Everyone hates our criminal law professor because...well, of many reasons. Anyway, one of the primary of those is that he argues that homosexuality is against public morality.
It's kind of one of his favourite topics actually, and due to my...ahem...pervert instincts, I find it wildly interesting, even while others die of his rant about the Naz Foundation case. So he goes on to say what a dire judgment it is, for it is detaching criminal law from the precepts of public morality. And then everyone goes nuts because mahn, we are so elite, and how can we ever think that homosexuality is NOT the norm!
Well, let's consider what public morality really is. Ummm...no that's a really hard question to consider in such limited space, so it could be something you could just mull upon. But consider this. We say it is NOT immoral to be homosexual. Yet honestly how many of us are really comfortable with it? I know for one that my next-door neighbour definitely is not.
Morality is not a redundant concept. It is visible in the way we react to things. Immorality manifests not only in the instance of Ram Sena chasing harried couples, but also when one discreetly sniggers at PDA-ers. Simply saying that Public displays are okay, then does not make it moral for the person saying it. Because the comfort level with the thing is still absent.
Now notice that the people who contend homosexuals to fall within the moral ambit, do live within the symbolic where morality is the sanction to righteousness. They do not try to blur the boundaries of morality, rather kinda strengthen it, by recognising it exists, and then recognising its importance by heavily parading (or trying to), the morality of homosexuality. In other words, the attempt is just to try to expand the boundaries of morality, rather than blur it.
All this points towards, first, how important morality is to our society; and second, homosexuality is still not a part of public morality, because the personal comfort level with it does not exist. A homosexual is something exotic...and for us elite, something exotic to be patronised. A homosexual is NOT mundane...howsoever much we try to act that way ( in order to slash the accusations of being the elite patron against us), but in our minds, a homosexual is still excitement, a new possibility, something off-the-track. It's not mainstream, howsoever much we try to convince ourselves by saying it aloud. A homosexual is still a deviant. Hence, not within the public morality. That's why it's easier to let go off a pass made by a hetero, than by a homo. The latter is scary or more exciting...in any case, it persists longer in the memory.
But some food for thought: Is it so bad being qualified immoral if you are homo? I mean as long as you get your due rights...via the rights jurisprudence, which is taking over the criminal law jurisprudence, as propounded by Habermas? ;) That's where Dr. Shukla needs to be questioned, if you will.... heehee.
On the other hand, what makes an immoral being so ostracising that morality HAS to be attributed to him? In other words, morality really is an essential if one wants to persists in a society, isn't it?
4 comments:
Hmmm.... The attitude in the 'social parlance' (as he says) needs to brought about. And no legislation can do that. Everyone is happy with the Judgment but when it comes to the personal domain, few accept it! And moralality and immorality is a notion which varies from person to person...
I loved it! I so want Shukla to see this ;)
:P
hehe, same was my intention but lack of time! :(
Morality seems too abstract and loose a concept to hold to.To decide what's moral and what's not u seem to insinuate the yardstick of comfort levels.But when what seems rational may not seem moral that's when self-contradictions arise and hence the call for correction.The government has no business to know what people do in their bedrooms,ryt?.this seems rational. But people are not guided by rationale alone. the same people vouching for rights of homos may not like their kids to be one of those.But then corrections to set it right are inevitable.Society evolves and comfort levels change gradually to accept what seems sound and reasonable.So may be right now this brouhaha over this issue seems unfounded but after a period homosexuality will be as "mundane" as plain existence and won't come under the ambit of immorality :)
yeah well, nice one Saket! :)
What constitutes morality is indeed a high-ammo debate. This was only one perspective I offered.
But my basic point was that morality--howsoever we construe it, is here to stay in the society. Legitimacy to stuff is only granted by labeling it "moral"...and there's hardly any contention about the illegitimacy of the "immoral". Therefore upshot: only what is moral stays. So morality wins.
yeah, probably we'll see that day when homosexuality becomes mundane. :) But it surely is not here now.
And hey thanks for teaching me a new word...brouhaha...I'm gonna use it! ;)
Post a Comment