Awww man, no takers? No one wants to begin a lively theoretical discussion with me?

That is quite the interesting argument. I have a few of my own on what capitalism has done to the nuclear family in general. One being that the housing market is probably one of the sole reasons American families have to have two working parents in order to support the American dream.

But, that's not what you asked...so, sure the argument is very valid. Whether we want to address this as a good thing or a bad thing really depends on which side of the arguments you sit.

Pro-capitalism and anti-gay? Well, boy aren't you screwed?

Pro-gay and anti-capitalism...yeah that's not a win-win, either.

Pro-gay, pro-capitalism? SCORE!

You should read "The Myth of Heterosexuality." It talks about how the labels of homosexual and heterosexual came about in our culture.

Basically, at the turn of the century, Freudian psychology began to demonize same-sex relationships. At the time, it was quite possible to have a family and a gay lover (or lovers) on the side without it being considered too much like adultery. It is also common to have gay lovers in adolescence before you have marriage thrust upon you, which is where Freud got the idea that it's "immature" behavior.

What you have to remember about the original practice of marriage is that it is a means to an end for reproduction, and a legitimization of patriarchal fatherhood. If you refused to carry out your family line, you became a pariah. Sometimes you even had no control at all whether you were married. He has a good point in that the leisure that capitalism brought to the middle class "modernized" love by separating it from the large families that were no longer needed.

The notion that marriage is the ultimate expression of true love is very modern. Under this modern definition of love, gay relationships are legitimized in such a way that being married AND having a gay lover does not jive with monogamy. Ignoring individual orientations for sexual attraction, separation from the need of a family makes the choice of a same-sex life partner as practical as an opposite-sex life partner. I think this is the mindset that the author is coming from.

Capitalism commercialized our Pride parades and celebrations and protests and made them about money and companies and sponsors instead of us. It also made the mainstream "gay" movement extremely narrow-- appealing only to white, middle and upper-class gay men by focusing on issues like marriage equality instead of the lack of safety or consideration for trans* people of color or the abuse of elderly LGBT people in nursing homes, or how more than 33% of homeless youth are queer. Capitalism did the white, gay movement a ton of favors. It does nothing for the rest of us.

There have been many cultures throughout history that have included homosexuality in different ways -- those most dependent on nuclear families were less likely to include homosexuality as an identity over an activity, but it wasn't always stigmatized. And in some societies, being born homosexual or genderqueer set one apart as having a special position in the community. Then there's always the arrangement in Papua New Guinea, where men sleep with their wives only to procreate -- and rarely, and sleep with men the rest of the time. Heterosexuality is considered more taboo than homosexuality, and what makes that culture interesting is that it seems to be a response to a need for population control.