…in precisely the same way, and by the same people, that the legislature is being forced to say “screw the health care amendment.” These rabidly crazy one-issue absolutists are also selfish about their civil rights, saying “screw same-sex couples in other states that can’t get any legal recongnition at all, and screw older same-sex couples here in Massachusetts that might benefit from federal recognition, because all that is important is that we get what we want here.” It doesn’t matter to them that nothing practical is gained by killing the amendment now as opposed to next year, or that same-sex conception can’t be done anyhow and no one would want to do it even if it could. It’s all symbolism over substance. Someone should tell them that ideological, dogmatic insistence on getting everything you want right now often causes a backlash, and maybe they should step back and take in a bigger perspective and think about how they are hurting people, and how they could help lots of people a lot with just a few harmless concessions that won’t change a thing about their lives.
Otherwise I’d think that it was a lecture from the wrong person about the perils of a “rigid, shortsighted and selfish mindset” from which “nothing practical is gained.”
<
p>
Someone should indeed be told (perhaps when looking at oneself in the mirror) that
I’ve become somewhat fascinated by this one-man movement. This is the closest I’ve read that he’s patience with anyone. Maybe as you say it was just the late hour.
<
p>
I did have a chuckle at his “rabidly crazy one-issue absolutist” slam. Pot, kettle, and all that. A same-sex political concession of the hypothetical seems really important to him, and maybe he is just exasperated that it is not forthcoming.
Well, no doubt there is a backlash, but that comes from gay rights ideologues as soon as I bring this up, so I think it is just the subject, not the way I present it. I think it is a pre-existing backlash against anything that isn’t repeating the matra of 100% equality for same-sex couples. And seeing as I am proposing a compromise, and one that helps people, while no one else has a viable plan to, i don’t see how I am hurting people. How am I hurting people?
<
p>
I’m obviously not being shortsighted, I am looking to the future, which no one else is here. And I’m not selfish, I don’t stand to gain or lose anything. Rigid, only in the sense that I know we need a ban on non egg and sperm conception, but there are a number of ways to do that, and I’m open to heaing others. There are great practical gains, we would first of all save the resources that are being spent on same-sex conception, and we would also be able to use the ban to distinguish marriages from civil unions and so have a much easier time getting them recognized nationally. Also, the gains that we would all – throughout the world – reap in terms of peace of mind would be profound, to the point that it might even end the Jihad against America, as the specter of genetic engineered children makes everyone worry, it makes us all jaded and cynical that we are reliant on technology instead of practicing human care. And it’s not ideological, at least I don’t know what the ideology is called. Maybe it’s ideological, but it’s a better ideology than yours :-p
<
p>
John,
<
p>
There is a big problem with your argument (well, several). The sperm/egg-gay marriage is a non-starter, not just for gay rights people but arguably even more so for those opposed to gay rights. What you call backlash based on ideology is in fact recognition of this fact.
<
p>
Think about it, do you really see Phil Travis, Marilyn Musgrave, Tony Perkins, Mitt Romney, etc etc etc saying, “I’m opposed to same sex marriage, but if the gays cannot have a natural sperm/sperm of egg/egg child, then I’ll drop my opposition!” And by the way, no offense but the jihadist argument might be the most laughable argument I have seen on this site. I actually laughed out loud.
<
p>
And honestly, I really don’t think the possibility of sperm/sperm or egg/egg children is really an issue keeping gays, anti-gays or jihadist up at night. In fact, I would wager that 99% of the world’s population has never even considered the issue. And can you give me figures as to how much money is honestly being spent on this issue? I would imagine it’s not a whole lot.
<
p>
So, in essence, your compromise if a farce and to say that the reason that it hasn’t gained traction is because of the absolutist nature of gays is really quite offensive. Your compromise helps nobody and would only hurt the gay community. By accepting the compromise, no additional state would add gay unions because this egg/sperm issue is not an issue that concerns people nor is it the basis for opposition to same sex unions. There wouldn’t be this great sigh of relief because, again, nobody thinks this is a big issue. The money we are talking about is truly small change. So, people helped…zero. However, on the flip side, those gays and lesbians in Massachusetts who have full marriage equality would be giving that up and also compromising on another issue that isn’t even an issue.
do you really see Phil Travis, Marilyn Musgrave, Tony Perkins, Mitt Romney, etc etc etc saying, “I’m opposed to same sex marriage, but if the gays cannot have a natural sperm/sperm of egg/egg child, then I’ll drop my opposition!”
<
p>
Why would they have to drop their opposition? Yes, I do expect that will need to be pursuaded to agree to the compromise on civil unions, but I think they could be, because marriage would be limited to a man and a woman, and distinguished from civil unions in a very important way.
<
p>
And by the way, no offense but the jihadist argument might be the most laughable argument I have seen on this site.
<
p>
Oh? Do you see the Jihad ever ending if people here continue to legally pursue genetic engineering and trying to create a world of “postgenderism”? (wiki it) I don’t see that happening, I think pursuing that fantasy, at root, is exactly why they call us the great satan. But I do think the Jihad could end, and I think they want to find a good reason to end it, soon. Let me ask you this – if we could get them to end the Jihad by prohibiting genetic engineering and affirming the unique right of a man and a woman to create people together in marriage, would you do that? I would hope so, seeing as you think it is an “issue that isn’t even an issue.”
<
p>
In fact, I would wager that 99% of the world’s population has never even considered the issue.
<
p>
They’ve heard of cloning and genetic engineering, and they know that same-sex couples can’t have children naturally. They probably haven’t heard of Kaguya or Dr Richard Scott, or know that stem cells have another application besides curing diseases, but I think they have a sense that gay rights and artificial coneption are related issues. They prefer not to think about these things to much.
<
p>
And can you give me figures as to how much money is honestly being spent on this issue? I would imagine it’s not a whole lot
<
p>
I wish I could, are you kidding? I know there are billions being spent on stem cell research, and I know that the research all overlaps. The gains made by a cancer researcher are used by other researchers.
<
p>
Your compromise helps nobody and would only hurt the gay community.
<
p>
It gives federal recognition, so it helps with tax purposes and social security. how does it hurt the gay community?
<
p>
By accepting the compromise, no additional state would add gay unions because this egg/sperm issue is not an issue that concerns people nor is it the basis for opposition to same sex unions.
<
p>
All those states that enacted amendments forbidding civil unions would be able to enact these civil unions, because they would not have the rights of marriage (specifically, the right to conceive together). There is no way to get civil unions in those states unless you come up with some sort of distinction, so why not a distinction that “isn’t even an issue?”
<
p>
There wouldn’t be this great sigh of relief because, again, nobody thinks this is a big issue.
<
p>
Yeah, i think it would be subtle, people wouldn’t realize it at first, but it would gradually sink in that things are settled now and we are in control of the future. We’d be able to focus on fixing things that need fixing, like aging sewer systems that threaten the ground water, bridges that need painting, people that need loving, etc.
<
p>
The money we are talking about is truly small change.
<
p>
So you do have these figures? Even one smart researcher working on this stuff is a smart researcher that isn’t working on finding the cause of Alzheimers or MS. You might as well be kicking Micheal J Fox, too.
<
p>
So, people helped…zero. However, on the flip side, those gays and lesbians in Massachusetts who have full marriage equality would be giving that up and also compromising on another issue that isn’t even an issue.
<
p>
Gays in Massachusetts do not have full marriage equality. They are legal strangers to their own country, for goodness sake. And they have no security, someone married to a another person of their same sex can simply leave the state to get themselves unmarried, and marry a person of the other sex without having to divorce or ever talk to their former spouse again. That’s not what marriage is supposed to be like. It is supposed to give some protection and security.
<
p>
I fixed a few things and reposted it below. I should have previewed it, sorry!
do you really see Phil Travis, Marilyn Musgrave, Tony Perkins, Mitt Romney, etc etc etc saying, “I’m opposed to same sex marriage, but if the gays cannot have a natural sperm/sperm of egg/egg child, then I’ll drop my opposition!”
<
p>
Why would they have to drop their opposition? Yes, I do expect that they will need to be pursuaded to agree to the compromise on civil unions, but I think they could be, because marriage would be limited to a man and a woman, and distinguished from civil unions in a very important way.
<
p>
And by the way, no offense but the jihadist argument might be the most laughable argument I have seen on this site.
