Pauliji> What has procreation got to do with same-sex marriage?
The marriage licenses are procreation licenses. You are right that we absolutely should not have seperate procreation licences, but that is where pursuing same-sex conception and gay marriage will probably take us. We all have a basic civil right to marry and procreate with the person of our choice without any tests, but there are “supportable basis” to prohibit certain relationships from marrying (and therefore procreating). Those supportable basis are based on the public relationship, using public information, such as the couple being siblings. They do not prohibit either person from marrying, but they say that they cannot marry each other. They are not subject to genetic tests or risk assessments, a person with Huntingtons has the same basic civil right to conceive that everyone else does, because they have the same right to marry, and their marriage has an absolute right to attempt to procreate.
Being of the same sex as someone else is public information, and is a supportable basis to prohibit those people from possibly conceiving children together. Having a genetic condition (such as being of a certain ethnic or racial background) or other private health issue is not a supportable basis to prohibit anyone from conceiving, because all people have a basic human right to conceive with someone, and throughout history, universally, only truly consensually, which means in official universally recognized marriages. In fact, individuals don’t have a right to conceive at all, they only have a right to enter a marriage. It is the legal unit of a marriage which has a right to conceive. That is how conception rights are protected, and it makes absolute sense, since the person created is a unique mix of both parents equally, they are the product of the marriage, and will be for life, as will their progeny. Marriages reproduce and are the legal right to reproduce, indeed they’re expected to. Individuals are expected not to (Hammerhead sharks among us notwithstanding).
So, to your point that I should be willing to subject myself to a test before being allowed to conceive, that is precisely the situation that I am warning would happen if we seperate marriage and conception rights. I am willing to give up my right to conceive with another man, but I am not willing to give up my right to conceive with a woman. Same-sex conception is unethical and wasteful and foolish and cruel and exploitive and contributes to greenhouse gasses and general apathy and ennui. It should not be allowed.
And your willingness to cry about how it is unfair that “heterosexuals” get to conceive without a test is exactly why we need to protect marriage’s conception rights. You are making real threats to people’s conception rights – mine. Like the Harvard geneticists I met who said they’d do it better than the “breeders have done it”.
In fact, individuals don’t have a right to conceive at all, they only have a right to enter a marriage. It is the legal unit of a marriage which as a right to conceive.< /blockquote >
<
p>
So by your logic, a hetersexual couple who chooses not to get married, has absolutely no right whatsoever to have a child. Because they decide not to marry, they can’t have a baby, ever. That statement is probably the most asinine thing I have read in this whole marriage equality debate.
<
p>
Almost as crazy, but not quite, is your claim that because homosexuals will be allowed to marry, there will come a day when a license will be needed for people to procreate. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but are you f*cking serious? Your making the claim that the government is going to eventually decide who can have children and who cannot, simply because big ol’ evil Massachusetts wants to let them dang queers marry. You are not an individual who can possibly be taken seriously.
Right, an unmarried couple has no actual right to conceive. They conceive anyway, without having a legal right to, because we have incorporated most of the protections and responsibilities of marriage into enforcable laws regardless of marriage. But never did any state or federal body declare that unmarried conception is a right. Find it for me if you think it exists. I’ll find you numerous examples that prove that only married conception is a right if you want.
<
p>
The second objection: If we prohibit same-sex conception, even by a moratorium or by labs deciding not to do it until it is more likely to succeed, but we continue to allow people to marry someone of the same sex, that will mean that marriage doesn’t grant conception rights. If you go back and read the comment I was responding to, you’ll see that person was barely able to contain their feelings that some people should not have a right to conceive. They are saying that unless we allow same-sex conception right now and never prohibit it, then heterosexual couples should be subject to genetic tests or perhaps fitness tests.
But I think I’ve finally got a nickname for John:
<
p>
Don Quix-zyote, forever tilting at the windmills of same-sex conception.
<
p>
All in good fun of course, John; do carry on.
Make that “Quix-zygote”….
is more precise and to the point. don’t forget that quixotic ventures may be futile, but that does not mean that they can’t do great damage to bystanders. honestly, i’m sick and tired of people not realizing that there is a heavy, heavy psychological price we LGBT people have to pay by being assailed with crap like this every single fucking day. (btw Tim, this was not aimed at you in particular.) the blank allowance of anti-gay crap talk needs to be addressed. should BMG be proving a platform for hateful bigotry? i don’t think so.
Get it here!!! Oh wait, no. Where am I? I can’t be on BMG, a reality-based blog, because the John Howard spew above has already been shown a mind-numbingly mammoth number of times to be completely lacking in reality.
<
p>
Unless….perhaps the reality is that it’s still just jim-dandy fine to assail gay people with relentless homophobia here on BMG. But in that case, you really should update the blog descriptor to read “ALTERNATE REALITY-BASED COMMENTARY”. I mean, truth in advertising, please!
to stop feeding this particular troll.
<
p>
Seriously, life would be good if we had an “ignore” button here.
Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot. Crazy Bigot.
But how is posting this at all constructive? If you disagree with him, then either debate him on the issues, or just ignore him. Posting “bigot” after each of his rants was childish enough; typing “Crazy Bigot” 70-some odd times is trollish.
…about this or my approach. I have offered what I believe is fairly incontroverible evidence that Mr. Howard’s interpretation of marriage and conception is bogus and have done so on more than one occasion. He is the troll and I am dogging him and if you don’t like it, try at least to not get in the way.
<
p>
should just avert his/her eyes, as s/he prescribes for us?
…perhaps in the future SLaw should just ignore me. The best advice to take is the advice you give, after all.
