I strongly oppose it, given that same-sex marriages are still not legally recognized in India.Same-sex marriages in India  emerged unexpectedly, catching many by surprises.

In India, marriages are regulated by personal laws, which means that each religion has its own set of laws pertaining to marriage. The Special Marriages Act  of 1954 is the sole non-religious legislation pertaining to marriage. Before discussing the Special Marriages Act, I will address the personal laws of some prominent religions in India.

The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 is the relevant legislation for Christians. In the Act, it is explicitly mentioned that the union of "any 2 Christians" can be legally certified as a marriage. Section 60 of the Act specifically addresses the requirements for Indian Christians  to fulfill in order for their marriage to be officially recognized. Although there is no specific requirement for the gender of the individuals involved, according to Section 60(1), the male individual planning to marry must be at least 21 years old, while the female individual planning to marry must be at least 18 years old.

The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 empowers Muslims to follow the Shariat Law when it comes to marriage. The term "Nikah" is commonly used to describe the institution of marriage. According to Muhammad Abu Zahra, Nikah can be described as a contractual agreement leading to cohabitation between a man and a woman. According to Ibn Uthaimeen, marriage is a shared agreement between a man and a woman...

The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 is the relevant legislation for Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs. Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act outlines the requirements for a Hindu Marriage  and stipulates that as long as the conditions are met, any two individuals who are Hindu can enter into a marriage. There is no specific stipulation stating that the individuals entering into marriage need to be of different genders. This act, in contrast to The Christian Act, employs the terms "bride" and "bridegroom" when establishing the minimum age for marriage. However, in several sections, individuals involved in the marriage are denoted as the "husband" and "wife".

The Special Marriages Act, 1954 refers to a law designed to recognize inter-religious and inter-caste marriages, which can be described as "secular" unions. Section 4 of the Act pertains to the regulations regarding marriage and specifies that any two individuals can enter into matrimony under the provisions of this legislation. However, it is mentioned in Section 4(c) that "the male should be at least 21 years old and the female should be at least 18 years old..." The observations I highlighted regarding The Christian Act are relevant in this context.

Nevertheless, the existence of Section 377, IPC renders these issues of interpretation irrelevant. The existence of 377 will continue to lead to the dismissal of any previous interpretations by the Courts. We eagerly anticipate the impending verdict, hoping that 377 will be eradicated once and for all.

It should be noted that, even without Sec 377, the likelihood of the aforementioned interpretations being accepted is extremely slim. To achieve acceptance of these interpretations concerning same-sex marriages, it would require judges who possess a remarkably progressive mindset, willing to creatively reinterpret the language being used.

My overall viewpoint regarding marriages between individuals of the same sex

Individuals are naturally predisposed in this manner. People can experience attraction to different genders, whether it be opposite (heterosexual), same (homosexual), or both (bisexual). There are also those who are attracted to any gender, including transgender individuals, due to their perception of no distinction (pansexual). Lastly, there are individuals who do not feel any sexual attraction towards any gender (asexual).

Furthermore, gender identity is a distinct topic that is not even relevant to this discussion.

Is it fair that if someone is naturally attracted to the socially accepted gender, they have an advantage, while those who are naturally attracted to the non-conforming gender are at a disadvantage?

Research has demonstrated that animals engage in both homosexuality and bisexuality.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that one's sexual orientation does not cause harm to anyone. Two individuals being together does not cause harm to anyone. They are simply engaging in romantic or sexual relationships  with individuals of the same gender. They find them appealing. What are the negative aspects of feeling drawn towards someone?

In order to simplify things, the answer is affirmative.

Yes. It should.

We lack the authority to give permission for it. It occurs naturally. We are neither entitled to prohibit nor authorize it, as the decision does not lie within our jurisdiction. It's illogical to suggest prohibiting swimming, just like saying that would be absurd. While some individuals have an aversion to swimming, others derive pleasure from it. Swimming poses no harm to anyone. They are not causing harm to anyone, and it is not our place to grant permission or impose restrictions.

There is no denying it, and when it comes to the issue of legality, opinions differ as some argue for its legality while others consider it illegal. However, the determining factors are the governing administration and relevant laws.

If alternate sexualities become legalized, more individuals will have the opportunity to discover and comprehend their own sexuality prior to entering into a marriage. This newfound awareness will enable them to better understand the concept of alternate sexualities. There remains a significant segment of individuals who struggle withself-awarenessdue to a lack of information or exposure to prejudiced beliefs, particularly those pertaining to one's own emotions and experiences.

Overall, India would experience significant improvements in living conditions, including reduced rates of depression, divorce, and broken families.

I would not hold any resentment towards you for this decision, as I believe that adults should have the freedom to marry whomever they wish.

However, if you're expressing opposition to individuals selecting their own partner for marriage, that is a distinct matter.

I don't believe I would hate you, but I would question how you developed such a narrow-minded people, and harmful stance which denies others the same rights you readily enjoy.