Defining Marriage is Problematic

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Defining Marriage is Problematic
266
Sat, 02-07-2004 - 10:49am
Laws Can't Define 'Man' or 'Woman,' So How Can They Ban Gay Marriage?

Commentary, William O. Beeman,

Pacific News Service, Feb 05, 2004

Editor's Note: Legislators' attempts to codify marriage as "between a man and a woman" won't work, writes PNS contributor William O. Beeman. Like it or not, there is no single, clear biological, psychological or cultural definition of "male" and "female." Already, courts are faltering on the ambiguity of gender.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court advisory, stating that nothing short of marriage for same-sex couples would satisfy the state constitution, has sent legislators throughout the nation as well as President Bush scrambling to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."

These legislative attempts are doomed, because there is no clear, scientific and strict definition of "man" and "woman." There are millions of people with ambiguous gender -- many of them already married -- who render these absolute categories invalid.

There are at least three ways one might try to codify gender under law -- biologically, psychologically and culturally. On close inspection, all of them fail.

Biologically, one must choose either secondary sexual characteristics -- things like facial hair for men or breast development for women -- or genetic testing as defining markers of gender. Neither method is clear-cut. Some women show male secondary characteristics, and vice versa. Before puberty, things are not necessarily any clearer. A significant proportion of all babies have ambiguous gender development. It has been longstanding -- and now, increasingly, controversial -- medical practice to surgically "reassign" such babies shortly after birth so that they will have only one set of sexual organs.

Sometimes doctors guess wrong, and children are "reassigned" and raised as males, when they are genetically female, and vice versa.

In one condition, androgen insensitivity syndrome, genetic males are born with a genetic immunity to androgens, the hormones that produce male sexual characteristics. Though they are genetic males, these children typically grow up looking like females, although they have no internal female organs.

Although figures are imprecise, experts in intersexuality, such as Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University, estimate that persons born with some degree of ambiguous gender constitute approximately 1 percent of the population. This means that there are 2 million Americans who may be biologically ambiguous.

Psychologically, another dilemma for those who seek to codify gender is the condition known as gender dysphoria, in which a person feels that their true gender is the opposite of that in which they were born. These individuals are often referred to as "transgendered." Some experts estimate as many as 1.2 million Americans are transgendered. Gender dysphoria is a matter of personal identity and has nothing to do with sexual orientation. A male-to-female transgendered person may be attracted to women or to men.

Finally, human societies around the world recognize individuals who are culturally female or culturally male no matter what their physical gender. The "berdache" is an umbrella term used by Europeans to designate a man who is culturally classified as a woman, and who may be a "wife" to another man. The practice is perhaps best known among the Zuñi Indians of Arizona, but is widely seen in other tribal groups as well. Outside of North America, the hijra of India, a cultural "third gender," is important in ceremonial life. Hijra are classified as "neither man nor woman," but they may marry males. These examples of cultural gender ambiguity are only two among dozens throughout the world.

If the United States tries to enact a national law defining gender conditions for marriage, it is only a matter of time before the law falters on one of these rocks of ambiguity. There are undoubtedly existing marriages where the wife is a genetic male or the husband is a genetic female. In a medical examination, if it is determined that this genetic fact is discovered, is the marriage then voided? When post-operative transgendered persons wed, whom will they be allowed to marry -- persons with the opposite set of chromosomes, or people with the opposite set of genitalia?

There has already been one Texas decision where two "women" were allowed to marry, because one of them had originally been a male. We can expect far more stories like this should this legislative circus proceed.

PNS contributor William O. Beeman (William_beeman@brown.edu) teaches anthropology at Brown University.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d3362852002e314524ffb9ac8eac3c91

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 9:25am

Hi Hardcorae Welcome

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2004
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 2:52pm
I am in total agreement that this issue is being made too much of. If two people of the same sex believe in marriage and love each other who are they hurting? These people are contributing members in society, they work and pay taxes just like everyone else.

I believe there should be a common ground compromise also, but some people will only see black and white and they will not budge on what they think is right or wrong. Since same sex marriages do not affect anyone except the two people getting married, why would anyone care?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-06-2003
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 5:14pm
On the surface, it seems so simple. But I am of the belief that everything a person wants is not always best for him/her or something an individual it entitled to. Please research this before coming to a conclusion. Our society cannot sustain this continuous assault on the principles of which it was founded. Pandering to the rights of individuals weakens not strengthens our culture. Ask yourself if people are happier, more fulfilled, or more productive than twenty or thirty years ago before all these rights were bestowed on them. I don't think so.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2004
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 7:11pm
I personally do not feel affected by the whole gay-lesbian marriage issue. To me its no more than a difference of opinion with society. I do not see any reason to regulate ones choices in life. The way I see it, "to each his own", "live and let live".
Avatar for waywardestates
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-10-2003
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 7:31pm
bla, bla,bla.I'm tired of seeing and hearing of this subject.I think people should stay out of others bedrooms and sexual behavior when it comes to this sort of topic,I could care less if a person is gay or not,its just having to hear it day and night that urks me to no avial.Let alone having my children exposed to this sort of misconduct with individuals who seem to be out to disrupt this country,cheap form of terrorism is what I call it.You know what is next?molesting the kids because this is a freedom ring sorta place?I think they should seriously go over the facts before they make the leap.What sort of world are they trying to create?And why do people who don't believe in this sort of behavior have to be exposed to it?I understand that people do fall in love,but how could you want to marry someone of the same sex?Is is an addiction?A chemical imbalance?What is it?I wonder if it is the closeness that two people create with one another where as the member of the oposite sex isn't filling?That would mean that somewhere society is beginning to give up on the fairy tale of being married to the man or woman.I don't think men and women are that far apart in thinking on levels of love and wants.With this it is a matter of choice.I don't want my children experiencing the confusion that would entail this sort of behavior.I hope they would see the difference in the two lifestyles.And really see how odd and chaotic that would be.And make the right choice for there own thoughts and feelings.This country needs to stop worring about stupid subjects like this and start getting jobs for people.So heterosexuals can take care of their own families and not have to expose there children to this sort of molesting behavior.I think it sends a message that you have to be gay in order to be successful in this country ,and I disagree with that you should have to feel like you are less that what you were born with.Whether straight or gay.
Avatar for moon627
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 8:14pm
Message # 164 - You said "Our society cannot sustain this continuous assault on the principles of which it was founded" ... I think it can and does. What do you think will happen ? I think there are alot more serious issues that would cause a meltdown before this one. Our society does an exceptional job of handling all sorts of what you call "assaults" - its what makes democracy the best form of government on earth. Are you saying we should be going backwards instead of forwards? Progress is a good thing especially when it comes to "the rights of ALL the people" which is the real principle on which this country was founded. And I would say a loud and resounding "YES" that people ARE happier, more fulfilled, and more productive than 20 or 30 years ago. I dont know where you live but maybe you need to move and get a clue what the rest of the country looks like.

Message # 165 - i agree

Message # 166 - you started off concerned about your kids but then you went haywire
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 02-26-2004 - 9:35pm

Welcome to the board....and what????


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 8:35am

I think it sends a message that you have to be gay in order to be successful in this country ,and I disagree with that you should have to feel like you are less that what you were born with.Whether straight or gay.


Exactly what PLANET do you live on?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 8:58am

Hi James welcome to the "In the News" board.


Thanks for your post.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 02-27-2004 - 11:55am
<>

I don't think I understand your statement--are you saying that ensuring everyone has equal rights is weakening our culture? This seems to be a contradiction of our heritage. Can you imagine the pain our bigotry caused people who are "different". Being ashamed of what you are is the worst pain I can imagine.

Pages