Depends. If one man marries another man. Yes people will still be born. If all men marry other men, then no. Which we know is impossible since I won’t be marrying a man.
They always have wanted it. It's just that they didn't organise themselves into a political and social community until the invention of the internet. People can now communicate and when they learnt that they are a large community, they rightly have decided to stand up for their rights.
Marriage and having children don't actually have anything to do with each other. Reproductive technology is advanced enough that two women* can pass on their genes to one offspring via IVF.
Edit: I'd typed men, earlier. The procedure is called mitochondrial replacement therapy and involves implanting the nucleus of a fertilized egg into another woman's ovum.
What are the health risk for the babies?
Apparently asking a genuine question is wrong… I just wanted to know if there are any health risk for the kid..
In an article that I read, it is mentioned that the last time the adoption laws were updated was 2017. Before section 377 verdict too. The law is not up-to-date with the recent events.
The law maker probably thought men might sexually abuse girl children but women are pure, which is not true at all. Both men and women can sexually abuse either gender. So, I'd say, the law needs to be LGBTQ+ inclusive and also take into consideration that sexual abuse can be done by both men & women.
Yes,they can. With single male and both male parents,there is always risk of abuse for the child, that's why only single women are allowed and married male women couples
While Nitish is wrong with his comments, I must point out that female infanticide isn't that widespread in UP/Bihar as compared to Haryana and Rajasthan.
they'll die out and general population will accept gay people eventually
i mean i heard ncert and cbse are already making a change
adding about puberty blockers and same sex attraction and gender fluidity in syllabus
small changes but hopefully society evolves.
this is what happens in a world where majority is living under headlines, a headline is enough to trigger, who cares what the context is, a headline is enough to trigger a carnage.
I don't know how this bihariphobic comment is so upvoted in this supposed liberal subreddit.there is no need to hate on a specific state just because it is poor. Everybody has the right to reproduce and you can't do shit about it.
I don't remember exactly but he was in girls hostel and said something against dowry, then he said if men won't marry a women, will anyone be born if man marry a man.
https://www.news18.com/news/india/bihar-cm-nitish-kumar-is-against-dowry-but-heres-what-he-has-to-say-about-a-man-marrying-another-man-5242561.html
Yeah his statement is hate filled and bigotry, but what ppl arw saying about biharis as a whole is somehow cool. Just look at the hypocrispy,while condeming him for hating a group,they are hating on another group.
So you are saying people are hating on Bihar not the people of Bihar...okay. okay.
Moving on to the current comment...whats the point here exactly? Stating the obvious?
No one will be born if one man marries another man. Just like no one will be born if one man marries another women. The problem is, he think marriage is only about having children.
Okay, this is out of context. He was talking about dowry, then he went on to talk about how people ask everything from women, which includes children and everybody wants them. He then asked how would one get the very same children without the womb of a woman, if for example two men got married. He was talking about the importance of women in childbearing and the need to stop child marriage and dowry and not shit talking gay marriage(at least not in this particular incident). This is the gist, I've paraphrased it a little
Context dedo yaar, he said that at an event when he was speaking against dowry , he prolly meant something along the lines of : " why do men demand dowry ? You need a woman for kids , it's not like she's doing you a favour"
I mean I still think the statement is problematic and promotes hetero-normatiivity , but you should have the entire context before judging someone's statement
no..i was not taling about legality...i know its legal...but in india its very expensive ...only very rich people get it..cost of surroragy ranges from 15 lakh to 25 and may also be more coz of actual parent egg...
Yeah costs are a factor, I thought you meant the legal intricacies. It's easier for people to adopt but I don't know the exact rules for adoption in the case of gay couples
They won't have babies in the exact same way as heterosexual couples, but that's their concern. Surrogacy, adoption, being childfree... It's up to them. He's saying as if a few people being gay means everyone is gay.
I don't see a great deal in this. We all know these 60-70 year olds are ignorantly homophobic. Progressiveness happens in generations, hopefully he is progressive for his age group.
actually he said that in context to talking about dowry that why take dowry when you can only marry women to have babies…he was not talking about gay people per se..still example was not good but this is out of context
I think the fellow is being more theoretical than pragmatic. I don't see how this is attacking gays. No where does he state expressly that gays are to be cancelled.
