If a consenting adult consumes narcotics and psychedelic drugs, it should not be a problem. It is an informed choice. Then why is it a crime?

    I am not being a guardian of morality, just stating that homosexuality has medical dangers associated with it. Even then, if people want to indulge, let them!!

    • manoj
    • October 14th, 2008

    I think nature should have a reproductive mechanism. male versus female and reproduction should be an answer.

    • Nimmy
    • October 14th, 2008

    @Nandu,lol..I am not a guaridan of morality nor am i a self appointed moral police 🙂 Then you may ask “Why the hell would you then bother about somebody’s business”..Well,I still believe that thoughts become actions,actions become behavious,behaviour becomes chararcter,character becomes personality and persons form society..

    • nandu
    • October 15th, 2008

    Milind,

    Exactly-it should not be a crime.

    • Milind Kher
    • October 16th, 2008

    Nandu,

    I suppose that narcotics are viewed as harmful. Therefore, the law does not wish them to be peddled.

    That being the case, even if a person possesses only enough for personal consumption, it is considered a crime.

    • Nimmy
    • October 16th, 2008

    All my dear champions of individual freedom and choice,Can i ask you something very silly?

    Those people involved in live-in relationships don’t get married bcoz they don’t want to get burdened with responsibilities..Well fine,but now they want all legal rights of a wife…How hypocritical..If a relation doesn’t matter to them,why should the rights from that relation matter to them..

    So,their intention is to become leechers and suck out rights from the wife..Lol..very funny 🙄

    And does this imply that all those oldy conservative stupid women like me who choose to be in a relationship are made fools? Afterall a mistress and wife has same rights,then why should i get married right? Let us become more cool and progressive by abolishing marriage..

    • nandu
    • October 16th, 2008

    Nimmy,

    You’re getting there!

    Marriage is simply a social convention-most important is the pairing, the meeting of minds. As far as I am concerned, when two people live together, it’s marriage. The other is only a legal formality.

    If both the partners don’t mind the other having sex with another person, then it should not be a problem. Otherwise, the marriage is a failure, whether legalised or not.

    Law cannot enforce marital fidelity-it can only prop up some facades.

    • Nimmy
    • October 16th, 2008

    Agreed Nandu..

    I have only issues with people grabbing legal rights or gains even when they are not in any legal relationship..Isn’t that fair..?

    Yeah,you are right..We have lot of hypocracy around..But neither you nor me can look down at the institution o marriage as whole.Its not all about sex right?

    Either you be legal relathion if legal gains matters to you,or be in live in relationships where you aren’t burdened with responsibilities or legal formalities,and OFCOURSE ,show the courage not to avail leagl rights of legal wife..sin;t that what we call double standards..If a ‘wfie’s right’ matters to you,why don’t you get married?

    My point is simple..don’t equate live-in or mistress to legal spouse,be it husband or wife..Bcoz then the whole system is a mockery..and thatz why i am against this law.

    • manoj
    • October 16th, 2008

    what is misiar marriage then.

    • najeeb
    • October 16th, 2008

    The subject of personal freedom and social responsibility is controversial. Recently, I read an article- it asks very pertinent questions.

    If a person has a lot of money, can he/she do whatever he likes? For example, buy as many cars as he/she likes? What about the pollution he creates when using the cars and the harm it causes to the coming generations of not only human beings but also the entire flora and fona? How did he get that right?

    Man is a social animal and no society can do without a legal system and policing as is evident from history. When we are sure that no one will steal or rape or kill, even if we are 100% sure that we will not be caught by police, we can abolish all the laws. Until then, we have to uphold certain laws and human conduct has to be moderated accordingly.

    One example, as pointed out by Milind is drugs. Why even modern states like Singapore hang drug delaers and consumers?

    Where do you draw the line, then? I think social ethos and the consequences will determine it. The million dollar question, then is that who will determine what will be the consequence?

    If everybody are free to have sex with everyone else, even if contraceptive methods are used, are we sure that no child will be born out of that relationship at all? If there are children, who will look after them? At individual level, it will not look like a problem and most people will be tempted to laugh at this arguement. But at the societal level, it will be a bigger issue.

    It is true that marriage is a human invented system and you do not find it in other living creatures. But human kids require more years to become independent and a combined effort and responsibility of both parents are necessary for the healthy growth of the child. Yes, other creatures too look after their offsprings well and ensure the kids are protected. Still they do not need the instituition of marriage.

    The difference with human beings then is that they do not have ‘private’ properties – both tangible and intangible. Since it has become or is human nature to possess private proeprties and somehow he feels it has to be passed to generations, marriage has become necessary. So the historical evolution of human beings as it happened necessitate the institution of marriage. Since communism has already become a part of history, we will continue to have or need to have this instituition.

    If it is only that, why has it got religious importance? As human relationship is not just about inheritance of properties or sex or other physical needs, and as it seems to help to satisfy other quests at other levels, it has religious importance.

    • Nimmy
    • October 16th, 2008

    @Manoj,Misiyar is yet another so called islamic system of marriage..To me,its all the same as Mutah..People can argue it to be legal in terms of Sharia..But I don’t see how better is it than forcination on moral grounds..

    • nandu
    • October 16th, 2008

    Najeeb,

    Religion is valid only for those who accept it.

    As for me (and many others) I totally reject the morality it preaches.

    You are trying to project your belief system as the norm. Sorry pal, it is not accepted by me – and when I don’t accept it, it loses all its sanctity for me.

    • najeeb
    • October 17th, 2008

    Hi Nandu,

    May be I did not convey properly.

    I agree with the marxist view of origin of family. It is related with private property. Where is I disagree with marixists is when they preach it is possible to eradicate the notion of private property entirely. I do not think so. The roots of the insitituitions of marriage and family, as it exist today, are not in religion. But since these instituitions are closely related with human nature and complementary to it, as the essence of any religion is, religion had some say in it.

    • Milind Kher
    • October 17th, 2008

    Marxism has failed utterly as a philosophy and socialism as a polity. The right to private property has to be there, else people will simply not be motivated.

    As far as institutions like family and marriage are concerned, religion accords sanctity to them.

    • najeeb
    • October 18th, 2008

    Ya Milind, it has failed when practised in the real world. But I do think it still has validity as a methodology for analysing history to make sense out it. For example, it states that the idea of losing motivation if there is no right to private property is a fallacy.

    The truth should be somewhere in between.

    http://www.marxism.org.uk/pack/history.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: