BS: On Same-Sex Marriages

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:19 PM

Perhaps you missed this the first time, of skimming it, and not comprehending it. "Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 01:04 PM

In reply to the question of procreation and marriage I have attended emotionally moving and loving ceremonies where older people have been married in church with the 'tactful' removal of those lines from the 'standard' ceremony .

I would like to pose a question to some folks here however about the refusal to contract a civil union on the grounds of 'religious belief 'by a civil servant.

Some churches still regard the 'divine standard' for marriage as lifelong commitment to one's spouse, and nothing else; even though divorce was permitted in some cases under the Old Testament economy

Assuming that one spouse abandons the other is the 'innocent party' to be denied the opportunity for remarriage and the possibility of family life in the eyes of their God and even the state?
If their church refuses to marry them (as may indeed occur) is it acceptable that a registrar should also discriminate against their civil union for 'religious' reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:23 AM

OK, Guest from Sanity, if I, being over 60 and infertile, wish to marry in order to ''enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but [my] reason is to accommodate [my] lifestyle', but being by reason of my age and cancer-induced infertility incapable of reproduction, then according to your reasoning, I should not be allowed to marry.   No love, no companionship, no mutual support, if I can't have children I can't marry.

Funny idea of Sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 10:20 AM

It seems the dark cancer of intolerance of difernetness is deeper running than I wouild have thought.

While it is nice to say that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation, the sad truth is it ALSO exists for political purposes, monetary gain, protection of weakenesses, access to property, and other reasons.

IF you are focusing purely on the individual's postulated couplehood, then the shape of their underpinnings really doesn't have a lot to do with it. Nor should it have any bearing in law, as such.

THe issues that DO have bearing in law reasonably include the legal status of couplehood in terms of social contracts such as insurance, inheritance, and the other benefits of joint life. But none of these issues attached to the notion of marriage have much if anything to do with reproduction. Well, except for "dependents" exceptions in tax codes.

As for the sanctity of reproduction, I would submit that is a belief whose expiration date has comne, considering it has driven us over the 6 billion mark.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 08:36 AM

This is the wording of the "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the Michigan State Constitution:

To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.

It isn't aimed at seeing that same-sex unions aren't called marriage; it is aimed at denying any legal recognition whatever to same-sex couples. The proponents of the act said it would not deny dependent benefits to same-sex partners. I said it would. The resultant court cases I know of so far are aimed at preventing taxpayer supported institutions from paying partner benefits; I fully expect someone to push for criminalisation of the payment of partner benefits by private employers.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 07:56 AM

'The Civil Partnership Act (CPA) came into force on 5th December 2005. It enables same-sex couples to register their partnerships.
It creates a new legal relationship - that of a civil partnership - but it is NOT a marriage.

During the genesis of CPA 2004, some commentators suggested that, far from alleviating discrimination against the gay and lesbian community, it would solidify and legitimize discrimination.
The complaint was that the law does not place civil partnerships on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage and that creating civil partnerships reinforces and perpetuates discrimination.'

Source: New Law Journal

I agree with Ruth's sentiments; I was personally married in a civil ceremony because I am not a believer in any Christian religion and religion didn't, and shouldn't, play any part in a civil union IMO

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 05:25 AM

"As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem.

These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available."

I disagree. As a civil servant, you can't pick and choose which bits of your job you want to do. You have certain duties, and it is your job to uphold them.

Civil partnersghip is NOT a religious ceremony, and issues of religion should be utterly irrelevant.

I don't like the idea of my taxes facilitating institutionalised prejudice. Civil partnership is now a fact of life in the UK. If there are registrars who feel they cannot perform the ceremony, maybe they should have thought about other career options in the many months leading up to the legalisation of civil partnership. I believe most councils offer re-deployment schemes.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 03:36 AM

Well said guest, and if your thoughts could be put into practice the problem would disappear.

Unfortunately, to a large section of homosexuals, the word is what matters, not equal rights under the law.
Nothing will satisfy them but the re-definition of marriage to suit their agenda.   As I said on another thread, we all have some sort of agenda, but cannot expect our newly aquired rights to "trump" the traditional rights of others, no matter how vociferous we become

"The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief".

