1. All marriages have conception rights. T/F
2. Not all couples do. T/F
3. Couples that don’t, are not and cannot get married. T/F
4. Genetic Engineering is currently unsafe. T/F
5. Same-sex conception requires GE. T/F
6. Only natural meoisis is currently safe and should be allowed. T/F
7. All marriages should continue to have conception rights. T/F
My answer is True for each one of them. If you answer false for any one of them, let’s start the discussion there. That would be a very serious difference that needs to be explored out in the open.
Otherwise, if you agree those are all true, let’s look at the implications of these facts. Remember, don’t be afraid of accepting these facts! We can use them to achieve equal benefits and protections for same-sex couples and help them avoid exploitation by biotech companies, end the divisive debate and increase safety, we can save research money and increase research for diseases, we can prevent birth defects and protect children, we can prevent animal suffering, and same-sex couples give up practically NOTHING!
No, I’m not going to answer any of your questions. But I am going to ask you one. Do you have any evidence at all that if same-sex couples gave up the “right to conceive,” the groups that currently oppose same-sex marriage and/or civil unions would change their tune? (Other than you, I mean.)
<
p>
I don’t think you do, because I don’t think it exists. I think that opposition to same-sex marriage/civil unions has virtually nothing to do with the “conception”/genetic engineering issues you like to talk about.
<
p>
And that’s the whole point of your grand bargain, right? Same-sex couples give something up, and in exchange they get all this other great stuff. I don’t see Focus on the Family, Kris Mineau, or anyone else even remotely hinting that what they’re really worried about is genetic engineering gone bad.
You’ve seen that phrase, right? That’s what they are opposed to.
<
p>
They wouldn’t change their tune about marriage, or about civil unions that give “the rights of marriage.” They would get what they want about that, and very resolutely.
<
p>
This plan preserves marriage as between a man and a woman and rules out giving “the rights of marriage” to same-sex couples. But it makes it possible to enact civil unions that are marriage minus conception rights in all fifty states and recognize them as if they were marriages at the federal level.
<
p>
Even the Kris Mineaus usually don’t have a problem with civil unions as long as they are not “marriage in all but name,” or seen as a foot in the door to be turned into marriages by a judge. They are generally in agreement that committed gay couples need and deserve benefits and protections, but they want to preserve marriage as between a man and a woman. Examples of this are Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, John McCain, George Bush, Phil Travis, Tony Perkins, Alan Keyes, etc.
<
p>
It’s hard to find a politician that isn’t already walking this middle ground, and they supposedly would love to find a reason to live there. They do like having this issue to bring in votes, though, so we’d have to bring them to the church on time ourselves, hand them the rings, and elbow them in the ribs. They like being single. But it wastes everyone’s time – lets get them to work on some other issues, let’s force them to campaign on other issues.
<
p>
Yes, there are lots of earnest extremists and ideologues that think that even giving civil unions, or any recognition at all to same-sex couples, is the end of the world. I get emails from that side too, saying things “No Compromise on God’s Plan For Humanity” who agree with me about GE, but think that we should not let support homosexuals at all. But I think even these people would come to the table when they see how the plan draws a real line with same-sex rights that is really important, it isn’t just a step toward gay marriage.
<
p>
And the extremists on the same-sex marriage side won’t be happy at first either, but they will come around when they see that it helps thousands of same-sex couples across the country and there really is a good reason to not call civil unions marriages – it’s not a bigoted slight but an important legal distinction that protects their rights too. Because it is about preserving our natural conception rights, making sure that we aren’t pressured or forced into giving up our right to have natural children, by making sure that other people don’t attempt it either.
<
p>
And it would be honest of you to answer those questions.
Yes, they’re opposed to “marriage in all but name.” But, again, I have seen NO evidence that the key “right” that they’re concerned about is your so-called “right to conceive.” YOU may think that the key sticking point with respect to any marriage-like arrangement is the “right to conceive.” But as far as I’m aware, no one else thinks that.
<
p>
As for whether it’d be “honest” for me to answer those questions, that’s beside the point. What would not be “honest” would be for me to answer them non-truthfully. I choose not to answer them because I think they are completely irrelevant to the debate. Until you convince me otherwise, that’s where I’ll stay. And that’s my honest position.
