![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
how class drives even the lgbt agenda
Jun. 23rd, 2010 10:28 amYesterday I had a bit of an epiphany about the meaning of marriage and why same-sex marriage is so contentious. At the heart of this is that marriage means different things for the upper class and middle class.
If you're middle class you can go your whole life without getting married and still feel, on the whole, fulfilled and happy. You can accomplish your goals and live the way you want; and while most people seem happier to share those things with a partner, it's not a necessity. If you're middle class, your understanding of marriage mainly revolves around health insurance, taxes, and signing a mortgage together. It doesn't even really encompass having children, because the average marriage lasts four years, and the modern urban economy is structured so that children are somewhat discouraged.
But the upper class understands that the world is not ruled by individuals, it is ruled by dynasties. The proper role for someone born into a dynasty is to continue the family line. What is required of someone in this role is to marry someone from a family of at least equal prominence and have as many children as possible.
You're not required to love anyone else. You're not required to like anyone else. You're not required to believe in God, though you may have to sometimes make appearances at church. You can do pretty much whatever you want -- in fact that is the whole point of being rich -- up to and sometimes including murder, as long as you don't go against the family. Doing whatever you want includes having same-sex lovers, as long as you're relatively discreet. It will be whispered about, but no one really cares, as long as you do what you're required which is to marry and have children.
It turns out that upper class people, especially royalty, are exceptionally good at spreading and preserving their DNA. Most people alive today are at least distantly descended from someone of noble prominence. This is the true social darwinism. It has nothing to do with those genes being "better" and everything to do with the fact that having privilege makes it more likely that you will live to spread your genes.
The people who live inside this system are facing the sudden conundrum of how to deal with "pink sheep" of the family who are now able to marry people of the same sex. It *is*, after all, getting married. and still usually involves having children. It's just not the way these things were done in the past.
I think though this also says something about why the most prominent GLBT activists and their political allies are focused on same-sex marriage rather than on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would help the rest of us, arguably far more people than marriage equality. As I said above, if you're middle class you can get by without getting married, but you do need to have income. Someone from the upper class rarely needs to worry about employment; marriage is a much higher concern. Obviously, the political agenda is not being set by middle-class activists.
If you're middle class you can go your whole life without getting married and still feel, on the whole, fulfilled and happy. You can accomplish your goals and live the way you want; and while most people seem happier to share those things with a partner, it's not a necessity. If you're middle class, your understanding of marriage mainly revolves around health insurance, taxes, and signing a mortgage together. It doesn't even really encompass having children, because the average marriage lasts four years, and the modern urban economy is structured so that children are somewhat discouraged.
But the upper class understands that the world is not ruled by individuals, it is ruled by dynasties. The proper role for someone born into a dynasty is to continue the family line. What is required of someone in this role is to marry someone from a family of at least equal prominence and have as many children as possible.
You're not required to love anyone else. You're not required to like anyone else. You're not required to believe in God, though you may have to sometimes make appearances at church. You can do pretty much whatever you want -- in fact that is the whole point of being rich -- up to and sometimes including murder, as long as you don't go against the family. Doing whatever you want includes having same-sex lovers, as long as you're relatively discreet. It will be whispered about, but no one really cares, as long as you do what you're required which is to marry and have children.
It turns out that upper class people, especially royalty, are exceptionally good at spreading and preserving their DNA. Most people alive today are at least distantly descended from someone of noble prominence. This is the true social darwinism. It has nothing to do with those genes being "better" and everything to do with the fact that having privilege makes it more likely that you will live to spread your genes.
The people who live inside this system are facing the sudden conundrum of how to deal with "pink sheep" of the family who are now able to marry people of the same sex. It *is*, after all, getting married. and still usually involves having children. It's just not the way these things were done in the past.
I think though this also says something about why the most prominent GLBT activists and their political allies are focused on same-sex marriage rather than on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would help the rest of us, arguably far more people than marriage equality. As I said above, if you're middle class you can get by without getting married, but you do need to have income. Someone from the upper class rarely needs to worry about employment; marriage is a much higher concern. Obviously, the political agenda is not being set by middle-class activists.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
