From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 14:46:52 GMT
Hi Steve,
> Steve:
> Also generally pro "gay rights." I'm not against gay marriage.
>
> I disagree that part of the purpose of marriage is necessarily
childrearing
> (The issue of gay couple adoptions could be raised here).
That was actually my point, but perhaps it didn't come across very clearly,
so a restatement: historically, society had an interest in controlling
reproduction, for both obvious reasons (socialisation best accomplished by
being raised in a stable family) and also patriarchal/property reasons (so
adultery was only a stricture against women - mostly). I think that this
primitive justification for social involvement (ie, in MoQ terms, social
level controlling biology) has broken up somewhat, for two reasons. One is
the impact of universally available and reliable contraception, so that
fertility is now under conscious control. The second is the increased
emphasis upon the relationship between the two parties to the marriage, so
that sexuality is an expression of the quality of the relationship.
The practical result of these changes is that the direct link between
sexuality and reproduction has been sundered. So whereas the social level
previously exercised its legitimate control of socialising children through
a control of sexuality, that is no longer necessary. The social level needs
to focus explicitly on the question of child rearing and can afford to
ignore the wider questions of sexuality, to a large extent.
So with regard to 'marriage' it seems we need to make a distinction between
a partnership established for the mutual love, pleasure, spiritual growth
etc of the two parties concerned (with no view to raising children) and one
established for those reasons but also with a view to conceiving and raising
children. Let us distinguish between 'mating' and 'reproducing'.
I see no problem at all in making the legal or religious status of the
former blind to questions of sexuality. Whether that is called 'marriage' or
not is beside the point.
However, where I am still thinking things through is whether the same can be
said for the latter. I suspect that it can, in the end, I just haven't got
there yet with my thinking. Hence I'm 'ambivalent' on the question.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 15:26:38 GMT