The philosophy of choice
M.A. Shaik Abdullah
The issue of LGBT, as it has come to be known, is far more important to be left purely within the realm of personal domain of certain individuals, because it has serious implications on society, in general, and certain fundamental ethos, in particular. Though the decision to decriminalise the act of homosexuality is understandable, the veiled attempt to legitimise the concept of homosexuality is unacceptable and retrograde.
Personal rights
The main arguments put forth by the votaries of gay rights are that sexual relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex is not unnatural and, that they have existed since the recorded history of mankind. Secondly, they are within the domain of personal rights and, as long as they are consensual, the state has no right to infringe them and, thirdly, the human understanding and approach towards social and personal issues have always been temporally dynamic and the issue of LGBT has to be approached from the modern perspective.
A cursory understanding of basic biology establishes the fact that the act of sex or mating is the natural process of creating the offspring of one’s own species. When this does not occur, the so-called consensual sexual relationship that happens between homosexuals is purely hedonistic and unnatural. The existence of such an unnatural sexual orientation all through the ages does not in any way make it acceptable because exceptions and deviance have always been there in every observable human behaviour.
Secondly, the champions of gay rights have argued that sexual choices are purely personal and that society does not have the right to declare what is legitimate and what is not. But what they fail to acknowledge is the fact that even the epitome of personal liberty in India, the fundamental rights that are enshrined in our Constitution, are not absolute and unfettered but are subject to reasonable restrictions.
Erosion of values
We must understand that not every choice is left to the discretion of the individual in any society; for instance, in the United States, there is a provision for compulsory military service during the time of necessity and no citizen can deny this obligation under the guise of personal freedom.
Even in India, the government regulates, and even proscribes the handling and consumption of intoxicants such as drugs, liquor and even prostitution. These actions from a purely personal point of view are the consequences of personal choices people make but can we say that the state has erred in regulating them? Can we imagine the state of society if such actions are allowed unbridled?
These restrictions are pivotal for maintaining morality, peace and tranquillity, and to approach every issue purely from the standpoint of personal liberty without due credence to the question of shared social responsibility would be simply naïve if not stupid. Of utmost importance are the implications of the Delhi High Court judgment on the social fabric of our country and the impact it would have on the well-established institutions of marriage, family and parentage. It raises serious questions on the laws of adoption, inheritance and maintenance, the issue of divorce and separation, and the kinship relationships that are the foundations of an enduring family set-up.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
