|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexual relations and "otherness"
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Over the years that I've been following arguments around the world about gay marriage closely (as I enjoy philosophy, politics and theology) and the fact that gay people can't procreate together in the usual way has been repeatedly mentioned and asserted as a reason that gay people should not be able to marry, because it's an obvious difference between gay and (some) straight marriages. As I've followed closely gay marriage getting legalized around the world, I've seen in country after country people say "but gay people can't have children!". This observation has been made by opponents of same-sex marriage two dozen times in US courts in the last year alone, and the judges' response has always ultimately been "so what?" A popular response recently has been to then argue that the State is in the business of regulating marriage solely because it is interested in seeing children raised well, and that therefore the State only has interest in the marriages of opposite sex couples (since they're able to procreate). Judges have tended to roll their eyes at that and point out that the State's interests in marriage are for many and varied legal reasons not solely children, that same-sex couples regularly raise children, and that many opposite sex couples are infertile and nobody supports the idea of making fertility tests a government prerequisite for marriage. And what we have seen time after time is there is no real reason why the procreative difference is relevant - no one in the world has been able to explain why it is relevant.
My personal observation of seeing that statement made again and again and again over the course of ten years is this: There is no follow up - there is nothing lurking in that premise that can be teased out - there is no further logical follow-on that expresses why that difference is important - for all intents and purposes that difference turns out to be unimportant. Nobody in 10 years in half a dozen western countries has managed to find any reasons why that observation should matter.
And if I, being relatively young (31), am getting bored of seeing it pointlessly repeated for a decade now, I imagine quite a lot of older gay people have been seeing that same observation being repeated for multiple decades, and it's still just as irrelevant now as it was then. My view is that you're more than welcome to ponder the implications of this difference! I'm just trying to be helpful and noting that from my own experience I can tell you now that no matter how hard you ponder and no matter how long for you'll never find any reason why that difference is relevant because if such a reason existed then somebody else would have thought of it decades ago.
A lot of conservatives around the world have been searching for "differences" over the last few decades in order to find reasons to disallow gay marriages. 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:
It could be described as a best approximation (would you be happy with that description, by the way?)
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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good post, Starlight. The meaning of marriage has changed, as society has. I suppose some conservatives decry that, and argue that God has decreed X, Y and Z, and you can't change that, and secular society is rushing down the hill to ruination.
That seems absurd to many people.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
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...
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.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
That's usually the amusing thing about these claims about gay folk - that it actually takes very little effort to apply the same claims to straight folk as well.
I think Starlight's right: I think if those people firmly opposed to same-sex marriage had something more solid to go on than 'but they can't procreate', then they'd use it. That they continue to roll out the same obviously fallacious ground (obviously fallacious because of the ease with which non-procreating heterosexual couples can be married) shows that they don't have anything better.
It is theoretically possible to construct an argument that morally, the only kind of acceptable marriage is a procreative one, but in most of the Western world people seem terribly reluctant to follow through on the logic of that view and condemn non-procreative heterosexual couples in the same that they condemn homosexual couples.
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. The problem that he's up against, though, is in identifying a meaningful 'otherness' beyond the obvious physical capacities for sexual reproduction.
This is because we live in a world that no longer accepts much in the way of roles that are inherently male or inherently female. We've had decades and decades, now, of women demonstrating that actually it's the characteristics and abilities of the individual that matter. To try and articulate specific qualities of men or of women, one has to go back to pigeonholing people together based purely on their gender.
Which is why I mentioned feminism and sex discrimination law. If he's going to come with a reason why same-sex relationships aren't equally viable, Eutychus is ultimately going to have to come up with a statement of "otherness" that says, in some respect or other "women are like this and men are not", or "men are like this and women are not". In short, he's going to have to engage in stereotyping of straight men and women.
He'll be a braver man than I...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
As I said, I feel I cannot afford to be agnostic on this matter because I am in a leadership position, as palimpsest argued on the relevant thread.
As I hinted at the end of my last thread here, my views on SSM have changed, and they have changed largely (although not exclusively) as a result of that last thread.
In caricatural terms, I have gone from protesting on orfeo's putative lawn to trying to wangle an invitation to his putative (same-sex) wedding.
In more serious terms, I now think the social argument for SSM is compelling, and while I didn't enjoy the tone of the debate at all, I largely have justinian to thank for that, again on the other thread.
I also think there is a "christian" argument to be made in favour of SSM. However, I personally am not happy with every aspect of how I have seen "christian" arguments presented. 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".
These issues reach too far down within our own psyches to be glossed over, especially when one has pastoral responsibilities. I can't fudge the issues and hope nobody notices - or at least I can't live with myself doing so.
In addition, the issue meshes with that of how one reads the Bible. I'm no literalist, but struggling to understand what Genesis 1-3 ought to mean today, by my own lights, in terms of marriage, is also challenging how I view Scripture and how I think it can legitimately be interpreted today.
If I am to find my own way through on this, and act accordingly, I have to be able to do so in all good conscience.
I suspect there is a good chance that of all the churches I am regularly in fellowship with where I am (which is quite a few across a fair spectrum), there is a good chance ours will be the first to be asked to bless a same-sex marriage. I would like to be able to say yes - but I would also like to do so on terms that are right for the couple in question, right for whoever officiates and right for our church.
For those willing to indulge me while I work this through, amid various other responsiblities and challenges, my thanks.
[ 24. August 2014, 12:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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".
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.
I just find some of them compelling and none compelling in the other direction.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I haven't said anything about "compelling" in the part you've quoted. I said there was evidence of disingenuousness on both sides, and gave an example. Do you dispute that?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, I thought that I was agreeing with you.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling.
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. quote:
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?
Not in my view, no.
[ 24. August 2014, 14:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, I thought that I was agreeing with you.
Sorry; crossed wires.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:
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.
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?
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.
Personally, I find the fact that post-menopausal women can be married by the RCC, but paraplegics cannot, utterly incomprehensible.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
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...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(Am I the only one who doesn't see Genesis 1–2 as a guide of how we should do sex?)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'll leave somebody else to interact with Steve Langton and instead, offer you a piece of French legislation (bear with me!).
What follows is from an official circular setting out how various provisions of the French Civil Code are to be applied to same sex marriage. The particular piece I want to quote relates to children, and more specifically the issue of filiation.
In brief, for natural births by women in a hetero married couple, filiation ("the legal relationship between parent and child") is de facto that a child's filiation is to the mother who bore it and, by presumption, to the mother's husband (unmarried fathers may acknowledge paternity of a child in certain circumstances).
The text reads as follows (section 1): quote:
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.
which I have rendered in English as follows: quote:
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.
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.
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.
This also highlights that fact that even if the arrangements for filiation end up having the same legal value, it is misleading to lump them all together, for instance with shorthand like "biological parents". For hetero marriages, childbirth has an automatic effect, notably presumption of paternity*; within a same-sex marriage, it has no automatic effect for the non-childbearing partner; the simple formality of acknowledgement of paternity is not possible either. The only route is adoption.
Working through the implications of all this law in real-life circumstances could be cumbersome at best and distressing at worse (the range of options and scenarios for adoption in that one document alone is labyrinthine).
This sort of thing is, by the way, one of the reasons that, even though I'm now in favour of SSM (misleadingly branded here as "marriage for all"), I think the bright promise it holds out for same-sex couples at first sight is not quite all it is trumpeted as being. It does not give full equality before the law, because of biological gender.
==
*This being a subject I might return to subsequently.
[ 24. August 2014, 20:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Le Roc;
quote:
(Am I the only one who doesn't see Genesis 1–2 as a guide of how we should do sex?)
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.
by Curiosity Killed;
quote:
Steve Langton, I only see that as an argument for monogamy.
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??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
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...?
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.
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".
The second is a massive non-sequitur, jumping from A permits B to not!A means B is impossible.
Of course we return to the question of whether the same standard would be applied to straight couples. For example, could a straight couple get an annulment if on of the parties maintained there was no "spiritual aspect" to the union? How would anyone else tell?
[ 24. August 2014, 21:54: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
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?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
It applies to hetero couples (but not to all of them) and to no same-sex couples.
quote:
quote:
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.
Not for all different-sex couples. Some are infertile.
That's why it's a subset. quote:
A subset of hetero couplings maps onto homosexual couplings with respect to ability to reproduce with one another.
I'm gonna need a Venn diagram to understand that. quote:
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
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.
quote:
quote:
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.
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.
I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Has anybody, by the way, said why ability to reproduce with one another is so all-falutin' important?
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.
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.
quote:
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:
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.
I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Actually it will forever be a subset of coupling.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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...?
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"?
You can't have it both ways. You clearly don't think that heterosexual sex produces 'one flesh' in the sense that a couple are physically locked together and unable to separate again. Yet you think that one physical position involving penis-in-vagina produces 'bonding' but other physical positions don't? Is that what you think? Can you not see how fundamentally illogical that is?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
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".
No, my argument doesn't go like that at all. Go back to the original texts and use your brain to understand their argument.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by orfeo;
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"?
Actually I think the problem is that it does - but in a way not intended by God and therefore undesirable.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Eutychus - I can see a reasonable secular reason for adoption of children of SSM, and that's to do with ensuring that any rights of anyone involved in providing biological material for child are negated. I am not sure how far it has gone, but there was a lot of discussion about the rights of children to know who had donated the sperm for artificial insemination - so they could check for genetic markers or issues. 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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by orfeo;
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"?
Actually I think the problem is that it does - but in a way not intended by God and therefore undesirable.
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.
The reason this thread is not traversing such territory is that it's focused on 'otherness', not 'wrongness'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
quote:
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.
Isn't that the case in UK law as well?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Go back to the original texts and use your brain to understand their argument.
Translation: If you don't agree with my interpretation, you are not using your brain.
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
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.
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.
But that's not an inextricable right. That's a legal situation that could be changed by a court ruling or by legislation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief: quote:
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.
I don't think they'd like people actively promoting promiscuous lifestyles of any kind. My point stands: there are limits to inclusiveness.
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.
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.
[ 25. August 2014, 05:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Yes, and lest there be any doubt on that point, I support you in that right.
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?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
It doesn't so much negate them as require them to be asserted (and presumably justified). What I find interesting is the assumption.
I might be missing some other reasons, but what it tells me is that regardless of the hetero couple's ability to procreate and their sexual habits, the default position of the law is to assume they are both fertile and that the mother at least is faithful.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
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.
But that's not an inextricable right. That's a legal situation that could be changed by a court ruling or by legislation.
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
Yes, and lest there be any doubt on that point, I support you in that right.
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?
Can we agree that non-procreative couples currently enjoy that right? As part of the law of marriage?
That was rather more the point. It's simply not true that marriage law makes a distinction between couples with reproductive abilities and couples without them. 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.
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.
It makes about as much sense as thinking that because a law divides fruit into citrus and non-citrus, it's actually all about oranges and that being an orange is somehow significant. It's not, beyond the fact that being an orange brings a piece of fruit into the classification that's actually cared about, which is citrus.
Meanwhile, a variety of other non-orange fruit also falls within that same category. It's simply not accurate to say that the law distinguishes between oranges and non-oranges, or that the fact that oranges are citrus is somehow terribly significant. If the law had wanted to make being an orange significant, it could have talked about oranges.
[ 25. August 2014, 06:57: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can we agree that non-procreative couples currently enjoy that right? As part of the law of marriage?
Yes indeed. quote:
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.
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. quote:
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.
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.
[ 25. August 2014, 07:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Usually there's a certain slant in family law to protect children. 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. And that's why the surrogate mother or sperm donor has to lose any parental rights through adoption or parental orders.
I can think of situations for heterosexual relationships where this happens:
In the UK there is exact parity with parental orders for all relationships if there is some genetic relationship. Adoption only happens if the child has not a genetic relationship with either parent.
So it doesn't look any different to similar situations in heterosexual relationships to me.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
So it doesn't look any different to similar situations in heterosexual relationships to me.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
As things stand, as I understand French law, a sterile husband in a hetero marriage is de facto assigned presumption of paternity, no adoption necessary. Why do you think a same-sex partner is not (genuine open question)?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
In the UK, the same parental order applies for sperm donation or egg donation - it's on the link. Maybe the French are not happy thinking through the ways marriages can be fruitful and multiply when the man is infertile? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
And yes, the parental orders and adoption orders have requirements for checking the situation.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure (and have not had time to investigate) what a "parental order" is exactly, but it still sounds to me like something rather more than de facto presumption of paternity.
I think the reason is to do with archetypes.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Er... so you've found a bit of French law that may need fixing. So what?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Here in NZ our adoption laws still need to be updated to deal with civil unions properly: Married same-sex couples can adopt jointly, but gay or straight couples who have opted for a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" can't adopt jointly and one spouse has to adopt the child then have the other apply for guardianship... it's bonkers, and a historical result of the adoption law being written before civil unions existed, and because Christians at the time civil unions were passed were against allowing same sex couples to adopt. (The fact that gay people as individuals have always been able to adopt children, and that they now can adopt jointly as married couples due to the recognition of gay marriage, seems to have slipped under the radar of a lot of Christians here.)
Laws often end up having such silly inconsistencies that are there for convoluted historical reasons. (Another thing the conservative Christians here were panicking about was a historical piece in the existing marriage legislation that said questioning a legally valid marriage was an offence... they were worried they'd be fined under that section if they questioned the validity of same sex marriages once same-sex marriages were legalized. Unfortunately that paragraph got removed when gay marriage was allowed... ~sigh~ I would have been amused to seeing conservatives fined "an amount not exceeding $200" for denying the validity of same sex marriages, which was probably a truly massive amount of money in the 1950s when that law was passed...)
I can see though a possible reason for (something similar to) the French rule in the sense of keeping things simple: The doctor writes the (presumed) biological parents of the child on the birth certificate. And if someone wants to change or challenge that - eg the husband asserts that his wife has cheated on him and he's not the real father; or if there's a previous agreement that the women is having the child as a surrogate for a male same-sex couple - they can then apply to do so. 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.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Are you seriously saying that you just look at a man and a woman together and think 'they can have babies'? Regardless of medical condition or age? Is your grasp of the practical realities of procreation that limited? Do you think the law's grasp of the practical realities of proceation is that limited?
You're assuming that it 'has its roots' in the procreative potential of the couple because you've noticed that procreative couples are AMONG those allowed to get married. I've already pointed out to you with a citrus-laden analogy how fundamentally problematic this is.
If the law actually wanted to link marriage capacity with procreation capacity, it would be remarkably easy to do so. It's not as if it relies on some new-fangled modern medical science either. People have understood what menopause means for a very, very long time.
[ 25. August 2014, 08:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
This circular isn't an old law. It dates from immediately after SSM was introduced.
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
This circular isn't an old law. It dates from immediately after SSM was introduced.
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.
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
Here's the thing about archetypes: they're not real people.
[ 25. August 2014, 12:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm happy to find out that St John Chrysostom agrees with me. I always did like John...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There's also the point that in England at any rate, the married woman was a non-person, or in legal language, feme covert, whereas a single woman (feme sole), had certain legal rights, e.g. to own property.
The married woman was in effect subsumed into her husband, legally at any rate.
I don't know how much this was seen as biblical or not, but I suppose it is intensely patriarchal.
Times change!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Incidentally, I was pondering the OP again, and particularly the quote from Gagnon, that Vicky Beeching might be making up a 'deficit in her feminine self', via another woman.
It's pretty amazing that someone should parrot such sub-psychoanalytic stuff, but it does reflect (rather poorly) the old idea that gays and lesbians lacked something. For example, with male gays, they lack the penis belonging to their father, (who was absent), therefore seek it out in other men.
This theory of homosexuality is so creaky now it has cobwebs on it, but it was never empirically based. It became a sort of joke that many men you met in therapy had absent fathers, and dominant mothers, and they were all resolutely straight.
It also seems to subsume otherness into biology, but anyway Starlight has discussed that in some fine posts.
I suppose there is some kind of problem for some Christians here, especially if they compute gay as 'non-other', and if God intended marriage as a celebration of otherness. That's all baffling to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Just because many heterosexual couples CAN have children, do you think they MUST for their marriage to be valid?
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. quote:
Here's the thing about archetypes: they're not real people.
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Eutychus, your post sets out the law in France, but Starlight was referring to the law in NZ.
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.
I responded that the law I quoted was brand new (2013), i.e. formulated to deal with the new SSM law. It is therefore not antiquated. On the contrary, it would have been an opportunity to change things, specifically with regard to presumption of paternity. It didn't. I wonder (non-rhetorically) why, but note that the current law reflects a biological reality when it comes to filiation.
[ 25. August 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
