US Supreme Court rules 5-4 in favour of same-sex marriage. Now same-sex couples would be or must be given recognition and affirmation as much as heterosexual marriage. Traditionally marriage is between two consenting adults of opposite sex. Now this definition is modified to indicate that marriage is between two consenting adults. I can imagine certain questions emerging as consequences of such ruling now and in the years to come.
1. If two same-sex adults can give mutual consent and get married, why can't consenting adults go for polygamy or polyandry? Questions and comments of these sorts can be posed: Why can't people be allowed to love who they want to love? Why should the state decide who all I marry? I am not harming anyone by marrying three girls/boys, so why can't marriage be just between consenting adults? Why not legalise polygamy/polyandry?
2. Why must mutual consent be the basis? Why can't one party's consent be enough when the other party cannot say 'yes' nor 'no'? Meaning, why can't I marry my dog that cannot say 'yes' nor 'no'; shouldn't my consent be enough? Why can't I be allowed to love my dog or my lamb? Why should the state refuse to honour my feelings when I am doing harm to no one? Why must consent imply mutual consent?
3. If one party's consent is the basis, then why can't I marry a lovely and a beautiful child? Why can't an adult marry a child who does not oppose the marriage? Well, those who oppose this and say that this child is physically not ready, they should ask if same-sex marriage also involve 'physical readiness'. If physical relations between same-sex is okay, why is it not okay between an adult and a, say, 13 or 14 year old child?
4. Why can't I marry myself? I have no objection to myself getting married to myself; I give my consent.
NB: Very often the argument of a liberal is based on the concept of freedom -- freedom of an individual to do things that harm no one. But taking freedom alone as the basis is quite problematic. As shown above taking freedom as the only basis can lead onto other outcomes in a subtle way. If mutual consent (by exercising freedom) is the basis, then why not mutual consent of few adults for polygamy/polyandry? And then onto other issues as listed above. For the state to legalise and therefore affirm and recognise and publicly laud, I would say the 'purpose' or 'function' must also be taken into account. (This is Aristotle's line of arugment.) What is the purpose of a marriage? Does same-sex marriage or polygamy/polyandry or human-animal marriage or marrying oneself satisfy the purpose of marriage?
From liberal point of view where freedom is the basis to decide what the state ought to legalise or not, same-sex marriage is fine. But if we include Aristotle's way of reasoning of taking into account the purpose/functioning, I think it's hard to justify same-sex marriage or the other kinds of marriage. (In fact, polygamy and polyandry would have stronger reason than same-sex marriage if both freedom and function are to be taken together as the basis for legalisation of whatever kind of marriage is to be legalised.) Thus, If freedom and functioning are taken together, I think the only marriage that fulfills the condition is the heterosexual marriage between adults.
I am not in favour of legalisation of same-sex marriage nor am I in favour of criminalisation of same-sex relation as it is in India now. The state does not have to criminalise live-in relationship between consenting adults nor does the state need to legalise live-in relationship between consenting adults. The state ought not to criminalise same-sex relations because it has to respect the freedom of the individual. But the state also ought not to legalise same-sex marriage because the state must go beyond respecting freedom alone to affirm certain practices; the state must also look at the purpose/function/ telos of that practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment