Why Centre is against legalising queer marriage

One of the best decisions taken by the Indian Judicial System was to implement Live court hearings . Should've been implemented a long time ago but better late than never . Helps show the dire process that goes into implementing a law . And gives us a perspective what went on and the reasons why some conditions are placed in some laws. Stops us from just jumping into conclusions why the law is wrong or right or what it shouldve been.

For the first time I am impressed by the Indian Judiciary. They are discussing the matter in depth. Irrespective of the conclusion, everyone should be proud at the independence of our Indian judiciary! I hope a win-win arises.

I don't think these are arguments against same sex marriage explicitly but they just highlight the work that needs to be done on our legal system to actually integrate same sex marriage better.

As far as I get it, these are not arguments to not allow same sex marriages but rather shortcomings of the present system built mainly for the binary community. When we are deciding to generalise the law, every other needs to be generalized as well..which, shouldn't be the reason to stop generalization in the first place.

Forget about same sex marriage, I want them to ban cousins and uncle-niece marriages. They are creating genetically disadvantaged children and deaths among them while they have the ability to stop it. It's also disgusting how your own family has the ability to have carnal desires on you. And also how ridiculous that is when a maternal cousin is a potential partner but a paternal cousin is a brother/sister. The same goes with uncles.

It's my first time seeing how all laws are interlinked and breaking one law can cause chain reaction leading to system breakdown...

That means this is an issue of "system of marriage" on which the whole"family system" of India stands. Obviously it's not an easy decision to make.

the concept of 'wife' is a gendered term that is traditionally used to refer to the female partner in a heterosexual marriage. However, in a same-sex marriage, both partners are equal spouses. Therefore, there is no single 'wife' in a same-sex marriage. Using gender-neutral terms like "spouse" or "partner" is more respectful and accurate.

I am in support of same sex marriages but these questions are absolutely valid...we need to fix all of these issues before arriving at any new conclusion

This is how the country should operate !! Proud of these guys !!

Except for the Incest thing, every other argument seems fair. If CJI thinks there is no concept of absolute biological men and women, he should give the parameters on how to decide who is the man and woman in all other acts of domestic violence, dowry, and rape. If a man who raped a woman doesn't identify himself as a man, what should be the deciding factor to consider him a man. CJI knows how messed up this gets, so he left it to the parliament. For a small minority of the population, the court cannot throw the entire women under the bus.

The majority of people have absolutely no idea about the complexity of this matter and are foolishly reducing it to an "Equality issue". Most of the people have no idea about the arguments put by advocates and Justices in this matter. The Chief Justice just announced that the Honourable Supreme Court cannot entertain popular morality because if they go by what young people feel then they afterwards have to listen to what many other people feel. Listen to the arguments put forth by the Solicitor General and how the bench agreed on the devastating effects and ramifications of legalising same-sex marriage on the personal laws, Special Marriage Act, Constitutional laws, Criminal and Civil Procedure, and provisions and laws and safeguards for women. The problem is that people are seeing this without even a smidgeon of technical knowledge, and it is not a problem but people should restrain from speaking on the matters which are exceedingly severe. Same-Sex Marriage entails Identity-crisis (just like what is happening in USA) and after that Identity Politics. There would be thousands of petitions on the identity issues with the defence of 78th paragraph in NLSA v. UoI(2014). You should look at the severity and complexity of the matter to decide if you should speak or not.

I'm surprised by the controversial news presented in this video. It challenges the traditional concept of marriage, and it's interesting to see how our society is evolving. The lawyer showcased in the video plays a crucial role in making our society more livable. Thanks for sharing this thought-provoking content.

The Judicial system needs to have more live court hearings, and these hearings must be more widely available to the people just to see how backward the thinking of our top solicitors is at the moment.

the thing what people need to understand is Marriage is not just love rather a legal contract, thats why we need these debates... else no one is stopping one from having a livein relationship

I fear the day when there will be demands of incest marriage recognition saying " Love is Love" because what was considered a sin yesterday is a reality today. You never know what will come up after this.

Best compromise is to have a civil agreement act which is a kind of a special marriage act. Should give away most rights in that, except some.

I don't why it is important to discuss who who will be husband and who will be wife. Just call them partners and make laws same for both there will be no problem.

please dont legalise it, look at the hell which has broken loose in the west due to the lgbt being more accepted

I just couldn't fail to notice Sai Deepak at the back 😅