English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

8 answers

There are followers of different religions with their own religious teachings of marriages, separations, successions, etc. Legislations made by religious majorities can not forcibly be imposed upon the religious minorities. It amounts to interference into their religious beliefs and faiths. If imposed forcibly, it endangers the unity and integrity of that country, since people having any religion will never accept crushing their birth right of practising a religion of their choice. Others will not accept Hindu concept of Suttee (burning widow alive with dead body of husband) and Nyoga (impregnating wife through pious males). The legal position of male & female relations in India is as under:

In India there is minimum age restriction for marriage (not for unwed sexual activities), 18+ for girls and 21+ for boys.
Premarital, extramarital or unwed sexual activities are not barred / prohibited and are no offence in any Indian law. Wife’s sexual intercourse with other/s is also no offence, hence no prosecution or punishment to her. After divorce also her husband is bound to maintain or pay till she remarries, even if she is permanently / continuously enjoying sex with all other/s. Pre marital sexual experiences (intercourse / coitus) with other/s cannot be a ground to seek divorce under Hindu/Special Marriage Act. Thus a female’s physical sexual relations with persons/s of her choice (with their consent) is not an offence or prohibited / barred in any Indian law and she is at liberty to enjoy SEX freely and fearlessly. A male’s physical sexual relations with any 16+ female (with her consent) is no offence or barred / prohibited in any Indian Law, unless she is in the wedlock of somebody else and is done knowing her wedlock or without her husband’s consent or connivance. Prostitution (commercial sex trade, offering sex for monetary gain) alone is an offence punishable in Indian laws. Yet no Station House Officer, Officer In Charge or Inspector of Police can arrest, enter, search or seize.
All unwed sexual activities (pre/post/extra marital), homosexual acts, & other perverted sexual acts are specifically forbidden in Islam in clearly written unambiguous words. In Islam, unwed voluntary sexual intercourse also is a great sin punishable continuously in hell & heinous crime against government/society punishable with publicly lashing/ death by pelting stones.

2007-03-03 08:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Uniform Civil code for u could recommend equality in citizenship.this could recommend eighty 3 hindus to 13 muslims,Wheres the equality,i'm hoping u comprehend. Edit on Apr 9, Thats what's happenning in Yahoo solutions too.There are much less participants who're helping the Muslim minority and that they think of there conceitedness to be a valid factor. Even the BJP manifesto speaks approximately Muslims as downtrodden basically u people experience good to talk against the unfavorable and the needy.shop conversing I dont have the the appropriate option to stop u. U people have fallen so low to hold sexual existence of a guy or woman into the talk.U all stink!!! U do no longer appreciate others faith.U r no longer making relaxing of Islam yet ur mum and dad,because of the fact manners are taught by skill of ur mum and dad.This shows the variety wherein u have been spoke of.So do no longer assume others to appreciate ur faith.

2016-09-30 03:35:26 · answer #2 · answered by aharon 4 · 0 0

Its a difficult biz trying to rule the world. Fussy countries like N.Korea wanting to start a schoolyard brawl and all.Then Iraq and it's civil war . Or the problems going on in Africa.In the U.S. we can't even get uniform law in our on states. However it was set up like this on purpose so that no one state or the federal government had more power.Plus we don't all speak the same languages or have the same customs either. What about a balance of power?Who would have the most power? The most developed countries? But that would not be fair.

2007-03-02 20:07:13 · answer #3 · answered by primamaria04 5 · 0 0

I'm completely against globalization. Each country is it's own entity and should be treated as such.

However, if you had to have a list of rules, you just can't beat the 10 Commandments.

2007-03-02 20:12:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

Cultural differences would make it difficult. What should be the definition of marriage? Would divorce be permitted? At what age should children become legal adults?

Those questions are only civil matters; consider the arguing that would arise deciding punishments for crimes. What should be the punishment for theft? For murder?

2007-03-02 20:39:34 · answer #5 · answered by Kevin k 7 · 0 0

I have no problems comparing GWB and whatshis name of Norway. But GWB and Kim of NKorea?

We gotta expel lots of nations from the UN

2007-03-02 20:15:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because each nation is soverign. We don't want a "unform" code dictated to us by the world. We want to run ourselves, not have the world run us.

2007-03-02 20:05:18 · answer #7 · answered by C J 6 · 0 0

Globalism is a cancer that is working to kill you. Don't you realize that globalism = slavery?

2007-03-02 20:04:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers