Gender, Sex, and Sexuality - Conflict Theory

Gender, Sex, and Sexuality SOCI 1306 Conflict Theory From the standpoint of conflict theory, sexuality is another domain in which there exist power imbalances and where dominant groups actively seek to advance both their financial interests and worldview. The national discussion surrounding the legalisation of homosexual marriage has heated up recently. The argument over same-sex marriage has two main components, according to conflict theorists: an ideological component and an economic one. In this case, heterosexuals who belong to dominant groups want their worldview—which supports conventional marriage and the nuclear family—to triumph over what they see to be the encroachment of a secular, self-driven worldview. However, a number of homosexual and lesbian activists contend that the legalisation of previously illegal interracial marriages in the 1960s is an example of how marriage laws have already changed historically and that legal marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation. From an economic standpoint, proponents of same-sex marriage point out that being legally married confers numerous benefits, many of which are monetary in nature, such as health insurance and Social Security payments (Solmonese 2008). They contend that it is incorrect to deny homosexual couples these privileges. According to conflict theory, there will always be some level of conflict as long as heterosexuals and homosexuals fight for these financial and social resources. Examining the conflict between heterosexual and gay organisations from an ideological perspective, it comes down to a basic struggle over who gets to regulate and uphold societal standards and values. One specific narrative about what makes a "normal" or "acceptable" relationship is perpetuated by heterosexual dominance in society institutions like church, school, and the media. This narrative perpetuates a binary and hierarchical understanding of sexuality by frequently excluding or marginalising non-heteronormative partnerships. Heterosexual groups support the nuclear family and conventional marriage not just to maintain their cultural hegemony but also to safeguard their privileged status. rules, regulations, and practices that support heterosexual relationships—such as inheritance rights, family leave rules, and tax benefits—all demonstrate this cultural hegemony. Due to these advantages, heterosexual partnerships are viewed as the norm and the most advantageous, which feeds the cycle of marginalisation and exclusion for nonheteronormative partnerships. On the other hand, the fight for equality and acknowledgment is the foundation of LGBTQ+ activists' ideological conflict. Legal marriage is viewed as a representation of inclusiveness and acceptance in society. The goal of campaigners working for marriage equality is to subvert the social and legal acceptance that has long been governed by heteronormative standards. They contend that preventing same-sex couples from getting married is an example of discrimination that upholds societal injustice and stigma. A compelling argument in favour of their cause is the historical precedent that was established by the 1960s legalisation of interracial marriages. This case shows how marriage rules may and need to change to reflect a broader definition of love and a relationship. Beyond only gaining legal recognition, the intellectual struggle also aims to dismantle ingrained biases and broaden the social concept of marriage and family. The dispute becomes even more apparent on the economic front. Many financial advantages come with being married legally, such as inheritance rights, tax reductions, and access to spouse benefits like health insurance and Social Security. These financial advantages are more than simply bonuses for same-sex couples; they are vital safeguards that have a big influence on their standard of living and financial security. Denying these advantages is viewed as a type of economic injustice that makes already existent disparities worse. For instance, same-sex couples may have more tax obligations, trouble getting health insurance for their partners, and trouble claiming inheritance rights if they are not legally married. The larger systemic prejudice that LGBTQ+ people and couples experience is exacerbated by these economic disadvantages. The conflict's economic aspect is also important from the dominant heterosexual groups' point of view. It's common to see same-sex marriage advantages as a challenge to the way resources are currently distributed. There is concern that expanding the definition of marriage and the benefits that go along with it may put a pressure on both public and private resources, including employer-sponsored health care and Social Security. This anxiety stems from a zero-sum perspective on resources, in which the success of one group is viewed as the failure of another. This viewpoint, however, ignores inclusivity's larger social and economic advantages. Research has indicated that marriage equality can have favourable economic outcomes, such as greater wedding expenditures and elevated levels of stability and productivity among married persons. The economic opposition to marriage equality exposes the ways in which dominant groups utilise economic justifications to hold onto their privileged status and resource control, notwithstanding these possible advantages. With its emphasis on power, inequality, and social change, conflict theory offers a helpful framework for comprehending the dynamics at work in the discussion around same-sex marriage. It emphasises how the fight for marital equality involves more than simply securing legal rights—it also involves subverting ingrained societal conventions and power systems. Conflict is unavoidable as long as heterosexual and gay organisations compete for control of social and financial resources. But this confrontation also creates a window of opportunity for social reform. Significant legal and social achievements have already resulted from the increased visibility and activity of LGBTQ+ people and groups. For instance, the legalisation of same-sex marriage in several nations and jurisdictions has challenged and altered societal ideas about LGBTQ+ relationships in addition to giving same-sex couples legal status. In conclusion, from the standpoint of conflict theory, the argument for and against same-sex marriage is a complex fight with both ideological and financial facets. It is a fight for power and definition over societal norms and ideals, as well as for advantages and financial resources. The goal of dominant heterosexual organisations is to hold onto their place as the privileged group and cultural hegemonists, whereas LGBTQ+ activists want justice, equality, and acknowledgment. Even though it is sometimes divisive and polarising, this confrontation is what propels societal advancement. The concepts of conflict theory serve as a helpful reminder that, in addition to individual rights, these fights also include larger societal structures and the allocation of power and resources, as society continues to deal with issues of sexuality, power, and equality.