Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
I believe that ALL institutions that have evolved over thousands of years serve an important purpose in society.
Caste system
I have shown how the caste system was PIVOTAL to the success of India during the agricultural epoch. It ensured that basic necessary skills (e.g. blacksmithy) were ALWAYS available in each remote, decentralised village. That gave India a competitive edge over the entire world, making it unequivocally the RICHEST society (including in per capita terms) in the world for 12 out of the past 20 centuries.
The fact that India evolved the caste system is therefore, in my view, better attributable to the imperatives of economics than religion (although religion has a role in its continued persistence). Religious explanations merely couched the optimal economic equilibrium in language more suited to the lay man.
Even today, as Gurcharan Das rightly points out, the major industrialisation drive in India is coming from the bania or capitalist "class", which is shifting gears from trade to industrial production. Caste is giving India an advantage even in the capitalist world.
But this should be its last hurrah, its last contribution to India.
Capitalism CANNOT tolerate inequality of status. In this new epoch of industrial and information production, the caste system is NOT optimal any more. The economic logic of capitalism will, in my view, inevitably lead to the death of the caste system – If only India's governance is radically modernised.
Marriage
But the institution of marriage is not defunct and will NEVER become defunct. It serves and continues to serve a most basic purpose in society. It is the place where CHILDREN – the most important beings from the perspective of humanity and Nature – get to experience the dynamics of REAL life, thus being nurtured till they are able to stand tall and compete in this dynamic, challenging world.
The idea of having two "dads" or two "moms" for any child (who is not naturally produced from BOTH parents) is TOTALLY perverse and harmful at ALL levels. Children in such "families" will NEVER appreciate or imbibe the basic organic structure of society. Such children are put at a disadvantage from day one.
I do NOT support any idea that damages CHILDREN and confuses them from the moment they first come into this world.
How will a child suckle two dads? What UTTER nonsense is this!!!!
Why are we depriving CHILDREN of natural upbringing?
It is not my business nor am I interested in what two adults do with themselves. I don't really care whether they are gay or morose.
But I am FIRMLY against the idea of a "family" unit that destroys the foundational institutions of society – and SERIOUSLY damages children.
I oppose the caste system on many grounds, so clearly I'm not a conservative. I'm a (classical) liberal. But I oppose any attempt to destroy or dilute the MOST foundational institution of society: the family.
I firmly oppose the idea of two males/females being allowed to "marry" and thus "bear" children.
Obama THE FOOL is (once again) WRONG. I hope he is booted out by the Americans.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- There is no natural “right” to marriage, hence no “right” to “gay” marriage
- Scientific evidence that marriage is a NATURAL imperative (hence that “gay marriage” is ENTIRELY unnatural)
- My vigorous opposition to the “Right to Food” advocated by Amartya Sen
- My strong opposition to the Women’s Reservation Bill
- My position on gay “marriage” summarised in a table
- “None of the above” is a very bad idea
- The dangerous idea of equality
- A child is not a play thing – for use in “gay marriage”
- Why limiting expenditure on elections is a VERY bad idea
- Hindutva leaders want reservations for ever
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage http://t.co/zbHM83d6 #india #liberty #politics #gaymarriage
RT @sabhlok My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage http://t.co/q1IrU2bu #india #liberty #politics #gaymarriage
My FIRM opposition to the idea of “gay” marriage http://t.co/kMmOJDTZ
Sanjeev : I understand that your opposition to gay marriage is based on the presumption that the institution of marriage exists for only one function – that of bearing children. While that may have been the initially intended function when the institution was established, there’s enough empirical evidence to show that it has since evolved into something more larger. Today, it serves a larger purpose of companionship (there are thousands in their 60′s, 70′s & 80′s – way past child bearing age – who are getting married), while the function of bearing children is no longer contingent on the institution of marriage (single motherhood is gradually gaining social acceptance).
Another point to note is that allowing gay couples to adopt children as opposed to biologically giving birth to one (which they can’t anyways) will give the adopted child a chance at a better childhood than one in the orphanage. We all know the pathetic living conditions in our orphanages. Think of the possibilities – an HIV infected gay couple adopts an HIV infected child, thus giving him/her an environment of love, care & understanding. And if the worst case scenario was the benchmark deterrent for legalising something, many things that we see around us had no business being around.
This, IMO, is a rare post from you which goes into a direction opposite to liberty.
Sanjeev – as much as I dislike Obama and everything that his philosophy of big government stands for, coming out in support of gay marriage (even if that move was influenced by political calculations) is probably the only good thing that he has done in his presidency.
Your opposition to gay marriage seems to be on purely utilitarian grounds without any reference to individual rights and liberties – you believe that a heterosexual marriage is necessary for the purpose of bringing up children and this leads to the greater good of society.
However, there are several problems with your argument.
First, you have not cited any evidence that children brought up by a heterosexual couple are actually better off than children brought up by a gay couple. You have made assertions without providing any evidence to back up those assertions. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100831091240.htm
Second, exactly why should marriage be a function that is regulated by the state? Why is the regulation of marriage a proper function of the state? Why cannot marriage simply be a legal contract between 2 consenting adults?
When you answer this question, I would encourage you not to provide utilitarian arguments stating that this leads to the “greater good of society” or the “common good”.
Answering this question first requires that you define what the proper role of the state is and then prove WHY exactly that is the proper role of the state.
I will tell you what the proper role of a state is in my book. It’s the same as the U.S. founding fathers – the state exists to protect an individual’s right to life, liberty and property. Nothing more and nothing less. And as to why this is so, I refer you to Bastiat’s book “The Law”.
Third, your opposition to gay marriage seems to be purely on the grounds that children should be brought up by heterosexual couples. So let’s say that we allow gay marriage but bar gays and lesbians from adopting children. Would you then support gay marriage with this restriction in place? (Note that I am NOT in favour of this restriction – I am simply trying to figure out whether this issue of bringing up children is your only reason for opposing gay marriage).
Fourth, let me ask you this question. Should a single woman be allowed to have a child out of wedlock? And once such a woman gives birth to the child, should the state forcibly remove the child from her on the grounds that a child requires both parents? This seems to be a logical extension of your argument.
Best,
Sumantra
Dear Sanjeevji,
This is really an odd post and very much unlike what you writing stands for. Both Sameer and Sumantra have very aptly stated the loopholes into your arguments about gay marriages. Without repeating what they have already said I agree to their arguments.
On caste system, you state that it evolved as an economic imperative; I agree but not exactly as you have put it. Here are real facts:
1. It helped economically only few higher classes of society. And they kept it going for centuries to keep benefiting economically at the cost of freedom and liberty of others.
2. It rendered a huge mass of society into virtual slavery.
Caste system can only be described as a curse of Hindu religion and society. Period.
Jai Hind.
Sorry, don’t have time to respond individually (and also to comments on FB), hence a separate blog post: http://sabhlokcity.com/2012/05/there-is-no-natural-right-to-marriage-hence-no-right-to-gay-marriage/
Not all points/questions raised have been addressed in that new blog post, but I trust you’ll get the essence of the very basic and important issues involved.