Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"They're trying to redefine marriage"....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 07:22 PM
Original message
"They're trying to redefine marriage"....
Damnit, I hate that claim. Here's a great article on why gay marriage should, and will, be legalized eventually...

Gay Marriage and Anthropology

Linda S Stone
Washington State U

Politicians and the public in the US today are raising a question once pursued by anthropologists in the 1950s, namely, what should we mean by marriage? The politically charged issue concerns whether or not a constitutional definition of marriage can exclude same-sex couples. With over a century of experience in the study of kinship and marriage worldwide, anthropology can offer perspectives on this debate that may be of interest to our students or the general public.

Can Marriage Be Defined?
Many politicians claim that those advocating gay and lesbian marriage are trying to redefine marriage. But what anthropologists have learned is that from a global, cross-cultural perspective, “marriage” is in the first place extremely difficult, some would say impossible, to define. One anthropologist, Edmund Leach tried to define marriage in his 1955 article “Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage” published in MAN. Leach quickly gave up this task, concluding that no definition could cover all the varied institutions that anthropologists regularly consider as marriage. Rejecting Leach’s conclusion, Kathleen Gough attempted to define marriage cross-culturally in 1959 as an institution conferring full “birth status rights” to children (The Nayars and the Definition of Marriage. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 89:23-34). Gough’s definition of marriage was convoluted—notable, in her own words, for its “inevitably clumsy phraseology”—since it covered monogamy, polygyny, polyandry and same-sex marriage. But most important, its core feature—conferring of birth status rights on children—does not hold up cross-culturally.

It is true that virtually every society in the world has an institution that is very tempting to label as “marriage,” but these institutions simply do not share common characteristics. Marriage in most societies establishes the legitimacy or status rights of children, but this is not the case, for example, among the Navajo where children born to a woman, married or not, become full legitimate members of her matriclan and suffer no disadvantages. “Marriage” around the world most often involves heterosexual unions, but there are important exceptions to this. There are cases of legitimate same-sex marriages as, for example, woman-woman marriage among the Nuer and some other African groups. Here, a barren woman divorces her husband, takes another woman as her wife, and arranges for a surrogate to impregnate this woman. Any children from this arrangement become members of the barren woman’s natal patrilineage and refer to the barren woman as their father. Among some Native American groups, males who preferred to live as women (berdache) adopted the names and clothing of women and often became wives of other men.

Marriage usually involves sexual relationships between spouses. Yet this was not true of Nuer woman-woman marriages and we find in European history cases of “celibate marriages” among early Christians. Often spouses are co-resident but very often this is not the case. A separate residence of husbands in “men’s houses,” away from their wives and children, has been common in many places. Among the polyandrous/polygynous Nayar of India, wives and husbands remained in their own natal groups with husbands periodically “visiting” their wives and with children raised by their mothers and mothers’ brothers. Indeed the only feature of marriages that is apparently universal is that they will create affinal (in-law) relationships, or alliances, a fact that Lévi-Strauss and others considered to lie behind the origin of human marriage. But even here, affinal relationships are themselves quite varied in their nature and importance across societies. Thus, in terms of child legitimacy, sex of spouses, sexual activity, residence and so on, what we see around the world in terms of marriage is most notable for its variation.
(more)
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pelagius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, the Bible clearly states...
...the marriage is between one man and one or more women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opiate69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Then...
Edited on Thu Oct-14-04 07:33 PM by opiate69
I guess it's too bad the country's laws aren't predicated on what the Bible says, eh? Damned first amendment anyway...

on edit: Don't suppose you can provide chapter and verse to support your claim, can ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Polygamy for all
Edited on Thu Oct-14-04 09:05 PM by Djinn
because the Bible tells us so
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ms. Toad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Last time I checked
God didn't pick up a pen and write the bible.

I happen to belong to a religious community that believes that each of us has the ability to commune directly with God, and each of is sometimes asked to witness what God has shared with us. One of the things we have to be cautious about when we do so is interjecting ourselves, and our own life experience, into the messages we are asked to share with others.

The Bible was written through a similar process. God didn't write it directly - it was put down on paper by humans, and is necessarily colored by the life experiences of the individuals who were the messengers. In addition, all of it was translated from the original language, adding further distortion (both life experience and language mismatch).

My faith community has affirmed loving, monogamous, same gender marriages, with specific references to how the Bible has influenced this witness. http://clevelandfriendsmeeting.org/ Follow the link for Public Witness, then Same Gender Marriage. This was a letter to various newspapers and politicians in reference to the marriage discrimination statute. It has now been revised and sent to similar distribution list in connection with Issue One (constitutional amendment).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelagius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-15-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Just to be clear -- my post was tongue in cheek.
But every objection I've heard to same-sex marriage has a religious or "Biblical" basis. But the Bible assumes polygamy as the norm:

Gen 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Gen 32:22
And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

Deu 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, the beloved and the hated; and the firstborn son be hers that was hated...

1Ki 11:3
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

And so on.

Certain Christians will claim that's all _Old_ Testament, so it doesn't count. But four of the six Bible verses they cite to condemn homosexuality come from the the Tanakh (Old Testament), so we'll just have to throw those out, too, won't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. The equal protection argument...

Gays who have spouses are not afforded spousal privilidge in court; they can be compelled to testify against their signifigant other.

That's enough to convince me that they deserve the legal protections of marriage. I know too many gay couples that are productive, tax-paying citizens that are currently being treated like chattle by the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-14-04 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. I just feel really sorry for all the fundies and the bushies and the
holier-than-thous who have to run frantically for cover under an idea like the Marriage DISCRIMINATION Amendment. I feel bad that their marriages are SO frail and SO endangered and SO unstable and SO on the ropes that they're this threatened by gays getting married. Truly a shame. They must have some really horrendously awful hell-on-earth marriages. A gay couple getting married doesn't compromise or threaten or cheapen MY marriage in the least. My marriage isn't going to crumble or be at all affected if some gays get married. I'm sorry to hear their marriages evidently will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC