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.

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?

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 I would agree with the point that "sex" as male/female is an outdated concept which we will stop talking about once everyone understands the fluid nature of gender and starts questioning the basis of saying "sex is a biological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.

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!

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.

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.