RE: Heterosexual Love Is Destroying The Institution of Marriage
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of liberals to take a little piece of fantasy and go running off with it at breakneck speeds into dizzying heights of logic-defying fantasy. It's a good thing I've had a slow week at work, helping you guys illuminate all these broken arguments is time consuming!
Let's see now. The author says, "Until fairly recently, marriage was..." Later he says, "But more than 200 years ago, this traditional view...began to unravel" OK, so at least we have the time scale established. Fairly recently appears to be about 200 years ago. Then he says, "During the Enlightenment, when Americans and Europeans undertook 'the pursuit of happiness,' romantic love assumed new importance." Ah, so its all "romantic love's" fault. Right, prior to the enlightenment, no one ever got married for romantic love so that made marriage start to come apart. I think we're about to achieve escape velocity.
He continues, "The advent of birth control in the 19th century began to transform sex from a strict, reproductive function to a source of pleasure..." So that's when that happened! I guess that "oldest profession" thing was just a myth after all. I sure am glad to have that cleared up. Oh and he clarifies: "...putting still more emphasis on marital compatibility." Got it. Before birth control, marital compatibility was completely irrelevant. Everyone was just getting married so they could pop out those farm hands. No one ever enjoyed sex and no one ever got married to their spiritual mate. Copulate and produce, copulate and produce. Marriage back then must have been a real chore.
So then we arrive at, "Feminism freed women to pursue careers and income of their own, and they were no longer dependent on men for survival." I always wondered something. According to liberals and/or feminists, before women's rights, women and children who didn't have a man looking out for them were starving to death in the streets in epidemic numbers. I wonder how they handled cleaning all that up? But never mind, no digression...
And now we have achieve stable orbit around Pluto: "Marriage evolved into a 'voluntary love relationship,' with divorce as a default option if it went sour." So marriage was apparently an involuntary love relationship a little over two hundred years ago. I think I remember seeing something about all those burly European and American men bonking women over the head and hauling them off to the marriage chapel. I'm not getting the whole "divorce as a default option if it went sour" thingy. That sounds like a business relationship to me. But I thought we were living in the era of voluntary love relationships and marital compatibility. I thought we had achieved a new era of spiritual love that had replaced that nasty old baby factory one. But I thought this new spiritual love stuff was what was ruining marriage. This divorce thing doesn't sound very spiritual to me. I must be missing something.
And so we leave Pluto and head for the outer reaches of the galaxy: "Like it or not, that's what marriage is today, and 'it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.'" Well I guess that must be true. Obviously some of that good bus station loving isn't going to be producing any farm hands. But there were some threads of thought in the article that never seemed to become cloth. Marriage was a physical relationship that had been replaced by a spiritual (or at least romantic) one by the advent of birth control which had made the physical aspect of marriage more important. Somehow this has made the purely physical relationship which is homosexuality into a spiritual one which could be allowed without harming the new physically enhanced spiritual kind of marriage we invented two hundred years ago.
No, Strother, it's not a good article. It's a dumb article and the author is a twit.
Let's see now. The author says, "Until fairly recently, marriage was..." Later he says, "But more than 200 years ago, this traditional view...began to unravel" OK, so at least we have the time scale established. Fairly recently appears to be about 200 years ago. Then he says, "During the Enlightenment, when Americans and Europeans undertook 'the pursuit of happiness,' romantic love assumed new importance." Ah, so its all "romantic love's" fault. Right, prior to the enlightenment, no one ever got married for romantic love so that made marriage start to come apart. I think we're about to achieve escape velocity.
He continues, "The advent of birth control in the 19th century began to transform sex from a strict, reproductive function to a source of pleasure..." So that's when that happened! I guess that "oldest profession" thing was just a myth after all. I sure am glad to have that cleared up. Oh and he clarifies: "...putting still more emphasis on marital compatibility." Got it. Before birth control, marital compatibility was completely irrelevant. Everyone was just getting married so they could pop out those farm hands. No one ever enjoyed sex and no one ever got married to their spiritual mate. Copulate and produce, copulate and produce. Marriage back then must have been a real chore.
So then we arrive at, "Feminism freed women to pursue careers and income of their own, and they were no longer dependent on men for survival." I always wondered something. According to liberals and/or feminists, before women's rights, women and children who didn't have a man looking out for them were starving to death in the streets in epidemic numbers. I wonder how they handled cleaning all that up? But never mind, no digression...
And now we have achieve stable orbit around Pluto: "Marriage evolved into a 'voluntary love relationship,' with divorce as a default option if it went sour." So marriage was apparently an involuntary love relationship a little over two hundred years ago. I think I remember seeing something about all those burly European and American men bonking women over the head and hauling them off to the marriage chapel. I'm not getting the whole "divorce as a default option if it went sour" thingy. That sounds like a business relationship to me. But I thought we were living in the era of voluntary love relationships and marital compatibility. I thought we had achieved a new era of spiritual love that had replaced that nasty old baby factory one. But I thought this new spiritual love stuff was what was ruining marriage. This divorce thing doesn't sound very spiritual to me. I must be missing something.
And so we leave Pluto and head for the outer reaches of the galaxy: "Like it or not, that's what marriage is today, and 'it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.'" Well I guess that must be true. Obviously some of that good bus station loving isn't going to be producing any farm hands. But there were some threads of thought in the article that never seemed to become cloth. Marriage was a physical relationship that had been replaced by a spiritual (or at least romantic) one by the advent of birth control which had made the physical aspect of marriage more important. Somehow this has made the purely physical relationship which is homosexuality into a spiritual one which could be allowed without harming the new physically enhanced spiritual kind of marriage we invented two hundred years ago.
No, Strother, it's not a good article. It's a dumb article and the author is a twit.
posted by Anonymous | 4:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home