Stopping GE is my focus, not theirs. They don’t get it. I can’t tell if they are laissez faire republicans who don’t think we can regulate biotech, or, because I’m proposing the civil union compromise, they seem to think I’m on the other side and don’t like my far fetched argument that same-sex couples can procreate with genetic engineering (they never get the part that we don’t have to let them!). Or they are just ostriches with their heads in the sand, hoping that it will never be possible. I can’t tell since they are as stubborn as you are at not explaining their position on it. One thing I hear all the time is that “nobody else is talking about this” (-Brian Camenker), or else they immediately dismiss my argument because we don’t prosecute unmarried sex anymore (“not the silver bullet you think it is” – Maggie Gallagher) but in both cases, they are just not giving it enough thought. They are closed-minded people, too “busy” to let a new idea challenge their orthodoxy.
<
p>
But I am quite certain that they all think human GE and same-sex conception is bad, and they would support a solution that was based around banning it, once they understand.
<
p>
The thing they want is a permanent way to preserve marriage as a man and a woman. This would give that to them faster and with less money burned than a FMA would, and with more of a solid basis. And it would give same-sex couples what they want, the full benefits and protections of marriage (in the form of civil unions). And it would give me what I want. The only people who will be upset are the people who supposedly don’t exist at all – the people who want to attempt genetic engineering and same-sex conception on humans.
<
p>
If you have any False’s in your answers, then yes, they all become irrelevant to the debate, because then “the debate” is just about trivial surface arguments, with no substance. If there are Falses in your answers, then we need to get those out on the table. Those are much more important questions. You ARE being dishonest by not disclosing your most radical views about marriage. Perhaps you didn’t realize you had them, but now you’ve been challenged to think about them.
I answered “TRUE” on all 7 questions.
<
p>
Interesting line of questioning, but what is more interesting is the fact that people are unwilling to answer them.
<
p>
What does this tell you?????
<
p>
Makes you think doesn’t it?????
<
p>
It’s like…..Oh yeah…YA…I know totally
He used his mental powers to spell, not rote memory. And the spellings make sense, their how they ought to be spelled, if they were spelled intelegently.
<
p>
And the content of your post supports the content of his post perfectly.
Or are you being a wiseass?
<
p>
Actually, I think John Howard has accomplished one thing…he has put David and others who support marriage equality on the same side as those who oppose marriage equality, so far as the issue of the relevance of genetic engineering goes.
<
p>
Oh, and to make him happy, I’ll say that all are false except no. 4, but I don’t think GMO corn really has anything to do with this.
Wow, you are an extremely dangerous person if you really believe that.
<
p>
Which marriages do you want to take away conception rights from? Dumb people, ugly people, poor people, Jewish people, inter-racial couples?
<
p>
And you really think that a man should have a right to conceive with his daughter, or father for that matter?
<
p>
And (i guess you weren’t thinking when you answered 2), do you think that a man has ever been able to marry his mother, or that there any couples like that mother and son that are or can get married?
<
p>
Do some research about same-sex conception. It’s science, do they teach that in Florida? Male and female genes are imprinted differently, and both are required for meiosis to take place. Turning male imprinting into female imprinting requires genetic engineering. That’s very unsafe to try in humans, and in animals for that matter. It took 450 tries to get one mouse to make it to adulthood.
<
p>
Your opposition is based on stupid, incorrect, ignorant beliefs. And it could lead to really bad things, like eugenics and sterilization and massive disparities and even wars between the genetically engineered countries and the poorer or more enlightened countries.
same sex conception. Lesbians are quite happy to have babies fathered by men (by the tried-and-true low-tech turkey-baster method) and men are happy to adopt. There is no demand for “same sex conception” except in your imagination and maybe some bad science fiction (or maybe the Weekly World News.) It is a nonissue.
If no one wants same-sex conception, then it won’t be an issue to offer to give up the right to it, along with the word marriage that would still give conception rights, in exchange for getting full benefits and protections to same-sex couples.
<
p>
So do it! Say “same-sex conception rights are not wanted, and so we offer to support a ban on same-sex conception rights because they are unsafe and unneccessary, and we offer to give up the word marriage because we agree that the all marriages must continue to have a right to attempt to conceive, in return for accepting civil unions that are exactly like marriage in every way except without having the right to attempt to conceive, the federal goverment recognize civil unions as if they were marriages.”
<
p>
It’s kind of a run-on sentence, but try it! You say that, and then we’ll see what happens from the other side. It may take a few weeks, but it could result in federally recognized civil unions by March and make worring about a cloning ban and an FMA completely moot.
<
p>
But if you won’t say that, then at least one of these things is true:
<
p>
1. You want the right to attempt same-sex conception.
<
p>
Why, right now?? It is useless to have right now. It’s possible that we might decide to restore this right someday, if we think it is safe. If we did that, then we’d change CU’s to marriages. But we probably never will, and it is good to accept that as soon as possible. If you still insist on it, you should admit that you insist on it, and not pretend that no one does.
<
p>
2. You don’t think all valid marriages between a man and a woman should have a right to attempt to conceive together.
<
p>
You can’t insist on a right to same-sex marriage and yet give up the right to same-sex conception, without taking away the right to conceive from all marriages. That is, if they are truly equal marriages. It would be wrong to take away everyone’s basic civil right to marry and procreate, using our own genes that we got from our mother and father equally, combined with our chosen mate’s own genes. No marriage should be prohibited from conceiveing together using their own genes. If you don’t think that all marriages should be allowed to conceive together, you should admit that, and not pretend that you don’t.
<
p>
So much to be gained, for real people in Massachusetts and across the country, why not try it? Isn’t it worth seeing if you can secure equal benefits and protections for all committed same-sex couples just by giving up insistance on the word marriage and conception rights? Or do equal benefits and protections not really matter?
Can you site a signle opponent of same sex marriage who gives same sex conception as a reason for opposing it? Face it, you’re an idiot.
They give stupid murky confused reasons, but even with their strained, bigoted, inexplicable reasons, they have successfully managed to deny equal benefits and protections to same-sex couples in every state in this country. (Even Massachusetts same-sex couples don’t have anything close to equal benefits and protections, as I’ve explained.) And the opponents of ssm are not likely to lose their control over this, not when all of the democratic candidates oppose same-sex marriage too. Face it, opposition is not going away, indeed this might be the last chance for any sort of deal, there’s no obligation to federally recognize civil unions, you know, if people decide not to give same-sex couples conception rights or marriage. Taking the lead on this issue is the best hope to get equal benefits and protections, and get them now! And by getting gay marriage is off the table, the country will be able to elect a Democrat finally, so we can get some environmental and economic justice.
I’m not saying that if we ban same-sex conception, opponents will no longer object to SSM. They will get their way on on that, we will not have any SSM, we will preserve marriage as a man and a woman. What they will offer in return, which no one has, is federal recognition of state civil unions.
No they won’t.
<
p>
Until you can demonstrate that I’m wrong about that, this discussion is utterly pointless. You keep asking the pro-equality side to give up this alleged conception right, without any evidence whatsoever that doing so would make the slightest bit of difference in the debate. Why would any negotiator give something up when there’s no indication that he or she will get anything in return?
It would happen as part of the compromise worked out in advance, in Congress. No couples would actually give up the term marriage until Congress enacted the egg and sperm law and made it illegal for same-sex marriages to conceive. At the same time they did that, as part of the same bill, they would enact the law that recognized civil unions as if they were marriages.
<
p>
At that point, Massachusetts would convert same-sex marriages into civil unions, and all the same-sex civil unions in every state that has them would suddenly be recognized. And other states would then be able to create these civil unions even if they had passed on of those laws that seemed to prohibit civil unions.
<
p>
I’ll work again on getting the other side to the table. I’ll tell them that we are close to a deal where Massachusetts same-sex marriages are turned into civil unions, we define marriage as conception rights and limit conception rights to a man and a woman’s natural gametes, we prohibit genetic engineering and cloning, and their side of the bargain is to recognize civil unions federally as if they were marriages.
<
p>
Would you agree that would be a good deal for everyone? What i was hoping for was that BMG editors would look at the ethics of same-sex conception right now and agree that there is cause for concern, both for the safety of the children, the cost of the research, the message it says about adoption, and exploitation of same-sex couples. And you’d see that same-sex marriages were severely lacking equal benefits and protections right now and that this was causing real problems to real couples. They don’t need conception rights, they need federal recognition. Marraiges though do need conception rights, you should agree that we need to protect natural conception rights from eugenic screening. BMG should offer this trade, suggesting that Massachuestts should take a step back in order to achieve this result for same-sex couples nationwide.
<
p>
Then it will be time for the other side to say OK, that is a good deal, we’ll do it. They could do it by March.
Maybe you can help me out by telling me who I need to ask if they would give federal recognition of civil unions in exchange for same-sex couples giving up conception rights and the word marriage?
<
p>
Congress is controlled by Democrats now, isn’t it? So even if there is some far right Senator who opposes federally recognizing same-sex couples, they’d be in the minority.
<
p>
This compromise could be worked out entirely by Democrats who a) think marriage should be between a man and a woman b) think genetic engineering should be prohibited until they decide otherwise c) think all marriages should have a right to attempt to conceive with their own gametes and d) think that committed same-sex couples should have the benefits and protections of marriage in the form of civil unions.
<
p>
Isn’t that virtually every member of Congress? That’s why I say this could be done by March. Mid-February.
