|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexual relations and "otherness"
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
Do you see me saying that anywhere?
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.
--------------------
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
Well, actually, I was just asking myself the same question, and I think it's because in the most recent exchange, Croesos steered me in that direction by asking for the legal difference*.
(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).
I've also just got back off reading through the original thread, and it seems to me that we are starting to cover similar ground.
At this point I'm not keen to move the conversation further. I've been back on this thread to counter what I see as misrepresentations of what I've said, in particular the charge that I am currently opposed to SSM.
When I read the thread from two years ago, I at least can identify the aspects of the debate on which I have changed my mind, and others where I am expressing similar things now as I did then. I'm not ready to articulate that any more for now.
[*ETA sorry, I may have misunderstood this. I meant I went back down the "legal" road because of Croesos' question. I don't see French law saying what you're saying I say it says. Or something]
[ 30. August 2014, 07:09: 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:
I see you pointing to French laws that tend to suggest that this has to be the situation when a child is born.
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.
--------------------
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:
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?
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.
Back before medicine, a massive amount of women and babies died in childbirth. We've come a long way thanks to technology assisting in the reproductive process.
What does it matter where the baby comes or what exact amount of time it spends in its mother's womb? 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.
[ 30. August 2014, 07:34: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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).
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.
If we're talking any kind of moral or natural law argument, then it's an argument that applies globally. 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. The content of natural law can't be different in those 2 places. The creation did not occur differently in different locations.
So that's why you don't get a shrug of the shoulders and "oh well, the law's different in France". When you point to the laws in France, people conclude that you think the laws in France are not just different, but right. And if they're right, then it's an argument that that is what the law should be everywhere.
Arguing from Genesis makes the difference non-trivial.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
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.
If Natural Law is true, then if any position is correct in France, then this position turned upside-down is correct in New Zealand.
--------------------
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
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
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?
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?
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?
The difference may not matter in the vast majority of cases but does have the potential to be devastating in a very small number.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
The latter seems to contradict the former.
How are you going to make an equal provision for the children of a same sex marriage while also having a special provision for non same sex marriage?
This all seems desperate floundering looking for plausible justifications for a pre-determined conclusion. Are you seriously proposing that French Marriage Law is Natural Law that should be applied in your own country? Do you want eliminate the legal status of weddings officiated by clergy? Is that some superior natural law all countries should be following?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do you want eliminate the legal status of weddings officiated by clergy?
There is no such thing here.
--------------------
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 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?
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.
Whereas it seems clearer that the situation in NZ or the UK would be to give the wife immediate custody of the child.
Interestingly, as far as I can tell, in both NZ and the UK, male-male couples can't be registered immediately as fathers as part of birth registration process, as the woman giving birth to the baby is the one who must be registered.
The fact that the woman giving birth is always and without exception the one registered has unfortunate implications in cases of surrogacy currently in both NZ and UK. If a couple (straight usually) is unable to bring a child to term due to problems with the wife's womb, then they can implant a fertilized egg in a willing 3rd party surrogate mother who then gives birth on behalf of the couple. But the surrogate at that point is the legal parent of the child despite it having none of her DNA whatsoever, so if that birth mother then says "well actually this seems like a nice baby, I'm going to keep it", at that point the genetic mother and father of the child have very little legal recourse as they are not recognized as parents or guardians.
This seems like a legal loophole that needs closing, and is especially surprising in NZ because cases of surrogacy need pre-approval from the government and there is a detailed legal process that needs to be followed to get the ball rolling in the first place, so the government already has numerous signed documents from all parties saying "surrogacy is occurring here", so to then give the birth mother legal control of the child upon birth and rely purely on the subsequent voluntary offer of adoption by her to the couple whose child it really is is just bizarre. It appears that this issue of the birth mother choosing to keep the child hasn't actually yet arisen in NZ and I would like to think that actually the courts would find in favour of the real parents.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Proving what? Hint: nothing.
quote:
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'.
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.
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
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:
Is this mere mental masturbation, or is there some practical point here?
I've said all I feel the need to say for now about that here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
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]
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.
It seems to me that the law in some countries is more skewed towards trying to be accurate about biological parentage and in others is more skewed towards the social aspects of parentage. I guess both aspects of their parentage may be important to the individual in different ways and so I think it is good that information on both is available.
[ 31. August 2014, 14:15: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Is your hesitation because you need more time to think about something to do with filiation only an issue for male same sex marriages? Since typically lesbians have one of the couple bear the child does that eliminate this confustion you need to think about?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is this mere mental masturbation, or is there some practical point here?
I've said all I feel the need to say for now about that here.
On page 2? And here you are still beating it on page 4?
[ 01. September 2014, 18:44: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Can you explain what the issue is about filiation in Lesbian marriages that you need more time to think about?
You keep pointing to this law as an obstruction. Laws are changeable. There may be one in France that doesn't treat same-sex marriages as the equivalent of the mixed sex marriages. So what? It will change after the injustice is realized. There's an ongoing controversy in the United States about placing Black children for adoption with White families. That doesn't mean inter-racial marriages are wrong.
Your whole objection reminds me of listening to Anglican Bishops talking about long facilitated conversations and committees appointed to discuss the shape of the table for discussions on same sex marriage. I hear this and say to myself "Now I know exactly the tone of voice of the Pharisees in the parable of the Good Samaritan".
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can people beware of making this personal? This needs to be about the arguments and not about the poster who opened the thread - so don't let things creep into personal insults please.
thanks,
Louise
Dead horses host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Can you explain what the issue is about filiation in Lesbian marriages that you need more time to think about?
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.
--------------------
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