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Jul 08 - 02:40 AM

I'm not going to spend much time with this one, other than to give a brief account on marriage. Basically, when a man and woman, make public announcement that they shall be joined together in marriage, it had the attached understanding, and formalized by both church and state, that these two were joined, together, for the bearing of offspring, and everybody else was to have hands off. It came down that, certain disciplines, were employed, because the family was held sacred, and the bond, for that reason was recognized, and respected. All living things on this planet have two things in common: The will to survive, and reproduce...anything that gets in the way of that, and hinders surviving, and/or reproducing is actually a form of death. Marriage, between a man and woman, was,and is recognized, institution of that. (though there are people who marry, and having children is not part of their particular program) Though the mores,and values have changed, the institution of marriage was for the above said purpose. If people want to have the same rights as marriage, they should also recognize that those rights were institutionalized, for the REASON of marriage(as said above). Now if people want to 'enjoy' all the same privileges of marriage, but their reason is to accommodate their lifestyle, of choice, then perhaps they would, should or could, try calling it something else, as to, differentiate, what their lifestyle is, which is other than what the already established, institution is about.
Do they have a right?? Legally, they can do what they want. Morally? Well, that is dictated by the morals, of acceptability, within the society, which also incorporates the spiritual aspect of religion, as being a part of society. For those who want recognition in the religious community for their lifestyle, and call the church narrow minded, and stupid, that is pretty arrogant, yourself. After all, when someone in a church whips out their Bible, and shows you, that 'it says right here....etc..'I doubt the same scripture doesn't include the phrase 'except for you'. That is their belief, and no, they don't have to change it, to accommodate you! You think their silly....they think you're silly. Get over it!
Now, let's take it a step further....Two guys move into a place together, and they are not sexually active with each other, nor with anyone of the same sex, ok?..Do they have the right to claim 'same sex marriage' so to collect the benefits, that claiming that, would afford them???
If another 'designation of status' is made to accommodate homosexuals, then that is the designation for that situation..marriage is not that situation. Perhaps they'll come up with something else...ok?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:48 PM

It was racism, Ake. A blind hatred of something too different from oneself to tolerate.

Intolerance toward other human beings, their races, their genders, their preference sin private affairs, is the root of much human misery. It is, itself, a sort of festering disease of the spirit, IMHO.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

I'll accept 'political' with a small p ake but thought you were using it in combination with gerrymandering as it was practiced in the six counties in combination with a first past the post voting system and redefined constituency boundaries.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:21 PM

Thanks again Emma, but it appears from what you havequoted, that both church's discouraged "mixed marriage" principly as a means of retaining their followers, making their actions political rather than theological?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:04 PM

The Attitudes of the Churches - Historical Development of Positions on Mixed Marriage

'The practical personal and social difficulties experienced by those participating in such marriages in Northern Ireland are not the primary concern of those who legislate, interpret doctrine or scripture and administer procedures relating to marriage and the family within particular churches. Those engaged in regulating marriage within the churches are concerned with theological issues, and may regard as secondary - and be distanced from - the realities of everyday life in a mixed marriage. It is, however, the historical theological divergences of the churches which have in large part created the basis of the practical difficulties associated with mixed marriage. Practice in relation to marriage cannot be separated from wider issues of ecclesiastical doctrine which set the requirements each church puts on its own members and the ways in which that church relates to members of other churches. As Heron (1975) points out the fundamental theological problem associated with mixed marriage is that separate churches exist at all. In Northern Ireland the overall attitude of the Catholic and Protestant churches to one another has been negative, even antagonistic, and this has carried over into their views of mixed marriage. The unity expressed by two marriage partners from within one church, and the common allegiance to that church's immediate and wider community which supports the coherence and purpose of both church and family. are in theological terms replaced by instability and incoherence when one partner feels allegiance to another church.

Within this essentially hostile environment each church has developed its attitude to mixed marriage unilaterally. The general standpoints of both Protestant and Catholic churches have historically been to discourage interchurch marriage, to seek to retain the allegiance of their own members where such marriages do occur, and to focus on ensuring the upbringing of any children within their church. The Catholic church has perhaps been the most active both in legislating and in enforcing legislation with regard to mixed marriage. Less formal structures have existed within the Protestant churches, although the historical response of some Protestant denominations has been equally triumphalist and separatist'

copyright 'Mixed Marriages in Northern Ireland'

by Valerie Morgan, Marie Smyth, Gillian Robinson and Grace Fraser
Published by the University of Ulster, Coleraine 1996
ISBN 1 85923 042 3
Paperback 61pp £4.00

Never underestimate the 'authority' of organized religious doctrine

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:52 PM

Thank you for that infomation Emma, but I still feel that these restrictions must have been a form of political gerrymandering, as the Protestant/Catholic conflict was used in 19th and 20th century UK: rather than sincerely held religious belief...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Emma B
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 05:18 PM

Ake see the
lovingday site

'It is only 40 years since mixed race/ interracial marriages were finally legalized in every state in the United States.
In 1967, the law banning mixed race marriages was finally overturned in a landmark case between the state of Virginia and Mr and Mrs Loving (yes, their real names), a white American man and an Afro-American lady. Some states, including New York, never had legal restrictions on mixed race marriages, while other states only introduced the law at the beginning of the 20th century.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it wasn't until 2000 that the law against mixed marriages was finally taken off the books in the southern state of Alabama, although it was never legally enforced after 1967.'