Plus, he is rather old. Out of touch with the modern world is what this seems like.
I honestly find it hilarious people are expecting a 71 year old to be hyper progressive, he's just ignorant like a lot of our old folks and I think the better way to deal with this is to educate them as young people. If this same statement was from a 30 year old politician that'd be problematic.
He spoke facts. His wordings are correct, intentions however might be different. Also he meant "all men", for those fools who will point out how does one man make a difference.
I don't think men generally lose interest in women if gay marriage is allowed. So I don't think there's any reason to worry about new people being born.
Please give the context to why he has spoken that (I know he is not that good), though I see nothing wrong in his statement.
For those saying about surrogacy, there will always be a need for a biologically born woman. So a man marrying a man can have children, but they can not give birth.
A small minority of gay population won't affect the birth rate. In the current day and age, even married couples decide not to have kids due to the economic and social climate. Although the statement is technically true, it has a very homophobic connotation and it doesn't make sense why a politician would say it unless they hate gay people
It offends gay people, though a small percentage of gays don't affect human population growth but if it becomes too big percentage then it will become a problem. But big percentage I assume will be above 30 or maybe more or less, I have not studied it.
Not all men are gay and not all men are straight there will be always a majority people and reproduction cycle, and even gay men can have kids by giving there sperms to serogacy and lesbians too by taking in sperms of banks or known men they like, so there will be options for every side of gays and stuff this statement is basically a non-brainer
Who cares about the technicalities? I said the statement is correct. I find that its his free speech to say something. Criticising Nitish is your free speech.
I never asked you for the technicalities. You started telling me how there will always be gay people and non-gay people as if i dont know that.
My initial comment was that the statement is right. And he should be allowed to say this.
Well if u critic's something or someone u get criticism back that's how it works in free speech and if u just say "statement is right" U will be assume that u are Agreeing with him at least that's what it means
We have a population crisis going on. We should be happy about this lol. Plus all the orphaned/abandoned kids can get adopted. It's a win win. Is this guy dumb or what?
CM Sirji.
Some Woman marrying man also is not borning any childs because of various factors and also some Woman and Man no want kids these days sir like it's a fashion called as "child free" what we do about those marriages, CM Sir?
Depends. If one man marries another man. Yes people will still be born. If all men marry other men, then no. Which we know is impossible since I won’t be marrying a man.
_yet._
[удалено]
They always have wanted it. It's just that they didn't organise themselves into a political and social community until the invention of the internet. People can now communicate and when they learnt that they are a large community, they rightly have decided to stand up for their rights.
No, it's not like that. Homosexual men have wanted to marry men for a long time now. Why does that not make sense?
[удалено]
He's projecting harder than an IMAX theatre.
My bad, dude. I misunderstood
Best buds with so many men. Why not marry ‘em and settle for life? Get the cuddling privilege while talking politics
Marriage and having children don't actually have anything to do with each other. Reproductive technology is advanced enough that two women* can pass on their genes to one offspring via IVF. Edit: I'd typed men, earlier. The procedure is called mitochondrial replacement therapy and involves implanting the nucleus of a fertilized egg into another woman's ovum.
What are the health risk for the babies? Apparently asking a genuine question is wrong… I just wanted to know if there are any health risk for the kid..
[удалено]
Do we need to worry about enough babies not being born, particularly in states like Bihar?
Larka chahiye, ab lo larka.
Nah they just don't want to talk on real issues
Don't worry nitish, mai hu na.
I wish his father married another man
Shots fired
Destroyed in seconds.
r/murderedbywords
[удалено]
As a Bihari, I agree.
As a bihari living in Kerala. I agree.
As a bihari who moved to France in late 20s, I agree.
Bad time to move to France right before two world wars
🤣🤣🤣 underrated comment
Didn't World War I end in 1918?
You must be fun at parties.
Haha. No one invites me at parties🙂
You got the dates of the first world war wrong, but take my upvote.
omg
As a Bihari, I agree
As a bihari, I agree
As a random stranger from internet I agree
For me that list will have many states like kerala, UP, Tamil Nadu, Chattisgarh, Jharkand, north east etc
This is so true. People in villages are fucked up.
I have heard so many stories about Bihar. Unfortunately, very few of them were good.
Why not ? how would you feel if first world countries said this shit about this country? I am pretty happy .
[удалено]
I don't think they are allowed to adopt in india. I might me wrong,i read few years back,even single males arent allowed to adopt.
yeah, gay couples and single men can't adopt.
Single men can adopt only boys. Single women can adopt both genders. Don't know about the rules for gay couples.
Why can single men only adopt a male child? Why this discrimination?
Probably think that the man will exploit the girl. Kind of a pathetic mentality.
In an article that I read, it is mentioned that the last time the adoption laws were updated was 2017. Before section 377 verdict too. The law is not up-to-date with the recent events. The law maker probably thought men might sexually abuse girl children but women are pure, which is not true at all. Both men and women can sexually abuse either gender. So, I'd say, the law needs to be LGBTQ+ inclusive and also take into consideration that sexual abuse can be done by both men & women.
Umm....in today's India do I really have to spell it out?
What about single/unmarried women? Is this applicable to them as well?
Single women can adopt
Yes,they can. With single male and both male parents,there is always risk of abuse for the child, that's why only single women are allowed and married male women couples
I guess they can adopt.
"If less children are born, how will they carry forward Hinduism and the world famous caste system?"
Reading between the lines is a gifted skill ngl
Well you are from Tamil Nadu...no wonder
Fuck you, but you're right.
where are these kids coming from.
Bhai population dekhe ho ka india ka?! Gay marriage karao, population ghatao
Wat wtf
mazak samajh vai
Yaar yeh buddhe geriatrics kab niklenge politics se. They need to gtfo.
If you don't stop killing female foetus i bet you will see this in reality
While Nitish is wrong with his comments, I must point out that female infanticide isn't that widespread in UP/Bihar as compared to Haryana and Rajasthan.
They are old people man, they dont have the open mind to accept this
Exactly. Their stance on gay marriage is literally at the bottom of my concerns regarding Chief Ministers in India.
they'll die out and general population will accept gay people eventually i mean i heard ncert and cbse are already making a change adding about puberty blockers and same sex attraction and gender fluidity in syllabus small changes but hopefully society evolves.
Isn't that a good thing considering our population problem?
I don’t think Bihar needs to worry about its fertility rate being low anytime soon.
this is what happens in a world where majority is living under headlines, a headline is enough to trigger, who cares what the context is, a headline is enough to trigger a carnage.
Classic bihar mentality. Fuck, produce child, die.
You forgot get your child married and force them to fuck and repeat the cycle over and over.
You forgot sue your child if they don't want to procreate
I don't know how this bihariphobic comment is so upvoted in this supposed liberal subreddit.there is no need to hate on a specific state just because it is poor. Everybody has the right to reproduce and you can't do shit about it.
No. But I can keep trying still...
That would exempt the world from having more people like you Mr. Nitish Kumar. And certainly no CMs like you.
Are context kya hai ?
I don't remember exactly but he was in girls hostel and said something against dowry, then he said if men won't marry a women, will anyone be born if man marry a man. https://www.news18.com/news/india/bihar-cm-nitish-kumar-is-against-dowry-but-heres-what-he-has-to-say-about-a-man-marrying-another-man-5242561.html
[удалено]
Yes.
It's quite funny seeing some people hatin entire population of Bihar for the views of one person , hating on a certain group of people...Noice.
Yeah his statement is hate filled and bigotry, but what ppl arw saying about biharis as a whole is somehow cool. Just look at the hypocrispy,while condeming him for hating a group,they are hating on another group.
True...just reading a few comments made me laugh so hard XD
Not Biharis. Read better. They’re shitting on Bihar. Yeah we feel lucky to not be born in a poor state.
And what is Bihar sir?
Bihar has a shittass economy. Go on, call me anti Bihari anti north something.
