According to French law, a marriage between a living person and a dead person can take place as long as preliminary civic formalities have been completed that show the couple had planned to marry. Before the ceremony can take place, it must be approved by the French president.
Only in France would they find it necessary to legislate on a matter such as this.
There are more stupid laws than that all over the world. Specially in Spain.
This law is just stupid, cannot hurt anyone.
Hell, I wouldn't even be caught DEAD marrying a froggie.
A cure for infidelity? A way to tap the old guys pension? I thought this was why people wrote out wills?
Hey JohnO :
Do you really care about the nationality of someone you lOVE ?
I don't understand, I mean, when you love someone it's not because she(he) come from a definite country ?
(Note : Don't forget that even in France there are wonderful girls, beautiful and gentle !)
:-)
I think a friend of mine married a dead man. I mean, he goes to work and everyting, but... sometimes I wonder.
What about gay marriage in the US... Yes or No? Curious to hear reaction to that one from the Fox News folks... How about that freedom?
I watch Fox News, so I will give you my opinion, since you asked. I really don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't really believe that it is marriage, but whatever. There is no majority for a constitutional ammendment against it, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for a new issue to bash the US on. It is also extremely hard to change the US constitution.
Does Fox News have some "Gay Marriage Show" or something? I'm wondering what more I might know about gay marriage if I watched Fox News.
You will get no lurid satisfaction from Fox on the gay issue.
I see a couple of old grizzled gays who make a show of walking past my house holding hands. It doesn't bother me. I am certain they are doing it from the sheer exileration of knowing that people will let them be. I wouldn't want to engage them in conversation personally. That is the extent of my bias.
As to the political ramafications of gay marriage, I rationalize it thus. If gays are allowed tax breaks and incentives to union such as hetro couple enjoy, then this is a tax cut. Tax cuts simulate the economy. Even if it is a small percentage of our population who are gay, every bit helps.
According to me, letting homosexual people celebrate their union is a great proof of tolerance and freedom in a country. For some people, God is an evidence (even if I don't agree with that, I respect their opinion) and I think gay marriage should be too.
Brb :
You're right to notice that it's extremly hard to change the US constitution. And I was wondering if there are some projects about changing it ?
(Actually it wouldn't be a bad thing because (I think) it could open the country to changes like gay marriage, no ?)
Did you mean projects to change the constitution (amend it), or to change the amendment process? The amendment process is intentionally difficult - this insures that changes will represent only initiatives with wide support nationally, and that they will be framed in a manner that has withstood a great deal of scrutiny before they ever become law. Recall that there are only two things that must go into the text of our constitution - powers granted to the federal government, or powers denied to the state governments. Anything else is not a constitutional issue (well, perhaps for state constitutions - but not for The Big One).
At any given time, there are probably at least 5 different amendments in some stage of development - but because it takes 38 states to ratify an amendment, no amendment ever comes of them. What these doomed amendments are really good for though is spurring the public debate. As a prime example, I think gay marriage would be much less of an issue right now if it weren't for the efforts to write a marriage amendment currently in progress.
In fact, I don't really know because I have not studied american constitution for the moment.
I based my post on the fact that an old constitution like US's one sometimes need to be change to improve certain current condition of life in the country.
You know, sometime it's better to restart everything...
Even anyone has background or an explanation about how the 18th amendment (Prohibition) passed, I'm quite willing to hear about it.
You know, sometime it's better to restart everything...
Like the French do: burn the streets of Paris and rewrite the whole thing! Watch out, D.C., paveusa is coming!
Huu... Restart does not mean burn the streets !
"What about gay marriage in the US... Yes or No? Curious to hear reaction to that one from the Fox News folks... How about that freedom?"
Do "Fox News Folks" differ from "CNN News Folks", "BBC News Folks", etc.? Why would you want opinions of people who watch a particular news show?
Just curious in Massachusetts where we have just approved gay marriages ...
In fact, I don't really know because I have not studied american constitution for the moment.
I based my post on the fact that an old constitution like US's one sometimes need to be change to improve certain current condition of life in the country.
You know, sometime it's better to restart everything...
Hmm... ok, a bit of a lesson on the US constitution then.
The US founding fathers saw that much of the misery visited upon people from their homelands, and throughout history, stemmed from an abundance of power centralized within governments. When a select person or group of people hold all the power, they decided that wasn't good. That's why the structure of the US is riddled with checks and balances (like the president can veto, but congress can override a veto), and separations of power (congress is separate from the presidential administration, and the courts are separate from both of those). The state and federal governments are no different - state and federal are intended to be separate.
The constitution then is not supposed to be all of our country's common laws, but a set of principles which describe what powers are assigned to whom. This was to prevent having to "restart everything" - only the critically important stuff goes in. One fundamental principle is that any powers which are not assigned to the federal government within the constitution is not the domain of the federal government - it is the domain of state governments or the people, unless the constitution forbids the power. Examples;
1) The federal government is not granted any power to prosecute murder (unless it falls under treason or such) - this doesn't mean that murder is legal, it means that it is the states' domain to legislate murder. This is why some states have a death penalty, while most do not (though aside from the death penalty, all 50 murder laws in our country are practically identical).
2) On the other side of the coin, no state government can conduct international diplomacy - states are forbidden to act on behalf of the country.
These principles are not things that change with the social whim of the moment - they are mostly fundamental pillars in our concept of government (prohibition was a notable exception). States are meant to hold the majority of powers, not the federal government. This is is why it is supposed to be hard to change the constitution - nearly all states (75%) must agree that the federal government should be granted this power, or that it must be withheld from the states. Any other matter does not need to go into the constitution, because it already belongs to the states by default.
Think of the US as 50 countries within something like the EU; if you imagine Bulgaria, Romania, and Greece deciding what France's laws should be, I think you'll have an idea what I'm talking about. There are some things that are proper for the EU as a whole to observe in law, and there are others which are only appropriate for the member countries to legislate.
Since the bulk of real power is meant for the states to govern themselves, we don't want our states imposing laws on each other - they should have the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it is not denied to them or assigned to the federal. Something like setting tarriffs on foreign trade should not be a state power, but laws governing property ownership should. The US constitution doesn't need to say a word about property ownership then - it belongs to the states by default.
Coming back to gay marriage - marriage is not something like printing money, or national defense. It's not something that should clearly be required of the federal government, and is therefore the domain of state governments (as are almost all things that impact citizens' lives directly). The main point of controversy in gay marriage, as I understand it, is that states currently recognize each other's marriages (imagine moving to Italy with your wife, and they tell you you're not married). However, if one state decides that same-sex couples will be granted legal marriages, that would mean that every other state would either have to accept gay marriages from that state, or re-write their existing marriage laws. Now remember that states forcing things on one another is something we try to prevent, and perhaps you see why this is a bit sticky.
This is why when you say "an old constitution like US's one sometimes need to be change to improve certain current condition of life in the country", I think you're not quite certain what our constituion's role is meant to be. You're correct that sometimes things need to change - only male land owners could vote originally, then all white men, then all white men and women, then all citizens over 18 regardless of sex or color. However, voting is a central 'power and rights' issue, and most things that impact "the current condition of life" are state matters, not federal; therefore they don't need to go into the constitution at all. By default, that power is already assigned. A few European misconceptions about the US stem from missing this basic issue, but don't feel badly - there are plenty of Americans who don't get it either (we call this group "liberals").
Sorry for being even windier than usual, but I hope that's all clear. Maybe this gives you some idea why, when we hear that the proposed EU constitution was over 260 printed pages, some Americans' eyes grew wide - a giant, cumbersome document like that is far from our notion of a constitution. Our original 7 articles, hand written, were only 4 pages. If you're curious and have time to kill, read it some time
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
It's written in plain English that almost any high school student could read (you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it), and from start to finish they could read it in under 30 minutes (if reading English is a little tough for you, maybe it would take 45). Note that doesn't include the amendments - there are 27, but in total they're a similar length, found here
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
The language in the amendments gets a little more difficult, but still does not require a law degree.
