Britain's Coalition for Marriage is circulating a YouTube unlisted video which it made for debate purposes. Rebecca Hunt articulates one understanding of the viewpoint 1women1man with exclusivity and the intention of permanence (I have a different view more in l+n with Herman Dooyeweerd's Protestant theoretics on marriage). Mike Bonouto (for the opposition which he defines in terms of inclusivism of all kinds intimate-union couples) and Rebecca Hunt (for the traditional status and heterosexual structure of the marriage relationship but which she confuses with the pre-child status of a marriage, which woud be empowered by a normative juridics of the State, to assign to the woman her own sphere-sovereignty over her womb, and the subsequently distinct sphere-sovereignty of the family in the guiding role of both parents together after the birth of the child, the woman being responsible for her sphere sovereignty over her womb from conception and to bringing the preborn to term -- but normatively having to decide the question of abortion, if she has any such question, during a term of optimal duration prior to reaching the l+n established by the state's juridical institutions. This is a reproductive r+t which shoud be vigourously defended by the courts — perhaps special courts for this purpose — so as to ensure the pregnant woman against the coercian of spouse/partner, father, mother, siblings, extended family members and relatives, church or state or any other coercive force trying to force her either to abort or not abort).
No one in Britain of whom I have knowledge is advocating these distinctions and juridical provisions. But short of that, I think the Coalition for Marriage is doing the best job for traditional marriage around the globe. The debate in the USA, comparatively speaking, is Neantherthal; a mess of heated up rhetoric really focussed on the presidential campaign. While in Canada, the debate is virtually non-existent. In Canada, the reformational political organization has set up a front group called We want the debate (on abortion), but when I s+nd on with a comment mentioning m+ view, I got an answer back that disputed m+ view itself and didn't much remark on the fact that I supported the idea of a debate. So, it wasn't really a matter of We need a debate or We want the debate, encouraging a true debate to emerge, especially at the federal Parliamentary level of the House of Commons (Canada has no law whatsoever on abortion). Instead, We want the debate turns out to be an advocacy group for a certain outcome of the debate, thru ARPA, of the official teaching of the Canadian Reformed Church (affiliated with the former Vrijemakte Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands), an advocacy that turned out to favour a simple outlawing of abortions for any reason. This is the Scholastic doctrine rooted Dutch Reformed precedents dependent on Aquinas and Aristotelian biotistic reductivism. Of course, the drive to outlaw abortions for any reason (rape, incest, etc) vitiates the power of the pregnant woman over her own womb, the r+t to decide her fate in this pregancy, wanted or not. The manipulative treatment of goodwill s+ners of the petition mirrors the manipulative treatment of pregnant women by the frontgroup We need a debate, fronting for the Association for Reformed Political Action based on the Scholasticism of which the Roman Catholic Church's "consistent ethics of life" remains the mainstay.
Another facet of the debate over marriage is termed as "separate but not equal," which when formulated in this way it smothers the difference between traditional marriage which postulates the importance of intimate unions of couples in the quotidian negotiating of the difference between a woman and a man, compared to the intimate unions of 2 women, on the one hand, or the intimate unions of 2 men — such that neither of the latter kinds of intimate unions are the same, but again are different (the fallacy of the "same sex" terminology in the most jurisdictions adopting a specious notion of "equality" around that term). Lesbian intimate unions are different from both heterosexual unions, and male homo intimate unions. There's nothing wrong with recognizing all three kinds of intimate unions, but I woud argue that hetero intimate unions in marriage have a priority claim on the protection and encouragement of the State — due to the unique pattern of the quotidian dialogue and negotiation of the practicalities of the heterosexual difference from the other two kinds of intimate unions.
— Owlb, refWrite Frontpage editor and columnist at large
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KlYOBAuISp0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
What is an unlisted video on YouTube and affilated channels like refWrite's yUT2ube?
No comments:
Post a Comment