Do you really think physicians study cultures and societies?
I am well aware of the differences between physicians and anthropologists. I live in a city with a large medical school and two major medical centers, and I know a lot of physicians who are faculty members of the medical school. Coincidentally, I also know few anthropologists who are faculty members of the medical school, and even a few anthropologists who are also physicians. If you’re saying “what the fu…?”, then I guess you’ve never heard of medical anthropology.
I am simply pointing out the fallacy of ignoring experts in a given subject by saying they are “ivory tower elitists”. You are free to ignore your doctors advice (I know I have), but you probably consider their opinion to be based on education and experience, so you won’t just toss it out without thought. So why the difference when you get the opinion of anthropoligists, when dealing with a subject that they have a lot of education and experience with?
The AAA statement cited in the OP was written by the executive board of the AAA, who were elected to their positions by the AAA’s membership. Social/cultural anthropologists make up the bulk of this membership and thus have the strongest say in choosing the AAA’s leaders. American social/cultural anthropologists on the whole are left-leaning and have been for a long time. In recent years, the discipline has taken its cues from Marxism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, feminism, cultural studies, post-colonialism, etc., and is certainly the least “scientific” of the social sciences.
I’m thus with Fang as far as the AAA’s bias is concerned. Of course they are biased. They could just as well have issued a statement saying that “100 years of anthropological research has shown that in the overwhelming majority of societies in which the institution of marriage exists, heterosexual marriage has long been sanctioned as the basis for … [yakkety yak].” A statement like this could also be supported from the objective “data” in the anthropological record, but the AAA board chose to write one with a different emphasis and a different rhetorical punch.
FWIW I am not opposed to SSM and am sickened by Bush’s position on the issue, and I’m glad that the AAA put out their statement. But yes, they are biased.
I respectfully beg to differ. I only wish that the poster see the foolishness in blowing off the expert opinion of people that study and work in a particular field. It seems like an American fetish to blow off all sorts of experts in all kinds of academic fields of study, but curiously when you ask somebody who is guilty of this “blowing off” to do the same thing regarding medical issues they do a complete 180. It exposes the fallacy in the most obvious way. Perhaps because it hits too close to home. I really don’t expect anybody capable of posting here to be foolish enough to have their mail carrier do a heart bypass.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. That’s not laissez-faire.
I am open to be disabused of the notion, that the philosophy that translates into English as “LET do” is compatible with a constitutional amendment limiting an action. Please explain.
That should read “INcompatible”, of course, if I’m stating my interpretation.
Of course, if the explanation is that “laissez-faire” includes among the things that are to be “let happen”, an unconditional submission to Majority Rule, then I’d retract the phrase and replace it by “Live And Let Live”.
What are we to make of this fad on the Right for trashing well-considered viewpoints as the product of “out-of-touch, ivory-tower elitists”? Orwelian Doublespeak? Aggressive passive-aggression? Straw Man? Red Herring? Appeal to the Masses? Killing the Messenger? A case of ‘methinks thou dost protest too much’? A case of ‘a person never reveals so much about himself as when he’s describing others’?
Ideas should be judged on their merits vis-a-vis the facts, not whether some stereotypical personification of them can be said to be “in touch” with what may of may not be a slight majority of American voters. (The fact that the majority of people around the World disagree with the American Right about a great many things doesn’t make the latter wrong–the lack of merit to their arguments does–but it does make them asynonymous with ‘humanity’.) Doesn’t everyone–the masses included–have a certain obligation to be in touch with reality? An what does it say about someone’s debating style when they lead with their sensitivities (as in “you’re going to insult me”) rather than good arguments.
I just find it funny that certain people get extremely agitated about this issue.
And when you ask why, they say something about the ‘foundation of society’ or quote the Bible. THEN, when you ask them to explain in more detail their opposition to gay marriage, their arguments seem to fall apart and become one of a number of poor debate tactics, usually strawman or ad hominem.
Anyway, I applaud the AAA’s statement, because it places us in with the rest of the world. We are not separate. We are not more socially evolved.
Our idea of marriage is not ‘the best’.