No matter what is being said, the European wannabe (project of a treaty establishing a) Constitution is just another treaty to organize a common market between independant nations - it does NOT found a new country. It has about 40 pages of core principles, a bit of a chart of rights and liberties, and 200 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo to straighten out commercial or political conflicts (the closest equivalent would be to put in the US Constitution most of the Supreme Court decisions). The difference in size also stems a lot from the difference between civil law and common law.
Thanks anyway for the excellent explanation.
Since we're talking about Europe:
http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html
Doug, as usual, a fabulous posting.
Here's my $.02 regarding the same sex marriage issue. Doug points out the distinction between state's rights and federal rights, and indicates that marriage falls to states. That's true, but it does have a federal level impact - most notably in regard to income tax. Would same-sex couples be allowed to file federal income tax jointly? That would require federal laws.
Now, suppose we grant all of these explicit rights to homosexuals. Where does it end? Will the people who engage in bestiality be the next to demand equal rights? Sadomasichists? What it comes down to is that certain people have taken their lifestyle from the bedroom to the courtroom. What you do in private is none of the government's business, but when you bring it into a public forum, it becomes the public's business. Why the big stink? If a gay man stands on a street corner and shouts "I have sex with men!" he gets a lot of attention, but if a straight man stands on a street corner and shouts "I have sex with women!" then he would just be considered a sex-crazed pervert who is providing us with "too much information." Homosexuals: quit telling us what you do in private and asking us to accept it in public and then getting upset when we find it offensive. If you want to be homosexual, it's your choice - but quit demanding my approval (it's not going to happen) and quit demanding a government sanction for your sex life. When you bring it into the public spectrum, you might as well be having sex right there in the public square in front of everybody.
One more thing as a side note (and I mention it only because it has been pushed by people with a certain agenda) - we should never grant people a "minority" status based on their sexual preference. Minorities are born one way or another and cannot change the way they are. Homosexuality is a choice, and thus homosexuals should never be granted minority protections under the law. Whereas people cannot choose to become a Native American and receive money from the BIA or choose to be black and receive scholarships from the NAACP, people CAN choose whom they have sex with.
Beo, this is an interesting point you raise. Let me ask you this then :
Why grant these explicit rights to heterosexuals in the first place ? For the sake of simplicity, ease ? (By the way, you present the extreme case of bestiality, yet animals don't file income taxes, do they ?)
Besides, does the US federal law explicitely state that only heterosexual couple may benefit from income tax privileges ? If so, isn't the law itself that brings "lifestyle from the bedroom to the courtroom" as you elegantly put it ?
About the minority status, I'd like to agree with you, but sexual preferences are just that : preferences. You don't really choose if you like or don't like having sex with such or such person, it's a fact you have to live with. Of course, one could force him/herself to be straight, but then wouldn't this be more harmful than helpful ?
That said, I agree on the general idea that we shouldn't "marginalize" homosexuals in a way or another. The minority status aims at helping groups already suffering from "marginalization", but I fear that it would only foster the marginal status (this is probably where we disagree again, since this argument destroys the minority status itself).
Anyway, thank you for bringing this interesting topic, and thank to Doug for his great explanations.
Why grant these explicit rights to heterosexuals in the first place ?
Marriage started as a religious institution, designed to strengthen communities (and therefore the prevalent religions within them) by reinforcing the concept of a family. The institution was adopted into secular law for the exact same reason - to reinforce the concept of family, because it's a foundation of our country and society. Well, there's more detail that could go into that, but that's the meat and potatoes of it.
Some aspects of what keeps being referred to as marriage "rights" (there is no right to marriage as far as I know - rights don't require licensing) I think there's no question should be extended to gay couples, if they've made some similar commitment. For example, hospital visitation - it's just wrong to deny that. I don't care if you accept homosexuality or not, when your life partner's in ICU you should be considered "immediate family". However, things offered as a reward for contributing yourself as a "building block" of society (like tax benefits) just aren't appropriate to gay unions.
People who buy homes can write off their interest paid as a reward for keeping the whole system of home ownership/lending/etc. working. I, as a renter, do not demand a similar writeoff - I know I haven't made any such contribution to earn it. Gay unions do deserve some things they currently do not have, but they do not build anything in our society (note I said unions, not individuals). The full "perks" of marriage are rewards they simply do not earn.
