nevada wrote:Moral of the story - don't be a cheap bastard.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

>>>I can see the grounds for a divorce on the basis of adultery, but the case on the basis of his preference doesn't make sense. If anything, this should be a test case to challenge the constitutionality of it, I would think. The other part I don't understand is the reference to the law going back to archaic british roots. Are they saying the local kings, who presumably had their own religion-based laws, were tolerant of it in a legal sense? This is hard to believe considering the conservatism of the society. At best, they may been silent on the issue, but I doubt that they were liberal about it. Doesn't a lot of hindu law derive from manu's code?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

>>>I can see the grounds for a divorce on the basis of adultery, but the case on the basis of his preference doesn't make sense. If anything, this should be a test case to challenge the constitutionality of it, I would think. The other part I don't understand is the reference to the law going back to archaic british roots. Are they saying the local kings, who presumably had their own religion-based laws, were tolerant of it in a legal sense? This is hard to believe considering the conservatism of the society. At best, they may been silent on the issue, but I doubt that they were liberal about it. Doesn't a lot of hindu law derive from manu's code?

Criminalization of same-sex relationships was a British imposition. The Mughals were merry swingers. Our own mythology seems to imply acceptance, what with Vishnu morphing into Mohini and seducing etc.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

weird case. could have just divorced and moved on.

otoh, hope this canalizes banning of that archaic law.

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

>>>...the case on the basis of his preference doesn't make sense. 

swapna wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

>>>...the case on the basis of his preference doesn't make sense. 

he deceived her and ruined her life by presenting himself as a heterosexual male and agreeing to marry her.

swapna wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

...Rights activists said the case could represent a dangerous precedent, because the sexual acts involved had been consensual and because the woman had invaded her husband's privacy.

>>>...the case on the basis of his preference doesn't make sense. 

he deceived her and ruined her life by presenting himself as a heterosexual male and agreeing to marry her.