LOL! have you tried? go for it! if you do, you will soon find that his only issue is bigotry against gay people, thinly veiled in reproductive “conception rights” babblecrapola.
<
p>
We should not have to ignore this guy’s messages of hate dotted everywhere, virtualy every day on this blog. If he stuck to his own diaries, that might (and only might) be one thing. But he insists on constantly undermining the humanity of gay people in any diary available. Why should it be ok for him to do that here? Why should I or anyone have to avert our eyes? We shouldn’t have to confronted with this bigotrous crap at all. Why would you want to enable bald-faced homophobes here?
I’m sick and tired of being polite to people who treat me like a sub human. If it walks like a crazy bigot, talks like a crazy bigot…..and so on.
Are you saying that it is? I feel that it isn’t. In fact, I would say that it is anti-gay to insist that same-sex conception be developed and made safe and affordable so that same sex couples are able to have children related to both of them. That applies heterosexual values to gay relationships in the most dignity-reducing way imaginable. Gays do not need same-sex conception to have dignity, and prohibiting attempts at same-sex conception only affirms that.
<
p>
And laurel, you’ve never debated on the issues. Usually you just call me a bigot. Sometimes you try to make a point, and I respond, and you act as though I didn’t respond.
<
p>
I’m presenting the best plan to give same-sex couples equal protections and full dignity. Their dignity is not dependent on being able to conceive with their lover. Maybe you feel it is, but i think that’s crass and bigoted of you.
Mr. Howard, you don’t give a rats ass about gay people, or else you would not be trying to make the public afraid of them. If you are going to fear monger, at least do it right and stick to your guns.
And any half-way intelligent newcomer observing Howard’s incessant rants will discover his silliness in short order.
<
p>
If people would ignore a troll like Howard*, eventually they would go away. But, alas, you can always find a few people on a message board or comment thread who don’t ignore them, and so that’s why they tend to stay around seemingly forever.
You can try denying it for a little while, but you are intelligent enough to realize that this issue will only get bigger. It is not going away. Researchers are working on same-sex conception, and they think it is only “three to five years” away. Please show me enough respect to at least admit that is true and I’m not making it up.
<
p>
I’m apparently the only person in the world who thinks that conception relates to marriage rights, but that is why I can’t drop it. I know that people will start discussing same-sex conception in the next few years, but if they start discussing whether or not to allow it apart from marriage, it will mean we have let eugenics take over our basic civil rights. If you are a eugenicist, that won’t bother you. But I believe in human rights and am not a misanthropic transhumanist and don’t think we should let that happen.
<
p>
I also think that gay couples deserve a chance at equal protections in their lifetimes, and have offered a real plan to achieve that. No one else has a plan to achieve that any time soon, apparently equal protections are not important, what matters most of all is that we don’t prohibit genetic engineering of children.
I appreciate you recognizing how obnoxious anthony’s childish behavior is, but what’s up with calling me a crazy bigot?
<
p>
People should only be created by the union of a man
s sperm and a woman’s egg. That is now in the Consitution of Missouri, and not one person that I am aware of argued that it was crazy or bigoted to add that to their constitution. Since I am the only person willing to affirm the basic human right of every person to conceive, and others here have suggested that some people should not be allowed to conceive, I think I might just be the only sane and unbigoted person here.
…be childish than a crazy bigot.
is it crazy and bigoted?
….contains any languange related to gay people or gay marriage that does not have equivalent languare regarding heterosexuals then yes it is. If it is simple an amendment that outlaws the genetic engineering of humans for everyone no, it is not. The crazy bigoted part is your ridiculous obsession with gay marriage and your obvious homophobia.
OK, here’s a link. It makes no mention of anyone’s sexual orientation, but it does limit conception of children to a man and a woman:
And that’s the same sort of thing I’m talking about. It would stop cloning and genetic engineering and ensure that everyone is created equally. The PCBE recommended a federal law in 2004, but we aren’t making much progress getting it done. And it seems its because too many people now want to be able to do same-sex conception. Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception?
<
p>
Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception? Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception? Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception? Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception? Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception? Can you say you support Missouri’s law, or do you want to be able to do same-sex conception?
…people here like to respond to a brick wall.
<
p>
I’ve seen it elsewhere, though.
since you’re commenting to people who you think like responding to a brick wall, by the transitive property of equality… 😛
…I do not have the slightest idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you expound on your point?
<
p>
I wouldn’t ask you to do so, if I did not believe that your posts deserved attention.
…to someone you think is responding to a brick wall is tantamount to responding to a brick wall. If you think the entire exchange is pointless, just stay away. You entered the fray so you are no better than those you seek to criticize.
<
p>
If you are really above it, stay there.
…your first sentence, no it is not.
<
p>
As to your second sentence, I normally do, but sometimes I see the humor in the interchange.
<
p>
Listen up, and listen well. It is a waste of time to respond to a troll. But, I recognize, it is your time to waste. So, feel free to waste away.
…a waste of time to counsel someone who has adamently rebuked your counsel so we can waste our time together.
I could knock up any number of girls in my college whom I am not married to — legally.
<
p>
Therefore, I have proven your entire post to be null and void.
<
p>
Next!
Massachusetts has a Fornication law that prohibits you from knocking up girls you are not married to.
<
p>
And even if that law were repealed (as they try every few years), it would only be removing the $30 limit on punishment. It wouldn’t be saying that unmarried conception is a right. And it certainly wouldn’t be saying that marriage no longer gives the right to conceive. Only a combination of gay marriage and a ban on same-sex conception would say that, and that would be a super facist and dangerous situation that we should be on guard for. We should not let eugenics trump every marriage’s right to conceive.
Laws that don’t get enforced aren’t laws. Nice try at a dodge though.
<
p>
You still won’t answer my point: marriage doesn’t issue a right to conceive. I can go right on ahead and have bastard children left and right, and as long as I can support them, Uncle Deval isn’t going to do squat.
<
p>
How is this even related to same-sex marriage? Isn’t this more a question of general genetic engineering ethics? If you’re going to be against gay marriage, at least have a better excuse than this wannabe nutty professor hijinks.
The only reason I am against gay marriage is because we need to stop genetic engineering and preserve natural conception rights.
<
p>
Joe, your ability to get away with having unmarried sex is irrelevant. What matters is the rights within marriage. Find me one marriage that is prohibited by law from conceiving. You won’t be able to, because couples that are not allowed to conceive are prohibited from marriage. We need to prohibit same-sex couples from conceiving. That would make their rights incompatible with marriage rights, which would change marriage, for the first time in history there would be marriages that were prohibited from conceiving.
<
p>
And you are wrong that the crime fornication isn’t enforced. I’ve enforced it and I’ve had it enforced on me. It hasn’t been worth it for the state to police or prosecute because the most the state gets back is $30.
Only confirms to me that you are tapped. I don’t even want to know how the police found out you were fornicating….
If I see someone about to walk off with someone’s bag, I can say “hey, that’s not yours!” I just enforced the law against stealing. And if a girl tells me that we can’t have sex because we are not married, she has enforced the fornication law. If her dad tells me he’ll kill me if I get his daughter pregnant, he has enforced the fornication law. If I tell a girl I don’t want to because I don’t believe in sex before marriage, well, maybe I am crazy, now that I think about it. That’s only happened once though.
It’s the second paragraph that was most important to that post. Do you understand that we are talking about the rights within marriage? We should not give same-sex couples conception rights. Every marriage should have conception rights. Ergo, we cannot allow same-sex marriage. Now that same-sex conception is in the mix, the marriage issue becomes much clearer: Yes to SSM is yes to SSC. No to SSC is no to SSM. Yes to SSC is yes to SSM. And no to SSM is no to SSC.
<
p>
But if we are stupid fools, we will seperate these questions, and could wind up either unable to say that people should marry before conceiving (no to SSM but yes to SSC), or that marriages do not protect a couples right to conceive using their own gametes (no to SSC but yes to SSM). Either one of those is terrible.
<
p>
What’s your stand, Joe, on whether we should allow labs to attempt same-sex conception? Have you researched the subject at all? What’s your stand on Missouri’s Egg and Sperm constitutional amendment?
I have to apologize, I have not researched it. I put my pre-med hat on the shelf years ago and with the sensory overload I get everyday trying to balance my activism with my career, I an burnt out.
<
p>
Please give me/us a brief synopsis why in a lab we should not be able to take the genetic material out of say two separate sperm nuclei from separate donors and put it into a viable egg (without genetic material in its nucleus).
<
p>
This is not cloning. It is human experimentation of course, but I am sure that it would be perfected on some rat somewhere before human implementation. Is the basis of your argument ethics or that your just think its wierd? I do have an opinion myself but will wait for your response. Thanks.
If it were that easy, they’d have done it already. It wouldn’t have taken 450 embryos to get one mouse to survive. The reason it is hard is because male and female genes are imprinted differently, so you can’t just put the genetic material in the other casing and send it on its way. You have to alter the imprinting, knocking out some genes and turning on some others so that when the gametes join, they are complimentary in the right way. Every animal has a different genetic code, and they also all have different differences between males and females too. So it can’t be tested in rats.
Even if it were more reliable and people started doing it without any failures, it would open the door to genetic engineering. Even though this form of genetic engineering would not designed to create designer babies or better humans, it would make it much easier for people that wanted to design better humans to justify embarking on that road. Read “Enough” by Bill McKibben for a good argument why we should not allow genetic engineering. We are at the “Enough” point right now, he says, and same-sex conception is on the other side.
Also, Missouri enacted an egg and sperm law, and the President’s Council on Bioethics recommended a federal egg and sperm law. It isn’t entirely on my shoulders to make the case for an egg and sperm law to preserve natural conception. What I am hoping for is to raise the issue so that people aren’t ignorant. As long as we are talking about the rights of same-sex couples, we should be talking about this right too. If you think it should remain legal and research should continue, you would make that argument in the ensuing debate, and I would make an opposing one. It would take more than one or two posts.
Okay I certainly for one advocate healthy debate on this issue. I would hate for same-sex couples to essentially be opening the door for geneticly engineered babies.
<
p>
Now to the next question…why do you or your Egg and Sperm people stand on the anti-gay side of the street with the bigots? Your website and organization would be an educational tool and friendly to the LGBT community, not posture with the people who would rather we not exist.
When I arrived at the concon last month, I locked my bike in the Common and walked up the stairs, and started handing out my flyer to the VOM people. Perhaps because I was wearing a purple T-shirt (really dumb of me) and didn’t have a VOM badge on, they were very stone-faced to me and many didn’t want my flyer. A policeman came by and told me to go over to the other side of the street, but I protested that I needed to work both sides of the street, bcause I was trying to promote a compromise and showed him my sign that said “Support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise”. He took a second to read it, but said “they’re not taking what your pasing out, so leave them alone”, but just then a woman that must have recognized me from the last concon came to my rescue and said “he’s on the right side of the street”. And in the most basic respect, that is true, because I oppose same-sex marriage and favor civil unions. (the fact that I don’t support VOM’s amendment starts making it too complicated, so I left that out. It seemed to me what it came down to was that I oppose SSM, because I believe marriage must continue to guarantee a right to attempt to conceive using the couple’s own gametes, but don’t think a Constitutional amendment makes any sense at all.)
So I was allowed to pass out more flyers to the VOMers, and was handed many “Jesus Loves you” flyers in return. I’d try to explain what I was talking about, but they mainly just wanted to know if I went to church. Only a few people there seemed to consider me on their side, they see “Civil union” and they have been told millions of times that they are just stepping stones to marriage, and many of them seemed to think I was advocating for same-sex conception, or at least announcing its inevitablity. They think I’m saying “we’re going to have to compromise, because they’re going to start having babies together soon, and they just want to say “well, so what, homosexuality is still wrong and that doesn’t make it OK.” One woman told her friends “don’t take that, he’s handing out crap!” A few understood that I was opposed to same-sex conception, and I gave one to Kris Mineau and tried to explain the compromise, and he seemed to listen but I don’t think it really registered as important to him. My purple t-shirt sort of ruined my chances, I think, in spite of my otherwise heterosexual appearance (I think bears have made it hard to look straight just by being unkempt and poorly groomed).
I then snuck across the street and gave out some flyers there, but they don’t like the word “Civil Union” either, and their gadar must work better, in spite of my purple shirt, because they were equally hostile. (I’ll say “equally” though I think there were stark differences in the form it took. There was more palpable threat and disgust with me on the SSM side, more coldness and bitter prayers for my poor soul on the VOM side.)
I eventually wound up where I always wind up, crossing the street between the Hooker entrance and Fox25, trying to talk to regular pedestrians. I met Mark Solomon as he was leaving, and he gave me a few minutes and asked a few questions. He did not ask “what does tt have to do with marriage”, he went straight to “why don’t you want gay people to have children?” And I explained I was only talking about same-sex conception technology, and then he asked the same question you asked above, and I gave him the same answer.)
I appreciate your understanding that there is nothing anti-gay about being opposed to letting the biotech industry just go and create people without any public debate, even if it means that gay couples wind up being prohibited from conceiving together. And I think it will be easier to repeal DOMA and recognize civil unions federally if there is a clear and essential distinction between marraige and civil union. Conception rights should be that distinction.
He does not talk about same-sex conception in Enough or anywhere else I know of. But he does say that we are at the Enough point right now, and right now, same-sex conception is not here yet. He does state that all people should be naturally created without genetic engineering.
There is so much wrong with your thinking I don’t know where to begin, and I’ve resisted responding to anything you’ve posted because, well, I don’t know where to begin. But suddenly you’ve sparked an idea – capping and trading conception rights! We can deal with two problems simultaneously: your problem with same-sex couples having children and over-population (still #2 on the “threat to the planet” hit parade).
<
p>
As a starting point, the law will provide that only married couples can have children, even though this ignores basic biology, hormones and human behavior. The state, always interested in what we do in our private lives and always interested in making money off private transactions, whether appropriate or not, will determine how many children a straight, married couple can legally have. This number will be set as the “emission limit” (but from this will be exempted nocturnal emissions and premature, unintended emissions). The emission limit will exist as a right of the straight, married couple, and let’s set the emission limit at 3, unless the couple has a family farm and needs more hands, in which case the limit will be set higher, as appropriate. The right to have children belongs, legally, to the couple.
<
p>
Couples not wanting or needing to use their full allotment of emissions can agree to cap them at the number of children they intend to have. The balance of the emissions, still legally theirs, can be traded on the open market to any married couple who wants or needs them, straight, gay or somwhere in between.
<
p>
I know there’s a flaw in here somewhere, and I expect someone to help me finding it.
Genetic engineering has as much to do with gay marriage as the David Parker issue. In that situation, a father was against having his child taught about gay marriage in the public school his kid attends. That’s fine, let him teach his kids what he wants, let him get arersted for not listening to the police. Whatever position you want to take on the issue, you should be able to identify that gay marriage has nothing to do with this guy not wanting to have his kid taught that gay is OK. Sure I expect him to be against gay marriage, he’s a bigot, but gay marriage is not synonymous with what public schools want to teach about diversity. If you take away gay marriage, you are not going to prevent schools from wanting to make sure that we are the last generation of bigots.
<
p>
As a side note, kids who are intolerant of people who are different than them are going to be at a social and political disadvantage to the other kids that are better socialized. That’s life, and that’s why it is advantageous to teach this to them. The school systems are trying to make sure children can be responsible citizens in a society that demands a certains level of respect for all people equally.
<
p>
In a like fashion, gay marriage really has nothing to do with genetic engineering. If you end gay marriage, you still have to deal with the fact that people will want to see if they can make babies with same sex genes. Conversely, if you end genetic engineering of same sex babies, gay marriage can continue without issue. This is why you are a bigot. You want to piggy-back this issue onto something you think the public would be afraid of. You won’t for an instant listen to arguments that the two are seperate and distinct issues. You can see the truth, you just hope others can’t. We can John… we can…
Conversely, if you end genetic engineering of same sex babies, gay marriage can continue without issue.
<
p>
This is where you are wrong. First of all, whether or not we allow same-sex conception is rather important to some people. Some LGBT people already demand a right to use any reproductive technology they want, and they will not be satisfied that they have “equal marriages” if they are not allowed to try to conceive. So you are pretty much lying by saying that gay marriage will continue without issue. You know that if SSC is prohibited with an egg and sperm law (which would prohibit all GE and SSC regardless of marriage status), there will be a big outcry from LGBT groups, and NOT ONE will say that gay marriages are “continuing without issue”, they will say that they have been reduced to second-class marriages. The fact that they are marriages will be used to claim a right to conception rights, same as every other marriage. And meanwhile, the legal combination of SSM and a ban on SSC will have a monumental affect on marriage. This would be the first time in the history of the world that a marriage is prohibited from conceiving. That would quietly strip conception rights from every marriage, and, even as same-sex marriages make the claim for their conception rights, they will also be questioning the conception rights of marriages that might have some issue, be it genetic, economic, political, religious, whatever. The Harvard geneticists I met told me that they could do same-sex conception better than “breeders” have done it. So conception rights of marriages are under fire from neo-eugenics. We need to preserve marriage’s right to conceive, and that means banning SSM or allowing SSC. No other choices.
