Defining Marriage is Problematic
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 02-07-2004 - 10:49am |
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
My problem with calling a gay union a marriage is that marriage is one of the sacriments and the Catholic church has always claimed homosexuality to be contrary to the bible. Personally, I have no problem with a man loving a man or a woman loving a woman. I have no problem with civil ceremony or legal unions. I'm not comfortable with the state (or nation) trying to force the church to accept something that it has always rejected. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Marriage is not just a sacriment of the Catholic church (or any other church for that matter), it is a legally defined term. NO ONE would be telling the church that they have to Marry homosexual couples, they would certainly be allowed to if they wanted to (like the Jewish temple that decided to marry homosexual couples), but they would NOT be forced to.
The religious sense of Marriage would not be changed in anyway by this (except by giving them the LEGAL ability to do whatever they want with homosexual marriage right now they can ONLY deny not allow), this is about the legality of the STATE to provide Marriage LICENSES.
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
James
janderson_ny@yahoo.com
CL Ask A Guy
Genitalia are not always the indication of a person neatly fitting into the category of woman or man despite the way you were "raised".
How would you classify people born with both sets of organs or parts of M/F organs?
See article at link below.........
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d3362852002e314524ffb9ac8eac3c91
For thousands of years millions upon millions of people in societies all around the world have married men and women not same sex unions. As some would say: "if it aint' broke, don't fix it." Look into the Bible and see what the Creator of this earth and universe and every hair on your head has said about and prewarned of the consequences of same sex unions.
happy55face
>"Why are 60% of current marriages headed for divorce? "<
>" As some would say: "if it aint' broke, don't fix it." "<
Isn't this a contradiction?
If, as you state, 60% of marriages end in divorce.... looks as though something is broken.
>" Is there a lack of understanding of the word commitment? "<
Divorce breeds divorcing children. Single parent homes breed insecure incomplete adults generally. Same sex couples are not going to have well balanced children. Can two people of the same sex really "have" children?
If single adults were taught how to be introspective we could actually get to know our true needs and wants in a spouse and that alone would reduce the divorce rate dramatically.
Why does God say it is an abomination to him and everything He stands for when two people of the same gender have sex? What happened to Soddom and Gomorrah? Could that happen again?
Is that short sighted or should we just let everyone do anything they want?
Pages