Article 377 of Indian Penal Code reads: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Depending on my health condition, it would be perfectly fine for the doctor to advise me what to eat and what not to eat. But it would be perfectly insane if the Court would provide legal menu to the citizens on what to eat during lunch or dinner. There has to be a limit to which the Court could have a say in my personal life. The question we have here is how far the legal system can or should enforce its view on one's sexual life.
I don't think criminalising or decriminalising homosexual act takes us back to the past. There are instances in antiquity where it was acceptable and also instances where it was not acceptable. The arguments to criminalise or decriminalise should be based on some other grounds.
The matter deserve serious deliberation because it would further spill over to the question whether the Court should recognise and affirm if two men/women choose to live as husband and wife, and not limit their relation to occasional 'lovemaking'. Since legal recognition entails legal affirmation, there is the need to deliberate if we want to affirm, honour and celebrate same sex marriage as a society. This is when, I believe, the collective viewpoint of the society comes into play, or should come in, in framing the legal code of conduct of a state.
I am not in favour of a society where there is (rampant) fornication or adultery. My religious belief informs me that such acts are not morally right. But I also have reservation about the Court criminalising adult consensual fornication. Isn't the Court impinging too much on individual's freedom if it has to imprison any man or woman who engages in lovemaking behind closed door before they get married? To push the matter little more: how about the Court putting unmarried love-bird into jail for kissing behind closed door? Or how about putting to jail those who hold hands before getting married?
But suppose the Court decriminalises homosexual act, how far should it go? Should it go to the extent of conducting Court marriage for them? I would answer in negative. My religious view informs me that marriage is a union between one and one woman, and therefore I would like to keep it that way. (The Muslims are informed by their Scripture that even one man and four women is allowed; so let them retain their viewpoint.) One may argue that if in my view concession could be made to the Muslims, why not make concession to, say, an atheist too who has no religious text to inform him or her about marriage and thus allow him/her same sex union. Well, the Muslims have a particular view; it's not that anything will work them. Whereas in the other case, there is no particular viewpoint as such. Today it could be same sex union; tomorrow it could be one man and ten men; and the day after, it could be one man and one horse. Where do we put a stop? When there is no given sanction, it opens up the gate to go down to any extent. Therefore, my view is that in general marriage should be a union between one man and one woman. This is the marital union we as a society should affirm and honour.
No comments:
Post a Comment