So, the Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Youth Line is best explained by the Mass-Society theory because it attracts people that are socially isolated because of their sexual orientation and helps them to find a sense of identity and purpose through their membership. This group is in the bureaucratization stage because the movement towards people of all sexual orientations feeling equal and accepted in society has been well established, and although progress has been made in this direction the cause continues to need support and help from people in power to increase the chances of the movement’s long-term survival in order for this to be accomplished one day.

What I found made a presentation effective was originality and creativity because these things kept the audience interested and engaged. For example, the group that sang a familiar song with their own lyrics was quite enjoyable. Also, I found it was effective to have members of the group spread out around the classroom because it made things interesting. An example of this was the group that flickered the lights and had sound effects while the solider ran down the aisle. Things that made pitches less effective were when there were no visuals because this sometimes made their presentation unclear. One group presented, but had no pictures or even words displayed and so I was not sure what the name of their organization was and having no images left less of an impact on me. Groups that showed the consequences of not supporting their cause through either images or skits were more effective than those who just talked about them.

Group work can definitely be useful when trying to come up with ideas because there are many different perspectives and it is always good to discuss concepts in order to improve them. This was definitely the case with our group because as time passed our ideas for the presentation evolved. Since each person in our group was unique they each had their own strengths and thus were able to contribute different aspects.  However, the difficult part about group work is trying to get everyone to participate equally.  In our group the main problem we faced was trying to get together outside of class to work on our presentation.  This was because each of us had different schedules that often conflicted and we each had their own homework aside from Sociology.  Furthermore, even though I tend to be a shy person I realized that in group work it is important for me to be more assertive and voice my opinion. Also, during this assignment I found it necessary for me to take charge sometimes, because every group needs a leader. This was a new experience for me because usually I sit back and allow other people to lead the group. After successfully leading the group I felt a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction which encourages me to continue taking on leadership roles.

   
This to me is comparable to “not making a decision is making a decision” or “God not answering is his answer”.  I believe it means you can’t ignore the problem or it won’t go away.  When lives are at stake, like in the Vietnam war, this point of view makes since to me.  Being active in non-violent protest is a step in the right direction.  I believe that some groups like the Weather Underground took it way to far.  Fighting violence with violence has proven to fail in their case.  The Weather Underground got their name out there, but that is about all they accomplished by their destructive demonstrations of protest.

Rausch argues that marriage is the creation of a home, and “It is a place where someone waits for you” (19) He gets to the heart of marriage more universally and justifiably than Stanton and Maier, however might be too invested in the utility of marriage at the expense of teleological flexibility as we will see. Rowan Williams makes in interesting argument for what emotional intimacy is for. And before getting too much into what marriage is, I want to show what marriage is not, namely that it is exclusively between men and women.

Thankfully, marriage has become more egalitarian and inclusive in recent centuries. And same-sex marriage is a recent incarnation of a liberation movement, just like the Civil Rights movement. Authors like Stanton and Maier do not show the supposed harm of same-sex marriage. Their view is over-simplified and lacks imagination and evidence. They depend heavily on God and frankly, God requires more philosophical explanation than he/she/it provides.

To begin with, Stanton and Maier’s opinion in Marriage On Trial promotes and relies on ignorance. From the beginning, in responding to the question “What’s wrong with same-sex marriage?” they make the unsupported claim that same-sex relationships are “not part of the tradition of any human culture” (22). The American Anthropological Society disagrees, and they state,

“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.”(Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association, Marriage.)

Stanton and Maier assert without any evidence that seeing same-sex marriage as morally and socially equal is impossible. To the contrary, positive change has happened before and is happening again. The struggle for same-sex couples to receive equal treatment under the law is one of the current pushes for progressive change.

We do not have to read very far to get to the religious underpinnings of Stanton and Maier’s view. In their response to the question, “Does it really matter how we define marriage?” they claim that “God has weaved marriage into human nature” (22). They seem to be overlooking the fact that in a rational public discourse in a secular society, claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are few claims as extraordinary as God. Rausch agrees that a sensible secular doctrine is necessary because religious doctrines have no special position in secular policy and law; they are inconsistent with each other and with themselves. Regardless, Stanton and Maier present a false dichotomy when they phrase their answer, implying that the only options are their definition or no definition.

They also claim that same-sex unions provide no essential social good, but they do not clarify the essential good that they believe “traditional” marriage provides, nor do they provide any evidence to show that same-sex unions are lacking in any specific way.

Again, Stanton and Maier rely on God to say that men and women were designed for each other (23). Their belief in the creator leads them to understand men and women as exclusive categories and to discount human variability. Rather, gender and sexual identity are more properly understood as existing on respective continua, with the range of individual variability running the full gamut. Instead of exclusive categories, they are probabilistic categories with clustering on the ends. Assuming, as they do, that just because categories are not exclusive necessarily entails that males and females are “optional and interchangeable” is absurd (23-24).

