Profile
Philip Newton
Active Entries
- 1: English needs a preposition “atto”
- 2: Random memory: memorising powers of two
- 3: Random memory: Self-guided tour
- 4: Is 17 the most random number between 1 and 20?
- 5: The things you learn: inhaled objects are more likely to land in your right lung
- 6: I can speak Esperanto; the test says so!
- 7: The things you learn: Canaanite shift
- 8: You know you’re getting better at a language when…
- 9: 3/14 1:59
Style Credit
- Style: Cinnamon Cream pne for Crossroads by
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot - Resources: Vintage Christmas 6
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: Sunday, 15 February 2004 12:05 (UTC)I meant "can't have children together from one another". Apologies for the confusion.
(As an exaggeration: if all people lived together in same-sex couples and were faithful to their partner, nobody would have any children. That's what I meant with "same-sex couples can't have children"; I realise that same-sex couples can acquire children from other sources than through one partner impregnating the other.)
In that case, are we in agreement that it would be better if the state were no longer involved in the concept of "marriage", leaving each religious group to establish their own rules and policies in line with their teachings?
I'll have to think about it, especially in the light of what I've read this evening from some of you.
As I said, I haven't given that much thought to this separation yet, so I'm not sure what would work out how in the long run.