Add to manifesto: Recognize same-sex marriages

I would like to see a small change here, the sex of a person is a biological fact but the gender of a person varies from person to person and is a spectrum. This is my current understanding.
Tagging @Akshay who is a Doctor.

I think we should phrase it in a such a manner that we acknowledge this definition and difference of sex and gender.
So I think in the end we should phrase it in such a manner that two individual regardless of their gender identification or sexual orientation must be able to consummate their relationship through marriage if they choose to do so.

Defintion: Sex is the biological distinction of an organism between male and female <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_(disambiguation)>.

Definition: Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity>

What is gender? I don't know.

But I think sex is the only thing that matters in that statement. Can you please explain where gender identity enters into the picture?

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity.

Full article on Wikipedia

I felt it is important to for us to recognize the difference between sex and gender as there are many people and communities who still argue they're the same. Gender and gender identity are related.

The petitions in Delhi High court talk about same sex marriage https://zeenews.india.com/india/centre-opposes-petitions-to-recognise-same-sex-marriage-under-sma-in-delhi-high-court-2344335.html so it is the term used by people who want this. Sexual Orientation is different from gender, even though LGBTIQ+ includes both.

The statement can be changed to "Recognize same-sex marriages as legally valid" probably?

Sounds good, updated

Abraham, it gets really difficult very quickly. There is a model of viewing sex as a spectrum. I would agree with the point that "sex" as male/female is an outdated concept which we will stop talking about once everyone understands the fluid nature of gender and starts questioning the basis of saying "sex is a biological distinction". (It is easy to get deeper into this by asking the question "What constitutes that biological distinction? What is the purpose of such biological distinction among human beings who have grown advanced medical techniques?"). I also agree that the "sex" in "same-sex" isn't strictly talking about sex and implicitly includes gender and orientation. (For example, when a trans-female marries a bisexual cis-male is that same-sex marriage or is it not? Notice that the very idea of "gay" and "lesbian" break down when it is applied to trans/intersex individuals).

I would say to avoid such conundrums related to categorization we can either side with the terms used by people who are impacted by this policy like Praveen says, or come up with a new term like "marriage between any two individuals". I would say the former is the socially correct approach.

Good discussion. So the conclusion is that we should use the term "same-sex marriage" as other people do that. But while publishing, please give a few lines elaboration on what that means. As I myself am getting confused. "marriage between any two individuals" seems very clear terminology if I assume marriage to be defined. How do they define marriage legally?

Updated the description to "Marriage between any two individuals without any discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity should be recognized as legal. All benefits of marriage should be available to same-sex couples as well."

Whatever definitions and benefits are there currently should be extended to include same-sex couples. I don't think we need to redefine it.

It isn't like everything is well-defined in law or language.

Way better. Thanks. It clarifies the meaning.

That is a good way to put it. I agree.

Yes, you are right. But as we see that there are many views on the terms "gender" and "sex" as you shared above, I get confused. So it is helpful to clarify what we mean by "gender" and "sex". What does court mean by these terms? I have a question on marriage: Doesn't the law identify polygamy as valid for some religions and invalid for others? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolygamyinIndia#Legal_developments>. Also, since religion is in the question, we also need to add that we recognize "irreligion" in India as it is not already recognized by law <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrreligioninIndia#Legalstatus,rightsandlaws>.

Confusion on the legal definition of this term is one thing. If we think about bringing religion too into this discussion, do we still have commonly accepted age restrictions to prevent child marriage. Each religion is having its own concessions regarding something very basic like age.

I think @Ravi Dwivedi added these comments here by mistake. He has started another thread on that topic https://codema.in/d/93TMaNzh/add-to-manifesto-recognize-irreligion-as-legally-valid

I don't think we need to cater to every possible issues, if someone comes out and say they have a problem, we can consider it. Same-sex marriage is a demand that people have and lets not mix up other things in this thread.

