News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.Glenn T. Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman
Glenn T. Stanton
March 26th, 2008
Editor’s Note: Yesterday, we published Dr. Patrick Chapman’s critique of Glenn T. Stanton’s white paper, “Differing definitions of marriage and family” (PDF: 80KB/10 pages) Today, we are proud to present a guest post by Glenn Stanton in response to Dr. Chapman’s critique. Glenn T. Stanton is the director of Global Family Formation Studies at Focus On the Family. He is also the co-author (with Dr. Bill Maier) of Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting
In considering this exchange with Professor Chapman, I think of that popular VISA commercial, but with a different spin:
- Trading snippy jabs with an opponent on the marriage question: 96 cents,
- Engaging in spirited, thoughtful discussion on a deeply important and controversial issue with a serious opponent: priceless.
That is how I feel about this exchange and I am thankful for Box Turtle’s invitation to engage Professor Chapman on my paper comparing definitions of marriage and family used by anthropologists with those used by same-sex marriage advocates. I also greatly appreciate Dr. Chapman’s thoughtfulness and civility of response. As he said, we have exchanged notes in the past and I have enjoyed and benefited from those interactions.
Allow me to begin by explaining my intentions in writing my original report and the methodology I employed in that work.
My Methodology
My work at Focus on the Family affords me the privilege of being able to study, speak and write on why the family matters to human thriving. I have been doing this full-time for the last 15 years. I approach this question sociologically, theologically and anthropologically. One of my tasks is to help ensure Focus on the Family “gets it right” on what we say about why the family is important. Now, we will never “get it right” from everyone’s perspective, but we do want to make sure we don’t say incorrect or irresponsible things. To that end, we try to read widely, studying the leading thinkers in a particular field. We seek to learn from them and see how they inform, challenge or oppose our unapologetically evangelical Christian perspective. We often make adjustments based on reading and interactions with these scholars, strengthening, changing or dropping certain arguments. In this, I rarely make use of anything but academic books and professional journal articles, and when possible, develop relationships with these scholars. I also try to draw from thinkers respected on both sides of an issue. If I find widely respected sources that challenge my thesis, I try to make the reader aware of that. This, I hope, is reflected in my present paper under discussion.
My Influences
Having said that, this comparison paper had two influences. First, the impetus for my paper was David Blankenhorn’s excellent comparison between the definitions of marriage used by anthropologists and SSM advocates in his important book, The Future of Marriage. I was intrigued enough by this comparison that, standing on the shoulders of his work, I explored further.
Additionally, when I was doing research in 2003 for my book, Marriage on Trial (w/ Dr. Bill Maier), I was interested to see how anthropologists understood marriage and parenting across cultures in light of the two streams of humanity: male and female. I took to reading the works of leading anthropologists on the topic and was profoundly struck by what I didn’t find. I expected to find explanations of various cultures that confounded and challenged the binary male/female dyad. I did not find this.
What I found was a relentless explanation of marriage and family consisting of male and female as the core of new families. It did not find observations and explanations of multiple genders, nor did I find broad discussions of different forms of marriage that did not include both male and female. In book after book, article after article, I found discussions of how male and female are central to family in diverse cultures, and how they negotiate family and social life in different ways. An example of this is found in a leading journal article on gender in Bugis society, which Chapman informs us has five genders (!). Susan Bolyard Millar in the opening sentence of her piece explains, “When the Bugis of Indonesia interact in public, the men are generally treated with deference by the women.” And the rest of the article discusses the interactions of these two groups….two groups. Two genders and the only diversion from this is a reference to the calabai who are male transvestites….men who dress as women. 1
Seems pretty binary to me and not very inventive when it comes to expanding the boundaries of the two genders. I hear this “there-are-many-genders” and “gender-is-not-binary” talk every month when I do a same-sex marriage debate on some college campus. Funny thing among all these students who try to hip me to reality: I have never met anyone who wasn’t either male or female or didn’t present themselves with easily discernible male or female qualities. Out of the eight different genders one student told me about, you would think I would have the privilege of meeting at least one of these non-male/female folks. I wait for that day. In the meantime, I went to the anthropologists, who were unable to introduce me to such a person.
What the Comparison Revealed
So, I set out to write a paper showing how anthropologists, at least from my reading, do indeed recognize the fundamental nature of male and female in marriage and family across human cultures. In my research of reading the brightest lights in anthropology on social structure, all I found was male/female dyad talk. Compare this with the leading voices of same-sex marriage advocacy who just simply define marriage with no mention of male or female whatsoever. The absence is stunning. Chapman said these SSM advocates “do not use anthropological definitions.” I don’t expect they would, but the two ways of defining marriage and family have nearly no overlap at all. These advocates create wholly new, foundation-less, experience-free definitions of marriage, acting as if these nouveau definitions are basic, something everyone has always understood as a genderless union between any two or more people. The contrast in definitions between the two communities is not simply one of academics on one side and generalists on the other, but was as stark as any two groups I have experienced. That is all I desired to demonstrate in the paper, that and nothing more. I think that is clear from the paper itself.
But What About the AAA?
Professor Chapman stakes a great deal on the American Anthropological Association’s 2004 statement in support of same-sex marriage, offering that as a debate stopper. First, it should be noted that this statement from this academic organization was not academically motivated, but rather developed in response to President George Bush’s support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. I have little problem with such groups making political statements, but they should issue forth from previously established positions. That is not the case here. I find no indication of the AAA talking up this issue in any form before Bush’s statement. Was it only worth addressing when it became a political issue?
And this very short statement by the AAA makes no reference to any of the “available evidence” that Chapman refers to. You simply have to take their word that the data exists, which seems contrary to the discipline of academic rigor. If there is so much evidence, why not give the reader of the statement the slightest breadcrumb trail to follow? I could find only one short article there (Linda Stone’s) explaining how the anthropological record could be read as to support same-sex marriage. The others are merely op/eds written by AAA members. These were written after the original statement appeared. You would think a serious academic organization would have more to offer a curious, investigative reader.
There are additional concerns I have with the AAA statement, such as it shifting anthropology from a descriptive discipline to a prescriptive, but we can leave that for another day.
Who is Authoritative on Marriage?
Chapman says that Focus on the Family finally “acknowledges anthropological authority in defining marriage” and “that ‘sanctity of marriage’ arguments are not valid.” That is a pretty “binary” way of seeing the discussion. We believe that many disciplines have a voice in helping us understand and practice marriage and one does not eclipse another. If I wrote a paper on how marriage is portrayed in the history of art as a union that binds male and female, which I have dabbled at, could we say that I think artists are the only authoritative voice? Please! I am merely saying artists are a good voice because they uniquely report how people live, just as anthropologists do in their own way.
Miscellany
Before I close, let me address a scattering of Chapman’s other comments.
First, he seeks to correct me in that many of the anthropological quotes I employ “avoid specifying the biological sex of the spouses” and he offers an example from George Murdock (who, by the way, is “Elvis” among anthropologists who study family forms and social structures). To this end, Chapman quotes Murdock that marriage is a relationship “between a sexually associating pair of adults.” Yes, Murdock uses that gender-unspecific phrase in his explanation. But if you continue reading Murdock a few lines down, you get to the quote that I use, where Murdock explains that family “consists typically of a married man and woman with their offspring.” 2 So he is specific, and there you have it again, that nagging male/female thing, without reference to or qualification of these other elusive gender couplings.
He also says in my recognizing the rare occurrences of woman/woman marriage, I “effectively change” Focus on the Family’s “one biological man with one biological woman” definition of marriage. There is nothing to change. For starters, as Christians, we define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. But biological connection is not a requirement. Also, while we believe that male/female monogamy is the ideal marriage arrangement, no one can miss that many cultures practice polygamy, which leads to women being treated as objects to be collected. On this, Professor Chapman and I agree.
Additionally, Chapman states a few times that “many cultures throughout the world traditionally accept same-sex marriage” while offering no evidence of any of these cultures, just like the AAA. He does mention the Bugis having many genders and marriage being restricted only to those of “different gender categories.” But Millar’s work, which I referenced above, speaks only of male and female among the Bugis and Chapman informed us that the Bugis indeed have restrictions on same-gender marriage.
Has Homosexual Marriage Ever Existed in a Culture?
I have noted the absences of specifics from the professionals, but my paper does refer the reader to specific examples of woman-woman marriages, as the anthropologists call to them. But these are very unique and rare marriages arranged to serve the purposes of the heterosexual family and the community. They cannot be called homosexual in that the unions are strictly pragmatic – to provide offspring to the contracting woman – and are not emotional or sexual. The same is true for the Native American berdache, which neither of us has addressed in this exchange. When we examine these supposed “same-sex” marriages existing in human experience, there is always more to the story. Contrary to the AAA, I find no corresponding reference to true homosexual, culturally-approved marriage in the anthropological record, similar to the unions we are discussing today, where two men or two women fall in love, marry under the embrace of the community and its mores, set up a home and raise children together and both are accepted as part of the larger kinship group. I would be interested in learning of one.
Are Mothers and Fathers Merely Optional?
The most concerning of Chapman’s remarks are those that imply that male and female are able to perform the tasks of mother and father interchangeably, or that other extended family members can effectively replace a mother or father. This is certainly not true in heterosexual fatherless homes, and it has yet to be proven that mom’s lesbian lover can effectively replace a father, regardless of how caring and kind she might be.
If any person in any family has a belly-button, they also have a mother and father somewhere. And a wealth of research flowing from our nation’s three-decade experiment in fatherlessness strongly indicates that it is nearly impossible to replace the necessary influence and contributions a father makes to healthy child-development. 3 In the hundreds of studies I have read on this subject, I have not seen one which explains that the love of another family member can replace the contributions a father makes, no matter how vested and caring the love. My wife lost her father at age nine. The super-abundant love of her mother and sisters was a treasure, but could not replace the hole her absent father left in her life. In addition, the journal Child Development explains, “A review of the survey literature reveals no evidence that nonresident father involvement benefits children.” 4 Drive-by fathering is not fathering.
An analysis of over 100 studies on fatherhood and child-development outcomes found that having a loving and nurturing father was as important for a child’s happiness, well-being, and social and academic success as having a loving and nurturing mother. Some of these studies indicated father-love was a stronger contributor than mother-love to important positive child well-being outcomes. 5
The breadth and strength of this research on the irreplaceable influence of fathers for healthy child development is what compelled the Clinton and then Bush Administrations to both develop and execute smart federal programs to encourage greater father involvement in the United States. The research revealing that children who grow up without their fathers — regardless of the resultant family-form — face a number of serious life challenges was too great for either Administration to ignore.
Unfortunately the legalization of same-sex marriage would not help us connect more children with their fathers, but often do precisely the opposite. This is one of the leading reasons why Focus on the Family opposes same-sex marriage, along with no-fault divorce and policies that tend to encourage out-of-wedlock child-bearing.
With that, I offer sincere thanks to Box Turtle and Professor Chapman for the nice and thoughtful exchange.
Peace,
Glenn T. Stanton
PS. My mention of Colin Turnbull’s life story was simply to illustrate that he was not an anthropologist who was boxed-in by a “heterosexist” view of life and living in Virginia in his mixed-race relationship made him keenly aware of this issue of injustice.
References:
1. Susan Bolyard Millar, “On Interpreting Gender in Bugis Society,” American Ethnologist, 10 (1983): 477-493, p. 477. [BACK]
2. George Peter Murdock, Social Structure, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1949), p. 1. [BACK]
3. Michael E. Lamb, “Fathers: The Forgotten Contributors in Child Development,” Human Development 18 (1975): 245-266.
Paul R. Amato and Fernando Rivera, “Paternal Involvement and Children’s Behavior Problems,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61 (1999): 375-384;
Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405;
Natasha J. Cabrera, et al., “Fatherhood in the Twenty-First Century,” Child Development 71 (2000): 127-136. [BACK]
4. Cabrera, et al., 2000, p. 130. [BACK]
5. Rohner and Veneziano, 2001. [BACK]
See also:
Round 2: Stanton Replies to Chapman
Round 2: Chapman Replies to Stanton
Glenn T. Stanton Responds to Professor Patrick Chapman
An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s “Anthropological” Report on Marriage
Jason D
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Stanton tries to skewer Chapman in regards to quoting George Murdock’s gender neutral quote about marriage, “between a sexually associating pair of adults.” by offering the following quote about family, also from Murdock, “consists typically of a married man and woman with their offspring.”
Does stanton not see the word “typically” written right there, plain as day?
M-W.com defines the root, “typical” as follows:
1: constituting or having the nature of a type : symbolic
2 a: combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group b: conforming to a type
Symbolic, conforming, hmmm. Now why did Murdock choose the word “typically”? I doubt it was an accident. By not using more exacting terms like “exclusively” or “only”, he presents the model of “married man and woman with their offspring” as typical, not actual, exclusive, or definitive of family. In other words: average. For everything that’s typical in this world, there are plenty of things that are atypical.
As far as the bugis are concerned, since I have not read it, I cannot say, all I can tell is between Chapman and Stanton someone is either mistaken or being intellectually dishonest.
As for Fathers and Mothers. I think Stanton might be stretching something. The data, from what I understand, compares SINGLE PARENT households (usually mothers) with TWO PARENT households (mother and father). It does not address two parent, same sex households. We all know that two people raising a child is easier on both adults and the child simply because the shared responsibility allows both parents the opportunity for down time, and to pursue personal goals while the other attends to the child or children. Comparing data gathered regarding single parent homes and pretending that single GENDER homes with two parents will have the same difficulties isn’t intellectually honest.
Stanton also seems to be ignoring same-sex male couples entirely in his posting about fatherly influence. If fatherly love is “more important” as he states, would not a gay male couple be *twice* as good for the kids?
And what of the research that shows that kids raised in a gay household do not differ significantly from their peers?
Joel
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Well… Ill be awaiting Chapman’s response. I love these exchanges too. When someone opposes or supports something so fervantly and for so long, he is almost BOUND to have some basis for it.
Ok.. so we get that single-parenting is a bad idea. Guess I should tell that to my single-parent raising friend, so she marries someone before the child suffers the consequences. They should teach these things IN SCHOOL.
THis reply leaves no room for error then since hes read 100’s of academic journal articles and thus has no evidence that a SS marriage w/children household can replace the need for a father and a mother. Moreover, since all the evidence points that its crucial(except that typical word from that quote… and i wonder if hes even being honest about the rest) to have a mother and a father THEN SS-mariage w/children households should NOT be legalized. Establishing that BECAUSE its impossible for a man-man, woman-woman to be woman-man.
If i was Stanton i would seek research in the countries that already have SS marriage w/ children households. But.. is that what he means by a prescriptive discipline instead of a descriptive one? Well, independantly of what discipline it might be, it would help, no?. And even then… i hear african americans are having the most violent and unstable marriages(w/children)(source would be a debate that spinned around the mariage amendment in my university). Would factual evidence that SS-mariage w/children households be not as effective as OS ones be enough reason to ilegalize a SS marriage to have children(and maybe congruently ban that single parents adopt or have children)? And is that enough to go against SS marriage altogether?
cowboy
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Nit picky: It’s a MasterCard commercial and not VISA.
Timothy Kincaid
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Typically means “usually but not always”
Argument over.
That, Mr. Stanton, is very very difficult to believe.
If a conclusive inarguable study were to be released tomorrow that showed without question that same-sex marriage vastly improved the well being of children, it would not diminish Focus on the Family’s anti-gay efforts in the slightest. Not one iota. Because your organization’s efforts are not predicated on science but on faith in a particular religious ideology about sexuality.
Don’t be dishonest, Mr. Stanton, it is transparent and it doesn’t advance your argument.
Jason D
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
whenever someone brings up children, I think of my Aunt and Uncle who have no kids and never wanted any.
Is there marriage less real because they don’t have and didn’t want kids?
Personally, I think children are irrelevent to the debate. Why? 3 very important facts:
1) One need not be heterosexual to have children.
2) One need not be married to have children.
3) One need not have children to be married.
IF children are the central focus of marriage, and gays are being denied marriage because they cannot procreate with each other directly and are not considered viable parents, then those two criteria need to be applied to equally to all people who wish to be, or are already married.
Those like my aunt and uncle should be given a grace period to produce children or adopt or have their marriage annulled.
All those who apply for a marriage license should be required to meet with a state-funded counselor who will evaluate their fitness to be natural parents or adoptive parent. They should also be tested for fertility problems, the state should pay for any and all treatments or medications necessary to make the couple fertile. If it cannot be done, they must adopt or have their marriage annulled.
Once all children are of legal age and no longer need support from their parents, the couple should have most or all of their marriage benefits reduced or eliminated. If child rearing is the focus and reason for certain benefits, then once those children are gone, the benefits should go with them. This would also apply to couples who’s children die and the couple fails to adopt or produce more children within a grace period.
If you’re serious about children being the focus of marriage, then you have to agree these are reasonable and just.
Joel
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
“I find no corresponding reference to true homosexual, culturally-approved marriage in the anthropological record, similar to the unions we are discussing today, where two men or two women fall in love, marry under the embrace of the community and its mores, set up a home and raise children together and both are accepted as part of the larger kinship group. I would be interested in learning of one.”
If this is true then Chapman is up for an uphill battle.
David
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
“I find no corresponding reference to true homosexual, culturally-approved marriage in the anthropological record, similar to the unions we are discussing today, where two men or two women fall in love, marry under the embrace of the community and its mores, set up a home and raise children together and both are accepted as part of the larger kinship group. I would be interested in learning of one.”
One can say the same thing (which Chapman did) about modern marriages in the West. Please provide me evidence in the “anthropological record” where a man and a woman enter into an equal relationship for love and are able to share gender-specific roles and duties. To my knowledge, there has NEVER been a society that has treated opposite-sex marriage as it is viewed in today’s society.
So, if you want to justify banning same-sex marriage on the basis of tradition, then you should be calling for the establishment of Polygyny, as that form of marriage has much more of a history and tradition than “modern marriages.”