Rulings against mixed marriages were even upheld by perverting the religious teachings of Christianity:

"Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
- Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM

Hi Amos...I wasn't being disingenuous, I honestly had not heard of any opposition to mixed race marriages from within the christian community.

Seems a totally different situation.
The traditional definition of marriage is man/woman, as far as I was aware race was not mentioned.

I was aware that mixed race marriages were frowned upon in some of the Southern states of America .....but surely that was politically inspired?....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 03:26 PM

You've all missed the point. The lady's complaint that brought about the tribunal was NOT that she was required to carry out same-sex 'marriages', it was that, having expressed her unwillingness on the grounds of her sincerely-held religious beliefs, she was then subjected to a lengthy period of relentless abuse, including threats of dismissal and personal insults, both by her colleagues and her superiors.

She didn't go to the tribunal because she'd been asked to carry out same-sex 'marriages', she went because those at Islington Borough Council who support same-sex marriage were not willing to afford her the same tolerance and respect for her religious beliefs that they expected her to show for other peoples' sexuality.

Some strange, illogical people holding the reins of power in Islington, seemingly.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 01:09 PM

Ake:

Don't be disingenuous. There are many people who would assert-=--and have asserted--that mixed race marriages are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. There have been states where mixed race marriages were deemed criminal.

Same-sex marriages suffer from a similar cast of disappropbation by those who believe that affinities should be dictated.

It comes down to whether marriage is a postulated state by the participants, and recognized as a social status by law -- or a social status defined and decreed by law, accepted by the participants. While churches may have a role in what marriages they will recognize for their own neurotic religious reasons, the law, IMHO, has no business prescribing; it should merely support. The idea, of course, of a government whose role was support of people is a bit alien.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:33 PM

and Jewish marriages would surely be conducted by a rabbi.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 12:30 PM

Why on earth would anyone refuse to conduct mixed race marriages???

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:32 AM

Suffering for your beliefs is one thing. Making other people suffer for your beliefs is quite another. It would have been noble of this woman to give up the job if she can not in conscience carry it out all the duties involved. Would people have had sympathy had she refused to marry Jews or conduct mixed- race marriages?

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,c.g.
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 07:58 AM

Two people in a loving and stable relationship want that relationship to have legal status.

Other people want to prevent this becuse their religious beliefs say this is wrong.

One of the reasons given is that 'marriage is about procreation'. This means that infertile people have no right to get married.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:06 AM

Looks like the tide has turned.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 08:57 PM

I used to know a couple who were married in a very traditional sense, including heterosexuality & even monogamy, only, being atheists & anarchists, they declined to involve either church or state in the matter. After she first applied for a job using her husband's last name, she got a form letter from the Social Security Administration inquiring about the discrepancy. She wrote on the back, "I find it convenient to use the last name of the man I am living with" and returned it. Social Security sent her a new card.

This shows that it is possible for one government agency to mind its own business. Let the rest of them go & do likewise!

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

As long as there are registrars available who aren't so fussy, it shouldn't be a problem.

These allowances for religious distaste for perfectly legal activities become a problem when no other service is available. There is the example of Christian pharmacists in the US, who won't prescribe morning after pills, and sometimes not even birth control pills (though none seem to have a problem with Viagra). People who live in urban areas don't see a problem, but it becomes a problem when the only drugstore in two hundred km. will not serve the needs of women.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:57 PM

This was a victory for individual rights; so was the earlier decision. Both sides are perfectly correct. There is no reason for Ms Ladele to have to do something she abhors for religious reasons, than there is to deny lesbians the right to wed, served by someone less fussy about human life.

Making a bi-polar, Manichean contest out of it is just dull.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:56 PM

I'd assume that one basis for the judge's decision would have been that requiring her to officiate at these ceremonies would constitute a change to her terms of conditions of service. She'd been engaged to do one job, and that wasn't that job.

