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: 09-05-2003
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 12:54pm

I understand what you are saying, as the same arguement has been used to say that homosexual marriages are completely false and we have no reason to legalize them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Tue, 04-27-2004 - 3:04pm

My wife and I are able to produce offspring, which is the reasoning for the marriage, according to the Bible.


But what of us who do NOT believe in the Bible?


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2003
Thu, 04-29-2004 - 5:27pm
I know it has already been pointed out that not everyone in this country believes in the Bible, nor is our legal definition of marriage in the United States supposed to be based on a religious book - Biblical comments truly have no place in this matter - and I speak as a person well versed in what the Bible has to say. I'd just like to point something out to you. My wife and I (did I mention I'm a woman?) are due with our first child in just a few months. Let me use this statement to point out just a few things... the first of which is, we consider ourselves married, call each other wife, as do all those who know us. We have obviously not participated in any legal ceremony to justify the use of the terms, however we would be the first in line if it were something that would be truly recognized by the state and the country. (What good will it do us if we are still not able to claim each other on taxes, for benefits, or for entitlement to property?) The second point I'd like to make is that for all intents and purposes it looks like we fit into your category of being able to produce offspring - even if that were the actual definition of marriage, which it isn't. Does it matter how we were able to create a child together? No, just like it wouldn't matter if a heterosexual couple had to adopt, use a sperm donor, or needed a surrogate. We have still created a child as part of our family. Having grown up as a full participant in the Catholic church, I was made well aware of what the necessary items for marriage consisted of as far as the church was concerned - seems to me it involved unity, monogamy, faith in each other, willingness to work through the hard times together, etc.... not the ability to send sperm to collide with an egg.


<

Just by definition, the nature of their relationship is different than a heterosexual couple, so why can't their union be different, provided that they are afforded the same protections under the law? >>

I really find the need to address this. Your posts have been decently intellectual and thoughtful as opposed to bigoted or close-minded, as some of the other posts have been. Which is why I am startled by your sudden dive into a biased emotional comment. It sounds rather like something my mother in law (note the use of the word - she goes by it, and everyone else refers to her as that in relation to me - funny how these things really can be adapted well into society) was told by a "friend" of hers. This woman told her that she had "no problem" with homosexual relationships but couldnt bear the thought of "them" being allowed to marry. This was her reasoning: "THEIR love could NEVER be like the love between me and my husband, it couldnt reach the same levels." Only because your comments have the start of that ring to it do I point out that monogamous homosexual relationships only differ from yours in the sense that ALL relationships differ. Sex cannot be the defining answer to what makes your union different from ours. To delve into some blunt reasons: Some heterosexual couples prefer only anal sex as opposed to vaginal penetration. Some couples prefer only the act of fellatio. Some couples do not have sex at all, do not enjoy it, or find it quite painful/disturbing. Some couples prefer sex to include another human being of either male or female persuasion. Do any of these mean that they are not entitled the word marriage? Sex simply cannot be used to define a marriage. (It takes me off my train of thought to say so, but isn't if funny that most of the above would be considered an "abomination" biblically speaking, and yet heterosexual married couples are free to participate in all of it without being judged from one side of the country to the other?)

I will however give you one good reason why we should all be allowed the use of the term marriage. Creating "civil unions" is a ploy to not only cushion the blow for those opposed to equal marriage rights, it is also a ploy to continue to withold the legal rights of "civil unions" for homosexuals while our federal government, state governments, and private businesses all take their time amending their policies to include these unions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-10-2004
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 7:00am
To me the question is whether "marriage" is a legal term or a religious one. If it is a legal term, then it should not be denied to any law-abiding, consenting adult. If it's a religious one, then it has no place in government anyway, and all legal "marriages" should be considered civil unions, and those people who choose to sanctify their civil union as a marriage through a religious organization of their choice are free to do so.

People who tout the sanctity of marriage by the government are using their own religious beleifs and the institution of marriage as a tool of bigotry, not only against homosexual men and women but also against people of non-religious or minority religious beliefs. And before we get too excited about welcoming these religious terms into our civil govwernment, let's remember that several of the religious groups we are talking about still see women as subservient to men. I absolutely do not want their religious policy dictating my values if they don't even see me as an equal acting member of society.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 8:07am

Excellent points!


Jahteacher

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 10:46am




NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). May 1-3, 2004. N=1,012 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.










.




"Would you favor or would you oppose an amendment to the United States Constitution that defines marriage as a union only between a man and a woman and makes same-sex marriages unconstitutional?"










.





Favor
Amendment

Oppose
Amendment

Depends
(vol.)

Not
Sure

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-05-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:35am
I wonder how you could possibly get a good enough demographic for a poll using only 100 or 1700 people, what do we take a Noah's Arc approach to polling where you get two people of every demographic :)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 11:51am
Agreed. There's always more in poll #s than the just percentages. Who, where, etc. some pollsters even pay a nominal fee. I find polls interesting, though not necessarily accurate.
cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:04pm

Not to mention the fact that, depending on how they're worded, you can make statistics say anything you WANT them to say.


As an example,

________________________________________________

"If you don't stand up for something, you'll lie down for anything." -- B

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Mon, 05-10-2004 - 12:09pm

Great example!


>"They tempt the men too much"< Too funny.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages