Scientific study says same-sex marriage not harmful...not that the fundies will listen

[thatcrazycajun]

The American Anthropological Association has issued a "Statement on Marriage and the Family" that is rather timely as California and Florida prepare to consider adding a ban on same-gender marriage to their states' constitutions this fall, joining the 26 other states—more than half the entire Union—who have already enacted such bans. Money quote:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. [Emphasis added.] Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
"The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a [federal] constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

The language was addressed to the Congressional version which was killed two years ago, but (a) it applies just as well to amending state constitutions and (b) sure as God made little green men from Mars, the proponents of the Federal amendment will try again.

Comments

[mshollie.livejournal.com]

Is there any way you can fix the HTML code? It's distracting.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Fixed. Sorry about that.

[mshollie.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

Their Answer is:

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

"God said it. I believe it. That's all there is to it."

My answer to their answer is.
You can believe whatever the fuck you want to.
However, if I am not hurting anyone (the voices in your head don't count) and you try and curtail my freedom. I'm going to beat the living shit out of you.
Just so you know.

Yer preachin' to the choir here, sweetie

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I take an exceedingly dim view of *any* mortal, fallible human being (and that includes Pope Ratzi and all his predecessors) claiming s/he has a direct line to God the Almighty, Shaper and Ruler of All the Universes, and knows what She thinks about any Earthly political or social issue. Until/unless they can introduce me to the Deity in person and I hear Her say, "Yeah, I told them this and it's what I want for you," I ain't buying it.

Unfortunately, this is what their opposition is based on: emotional revulsion justified by religious belief, rather than empirical fact. As such, it is beyond the reach of (and utterly impervious to) reason.

Re: Yer preachin' to the choir here, sweetie

[mdlbear]

Well put.

[jannyblue.livejournal.com]

Marriage is legally designating a non-blood relative as your next of kin. Often, this is a stepping stone to raising children (biological or adopted) but it doesn't have to be. It also establishes permission for medical decision-making, medical insurance sharing, and inheritance rights in the absence of a will. (among other things)

Marriage has a LOT of useful, practical, and TOTALLY secular functions, so it's largely irrelevant what any particular religion says about what unions they feel are "proper" to bless. (We do still have the separation of church and state in this country, right?)

Therefore, I see no reason that the people in such an arrangement have to be opposite-gendered. It might make producing biological children easier, but (as I said) not all marriages are for the production of children.

Next-of-kin get to decide for your medical care if you're incapacitated. Sure there are health proxies, living wills and the like, but in practice next-of-kin trumps ALL of that.

Goodness knows I'd rather have someone who doesn't think receiving an organ transplant is a shameful thing making my medical decisions... I want the people making medical decisions in my stead to make the decision I'd want.

I can only assume that other people feel that way, too.

[cellio]

Yes. Marriage-the-legal-institution should be treated as simple contract law. Marriage-the-religious-institution should be governed by whatever religious body oversees it. There should be no leakage from one to the other. (A conventional religious wedding would involve two elements, the religious ceremony and the signing of the legal document.) To help the dimwit fundies grok this distinction, we should rename the legal institution. How about "civil union"?

[mshollie.livejournal.com]

Icon love...

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

I would still be more comfortable if someone could actually provide a citation to these supposed counter examples.

It is most frustrating. I followed the link and other than broad denunciations, there is not a single citation to a culture that has anything analogous to same sex marriage until the 21st Century. That family is "variable" is certainly true, and that there are various patterns of pairing off and of financial groupings is also true, but if the argument is from history one way or another, a few citations to definitive counter examples should not be hard to provide.

My own feeling is that it is a new institution, but so what? Human society in the 21st century is radically different from at any other time in human history. But if history is to be the judge, than please provide some actual examples rather than observe the non-controversial (and fairly irrelevant) point that the modern nuclear family is hardly the only form of family or kinship group.