Traditional Marriage? Which Tradition?

Interesting read here. And puts the kaibosh on the bigots' assertions about the historic definition of "traditional" marriage. The bigots are just using that excuse to force their bigotry and inability to accept anyone "different" than them onto society. Pfft.
_ _ _ _ _

By Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá on December 19, 2008 in Lust in Paradise

A common refrain among those arguing against allowing same-sex marriage is that doing so would alter a long-standing trans-cultural definition of marriage. Rick Warren, the controversial evangelist Obama has invited to speak at his inauguration tells Ann Curry in an NBC interview that, "For five thousand years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman."

Hogwash.

The prerequisite for this sort of absolute declaration is absolute ignorance of what one is talking about. In fact, the world is teeming with innumerable examples of marriage that would be unrecognizable to Warren and other so-called traditionalists.

Two spirited ones (formerly known as berdache) were commonly found in many Amerindian cultures. They were either biological males who felt the presence of a female soul so strongly that they chose to live their lives as women or vice-versa, females who chose to live as men. Pedro de Magalhães de Gandovo described such women -- whom he called Amazons -- in 1576: "The wear their hair cut in the same way as the men, and go to war with bows and arrows and pursue game, always in company with men; each has a woman to serve her, to whom she says she is married, and they treat each other and speak with each other as man and wife."

The Mosuo people of China practice a form of courtship and sexual interaction anthropologists have called walking marriage, which consists basically of women being completely free to sleep with whomever they like, with children being cared for by the woman's family -- her brothers being paternal figures. Biological paternity is a non-issue. Every night is seen as an independent event, with no expectation of permanence or even continuity.

Anthropologists living with the Aché of Paraguay define a man and woman sleeping in the same hut as being married. But if one up and takes his or her hammock to another hut, they're not married anymore. That's it. Talk about your no-fault divorce!

MORE...

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/lust-in-paradise/200812/traditional-marriage-which-tradition

polygamy, concubines, beggeting children forcefully on slaves, etc.

those are traditions too.

...that's what makes their assinine claims of "God said" or "tradition is that marriage is between one man and one woman" so utterly idiotic and disingenuous. And I have some relatives that believe that shit and who believe "gay is a choice" - I dare NOT ask them when they CHOSE to be hetero.

Considering that the current 'definition' is barely 200 years old.

These people have no imagination, no empathy, no ability to put themselves in anyone else's shoes. They can't learn, because to do so would be an admission of imperfection... and at their level of insecurity, they can't have that.

They only understand dogma that allows them to indulge their insecurity, for they cannot imagine undertaking enlightenment.

"An ye harm none, do as ye will" would open a door to uncomfortable self-discovery for these people. The world is bigger and older than their tiny minds will allow.

One day, they will be outgrown.

of course no more of a leg than they have to stand on, it's no wonder they're insecure about it. I suspect this is a self-feeding insecurity,

You win.

Your suspicion is a simple fact.

You knew that though.

Not that ALL heterosexual relationships are essence-ially oppressive, but a significant number of them are.

Real Freedom is scarey.

I've always though that the sexes have enslaved one another - society has them crammed into these roles and by GAWD they damn well better perform them OR ELSE. There's little room for deviance based on individual desires or needs or individual couples' desires or needs.

On another subject, another blogger at PT wrote about how same-sex couples seem to understand each other better because there's no disconnect between a man understanding what it's like to live in society as a physical male or a woman understanding what it's like to live in society as a physical female. They understand each other better because they're both the same sex.


http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200812/the-compatibility-same-sex-relationships

"...a newly published study by Kimberly Balsam and her research team reports some of the first long term follow-up data on same-sex domestic partnerships and compares their relationship quality to similar opposite-sex couples. The authors studied couples in Vermont, which legalized domestic partnerships in 2000. To create comparison groups, they asked the couples to help recruit a heterosexual married sibling and a gay or lesbian couple in their friendship circle who had not had a civil union. The researchers recruited the couples in 2002, and then followed up with them three years later. They asked the couples to complete a variety of standard measures of relationship satisfaction, conflict, quality, commitment, and intimacy.

Across the three year follow-up period, same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationship than same-sex couples in civil unions or heterosexual married couples. One interpretation of these findings is that legal recognition may help stabilize relationships. In fact, qualitative interviews with same-sex couples suggests that legal unions help create an incentive to try and work out relationship issues instead of splitting up. It also helps to instill a shared sense of commitment to the relationship. Further supporting the idea that legal unions stabilize relationship was the finding that these couples showed no statistically significant differences when they were asked these same questions at the beginning of their relationships in 2002.

One of more interesting findings of the study was that same-sex couples reported more positive relationship quality and less conflict than heterosexual married couples on nearly all of the measures included in the study. This finding is consistent with other research that has found that same sex-couples tend to fare better than heterosexual couples on most relationship variables. For example, Gottman found in 2003 that same-sex couples showed less belligerence, whining, and tension and showed more affection, humor, and joy than the comparable heterosexual married couples."

relationships that BOTH members know intimately what the relationship has cost them. Oh, I suppose there a few of those fairy-tale perfect marriages out there, but most marriages, even the very functional ones, have a price that you have to wonder about now and then: "If so-and-so had not had to such-and-such to keep this relationship alive, what kind of life would s/he have lived, what would s/he/they have been able to do, how might their lives have REALLY helped Others, instead of just perpetuating itself through self-congratulatory relationships?"

Instead, we continue to sacrifice things we will never know the value of to Heterosexuality, in order to keep those who have already given it their lives from experiencing the STRESSFUL situation in which they simply have to be able to say: "This is how I/we lived our lives; whatever Good is in it is justification unto itself; whatever Bad is in it is not justification that others proove otherwise to me/us or anyone else by sacrificing their own lives to the same Value." If Heterosexuals cannot do this, then they deify their own sexual orientation and blaspheme against God in demanding human sacrifice to THEIR Golden Calf.

HA! Very good term. You make a great point there about the inauthenticity of the heterosexual paradigm and how it is used to demand sacrifice of all other ways of life to itself.

Literature of the Absurd and some small acquaintance with Noam Chomsky on language and cognition. Taught Advance Placement high school Psychology = I'm against closed self-referential systems. Besides making me Angry, I think they are Dangerous. The last couple or three decades have born that out pretty clearly, both domestically and internationally.

...I was involved in something similar for a few years just to see what it was about (a group of folks who had that type of attitudes) - and I recognized that it was indeed dangerous.

one's self, as long as one doesn't claim that is ALL there is for any/everyone else, i.e. a closed set of phenomena that is the same for all "honest", "Good", people.

Personally, I can put up with a lot from others as long as they don't try to dominate or take unfair advantage of the naive, which is pretty much the definition of Religion.

...anyone involved in other lifestyles as inferior - "unevolved" or some such. Snobbery, closed-system, closed minds. They pretended to pride themselves on open-mindedness but in reality - they were just the opposite. Very similar to a religion.

to think and there WAS, I clearly remember, a time (in the mid-to-late '60s) when they used to teach that each of us MUST choose Right and Wrong for ourselves, like grownups, and gamble the fate of your own soul on that decision, not for reward, not to avoid punishment, but for the sake of the/a principle itself as best YOU can give to it, not what someone/anyone else is supposed to do about/for it. It's frustrating that that IS the story of the New Testament. There was a man, or men, more or less similar to the Jesus of the Bible. He had extraordinary, though not magical, abilities. He was killed because he was tooooooo independent of his church and of his state, so they colluded to kill him. And then the tomb was E - M - P - T - Y. That's indeterminent; again, we are called to decide what is real, gamble our OWN lives on it and act accordingly.

The Catholic Church taught me that. Something very Dark has happened to it since then. This is Sad.

:hug: Triana :hug:

all the sexist, social and religious baggage of all that tradition. Unfortunately, even if they opt for civil union where it's available, their families assume all that baggage is in force and they don't have a chance.

..that's what I resent about it all.

K&R! :kick:

...I don't of course agree with all of it but reading on psychologists/researchers/educators' take on the stuff and the studies is most interesting.

marriage as a religious institution with civil marriage. What they refuse to "get" is that no one is trying to dictate to any religious organization who they can or can't marry. It has no relevance at all to two people obtaining a marriage license from the state and reciting their vows before someone empowered to sign the license.