Well yes but following your line of reasoning only couples with children should be allowed tax breaks. I don't see anything else that heterosexual couples bring to society and gays don't.
If marriage is only the officialization of two persons' commitment to each other, well then gay unions are a good way of preventing them from feeling like second-class citizen or a minority.
sexual preferences are just that : preferences
You imply (rightly) that homosexuality is a choice, and yet in the next sentence you deny that by saying:
it's a fact you have to live with
So which is it? I mean, I know which one it is, but you seem to be confused.
You, like so many other people, can't seem to decide whether gay people are gay by choice or by birth. I personally believe that it is absolutely a choice.
Homosexuality is not necessarily love or commitment between people of the same sex - it is sex between people of the same sex. And sex is always a choice, except in the case of rape, right? "Love" and "sex" are not equal, and they are not interchangeable. I can love another man without ever choosing to have sex with him, thank you very much.
And even love is a choice. It is not a feeling - I choose to love my family, even when they occasionally do things that make me feel unloving towards them. I get up every day and make a conscious decision to love my family.
Some people argue that homosexuality is a genetic trait and that they simply can't be anything else. I say that's BS. If it were genetic, it would have died out of the gene pool long ago, since homosexuals are far less apt to reproduce than heterosexuals, right?
Those with an agenda to push homosexuality in our society will play both sides of this issue. They'll say "it's our right to choose" and they'll turn around and say "it's just the way we are." You can't have it both ways.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against gay people at all, and I do not promote ostracizing them from society in any way. I disagree with their choice of lifestyle, but as long as they don't get in my face and demand that I accept and sanction their lifestyle, then we'll get along just fine.
Well yes but following your line of reasoning only couples with children should be allowed tax breaks. I don't see anything else that heterosexual couples bring to society and gays don't.
Then why shouldn't I get a tax break? I'm not married or gay, but it's harder to be a single income household than a two-income household, so why should there be breaks only for couples? Where's my break? Oh, right - like gay couples, I don't even have the potential to make the required positive contribution, so I'm not entitled to one.
You see, it's not my line of reasoning - it's the reasoning behind a system that's been around far longer than I have. When a man and woman marry, they create an environment for raising the next generation, and commit 20 years or more of their lives to doing it. The childless couple could at least be preparing a better environment to bring children into. I, on the other hand, am contributing jack squat. If the couple never has a child, at least they went halfway. I haven't gone halfway, and neither has a gay couple. Why should we expect benefits in return for not even potential?
If marriage is only the officialization of two persons' commitment to each other, well then gay unions are a good way of preventing them from feeling like second-class citizen or a minority.
I have no complaints against some legal institution similar to marriage for gay unions - as long as it isn't marriage. I understand that many states are looking at "civil unions" as a comparable gay institution, and I think they'd be a great way to make sure entitlements like hospital visitation can be provided. It still remains however that gay unions do not perpetuate society - they're family tree branches which do not fork. There's nothing second class about it, unless you think you can convince me that same-sex couples contribute to society in the same way that man/woman couples do. I'd be uinterested in hearing that argument, but untill then I see them as natural selection's way of saying "oops". Not to be punished or rewarded, but treated as fairly as anyone else.
No matter what is being said, the European wannabe (project of a treaty establishing a) Constitution is just another treaty to organize a common market between independant nations - it does NOT found a new country. It has about 40 pages of core principles, a bit of a chart of rights and liberties, and 200 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo to straighten out commercial or political conflicts (the closest equivalent would be to put in the US Constitution most of the Supreme Court decisions). The difference in size also stems a lot from the difference between civil law and common law.
I finally took the time to skim the copy you linked, and my guess seems to have been right - this is a document designed to be re-written later. I'd also say that your description of "constitution + supreme court decisions" is pretty close; it gets into particulars of policy, as opposed to just providing the guiding principles for separate laws. Thanks for the link, I've saved it to read in more detail later.
Title 1. article 2 made me giggle - am I evil?
First, to me, choice is arbitrary, even if it can be motivated by feelings : for instance, I can choose to eat apples because I like it.
OTOH, feeling isn't based on choice : I can't choose to like apples, even if I can choose to eat it.