<
p>
So what is the hold-up? It is on your side, and I think it is because you are being ideologues, trying to push for marriage and conception rights instead of benefits and protections that are actually needed.
You are the ones holding this deal up, because you are insisting on giving conception rights to same-sex couples. Only both-sex couples should have conception rights. Concede on that point, or else admit that conception rights are the most important thing for you.
<
p>
Once you do give up insisting on conception rights, no one is in the way to achieving the compromise and giving equal benefits and protections to same-sex couples. Everyone in Congress agrees that we should recognize civil unions. And all the other states don’t really object to civil unions. What they object to are civil unions that offer the rights of marriage, and these ones will not – they will explicitly not give conception rights.
<
p>
It is entirely up to you, your side is the one that has to back down from insisting on marriage and the rights of marriage. The “other side” is already at the table, they are sitting there waiting for you to arrive.
<
p>
You arrive carrying this deal: A single bill that creates a federal egg and sperm law that restricts conception to a man and a woman. Affirms that marriage guarentees a right to attempt to conceive together using the spouses own genes. Federally recognizes civil unions that do not offer the conception rights of marriage.
<
p>
Will Nancy go for it, and which of those three things does she object to? Remember, it is only a law, it can be changed in the future if we decide to make same-sex conception legal because it has been proven safe.
<
p>
Another day has gone by for same-sex marriages in Massachusetts having no security and lacking the most important benefits and protections.
<
p>
Would it be someone like Sam Brownback? George Bush? I’m pretty sure they support giving benefits and protections to same-sex couples.
<
p>
Give me the names of people to ask, and I’ll try to ask them. “Would you support giving federal recognition to same-sex civil unions in return for enacting a law that preserved marriage as a man and woman and prohibited same-sex conception, cloning and genetic engineering until those are proven safe and ethical?”
<
p>
I think that is what I’d ask. Does that seem right? How many people would have to answer before you considered answering if you would support that law? Because we have the answer from one person (me – I would support that law). Or are conception rights and a word more important than equal benefits and protections? Maybe we should ask some older same-sex coules in this state who can’t get each others survivor benefits. Or maybe we should ask same-sex couples in 47 states whose progress is going backwards because of a backlash against Massachusetts marriages.
I’m working on an email to Edward Markey, my rep. I think I should also send one to Marilyn Musgrave, the rep behind the FMA.
<
p>
I’m hoping you’ll help me with good faith, because I am sure that what I am trying to achieve is good, and the sooner we achieve it, the (much) better.
<
p>
We are trying to:
<
p>
Prevent unethical attempts at conception.
Preserve marriage’s right to natural procreation with their spouse.
Preserve everyone’s right to marry.
Extend federal benefits and protections to committed same-sex couples in civil unions.
<
p>
Currently:
Unethical conception is legal and is being researched and will probably be attempted, in spite of how it could lead to eugenics and the loss of our right to procreate naturally.
Married same-sex couples have very limited security and benefits and protections.
<
p>
Same-sex couples don’t need the word marriage, they don’t need conception rights. They need federal benefits and protections. And we need to control unethical experiments.
<
p>
Will you help me compose the email to send to these people to get these things done?
Yes, of course. All the major opponents of SSM would agree to federal civil unions if we would just ban same-sex conception! I can’t wait to tell all my friends!
<
p>
Just help me out here by naming a single member of congress or leader of a group that opposes civil unions who would be willing to support it as part of a package that banned same-sex conception. Maybe if you could provide one shred of evidence that your cockamamie idea would have any effect people would stop thinking that you’re the nut-job that, in fact, you are.
And when they do, they only oppose civil unions if they are “marriage in all but name”, as they say. They do not oppose giving benefits and protections to committed same-sex couples. The point of contention is marriage, or the rights of marriage. The people who have to adjust their stance on that would be the people that insist on marriage for same-sex couples. That would be a very bad idea, because people should not have conception rights with someone of their sex, due to safety risks of actually attempting it. And banning attempting it is incompatible with marriage rights.
<
p>
Do you even want to ban same-sex conception? Or is the problem that you don’t want to give up same-sex conception rights? If that’s the case, you should let people know what really matters to you. And if that matters to you more than getting benefits and protections to legally committed same-sex couples here and throughout the country, then you are crazy, and cruel and stupid.
There is going to be an amendment on the ballot in Florida in 2008 that bans any legal recognition of any same sex-relationship–everyone has agreed it would not only write marriage inequality into the state constitution, but would ban civil unions as well. I believe other states have also banned civil unions, and the DOMA act specifically denies federal recognition of civil unions.
