But if social then it cannot be reduced to the lone individual as a basic unit. The social unit is the Boontonian basic unit of which the individual is a bit or piece or fraction or incomplete thing. The social completes the basic unit of Boontonkind.

On the other hand, the basic unit of humankind is organic both socially, reproductively, and constitutively — man and woman and their children.

Pressing the Boontonian template onto humankind means severing the social from the rest of the organic whole. But even at that it cannot reduce Boontonkind … much less humankind … to the lone individual. Perhaps social does not mean social in the alternate Boontonian reality.

Of course the human individual is real but alone cannot form the reality of the basic unit of humankind.

That is just what they do. Perhaps contrary to you, Boonton.

As for the family, well, there would be no individuals And no subsets of lifetimes if not for the simple fact that each individual is born of a man and woman.

The social nature of humankind is not contradicted by the organic reality which encompasses each indivual.

The lone individual, acting alone, would lack the other sex with whom to form the basic unit of humankind. A twosome or moresome of individuals of the same sex do not form this basic unit — not one at-a-time nor in the aggregate. Likewise a whole tribe of individuals of the same-sex would be short of individuals with which to form this basic unit of humankind. Add sexual attraction or sexual behavior and this does not change. Add an individual or individuals of the other sex and the potential to form the basic unit presents itself. Each individual is born (equal by the way) of man and woman.

A man is an individual, sure, and a woman is an individual, sure, but together these individuals can form the basic unit of humankind from which arises generations — consistently so in past, present, future.

Only a fool would strike the pose of Mr. Contrary and insist upon the individual as the basic unit of humankind. So, to be charitable, we might assume you agreed that male individuals and female individuals can, together, form this basic unit of humankind. They’d do together what no individual can do individually, alone. That is so of man and woman and of each child. No child, alone, can individually form the basic unit from which he or she arose and is a part of.

Perhaps this is not true of you, Boonton.

Perhaps past, present, and future generations arose from the individual unit of Boontonkind whose…

No, it’s based on the fact that it’s what people do. Sexual attraction is often a factor in marriage but I know of no one who asserts its the driving factor or only one. And I think most would agree it would be foolish to base a marriage only on it. Since that is not a premise used to base arguments about SSM, your attempt to refute it becomes moot.

You used the plural. The basic unit is the family comprised of human individuals

This is a silly semantic attempt to game the argument. Clearly if I were to say the basic unit of chemistry are atoms the fact that I used the plural wouldn’t alter that fact. Chemistry begins with the atom even though a lot of it is looking at groups of atoms called molecules. Likewise even though there’s a lot of family law (as well as business law, contract law, criminal law etc.) the fact is the law treats the individual as the ‘basic unit’. If it didn’t, then it would be impossible, say, to convict individuals of crimes. You’d have to convict and punish the entire family. Likewise intrafamily legal disputes would be impossible.

The family, on the other hand, is a basic unit of humankind vis-a-vis from which each generation of humankind follows.

You seem to be swapping your terms around here. You say ‘basic unit of humankind’ when you clearly mean ‘basic unit of direct biological reproduction’. Of course humans are social animals and with social animals the indirect reproduction is usually more important than direct reproduction. You also forget that marriage is about human life. Reproduction is but a subset of a lifetime.

Oh? The complaint against the marriage law that SSM advocates have pressed is quite clearly based on sexual attraction.

You have conceded, of course, that there is no legal requirement for same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual attraction, and gay identity where SSM has been imposed.

And you’d assert that there is no legal requirement for opposite-sex sexual behavior, opposite-sex sexual attraction, and “straight” identity.

So the pro-SSM complaint is without merit. The pro-SSM imposition is not legitimately drawn on that complaint.

Meanwhile, there is the legal requirement for bride and groom; and the legal requirement for consent to all that marital status entails — including the sexual basis for the marital presumption of paternity, consummation, annulment, adultery, and so forth. That sexual basis is two-sexed, not one-sexed nor sex-neutral. These legal requirements map quite reasonably to the core meaning of marriage but are unintelligible in regards the SSM idea.

The marriage idea fares much better than does the SSM idea when it comes to your stated standard that unless something is legally required it is not a legitimately basis for lawmaking on eligibility.

Boonton said: “The basic unit of human kind would be individual humans.”

You used the plural. The basic unit is the family comprised of human individuals. As your last paragraph noted, humankind is a social being and I’d add the obvious observation that no individual is an island.