This is a civil rights and equality issue. The anti 8 forces made a big mistake by not presenting it forcefully as such.

...their brand of bigotry. And what better pretense to use to do that other than religion?

comes from the Courts.

That gays are a protected minority.

That gays have been subjected to bigotry.

That laws that exclude a protected minority, while giving rights to the majority, are unconstitutional.

Gays are only fighting for the right for same sex marriage rights, as enjoyed by different sex married couples.

Marriage is already defined as a legal (civil) entity between two consenting adults.

The only quarrel now is: should it be narrowly defined as one man and one woman, or is that discrimination?

I think it is discrimination.

The misdirection by those who claim a "tradition of marriage" to be something or other, is putting it back on their playing field, which is religion and custom. I find the strength of the argument comes from law.

That said, intersting post. :hi:

I blows most of the fundies' bullshit arguments out of the water...

...

Between the popular vote to take away the marriage rights of same sex couples in California, passing of same-sex marriage bans in several states, and President elect Baraka Obama including full civil unions for LGBT couples as part of this civil rights platform, there has been a lot of recent attention on same sex relationships. Opponents of marriage rights for same sex couples generally argue that it redefines marriage away from its current and "traditional" form and that children are best raised by two opposite sex parents. Advocates for allowing same sex couples the right to marry argue that marriage confers over a thousand rights that they are currently denied, like the ability to inherit property, visit a sick partner in the hospital, and provide citizenship for non-citizen spouses. See the U.S. General Accounting Office's report for the full list the 1,049 rights. Advocates also argue that children do just as well when raised by same-sex parents and that marriage provides a number of psychological and health benefits that they are currently denied.

I'm not a historian, but a quick read of the history of marriage makes it clear that it has evolved and changed throughout history and that the current version is a relatively recent phenomenon. That our current version of marriage is not "traditional" invalidates that argument against expanding it to include same sex couples, in my opinion.

...

Wellbeing of Children One of the most widely cited arguments against allowing same sex couples marriages rights is that it could harm children raised in the context of these relationships. Upon examination of the social science research in this area it is clear that the evidence does not support this argument. According to a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics, "A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes."

...

The results of this and other studies suggest that denying same sex couples marriage rights not only prevents them from reaping the psychological and health benefits of marriage, but the process of codifying the elimination of these rights has negative psychological impacts on LGBT people.

Given the scientific evidence of the positive effects of same sex marriage on couples, the lack of negative effects on children reared in the context of these relationships, and the harm caused by preventing or eliminating marriage equality it doesn't seem that there is a solid foundation to stand on when arguing against allowing same sex couples to wed. From my perspective, it comes down to common sense. If it helps some people and it doesn't hurt anyone, why not let in happen. I think the comedian Wanda Sykes put it best, "It's real simple. If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." In other words, why not allow gay marriage?

MORE...

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage

and that the negative affects of bigotry cause emotional harm to those subjected to that bigotry.

It affects gays as kids, teens, singles and couples.

There are many good arguments in favor of same sex marriage and social acceptance,among them, that it promotes stability in relationships, it takes the burden of care for the elderly off of society as gays age, in that there is a support system.

Same sex opponents know full well the advantages financially, psychologically, legally, that marriage confers from their own experience. Those are some of the many reasons they get married.

The argument comes back to fairness. If it is fair, if there is justice, then equal rights cannot be denied.


Here are some citations:

...............

Am J Community Psychol. 2003 Jun;31(3-4):313-28.
Stressor and resilience factors for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals confronting antigay politics. Russell GM, Richards JA.

Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Amherst, Massachusetts 01004-2603,
When lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people encounter antigay campaigns and elections, they face explicit and implicit homophobic attacks. In order to understand the points of stress and the bases for resilience in the face of these attacks, we developed a 130-item quantitative survey on the basis of results of an earlier qualitative study. Three hundred, sixteen Colorado LGB people endorsed items representing sources of stress and sources of resilience associated with the campaign for and passage of an antigay referendum. Factor analyses of the results suggested 5 sources of stressors and 5 sources of resilience for LGB persons and their communities.

These types of messages undermine the basic value and humanity of LGB people.

It is reasonable to expect that exposure to such materials and to discussions about LGB rights can constitute a stressor for at least some LGB people, even when specific election outcomes favor LGB rights.

