|
Lawdy!
Haven't seen one of those in a while!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy has a wallet full of them, but then having been drinking with him I can attest he is not the fastest to the bar! 
(Sorry N, you know I am only just joking)
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Something about "an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet" comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
India went back to dark ages with this ruling by the Supreme court.
What a shocker[^]
How can they make consent act by adults illeagal? Not recognizing them as couple is another thing but calling them as illeagal is unjustified .
This time SC dropped the ball on this. They should have allowed the protection till a law is passed from parliament.
But going by the public outrage, this will be reviewed to a higher bench but still.
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
modified 11-Dec-13 6:38am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't get about this thinking is ...
If man-o-man is illegal, what about man-o-women via trap 2? Then there's there's the question of BJ's, legal when a woman does it but not if it's a man? Are lady friends allowed? Will comfortable shoes still be on sale?
The whole attitude is sick to me. I wouldn't say Mrs Wife and I are too extreme in what we do, but it should be our choice. Also I don't see how I, or anyone, have the right to criticise the way other people find live and affection. As long as your partner is adult [no lambs for Griff] I see no problem. Don't 'wave it in my face' and I'm happy to let you live your life while I live mine.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put. It cant be said in a better way.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, Dream. Discover.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said sir
I also don't understand why People want to restrict your way of life, especially like this.
As Long as you don't harm them why should they?
I suppose it's fear...
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
This law was carry forwarded from the Victorian times when British left India, where gay sex was illegal.
But Indian lower court determined that with change in times, this law has to be modified and said that this law stands void if the two adults were consenting.
But 4 years down the line, Higher court is aking govt to change the law, which is fair but they should have given them protection.
Now they can be evicted from house, fired from work, deny protection from domestic abuse... phew
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Don't 'wave it in my face'
Not without washing it first anyway!
... sorry  I can't quite believe I just typed that!
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
You'll never be a reformed character will you...
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I sincerely hope not! 
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful"
Chris C-B
|
|
|
|
|
I hope not, too!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Purely out of interest, how can a "Supreme Court" have a "higher bench" to overturn it's decisions?
supreme
suːˈpriːm/Submit
adjective
1.
highest in rank or authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Normal case in supreme court work with 2 or 3 judges.
Higher bench (Constitutional Bench) meaning 5 judges is required if you are debate about specific constitiuation ( which is the case now).
Last option is that Govt can overturn the law in parliaent by 2/3 majority
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Purely out of interest, how can a "Supreme Court" have a "higher bench" to overturn it's decisions?
They based their judicial structure on the Dragonball cartoon series.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
This Supreme bench's decision can be overturned by a Supremer bench whose decision itself can be overturned by the Supremest bench which again can be overturned by the President (The Supremestest if you can call it)
Welcome to the Law.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I care about the subject -- but the legislature shouldn't, either.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Well said
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps one of the most surprising, although perhaps predictable, parts to this is that what is known as 'homosex' in India is very common, just as it is in the West.
This ruling is worthy of the WBC.
India can put a rocket into space yet cannot have empathy and tolerance for those in its land.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
This is the sort of topic you have to be careful about, lest it become soapbox worthy.
Like others in this thread, I don't really care what other people get up to. I care a bit about what they get up to in public, but I think I'm even handed there too.
But the story (as linked) is that there was a Law X.
A *court* decided that the law was Wrong, and said it was invalid.
A higher court said the lower court was wrong to rule on this, and that the lawmakers (ie, polticians) should fix things, not judges.
It sounds quite reasonable to me. The supreme court did not say the law was good, or bad, simply that it was politicians job to fix it, not judges.
Now, you can argue that the laws existence is bad, and it should be repealed, but that's a different point to the one in the linked story.
Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly, My issue was that the Suprememe court should have maintained a status quo so that gays cannot be criminally prosecuted and ask Govt to change the law.
When *court* struck down this law 4 years back,many Indians came out of closets. Now they can be terminated from work etc though remote
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd argue it's the court's job to follow the law as literally as possible, and only use judgment when wording is ambigious - and only strike down laws if they contradict a higher authority (ie, a constitution).
If it were also up to me, I'd make it unconstitutional to add a law to the "Book", without repealing two others. I know both views are naive, sadly.
Iain.
I am one of "those foreigners coming over here and stealing our jobs". Yay me!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
