Ania Lian (ania@LINGUA.CLTR.UQ.OZ.AU)
Wed, 20 Dec 1995 12:32:09 +1000

> > On Dec 16, Donna Lanclos wrote:
> >
> > (i.e. filing for a license). Can a same-sex partner cause society to
> > afford them the same definition by emulating the formalities? They
> > certainly can not come close to emulating the underlying structure of
> > combining their DNA to produce another human being (yet anyway- though
> > it's been advocated along with test tube babies).
A linguistic point of view: There is a nice research done on
"prototypicality of meanings". Apparently children are not good at it, but
by the age of 15 (magical puberty age:-)) they seem to have got the social
points: i.e. they *know*: 'this is how it is' and 'this is how it is not'.
Children in Us tell the peas is more a vegetable than cabage and
children/people in Germany say that it is the cabage rather than the
tomatoe or peas etc.

I find this discussion at best surprising on any academic list. Letting
people LIVE means exactly that: not letting people harm others. It causes
no pain to me that my husband's daughter lives with a woman. It causes
however her pain that we (my husband and I) can in public hold hands,
kiss, hug, call each other husband and wife, and they are REFUSED this
VERY basic HUMAN behaviour by those who forgot about humanity (you know
the things that we do while living: caring, love, making
love, making children) and became pseudo-intellectuals: i.e. they know THE
MEANINGS!!! i.e the TRUTH.

Sex is one of those tabu things that. I think that going to the toilett
should be to another. We should have a group of privileged who should do
a poo (another basic behaviour) and those who should not! We should
surround this right by laws, meanings and truths and go on living!

re "peace" : just before the WWII Polish prime minister said: peace yes,
but not at any price.