When election outcomes do not support equal rights for LGB people, an additional set of stressors may come into play.

An antigay electoral decision suggests to LGB people that they are not full members of the community; it may increase legal concerns in matters of employment and housing; it raises concerns that antigay votes will unleash broader forms of harassment and violence (Booth, 1992; Spring, 1992; Stepanek, 1992).

In addition, some LGB people, especially those who tend to deny the pervasiveness of homonegativity, may find their denial compromised (Russell, 2000).


.........

J Homosex. 2007;53(4):173-99.
The relation of social support, connectedness, and collective self-esteem to the psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.Detrie PM, Lease SH.
Rhodes College, Memphis, TN

The present study extended the research on the mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth by testing the relationship of social support, social connectedness, and collective self-esteem to psychological well-being in a sample of 218 LGB youth. Perceived social support significantly predicted psychological well-being subscales; social connectedness and collective self-esteem contributed significantly to the psychological well-being of the LGB participants when controlling for perceived social support.

......

Psychol Bull. 2003 Sep;129(5):674-97.
Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence.Meyer IH.
Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University

In this article the author reviews research evidence on the prevalence of mental disorders in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) and shows, using meta-analyses, that LGBs have a higher prevalence of mental disorders than heterosexuals.

The author offers a conceptual framework for understanding this excess in prevalence of disorder in terms of minority stress--explaining that stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a hostile and stressful social environment that causes mental health problems.

The model describes stress processes, including the experience of prejudice events, expectations of rejection, hiding and concealing, internalized homophobia, and ameliorative coping processes. This conceptual framework is the basis for the review of research evidence, suggestions for future research directions, and exploration of public policy implications.
.........

For your files :hi:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/p... ;109/2/339

POLICY STATEMENT

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health

ABSTRACT

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

Children born or adopted into families headed by partners who are of the same sex usually have only 1 biologic or adoptive legal parent. The other partner in a parental role is called the "coparent" or "second parent." Because these families and children need the permanence and security that are provided by having 2 fully sanctioned and legally defined parents, the Academy supports the legal adoption of children by coparents or second parents. Denying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents.

........


Pediatrics. 2002 Feb;109(2):341-4. Links
Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents.Perrin EC; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.

Technical report: coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents.Perrin EC; Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health.
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.


........

Child Dev. 2004 Nov-Dec;75(6):1886-98.
Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents.Wainright JL, Russell ST, Patterson CJ.
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.


........

J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2005 Jun;26(3):224-40.
Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review.Tasker F.
School of Psychology, Birkbeck College University of London, London WC1E 7HX, UK. f.tasker@bbk.ac.uk

There is a variety of families headed by a lesbian or gay male parent or same-sex couple. Findings from research suggest that children with lesbian or gay parents are comparable with children with heterosexual parents on key psychosocial developmental outcomes. In many ways, children of lesbian or gay parents have similar experiences of family life compared with children in heterosexual families. Some special considerations apply to the context of lesbian and gay parenting: variation in family forms, children's awareness of lesbian and gay relationships, heterosexism, and homophobia. These issues have important implications for managing clinical work with children of lesbian mothers or gay fathers.

.........


Fam Psychol. 2006 Sep;20(3):526-30.
Delinquency, victimization, and substance use among adolescents with female same-sex parents.Wainright JL, Patterson CJ.
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

The question of whether parental sexual orientation has an impact on human development has important implications for psychological theories and for legal policy. This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. different-sex parents), family and relationship variables, substance use, delinquency, and victimization of adolescents. Participants included 44 adolescents living with female same-sex couples and 44 adolescents living with different-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent-adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type. Copyright (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved.


......

Dev Psychol. 2008 Jan;44(1):117-26.
Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents.Wainright JL, Patterson CJ.
Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 400400, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents), adolescent gender, family and relationship variables, and the peer relations of adolescents. Participants included 44 adolescents parented by same-sex female couples and 44 adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. On both self-reported and peer-reported measures of relations with peers, adolescents were functioning well, and the quality of their peer relations was not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported higher quality peer relations and more friends in school and were rated as more central in their friendship networks. Copyright (c) 2008 APA.
......

edit:typo

...that's awesome. Research like this makes the bigots look increasingly stupid (not that they don't do a great job of that all by themselves).