The same goes for love : as sex is an act based on choice (and in this case feelings), love is a feeling based on what ?
You may choose to stop seeing someone, but you can't choose to stop loving someone, even if the feeling may go away if you follow the right method to suppress it (highly dependant on the person character).
IMHO, preference is just the expression of a set of feelings : I prefer apples over bananas, and this can't change by choice.
Second, homosexuals can't procreate, and aren't entitled to adopt (in most countries). While the first problem might be difficult to overcome, the second one is just a law issue. So in effect, homosexuals could be creating "an environment for raising the next generation".
In fact, in front of the law, homosexuals couples are just like a unfertile heterosexual couple, and thus should be granted the same rights (to marriage).
The next issue is of course, can homosexuals create a good environment ?
Lastly, about the "marriage right", yeah, I should have said marriage law (it's a flaw in my appreciation of english).
In fact, in front of the law, homosexuals couples are just like a unfertile heterosexual couple, and thus should be granted the same rights (to marriage).
I'd say not quite "just like" - the unfertile couple at least had the potential and made some effort before they found out they were unfertile. As you point out, adoption is still a viable option for them.
The next issue is of course, can homosexuals create a good environment ?
If there hadn't been a stage in my life where I had a lot of gay friends and aquaintances, and I hadn't studied just a little developmental psychology, I could easily say "yes". In my late teens/early 20's though, just when I was wondering "What's the deal with this gay stuff?", I had plenty of gays around who were willing - even a bit eager - to explain to me what it was about from their point of view. If their experiences can be said to be typical of people in general (gay or not), then I have serious misgivings about gay couples as adopted parents.
One of the common threads I noted among them was a really miserable time of trynig to reconcile "norms" that they adopted in their formative years with who and what they turned out to be. Being raised in a heterosexual home, they adopt the expectation that they will grow to fit into that pattern - as we all do. This sets the stage for a rather traumatic later experience (for most, it seems*). This is a significant part of the reason for the exceptionally high suicide rate among young gays (though there are more components to the suicide rate than that alone).
I think it's bad enough that a small percentage of children can be considered "victims of the nature of procreation", and if there were some way or option to have gay children exposed to (or outright raised by) gay couples, I think it could be a very positive experience. Now turn this around. Put any arbitrary child into the home of a gay couple where the chance of "getting the wrong model" is not a small fraction, but a near-certainty. Is it right to do? Is this a good environment? We've already gotten the answer from gays themselves - "No".
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about whether a gay couple wants to adopt kids or not - their want isn't the issue, the child's welfare is. I've more than once encountered gays talking about how they'd like to adopt, and it inflames me. One of the most basic instincts of any parent is to prevent your kids from having the crappy experiences you did - how can you claim to have such parenting potential when you intend to inflict your past traumas on them? It doesn't say much for your credentials as a child rearer if you can overlook that to reach for a selfish desire.
There would of course be a fraction of children who would "luck out", and have a much healthier experience in a gay home than they would in a straight one - but for most, you're not offering a "risk" of this poor experience, you're guaranteeing it.
Lastly, about the "marriage right", yeah, I should have said marriage law (it's a flaw in my appreciation of english).
You're hardly alone in that, and I don't doubt that it was unintentional. Marriage has been frequently referred to as a right lately (here in the US, anyway - same in France?) by plenty of people. It's become common practice in the US to refer to anything you want as a "right"; you get lots of people who will leap over the step of asking themselves "Is it actually a right?" to start frothing at the mouth over the injustice of it being denied. If I started complaining abuot having my right to cocaine and hookers infringed, I bet I could get a few people going - it's much easier to do when you're talking about such a common practice as marriage.
* Almost everyone I knew who talked about it did not discuss homosexuality as something they selected - for most it was something that at some point became apparent. Two people that I can recall claimed to have chosen homosexuality. One of them said he never had that whole model/trauma thing, I don't think the other ever mentioned it at all - but I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who does choose it would not experience that.
Oops - I had put [rant][/rant] tags around the paragraph starting with "Frankly" - I guess they get parsed out.
It's an interesting take on the psylchological side of children growth. Your rant concern is exactly what I meant in my last post question : can we "trust" homosexual abilities in raising children ?
I believe your testimonies report of gay people. But since these people know about their trauma, and also would like to adopt, why assume that they would let their child go trough the same experience (or even intend it : I seriously doubt there's any malice in their wish) ? Since they can express what they went through, Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that they actually understood how to avoid the trauma ?
Besides, I have a few more questions regarding the rest of your post :
- do we stop traumatized heterosexuals to marry ?
- isn't the procreation desire always selfish ? Why do heterosexual couples wish to have children ? If it's because it's a natural thing to wish, why wouldn't homosexuals have the same natural wish ?
"marriage rights" sidenote :
In french, the literal translation of "right" is a word that also means "law" - as in "the law" - and this is why I get confused sometimes.
It's an interesting take on the psylchological side of children growth. Your rant concern is exactly what I meant in my last post question : can we "trust" homosexual abilities in raising children?
Trusting abilities isn't much of an issue to me - of the people I've known, there have been both gays and straights whose abilities I would say should not be trusted. Proportionally, I would say more gays than straights, but I also believe that a number of gays I've known could have decent skills for raising children also. One of my high school friends had a father who was gay (he realized it late), but stayed married until the kids were raised - I think he was as good a father as any of us had, maybe better than several. I have a clinical curiosity as to whether homosexuals have the same parenting instincts and drives as heterosexuals, but know of no reason for a blanket distrust of their skills. I'd have no problem letting a homosexual care for my daughter for a while (as long as they're not also an axe murderer or something).
I believe your testimonies report of gay people. But since these people know about their trauma, and also would like to adopt, why assume that they would let their child go trough the same experience (or even intend it : I seriously doubt there's any malice in their wish)?
I'd say not so much malice as indifference. I've only asked one person about it, and he's the chief reason it angers me - I associate him with gays who want to adopt. He was a roommate of mine, and we talked about all kinds of things. When he told me once that he'd like to adopt some day, I asked him why. He gave some vague reasons, but because I knew him well I also knew that he always felt he had sort of a "mission" to prove that gays were just as good as straights in all ways (not uncommon, I think). I am positive that much of his desire to raise a child was just to show that a gay man could do it - something I understand, but something that is inherently selfish (the child is not even the secondary concern here - it comes third after other people's opinions). I knew in intimate detail the sort of damage this "growing up with the wrong model" did to him. This included a lot of confusion and frustration, a few years of serious depression and 3 suicide attempts (I think his case is severe). When I asked if he wouldn't be running a straight child down the same path he had the "deer in the headlights" look for a second, and then just dismissed it as if it were trivial. This is mostly why I gave it 'rant' status - because I know I'm associating a whole group of people to the motives of this one guy, and that's not neccessarily fair. But I also know he was not so unusual among that group.
Since they can express what they went through, Wouldn't it seem more logical to believe that they actually understood how to avoid the trauma?
To some extent, I think this is true - if they could raise the child with the expectation that it would be straight (which I believe most gays would pay responsible attention to, if they understand the issue properly), I think they could sort of mitigate the effect. Gay parents can try to prepare a child for the eventuality that it will not be like them, and would do a better job than their own parents did preparing them to be gay. Heaven help the kid if they actually turned out gay...
But understand that the effect is not something done to the child by its parents, it's done by the natural process of growing up. Our earliest learning is very simple and subjective - what we experience, not what we're told. Every child puts their fingers on the stove once, even though you tell them it will hurt. We form this model through our observations, and it's set in us very early. Everything we learn or decide about ourselves gets built on this model, and those early patterns can be very difficult to displace. In fact, I think it's more reasonable to expect that it will not be overcome through parenting than to expect that it will.
I don't know if you have kids, want kids, don't want them or whatever - but suppose you did want to raise a child. Suppose you knew there was something about you that would very likely have a negative impact on the child later in its life - perhaps not a certainty, but very likely. Would it be irresponsible for you to seek a child then? Maybe, maybe not; I'd be more likely to say "yes" if this thing was something you yourself experienced, not abstract. In the same circumstance, would it be irresponsible for others to allow you to adopt one? I don't think there's any question about this - we screen prospective parents very carefully to try to insure the best homes for adopted kids. We don't put them into environments that are likely to be bad for them, period.
