Sexual Fluidity And Same Sex Marriage: Legal Philosophy Cannot Change Biological Truth

The oral observation of a bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, in the case of legalising same-sex marriage question is quite important:

Here is an example of a statement that is quasi-true and almost irrelevant to the actual discussion and hence has carries the danger of setting a false narrative.

Long before wokeism became the fashionable teddy bear of the elite, the traditional deep psychology of India had dwelt into this aspect.

It recognised the reality of the dominant male and female genders. At the same time, it also recognised the fluidity in the periphery that meanders through the main body of the social organism.

It recognised the need to preserve and create a niche of protection and non-prejudice for these peripheral fluidity without affecting the social organism.

This is no simple task. While other cultures have also done it, they have been marred with strong theological prejudices and moralistic aversion to the periphery of gender fluidity.

Marriage on the other hand is an interesting institution humanity has evolved. It is based on the very hard reality of sexual dimorphism that dominates our species. It is a compromise.

The dependency of the young ones in human species on their parents is extraordinarily extended. The males typically have the urge to increase their numbers with as many partners as possible. The females with the high risk of death in pregnancy-delivery have to make sure that the copulation happens only with the right person so that the child she risked her life for can be brought up.

Males seem to be evolutionarily oriented for increasing the numbers while females oriented for extending the generations. Marriage as an institution evolved to the advantage of the female of our species. It is meant to ensure the evolutionary success of the species.

The bestowing of either religious sanctity or/and legal strength to the institution of marriage thus has at its base this important evolutionary basis.

We may even call it one of our extended phenotypes.

Birth-control devices, particularly the pill changed the dynamics of all these and that is quite a shock this institution received.

It is an obsession of the Marxists/Leftists to fabricate everything as a social construct. It is the revenge of Lysenko, denying the reality of chromosomes and telling that genders are mainly social constructs.

Let it be clear. Gender fluidity is a fact but they are not social constructs.

It should be noted that when homosexuality was made legal in India there was no widespread agitation or antagonism against that. Those political forces branded as ‘Hindu fundamentalist’ and ‘Hindu right’ were okay with it.

In the case of marriage also, while the Government has opposed it there is no public outrage. The debates are mostly not even storms in a tea-cup.

Nevertheless, it provides the anti-Hindu forces the opportunity to stereotype the so-called ‘Hindu Right’ with homophobic Bible-thumping fundamentalists or Islamists who spray bullets on gay joints.

Marriage is a social institution that has evolved in human society mainly adapted for sexual dimorphism of the human species. There should be pressing evolutionary reasons to change this. The passing fad of fancy wokeism is definitely not one of them.

The need to live in an instiution that provides the warmth, psychological protection, emotional integrity and love of a family is the right of every human being. It cannot be denied just because a person has a different sexual orientation. Yet appropriating an institution adapted for a completely different evolutionary need is not a solution.

Perhaps the Central Government should appoint a committee of genuine gender activists, evolutionary biologists, psychologists, legal experts, Dharmacharyas and clergies of different religions to evolve an institution and rituals for those who want to create a family outside the institutions based on sexual dimorphism of human species.