Comments on: Uniform Civil Code http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/ Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:27:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: SmilingBuddhu http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-4188 SmilingBuddhu Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:46:52 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-4188 Many of the comments are good but they are really details to be added. But the idea as such is a very good one. If humans are just like animals (and most of them are), then the bullets points above make complete sense. I think morality-wise, monogamy is generally symbolic of loyalty to your spouse. Personally though, I feel having sex with anyone else than the person you love, is being disloyal in your relationship. But, the average human is an animal (*I don't have the data to show it, but strongly feel so*) in his behavior just ridden by emotions than reasons, and these rules are comfortable to go by for such people. And, for the human who claims the moral high ground, he can always to stick to monogamy. (PS: I am not trying to put down or up any class of humans here) Many of the comments are good but they are really details to be added. But the idea as such is a very good one. If humans are just like animals (and most of them are), then the bullets points above make complete sense. I think morality-wise, monogamy is generally symbolic of loyalty to your spouse. Personally though, I feel having sex with anyone else than the person you love, is being disloyal in your relationship. But, the average human is an animal (*I don’t have the data to show it, but strongly feel so*) in his behavior just ridden by emotions than reasons, and these rules are comfortable to go by for such people. And, for the human who claims the moral high ground, he can always to stick to monogamy. (PS: I am not trying to put down or up any class of humans here)

]]> By: Anonymous http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3807 Anonymous Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:10:40 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3807 What should be the position in case the "legally wedded spouse" dies and second "legally wedded spouse" is recognised? Shouldn't the children of both spouses share the property inheritance rights? What should be the position in case the “legally wedded spouse” dies and second “legally wedded spouse” is recognised? Shouldn’t the children of both spouses share the property inheritance rights?

]]> By: Biju http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3805 Biju Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:01:31 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3805 But why should religious arbitrage be discouraged in the first place? Just like marriage, the state has no business worrying about that too...! But why should religious arbitrage be discouraged in the first place? Just like marriage, the state has no business worrying about that too…!

]]> By: Namy http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3802 Namy Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:09:33 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3802 Btw, when I view this on Google Reader, the Great Google Baba inserts an ad at the end - for "scientology.org". Just sayin'.... Btw, when I view this on Google Reader, the Great Google Baba inserts an ad at the end – for “scientology.org”. Just sayin’….

]]> By: Namy http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3801 Namy Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:06:33 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3801 As Mohan says, there's already an option in the legal system to specify inheritances to anybody, related or not, with a will. That's not acshully a valid reason to legally recognise multiple marriages. As Mohan says, there’s already an option in the legal system to specify inheritances to anybody, related or not, with a will. That’s not acshully a valid reason to legally recognise multiple marriages.

]]> By: Mohan http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3800 Mohan Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:13:20 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3800 "I argue that the only reason the state should be bothered about “marriage” is because of property inheritance principles". Why? Just get rid of the inheritance nonsense. A person should either make a will before he dies or the state will take over his assets. There are many good arguments why the state should be bothered about "marriage", but property inheritance is the least good of them. “I argue that the only reason the state should be bothered about “marriage” is because of property inheritance principles”.

Why? Just get rid of the inheritance nonsense. A person should either make a will before he dies or the state will take over his assets. There are many good arguments why the state should be bothered about “marriage”, but property inheritance is the least good of them.

]]> By: Padmanabhan http://noenthuda.com/blog/2009/12/09/uniform-civil-code/comment-page-1/#comment-3799 Padmanabhan Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:17:30 +0000 http://noenthuda.com/blog/?p=1529#comment-3799 The real problem with political issues is not in deciding what the right/just approach is. As you said, all it takes is a little bit of common sense to come to the conclusions that you listed above. The real issue is to convince the morons, mobs, convince those that are deriving benefits from the existing system to give up those benefits, arguing with idiots and guardians of culture etc. There are no neat and simple solutions for that. The real problem with political issues is not in deciding what the right/just approach is. As you said, all it takes is a little bit of common sense to come to the conclusions that you listed above. The real issue is to convince the morons, mobs, convince those that are deriving benefits from the existing system to give up those benefits, arguing with idiots and guardians of culture etc. There are no neat and simple solutions for that.

]]>