Besides, I have a few more questions regarding the rest of your post :
- do we stop traumatized heterosexuals to marry?
Not as long as they're mentally competant to make decisions for themselves. We would stop them from adopting though, if this trauma might imperil the child. I don't like to equate homosexuality to a mental condition, but in this context I think it's similar - we would not give a child to someone with a condition that had the potential to compromise a child's well-being, simply to satisfy the would-be parent's want. When we give a child into a home, the child is the primary consideration, not the parents.
- isn't the procreation desire always selfish ? Why do heterosexual couples wish to have children ? If it's because it's a natural thing to wish, why wouldn't homosexuals have the same natural wish ?
Part of it is very selfish, yes - to make a little extension of yourself, so to speak. To create and mold a new little person. But I would argue that actual parenting goes much beyond that desire to procreate, and that the desire alone does not make a suitable parent.
I had my daughter when I was pretty young. She was a "surprise", but one that (after some adjustment) I started to become very attached to. I am normally inclined not to favor abortion, but after I started to look forward to being a father there came a time that I considered it. This happened when I realized that her mother and I hadn't yet built any kind of life that would be good to bring a child into. I talked to my father about it; he pointed out that being ready to give her up for that reason, when I wanted to have her, was proof that I probably had the "parenting thing".
Since then, I've had continual lessons in what is and is not selfish (kids teach that, not parents) - being unselfish has very selfish rewards in the case of raising kids, but I'm convinced you have to come from a "for the child" position to get those rewards. I really don't believe they'll come from a "for me" position. Maybe you know what I mean - if not, I hope that makes sense.
"marriage rights" sidenote :
In french, the literal translation of "right" is a word that also means "law" - as in "the law" - and this is why I get confused sometimes.
An interesting note, I'm glad you point it out. Something I guess I would have learned if I hadn't dropped out of French classes. Is the meaning in context usually clear, or do the meanings often converge?
The same goes for love : as sex is an act based on choice (and in this case feelings), love is a feeling based on what ?
Hmm, I thought I made my point clearly, but I guess I'll state it again. SEX does not equal LOVE.
A man can love another man without having sex with him, indeed without even ever having the desire to have sex with him.
And NO, love is not based on feelings. Feelings change as often as the weather. Feelings change with your mood. True love is far more permanent and enduring, and it is something that people must choose.
Society would be a vastly different place if people would stop equating sex with love.
One more thing: gay people cannot claim that they don't have equal rights. A gay man has just as much right to marry a woman as a straight man has, and a straight man is every bit as prohibited from marrying a man as a gay man is. Equal rights in a nutshell.
Beo,
"Customers can have a car of the color they want, as long as it is black" (Henry Ford)
Doug,
the difference in meaning between "droit" (right) and "droit" (law) is usually clear from the context. Like "the right hand" and "the right thing".
Beo,
>Hmm, I thought I made my point clearly, but I guess
>I'll state it again. SEX does not equal LOVE.
I never said the opposit, actually I was trying to get an answer from you (that you gave me thank you).
As for love, I suppose now it depends on the person experiencing it : personnally, I can't choose to not love my parents. External events might change my love into something else (i'm trying to not use the word feeling, but this is the closest word I know that would match "something else" imho), but then again it wouldn't be a choice.
> One more thing: gay people cannot claim that
> they don't have equal rights. [...]
Okay, I'm guilty again of misusing words, so let me rephrase this : the marriage license constraints and privileges shouldn't be taylored for heterosexual couples only.
Doug,
You made a really insightful comment. I agree, couple first have to think about the well being of the child.
That said, I sincerly believe that at least some homosexuals think in these terms. Perhaps it is hard for them to keep this in mind when their abilities are challenged (my egoistic french spirit would also have difficulties to stay focused in this case ;).
I hope USA (and countries following its example), will not comdomne these couples for the selfinesh of the other ones.
Lastly, you guys already noticed that my english is far from perfect, so please accept my apologies, if anything I said in this thread could be taken as an offence to any way.
