What Is Marriage? - By Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, Sept. 22, 2010, 16:00 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

It is truly odd and not a little surprising that after nearly two million years of the emergence of Man on this planet Earth we are forced to ask ourselves this fundamental question – What is marriage? The whole of Nature around us is overwhelming in its witness that the propagation of each species is ensured by the faculty of sexual union between male and female of the species. Apart from the mammals, the continuation of the other species such as fish, reptiles, rodents, worms and even trees and plants is achieved by the process of cross fertilization between male and female. Biologists and Botanists have only recently discovered a very few exceptions to this sexual ‘rule’ of reproduction. However, it must be noted that asexual reproduction remains the exception to the rule. Scientists are still engaged in studies to understand this exceptional phenomenon.

Until very recently we have simply assumed that the differences between male and female are inherent in Nature, and specifically in human beings (among other mammals). To be male or female is as natural as it is to be able to breathe, to eat, to sleep, to grow or to develop emotionally, mentally and psychologically in accordance with our nature. No one questioned the ‘natural’ ability of humans to unite sexually in order to conceive, gestate, bring forth and to nurture new human beings in an atmosphere of loving, tender and encouraging family environment. It was simply taken for granted that for the purpose of producing children and caring for them until they are able to fend for themselves, it was necessary for a man and a woman to enter into a union in which the two became one flesh. At the crudest and most basic level this was the universally understood purpose of marriage. Palæontological studies have confirmed that even prehistoric Man understood this function of marriage. Physical and Cultural Anthropology also confirm that marriage between a man and a woman was the norm of social life in all kinds of societies – including polygamous and polyandrous societies. This norm was determined by the basic biological difference between man and woman. Of course, the differences were not merely biological; they included very fundamental differences in emotional, psychological and spiritual accompaniments of the biological differences. These emotional and psychological differences are still the subject of a lot of study, and in spite of the many advances that ‘civilized’ Man has made, we have not even begun to scratch the surface of the great mystery of the sexual differentiation between man and woman. A recent semi-facetious book is titled: Men Are From Mars; Women are From Venus. One thing, of course, is amply clear. Man and Woman are complementary to one another. They need one another to complete themselves. Plato described man and woman as two halves of a whole. The two halves were not complete in themselves until they came together in union of bodies, hearts and minds.

The fact of dual sexuality is so overpoweringly obvious that it should not even be questioned by anyone. Yet, by a queer (pun intended) twist of logic, we are today faced with the question of what constitutes marriage. Received wisdom and thousands of years of human experience tell us that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. However, the last few decades have shown evidence of this view being challenged by a miniscule coterie of men (and women) who claim that this definition of marriage does violence to their civil rights. They claim that it should be possible for two males or two females to marry legally and to enjoy the economic, social and other benefits which have hitherto been enjoyed by couples who are married according to the traditional form.

New definition of marriage.
The so-called homosexual lobby has been clamouring for a change in the legal definition of marriage as being the union between a man and a woman. They also claim that the definition of ‘family’ should be changed. Homosexuals have become more vociferous in their demands and more aggressive in their propaganda to change not only the legal definition of marriage, but to change popular perception of homosexuality as a psychological aberration. A few years ago, homosexuality was practised surreptitiously and always in fear of the law, which held that such homosexual behaviour in public places constituted a criminal offence and made the practitioners liable to punishment under the law. However, there has been a change in the law in many countries. These countries have “decriminalized” homosexual behaviour “in private” between “consenting” adults. These legal changes have been welcomed by homosexuals and their supporters as positive achievements in their efforts to change the common perception of what constitutes marriage. In every day jargon this is referred to as ‘coming out of the closet.’ But homosexuals have not been content with having achieved the decriminalization of their deviant behaviour. They are demanding that the very definition of legal marriage be changed. This they have tried to do through the legal system on the ground that the common definition of marriage violates their rights to equality.

It must be noted that the removal of the legal sanctions against homosexual behaviour have not impinged upon the moral aspects of homosexuality or on the definition of marriage as the physical union between one man and one woman. It might be safe to say that the law has shown some benevolence towards those who publicly violate accepted social norms, without in any way compromising those social norms themselves. However the worrying aspect of this problem is that a miniscule minority of people are trying to change the social norms, which are the bulwark of social stability and political integrity.

Whatever view may be taken of the changes which the legal establishments in some countries have made to the practice of homosexuality, the social, ethical and psychological aspects of the problem still remain to be addressed. One can compare the recent Court decisions with the falling standards in the legal views on prostitution, on abortion, on the use and trafficking of drugs etc. It should be noted that the interpretation of laws by some Courts do not always conform to the will of the legislatures. There is an ongoing debate about whether it is permissible for a judge to “make” laws rather than to “interpret” the laws as legislated by the representatives of the people. It is the view of eminent jurists that the Courts should confine themselves to interpreting and applying the law as it has been legislated by the State or Federal Parliaments. Courts are considered to be acting beyond their competence when they “make” laws which are in clear violation of the expressed will of the citizens. The tension between the functioning of the judiciary and the legislature is ongoing, and the alert citizen closely follows the development.

The psychological dimension.
The arguments for the redefinition of Marriage which are being put forward by the homosexual lobby is based on several premises, all of which have proven to be unconvincing and untenable. One argument is that the present understanding of marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, and, therefore, violates their right to equality before the law. The other argument is that homosexuality is an inherent aspect of the personality of some individuals, and should therefore be respected. In support of this argument they advance the view that homosexuals are genetically preconditioned. In clear contradiction of this point of view, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which is sympathetic to the homosexual cause, in its “Journal of Human Sexuality” of 9th June, 2009 informs us that: “There is no such thing as a “gay gene” and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to pre-natal hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people – both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.”

After compiling, studying, and reviewing more than one hundred and twenty-five years of experiential evidence, clinical studies and research studies NARTH concludes “that it is possible for men and women to diminish their unwanted homosexual attractions and develop their heterosexual potential.” The document “What Research Shows” “indicates that efforts to change unwanted homosexual attractions are not generally harmful; that homosexual men and women do indeed have substantially greater experiences of and risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on [our] review of 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients – primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, [we] conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it. Further, mental health professionals competent to provide such care ethically may do so.”

The arguments being proferred for a change in the law defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman are simply not tenable.

The assault on marriage.
The assault on the institution of marriage does not come solely from the homosexual “lobby.” There have been diverse and seemingly unrelated events which have directly attacked marriage as a social institution. Not very long ago the National Commission for Women had made a submission that adultery should be “decriminalized.” They put forward the very same reason: that private acts indulged in by consenting adults should not be treated as criminal acts. The NCW publicly acknowledged that adultery was socially undesirable. If such confused thinking dominates our so-called “educated’ elite, there is only disaster awaiting us at the end of the road. If consensual homosexual actions in private should be exempt from the law, why on earth should suicide or attempted suicide be treated as crimes? Why should conspiracies to overthrow the State or to perpetrate violence be considered to be within the ambit of the law? How can we include incest in the Criminal Law?

There is a rather widespread practice in some parts of India which permits a man to sign a contract with a woman, who is not his legally married wife, to provide ‘extra services.’ In most cases this contractual arrangement is not objected to, at least not vigorously, by his legal spouse. This extra-legal marital arrangement constitutes a mockery of the law of marriage. It is not recognized by any law on the Statute Books, but is still widely prevalent.

There was also a recent newspaper article that a woman who had co-habited with a man for some time filed a civil suit for alimony from her partner on the ground that their relationship amounted to a marriage, and that, therefore, the decision to dissolve the relationship made the man, made him liable to pay her alimony.

There are many other instances of aberrant social practices which threaten the integrity of marriage and of the family. It is necessary that we should guard against such insidious erosion of values. The institution of marriage and of the family is the basic nursery of all social norms. The family has always been considered to be the primary unit of society in which values such as sharing, concern for others, honesty and mutual cooperation are cultivated. No other institution such as an orphanage, a club or a mutual-aid society can ever replace the role which the family plays in keeping our society intact and healthy. Any attempt to erode the integrity of marriage or to weaken the fabric of the family needs to be resisted at all costs. Without the family and marriage, humankind will disintegrate into chaos and anarchy.