UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:DISCLAIMER: in an effort to pre-empt the bile that usually follows the mention of Gagnon's name here, I'm not seeking to defend him (and certainly not that personal attack). I'd never heard of him before plumbing the depths of DH. But it seems to me he is probably the best exponent of the kind of views prevalent in the wider sea I'm swimming in.
Her error lies in thinking that she can rectify any deficit in her feminine self by absorbing in another woman what she perceives to be lacking in herself.
quote:Again, Gagnon was not exegeting in that quote. "Otherness" is not mentioned in it explicitly, but I get the feeling that he might be arguing with "otherness" in mind.
quote:I don't know about 'preferring', but I think 'otherness' is an important ingredient, and one that biology goes at least some way - I do not say the only way - to providing, out of the box as it were.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that there are studies indicating that same-sex couples get on better with each other in a number of respects and this is probably because they are more similar to each other, it's hard to see why one would prefer difference (...)
quote:I would certainly tend to see it as more of a parable than science, but either way, I think details matter (we just may not agree on which details and how they matter!).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The teaching of genesis is God creating the universe. Parable, not science. If one sticks to the literal, then incest is the Bible's preferred method of procreation.
quote:But masculinity and femininity are not the same as biological gender, which is what I asked about. Indeed, above I conceded that
Originally posted by Starlight:
So the whole idea of masculinity and femininity being complimentary and necessary in relationships is just wrong in practice.
quote:and the reason you offered for male and female in Genesis isn't about masculinity and femininity, either - it's about biological gender, too:
differences and complementarity do not fall exclusively or perhaps even predominantly along gender lines
quote:Indeed - and I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
Originally posted by Starlight:
God's motivation for making Eve female is obvious (he wanted them to have children to populate the world)
quote:You argued earlier that God's motivation in making Eve was that he wanted this first couple to have children. Given that God didn't make us capable of asexual reproduction, Eve's validity as a partner resided in her biological difference, too.
Originally posted by Starlight:
1) Eve's validity as a mate for Adam rests in her being more similar to him than the rest of the animals are.
quote:Taking the narrative at this level, do you think there was any doubt as to the final outcome? I think it's just a little piece of theatre to highlight the archetypal suitability of the final outcome - someone the same, yet different.
2) God seems to have been happy for Adam to choose his own mate by searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable
quote:You can't argue (as you did earlier) that God's intent in setting this whole thing up was for Adam and Eve to procreate, and simultaneously argue that the same text demonstrates it is God's will for gay people to find a satisfactory mate.
God's only concern was that "it is not good for the man to be alone". That seems to reasonably suggest that God's will is that gay people shouldn't be alone and that they can search to find a mate that satisfies them.
quote:You don't appear to realise that the etymology lesson supports my thesis, not yours. You're so focused on the addition of one letter, you haven't noticed that the point is to give a similar name because of the connection, instead of a totally separate name with no connection.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In Genesis 2:23, as I understand it the Hebrew says Adam (the human) declares "she will be called Ish-a (female) because she was taken from Ish (male, i.e. "person of the male sex"). In Gen 2 God didn't make an asexual, non-differentiated "Adam 2", or another Ish; he made Ish-a.
quote:I don't think the number of letters is the point, orfeo. And I've never denied her similarity.
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you seem to be determined to say "look! look! There's an 'a' on the end! She's completely different". No, if she was completely different she wouldn't have got a name that emphasises her Ish-ness. A name that deliberately emphasises her similarity and minimises the importance of her difference down to a single letter.
quote:Jesus cites the passage to argue against divorce, his emphasis being on the "become one flesh" part, to not break what God has joined. He quotes the entire verse about leaving one's father and mother of course, but no one thinks that leaving one's father and mother is essential in marriage, despite the fact that Jesus quotes it, because it's not what he was talking about. The man and wife bit is also quoted, but again, not what Jesus was talking about.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd say this is borne out by how Jesus uses this passage. He never says anything like "as it is written, Cain bonked Eve (or a sister) to produce descendants". He does say "male and female he created them".
quote:Okay. What on earth does it matter?
I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
quote:Presumably if Adam had found a mate that could not biologically have led to reproduction, God could have acted to alter their biology to allow reproduction if that were God's desire.
You can't argue (as you did earlier) that God's intent in setting this whole thing up was for Adam and Eve to procreate, and simultaneously argue that the same text demonstrates it is God's will for gay people to find a satisfactory mate.
quote:I just wanted to come back to this in a sort of meta-tangent.
Originally posted by Starlight:
2) God seems to have been happy for Adam to choose his own mate by searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable.
quote:Yes indeed. And at the same time, he notes the possibility of divorce under Mosaic law and doesn't rule it out.
Originally posted by Starlight:
Jesus cites the passage to argue against divorce, his emphasis being on the "become one flesh" part, to not break what God has joined.
quote:Yes.
Also rather importantly, the vast majority of churches allow divorce in some way, shape or form. (does yours?)
quote:I for one have never said that (which exact "teaching" did you have in mind, anyway?), any more than I say to divorcees that they are beyond the reach of the church or cannot remarry.
Telling gay people that they absolutely have to follow that teaching of Jesus which is not actually about homosexuality but only very incidentally touches on it
quote:I'm not sure I can articulate clearly why I might think it matters, but I think it's important to concede it is a difference, and it's one which is, by your own admission, present in how you understand the Genesis 2 narrative.
quote:Okay. What on earth does it matter?
I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
quote:I'll need to get back to you on this - feel free to prod me if I forget - but as things stand there is at least one significant difference in the French Civil Code, post-gay marriage.
So you've managed to identify a difference between gay and straight couples... okay... but that difference doesn't actually matter a single iota. To be relevant to anything, you'd have to find some way that difference was important.
quote:Perhaps I am [3], a natural law nut after all*. Intuitively, I'd say this takes humanity places it shouldn't go.
Also I would note that various scientists are working on artificial reproductive techniques that would let two gay people have biological children together. I'd say maybe in 10 years this might be feasible. Does that solve the problem?
quote:At least until your scientific scenario comes to pass, and choosing my words carefully, I'd say that while it is not a necessary or sufficient reason for marriage, the potential for procreation is at least part of most marriages.
And what about infertile heterosexual couples, such as couples who marry when they are old?
quote:See my previous post about the parade of animals. This sounds like rather a desperate argument to me.
Presumably if Adam had found a mate that could not biologically have led to reproduction, God could have acted to alter their biology to allow reproduction if that were God's desire.
quote:Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
quote:Scientific surveys asking gay people how much choice they felt they had in their sexuality tend to find about 9 in 10 gay people report feeling they had little or no conscious choice in their sexual orientation. Straight people tend to report the same thing. It's worth thinking about this question yourself - at what age did you make the decision to be attracted to girls and not guys, or did you simply find yourself liking women and never bothered to question that too hard?
the gay consensus seems to be "made that way"
quote:Um, yes, it's called "dating"? I am not sure what "the other" is referring to here.
at a certain age, one gets to enter a sort of supermarket of sexual partners and orientations and choose from a smorgasbord of what I think is right for me... without any consideration of the other.
quote:Well that is speculative... the text doesn't really say that. God certainly appears to validly offer Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate. There's no suggestion that God is trying to trick Adam into sinning by choosing a mate that God disapproves of. (Such very snake-like behaviour comes in the next chapter, and isn't God doing it) I would accept a reading, however, that said God offers Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate in the sure knowledge that Adam's not going to take that option, and God makes this offer as a means of teaching Adam about the animals and leading Adam on a journey of self-discovery to learn what's right for Adam (ie God knows the giraffe isn't right as a mate for Adam, but Adam needs to learn this himself). But I struggle with a reading that says that if Adam had really genuinely accepted the giraffe as a mate then this would have been in some way sinful, since God seems to have really made the offer and it would not be transgressing a command of God so how can it be a sin?
(I don't think God would have been happy if Adam had plumped for the giraffe
quote:The vast majority of gay people, in my observation, would just like to live "normal" lives in the sense that they want to find someone to share their life with and do so. Although many of those in the age range 16-28 would like to have sex with as many people as possible as often as possible, exactly like their straight peers in the same age group!
The "supermarket of sexuality" stance is certainly not the overwhelming impression I get from gay posters here, who for the most part appear to be arguing for acceptance of committed, monogamous relationships, but it's certainly out there, and probably not helping in the search for common ground.
quote:I do indeed concede there is a difference between gay and straight couples. Gay couples have two people of the same sex, whereas straight couples have one of each! That's the only difference that's really relevant to anything, and it's not relevant to much!
I'm not sure I can articulate clearly why I might think it matters, but I think it's important to concede it is a difference,
quote:Medical professionals intervene regularly to help infertile couples have children, by playing around with eggs and sperm in test-tubes. When a couple who has been trying and failing to have children for years gets successful treatment and a pregnancy results, it's a cause for celebration.
quote:Intuitively, I'd say this takes humanity places it shouldn't go.
Also I would note that various scientists are working on artificial reproductive techniques that would let two gay people have biological children together. I'd say maybe in 10 years this might be feasible. Does that solve the problem?
quote:That the first record we have for setting standards for sexual relationships has provisions for both divorce and homosexuality. (Well, there's also not committing adultery in Exodus, in the Ten Commandments.)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
quote:Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
quote:For the purposes of this discussion, I'm very happy to go along with that, because whatever I think about homosexual relations, I don't think I can stretch my christian ethics to cater for a smorgasbord "my choice" approach to sexual orientation right now.
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:Scientific surveys asking gay people how much choice they felt they had in their sexuality tend to find about 9 in 10 gay people report feeling they had little or no conscious choice in their sexual orientation.
the gay consensus seems to be "made that way"
quote:The exact way you summarised the Gen 2 account was
quote:Um, yes, it's called "dating"? I am not sure what "the other" is referring to here.
at a certain age, one gets to enter a sort of supermarket of sexual partners and orientations and choose from a smorgasbord of what I think is right for me... without any consideration of the other.
quote:The animals are not portrayed in the slightest as having a say in the matter in the narrative, and your summary thus necessarily focuses on Adam: it's all about his personal fulfillment, with no consideration of whether his partner - the "other" - might similarly be fulfilled by the relationship with him.
searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable
quote:In which case, the giraffe was never really a viable option, was it?
I would accept a reading, however, that said God offers Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate in the sure knowledge that Adam's not going to take that option
quote:I think we are getting way off the point here. I haven't said anything about "sinfulness" or otherwise.
But I struggle with a reading that says that if Adam had really genuinely accepted the giraffe as a mate then this would have been in some way sinful, since God seems to have really made the offer and it would not be transgressing a command of God so how can it be a sin?
quote:To suggest, in the face of this assertion, that had Adam chosen the giraffe God would somehow have re-engineered the giraffe to allow for procreation (the Vquex springs to mind), is to my mind desperate special pleading and completely missing the point of the narrative.
God's motivation for making Eve female is obvious (he wanted them to have children to populate the world)
quote:The issue of children (nice unintentional pun!) and the available options for producing them is where there is a difference. It's one that comes right down, for now at least, to where I started this: that of biological gender. And even if one day that is no longer a prerequisite, that is "how it was in the beginning".
Gay couples have two people of the same sex, whereas straight couples have one of each! That's the only difference that's really relevant to anything, and it's not relevant to much!
When it comes to the issue of children
quote:I think the issue here is not what is scientifically possible but what is desirable and ethical (irrespective of the orientation or gender of the parents), and I'm not convinced that this can be settled on an all-or-nothing basis for all forms of medically assisted procreation.
There's nothing particularly dodgy from a scientific standpoint about same-sex couples having biological children: Their DNA combined makes a perfectly legitimate child just like the combined DNA of a straight couple. There would be nothing biologically unusual about the child itself in any way, shape, or form, and completely no way to tell by studying the child that it's parents were of the same gender.
quote:Perhaps (I am completely unqualified to tell), but can we agree that these and the other instances you cite are extreme, exceptional scenarios?
It could be argued that this sort of thing already happens naturally in cases where one of the parents is intersex and has some sort of unusual condition where their body's sexual organs don't match their genetic gender properly...
quote:I still don't see your point. Do you think homosexuality was there in the beginning, or do you think it was "male and female" in the Garden?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:That the first record we have for setting standards for sexual relationships has provisions for both divorce and homosexuality. (Well, there's also not committing adultery in Exodus, in the Ten Commandments.)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
There are two accounts of the creation of humans. In Genesis 1, we read,quote:Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Then in Genesis 2, we have the differing account of God musing, "It is not good that the man should be alone", and his making of a suitable partner for Adam out of his own side. The interesting thing is that Genesis 2 does not once mention procreation. In this account, the point of creating men and women is companionship, and mutual help, and physical and spiritual union - becoming "one flesh". None of these seem impossible for same-sex relationships.
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women. In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it. The point is that both male and female are made in the image of God, and not the male only; the point is that both male and female are human. The 'otherness' here is humanity's otherness to God, and not to each other - and even our otherness to God is flattened by how we bear the image of God. Sameness and difference are alike built into all our relationships, it seems.
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate' by conflating the two accounts and making both say something that neither said. The procreation passage barely mentions maleness and femaleness, and makes no substantive difference between them. The passage that does stress their otherness (alongside their sameness) does not mention procreation at all. The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:The books of the Pentateuch are dated to more or less the same time, whichever way you look at the dating*, so I'm not sure how you decide which books are "in the beginning" for this argument, particularly when you acknowledge that Genesis is parable and story to tell the way life came about, rather than inerrant fact. So why can't we use other books of the Torah to tell us how thing are in the "broader scheme of things"? Isn't this looking at other sources from the same time?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned, this debate, like many others, is all about dealing with a situation that "was not that way from the beginning" in such a way as to accept and rejoice in people as they are made - whilst also acknowledging how things "were in the beginning" and not losing sight of what they might be telling us in the broader scheme of things.
quote:Actually, from what I understand, in many parts of Bible-belt America, procreation is actually really really heavily emphasized and couples that don't or can't have children are quite seriously ostracized. I get the impression that for a lot of the (fairly poor, fairly uneducated) people in that general region, having children is considered by them as the greatest achievement of their lives. And they really view having manged to have children as a seriously great achievement that they can pat themselves on the back for, or think they deserve some sort of medal for managing to have a child. Hence their response to gay couples not being able to have biological children is contempt and scornful laughter. Because to them having children really is that important.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just can't understand why anyone treats procreation as the be-all and end-all of being a couple. Especially when no-one ever seems to raise the slightest objection to the existence of heterosexual couples that either don't have children, do not intend to have children, or are physically incapable of having children.
quote:You yourself said, emphasis mine
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women (...) The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
quote:If that's not a "link made by the text", I don't know what is. It's the very next verse!
In Genesis 1, we read,quote:Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
quote:I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind".
In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it.
quote:I'm not trying to "get there". For now, I'm observing that that is how it is portrayed in the beginning - although it's not the whole story.
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate'
quote:Sure, I'm reading you loud and clear on that, orfeo. And for the record, if you ever have the good fortune to get married, I would be honoured to attend (although you'd probably be happier off without me being there and it would most probably be impracticably far to travel!).
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have happily conceded that heterosexual couples have the edge when it comes to procreating.
I just can't understand why anyone treats procreation as the be-all and end-all of being a couple.
quote:Even assuming the narratives were all written at the same time, they clearly show circumstances in the beginning which then changed over the internal timeline of the narrative.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The books of the Pentateuch are dated to more or less the same time, whichever way you look at the dating*, so I'm not sure how you decide which books are "in the beginning" for this argument
quote:Assuming that they stick to their choice (see my assumption below) I think the answer to that one depends on whether the situation as it was "at the beginning" has anything to say to us about which is preferable.
Originally posted by Starlight:
If it's okay for gay people to be gay, and it's okay for straight people to be straight, why isn't it okay for bisexual people to choose which one they want?
quote:I'm not sure if that's a blessing or a curse!
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is some research looking at fluidity in sexual orientation, which particularly seems to apply to women - all the research I found was looking at women as they seem to have a more fluid sexuality.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) I'm assuming an aspiration to same sex marriage envisaged as a lifelong, monogamous commitment. If anyone wants to mount a defence of alternative relationship lifestyles, with or without reference to Scripture, or debate the "made/choice" aspects of sexual orientation, can I plead for it to go on another thread, unless you can persuade me it's relevant here? Thank you.quote:Whether it matters depends on the goal.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I've got to on this is not that this makes hetero couples procreating inherently morally superior, but simply that there is a difference - a difference which I think at least some SSM proponents would like to gloss over - and that it might matter.
quote:Whoah. I think that the difference (biological gender) allows procreation. As to whether that's the only reason it matters, I'm not sure. I need to clarify my thinking a bit more. And get out of here for a while.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Whether it matters depends on the goal.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I've got to on this is not that this makes hetero couples procreating inherently morally superior, but simply that there is a difference - a difference which I think at least some SSM proponents would like to gloss over - and that it might matter.
The difference matters for precisely ONE purpose: procreation. Multiplying. That's what Cottontail is saying to you.
quote:What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one. There is a big difference between saying that God created humans as male and female so that they are able to procreate, and saying that the whole point of God creating males and females is so that they can procreate. Human beings are more than their procreative abilities, and those who do not procreate have not somehow failed to fulfil their purpose. Maybe God just made us male and female because he loves men and he loves women, and glories in both their existence.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You yourself said, emphasis mine
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women (...) The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.quote:If that's not a "link made by the text", I don't know what is. It's the very next verse!
In Genesis 1, we read,quote:Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
quote:I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind".
Originally posted by Cottontail:
In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it.
quote:That it is 'not the whole story' is in fact the whole point.
Originally posted by Eutychus
quote:I'm not trying to "get there". For now, I'm observing that that is how it is portrayed in the beginning - although it's not the whole story.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate'.
quote:Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I think happiness is not actually the point. One of the Eastern Orthodox on the ship (I believe Josephine) said somewhere that marriage is in Eastern Orthodox terms a podvig: a spiritual discipline. Part of the point of marriage is that one occasionally struggles to accommodate one's wishes to one's partner's. (James Joyce voiced a similar thought when he said he couldn't admire Jesus unreservedly since Jesus had never gone through the discipline of being married to a woman.) To that extent, too much similarity is a bad thing in a marriage.
Originally posted by Starlight:
And that all sounds reasonable to a lot of people. The thing is though, once you actually look at empirical reality, you realize that same-sex relationships work just fine. Studies seem to consistently find that gay couples are happier than straight couples. They report being more satisfied, not less satisfied, with their relationships than straight couples on average.
quote:can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
To me (and especially if we read this more metaphorically or 'parabolically') that suggests the latter is there for a reason, whereas the implicit incest is more of a 'plot inconsistency' as it were. It's tangential to what the narrative is saying.
quote:Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute? And if we should, does this not also condemn the infertile? The celibate?
Indeed - and I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
quote:That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I think happiness is not actually the point. One of the Eastern Orthodox on the ship (I believe Josephine) said somewhere that marriage is in Eastern Orthodox terms a podvig: a spiritual discipline. Part of the point of marriage is that one occasionally struggles to accommodate one's wishes to one's partner's. (James Joyce voiced a similar thought when he said he couldn't admire Jesus unreservedly since Jesus had never gone through the discipline of being married to a woman.) To that extent, too much similarity is a bad thing in a marriage.
Originally posted by Starlight:
And that all sounds reasonable to a lot of people. The thing is though, once you actually look at empirical reality, you realize that same-sex relationships work just fine. Studies seem to consistently find that gay couples are happier than straight couples. They report being more satisfied, not less satisfied, with their relationships than straight couples on average.
There are other reasons for thinking that happiness is not the only criteria for a successful relationship. (For example, would you prefer not to grieve over your partner when they're gone?)
Of course, abandoning the devil's advocate pose, nothing in the above requires that any difficulty arises out of the two people being different sexes.
quote:I'm sorry, but I can't find any objective support for "played down" or "strangely muted". As far as I can see, difference is simply there, and multiplying is the very next sentence.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one.
quote:I agree there is a big difference, and I've never made the latter assertion.
There is a big difference between saying that God created humans as male and female so that they are able to procreate, and saying that the whole point of God creating males and females is so that they can procreate.
quote:So am I, but you can hardly say that it was inserted retrospectively to counter what the Church Fathers taught! Still less if you want to argue simultaneously that they based their arguments on this very same part of the Bible!
I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
quote:I see your edginess. I for one am not trying to turn complementarian on you.
those who emphasise the 'otherness' between male and female very frequently go on in the very next move to define what that difference is. And lo and behold, the difference is that women are weaker than and subordinate to men!
quote:I don't follow you. What I was trying to say was that male and female were explicitly part of the Genesis account, whereas the incest is implicit. This means that it's not very convincing for me to claim incest as "the Bible's preferred method of procreation". If it were, it would be explicit. Does that make any more sense?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
It chooses a bit actually there as irrelevant. Yet a bit which must be inferred is vital?
quote:I haven't said that anywhere.
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
quote:I think that what you highlight here is the thorny issue of the extent to which we see these "stories" as foundational and enshrining values that transcend history and culture, and the connected issue of where the dividing line is between this transcendent content and the secondary context.
Back to the parable. We tell stories to illustrate points all the time. But we most often tell them within the context of our cultures. The skeleton (words) of the story might be the same in Mogadishu, Paris, London and New York; but the flesh (context) which fills it in will create a different creature.
quote:Sorry, found this not clear on re-reading. I meant:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This means that it's not very convincing for me to claim incest as "the Bible's preferred method of procreation".
quote:Male and female are explicitly part, but why does this meant nothing else is allowed? Genesis doesn't say God created anyone but Adam and Eve, so therefore incest happened to fill in the population. Creation is supposed to be the focus here, so why omit these details? Could it be that this thing so many get hung up on is not the focus of the allegory?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't follow you. What I was trying to say was that male and female were explicitly part of the Genesis account, whereas the incest is implicit.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
It chooses a bit actually there as irrelevant. Yet a bit which must be inferred is vital?
quote:I haven't said that anywhere.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
quote:And determining what is primary and secondary, one should look at the overall context. And for Christians this leans heavily towards Jesus. Who tends heavily towards inclusion.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QB]
and the connected issue of where the dividing line is between this transcendent content and the secondary context.
quote:Why? People framed in the way they understood.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- firstly, I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- secondly, if one should wish to reject the "male/female" distinction made in the narrative on the grounds of it being irrelevant, superseded context, then I think many of the other values which at least some people here see as foundational (such as lifelong monogamous committed relationships) are up for grabs too.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll take these one at a time as time allows.quote:I'm sorry, but I can't find any objective support for "played down" or "strangely muted". As far as I can see, difference is simply there, and multiplying is the very next sentence.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one.
quote:That is silly – I said nothing of the sort. My point is that the text of Genesis 1 has from the start countered the assumption of women's inferiority – an assumption that has survived to this day. The ancient redactors did not have to be inspired to see in front of their own eyes how the whole male-female thing was playing out. Though they may have been inspired to see how it would continue to play out in the future.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:So am I, but you can hardly say that it was inserted retrospectively to counter what the Church Fathers taught!
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
quote:I have claimed neither. I actually see an importance in 'otherness' – the 'I' and 'Thou' that exists first between us and God, and then between me and you. I can also see that gender may even be one of the primary 'Othernesses' we experience, hence its frequent employment in the Bible as an image of the relationship between God and us.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think disagreeing with what the complementarians and their like have done by abusing this text is sufficient grounds to claim that no biological gender difference exists or that if it does, it's devoid of significance.
quote:I still get the feeling we're talking past each other here. As far as I can see the fact that male and female are "explicitly part" means there's something more important there compared to incest, and indeed, that that is why incest - and who knows what else - was omitted. I haven't said "nothing else is allowed".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Male and female are explicitly part, but why does this meant nothing else is allowed? Genesis doesn't say God created anyone but Adam and Eve, so therefore incest happened to fill in the population. Creation is supposed to be the focus here, so why omit these details?
quote:I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2, and a universal constant, while incest is not even explicitly mentioned in this passage.
And determining what is primary and secondary, one should look at the overall context.
quote:Amen. But however inclusive we are, there will always be a subset of opposite-sex relations that will never be a subset of same-sex relations, which is the subset of couplings that produce babies.
And for Christians this leans heavily towards Jesus. Who tends heavily towards inclusion.
quote:If it's contextual only, how do you think the narrative should be reframed now?
quote:Why? People framed in the way they understood.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- firstly, I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context
quote:Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make and I'm not sure you've understood mine.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- secondly, if one should wish to reject the "male/female" distinction made in the narrative on the grounds of it being irrelevant, superseded context, then I think many of the other values which at least some people here see as foundational (such as lifelong monogamous committed relationships) are up for grabs too.
First, polygamists have strong support in the Bible.
quote:How, precisely, do you see me "limiting gender relations" here?
Whilst limiting gender relations hurts significant chunk of the population.
quote:This would seem to imply that heterosexual couples are incapable learning what each other like. They start off not intuitively knowing what the other likes, and stay there. Like they never talk about sex, not even to say "wait, less of that" or "yes, that's nice." It also strongly suggests that the difference in sexes of the partners is the only, or at least the chief, consideration in learning what the other person likes. Two guys automatically know everything there is to know about each other's sexual turn-ons. Downplaying or totally eliminating the fact that we are individuals and not just interchangeable representatives of our sexes.
Originally posted by Starlight:
Also the sex tends to be better in same-sex relationships (especially for women) because women know what women like and guys know what guys like.
quote:Because Hebrew is a language with feminine word endings. If it weren't, this passage wouldn't be included. It's rather a "just-so story" to explain the difference between two words. Hanging a lot of theology -- and you are hanging a LOT of theology -- on one of these Biblical etymology things, many of which are more puns than serious etymology, is not a responsible use of the text.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the number of letters is the point, orfeo. And I've never denied her similarity.
What I am disputing is the minimal importance of her difference, for reasons outlined above.
quote:If it's not necessary, it can't be used to rule out SSM. (my emphasis)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least until your scientific scenario comes to pass, and choosing my words carefully, I'd say that while it is not a necessary or sufficient reason for marriage, the potential for procreation is at least part of most marriages.
quote:There are other points that could be being made. For instance "women are made in God's image just as much as men are." (which might be an important lesson for Dominionists!). Not saying this or any one other thing is the exact point. But that there could be other points.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind".
quote:I don't see how that's implied. It takes for granted that it is difficult to lay down one's life for another. If that's never a problem for you, if you have reached spiritual perfection in this life, then you are a Boddhisattva, and thank you for gracing us with your presence. But I don't think that's what you're saying. Why is it so bizarre to acknowledge that this is difficult, and that marriage gives us a theatre in which to practice learning to overcome selfishness and learn to love others?
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
quote:Then why does fertility make any difference at all in the question of SSM?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I haven't said that anywhere.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
quote:But it only applies to, well, ability to reproduce, which you have conceded is not a necessary part of marriage. So on the question of SSM, it's irrelevant.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context (but remember, I have not drawn any moral conclusions or made any binding universal applications following this observation)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(plus, I'm tiring!)quote:I hear what you're saying (and perhaps what you're not saying, for instance about singleness).