This is like one of those math equations where two circles intersect a bit, but are not synonumous. In case you haven’t noticed John, gay marriage DOES EXIST without same sex reproduction. We have gay marriage, and we do not have same sex reproduction.
<
p>
You are talking in circles hoping to confuse people into believing you may have a point. I guess if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance…
<
p>
Has it ever occurred to you that same sex couples could make great parents? They have, and they do.
<
p>
http://www.youtube.c…
<
p>
I don’t think this thought has crossed your mind, and if it has, you have dismissed it. This is the definition of a bigot John, and it is unhealthy behavior.
But the experts say it will take about three to five more years of research before they are actually ready to try it. There are no laws against it, same-sex conception is legal and there are people who expect to try it in three to five years. I’m trying to un-confuse people like you, John. I’m hardly talking in circles. I’m making a proof: Same-sex conception is unethical and attempting it should be prohibited. Marriage should guarantee a right to attempt to conceive together. Those are two propositions that, if you agree, together lead to the conclusion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. Same-sex couples should have equal protections in all other respects, including equal federal recognition, and this should be achieved through state civil unions.
Please let me know what part of that is still confusing, and perhaps it would help if you stated whether you agree with the two propositions or not. If you disagree with one or both, then that’s where we need to focus first, or the rest won’t make sense.
“Please let me know what part of that is still confusing, and perhaps it would help if you stated whether you agree with the two propositions or not.”
<
p>
I agree that same sex genetic baby making should not be done. I personally feel that we need to know a lot more about this before anyone tries it.
<
p>
I also believe that people in love should be able to be married, and that whether they are the same sex or not should not matter. The two ideas are not synonumous. You can keep gay marriage and still get rid of genetic engineering.
<
p>
I have no idea why you try to keep putting the two together like one relies on the other, but they do not. I am all for the one idea, and completely agains the other. Just because the two ideas involve gays does not mean they are co-dependent.
<
p>
If you are going to say genetics and symomumous with marriage, we might as well say that we should take away their library cards too, because that ties in somehow.
<
p>
I also noticed that you completely ignore that fact that we have proof that some gay couples have laready raised successful families. If you continue not to comment on that, people will understand why john, they are not as dumb as you are trying to make them out to be.
<
p>
You say you agree with “Same-sex conception is unethical and attempting it should be prohibited.” But you apparenly don’t agree with “Marriage should guarantee a right to attempt to conceive together.” You believe marriage does not guarantee conception rights.
<
p>
That people believe as you do presents an immediate problem and threat to our civil rights. To my civil rights, to your’s, to pucknomad’s, everyone’s. You want to be able to tell a legally married man and a woman that want to conceive together that no, they may not, because there is a suspected health risk or other issue.
<
p>
Take a look back through history and see if you can find any recorded marriages that were publically prohibited by law from procreating. I’ve been asking people to do this for years, and some people have come up with first-cousin marriage exceptions which require a proof of fertility, and prisoner marriages. But in neither of those cass is the couple prohibited from conceiving. Cousin-exceptions actually prove that what is at issue with marriage is “should we allow children?” and they do allow the couple to concieve, the marriage is not annulled if they do somehow produce a child. They are a crude expedient compromise in those state’s decision on whether to allow cousins to marry or not. And prisoners might get out one day, in fact it is an essential part of the courts decision in Turner that the couple might consummate the relationship someday.
<
p>
An egg and sperm law would be the first time that any marriages would be told by the law that even though they are married, they are not allowed to conceive together using their own gametes. Up until that law is enacted, people will be able to point to their marriage license like Richard Loving did, but if we enact an egg and sperm law, then that won’t mean anything anymore, marriage will no longer protect a couple’s conception rights.
“Marriage should guarantee a right to attempt to conceive together.”
<
p>
We already have this inalienable right to procreate without marriage. No one is stopping the millions of people from having babies out of wedlock. What is your response to this?
<
p>
“You want to be able to tell a legally married man and a woman that want to conceive together that no, they may not, because there is a suspected health risk or other issue.”
<
p>
Could you quote my words that make you think this is what I was communicating?
<
p>
“An egg and sperm law would be the first time that any marriages would be told by the law that even though they are married, they are not allowed to conceive together using their own gametes.”
<
p>
I’m desperarely trying to follow your line of logic here. Are you saying that sometime in the future, GLBT are going to launch a campaign in which only test tube babies would be allowed? Why the Hell would I want that?
<
p>
Let’s put things back into perspective John. You are not talking about evil aliens from another planet sent here to destroy humanity. You are talking about people whom you work with, see in the streets every day, and that live in your community. You are talking about individuals.
<
p>
I can’t speak for the next GLBT person, but I met Ray almost 13 years ago. We have been exclusive ever since, and we are happy making that happen for the rest of our lives. Yesterday I celebrated my 40th birthday, and we had all sorts of friends and family over. From my 3 year old first cousin, all the way to 86 years old, and everthing in between. Races, classes, age, weight, religions; it was the best example of America’s melting pot I have seen at such a party. We all got along fine, and we had a great time.
<
p>
We can make the American dream work, we just have to put some effort into it, and have a little courage when times don’t go our way. That’s the attitude that made this country strong, and it is an attidue that would serve us well now.
