NYT: The Heterosexual Revolution
Let me initiate the first serious topic here right away. Here's a link to an article in the NY Times:
The Heterosexual Revolution.
Just in case the link dies, I shall provide a gist of the author's argument in this posting. I shall then place my own opinions as a comment.
Summary of author's argument:
The idea of marriage is not the monolithic concept many imagine it to be, but it has undergone drastic changes through time. Traditional marriage, in all societies including the west, was primarily decided on political and economic considerations, regardless of social class. The concept of marriage for love and happiness did not arise until post-renaissance thinkers until about 200 years ago, even then it was labeled too radical.
The idea of marriage for love took serious root in the 20th century, with women's liberation. As women started becoming more and more equal and independent, some of the traditional considerations of marriage were rendered redundant, and marriage for love became the predominant philosophy behind Western marriages.
This changing nature of marriage so far has been wrought not by the relatively nascent Gay-rights movement, but by heterosexuals themselves. It seems logical the right of two consenting adults in love to be married, regardless of gender, is the next inevitable change to the institution. That path was chosen not 20, but 200 years ago by heterosexuals, when they decided on love as the primary consideration.
posted by technophobicgeek @ 4:44 AM
1 Comments:
One primary argument of gay-rights opponents is that "Marriage" is a universal and inalterable idea. Marriage and family have not been sacred and inviolate concepts over time, else we wouldn't be talking about love and arranged marriages in India. I distinctly remember a time in India when having a love marriage was a source of gossip and disdain.
Well, the article refers to a phenomenon that occured in the mid-20th century in the west, and is currently in progress in present-day India: the changing nature of relationships and marriage with women's liberation (and widespread acceptance of birth control). It is only a matter of time before marriage for love becomes the norm in India too.
The other argument of gay-rights opponents is that gay families are not "normal" environments to bring up children. Similar arguments could be heard when families started morphing from large joint families to small nuclear ones, both in the west and in India. They are still heard when intercaste/race/religion marriages occur.
Gender roles, IMHO, are concepts arising out of the social division of labour in traditional society. When that breaks down in the modern equal-rights society, the roles are bound to become fluid. So I see no reason why homosexual couples may not be given the chance to demonstrate their parenting capabilities. I think most of them are very much up to the task.
Post a Comment
<< Home