I have been watching with interest, the recent developments on the subject of gay marriage. I have been waiting for some unbiased academic or scientific community holding the proper credentials to come forward and issue a statement on the matter.
As we all know by now, BushCo is on record issuing statements diametrically opposite of the AAA’s.
Is there any group more properly credentialed to give us the “straight dope” on this issue? The AAA seems to be trying to lay to rest many of the heebie-jeebies that keep so many people sitting on the fence where this issue is concerned.
What do you think about the AAA as the final arbiter of whether or not SSM is going to cause the downfall of society as we know it? Can the AAA’s opinion be considered baised for any reason?
I don’t understand, are you saying we should become like other societies?
If so…why not just make other societies like us?
Your reasoning is flawed beyond compare, it’s people like you ruining America…that is an objective truth, not a subjective fact.
You go around saying we should be like those people over there…what’s next, should we wear loin cloths? Pretty soon what was America, if following your logic, will be nothing and what is America will be the equivalent of some tribal buffoons in the Amazon.
Or better, what will be left is the decadent shell of Rome, and we will be swept from this earth as a society as we lose our identity to be “more like others”.
We are America. 60% don’t want your Gay Marriages…go away to a place more accepting of it like France. Today it costs you just a measly $500 bucks.
You’re partially right, I was attacking the pretense of the AAA being a “determination between what is the best choice”…which it is not. And that’s what I wished to use as a statement.
What do you think about the AAA as the final arbiter of whether or not SSM is going to cause the downfall of society as we know it? Can the AAA’s opinion be considered baised for any reason?
First, Same Sex Marriage in of itself probably wouldn’t ruin the society, but as I stated above, it is not going to end there. The move is made by people who drastically want to change America, yielding in one area will make us hypocrites if we don’t yield in another.
The AAA’s opinion can’t be considered biased…they are right.
There are societies where men act like women and women act like men (in Borneo I think).
There are societies where men have many wives.
There are all sorts of differences.
BUT!!!
As I was stating in the last post…the AAA can not be a scientific proof or disproof of anything. They only observe what other cultures do.
The idea that we should change our culture to be more like others, is a preposterous one, but is a constant issue as people immigrate to America and as Internationalism takes hold making people want to base our policies more on what Europe does. Or what the UN does.
I implied you were one such person, sorry, that’s just my fervor getting in the way.
Don’t let that scar however what it was that I was pointing out.
I don’t think that, in the end, AAA’s statement will make a big difference. There are some people who are never, ever going to accept that no, Jesus didn’t invent marriage, and no, marriage hasn’t always been between “one man and one women” and yes, some indigenous peoples were pretty much cool with homosexuality and would have probably continued on quite nicely if only they hadn’t been massacred in large numbers. Don’t get me wrong–I’m glad AAA has made this statement, if only because the subject of ancient attitudes towards homosexuality has been the subject of so many strawmen and of such ignorance in general and it’s an easy statement to quote, but I doubt it will do much to sway anyone’s opinion. People will most likely dismiss anthropologists as biased, politically-correct liberals, and continue with their arguments. After all, I have heard people argue–quite seriously!–that the APA declared homosexuality was not a mental disorder out of “political correctness,” and political bias.
People like you make me sick to my stomach for being a political scientist. I hope you display such intolerance, ignorance and arrogance in your papers, that your professors might enjoy failing you.
A vast majority didn’t want interracial marriage either.
And in any case, come May, it will be America (well, only in Vermont and Massachusetts), not France, which offers equality to its gay citizens. Perhaps you’re the one who should move to France. We won’t miss you.
First, examples? What are we gay marriage advocates plotting that is going to ruin America? Personally, I’m plotting world peace and harmony, with the US using its power to gently bring democratic values and enlightened capitalism to the rest of the world, becoming the shining beacon of peace, freedom, and prosperity that it ought to be and has been. I was considering making everyone melt down their guns to make forks to eat babies with, but that seemed like too much work.
Second, since when has the possibility of looking like hypocrites EVER made Americans as a whole change their minds about some large issue? In my opinion, as a crazy dangerous leftist, opposing gay marriage while accepting a whole lot of terrible straight marriages as okay is pretty hypocritical, but people who are against gay marriage must either think it’s not hypocritical or not care about being hypocrites. (I suspect the former.) And I doubt that the people who do support gay marriage support it only because they feel they HAVE to, or they’ll be hypocrites. This is a slippery slope argument, but you’re not telling us what, exactly, approval of gay marriage will force us to go along with.
I don’t think that’s what the anthropologists are SAYING, though. They’re telling us, “Look, there exist and have existed a whole lot of different societies that allowed gay marriage, and it didn’t cause the terrible consequences that opponents of gay marriage are predicting. There’s no reason to believe that our society will collapse when it didn’t happen to all these others.”
[quote] The_Broken_Column: The AAA can not be a scientific proof or disproof of anything.
Nor can the Administration offer scientific proof that homosexual marriage will undermine our country and “the sanctity of marriage.” And they are the ones wanting to change the Constitution based in this false belief.
At least anthropology is a science. The AAA is a reputable organization with over a hundred years of research on family life. I think what they have to say – which is not merely speculation or opinion – is important.
Every anthropologist I’ve ever met has two traits:
They are remarkably well-informed on cultures other than that of the USA.
They are astonishingly ignorant of the dominant culture of the USA.
The AAA can pontificate all they want, but that doesn’t mean that US culture as a general trend will blissfully accept their ivory-tower prescriptions. Of course, I’m sure that not a few elitists will come along and denounce the ordinary American as some sort of mental inferior–but what can one expect from a fundamentally elitist political mindset?
Exactly! One of the great tragedies of well-meaning rational elitists is that they are so very out-of-touch with humanity. To exacerbate matters, when confronted with their complete lack of understanding, they retreat into behaviors and put-down rhetoric that all but guarantee that the majority will not accept their doctrines.
Err…you do realize that you just said that it’s inappropriate to point out to people that they’re being irrational, don’t you? If “humanity” is engaged in behaviour that is founded on ignorant superstition instead of facts, why the heck shouldn’t that be criticized?
Indeed, put-down tactics are rude and ineffective. But nevertheless, the laws of the land should be based on rational discourse, and not superstition.
After all, people are free to not do anything they want based on their own non-rational beliefs. What they should NOT do is encode those beliefs into laws that non-believers must also follow, unless it is also supported by rational reasoning.
It would be like outlawing the eating of pork. Jews and Muslims are free to restict their own diets in any way they want for whatever reason they want, but if they were to try and force the country to enact anti-pork eating laws that Christians and atheists and Shintoists and whatever would also be forced to follow, they would have to support their anti-pork views with rational non-religious arguments. And if a dietary authority (analogous to the AAA on family matters) shows there are no rational arguments against pork, then that SHOULD be evidence enough to not outlaw the eating of pork. After all, nobody is forcing anybody to eat pork if their irrational beliefs lead them that way.
If this were the case, then there would be no legal preferences given to any married couples, which would be my preference.
Actually, all the AAA has done is documented other cultural institutions based on other superstitions. And I’d be interested in seeing how the AAA weighed in on polygamy. I don’t see their position as being particularly pro-gay marriage, as much as undermining some of the anit- arguments, which is not exactly the same thing.
Ivory… what? This is really paranoid. They comment that there is no pressing reason why homosexual marriage will cause the collapse of any society. This, of course, requires that we do not think any society’s only defining quality is its stance on gay marriage… something your post leaves in question.
It is the hallmark of a closed mind to have already prepared for all comers like this. One really wonders if you are here to debate or just pontificate. If the latter, this remark is wonderfully ironic. If the former, then the remark is rather misplaced.
The question on the table, it seems, is whether this group has the position of authority on the matter of “will homosexual marriage destroy our society?” or “…destroy marriage?” You seem to be answering the question, “Is this a bunch of ivory tower intellectuals telling everyone else what to think and do?” Apart from radical paranoia, I see no reason to suspect that 1) anyone asked that question, or 2) that it should even be suggested in the first place.
This group opposes the amendment, and seems to suggest that they are in an evidentiary position to do so.