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But absolutise that metaphor – make otherness and procreation a central and non-negotiable aspect of our Godlikeness – and suddenly those who do not procreate no longer bear that image.
quote:
I think 'otherness' is an important ingredient, and one that biology goes at least some way - I do not say the only way - to providing, out of the box as it were.
quote:Once again, there is no mention of producing babies in Genesis 2. None whatsoever.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2,
quote:It's not about the difference between two words but between two bodies. If you insist on seeing it as a "just-so story", the title is, I would suggest, not "how men and women came to be named differently" but "how men and women are both similar and different". Or, perhaps more provocatively, "how otherness first came about".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hebrew is a language with feminine word endings. If it weren't, this passage wouldn't be included. It's rather a "just-so story" to explain the difference between two words.
quote:I never said it could. I'm beginning to lose count of the number of people on this thread who seem to assume I'm trying to argue it can.
If it's not necessary, it can't be used to rule out SSM.
quote:Because "fertility" is a subset of hetero sexual relations and not of same-sex relations. That's a fact. I don't quite know for sure what I think about its implications, but what I do perceive is that it's an unwelcome fact for many SSM proponents.
Then why does fertility make any difference at all in the question of SSM?
quote:An official circular on the oh-so-secular French Civil Code, post gay-marriage, doesn't think it's irrelevant, but I must plead lack of time and brain energy to produce the evidence for now.
But it only applies to, well, ability to reproduce, which you have conceded is not a necessary part of marriage. So on the question of SSM, it's irrelevant.
quote:I stand corrected.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:Once again, there is no mention of producing babies in Genesis 2. None whatsoever.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2,
in a way that incest emphatically isn't. I hope that's clearer.
quote:I am sympathetic towards all couples who would like to have biological children but cannot. This includes infertile straight couples, and includes those gay couples that would choose biological kids were it an option*. Child-bearing can be a very personal and meaningful issue for couples, and so I welcome any technology which allows otherwise infertile couples to get their wish of having biological children. It's a really important issue for those couples to whom it is really important, and it's not at all important to those couples that don't want kids or who are happy to adopt.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
it sounds to me as though Starlight would like to see (or at least envisages the possiblity of) gay couples using technology to replicate, as nearly as possible, heterosexual reproduction. That sounds like he is very keen to eliminate this "edge" as though the issue of procreating was an important one.
quote:Yeah it does. Which is sad. I would like to think that over the long term all couples should be able to learn what each other like. But unfortunately evidence suggests that over the short term at least, guys on average are terrible at knowing what women like and women are reluctant to tell their man that they're doing it wrong in the bedroom. And unfortunately a lot of women probably have good reason to not tell the guy he's doing it wrong because a lot of guys don't take criticism in that department very well. Also the women themselves may not realize that there is a better way to do things if they are as inexperienced as their partner is. Instead women often seem to just end up faking orgasms to make the men feel happy about their own performance. (Here (youtube) is a couple of people discussing this study's results and sharing their own opinions of why the think that women in straight relationships end up often having such unenjoyable sex)
Originally posted by mousethief:
This would seem to imply that heterosexual couples are incapable learning what each other like. They start off not intuitively knowing what the other likes, and stay there. Like they never talk about sex, not even to say "wait, less of that" or "yes, that's nice."
quote:The differences between the sexes probably is the chief consideration as to what the other person likes - in the sense that the particular good spots and good ways of touching them will feel largely the same to all guys and to all girls. Individual differences are likely to be minor compared to that, but I imagine same-sex couples are more likely to share their own thoughts on what feels good during sex due to them assuming that it will feel good for their partner also, and thus by offering such information they probably feel like they're doing their partner a favour rather than offering criticism.
It also strongly suggests that the difference in sexes of the partners is the only, or at least the chief, consideration in learning what the other person likes. Two guys automatically know everything there is to know about each other's sexual turn-ons. Downplaying or totally eliminating the fact that we are individuals and not just interchangeable representatives of our sexes.
quote:There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Also, tangentially, I think it's going to be much more difficult for most churches to be as "inclusive" of, say, promiscuous individuals who exercise what they see as their ability to choose, and change, their sexual orientation as they wish, as of, say, same-sex individuals committed to a monagmous relationship. Inclusiveness is going to run up against limits at some point).
quote:It isn't at all bizarre to acknowledge that it's difficult. Nor is it bizarre to suggest that marriage provides an opportunity to work on our relational skills to a degree that we couldn't elsewhere.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't see how that's implied. It takes for granted that it is difficult to lay down one's life for another. If that's never a problem for you, if you have reached spiritual perfection in this life, then you are a Boddhisattva, and thank you for gracing us with your presence. But I don't think that's what you're saying. Why is it so bizarre to acknowledge that this is difficult, and that marriage gives us a theatre in which to practice learning to overcome selfishness and learn to love others?
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
quote:Fairy nuff. Marriage in general is a podvig. So is monasticism. So is having a roommate. So is having a boss, or coworkers. (There are other podvigs; I am giving examples in the "getting along with other people" range. And of course one can have more than one podvig; it's not a single thing like having "a cross." Indeed perhaps mistaking it with "a cross" is why some people (present company accepted) think of it as a hardship that should be as rigorous as possible.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I wouldn't accept is any kind of reasoning that therefore, the more difficult the marriage is the better it suits God's purpose. That if we marry someone who is harder work for us, this is somehow better, spiritually, than marrying someone who we only argue with occasionally and who we understand better in the beginning.
quote:Mousethief can explain the theology of podvig better than I can. I was thinking it's closer to saying that it's more rewarding to overcome a challenge than to just be given things on a plate.
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
quote:We might well be.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still get the feeling we're talking past each other here.
quote:Or indeed for equate it with anything that implies any number of partners. Bisexual people can be celibate, chaste or faithfully monogamous just like anyone else. My wife is bi.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
quote:I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
Originally posted by Starlight:
Child-bearing (...) is also an issue that gets repeatedly brought up to argue against same sex relationships, so I am keen to "shoot it down" as you say because letting arguments against same sex relationships stand hurts a loooooot of people.
quote:I see what you mean, and I can see lots of advantages to the plan you outline, it could be a great idea - but by describing this in terms of "same-sex couples having biological children" you are making it sound identical, in terms of process, to something (natural reproduction) which is a physical impossibility. It could be described as a best approximation (would you be happy with that description, by the way?), but it is not the same, not least because you are involving another human being in the process.
The other option for same-sex couples to have biological children
quote:You are right and I apologise for this shortcut of my own.
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
quote:I'm sorry lilBuddha, but I'm still not sure what you think my interpretation is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So why is your interpretation, one that is harmful to many people, the right or moral one?
quote:I think I'd have a better idea of where you're coming from if you could answer that.
How, precisely, do you see me "limiting gender relations" here?
quote:Lots of other people have spotted that same difference. When I first started discussing same sex relationships in a Christian context online about ten years ago, a few people pointed out that difference. Some people thought it might be an important difference but they had trouble explaining why, similar to you. I could personally never understand why anyone thought it might be relevant, and they were never able to find a good way of explaining why they thought it might be important or expressing that difference into some sort of argument for any particular position.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
I keep insisting on this partly because I myself think that lurking in that fact somewhere there might be something important (which I can't articulate yet). In addition, this intuition is fuelled by my observation that this fact appears to be a singularly unwelcome one for SSM proponents, to the point of trying to bury it.
quote:I am happy with the description "best approximation" yes. I don't tend to be overly fussy about using the right words as long as general meaning is conveyed clearly.
It could be described as a best approximation (would you be happy with that description, by the way?)
quote:But ... but ... many heterosexual couples have sex in the dark and cannot see each other's eyes. Does that congresswoman think their marriages are invalid too? And what about blind people? The mind boggles.
Originally posted by Starlight:
My all time favourite most amusing 'difference' was a Mexican congresswomen who apparently expressed the view that "A marriage should only be considered amongst people that can look at each other in the eye while having sexual intercourse". I've never been able to decide what's more amusing, that she thinks that criteria's relevant to marriage, or her complete ignorance of how gay sex works...
quote:As far as I know my own mind, that's not what I'm trying to do. Let me try and put at least some of my cards on the table.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The only other way it seems to me that it's possible to legitimately challenge same-sex relationships is to find a way that men and women are inherently different so that only a relationship between the 2 different types of people is a proper relationship. Which is really what Eutychus is trying to do.
quote:I certainly wouldn't say I find every argument rolled out in favour of same-sex marriage compelling, any more than I find every argument I've seen to explain why the Bible isn't against homosexual relationships compelling.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To be frank, I think there is disingenuousness on both sides. When people use phrases like "biological parents" to try and subsume two processes which are, to my mind, vastly different, I honestly find it just as suspect as I now find anti-SSM proponents arguing (as I once tried to, more or less) that "gay couples can't have children and straight couples can".
quote:Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling. Some people are incapable of reproducing so any couple they belong to whether same sex or opposite sex is incapable of reproducing, should they be prohibited from marrying?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
quote:That's true too, but it is also true that the set "couples that can reproduce" is a subset of the set "heterosexual couples" and that the set "homosexual couples" does not intersect with either. That may seem like hair-splitting, but in my country at least, and at least for now, it is a distinction that is deemed important enough to be reflected in the law on SSM.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling.
quote:Not in my view, no.
Some people are incapable of reproducing so any couple they belong to whether same sex or opposite sex is incapable of reproducing, should they be prohibited from marrying?
quote:Sorry; crossed wires.
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, I thought that I was agreeing with you.
quote:I can't remember his name but one shipmate has said that I am not validly married because Figbash and I agreed that we did not want children.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling. Some people are incapable of reproducing so any couple they belong to whether same sex or opposite sex is incapable of reproducing, should they be prohibited from marrying?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
quote:which I have rendered in English as follows:
le mariage entre deux personnes de même sexe n’emporte aucun effet en matière de filiation non adoptive.
Ainsi la filiation d’un enfant à l’égard d’un couple de personnes de même sexe ne pourra que résulter d’un jugement d’adoption.
Aucune reconnaissance par la compagne de la mère qui accouche n’est possible et la présomption de paternité ne peut être étendue à l’épouse de la mère qui accouche.
quote:In other words, the de facto filiation that applies between spouses and children born in a hetero marriage does not (currently) apply for children of a same sex marriage. One could imagine the "presumption of paternity" being extended to the non-childbearing partner, but no: the child can only be considered to be the child of both same-sex partners following an adoption ruling.
marriage between two persons of the same sex shall have no effect as regards non-adoptive filiation.
Thus, the filiation of a child with respect to a couple in which both persons are of the same sex is possible only by means of an adoption ruling.
No acknowledgement of paternity of the child by the partner of the mother who gives birth is possible, and the presumption of paternity shall not apply to the wife of the mother who gives birth.
quote:Surprisingly (!) I see Genesis 1-3 as a guide to a great deal more - it's just that here, sex is the bit actually under discussion, not least because Jesus quoted the passage in a significant context.
(Am I the only one who doesn't see Genesis 1–2 as a guide of how we should do sex?)
quote:And the bit about the monogamous couple being 'male and female', both in the original quote and in Jesus' use of it, isn't relevant??
Steve Langton, I only see that as an argument for monogamy.
quote:Well, I'm an atheist so I'll gladly deride that. Not because it's a bunch of mystic mumbo jumbo but because it's a blatantly fallacious bit of reasoning.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Now I will understand if atheist shipmates want to deride that, but it seems to me that 'becoming one flesh' must be regarded by Christians as rather a big deal. And it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that by quoting this passage about male and female becoming one flesh in that way, Jesus is rather affirming that this is intended as a male/female only thing...?
quote:In a situation of remarriage, the non-biological parent can adopt the other parent's children. Even if the parents are of different sexes. Therefore, the difference you cite is NOT inextricably related to biological gender.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have quoted all this to highlight the fact that in law, as unimpeachably secular a source as the French State treats the children born in a hetero marriage (including presumption of paternity of the father) differently to those born, by whatever means, during the course of a same sex marriage. There is a difference, and it is a difference that is inextricably related to biological gender and the potential thereof.
quote:Not for all different-sex couples. Some are infertile. There is a difference, but not an absolute one. A subset of hetero couplings maps onto homosexual couplings with respect to ability to reproduce with one another.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
quote:Quite the opposite. In many churches, if you are in a SSM, you are perforce not welcome. If you are not, you may be welcomed, and then forgiven should you fall into sin the next time. Or the next. Or the next. In fact, these churches de facto prefer gays without (or who act as if they were without) an aspiration to lifelong commitment.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If someone of any orientation does not have this aspiration to a lifelong commitment, or indeed actively aspires to other choices, then I think full inclusion by a church (at least in terms of recognition of any marriage) is going to present greater challenges.
quote:No, nor do we see the principle being applied consistently. The aforementioned non-reproducing opposite-sex couples being one example. Another is married parents who have their children removed from their custody. If the state grants special treatment to married couples to encourage and support child raising, why doesn't being ruled an unfit parent come with a forcible divorce?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
quote:It applies to hetero couples (but not to all of them) and to no same-sex couples.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In a situation of remarriage, the non-biological parent can adopt the other parent's children. Even if the parents are of different sexes. Therefore, the difference you cite is NOT inextricably related to biological gender.
quote:That's why it's a subset.
quote:Not for all different-sex couples. Some are infertile.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
quote:I'm gonna need a Venn diagram to understand that.
A subset of hetero couplings maps onto homosexual couplings with respect to ability to reproduce with one another.
quote:Nope, but I haven't said it's important, either. For now, I've just said it's a difference. I plead the need for more time.
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
quote:I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
quote:Quite the opposite. In many churches, if you are in a SSM, you are perforce not welcome. If you are not, you may be welcomed, and then forgiven should you fall into sin the next time. Or the next. Or the next. In fact, these churches de facto prefer gays without (or who act as if they were without) an aspiration to lifelong commitment.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If someone of any orientation does not have this aspiration to a lifelong commitment, or indeed actively aspires to other choices, then I think full inclusion by a church (at least in terms of recognition of any marriage) is going to present greater challenges.
quote:As someone up thread has noted, the anti-SSM side has had several decades to come up with something and has failed. I don't know if you'll be any more successful.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Nope, but I haven't said it's important, either. For now, I've just said it's a difference. I plead the need for more time.
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
quote:You have moved the goalposts. Now you're talking about promoting promiscuity. As you can see, that was not in your original post. I'm not going to play the chasing-the-goalposts game. if you can't or won't answer what I actually said vis-a-vis what you actually said, then let's just let it drop.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If someone of any orientation does not have this aspiration to a lifelong commitment, or indeed actively aspires to other choices, then I think full inclusion by a church (at least in terms of recognition of any marriage) is going to present greater challenges.quote:I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
Quite the opposite. In many churches, if you are in a SSM, you are perforce not welcome. If you are not, you may be welcomed, and then forgiven should you fall into sin the next time. Or the next. Or the next. In fact, these churches de facto prefer gays without (or who act as if they were without) an aspiration to lifelong commitment.
quote:It's actually the law on marriage we're interested in. That's the point. And if the law on marriage doesn't forbid the marriage of couples that can't reproduce, then yes, there is a great deal of hair-splitting going on when some couples that can't reproduce can marry, but some other couples that can't reproduce are refused marriage.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That's true too, but it is also true that the set "couples that can reproduce" is a subset of the set "heterosexual couples" and that the set "homosexual couples" does not intersect with either. That may seem like hair-splitting, but in my country at least, and at least for now, it is a distinction that is deemed important enough to be reflected in the law on SSM.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling.
quote:Sorry, why on earth would you think that an act of homosexual sex doesn't produce "a physical, emotional, and mental bonding and almost certainly with a spiritual aspect"?
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
One idea that I feel hasn't been touched enough on this thread is the bit about 'becoming one flesh' which to me implies that the act of sex produces a physical, emotional, and mental bonding and almost certainly with a spiritual aspect. Paul at one point implies that this does sort-of-work – but questionably – when the sex is immoral, e.g., with a prostitute. Now I will understand if atheist shipmates want to deride that, but it seems to me that 'becoming one flesh' must be regarded by Christians as rather a big deal. And it is not easy to avoid the conclusion that by quoting this passage about male and female becoming one flesh in that way, Jesus is rather affirming that this is intended as a male/female only thing...?
quote:No, my argument doesn't go like that at all. Go back to the original texts and use your brain to understand their argument.
Your argument goes like this:
Jesus gave an example of a man and a woman becoming one flesh.
Therefore Jesus says there is no other possible combination of people that can "become one flesh".
quote:Actually I think the problem is that it does - but in a way not intended by God and therefore undesirable.
Sorry, why on earth would you think that an act of homosexual sex doesn't produce "a physical, emotional, and mental bonding and almost certainly with a spiritual aspect"?
quote:Oh well, if you think homosexual sex is inherently immoral, I'm just going to say that I don't agree with you and not bother to reopen the entire debate about Romans 1 or various other passages.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
quote:Actually I think the problem is that it does - but in a way not intended by God and therefore undesirable.
Sorry, why on earth would you think that an act of homosexual sex doesn't produce "a physical, emotional, and mental bonding and almost certainly with a spiritual aspect"?
quote:But it is in that, when a married woman gives birth, if she is married to a man, he is automatically the child's parent, but if she is married to a woman, her wife has to sign adoption papers to have any legal rights as a parent of the child.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:In a situation of remarriage, the non-biological parent can adopt the other parent's children. Even if the parents are of different sexes. Therefore, the difference you cite is NOT inextricably related to biological gender.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have quoted all this to highlight the fact that in law, as unimpeachably secular a source as the French State treats the children born in a hetero marriage (including presumption of paternity of the father) differently to those born, by whatever means, during the course of a same sex marriage. There is a difference, and it is a difference that is inextricably related to biological gender and the potential thereof.
quote:Isn't that the case in UK law as well?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
For children of a heterosexual marriage, from what you have quoted, the law negates the rights of any extra-marital partners by assuming any child born within the marriage is that of the married couple.
quote:Translation: If you don't agree with my interpretation, you are not using your brain.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Go back to the original texts and use your brain to understand their argument.
quote:But that's not an inextricable right. That's a legal situation that could be changed by a court ruling or by legislation.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:But it is in that, when a married woman gives birth, if she is married to a man, he is automatically the child's parent, but if she is married to a woman, her wife has to sign adoption papers to have any legal rights as a parent of the child.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In a situation of remarriage, the non-biological parent can adopt the other parent's children. Even if the parents are of different sexes. Therefore, the difference you cite is NOT inextricably related to biological gender.
quote:I still think your missing the point of my comment in its original context, and that this is a tangent. I think historically, as has been pointed out elsewhere, female couples ('Miss so and so and her companion') have had a much better ride in churches than male couples and perhaps even than sinngles.
Originally posted by mousethief:quote:You have moved the goalposts. Now you're talking about promoting promiscuity. As you can see, that was not in your original post. I'm not going to play the chasing-the-goalposts game. if you can't or won't answer what I actually said vis-a-vis what you actually said, then let's just let it drop.
quote:I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
Quite the opposite. In many churches, if you are in a SSM, you are perforce not welcome. If you are not, you may be welcomed, and then forgiven should you fall into sin the next time. Or the next. Or the next. In fact, these churches de facto prefer gays without (or who act as if they were without) an aspiration to lifelong commitment.
quote:Yes, and lest there be any doubt on that point, I support you in that right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's been said before on these boards by others, but now seems an appropriate time to say to you that I don't want the right to same-sex marry. I just want the right to marry.
quote:It doesn't so much negate them as require them to be asserted (and presumably justified). What I find interesting is the assumption.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
For children of a heterosexual marriage, from what you have quoted, the law negates the rights of any extra-marital partners by assuming any child born within the marriage is that of the married couple.
quote:That's my point. Married gay couples are not entirely equal under the law to married hetero couples in my instance, a) because the presumption of paternity does not apply b) they will have to go through - and win - some sort of adoption procedure before children in the household enjoy all the same rights as those in a hetero household.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:But that's not an inextricable right. That's a legal situation that could be changed by a court ruling or by legislation.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
when a married woman gives birth, if she is married to a man, he is automatically the child's parent, but if she is married to a woman, her wife has to sign adoption papers to have any legal rights as a parent of the child.
quote:Can we agree that non-procreative couples currently enjoy that right? As part of the law of marriage?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Yes, and lest there be any doubt on that point, I support you in that right.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's been said before on these boards by others, but now seems an appropriate time to say to you that I don't want the right to same-sex marry. I just want the right to marry.
I know I'm dealing with a drafter of laws here. Can we agree that "right to marry" means "right to enter a socially recognised monogamous relationship entailing notions of commitment and faithfulness and various rights regarding kinship, property, succession and parenthood"? Have I left anything out? Ought I to remove anything? Would you seek to alter any of my wording?
quote:Yes indeed.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we agree that non-procreative couples currently enjoy that right? As part of the law of marriage?
quote:Yes, but one that has its roots in the procreative potential of the couple. If there were no procreative potential, no distinction would need to be made.
And now that French law allows SSM, it is still not true that French law makes a distinction between the rights of procreative couples and non-procreative couples. It makes a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
quote:I think it is relevant when it comes to the archetype of marriage, but I haven't thought this aspect through yet to my own satisfaction.
You've observed the fact that some couples on one side of that divide are capable of straightforward biological reproduction, and that no couples on the other side of that divide are, but so what? That doesn't make reproduction the basis of the divide or relevant to the divide.
quote:There is a difference with children born to a mother in a heterosexual relationship. The child has filiation with the mother and her husband, who is presumed to be the father, with no legal procedure required apart from registration of the birth.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So it doesn't look any different to similar situations in heterosexual relationships to me.
quote:I had come to the opposite, speculative conclusion: that the requirement for adoption was to allow the judge to get a good look at the circumstances in which the sperm donor or surrogate motherhood was arranged.
So I would have thought that the adoption of children into a SSM was to do with protecting the child from being removed from that relationship without agreement.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Er... so you've found a bit of French law that may need fixing. So what?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have quoted all this to highlight the fact that in law, as unimpeachably secular a source as the French State treats the children born in a hetero marriage (including presumption of paternity of the father) differently to those born, by whatever means, during the course of a same sex marriage. There is a difference, and it is a difference that is inextricably related to biological gender and the potential thereof.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:What procreative potential? When my uncle married his wife, he knew it was medically impossible for him to have children. No-one asked him to verify his procreative potential. A good thing, too, as he had none.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Yes, but one that has its roots in the procreative potential of the couple. If there were no procreative potential, no distinction would need to be made.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And now that French law allows SSM, it is still not true that French law makes a distinction between the rights of procreative couples and non-procreative couples. It makes a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.
quote:This circular isn't an old law. It dates from immediately after SSM was introduced.
Originally posted by Starlight:
I have no idea whatsoever what NZ law is in relation to guardianship from birth, but I suspect if it's anything like our adoption laws then it's so archaic that it has spiderwebs covering it.
quote:Eutychus, your post sets out the law in France, but Starlight was referring to the law in NZ. That reference seems to me to mbe much closer to the law here than does the circular to which you refer, which is peculiarly the law in France. But even though the general system of law in NZ is very similar to the law o=in the various Oz states, it is not the same; nor is it the same in the sort of detail being discussed here.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:This circular isn't an old law. It dates from immediately after SSM was introduced.
Originally posted by Starlight:
I have no idea whatsoever what NZ law is in relation to guardianship from birth, but I suspect if it's anything like our adoption laws then it's so archaic that it has spiderwebs covering it.
It explicitly rules against the presumption of paternity for same-sex partners.
And it highlights that no matter how many situations there are in which various legal provisions are in order to cover adoption, and no matter how appropriate these may be, adoption or parental orders or anything of the sort won't be required in some circumstances.
quote:It hasn't been important for several centuries at least, I would think, if the law is any guide. Just because many heterosexual couples CAN have children, do you think they MUST for their marriage to be valid?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Orfeo, in haste:
I think that the archetype of marriage is a hetero couple procreating. Lots of couples don't conform to that archetype, but lots do, and I suspect lots more do.
Whether/how this is important or not is something I'm still processing.
quote:No. But I perceive that the majority of marriages to be heterosexual and include procreation, and I don't see that changing any time soon. That doesn't mean no other configurations are invalid, but I do think it tends to perpetuate the archetype.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just because many heterosexual couples CAN have children, do you think they MUST for their marriage to be valid?
quote:No indeed; but I think it might be important to consider both. Where I'm at in this whole debate is about accommodating real people (of any orientation or gender) with regard to an archetype. Maybe the answer is to throw out the archetype, but I'm not convinced.
Here's the thing about archetypes: they're not real people.
quote:Starlight was referring to the antiquated law in NZ and, as far as I can tell, implying that the law I quoted must be similarly outdated.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Eutychus, your post sets out the law in France, but Starlight was referring to the law in NZ.
quote:I find he's sound on most things, as long as you keep him off the subject of Judaism.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm happy to find out that St John Chrysostom agrees with me. I always did like John...
quote:I was more trying to question your apparent assumptions that if French law does something a certain way:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Starlight was referring to the antiquated law in NZ and, as far as I can tell, implying that the law I quoted must be similarly outdated.
quote:Perhaps you will see it changing quite soon, if the figures for Generation X in this article are accurate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:No. But I perceive that the majority of marriages to be heterosexual and include procreation, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just because many heterosexual couples CAN have children, do you think they MUST for their marriage to be valid?
quote:As Jade has noted, actually it isn't.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That's true too, but it is also true that the set "couples that can reproduce" is a subset of the set "heterosexual couples" and that the set "homosexual couples" does not intersect with either.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling.
quote:But again that's a legal situation, not a natural one. This doesn't prove any natural (i.e. not created by human society) "otherness" (or indeed even imply it) in any way shape or form.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:There is a difference with children born to a mother in a heterosexual relationship. The child has filiation with the mother and her husband, who is presumed to be the father, with no legal procedure required apart from registration of the birth.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So it doesn't look any different to similar situations in heterosexual relationships to me.
quote:The vast, vast, vast majority of marriages in this world are between people of the same nation; a similar percentage are between people of the same race; so too the same religion (or lack thereof). So what?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:No. But I perceive that the majority of marriages to be heterosexual and include procreation, and I don't see that changing any time soon. That doesn't mean no other configurations are invalid, but I do think it tends to perpetuate the archetype.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just because many heterosexual couples CAN have children, do you think they MUST for their marriage to be valid?
quote:Well of course, because you have just defined gender in such a way as for it not to relate to sex at all. Mail Online articles notwithsanding, I have to say that I can't manage that leap.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Biological gender' is not a thing! Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Also this difference means that actually fertility is not exclusive to different-gender couples, since a same-gender couple where one partner is transgender is potentially fertile.
quote:In order to support the argument that the law reflects a natural fact of life, you'd have to prove that it's a natural fact of life. Once you can do that, then why bring the law into it at all? If it's a natural fact of life then the law is irrelevant, and the argument should be supportable from the fact of life. Leave law out of it entirely.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
mousethief: are you really trying to argue that the legal situation doesn't reflect a natural fact of life?
quote:Well said. Judith Butler used to say that gender is a performance, well, a social performance.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Eutychus, just a small thing as I just got back from Greenbelt today - we really need to clarify the difference between sex and gender, and that they are different and not interchangeable terms. 'Biological gender' is not a thing! Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Also this difference means that actually fertility is not exclusive to different-gender couples, since a same-gender couple where one partner is transgender is potentially fertile.
quote:I don't quite know what to make of your repeated comments about us making a "persistent effort"... do you mean you would be more convinced if we said less? The fact that we express disagreement with ideas your expressing must mean there's something to them?? I can stop responding to you if you want...?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As an aside to this observation, I for my part perceive a persistent effort on the part of SSM proponents here to put all the emphasis on the marriage, and systematically minimise or discount the differences that arise when it comes to children and more particularly the issue of filiation.
quote:I just can't make natural heterosexual procreation the same as any alternatives.
Originally posted by Starlight:
I don't quite know what to make of your repeated comments about us making a "persistent effort"... do you mean you would be more convinced if we said less? The fact that we express disagreement with ideas your expressing must mean there's something to them?? I can stop responding to you if you want...?
quote:I think that is probably where Gagnon is coming from, yes.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Are some Christians still seeking some kind of essentialist description, that will distinguish straight and gay people?
quote:I said ages ago on this thread that I don't think otherness is confined to "biological gender" (or "sex" to use Jade Constable's terminology), but for now, I do think otherness is an important and divinely ordained part of what relationships are all about. Others have said something similar to that.
Therefore what? That otherness is a key divine gift, and lesbians and gays don't accept it?
quote:Yes, I just thinking about that last bit, since 'coverture' (the law which destroyed a married woman's legal autonomy), in a sense destroyed otherness. Marriage was one person - the man.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Note on marriage laws:
Marriage laws began as a way of controlling weath and property. This is why it did not become a thing for commoners for quite a bit after it was for wealthy. And why, as mentioned up thread, a woman's rights vanished upon marriage.
quote:But significant for what? For determining who can and cannot get married? Why? No such link has been argued for without special pleading, circularity, or dragging God into it, making it religiously sectarian and thus contrary to the first amendment protection clause.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I just can't make natural heterosexual procreation the same as any alternatives.
There is a fundamental difference in that it can occur naturally, without any medical intervention at all. It is in that respect unique, and has been a constant irrespective of social constructs of gender or advances in technology.
I cannot escape the sense that this uniqueness is significant.
quote:The question that's never answered by those positing this position is why children being raised by same-sex couples don't need/deserve similar provision? I've never seen this "marriage is important for kid, except for these kids, so let's have less of it" position explained in a coherent way.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*As a postscript to orfeo's last comment, I think marriage as a social and legal institution inevitably makes provision for children because a large component of marriage law is to do with filiation and inheritance.
quote:Jumping back in here just to say that I have not disputed the need or deserving of similar provision for children of same-sex couples. Unless you can show me where I am - the bit you've quoted certainly doesn't say that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The question that's never answered by those positing this position is why children being raised by same-sex couples don't need/deserve similar provision? I've never seen this "marriage is important for kid, except for these kids, so let's have less of it" position explained in a coherent way.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*As a postscript to orfeo's last comment, I think marriage as a social and legal institution inevitably makes provision for children because a large component of marriage law is to do with filiation and inheritance.
quote:Well, it's in there:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
LQ: I don't see anything in that article about natural childbirth.
quote:The implication is that he had to interrupt HRT in order to carry and deliver his and his husband's child.
MacDonald, who began transitioning from a woman to a man in 2008 but quit testosterone treatment when he became pregnant in July 2010 ...
quote:It's not my definition, actually, but well-established. Gender and sex are completely different - they intersect for probably most people, but not for a significant minority. Hence some same-gender couples being able to reproduce with no outside help.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Orfeo: a link to a DINKs site? The article does not specify marriage, and is country-specific.
LQ: I don't see anything in that article about natural childbirth.
quote:Well of course, because you have just defined gender in such a way as for it not to relate to sex at all. Mail Online articles notwithsanding, I have to say that I can't manage that leap.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'Biological gender' is not a thing! Sex is biological, gender is a social construct. Also this difference means that actually fertility is not exclusive to different-gender couples, since a same-gender couple where one partner is transgender is potentially fertile.
mousethief: are you really trying to argue that the legal situation doesn't reflect a natural fact of life?
Similarly, one difference with, say, inter-racial marriages (well, the fertile hetero ones) is that they have the potential to result in natural childbirth in a way SSM does not.
All this still looks to me like an attempt to brush over the obvious and inconvenient truth of natural childbirth.
Perhaps I am a natural law nut™ after all.
quote:Are you not confusing 'heterosexual' as applied to a relationship, i.e. a relationship within which the individuals are of different sexes, from 'heterosexual' as applied to an orientation, i.e. a preference for individuals of the other sex? There is surely a (fine) distinction between a 'heterosexual couple' and a 'couple of heterosexuals', with the former implying nothing about the preferences of the individuals making up the couple.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also relatedly - it would help if we used 'different-gender couple' rather than 'heterosexual couple'. Many bisexual people are married to someone of a different gender, it doesn't make them straight.
quote:Or if my (male) cousin and I are walking down the street, we form a couple of heterosexuals, although our only relationship is cousinhood. The distinction is not so fine after all. It shows the silliness of arguments which use labels rather than substance.
Originally posted by Figbash:
Are you not confusing 'heterosexual' as applied to a relationship, i.e. a relationship within which the individuals are of different sexes, from 'heterosexual' as applied to an orientation, i.e. a preference for individuals of the other sex? There is surely a (fine) distinction between a 'heterosexual couple' and a 'couple of heterosexuals', with the former implying nothing about the preferences of the individuals making up the couple.
quote:Actually as an LGBT person myself and from speaking to others, it's generally preferred that terms like heterosexual aren't applied to couples but only individuals. I'm not confusing anything.
Originally posted by Figbash:
quote:Are you not confusing 'heterosexual' as applied to a relationship, i.e. a relationship within which the individuals are of different sexes, from 'heterosexual' as applied to an orientation, i.e. a preference for individuals of the other sex? There is surely a (fine) distinction between a 'heterosexual couple' and a 'couple of heterosexuals', with the former implying nothing about the preferences of the individuals making up the couple.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also relatedly - it would help if we used 'different-gender couple' rather than 'heterosexual couple'. Many bisexual people are married to someone of a different gender, it doesn't make them straight.
'Heterosexual' (literal meaning: other sex) is, after all, an adjective, and so its impact on the meaning of a noun is a result of the combination of it, and of the noun. It does not have a single fixed meaning that it applies to everything, regardless of what that thing is, which is, I think, what you are saying. Like most words, it has little, if any, meaning in isolation.
quote:Indeed, and judges have not been shy about pointing this out in court:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question that's never answered by those positing this position is why children being raised by same-sex couples don't need/deserve similar provision? I've never seen this "marriage is important for kids, except for these kids, so let's have less of it" position explained in a coherent way.
quote:
US Supreme Court Chief justice Roberts, during oral arguments March 2013:
"there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"
[Defence lawyer reply:] "Your Honor, I certainly would not dispute the importance of that consideration."
quote:Or consider this summary of a appeals court trial from this week:
The eventual majority decision of the US Supreme Court in the DOMA case, 2014, said that:
[Denying marriage to gay couples] "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples" and "also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples."
quote:
US Federal Appeals court judge, Richard Posner, Aug 2014, from summary of oral arguments here:
At one point, Posner ran through a list of psychological strains the children of unmarried same-sex couples suffered, including having to struggle to grasp why their schoolmates' parents were married and theirs weren't.
"What horrible stuff," Posner said. What benefit to society in barring gay marriage, he asked, outweighs that kind of harm to children?
quote:I question the need to re-invent the wheel. If marriage is about making sure children are provided for and same-sex couples are raising children, why not give them the "same provision" rather than a "similar provision"?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I would like to say, again, that I personally have not disputed the need or deserving of similar provision for children of same-sex couples. Unless you can show me where I am - the post Croesos quoted certainly doesn't say that.
quote:In case you haven't noticed, some of my views have changed since I last discussed this here a couple of years ago.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I question the need to re-invent the wheel. If marriage is about making sure children are provided for and same-sex couples are raising children, why not give them the "same provision" rather than a "similar provision"?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I would like to say, again, that I personally have not disputed the need or deserving of similar provision for children of same-sex couples. Unless you can show me where I am - the post Croesos quoted certainly doesn't say that.
quote:Sorry, but you seem to be "danc[ing] around that issue". In most of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the law doesn't make a distinction between children that are adopted or conceived in vitro and children being raised by their non-medically-assisted biological parent. Nor does the law distinguish between couples raising their own biological offspring, offspring conceived with the aid of medical technology, or adopted children. Given that some families contain children belonging to different categories that could get quite sticky.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In those terms, one "same provision" that I cannot see happening for the forseeable future is that of a same-sex couple having a child in the same way as a different-sex couple may, without medical intervention of some kind.
To be absolutely clear, by that I mean that at least some opposite-sex couples can produce children naturally in a way that same-sex couples that have retained their original sex cannot*, and that this has practical and legal implications even if it does not have ethical or moral ones (NB I'm not committing myself either way on the latter at this point).
Others may dance around that issue all they like, or argue that it's irrelevant, but I am doggedly inisting that it is a fact to be acknowledged (and wondering off and on why there is so much reluctance to acknowledge it).
==
*Memorably defined by orfeo here on my previous thread as "a quick bit of heavy breathing round the back of the village"
quote:What exactly do you consider to be the "legal implications" of parenting a child conceived in vitro (for example), and why should these implications be different for opposite-sex couples than for same-sex ones?
Well, your oldest was conceived an gestated 'naturally', so you've got a Class I marriage regarding her. Your next oldest was conceived in vitro, though, so we'll need the additional documentation for your Class II parenthood. And I see your youngest was adopted, so that falls into Class III. Let's see, I'm pretty sure I've got the right forms for that somewhere . . .
quote:It doesn't distinguish between them once they are recognised as the children of the couple. Where it does distinguish is in the available routes to becoming recognised as the children of the couple: see here.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In most of the jurisdictions I'm familiar with, the law doesn't make a distinction between children that are adopted or conceived in vitro and children being raised by their non-medically-assisted biological parent. Nor does the law distinguish between couples raising their own biological offspring, offspring conceived with the aid of medical technology, or adopted children.
quote:See above. The legal difference is that as things stand, there is one circumstance for filiation, presumption of paternity, which will never apply to a same-sex marriage, for reasons of biology (re-reading LQ's link again carefully, I don't think it contradicts this).
What exactly do you consider to be the "legal implications" of parenting a child conceived in vitro (for example), and why should these implications be different for opposite-sex couples than for same-sex ones?
quote:I'm not sure that there is. Paternity may be a biological standard, but presumption of paternity is a legal one and can be defined however. It's been noted by some previous posters that many jurisdictions assume the paternity for married couples as a matter of law, even in cases where this is known not to be so biologically (e.g. a married couple has a child using anonymous donor sperm). Why would this be notably more problematic for a same-sex couple than an opposite-sex one?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
See above. The legal difference is that as things stand, there is one circumstance for filiation, presumption of paternity, which will never apply to a same-sex marriage, for reasons of biology (re-reading LQ's link again carefully, I don't think it contradicts this).
Looked at another way, filiation is more complicated, legally, to varying degrees, in any scenario not involving presumption of paternity (I recognise this includes some circumstances invovling different-sex couples).
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this is significant or not, am I not right that there is a difference?
quote:This is not the case for different-sex couples: the relevant provisions have been introduced solely as a result of the legalisation of SSM.
Thus, the filiation of a child with respect to a couple in which both persons are of the same sex is possible only by means of an adoption ruling.
quote:So in your conception this difference is purely temporary and transient? You say that it "doesn't distinguish between them once they are recognised as the children of the couple" so has the difference stopped existing by that point in time? So this is a difference that lasts for say a month, or however long it takes to fill in the relevant paperwork and go through the legal adoption process, and then the difference stops existing?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It doesn't distinguish between them once they are recognised as the children of the couple. Where it does distinguish is in the available routes to becoming recognised as the children of the couple
...
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this is significant or not, am I not right that there is a difference?
quote:So a Matrix style scenario in which babies were grown in vitro to birth in a farm somewhere (before, presumably, being delivered by stork to their parents) would be just as acceptable?
Originally posted by Starlight:
For all practical intents and purposes in day to day life what matters is who is raising a child. Where that child originally came from is completely irrelevant to anything much - some children are adopted, some are raised by step-parents, some were born by mistake, others were the result of infidelity, others were born out of wedlock, others were conceived in the 'natural' way by married opposite sex parents - and none of that makes one iota of difference in our societies
quote:Do you see me saying that anywhere?
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't really see why we should insist that the only possible combination of people that can take legal care of a child when it's born is a man and a woman.
quote:I see you pointing to French laws that tend to suggest that this has to be the situation when a child is born. I don't know why you're pointing to them if you don't see something significant in the assumption that French law makes.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Do you see me saying that anywhere?
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't really see why we should insist that the only possible combination of people that can take legal care of a child when it's born is a man and a woman.
quote:More clarification. These French laws are not talking about "the situation when a child is born" but the routes open to a married couple for recognition of a given child. Presumption of paternity for the husband of a father, or filiation by virtue of being the wife of the mother, is not an option.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I see you pointing to French laws that tend to suggest that this has to be the situation when a child is born.
quote:I don't see that as being significantly different to current reproductive assistence where the doctors fertilize an egg in a test tube before implanting it in a womb, or where the prematurely born baby is put in an incubator that keeps it alive. We currently use technologies to assist in the conception and development of fetuses/babies, and it seems certain that in future as we develop better and more helpful medical technologies that we will use them even more. I imagine the successful development of an artificial womb would be greeted with happiness by many women whose own wombs are damaged or incapable of bringing a child to term.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So a Matrix style scenario in which babies were grown in vitro to birth in a farm somewhere (before, presumably, being delivered by stork to their parents) would be just as acceptable?
quote:But this is because you are trying to make arguments based on something a lot more significant than the current legal situation in a particular country.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(I note that instead of admitting that the provisions in France do show a difference, I am confronted with other jurisdictions where they don't. Again, there seems to be a great reluctance to say even "ok, it's different where you are (but not in this jurisdiction, look)". If it's as trivial as everyone seems to be arguing, I find this odd).
quote:If Natural Law is true, then if any position is correct in France, then this position turned upside-down is correct in New Zealand.
orfeo: If there's such a thing as a position that's 'correct' on these questions, then it's 'correct' in both France and New Zealand.
quote:But what if the mother died in that month or however long it takes to fill in the paperwork? Would her wife have any right to bring up the child or would it be taken into care?
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:So in your conception this difference is purely temporary and transient? You say that it "doesn't distinguish between them once they are recognised as the children of the couple" so has the difference stopped existing by that point in time? So this is a difference that lasts for say a month, or however long it takes to fill in the relevant paperwork and go through the legal adoption process, and then the difference stops existing?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It doesn't distinguish between them once they are recognised as the children of the couple. Where it does distinguish is in the available routes to becoming recognised as the children of the couple
...
Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether this is significant or not, am I not right that there is a difference?
quote:You also say that the fertile heterosexual couples who only needs minimal medical assistance to have a biological child need to have their relationship recognized in some special way that doesn't apply to same sex marriage but does apply to step parents, adoptive parents, and couples with no children.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Jumping back in here just to say that I have not disputed the need or deserving of similar provision for children of same-sex couples. Unless you can show me where I am - the bit you've quoted certainly doesn't say that.
quote:There is no such thing here.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you want eliminate the legal status of weddings officiated by clergy?
quote:Eutychus' explanation of French law suggested that even were the birth mother still alive there would still need to be a legal application made through appropriate channels for the wife to gain parental guardianship of the child. It would depend on the details of French law in the instances where the birth mother dies, but I suspect it would be unlikely that the mother's death would affect that process as the wife would still be able to demonstrate that she was legally married to the birth mother at the time of birth. But it is possible a different part of the legal system would handle the situation, as you are then dealing with a will (if one exists) and the division of the dead mother's property and responsibilities (including her new child). It is conceivable that the wishes of the child's biological father (if known) or the parents of the dead mother (if alive) might be taken into consideration at that time also.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
But what if the mother died in that month or however long it takes to fill in the paperwork? Would her wife have any right to bring up the child or would it be taken into care?
quote:Proving what? Hint: nothing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My main takeaway from looking at that piece of legislation was as follows:
a) once you get into the niceties of all the scenarios, the various configurations for same-sex parenthood are a veritable thicket
b) by contrast, the procedures for acknowledgement of paternity for a child born to a hetero married couple are a simple administrative formality; they require no legal procedure of any sort whatsoever.
quote:I have also read "feminists" who say that PIV-sex is wholly artificial and a completely invented and unintuitive use of human sexuality. In other words, idiots are everywhere.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I forgot to say that the most radical gender theorists, whose names escape me, began to argue that sex identity itself was partly a social construction. Thus the category of 'woman' was 'deconstructed', and said to be artificial, a performance, and so on. Maybe some other posters know more about this, as I az forgit it. Obviously, this had purchase for some feminists, but not for others, who wanted to celebrate 'womanhood'.
quote:To what end? What comes of this? What would or should change if this were widely known and accepted? Is this mere mental masturbation, or is there some practical point here?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have nevertheless made a distinction here - in terms of practicalities and not importance or superiority - which appears to be tangential to many but which seems important to me, in how filiation may come about.
quote:I've said all I feel the need to say for now about that here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this mere mental masturbation, or is there some practical point here?
quote:I agree that this is all really important stuff. However it seems that we can't quite completely forget about the biological parentage of a child. As they grow up it seems that people who come from happy, loving adoptive families often still want to know something about their biological roots. Also in the UK those born from sperm or egg donation are recognised as having a right to know something of their biological heritage, hence the removal of anonymity for sperm and egg donors allowing the child of such a donation to access certain information in the future if they wish. I don't know what the situation is in other countries. But who we are is a mixture of both genetics and nurturing, we can't pretend that the genetics of a person are totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by Starlight:
IMO, all that matters is that the parents raise their children with love and care, and that the child grows up to be a good person. Whether the child is adopted or a product of artificial reproductive techniques doesn't matter one iota compared to the character of the person it becomes, the love it receives from its parents, and the quality of the life that it leads. [/QB]
quote:On page 2? And here you are still beating it on page 4?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I've said all I feel the need to say for now about that here.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this mere mental masturbation, or is there some practical point here?
quote:As far as I'm concerned, I've gone over that ground already. I'm not going to get drawn back in to even restating my position right now. I think I've articulated my thinking - and its pastoral context - as well as I can above, and I'm leaving my thoughts to develop a bit.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Can you explain what the issue is about filiation in Lesbian marriages that you need more time to think about?