Matt: Doctor, we've talked about a good many things, but there's one thing we haven't talked about. Have you given any thought to the problems your children will have?Now, isn't that interesting? When William Rose wrote this back in the mid 1960's, he believed that "marriage" included necessarily in its definition the aim of having children. Times change pretty quickly, don't they?
John: Yes, and they'll have some. And we'll have the children. Otherwise, you couldn't call it a marriage.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
From Another Source
In the movie, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967), Spencer Tracy as Matt Drayton and Katharine Hepburn as Christina Drayton have quite a surprise when their daughter shows up with her new fiancé ... who is a black man. A well-spoken fellow. A doctor, in fact. And in a scene where Mr. Drayton sits down with the fiancé, Sidney Portier as John Prentice, to ... discuss things, the question of children arises. Matt Drayton is concerned about mixed-race children and how difficult their lives will be, so he broaches the question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That was from a time when the extremely obvious wasn't debatable, even by "progressives".
I find it incredibly ironic. The movie is aimed at racial prejudice and the possibility of interracial marriage. "Of course marriage includes children," was the thinking, "even if it's an interracial marriage." Today, of course, the argument is "Of course marriage doesn't necessarily include children ... or gender differences ... or lifetime commitment ... really not much of anything anymore."
Equally ironic to me is that this "progressive" movie found children as part of the definition of marriage as a given while even most Christians today find that untenable.
A hostile witness.
Indeed a hostile witness. I thought that when I wrote it.
Post a Comment