1st Indian lesbian marriage ?

[kena]

That's the whole point of LGBT legislature, to have court marriages for same sex couples.

How difficult is that to understand? Even in another thread on a certain judgement by an Indian court you had confused the whole issue! Jurisprudence has NOTHING to do with what religion allows or disallows UNLESS it is dealing with a specific religious matter. Marriage is a legal contract not a religious affair in the eyes of the law.

There won't be any implication beyond same sex couples being able to get legally married. How is this difficult to comprehend?

In Hinduism, unlike in Islam, marriage is not a legal contract. It is the sacred union of a man and woman for pursuing Dharma, Kama, Artha and Moksha, No man made law is worth a sh*t in front of Vedic concepts of marriage. If a person does not wish to follow the Vedas, he has no business to call himself a Hindu. It is only Hinduism, and no other religion, whose followers are so laissez faire that they can dare to mutilate the basic tenets of a religion that they claim to follow.

 

[GURU DUTT]

why there wont be legal implications? i mean in case of divorce? maintainence, proprty, etce etc

hun chaddo wee sannu jana ji you better bother about the plight of women in land of the pure why so much concerened about gays and lesbians of india are you doing your thesis on indian society or are you bieng sinical

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I see I got your attention buddhe. Now please scram.

Pre- Teen F*got F**er catches on like a tick on a buffalo and refuses to let off.

 

[Dillinger]

What crap is this?? Obviously Hinduism does not have a stand on lesbian "marriages" because they are not marriages at all either as per Hindu tradition or the Hindu Marriage Act. In fact, marriage is so universally understood to be a union of a man and woman that there was no need to even define "marriage", "wife" and "husband" in the act. Lesbian "marriages" are a monstrosity which have no sanction in any religion.

Back to misunderstanding any nuance. One, the Hindu marriage act is as much based on shashtra (narada shashtra and manusmriti) as our dear congressi stooges are secular. That is why I made it clear that matters temporal and material are handled separately in Hinduism. There are even different edicts from kumbhika to asekya. I cannot elucidate upon the whole of it atm since that's not possible over a forum. You need to differentiate between common law which was framed by the vidhipunaya sabha in every Hindu kingdom of old and the religious edicts which were propagated under vidhi by purohits. I stressed before, Hinduism is neutral specifically because it doesn't infringe upon vidhipunaya and vidhivaidha- that's why I keep stressing that our framework should not be transmuted into an abrahamic one.

In Hinduism, unlike in Islam, marriage is not a legal contract. It is the sacred union of a man and woman for pursuing Dharma, Kama, Artha and Moksha, No man made law is worth a sh*t in front of Vedic concepts of marriage. If a person does not wish to follow the Vedas, he has no business to call himself a Hindu. It is only Hinduism, and no other religion, whose followers are so laissez faire that they can dare to mutilate the basic tenets of a religion that they claim to follow.

Read the previous post I quoted you in.

 

[scrumpy]

but that is not gay merrige

Aravan (also known as Rajakumaran) is the son of Arjuna. According to the Mahabharata, the Pandavas decide to sacrifice Aravan in order to win the war. But Aravan wants to marry before he is sacrificed. No one wants to marry him and become a widow immediately thereafter. Lord Krishna touched by Aravan’s condition transforms himself into a woman, marries Aravan and spends the night with him

it meant that god himself changed himself to a women and merried a prince for one night as he was going to be sacrificed the other day and this episode symbolizes marrige of a prince to a women who was once a man means its about sex change which menas sex change was possible in ancient india when some womenwanted to becaome a man

According to C. Rajagopalachari's Mahabharata summary, when Shikhandini was still a young woman she discovered the garland of ever-blooming blue lotuses hung on the palace gate. Shikhandini put it around her neck. Actually it was Amba (now Shikhandini) who had hung the garland given to her by Lord Subramanya. When Drupada saw his daughter wearing the garland, he quaked with fear at the thought of becoming Bhishma's enemy and Shikhandini was banished from the kingdom. She performed austerities in the forest and was transformed into a male named Shikhandi. According to Vyasa Mahabharata Shikhandini exchanged her sex with a Yaksha who wanted to be a female. Thus Shikhandini became Shikhandi.

therer is another source which tells that Guru Dronacharya Did the ang mardan/surgical operation on shikandini to make him shikandi


my point is that the link you gave was about sex change and trans gender where does it shows that hinduism permits gay merrige

You surely don't believe that people just change from male to female and vice-verca. These people here getting "married" in the temple think of themselves as women trapped in a man's body. Not many actually undergo sex change operations. The sexual relations they have is not classed as a hetro-sexual relation.

