Marrying more than once is legally wrong. So courts will not say that. Thanks for your understanding.
Printable View
Marrying more than once is legally wrong. So courts will not say that. Thanks for your understanding.
There may be sub-clauses to it (certain religious groups / celebrities etc are exempt) :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
thamiz, in my post I had quoted Mrs.PP's statement. My question was based on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by thamiz
Hence my questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Mrs.PP
It was a "question" about what your stand was ? Why do you take it as a statement, much more something which I am attributing to you !Quote:
Originally Posted by PR
If the answer is : "not imprisonment but 'a strong censuring' would do", then great ; I thank God for these small mercies. :-)
What is the point here ? That Khushboo is a soft target. If so, then point taken. But of course, in the Hub MK is a soft target and one must try and figure a Hub holy cow. That's a digression we can do without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
That and my theory that mk is a liberal trapped in the conservative environment thanks to the compulsions of vote politics and playing to the gallery
I dont see PP suggesting for imprisonment or for hanging her!Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Why this digression is allowed?? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
Oh, it is about MK! :lol:
Not about Kamalahassan or Gemini Ganeshan? :lol:
Why are you bringing up MK? He is an easy target in this forum moderated "carefully"? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum
Talk about Gemini Ganeshan and his extraordinary marital and love life! I am saying because he is a BELIEVER! :lol:
And you all support the love life of nidhyanandhaa and sankaracharaya and not MK? :lol:
Why do you always support one kind? :lol:
Which is why I was "asking" instead of "stating".Quote:
Originally Posted by thamiz
Everything apart, one of things I have been trying to think of is a situation like this:
A- think of something vilely morally repugnant but not illegal according to the prevalent law
B - suppose someone says A is 'okay' and cases pile up
C- SC dismisses cases saying "don't bother me, there is no legal question here"
Then what would my reaction be ? I am stuck at A :lol2:
So quite truly this means I am not as truly liberal and tolerant as I like to think I am. My world isn't changing topsy turvy now that I am outraged. Which means I shall have my comeuppance years later from changes that exceed my current powers of imagination. :-)
I can never cease to wonder about the amazing clarity in Nehru's statement in a letter to GandhiQuote:
Originally Posted by Nehru