<
p>
Oh? Do you see the Jihad ever ending if people here continue to legally pursue genetic engineering and trying to create a world of “postgenderism”? (wiki it) I don’t see that happening, I think pursuing that fantasy, at root, is exactly why they call us the great satan. But I do think the Jihad could end, and I think they want to find a good reason to end it, soon. Let me ask you this – if we could get them to end the Jihad by prohibiting genetic engineering and affirming the unique right of a man and a woman to create people together in marriage, would you do that? I would hope so, seeing as you think it is an “issue that isn’t even an issue.”
<
p>
In fact, I would wager that 99% of the world’s population has never even considered the issue.
<
p>
They’ve heard of cloning and genetic engineering, and they know that same-sex couples can’t have children naturally. They probably haven’t heard of Kaguya or Dr Richard Scott, or know that stem cells have another application besides curing diseases, but I think they have a sense that gay rights and artificial conception are related issues. They prefer not to think about these things to much.
<
p>
And can you give me figures as to how much money is honestly being spent on this issue? I would imagine it’s not a whole lot
<
p>
I wish I could, are you kidding? I know there are billions being spent on stem cell research, and I know that the research all overlaps. The gains made by a cancer researcher are used by other researchers.
<
p>
Your compromise helps nobody and would only hurt the gay community.
<
p>
It gives federal recognition, so it helps with tax purposes and social security. how does it hurt the gay community?
<
p>
By accepting the compromise, no additional state would add gay unions because this egg/sperm issue is not an issue that concerns people nor is it the basis for opposition to same sex unions.
<
p>
All those states that enacted amendments forbidding civil unions would be able to enact these civil unions, because they would not have the rights of marriage (specifically, the right to conceive together). There is no way to get civil unions in those states unless you come up with some sort of distinction, so why not a distinction that “isn’t even an issue?”
<
p>
There wouldn’t be this great sigh of relief because, again, nobody thinks this is a big issue.
<
p>
Yeah, i think it would be subtle, people wouldn’t realize it at first, but it would gradually sink in that things are settled now and we are in control of the future. We’d be able to focus on fixing things that need fixing, like aging sewer systems that threaten the ground water, bridges that need painting, people that need loving, etc.
<
p>
The money we are talking about is truly small change.
<
p>
So you do have these figures? Even one smart researcher working on this stuff is a smart researcher that isn’t working on finding the cause of Alzheimers or MS. You might as well be kicking Micheal J Fox, too.
<
p>
So, people helped…zero. However, on the flip side, those gays and lesbians in Massachusetts who have full marriage equality would be giving that up and also compromising on another issue that isn’t even an issue.
<
p>
Gays in Massachusetts do not have full marriage equality. They are legal strangers to their own country, for goodness sake. And they have no security, someone married to a another person of their same sex can simply leave the state to get themselves unmarried, and marry a person of the other sex without having to divorce or ever talk to their former spouse again. That’s not what marriage is supposed to be like. It is supposed to give some protection and security.
<
p>
Ok, I’ll take each issue in turn:
<
p>
You are just wrong on the idea that those noted anti-marriage advocates would be willing to accept civil unions. Each has said that they believe gays deserve no, or virtually no, partnership rights. Heck, several states have passed constitutional amendments that go further than prevent gay marriage and civil unions…they even ban contracts which would mimic the rights of marriage. I honestly don’t think the prospect of preventing sperm/sperm or egg/egg children would move these people to favor civil unions. In fact, I’m not sure there is any issue that they would compromise on to allow civil unions. So, again, I reiterate that your compromise is a non-starter.
<
p>
Ok, the jihad argument is still laughable, and maybe even more so. I wiki’ed “postgenderism” and still don’t think that your average Islamic fundamentalist is really worried about this particular issue. Would I support ending genetic engineering and affirming the unique right of man and woman to create children together in marriage if it ended the terrorism against the US? Well first off, the question isn’t even based in reality and so it is irrelevant. If George Bush announced today that such a law was passed here in the US, I guarantee you that it would not make a speck of difference with regards to the war on terror. Second, I don’t think the law should be such that unmarried people are prevented from having children, or if unmarried people do have a child, they are then forced to become married? Or is the child just killed?
<
p>
Do people think gay rights and artificial conception are related issues? Sure, but not in the way you are insinuating. I’m sure people think of it in the way that my partner and I may want to have a child, so we use one of our sperms and find a willing egg donor and have a child that way (or the lesbian equivalent). Just like the way lots of straight couples who have fertility problems become (or at least try to become) pregnant. I’m a gay man who wants to have a child. I have never even considered the possibility of using my sperm and my partners sperm to create a child. Your response even affirms my assertion that people are unaware of this issue and therefore it does not matter.
<
p>
States that do not have civil unions currently are not going to suddenly allow civil unions because of a compromise on an issue that is (a) irrelevant and (b) unrelated to same sex marriage/civil unions. You are making a connection that does not exist and is not logical. Therefore, your proposal has little prospect of becoming law. So no new civil unions will result from it.
<
p>
Um, the bridge comment made me laugh too. It just hit me that gridlock in government is because we cannot agree on sperm/sperm and egg/egg conception! All the world’s problems will be solved once we have that issue settled.
<
p>
The Michael J. Fox line is funny, but innapropriate. Nobody is forcing researchers to work on this. They do so becaues they choose to do so. Maybe the researcher who is researching this issue would instead be an arsonist. You might as well start fire to your home for suggesting we outlaw this research. Also, your argument ignores any possible good that could come from this research. How about if sperm/sperm research helps us discover some information that leads to a cure for cancer, etc.
<
p>
I do agree with your last post. It’s tragic that gays who marry in Massachusetts do not have federal or other state recognition. That’s why the goal should be federal recognition and legal equal marriage in every state. Your proposal, however, would not get us there because no state nor the federal government would ever adopt it.
There are extremists on each side that won’t want to go along at all, but that illustrates just how lucky each side would be to get what they would get. And even the extremists will go along reluctantly, because the gains far outweigh what they give up, and they will be easily pursuaded of that by the practical people in the middle.
<
p>
Those right-wingers would preserve marriage as a man and a woman, throughout the US, and not just in name, but in a way that created a clear and acknowledged difference in the rights of a man and a woman. They wouldn’t care so much that they stopped same-sex conception, because same-sex conception is not even possible anyway and probably never will be safe enough for anyone to want to use, so that wouldn’t be seen as a big win in and of itself. It is the limiting of marriage to a man and a woman and establishing its unique right that would attract them. They would then be able to see that it is really only a dollar cost of recognizing civil unions and realize how small a cost that is, and accept the compromise.
<
p>
Extremists on the gay marriage side are equally reluctant to go along, but they would also get a huge win for trivial cost. They would get full recognition of their union by the federal government as a marriage, including ss benefits and tax benefits that really matter to couples that need them (maybe they don’t to the high school GSA kids recently elected to the legislature, but there are poor, old gay people in this state). And they’d finally have a fundamental distinction in the rights of civil unions from marriages so that civil unions could be enacted in every state. Without a distinction, they can’t. Same-sex couples in those states need a distinction, and we can easily give them one, and one that “isn’t even an issue” according to you, but is significant according to the law. Civil unioned couples could then finally be equal in that they were recognized in every state. That’s a huge win for gay people (right?) that you would have to be crazy to think is going to happen given the make up of the Supreme Court and public resistance to gay marriage. And the only cost would be giving up a right to do something that we can’t do anyhow and probably never will be able to do, and a difference in the official name of same-sex unions. Everyone could still call them marriages.
<
p>
So, I think the compromise is workable, because each side values what it gets much more than what it gives up. If it is a non-starter, it is because you refuse to give up same-sex conception rights. Note that no one here has yet said “I will give up the right to conceive rights with someone of my sex.” Why is that? Of course you won’t want this compromise if you insist on same-sex conception rights. Why not try starting negotiations there, by saying “I’ll trade same-sex conception rights for same-sex marriage in all fifty states and federal recognition” and seeing if anyone thinks that is a good compromise. What is the harm in that, huh? Would you agree with that?
First, right wingers are not going to go for this because they don’t gain anything valuabel. Same sex conception is not an issue because it is not possible. They are opposed to any type of recognition of any type of union for same sex couples. So by agreeing to allow civil unions in exchange for something that can’t happen not happening, they do not gain anything. Hence, it’s a non-starter.
I think they’d take it. It is “non-starting” right here, at BMG. It is not “non-starting” on their desks.
Second, I don’t think the law should be such that unmarried people are prevented from having children, or if unmarried people do have a child, they are then forced to become married? Or is the child just killed?
<
p>
Unmarried people wouldn’t be prevented from having children. Nothing would change about unmarried people having children.
Your post mentioned affiriming the unique situation of a man and a woman creating a child in marriage. Otherwise the jihadist will apparently get us. So if people are having kids out of wedlock, looks like we are stil SOL.
We would establish the unique rights of a man and a woman to procreate in marriage. It wouldn’t change how we deal with unmarried conception. I think it would be a significant turn away from postgenderism and technology, and even though it wouldn’t change all aspects about our society, it would affirm the unique rights of marriage of a man and woman, and they would notice that. They’d think, maybe they aren’t all crazy after all.
It seems inconsistent to maintain that marriage should carry a right to procreation (by natural or genetically engineered means) AND that nothing should change for unmarried heterosexuals having kids.
<
p>
If this is the case, the definition of marriage would become that institution that prevents same-sex couples and only same sex couples from screwing with their genes with any future assisted reproduction technology.
<
p>
If you want some symbolic concession, instead of overloading that already complicated institution of marriage with Brave New World symbolic meanings, create a new institution that would enfranchise the right to create offspring by artificial means. Would you give up the right to call this marriage, if same sex couples give up any future right to assisted reproduction by genetic engineering?
<
p>
I’m still waiting for those stock picks
<
p>
Wait, married and unmarried heterosexuals also won’t be allowed to use genetic engineering. Marriage carries the right to combine the two people’s genes. Same-sex couples publicly require genetic engineering to do that, both-sex couples do not. (And using medicine to help a person produce gametes doesn’t require messing with the genes, and it’s private medicine to restore health.)
<
p>
I’m not sure what your last question means.
It will not end as long as we are openly pursuing a genderless society that reproduces with genetic engineering. Yes, if President Bush with great fanfare told the world that we will not allow gay marriage and genetic engineering was prohibited, lots of muslims would lose a huge reason to think we were evil. This would not be capitulating to terrorists,since as you point out, terrorists have not demanded it. This would be doing what is right on its own merits and allowing then waiting for muslim clerics to evaluate if America means it or not, and then hopefully they would show their approval and encourage our continuing commitment by ending the Jihad. Or you can say “bring ’em on, we’re gonna go ahead making a postgendered world where people are created in labs using genetic engineering.” Doesn’t seem worth it to me.
Maybe the researcher who is researching this issue would instead be an arsonist.
<
p>
He’d still be a researcher, a capable resource that we educated. I can’t go and help cure MS because I was bad at chemistry and didn’t then go on to be a bio-medical researcher. A bio-medical researcher should be working on curing disease, and he should be working within the bounds of medical ethics.
John,
<
p>
I would like to know what all of those politicians who are currently opposed to Gay Marriage think of your proposal. Have you heard back from Mitt Romney? Is he willing to accept your compromise?
<
p>
Obviously you have met with much resistance and ridicule here on Blue Mass Group (including from me). So Please inform us what reaction you have received from those on the other side. I’m sure we would all be very interested to know.
I have not heard back from Romney, I don’t know that he has ever heard of Kaguya. The people I talk to seem to feel that because no one else is talking about this, then they should not listen to me. I think they only listen to a few people who set the agenda, and everyone else is just someone to politely listen to for a minute.
<
p>
I have almost come to the conclusion that some of the people supposedly anti-gay marriage are not anti-genetic engineering, and they are purposefully not fighting that fight. They want us to believe there is nothing that can be done to prevent labs attempting it in a few years. It is very hard to get people to say that non egg-and-sperm conception should be banned, they are scared of taking a position. They also have a disdainful view of the public, and think that the public qouldn’t understand (but they do!). That’s why I think the GE prohibition part of the compromise doesn’t interest the politicians, they think only in terms of defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But if same-sex couples are allowed to conceive together, they should of course be allowed to marry, so they need to rethink their positions pretty quick, and I am working on it.