When 2 people love each other and want to stay with each other, what right does society have to deny them those rights. Marriage is not just about having sex. There is a lot of legal issues involved around things like inheritance, pensions, etc. Please try and think from their point of view.

 

[Anubis]

Why is people so concerned about other people *******??Marriage should not be controlled by the government.It should work like any legal contract.Just buy a notary stamp write down "We'll live together" and sign it.If u face problems just go to court and show the contract and demand justice.The executive department of the government should not waste time and money on trivial matters like marriage!

 

[kena]

Back to misunderstanding any nuance. One, the Hindu marriage act is as much based on shashtra (narada shashtra and manusmriti) as our dear congressi stooges are secular. That is why I made it clear that matters temporal and material are handled separately in Hinduism. There are even different edicts from kumbhika to asekya. I cannot elucidate upon the whole of it atm since that's not possible over a forum. You need to differentiate between common law which was framed by the vidhipunaya sabha in every Hindu kingdom of old and the religious edicts which were propagated under vidhi by purohits. I stressed before, Hinduism is neutral specifically because it doesn't not infringe upon vidhipunaya and vidhivaidha- that's why I keep stressing that our framework should not be transmuted into an abrahamic one.

Please keep your retarded mumbo jumbo and Abrahmic rantings to yourself and do not try to extrapolate your fake eurocentric theories to Hinduism about which it is apparent that your Abrahmic brain knows nothing about but is willing to slander to the utmost. There is no concept of the ecclesiastical and the temporal in Hinduism as all action in Hinduism is in pursuit of Dharma, whether it be the duties of a king, a sweeper or marriage between a man or woman. Marriage in Hinduism allows both wife and husband to proceed further in their journey towards moksha by cooperating and living a life in the Grhastha Ashram and pursuing Kama, Artha and Dharma. It involves consummation and subsequent procreation. So defend your love for Lesbian "marriages" whichever way you want but do not drag Hinduism into it.

 

[GURU DUTT]

You surely don't believe that people just change from male to female and vice-verca. These people here getting "married" in the temple think of themselves as women trapped in a man's body. Not many actually undergo sex change operations. The sexual relations they have is not classed as a hetro-sexual relation.

When 2 people love each other and want to stay with each other, what right does society have to deny them those rights. Marriage is not just about having sex. There is a lot of legal issues involved around things like inheritance, pensions, etc. Please try and think from their point of view.

first part is realli hillarious the institution of merrige came into bieng so sex between to persons one male and another femal e becomes leagalised and the women gets her rights by the society and not like barberians who picked women of there own choice and she had no choice .

in time time the union of merrige gained the spritual backing and it made society more civilized and people friendli in not a very learned man but according to me a merrige between a man and a women has a prime objective and that is sex so both of them make a bond and the children form this union get there rights and love of there family while since same sex merriges cant produce children and keep the continuation of the society they should be prosecuted and discouraged for this unnatural and unethical behaviour and thats it

 

[Dillinger]

Please keep your retarded mumbo jumbo and Abrahmic rantings to yourself and do not try to extrapolate your fake eurocentric theories to Hinduism about which it is apparent that your Abrahmic brain knows nothing about but is willing to slander to the utmost. There is no concept of the ecclesiastical and the temporal in Hinduism as all action in Hinduism is in pursuit of Dharma, whether it be the duties of a king, a sweeper or marriage between a man or woman. Marriage in Hinduism allows both wife and husband to proceed further in their journey towards moksha by cooperating and living a life in the Grhastha Ashram and pursuing Kama, Artha and Dharma. It involves consummation and subsequent procreation. So defend your love for Lesbian "marriages" whichever way you want but do not drag Hinduism into it.

