QuakerInfo.com Forum

[McGuffey]

There is an old addage that history repeats itself, and nowhere may this be more true than when discussing anything that has to do with sex. In the 19th century, the "Free Love Movement" had as its goal to separate the state from sexual matters such as marriage, birth control, adultry, homosexuality and all love relationships , advocating that that the free union of adults were legitimate relationships wether they were emotional or sexual. One of their core arguments was that any relationship entered into freely should not be regulated by law. As a precursor to the modern Women's Movement and Feminism, Mary Wollstonecraft challenged the institution of marriage itself, claiming it the ony remaining form of legalized slavery. What killed the Free Love Movement in the 19th century ? It may have been due to the writings similar to those from Victoria Woodhall ( the 1st Woman to run for President, in 1872), who stated: " Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable , constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can, to change that love everyday if I please, and with that right to demand a free and unrestricted excercise of that right; and it is your duty as a community to see that I am protected in it. I trust that I am fully undersood, for I mean just that, and nothing less ! " The Free Love Movement continued on into the 1900's with the writings of Havelock Ellis, Emma Goldman and Edna St. vincdent Millay. What seems to have happened is that the Free Love agenda of the 18th century became identified with social utopian movements, and became discredited as untenable social policy due to its radical, and often anarchist, language. For anyone wishing to understand some of the historical background on the cultural war over sexual mores in the United States today, look to the Free Love Movement writings of the 18th century for the original arguments, which advocated nearly the same legal and social changes which are debated today.

[Gracie]

I'm not sure how the free love movement correlates with a discussion of homsexuality. Woolstoncraft and most other proto-feminists were most concerned about the fact that a woman became legally dead upon marriage, could be raped and beaten with impunity by her husband; if she worked, he owned her wages, and if a divorce happened, he legally got the children. Woodhull and other free lovers of the 19th century did call for the abolition of marriage, although most of them lived pretty tame, heterosexual lives of marriage or long-term relationship. Woodhull was supporting herself and an extended family (including at one time her current husband and her invalid former husband) with the income from her speeches, so it behooved her to be a shocking as possible, as well.
_________________
http://sowingmildoats.wordpress.com

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Eleanore Roosevelt

[Anthony]

[McGuffey]

The Free Love Movement encompassed what was explcitily stated in the first five sentances of my post, but as Gracie has pointed out, was in the main later dominated by feminist issues. It did, however, still advocate a hands off ideology of govenrment, desiring to not have any laws regulate human love or sexual relationships, demanding that adult unions of any type not be within the province of government to regulate, sanction, acknowledge or legislate. I imagine that if you type in Free Love Movement into any browser, you'll get more detailed accounts and referances of that period than I can provide.

[Kiahanie]

[Anthony]

[McGuffey]

That is a very good and sensible reply. In attempting to divine the will of God as he/she transcribed the meaning and intent of intimate human realtions, one of my favorites from the age of Free Love and Utopian Socialism came from the founders of Oneida, who, based upon their interpetation of scripture, founded their community on a model defined as Biblical Communism of Complex Marriage. They developed, after much thought, the Bible Argument of Scriptural Foundation for the Practice of Complex Marriage: " In the Kingdom of Heaven, the institution of Marriage which assigns the exclusive possession of one woman to one man does not exist, ( Matt. 22:23-30 ). In the Kingdom of Heaven, the intimate union of life and interests, which in the world is limited in pairs, extends through the whole body of believers, i.e., complex Marriages takes the place of simple....( John 17;21 ). The new Commandment is that we love one another, and that not by pairs, as in the world, but en mass". Haight-Asbury in 1967-70 was pretty close to acheiving this Christian Nirvana- but without the scripture. While the host of birth control, no fault diviorce, abortion, spousal rape, adultery, cohabitation, etc, modifications in law have been effective in freeing all people from failed relationships and sometimes miserable living circumstances, the primary social contract still in place is heterosexual marriage, and may have survived all its inherant difficulties merely becasue no other institution, however constructed, has arisen which adequately takes its place as the primary social and economic unit of family life. I think we fail to appreciate that the social and political movement for homosexual marriages is not to engage in a failed social and religious institution, but an attempt to join in, and reap the same benefits heterosexual marriage has obtained as a stabe, ongoing, social and economic institution. That some same-sex couples wish to commit, as the campaign adds pronounce, to a "loving and long term relationship" candidly indicates something great has been going on about heterosexual marriages and the social organizations which support them. That homosexual love advocates have not obtained or developed their own enduring social institutions, like the Biblical Commune of Complex Marriage, perhaps says something intangible about the stability and foundations of thier sexual practices in the first place. Just a thought.

[james]

Very good post, Kiahanie. For me it underscores that growing realization of the human race that genuine morality is about how we treat others, and not about the decisions we make for our own lives. The only immoral sexuality, like the only immoral *anything,* is when it hurts someone else.

[Anthony]

[Kiahanie]

[McGuffey]

Those are some very good questions, and also apply to the social and political processes by which, say, Polygamy was denied legal status and recognition. Are we as a society hostile to polygamist, and deny their beliefs and pracitces in much the same way that same-sex unions have met resistance ? Why are we advocating one and not the other if we are concerned about equality and tolerance of other beliefs and practice ? How do we determine and arbitrate mutual claims of righteousness and exclusion ? There is currently an interesting Supreme Court case is in the making by a group called the Christian Legal Society, at Hastings College of Law, at the Univeristy of California, San Francisco. They seek relief from the court and want to strike down as unconstituional a University anti-discrimination policy that forces them to accept as voting members those who do not share their core relgious beliefs as stated in their charter. They claim school policy violates 1st Amendment rights to free associaition of like minded individuals who share a common faith and practice. At issue is the schools non-discrimination policy that applies to all student groups and prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disability, ancestry or sex. Is the 1st Amendment right to feely associate with those of a common faith tradition under the right of religious freedom considered discriminatory on state property ? Are non-discrimination statues, by their nature and scope when superceding specific constitutional protections, also discriminatory ? The CLS claims it has a religious right to have its members agree to and abide to specific moral and sexual behaviors that are part of its faith tradition, and that those who violate those standards, while they may be under the protection of anti-dicrimination policies of the school, are secondary to CLS constitutional rights of religious belief and practice. Such is the world of mutal claim to right.

[Shay]

[orPowers]

[Kiahanie]

[kevin roberts]