Engagement
Nov. 9th, 2008 12:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumOver at the Atheist Ethicist a discussion of the meaning of words was started, by looking at the idea that Prop 8 was about defending the meaning of the word marriage. I'm not sure the conceit works, because the argument (flawed as I think it to be) wasn't about defending the definition, but the idea of marriage.
This isn't really important to the story.
In the course of it someone said something foolish (that the Church never threatened to kill people who challenged the Earth-centric view of the universe... which is techically true... heretics were turned over to the civil authorities, who would do with them as they saw fit. This is also neither here, nor there, to the story).
Someone else made a nasty barb about home schooling.
Enter, "Physicist Dave", who took grave offense, as he is home schooling his children (who are doing better than all those other children; why they'd give the kids in Lake Woebegone a solid drubbing, no matter how above average all of them are).
Dave is, you see a "traditional values" atheist (and hater of public education). He also voted for Prop 8, which is important to this story. It is, in fact, the point of this story.
Reading Dave's defense of his position is painful. Painful as working a loose tooth, or dried scab, is painful, because, as he tries to justify his action he exposes more and more of his fears, and bigotries, and lack of understanding (his grasp of evolution seems to be a tad flawed; he seems to have, at least, traces of the idea of "direction"). He think Calif. Judges are "activist", Prop 8 will force religious intolerance, that lawsuits over discrimination; had it passed, would be bad (such things ought to be worked out in private, between landlords and tenants, employers and workers), and homosexuals already have the right to live together; and not be thrown in jail for having sex.
They can even get a religious blessing.
So actually treating them as equal isn't such a big deal.
This, I think, is the problem we, who oppose 8, and all its ilk, have to face. It's what we have to devise a means to fight.
This isn't really important to the story.
In the course of it someone said something foolish (that the Church never threatened to kill people who challenged the Earth-centric view of the universe... which is techically true... heretics were turned over to the civil authorities, who would do with them as they saw fit. This is also neither here, nor there, to the story).
Someone else made a nasty barb about home schooling.
Enter, "Physicist Dave", who took grave offense, as he is home schooling his children (who are doing better than all those other children; why they'd give the kids in Lake Woebegone a solid drubbing, no matter how above average all of them are).
Dave is, you see a "traditional values" atheist (and hater of public education). He also voted for Prop 8, which is important to this story. It is, in fact, the point of this story.
Reading Dave's defense of his position is painful. Painful as working a loose tooth, or dried scab, is painful, because, as he tries to justify his action he exposes more and more of his fears, and bigotries, and lack of understanding (his grasp of evolution seems to be a tad flawed; he seems to have, at least, traces of the idea of "direction"). He think Calif. Judges are "activist", Prop 8 will force religious intolerance, that lawsuits over discrimination; had it passed, would be bad (such things ought to be worked out in private, between landlords and tenants, employers and workers), and homosexuals already have the right to live together; and not be thrown in jail for having sex.
They can even get a religious blessing.
So actually treating them as equal isn't such a big deal.
This, I think, is the problem we, who oppose 8, and all its ilk, have to face. It's what we have to devise a means to fight.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-12 02:57 am (UTC)The word original in the excerpt I quoted implies to me that no second parent adoption or termination of rights is necessary.
Given your example, I suspect perhaps the devil is in the details...
Sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogate mothers do not, I believe, have parental rights. So while it does take a bit of effort, it is indeed quite possible to have a child without a legal mother. At birth. But the egg donor and the surrogate must not be the same person. Taken to an extreme, it would also be possible to not have a father as well. But I'm not sure if anyone's taken it that far nor how the legalities work out in that case.
I'll take a risk that perhaps we're each thinking of different ways the child came into being and the legal technicalities that apply in those situations.