Here's a TV ad called "Hope," from the Equality California people, who are already preparing for a rematch on marriage. And here's why I think it's potentially important.
I talked the other day with a California-based political consultant who explained that the problem we faced with Proposition 8, and other anti-gay-marriage ballot fights, is that short-term tactics and long-term strategy work at cross purposes. In the short term, the election outcome is decided by a narrow group of swing voters, and these folks are turned off by appeals that feature gay people or gay couples (especially with kids). But running vague, de-gayed ads that appeal to this group means we never make the positive case for marriage, which is the key to moving public opinion and mobilizing support in the longer run.
The answer? The time to educate the public on gay people and families is when we are not fighting a ballot initiative. Now, in other words.
Raising dollars for strategic advertising outside the context of a political campaign can't be easy, especially in a huge media market like California's. Whether EQCA's campaign is affordable or sustainable is an open question. But the good news is that we are learning. And our strategic message, with its appeal to love and commitment and inclusion in the American dream and of course fairness, is a formidable weapon, when unholstered.
55 Comments for “Shaping the Battlefield”
posted by TS on
The idea of “strategy” makes my skin crawl. I’d choose being morally right over contributing to some goal anyday. But these are sensible suggestions. It’s just that I often doubt the true existence of an external capacity to change an individual’s mind. I will endure the jeers of the throng if only I know they’re wrong and I’m right.
posted by BobN on
On a positive note, the costs of advertising on minority-targeted media are lower than those for general media. There’s work to be done in those communities.
posted by John Howard on
Jonathan, as long as you are proposing CU-based compromises, would you accept the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, or do you think it’s more important that same-sex couples be allowed to attempt to conceive offspring together?
The Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise is:
1) Stop genetic engineering by limiting conception of children to the union of a man and a woman’s sperm and egg.
2) Federally recognize state civil unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights”.
3) Affirm in federal law the right of all marriages to conceive children together using their own gametes.
posted by TS on
John Howard, you remind me of several others around here in that you’re a one-trick pony. Every post is about the same topic. And as a future biologist, I find your single-minded obsession rather odious. There is nothing inherently dangerous about biotechnology. There are safe and unsafe, ethical and unethical, ways to use not only all the technology we’ve brought to this world, but everything nature gives us as well. Also, it’s so premature it’s not even funny. We’re perhaps hundreds of years from being able to retool mammalian gametes or create engineered children. It may even prove impossible. Why not cross that bridge when we come to it?
posted by John Howard on
Several respected, professional, award winning fertility doctors have predicted that we are just “three to five years” away from same-sex conception being tried in humans, even though Kaguya is as far as I know still the only animal ever created from two parents of the same sex that lived to adulthood. It should be banned now, while everyone agrees it is unsafe and too early to even think about, and then unbanned if society decides to allow it. It is premature to allow it, it is ridiculous that it is allowed, especially when banning it could provide the crucial difference to make CU’s palatable for the nation.
Don’t you see that you are the one prematurely insisting on it, prematurely demanding a right to conceive with someone of the same sex that is equal to a marriage’s right to conceive, and doing it at the expense of Civil Unions that are certainly not premature, but are instead years behind the public’s willingness to give same-sex couples recognition through civil unions, as long as marriage is presreved somehow. The question is how to preserve the distinct character, the unique legal status and moral and social significance of marriage, and highlighting marriage’s approval of conception together as a special right that is bestowed on marriages, compared to CU’s which are not allowed to try procreate together using their own genes, can be that distinction that is needed to make a CU compromise hold water.
posted by TS on
yes, and I believe they predicted flying cars for what, 1980? then 1990 when that didn’t work out? the pace of technological change is slowing as a) all obvious routes are being exhausted and b) we’re all getting dumber (that’s natural selection trying to protect us from ourselves…?). Most predictions about progress have been way off the mark.
Whaaaat? I’m demanding my right to try to create a bioengineered child? I would never attempt such a thing. Even if the technology were safe and ethical to use (which it won’t be during my lifetime), it would still be a deeply personal choice. Just like it still is, right now, a deeply personal choice for a woman (and a man, if, as we hope, he wants to exercise his paternal rights) whether she wants to get pregnant or have a child. You think that by arguing for gay marriage, I am somehow fighting for the right to engage in an act that is impossible and may well remain so forever? I’m going from confused to annoyed here.
posted by John Howard on
Well, inadvertently, you are fighting for equal conception rights for same-sex couples, because you are fighting for equal rights and marriage for same-sex couples. It really doesn’t matter whether you or Dr. Richard Scott is closer in your estimate of how imminent it is, whether it might be possible or not, or whether you want to do it or not. Think of it as an opportunity to move forward that really changes nothing for anyone, since the only thing it bans is something currently impossible. Start from where we are: Same-sex couples don’t have federal recognition and don’t have equal security even when they have gotten married in a state that allows it, and we are looking for a way to give them that. My Compromise would lead to more states enacting Civil Unions because they would know they were in principle very distinct from marriage, and helped to preserve marriage both as a man and a woman and as the right to conceive children together. So couples in Civil Unions would have not have to worry about crossing state lines, because soon all states could have consistent and easy to legislate “marriage minus conception rights” civil unions for couples that are prohibited from conceiving children together.
posted by TS on
Ok John H, I’m done trying to understand why you’re so obsessed with the idea of same-sex conception. People have developed lots of technology, biological and otherwise, established rules for its safe and ethical use, and suffered the consequences of failing to enforce those rules, over and over. I completely fail to see what is so threatening about the vague future possibility of same sex conception.
Now the argument you seem to be using is that people would gladly accept their gay and lesbian colleagues, offering complete legal recognition to their relationships, if only they could be assured they wouldn’t try to make babies? I’m beyond skeptical.
posted by John Howard on
That’s breaking John’s rule #1 about letting the opposition speak for themselves. And you perhaps miss the point that it’s more than just prohibiting same-sex couples from trying to make babies (which would be a trivial victory since same-sex couples cannot make babies currently, and might never want to try to make their own children from dangerous and expensive genetic engineering experiments anyway) – what it does is preserve marriage for a man and a woman in a principled way, and that makes Civil Unions and gay people less threatening, allowing people to be comfortable with extending all the other protections that come with marriage to committed same-sex couples.
As to what is threatening about allowing genetic engineering and same-sex conception, it would be impossible to stop it from becoming a mandatory way to create children and create a gene-rich and gene-poor divide that would tear the world apart. There are so many things we need to spend our resources on, such as health care and environmental issues like clean water and sustainable agriculture, and saying that developing same-sex conception is a priority that should divert resources away from those things is obscenely uncaring and callous. Just accept that same-sex couples should not have the same rights. It’s not like we promised everyone in school that they would be able to have children with someone of the same sex, so why are you threatened by relinquishing that possibility in exchange for the equal protections that we did promise kids in school. Why is same-sex conception so important to you that you would keep same-sex couples from attaining federal recognition just to keep it legal, when it can’t even be done?
posted by TS on
“That’s breaking John’s rule #1”
I’m a huge fan of John. Rule #1 is the first thing he’s written that I find myself really disagreeing with. Rhetoric that is ill-informed about the motivation and means of its opponents is a mere waste of paper. It only clutters the dialogue and makes its proponents look stupid.
“what it does is preserve marriage for a man and a woman in a principled way”
What good are principles if they’re the WRONG principles?
“it would be impossible to stop it from becoming a mandatory way to create children and create a gene-rich and gene-poor divide that would tear the world apart”
ah, so you’ve only been watching too much Gattaca. the world is unfair, and it is already torn apart. and don’t even try “more urgent priorities” on me as though you (like me and anyone else in the west) wouldn’t spend your paycheck buying an unneeded new shirt instead of life-saving vaccines for three African orphans.
personally i think our record for ethical scruples in the application of new technologies has improved vastly over the eons. guns were pretty disastrous, as were aircraft. plenty of crap happened in the name of less weaponized innovations like the vatican and chemical medicine. but we’ve only managed to use two nuclear weapons. and the robotics made possible by computers? the worst they’re doing is annoying us by calling at dinner time. technology is just inanimate objects. if we keep our wits about us, we can keep fighting the real enemy: human nature.
posted by John Howard on
thanks for staying up late and engaging in this much-needed conversation. I appreciate your willingness to address this issue instead of avoiding it (which I’m sure your blog masters would prefer).
I’m not sure I get your objection to rule #1. It doesn’t help to reject a proposal because you don’t think the other side would accept it. If you would accept it, you should accept it, and let the other side reject it if they don’t like it. Anyhow, you don’t accept the proposal in the first place, you want to claim (right now, in Feb 2009!) conception rights for same-sex couples, so let’s focus on getting you to accept the Compromise before we worry about them accepting it.
And it doesn’t seem you disagree with me about preserving marriage as conception rights in principle. You simply want to give those same conception rights to same-sex couples. I agree with you (and every court that has weighed in) that as long as we are giving conception rights to same sex couples, we should certainly be giving marriage licenses to as well. So you agree that conception rights are the right principle on which to grant marriage rights, you just think we should do it, right now, for same-sex couples as well as male-female couples. I disagree on that. But we agree on it being the right principle, since you claim a right for same-sex conception. Unless you are also about to claim that marriages should not necessarily be allowed to conceive children together using their own unmodified genes. Do you disagree about that or agree?
I was ten years ahead of Gattaca, at least. I read Abolition of Man and Brave New World when I was 18 or thereabouts, and have been opposing genetic engineering ever since (that was 20+ years ago). (to prove my true motivations: here’s a song I wrote in 1982 about computers replacing husbands (I’m on drums and bass, my friend Phil sang and played guitar)). Gattaca is a pretty good vision of what society would be like if we allow genetic engineering to take place. But it actually minimizes the dehumanizing repression that would accompany coercive eugenic genetic engineering.)
Perhaps America will decide that we should allow same sex conception. I would argue against it vehemently, but as long as we all got our voices heard, I’d accept my fellow citizen’s decision. And at that point, I’d agree that we should allow same-sex marriage. But we shouldn’t separate those decisions. Marriage should continue to guarantee the right to conceive children together, using the marriage’s own genes. We shouldn’t force our hand when it comes to that decision by prematurely giving same-sex couples equal marriage rights. That both harms marriage and legalizes same-sex procreation before American society has had a chance to consider it. Why do that, when doing so doesn’t even give same-sex couples any federal recognition or uniform state recognition? I’m proposing a real way to achieve equal protections and fifty state recognition. You are proposing stripping conception rights from marriage and demanding that same-sex couples be allowed to conceive children, and you are not looking for a way to achieve equal protections for same-sex couples. You are hung up on achieving same-sex marriage, without fully comprehending what you are saying. My compromise is well thought out and achievable, if we just get behind it and support it. Please do so, on behalf of thousands of couples that it would really make a difference to.
posted by esurience on
John Howard,
Marriage doesn’t confer the right to conceive children. People who are not married still have reproductive rights. Children can be and are conceived outside of wedlock — they even can be and are conceived outside of a relationship. I’m not arguing that’s a good thing, just giving you the lay of the land when it comes to reproduction.
People who get a marriage license from the state are not required to be capable of conceiving children, nor are they required to state their intentions to conceive children.
Why do you believe that children who are conceived via an opposite-sex marriage are more deserving of the stability that state-recognized marriage provides than children who are, for example, adopted or produced via artificial insemination (including by opposite-sex couples)?
It seems to me you’re just trying to come up with a creative argument against marriage for same-sex couples, but it’s nothing new — it’s the same old marriage-requires-procreation fallacy.
posted by John Howard on
esurience, that’s all true, but I am saying that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to procreate, like siblings and other couples that aren’t allowed to marry. Marriage doesn’t require procreation, but it should always allow it. That is very important. Only a man and a woman should be allowed to conceive children. Couples that are not allowed to conceive children should not be allowed to get married, or it will mean that marriage does not protect the couple’s right to conceive children together, and any marriage could be told it may not use its own genes to procreate and must instead adopt or use donor gametes. Those are not equivalent rights to using the couple’s own genes.
Couples that are prohibited from procreating together, like siblings are and like same-sex couples would be after the Egg and Sperm law is passed, should be eligible for Civil Unions that give all the other rights of marriage but do not give conception rights.
posted by Bobby on
“I am saying that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to procreate,”
—I resent that, did you hear about the crazy woman in California with 14 kids? How come she’s allowed to procreate? She can’t even afford her kids!
Straight couples have been known to use in vitro fertilization and even surrogates. Read the bible, Abraham had sex with the servant Haggar because Sarah had problems breeding.
Polygamy may be illegal, but if a man marries one woman and has sex with 3 or 4 more, there’s nothing the state can do unless it involves minors.
John, I think you’re moralizing an issue that has no morals. Couples do all kinds of stuff, many breeders LOVE their swinger clubs, threesomes, s/m dungeon scenes, and all kinds of depravity. Just watch Daytime tv and you’ll see hundreds of shows about “paternity tests.”
Marriage is about legal rights and benefits, everything else is up to the couple.
You telling us that we can’t procreate if we get married is like me telling you that you can’t go down on your wife.
posted by John Howard on
Bobby, hetero couples shouldn’t be allowed to use modified gametes either, or do genetic engineering. The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise would prohibit everyone from creating a child using genetic material that is not the union of the unmodified sperm and egg of a man and a woman. But note that that restriction wouldn’t prohibit any hetero couples from using their own genes, which would remain the essential right of marriage. Please get over your resentment, as you have surely long known that same-sex couples cannot procreate together, and if you have been secretly hoping for same-sex conception technology to be developed to make it possible, then it’s not my fault that you have kept it secret and not let everyone know that you are expecting it to be developed for you to use.
As to those cases of extra-marital procreation you mention, I think my Compromise would help remind people that marriage is the approved legal right to procreate, and perhaps reverse the trend of unmarried conception and extra-marital conception. It wouldn’t directly make it illegal, but it would influence people by reminding them that it’s only a right of marriage and doing it outside marriage is not approved by society.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, hetero couples shouldn’t be allowed to use modified gametes either, or do genetic engineering. ”
–You’re living in the past, genetic engineering is a reality. Some hospitals even let you choose the eye color and hair color of your child, in the future diseases will be eliminated before the sperm is implanted.
“Please get over your resentment, as you have surely long known that same-sex couples cannot procreate together,”
—Just because we can’t procreate the way drunken heterosexuals procreate doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to procreate through other means if necesary.
“marriage is the approved legal right to procreate”
—Marriage is NOT about procreation, it’s about love. Ever been to a wedding? Ever seen couples who exchange their own vows? I’ve never heard them say “Charlene, you’re a beautiful uterus, I can’t wait to have children with you.”
The truth is there can’t be no compromise other than civil unions with the same benefits as federally recognized marriages. Just like I won’t crompromise my right to keep and bear arms, others aren’t going to compromise their desires to get married legally.
posted by John Howard on
The Civil Unions I propose would have the same benefits and be federally recognized, because congress would write the law so that only state Civil Unions that are defined as “marriage minus conception rights” would be considered as marriages for federal purposes. They could get passed because they enhance rather than erode marriage’s unique legal meaning and social status and preserve it as a man and a woman better than a FMA would.
And there have not been any genetically engineered people yet. They’ve genetically engineered tons of animals and plants and microorganisms, but not humans. The things you describe, like PGD, are not genetic engineering, the embryo is still the union of a man and a woman’s natural gametes. It’s an open question about the future. You are wrong though in assuming that it is inevitable that we will be created from engineered genes to be disease free and intelligent and strong. I think we should think carefully about the pros and cons of allowing it, and the pros and cons of prohibiting it. We almost never consider the pros of prohibiting it, but they are paradisical compared to the pros of allowing it.
And there have been lots of couples that did not love each other who nevertheless entered fully valid marriages and were therefore allowed to procreate together. And lots of couples who loved each other who did not marry.
posted by Pat on
John, I don’t get your obsession with tying federally recognized civil unions with genetic engineering. You’ve made it clear that you oppose any kind of genetic engineering, whether it is same sex or opposite sex couples, married or not. So you should push for such a law that prohibits ANYONE from doing such a thing. If a majority sees it your way, and there is no constitutional impedence to such a prohibition, then so be it.
posted by Bobby on
“You are wrong though in assuming that it is inevitable that we will be created from engineered genes to be disease free and intelligent and strong.”
—I think it’s inevitable, think about this, women are likely to abort a baby with down syndrome or other genetic diseases. Most people don’t want a kid with special needs because they become a burden on society and on the parents. You also have to consider that in Singapur they will pay low quality people money not to breed while encouraging college educated succesful people to breed.
As someone who has struggled with my weight all my life while seeing others eat like pigs and remain naturally skinny, I would want my son to have the advantages I didn’t have.
Mother nature is a bitch, and if there’s a way to get around her wickedness, I say go for it.
“And there have been lots of couples that did not love each other who nevertheless entered fully valid marriages and were therefore allowed to procreate together.”
—You’re confused, it’s not the state that “allows” people to breed, people breed and then the state may or may not get involved.
Frankly, I don’t think people who don’t love each other should be having children, but I don’t think the government should be regulating reproduction. They can take the Singaporean approach of rewarding good behavior, just remember that offering a reward is different from giving a punishment or banning a practice.
posted by TS on
Yeah, I don’t know guys. John Howard seems to be on a one-man crusade here. You can go to his website, eggandsperm.org, and read all about it. That rhetoric about marriage being a control the state uses to “allow” people to procreate is a little disturbing, but otherwise he seems relatively harmless. I can’t say I see much merit in his ideas though.
posted by John Howard on
So you should push for such a law that prohibits ANYONE from doing such a thing.
Pat, that’s exactly what I am doing. It’s the first part of the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise: 1) Stop genetic engineering by limiting conception of children to the union of a man and a woman’s sperm and egg. It is the best way to prohibit genetic engineering, because it rules out everything except non-engineered conception. It would apply to everyone, but not affect at all the right of a hetero couple to conceive together, yet it would completely prohibit all same-sex couples from conceiving together. There is no way to do same-sex conception without engineering the genes of one partner to be different from the way they’d be without engineering. Without engineering, we are stuck with having to procreate with someone of the other sex.
Now, we could stop with that law, but not only is there not enough interest in it to get Congress to act, but if it were passed right now, it would result in Massachusetts same-sex marriages losing their right to conceive children together, and therefore all Massachusetts marriages losing their right to conceive children together (same in New Hampshire and other states that give “all the rights of marriage” to same-sex couples.) So it would harm everyone’s marriage by removing the protection of conception rights, take away the right to conceive together from same-sex couples only, and not help same-sex couples in any way with federal recognition or recognition in more states. So why do you prefer that outcome to the complete Compromise, which involves these two additional laws that would be passed at the same time?
2) Federally recognize state civil unions that are exactly like marriages but do not grant conception rights.
3) Affirm in federal law the right of all marriages to conceive children together using their own gametes.
posted by Pat on
Pat, that’s exactly what I am doing.
No, you’re not. And once again you are tying your pet issue with same sex marriage.
posted by John Howard on
Part 1) of the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise prevents the use of modified gametes by anyone.
It is the people who are insisting on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples who are intertwining gay rights with the conception rights that inhere in marriage. I am trying to disentangle them so that we don’t either give conception rights to same-sex couples or strip the protection of conception rights from marriage. And I’m creating a way to achieve consensus on federal recognition of Civil Unions. Why are you insisting on conception rights for same-sex couples instead of accepting this compromise? It harms real couples that have no need or interest in same-sex conception rights.
posted by Patrick on
“It harms real couples that have no need or interest in same-sex conception rights.”- John Howard
NEWS FLASH: Gay couples are real
posted by Bobby on
John, you have as much right in regulating conception as I have in regulating abortions.
My body, my genes, my surrogate, my doctor, MY CHOICE!
posted by John Howard on
Patrick, I’m talking about those thousands of same-sex couples that are being harmed by not having equal protections. Those are real couples that need equal protections, federal recognition, uniform state laws in every state! They DON’T need conception rights. Your priorities are confused. My proposal would get those couples – actual real couples that exist, right now – what they need, and all you’d be giving up is something that doesn’t exist! Please! Make the right choice for them!
posted by John Howard on
Bobby, I am standing up on behalf of the people that would be conceived through these unethical experiments. They are not you, they are not owned by you, you have no right to create them however you want. Just like we don’t let siblings say “our genes, our bodies, our doctor, our choice”, we shouldn’t let anyone say that. Society has an interest in the ethical creation of people and preserving conception rights. Your priorities are confused, you shouldn’t be demanding same-sex conception rights, especially right now, in 2009, when it is universally acknowledged to be unsafe if not impossible.
posted by John Howard on
I need to clarify something in my last comment, because it would be easy to read what I said as advocating intrusive state control over everyone’s reproduction. The key thing is whether state restrictions are on a “supportable basis” constitutionally, as Loving v Virginia said. They clearly recognize that some restrictions on conception could be supportable – presumably things like incest, existing marriage, children, etc. And they also recognize that there is also a basic civil right of all people to procreate, and therefore that not all restrictions are supportable – everyone should have a right to marry and procreate with someone else. It is the job of all three branches of our government to collectively arrive at the correct practical decision of what procreation should be allowed and what shouldn’t. I have been clearly saying that all marriages must always be allowed to procreate, but I haven’t stated clearly enough that all people should be allowed to marry the widest and most equal population of other people that they are currently allowed to marry. To repeat: I don’t support any narrowing of who people in any state are allowed to marry except to prohibit people from marrying someone of the other sex, because that alone requires genetic modification to create genetically modified sperm. I don’t support expanding the right to siblings or father-daughter relationships, and I don’t support narrowing the right to second-cousins or people without BRAC-1 genes or with high intelligence genes or anything. I think we should keep our marriage statutes exactly as they are in every state, except we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to marry in any state.
I hope that clarifies what might have been read as a eugenic desire to assert state control over procreation. Yes, I assert state control, but also assert that the state control should only be on a supportable basis and should allow everyone as wide a choice of procreative partners as is ethical, which is everyone currently allowed to marry, except same sex couples. Any attempt to narrow that spectrum from that, which might restrict a person from having children with the person of their choice as of today, I would vehemently oppose, because it would surely be a coercive eugenic attempt at restricting a married couple’s right to procreate together.
posted by John Howard on
Darn, after all that, I still need a correction. I wrote “other sex” when I meant “same sex”, so here’s the corrected paragraph. (btw Jonathan and John, I hope you’re reading this and will comment on my proposal soon.)
I meant to say:
To repeat: I don’t support any narrowing of who people in any state are allowed to marry except to now restrict people from marrying someone of their same sex, because that alone requires genetic modification to create children. I don’t support expanding the right to siblings or father-daughter relationships, and I don’t support narrowing the right to second-cousins or people without BRAC-1 genes or low intelligence genes or anything. I think we should keep our marriage statutes exactly as they are in every state, except we shouldn’t allow same-sex couples to marry in any state.
posted by Bobby on
“Bobby, I am standing up on behalf of the people that would be conceived through these unethical experiments.”
—That’s no different than a pro-lifer standing up for the unborn. Unfortunately for you, that argument has no merit since it’s legal to breed and it’s legal to abort.
“They are not you, they are not owned by you, you have no right to create them however you want.”
—A parent is responsible for the children he creates, they do not belong to the state. A parent can homeschool his children and prevent government indoctrination, a parent can send the kid to military school even if the ungrateful brat doesn’t want to go. And a parent can be held legally responsible for the actions of his children, so, you can bet they are owned by me and others.
“Just like we don’t let siblings say “our genes, our bodies, our doctor, our choice”, we shouldn’t let anyone say that.”
—We do let them, we may not allow them to get married, but we don’t arrest them for breeding.
“Society has an interest in the ethical creation of people and preserving conception rights.”
—America was founded on individual rights, the needs of the individual are more important than the needs of society. That’s why sex change operations are legal in this country even though most people disapprove of them.
“Your priorities are confused, you shouldn’t be demanding same-sex conception rights,”
—I’m already allowed to be a foster parent, I’m allowed to adopt, I’m allowed to use a surrogate mother, and the day when artificial wombs are created, I will be allowed to breed that way.
Ethics are irrelevant, individualism is king in this country. It’s not about “we,” it’s about “I.” When we start talking about what’s good for society we undermine the individual and his/her rights.
Marriage has nothing to do with conception, premarital sex is the rule, not the exception. Even the so-called “virgins” are taking it up the ass and giving blow jobs since they think virginity is about keeping your hymen intact. In the muslim world, it’s common for girls to get hymen restorations just so that their husbands think they’re deflowering a virgin. Even in ultra-Catholic latin america teenage boys visit whorehouses, and even here in America single-motherhood has become popular, hence the attacks on Ann Coulter.
So why mention marriage and conception in the same sentence?
posted by John Howard on
That’s no different than a pro-lifer standing up for the unborn. Unfortunately for you, that argument has no merit since it’s legal to breed and it’s legal to abort.
There’s no difference between the unborn and the born? Are you sure that’s what you mean to say? I’m standing up for people that are intended to be born and might be born and unquestionably be people if they are born, not for the unborn. I don’t object to embryos being discarded or women privately ending their pregnancies prematurely. I believe all frozen embryos should be thawed out and set free outside on the lawn to fend for themselves. So it’s different. Born means being born and living, and society (me and you) shouldn’t let new yous be created from unethical conceptions, because that could be us. That of course has to be balanced against everyone’s right to marry and procreate with a partner, which should carry the day over society’s legit but restricted concern for their children. The cool thing is, we let the consenting partner be the judge of whether or not to consent to procreate with someone. Some people never find a consenting partner, and that’s OK, we don’t have a right to a partner. The cool thing is it’s other people, or even just one other person, and not the state, that decides if we are “child-worthy”, and if we share the assessment, then that’s all we need. Their choice of each other overrules any concerns we have, and we forever hold our peace, assuming they aren’t siblings or married to someone else, and everyone says Hi Five! and Go on your honeymoon!
That took a lot out of me, so I’ll address the rest of your ignorant slut comment tommorow afternoon.
posted by Patrick on
Patrick,…..Your priorities are confused.-John Howard
How do you know what my priorities are? I never stated them.
posted by Pat on
Part 1) of the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise prevents the use of modified gametes by anyone.
Then why not call it the “No modified gametes” proposal, and stop there.
Why are you insisting on conception rights for same-sex couples instead of accepting this compromise?
I’m not the one insisting on that at all. I’m simply saying keep it as two separate issues, especially since we both agree that getting married does not necessarily imply children, and not being married does not necessarily imply no children.
I’m simply saying keep your pet issue separate from marriage.
posted by esurience on
John Howard,
Your arguments are complete sophistry. If you want to make genetic engineering illegal, that’s a totally separate argument from marriage. Married people have to follow the laws too, so if genetic engineering is illegal, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a married couple or an individual that is trying to flout the law.
By proposing to codify a right of a married couple to procreate, you’re actually weakening your argument against genetic engineering. What if a heterosexual couple is infertile but they could use other cells in their body to create the genetic material necessary for a fertilized embryo? Now your prohibition on genetic engineering has to be weighed against a married couple’s strengthened right of procreation, a right which is completely unnecessary to codify because individuals already have such rights. (You said before that marriage should always allow procreation.)
It’s all very transparent that your primary concern is to prohibit marriage for same-sex couples and you’ve come up with a convoluted argument to justify it, one which I’m sure you pat yourself on the back daily for your cleverness. But as I said before, it’s just a rehashing of the old marriage-requires-procreation fallacy.
Also, I think you misunderstand where most of us are coming from when we talk about a “compromise” that involves civil unions. I’m absolutely willing to accept civil unions as a stepping stone to full equality (unlike some others who want all-or-nothing). What I absolutely won’t accept is anything that impedes our ability to reach full equality or prolongs the process of achieving it. In addition to MA and CT, several other states are getting ready to allow marriage for same-sex couples, and I’m very confident California’s prop8 will be reversed by voters within 8 years. Proposition 2 of your “compromise” would require that all that progressed be rolled back, so it’s really a non-starter.
posted by John Howard on
Then why not call it the “No modified gametes” proposal, and stop there.
Because it doesn’t convey what the ban would do as well, it doesn’t connect the three parts of the compromise legally. In practice it’s the same thing, because the only way to succeed with unmodified gametes is to use a man and a woman’s gametes, and attempting to join unmodified gametes of two men or two women results in embryos that don’t make it past the blastocyte stage or fail to develop a placenta or something basic like that. And many state laws use the egg and sperm language already; Missouri’s is good because it says “egg of a woman and sperm of a man” where the “of a” language is critical because it implies the unmodified actual representative gametes of real people, while Massachusetts just says only fertilization of oocyte by sperm but doesn’t say they have to come from a man and a woman, meaning they could be “female sperm” derived from a woman’s stem cells or synthesized from a composite of individuals or modified.
The idea of the compromise is to accept a ban on same-sex conception, and use that new distinction to politically and legally achieve equal protections with CU’s. So if the ban pretends that same-sex conception is still legal by leaving out any “man and woman’s sperm and egg” language and using legally ambiguous “unmodified gametes”, it doesn’t achieve the legal distinction that makes the compromise work or protect marriage for the people that want to protect marriage.
And can you imagine if Loving v Virginia had kept the issues of marriage and procreation separate? It would have been ludicrous. They aren’t separate! When we give a marriage license, and by “we” I mean every society that ever existed on earth, we give the right to conceive children together. That’s why a wedding is so poignant and meaningful. If we start saying that marriage is separate from procreation rights and that a same-sex couple should be allowed to marry and yet be prohibited from procreating, then we are saying that any marriage can be prohibited from procreating and that no marriage actually receives a right to procreate when they marry. That’s totally offensive to strip the right to procreate from every marriage, especially when you are also still insisting on same-sex procreation rights out of the other side of your mouth.
posted by John Howard on
What if a heterosexual couple is infertile but they could use other cells in their body to create the genetic material necessary for a fertilized embryo? Now your prohibition on genetic engineering has to be weighed against a married couple’s strengthened right of procreation, a right which is completely unnecessary to codify because individuals already have such rights. (You said before that marriage should always allow procreation.)
I think that would be medical therapy to restore fertility, and wouldn’t involve genetic engineering unless it attempted to change the genes so they no longer represented that person or came from that person. If the idea is to create replacement gametes that are indistinguishable from gametes that the person would have if they were healthy, then it’s medicine and yes I think a married couple has a right to attempt to conceive with replacement gametes if the scientists can prove they can create such gametes and do it safely (maybe they can’t prove that, in which case it would never be made available). If the idea is to change their gametes so they no longer are indistinguishable from the gametes the person would provide if they were able to provide their own gametes, as the idea behind same-sex conception is, then it would be engineering and cross the line and open the door to all forms of genetic engineering.
Again, I think states should and could restrict access to such “replacement” gametes until they are safe, and that could privately prevent a heterosexual couple from ever using them to try to have children, but without publicly prohibiting them from conceiving children together, the way a same-sex couple, who are publicly same-sex, would be publicly prohibited by such a ban. This distinction between being publicly prohibited and privately thwarted is important for intersexed people and people who have legally changed their sex. Changing legal sex can’t be a loophole that allows same-sex conception or genetic engineering, but in that case the prohibition on them attempting to procreate would be private, not public. No one would know that the ban on using modified gametes was preventing Mr and Mrs Smith from procreating because Mrs Smith is actually an intersexed genetic male, but the lab would have to see that Mrs Smith would have a greater chance at procreating as a male and therefore they would be attempting same-sex conception and would need to create modified gametes in order to produce a child for them, and so they’d have to tell them sorry, they can’t help. But that would be a private restriction, and publicly, since they are legally a man and a woman and legally married, they would have the right to conceive together using their own genes. But a same-sex couple is legally same sex, even if one of them is transgendered and physically they are a both sex couple, like if Thomas Beaty (a legal man who retained her working uterus) was in a relationship with a man instead of a woman. They’d be procreating with their natural gametes, but would be publicly prohibited from doing it by virtue of legally being the same sex. I would think that becoming pregnant should automatically make a person a legal woman, since it isn’t a private matter anymore, but that’s OK. Such couples don’t open the door to genetic engineering the way a public same-sex couple would if they were legally allowed to procreate.
posted by John Howard on
Also, I think you misunderstand where most of us are coming from when we talk about a “compromise” that involves civil unions. I’m absolutely willing to accept civil unions as a stepping stone to full equality (unlike some others who want all-or-nothing).
It’s precisely because CU’s are “stepping stones” to marriage that there is so much resistance to them. Your idea of a compromise doesn’t give the other side anything, it just takes what it can get and keeps demanding more. That’s why you are finding it hard to achieve federal recognition and get CU’s in so many states, and so many states are passing Constitutional Amendments against CU’s that are substantially like marriage (which mine wouldn’t be, btw). See, the idea of a compromise is to give the other side something they want, not just to take all you can get for now and say that you compromised because you didn’t get all that you want yet. What the other side wants is assurance that the CU’s are not just stepping stones. Mine aren’t, unless society decides to allow same-sex conception down the road.
What I absolutely won’t accept is anything that impedes our ability to reach full equality or prolongs the process of achieving it.
Then I think you should consider how my plan would speed up the process toward full equality. It could result in equal federal recognition in just a week or so if Jonathan Rauch were to accept it and convince his friends to take this deal. And because it defines the language for states to use for civil unions, and they are not substantially like marriage because they are lacking the essential right of marriage, they could be easily passed in I think almost every state (I think one state (Indiana?) has stronger language barring any legal recognition for same-sex couples, but the rest just banned marriage and “substantially similar” civil unions and so these CU’s could be enacted immediately.)
“In addition to MA and CT, several other states are getting ready to allow marriage for same-sex couples, and I’m very confident California’s prop8 will be reversed by voters within 8 years. Proposition 2 of your “compromise” would require that all that progressed be rolled back, so it’s really a non-starter.”
Yes, it would require that, but that’s why the other side will think it’s a good compromise, and be willing to give the federal recognition and not be so afraid of CU’s. They’d be spurred into quick immediate action because suddenly your side was offering to roll back marriages to Civil Unions and stop demanding marriage. They’d jump at the chance to preserve marriage.
And those same-sex marriages in Massachusetts really aren’t equal marriages right now anyhow – they don’t got federal recognition for starters, and they don’t protect the couple from abandonment if one spouse leaves the state. It will require a bevy of lawyers and judges and won’t really arrive at any precedent setting standard that gives any sense of security for years and years. It would be better to have uniform civil unions in every state that provide the same security as marriages and where the same laws apply as if they were marriages, because as far as every legal aspect regarding the couple’s obligations to each other, they would clearly be exactly the same as marriage, in every state. The fact that they aren’t allowed to attempt to conceive together wouldn’t enter into any court proceedings. So it wouldn’t really be a roll-back of anything even for Massachusetts marriages, because they’d be gaining so much more than they have now.
posted by Pat on
Because it doesn’t convey what the ban would do as well, it doesn’t connect the three parts of the compromise legally.
John, I read your arguments, and you still fail to state why a ban is not sufficient and why it has to be tied to same sex marriage or civil unions. It seems like you created some three part thing, and are defending it simply for the sake of defending it.
The point is, there is no need for a compromise. If you really believe that gametes shouldn’t be modified, that’s fine. Convince a majority of persons, legislators, and/or judges to stop it. That would prevent ALL persons from doing it, without having to single out those choosing to enter a same sex marriage or civil union.
Further, in terms of a “compromise,” it’s not giving anything to those who oppose same sex marriage or civil unions anyway. While many of those oppose modifying gametes, they have other reasons for opposing such unions. Usually it’s because of their religion, religious leaders, or “tradition.”
posted by John Howard on
Thank you for reading my arguments.
The ban would be sufficient for stopping genetic engineering, whether written as “unmodified gametes” or “sperm of a man and egg of a woman”. The problem comes if we enact the ban and also have same-sex marriage or CU’s with all the rights of marriage. The ban would mean that same-sex couples, married and unmarried, were prohibited by the ban from attempting to conceive together. That would mean that for the first time in human history, a marriage existed that was prohibited from conceiving together, and therefore be a huge change to marriage and strip conception rights from everyone’s marriage. Saying that a couple that is prohibited from conceiving together has equality with a married couple means that the married couple doesn’t have a right to conceive together and can also be prohibited if the state decides that they are of inferior genetic stock or not politically enlightened or any other odious reason they might come up with. The conception rights of marriage must be preserved, which means that we should continue to not allow couples that are prohibited from conceiving together to marry.
And of course the Compromise gives something to people who oppose same-sex marriage: it ends same-sex marriage! The three parts work together to make same-sex marriage legally impossible, because no state will be allowed to let same-sex couples conceive together, and no state will be allowed to prohibit a marriage from conceiving together. So without having to write discrimination into the constitution or “define” marriage as a man and a woman, it prohibits states from giving marriage rights to same-sex couples. Thus their religions and traditions are maintained without having to be anti-gay, as most could surely accept and endorse the part of the compromise that gives equal protections to committed same-sex couples that need them. All they’d be doing is preserving natural conception and preserving marriage’s protection of conception rights, and accepting equal protections for same-sex couples that are most certainly not marriages and not in conflict with their religions teachings. They’d stop same-sex marriage and stop the Brave New World and preserve natural conception. They’d take that!
posted by Bobby on
“That took a lot out of me, so I’ll address the rest of your ignorant slut comment tommorow afternoon.”
—Insult me if you want, John Howard, but the truth is that you’re a fascist. You seek to control reproduction by government mandate. You’re no different than the Chinese forcing abortions on women or the democrats that want to outlaw homeschooling. You hate individualism and believe that the government has every answer.
Genetic engineering rules! Freedom rules! I don’t usually believe in salvation through science but this is one area where science could help us create a world with no obesity, no disease, no mentally retarded people, no cancer, no parkinsons, no hair loss, etc. That is much more important than your goddamm ethics!
posted by John Howard on
In that world though, no one would really have any freedom because we’d all have to submit to genetic engineering, and there would have to be huge government bureaucracies to regulate and fund and police the industry. Virtually no Transhumanist advocates a completely unregulated wild-west of genetic engineering available only to the rich, though that of course is how it is now, and I never hear those “reasonable” Transhumanists suggest any specific restrictions either. They certainly don’t want a blanket ban until it is proven safe, they don’t want any bans. I think the “safe and well-regulated” is just a hope that people like them will get paid to declare it “safe and well-regulated” and assert their control over everyone else. They want to control reproduction, not I. I want to leave it up to each of us to find a mate to love and marry and have natural children, with no coercive eugenic pressure on us to use better genes or engineered genes. I want my own children to come out however they come out, half my wife’s genes and half mine (or really: half a random mix of my mom and dad, and half a random mix of her mom and dad), I don’t want to control their genes and make them come out how I want them to, or let a government agency, with all those nerdy Transhumanists in charge, control the genes of my children either. See, it’s the Transhumanists that want control, even as they claim to be about freedom, and the proof is that the very thing they want to do is control the genes that go into the next generation. I want to leave that up to people to just have natural children with someone they love and want to raise a family with, and however the people come out, is the right way, just like Trig Palin, who as his mom says, is “perfect”. You are probably going to get apoplectic that she had Trig, who you want to rid the world of because they are a burden, as you said above. That’s fascist, Bobby. Really, think about what it would take to create a world with no obesity or parkinsons through genetic engineering. It would mean everyone had to get screened, and have their genes either fixed or substituted, and they’d have be prevented or persuaded away from having natural children, and there are Billions of people you’d have to do that to. And if all you want is to prevent it in your children’s genes, you’ve created a monstrous caste system of pure and impure, worthy and unworthy, as was portrayed in Gattaca.
posted by Bobby on
“You are probably going to get apoplectic that she had Trig, who you want to rid the world of because they are a burden, as you said above.”
—You’d be wrong, I support the right of people who want to make their own choices, even idiotic choices like buying a house you can’t afford or having a defective baby. Maybe someday they’ll find a cure for Trig, but I doubt it. What I don’t support is moralists like you telling me that my future children have to suffer cancer and obesity just because you don’t like genetic engineering. I don’t like science interfering with society but I also hate society interfering with science.
Conservative libertarians like me celebrate CHOICE! We believe that the less the government interferes the better things will be.
But if you’re gonna be against genetic engineering, then fine, I’m gonna be against you being a parent. Do you want the state to issue licenses to breed? If I can’t have choice at my doctor’s office, why should you have choice outside?
posted by Amicus on
JH,
Most of the arguments, such as yours, seem primarily designed to make same-sex marriages seem strange, odd, and dangerous; and, thereby, to raise the bar on getting them accepted. A lot of it is not honest work, in other words.
Frankly, the same reproductive options that are available to non-gays should be available to gays.
The need to distinguish the two groups is inscrutable.
Really, there is no obvious need to forge a “compromise” on this. It’s pretty straight forward.
posted by Amicus on
Raising dollars for strategic advertising outside the context of a political campaign can’t be easy …
—-
It’s not just the dollars, which vary depending on which media you target, obviously, within the context that all strategic advertising is fairly costly.
It’s what they’ve designed, how effective it is, and how ready they are for an “opposing” response. Often, you don’t have time to ‘go back to the drawing board’. You have to have the vision to see the whole chessboard and be ready.
Therefore, one ad like this (“…because equality is our right”)? Pawn to K-3…
Not criticizing. Just saying.
Assuming that another ballot initiative is in two years for California, that’s the timeline to work with and the budget to flesh out. Meanwhile, there are 46-odd other states … who “prioritizes” them and how?
posted by John Howard on
Amicus, so you are choosing equal conception rights – literally the right to attempt to conceive biologically related children together by joining the genes of two people of the same sex – over equal protections for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples across the country that at best have state recognition in a handful of states and have no real security because most states don’t recognize their unions at all? Did you consult with any of those couples before making your decision, or is Transhumanism your true interest in same-sex marriage too, like it is Bobby’s?
Jonathan, that’s not your choice too is it?
posted by Amicus on
There is no such choice.
To the extent that technology presents ethical biological challenges, we ought to face them as one people, as a nation, not as subgroups, some of whom get to use the technology and others who do not.
Jon, if you haven’t seen them, here are three ads from our friends up North, in the ‘pool of available’ ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/user/equalmarriage
posted by John Howard on
Of course there is a choice: we will either allow genetic engineering to create children or we will limit reproduction to unengineered egg and sperm of a man and a woman. There is no middle ground there, no way to fudge that. There aren’t any “subgroups” being given different access to technology by that question, all people would be subject to a ban on genetic engineering and the requirement to use their unmodified genes and therefore the requirement to reproduce with someone of the other sex if they want to reproduce. And if we were to allow genetic engineering and same-sex conception, that would apply to everyone too, and everyone would be allowed to use genetic engineering and same-sex conception. I’m not talking about subgroups, and you are right that it is a terrible way to frame the issues. We shouldn’t let people imply that a subgroup requires genetic engineering in order to have equal rights with another subgroup, which is what a lot of people are doing when they claim that gay people don’t have a right to marry someone of the other sex and must have a right to same-sex conception in order to be equal. No one requires genetic engineering to be equal.
posted by Bobby on
You are a homophobe, John Howard. If heterosexuals are allowed to reproduce, we must also be allowed to reproduce. If heterosexuals are allowed to use in-vitro fertilization, we must have the same rights as they. And if someday artificial wombs save women from putting up with 9 months of pregnancy, then we must also have access to that technology.
Nature allows all kinds of things, for example, you ever heard of asexual reproduction? That is reproduction without sex, it happens with some plants, even animals. The same with intersex people, that is people born with a penis and a vagina. So don’t bitch about genetic engineering when mother nature alone is doing plenty of engineering herself.
In agriculture it’s already saving plans:
“Hawaiian farmers were in trouble. In the mid-1990s, an insect-borne virus–the papaya ring spot virus (PRSV)–threatened to decimate Hawaii’s second-largest fruit crop. Plant breeders scrambled to produce a virus-resistant papaya. When traditional plant breeding methods failed, researchers turned to genetic engineering.”
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html
posted by Linda Binda on
Hello, there: I’m a lurker.
My question to the moderators: why isn’t John Howard banned from this discussion?
I have to wonder the purposefulness behind having a thread about PR campaigns to convince voters of simple basic ethics concerning gay people, and yet, it’s hijacked by this guy going on and on some dumb, off-topic troll rant about genetic engineering.
What the hell does genetic engineering have to do with gay rights’ PR? Either put up an opinion about the topic at hand, or get lost — it’s what I say.
I apologize for my presumptuousness in basically telling the mods how to run their own sites (it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise), but really — this is ridiculous.
That being said, I happen to be a shameless liberal (har), but not gay (not that that matters), but I think PR campaigns are a great idea that should have been tried ages ago. I think the gay rights-supporting conservatives and centrists need to come out (i.e. if Dennis Miller would do a syrupy ad, or something) and help out the movement more, if the activists groups would have them, and if they would be brave. It seems the conservatives and centrists are more versed and are more in tune with the fine print than the liberals are, at this point, and this skill would be more than helpful in the long run, if people would be open-minded… I don’t know much about the relationships between the groups beyond the superficial: I assume they’re not ideal?
In any case, what do you think of that?
posted by John Howard on
It isn’t homophobic to oppose genetic engineering. I support all the rights and freedoms that people mention, including marriage if we continue to allow genetic engineering. I think you are Transhumanist who just happens to be gay (and maybe you aren’t even gay), and you have hijacked same-sex couples to serve your purposes of demanding a right to do genetic engineering.
You are right that if male-female couples are allowed to do genetic engineering then same-sex couples should be allowed to do it too, including same-sex conception, and if that’s what we decide then certainly I support same-sex marriage for couples that we allow to conceive together. I just don’t think that we should allow genetic engineering or same-sex conception, and that everyone should at least agree that right now, in 2009, we shouldn’t allow same-sex conception, so why not offer that concession for now in exchange for equal protections for same-sex couples that need real practical rights and benefits and don’t need something that doesn’t even exist and might never be possible. Let society carefully consider the ramifications of allowing and prohibiting same-sex conception and genetic engineering, don’t bully people into silence about it by “ratcheting up the rhetoric” and calling me a homophobe, or ban people for bringing it up and proposing a new idea to achieve equal protections and trying to get the public aware of the Transhumanist stealth campaign to use gay people to force genetic engineering on society.
posted by Bobby on
John, you’re the one who wants to bully society through legislation to make your point of view a reality.
This society allows lots of things. I knew one gay man in a gay relationship that wanted to have sex with a lesbian, thus the kid would have 2 fathers and 2 mothers. Maybe that doesn’t upset you, but I’m sure that upsets far more people than genetic engineering.
Besides, social conservatives don’t oppose same-sex marriage because they fear gays will have children. Here are some of the reasons they oppose it.
1. They believe more people will be gay if we allow same-sex marriage.
2. They fear heterosexual marriage will become less popular, as it has happened all across Europe where more couples are living together without getting married.
3. They fear their churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
4. They fear same-sex marriages will make it harder for them to discriminate against gays, since it will lead to other legislation to protect gays.
Genetic engineering is a separate issue. If you read my article from the FDA, you’ll see that it’s already popular in agriculture. In the field of medicine, there’s talk about gene implants that could cure diseases. Arguing against genetic engineering is like arguing against sonograms or c-sections. Are you a member of Straight Edge or Christian Science? Do you live in a commune? Are you a vegan? It sounds to me that you fear science and technology.
posted by John Howard on
1. They believe more people will be gay if we allow same-sex marriage.
Well, my compromise wouldn’t be allowing same-sex marriage, and it’s possible less people would be gay if they realized that the only way the could ever have a loving relationship with the other parent of their child would be if they were straight.
2. They fear heterosexual marriage will become less popular, as it has happened all across Europe where more couples are living together without getting married.
My compromise would make marriage more popular because it would remind people that there is something society approves of when they get married, and gives them the right to do, and I think that would be a turn on for a lot of people who are missing that sort of joy of legitimacy in this modern love world.
3. They fear their churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.
My compromise wouldn’t force any churches to perform any same-sex marriages, because there wouldn’t be any for as long as same-sex conception remained illegal. There’d be Civil Unions with all the rights of marriage except conception rights, and no same-sex marriages, and yeah, it would force the church to recognize the civil unions and not remarry anyone until they have divorced their civil union. It would force the church to recognize civil unions in all the legal ways they recognize marriages and abide by all other laws, too. They’d take that, they aren’t heartless to gay people’s needs or disrespectful of the authority of our government to govern society.
4. They fear same-sex marriages will make it harder for them to discriminate against gays, since it will lead to other legislation to protect gays.
Hmm, I’m not sure who you’re thinking of here, but my compromise will probably be a wash in terms of what it leads to, but I think lead to a better way of resolving things fairly for most same-sex couples and gay people that weren’t Transhumanists. Once we’ve gotten conception rights and marriage squared away I think it will be a lot easier to get things like EDNA passed and DADT resolved, because you’d been stopped, you’d accepted that there might be a good reason to stop demanding marriage and accept CU’s, and said you’d give society some time to consider if genetic engineering should be allowed. In that climate, people would be inclined to return the gesture regarding protection against discrimination and exclusion from serving their country.
posted by dalea on
Linda Binda,
Thank you for your input. Where is the moderation on this article about PR? Why is JH’s homophobic drivel about a totally unrelated subject allowed to hijack the discussion? IGF is notorious for letting loons rant and accuse posters of every crime known, ie ND.
posted by John Howard on
I too wonder if Jonathan Rauch or John Corvino or Richard or anyone has read this.
I don’t mean to be holding back a discussion of any other topic, I apologize for that. I used the latest post he’d made to ask Jonathan a question, if he would support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, since he is currently proposing a compromise and other compromises have emerged as well, and I wanted him to consider mine like I considered his. I am sorry it all happened in off topic threads, but it’s not like I’m talking about PHP programming or gardening, I’m talking about same-sex marriage, so it can’t be off topic from any thread on this site, really.
But yeah, Jonathan, let’s have a separate thread for this topic: the idea of giving up equal conception rights until it society has had a chance to consider that subject, and settling for Civil Unions that would be defined as marriage but without conception rights. Thanks and sorry.
posted by Bobby on
Well John Howard, I checked out your website. I guess I’m a transhumanist, I love that article about making a rat out of the genes of two fathers.
I think you’re worrying about nothing. Most gay couples can’t afford the $20,000 to $50,000 (if not more) that genetic engineering would cost.
And I think you put too much trust in government to lead society. Look at the Chinese, they do everything to control their population and in spite of the forced abortions and punitive taxes for anyone who has more than one kid their population keeps increasing.
Government can intimidate people, it can drive them underground, but people are still going to do what they want. When abortion was illegal, women went to underground clinics or took trips to England. In countries where homosexuality is punished by death, gays still manage to meet other gays. In Venezuela where the government tries to prevent how many dollars you can buy, you can still buy dollars in the black market.
So even if you ban genetic engineering, it will continue, in fact, it might become even more profitable.