RedStarOverChina
1st February 2005, 00:12
This article is written based on my understanding of Marxist interpretation of marriage. It stems from my readings way-back-when; and they were written in Chinese. So I might have problem expressing them in English or even make a false statement or two. Thus, both encouragements and criticisms are welcomed.
Friedrich Engels (y'all know who that is, I hope) wrote a book on the concept of marriage. In his book, he suggested that, the defination of marriage is not absolute. It is a product of the economocal environment of which the people lived in. Thus, the idea of marriage is an invention by men, not God, or any other natural order.
He went on, saying that because there is nothing "holy" about marriage, the system of marriage constantly changes. We had monogamy and polygamy(one female, multiple males; then one male, multiple females), for example. Moreoever, the roles of male and female in a marriage changes as their economical or social condition changes. For example: women's social status imporves as they are able to gain access to more financial income.
Now we have shattered the myth about marriage, I can't help but wonder, what is there to be feared about homosexual marriage? We are so heavily binded by the chains of tradition and custom, that is it so easy to dismiss or even persecute new ideas.
Some of you might know, that Marxism does not believe in marriage at all. Marx (or Engels, I dont remember) referred to marriage as "legalised long term prostitution (again, this is translated from Chinese from German, which inevitably lead to inaccuracy, but u get the meaning)."
To those new to the idea, it makes perfect sense if you think about it. Both parties gives sex, and in return gets financial aid or aid in other ways--which is a loose defination of prostitution. Of course, to come to that conclusion, we have already dismissed the concept of "love", which is the natural thing for us materialists to do.
I support the basic idea of marriage for now, because it is so generally accepted, that it wouldnt be completely dissolved for considerablly long time. Also it's because that I'm sort of a Freudian thinker, meaning that i still believe that, for now, people need to find comfort in marriages.
By the way, I'm not homosexual, just so you know that i'm looking at it in a more subjective point of view. And please ignore the grammar errors, for God's sake.
Friedrich Engels (y'all know who that is, I hope) wrote a book on the concept of marriage. In his book, he suggested that, the defination of marriage is not absolute. It is a product of the economocal environment of which the people lived in. Thus, the idea of marriage is an invention by men, not God, or any other natural order.
He went on, saying that because there is nothing "holy" about marriage, the system of marriage constantly changes. We had monogamy and polygamy(one female, multiple males; then one male, multiple females), for example. Moreoever, the roles of male and female in a marriage changes as their economical or social condition changes. For example: women's social status imporves as they are able to gain access to more financial income.
Now we have shattered the myth about marriage, I can't help but wonder, what is there to be feared about homosexual marriage? We are so heavily binded by the chains of tradition and custom, that is it so easy to dismiss or even persecute new ideas.
Some of you might know, that Marxism does not believe in marriage at all. Marx (or Engels, I dont remember) referred to marriage as "legalised long term prostitution (again, this is translated from Chinese from German, which inevitably lead to inaccuracy, but u get the meaning)."
To those new to the idea, it makes perfect sense if you think about it. Both parties gives sex, and in return gets financial aid or aid in other ways--which is a loose defination of prostitution. Of course, to come to that conclusion, we have already dismissed the concept of "love", which is the natural thing for us materialists to do.
I support the basic idea of marriage for now, because it is so generally accepted, that it wouldnt be completely dissolved for considerablly long time. Also it's because that I'm sort of a Freudian thinker, meaning that i still believe that, for now, people need to find comfort in marriages.
By the way, I'm not homosexual, just so you know that i'm looking at it in a more subjective point of view. And please ignore the grammar errors, for God's sake.