Responding to “Shouldn’t two people who love each other be allowed to commit themselves to one another?” Stanton and Maier cannot marshal a single argument that would indicate that it would be a good idea to keep same-sex couples from marrying. Even if there are benefits for heterosexual couples in each contributing what the other supposedly lacks—and they do not tell us what—does not mean that same-sex couples need to be prevented from getting married (24-25).

The slippery-slope makes its first appearance in this section. If same-sex marriage sets a precedent and love and commitment is enough, then what about polyamory? Polyamory, as cited in a new human sexuality text book, is “the nonpossesive, honest, responsible, and ethical philosophy and practice of loving multiple people simultaneously.”(Ve Ard, Cherie, & Veaux, Franklin. (2003). Polyamory 101. www.xeromag.com/poly101.pd

Why are they trying to scare people with it, and what evidence do they have that people participating in polyamory has any negative consequences for society? They seem to fear that if polyamory became legalized it would be the end of the world. Some polyamorous relationships exist, and legal recognition would benefit these relationships and help alleviate stigma. Stanton and Maier finally scrounge up the argument that polyamory would be difficult to insure. How they would be insured is not a good reason for repression, and is logistical issue inherent in the currently, horribly inefficient U.S. healthcare system. It makes more sense for the healthcare system to accommodate human rights and not the other way around.

Rausch makes a more cogent argument against polyamory in saying “The pair bond, one to one, is the only kind which is inescapably reciprocal, perfectly mutual” (22). There is an elegance to this social solution which probably makes it the most efficient in turning and unattached person, “an accident waiting to happen” into someone’s kin. However, whether or not it might not be the most efficient choice personally or societally does not mean it should not be an option. Polyamory is a challenge that some seem to be able to meet.

Incest is next on the slippery slope for Stanton and Maier, but besides that nobody is pushing to legalize it, there are clear biological concerns regarding incest that Stanton and Maier themselves include in their next question. I assume they do not address bestiality because it is clear that an animal cannot communicate consent, just as a child is incapable in cases like pedophilia and is thus considered coercion. But “Why restrict marriage to two persons of different gender, as long as it’s two adults who love each other and are not closely related biologically?” There is no reason to assume that their definition of marriage is the only definition that can maintain/retain legitimate limits to marriage after the illegitimate limits are discarded. They have forgotten the long history of progress in marriage. As Wolfson explains, in American history alone there have been four major changes to the legal definition of marriage. It became possible for people in bad relationships to get divorced. Women became able to keep their own property instead of becoming their husband’s property. Married couples got the right to decide whether or not they wanted to use contraception in the privacy of their own bedrooms. And interracial marriage finally was legalized. Leading up to every one of these changes the religious right said it was going to destroy marriage as we know it. Not only have these changes not destroyed marriage, I cannot imagine turning back the clock.

Stanton and Maier also unsuccessfully differentiate justification for same-sex marriage from infertile and older marriage in semantic use of “norm” (29). But even accepting their statement that having children is the expected norm, same-sex couples pass with flying colors. The vast majority of children from lesbian or gay households have heterosexual orientation, having homosexual parents does not confuse them or cause them to become homosexual.(Golombok, Susan, & Tasker, Fiona. (2003). Children with lesbian parents: A community study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 20-33; Patterson, Charlotte J. (2006). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 287-289)

The children of lesbian and gay families show no difference in adjustment and mental health from children of heterosexual families.(Patterson, Charlotte J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63,1025-1042) And regarding peer relationships, children from gay and lesbian families show the same social skills and popularity as children from heterosexual families.(Allen, Mike, & Burrell, Nancy A. (2002). Sexual orientation of the parent: The impact on the child. In M. Allen et al. (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp.125-143). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Patterson (2006))

I absolutely agree that marriage is good, for adults, children, and society, however, it is completely unfair and unfounded to equate the decline of marriage (higher divorce rates) with increasing tolerance for same-sex couples, as they do. It is illuminating that marriage is reliably less stable in the areas of the U.S. that are consistently more conservative and more intolerant.
Furthermore, Stanton and Maier are in no position whatsoever to claim anything at all about what nature does or does not tolerate, let alone being intolerant of family variability. And if invariability was “natural” why would they need to say “societies must enforce the narrow parameters nature has given humans” (30).

Significantly, Stanton and Maier have failed to demonstrate in any remotely tangible way that same-sex marriages cause any harm. It is specifically because they do not have a good argument that they have to resort to using the slippery-slope. They implicitly assert that their unfounded belief, following in a long history of intolerance of change (miscegenation etc. for example) is more important than the rights of same-sex couples to live their lives as they see fit (31). As Wolfson says, “respecting equality under the law and saying that the government can’t dictate the life choices of gay or non-gay couples is what conservatives used to stand for, and affirmation of our American idea of freedom and limited government” (56-56). We understand that the sky is not falling, but now what?

