the HETEROsexual revolution - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-05-2005, 12:09 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 05:16 AM
the HETEROsexual revolution

July 5, 2005
The Heterosexual Revolution
By STEPHANIE COONTZ
Olympia, Wash.

THE last week has been tough for opponents of same-sex marriage. First Canadian and then Spanish legislators voted to legalize the practice, prompting American social conservatives to renew their call for a constitutional amendment banning such marriages here. James Dobson of the evangelical group Focus on the Family has warned that without that ban, marriage as we have known it for 5,000 years will be overturned.

My research on marriage and family life seldom leads me to agree with Dr. Dobson, much less to accuse him of understatement. But in this case, Dr. Dobson's warnings come 30 years too late. Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn't spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did.

Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.

The first step down the road to gay and lesbian marriage took place 200 years ago, when Enlightenment thinkers raised the radical idea that parents and the state should not dictate who married whom, and when the American Revolution encouraged people to engage in "the pursuit of happiness," including marrying for love. Almost immediately, some thinkers, including Jeremy Bentham and the Marquis de Condorcet, began to argue that same-sex love should not be a crime.

Same-sex marriage, however, remained unimaginable because marriage had two traditional functions that were inapplicable to gays and lesbians. First, marriage allowed families to increase their household labor force by having children. Throughout much of history, upper-class men divorced their wives if their marriage did not produce children, while peasants often wouldn't marry until a premarital pregnancy confirmed the woman's fertility. But the advent of birth control in the 19th century permitted married couples to decide not to have children, while assisted reproduction in the 20th century allowed infertile couples to have them. This eroded the traditional argument that marriage must be between a man and a woman who were able to procreate.

In addition, traditional marriage imposed a strict division of labor by gender and mandated unequal power relations between men and women. "Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband."

This law of "coverture" was supposed to reflect the command of God and the essential nature of humans. It stipulated that a wife could not enter into legal contracts or own property on her own. In 1863, a New York court warned that giving wives independent property rights would "sow the seeds of perpetual discord," potentially dooming marriage.

Even after coverture had lost its legal force, courts, legislators and the public still cleaved to the belief that marriage required husbands and wives to play totally different domestic roles. In 1958, the New York Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to the traditional legal view that wives (unlike husbands) couldn't sue for loss of the personal services, including housekeeping and the sexual attentions, of their spouses. The judges reasoned that only wives were expected to provide such personal services anyway.

As late as the 1970's, many American states retained "head and master" laws, giving the husband final say over where the family lived and other household decisions. According to the legal definition of marriage, the man was required to support the family, while the woman was obligated to keep house, nurture children, and provide sex. Not until the 1980's did most states criminalize marital rape. Prevailing opinion held that when a bride said, "I do," she was legally committed to say, "I will" for the rest of her married life.

I am old enough to remember the howls of protest with which some defenders of traditional marriage greeted the gradual dismantling of these traditions. At the time, I thought that the far-right opponents of marital equality were wrong to predict that this would lead to the unraveling of marriage. As it turned out, they had a point.

Giving married women an independent legal existence did not destroy heterosexual marriage. And allowing husbands and wives to construct their marriages around reciprocal duties and negotiated roles - where a wife can choose to be the main breadwinner and a husband can stay home with the children- was an immense boon to many couples. But these changes in the definition and practice of marriage opened the door for gay and lesbian couples to argue that they were now equally qualified to participate in it.

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.

Stephanie Coontz, the director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, is the author of "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/op...gewanted=print
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 03:34 PM   #2
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Good for Hetrosexuals!!!
Most marriage is a sham!!!!!!!
Although there are some marriages that seem to be real and good but I think thet are very rare. Who knows for sure - I'm single and very cynical.
__________________

__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 04:14 PM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 05:16 AM
marrying for love and not for property or dowery happened waaaaaaaaay before the gay movement. since modern marriage posits that children are optional and the genders are to regard each other as equals, the exclusion of gay people is logically absurd. if one were to say that "the rules of marriage require children and a woman to stay home whilst the man provides," then the exclusion of gay people would not be bigotry. but it is bigotry when you abolish said rules for straights, and then flip around and use them to further pick on gay people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 10:28 PM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:16 AM
The whole article is completely on the dot. I think a lot of people are completely unaware how morality involving marriage has changed over the last several centuries. I think even the most devout of Christians would probably recoil over the idea of marrying over property alliances or dowries, as was often the custom. "Love" was never part of the equation, and if you were a fortunate part of the upper classes, you were afforded the luxury of having mistresses out of love.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 04:31 AM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 05:16 AM
Hey, thanks Irvine.

I was going to read this - I get the NYtimes daily headlines everymorning in my email, and I meant to read this but I forgot.
Reading it now.........
__________________
For Honor is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 04:49 AM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
For Honor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 5,278
Local Time: 05:16 AM
Re: the HETEROsexual revolution

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
"Husband and wife are one," said the law in both England and America, from early medieval days until the late 19th century, "and that one is the husband."


Ah, the good old days.........


(hahaha, just kidding )


---------------------------------------------------------------------


AS much as marriage is now about romatic love these days, I think people forget that it;s more like a group project. You may want to be with one of your friends that you can joke with, or you may work with someone who is hot or popular. But really what matters is if both people want to succeed and work in the marriage.


I don't know... I'm being all over the place and rather poor in wording thus far.

But it seems like people get too caught up in the love these days. Oh, I don't feel in love anymore. Yes, we are all emotional people to some extent. But lacking love seems like an excuse not to try harder sometimes. Yet there are Dr Phil couples who work really hard and don't get anywhere


Bah, my post is pointless

Oh well

I just hope I can have a successful marriage someday, I guess that is my bottom line
__________________

__________________
For Honor is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com