<
p>
Ray and I have no intention of bringing children into our equation. We like children, but they are a big responsibility, and we prefer to help our family with theirs when they need us, and not more than that. Using a procreation argument against Ray and I getting married is kind of a moot point considering we don’t want children, adopted or otherwise. I’ve brought this point to you before and you refuse to address it, just like when I said that GLBT families have already proven they can raise healthy children.
<
p>
Read this definition, and see what you make of it:
<
p>
bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.
<
p>
The origin of the word bigot in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of “religious hypocrite”, especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false.
We already have this inalienable right to procreate without marriage. No one is stopping the millions of people from having babies out of wedlock. What is your response to this?
<
p>
Technicaly, we actually don’t have a right to procreate without marriage. The right to procreate is the right of a marriage, individual have the right to keep their fertility, and to marry, and then the marriage has a right to procreate.
Lawrence v Texas just a few years ago affirmed in the majority opinion that marriage is about the right to have sex, which means procreate (according to their logic in other cases like Zablocki). We don’t need to punish or stop unmarried procreation for marriage to guarantee the right to conceive. And once an unmarried pregnancy occurs, the child deserves equal support as if it were from a marriage, hence paternity tests and child support from the father rather than jail and punishment, in the interests of the child and mother.
<
p>
“You want to be able to tell a legally married man and a woman that want to conceive together that no, they may not, because there is a suspected health risk or other issue.”
<
p>
Could you quote my words that make you think this is what I was communicating?
<
p>
Well, how are the rights of that m-f marriage different from same-sex marriages? You say above that “I agree that same sex genetic baby making should not be done.” So that means telling same-sex couples that their marriage doesn’t give them the right to conceive, the health risk over-rules any claim that the marriage gives them a right to do it anyway. Are you saying same-sex marriages would not have the rights of both sex marriages, or are you saying that they are equal, and that therefore a married man and woman can also be told they are not allowed to conceive due to health risks?
<
p>
“An egg and sperm law would be the first time that any marriages would be told by the law that even though they are married, they are not allowed to conceive together using their own gametes.”
<
p>
I’m desperarely trying to follow your line of logic here. Are you saying that sometime in the future, GLBT are going to launch a campaign in which only test tube babies would be allowed? Why the Hell would I want that?
<
p>
If we don’t make an egg and sperm law, then we might have a future like you describe, yes. But SSC is unethical enough just one baby at a time, even if natural conception is never prohibited. We should not allow people to conceive with someone of the same-sex. Do you agree with that? Or are you just “personally against” it? All marriages should be allowed to conceive, using their own gametes. Do you agree with that, or do you think some marriages should not?
I also noticed that you completely ignore that fact that we have proof that some gay couples have laready raised successful families. If you continue not to comment on that, people will understand why john, they are not as dumb as you are trying to make them out to be.
Of course I acknowledge that gay couples have raised successful families. I’ve said many times that gay couples are often far and away the best parents and in the best interest of children. But raising families has nothing to do with marriage. Unmarried people have raised succesful families too, and married couples have been unsuccessful. Even couples that would be prohibited from marrying have raised successful families and would often in the best interest of children, such as a father living with his mother, or a kid being raised by her older siblings.
“But raising families has nothing to do with marriage.
<
p>
John, you base your argument against gay marriage directly on children, and same sex procreation. If your problem with gay marriage is not about children, what is it? Your postings are about as clear as L. Ron Hubbard.
Marriage is about being allowed to create people. Unmarried people are legally allowed to raise families, but unmarried people are not legally allowed to conceive people. Think “woman raising her children in her father’s house” – they are raising a family, but are they allowed to marry?
Mr and Mrs Brady did not legally have to marry unless they sought the right to possibly conceive more children together (ie, have sex). The marriage surely brings the family more stability, the marriage isn’t about raising the existing kids, its about possibly conceiving new ones, together.
And yes, today they would be able to have sex and children without marriage without getting stoned to death or stigmatized, but marriage still guarantees the right to do so that it did back in those days.
“Marriage is about being allowed to create people. Unmarried people are legally allowed to raise families, but unmarried people are not legally allowed to conceive people.”
<
p>
Can you please give your point that is varifiable? What parental rights are different from married vs. not married?
…as between married and non-married couples.
If your problem with gay marriage is not about children, what is it?
Dr. Richard Scott should not be allowed to try to engineer changes into stem cell derived gametes to enable two people of the same sex to conceive a baby together. The only way people should be allowed to create children is by joining an egg and a sperm, from a woman and a man.
By your continued evasion of my direct question that you should not be taken seriously. You cannot seem to support your assertions, even in the most primary way.
<
p>
You should stop trying to sell me on the mad scientist crap, because like I said, I already agree. What you seem either unwilling or unable to do is explain how you are against gay marriage aside from test tube babies. Is there something else about gay marriage you want to say?
<
p>
Not all people who get married have kids. Sometimes it is simply about companionship, inheritence rights, and being free to declare for life who you love. You must factor this into your equation or your proof will not work…. 😉
What question did I evade? I explained that existing children have nothing to do with marriage, even raj agreed. My problem is with the manner by which people conceive children. It should be natural and equal for everyone: by the (consensual) joining of a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. Genetic engineering should not be allowed.
<
p>
Same-sex couples should not have conception rights. Yes, like you, most same-sex couples don’t want conception rights, that’s why this should be so easy. But for some reason, it is hard. It seems everyone insists that same-sex couples should be allowed to have all the same rights that a married man and a woman have, including conception rights. They should not. No same-sex couple should have conception rights. Same-sex conception is too risky and would open the door to genetic engineering, waste money, divert medical resources, exacerbate the gap between rich and poor and the first and third worlds, and just generally be really dumb. No one has explained why we need to develop same-sex conception, it seems it is being pursued by autonomatons who are just pursuing it as a way to spend the time (and money). They should work on something else, like finding the cause of cancer or the cause of Alzheimers.
<
p>
For all those other things you cite that same-sex couples desire marriage, like inheritance rights, we can create civil unions that would be exactly like marriage, but they would not give conception rights. That is the only way to give equal protections to same-sex couples AND preserve marriage’s right to conceive children together AND stop genetic engineering. Do you not agree those are all good goals?
<
p>
Civil unions are what all the candidates support, they could be enacted quite easily, especially if there is a principled distinction between them and marriage.
<
p>
I think you should either admit that you don’t just want equal protections, you want to usher in genetic engineering and stop breeders from conceiving more breeders, or you should look at my proposal with an open mind.
What about the people who don’t want kids? Do they lose their right to marry too? Why is that fair?
No one should be given the right to conceive with someone of their own sex, even if most people wouldn’t want to. There are couples that want to, and there are companies and scientists that want to convince same-sex couples to have children together. We can’t give any same-sex couples the right to conceive together. It’s like a blind guy applying for a driver’s license, and saying that he doesn’t want to drive, he just wants to have a driver’s license for other reasons. No, we only give them to people who we can drive safely.
<
p>
(And no one loses their right to marry, they just have their choice limited to people with whom it would be ethical to conceive children with.)
L. Ron Hubbard was a nut. But I’d be in error. The people who are nuts are the persons who joined his Scientology “church.” Hubbard was a 3d rate science fiction author who leapt onto a big scam.
<
p>
When I was living in WashDC about 32 years ago, I was walking down the sidewalk and was accosted by a Scientologist. He invited me to go in and have me examined by his E-Meter. The session was hilarious. I looked at the box and–since I was an engineer–immediately knew what was going on.
<
p>
Scientology is a fraud, pure and simple.
Enough with this ludicruous bulls**t.
<
p>
There is no such thing as “conception rights.” Nope, not in Mass General Laws. And the “fornication” law you bring up does not have anything do do with pregnancy.
<
p>
Genetic engineering is a topic worthy of serious discussions about ethics, but it has nothing to do with equal marriage.
<
p>
Face it. YOU ARE A BIGOT. You hate and are afraid of gay men and women. You (and people like you, if there are any) have created this alternate reality so you can pretend you care about the GLBT community and claim it’s just “science” you’re worried about.
<
p>
You are just a bigot. You don’t think gay men and women should have the same rights as straight people.
<
p>
I know this won’t even make the tiniest dent in the tin-foil hat covering your head. I shouldn’t even bother. Your arguments prove that you wouldn’t know a fact if it beat you over the head–because we’ve been beating you over the head with facts for months.
<
p>
Well I suppose it makes you feel better to think you are just a citizen concerned with abuse of science than a narrow-minded, inconsiderate, intolerant bigot.
try taking a bath next time
Several of my relatives, who lived together monogamously for 60+ years, and either did, or did not, raise children never did get married as they were of the opinion that their relationship was no business of the states at all.
<
p>
Imagine this: Any two adults who do not trigger consanguinity issues can register a civil union.
<
p>
This civil union provides all the economic partnership issues typically viewed as part of a “marriage partnership” such as inheritance, as well as all “legal access rights” such access to the ill loved one in a hospital.
<
p>
For those who crave the title “marriage”, an additional religious or organizational ceremony by the religion/organization of their choice, qualifying for same by the ethos of that particular organization/religion whether it is Buddhism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, Neo-Druidism, The Second Revised Church of Mithras, The Ethical Society, etc.
<
p>
Frankly, kids are better off when the adults who provide them with food, clothing, and shelter are able to marry – because no matter what SOME of them will breakup. And with marriage – or civil union – kids can potentially receive support and retain access after than breakup.
<
p>
So I support “Gay Marriage” and universal “civil unions” as better for kids as well as encouraged responsible adult behavior.
The state should certainly have an interest in keeping people from being created irresponsibly. We have an obligation to look out for people that can’t look out for themselves, like children and yet-to-be-created children.
<
p>
you say you’re against state recognition of marriage, but then say you’re for gay marriage, so maybe you need to think through your position a little more.
I am against state control over marriage, state management of marraige – let those who wish to register their relationships as “civil unions” with certain genetic consanguinity disqualifications, then get the “seal” of marraige from an organization. The registered civil union would be sufficient to trigger a dissolution statute that handles property division or visitation or custody [if there is property, or children]. Government doesn’t belong in the marriage business – and the majority of children spend time outside or “marriage” now, or are conceived outside of marraige to begin with. That, Mr. Howard [if Mr. Howard you ARE] is a reality.
<
p>
Universal civil union, with consanguinity limitations only for genetic reasons, would far better protect children than banning marriage between committed partnerships be those parenting partnerships heterosexual atheists, anarchists,neopagans or same sex folk who wish to commit to child rearing together.
<
p>
My long deceased Michigan relatives, by the way, back in 1910 when they first shacked up, happened to be both athiests and anarchists and felt that what bound them together and provided security for their children was their respect for one another, and personal honor, and a stamp of approval from the State was, in their view a useless and unwelcome intrusion.
What if some religion says its OK to marry a 12 year old? What if some religion says its OK to marry four women? What if some religion says its OK to clone people, or throw people into volcanoes? The state controls the police and the jails and whatever controls the police and the jails has to conrol marriage (and cloning and human sacrifices).
