Quote:
|
"Why rejoice when state and church extend their grip, which is what marriage is all about."
|
Amen! (Ironic choice of word duly noted.)
I've always said that the real problem is that the government is trying to regulate what is essentially a religious institution. The religous aspect and the civil aspects of marriage need to be separated.
And I think it's all fine and good to talk about "capitulation" and assimilation in terms of gays wanting to be part of what is essentially a hetero-defined culture, but people want what they want. It's a bit fascistic to demand that just because someone is a homosexual they must conform to some radical counter-cultural expectation of how they should behave.
All successful "alternative" movements are eventually assimilated by the dominant culture, and in the process they shift and redefine the dominant culture while shedding some of their own more radical elements. Something new shows up to take its place, and the process begins again. It's the old "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" process. You can't expect a small population to singlehandedly redefine cultural norms simply by existing. Cultural change is incremental and demands compromises on both sides. If the path to acceptance of homosexuality is paved with bourgeois nesting instincts, so be it.