A bit like expecting someone who'd been employed as a vegetarian cook in a vegetarian restaurant to start cooking meat when a new management took over.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 05:22 PM

Good to see the"Appeal Judges" agree with me.


"The ruling said that Islington council "placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief".

At last a victory for common sense!

Granting "rights" to one section of society DOES impact on other sections.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:04 PM

I hope you are right kat but 6 months is an eternity in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:47 PM

There's an interesting op/ed piece HERE, but I found the comments even more interesting, esp. the one which pointed out that people are so concerned about who gets married and whether it is okay in whatever church but NONE of them talk about the divorce rate, who should be allowed to divorce, AND about religion/churches having a hand in it, i.e. nobody goes to church to "get divorced." If they truly cared about marriages, etc. they would address the divorce rate, no?

I just don't see this as bad timing for the Dems. They are on an upswing, we are beginning to see a return to some kind of balance and the Dems will not be stopped this year. The ultra-wrong are not going to come out in droves...they are demoralised, unhappy with the candidate, and small in numbers.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:49 AM

I agree with you Amos. If you would check back in this thread for my posts (not suggesting you should, wouldn't be worth the effort) that is what you would find. But I also think this development is bad timing politically for the dems.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:45 AM

The key issue is whether government should be involved in the freedom to create relationships between individuals.

The answer is, they should not, which is the essence behind the California court's finding.

The right to decide the terms of human relationships is one of those left by the Constitution to the citizenry, and should be added to the Bill of Rights.

There are civil consequences to marriage, and they should be uniformly applied to any couple meeting other requirements, such as a blood test, without regard to sexual orientation, which is just none of the state's business.

The fact that some folks just cannot stop thinking about others' sexuality is not a good justification for making a religion out of being a busybody, or a government, either.

There was some chat upthread as to whether it is or is not a wide-spread perception that homosexuality is "disgusting". All I can say is, to feel thaty amount of revulsion toward something, you sure have to put a lot of attention on it, first. WHich does not constitute minding your own business.

A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:32 AM

But this is just the sort of thing that energizes the anti crowd to get out and vote.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:56 AM

What I don't get, really, is why this is a government issue at all. The government is concerned with citizens, not freely formed relationships and not religion; and trying to legislate how they may or may not lead their private lives, and what relationships they may or may not make, is actually contrary to the government's own interest, at any level.


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 May 08 - 10:54 AM

I don't see that it is that earth-shattering. From what I've read all of the candidates have pretty much the same stance...the "safe" middle-of-the-road, "I'm not in favour of a same-sex marriage law, but do support civil unions" crap.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 May 08 - 09:57 AM

I have to agree that the timing is bad politically for the dems. Nobody is likely to change their opinions but it may bring some folks to the polls who would otherwise have sat it out and I expect that most such folks would be voting for the repubs.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 08:38 AM

At least it seems McCain is on record as opposing a federal ban on homosexual marriage. That should lessen his ability to ride this one. It appears he will couch it in terms of an out-of-control judiciary (read: liberal judiciary). We'll see how that plays.

Problem is: the issue gives cover to voters who want to be against Obama for "acceptable reasons":    "I'm only against him since he doesn't believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman".

And of course we'll also see if the economy trumps this whole topic this time.

It may.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:42 AM

See my post of 3 Sept 2007 8:37 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:41 AM

Obviously, the issue has always around for a while. Problem is it is now front and center--big news. So it will be back in the consciousness of many voters.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 May 08 - 07:35 AM

The best bit of good luck McCain has had in quite a while--the California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on marriage of homosexuals.

Oh, brother.

I'm fully aware of the enthusiasm quite a few Mudcatters have for this idea. It's the timing I'm addressing--from a political viewpoint.

Does anybody recall how helpful this issue was to GWB in 2004?

All of a sudden McCain's chances have dramatically improved.

Either Obama goes along with the idea of marriage for homosexuals--guaranteed to get the same Neanderthals flocking to the polls to oppose it--and him--as Kerry had in 2004. Or he doesn't go along with it--and risks alienating those voters who support it.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: frogprince
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:56 PM

I saw a TV documentary a few months back about a mother who was put through hell. She had a paternity test done, and the authorities proceeded to rake her over the coals; the test determined that her husband was the father, but she could not be the mother. After a prolonged nightmare, someone involved stumbled on a similar case, and it led to further testing and the actual answer. The mother is a chimera. In medical terms, that means that different dna can be found in different tissues of her body.

