Because of the eroticism of the unconventionalâ of € œ of the â € was noted down on? Because most people simply alienates the view that it is possible that a person is loyal satisfied another of the same gender? Well, I am of the view that one can live happily ever after with another of the same gender. The € ™ of the gayâ ~ of the â € term in common jargon is used to refer to homosexuals of both genders, this article also, it was used in a general way. Homosexuality is about much more of the secrets and sex, it is also about happiness, preference and life and then live together. Today, with a population gaia rising in India we have to really rethink the legal structure in this kingdom. The conflict is not simple because only by accepting the trade unions gai, but also giving such a union a certain kind of a ratification notice. We know that if a boy wants to be with a female, there is no legal restrictions imposed against their conjugal union, so why should a male who would rather with another male be denied these rights? The premise as the first premise that the constitution of India gridi outside the freedom of œ of the â € of thought, of expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality condition and € of the occasion. . beta. What is of the expressionâ of € œ of the â €, which is communicating? It is not love a form of expression? Where is the â € of the equalityâ of the € œ if homosexuals and women are negandi of their rights? The antagonists of gay marriage say that they want to protect society from moral disfatti. However, I believe firmly that it is purely based on chauvinism and injury, which is certainly neither moral nor what this country represents. "Justice, freedom, equality and class for all" means that everything should be treated equally. The same discussion of the € of immoralâ of œ of the â € also was used to challenge the inter-racial unions. But things have changed, so much in fashion to be observed in such unions on a. Indicates that with time, a company Orthodox ripping off the coating that right is leading to the eoni. In fact, profiled a large class notice believes that it is the democratic right of people to choose their members and the condition should not interfere. In Baehr v. Lewin, awarded by the Supreme Court dell'Hawai was determined that the failure to grant permissions to the union of same sex couples was discrimination based on sex. In a research by the historian John Boswell in the book, same-sex unions of Yale ~ of the â € ™ in Premodern of € of Europeâ, explores the historical context of homosexual unions. His studies have exposed that the homosexual union rites were legally sanctioned religious and have been supported for over 3,000 years the African, Asian ancient Egyptian, greek, mesopotamiano, native American and Roman cultures. What is important is that the social acceptance reporting same-gender has not gained widespread condemnation until the thirteenth century, when religious orders have made a step inside and declared them immoral (& Dorrell; cases in justice union lawyer, 1994.1996). This demonstrates yet the game of a section religious unreasonable, that got things done its own sense, instead of examining the sentiments and wishes of the people. So there should be technically legal complaint. No longer do we live in a world where marriage is a union only a portal for the procreation of children; presenterei for conjugal union against that symbolizes the company of life and not long procreation of children. In this report, which is initiated by a desire simply to be with someone, really matter if the entramba end is the same? Actually, NOT. My question is that reproduction had been the sole objective of unions, and then in the same list of œ â € of those people that the € ™ t be the shanâ is assigned to the conjugal sense of the € | â € of the areâ rights to too many people would be not only included, the homosexual. To those women who have reached menopause and are biologically incapable of conception, the equally € ™ t of the shouldnâ be allowed to get married. There are many men and women non-married elderly who probably never got married or were divorced or widowed (or widows under the circumstances) who marry only for company. Perhaps, by the fear of death alone, enter into a relationship. ™ t of the donâ € procreano. So then if we live in a country whose foundation is based on equality and if our € ™ t of the isnâ Government un'ipocrita and then or the elderly should also be arrested dall'ottenere married or community should be gaia treated with respect and equality and be given the right to marry whomever. If we explore with the 1955 Law Hindu union, € ™ d of the weâ is a measure for the nullity of a union for reasons of impotency, Part 12 1 (a), but there are no laws that lead to the dissolution of union for reasons of infertility or sterility. Infertile couples have no children, but their union remains intact. If the elderly and the sterile can not be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between the union and procreation, nor can gaie or lesbian couples to be denied the right for the same reason. All these questions equivalent to a question, because then the same sex unions are prohibited? Analysing this situation in the light of the € œ Lex of the â € of the Landâ, I would say that the legislature has already shown enough hypocrisy entering various terms in the constitution and not really keeping it, the most minimum hours can make are the difference ' only part 377, the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [in the future, referred to as the € ™ of the Actâ ~ of the â €] "," â € of the section of the â € which goes against the foundation of a this union. Although this section is not discarded, should not deny homosexuality. It should be used against the man in the beast and man and not man. All we read in our history books that we were a part of a company, in which the black could not legally marry a white, a Kshatriya we could not marry a Shudra, but the laws were changed, equality echeggiante, so to understand the possibility of such a marriage. The law is logical and in all circumstances should reflect the needs of the contemporary world. Like anything, the law also becomes redundant with time and must be shaped to be suitable to the need of the hour. Ritrovamenti gai itself clumsily arranged marriage in a zone of combat, where the Liberals meet with the head above the Conservatives. Opponents of sight liberal attacano such a union, saying that this form of union is grossly immoral and shatters the foundations religious. In this view, I would demand in India where the union is a sacrament and is supposed to bring together two people for eternity and where the mere thought of separation would be a pity, because then in those circumstances the law of divorce emerged? As was produced by some people that a pragmatic sacrament simply can not lead to a harmonious relationship, and the and behold we have the laws of divorce. So this report pious of so-called in-perpetuity could be murdered with an injection of lethal named € ™ of divorceâ ~ of the â €. When such a measure was accepted as part of the laws of this land and traditional bucolic why the laws of the € ™ t be the canâ are set up to allow homosexual marriages? The creators of the system of common rights, which we follow, have themselves included provisions that ratify the same sex unions. These unions were not called as a union but were treated as civil union. The Civil Law Association, 2004, is in its final stage before become a part of national law. Under this law, civil associations are available only to same-sex couples. These couples can register their association without making it mandatory so that they can live together forever. There is a standard procedure for the dissolution of such associations too. The associations authorise same-sex couples to use assorted rights such as property rights as the responsibility of maintaining reasonable one 's partner and their children, tenancy rights, full recognition of life insurance and visiting rights in hospitals. The system of common rights in the UK, which all of its colonies following previous work on the date, must be given a face lift. Part 377 of the Law, the header from which itself is unreasonable, since the beginning of œ â € of whoever voluntarily has carnal demands against the order of nature with all of the € |, â € of man, woman or animalâ. Let me explain the words printed in italics. Natural mean, the artificial nature and is against nature. It has been demonstrated on more than one cause that many species of acts of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, then how can human beings yet another nature and a part of this animal kingdom reject the idea of homosexual behavior. As proven by James Owen from National Geographic, animals including beetles, sheep, dolphins, orangutan exhibit the great ™ of the loveâ € ~ of the â € for the same kind. This ™ of the loveâ € ~ of the â € homosapien within the meaning literally mean sex. Accordingly, in my opinion, reject such a view is artificial and an absolute insult to the mother nature. A careful examination the explanation purports to the section that the section does not cover within its CONTEXT, sexual requests between two women. This would mean simply that two women who live alongside connubially can not be against public policy. Consequently there really is nothing in Indian law to prevent two women to be slaves in marriage saint. The ambiguity reflected in this section and section itself is completely been criticized by activists of human rights and goes against the rights of an adult to move freely his life with the person he or wants. Couples gaie are deprived of rights significant when they are not allowed to marry and this causes the injustice. Discussions against legalization of homosexual marriages do not deserve legal support of the condition, the state 's work is not to promote morality or popular opinion, but the rights of its citizens. The purpose of our government, right from the beginning, has be

admin | Lesbian articles |