OK -- finally getting caught up with myself. Now for the world at large.
More on Marriage
Box Turtle Bulletin, which has my vote for one of the most reasonable gay blogs on the 'Net (although sometimes a little too reasonable) has managed to begin a dialogue between Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family, and at least one of the anthropologists who took exception to his recent article on marriage. First, a critique by Patrick M. Chapman. Chapman does find some positives in Stanton's "report":
As indicated in the title, Stanton’s report compares and contrasts the anthropological understanding of marriage with definitions provided by various same-sex political advocates, apparently to undermine the case for same-sex marriage. I find the report significant for several, presumably unintended, reasons:
* The appeal to anthropologists as the authority in understanding marriage;
* The appreciation that marriage is primarily a social and economic institution, not a religious one;
* The acknowledgment that same-sex marriage is traditional;
* The recognition that Focus on the Family’s “one biological man with one biological woman” definition of marriage is flawed;
* The admission that gay males are capable of stable, long-term relationships.
I do want to point out something about Chapman's list that I think underlies the whole discussion to date, which is that there is a certain naivete involved in thinking that there will be an honest dialogue. Remember that Stanton works for Focus on the Family, one of the premier anti-gay groups in the country, which specializes in propaganda pieces that misrepresent and/or fabricate "scientific studies" in order to demonize gay people. Given that basic fact, I think anything that comes out of that organization or any statement by any of its representatives must be looked at with a high degree of scepticism.
In fact, we can see the kind of debater's tricks that are a staple of FoF's utterances in Stanton's response. And Stanton doesn't waste much time:
Additionally, when I was doing research in 2003 for my book, Marriage on Trial (w/ Dr. Bill Maier), I was interested to see how anthropologists understood marriage and parenting across cultures in light of the two streams of humanity: male and female. I took to reading the works of leading anthropologists on the topic and was profoundly struck by what I didn’t find. I expected to find explanations of various cultures that confounded and challenged the binary male/female dyad. I did not find this.
What I found was a relentless explanation of marriage and family consisting of male and female as the core of new families. It did not find observations and explanations of multiple genders, nor did I find broad discussions of different forms of marriage that did not include both male and female.
So, from the very beginning, Stanton has developed a self-limiting thesis. I find it quite surprising that he ran across no references to same-sex marriages, which are known to have occurred. I am not an anthropologist, merely an educated layman, but I am aware of the work of Stephen O. Murray and John Boswell, both of whom have written on same-sex marriage, Murray in Africa and other non-Western cultures, Boswell in early Europe. (I realize that Boswell's works have been hugely controversial, damned on every ground from methodology to his lack of "understanding" of various languages. The point remains that he documented his statements pretty thoroughly, and his conclusions were not completely unreasonable.) Andrew Sullivan published an anthology, Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con a number of years ago that included writings from, among others, anthropologists, and Ruth Vanita's Love Rite: Same-Sex Marriage in India and the West is currently available from Amazon. There is also the North American phenomenon of the berdache, a French term that encompassed an institution found among many Indian tribes under many different names, all of which describe a man (usually) who lived as a woman, adopting woman's dress, doing traditionally women's work, and often marrying a man -- who, by the way, was held in very high esteem as the husband of a person of significant spiritual importance to the group. This has been studied extensively, including at least one book-length study published, I believe, in the 1980s. And somehow Stanton managed to find none of this. I'd really like to know where he looked. (I don't claim to be very sophisticated with googling -- Google and I quite often have very different ideas of what constitutes a "key word." I'm sure someone with more savvy in that area could come up with a goldmine of sources.)
Stanton also notes that David Blankenhorn was influential on his paper. I've read some of Blankenhorn's so-called "arguments" against same-sex marriage and was not impressed by his premises, his reasoning, or his conclusions.
The "male/female dyad" seems to be the entire substance, if we can call it that, of Stanton's response in this first section. It strikes me as relying on habits of speech to prove a substantive point. Not quite going to make it.
Stanton then goes on to cast doubt on the American Anthropological Association's 2004 statement in support of same-sex marriage because it was not "academically motivated." This is total sophistry: the statement came in response to the push for anti-marriage amendments in a number of states -- a political move by FoF and allied organizations, which funneled millions of dollars into those campaigns. There's little reason for the AAA to make a statement about something that is not controversial, and every reason to make such a statement when distortions and fabrications are being expounded on scientific issues.
Stanton then, after writing an article that starts off crowing that "anthropologists support traditional marriage" -- a demonstrable untruth that Stanton now disowns -- tries to diminish the authority of anthropologists to address the issue because Chapman has pointed out that he cited that authority. So you see what I mean by debater's tricks? Dodging and weaving for fun and profit.
Stanton then goes on to deal with "miscellany." Frankly, his rejoinders to Chapman's comments are so lacking that it's hardly worth enumerating them. On the continued harping on the fact that most discussions of marriage rely on the "male/female dyad," even among those who have defined marriage in non-gender related terms, Stanton is still basing his argument on habits of speech, not substance. He notes once again that there is not and never has been, based on his research, any "true" same-sex marriage in any culture -- again, demonstrably untrue. (Vide Murray, et al. cited above, and watch for very slippery and constantly changing definitions of "true marriage.") And under the heading "Are Mothers and Fathers Merely Optional?" Stanton focuses on fatherless families. He doesn't seem to want to admit that every study that has been done comparing children raised in homes headed by same-sex and opposite-sex couples shows no difference in development or adjustment, except some indications that lesbians are best at parenting. He's going back to the old trick of taking studies comparing children from single-parent and dual-parent households as evidence that "children do better with a mother and father," which those studies don't address.
To paraphrase Stanton's opening comment:
Honest dialogue on same-sex marriage: priceless
Stanton's response to Chapman: garbage.
Closeted by the Press
I found this story both at Andrew Sullivan and Queerty:
The Washington Post, National Public Radio and the Gainesville Sun, the local newspaper in his hometown of Hampton, Fla., made no mention of his sexual orientation or his involvement with a group that works to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Lynn Medford, Metro editor for the Post, said the newspaper debated whether or not to disclose Rogers’ sexual orientation and ultimately decided not to include such information as a matter of ethics. Rogers to some degree “kept his orientation private” and outing him after his death would “take a decision out of his hands,” she said.
First off, Rogers kept his orientation private only to the degree that would keep him in the service. Here's something a little more honest, from the Washington Blade:
Tony Smith, a friend of Rogers’, described him as “very positive” and “very outgoing.” Smith and Rogers worked together in the D.C. chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights, a group that works to change military policy toward gays. Rogers was out to friends in the Washington area, but “had to obviously be careful [about being out] to too many people because he was active duty military,” Smith said.
This, I think, is a little closer to the mark. Quoting Deborah Howell, WaPo ombudsman:
“They just felt it was a matter of privacy and they neither knew his wishes nor felt comfortable with [discussing his sexual orientation],” she said.
Can I suggest that maybe the operative factor here is editorial discomfort (being, as they are, all such wild-eyed liberals) rather than any real concerns about a dead man's privacy?
This sort of thing just perpetuates the idea that there's something wrong with being gay.
The Non-Apology Shuffle
Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council, is doing a fast two-step. First, last week's bon mot:
I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.
I'm sure that in the world of the fringe right, that counts as wit. Apparently, the heat was a little much. Suddenly Sprigg is all apologetic:
In response to a question regarding bi-national same-sex couples who are separated by an international border, I used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human being as a person created in the image of God. I apologize for speaking in a way that did not reflect the standards which the Family Research Council and I embrace.
Frankly, I think his first comments are a perfect reflection of the FRC's standards. After all, they're still relying on Paul Cameron's "research." In fact, if I recall correctly, the SPLC has designated them as a hate group.
Commenter Christopher brings up this point:
My problem with this “apology” is that he seems to merely apologize for his choice of words, rather than for what his words actually *mean*.
Saying you believe that homosexuals “should be exported” out of the US doesn’t merely “trivialize the seriousness of an issue,” but says quite clearly that you believe it would be best if an entire people group were forcibly removed from American society. Of course it’s disrespectful, but it also communicates a policy intent that borders on genocide.
The disrespect was addressed, but not the underlying policy intent of his statement. Does he repudiate that? I can’t really tell.
I can tell -- of course not. We live in the age of the non-apology: "I'm sorry some people were offended," which translates as "F*** you, wimp."
Let's talk a little bit about respect for the essential dignity of every human being. In our case, that starts by calling us "gay," not "homosexual." To bore you with the basics -- and I've pointed this out to those who are sympathetic to gays and their rights, as well as those who are not -- to call us "homosexuals" is to reduce us to a behavior. There's no respect for our dignity there at all. Given that this is the official term used by the right-wing anti-gay propagandists, I think you can see just how much they respect our humanity. Don't you feel special, just knowing that?
So, no, Sprigg's apology has no real substance to it. He quite obviously has no respect for us as people -- our only value to him and his organization is as a way to raise money.
No comments:
Post a Comment