Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Poll results: 8 to 1 in favor of same-sex conception

By

(I thought I posted a version of this diary before, but maybe I only previewed it, or maybe the Editors deleted it because they felt I was misprepresnting the views of the editors by taking the results of this poll as a position statement by BMG.  I didn’t mean to do that, I hope that those eight voters were a small naive contingent, and don’t represesnt BMG.)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. You should disconnect this position on genetic engineering of embryos (which is what this is) from gay marriage.  I’m not a gay marriage supporter and even I find it dubious at best.

    • And that’s a good thing.  Discussing them at the same time allows people to avoid the issue of whether or not to allow same-sex couples to try to conceive.  This thread is discussing whether or not to allow same-sex conception, regardless of marriage.

      <

      p>
      So, no marriage in this thread.  Good idea, Joe.

    • I’m not a gay marriage supporter….

      <

      p>
      …you approve of discrimination against same-sex couples despite there being no rational basis for the discrimination.

      <

      p>
      Gotcha.

      • No one wants to talk about this technology, or about the impending question of whether or not to allow people to try to conceive with someone of their same sex.  But yet, ironically, they ask you for some rational basis why you are against same-sex marriage.  This thread is supposed to be about that rational basis:  It is far too unsafe, expensive, unnecessary, and unethical.  Make them talk to those points, don’t let them ignore it:  We should not give same-sex couples the right to conceive together, we should prohibit same-sex couples conceiving together.  For five-thousand years we’ve had a way of saying couples have the right to conceive together, we say they are married.  For five thousand years, if it would be unethical for a couple to conceive together, we prohibited them from marrying.  For five thousand years, we officially approved of the couple conceiving together by pronouncing them married, by the authority of the state.

        <

        p>
        But back to the question in question: should we allow people to try to conceive a person, today, with someone of their same sex?

        • This is part of your problem John. Control is an illusion. You can’t “make” people do anything like this in a free nation.

          <

          p>
          And by the way, couples were not that way five thousand years ago. It would be more truthful to say that marriage was synonomous with chattel, and women were men’s property. In fact, thinking like that still goes on in parts of the world., and only ended here in the last hundred years.

          <

          p>
          Women today still struggle for equality under our male dominated society. Let’s see how long it takes for us to have a female Pope for example.

          <

          p>
          Your comment apitimizes the struggle for gay equality. You say “Make them…”, I say “Nuts.”

          • The Feinstein-Hatch anti-cloning law would have a $1 Million fine and ten years in jail.  I think the punishment should be even stronger, and should cover attempting it, not just doing it.  And all the parties involved should be punished, not just the main doctor, but the parents and lab workers too.

            <

            p>
            So it is ridiculous to think it can’t be prohibited.  Cloning and genetic engineering and same-sex conception can and should be prohibited.  It is not necessary for gay equality, it is nuts to think that gays are not equal unless technology enables them to have children together.  Completely nuts and demeaning and selfish and stupid.

          • You’re saying that we can’t make anyone talk about same-sex conception.  That’s certainly evident that is your strategy, it’s part of the general media blackout on this area of stem cell research and same-sex rights.  My point to Joe was that we have to try to break that strategy by remaining on topic and not let anyone pretend that the issue doesn’t exist, we can’t let anyone deny that Dr. Scott is actually working on it, and that LGBT groups demand it be legal, even though they do it quietly, so no one finds out.

            • You still have to come clean on being a member of article 8. See how easy that is? It’s a free world John, learn to cope.

              • I don’t know what you mean by member.  I get their emails and read their blog, and I send them emails every once in a while, and I’ve showed up at their demonstrations in support, but with my own sign.  And I did send them money a couple times, but back around 2000, when they were PRC.  I don’t send them money anymore because they haven’t taken my suggestions on incorporating opposition to same-sex conception in their message.  In that regard, they work against me and frustrate me more than MassEquality.  Their message, like most anti-ssm groups, is more concerned with expressing revulsion toward homosexuality than with the legal aspects of same-sex couples, so they don’t like my support of civil unions for equal protections for same-sex couples.

      • raj, are you admitting that Joe is rejecting the only rational basis there is?  Not allowing the couple to conceive together due to huge proven safety and ethical concerns is a rational basis, isn’t it?  And Joe is confused in rejecting it, isn’t he?  I think he feels the church admonishments ought to stand on their own, and using any rational basis sort of insults the religious basis that he is trying to use.  Joe, it doesn’t insult the religious basis for there to be rational basis as well.  The relgious basis will still be there, as true as ever.

  2. …out loud!!!  88.9 per cent of nine people on a web log that disdains your opionon anonymously voted for “same sex conception” which doesn’t even exist, likely just to get your goat and now you have the proof you need?  You really, truly are delusional. 

    • I’m not at all delusional.  Do you deny that Dr. Richard Scott said in 2005 that he expects someone to try it in just three to five years?  Do you feel he has a right to try it, or do you feel it is unethical and should be banned, like it is in Missouri?

      <

      p>
      Eight out of nine people here would oppose a law like in Missouri, so far.  I’d really like to see more votes, to see if same-sex conception really is a central demand of progressive democrats.  I really hope not, because it is stupid.  I think people are not really thinking about it, they aren’t considering the child, they aren’t considering the costs, they aren’t considering the kids that need adopting or what demanding same-sex conception says about adoption and love making a family.

      <

      p>
      I think the outside world is the reverse: in my experience nine out of ten people were appalled that people were even considering developing same-sex conception.  They were thinking of the health of the child and the waste of money possibly even the effects on society, though every tenth person seemed to take a dogmatic paternalistic “let the poor gays do whatever they want” position that was really rather sad and stupid.

      • to prove that the poll is meaningless.  maybe i’ll go back and vote again the other way now.

        • We do need a more accurate poll.

          <

          p>
          Do these people ralize the question is not about gays being parents, or even using donor sperm or eggs, but is about doing  genetic engineering so that a man can join his gamets with another man, or a woman with a woman?  Do they realize this has a less than 1% success rate in animals?  Do they forget that an innocent person is involved here who will probably have major never-before-seen genetic defects, not to mention be a manufactured product?  They aren’t really thinking, they are taking moon-batty to new heights.

  4. … From now on I’ll make this my #1 priority. It’s clearly the most important issue of our day, although I still feel badly about having to give up my committment to asteroid defense and improving the quality of drinking water on Mars.

  5. …and I told John that this wasn’t a gay/straight issue, but a rich/poor issue, as the first designer babies will certainly be for the economically advantaged/intellectually challanged.  Just imaging Paris having Nicky’s baby, as real proof of true friends forever!

    <

    p>
    Do we need a law?  I dunno.  But I voted no because I think it’s a bad idea to screw around with Mother Nature (pun possibly intended) to that extent when more old fashioned means of perpetuating the species is at hand and generally free.

    • Being against it is rather useless if you aren’t going to support a law against it.  Being against it doesn’t protect any children, it doesn’t protect gay couples from exploitation.

      <

      p>
      You’re right, its not a gay issue, the law would prohibit straight people from conceiving using genetically modified gametes also.  But it wouldn’t prohibit any male-female couple from concceiving using their own gametes, only same-sex couples would be affected.

      • ….you just can’t help yourself.  “It’s not a gay issue” and then in the next sentence “only same-sex couples would be affected.”

        <

        p>
        Maybe you’re not crazy as I suspected, you might just be exceptionally intellectually challenged.

        • The ban would affect everyone that wanted to create a person that wasn’t the union of a man and woman.  Even if there were no such a thing as gay people, I would be advocating for the ban, to stop a Gattaca-like world (hey, were there any gay people in Gattaca?  Not among the engineered caste we meet, I guess they found that gene).

          <

          p>
          The ban would not stop anyone from creating a person with someone of the other sex, but it would stop people from attempting same-sex conception.  Individuals of every persuasion would all have the equal right to conceive, but only with someone of the other sex.

          <

          p>
          If people are going to claim a right to attempt same-sex conception, then I guess it is a gay issue, but I would hope that people would reject the whole idea of attempting same-sex conception as having nothing to do with being gay whatsoever.  It is a marriage issue, it is a same-sex rights issue, but it is not a gay issue.

          • ….money where your mouth is.  I dare you not to mention same sex marriage or homosexuality in your next 10 posts on this site.  I don’t think you can do it because you don’t want to betray your true agenda!

            <

            p>
            And of course you chose your words carefully, because you are a crazy bigot you chose the words of a crazy bigot.

            • There is a difference between a same-sex couple, which notes the sexes of two people, and a gay couple, which suggests their orientation and their attraction to each other.  I am definitely worried about the rights of same-sex couples (I don’t think they should be allowed to conceive together) and I am definitely worried about the rights of marriage (it should continue to guarantee a right to conceive together).  I will happily go ten posts without mentioning homosexuality or gay culture or sexual orientation, which are unrelated to the issues I am concerned with.  I hardly ever mention those anyway, except to remind you that it is anti-gay to insist on same-sex conception technology being developed.  Gay people have full dignity and deserve full respect without shoving same-sex conception at them and suggesting they aren’t complete until they use this to have children together.  It turns them into tools of big pharma, forces them to be guinea pigs (or rather, parents of guinea pigs).

              • “(I don’t think they should be allowed to conceive together) and I am definitely worried about the rights of marriage (it should continue to guarantee a right to conceive together).”

                <

                p>
                Good grief.

                • People are really asleep at the switch here.

                  <

                  p>
                  Unless we prohibit it, we will move to a world where people are attempting genetically engineering of human beings very soon – possibly next year, according to a leading researcher – in spite of the dangers to the child and to society.  Congress should take charge and prevent this move unless and until we decide it should be allowed.  We shouldn’t let the biotech companies and crazy doctors be unregulated and decide when to do this themselves.

                  <

                  p>
                  And unless we affirm that marriage guarantees a right to conceive together, we could move to a world where people are prevented from using their own genes to have their own children.

                • Contrary to some people’s beliefs, GLBT people care just as much about their community as everyone else. We have just as much at stake in ensuring a future as anyone else. Equality, once embraced rather than feared, will revolutionize our existance. Much to my delight it looks like I won’t have to wait for your grandchildren to teach that fact to you. Society is in an evolutionary growth spurt.

Archives