I found the Florida amendment:
See, I think the fact that the civil unions I am proposing would explicitly not have conception rights means that they are not “treated as marriage” or are the “substantial equivelnet”. And that’s been the case with all of the state amendments that I have looked at. That’s why this would be a great solution, since it gets around those laws, and not with a sneaky loopole, but by respecting the spirit of the law. Even though they didn’t know it, conception rights was what they were all thinking of.
<
p>
And also, if we get this compromise worked out in Congress – which is Democratic and ought to be able to do it before lunch – then there won’t be a need for these state amendments any more, and we can end the divisive debates.
Look all I’m saying is I’m against gay marrage.
<
p>
And so are the other 49 states.
<
p>
and the law is on my side….at least 98% of it.
<
p>
if you don’t like it just write to your Senator ot your favorite blog site.
<
p>
But please . . . get with the program
From our friends at Nova, here are the more than 18 ways to make a baby currently:
<
p>
1. Natural sex
2. Artificial insemination — of mother with father’s sperm
3. Artificial insemination — of mother with donor sperm
4. Artificial insemination — with egg and sperm donors, using surrogate mother
5. In vitro fertilization (IVF) — using egg and sperm of parents
6. IVF — with Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)
7. IVF — with frozen embryos
8. IVF — with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
9. IVF — with egg donor
10. IVF — with sperm donor
11. IVF — with egg and sperm donor
12. IVF — with surrogate using parents’ egg and sperm
13. IVF — with surrogate and egg donor
14. IVF — with surrogate and sperm donor
15. IVF — with surrogate using her egg, sperm from baby’s father
16. IVF — with surrogate using egg and sperm donors
17. Cytoplasmic transfer (pending FDA approval)
18. Nuclear transfer and cloning
<
p>
Then the author adds some more:
<
p>
<
p>
Then some more:
<
p>
This is just what we can do now.
<
p>
Over at Bioethics.net, Arthur Caplan makes some Predictions for a New Millennium:
<
p>
<
p>
Is same-sex conception even on the radar? Apparently not. Yet there seem to be many other things to worry about first.
<
p>
Back to Nova:
<
p>
<
p>
Back to Bioethics, Ethical Issues in Genetics in the Next 100 Years, by Glenn McGee:
<
p>
<
p>
By the way, I think No. 4 is False. Not all GE is unsafe. Insulin is made that way. Many people benefit from it. And take “currently” out of the equations, and many others are also False, or one day will be.
<
p>
According to the March of Dimes (and others), “As many as 50 percent of all pregnancies may end in miscarriage, because many losses occur before a woman realizes she is pregnant.”
<
p>
Sounds pretty hazardous to me. Shall we ban conception altogether?
<
p>
Are you married, Mr. Howard? Don’t ask me to give up my marriage unless you’re willing to give up yours, or the right to get married in the future.
Kira, thank you for answering the questions. #4, I was referring to creating children through genetic engineering, nothing else. Germline engineering is still unsafe and still has not been attempted yet, it should be stopped now – currently – and only if Congress decides to allow it later after much deliberation should it be allowed.
<
p>
Natural conception should be the only thing that is allowed, and everyone, me and you included, should give up the right to genetically alter our gametes. We should all have the same right – to combine our natural gamete with someone else’s natural gamete, and that someone else can only ethically be someone of the other sex. None of us should have the right to combine our gamete with someone of the same sex. There ARE people that are working on it, in spite of it not being in your lists.
<
p>
I’m not asking you to give up your marriage, only the legal name of it, and the conception rights that the legal term marriage grants. You would get, in return, federal recognition and probably recognition in the other 49 states. all you’d give up is the official name (unofficially, you could still call it marriage, as could we all) and conception rights. I’d be giving up the right to use genetic engineering also, we both would only have the right to mate using our natural gametes, with someone of the other sex.
<
p>
Regarding some of those other things, like artificial wombs. I think artificial wombs should be outlawed and male pregnancy should be outlawed for ethical squirminess reasons. But IVF is still natural conception and protected by medical privacy. Donor gametes are not part of medical privacy and are hopefully going to be outlawed again soon, but doing so is not an essential part of the egg and sperm law compromise I’m pushing for.
Now there’s a heck of an argument. But I think we can all agree that male pregnancy is an extremely bad idea (except maybe for frogs and insects)–and just leave it at that.
Be my guest. But don’t impose that inhumanity on other people. Do not underestimate the experience of spending time in our mother’s body on our humanity and our connection to our mother and to our children and our spouse. The fact that men can’t do this, and that only women can, is pretty essential to just about everything about our lives. Artificial wombs are totally unnecessary and should not be developed.