<
p>
You don’t mention your position on allowing people to attempt same-sex conception. The state should control whether that is allowed or not. If the state continues to allow it, then the state should also allow SSM. If the state decides it should not be allowed, then we should not allow SSM, because all marriages should have a right to conceive using their own gametes. If we don’t allow same-sex conception, that means the police will put people in jail if they attempt it. That’s a function of the state.
<
p>
Religion has nothing to do with marriage, though of course they’re going to have their own things to say about it. It’s just like murder: religions all have their own things to say about it, but it’s the state that puts people in jail for attempting it. The state is the police and the jails. In days when religions had police and jails, churches were the state. But religions aren’t allowed to have police and jails in the US.
IF registering civil unions was controlled by statute, AND a precursor to taking one’s certification of a civil union to the religion or “marriage certifier” of choice, every one of your concerns is addressed.
<
p>
As to same sex people – or single parents – using modern reproductive technology and/or surrogates – It is my understanding that this is legal in all 50 states, and most countries as well.
<
p>
I personally see no valid basis for limiting registered life partnerships [whatever they are called] to “one man one woman” – nor why a “ends at death or divorce” marriage is any different then a registered civil union – albeit current laws do distinguish [and to distinguish is potentially to discriminate] between legal partnerships, civil unions, and marriage.
<
p>
I would personally prefer to have some form of registered partnership [maybe called a civil union, maybe called a domestic partnership to distinguish it from a ‘pure’ business partnership] with statutory enunciation as to how such a partnership is dissolved spelling out division of assets and child related issues, then all the baggage the word “marriage” currently carries.
<
p>
I have no problem with others finding my views unappealing, or holding different views. That, after all, is what makes for a discussion.
<
p>
However, as my view is, if anything, even more radical than that held by MarriageEquality, I am content to support the availability of same sex marriage, while retaining my objection to the level of state involvement in marriage that is the current norm.
AmberPaw, you have somehow managed to miss my most basic point. The reproductive technology I am saying we should ban has not been attempted in humans yet, though it is legal, as you say. So far it’s only been done in mice. We should not allow anyone to attempt to create a person using genetic engineering, we should enact a law along the lines of the Ammendment 2 that Missouri enacted last year that prohibits creating children that are not the union of a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. That means that we won’t allow labs to create a child from the genes of two people fo the same sex. People will only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex, same-sex couples will not have the same right that both-sex couples have.
Civil Unions could have all the protections and benefits of marriage but not give the couple a right to conceive together. This distinction would reflect the difference in rights of the couples. Marriage would continue unchanged and as understood in historic court opinions and law as guaranteeing conception rights.
This is my ideal, too, Amber (may I call you Amber?). I’d love to see the state get out of the marriage business, and cede the issue back to religion, from whence it came. If people want to get their god or gods’ stamp of approval on it, fine, but such a step would merely strengthen the institution of family in our society.
this is a major misconception. read up on the history of western marriage here.
Serial monogamy is biological and anthropological. But throughout civilization, it has been codfied as a reflection of God’s/god’s/gods’ blessing — an inherently religious concept. And given that the overriding objectino to marriage equality is religious, I would find that fact rather relevant.
<
p>
Regardless, why do you recommend a book on “Western” religions? (None of which started in the West, oddly enough — unless the book focuses on Christian Science, Scientology, and Mormonism). Marriage as a religiously approved monogamy predates the first whisperings of Abraham’s adventures.
the book is on western marriage, not western religion.
<
p>
leaving the historical church/no church debate aside for a minute, something interesting to consider is that the current institution of marriage, this love-based relationship, is NOTHING at all like the institution even 100 years ago. marriage used to be a business deal, and the wife was the property of the husband. it had little to nothing to do with love. personally, i prefer the love-based marriages we mostly have now here in the western world. change in the institution has been for the better, in my opinion. and when love is the basis of marriage, not ownership, how can same-sex couples be excluded? they can’t.
Laurel, we’re certainly agreed on this issue, even though we don’t see eye to eye on how to spread our beliefs. Read an interesting article about the common practicein rural Britain of auctioning one’s wife, which was a far deal cheaper than getting a divorce.
<
p>
When people spout to me about “traditional marriage” I usually respond by saying “Traditional marriage for thousands of years was one man and as many wives as he could afford. Are you saying he need to bring that back?”
but i wonder how practical it is. i know of no country that is trying to give up the term marriage for something else, and i know of very few straight people who would be willing to take what they see as a come down. i think the best thing to do is get all citizens on equal footing (marriage equality), then if the naming system changes over time to universal civil unions, fine, but it happens for all of us at once.
<
p>
but i think what would be much easier, and wouldn’t require using a new term that other countries might not recognize, is no longer allow clergy to conduct the civil part of marriage ceremonies. this is the dutch model (other countries too, probably). you go to town hall, get civil marriage via the justice of the peace, then if you desire you can go get a religious marriage on top of it. but the civil and the sacred are carefully separated, both in time, place and people’s minds. this should be done here too. there is no good reason why clergy should be granted the special civil duty of solumnizing civil marriages. it just leads people to keep believing the sort of idea you expressed above – that marriage is a religious institution. nope. marriage is valued in most religions i am aware of, sure. but historically it’s actually a secular institution.
You’re right it’s a secular institution. But we should still allow marriages to be officially solemnized by whoever the couple decides, and in whatever venue they want. If they want their marriage to be solemnized by someone who will bring religious meaning to it, they should certainly be allowed to. As long as the secular nature continues to be explicit, so that everyone present is reminded that being declared married requires authority of the state. That’s what matters, and religions don’t usually have a problem respecting the authority of the state to declare couples married. Religions can’t declare people married without the authority of the state, there is no such thing. They might as well declare people judges or mayors or give out drivers licenses.