It makes sense though, that a happy, loving, stable environment makes for happy, well-adjusted children - regardless of the sex of the parents. It's simply irrelevant.

If those who profess "family values" REALLY gave a flying fig about that, they'd support gay marriage in a heartbeat.

and need and have a right to equal protection under the law.

This is especially true of gay families with children, the passage of Prop8 threw alot of same sex couples into terrible turmoil in ways people don't often think about: health insurance policies, home ownership and adoption of the partners child to name a few.

...especially the gay folks I've personally known. These were some of the most intelligent, loving, STABLE, hardworking people I'd had the pleasure to know and work with. And FUN. Some with kids. Some not. Hell I'm in love with some of them - just as wonderful people.

It's heartbreaking to think what this does to them all. It's SO cruel, unfair, and heartbreaking. There's no reason for such hatred and it's done more damage to our society, families, and kids than any GLBT folks have ever done or would ever consider doing.

The damage is being done by the bigots, not the gays. They're not protecting "marriage" - they're protecting their own damn insecurity and hatred. :grr:

different marriage types and familial arrangments of other cultures because that knowledge would threaten the state/church's control over its populace/adherents.

Of course the Christians would only interpret the bible as they wish. After all, it's all about control. Truth, facts, historical accuracy be damned.

The cultures that are written about in this article are only a few that have marriage structures that differ from our current Christianity-bestowed model. Looking back in time, before the advent of Christianity and Islam, one startling example is the Spartans, who even among the so-called advanced culture of ancient Greece were considered wildly deviant in their treatment of women and the Spartans' flexible marriage arrangements.

We can never look to religious groups for enlightenment about cultural practices. With rare exceptions, their strategy is to destroy the cultural "anomalies" of groups who differ from them.

Regarding gay couples' ability to foster a good family environment and raise children who are well adjusted, I am friends with a number of couples who have children who were conceived through artificial insemination and who have provided a warm, loving, intellectually stimulating, emotionally secure environment for their children. Not only did these young people excel as students and develop healthy relationships with their friends and classmates, they are totally indistinguishable from children of so-called traditional families. These families appear to be no better and no worse than the average American family with which I am familiar. If we look at a family as a place where children are raised in a loving, nurturing and supportive environment, these gay families fit the definition to a "T".

The "marriages" of these gay couples seem to me to be no different from that of my wife and me, except for the fact that they are of the same sex and we are not. And their arrangement is not sanctioned by the state. Which is ridiculous and archaic in the extreme.

Just another logical fallacy that people fall into when they want to punish people for being different from them.

Those same control freaks are often the same ones who want to control women and their bodies - goes back to their insecurity.

Being gay isn't a choice. But being an insecure control freak is. I think they are the ones who need rehab. :crazy:

And I think their insecurity has done more damage to our nation and our society, our children and our families than gays or women needing healthcare.

Like a lot of other folks who've seen 'Milk' recently, I was appalled that our GLBT citizens are STILL fighting that crap and that they've been able to make no more progress than that over the years due to the control freaks who've had a war waged against them for decades and longer.

It's heartbreaking. And it's immoral.

...owes more to pagan Rome than it does to any religious definition. Romans, unlike the ancient Jews, did not practice polygamy. Even there divorce was not only allowed but encouraged as a means of social mobility. And while male homosexuality was officially frowned on, it was widely tolerated. As long as the man or boy on the receiving end was not a citizen, people turned a blind eye. It was thought that sex was a humiliation for the partner being penetrated so only the lower ranking partner could be the receiver. I am unaware of any Roman attitudes on female homosexuality. My impression is that since there was no man involved, and therefore no dominance, it was a morally neutral act.

defend flying the Confederate flag as 'tradition' and talk about a 'traditional' family as a patriarchal hegemony?

Tradition is just code for the values of the WASP Patriarchy.

And then told me she wouldn't come to my wedding if I met someone I loved

and wanted to get married. She's WASP and she's uneducated about my civil rights.

BINGO! :fistbump:

had 55 wives. That's an interesting tradition.

...there's some sense of entitlement for you. Egh. Couldn't he simply have purchased a herd of cattle?