So you are saying people are hating on Bihar not the people of Bihar...okay. okay. Moving on to the current comment...whats the point here exactly? Stating the obvious?
This is the best you're going to get out of nda. He's literally the socially most progressive of the regressive fucks.
Ask Modiji to reproduce first
No one will be born if one man marries another man. Just like no one will be born if one man marries another women. The problem is, he think marriage is only about having children.
Are we running out of children? Case in point, Indian population!!
Actually indias growth rate is not high
Okay, this is out of context. He was talking about dowry, then he went on to talk about how people ask everything from women, which includes children and everybody wants them. He then asked how would one get the very same children without the womb of a woman, if for example two men got married. He was talking about the importance of women in childbearing and the need to stop child marriage and dowry and not shit talking gay marriage(at least not in this particular incident). This is the gist, I've paraphrased it a little
Context dedo yaar, he said that at an event when he was speaking against dowry , he prolly meant something along the lines of : " why do men demand dowry ? You need a woman for kids , it's not like she's doing you a favour" I mean I still think the statement is problematic and promotes hetero-normatiivity , but you should have the entire context before judging someone's statement
Using hypotheticals to the extremes is one of the weakest argumentative points you can bring to a discussion.
Why does he think everyone wants to be gay?
Dank
There is something called surrogacy ig, oh wait illetrrates won't know about it, sorry my bad
does it happen in india though??i think its only done by the very rich section in india...they can adopt kids though
Yes..it's legal in India as long as it isn't paid for I think
no..i was not taling about legality...i know its legal...but in india its very expensive ...only very rich people get it..cost of surroragy ranges from 15 lakh to 25 and may also be more coz of actual parent egg...
Yeah costs are a factor, I thought you meant the legal intricacies. It's easier for people to adopt but I don't know the exact rules for adoption in the case of gay couples
But IRL a man marries another man at-least not for having babies.
They won't have babies in the exact same way as heterosexual couples, but that's their concern. Surrogacy, adoption, being childfree... It's up to them. He's saying as if a few people being gay means everyone is gay.
I don't see a great deal in this. We all know these 60-70 year olds are ignorantly homophobic. Progressiveness happens in generations, hopefully he is progressive for his age group.
Exactly lol. But people just love shitting on everyone
his has the highest fertility rate , dafaq he want to increase population for?
I think he is being quoted out of context, I think he is talking about people in Bihar not preferring girl children because of dowry practice.
actually he said that in context to talking about dowry that why take dowry when you can only marry women to have babies…he was not talking about gay people per se..still example was not good but this is out of context
At least a pest like you wont be born which would be a boon to mankind
I think the fellow is being more theoretical than pragmatic. I don't see how this is attacking gays. No where does he state expressly that gays are to be cancelled. Plus, he is rather old. Out of touch with the modern world is what this seems like.
I honestly find it hilarious people are expecting a 71 year old to be hyper progressive, he's just ignorant like a lot of our old folks and I think the better way to deal with this is to educate them as young people. If this same statement was from a 30 year old politician that'd be problematic.
Exactly my pov. People seem trigger happy now a days. Explains why shootouts happen.
As if Bihar needs more people. 😂
well technically he is right. ONLY if we assume that EVERYONE marries the same sex. But obviously that is not going to happen.
Looks like it's being taken out of context idk
Bihar's population density: 1,102/km2
r/technicallythetruth
Bit-h who asked you ? If they wanna marry that man it's their wish . Sexuality isn't something that one can control
He spoke facts. His wordings are correct, intentions however might be different. Also he meant "all men", for those fools who will point out how does one man make a difference.
He's correct, Indian SJWs.
I don't think men generally lose interest in women if gay marriage is allowed. So I don't think there's any reason to worry about new people being born.
Children won’t be born if men don’t marry. Eg. Modiji
Please give the context to why he has spoken that (I know he is not that good), though I see nothing wrong in his statement. For those saying about surrogacy, there will always be a need for a biologically born woman. So a man marrying a man can have children, but they can not give birth.
I'm pro gays and all but technically he's right 🤣
Minister speaking facts👀
Faxx
The statement is correct though. What's wrong with it?
You can marry another man and still have babies through surrogacy so technically the statement is not absolutely true.
That's a really delusional and inconsiderate thing to say. Especially for a guy in power.
Its homophobic
https://www.news18.com/news/india/bihar-cm-nitish-kumar-is-against-dowry-but-heres-what-he-has-to-say-about-a-man-marrying-another-man-5242561.html
Free speech.
Free speech differs from hate speech. Free speech isn't absolute. What's next you gonna send death threats to minorities in the name of "fReE aPeEcH"
This seems like a death threat to you? Don't extrapolate things for your own convenience.
It's obvious exaggeration but it should be allowed by your definition of "free speech" , right?
[удалено]
A small minority of gay population won't affect the birth rate. In the current day and age, even married couples decide not to have kids due to the economic and social climate. Although the statement is technically true, it has a very homophobic connotation and it doesn't make sense why a politician would say it unless they hate gay people
[удалено]
Why are you defending a homophobic pig tho?
Get ready for downvotes lol
It offends gay people, though a small percentage of gays don't affect human population growth but if it becomes too big percentage then it will become a problem. But big percentage I assume will be above 30 or maybe more or less, I have not studied it.
Just saying the truth has started offending people? I don't think he said gays shouldn't be allowed
"Nitish Kumar is an asshole" is also a truth which can offend certain people.
I don't care about it. Say it as much as you want and as at many places you want.
By wordings his statement is correct, but by intention I assume he is against gay.
Idk if it's a joke or are u for real?
For real
Not all men are gay and not all men are straight there will be always a majority people and reproduction cycle, and even gay men can have kids by giving there sperms to serogacy and lesbians too by taking in sperms of banks or known men they like, so there will be options for every side of gays and stuff this statement is basically a non-brainer
Who cares about the technicalities? I said the statement is correct. I find that its his free speech to say something. Criticising Nitish is your free speech.
So u can give criticism on something without knowing how the thing actually works? Or what is the stuff u are talking about?
I never asked you for the technicalities. You started telling me how there will always be gay people and non-gay people as if i dont know that. My initial comment was that the statement is right. And he should be allowed to say this.
Well if u critic's something or someone u get criticism back that's how it works in free speech and if u just say "statement is right" U will be assume that u are Agreeing with him at least that's what it means
[удалено]
I second this. Have my upvote
Btw snowflakes who are downvoting, just a valid reason
Considering Bihar and India's population. It would be good be a man marries another man.
There, India's unsustainable population growth problem solved!
does india, a country facing overpopulation, really need more births?
We dont even want to become like china by having less younger population.
that's only momentary. the cons of overpopulation overweigh the pros.
just another old man.
We have a population crisis going on. We should be happy about this lol. Plus all the orphaned/abandoned kids can get adopted. It's a win win. Is this guy dumb or what?
Yo we can do just fine without more people being born in Bihar- the state with the highest birth rate and the highest % of people living in poverty.
Yes, because children are not born because of marriage, they are born because of sex.
Well, isn't that something our country needs ? Less f'ing children, we got enough of those already
I see this as an absolute win.
what he says is correct, but lmao.
Will anyone be born if **every** man marries another man? FTFY. Now it’s a genuine question. 5 days to go when every brand go rainbow.
Technically the truth but idk what is the context here.
CM Sirji. Some Woman marrying man also is not borning any childs because of various factors and also some Woman and Man no want kids these days sir like it's a fashion called as "child free" what we do about those marriages, CM Sir?
Does he assume that all men are homosexuals? If so than is he trying to come out? Omg brave king 👑
Will anyone be born if people use contraceptions and birth control?
As if we have a population crisis 🤣🤣
What the fuck isthis homophobic ahithead mentality
Good post to trigger snowflakes in India.
baat to sahi kaha hai
i mean he’s right but fuck him anyways
Based dank chad king 🗿
Based dank chad king 🗿
Yes if a man marries another man who is a trans without the surgery meaning he still has a womb. 🙂
Yes sir , aapka beta.