A good write up by @Vidyut https://aamjanata.com/thought/sexual-orientations-homosexuality-bisexuality-asexuality-and-need-for-dialogue/ on this topic.

@Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer we don't blindly follow what birds and animals do. and there is documented cases of homosexuality in animals. Also marriage is not only about sex or being productive. Heterosexual couples can also choose not to have children.

@Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer

Same sex marriage is unnatural sex and not productive.

The question is not whether same sex marriage is unnatural or productive. I think you misread the proposal. Can you please be on the point?

@Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer

We can see it in other animals and birds.

I was not aware that birds and animals marry. I thought marriage is a human construct. Thanks!

Here is a wikipedia article that deals with this topic.

Here is a wikipedia article that deals with this topic.

Marriage and sex are separate issues in law.

Homosexuality is legal in Indian law <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-de-criminalises-homosexuality-says-history-owes-lgbtq-community-an-apology/article24881549.ece?homepage=true> while same-sex marriage is not; otherwise why are we discussing this thread here?

Let's not mix the issues.

Further, whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural is off topic here. If anyone would like to discuss, then start by defining what is "natural" and "unnatural", still that would be off topic but there can be a discussion when we know what these terms mean. Some people have a view that if sex can produce babies, then it is natural and others say that if it is found in animals or algae, then it is natural. Clearly, the term "natural" has ambiguity. I won't debate with anyone on whether it is "natural" or "unnatural".

We are discussing legality of an issue and the issue is not about whether something is natural or unnatural.

I just wanted to show him documented cases of homosexuality in animals, though that is not relevant to this discussion.

This proposal is in an interesting state now. We will have to decide if we want to push this proposal at the risk of losing the person disagreed or step back to include the person who disagreed. We will have to try and convince them to change their position first. So we will have to talk to them and understand their motivations.

@Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer i'd like to ask you a question. do you support beef ban in your home state? if not, why? if you don't like beef then don't eat beef, no need to force others. similarly if you don't like to marry someone from same sex then don't, it's as simple as that.

note: i'd like to state it explicitly that i didn't mean to compare the act of marriage with eating beef, because someone can argue that the latter is about consumption while marriage isn't and i agree with that. the comparison here is about one's choices or the lack of it.

I don't agree to promote homosexuality by allowing same sex marriage. My strongly belief is that homosexuals are like that because circumstances lead them that way. Insead of allowing them to go that way, I would suggest to help them into getting them straight.

Also I mentioned about animals and birds in sexuality not marriage.

I think your belief is clouding your rational and better judgement. Maybe you should read the proposal all over again.

@Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer there were many attempts at 'getting them straight' like the infamous 'pray the gay away' movement in the west. That doesn't work. Homosexuality isn't caused by anything just as nothing caused straight people to be straight. That is simply who they are. There's no scientific evidence to prove your stand.

I'm not sure what you mean with the whole animals and birds thing. Homosexuality is something that we can see in animals. I agree that they don't have same sex marriage but then they don't have any kind of marriage, so that's that.

Anyways, they're not harming anyone by being gay so why should we stop them? Who are we to dictate what people can be and can't be when based on just our world view?

So do you think your strong beliefs are enough to take away rights of other people? How do we decide whose beliefs should get priority? Do you agree to beef ban because it is against some people's beliefs?

Also I mentioned about animals and birds in sexuality not marriage.

Why did you mention birds and animals? What purpose does it serve?

Thanks @Tanzeem Mohammad Basheer for changing your position to 'Abstain' from 'Disagree', this will allow us to proceed with majority decision. It is important to keep our beliefs to our personal choices and not force other people to follow our personal beliefs.

@Pirate Praveen @Ravi Dwivedi please exclude me from further comments. I am not interested in this thread. I am promoting free software because I personally believe it is good. Likewise I don't promote homosexuality bcz I personally believe it is wrong. I don't want to interfere or force my beliefs to others.