It should be noted that the Christian church was so sex-negative that it did not want anything to do with marriages until the 12th century. For more than half of Christianity’s exsistence the church did not think that marriage was sacred.
If the church and society can radically alter the definition of marriage — as it has done to this point — then allowing same-sex marriages should be no problem. Especially as it is considered a civil right by the US Supreme Court, and a civil matter.
Kei
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Mr Stanton offers that he has never met someone who was not “Male or Female”. I will offer two comments to this.
One this statement is very much like the statement “I have never met someone who is homosexual.” The truth is you have you just don’t realize it. Much like homosexuals gender divergent or gender non-conforming people hide and they do so very well.
The second comment to him is, you might want to give me a visit. For the truth is I am neither male or female. I wear the role as society demands of me which I often switch, but this is much like a man wears an uncomfortable pair of shoes to a job interview, when they get home the first thing they do is take them off.
I will also say that like draws like and I have met many others who are similar to me. They do not identify as male or female, sure they may wear dresses or suits to their job, it is law that their passport or drivers license say male or female so of course they will have a legal “gender”, this doesn’t make them one or the other, or magically grant them a gender identity though many seem think it does.
I would ask has Mr Stanton looked at the New Half culture that exists in many countries including the US. I am not really sure if I can use this term, since it like every other term used seems charged, which makes it even harder to discuss the reality or gender divergent people. What of those who chose to remove all traces of their gender? People who lacking the will or desire to conform to the gender roles of society leave them all together.
There are many people who do not whis to subscribe to one of the genders, male or female. It is just that most of them shoe horn themselves into male and female because it is demanded on them from the ground up, identification cards, clothing labels, restrooms, job applications, leasing agreements, census data, expectations of family and friends, the list goes on. They just seem fit the “Criteria” for having a male or female gender because it is demanded of them, not because it is actually something that they own.
I will repeat that I offer myself up. If you want to get in touch with me feel free. I am not sure what you would consider as qualifying for one gender or the other though. Let me say, my Drivers License says Female, my Passport says Male, I usually have a beard, I mostly wear jeans with womans blouses, I have full breasts and wear a bra. I don’t call myself male or female anymore except where mandated by law and then I alternate between using my Passport gender or my Drivers License gender.
Lucas
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
“There are additional concerns I have with the AAA statement, such as it shifting anthropology from a descriptive discipline to a prescriptive…”
I find it amusing that frequently arguments against an authoritative, publicly-respected, publicly recognized organization reduces to raising questions regarding the organization’s objectivity and integrity.
“Contrary to the AAA, I find no corresponding reference to true homosexual, culturally-approved marriage in the anthropological record…”
I think the keyword here is “true” — what is considered “true homosexual marriage”? Therein lies the circular problem of attempting to define the concept of marriage, yet limiting oneself to a subset of relationships that satisfy a certain preconceived notion of what marriage is supposed to be.
Given the fact that homosexuals are a minority in the general population, whose natural tendencies are generally expressed in shadows, how much of those relationships were documented and could be found in archeological findings is questionable. More over, Mr. Stanton seemed to be having a double standard here. In certain (aristocratic western and Chinese, to name a few) societies, heterosexual marriage can viewed as merely glorified form of property exchange. Yet, when it comes to “true homosexual marriage”, he seemed to demand the modern-day romantic notion of homosexual marriage, of love, community-approval, etc.
Jason D
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
lucas, don’t forget kids! He seems to think it’s not a real marriage if it doesn’t have kids.
Timothy Kincaid
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
In the early 1900’s, my grandmother’s uncle placed an ad in a newspaper for a bride. He lived in a German community in rural California, spoke German and English, and was a Lutheran. His ad was answered by a French Catholic girl in a convent in Louisiana who spoke no English.
He went on a train, picked her up, married her, and started a family. To think that this was “fall in love, marry under the embrace of the community and its mores” marriage would be ridiculous.
Question Mr. Stanton: Was their marriage a “real marriage”?
Piper
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
I am a undergraduate, majoring in Anthropology. I am kind of offended by Mr. Stanton.
If he wants to speak of anthropology with authority he needs to understand the history of Anthropology in America.
At my school we learn that the “father” of American Anthropology was a German Immigrant named Franz Boas. I’m not going to go into the details of Boas’s lifeand work, just say that he did a great deal to help debunk social evolution.(well, some horses refuse to die, just ask the KKK)
Most modern American Anthropologists can trace their teachers back to Boas, since he was a fanatic about teaching.
My favorite, and the most well-known Anthropologist is Margaret Mead. She was married 3 times, with one daughter. She had two lovers outside of her marriages, both of whom were women.
Anthropologists don’t ask something if they think it can’t be answered, or if they just don’t find the question interesting.
My personal area is children and violence. Some areas just aren’t studied as much as others.
For example, Kinship is the end all and be all of anthro studies. But, Anthropologists don’t usually assign western views of marriage to kinship.
PiaSharn
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
“One of my tasks is to help ensure Focus on the Family ‘gets it right’ on what we say about why the family is important. Now, we will never ‘get it right’ from everyone’s perspective, but we do want to make sure we don’t say incorrect or irresponsible things.”
Does “getting it right” include Dobson’s tendency to twist other people’s research to make it look like their work supports his point of view, when in fact they came to a very different conclusion than him?
(In all honesty, I’m not trying to be mean. However, I find your comments about “getting it right” to be at odds with the scientists and researchers who are understandably upset at how their work has been misused by your organization.)
“The same is true for the Native American berdache, which neither of us has addressed in this exchange.”
As a FYI, “berdache” is derived from a deragatory French word, and many Native Americans find it insulting, so you might want to reconsider using it. Most anthropologists (at least the ones that I’ve read) are using the term “two-spirit”, which is more accurate.
Also, as to the same-sex marriages involving the two-spirit people not being identical to modern same-sex marriages… So what? Opposite-sex marriages were different back then too.
My great-grandmother did not marry my great-grandfather because she loved him. She married him because their families arranged the union. This was very typical of traditional marriages. So if you’re going to argue that modern same-sex marriages are invalid because they are not identical to historical same-sex marriages, then one could also argue that modern opposite-sex marriages are invalid for the same reason.
Brady
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
David, can you point me in the direction of some research behind that? I’d be very interested to read it. Thanks.
Emproph
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Credibility.
Have Stanton’s original infractions regarding this issue been rectified yet?
1. Citizenlink completely revamped the original article, days later, after rebukes of it’s content, without any acknowledgement of it having been changed.
2. Stanton himself charges Ex-Gay Watch with the insinuations of a commenter (For the sake of disclosure, it was me, but that particular point is irrelevant.)
These are two cases of egregious wrongdoing, which to my knowledge, and despite repeated requests and outrage, have only been partially-scantily addressed by Mr. Stanton.
If the importance of the need for such practical accuracy cannot be agreed upon, how then is it possible to assume his accuracy on the complexities of anthropology—especially when it’s packaged within the bias of his own hetero-supremacist worldview?
I can see the benefit of having debates like this, as with Chapman’s exchanges with Jones and Yarhouse on the ex-gay study — the faulty logic etc., becomes all the more apparent when they respond in person. So I’m not contesting the debate here, but I am suggesting that for the sake of the credibility of the debate itself, these two very valid complaints need to continue to be at the forefront of the conversation — even if only in mentioning them.
So, Mr. Stanton, am I mistaken? Have you indeed resolved these issues to the satisfaction of all parties concerned?
Sargon Bighorn
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Civil marriage equality is not being discussed here as much as the “humanness” of Gay and Lesbian citizens. Mr. Stanton would like to render GLBT citizens down to “things” that are not up to the level of human that he is and therefore not worthy of enjoying the same civil rights he enjoys. “Unfortunately the legalization of same-sex marriage would not help us connect more children with their fathers,…” See how he blames Gay people for this problem. Don’t blame Gay Americans for the lack of leadership on the part of Hetero-parents.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Typically, as used by anthropologists, means “of a type”. Taken in the context of the anthropological record, Stanton correctly used the cited source.
* * *
Someone at the top of this thread thought he found a “gotcha” when he quoted a dictionary.
1: constituting or having the nature of a type : symbolic
2 a: combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group b: conforming to a type
The nature of marriage is both-sexed. Marriage is constituted of a husband and wife. Essentially, marriage unites motherhood and fatherhood. When the both-sex relationship conforms to this type, it is classified anthropologically as, marriage.
Typically, in this useage, does not mean, “sometimes”.
In any case, if you really want to disprove what Stanton has said about marriage, answer his request for counter examples.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
–> “how then is it possible to assume his accuracy on the complexities of anthropology”
Don’t assume. No one asks you to do so.
Read the substantive points he has made about the very wide consensus on the anthropological record, complexities and all.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
–> “So if you’re going to argue that modern same-sex marriages are invalid because they are not identical to historical same-sex marriages, then one could also argue that modern opposite-sex marriages are invalid for the same reason.”
I don’t think he argued that. He rather observed that there is a paucity, to say the least, of anthropolitical evidence for “historical same-sex marriage”.
Whatever the differences between cultures, and across human history, the man-woman basis of marriage has remained a constant.
That’s the comparison he has made.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
Arranged marriages do not disprove the both-sexed basis of marriage.
But maybe there are some scholars here who can cite examples of arranged “same sex marriage” on the historical record?
And if you claim that these would have occurred “in the shadows”, if at all, you kind of prove his larger point about the anthropological consensus on what human societies have recognized as marriage.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
–> “If you’re serious about children being the focus of marriage, then you have to agree these are reasonable and just.”
Not so.
The nature of marriage is the combination of 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation.
This is extrinsic to all one-sexed arrangements (homosexual or not, gay-identified or not, sexualized or not).
There are legal requirements that show the core of marriage. The man-woman criterion stands for integratin of the sexes. The marriage presumption of paternity applies to all marriages and it unites fatherhood and motherhood; it also provides contingency for responsible procreation and that contingency is indeed enforced rather vigorously.
Such requirements are attacked by SSM argumentation, sure, but what are the definitive legal requirements (absolutely enforced) of the relationship type you have in mind?
Use your own SSM rules regarding procreation and marriage. Apply those to love or whatever else you say is the core of what you call “marriage”. I bet that nothing much would be left that would distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage.
If you point to love, then, you end up relying on a relatively modern tradition even as you seem to dismiss the traditions, customs, and legal requirements that are on the record and demonstrate the both-sexed nature of the conjugal relationship type.
Chairm
March 26th, 2008 | LINK
–> “i would seek research in the countries that already have SS marriage w/ children households.”
Sure, and you can get back to us all in a couple of generations.
In the meantime, most of those households, by far, have children who migrated with a parent from previously procreative both-sex relationships (i.e. marriages, usually). These kids have both moms and dads.
A tiny subset of that very small and hard to study child population living in same-sex househodls was attained via alternative methods such as adoption or 3rd party procreation.
Third party procreation is extramarital even when married people use it. Surely this is not the center piece in the case made for SSM arugmentation.
Adoption does not bestow marital status. In fact, it is legitimate and constitutional to prioritize adoption based on marital status of the prospective adoptors. In any case, SSM cannot provide the direct adult-child legal relationship that adoption can provide. And adoption depends on at least two pre-requisites: parental relinquishment (or loss) and a governmentn intervention to decree a replacement to serve as the child’s parent(s).
Pointing to adoption and to third party procreation is to point out that SSM is the inverse of the core of marriage. See the marriage presumption of paternity which cannot apply to the one-sexed arrangement.
Johno
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
“Unfortunately the legalization of same-sex marriage would not help us connect more children with their fathers, but often do precisely the opposite.”
This statement relies of the fallacy that legitimization of gay families will somehow result in a greater number of homosexuals. Though it isn’t implicitly stated it goes back to the common Christian belief that Homosexuals are created, not born.
And I have to wonder in what instance for a lesbian mother who is forced to be unmarried to her partner, does that force result in her having a relationship with the child’s father that she would not have otherwise had? There is a very creepy implication there of the kind of world Mr. Stanton would like.
Jason D
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Marriage is the only time in an adult’s life when they get to mutually choose their kin. Children do not choose their parents. Brother’s do not choose their sisters. Aunt’s do not choose their nephews.
But husbands and wives choose each other, that is at the core of marriage, at least in the US: Choice.
We frown upon arranged marriages, shotgun marriages. We have movies and fairy tales where the greatest tragedy heaped upon the bride is that she does not get to choose her groom.
Gays and lesbians choose our partners regardless of our legal standing. Keeping us from having legal marriages merely punishes us for not making the choice in kin that others believe we shold make. And this withholding of legal recognition causes well-documented harm to the couple and any children they have. The opposition points to the need to have their “deeply held” beliefs put into law, as if denying or approving those beliefs were government business. They cannot demonstrate actual harm that is the result of gay marriage. They can only grasp at straws and make unearned doomsday predictions.
Jason D
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
“The nature of marriage is the combination of 1) integration of the sexes, 2) contingency for responsible procreation.”
The sexes aren’t segregated.
if you mean “integration” as a metaphor for sexual intercourse — you don’t need marriage for that.
Sportin' Life
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
The statement of methodology is interesting.
It clearly and openly states that Stanton is not interested in conducting an unbiased review of the literature. His purpose is to find possible weaknesses in the foregone conclusions determined by his religious beliefs, and then modify FOF’s propaganda to patch the holes using the language of scholarship.
He says this explicitly: We seek to learn from them and see how they inform, challenge or oppose our unapologetically evangelical Christian perspective. We often make adjustments based on reading and interactions with these scholars, strengthening, changing or dropping certain arguments.
So what is the good that people think can come out of dialog of this kind?
Jason D
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Sportin’ Life,
Well, at least he’s honest. At least he’s being truthfull “We’re not going to change our minds about this, but we will change how we articulate it and what evidence we use to support it.”
That, of course, is the difference between faith and science.
Science puts forth a hypothesis, an idea, a question. Tests it’s veracity. At a certain point the data collected supports, refines, or negates the hypothesis. You get an answer.
Faith, however, puts forth an answer first. It expects that answer to be taken without question…on faith alone.
I’ve noticed that some people of faith attempt to use science to support their answer, rather than testing a question. It’s backward. When science doesn’t support the answer, they don’t change or abandon the answer, they merely search for data that does support the answer, sometimes taking them down the road of intellectual dishonesty, fabrication, and intentional misuse of data.
If you need science to support your faith, seems like you don’t have much in the way of faith. The nature of faith is that it can’t really be proven or disproven. If it could, it would be fact. The whole point of faith is to answer questions that can’t really be answered any other way.
The intersection happens when science finds a way to answer a question previously answered by faith. Galileo suffered for answering a question put forth by faith, it wasn’t until recently that the church apologized. I have no doubt that it will take almost as long for Evangelical Christians to admit they are wrong about gays, and to apologize for whatever harm they have caused us.
Joel (#2)
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
I’m amazed at the lack of Mr. Stanton’s self-awareness. He decries anthropology for being binary, then espouses a decidedly binary view. Then he complains that anthropology is proscriptive rather than descriptive, then goes on to proscribe against behaviors that harm neither him nor society. At least in terms of consistency, I do believe anthropology takes this point.
Regan DuCasse
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Wow, I read each and every post and I AM impressed people.
And I agree that just because there is no ancient tradition of same sex, ‘marriage’, that doesn’t mean it’s legitimate to dismiss it NOW. There hasn’t been much legal widespread precedent for interracial marriage in America before the 40’s, so?
What was then considered to have the same detriment in society (mixed marriages and children) turned out to be a VERY good thing. Obvviously the results of legal marriage in other countries and MA have yielded proof that SSM has no detriment, but quite a good deal of benefit to society.
I did notice that Stanton left out a HUGE amount of that study on fathers and parenting. I WAS focused on single parents, particularly mothers. And the ethnic break down showed that single MOTHERS, native american and black identified single mothers had the toughest time.
Those studies DIDN’T pertain to two same sex gay couples.
And since it looks like FOTF researchers tend to leave out or distort information, I doubt they have bothered to look at the data of the last two and a half decades on SS parents.
He’s already admitted that he hasn’t studied same sex couples in native peoples in America.
But I have a book, Homosexuality and Civilization, (something like that, it’s buried in my closet), on EXACTLY what Stanton says never existed.
Christian missionaries destroyed a great deal of evidence contrary to what Stanton says. They executed homosexuals and colonialization did the rest.
I think too, the contradiction in terms on marriage for procreation, is assuming not only that children are the goal, but that gender has rigid roles in marriage.
And the ROLE of gender cannot be legislated, any more than the VOWS of marriage can be.
And this also leave out the option of the intersexed to be married if people like Stanton and FOTF insist that GENDER is such a major thing, even to a couple WITHOUT children.
Besides, it’s not like gay people are never born with the ability to nurture and care for ANYONE in a family that needs it.
And not ALL heterosexuals are endowed with the ability to NURTURE a child to a successful conclusion. The bottom line is :procreation is moot if nurturing a life is impossible.
At any rate, it’s so frustrating when people are so blatantly hypocritical or contradictory when it comes to such an important social issue.
Martin Lanigan
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Mr. Stanton writes:
“We seek to learn from them and see how they inform, challenge or oppose our unapologetically evangelical Christian perspective. We often make adjustments based on reading and interactions with these scholars, strengthening, changing or dropping certain arguments.”
The implication is that this so-called “unapologetically evangelical Christian perspective” bends to reality. I am skeptical that this is in fact FoF’s actual modus operandi. More often than not, FoF shoe horns reality into their Christian perspective rather than the other way around.
Additionally, Mr. Stanton’s characterization of an “unapologetic” evangelism, hardly seems consistent with something that he wishes us to believe is so very accomodating of science. Who is kidding who here?
A Christian persepctive that always gives way to reality begs the question of why a Christian perspective is necessary in the first place. Why not simply consult reality and leave it at that?
PiaSharn
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Chairm: “Arranged marriages do not disprove the both-sexed basis of marriage.
I don’t think anyone was trying to make that argument. (I certainly was not.) What we were attempting to illustrate was how marriages have changed quite drastically over time; how something that was once normal and approved of can now be deemed distasteful by our current standards.
Timothy and I were trying to show that at one point not all that long ago, an arranged marriage between two people who did not love each other was considered completely normal. (Timothy, please correct me if I’m misinterpreting your post.)
How many people living in the US right now would consider a loveless marriage between two strangers to be normal or right? How many would chose it for themselves?
Pointing out that the vast majority of marriages in the past have been opposite-sex unions seems pointless when our views on marriage are so very different from those of our ancestors.
werdna
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
There’s so much to say about this debate but for now I just want to share this quote from Edvard Westermarck, the first anthropologist cited by Stanton in his paper, which seems relevant to the issue of how Stanton attempts to reconcile science with his “unapologetically evangelical Christian perspective”:
“The patient and impartial search after hidden truth, for the sake of truth alone, which constitutes the essence of scientific research, is of course the very opposite of that ready acceptance of a revealed truth for the sake of eternal salvation, which has been insisted by the Churches.” (from Christianity and Morals, 1939)
I think it’s quite funny that the very first quote Stanton chose is from a Free-Thinking, homosexual (and a Finn!). I can only imagine what Professor Westermarck would’ve thought of his work being used to bolster the kind of backward social agenda that Focus on the Family promotes.
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
–> “the fallacy that legitimization of gay families will somehow result in a greater number of homosexuals”
Not quite right.
Marriage integrates fatherhood and motherhood. The union of husband and wife is a type of relationship; and marriage is first and last a social institution based on that relationship type. This foundational social institution makes responsible procreation normative.
No one-sex scenario can do this. With an all-male scenairio, the child’s mother would relinquish parental status, for example. That is the inverse of the marriage presumption of paternity.
Most of the children living in same-sex households have both moms and dads who had been in procreative relationships (usually marriages). Divorce and estrangement also tends to segregate motherhood and fatherhood.
The use of “donor” sperm supplies reduces the father to irrelevance. SSM argumentation points to this practice as justification for the SSM merger.
If the SSM campaign’s project encourages such scenarios, then, the SSM merger with marriage recognition “would not help us [society] connect more children with their fathers, but often [would] do precisely the opposite”.
Should society act as if fathers are irrelevant to their children?
The first principle of responsible procreation is that, barring dire circumstances or tragedy, the mother and the father stick around to be the “biological” and the “social” parents of the children they bring into this world.
Should this be abolished, as well? If yes, why? If no, then, how would you have society encourage the integration of motherhood and fatherhood if not through societal preference for the union of husband and wife?
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
–> “But husbands and wives choose each other, that is at the core of marriage, at least in the US: Choice.”
If that is the core, then, please justify whatever lines you would draw around that core so that society may distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage.
Or would you not draw lines and rely solely on choice?
You are correct when you say that children do not choose their parents. Marriage, as a social institution with normative infuence, provides the contingency that transforms the choice of spouse into sex integration and contingency for responsible procreation.
Marriage is a coherent whole — hence it is not just procreation, not just “choice”, not just “integration. It is greater than the sum of its parts. It is the combination. Dismantling this combination is what SSM argumentation aims for. When marriage is recognized as bits and pieces rather than as a foundational social institution, it is demoted from a preferential status to a protective status. It becomes a subset in a much broader category of arrangements.
If choice is the core, then, on what basis, if any, would related people be prohibited? Or people who are already married by would choose to add another marriage and to add more kin?
Martin Lanigan
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Chaim writes:
“Marriage integrates fatherhood and motherhood.”
Says who? And why must this be ever so? Why is this a necessary condition of marriage?
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
–> The sexes aren’t segregated. if you mean “integration” as a metaphor for sexual intercourse — you don’t need marriage for that.
The nature of humankind is two-sexed.
In the all-male or the all-female arrangements, one sex is excluded.
Integration of the sexes is not a metaphor for sexual intercourse. It is much more than that.
Your remark “you don’t need marriage for that [i.e. sexual intercourse]” points to the societal need for the marriage presumption of paternity.
That presumption cannot apply to the full range of the one-sexed category. Sticking the label “marriage” onto that category does not make the presumption applicable.
In various ways, society has tried to accomodate unwed sexual intercourse and childbearing.
For example, in the US our welfare laws now empower vigorous enforcement of the contingency for responsible procreation — outside of marriage. It is a heavy-handed way of doing what the integration of the sexes does within marriage.
Many jurisdictions also have statutory presumption for nonmarital procreation. It is cumbersome and intrusive. However, it is based on the same sort of sexual relationship that provides the basis for the marriage presumption (and consummation). That also does not apply to the one-sexed category.
Evidently there is a need to integrate the sexes, across society, on multiple levels. The most foundational is the level of family formation. This is where marriage comes in, as a social institution in civil society, and as such it is not owned nor created by the government. The legal shadow is not the thing that casts that shadow.
Jason D
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
““But husbands and wives choose each other, that is at the core of marriage, at least in the US: Choice.”
If that is the core, then, please justify whatever lines you would draw around that core so that society may distinguish between marriage and nonmarriage.”"
If it’s not at the core, please provide an example of marriage that people would agree with that doesn’t involve consent.
“If choice is the core, then, on what basis, if any, would related people be prohibited?”
Marriage is kinship, mother, son, father, nephew, uncle, sister, grandma all have an existing kinship relationship with each other that is both legally and socially recognized - it would be redundant.
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
–> “Science puts forth a hypothesis, an idea, a question. Tests it’s veracity. At a certain point the data collected supports, refines, or negates the hypothesis. You get an answer.”
What is the core of the relationship type that you have in mind when you refer to marriage?
What is your idea? Let’s test it with two of the key rules of pro-SSM argumentation.
1. If it occurs outside of marriage, it is not essential to marriage.
2. If there is no legal requirement, enforced absolutely, it is not essential to marriage.
The type of relationship needs to be identified if it is going to be given legal recognition based on its merits (and demerits). If it cannot be identified, then, what’s the point of asserting an alternative to the conjugal union of husband and wife?
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Jason D, related people can and do marry. You need to justify the lines better.
–> “If it’s not at the core, please provide an example of marriage that people would agree with that doesn’t involve consent.”
Someone upthread has already pointed to the anthropoligical record regarding arranged marriages of a coercive kind.
When you refer to consent, you need to explain the “what” to which consent is given.
I would also say that if consent is meant to indicate a mature and competent choice and commitment, then, the SSM rules of argumentation will work against drawing lines based on chronological age.
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Martin Lanigan, the marriage presumption and the man-woman criterion says that marriage integrates the sexes and provides contingency for responsible procreation.
These are legal requirements, enforced, which the SSM campaign would abolish both in the law and in the culture.
Look to the anthropological record and you will find this is the core of the social institution of marriage, across cultures.
Wherever SSM merges with marriage recognition, these legal requirements are replaced by some other core idea about what falls under the rubric of “marriage”.
But what is that core idea as per your questions:
“Says who? And why must this be ever so? Why is this a necessary condition of marriage?”
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
PiaSharn, there is law against arranged marriage in the USA. In some societies in our modern era, such as India, about half of all marriages are arranged.
–> “marriages have changed quite drastically over time”
And with all that, the man-woman criterion remains.
–> “how something that was once normal and approved of can now be deemed distasteful by our current standards”
I doubt you meant that the union of husband and wife is now deemed distasteful because it is both-sexed.
Rather than guess, I should just ask, what did you mean by that remark?
* * *
–> “How many people living in the US right now would consider a loveless marriage between two strangers to be normal or right? How many would chose it for themselves?”
Is love a legal requirement, as per the rules that SSM argumentation uses to attack the link between marriage and procreation?
Again, if you are going to say that a widespread shared public meaning is vital to what a society recognizes as “marriage”, then, SSM stands outside the box even in our very free and tolerant society.
–> “Pointing out that the vast majority of marriages in the past have been opposite-sex unions seems pointless when our views on marriage are so very different from those of our ancestors.”
Yet it is a valid observation of the anthropological record to point out that the social institution is universal (or very near universal) across cultures and that its nature is both-sexed.
The merger of SSM with marriage is a very recent innovation and a novel one at that.
The merger is a replacement. It is not merely an extension of the social institution.
As for ancestors, well, the nature of humankind is as two-sexed today as it was for them. Likewise, the nature of human procreation and of human community remains both-sexed.
And human nature doesn’t change. You are pointing to varying social mores around the regulation of the parameters of marriage. Stanton has pointed to the core of marriage that is in common despite those variations. This is very significant when considering the social influence of any social institution.
As I said, if the new idea is superior and should replace the universal idea of marriage, then, it ought to be presented in contradiction of the anthropological record and justified on some other basis than, well, its new and differn and new and better is always better.
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Ooops. Type correction:
PiaSharn, there is no law against arranged marriage in the USA.
Chairm
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Typo correction (buttefingers):
it ought to be presented in contradiction of the anthropological record and justified on some other basis than, well, its new and differnt and new and different is always better.
Martin Lanigan
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Chairm writes:
“Look to the anthropological record and you will find this is the core of the social institution of marriage, across cultures.”
Ahhem…so to paraphrase - your definition of marriage is based on your interpretation of historical precedent - as documented by anthropology. Heaven forbid I oversimplify your response, but it is essentially: “because it has been so in the past, so it must be forever in the future!” Even if there were no absolutely incidences of same gender marriages in the anthropological record…so what?
An appeal to historical precedent is generally considered a very weak argument indeed. Click here for a primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
What you seem to fail to gleen from the many articulate posts here is that marriage is a human construct that has evolved over time to meet the needs of individuals and society. EVOLVED over time. It has CHANGED.
In case you think Arkansas is the centre of the universe, you might have noticed that a number of other countries (eg. Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa) have recognized equal marriage. Marriage - it is a human construct that has evolved in some parts of the world and now recognizes opposite sex marriages and same sex marriages.
Given time, you will see that this too will become a tradition and a precedent.
So what then will be the basis for your objection?
Martin Lanigan
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Chairm writes:
“These are legal requirements, enforced, which the SSM campaign would abolish both in the law and in the culture.”
Nonsense. We are advocating for equal marriage. It in no way abolishes opposite sex marriages.
Martin Lanigan
March 27th, 2008 | LINK
Chairm asks:
“But what is that core idea as per your questions:
“Says who? And why must this be ever so? Why is this a necessary condition of marriage?””
Justice demands the equal treatment of LGBT couples. Marriage is a concept that has been expanded to include 2 persons. 2 persons committed to live in a monogamous relationship with one another. A union based in mutual love and respect. An union which may or may not provide a home for children.
Can it be abused? Absolutely. But no more then when it was the exclusive purview of heterosexuals.
So what is your point?
Emproph
March 28th, 2008 | LINK
Chairm says…
It wasn’t about assuming the accuracy of anthropology, it was about assuming the importance of accuracy itself—or were you suggesting that that’s up for debate?
Jason D
March 28th, 2008 | LINK
“The merger is a replacement. It is not merely an extension of the social institution.”
There is not one respected gay marriage advocacy group that is fighting for marriage for gays and only gays.
This is a scare tactic born of a mind incapable of understanding coexistance.
Martin, and thanks for catching the logical fallacy - appeal to tradition.
Emproph
March 28th, 2008 | LINK
(And thank you for naming it Jason D)
—
From The Nizkor Project—from the Google search “appeal to tradition”.
The explanation goes well on from there, and I think most of us here get the reasoning involved, but it’s nice to be able to peg that understanding with such a short tune.
Jason D
March 28th, 2008 | LINK
emproph, and everyone else.
here’s a handy list of logical fallacies:
A Handy List of Logical Fallacies
Emproph
March 28th, 2008 | LINK
Thanks again Jason, excellent resource. That stuff is just fun to go through and read sometimes.
—
Moving right along then, and based on the fallacy of tradition, it fancied me to entertain this equation…
Anthropological = historical
Historical = traditional
Traditional, as an argument = fallacious
Therefore: Anthropological, as an argument
against SSM