It seems like Claudia Card is arguing that there is no point to marriage at all. It is harder to get out of a bad marriage than a bad relationship and it is harder to prove wrongdoing than get a restraining order. But she does not address why then if same-sex couples should not get married because it is so bad, why it should be preserved for the financial/legal benefits of heterosexual couples only. If getting a divorce is still too difficult, let us make it easier, not just do away with marriage altogether. Same-sex couples should have just as much right as heterosexual couples in getting visitation rights, insurance benefits etc.

Rausch makes a good argument for what marriage is for, “Matrimony creates family out of thin air” (25). It is about kinship and responsibility. At least that is what it is useful for. But except for some royalty still and in cultures that still practice arranged marriage, we do not get married in ways that maximize the benefit to our family in forming an “alliance” with another individual.
If marriage is all about duty, and no fun, what is the point? It seems like a recurrent problem with assigning meaning for anything at all, is that we have cannot have a solid foundation of meaning to build from because ultimate meaning or purpose in life cannot be demonstrated. Therefore any truly teleological perspective brings us to a vacuum. This leaves us with no choice by to construct our own meaning ad hoc, from whatever principles we can justifiably see fit. I cannot think of a better goal than to seek to know thyself. Rowan Williams says, “I can only fully discover the body’s grace in taking time, the time needed for a mutual recognition that my partner and I are not simply passive instruments to each other” (315). It seems we can only really live and really know ourselves, in the layered perceptions of our perception of being perceived by another.

page numbers regarding Stanton and Maier refer to their work, Marriage On TrialRausch references are to From Gay Marriage: Why It is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for AmericaWolfson references are to Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to MarryClaudia Card references are to “Why gays shouldn’t marry”

(http://www.littlemag.com/belonging/claudia.html)& Rowan Williams’ to The Body’s Grace

Image via Wikipedia

The Unrest Stage

All movements are rooted in social unrest. When people grow bored and restless, or develop a sense of social injustice, or when some changes has disrupted an established way of life, they develop an unstable volatility which we call social unrest. When they confront situations that their traditional ideology cannot explain, they are frustrated. For example, the Great Depression of the thirties brought actual destitution to millions of workers who had been socialized to believe that there must be something wrong with a man who cannot support his family. The emotional experience was shattering for most unemployed men, many of whom agonized painfully about accepting relief when it was offered. Social change, social disorganization, and social unrest are inseparable. This stage may be very prolonged, lasting as many as several generations.

The Excitement stage

Unrest is vague, generalized, and unfocused. When it becomes focused on certain conditions, and when certain “causes” of misery are identified so that proposals for action fill the air, the excitement stage has come. During this stage it is easy to gather an audience, and agitators, seem to pop on everywhere. Many fledgling movements are launched, mostly to founder on the rocks of clumsy leadership or ineffective appeals. Sometimes magnetic agitators, working on people whose needs have made them receptive, can rouse a huge following almost overnight. To convert such a mass into an effective movement requires a skillful organizer. The excitement stage is typically brief, leading quickly either to action or to loss of interest.

The formalization stage

Some of the migratory and expressive movements may be able to operate without formal organization, but those, which seek to modify the society, must become organized. An excited mass of followers will drift away unless their enthusiasms are ordered and directed. In the formalization stage, a chain of officers is worked out, fund raising is systematized, and the ideology of the movement is clarified. The ideology reminds people of their discontents, identities the villains, states the movement’s objectives, outlines the strategy and tactics for attaining the stated purposes, and provides the moral justification for all these actions. Formalization converts an excited mass into a disciplined membership and a vague cause into a practical enterprise. This, too, is a brief phase leading quickly into institutionalization.

The institutionalization stage

Institutionalization eventually overtakes most movements if they last long enough. The movement crystallizes into a definite pattern, including traditions to uphold and possibly vested interests to defend. Efficient bureaucrats replace zealous agitators as leaders, and members feel themselves supporters of a worthy organization rather than campaigners in a sacrificial crusade. The acquisition of elaborate office suites or buildings is evidence that the institutionalization of the movement is complete. This stage may last almost indefinitely.

The dissolution stage

Most scholars end the movement’s cycle with the institutionalization stage. But this is not really the end, for different movements come to different conclusions. A movement may die at any stage in its career. Some movements achieve their objectives and then disappear, like the movement for women’s suffrage. Such a change of direction is rarely successful. Some movements, however, do undergo a transition in which, the movement comes to pursue objectives quite different from the original ones. As an example, the Townsend movement for liberal old-age pensions lost most of its members when returning prosperity and the growth of other pension plans undercut its program, but the Townsend clubs survived for quite a number of years as recreational groups of older people who were only mildly interested in the pension plan. A movement may shrink into a sect like band of followers, doggedly pursuing an objective, which is probably forever unattainable, such as the prohibitionist movement embodied in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. Some movements achieve full institutional status and make a contribution to the institutions of the society. This progress is illustrated by the many religious sects, which have completed the transition into denominations.