Temporal and material are simple semantically enunciated terms. No one is dragging Hinduism into it. I made it perfectly clear that Hinduism has no "law" proscribing or forbidding homosexuality, it doesn't define them in terms of applicable for marriage or not applicable. Where did I draw upon any ecclesiastical definition. I simply demonstrated that there are far too many nuances from Sushruta Samhita which accepts such unions in matters of acceptability but not legal unions (since that is not within its ambit) to narada shastra which explicitly forbids it to Vacaspati which does not. Is that difficult to understand? I can't very well elucidate upon every single stand here can I? That's why I used the vedic terms for vidhipunaya since I expected you to comprehend separation between vidhisara (in the name of the supriya king) laws and the raj-purohit's edicts? What's got you terming this as mumbo jumbo or have you been reading up on Hinduism on wikipedia or something?

 

[kena]

Temporal and material are simple semantically enunciated terms. No one is dragging Hinduism into it. I made it perfectly clear that Hinduism has no "law" proscribing or forbidding homosexuality, it doesn't define them in terms of applicable for marriage or not applicable. Where did I draw upon any ecclesiastical definition. I simply demonstrated that there are far too many nuances from Sushruta Samhita which accepts such unions in matters of acceptability but not legal unions (since that is not within its ambit) to narada shastra which explicitly forbids it to Vacaspati which does not. Is that difficult to understand? I can't very well elucidate upon every single stand here can I? That's why I used the vedic terms for vidhipunaya since I expected you to comprehend separation between vidhisara (in the name of the supriya king) laws and the raj-purohit's edicts? What's got you terming this as mumbo jumbo or have you been reading up on Hinduism on wikipedia or something?

Who are you to pronounce on Hinduism? Are you the Shankaracharya or even a learned Brahmin versed in scriptures. Who gave you the authority to opine that homosexuality is alright in Hinduism. And Sushruta Samhita??/ Are you nuts??? Do you even know what it is all about??? And Narada Shashtra???? I am beginning to suspect you are either bonkers or just making a joke on hindu's expense.

 

[Dillinger]

Who are you to pronounce on Hinduism? Are you the Shankaracharya or even a learned Brahmin versed in scriptures. Who gave you the authority to opine that homosexuality is alright in Hinduism. And Sushruta Samhita??/ Are you nuts??? Do you even know what it is all about??? And Narada Shashtra???? I am beginning to suspect you are either bonkers or just making a joke on hindu's expense.

Please enlighten me, you do not know of narada smriti? Or of Shusruta samhita, did you miss the part where I clearly mentioned that religious approbation was not within its ambit? Please tell me you can pick up a few terms of vedic sanskrit at least and not their anglicized gora translations from the invaders? I am beginning to think the same about you.

 

[kena]

Please enlighten me, you do not know of narada smriti? Or of Shusruta samhita, did you miss the part where I clearly mentioned that religious approbation was not within its ambit? Please tell me you can pick up a few terms of vedic sanskrit at least and not their anglicized gora translations from the invaders? I am beginning to think the same about you.

What has Narada Smriti got to do with Hindu marriages???? Is it a core scripture which is used in solemnizing Hindu Marriages instead of yajur Vedic/ Rig Vedic mantras??

And the Sushruta Samhita????

The Sushruta Samhita (सुश्रुतसंहित&#2366 is a Sanskrit text on surgery, attributed to Sushruta, a physician who possibly resided in Varanasi around 6th century BCE.[1][2][3]
The text (based on analysis of ancient Indian manuscripts)[clarification needed], was likely composed around 3rd or 4th century BCE. It is one of three foundational texts of Ayurveda (Indian traditional medicine), alongside the Charaka Samhita and the medical portions of the Bower Manuscript.[4] The text has been edited multiple times by various practitioners of Ayurvedic medicine. At the end of several chapters, ancient Sanskrit texts themselves explicitly declare that they have been supplemented, edited, and partially rewritten by later authors.Template:References required The text was translated to Arabic as Kitab-i-Susrud in the 8th century CE.