I have a suspicion that this has been looked for so little that it may turn out to not be all that rare. It's another way that the paternity test results could get skewed some.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Amos
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 08:49 PM

Wow, what a clever gimmick!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bee
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 07:57 PM

Where I grew up, and it was likely common behaviour elsewhere as well, teenage pregnancy was often handled thusly: the mother of the teen announced she herself was pregnant. Several months later the teen goes to 'visit relatives on the mainland'. Couple months later, the teen's mother 'has the baby'. The child was registered as the biological child of its grandparents. That could mess up the DNA testing considerable, and I imagine it does.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:49 PM

"...oh, your papa's not your papa but your papa don't know..."

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 04:30 PM

Wolfgang's citation for "paternity tests" in which there is a dispute - or potential one - about paternity is a good one.

The numbers (>>10%) that I gave come from a vastly different "population," though.

I haven't seen specific numbers. For people innocently attempting to show links to ancestors via DNA testing, higher percentages have been reported - but only in "generic" terms. The numbers reported for these tests quite probably include broken links within a few generations back, as well as simple father/child "errors," and I haven't seen anyone publishing reviewable analyses of the results. The results would, of course, report an "error" of this kind for nearly all adopted children, many of whom may never have been told about the adoption(?).

It is all largely hearsay, so I'd suggest caution in quoting any specific percentages as confirmed "facts."

Any "errors" found in this genealogical testing certainly may say as much about the (lack of) reliability of genealogical records (and especially about "family histories") as about the behaviour of "wayward wives."

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 03:11 PM

In my opinion...from reading different posts and watching behavior for many years, 'most' of the opposition to same sex marriage boils down to "If I am able to call what I have 'marriage', while you cannot call your 'relationship' the same, it gives my situation a higher status and keeps a cloud over what YOU do."

Yes...exceptions noted, and I can't personally cite statistics from any surveys....I doubt that it would be possible to get totally honest answers to a survey about basic motivation in the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 07 - 02:47 PM

In a study by researchers in Liverpool, performed in men and women wanting proof of paternity from testing as well as studies based on genetic health screening, it was found that rates of cases where a man was not the biological father of his child was on average one in 25, ranging from 1% in some studies to as much as 30%.2 that the alleged father is not the biological father of the child.

copied from here

4% on average gives a better estimate than the often quoted maximum values. If one reads any number (advertisment or elsewhere) with the words "up to" preceeding the number, one should be very careful.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 05:06 PM

Although the situation may be somewhat different in Australia, from the standpoint of US Civil (Domestic Relations) law, neither of the two cases cited (20 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM)
have anything to do with the sex of the parties.

In the first case, a "biological father" who was not legally married to the mother is attempting to assert "parenthood," despite the acceptance of parenthood by the preferred (married?) partner of the mother. Cases of this kind are not particularly rare¹, and this case certainly wouldn't have been noted by the media except for purposes of promulgating notoriety over the "gayness" of the parties. The attempt to assert "four parents" has no standing in any US civil law that I've heard of, regardless of the sex of any of the parties.

A simple compromise, although unlikely to be deemed acceptable by the parties, would be to name the "other couple" as "god-parents" and give them some (limited?) power of attorney to participate in the rearing of the children - but even that has nothing much to do with sex or sexual preference.

In the second case, two "parents" asked for one child and got two. That happens quite commonly in cases of artificial insemination, and this is certainly not the first case in which the parents have attempted to hold the doctor liable. Again, the sexual preferences of the parents have NOTHING TO DO with whether the case has any merit, and the case would almost certainly have passed unnoted by the media if not for the sensationalist opportunism evident. Multiple prior cases in the US, mostly with more conventional couples, would suggest that their chances of winning anything from the doctor will be written up in a judgement containing references to "snowballs" and "hell."

Maybe the couple in the second case would like to offer their "extra" child for adoption by the guys in the first?????? (OK - sarcasm should be limited, and apology given.)

¹ A spin-off result of "genome projects" in which people submit their own DNA for purposes of tracing ancestry has been the observation that a startling number of people (>>10%? according to several reports) cannot be the biological offspring of the father who raised them - regardless of how "conventional" their family background.

John

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 03:52 PM

JohnInKansas you have said it best. This should be the last word on this subject: in this thread, in this country and in civilized society anywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: On Same-Sex Marriages
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Sep 07 - 01:59 PM

John in Kansas. Excellent! Thank you for posting that.

Don Firth