News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, by Mel White
The Antigay Agenda: Orthodox Vision and the Christian Right by Didi Herman
Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, by Simon LeVay
Anything but Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, by Wayne Besen
Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian Conversions in the Ex-Gay Movement, by Tanya ErzenDobson Nominated for Radio Hall of Fame
Jim Burroway
July 9th, 2008
Imagine my surprise on learning that Focus on the Family’s James Dobson has been nominated to the Museum of Broadcast Communication’s Radio Hall of Fame. I wonder, is Father Charles Coughlin also a member? If so, then Dobson might make good company. But no, I don’t see Coughlin on the list, so I don’t see how Dobson deserves the honor. Not after such gems like this:
“Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the Earth.”
Wayne Besen at Truth Wins Out is organizing a campaign to remove Dobson from consideration.
To fight back against this offensive decision, TWO strongly urges fair-minded people to take three actions. First, sign TWO’s formal request to have James Dobson removed from consideration. Second, contact Museum of Broadcast Communications CEO Bruce DuMont directly, brucedumont@museum.tv, to express your displeasure. Third, as an option, vote for nominees other than James Dobson or Laura Schlessinger (the general public may vote, and the other nominees are Bob Costas and Howard Stern). It is urgent to act now, as voting comes to a close on July 15.
TiVo’s FOTF Web Page: Did It Stay Or Did It Go?
Jim Burroway
June 11th, 2008
The plot thickens. Some people report that TiVo’s web site promoting FOTF’s affiliation returns a “page not found” error, while others say it loads fine for them. It’s a mystery. Here are some questions we’d like you to answer in the comments:
1. Does TiVo’s page load for you?
2. Is this the first time you tried accessing the web page at TiVo?
3. Did you clear your browsers’ cache and/or deleted cookies? Do you get a different result if you do?
4. Please specify which browser, operating system, and internet provider is giving you your results.
And here’s something else to try. When I click on this link, I get redirected to this page, which gives me the “page not found” error. Someone else wrote that the first page loaded up fine for them, but they noticed the two different URL’s. So they went to the second link manually and got the same “page not found error.” But after visiting that second link once, now the first link won’t load for them. Any ideas?
TiVo Pulls Web Page Promoting FOTF’s SuperDads Contest
Jim Burroway
June 10th, 2008
Apparently, TiVo has been getting a lot of grief over the TiVo/Focus On the Family SuperDads contest. That’s the contest where everyone is supposed to submit an essay explaining why their dad is a “SuperDad,” with winners throughout the month of June receiving free TiVo’s. The problem is that several LGBT folks have been submitting essays explaining why their dads are SuperDads, only to find their submissions disappear into the ether. This has prompted tons of complaints to TiVo, as well as an online petition at the Family Equality Council.
Partnering to promote a discriminatory contest in which LGBT contestants are silently disqualified can set the company afoul of several states’ anti-discrimination laws — nevermind the public relations fiasco this move has caused. It looks like TiVo’s fealing the heat though. The web page on TiVo’s web site promoting FOTF’s contest affiliation used to be here, but now it’s missing — even though the contest goes on through the end of the month. (The contest page is still up at Focus On the Family.) But TiVo’s silent removal of a web page won’t be enough to gloss over the outrage. That will take a public apology and a reassessment of TiVo’s partnering relationship with FOTF.
Meanwhile, here at BTB we’re holding a truly inclusive SuperDads contest. Tell us why your dad is a SuperDad. You can send photos, essays, letters, drawings, videos, podcasts, or whatever else conveys a sense of what your father has meant to you. Your only limitation is your imagination. Just send it to Superdad@boxturtlebulletin.com.
The best submission gets a free BTB T-shirt. I know it’s not much, but maybe next year we’ll be able to afford a TiVo.
[Hat tip: Good As You]
Update: Some people are reporting that the site is up, while others say its down. A mystery. Here are some questions we’d like you to answer in the comments:
1. Does TiVo’s page load for you?
2. Is this the first time you tried accessing the web page at TiVo?
3. Did you clear your browsers’ cache and/or deleted cookies? Do you get a different result if you do?
4. Please specify which browser, operating system, and internet provider is giving you your results.
Love Won Out in Orlando
Jim Burroway
June 10th, 2008
Exodus International and Focus On the Family pulled their roadshow into Exodus’ home turf of Orlando last weekend. A reported 500 people turned out for this edition of Love Won Out, which puts this attendance on the smallish side. Maybe too much competition from Orlando’s Gay Days, which was going on at the same time. At any rate, the good parents and friends at PFLAG were there to greet the struggling parents of gays and lesbians with coffee and donuts.
Colorado Gets Non-Discrimination
Timothy Kincaid
June 2nd, 2008
The Denver Post reports
Gov. Bill Ritter today quietly signed a controversial bill expanding the prohibition of sexual-orientation-based discrimination, over the vocal opposition of conservative Christian groups like Focus on the Family.
The bill bans discrimination based on a person’s religious belief or sexual orientation - including transgender people - in places of public accommodation, housing practices, family planning services and 20 other public spheres. Such prohibitions are already in place with regard to race.
Ah, poor Dr. Dobson. He’s just not as influential as he once was. I guess if you are willing to sell out your integrity for some skirmish in a culture war you lose the reputation necessary to influence public policy.
Opponents said the bill would have serious consequences, such as opening up Colorado public restrooms and locker rooms to all genders and transgender people, exposing children and women to sexual predators.
I guess Coloradans saw that none of these things happened in any of the other states to ban discrimination and figured Dr. Dobson was just lying again.
Pot, Meet Kettle
Jim Burroway
May 8th, 2008
Those so-called “professional journalists” at Focus On the Family’s CitizenLink are repeating that tired old theme again — that the “homosexual lobby” is so incredibly well-funded that its a miracle that anti-gay activists can get a word in edgewise. If only it were true.
This time, they’re upset over the Human Rights Campaign’s “Year to Win” initiative, specifically HRC’s plan to train 1,500 advocates in thirteen cities to participate in the upcoming elections.
Wow. Thirteen cities. Imagine that.
CitizenLink then enlisted Matt Barber to complain:
“Their main purpose for existence is to influence public policy and politics, and to get people elected to office who are going to push their militant homosexual agenda,” said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America.
Of course, nobody at Focus and none of the Concerned Women are at all interested in public policy, politics or getting people elected.
Oh, wait a minute. Wasn’t it just a few months ago that the world held its collective breath wondering who Dobson would endorse for the GOP primaries?
And isn’t Focus On the Family in its third year of flogging its own so-called “Truth Project”, a series of regional and local training sessions they’ve been putting on across the country? And what about Dobson’s radio program and Focus’ own “Family News In Focus” program, both going out daily to hundreds of radio stations across the country — all of it to push their militant anti-gay agenda?
But then, HRC does have a weekly radio program on XM Satellite, or so I hear. I don’t get satellite radio.
But that’s not the only thing that CitizenLink is worried about. They’re terribly upset over HRC’s massive bankroll:
Brad Miller, director of the Family Policy Council department at Focus on the Family Action, said family advocates could face an uphill battle. HRC has an annual budget of more than $50 million.
True, when you add up the revenues of the Human Rights Campaign, Inc and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, you end up with a figure of about $50 million.
But go to GuideStar and look up the financial statements from Focus On the Family and Focus On the Family Action. Add those figures together and you’ll end up with revenues in 2006 of some $157 million.
That’s more than three times the size of HRC’s combined budget.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe two will help.
I think Focus On the Family should spend some of their money on math lessons.
Another Researcher Blasts Focus On the Family
Jim Burroway
May 1st, 2008
Focus On the Family has a long history of misrepresenting legitimate social science research, and researchers are starting to raise their voices in protest. The latest to join the chorus of outrage is Dr. Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H., a professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota. When he discovered that Focus On the Family was misrepresenting his 1992 paper, he wrote an open letter to Focus on the Family’s James Dobson to stop misrepresenting his work. That open letter has been posted at Truth Wins Out:
I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of “Focus on the Family” In the third paragraph of the article, “Myths and Facts,” our research is cited in support of the statement: “During early adolescence, many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can easily be influenced in either direction.”
First, please note that the citation itself is incorrect. The original article was published in Pediatrics, not Journal of Pediatrics. … More important, had the authors of “Myths and Facts” actually read the article, they would have found no support for their contention that “many children experience a period of sexual-identity confusion when they can be influenced in either direction.” The word confusion does not appear in our article; nor did we find that anyone can influence a young person’s sexual identity.
Focus On the Family’s Familiar New Logo
Jim Burroway
May 1st, 2008
Focus On the Family has finally retired its old, tired logo in favor of this new one:
Right away, I thought that logo looked familiar:
So there you have it: more evidence of their total embrace of their sinister agenda.
See also:
The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing the Myths
Truth In Upcoming “Day Of Truth” Hard To Find
A Box Turtle Bulletin Original Video
Daniel Gonzales
April 21st, 2008
The religious right legal group Alliance Defense Fund started an anti-gay “Day of Truth” in response to the pro-gay “Day of Silence.” The “Day of Truth” is little more than an excuse to push ex-gay misinformation on queer youth in public schools which prompted me to make a video examining and mocking ideas promoted by the “Day of Truth.”
A Young Man Fights Back Against The Christian Counselor He’s Sent To By His Parents
Parents Had Found Counselor Through 'Focus On The Family' Referral
Daniel Gonzales
March 24th, 2008
When Jeff Williamson of Denver came out to his parents a year ago they sent him to see Christian counselor [name removed] whom they had been referred to through Focus On The Family. Jeff, who knew there’s nothing wrong with being gay, researched the ex-gay movement and pro-gay theology before his appointment, during which he ceded no ground to his counselor’s agenda. Jeff’s story is presented as a triumphant model for all too many youth who are sent, by their parents, against their will to ex-gay programs.
Update 03/26/08: After realizing the ramifications of having certain aspects of his story in the public domain Jeff has requested I pull his video with the intent of re-shooting a more focused version of his story this weekend. My editorial concerns with pulling content are far outweighed by my desire to respect Jeff’s right to control the way in which his own story is told.
Update 03/31/08: As promised Jeff and I re-shot the video this weekend. This new video appears above in place of the old one. Per Jeff’s request I have removed the name of the counselor he saw from the post.
Ex-Gay Watch Corrects Stanton’s Error
Jim Burroway
March 20th, 2008
Last Tuesday, Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton explained to us why CitizenLink unceremoniously changed their entire “anthropologists agree” article. Given what we know now, it appears that CitizenLink’s thin veil of “professional journalism” has utterly disintegrated. I know of no professional news service that completely re-writes their article. In fact, I know of at least one blogger who makes its own corrections very public for all the world to see.
Stanton also said this:
Ex-Gay Watch insinuated that the paper was cobbled together quickly to answer the complaints generated from the first article. Not quite. I worked on this research for quite a few weeks.
Ex-Gay Watch’s David Roberts and David Rattigan both disputed Stanton’s charge in comments left here at Box Turtle Bulletin. Rattigan also set the record straight on Ex-Gay Watch:
Ex-Gay Watch in fact made no reference (even indirectly) to the paper, and focused solely on the Citizenlink article. A commenter made the suggestion Stanton refers to, which may have confused him.
CitizenLink’s Needle In The Haystack
Jim Burroway
March 19th, 2008
The so-called “Professional journalists” at CitizenLink are at it again. They’re claiming vindication over a new pamphlet (PDF: 132KB/6 pages) by the American Psychological Association. That pamphlet repeats what we’ve been saying for quite some time: Nobody knows what “causes” homosexuality. According to the APA:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much reearch has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both place complex roles…
The mere mention of developmental roles is tiny sliver of a silver lining that has Exodus vice president Randy Thomas and Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton very excited:
“They are starting to have the integrity of reporting accurately about the condition of homosexuality,” said Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International. “We find this to be a very exciting move and hope that it indicates future movement toward recognizing that people can and do overcome homosexuality.”
Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said the brochure has an activist bent, but he sees a ray of hope.
“This doesn’t mean that we’ve completely succeeded in all the things that we’ve wanted to,” he said, “but it’s a move in the direction that we’ve wanted them to move in, and I think that’s very positive news.”
CitizenLink, Stanton and Thomas chose to focus on one lone paragraph and ignore the rest of the six-page document, including topics like the role of prejudice in LGBT’s lives and well-being, the importance of “coming out,” the nature of same-sex relationships, gay parenting — and, oh yes, this:
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.
Nope. Instead, CitizenLink advises readers to go to Love Won Out to learn more. What they might learn is, in fact, more stereotypes which contribute to that negative climate the APA is talking about.
Glenn Stanton Responds to CitizenLink story
Jim Burroway
March 18th, 2008
I received this email this afternoon from Glenn Stanton, explaining the events surrounding the recent CitizenLink change:
Yes, it looks like Focus on the Family did a sneaky bait and switch on the anthropology article that has been discussed at the BoxTurtle. And it would be a much easier world to fight the culture war in if everyone from the religious right were slippery tricksters and all homosexuals were sex-saturated profligates. But such is not the case, we are all not so easily pigeon-holed. Reality is far less exciting than accusation.
The original article was published before I reviewed it and I was disappointed to see the final piece online. It didn’t come close to communicating my work comparing the definitions anthropologists and leading same-sex marriage advocates use for describing and understanding what marriage is. I shared my concerns with the the CitizenLink editors and they welcomed my corrections. My main concerns were that the original article didn’t link to the whitepaper that the article itself was about. Ex-Gay Watch insinuated that the paper was cobbled together quickly to answer the complaints generated from the first article. Not quite. I worked on this research for quite a few weeks.
The original title — “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage” — bothered me for two reasons. One, I appreciate that no scientists in any discipline totally “agree” on anything. Two, “traditional” is far too imprecise a term to use when talking about marriage and family as a humanly universal phenomenon. Same with the conclusion attributed to me that “there’s a clear consensus among anthropologists” on what marriage is. Admittedly, “consensus” is a word that cannot be used in relation to any community of scientists. There is not even literal consensus among scientists on Newton’s Law, for goodness sakes. Science’s strength is it’s ability to constantly question. The editors kindly incorporated the changes I recommended. The second story reflects those changes. That’s the story. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists.
I have been invited by the editors of the BoxTurtle Bulletin to respond to a critique of my paper by a real-life anthropologist, which I am happy to do and look forward to a spirited and hopefully intelligent and informed exchange.
Yes, that’s right. Glenn Stanton and real-life anthropologist Patrick M. Chapman will be discussing Stanton’s paper, “Differing Definitions of Marriage and Family” (PDF: 80KB/10 pages) on this very web site. Stay tuned.
Video: Inside “Love Won Out”
In this multi-part series of videos Box Turtle Bulletin editor Jim Burroway discusses attending Love Won Out.
Daniel Gonzales
March 16th, 2008
Today’s videos aren’t exactly related to each other except for all being about Love Won Out. The first video looks at the language used by LWO speakers which attempts to separate a gay person from their sexuality. Jim finds it comical the term “people who are struggling with their homosexuality” is used to describe him given that he has no struggle with his sexuality. Our second video today looks at the financial cost of attending both Love Won Out and the ex-gay ministries promoted there. And our third video today examines how scientific studies such as the Spitzer Study are quoted at Love Won Out.
Separating The Person From The Sexuality
How Much Do Ex-Gay Programs Cost?
Quoting Scientific Studies
An Anthropologist Responds to Stanton’s Moving Target
Jim Burroway
March 14th, 2008
Focus On the Family may be trying to bob and weave through the sleight of hand of undisclosed re-writing, but their second effort isn’t much better. When they first changed the article, they left the original title intact (”Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.”) Since then, they changed the title to read, “Classic Anthropology at Odds with New Same-Sex Definitions of Marriage and Family.” When they keep changing their article to respond to ongoing criticisms, it’s hard to keep track of exactly what they’re trying to say.
Nevertheless, we contacted Dr. Patrick M. Chapman, a real live anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008), and asked him if he wanted to give Stanton’s latest rewrite a second look. When Dr. Chapman wrote his latest response, Stanton’s article still appeared under its original title. Here is Dr. Chapman’s response:
Focus on the Family Responds to Anthropologists
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
In a March 3, 2008 CitizenLink article, Focus on the Family suggested that “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.” The organization was quickly rebuked by individual anthropologists and by the American Anthropological Association, the nation’s largest association of anthropologists. In his letter to Focus on the Family Damon Dozier, the AAA’s Director of Public Affairs, addressed “the gross misrepresentation of the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage.” Dozier added:
“I am alarmed and dismayed at this example of irresponsible journalism and deliberate misrepresentation of the anthropological community. In the future it is my hope that your organization will accurately and honestly convey and communicate the views and interests of the AAA, its 11,000 members, and the social science community at large.”
Presumably as a result of the criticism, Focus on the Family rewrote the article, retaining only the first two sentences but leaving the title and date unchanged. Despite having been informed of the official position of the anthropological community, Focus on the Family continues to deliberately misrepresent anthropologists. As Dozier told Focus on the Family, in 2004 the AAA released an official position statement indicating that anthropologists and the anthropological evidence do not support the supposedly “traditional” definition of marriage being used by conservative religious groups.
Instead, the rewritten article quotes Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton: “if you look at the work of leading anthropologists through the past century, one is struck by the consistent understanding of marriage and family as a social unit that brings together male and female.” Stanton references anthropologist Suzanne Frayser, who suggests:
“Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children … Marriage is not usually a transaction confined to the bride and groom. It extends beyond them, to include members of their own families or kin group.”
While marriage is a means of regulating the birth of children, a couple does not have to give birth to a child in order to be considered married. Furthermore, Frayser does not mention the biological sex of the spouses. To explain why this is important, allow me to quote from the 8th edition of Conrad Phillip Kottak’s introductory textbook Cultural Anthropology. Kottak defines marriage as a “Socially approved relationship between a socially recognized male (the husband) and a socially recognized female (the wife) such that the children born to the wife are accepted as the offspring of both husband and wife” (emphasis mine). The husband is a “socially recognized male.” In other words, the husband is not necessarily a biological male, he portrays the gender of a male by acting like a man: the wife portrays the role of a female, whether or not the wife is a biological female. Kottak’s definition highlights that traditional marriages are often heterogendered, even when they are not heterosexual.
In Marriage, a History, Historian Stephanie Coontz discusses how in the last 100 years Western opposite-sex marriages have shed the traditional gender dichotomy. The roles of the husband as provider and wife as maintainer of the household are no longer rigidly separated. As such, opposite-sex marriages in Western society are now often homogendered: either partner can do the work traditionally assigned to either the male or the female. Not surprisingly, same-sex relationships once again mimic the opposite-sex ones: they are now homogendered as well. As such, if opposite-sex couples can enter into homogendered marriages, then why should same-sex couples be banned from marrying because they also have homogendered relationships, particularly when same-sex couples were often allowed to marry when they had heterogendered relationships?
Despite the reprimand from the AAA, Focus on the Family continues to misrepresent the anthropological community on the issue of marriage and also demonstrates a complete ignorance of anthropological concepts and evidence. They need to repent of their “deliberate misrepresentation” of the anthropological community and honestly state the anthropological consensus does not support Focus on the Family’s assumed “traditional” definition of marriage.
Dr Patrick M Chapman is an anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008).
CitizenLink’s Lack of Transparency
Jim Burroway
March 14th, 2008
Update: I’ve changed the title of this post based on Glenn Stanton’s explanation.
Last week, we reported on Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton’s Citizenlink article in which he claimed that “anthropologists agree” that there is only one definition of what constitutes marriage and family. That article, when it first appeared on March 3, looked like this:
Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage
‘A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.’
There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture — one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.
Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there’s a clear consensus among anthropologists.
“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female,” he said. “Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child.”
Maggie Gallagher, co-founder and president of the National Organization for Marriage, said gay activists want to change the definition of marriage because they say the traditional definition is irrational and bigoted.
“What does that mean down the road, if the idea that our ideas about marriage and about sexual morality generally make us the exact equivalent of bigots?” she asked.
“You can’t have a professional license in this country — you can’t be a physician, a social worker, a teacher, a lawyer, a psychotherapist, a marriage counselor — if you’re openly racist.”
That article prompted three sharp rebukes from real anthropologists, including the American Anthropological Association itself. Now it looks like Glenn Stanton has responded by re-writing the article and giving it a new title. This is how that same article appears now:
Classic Anthropology at Odds with New Same-Sex Definitions of Marriage and Family
‘A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.’
There are two understandings of marriage in today’s culture — one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.
According to a new research report, Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said, “if you look at the work of leading anthropologists through the past century, one is struck by the consistent understanding of marriage and family as a social unit that brings together male and female. The comparison between this diverse and learned understanding with the paper-thin, ahistorical and acultural definitions offered by leading same-sex proponents is stark. The former show great understanding and complexity, while the latter shows immense creativity.”
Stanton cited anthropologist Suzanne Frayser’s definition of marriage in her 1985 book, Varieties of Sexual Experience :
“Marriage is a relationship within which a group socially approves and encourages sexual intercourse and the birth of children… Marriage is not usually a transaction confined to the bride and groom. It extends beyond them, to include members of their own families or kin group.”
Stanton also cited same-sex “marriage” activist Evan Wolfson’s definition:
“Marriage is what we use to describe a specific relationship of love and dedication to another person.”
“The ways leading anthropologists and the brightest same-sex marriage advocates define marriage are breathtaking.” Stanton said. “This comparison should show us that the gay ‘marriage’ experiment is exactly that, without any rootedness in human experience.”
This new article retains its original publication date and URL, leading the casual reader to believe that this is how the article originally appeared. There is no notice anywhere that there were ever any changes or corrections. CitizenLink has often tried to portray themselves as “professional journalists” without actually behaving as professionals or as journalists.
When Box Turtle Bulletin makes a correction or an update, you’ll know it. There will be strikeouts, apologies, explanations, maybe even a poor excuse here or there. But regardless of the circumstances, we have nothing to hide. I believe that this level of transparency is indispensable to the task of keeping ourselves honest. Unlike CitizenLink, we don’t try to promote the delusion of infallibility. When we need to revise something, we make sure we do it in a way that everyone can know about it. That is what ethical discourse is all about.
CitizenLink however operates under their own set of rules. Their lack of transparency is more evidence that as far as Focus is concerned, the message is more important than honesty or the truth.
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Jim Burroway
March 7th, 2008
Focus On the Family’s Glenn Stanton has really stepped into it this time. In Monday’s CitizenLink, he claimed that there’s a “clear consensus” among anthropologists that “A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”
But as we quickly learned, anthropologists vehemently disagree on what Stanton claims they agree on. The University of California at Irvine’s Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff reviewed ten thousand years of human existence and concluded:
[T]here is not now, and there never has been, one single definition of marriage. Marriage may be universal; but what counts as marriage is not.
And Dr. Patrick M. Chapman, anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays wrote to Box Turtle Bulletin with this:
… [A]pproximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages.
Now comes word that the entire American Anthropological Association has joined the act with this letter to Focus On the Family (Emphasis in the original):
Dear Sir:
My name is Damon Dozier, and I am the American Anthropological Association (AAA) Director of Public Affairs. In this capacity, I am responsible for the Association’s full range of government relations, media relations, and international affairs programs. Founded in 1902, the AAA—11,000 members strong—is the world’s largest organization of men and women interested in anthropology. Its purposes are to encourage research, promote the public understanding of anthropology, and foster the use of anthropological information in addressing human problems.
I write to address the gross misrepresentation of the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage in your March 3, 2008 Citizen Link press release, “Anthropologists Agree on Traditional Definition of Marriage.” In the release, Glenn Stanton, an employee of your organization who does not identify himself as an anthropologist, asserts that “a family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female.”
In point of fact, the AAA Executive Board issued in 2004, the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.I am alarmed and dismayed at this example of irresponsible journalism and deliberate misrepresentation of the anthropological community. In the future it is my hope that your organization will accurately and honestly convey and communicate the views and interests of the AAA, its 11,000 members, and the social science community at large.
Damon Dozier
Director of Public Affairs
American Anthropological Association
2200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22201
703.528.1902
ddozier@aaanet.org
You can read the full AAA Statement on Marriage and the Family here.
See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
BoxTurtleBulletin contacted actual anthropologists who surprisingly are able to speak for themselves. Here's another one.
Jim Burroway
March 5th, 2008
We’ve heard from Anthropology Chair Bill Maurer and Associate Professor Tom Boellstorff at UC Irvine on Glenn Stanton’s assertion of what “anthropologists agree” on about marriage. Now it’s Dr Patrick M. Chapman’s turn. He’s another real live anthropologist and author of the upcoming book “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press, 2008):
Anthropologists Reject “Traditional” definition of Marriage
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
A recent article from Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink suggests that “anthropologists agree on traditional definition of marriage.” This statement is true only if they reference what anthropologists consider traditional, not the Focus on the Family opinion that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.
The article also states “There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture – one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.” Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on the Family is confused as to which definition has been around for centuries and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists all recognize the “one man with one woman” definition of marriage to be very recent and not representative of how marriage is or has been expressed throughout the world. For example, in Marriage, a History historian Stephanie Coontz documents the changes that occurred in Western marriages over the last few centuries. Her research demonstrates that what Focus on the Family calls “traditional marriage” developed over the last 200 years, reaching its current form only in the middle of the last century.
Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or economic contract between two individuals and their families – this does not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate marriage contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages. For examples, the Azande of Africa used the same rituals and words for same-sex marriages as they did opposite-sex marriages; three percent of all marriages among the Nandi of Kenya were between two women; same-sex marriages were common in Micronesian cultures with the married couple often adopting children and raising them with no ill effects whatsoever.
In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment, indicating:
The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family’s “traditional definition of marriage” is patently, unequivocally wrong.
See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists
BoxTurtleBulletin Contacts Actual Anthropologists Who Surprisingly Are Able To Speak For Themselves
Daniel Gonzales
March 5th, 2008
From Focus’ Citizenlink publication:
Glenn Stanton, director of global family formation studies at Focus on the Family, said there’s a clear consensus among anthropologists.
“A family is a unit that draws from the two types of humanity, male and female,” he said. “Those two parts of humanity join together, create new life and they both cooperate in the legitimization of the child, if you will, and the development of the child.”
Stanton doesn’t give a source for claiming this consensus nor is Stanton an anthropologist himself. Stanton’s bio on Focus’ website only lists a master’s degree in interdisciplinary humanities with an emphasis in philosophy, history and religion from the University of West Florida.
I thought I’d see what an actual anthropologist had to say about the matter. To be specific, Bill Maurer, the anthropology department chair at the University of California, Irvine. I sent Focus’ article to Maurer who penned this response (reprinted in full) with a fellow professor:
Since its beginnings as a scientific discipline in the 19th century, anthropology has documented the historical and cultural variability of marriage and family forms. From ghost marriages to “female husbands” to polyandry, polygamy and cousin marriage, the cultures of the world exhibit incredible diversity in how they manage the universal problems of cultural transmission and the reproduction and care of the next generation. Indeed, Lewis Henry Morgan, one of the field’s forefathers, documented hundreds of distinct kinship arrangements. For over a hundred years, anthropologists have continually surprised themselves and other Western observers with the diversity of family and marriage arrangements deemed sacred, valuable, and morally necessary for the reproduction of society. The American Anthropological Association, the oldest and largest professional organization for anthropologists, affirms this diversity and noted its support for gay marriage in 2004-05. In fact, the Association requires academic recruiters who advertise with its service to state whether they provide benefits to same-sex partners and whether they forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It does this because the scientific evidence is on its side: there is not now, and there never has been, one single definition of marriage. Marriage may be universal; but what counts as marriage is not. The current American political debate is thus quite parochial when seen from the point of view of 10,000 years of human history.
For more information: American Anthropological Association; on the gay marriage debate, see this link.
Bill Maurer
Professor and Chair
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
and
President, Association for Political and Legal AnthropologyTom Boellstorff
Associate Professor
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine
Editor-in-Chief, American Anthropologist, and
Former co-Chair, Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists
See also:
Now An Entire Association of Anthropologists Disagrees With Stanton
Another Real Anthropologist Speaks About Marriage
Focus’ Glenn T. Stanton Speaks For Anthropologists
Student Senate Says No To Funding Mike Haley’s Speech
Timothy Kincaid
March 1st, 2008
Mike Haley is the manager of community education/mobilization for Focus on the Family’s Community Impact Outreach division, aka political activist.
Haley has a testimony about how he was once a gay prostitute but now he’s a husband and a father. And though that endears him to some, those who know and like gay folk are less likely to want to listen to his gay-cure tale.
The student senate at Hastings College, a private liberal arts school in Nebraska affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (USA), is one such group. The Campus Crusade sought to bring Haley on campus to speak and asked the senate for funding. The association emailed the student body and from the responses determined that about 70% did not want their student fees spent for that purpose. So the student group is denying funding.
Campus Crusade will now ask local churches to sponsor Mike Haley’s speech.
