NAVADEEP writes in Gaylaxy on the responses around the matrimonial advertisement for a gay man placed by his mother, in which she specified “Caste no bar, (though Iyer preferred)”.

It has been a few days since the first gay-matrimonial ad of the country has been out, and as expected, it has gathered a great deal of attention both from gay and straight people. Lack of available information would keep me from commenting on the reactions among the straight crowd. But being a part of the gay community, I have witnessed two different arguments emerging:

1. It is a great progressive step from a loving mother for her gay son and is also a potentially visible statement of the gay community in mainstream society.

2. While appreciating the aforementioned, a section of people in the community are extremely agitated about how the matrimonial ad mentions a preference of caste. This has lead to the debate of contesting the regressive part of the ad (where, of course, I find my place)….

Where does one’s choice start and where does it end? How absolute and independent an identity can this choice and preference claim? Is this choice/preference free from conditioning? Is it just an individual’s sole conscious choice/preference or product of the society he is part of? Do personal choices and preferences have no social and political connotations? Do they not have any historical and cultural context?

Read the rest of this thought-provoking piece here, and do read the comments section too, for an interesting debate.