Do you even know what you are talking about, or you have smoked Ganja and are now mumbling out your hallucinatory delusion??? rather Im beginning to suspect that you are a Fifth Columnist, a Xtists pretending as Hindu-- a strategy commonly adopted by the Xtists to confuse the Hindus and to sabotage their religion from within.

 

[Dillinger]

What has Narada Smriti got to do with Hindu marriages???? Is it a core scripture which is used in solemnizing Hindu Marriages instead of yajur Vedic/ Rig Vedic mantras??

And the Sushruta Samhita????



Do you even know what you are talking about, or you have smoked Ganja and are now mumbling out your hallucinatory delusion??? rather Im beginning to suspect that you are a Fifth Columnist, a Xtists pretending as Hindu-- a strategy commonly adopted by the Xtists to confuse the Hindus and to sabotage their religion from within.

Oh man! The Sushruta Samhita deals with kumbhika, asekya and sandha as well among many other things. Or are you going to read the whole text over wikipedia?

The mantras for solemnizing a marriage have nothing to do with laws, those come under other texts. The Narada Smriti does indeed clearly define the social norms with regard to homosexuality as does even Manusmriti (read the 8th division (chapter), verse 370 for cases in which it is punishable), from instances where it may be acceptable to those where in severe punishments are rendered. Do me a favor and read the texts. This is exactly why I mentioned the term "vidhisara" and then went on to explain edicts that relate to religious yajnas.

This is exactly where the texts clearly delineate that laws and jurisprudence do not derive from sruti but from vidhisara and above all the Dharmashastra which is derived from the source of Manu itself. Sruti is above law in the sense that it has very little to do with what a man may dictate or otherwise, be he a king or a raj-guru.

Educate yourself, read the smritis rather than looking them up on wiki. Btw the laws of leading one's life are enunciated within the Manu Smriti between Manu and Bhrigu. The Sruti on the other hand prescribes the appropriate matras and knowledge required for yajnas before the eyes of the lords and on sundry matters.

 

[kena]

Oh man! The Sushruta Samhita deals with kumbhika, asekya and sandha as well among many other things. Or are you going to read the whole text over wikipedia?

The mantras for solemnizing a marriage have nothing to do with laws, those come under other texts. The Narada Smriti does indeed clearly define the social norms with regard to homosexuality as does even Manusmriti (read the 8th division (chapter), verse 370 for cases in which it is punishable), from instances where it may be acceptable to those where in severe punishments are rendered. Do me a favor and read the texts. This is exactly why I mentioned the term "vidhisara" and then went on to explain edicts that relate to religious yajnas.

This is exactly where the texts clearly delineate that laws and jurisprudence do not derive from sruti but from vidhisara and above all the Dharmashastra which is derived from the source of Manu itself. Sruti is above law in the sense that it has very little to do with what a man may dictate or otherwise, be he a king or a raj-guru.

Educate yourself, read the smritis rather than looking them up on wiki. Btw the laws of leading one's life are enunciated within the Manu Smriti between Manu and Bhrigu. The Sruti on the other hand prescribes the appropriate matras and knowledge required for yajnas before the eyes of the lords and on sundry matters.

I have no interest in checking up your Mumbo Jumbo on perverse matters. Manu Smriti is not a law book for Hindus in the Kaliyuga, so stop quoting from it and take your Xtist dirt propaganda elsewhere.

 

[Dillinger]

I have no interest in checking up your Mumbo Jumbo on perverse matters. Manu Smriti is not a law book for Hindus in the Kaliyuga, so stop quoting from it and take your Xtist dirt propaganda elsewhere.

Manusmriti is the "law book", Dharmashastra is derived from it, it has been given to us by Brahma's manasputra! Have you taken leave of your senses to go as far as to raise doubts on Manu Smriti? Are you sure you're a Hindu? You don't even comprehend proper Sanskrit! You stated that Narada smriti and Manu Smriti do not provide jurisprudence over marriages. I already quoted one verse. would you like me to quote the other specific verses which do? Wikipedia quoting yuppies don't get to twist facts.