RECENT  POSTS:  » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists' » In which another anti-gay group forces politicos to Gladys Kravitz our way into one family's divorce drama » In 2008, the AFA was the same on LGBT rights as President Obama; and I was a flying unicorn » The Hitching Post plot thickens in a truly remarkable way » On Rivka, Robert and their dirty, self-victimizing, anti-intellectual blame game » POTUS believes in fifty-state equality, happy with way it's playing out  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/04/2008

Is there an anthropological basis for unscrupulous fibbing?

by Jeremy Hooper

200803040943In an offensive new piece that Focus on the Family has headlined, "Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage," FOF staffers and friends try and make the argument that the study of humankind automatically discriminates against same-sex marriage.  In said piece, FOF's Glenn Stanton makes the following assertion:

Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there's a clear consensus among anthropologists.

“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female," he said. "Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child."

Only problem for Glenn and anyone who would try to find an anthropological basis for denying us our portion of humanity?  Well, to be frank and direct: TRAINED ANTHROPOLOGISTS DON'T AGREE WITH THEM!!!!!  Check out any of the following posts on the American Anthropological Association's website for the myriad of reasons why noted anthropologists are, in many instances, speaking out against the religious rights' unfair and unfounded monopoly on marriage, not gay and lesbian couples' attempts to take part:

Gay Marriage and Anthropology [AAA]
"Why Marriage?"[AAA]

Or wait, want more?  Well, just check out the AAA's officail statement in regards to marriage and the attempts to ban gay people from it:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
"

But then again, what the hell do they know about anthropology?  After all, they're only that field of research's most credible professional organization.  How could these ACTUAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS ever stack up on the subject against a faith-based organization who sees a religious need to discredit gay humans?

::sigh:: What we REALLY need to be studying is what within human nature drives some to believe they have the right to define normalcy for all of society. That is the sort of human practice that is truly harming society!!!

Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage [CitenLink]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

One big thorn in the side of the Religious Right is that our society gives credibility to science. So they are forced to slap a scientific looking veneer onto their propaganda. And the only way they can do that is via delusion, distortion, and lies, which may be enough to persuade their gullible disciples. But the rest of us are forced to spend valuable time debunking their propaganda. Thanks, G.A.Y., for consistently doing that.

Posted by: Richard Rush | Mar 4, 2008 11:12:38 AM

indeed, your humble scribe thanks you for once again getting to the truth.

Posted by: banshiii | Mar 4, 2008 10:51:43 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails