|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gays Are Horrible Parents
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
. . . according to Welsh Secretary David Jones.
quote:
I was one of two cabinet ministers who did vote against it and it was for various reasons. Certainly in constituency terms, I felt that overwhelmingly the constituents of Clwyd West were opposed to the change. But also I regard marriage as an institution that has developed over many centuries, essentially for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children, which is clearly something that two same-sex partners can’t do. Which is not to say that I'm in any sense opposed to stable and committed same-sex partnerships.
Mr. Jones has since tried to walk back the statement, but I'm not sure I find his justifications fully convincing. He was trying to justify his vote against a same-sex marriage bill, and his justification seemed to be of the form:
1) Marriage exists to provide "for the provision of a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children".
2) Same sex couples can't do that, so they don't need marriage.
That's very difficult to square with his backtracking:
quote:
I did not say in the interview that same-sex partners should not adopt children and that is not my view. I simply sought to point out that, since same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children, the institution of marriage was one that, in my opinion, should be reserved to opposite sex partners.
The problem is that if Mr. Jones believes the above quote, what happens to his justification for voting against the same-sex marriage bill? Saying "same-sex partners could not biologically procreate children" ignores the fact that many same-sex couples are raising children. So if marriage is supposed to help "the upbringing of children", why do children being brought up by same-sex parents not need it? Conversely, if a same-sex couple is truly unable to "provi[de] a warm and safe environment for the upbringing of children", how can Mr. Jones support adoptions by same-sex couples?
The whole thing sounds like a complete muddle, and it's the kind of self-contradictory muddle that makes political opponents suspect you're concealing your real motivations.
I'm not that interested in the exact particulars of Mr. Jones' political situation, but since the "same-sex couples are unfit parents, so of course they shouldn't marry" meme seems to be the most popular among the anti-equality set these days, so I thought it was worth a closer look. Is there any way to make coherent sense of Mr. Jones' several attempts at justification?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Nope.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
He's just walked into the same horrible muddle that I've pointed out God-knows-how-many-times in Dead Horses, of trying to treat procreation of children and raising of children as synonyms.
The fact that vast numbers of people were raised by some other combination of heterosexual folk than their 2 chromosomal parents seems to completely escape some people's brains as they try to come up with reasons why gays are different.
Such people inevitably latch onto what may have taken place in the space of a few minutes and ignore the next 18 years or so.
Alternatively, they make preposterous suggestions such as our own dear Senator Boswell's proposal that a boy with 2 mothers and no father has no-one to take him to soccer games.
[ 21. February 2013, 09:51: 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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
That's very difficult to square with his backtracking:
Not really, since the SoS is supportive of Civil Partnerships. Whilst the SoS has not expressed himself clearly the first time round (and everyone is guilty of that at somepoint, particularly those who appear on television without some pre-prepared speech to read from) he has clarified that his objection to the change of law would undermine the expressed purpose of marriage being that of biological procreation.
If we are to take his explanation as truthful and honest, and to be frank we have to since there is no evidence to the contrary, then there is no conflict in his initial statement and the clarification.
This idea that marriage is about procreation and it being linked to the safe raising of children as an argument against SSM is nothing new and appeared several times in the debate in the HoC from members from both sides of the House, so this news item is really nothing new (I refer you to Hansard where Flello (Labour - Stoke-on-Trent) makes this point, not in quite the same un-checked wording (but then he will have had his speech in front of him) but the point is there.)
This is very much a none story, and if it were truly a concern of content then it would have become a story during the actual debate rather than a week ago during a Conservative SoS's television interview.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I find it funny how all the opponents of equal marriage are very quick to say they are in favour of civil partnerships. One is given to wonder how it was that civil partnerships were so controversial at the time, given that one can no more find anyone who admits to having been against them than one could find anyone who would admit to voting Tory in the 1979 election by 1981.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find it funny how all the opponents of equal marriage are very quick to say they are in favour of civil partnerships. One is given to wonder how it was that civil partnerships were so controversial at the time,
It would be a case of showing their double standards if they are lying - Hansard, voting records on the Civil-Partnerships Bill (2004) normally list MPs by name on which way they voted, and I guess personal bloggs as well...
As with a lot of legislation it may well be that the controversy was not over the entire direction of the Bill but on small parts, ammendments and clauses which can generate a lot of heat in particualr debates...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
the expressed purpose of marriage being that of biological procreation.
Except, as is normally pointed out around this stage of proceedings, it's the ASSUMED purpose. Not the expressed purpose at all.
An assumption that neither the law nor practical experience of who actually gets married supports.
EDIT: I know some suggestion of that purpose might appear in church wedding services, but (1) we're talking about the secular rules here and (2) I've tried numerous times to have people demonstrate that the assertion is Biblically based and they've come up with nothing.
[ 21. February 2013, 10:21: 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
And (3) I've witnessed churches quite happily marry people who are past their child-procreating/raising time of life anyway.
The number of people who actually believe that procreation is the expressed purpose of marriage is vanishingly small when they're not desperately trying to think about how to stop the gays.
[ 21. February 2013, 10:24: 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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
the expressed purpose of marriage being that of biological procreation.
Except, as is normally pointed out around this stage of proceedings, it's the ASSUMED purpose. Not the expressed purpose at all.
An assumption that neither the law nor practical experience of who actually gets married supports.
Your point being one that I support, however, I was merely stating that the argument in itself is old and was raised several times in the course of the debate in the House, making this whole issue a none story, except from possibly the view of the BBC who always enjoy a bit of 'Tory-Bashing' every now and again.
As for the law aspect, those much more knowledgeable than I (well I hope MPs are more knowledgeable than I on matters of legislation), again I refer you to the Hansard debate linked to above where several MPs from both sides of the House are on record saying that the state has involved itself with marriage through law and regulations based on an expressed purpose of the argument being presented around the raising of children.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Since when did being in Hansard make a statement true, or being an MP stop people from being illogical or ill-informed?
[ 21. February 2013, 10:30: 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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
I should of also said: laid an over emphasis on one MPs comments by others as well who obviously did not follow the debate in the House as well as they probably should have done since if they had this comment would not have been such a new revelation of an argument and would have been raised sooner, as I say, during the actual debates themselves.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Since when did being in Hansard make a statement true, or being an MP stop people from being illogical or ill-informed?
If members of Parliament knew how to construct laws in a logically coherent fashion, I'd be out of a job.
I didn't say that the argument was true (am I being turned into a straw man again I wonder?) I was just pointing out that the argument wasn't new, adn that if people had followed proceedings in the house more carefully than they appear to have done then this argument would not be the shocker that it was made out to be a week ago, and that the SoS would not be being discussed in isolation since several MPs on both sides of the house forwarded the argument.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, I'm aware the argument isn't new. If it was new we wouldn't have dismantled it right here on this board so often.
It's news because he managed to express it even more clumsily than normal and because he's not a backbencher.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I'm aware the argument isn't new. If it was new we wouldn't have dismantled it right here on this board so often.
It's news because he managed to express it even more clumsily than normal and because he's not a backbencher.
But on this issue he is an MP rather than a SoS - so it is rather more about individuals rather than positions - hence my disbelief about the manner in which this has been covered.
He said something foolishly, but had the sense to explain it - and to be honest I see nothing contradictory in the two when explained and considered in light of the actual argument he makes refrence to, as made reference to by other individual MPs (acting as MPs defined by their individual consciences and beliefs rather than being defined by what ever postion they have/do or have not/do not held/hold within the Parliamentary structure) on both sides of the House in the initial debate.
As you rightly point out this argument has been demolished several times on these boards and elsewhere and so why it has received the honour of its own thread strikes me as strange and unneccesary, especially in the manner that it has been presented which namely revolves around the content of the argument and the person making the statement rather than the manner or place in which the statement was made - if this is to be a proper discussion of a much discredited argumetn then it should ahve been presented in such a format that reflected the true political bredth of people who have presented this argument both from within and outside of the Houses of Parliament rather than being solely focussed with one member from one political party (and yes I would say exactly the same if it had been a labour politician who was the focus since presenting things in isolation is ridiculous and does not uncover the truth but only serves to deflect and obscure the answers we should be actually looking for.)
[ 21. February 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"On this issue he is an MP" is a highly technical argument that really doesn't help you. I can understand it, but it's no help.
The fact is, it's news when prominent people say stupid things that lots of non-prominent people say all the time. If you want to complain about the fact that the media keeps a beadier eye on some people's utterances than is necessary, then I'm right there with you, but all I'm saying is it's perfectly explicable why his utterances are news, even if you don't like it. A Cabinet minister saying this stuff is more newsworthy than a backbencher saying this stuff, precisely because of the importance of his role even if the topic at hand isn't directly relevant to his role.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
That's very difficult to square with his backtracking:
Not really, since the SoS is supportive of Civil Partnerships.
Which is a contradiction. If he's opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds that same-sex couples are, by definition, unfit parents, then why would he support (as he claims) Civil Partnerships and the right of same-sex parents to adopt? On the other hand, if he supports Civil Partnerships because they're the same as marriage, why does it make sense to support one and oppose the other?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
This idea that marriage is about procreation and it being linked to the safe raising of children as an argument against SSM is nothing new and appeared several times in the debate in the HoC from members from both sides of the House, so this news item is really nothing new.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Your point being one that I support, however, I was merely stating that the argument in itself is old and was raised several times in the course of the debate in the House, making this whole issue a none story, except from possibly the view of the BBC who always enjoy a bit of 'Tory-Bashing' every now and again.
Just because an argument is old doesn't make it logically coherent.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"On this issue he is an MP" is a highly technical argument that really doesn't help you. I can understand it, but it's no help.
The fact is, it's news when prominent people say stupid things that lots of non-prominent people say all the time. If you want to complain about the fact that the media keeps a beadier eye on some people's utterances than is necessary, then I'm right there with you, but all I'm saying is it's perfectly explicable why his utterances are news, even if you don't like it. A Cabinet minister saying this stuff is more newsworthy than a backbencher saying this stuff, precisely because of the importance of his role even if the topic at hand isn't directly relevant to his role.
The fact that on this issue he is acting as a constituency MP rather than a Member of HM government is pertinant. I had this argument with a BBC Wales correspondent before the debate itself - they were trying to present this as some sort of unbalanced party rebellion issue, where it was nothing of the sort (the real story then was Ed. Millibands lack of liberality and considering three-line whipping the vote for Labour MPs which would have resulted in a actual rebellion by some MPs, just not government bench MPs) since under a free vote all ties of party loyalty and government collective responsibility are dissolved.
As it relates to this issue, infact all issues, all MPs are high profile, or at least they should be, either by the position they hold or the efforts they make to be so (with the two going hand in hand really - as long as it is positive (ie. for the good of their constituency or a just cause, rather than scandal or sleeze which puts them in the position of being high profile) since they are our representatives and therefore each should hold, in principle, the same weighting when it comes to media attention - which is why I am happy to see that you agree on this point. I would say further that no MP is greater than any other, in principle, when it comes to coverage and scruitiny unless they have a particular brief on the issue then I allow for a greater scruitiny to be held over what they do or say since it has direct bearance on their particular role. Hence, why in this situation, where this subject is not within his brief nor where he is bound by collective responsibility, should his views (as badly presented as they were in an unscripted interview) that have been clarified be presented in isolation from the various other views of other MPs from both sides of the House who presented this exact same argument from both sides of the House in the debate and most likely in their personal blogs etc. as well (I haven't checked so I can't link to some evidence but it seems logical to suppose this to be the case)?
This over emphasis in the coverage is beyond reasonable or balanced since it fails to realise the various different threads that should be acknowledged in the presentation of them, and nor does it take into account that other MPs from both sides of the House have said exactly the same thing without so much as a ripple across the media waters it seems.
Whilst I appreciate that the media does play a vital role in keeping the government, and HM loyal opposition under scruitiny (although the opposition should be the chief means of holding the government to account - which it is really failing to do for a variety of reasons which I imagine we might disagree on, but that's a different debate) the media is obsessively more concerned with headllines of irrelevant, or potentially 'explosive', stories (this example being a case of the former rather than the latter) rather than seeking to wonder why, say, Gordon Brown still flies from Scotland to London and claims expenses for it (rather than take the train like everyone else) or why Gordon Brown has hardly atteneded to Parliament, participated in debates or voted, since stepping down as PM, or how certain MPs can justify holding the miriad number of odd-jobs that they get paid a fair amount for doing very little* (at the moment I can only think of David Milliband as the prime example - after the ex-Prime Mentalist - but I do know of other members from across the House who do this). Whilst we, the reader, make the media what it is in part, the media has an historical duty to hold all MPs to account in a balance fashion which it seems to be failing to do.
Whilst I conceed your point about why the media blew this out of proportion to the entire context, it is a problem with the media itself rather than the SoS himself (in regards to the story rather than his comments which are misguided IMO) I think as I'm sure anyone would guess from my statements above.
*However, I am a firm supporter in this surprisingly, just not in the fashion that it occurs at the moment. If MPs were to be 'part-time', so to say, and had to hold 'real' jobs out there in the wider world I think ti would improve the quality of MP and legislation - but that would probably require a slimmign down of government in itself, so not much hope there!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
That's very difficult to square with his backtracking:
Not really, since the SoS is supportive of Civil Partnerships.
Which is a contradiction. If he's opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds that same-sex couples are, by definition, unfit parents, then why would he support (as he claims) Civil Partnerships and the right of same-sex parents to adopt? On the other hand, if he supports Civil Partnerships because they're the same as marriage, why does it make sense to support one and oppose the other?
It is not a contraditiction, it is a matter of semantics - a matter of classification I suppose.
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't - which is in effect is what all those MPs from both sides of the House were presenting the argument as being about.
If the two words are viewed in purely classification terms of reference then there are no contradictions in his statements or views on the issue - in a similar, but not exactly the same, fashion that we use Duck and Drake to describe two very similar, yet different things.
I suggest Crœsos is you wish to engage in 'Tory-bashing' (which IMNSHO is what you wished to engage in or you would ahve presented the OP in a much mroe contextualised and balanced manner making reference to all the other MPs from both sides of the House who have advanced this argument) then there are already enough threads in Hell for you to go and do so.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli, that long post was basically "here is how I'd like the world to be, in principle".
I'm very fond of principles myself, especially when it comes to constitutional matters (such as, the vote of every MP counts the same). But in this instance I honestly can't see what you are gaining by your line of protest.
There's an interview with a Welsh politician on Welsh television. To paint it as "oh dear, they lifted him out of the parliamentary debate in isolation from others" is a tremendously weird line to take. He's being interviewed on television about lots of things because he's the Secretary of State for Wales, the most senior politician in relation to the country for the national government.
If you think the vote of the politician responsible for Wales in the highest-profile recent vote isn't going to be a topic of interest on Welsh television, just because it wasn't directly to do with his Welsh-oversight role... you're not just living on principles, your principles have blinded you to reality.
--------------------
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 Sergius-Melli:
It is not a contraditiction, it is a matter of semantics - a matter of classification I suppose.
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't - which is in effect is what all those MPs from both sides of the House were presenting the argument as being about.
If the two words are viewed in purely classification terms of reference then there are no contradictions in his statements or views on the issue - in a similar, but not exactly the same, fashion that we use Duck and Drake to describe two very similar, yet different things.
There is a contradiction the second the term 'Civil Partnership' isn't used to describe heterosexual non-child-bearing couples.
Oh look, the real world just intruded again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is a contradiction. If he's opposed to same-sex marriage on the grounds that same-sex couples are, by definition, unfit parents, then why would he support (as he claims) Civil Partnerships and the right of same-sex parents to adopt? On the other hand, if he supports Civil Partnerships because they're the same as marriage, why does it make sense to support one and oppose the other?
It is not a contraditiction, it is a matter of semantics - a matter of classification I suppose.
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't - which is in effect is what all those MPs from both sides of the House were presenting the argument as being about.
Which is cute and nit-picky (you're really justifying playing with people's lives on the grounds of "semantics"?), but not the argument advanced by Mr. Jones. He justified his decision in terms of parenting ability, not procreative capacity. If marriage is all about biological reproduction, there's no real need for it to continue past conception. If it's about raising children, then why do children being raised by same-sex couples not also benefit from it?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I suggest Crœsos is you wish to engage in 'Tory-bashing' (which IMNSHO is what you wished to engage in or you would have presented the OP in a much more contextualised and balanced manner making reference to all the other MPs from both sides of the House who have advanced this argument) then there are already enough threads in Hell for you to go and do so.
I'm not British and have no real interest in your inter-party squabbles or politics. I picked Mr. Jones because he used a fairly blatant example of the "gays are horrible parents so they shouldn't be allowed to marry" argument and happened to come to my notice recently. I don't think it's reasonable to require me to write a twelve page essay detailing the last quarter century of Parliamentary debates on the subject, complete with hyperlinked footnotes, to make an internet comment about some politician being an asshole. In fact, the whole essay requirement is exactly the opposite of the "comment on the internet" format.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Sergius-Melli, that long post was basically "here is how I'd like the world to be, in principle".
I'm very fond of principles myself, especially when it comes to constitutional matters (such as, the vote of every MP counts the same). But in this instance I honestly can't see what you are gaining by your line of protest.
There's an interview with a Welsh politician on Welsh television. To paint it as "oh dear, they lifted him out of the parliamentary debate in isolation from others" is a tremendously weird line to take. He's being interviewed on television about lots of things because he's the Secretary of State for Wales, the most senior politician in relation to the country for the national government.
If you think the vote of the politician responsible for Wales in the highest-profile recent vote isn't going to be a topic of interest on Welsh television, just because it wasn't directly to do with his Welsh-oversight role... you're not just living on principles, your principles have blinded you to reality.
Living in Wales, the SoS for Wales is of great interest to me, but what he says and does only influences my view of him when I think of him as a person or if he were my MP.
However, my point is entirely about a matter of presentation. Balanced reporting takes into account the context and the others around the issue, and with his clarification (which does not contradict IMO as outlined above) makes this whole thing a non-issue for discussion and reporting, especially since the actual argument has been torn apart on many an occassion and his clarification makes clear that he is not actually saying what the media atributed to him.
Whilst his views are relevant, and of interest, and in an interview which touches on many a topic, yes this issue will have been raised and will be of interest, but should, primarily be of interst to his constituents rather than anyone else (now if he had been talking about the Welsh Assembly's inability to govern and the maddness which is the Welsh Assembly government then that would have been directly relevant to all of the people living in the principality).
But anyway I digress again. My point, and my only point, is that this is not balanced reporting and that a very minor media storm blew up over nothing because people did not respect that other people had made these views during the debate itself and have either already been covered, or if to be covered again need to be remembered in a wider context rather than isolation, with an actual understanding of what he said which is in contrast to what the headlines say he said.
quote:
There is a contradiction the second the term 'Civil Partnership' isn't used to describe heterosexual non-child-bearing couples.
I was only saying that in terms of classifying different relationships different terms can be used which is non-contradictory when applied to the quote. If you believe that a relationship which is open to the possibility of procreation (without any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved) and call it marriage then a same-sex relationship cannot become a marriage. I can't give a justification for this argument because I don't believe it to be true, so I'm sorry but I cannot present a justification of it, it is beyond my actual abilities to do so since I do not accept the basic premesis (nor understand how such premises can be logical in reality) to adequately understand the frame of mind that people forwarding this argument are in, to provide a complete rational of it. But in very simplistic terms it is possible to view it that there is no contradiction if you were to think of marriage and civil-partnerships as describing two seperate and different states of relationship within a very narrow confine of the relationships being for life and probably formed from a very young age.
Crœsos - I'm not playing with people's lives over semantics, I'm literally presenting a possible explanation for his, and other people's, rational behind this argument. To be honest though a lot of what I write in ethics is based on semantics (even the application of the law is fundamentally based on semantics) understanding the meaning and application of the words to certain circumstances.
As for the argument - he did not say what hte headlines are suggesting he said, he is just seeking to clarify what could be reasonably (if you so desire it to be reasonale) called two different types of relationship and defining them. I have no need to engage with teh argument again since I, like so many others, have done so many times before.
Nor do I require an essay, I was mainly looking at this from the wider media position and highlighting the deficiencies in presentation, reporting and just how out of date this whole discussion actually is, but allowed my annoyance at a not uncommon theme of bashing those on the 'right' of politics to seep through - for that I apologise.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just because an argument is old doesn't make it logically coherent.
Or morally unreprehensible.
--------------------
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 Sergius-Melli:
If you believe that a relationship which is open to the possibility of procreation (without any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved) and call it marriage then a same-sex relationship cannot become a marriage.
How, exactly, can you know whether "a relationship . . . is open to the possibility of procreation" without "any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved"? And what level of medical knowledge are we talking about here? Drawing the distinction you indicate would require at least knowledge of the genital configurations of both partners.
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As for the argument - he did not say what the headlines are suggesting he said, he is just seeking to clarify what could be reasonably (if you so desire it to be reasonable) called two different types of relationship and defining them.
Since you're a big fan of semantics, I think what you're trying to say is that he didn't mean what he said, not that he didn't say what he said, which was captured on video and linked in the OP. Which begs the still-unanswered question of why, if he considers marriage to be very important to raising children and is in favor of same-sex couples having the option of raising children, is he opposed to extending marriage to same-sex couples? It was his chosen justification. So if that's not the real reason for his vote, what was his true motivation? (I'm only interested in Mr. Jones' justification particularly because it may be typical of a much wider set using the same justification.)
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Nor do I require an essay, . . .
Which is good. I've rarely had anyone say to me "Hey Crœsos, why don't you make your posts longer?"
--------------------
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 Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Nor do I require an essay, . . .
Which is good. I've rarely had anyone say to me "Hey Crœsos, why don't you make your posts longer?"
Quotes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How, exactly, can you know whether "a relationship . . . is open to the possibility of procreation" without "any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved"?
It would seem a simple look at the potential compatability of reproductive organs might suffice as an explanation there.
quote:
[Second point]
Since he issued a clarification I think it is fairly evident what he intended to say, and what he means by what he said and why he voted... that there are two types of relationships. One is, fundamentally, open to procreation between the two people in the couple and one is not. Neither is excluded, or should be excluded, from the raising of children, nor can either do so successfully. However only one can do so through reproduction by the two people involved in a manner which does not, fundamentally, require another person or artificial means (no matter how far removed that point actually is from the realities of the world in which we live - as a slight tangent, I can't disagree more with the recent announcement that IVF will be available to a higher age group than it already is).
His explanation seems evidently clear to me - a matter of classification - we might call all creatures animals, but we definately differentiate between them...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
How, exactly, can you know whether "a relationship . . . is open to the possibility of procreation" without "any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved"? And what level of medical knowledge are we talking about here? Drawing the distinction you indicate would require at least knowledge of the genital configurations of both partners.
It would seem a simple look at the potential compatibility of reproductive organs might suffice as an explanation there.
Yes, but doesn't that count as "medical knowledge"?
And as a foreigner I have to admit I'm curious. How closely do British registrars "look at the potential compatibility of reproductive organs" before deciding whether to issue a marriage license or its civil partnership equivalent?
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Since he issued a clarification I think it is fairly evident what he intended to say, and what he means by what he said and why he voted... that there are two types of relationships. One is, fundamentally, open to procreation between the two people in the couple and one is not. Neither is excluded, or should be excluded, from the raising of children, nor can either do so successfully.
That doesn't track. If raising children is the "essential" part of marriage, and same-sex couples can raise children, why exclude them from marriage?
I'm also a little concerned about that last sentence about how neither same-sex nor opposite-sex couples can raise children successfully. WTF is going on in the UK?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Crœsos:
[qb] How, exactly, can you know whether "a relationship . . . is open to the possibility of procreation" without "any knowledge of the medical state of the couple involved"?
It would seem a simple look at the potential compatability of reproductive organs might suffice as an explanation there.
quote:
Nonsense.
My relative, who is gay, gave birth to two beautiful boys. Her partner isn't the father. So what? They are still an excellent family. One of the lads is now at Cambridge studying physics and the other runs a cats home.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also a little concerned about that last sentence about how neither same-sex nor opposite-sex couples can raise children successfully. WTF is going on in the UK?
Poor drafting on my part - I did infact mean to put the opposite, that the SoS was saying both forms of family were appropriate for bringing up children and were perfectly good, loving and healthy ways of doing so.
Although there are some couples that I wonder at being allowed to have kids, but that is a different matter altogether I think!
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Nonsense.
My relative, who is gay, gave birth to two beautiful boys. ...[snip]...
Since what the SoS's argument, as so many other people's argument is, concerns the classification of relationships it isn't necessarily nonsense, unless of course there is a lack of understanding about the basic biological functions of organs used in procreation...
In terms of classification we use different terms to differentiate between different things (despite how closely linked they may be) for example we put 'beef' and 'lamb' on different products despite the fact that those products could easily be labelled generically 'meat' or 'animal' product.
The argument that the SoS and others in the actual debate put forwards was that there are two different relationships being discussed here, one that is fundamentally supposed to be open to procreation between the actual partners, and one that is, in pretty much every circumstance I can think of, not open to procreation by the two people actually forming the partnership (without the aid of a third party or artificial means).
This is a matter of classification it seems rather than anything else, and in his clarification is not actually a matter of passing judgement on the types of family people have, or who is, or is not, suitable to raise children, mearly a comment on classification of two different types of relationship in which one type of relationship is excluded, by basic biology, from the ability to procreate children by sexual acts between the two people involved in the relationship themselves.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, but doesn't that count as "medical knowledge"?
I mmight be tempted to call you out as being facetious, but I wont becasuse I don't really think you are. By medical knowledge it was fairly clear I meant a knowledge about the state of infertility the couple is in. And no, nobody does a medical exam before deciding who can and cannot marry, however a simple look at a person and the documentation they have to provide to get married would indicate whether they are possibly open to the potential of procreating without any knowledge of their infertility status (ie. by a simple acknowledgement that it is a man and a woman that are getting marreid, adn so logically infering that they posses the prerequisite reproductive organs to facilitate procreation).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't track. If raising children is the "essential" part of marriage, and same-sex couples can raise children, why exclude them from marriage?
The essential part of the argument isn't that they can successfully raise children, but that a same-sex couple cannot, without a third party, reproduce.
[ 23. February 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't track. If raising children is the "essential" part of marriage, and same-sex couples can raise children, why exclude them from marriage?
Sergius-Melli answered:
quote:
The essential part of the argument isn't that they can successfully raise children, but that a same-sex couple cannot, without a third party, reproduce.
Obviously - but this fact is completely irrelevant to the argument. Whatever means the children came into their care, gay couples are as fit as anyone else to provide a warm and safe environment for their upbringing.
Are you saying otherwise?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't track. If raising children is the "essential" part of marriage, and same-sex couples can raise children, why exclude them from marriage?
Sergius-Melli answered:
quote:
The essential part of the argument isn't that they can successfully raise children, but that a same-sex couple cannot, without a third party, reproduce.
Obviously - but this fact is completely irrelevant to the argument. Whatever means the children came into their care, gay couples are as fit as anyone else to provide a warm and safe environment for their upbringing.
Are you saying otherwise?
I am not saying otherwise, I am simply laying out, as best I can, the logic that lies behind what seems to really be an argument based on compatability and procreation rather than anything else.
And whilst you say "obviously", indicating that you understand the logic beind the argument that has been made, you then move away from the actual argument that has been put forwards - the argument put forwards that this is a matter of classification, a matter of terminology for two different types of relationship which are ot be defined by their reproductive potential in which, as you acknowledge, one of them reproduction on the part of the two people involved is of 0%.
As the statements from the SoS make clear (once you factor in the clarification statement) this is not an argument about same-sex couples being fit, or otherwise, to raise children which is where I think you are getting stuck because you believe it to be this argument that has been put forwards when it isn't.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
No - what I am saying is that relationships should not be defined by their reproductive potential at all. We should look beyond that and not make it a factor in our decisions about SSM.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No - what I am saying is that relationships should not be defined by their reproductive potential at all. We should look beyond that and not make it a factor in our decisions about SSM.
And you are quite right.
However this thread was seemingly about an argument put forwards in an interview (badly I do say so myself but then later clarrified fairly clearly) amongst other places which I linked to earlier which was solely concerned with the reproductive capacities of couples and how best to describe them (hence the argument was fundamentally one of terminology and description based on compatability and procreation) and whether two different relationships should have two different titles or share the same one.
And since we have had all these arguments before it seemed like a waste of my reading time to have yet another thread on these arguments when not so old ones are not even fermenting in the depths of purgatory yet and hence why I have been repeating that this was a pointless discussion since it has been held elsewhere (and that he news was somewhat over egged for an out of date article and argument when other MPs had already expounded it at an earlier time by those recorded as having mentioned and explained it during the debate in the House of Commons as recorded in Hansard) - and then people started attributing arguments to the SoS which he hadn't put forwards when considered in the totality of his speeches.
It's clear, from what he has said and clarified, that the SoS has agreed that Same-Sex Relationships are really an excellent plan for ordering society and raising children. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed over the current proposals, he proposes that he recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of his conscience was that, while he considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed conscience consideration, laying stress on whether there is an essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle. And that after the most serious and urgent consideration, and on a thorough and rigorous examination of all the proposals, allied to a detailed study and analysis of his conscience has decided that notwithstanding the fact that the proposal could conceivably encompass certain concomitant benefits, there is a countervailing consideration of infinitely superior magnitude involving the personal complicity and corroborative malfeasance, with a consequence that the associations being comprehended could irredeemably and irretrievably be invalidated in an ultimately indefensible manner so as to obfuscate the clearest meaning and intention of societal description of the associations being comprehended and that those associations may no longer be clearly understood.
(With thanks to Sir Humphrey for the last paragraph and the satire I intend to portray in that although the SoS wasn't particularly clear, he actually had a point which was fairly clear, unlike the above.)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) nice one!
My view is that they should share the same title, they are not different enough to warrant different titles.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
nice one!
My view is that they should share the same title, they are not different enough to warrant different titles.
Which is true - the problem is that for somewhere in the region of 1500 years the Church hierarchies have over emphasised this one aspect of the marital state to such an extent that they, and those in a more 'secular' fashion and just claim tradition without the theological misrepresentation, have now found it difficult to disentangle themselves from it.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My relative, who is gay, gave birth to two beautiful boys. Her partner isn't the father. So what? They are still an excellent family. One of the lads is now at Cambridge studying physics and the other runs a cats home.
I did mean to mention something on this point earlier, but since it is positive I wanted to detach it from the rest of the points I was trying to clarify and then forgot about it.
One of the brightest, politest, and most supportive students I had the plesure of teaching came from a home where he had a lesbian mother (with her partner - although he was the offspring of an earlier relationship).
For a young, unashamedly, openly gay teacher, the support that I received from this one child was in stark contrast from the abuse levelled by a small, but rather vocal, minority of kids (linking in with the teachers thread in AS they were mainly boys - the girls, in the main, tended to find it rather fascinating and bizarrely somewhat approaching exotic) and said much about the parenting that the child had received (without any negative consequences) from his mother and her partner - strangely (well not really strangely but it's the only word that seems to fit what I am trying to say atm) he was also the most balanced when viewing ethical decisions seeing the good and bad in argumetns from both sides and finding the right sort of compromise rather than flat out denying one side or the other and just blindly holding his own pov.
[ 23. February 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
the problem is that for somewhere in the region of 1500 years the Church hierarchies have over emphasised this one aspect of the marital state to such an extent that they, and those in a more 'secular' fashion and just claim tradition without the theological misrepresentation, have now found it difficult to disentangle themselves from it.
Yes - and it's high time they made the effort!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, but doesn't that count as "medical knowledge"?
I mmight be tempted to call you out as being facetious, but I wont becasuse I don't really think you are. By medical knowledge it was fairly clear I meant a knowledge about the state of infertility the couple is in. And no, nobody does a medical exam before deciding who can and cannot marry, however a simple look at a person and the documentation they have to provide to get married would indicate whether they are possibly open to the potential of procreating without any knowledge of their infertility status (ie. by a simple acknowledgement that it is a man and a woman that are getting marreid, adn so logically infering that they posses the prerequisite reproductive organs to facilitate procreation).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That doesn't track. If raising children is the "essential" part of marriage, and same-sex couples can raise children, why exclude them from marriage?
The essential part of the argument isn't that they can successfully raise children, but that a same-sex couple cannot, without a third party, reproduce.
Which, given all your postulates, leaves us with what to call the relationship of two persons of different sexes who are not able to procreate.
Based on the principles you set out (which may not be your own, but which you suppose may be the principles of the SOS), the man and woman cannot marry, because they cannot reproduce, and cannot enter into a civil union, because they are of different sexes.
Please note, this is not a case where you can apply the RC postulate that all hetero sexual marriages are by definition open to procreation, because it's not an argument about theology.
Comments, please, S-M
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli: quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
How long, O Lord, how long?
Language doesn't work like that. Legal language may, but ordinary people are quite happily referring to civil partnerships as marriages already, if only because it's less cumbersome to say 'Jean and Betty got married' than 'Jean and Betty had their civil partnership ceremony last week'. In another twenty years or so we may be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Traditionally, of course, marriage was all about disposal of property...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Being a middle-aged partly fossilized neaderthal, at least in some ways, I have both a confession and a history to tell. When Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada were discussing and studying the matters of what to call the committed partnership between same-sex people, it came down to a legal decision by the Supreme Court to call it all "marriage" whether the people are of the same or different sexes. The Anglican Church has yet to fully figure itself out on this.
It took, it seems, about 2 years after the Supreme Court decision and all the barriers to come down. Then all of those worth talking to who were aghast that gay people getting married would be called 'married people' and their relationships called "marriage", found themselves getting rather used it, and the issue evaporated. I was one of these people. I kept my reservations about the labelling to myself, because first, I know personally several gay couples and lesbian couples, some of whom had children in the procreative way while married to some of the other gender and others who've had kids since marriage to their same sex partner. I am glad that experience overcame my prejudice and that I never expressed it.
I suspect that as time wears along, and gay and lesbian married couples continue to simply be present in out society, and gain social equality in addition to what they've obtained legally, that any found differences between the same and opp gender marriages and parenting of children will disappear. Equality seems to have a way of moving things that direction.
Advice to other countries: push through the legislation for full equality. The rest is simply time. The neaderthals will get it with time, and its shorter than you think. We’re all line dancing in a furnace of sex and misfortune anyway, and the fires are scorching, but if we keep dancing we will all survive.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli: quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
Currently* in NZ Civil Union is open to a couple regardless of whether they are the same sex or not. Isn't that so in other countries?
* There is a Bill before parliament to legalise SSM, which I think has a hope of passing - fingers crossed.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Sergius-Melli: quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
Currently* in NZ Civil Union is open to a couple regardless of whether they are the same sex or not. Isn't that so in other countries?
* There is a Bill before parliament to legalise SSM, which I think has a hope of passing - fingers crossed.
Huia
It is in France but not I think in many other places.
Note I'm not sure what the status of civil union opposite couples is if they visit or move to another country. Marriage tends to be internationally recognized and has a status in international law; civil unions are not. It is one reason to have marriage across the board especially since same sex couples often do have children even if both parents aren't the biological parents[1].
[1] I guess if the couple are two women one could be an egg donor to the other (with donated sperm) and so both women would be biological mothers of the child (one providing the egg and the other the gestation).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Marriage tends to be internationally recognized and has a status in international law; civil unions are not. It is one reason to have marriage across the board especially since same sex couples often do have children even if both parents aren't the biological parents[1].
This presupposes that a country that fails to allow SSM within its own borders would recognise couples whose SSM ceremonies were conducted abroad. Is this really the case? Surely each country would respond differently in such a situation?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli: quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
Well this is rubbish, isn't it?
If a childless 90 year old hetero couple marry, no one cries against the ceremony. NO one claims this should be a "civil-partnership." Instead they compete to state how lovely it is.
Turning their marriage to a civil-partnership would bring outrage from the very people who wish to bar SSM.
[ 24. February 2013, 18:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
Well this is rubbish, isn't it?
If a childless 90 year old hetero couple marry, no one cries against the ceremony. NO one claims this should be a "civil-partnership." Instead they compete to state how lovely it is.
Turning their marriage to a civil-partnership would bring outrage from the very people who wish to bar SSM.
As near as I can figure, the phrase "open to biological procreation" (or other similar variants) actually has nothing to do with a couple being either willing or able to biologically procreate. Instead it's a euphemism for "someone sticks a penis in a vagina". Of course defining "real marriage" this way sounds petty, messily biological, and not really a good basis for a distinction under law so the desire to euphemize is understandable, but just because we understand the motivation doesn't mean we have to humor the euphemizers.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Marriage tends to be internationally recognized and has a status in international law; civil unions are not. It is one reason to have marriage across the board especially since same sex couples often do have children even if both parents aren't the biological parents[1].
This presupposes that a country that fails to allow SSM within its own borders would recognise couples whose SSM ceremonies were conducted abroad. Is this really the case? Surely each country would respond differently in such a situation?
Actually Israel recognizes such marriages though couples of the same sex cannot wed within Israel. Admittedly a lot of couples can't get married in Israel since only religious weddings are allowed and only for certain religions (or denominations of religions). However marriages resulting from civil or other legal in the country they take place ceremonies are recognized. I do not think Israel recognizes civil unions.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
(1) Based on the principles you set out (which may not be your own, but which you suppose may be the principles of the SOS),
(2) the man and woman cannot marry, because they cannot reproduce, and cannot enter into a civil union, because they are of different sexes.
(3) Please note, this is not a case where you can apply the RC postulate that all hetero sexual marriages are by definition open to procreation, because it's not an argument about theology.
Comments, please, S-M
John
John,
1. You are quite right, these are not my own opinions, mearly an attempt (since as far as I know the SoS himself is not a registered member here and isn't defending himself) to clarify how the initial statement made inthe interview, and the subsequent clarification were not necessarily in contradiction.
2. I'll come to the first part of this in 3. but it is suffice to say that heterosexual couples will be excluded, still, from having a civil-partnership if they desired even after the passing of the Same-Sex Marraiges Bill.
3. Unfortunately it is not so clear cut anymore - theological arguments have become societal arguments and have therefore jumped the 'divide' between the two, so that an historic theological position has become a secular society tradition reason. It is therfore still possible to utilise similar logic and arguments, in that the current argument is based, secularly, on the idea that man and woman have compatable reproductive parts which could reasonably be expected to result in children (ie. I could walk down a line of people, knowing nothing about their medical history (ie. sterility, age, menopause status) and know that I could put the people in the line into pairs who would have the most likely chance of reproducing - effectively it is a matter of penis and vagina rathe than anything else) which stems in part from a religious reason for this idea which is under discussion.
As a 3a. I suppose, it is interesting that you put a seperation between theological and 'secular' (I guess is the best word) in terms of procreation since at least one of the Church Father's does not base procreation as a good on any particularly theological grounds. Augustine basis his idea of proles more on societal good divorced from any particuarly theological imperative or desire not being overly concerned with procreation and lessening the bind of being fruitful and multiplying that has formed the theological basis for procreation.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Sergius-Melli: quote:
Marriage would be used as a term to describe a set of relationships which are open to biological procreation by the couple involved in the marriage, whilst a Civil-partnership represents a relationship which isn't...
How long, O Lord, how long?
Language doesn't work like that. Legal language may, but ordinary people are quite happily referring to civil partnerships as marriages already, if only because it's less cumbersome to say 'Jean and Betty got married' than 'Jean and Betty had their civil partnership ceremony last week'. In another twenty years or so we may be wondering what all the fuss was about.
Traditionally, of course, marriage was all about disposal of property...
Sorry for the double posting, but I've been away and need to address things individually.
You are quite right, and I do the same thing, however, in terms of legal language, which in effect all laws are put in regardless of what the general population actually then label things, the argument is being made in this manner that that what is being discussed are two different types of relationship and therefore they can reasonably, in law, be expected to be termed in different ways to give clarity to what is being labelled.
You are quite right that in 20 years time we will wonder what all the fuss was about, but for the time being these arguments are being presented now...
And whilst I always reject the simplistic notion that marraige was solely about procreation, I also reject the simplistic view that marriage was solely concerned with the disposal of property and wealth.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
