Such a system, universally introduced, would be extremely cumbersome and expensive.

“The identification of a person owing to his genetic prints may only be searched for within the framework of inquiries or investigations pending judicial proceedings or for medical purposes or in the interest of scientific research.
In civil matters, that identification may be sought only in implementation of proof proceedings directed by the court seized of an action aiming either at establishing or at contesting a parental bond, or for getting or discontinuing subsidies. The consent of the person must be obtained previously and expressly. Save an express consent given by the person during his lifetime, no identification owing to genetic prints may be effected after his death”

And, ” Only persons whom have been authorized in such a way as prescribed by a decree in Conseil d’Etat are entitled to undertake identifications owing to genetic prints. In the framework of judicial proceedings, those persons must besides be registered in a list of judicial experts.”

But, providing these requirements were met, then, no.

Professor Pierre Lévy-Soussan, who is a government advisor on mental health matters, has based his opinions on clinical case-studies carried out by psychoanalysts over the last century and the theories elaborated on the basis of them. He was himself a student and colleague of Jacques Lacan.

Thanks for pointing that out. It’s an affirmation of how the “deep structure” of law and society is usually better grounded than the ideologies flying over society’s head.

No question of “truth” arises. The law belongs to the realm of practice, not speculation; findings of fact are a mere prelude to decision-making.

But, er, facts sure as hell ought to impact on the practice of law. See, oh to take a random example, the notion above of legally prescribing the weather.

Would you be okay with DNA tests done at birth, so the father could contest or accept paternity then?

The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.

Um, okay. Bully for him. It was once obvious that we shouldn’t allow a woman to develop her intellect too much either, because that would impair the development of her uterus.

What evidence does Pierre Lévy-Soussan advance in support of this claim?

Social stigma will be legally mandated when laws are passed forcing us to pretend that gays can be “married”.

I can’t properly express how much I crave some specifics from you on what you’ll have to pretend. Oh, wait, you finally provided some!

It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe that adultery is incompatible with marriage.

It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe that a man ought to honor and respect his baby’s mama, instead of degrading and exploiting her, and reducing her to mere “gestational carrier”.

It will be defined as a “thought crime”, punishable by law, to believe (or teach your children!) that a healthy family is one where the parents put the needs of the children before their own desires.

Given the example of Phelps and the Westboro loonies being specifically protected in their endeavors to loudly protest any and all homosexuality – even at the funerals of unrelated people – I must confess I fail to see the slightest evidence for this. (BTW, I think that case was correctly decided, for what it’s worth.)

I’m sure you believe it passionately, but do you have anything more substantial than a gut feeling (or more communicable than a personal divine revelation?) to support the above contentions?

How will these ‘thought crimes’ be implemented, for example? What will you have to do or say to be in violation? Will these be civil or criminal infractions? Darn it, I guess I still need some specifics after all.

“Ultimately, the biological reality undergirds the social reality”

Indeed, which is why the leading psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, Pierre Lévy-Soussan, had this to say of adoption: in order to be successful, adoption must lead to a psychological filiation that “allows for a nexus of the three elements that are basic to any society: the biological, the social and the subjective dimensions specific to human beings. The psychological strength of this construction exceeds the purely biological connection of filiation and provides it with security. The security and ‘truth’ of this filiation are based on childbirth, on a potential or actual procreative relationship between a man and a woman, allowing the fictional filiation through the encounter with the other sex, alive and of the same generation. The fictional filiation can then be experienced as true, consistent and reasonable.” The difference in sex between the two members of the parental couple thus seems to him indispensable if the adoption “graft” is to take.

That is why talk of “marriage equality” is plainly nonsense. In fact, your argument against it echoes that approved by the French Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Council in the Bègles case: its “specific and non-discriminatory character was the result of the fact that nature had limited potential fertility to couples of different sexes… Clearly, same-sex couples whom nature had not made potentially fertile were consequently not concerned by the institution of marriage. This was differential legal treatment because their situation was not analogous”

Neither you nor Alessandra deserves a serious response.
==========
Well, the poster here who has displayed one of the most shoddy, unethical ensemble of attitudes about sexuality is talking about seriousness…

Like Blake, I’ll be waiting for a serious post from you… if you can ever manage to post one. But we know you never will. A morally bankrupt ideology is like that.

Next excuse…

Read up on all the cases of Christian social work students who were attacked for having a wholesome sexuality view that does not normalize homosexuality.

Alessandra,

Cite some cases. I can find one—the case of Emily Brooker at Missouri State University.

Anyone who believes otherwise must be now branded a criminal, even though these three dogmas are all irrational and unfounded.

Emily Brooker was not “branded a criminal,” and while she may have been mistreated, she won a lawsuit against the university.

Don’t expect people to hunt for evidence to support your position when you don’t bother to cite it yourself. I am certainly not going to do it again. If you have a case to make, make it yourself.
======
Well, is that a declaration of the size of you ignorance or what?

News flash: I am also not responsible for you having some serious mental impairment for performing simple searches on the Internet. A simple search on Google is not exactly a “hunt for information” if you ask me.

Expelled out of school for thought crime:

Real case – Jennifer Keeton:

http://chronicle.com/article/Augusta-State-U-Is-Accused-of/123650/

http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/08/25/augusta-state-university-and-american-counseling-association-only-immoral-beliefs-allowed-otherwise-you-are-expelled/

http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/07/24/grad-student-accused-and-condemned-on-thougt-crime-the-issue-homosexuality-thought-crime-of-course/

I think it is interesting that they didn’t recommend she attend a counseling section for people with a homosexual problem who do not want to have a homosexual problem, and are looking for a therapist to help them; nor homosexuals who infect others with AIDS by their irresponsible, promiscuous behavior; nor the significant number of homosexuals who sexually harass or engage in domestic violence; nor the ones who abuse adolescents; nor the ones who exploit prostitution; nor the ones who produce pornography, as a few examples.

Then there is also Julea Ward:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/

more similar examples:
Philip Lardner (UK):
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/08/10/former-tory-candidate-warned-by-employer-over-anti-gay-comments/

Dr Sheila Matthews (UK)
http://socimages.blogsome.com/2010/11/15/doctor-driven-out-of-her-job-because-of-her-healthy-sexuality-views-on-homosexuality-and-adoption/

Here’s one more case:
In the case below in the US, it was a raging queen that demanded that Michael Campion lose his job.

A psychologist who screened potential Minneapolis police officers will receive a $210,000 settlement from the city over his firing, which stemmed from his affiliation with the Illinois Family Institute and his support for treating the problem of homosexuality.

Why was he fired?

Although never admitted to be more than just a coincidence, Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who has a homosexual problem and is a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, “How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?”

Then Campion was fired.

Should I also post about the couple in the UK who was denied foster parent status and declared unfit for parenting because they were a healthy, wonderful Christian family who does not promote homosexuality, (pornography, and prostitution)? Treated as criminals.

We also need to add that this British couple has been married for 39 years and they had successfully fostered 15 children in the past. How many people do you personally know that match this record?

http://www.christianpost.com/news/attorney-tells-uk-christian-foster-parents-that-appeal-is-futile-49363/

However…

Flaming Gay-Married White Liberal Rapes Adopted 5 Year Old Black Boy

http://www.belch.com/blog/2009/06/29/flaming-gay-married-white-liberal-rapes-adopted-5-year-old-black-boy/

“Meet Gay Associate Director of Duke University’s Global Health Policy, Frank Lombard. He and his gay partner, who live in a wealthy hippie commune in Durham, North Carolina, decided to adopt black children because, as liberals and queers, that’s what they think society should allow them to do.

But there was a catch- Lombard was a child predator who only wanted the children so he could film himself having sex with them and sell their “sweet black asses” for sex to other perverts on the internet. As for Lombard’s gay husband/clueless lifepartner who supposedly knew nothing about Lombard anally raping their child? Who knows what he is up to now- probably doing research on gay divorce.”

In the chat transcript (by undercover police), “F.L.” is asked how he got access to a child so young. “Adopted,” he replied, and said that the process was “not so hard … esp (sic) for a black boy.”

In the chat, “F.L.” told Palchak that abusing the child was “easier when he was too young to know what was happening and when he couldn’t talk …He had a little too much Benadryl. Was knocked out.”

………………………
And then there’s this detail- what’s the homosexual’s monster job?

In the Duke University’s Global *Health Policy* dept.

Maybe, before police caught him, he used to work under the man who posts as “Michael” here?

You know, they both love to keep silent about every crime ever perpetrated by a homosexual or bisexual… birds of a feather, etc.

I said that boys at my Catholic high school beat up gays. At least of those boys was Protestant.

Neither you nor Alessandra deserves a serious response.

I don’t fault you with the latter (credulity bordering on insanity) but only with the former.

In one of your early comments, you said you weren’t interested in philosophy. This might be what really separates us. I think the debate about SSM suffers from a deficit of conceptual coherence–on both sides, but especially on the pro-SSM side. The pro-SSMers seem hellbent on making a straw man out of the procreation-marriage nexus and gleefully knocking it down. I’m not impressed.