Likewise, no generation of humankind arose from same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual attraction, or gay identity. The family, on the other hand, is a basic unit of humankind vis-a-vis from which each generation of humankind follows.

Your last paragraph is nonsensical in that very context.

“a father is not required to support his daughter-in-law if his son dies.” Only if there is no issue of the marriage living. If there is a child or remoter issue, even an adult child. In which case, the obligation of support would be apportioned between the father-in-law and the children, at the discretion of the judge, depending on their respective means.

And, of course, the obligations are reciprocal; the father-in-law can claim support from the daughter-in-law, depending on circumstances.

Article 206 rests on the perceived moral obligation of the family to support its members.

But then if your son never married her, only was with her via a PAC or ‘cohabitation’ you’d still be obligated to your grandchild and indirectly to her. So it’s not clear to me that marriage is doing anything really special in regards to ‘intergenerationalness’ under French law. Under US law we are much more individualistic and have little patience for the concept of ‘clans’ or monarchy. The degree you have to support your adult children and their children is up to you and independent of their marital status.

I would agree that there are important differences between marriage and PACS that are not related to child rearing. However, I would argue that all the differences stem from the inter-generational character of marriage, which is absent from a PACS.

Put another way, a PACS unites the partners and a marriage unites families. A French word for in-laws is « Les alliés » in the sense of the English word “alloy,” a solid solution or homogeneous blending. The legal obligations of support rest on a widespread clannish sense of family solidarity.

In this context, I would cite to a remark of sociologist Martine Segalen to the Pécresse Comission, “Studies show that when a member of a family lives with a partner outside marriage, that person is considered to belong to the family only from the birth of a child on.” Again, we have the strong vertical dimension of the French concept of family.

It would seem then that French law does have some really important differences between marriage and PACS that have little or nothing to do with children. It sounds like these differences can be summed up as marriage creates more serious legal committments that PACs do not. One can see how some heterosexual couples would want fewer such binds and hence opt for PACs. Likewise some would want those binds and demand marriage.

Would not same sex couples therefore see the same division?

So if one insists on a very high level summary, it would seem France has a three track system. There’s marriage, ‘marriage-lite’ (PACS) and ‘just do your own thing’ (unregulated cohabitation). The US for the most part has done the two track route eliminating the middle. Civil Unions I think are intended to essentially be marriage, not PACS but have unintentionally created a grey zone since some states recognize civil unions nad some don’t.

Mutual support need not be sexual so why the gay emphasis

Well if you’re talking about non-related people being intimately close to each other there’s usualy some degree of sex involved. But fair point, not all marriages are sexual and during the full course of a marriage sexual activity can vary a lot. But then you’re the person brining up sex here. Of all the legal marriages that have happened, I have no idea how often sex happened in each one. I do not know, for example, if Michael Jackson and Elvis’s daughter ever had sex during their brief and somewhat odd seeming marriage. I suppose in places that have SSM there are some same sex couples who marry but don’t have sex just as I’m sure there are some different sex couples who do as well.

Family is defined as the mother, father, and their children. This is the basic unit of humankind.

The basic unit of human kind would be individual humans. Note even in the Bible, God speaks to humans as individuals not as ‘family units’…even sometimes asking individuals to break from their families.

The nature of humankind is two-sexed, not one-sexed, and upon this all past, present, and future generations arise.

I’m find with saying this applies to a supermajority of humans (say 90%+). It’s also perfectly consistent to note that it’s possible that a small portion are simply not heterosexual. Among many social animals there are groups in the population not inclined towards direct reproduction.

My own impression, as a lawyer specialising in estate planning, is that the more flexible property and inheritance régime that a PACS provides suits “blended” families, in particular, rather better. As the Pécresse Commission noted, “in this country, the model has long been the peasant family, structured around a patriarch and expanding from hearth to hearth” and the Code reflects this.

Again, PACS partners (unless they agree otherwise), whilst obliged to contribute to the household expenses, owe no duty of maintenance to each other, so there is no question of aliment on dissolution.

Remember, the PACS was designed as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation,as well as marriage, in which it would appear to have been rather successful. I wonder how the American experience compares?

Your point about corporations is well taken. In the UK, many bodies do choose the greater flexibility of operating as partnerships, or voluntary associations, with their property vested in trustees. One notable example is the Inns of Court, the barristers’ professional body.