0 likes

and sir abt the youth its like you’ve said in BFN “Given this mayhem, the urban upper and middle classes completely switched off.”

   0 likes

   0 likes

I think the idea of “duty to publish” must be explored further where by the onus is on government agencies to publish the data that they hold instead of citizens asking for data through RTI. Technology is already there to facilitate/enforce this. I sincerely think that this one idea if turned into a proper legislation can bring a lot of transparency to governance.

Jai Hind.

   0 likes

   0 likes

Great to hear that you are a registered organ donor.

But I don’t understand (because I’m not familiar with detailed rules) why your organs are to be “siphoned off by corrupt officials”.

There is a very small window of opportunity between death and organ donation. The nearest appropriately equipped hospital should be the appropriate place (or like in my case, if in Melbourne, a university hospital) for organ extraction and transplantation. Relatives of many organ donors in India will likely not find nearby proper hospitals upon death.

Which “corrupt public officials” come into the picture?

I’m willing to have us organise a movement for reform of the laws to ensure that wishes of donors are taken into account. Note, you’ll have to provide the precise amendments to the law you think we should have. Thereafter we can create a team/project that wants to get the law changed.

This is one thing which IAC could support. It is neither socialist nor capitalist. Just a normal human need.

Regards
Sanjeev

   0 likes

   0 likes

Third parties get very raw deals in a FPTP system. If the FPTP system is not changed, it can be decades before a credible alternative to the Congress or BJP appears in India. Think about it. It does seem to me that you’re making the perfect an enemy of the good.

Under proportional representation, FTI will have the best chance of fielding some parliamentary representatives.

   0 likes

If you are going to deny the validity of empirical evidence in this context, then you will have to provide some deductive logic to prove your position.

The only deductive reasoning that has been forthcoming from you is:

1. Only a man and a woman can give birth biologically.
2. The ability to give birth biologically is a necessary condition for it to be feasible for a couple to raise a child.
3. Therefore, it is not feasible for a gay couple to raise a child.

The problem is that when I ask you to prove the validity of the second statement above, you fail to provide any proof. Simply because you know that it can’t be proven.

Short of proof, what we again have is YOUR OPINION – not a FACT. It is your OPINION that two dads or two moms is harmful – it’s not a fact of reality that you can prove.

And while you have a right to your own opinion, unless you are able to prove that your opinion is true, there is no way you can seek to deny the legal right to adopt to a gay couple.

I don’t think there is any point in carrying this debate on any further unless you are able to provide proof to back up your assertions.

Thanks for the exchange of views.

   1 likes

I’m unable to devote time to your detailed arguments about state benefits for married people but whatever “benefits” are given are due to the consideration of the huge child-rearing costs that the married family incurs.

The benefits I mentioned were:

1. Immigration benefits
2. Tax benefits
3. Medical power of attorney

As for benefiting children, (in the absence of gay adoption) I will grant that it is to the benefit of the children if their parents can live together and hence immigration law should not prevent a mom and a dad to live together in the state of their choice.

But as for tax benefits why give beneficial tax treatment to straight couples who haven’t yet had children? Tax benefits to “married” couples do not distinguish between childless couples and those with children. Why not abolish joint tax returns for married couples without children?

And what do huge child-rearing costs have to do with medical power of attorney?

The net wealth of a married family is SIGNIFICANTLY lower at the end of life than that of a “gay” couple despite all such “benefits”.

The net wealth of a married family is SIGNIFICANTLY lower at the end of life than that of a married family without children despite all such “benefits” (in fact the married family without children also gets all these benefits). Are you also going to propose that married families without children not be considered married by the state anymore?

There is one question you haven’t yet answered. You stated

All attempts to call the “gay” contract marriage are incompatible with liberty. Your liberty ends when you want to encroach my space.

. I asked

This is where you lose me. How is any liberty enjoyed by a straight couple via the institution of marriage diminished by the same liberty being enjoyed by a gay couple? How is the gay couple encroaching on the space of a straight “married” couple?

Can you explain how gay “marriage” diminishes the liberty enjoyed by straight married couple?

   0 likes