Sunday, March 28, 2010

A Right to Live, Not Live-In

The Supreme Court has done away with the need to use the term “illicit relationship”, and to satisfy whom this time? I cannot believe that a purely immoral and illogical behavior can now be justified as a fundamental right. I am not afraid of social censure here to suit “modernists”.
Our whole society and culture has been built over 1000’s of years with certain basic building blocks. There is no doubt that the concept of morality has been waning exponentially, but that is no reason to make a wrong-doing legal in order to artificially free people’s mind of any guilt, or to encourage it as acceptable.
Indian culture and society has been built on the family-system as the foundation and to take that away ensures the demise of our only stronghold in this world. One needs to reflect on his/ her life and acknowledge that the strongest impacts on their character and way of living come from the ones closest in blood. It is the way our parents have lived that sets an unattainable example to us. It is the attempt to ape an elder sibling’s virtues that salvages a younger one, and the elder’s knowledge of this fact and hence the need to remain an example that provides a balance to this tightrope act in life. Of course in later years, friends play a large impact, but for most of us, the ability to distinguish right from wrong has already been deeply ingrained. But, even the spirit of independent thought never really came independently.
Making live-in relationships a right is just modernistic trash and perhaps the most short-sighted constitutional right ever. The repercussions of this are enormous and I mean it in a bad way. If two people are in love, what is to stop them from getting married? It is the fear of commitment, and responsibilities. With any kind of sustainable happiness, comes along a certain amount of responsibility. One cannot turn their backs on their duty towards their families and the society. It sounds alright to say that people have a right to live their lives the way they want to. I cannot but disagree. If one’s actions bear an impact on people around, they need to be conscious of the right way of life. Every society is a dynamic, intricately complicated and inter-linked mechanism. People learn their virtues and tolerance for virtues by accepted norms among others in their line of sight. Perhaps, in today’s generation, there are still a lot of people who can relate to what I am saying. But the moment we are forced to turn a blind eye towards this sort of rampant immorality, we endanger the coming generations. Love, trust and responsibilities can give society a foundation, not lust. A hundred years from today, we will have nothing original in our country to boast of, no identity. A few hundred years later, we shall have nothing more than digital remains to show for ourselves.
No doubt, one has a right to live his life, but only to live it responsibly.

Please read next blog for possible rebuttals to your arguments. Thanks!


Sur said...

I did not know it was illegal in the first place, the state has nothing to do if two consenting adults decide to live together without marriage . One can argue about the morality of such behaviour, but to file a police against someone for living-in and outraging public decency seems all the more foolish.

Lakshmipriya said...

Is it wrong to litter the streets with your trash? The modern Urban dweller would say yes, even if one does not practice it. Is it a punishable offense in some of the most developed countries? yes.why? Because sometimes only punishment is a deterrant.
This behavior is trash, and it is a pollutant, a cause for an epidemic.

Priyank said...

Well I will have to say that I totally disagree.

How a person lives his life is totally his business, unless he is playing a spoilsport to others. Simply calling something immoral just because most of us are not comfortable with it is wrong. Same was the case with love marriages a few decades ago. Today, a lot of people do love marriages. I dont believe that it has in any way derogated the family system. It just took time to sink in.

I believe the supreme court has taken a logical step in right direction. Just that our generation will not totally accept it, just like our parents' generation didn't accept pre-marital love.

Lakshmipriya said...

Exactly Priyank, there was not a deterioration to the "family system"
Here, we are saying it is ok to not have any families and just have sex. That is a blow to your family system.

Hari said...

India is a nation of 1.1 billion people. There is no standard definition for "Indian culture". It means different things to different people.

You might think that live-in relationship is immoral. The Todas of Tamil nadu, who are one of the first people to populate India, date and live together for years before they marry if at all.

Lakshmipriya said...

Todas practised fraternal polyandry and even they gave it up long back. When they lived together, it was just their way of living, not because they would like to move on after the excitement fades. That is what is principally wrong.

Priyank said...

Living in is not exclusively about having sex. People can anyway have sex before marriage without living in. Basically why living in makes practial sense is because it gives you a chance to realise your compatibility in absolute sense, and you dont have to live with the biggest mistake of your life 'till death do u apart'

....R.A.J.A.... said...

You said it. "No doubt, one has a right to live his life, but only to live it responsibly."
The constitution is there to outline one's rights. You may argue if live-in is a responsible act, but you can't take away the right to live-in.


Every thing is being copied from the WEST and this one is IN.The debate shall continue for some time....and the heat shall die down.